But the "wise response" - ie. a dramatic reduction in emissions - seems politically and economically un-doable. The long term 'green transition' is under way, but slow. Perhaps engineering solutions offer a chance to bridge the gap. I don't think we've got much to lose at this stage of the game.
@@philiprice6961 the problem is that you assume climate change science is sound when it has been proven to be a political tool since the 80s. If the science were better than, "there is a negligible increase of CO2 in the atmosphere due to deforestation and industry." What would these people think they could do during the ice age? Throw a lasso around the sun and pull it closer? Ignorant of the effects it would have long-term.
@@human_isomer Correct. SCIENCE DEMONSTRATES FOSSIL FUELS, CO2 AND OTHER GHGs WILL NOT CAUSE CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL WARMING AND EXTREME WEATHER + Reliable Science is Based on Validating Theoretical Predictions With Observations, Not Consensus, Peer - Review, Government Opinion or Cherry-Picked or Falsified Data + The Models Predicting Catastrophic Warming and Extreme Weather Fail the Key Scientific Test: They Do Not Work, and Would Never Be Used in Science. + 600 Million Years of CO2 and Temperature Data Contradict the Theory That High Levels of CO2 Will Cause Catastrophic Global Warming. + Atmospheric CO2 Is Now “Heavily Saturated,” Which in Physics Means More CO2 Will Have Little Warming Effect. + The Theory Extreme Weather is Caused by Fossil Fuels, CO2 and Other GHGs is Contradicted by the Scientific Method and Thus is Scientifically Invalid
@@human_isomer what is the "good idea"? Because most people during the ice age probably wouldn't have predicted global warming due to industry (their words not mine.) The idea that we're destined for ruin is based on frankly fragile assumptions that humanity is causing more harm than is natural to the geological processes of the planet as a whole.
She makes some good points. I will add one thing. Local weather engineering from large countries has the potential to destroy smaller countries, even entire regions, and could ignite WW3.
Agreed! The activists who are preventing experiments from being done today are _literally_ anti-science. They are directly working to prevent us from knowing things we need to know about geoengineering options. _Never_ trust anyone who works to take an option off the table _and_ keep us in the dark about it.
The current worldwide strategy is to continue fossil fuel sales and just let climate change happen. The US and EU are almost irrelevant in the discussion. No one on EARTH is more deluded about their political power than climate scientists. They just don't get that people don't want to listen to the smarties anymore.
@@SabineHossenfelder The study about Rotherham grooming gangs has shown that members of grooming gangs were predominantly Pakistani men. Keir Starmer tried to cover up the evidence to present Britain as successful multicultural society and you try to present him as a victim because he was criticized on the internet?
Weather modification projects are numerous, on-going, and have been happening for decades now. It's an open secret. There are even public websites tracking these projects. Last time I check there were about 80 happening world wide. The sheep are instructed to remain in denial about it however.
I'm just putting this comment here in hopes that it'd be seen. What about the roads? And the asphalt roofs? And the actual heat being generated, one roof in the sun is probably beyond a cars engine running.
Chemtrails are defined by conspiracy theorists as toxic chemicals meant to have nefarious, targeted effects. Stratospheric particles to create clouds do not meet this definition.
I dunno, it seems to me that we, as a species, are all collectively going through the same process of bad decision making, poor judgement and finally, when it is too late, panic...the same general decision process we always tend to use when faced with new and difficult challenges.
stress aka: anger,hostility,resistance, grief, guilt, fear,indifference,separation, no choice : let everybody tend to more bad decisions. It is not coded in genes.
I suggest to do first research into the mechanisms of how cognitive dissonance interferes with decision making. How do these mechanisms work that make us look away (don't look up), sticking with fighting symptoms instead of looking into causes, keeping stimulating emissions. Taboo? Because of cognitive dissonance?
That in turn reminds me of the Emu War in Australia, but something tells me the war on Sparrows and this local geoengineering will be much more catastrophic
Quite opposite scientists and politicans are frequently too scared by public opinion- that have close to zero idea about many topics to push for innovative ideas even for small scale trials we experienced it few years ago with mRNA vaccines.
@ Why do you have 3 days to read them all if I'd list them... How about using mercury as medicine, happily hunting Buffalo (to near extinction), war, innumerable financial bubbles, militarism, slavery, all of the many things disregarding the environment, racism, Colonialism, sexism, ...
