Has a quick, easy solution for a long-term, complicated issue ever actually worked? Or was it just something that sounded good to a handful of people who wanted to wave a magic wand and make a problem disappear
Vaccines, get a similar virus that is not fatal to humans. For example, getting cow pox prevented you from dying from small pox. Just snort some dead cow pox cells. This one weird trick has scientists baffled... Here's another perspective, we're not winning the war on climate change, it's only getting hotter. Even if we stop polluting there will still be the GHGs that last for hundreds of years in our atmosphere keeping our planet warm. That's not good. We need to figure out how to cool it down now until we can implement more permanent carbon removal solutions that can scale. We're not planting enough trees and over 80% of humanity still relies on fossil fuels. It's gonna take a long time. SAI buys us time, like a tourniquet so we can stop the bleeding until we can get to the operating table and solve the root cause.
Well, what is the alternative? If you don't have a solution that will work long term, may as well try something that will at least work short term. It might make things even worse in the long term but i guess people are just that desperate. Life has always been about preventing the inevitable, people have always been doomed in the long term. It may be better to just try and endure something than to add onto the problems that need to be faced eventually but nobody wants to give up luxuries. Life can be unpleasant even when you have luxuries, nobody wants to give up the few things that make life pleasant. Maybe life is not so bad without the luxuries we are so attached to but it would certainly be difficult to adjust to life without them. It is not all about luxuries, though, the very things that we depend on to survive and defend ourselves can be some of the most significant contributors to environmental problems. Downscale your military and you become increasingly vulnerable to attack. A rich economy contributes towards government and military budgets, reduction in profits leads to reduction in government and military budgets. A rich economy comes from a society that goes above basic needs and indulges in luxuries, this requires a somewhat wasteful approach to resources. Maybe my understanding is not entirely correct but my main point is that this stuff all seems to be connected. The world is not unified, everyone is exploiting each other and attempting to be less exploitative can just lead to you being exploited. People do cooperate but there is always someone that just wants to take everything for themselves. There are things we can do to reduce our impact on the environment without causing other problems but there is also a lot of things stopping us from taking proper action to prevent environmental disaster. There is a lot of existential threats and focusing on any one of them can make us more vulnerable to another.
sulphur dioxide will produce acidic rain and deplete ozone: SO2+O3+H2O=H2SO4+O2 Funny that for those scientists implications was not clear, but for me AI specialist it was obvious
It's actually a weapons system using heavy metals like aluminum, strontium, barium and other heavy metals to weaponize the weather and create other problems like earthquakes, droughts, flooding, tsunamis and other.
The US was geoengineering in Operation Popeye during the Vietnam War from 1967 to 1972 and never stopped with other countries starting their own programs. When changing the amount of rainfall you take from another area. It never stopped private companies from starting up. Look up the patents on cloud seeding through engineering and who doing testing.
Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025 - DTIC by TJ House · 1996 · Cited by 64 - In 2025, US aerospace forces can own the weather by ....
There are a lot of ground-based solutions we can go about implementing to increase surface reflectivity before we have to go messing about with the atmosphere, the ground has the benefit of tending to stay in the same place and can be more easily controlled.
ANTON PETROV THERE IS NO CLIMATE CHANGE THE EARTH DOES THIS EVERY MILLION YEARS OR SO PETROV IS ASTRONOMY WITH A SCROLL DOWN OF SCIENTISTS AT THE END OF HIS TALKS YOU CAN FIND THIS HERER EVERY MILLION YEARS THE EARTH TRAVELS WITH THE MOON AND THEN GOES BACK TO IT REGULAR ORBIT THEY HAVE PROOF FROM ICE AT THE POLAR CAPS ETC CLIMATE SCIENCE IS $$ AND NOT SCIENCE
@@randybellwood1778 Things that reflect, reflectors, reflective things, there have been some promising new paints recently that reflect a LOT of the visible and non-visible light, particularly the IR which is what heats the ground, plant cover has also been shown to help a lot particularly in urban areas to reduce local ambient temperatures through a combination of absorbing light before it hits the ground and active cooling through transpiration
If used, reflectivity must be deployed in the upper atmosphere.. ground based reflectivity doubles the chances that the heat energy will be absorbed by greenhouse gasses.
I have very mixed feelings about this. As a retired Air Force Disaster Preparedness Technician and as a university-trained professional futurist, I recognize that we don't yet know all the ways this could go wrong. My Air Force experience makes me confident that Murphy was right: anything that can go wrong will go wrong, at the worst possible time and in the worst possible way. Having looked at systems quite a bit, I understand that small inputs can have huge impacts over time. So, generally speaking, I don't think the geoengineering approach is a good one: right now, we can only make small inputs, but over time, those small inputs are likely to produce noticeable changes only after we've gone beyond the point at which we can change course. On the other hand, we can't go on as we have been: something's gotta change. My preferred solution, as both a futurist and a sociologist, is to seek social solutions to the problems of climate change. The biggest problems we have seem to be social in nature. First, people are already being driven from their customary places to other, often very different, places to live. Those places they are moving to may already be stressed to the point that current residents will vigorously resist taking in climate refugees. The second problem is that people in less stressed places -- like the highly industrialized global West -- are causing problems that create climate refugees by their continued use of carbon-based fuels. There appear to be a few related mutually constructed social realities in the way of solving these problems. First is what might be called "the 'not my problem field' effect". You may recall that Douglas Adams created the idea of something that could project a field that would make people think, "That's not MY problem" so they would mind their own business and leave things alone. And it's easy to ignore phenomena happening half a world away as a result of our actions. What's much harder to do is convince people that what's happening half a world away IS a problem they need to care about. The other major problem can be summed up in the title of Ten Years After's rock anthem, "I'd Love to Change the World (But I Don't Know What to Do)". There seem to be a lot of people who, as individuals, understand that our current ways of living are unsustainable and are harming people they don't even know. However, they're frustrated by the fact that they simply don't know what they can do to change things. I'm hardly the one to ask for a solution to these problems: I'm frustrated at not knowing how to get people to understand the magnitude of the problems and that they CAN change things. So until I can find a way to convince people that the problem IS theirs and that they CAN change things, I guess that, in the words of Ten Years After, "I'll leave it up to you . . . "
People can't imagine a life after capitalism but I think that's probably one of the biggest changes we need. Absolutely fascinated by your career history and would love to know how to become a professional futurist! Everything you said hit the mark for me. My background is environmental management degree and a decade in low level government climate legislation administration. I've thrown in the towel with frustration. Am dedicating my next decade to climate action. taking a sabbatical to try and figure out what I can do (with no money😅). So far the actions that make sense are - convert a van to live in, train / work in emergency response and disaster resilience/recovery (especially bushfire and floods here in Australia). Learn skills that will help build mobile, compassionate and resilient communities where possible. Skill up in wildlife rescue and gardening. Oh no I think I'm becoming a prepper 😂🤦♀️ Trying to change the overton window in a neoliberal capitalist world is not easy. Especially when so many don't even think climate change is real still. Curious if you have see "just have a think" channel most recent vid? The emperors new clothes actuarial report is .... intense.
don't worry about your contemplation of what to do - MOther Nature is taking revenge faster than you can expect. There's 1200 gigatons of pressurized methane in the world's largest ocean shelf with the methane going into the atmosphere at a rate faster than the rest of the oceans put together. Just a five gigaton "abrupt eruption" of that methane will soon double global warming temperatures. Sit back and enjoy the work of Mother Nature - she's way more efficient than any technological schemes you can contemplate. Nice try though.
Geoengineering-especially tinkering with our atmosphere could open up a Pandora’s Box we cannot close. We need to really think this through. If we mess up, there’s no second chance.
everything we do is geoengineering. we have always been geoengineers. the 'natural' world as we experience it is the result of hundreds of thousands of years of human geoengineering. ...and ya. it's way too late and there are no second chances.
If we really need to think this through we are already dead. There isn't any "we" that I know of and "thinking something through" before (we) do it just isn't going to happen.
What could possibly go wrong? Deliberately adding chemicals into the already polluted atmosphere seems like adding insult to injury, ADDING to the problem. Irresponsible people have brought us to where we are …
yes, clearly the solution is to hope that governments will radically reduce emissions, something that is in no way expected by anyone. So in your world, we are simply screwed. Congratulations on your brilliant solution
Against, after watching supplies chains break down during the COVID pandemic I can’t imagine a scenario where I would willingly bet the lives of the entire planet on our ability to maintain supply chains. It’s a short term solution that makes long term problems worse.
Our supply chains broke down because of government intervention. Had the market not been rigged to create a "this is the best option," and instead been left maleable and free, then everyone would not have put their eggs into a single basket... namely, China.
You already do: It's called the agricultural supply chain. The problem isn't supply chains themselves, it's badly constructed ones. Personally I think we need national food stockpiles to mitigate harvest failures (China has one), but others advocate diversifying food supplies across different crop varieties and different regions, or enforcing farm animal culls during grain shortfalls (the postwar USSR used to do that).
@@johnnyearp52 They have one for oil, and one specifically for cheese, but not for food as a whole (as far as I know). The US is a big food exporter, and a big producer of biofuels from otherwise edible corn (which is terrible and they should stop), so I think the assumption is that the US could feed itself even in a bad harvest. But that would be pretty terrible for all the countries that depend on US food exports, so a stockpile would be a good idea.
When thinking about geo-engineering a German saying comes to my mind: "den Teufel mit dem Beelzebub austreiben", which literally translates to something like "to call in Satan in order to exorcise the Devil". Any type of geo-engineering comes along some unwanted side effects. If these take over we may be as doomed as if we did nothing.
You realise we’re already doing at least two forms of Solar geoengineering. One is co2 emissions methane emissions, all the stuff that is heating the planet. The other is sulphate emissions that actually cools the planet, without these sulphate emissions the warming would be much worse. That’s one of the reasons amongst a few others that scientists are pretty certain that stratospheric aerosol injection would work pretty well And the side effects would be nothing compared to unmitigated climate change
First of all, thanks to everyone who makes PBS Terra possible. I've been watching your videos and appreciate all the hard work and information gathering that goes into educating us further. The breadth of coverage on climate change is helpful and important for the public to gain a better grasp on this difficult problem. Now regarding the question of geoengineering as proposed as "seeding the atmosphere," in other words adding compounds to the atmosphere. Let us first and fundamentally consider the reality that it was this kind of geoengineering, at least initially not knowing what we were doing adding colossal amount of CO2, methane, etc., by burning fossil fuels that is what caused the problem in the first place. Based on this basic reality alone, I find it highly dubious, the notion of doing more such geoengineering would be an effective method of solving the climate crisis. On the contrary, the chances of more geoengineering such a complex global system doing so in dangerous ignorance of the outcomes, seems unwise at best and downright catastrophic at worst. Obviously there is also the well known serious issue that such "seeding" would merely mask the effects of continuing to burn fossil fuels, and that by itself is highly likely to lead to an even greater disaster. Consider the "seeding" even if it happened to "work" without terrible consequences like moving rainbelts, drought and famine (which is unlikely), would need to be done perpetually, as the greenhouse gases would continue to be pumped into the atmosphere at colossal tonnage year after year. But consider whatever government or system or agreement doing the "seeding" must be constantly perpetually funded and organized with no stoppage. But the moment an economic shock happens or war or conflicts between countries or no funding, the "seeding" stops, then there is a colossal immediate shock to the entire planet of massive heating all at once. I don't find such a prospect "reassuring." I find it terrifying. Better it seems to focus on what we do know. We know what the natural carbon level was prior to our massive burning of coal began in 19th century. Thus it seems the focus needs to be on stopping the ongoing massive amounts of yearly emissions and figuring out how to remove the excess carbon that we artificially geoengineered into the atmosphere and do our best to return it as close as possible to pre-industrial level. Easier said than done of course but honestly I can't see how further geoengineering out of ignorance that is the thing that caused the problem in the first place can possibly be the "solution."
I am in the not so black and white category. It is certainly true that geoengineering comes with unforeseen risks. But it is also true that we (collectively) are ALREADY geoengineering with no plan at all.
Exactly, and is obvious that this climate ship is totally out of control, i think Solar geoengineering is probably the only way we can realistically get any kind of Handle on this thing. Combined with all the other stuff we should have been doing a long time ago
ANTON PETROV ASTRONOMY WITH A HOST OF SCIENTISTS AT THE END OF WHAT HE TELLS US ON RUclips WE ARE NOT*** IN CLIMATE CHANGE THE EARTH DOES THIS CYCLE EVERY MILLION YEARS WITH PROOF RUclips
We should be debating the replacement of much of our fossil fuel power plants with a combination of nuclear and renewables, modernizing the power grid and setting up electric vehicle infrastructure, as well as things like cattle diet additives to reduce their methane emissions or ways to capture cattle methane emissions. I mean let's see how far we get from no longer pumping gigatons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere before we fully commit to geoengineering and mass sequestering programs.
I think safer to do ground based heat reflection, such as pavement and rooftops, which will also help with the heat island effect of cities, and not risk reducing crop growth with less sun
I think it is very possible that it will be done either way, because the consequences would mainly affect poorer countries who don't have any say in the matter. As long as it results in the ability to continue with business as usual for the ones making the money from burning fossil fuels, the suffering of the poor will be seen as an acceptable cost.
I think that's what has been happening but science and freedom to information is shifting the power balance. As we globalise less fortunate countries such as Africa in the wake of America's cloud seeding will have more power/voice for compensation.
I think it's really a question of whether we try to fix the damage that's being done, or just give up and let it happen. My biggest fear with geoengineering is that capitalists do what they always do and attempt to exploit it for profit, which could cause misguided decisions to be made. The last thing you want is for decisions on climate to be in the hands of a room full of directors who's only goal is to improve share prices. The goal needs to be fixing the mess, not making a fortune. I also think that making no attempt to fix things just leaves us on the trajectory we're on, which just guarantees a bad future.
My fear is of anyone doing this. Not that it necessarily shouldn't be done if it can be shown to be beneficial. But that either the capitalists in charge of big biz will do it for profit or the Malthusian death cultists in charge of politics will do it for their own reasons if it's shown to be dangerous.
The problem is we don't know the end results. We are like babies playing with fire. We don't understand all the complexity so we don't know what we are doing. It is a guess that it will overall help. No guarantees.
@matok2426 "I think it's really a question of whether we try to fix the damage that's being done, or just give up and let it happen." I certainly agree that is the most important question and sadly so far leaders around the world are not doing enough to fix the damage.
@mistyaprilartist they don't grow food at the poles. And fish stocks plummet with higher temperatures there. Just Stop Oil is spot on. Causes more angst than actual harm.
I'm a conservation ecologist with a background in environmental change. I am 100% against any intentional geoengineering projects being enacted. Rather than *adding* to the problems, and making an excuse for corporations, governments, and people to just continue on without making any meaningful changes to how they operate we need to be making massive changes in the day-to-day operations of all these entities. Geoengineering is like a chronic alcoholic with organ failure who gets a liver transplant, then continues drinking at full volume, making no changes to their lifestyle.
I read that when there was a new law passed limiting the number of Sulfur emissions from massive cargo ship burning bunker fuel it actually increased the temperature of the Atlantic Ocean because the sulfur was creating nucleation sites for the clouds to form, and less clouds meant more direct sunlight warming the waters
Yup. Next summer (northern hemisphere) is going to be NUTS. The aerosols are gone, we have a monster El Nino that didn't really start until just now (last month or so). The Tonga volcano injected a bunch of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere earlier this year. I tells ya... it's gonna be bad. But, use that as an opportunity to get attention and spread the word: Consumption based societies have run out of time. We need something else if we're to have a civilization.
@JaniMelender the Tonga eruption was wild. The Sulphur levels made sunsets really purple for a while, even over here in california. And it increased the water content of the atmosphere by a little over 10%. This past summer was just a warning, even though it was by far the hottest on record
@JaniMelender it also created a momentary hole in the ozone layer that lasted a couple weeks and stretched all the way to south America (going the long way around)
@@JaniMelender Easy, less population. The Earth only has biocapacity for like 2 billion or so people, less for a higher standard of living. The root cause is overpopulation, not a consumption based society (though the latter does encourage the former)
Can you imagine if it's already going and they can't just not hide it anymore and we are already past 3.5 degree Celsius on global temperatures but it's been hidden for a while...
Look at the sky. Not sure you live because it does matter but ought you gotta do as look up towards the Sun and you'll see the chemicals. You'll see the trails.
No... just no. All the global reports give a range and the outcome is almost always on the absolute lowest end of rising temperature. If you are becoming this paranoid, please step away from the climate discussion for a while and get your bearings straightened out. For your own health.
Unfortunately I have to agree. The "solution" to climate change isn't aerosols, it's decreasing our dependence on fossil fuels, full stop. To that end, any little thing we can do makes a difference. I have an electric car, it helps a little tiny bit, but if billions of people had one, or a heat pump, or made their electricity in a different way, things would begin to improve. The problem we have in convincing enough people that, this solution is our best option. We get the full range of opinion from outright hostility to people who are doing everything they possibly can to reduce their use. In the end we as a species will decide. We will either reduce fossil fuels to a sustainable level, or we will throw the spanner into the works and hope for the best. (I think we all know Mr. Murphy's take on that route.)
@@jimthain8777 And all this for 4 parts per million of the harmless gas we breathe out. Have you heard yourself? You have been manipulated by propaganda. What is the ideal global temperature? Certainly a slight increase with encouraging plant growth would be plus.
@@mrofnocnon that's 400+ ppm which does indeed make it a trace element in the atmosphere. Methane is even more rare, (but growing too). what you obviously don't understand is just how powerful their effects are. you don't need that much to move the average temperature up just a single degree. once you move the temperature up just that little bit, you trigger a consequence. 1 degree of warming is enough to add 7% more water vapor to the atmosphere. Water happens to be the most powerful green house gas there is. There's already a fair bit of water in the atmosphere, adding more adds heat, and makes for more extreme rain. Well you're right about that, a little bit more CO2 certainly can make plants grow faster. Unfortunately that's good and bad. If the plant that grows faster is a food plant, that plant will be less nutritious. That means you have to eat more just to get the same nutrients. The moral of the story is that climate change comes with good consequences, and bad consequences. Only a very few life forms seem to be seeing any real benefit from our warming world. A whole bunch including Coral, The Joshua Tree, and some penguins, are seeing bad, to devastating results from just the little bit of climate change so far.
@@jimthain8777I know you mean well however look back in history were core samples have proven there have been many long periods of time with far higher levels of C02 yet lowered temperatures and the inverse as well. Evidence there are far more factors to natural climate change than we know. We are simply being penalized and none of the aims for the future are good.
@@Jc-ms5vv I don’t believe so. The worst climate impacts come from temperatures being too high, and Solar geoengineering would reduce temperatures quickly. that much isn’t disputed. I’d say We’re in with a chance if people can just accept that we are where we are and that this is going to be necessary
@@deanfowles3707 You have the air of a person suggesting the Titanic ought to have accelerated in the hope the increased momentum might break the iceberg. Or someone who's sure the heat in the frying pan justifies jumping into the fire.
@@Jc-ms5vv" it’s already baked in no matter what we do". Utter garbage. Most plants benefit from more CO2 and also become much more drought resistant. The IPCC is NOT predicting extinction, this is the kind of crap spouted by illiterate millennials and gen-zerz who don't even know the first thing about climate or science.
I'mcurrently finishing my master thesis, and my research group saw a important fact with climate and aerosols. In our case, we study the part climate in central Brazil, mostly recent past (holocene). We saw that every major volcanic eruption in the last 30k years caused peaks of rainfall in the region, with severe flooding associated (including the formation of lakes in some cases). Now get this: the exact same volcanic eruptions caused severe droughts and thus severe famines in Mexico / central America. The exact same aerosols. We should not do any geoengineering, ever, and that side with the balloons is outright criminal. Yes he must be stopped and locked up.
Lock up a dude with balloons? That's abit much. If a few grams of sulfur were a big deal than maybe we should put a big filter on top of volcanos. And it sounds like we should plan for the next large volcanic eruption. Also, did your research account for the effects of high atmosphere aerosols and lower atmosphere aerosols and particulate matter vs. molecular gases? I have a feeling those other materials also have a noticeable impact.
Assuming you’re telling the truth a well made Solar geoengineering regime wouldn’t be like a volcano anyway, This has been talked about plenty. For best results itd be done symmetrically in southern and northern hemispheres at matching latitudes close to the equator and I believe also a second matching pair of injections closer to the poles. It’s different to a volcano in a bunch of other ways also in terms of what it puts into the atmosphere and suchlike. Also even if you’re correct Brazil gets badly flooded Mexico dries up. What’s that compared to? Have you seen the maps of 2070 that show unmitigated climate change causing sound half of all land including almost all of Brazil being unliveable because of heat . And bearing in mind scientists are always conservative and again and again have underestimated climate change. If they’re saying by 2070 40% of landmass will be unliveable you can bet your last Buck it’s more like 80%. Lastly we got ourselves into this awful mess because we thought we knew better than scientists. I think it’s time they were listened to. There’s an hour long talk out just today with Doug Macmartin on Solar geoengineering and he’s an expert in this field, Give it a Listen and keep an open mind for Christ sake
The startup entrepreneur with a Gen Z hair cut is a joke. I think SAI (stratospheric aerosol injection) has possibly been going on for a long time on a massive scale. SAI has been the preferred term for this intervention for a long time. Google Harvard Scientist David Keith.
@@willjapheth23789, ahh a thinker. I'm not being sarcastic. Yes what about the molecular changes to atmospheric composition other than CO2? What about how much denser other post combustion gas products are than natural air? Also what about the removal by solidification of gigatons of Nitrogen annually from the atmosphere? Could any of this be impacting the actual volume of the atmosphere? What would happen in the volume of the atmosphere were to move steadily in a decreasing direction?
@tkmair6559 yea, smog is definitely an issue if that's what you mean. Like banning 2 stroke engines would do more than complaining about an unprofitable pipe dream of high altitude sulfur dioxide. Atleast until a government tries it on a larger scale. I assume you are talking about fertilizer in regards to Nitrogen. The N2 component of the Nitrogen cycle I seriously doubt would be a problem, however, the other components of the Nitrogen cycle are damaged by fertilizer like increasing ocean Nitrogen levels that cause algae blooms or NO2 which can cause acid rain.
If we are going do this, it MUST be regulated to the extreme. And small nobody's who know nothing about how our atmosphere works should be barred from doing it.
If we do this it should be Tyrannically controlled. Then, that entity overseeing it cannot ever possibly become corrupt because Humans don't do that. Therefore, we win..... So damn stupid.
Hmmm? We are doing this and have been doing this for a long time and its killing us, and the web of life with it. The ship is sinking fast unless you are not using your God given senses.
NO…. WE CAN’T EVEN TALK LIKE THAT.. IT MUST NOT HAPPEN AT ALL Humans are so shit for brained…. Paint everything white…. Get rid of all the black roads… we can do so many other things to start… bring back our wetlands.. our tall grasses which are vital to cooling and carbon storage
Lots of unanswered questions: What exactly is being sprayed across the skies? What happens when those particulates filter down and are breathed in? Are the particulates helpful or harmful to plants, land, and waterways? Are we drinking these particulates?
Very nice reporting. You handled the presentation of both sides of this extremely sensitive issue incredibly well. Kudos! Personally, I think it's too early yet to consider geoengineering - it should be a last resort. And crucially, any solution we consider must be reversible. This would disqualify the idea of releasing gas into the sky, for example. The only geoengineering solutions we consider (for our one and only planet) are ones that can be reversed quickly if things go wrong.
Well we're a little bit too late they've been spraying us for many many years now . There's a big difference between condensation trails and chemical trails. I'll give you a hint one is very poisonous and hazardous to human health and the other one just releases mostly water vapor. Can you guess which one Bill Gates endorses and actually funds? Listening to all the of the so-called experts and government officials for decades they are the ones who led us into this mess. Why in the hell would we be listening to them. They are not spraying us to help save us they're spraying us to kill us wake the hell up already. 🧐🤨
Didn't cover both sides well. The most important concern wasn't even mentioned! Even if this plan did work, if there was ever, over the next many hundreds of years, an interruption in the regular scheduled release of the aerosols, the suddenly unregulated heating effect of all the greenhouse gasses would scorch the planet and possibly kill us all! What organization are you going to bank on being around in 500 years? Right now terrorists would need nuclear bombs to kill us all. If we go ahead with this kind of geoengineering, all they would have to do is disrupt the aerosol system for a couple of days.
Sorry, best we can do is more deregulation so that corporations can get that short term return for the owners. Gotta get that infinite growth. Ultimately this is about rich people using their power, lobbying, to keep getting that short term return.
Honestly I think you’re 100 percent right, anything WE do won’t be enough. But the big corporations and governments can definitely do enough to offset climate change and continue to function as a society. They just don’t give a shit about us and they only care about profit profit profit. They could unalive an entire country and they won’t care if there’s profit to be made. We can all agree on that right ?
If the climate crisis teaches us anything it is that a lot of small actions can result in enormous consequences for generations. So for once can we actually follow the prudence principle and not experiment on billions of people?!
Human cause climate change is fake like many other things. The average temperature has been much warmer than now throughout more of the Earths past with no polar ice caps
Another excellent video, topic and presentation. I am not a scientist, but unequivocally in the no geoengineering camp. Why?Because our efforts need to go 100% to cutting emissions and creating good practices to go forward into the future in a way that protects humanity and all of our children's children of the future. No side tracking, no grey area, no more experimentation.