@tvuser9529 No, it was actually an unconscious attempt to melt the ice floes because it is simply too cold in winter. The attempt worked. Unfortunately a little too well. But that's nothing new. Who would have thought in the past that the internet would be used mainly for videos, at least if you go by the amount of data. The developers at DARPA would certainly not have assumed that they were working in the spirit of the slogan "Make love not war". 🤣
@@capnkirk5528 I think I should stop assuming that much of this species would be the least bit logical, provided you subtract the terms "greed, ...", oh, that's it, from the equation.
I think there was a StarTrek TNG episode where they tried to meddle with a planets climate and nearly killed everyone... And they had a talking supercomputer. Ah.
It already is, and it's going to get much, much worse... There is no difference between Weather Warfare and Geoengineering, except Geoengineering legally tares up all anti-weather warfare treaties.
What would you prefer? Terrible diseases like the plague, non-existent sanitation, no medical research, no sophisticated medical treatment, starvation when the weather dries up? The list goes on. The "unintended consequences" have led to a standard of living that even the richest in earlier times could not have imagined.
@@Peter-y5y9i Why can't we accept those benefits but still work towards a sustainable future? What good is any of this if it comes at the cost of plunging humanity into all those historic challenges yet again, without the resources to recover as we did?
Still trying to work out how much aviation fuel $30Bs worth of flights would use. It sounds like burning plastic rubbish on your bonfire to stop it blowing into the sea.
when you look at co2 emmisions, planes + ships are the least of our concerns (really its just personal transport, aka cars, the solution - work from home xd)
@@infty1369 Cars contribute just 6% of global CO2 emissions . I don't know if that is a lot, but I was surprised that it wasn't more. The biggest contributor will most likely be electrical power plants. And that will remain so as long as third world countries burn coal to produce their electricity.
Concrete is a much larger source of CO2 emissions than the whole aviation industry. Even the Google (RUclips!), Meta, Amazon, Apple emit more than planes... And concrete then act as a heat sink, and has much worse properties for global warming than the vegetation it replaces.
I am thinking an effective waste management infrastructure that captures plastic instead of allowing escape into the environment would be a good move. When plastics or anything that is mostly carbon burns the result is carbon dioxide. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are thought to be the root cause of global Warming, so I am not OK with burning plastic.
@@luck484 Firstly, nobody burns plastic refuse as a way of getting rid of it. Burning plastic produces acids that destroy incinerators. Secondly, western societies are the last ones to let plastic refuse escape into the environment. Nearly all the plastic waste floating around in the oceans stems from countries such as India and China. I've seen it for myself in these countries, it's a common sight how islands of plastic refuse float down rivers in direction of the sea.
Neal Stephenson's termination shock (2021) discusses a scenario like this - where a small group of nations with the most to lose from climate change start geoengineering unilaterally. Much like with climate change a big part of the problem we face is one of coordination.
Yep. Good idea. Build big gun in Texas. Shoot aerosol shells into the stratosphere. If we dim the Sun, does it cause plants to convert less CO2 into O2, and counteract our efforts?
It is such a fabulous book! T.R. McHouligan ! Seriously though it does flesh out the dymanic that would occur if many global actors began geoengineering because it would affect different regions in different ways. Such a thoughtful, believable book. An a fun book
Snow Piercer is another book/movie/TV series that shows geoengineering going out of control. The concept of a train with the last survivors is totally ludicrous but does point to the need for more research rather than blindly shooting chemicals into the atmosphere.
Too often people only try to solve a particular problem without seeing the whole picture, like a heart doctor over prescribing hypertension meds, but not getting to see the problem of old people fainting and breaking bones. As the saying goes, you can't properly fix a problem unless you fully understand what's wrong, fix the cause not the symptoms.
Imagine a world where livable conditions rely on continuous climate engineering. An economic downturn or war interrupts that climate engineering. Woops.
Agreed, but we are already there. If the global economy fails, or global trade fails, or the electrical gird fails (or fill in the blank) you could easily see 100s of millions of humans die. Now, next year, soon. That's not hyperbole. I am not saying we should rely on geoengineering to be the sole method of reducing or even slowing global heat gain. It's just a tool in the toolbox. Why limit your options because of a notion that it might detract from the only "true solution," that so far is failing. No matter what the anti-corporate, anti-hydrocarbon zealots would lead you to believe, successfully tackling this problem does not have a single solution.