The easiest way for anyone to lower their carbon footprint is to eliminate animal products from our diet. It's easy and cheap compared to other options on an individual basis, but so many people won't make that sacrifice. 😢 Thoughts?
complex issue. is there any way to estimate lives saved vs lost if they go through with it? like will it be even worse if we don’t do it? but yeah i absolutely believe industry would use that as an excuse for business as usual. maybe it should become law that fossil fuels use has to stop BEFORE any last ditch efforts like geoengineering
Why do people keep talking about saving lives? I certainly would not volunteer to perish earlier than anticipated but the planet might have different plans for me. Mass death is frightening but denial and delusion are more to the point in this issue.
you should watch some talks featuring scientists actually working on srm. david keith, pete irvine, doug macmartin, jesse reynolds, wake smith amongst many others. all of the evidence so far is that srm would save a heck of a lot more lives than it would end. personally having studied climate change and srm for years i dont know how we get through this century without some degree of srm
The purpose of this geoengineering is more to take a stand on continuing to support the profits of carbon fuel companies and carry on as usual. It's funny that the kind of effects we're having are more difficult to detect and span over longer time frames such that the majority of us don't notice its encroachment. Now we're trying to find ways to ignore our effect, effectively kicking the can of climate and ecological catastrophe into harder, or impossible, to manage scenarios. This will be a tactic used, and it will effectively screw us.
Great! You understand. The majority of these comments are ignoring reality and pretending we can continue this lifestyle despite the destruction of everything that makes our planet special.
No, we don't all agree. The projections of IPCC climate models have proven to be useless for the past 40 years. There is no climate crisis. There is no significant contribution to the natural global heating expected from increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere - almost all the radiation in the CO2 absorption bands is already absorbed by the current 400 ppm concentration, additional CO2 will have virtually no effect. Recent alarming temperature statistics are the result of measuring station locations becoming subject to the "heat island" effect due to encroaching urbanization (concrete, asphalt, etc.). Glaciers have been melting since the end of the last ice age; they will continue to melt until the next ice age and there is nothing we can do about it. Frequency, extent and severity of hurricanes and wildfires have not increased, contrary to IPCC climate model predictions. The climates hysteria is just another in a never-ending series of hoaxes being perpetrated on an uncritical public in an attempt to frighten people into surrendering control over their own lives to a small cadre of scientifically illiterate bureaucrats.
They think they're putting up an umbrella, but they're putting the lid on a pot that is heating on a stove. They're making it worse, because they've got it wrong.
@@jhaduvala and youre a peer reviewed scientist are you? the public thinking they know better than scientists is at least half the reason we got into the mess of global warming in the first place. have a bit of humility and admit that you should probably listen to people who have studied this for decades.
Why was there no mention of our very generous Gill Bates. Giving grants to Professors like David Keith at Harvard University. Theses guys are the "savior of the world". Blocking out the sun to cool the planet is the dumbest thing you could do as the Sun not only warms our planet but has energy for plants animals people that we need to survive. Not to mention the whole reverse osmosis. Disclaimer im not a scientist but neither is Gill Bates.
My understanding is that its NATO, so that our government doesn’t have to take responsibility for what that spray does to us & nature. Those planes are drones so that keeps people from coming forward about it. They’ve had drones since before JFK days. The spray is toxic and cause dementia & Alzheimer’s plus lots of respiratory issues. The particles are nano is size so they penetrate our skin & get into our blood stream.
They do it over Montreal and its every 2 days on average. once they spray its 36 to 48 hours till it rains. Sometimes they do it so much that they overlap and when it actucaly rains its huge storms systems followed by rapid winds of 70 to 80 kh. also they've been doing it a night and you can tell by raibow halos forming around the moon.
NOAA how to report cloud seeding , go check it out scroll down and read all the types of cloud seating and other programs but please note in the paragraph you will read at the top the fed. does not have to report on their activities.
Yo as someone who cares deeply about this topic and reads constantly about it..... This is the best RUclips vid I've seen on it. Bang on with the description of the Faustian Bargain and bang on with the pitfalls of geoengineering. Maybe another vid on history of sulfur emissions, acid rain, on-road sulfur diesel regulations of the 2000s, China desulphurization of 2010, and IMO 2020 ocean regulations? Maybe folks would be less eager to Geoengineer with sulfur if they knew that we've been doing it for 100 years already! It took a generation and billions of dollars of investment, but we got the sulfur OUT OF THE SKY. JUST IN THE LAST COUPLE YEARS! WE FINALLY DID IT, MANY LIFETIMES OF WORK FOR MANY PEOPLE. And the Geoengineers just wanna.... Undo it?
youre making a mistake there. yes getting sulphur out of the troposphere is a great idea. but with solar geoengineering we would be putting sulphate aerosols in the stratosphere. much higher up. we would also only need a small fraction of the amount of sulphate we were putting into the troposphere at its peak in the 80's to be able to cause substantial cooling. so the harms of sulphate aerosols in the stratosphere are never gonna be as bad as what we suffered in the 80's at least going by everything we know so far.
My concern about injecting sulfur aerosols into the stratosphere is that it could once again deplete the ozone layer, in addition to any other unintended consequences, known or unknown. Marine Cloud Brightening, whilst needing more proving research/testing, seems to be a much more promising geoengineering option, because it can be localised to selected ocean areas with low altitude cumulus clouds. The ejected sprayed material is basically non-toxic salt sprays. Although MCB would need a fleet of specialized ships for the tasks, perhaps there are many available, & unused, in storage which could be suitably modified at no great cost
Where we must CONTINUE aerosol masking, if we enjoy consuming food, is over 3 of the 4 major food producing regions. US Midwest, India and East China all have high SO2 levels currently. Take away the SO2 with these rapidly increasing global avg temperatures and that will be all she wrote for humanity. Our food producing days are numbered here in the Midwest even with our generous endowment of SO2, courtesy of Big Coal.
You should all watch a speech by Anni Pokela called 1.5 is gone without climate intervention. And another recent Ted talk by Juan Enriquez called decarbonising won’t be enough we have to lower temperatures. These are two of the best layman’s terms assessments of the situation we are really in and why Solar geoengineering will probably be necessary
"There are huge non climate effects of carbon dioxide which are overwhelmingly favorable which are not taken into account. To me that's the main issue that the earth is actually growing greener. This has been actually measured from satellites the whole earth is growing greener as a result of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So it's increasing agricultural yields, it's increasing the forests, it's increasing all kinds of growth in the biological world and that's more important and more certain than the effects on climate." ~Freeman Dyson, Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey.
So, I am for it. Or we are going to die from heat. Today it's 31st of October, I was in Zagreb, temperature was 20 dg C an. a summer storm with heavy rain and wind was going on. When I was a kid, it uso too freeze at those times in Zagreb. And even more in Ljubljana.
yeah im in that same boat. honestly this needs to become a new climate movement bigger than Xrebellion. people who are for accelerated research, broad public conversation and probably full scale deployment of srm. because everything ive learned about climate change says we've had it otherwise. i too have seen conditions in places i grew up completely change in just 30 years.
Crazy how consumers used to be told that arisols were bad for the environment and to refrain from using them, and now we’re using them to try and save the environment instead.
Well that is part of the whole debate around this. They do have negative consequences. But with the major consequences of climate change people are asking if the cooling impact of certain aerosols outweighs their costs. And they are releasing them in the upper atmosphere so a bit different than consumers using them on the ground.
This Geoengeneatring is going on already,and is the cause of many autoamuno deases already,including asma ,naisal drip ,fungal infections caused by the rapid increas in fungas, boul deseases, constipation, and diabetic conditions, and high blood pressure.
There will be no halting of this geo-engineering as long as countries demand it and lots of money can be made from it. We are stuck in the paradigm shift of BRUTE CAPITALISM.
Ministry for the Future by Kim Stanley Robinson is a good sci-fi novel about climate change. In the story they employed cloud seeding tactics as well as methods to refreeze Antarctica. It's a pretty good book.
A little more on the topic of geo engineering- there's "°C" by Marc Elsberg. It's a sci-fi thriller. I'm not sure whether it's available in English or just in German.
This makes me believe we’re coming into biblical prophecy. I find it interesting the volcano naturally did what man is trying to do. Man should be still and allow God to act but they’re going against the ability for the planet to heal itself. Let Go and Let God. Revelation 11:18 says 18 The nations were angry, and your wrath has come. The time has come for judging the dead, and for rewarding your servants the prophets and your people who revere your name, both great and small- and for destroying those who destroy the earth.”
The arguments against are pretty compelling in my view. However, small scale experimentation and incrementally scaling to the ideal level (possibly zero) is something we will have to do in parallel. We are at a point where we may need to try any and all solutions.
spot on, although i would say watch the is solar geoengineering a crazy idea debate that took place a while back and can be found on this site and i have to say the arguments that solar geoengineering is NOT a crazy idea are pretty damn strong. and that panel ended up winning the debate according to audience polling.
Yet another great video! Well done. I do however have a very important point to add. First and foremost: dependency! We do not want to become dependent upon any geoengineering technology to keep us safe. As was pointed out in your video, should CO2 and other Industrial Age greenhouse gases (GHGs) be allowed to continue to increase, being offset by industrial production of other industrially generated anti-GHG, should the later fail to be produced or be curtailed by political pressure against their inevitable negative side effects, global warming will RAPIDLY AND CATASTROPHICALLY increase! Moreover, we, the general public, will be even more dependent upon these external providers to provide our life support. I say even more dependent because we are ALREADY extremely dependent upon these outside providers to provide our food, water, clothing, shelter, livelihood, power, trash collection, communication, transportation, defense, safety, security, entertainment, etc. etc. etc.! Who are these external life-support providers and who controls them? They are big government and big business and they are both controlled by global elites! If you are dependent upon them to provide your life-support then they OWN you! They own you thoughts, values, actions and most importantly - your vote! What is liberty? Liberty, according to Lord Acton, the foremost scholarly authority on the subject, is NOT the right to do whatever you want (regardless of the harm that it may do to other humans and to our ecological life-support system), rather it is the right to do as you ought - to act according to your conscience to do the right, moral and ethical thing (which is why we have the Bill of Rights). If someone is controlling your life-support and thus controlling your vote, do you have liberty? NO! Your liberty is being denied! Can we have a democracy or even a representative government without liberty? NO! Thus our answer is clear, dependency upon ALL external providers for our life-support must be eliminated! Start with yourself, then work on your family, friends, coworkers, neighbors. Spiral outwards from there. No one can do it alone. Do what you can, network with others. Trade surplus for surplus in an expanding mutual aid network. Collectively you will become more self sustaining and independent. You will regain your liberty and your right to vote according to your conscience. Those who currently control public policy will be powerless, redundant, useless and unnecessary. We have to take back our liberty to take back our democracy and we have to take back our democracy if we want to mitigate and control climate change and stop its dire and deadly consequences. That’s our path forward. Let’s start today! 🌎🌍🌏
To be honest there are better ways and poisoning the air anymore won’t help anything. I will just make this worse, not only for the environment but for people who spend their entire lives outside and for those who find sanctuary outside. I knew that climate change was real but when I experienced the changes from negatives to Oregon winter weather temperatures in Alaska within a span of a few hours for the first time I felt that fear.
well for one thing this would be putting sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere. . they would fall out but they would fall out evenly over the whole globe. the actual quantities needed to offset a substantial amount of global warming would be a tiny fraction of what we were putting into the troposphere in the 80's the troposphere is the part of the atmosphere that we live. we also could switch to chalk dust later which has no downsides like sulphate aerosols but we are more worried about uncertainties because the stratosphere doesnt naturally contain any chalk dust but it does naturally contain sulphate aerosols.
It has been done since 1969! It has intensified since 2012. Today you can't see the blue sky BUT a gray cover almost EVERY DAY! So why not just say this.
Last ditch effort my ass. This has been going on for decades and is to blame for all the insane weather. Dumping poison on the populace and altering weather believe it or not is a bad idea! A horrific idea.
There's another issue with solar geoengineering that we need to talk about as well. CO2 levels above 1000ppm have been shown to significantly reduce cognitive function. It's why opening the window for fresh air makes you feel better. If we use aerosols to cool the Earth, it gives polluters a pass to take us to 1000ppm of CO2.
CO2 levels above 1,000 ppm is typical of enclosed spaces. That study is rubbish when so many people’s cognitive function don’t get negatively affected by CO2 levels that high
one of the main reasons I just straight up refuse to really discuss geoengineering as a potential solution is I fear it will go the same way as carbon capture and just be a mythical technology that doesnt really exist in any meaningful way that allows corporations the pr pass to keep doing as they were by saying they can fix it in the future. co2 also affects plant yields and many other problems so it mostly just feels like a regression to the idea that climate change is only global warming.
@@yancgc5098 You're right that CO2 levels above 1000ppm are common in enclosed and poorly ventilated spaces. I own a CO2 detector. But imagine opening the window in the future and getting the equivalent of today's stale indoor air. Sounds horrible, doesn't it?
@@bobbyc1120 The stale air from enclosed poorly ventilated places is the result of a combination of high CO2 and lower oxygen level. That would be different from high CO2 levels in an outdoor area with regular oxygen levels.
I’m a horticulturist Earthworms have been gone for 3 yrs in Rome ga Floyd county after noticeable 5 yr decline in health Most birds been gone most bugs been gone for a decade + Plants growing in crazy cycles Vegetable plants stopped growing after 2 nights warmer than days Just in Rome ga Nobody sees this but I’ve called other research horticulturists ALLover the world We see the same things It’s already over
Don’t think there was enough information to make a decision yes or no. The sunset company seemed pretty half hazard about putting stuff in the atmosphere.
nobody is asking for a yes or no. the scientists working on this just want there to be a broad public conversation around srm and also accelerated research with more people working on it.
We need to at least examine every potential tool in the tool box - if cloud seeding over the poles can be done safely and to good effect, let's give that a go.
Sulfer dioxide acidifies water forming sulfuric acid. Our oceans are dying partly because CO2 also acidifies water forming carbonic acid. We went through the acid rain crisis in the 1980's when large forests were dying because of acid rain and laws were passed to clean up emissions. Not only does the reduction of sunlight reduce photosynthesis that plants (and our food) rely on but pH matters to all life. The only real solution to our warming climate is for all people to consume less. Less driving, less stuff, less meat and dairy, less junk food. No wants to hear it and the media is afraid to say it.
And this is why class struggle is so often left out of the question, because most of the media people see is owned by the billionaire class whose class interests are directly responsible for much of the causes of global warming (excessive and wasteful consumption, car-centred living, and economic extraction from the global south that keeps people so poor that they must deforest and overfish, etc.)
We human beings have infinitesimal knowledge but just enough to be our own worst enemy of our species and many other species, while being possessed of infinite desires and wishful thinking. That's the fundamental problem.
It could be. The problem is to do that well and see the effects of those small-scale actions. Consider also the complexity of the atmospheric interactions and then you have results that are very hard to interpret. For me, it should be more about forecasting the probability of extreme events with or without sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere. We have climate models that could give us some probabilistic results and we should at least try to understand whether it could make sense to take the risk of putting some other gases in the atmosphere. The etic parts that say that it's wrong to do that are ignoring that we have already done that but with CO2 instead of SO2. I'm not saying we don't have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but we also have to consider the option of emitting a gas with a reverse impact.
It's already been tested via cleaning up bunker fuel for ships in the Atlantic. We know what happens and how it works. We just don't know what the large scale effects will be. No testing needed.
The people who will suffer most if this goes wrong are of course those who have the least say in the matter. And the people that these startups don't care about the people they might hurt as they chase the profit from their poorly-thought-out unregulated activities. The arrogance and entitlement of Luke Iseman and others like him is what's terrifying. This is the kind of subject that we desperately need global input on, and lots and lots of scientists voices, from many different disciplines, and regulation, and agreements, if we're going to pursue, because this affects the entire planet.
This is how we think about the problem with climate change. Stratospheric aerosol injection is not the perfect solution, but it's the most well studied and has been observed in nature via stratovolcanic eruptions. Amoung the different types of Solar radiation managment techniques (painting your roof white, mirrors on the ground, marine cloud brightening, cirrus cloud thinning, space mirrors.) Stratospheric aerosol injection is the least expensive, reversible, and scalable until we find a better stop gap solution. Make Sunsets' mission is to cool Earth safely until we can stop burning fossil fuels and scale up carbon removal.
That clown with the balloons is actually creating a Frankensteinish response to an impending climate catastrophe. it appears we are all Bozos on this bus.
I think reduction of greenhouse gases has been on the table for a long time. How's it working out? It's not great from where I'm standing. I think people who propose these types of solutions are trying to see the situation for it is. We haven't been able to come together and make the changes needed. It's like turning to a desperate ladt chance. Ya know?
Why not both? We’ve already raised the average temperature significantly; we need to stop doing things that keep raising it _and_ do whatever we can to reduce it.
a reduction of greenhouse gasses was never on the table because the table is sat at by only those who stand to gain from continued use of greenhouse gasses
why not both? because temperature is just a factor among the many influences climate change has. we do not know what the effects of this will be in the long term, we could be hurting the climate without knowing because the effects of this are not well understood or studied.@@trevinbeattie4888
I would like to see more case studies on this. We have a way to map how releasing aerosols into the air. A computer model that shows the effects of different amounts of aerosols in both hamisters and around the equator might be able to help. I know it will not be completely accurate. I also know it has been useful in the past.
We are the case study. Civilizations unknown to us who already understand the menace and horror of computers are watching and planning with paper and pencil.
Bill Gates is a big fan of solar geoengineering and I’m convinced his personal fascination is why we all hear about it so often. That “cats out of the bag” line is repeated on countless articles about this.
I don’t buy that argument. Earth energy imbalance has been steadily increasing for 20 years. Higher EEI = more rapid increase in global avg temperature. EEI is the most fundamental, informative climate metric which explains why you hear nothing about it.
Our main focus needs to be on eliminating fossil fuels from our energy infrastructure and solving the issue of green energy storage. Things like carbon capture and geoengineering ultimately feel like distractions by trying to convince us they're ways to let us keep burning fossil fuels. Certainly it should be studied and experiments need to be conducted, but it shouldn't be considered a first line solution.
all of the scientists working on solar geoengineering agree with you completely and go to great lengths to say it but its also true that we can do many things at once. srm is insanely cheap and so it really wouldnt be taking valuable resources away from all the other mitigation efforts. so imo youre right but srm accelerated research, governance preperation and building the means to be able to do it if we need to do it needs to happen asap.
You say that the US and Europe did something to cool the North Atlantic ocean. Your video title says "Did Geoengineering ALREADY Cause a Massive Famine?" You try to paint the picture that this involved intent. Climate or geoengineering is an intentional act or series of actions. I watched this whole video just for you to show that it was pollution that contributed to this famine ( 7:17 ). Pollution is NOT a form of geoengineering. Engineering doesn't occur by accident. It involves the deliberate application of knowledge to address a problem. You've misrepresented what occurred in the 80s.
people working on solar geoengineering have already said that patchy srm like the one you talked about, where just one area is made more reflective can have effects like this. thats why what is suggested is srm everywhere. im not delighted by the idea but where we are headed with global warming is absolutely apocalyptic, so i support accelerated srm research and probably deployment
I'm neither for nor against geoengineering and no one else should be ar this point either. In the short term, no we absolutely shouldn't be implementing it on any large scale. However, with a great deal of study and experimentation we may find methods and processes that are relatively predictable and are short lived enough that they can be halted and the system return to its pre-intervention state. We're already passing an altered and indisputably polluted Earth to our kids, it's our duty to work hard to reverse that in as many ways as we can.
The problem is that with the climate there is no such thing as an isolated experiment, everything you do in the atmosphere could affect anyone and with unintended consecuneces, and also it has effects in long terms so long that we maybe would not identify the consequences of it for decades, so it is better not. The solution for climate change is to stop using fossil fuels, not easy but at least it is certain that if we stop the carbon emission we stop the climate change.
We need to think about how "seeding the atmosphere" can easily backfire. If it causes another drought (and we don't know where) it can cause another famine, even more global chaos, war, all terrible disasters that make dealing with the climate crisis more difficult.
The global atmospheric and weather systems are incredibly complex and far beyond our ability to fully understand or know the exact outcomes everywhere in the world of "seeding the atmosphere." It is likely impossible to know for sure what it will do to any particular country or region, due to the complexity.
No theoretical model exists than can really encompass the whole system. 1. because we don't know everything involved, 2, we don't have the computing power to calculate such a model and therefore already limit what we feed into such models. End result of previous such tries was opposite of expected outcomes. Downright bad idea when the stakes are this high.
I am against solar geoengineering, if we’re really gonna tackle climate change we must be responsible and exercise caution. It is wrong to solve a problem by creating another, that’s gonna affect a group of people who who really don’t deserve it and are unable to fix the problem
I dont think it's at all controversial. What we know is unequivocal, and constantly develops, and we know what we've done and are continuing to do. The only "controversy" is contrived from the agendas of offending corporations to continue their wealth extraction.
@@yancgc5098 again, not necessarily, chlorophyll only absorbs 430-660 nm wavelength, sulphur dioxide reflects only 320 nm. Please, it only took me 30 sec to verify, stop spreading misinformation
![ARGENTINA vs. PERÚ [1-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 12](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xtI25ENDDSY/mqdefault.jpg)
Has a quick, easy solution for a long-term, complicated issue ever actually worked? Or was it just something that sounded good to a handful of people who wanted to wave a magic wand and make a problem disappear
This is a necessary food for thought 😢
Vaccines, get a similar virus that is not fatal to humans. For example, getting cow pox prevented you from dying from small pox. Just snort some dead cow pox cells. This one weird trick has scientists baffled...
Here's another perspective, we're not winning the war on climate change, it's only getting hotter. Even if we stop polluting there will still be the GHGs that last for hundreds of years in our atmosphere keeping our planet warm. That's not good. We need to figure out how to cool it down now until we can implement more permanent carbon removal solutions that can scale. We're not planting enough trees and over 80% of humanity still relies on fossil fuels. It's gonna take a long time. SAI buys us time, like a tourniquet so we can stop the bleeding until we can get to the operating table and solve the root cause.
Well, what is the alternative? If you don't have a solution that will work long term, may as well try something that will at least work short term. It might make things even worse in the long term but i guess people are just that desperate. Life has always been about preventing the inevitable, people have always been doomed in the long term. It may be better to just try and endure something than to add onto the problems that need to be faced eventually but nobody wants to give up luxuries. Life can be unpleasant even when you have luxuries, nobody wants to give up the few things that make life pleasant. Maybe life is not so bad without the luxuries we are so attached to but it would certainly be difficult to adjust to life without them. It is not all about luxuries, though, the very things that we depend on to survive and defend ourselves can be some of the most significant contributors to environmental problems. Downscale your military and you become increasingly vulnerable to attack. A rich economy contributes towards government and military budgets, reduction in profits leads to reduction in government and military budgets. A rich economy comes from a society that goes above basic needs and indulges in luxuries, this requires a somewhat wasteful approach to resources. Maybe my understanding is not entirely correct but my main point is that this stuff all seems to be connected. The world is not unified, everyone is exploiting each other and attempting to be less exploitative can just lead to you being exploited. People do cooperate but there is always someone that just wants to take everything for themselves. There are things we can do to reduce our impact on the environment without causing other problems but there is also a lot of things stopping us from taking proper action to prevent environmental disaster. There is a lot of existential threats and focusing on any one of them can make us more vulnerable to another.
sulphur dioxide will produce acidic rain and deplete ozone: SO2+O3+H2O=H2SO4+O2
Funny that for those scientists implications was not clear, but for me AI specialist it was obvious
@@elio7610That much text to not say anything.
It's actually a weapons system using heavy metals like aluminum, strontium, barium and other heavy metals to weaponize the weather and create other problems like earthquakes, droughts, flooding, tsunamis and other.
You’re 100 percent right.
You forgot Tornados and accelerating Hurricanes.
@@glennhenze3541 Thank you. It's the biggest issue of our time.
@@Vulcaneer900 Thank you. It's so insane people don't want to believe it and I don't blame them.
@@obinwataje here’s some more strange elements,electron density,electro magnetic emissions,radio waves, atmospheric process, auroral phenomena, leptons,chemical elements,ionospheric plasmas, plasma waves.
The US was geoengineering in Operation Popeye during the Vietnam War from 1967 to 1972 and never stopped with other countries starting their own programs. When changing the amount of rainfall you take from another area. It never stopped private companies from starting up. Look up the patents on cloud seeding through engineering and who doing testing.
Haarp is but one of many machines that can control weather world wide.🤐💀🍻
the info on who sponsors Geo-engineering research is available and yet everyone thinks i'm crazy. I appreciate your comment.
Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025 - DTIC
by TJ House · 1996 · Cited by 64 - In 2025, US aerospace forces can own the weather by ....
And go to Dane wigington geoengineering watch to learn more about the toxic attack that is happening in front of our eyes 😮
He who controls the weather will control the world.
There are a lot of ground-based solutions we can go about implementing to increase surface reflectivity before we have to go messing about with the atmosphere, the ground has the benefit of tending to stay in the same place and can be more easily controlled.
ANTON PETROV THERE IS NO CLIMATE CHANGE THE EARTH DOES THIS EVERY MILLION YEARS OR SO PETROV IS ASTRONOMY WITH A SCROLL DOWN OF SCIENTISTS AT THE END OF HIS TALKS YOU CAN FIND THIS HERER EVERY MILLION YEARS THE EARTH TRAVELS WITH THE MOON AND THEN GOES BACK TO IT REGULAR ORBIT THEY HAVE PROOF FROM ICE AT THE POLAR CAPS ETC CLIMATE SCIENCE IS $$ AND NOT SCIENCE
Like what?
@@randybellwood1778 Things that reflect, reflectors, reflective things, there have been some promising new paints recently that reflect a LOT of the visible and non-visible light, particularly the IR which is what heats the ground, plant cover has also been shown to help a lot particularly in urban areas to reduce local ambient temperatures through a combination of absorbing light before it hits the ground and active cooling through transpiration
If used, reflectivity must be deployed in the upper atmosphere..
ground based reflectivity doubles the chances that the heat energy will be absorbed by greenhouse gasses.
@@ibenrubbinov5463there you have it. Problem solved.