Climate scientists already face challenges in forecasting the climate accurately. The fundamental issue with climate engineering is that it creates an unprecedented state, making it impossible to reliably predict its outcomes. The potential consequences could be catastrophic. Furthermore, it diverts attention and resources away from sustainable solutions.
@ Actually, since sapiens have been around, they have burned down every forest they could. I realize that could have been accidental and they couldn’t put out forest fires, but they did have a massive effect. That’s documented in the fossil record. But, since the IR, the greenhouse gas emissions have skyrocketed, the graphs are readily available when you search, as long as you don’t keep scrolling down until you find something you agree with and stay with the actual facts. Curve matches the temperature pretty well, and was predicted as far back as 1840, or at least explained. In short, lots of things impact climate, just none as much as emissions, and even if they were a smaller part, it’s still a part. Every part counts.
The removal of sulphur from marine fuel is alleged to have caused an increase in temperature. Here’s a thing. How about making sure we don’t remove things that remove co2 from the atmosphere like oh I don’t know trees.
Back in high school I was in a town with continuous drought and heat waves. I remembered quite clearly there was one day that rain clouds started to gather but it just didn't rain, then I saw the rockets for cloud seeding fired from across the school. It did work, there was rain but in a very weird pattern. It really felt like a man made shower because the water droplets were really small and it evaporated really quickly, and formed no puddles despite it seemed it rained a lot. It also made the sky a lot darker, but I don't if it was actually the weather or the cloud seeding. But it was the weirdest rain I've ever encountered in my life
@@wathog01 weather manipulation was used during the Vietnam war. We flooded out the Ho Chi Minh trail to deter the North Viet Cong replenishing posts behind enemy lines.
@@66realdeal Weather manipulation is an active industry and is happening all over the world right at this moment, dozen of projects. It's not speculation, the companies doing it aren't event trying to hide what they are doing, and there are public websites that track these projects.
@@66realdeal I am familiar with the story. In that war, the US won every battle and lost the war. I am wondering if that is the going to be the way Climate Engineering goes, spend lots of time, money, energy and resources and achieve results that are ignored for the purposes of process improvement.
@@luck484 The reason why we lost the war was that the Pentagon officials kept pulling back our troops from captured areas, only to have to go retake the same boobytrapped areas over and over again. Any locals that did not resist the US troops were butchered like pigs with their bodies left to rot on display for the US troops to see when they retook an area. A former US soldier neighbor of mine in the mid-1980's had PTSD from viewing people he had been friends with on display 6 weeks after his company had been ordered back. The unstated goal that came out after the war was NOT to win the war, but to show that the US was willing to waste troops and lives to continue a war for decades if need be...
I can’t wait to hear all the bizarre new conspiracy theories that will follow a nuanced discussion weighing the pros and cons of implementing such programs! 🎉
Oh, you mean like that bunch of crazies that were talking about "chem-trails"? Yea, they were crazy conspiracy theorists. Now, let's get on with this aerosol spraying experiment.
To be fair if you can cause heatwaves and drought on the other side of the world or worse.... You have a new kind of supper weapon every abit akin to small pox and nukes.
What i find most curious is how we have accepted things previously considered CTs. A gun that makes the target have a heart attack. The gov plot on JFK basically going ignored after being declassified.
To everyone warning of guaranteed failure if we try to remedy global warming, my favorite quote: "Any jackass can kick a barn down; it takes a carpenter to build one."
3 дня назад
carpenter is a tried and true science thats been practiced for thousands of years. Remedying the weather not even close, what 60 years? Kicking a barn down has very small consequences vs good possibility of destroying the planet because whoever thinks their theory is correct in the name of "fixing it". Apples to oranges comparison
Robber barons thought they could hire half the population to "deal with" the other half. Let's use the same tactic against them and use for-profit industry to topple a different for-profit industry.
@@andreinowikow2525 Yes, that is why we still try to appeal to the masses, but focus on getting legislature to sign the necessary laws. Sadly the EU only does so for very niche topics, like the ban on plastic straws, but at least it begins slowly. People also freaked out about the government forcing people to wear seatbelts, you are right, we can't wait for them to do the best on their own.