I have very mixed feelings about this. As a retired Air Force Disaster Preparedness Technician and as a university-trained professional futurist, I recognize that we don't yet know all the ways this could go wrong. My Air Force experience makes me confident that Murphy was right: anything that can go wrong will go wrong, at the worst possible time and in the worst possible way. Having looked at systems quite a bit, I understand that small inputs can have huge impacts over time. So, generally speaking, I don't think the geoengineering approach is a good one: right now, we can only make small inputs, but over time, those small inputs are likely to produce noticeable changes only after we've gone beyond the point at which we can change course.
On the other hand, we can't go on as we have been: something's gotta change. My preferred solution, as both a futurist and a sociologist, is to seek social solutions to the problems of climate change. The biggest problems we have seem to be social in nature. First, people are already being driven from their customary places to other, often very different, places to live. Those places they are moving to may already be stressed to the point that current residents will vigorously resist taking in climate refugees. The second problem is that people in less stressed places -- like the highly industrialized global West -- are causing problems that create climate refugees by their continued use of carbon-based fuels.
There appear to be a few related mutually constructed social realities in the way of solving these problems. First is what might be called "the 'not my problem field' effect". You may recall that Douglas Adams created the idea of something that could project a field that would make people think, "That's not MY problem" so they would mind their own business and leave things alone. And it's easy to ignore phenomena happening half a world away as a result of our actions. What's much harder to do is convince people that what's happening half a world away IS a problem they need to care about. The other major problem can be summed up in the title of Ten Years After's rock anthem, "I'd Love to Change the World (But I Don't Know What to Do)". There seem to be a lot of people who, as individuals, understand that our current ways of living are unsustainable and are harming people they don't even know. However, they're frustrated by the fact that they simply don't know what they can do to change things.
I'm hardly the one to ask for a solution to these problems: I'm frustrated at not knowing how to get people to understand the magnitude of the problems and that they CAN change things. So until I can find a way to convince people that the problem IS theirs and that they CAN change things, I guess that, in the words of Ten Years After, "I'll leave it up to you . . . "
People can't imagine a life after capitalism but I think that's probably one of the biggest changes we need.
Absolutely fascinated by your career history and would love to know how to become a professional futurist!
Everything you said hit the mark for me. My background is environmental management degree and a decade in low level government climate legislation administration. I've thrown in the towel with frustration. Am dedicating my next decade to climate action. taking a sabbatical to try and figure out what I can do (with no money😅). So far the actions that make sense are - convert a van to live in, train / work in emergency response and disaster resilience/recovery (especially bushfire and floods here in Australia). Learn skills that will help build mobile, compassionate and resilient communities where possible. Skill up in wildlife rescue and gardening.
Oh no I think I'm becoming a prepper 😂🤦♀️
Trying to change the overton window in a neoliberal capitalist world is not easy. Especially when so many don't even think climate change is real still.
Curious if you have see "just have a think" channel most recent vid? The emperors new clothes actuarial report is .... intense.
That was an S E P field I think... somebody else's problem 😅
don't worry about your contemplation of what to do - MOther Nature is taking revenge faster than you can expect. There's 1200 gigatons of pressurized methane in the world's largest ocean shelf with the methane going into the atmosphere at a rate faster than the rest of the oceans put together. Just a five gigaton "abrupt eruption" of that methane will soon double global warming temperatures. Sit back and enjoy the work of Mother Nature - she's way more efficient than any technological schemes you can contemplate. Nice try though.
Why do you hate science?
@@melusine826 What do you plan to replace it with? It's easier to destroy than to create.
Geoengineering-especially tinkering with our atmosphere could open up a Pandora’s Box we cannot close. We need to really think this through. If we mess up, there’s no second chance.
One could say the same thing about the tinkering we’ve already done, like emitting trillions of tons of CO2 that wouldn’t have been released otherwise
everything we do is geoengineering. we have always been geoengineers. the 'natural' world as we experience it is the result of hundreds of thousands of years of human geoengineering.
...and ya. it's way too late and there are no second chances.
I suspect that within 100 years, our descendants, faced with runaway global warming will use geo-engineering in an attempt to save themselves.
It already is! They’re already doing it
If we really need to think this through we are already dead. There isn't any "we" that I know of and "thinking something through" before (we) do it just isn't going to happen.
What could possibly go wrong? Deliberately adding chemicals into the already polluted atmosphere seems like adding insult to injury, ADDING to the problem. Irresponsible people have brought us to where we are …
Cough SnowPiercer Cough
@@MrTruehoustonian Interesting delivery! but not out the realm of possibility.
yes, clearly the solution is to hope that governments will radically reduce emissions, something that is in no way expected by anyone. So in your world, we are simply screwed. Congratulations on your brilliant solution
It's been going on for decades, just look up at the grid clouds from all the planes! Not during the 9/11 attacks or during the pandemic lockdowns.
@@radscorpion8 someone gets it
Against, after watching supplies chains break down during the COVID pandemic I can’t imagine a scenario where I would willingly bet the lives of the entire planet on our ability to maintain supply chains. It’s a short term solution that makes long term problems worse.
Our supply chains broke down because of government intervention. Had the market not been rigged to create a "this is the best option," and instead been left maleable and free, then everyone would not have put their eggs into a single basket... namely, China.
You already do: It's called the agricultural supply chain.
The problem isn't supply chains themselves, it's badly constructed ones.
Personally I think we need national food stockpiles to mitigate harvest failures (China has one), but others advocate diversifying food supplies across different crop varieties and different regions, or enforcing farm animal culls during grain shortfalls (the postwar USSR used to do that).
@@domtweed7323 The USA doesn't have stockpiles? 😮
@@johnnyearp52 They have one for oil, and one specifically for cheese, but not for food as a whole (as far as I know).
The US is a big food exporter, and a big producer of biofuels from otherwise edible corn (which is terrible and they should stop), so I think the assumption is that the US could feed itself even in a bad harvest.
But that would be pretty terrible for all the countries that depend on US food exports, so a stockpile would be a good idea.
@@domtweed7323 Cheese?!
When thinking about geo-engineering a German saying comes to my mind: "den Teufel mit dem Beelzebub austreiben", which literally translates to something like "to call in Satan in order to exorcise the Devil". Any type of geo-engineering comes along some unwanted side effects. If these take over we may be as doomed as if we did nothing.
You realise we’re already doing at least two forms of Solar geoengineering. One is co2 emissions methane emissions, all the stuff that is heating the planet. The other is sulphate emissions that actually cools the planet, without these sulphate emissions the warming would be much worse. That’s one of the reasons amongst a few others that scientists are pretty certain that stratospheric aerosol injection would work pretty well And the side effects would be nothing compared to unmitigated climate change
i like it, but would you rather be starving today or tomorrow?
We have entered the Weather Wars
Hurricane Helene
First of all, thanks to everyone who makes PBS Terra possible. I've been watching your videos and appreciate all the hard work and information gathering that goes into educating us further. The breadth of coverage on climate change is helpful and important for the public to gain a better grasp on this difficult problem.
Now regarding the question of geoengineering as proposed as "seeding the atmosphere," in other words adding compounds to the atmosphere. Let us first and fundamentally consider the reality that it was this kind of geoengineering, at least initially not knowing what we were doing adding colossal amount of CO2, methane, etc., by burning fossil fuels that is what caused the problem in the first place.
Based on this basic reality alone, I find it highly dubious, the notion of doing more such geoengineering would be an effective method of solving the climate crisis.
On the contrary, the chances of more geoengineering such a complex global system doing so in dangerous ignorance of the outcomes, seems unwise at best and downright catastrophic at worst.
Obviously there is also the well known serious issue that such "seeding" would merely mask the effects of continuing to burn fossil fuels, and that by itself is highly likely to lead to an even greater disaster. Consider the "seeding" even if it happened to "work" without terrible consequences like moving rainbelts, drought and famine (which is unlikely), would need to be done perpetually, as the greenhouse gases would continue to be pumped into the atmosphere at colossal tonnage year after year. But consider whatever government or system or agreement doing the "seeding" must be constantly perpetually funded and organized with no stoppage. But the moment an economic shock happens or war or conflicts between countries or no funding, the "seeding" stops, then there is a colossal immediate shock to the entire planet of massive heating all at once. I don't find such a prospect "reassuring." I find it terrifying.
Better it seems to focus on what we do know. We know what the natural carbon level was prior to our massive burning of coal began in 19th century. Thus it seems the focus needs to be on stopping the ongoing massive amounts of yearly emissions and figuring out how to remove the excess carbon that we artificially geoengineered into the atmosphere and do our best to return it as close as possible to pre-industrial level. Easier said than done of course but honestly I can't see how further geoengineering out of ignorance that is the thing that caused the problem in the first place can possibly be the "solution."
Exactly! I can't imagine how this story failed to explain this critical issue.
I am in the not so black and white category. It is certainly true that geoengineering comes with unforeseen risks. But it is also true that we (collectively) are ALREADY geoengineering with no plan at all.
Exactly, and is obvious that this climate ship is totally out of control, i think Solar geoengineering is probably the only way we can realistically get any kind of Handle on this thing. Combined with all the other stuff we should have been doing a long time ago
Without immediate concerted action by the entire world including geoengineering, humanity is in profound trouble.
I believe geo engineering is either ignored or discussed with a negative bias as a means of social engineering, but that is kind of like lying.
ANTON PETROV ASTRONOMY WITH A HOST OF SCIENTISTS AT THE END OF WHAT HE TELLS US ON RUclips WE ARE NOT*** IN CLIMATE CHANGE THE EARTH DOES THIS CYCLE EVERY MILLION YEARS WITH PROOF RUclips
@@colorado841 what an obvious and crumbling distopia. the pheracies would be proud.
This is best PBS show out there.
That's mighty kind of you :)
Hands down. The AMOC video cemented it for me
fighting pollution with pollution seems genius
This is really impressive work. You folks are doing something really important with this series.
We should be debating the replacement of much of our fossil fuel power plants with a combination of nuclear and renewables, modernizing the power grid and setting up electric vehicle infrastructure, as well as things like cattle diet additives to reduce their methane emissions or ways to capture cattle methane emissions. I mean let's see how far we get from no longer pumping gigatons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere before we fully commit to geoengineering and mass sequestering programs.
Renewable is a fantasy.
I think safer to do ground based heat reflection, such as pavement and rooftops, which will also help with the heat island effect of cities, and not risk reducing crop growth with less sun
So all pavements and rooftops should be white?
Yes.
@@peterbaruxis2511 That is a lot of white paint. I mean it could be done but I would go in another directions.
Mirrors for Earth Energy Rebalancing (MEER)
@@hanshansen3885 - aren't they painting the sky white, and they have to re-paint every day.....put a permanent coat down on the surface
I think it is very possible that it will be done either way, because the consequences would mainly affect poorer countries who don't have any say in the matter. As long as it results in the ability to continue with business as usual for the ones making the money from burning fossil fuels, the suffering of the poor will be seen as an acceptable cost.
I think that's what has been happening but science and freedom to information is shifting the power balance. As we globalise less fortunate countries such as Africa in the wake of America's cloud seeding will have more power/voice for compensation.
I agree 💯
Exactly
I think it's really a question of whether we try to fix the damage that's being done, or just give up and let it happen. My biggest fear with geoengineering is that capitalists do what they always do and attempt to exploit it for profit, which could cause misguided decisions to be made. The last thing you want is for decisions on climate to be in the hands of a room full of directors who's only goal is to improve share prices. The goal needs to be fixing the mess, not making a fortune. I also think that making no attempt to fix things just leaves us on the trajectory we're on, which just guarantees a bad future.
My fear is of anyone doing this. Not that it necessarily shouldn't be done if it can be shown to be beneficial.
But that either the capitalists in charge of big biz will do it for profit or the Malthusian death cultists in charge of politics will do it for their own reasons if it's shown to be dangerous.
Less sun, less food
The problem is we don't know the end results. We are like babies playing with fire. We don't understand all the complexity so we don't know what we are doing. It is a guess that it will overall help. No guarantees.
@matok2426 "I think it's really a question of whether we try to fix the damage that's being done, or just give up and let it happen." I certainly agree that is the most important question and sadly so far leaders around the world are not doing enough to fix the damage.
@mistyaprilartist they don't grow food at the poles. And fish stocks plummet with higher temperatures there.
Just Stop Oil is spot on. Causes more angst than actual harm.
I'm a conservation ecologist with a background in environmental change. I am 100% against any intentional geoengineering projects being enacted. Rather than *adding* to the problems, and making an excuse for corporations, governments, and people to just continue on without making any meaningful changes to how they operate we need to be making massive changes in the day-to-day operations of all these entities.
Geoengineering is like a chronic alcoholic with organ failure who gets a liver transplant, then continues drinking at full volume, making no changes to their lifestyle.
I read that when there was a new law passed limiting the number of Sulfur emissions from massive cargo ship burning bunker fuel it actually increased the temperature of the Atlantic Ocean because the sulfur was creating nucleation sites for the clouds to form, and less clouds meant more direct sunlight warming the waters
Yup. Next summer (northern hemisphere) is going to be NUTS. The aerosols are gone, we have a monster El Nino that didn't really start until just now (last month or so). The Tonga volcano injected a bunch of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere earlier this year. I tells ya... it's gonna be bad. But, use that as an opportunity to get attention and spread the word: Consumption based societies have run out of time. We need something else if we're to have a civilization.
@JaniMelender the Tonga eruption was wild. The Sulphur levels made sunsets really purple for a while, even over here in california. And it increased the water content of the atmosphere by a little over 10%. This past summer was just a warning, even though it was by far the hottest on record
@JaniMelender it also created a momentary hole in the ozone layer that lasted a couple weeks and stretched all the way to south America (going the long way around)
@@JaniMelender Easy, less population. The Earth only has biocapacity for like 2 billion or so people, less for a higher standard of living. The root cause is overpopulation, not a consumption based society (though the latter does encourage the former)
@@StuffandThings_ I agree it's *a* root cause. In my mind however it's
population x system = total damage to nature
I'm without words to what these " scientists " are doing to the air we breath...Absolutely nuts..God help us.
Can you imagine if it's already going and they can't just not hide it anymore and we are already past 3.5 degree Celsius on global temperatures but it's been hidden for a while...
hmmm come on. we're not right wingers here, we dont just go round making up conspiracy theories
Look at the sky. Not sure you live because it does matter but ought you gotta do as look up towards the Sun and you'll see the chemicals. You'll see the trails.
@@troykaz9037 i dont see anything out of the ordinary. this is all in your mind cultist.
No... just no. All the global reports give a range and the outcome is almost always on the absolute lowest end of rising temperature. If you are becoming this paranoid, please step away from the climate discussion for a while and get your bearings straightened out. For your own health.
Oh and DEW in Maui fires. I am glad I am in my 70's and will be leaving for Heaven soon. As in the days of Noah and Lot so are we now
To me, it is another example of the Global North trying to take a shortcut out of fixing their CO2 emissions.at the cost of the rest of us.
Exactly
Unfortunately I have to agree.
The "solution" to climate change isn't aerosols, it's decreasing our dependence on fossil fuels, full stop.
To that end, any little thing we can do makes a difference.
I have an electric car, it helps a little tiny bit, but if billions of people had one, or a heat pump, or made their electricity in a different way,
things would begin to improve.
The problem we have in convincing enough people that, this solution is our best option.
We get the full range of opinion from outright hostility to people who are doing everything they possibly can to reduce their use.
In the end we as a species will decide.
We will either reduce fossil fuels to a sustainable level, or we will throw the spanner into the works and hope for the best.
(I think we all know Mr. Murphy's take on that route.)
@@jimthain8777 And all this for 4 parts per million of the harmless gas we breathe out. Have you heard yourself? You have been manipulated by propaganda. What is the ideal global temperature? Certainly a slight increase with encouraging plant growth would be plus.
@@mrofnocnon
that's 400+ ppm which does indeed make it a trace element in the atmosphere. Methane is even more rare, (but growing too).
what you obviously don't understand is just how powerful their effects are. you don't need that much to move the average temperature up just a single degree.
once you move the temperature up just that little bit, you trigger a consequence.
1 degree of warming is enough to add 7% more water vapor to the atmosphere.
Water happens to be the most powerful green house gas there is.
There's already a fair bit of water in the atmosphere, adding more adds heat, and makes for more extreme rain.
Well you're right about that, a little bit more CO2 certainly can make plants grow faster.
Unfortunately that's good and bad.
If the plant that grows faster is a food plant, that plant will be less nutritious.
That means you have to eat more just to get the same nutrients.
The moral of the story is that climate change comes with good consequences, and bad consequences.
Only a very few life forms seem to be seeing any real benefit from our warming world.
A whole bunch including Coral, The Joshua Tree, and some penguins, are seeing bad, to devastating results from just the little bit of climate change so far.
@@jimthain8777I know you mean well however look back in history were core samples have proven there have been many long periods of time with far higher levels of C02 yet lowered temperatures and the inverse as well. Evidence there are far more factors to natural climate change than we know. We are simply being penalized and none of the aims for the future are good.
Wait, so Dane Wigington was right all along?
This is definitely what comes to my mind when I think of how we cause our own extinction
We’ll have no choice but to try it, because our own extinction is basically already baked into the cake if we don’t do it
@@deanfowles3707it’s already baked in no matter what we do
@@Jc-ms5vv I don’t believe so. The worst climate impacts come from temperatures being too high, and Solar geoengineering would reduce temperatures quickly. that much isn’t disputed. I’d say We’re in with a chance if people can just accept that we are where we are and that this is going to be necessary
@@deanfowles3707 You have the air of a person suggesting the Titanic ought to have accelerated in the hope the increased momentum might break the iceberg.
Or someone who's sure the heat in the frying pan justifies jumping into the fire.
@@Jc-ms5vv" it’s already baked in no matter what we do". Utter garbage. Most plants benefit from more CO2 and also become much more drought resistant. The IPCC is NOT predicting extinction, this is the kind of crap spouted by illiterate millennials and gen-zerz who don't even know the first thing about climate or science.
I'mcurrently finishing my master thesis, and my research group saw a important fact with climate and aerosols.
In our case, we study the part climate in central Brazil, mostly recent past (holocene). We saw that every major volcanic eruption in the last 30k years caused peaks of rainfall in the region, with severe flooding associated (including the formation of lakes in some cases).
Now get this: the exact same volcanic eruptions caused severe droughts and thus severe famines in Mexico / central America. The exact same aerosols.
We should not do any geoengineering, ever, and that side with the balloons is outright criminal. Yes he must be stopped and locked up.
Lock up a dude with balloons? That's abit much. If a few grams of sulfur were a big deal than maybe we should put a big filter on top of volcanos. And it sounds like we should plan for the next large volcanic eruption. Also, did your research account for the effects of high atmosphere aerosols and lower atmosphere aerosols and particulate matter vs. molecular gases? I have a feeling those other materials also have a noticeable impact.
Assuming you’re telling the truth a well made Solar geoengineering regime wouldn’t be like a volcano anyway, This has been talked about plenty. For best results itd be done symmetrically in southern and northern hemispheres at matching latitudes close to the equator and I believe also a second matching pair of injections closer to the poles. It’s different to a volcano in a bunch of other ways also in terms of what it puts into the atmosphere and suchlike. Also even if you’re correct Brazil gets badly flooded Mexico dries up. What’s that compared to? Have you seen the maps of 2070 that show unmitigated climate change causing sound half of all land including almost all of Brazil being unliveable because of heat . And bearing in mind scientists are always conservative and again and again have underestimated climate change. If they’re saying by 2070 40% of landmass will be unliveable you can bet your last Buck it’s more like 80%.
Lastly we got ourselves into this awful mess because we thought we knew better than scientists. I think it’s time they were listened to. There’s an hour long talk out just today with Doug Macmartin on Solar geoengineering and he’s an expert in this field, Give it a Listen and keep an open mind for Christ sake
The startup entrepreneur with a Gen Z hair cut is a joke. I think SAI (stratospheric aerosol injection) has possibly been going on for a long time on a massive scale. SAI has been the preferred term for this intervention for a long time. Google Harvard Scientist David Keith.
@@willjapheth23789, ahh a thinker. I'm not being sarcastic. Yes what about the molecular changes to atmospheric composition other than CO2? What about how much denser other post combustion gas products are than natural air? Also what about the removal by solidification of gigatons of Nitrogen annually from the atmosphere? Could any of this be impacting the actual volume of the atmosphere? What would happen in the volume of the atmosphere were to move steadily in a decreasing direction?
@tkmair6559 yea, smog is definitely an issue if that's what you mean. Like banning 2 stroke engines would do more than complaining about an unprofitable pipe dream of high altitude sulfur dioxide. Atleast until a government tries it on a larger scale.
I assume you are talking about fertilizer in regards to Nitrogen. The N2 component of the Nitrogen cycle I seriously doubt would be a problem, however, the other components of the Nitrogen cycle are damaged by fertilizer like increasing ocean Nitrogen levels that cause algae blooms or NO2 which can cause acid rain.
If we are going do this, it MUST be regulated to the extreme. And small nobody's who know nothing about how our atmosphere works should be barred from doing it.
If we do this it should be Tyrannically controlled. Then, that entity overseeing it cannot ever possibly become corrupt because Humans don't do that. Therefore, we win..... So damn stupid.
Hmmm? We are doing this and have been doing this for a long time and its killing us, and the web of life with it. The ship is sinking fast unless you are not using your God given senses.
The problem w that is, all it takes is a big nobody like Elon, for example, to grift everyone into these dangerous experiments.
NO…. WE CAN’T EVEN TALK LIKE THAT.. IT MUST NOT HAPPEN AT ALL
Humans are so shit for brained…. Paint everything white…. Get rid of all the black roads… we can do so many other things to start… bring back our wetlands.. our tall grasses which are vital to cooling and carbon storage
Even people who know about the atmosphere don't know enough.
Lots of unanswered questions:
What exactly is being sprayed across the skies?
What happens when those particulates filter down and are breathed in?
Are the particulates helpful or harmful to plants, land, and waterways?
Are we drinking these particulates?
Exactly. And who gave permission for us to be lab rats while they spray chemicals in our skies? They need to leave things alone!
Very nice reporting. You handled the presentation of both sides of this extremely sensitive issue incredibly well. Kudos!
Personally, I think it's too early yet to consider geoengineering - it should be a last resort. And crucially, any solution we consider must be reversible. This would disqualify the idea of releasing gas into the sky, for example. The only geoengineering solutions we consider (for our one and only planet) are ones that can be reversed quickly if things go wrong.
Well we're a little bit too late they've been spraying us for many many years now .
There's a big difference between condensation trails and chemical trails. I'll give you a hint one is very poisonous and hazardous to human health and the other one just releases mostly water vapor.
Can you guess which one Bill Gates endorses and actually funds?
Listening to all the of the so-called experts and government officials for decades they are the ones who led us into this mess. Why in the hell would we be listening to them. They are not spraying us to help save us they're spraying us to kill us wake the hell up already. 🧐🤨
Been going on for years. Watch, THE DIMMING, by Dane Wigington.
Didn't cover both sides well. The most important concern wasn't even mentioned! Even if this plan did work, if there was ever, over the next many hundreds of years, an interruption in the regular scheduled release of the aerosols, the suddenly unregulated heating effect of all the greenhouse gasses would scorch the planet and possibly kill us all!
What organization are you going to bank on being around in 500 years? Right now terrorists would need nuclear bombs to kill us all. If we go ahead with this kind of geoengineering, all they would have to do is disrupt the aerosol system for a couple of days.
Honestly, until we can all start rowing in the same direction on climate change (and not ignoring it) anything we do won't be enough.
Sorry, best we can do is more deregulation so that corporations can get that short term return for the owners. Gotta get that infinite growth.
Ultimately this is about rich people using their power, lobbying, to keep getting that short term return.
I'll row as long as my water is whiter and fluffier
Honestly I think you’re 100 percent right, anything WE do won’t be enough. But the big corporations and governments can definitely do enough to offset climate change and continue to function as a society. They just don’t give a shit about us and they only care about profit profit profit. They could unalive an entire country and they won’t care if there’s profit to be made. We can all agree on that right ?
@@davidruiz8689 I agree with this. However someday it’ll be real tough to turn a profit if everyone is dead. 🤷♂️
What is the correct temperature for the earth?
If the climate crisis teaches us anything it is that a lot of small actions can result in enormous consequences for generations. So for once can we actually follow the prudence principle and not experiment on billions of people?!
Too late, industrial civ always was a massive, uncontrolled experiment.
Exactly
Human cause climate change is fake like many other things. The average temperature has been much warmer than now throughout more of the Earths past with no polar ice caps
This biochemist says stop/defund the Haarp and aerosol nucleation programs.
Wake up people.
Not when there is money to be made by the psychopaths
They have been doing geoengineering for years. Chemtrails from planes never used to remain in the sky for hours when they were just contrails.
Operation Popeye
Vietnam
Operation Popeye
Vietnam
Another excellent video, topic and presentation. I am not a scientist, but unequivocally in the no geoengineering camp. Why?Because our efforts need to go 100% to cutting emissions and creating good practices to go forward into the future in a way that protects humanity and all of our children's children of the future. No side tracking, no grey area, no more experimentation.
The easiest way for anyone to lower their carbon footprint is to eliminate animal products from our diet. It's easy and cheap compared to other options on an individual basis, but so many people won't make that sacrifice. 😢 Thoughts?
Yes, or switching to a cheaper meats like chicken that have much less of a carbon footprint.
Thanks for featuring us PBS Terra!
complex issue. is there any way to estimate lives saved vs lost if they go through with it? like will it be even worse if we don’t do it?
but yeah i absolutely believe industry would use that as an excuse for business as usual. maybe it should become law that fossil fuels use has to stop BEFORE any last ditch efforts like geoengineering
Why do people keep talking about saving lives? I certainly would not volunteer to perish earlier than anticipated but the planet might have different plans for me. Mass death is frightening but denial and delusion are more to the point in this issue.