Happy to hear you bring attention to this Sabine. 🌦️I've been following Jim Lee of Climate Viewer, he has a vast amount of information on this subject and might be selected by RFK Jr to work with the incoming administration on creating some transparency into Climate Engineering.
Thank you for the video! I want to add two things: 1. The (unintended, via wars, defects, hacks, economic crisis etc.) stop of said engineering mechanisms would lead to an even more drastic increase in temperature, leaving even less time for ecosystems to adapt somehow. For me this is the heaviest argument against geo-engineering and if communicated in the right way it might potentially help people understand the "we are all sitting in one atmosphere" concept. I agree with your call for more research, to further lay out the interconnectedess you touched on in the video. 1. A bit off topic: I agree with the part of percieved non-affectedness of smaller (global north) countries. However this overlooks the factor of climate induced migration, which I think is an very very important factor in the bigger picture, influencing especially said smaller countries. I think it is worth mentioning it especially in this context. I hope you have a good day!
Wouldn't stratospheric aerosol injection also reduce photosynthetic productivity? => Less natural carbon capture, less food, less productive ecosystems.
I've got mirrors on my roof. It reverses the urban heat island effect. It also keeps my home cooler, and no longer needs to be airconditioned in the summer.
You should check out that paint which reflects the specific wavelength of light that can more easily escape into space instead of being reabsorbed by the atmosphere after the mirror reflects it.
The mirror does what exactly? You might be better off harvesting all that energy and using it to do work. Energy used for doing work doesn't heat the troposphere.
Having finished watching the TV show just this afternoon for the fourth time, the first class tickets are around 400 million dollars. So, that's just so out of my budget for the next, uh, several dozen lifetimes. 😅
In my small country they do yearly cloud seeding since the 1970s. Controlled experiments have shown this to increase rain amounts and frequency by as much as 15%, though the success rate isn't great - they still do it anyway because "adding a bit is better than not adding a bit", and here at the edge of the desert we'd take any bits we can have. It also helps that it is not expensive.
Climate or geoengineering is the only approach that has any chance of preventing a 3C temperature increase in the next 50 years. It is a short term intervention until we can reduce greenhouse gas concentrations enough to prevent a global catastrophe.
Even Native Americans knew about forestry management, but CA has been moving backwards along with the clown cult of pseudoscience since at least the 70s.
I agree with your opinion on this. Humanity right now is afraid to meddle with the climate, cause of its possible unpredictable consequences, but soon we will be even more afraid of the climate change and the frequent natural disasters that we will have no option but to interfere with it.
The recent Science paper about this, pointed out that "lack of any cloud cover, low or high" added to surface and global warming. So why are we making airplanes reduce contrails, and use low-sulphur fuels. This was also observed in shipping lanes, where the press to low sulphur fuels seems to have contributed also. For practical purposes, we have already been tampering with the environment, but seem to have been doing the wrong things. Some of the Indian science organizations tried this "seeding" years ago, to try to reduce local heat waves. Rain seeding tried decades ago, and actually worked in our area.
Freeman Dyson was a theoretical physicist, although his contribution in weather was to plan man made hurricanes by incendiary bombs, such as that in Dresden.
And the termites, and the trees and grasses, and... in the end, we are the environment just as much as anything else is. How we contribute to it is up to those of us with the power and wealth to decide.
It's not that trying geo-engeneering earth is a great option but at this point it may be the only realist avenue we have to minimise human caused climate change. If "just stopping oil" was possible, we would have already done that by now. Stopping CFC emission to repair the ozone layer was not a small task, but humanity did it because it was very necessary and possible with realist alternative. Finding an alternative to every uses of all the types of fossil fuel/energy is much MUCH harder.
It helped that the CFC alternative was one that producers could make more money with, but not so with fossil fuels. I agree that at this point it looks like the only realistic option left.
Thank you, @DuncanAtkinson . Also, if the heaps of research on the impact of fossil fuel use resulted only in marginal decrease of them, it is naive to think that results of geoingeneering impact research would stop any bad outcomes of it.
@@veronikakerman6536sounds like giving up. The good news is that green energy is starting to put price fossil fuels, this is a tipping point I can get behind!