@@danielfaben5838 the planet doesnt care if we try to save ourselves or not we have no reason not to try to save ourselves
you should watch some talks featuring scientists actually working on srm. david keith, pete irvine, doug macmartin, jesse reynolds, wake smith amongst many others. all of the evidence so far is that srm would save a heck of a lot more lives than it would end.
personally having studied climate change and srm for years i dont know how we get through this century without some degree of srm
The purpose of this geoengineering is more to take a stand on continuing to support the profits of carbon fuel companies and carry on as usual. It's funny that the kind of effects we're having are more difficult to detect and span over longer time frames such that the majority of us don't notice its encroachment. Now we're trying to find ways to ignore our effect, effectively kicking the can of climate and ecological catastrophe into harder, or impossible, to manage scenarios. This will be a tactic used, and it will effectively screw us.
This is the best comment I have read on this video
Great! You understand. The majority of these comments are ignoring reality and pretending we can continue this lifestyle despite the destruction of everything that makes our planet special.
@@reallymysterious4520 Thank you.
@@nicholasdemetriades9154 I'm only trying. But thank you.
ruclips.net/video/2FZXDzej0lU/видео.htmlsi=s-MebYXEzz2B21R8
We'll do anything except reduce consumption and stop persuing endless growth......
No, we don't all agree. The projections of IPCC climate models have proven to be useless for the past 40 years. There is no climate crisis. There is no significant contribution to the natural global heating expected from increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere - almost all the radiation in the CO2 absorption bands is already absorbed by the current 400 ppm concentration, additional CO2 will have virtually no effect. Recent alarming temperature statistics are the result of measuring station locations becoming subject to the "heat island" effect due to encroaching urbanization (concrete, asphalt, etc.). Glaciers have been melting since the end of the last ice age; they will continue to melt until the next ice age and there is nothing we can do about it. Frequency, extent and severity of hurricanes and wildfires have not increased, contrary to IPCC climate model predictions. The climates hysteria is just another in a never-ending series of hoaxes being perpetrated on an uncritical public in an attempt to frighten people into surrendering control over their own lives to a small cadre of scientifically illiterate bureaucrats.
They think they're putting up an umbrella, but they're putting the lid on a pot that is heating on a stove. They're making it worse, because they've got it wrong.
No, they know exactly what they're doing. Muhahaha🤐💀🍻
The lid is already in place, always has been if you really think about it.
@@peterbaruxis2511 Creating more cloud is making it worse.
@@jhaduvala and youre a peer reviewed scientist are you? the public thinking they know better than scientists is at least half the reason we got into the mess of global warming in the first place. have a bit of humility and admit that you should probably listen to people who have studied this for decades.
@@Solar.Geoengineering.Advocate We're losing the global heatsink. climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ocean-warming/
Why was there no mention of our very generous Gill Bates. Giving grants to Professors like David Keith at Harvard University. Theses guys are the "savior of the world". Blocking out the sun to cool the planet is the dumbest thing you could do as the Sun not only warms our planet but has energy for plants animals people that we need to survive. Not to mention the whole reverse osmosis. Disclaimer im not a scientist but neither is Gill Bates.
In our Midwestern area chemtrails are sprayed daily in the morning and evening and has been so for years. Who and what is spraying us like bugs?
My understanding is that its NATO, so that our government doesn’t have to take responsibility for what that spray does to us & nature. Those planes are drones so that keeps people from coming forward about it. They’ve had drones since before JFK days. The spray is toxic and cause dementia & Alzheimer’s plus lots of respiratory issues. The particles are nano is size so they penetrate our skin & get into our blood stream.
WHO WEF AND UN.
They do it over Montreal and its every 2 days on average. once they spray its 36 to 48 hours till it rains. Sometimes they do it so much that they overlap and when it actucaly rains its huge storms systems followed by rapid winds of 70 to 80 kh.
also they've been doing it a night and you can tell by raibow halos forming around the moon.
NOAA how to report cloud seeding , go check it out scroll down and read all the types of cloud seating and other programs but please note in the paragraph you will read at the top the fed. does not have to report on their activities.
@@Primeslayer1 Switzerland same shit!
Yo as someone who cares deeply about this topic and reads constantly about it..... This is the best RUclips vid I've seen on it. Bang on with the description of the Faustian Bargain and bang on with the pitfalls of geoengineering.
Maybe another vid on history of sulfur emissions, acid rain, on-road sulfur diesel regulations of the 2000s, China desulphurization of 2010, and IMO 2020 ocean regulations?
Maybe folks would be less eager to Geoengineer with sulfur if they knew that we've been doing it for 100 years already! It took a generation and billions of dollars of investment, but we got the sulfur OUT OF THE SKY. JUST IN THE LAST COUPLE YEARS! WE FINALLY DID IT, MANY LIFETIMES OF WORK FOR MANY PEOPLE.
And the Geoengineers just wanna.... Undo it?
youre making a mistake there. yes getting sulphur out of the troposphere is a great idea. but with solar geoengineering we would be putting sulphate aerosols in the stratosphere. much higher up. we would also only need a small fraction of the amount of sulphate we were putting into the troposphere at its peak in the 80's to be able to cause substantial cooling. so the harms of sulphate aerosols in the stratosphere are never gonna be as bad as what we suffered in the 80's at least going by everything we know so far.
The UK say no geoengineering operations are happening currently. That's a lie and its been happening years.
There are many ways to geo engineer, I’m sure certain have less risks than others. So we definitely need to do more research in this directions.
the only research is the real life model,, unless!! maybe we are the experiment model world!!!
My concern about injecting sulfur aerosols into the stratosphere is that it could once again deplete the ozone layer, in addition to any other unintended consequences, known or unknown.
Marine Cloud Brightening, whilst needing more proving research/testing, seems to be a much more promising geoengineering option, because it can be localised to selected ocean areas with low altitude cumulus clouds. The ejected sprayed material is basically non-toxic salt sprays.
Although MCB would need a fleet of specialized ships for the tasks, perhaps there are many available, & unused, in storage which could be suitably modified at no great cost
Where we must CONTINUE aerosol masking, if we enjoy consuming food, is over 3 of the 4 major food producing regions. US Midwest, India and East China all have high SO2 levels currently. Take away the SO2 with these rapidly increasing global avg temperatures and that will be all she wrote for humanity. Our food producing days are numbered here in the Midwest even with our generous endowment of SO2, courtesy of Big Coal.
The Midwest is losing its topsoil as well.
I’d like to know why PBS Terra didn’t interview any African scientists for this package so they could tell us how they feel about this.
OMG go home. It's not about how they feel. It's about global affectations of man made climate change and the top scientists in the field were queried.
You should all watch a speech by Anni Pokela called 1.5 is gone without climate intervention. And another recent Ted talk by Juan Enriquez called decarbonising won’t be enough we have to lower temperatures. These are two of the best layman’s terms assessments of the situation we are really in and why Solar geoengineering will probably be necessary
"There are huge non climate effects of carbon dioxide which are overwhelmingly favorable which are not taken into account. To me that's the main issue that the earth is actually growing greener. This has been actually measured from satellites the whole earth is growing greener as a result of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So it's increasing agricultural yields, it's increasing the forests, it's increasing all kinds of growth in the biological world and that's more important and more certain than the effects on climate." ~Freeman Dyson, Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey.
So, I am for it. Or we are going to die from heat. Today it's 31st of October, I was in Zagreb, temperature was 20 dg C an. a summer storm with heavy rain and wind was going on. When I was a kid, it uso too freeze at those times in Zagreb. And even more in Ljubljana.
We’re not going to die from heat, you’re exaggerating
yeah im in that same boat. honestly this needs to become a new climate movement bigger than Xrebellion. people who are for accelerated research, broad public conversation and probably full scale deployment of srm. because everything ive learned about climate change says we've had it otherwise. i too have seen conditions in places i grew up completely change in just 30 years.
Crazy how consumers used to be told that arisols were bad for the environment and to refrain from using them, and now we’re using them to try and save the environment instead.
Well that is part of the whole debate around this. They do have negative consequences. But with the major consequences of climate change people are asking if the cooling impact of certain aerosols outweighs their costs. And they are releasing them in the upper atmosphere so a bit different than consumers using them on the ground.
*certain* aerosols, and by 'we", you mean a handful of groups, with lots and lots of dissenting voices among the scientific community.
I believe hair metal will be brought back in an effort to save the planet.
From conspiracy theory to PBS documentary
This Geoengeneatring is going on already,and is the cause of many autoamuno deases already,including asma ,naisal drip ,fungal infections caused by the rapid increas in fungas, boul deseases, constipation, and diabetic conditions, and high blood pressure.
There will be no halting of this geo-engineering as long as countries demand it and lots of money can be made from it.
We are stuck in the paradigm shift of BRUTE CAPITALISM.
I love the fact that the planes releasing aerosols in the graphic 0:37 are Lockheed Constellations.
Just asking.... are you against them using Lockheed?
This is ALREADY HAPPENING!!!
Ministry for the Future by Kim Stanley Robinson is a good sci-fi novel about climate change. In the story they employed cloud seeding tactics as well as methods to refreeze Antarctica. It's a pretty good book.
Seconded.
A little more on the topic of geo engineering- there's "°C" by Marc Elsberg. It's a sci-fi thriller. I'm not sure whether it's available in English or just in German.
Really amazing video and great host as well, I had never heard of this topic before !
This makes me believe we’re coming into biblical prophecy. I find it interesting the volcano naturally did what man is trying to do. Man should be still and allow God to act but they’re going against the ability for the planet to heal itself. Let Go and Let God. Revelation 11:18 says
18 The nations were angry, and your wrath has come. The time has come for judging the dead, and for rewarding your servants the prophets and your people who revere your name, both great and small- and for destroying those who destroy the earth.”
My summers have gotten just colder and shorter...
And if it keeps on like this i think i will move to a warmer county.
The arguments against are pretty compelling in my view. However, small scale experimentation and incrementally scaling to the ideal level (possibly zero) is something we will have to do in parallel. We are at a point where we may need to try any and all solutions.
spot on, although i would say watch the is solar geoengineering a crazy idea debate that took place a while back and can be found on this site and i have to say the arguments that solar geoengineering is NOT a crazy idea are pretty damn strong. and that panel ended up winning the debate according to audience polling.
Yet another great video! Well done. I do however have a very important point to add. First and foremost: dependency! We do not want to become dependent upon any geoengineering technology to keep us safe. As was pointed out in your video, should CO2 and other Industrial Age greenhouse gases (GHGs) be allowed to continue to increase, being offset by industrial production of other industrially generated anti-GHG, should the later fail to be produced or be curtailed by political pressure against their inevitable negative side effects, global warming will RAPIDLY AND CATASTROPHICALLY increase! Moreover, we, the general public, will be even more dependent upon these external providers to provide our life support. I say even more dependent because we are ALREADY extremely dependent upon these outside providers to provide our food, water, clothing, shelter, livelihood, power, trash collection, communication, transportation, defense, safety, security, entertainment, etc. etc. etc.! Who are these external life-support providers and who controls them? They are big government and big business and they are both controlled by global elites! If you are dependent upon them to provide your life-support then they OWN you! They own you thoughts, values, actions and most importantly - your vote! What is liberty? Liberty, according to Lord Acton, the foremost scholarly authority on the subject, is NOT the right to do whatever you want (regardless of the harm that it may do to other humans and to our ecological life-support system), rather it is the right to do as you ought - to act according to your conscience to do the right, moral and ethical thing (which is why we have the Bill of Rights). If someone is controlling your life-support and thus controlling your vote, do you have liberty? NO! Your liberty is being denied! Can we have a democracy or even a representative government without liberty? NO! Thus our answer is clear, dependency upon ALL external providers for our life-support must be eliminated! Start with yourself, then work on your family, friends, coworkers, neighbors. Spiral outwards from there. No one can do it alone. Do what you can, network with others. Trade surplus for surplus in an expanding mutual aid network. Collectively you will become more self sustaining and independent. You will regain your liberty and your right to vote according to your conscience. Those who currently control public policy will be powerless, redundant, useless and unnecessary. We have to take back our liberty to take back our democracy and we have to take back our democracy if we want to mitigate and control climate change and stop its dire and deadly consequences. That’s our path forward. Let’s start today! 🌎🌍🌏
To be honest there are better ways and poisoning the air anymore won’t help anything. I will just make this worse, not only for the environment but for people who spend their entire lives outside and for those who find sanctuary outside. I knew that climate change was real but when I experienced the changes from negatives to Oregon winter weather temperatures in Alaska within a span of a few hours for the first time I felt that fear.
well for one thing this would be putting sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere. . they would fall out but they would fall out evenly over the whole globe. the actual quantities needed to offset a substantial amount of global warming would be a tiny fraction of what we were putting into the troposphere in the 80's the troposphere is the part of the atmosphere that we live. we also could switch to chalk dust later which has no downsides like sulphate aerosols but we are more worried about uncertainties because the stratosphere doesnt naturally contain any chalk dust but it does naturally contain sulphate aerosols.
It has been done since 1969!
It has intensified since 2012. Today you can't see the blue sky BUT a gray cover almost EVERY DAY!
So why not just say this.
Last ditch effort my ass. This has been going on for decades and is to blame for all the insane weather. Dumping poison on the populace and altering weather believe it or not is a bad idea! A horrific idea.
There's another issue with solar geoengineering that we need to talk about as well. CO2 levels above 1000ppm have been shown to significantly reduce cognitive function. It's why opening the window for fresh air makes you feel better. If we use aerosols to cool the Earth, it gives polluters a pass to take us to 1000ppm of CO2.
Looking at all the idiots out there, I would suggest the CO2 levels we now have are affecting human cognitive abilities now.
CO2 levels above 1,000 ppm is typical of enclosed spaces. That study is rubbish when so many people’s cognitive function don’t get negatively affected by CO2 levels that high
one of the main reasons I just straight up refuse to really discuss geoengineering as a potential solution is I fear it will go the same way as carbon capture and just be a mythical technology that doesnt really exist in any meaningful way that allows corporations the pr pass to keep doing as they were by saying they can fix it in the future. co2 also affects plant yields and many other problems so it mostly just feels like a regression to the idea that climate change is only global warming.
@@yancgc5098 You're right that CO2 levels above 1000ppm are common in enclosed and poorly ventilated spaces. I own a CO2 detector. But imagine opening the window in the future and getting the equivalent of today's stale indoor air. Sounds horrible, doesn't it?
@@bobbyc1120 The stale air from enclosed poorly ventilated places is the result of a combination of high CO2 and lower oxygen level. That would be different from high CO2 levels in an outdoor area with regular oxygen levels.
I’m a horticulturist
Earthworms have been gone for 3 yrs in Rome ga Floyd county after noticeable 5 yr decline in health
Most birds been gone most bugs been gone for a decade +
Plants growing in crazy cycles
Vegetable plants stopped growing after 2 nights warmer than days
Just in Rome ga
Nobody sees this but I’ve called other research horticulturists ALLover the world
We see the same things
It’s already over
This is already happening... nice pretend "We might do this" show
Everything in the documentary Earth 2100 is coming true it’s terrifying.
Don’t think there was enough information to make a decision yes or no. The sunset company seemed pretty half hazard about putting stuff in the atmosphere.
nobody is asking for a yes or no. the scientists working on this just want there to be a broad public conversation around srm and also accelerated research with more people working on it.
The funny thing is they’re already doing it across the planet you just have to look up ☁️
We need to at least examine every potential tool in the tool box - if cloud seeding over the poles can be done safely and to good effect, let's give that a go.
I agree with you. Doing nothing is not an option. Even if we fail, at least the survivors will know we tried.
@@GermanSausagesAreTheWurst There won't be survivors.
You're totally, totally, lost.@@GermanSausagesAreTheWurst
Failure = no survivors.@@GermanSausagesAreTheWurst
The best tool in the box is to reflect light back rather than absorb it in places where it gets too hot.
We’ll either band together or accept dying together.
DO NOT APOLOGIZE FOR DISCUSSING THINGS.
Do not apologize for getting FACTS into the mix. ...I am so grateful!
Sulfer dioxide acidifies water forming sulfuric acid. Our oceans are dying partly because CO2 also acidifies water forming carbonic acid. We went through the acid rain crisis in the 1980's when large forests were dying because of acid rain and laws were passed to clean up emissions. Not only does the reduction of sunlight reduce photosynthesis that plants (and our food) rely on but pH matters to all life. The only real solution to our warming climate is for all people to consume less. Less driving, less stuff, less meat and dairy, less junk food. No wants to hear it and the media is afraid to say it.
And this is why class struggle is so often left out of the question, because most of the media people see is owned by the billionaire class whose class interests are directly responsible for much of the causes of global warming (excessive and wasteful consumption, car-centred living, and economic extraction from the global south that keeps people so poor that they must deforest and overfish, etc.)
Exactly
We human beings have infinitesimal knowledge but just enough to be our own worst enemy of our species and many other species, while being possessed of infinite desires and wishful thinking. That's the fundamental problem.
I think implementing sulfur dioxide in a small scale and closely monitor the effects could be a step in the right direction
It keep it at a small scale
No
How do you keep something that is released in the upper atmosphere small scale?
It could be. The problem is to do that well and see the effects of those small-scale actions. Consider also the complexity of the atmospheric interactions and then you have results that are very hard to interpret.
For me, it should be more about forecasting the probability of extreme events with or without sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere. We have climate models that could give us some probabilistic results and we should at least try to understand whether it could make sense to take the risk of putting some other gases in the atmosphere. The etic parts that say that it's wrong to do that are ignoring that we have already done that but with CO2 instead of SO2.
I'm not saying we don't have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but we also have to consider the option of emitting a gas with a reverse impact.
It's already been tested via cleaning up bunker fuel for ships in the Atlantic. We know what happens and how it works. We just don't know what the large scale effects will be. No testing needed.
The people who will suffer most if this goes wrong are of course those who have the least say in the matter. And the people that these startups don't care about the people they might hurt as they chase the profit from their poorly-thought-out unregulated activities. The arrogance and entitlement of Luke Iseman and others like him is what's terrifying. This is the kind of subject that we desperately need global input on, and lots and lots of scientists voices, from many different disciplines, and regulation, and agreements, if we're going to pursue, because this affects the entire planet.
Yeah, how’s that working out? Those bastards
Like any other problem, sometimes you will not have the time to get the perfect solution
This is how we think about the problem with climate change. Stratospheric aerosol injection is not the perfect solution, but it's the most well studied and has been observed in nature via stratovolcanic eruptions. Amoung the different types of Solar radiation managment techniques (painting your roof white, mirrors on the ground, marine cloud brightening, cirrus cloud thinning, space mirrors.) Stratospheric aerosol injection is the least expensive, reversible, and scalable until we find a better stop gap solution. Make Sunsets' mission is to cool Earth safely until we can stop burning fossil fuels and scale up carbon removal.
That clown with the balloons is actually creating a Frankensteinish response to an impending climate catastrophe. it appears we are all Bozos on this bus.
Also, Helium is a finite resource. Not going to get far with that technique.
I don’t remember voting for this. So I’m against it.
Why is reduction of greenhouse gases not on the table before injection ?
I think reduction of greenhouse gases has been on the table for a long time. How's it working out? It's not great from where I'm standing. I think people who propose these types of solutions are trying to see the situation for it is. We haven't been able to come together and make the changes needed. It's like turning to a desperate ladt chance. Ya know?
Why not both? We’ve already raised the average temperature significantly; we need to stop doing things that keep raising it _and_ do whatever we can to reduce it.
a reduction of greenhouse gasses was never on the table because the table is sat at by only those who stand to gain from continued use of greenhouse gasses
why not both? because temperature is just a factor among the many influences climate change has. we do not know what the effects of this will be in the long term, we could be hurting the climate without knowing because the effects of this are not well understood or studied.@@trevinbeattie4888
I just think these technologies need to be further developed to ensure their safety to avoid a further catastrophe
I would like to see more case studies on this. We have a way to map how releasing aerosols into the air. A computer model that shows the effects of different amounts of aerosols in both hamisters and around the equator might be able to help. I know it will not be completely accurate. I also know it has been useful in the past.
Hamisters?
Is that hamsters or hemispheres?
@@kieranh2005 It's Hemisphere. Spell check strikes again.
We are the case study. Civilizations unknown to us who already understand the menace and horror of computers are watching and planning with paper and pencil.
Bill Gates is a big fan of solar geoengineering and I’m convinced his personal fascination is why we all hear about it so often. That “cats out of the bag” line is repeated on countless articles about this.
By a big fan of you mean it’s something he thinks we might have to do. Well I’m with him on that one
@@deanfowles3707 "we" "have" to do solar geoengineering in the same way "we" "had" to drive the indians off their land
@@___.51 hmm that’s not even apples and oranges, that’s apples and a crystal flute
@@deanfowles3707 there is no we, and there is no need
@@___.51 old man you can continue to deny reality all you want
Aerosols in the atmosphere is one of the dumbest ideas of all time.
We conducted another experiment in 2020, by reducing SO2 emissions from global shipping. It is the top suspect for unusually hot summer this year.
I don’t buy that argument. Earth energy imbalance has been steadily increasing for 20 years. Higher EEI = more rapid increase in global avg temperature. EEI is the most fundamental, informative climate metric which explains why you hear nothing about it.
You mean, COVID Experiment? 😅
@@haidiralias5098 No
Incorrect. Global shipping’s reduced emissions is now considered to be a perceptible, but minor, driver of this year’s extraordinary heat.
@@EAZinPDX really based on what new evidence?
Suddenly, everyone in the comment sections become a scientist with 10 PhD
😂😂😂
Our main focus needs to be on eliminating fossil fuels from our energy infrastructure and solving the issue of green energy storage. Things like carbon capture and geoengineering ultimately feel like distractions by trying to convince us they're ways to let us keep burning fossil fuels. Certainly it should be studied and experiments need to be conducted, but it shouldn't be considered a first line solution.
all of the scientists working on solar geoengineering agree with you completely and go to great lengths to say it but its also true that we can do many things at once. srm is insanely cheap and so it really wouldnt be taking valuable resources away from all the other mitigation efforts. so imo youre right but srm accelerated research, governance preperation and building the means to be able to do it if we need to do it needs to happen asap.
You say that the US and Europe did something to cool the North Atlantic ocean. Your video title says "Did Geoengineering ALREADY Cause a Massive Famine?" You try to paint the picture that this involved intent. Climate or geoengineering is an intentional act or series of actions. I watched this whole video just for you to show that it was pollution that contributed to this famine ( 7:17 ). Pollution is NOT a form of geoengineering. Engineering doesn't occur by accident. It involves the deliberate application of knowledge to address a problem. You've misrepresented what occurred in the 80s.
Not an accident. They know
Everything we do has unexpected consequences. If we continue to make things hotter, I'm for cooling the earth in an attempt to counter it.
people working on solar geoengineering have already said that patchy srm like the one you talked about, where just one area is made more reflective can have effects like this. thats why what is suggested is srm everywhere. im not delighted by the idea but where we are headed with global warming is absolutely apocalyptic, so i support accelerated srm research and probably deployment
I'm neither for nor against geoengineering and no one else should be ar this point either. In the short term, no we absolutely shouldn't be implementing it on any large scale. However, with a great deal of study and experimentation we may find methods and processes that are relatively predictable and are short lived enough that they can be halted and the system return to its pre-intervention state. We're already passing an altered and indisputably polluted Earth to our kids, it's our duty to work hard to reverse that in as many ways as we can.
No. Be against geoengineering. Our ONLY option is ending fossil fuels.
Naythjng else is a dangerous pipe dream
The problem is that with the climate there is no such thing as an isolated experiment, everything you do in the atmosphere could affect anyone and with unintended consecuneces, and also it has effects in long terms so long that we maybe would not identify the consequences of it for decades, so it is better not. The solution for climate change is to stop using fossil fuels, not easy but at least it is certain that if we stop the carbon emission we stop the climate change.
We need to think about how "seeding the atmosphere" can easily backfire. If it causes another drought (and we don't know where) it can cause another famine, even more global chaos, war, all terrible disasters that make dealing with the climate crisis more difficult.
The global atmospheric and weather systems are incredibly complex and far beyond our ability to fully understand or know the exact outcomes everywhere in the world of "seeding the atmosphere." It is likely impossible to know for sure what it will do to any particular country or region, due to the complexity.
No theoretical model exists than can really encompass the whole system. 1. because we don't know everything involved, 2, we don't have the computing power to calculate such a model and therefore already limit what we feed into such models. End result of previous such tries was opposite of expected outcomes. Downright bad idea when the stakes are this high.
I am against solar geoengineering, if we’re really gonna tackle climate change we must be responsible and exercise caution. It is wrong to solve a problem by creating another, that’s gonna affect a group of people who who really don’t deserve it and are unable to fix the problem
I dont think it's at all controversial. What we know is unequivocal, and constantly develops, and we know what we've done and are continuing to do. The only "controversy" is contrived from the agendas of offending corporations to continue their wealth extraction.
Finally a video that is truthfully;
We don’t know enough!
Fact!
we do know the impacts, in terms of a simily volcanic eruption.
finally this is reaching the mainstream
How will blocking/reflecting sunlight affect photosynthesizing organisms?
it shouldn't, chlorophyl only absorb very specific wavelengths
You can either have photosynthesis or relatively, reasonably cool summer temperatures. You get one or the other not both.
@@entropy8634 Mate, photosynthesis needs light, less light means less photosynthesis. Cooling the planet with geoengineering is a bad idea
@@yancgc5098 again, not necessarily, chlorophyll only absorbs 430-660 nm wavelength, sulphur dioxide reflects only 320 nm. Please, it only took me 30 sec to verify, stop spreading misinformation
The fact remains the people behind Geoengineering don't care what anybody thinks.
We have long been a slave to the weather and we should find ways to deal and live better with it. This new idea should be given a chance.