Our "research/Simulation or Observation" capabilities are fairly limited when it comes to complex Earth systems. And historically such interventions have created more problems. The argument that it is going to happen anyhow, is not a convening one. Such interventions delay actual actions, like making a task force (industry) dedicated to moving a toddler from the train tracks (rather than addressing the reason for which todllers are ending up there). Now, since toddlers are being kept safe by whatever "Transient" "solution" we implemented (and now there is a big market for it, employing thousands), so there is no IMMEDIATE NEED for addressing the root cause. This "inertia" problem is very real, which not only diverts the funding and effort away from needed intervention but promots morally corrupt remedies.
@ToddGibsonArt-xd1zb Chinese Industry works for West, hence it burns stuff of Western countries. West is the biggest driver of the climate change (historically as well as contemporary). So this rhetoric of China & India is not helpful (other than satisfying your own issues). Global Industrial over capacity and High Energy Intensive Life style needs to be addressed (again, western countries have very high consumptive life style).
I love how any idea that might solve a problem that anyone ever has is either too impractical to be relied on, or else so practical that people are too scared to allow it, for fear of a slippery slope. It actually is impossible to implement a solution people can use, because if there's any benefit to it at all, then people will benefit from it unevenly, and that's terrible.
The current plan is to burn even more fossil fuels, and if you want God's help with that you should look into the book of Revelations where it says God plans to destroy the Earth via fire, though apparently we don't even need God for that.
We can't fix it, we can only mend it. Will we mend it successfully without too much of bad/unintended consequences, now that's a 7-8 billion people question...
We put ourselves in this situation. To be honest, unintended and unforeseen consequences might be a better chance than the near guarantee we won't all agree to create a sustainable planet in other ways. We haven't, don't, and won't change our habits, not in time. We're just not wired that way. We're likely going to have to roll those scary dice.
The best geoengineering we can do immediately(-ish) is replace all coal plants with nuclear power plants. The "Energiewende" is utter shit in that regard, shutting down safely functioning nuclear plants was beyond stupid.
Thank you for mentioning ocean acidification! That's a reminder that all these solutions have two more things in common: 1) they're powered by burning more fossil fuels, and 2) they do not address the root problem we face, of which climate change is but one symptom, and that is ecological overshoot. They will, by encouraging BAU in all other respects, make the problem worse and harder to solve for generations to follow.
the medium of exchange we rely on to survive as a collective has no means to signal oversupply without our economic circulations to break down.. this is what drives ecological overshoot - our markets can't signal saturation without recessions following, so everything is trying to keep growing economic activity to ever higher levels.
The thing is that green energy and green technology is JUST BETTER on account of not needing massive mining and fuel transport operations just to stay on. But these things only become true when it is actually mature, and it has had time for people and infrastructure to adapt, neither of which are currently true. The "root problem" is that it isn't maturing fast enough to avoid climate change, and geoengineering can solve that if and only if people are allowed to study it at a small scale to avoid the worst unexpected effects. There is simply no locus of control by which the entire world can be forced to go green meaningfully faster than it will naturally; we signed that kind of power away in the name of such lofty (and IMO short-sighted) ideals as "freedom" and "believing in peace" and "principles of self-governance".
To be fair, from an engineering point of view, when you can't find a solution for whatever reason, you can seek for mitigation and workarounds. That's the engineering way.
Except that there likely is no problem that needs solving, as thousands of scientists have been yelling from the hilltops for well over a decade now, armed with their mountains of peer reviewed published research.
@ Have you seen Sabine's videos? That's not enough. First, those technologies have lower emissions, but they still will keep polluting. Second, let's say we magically stop all emissions. Greenhouse gases will not magically disappear, and the planet will keep warming.
Scientific American reported a study on 14.08.24 that stated that cleaner fuels from shipping were increasing ocean temps due to reduced pollution....there are ALWAYS side effects
I mean... yes, let's do that. You and I could not take down Exxon, Shell, BP et al., and you and I could never force the world's various governments to borrow trillions of dollars in order to stop their industries and populations emitting CO2 and methane. You and I could absolutely get a boat and dump bioavailable iron powder into the ocean somewhere.
We have never been good at group thought or group action. I think you are completely correct. We are going to see climate engineering on small scales all over the world.
I don't care who you are, who you know, or what you have, NOBODY and I mean NOBODY has the right to screw around with everyone else's air, food or medical records.
They already have, and those complicity in it have already got away with it. Remember the petrochemical industry has known the severity of their actions for 45 years..or more
They tyrants think they own us, and the world, and are convinced they have every right to do whatever they want to us and the earth. As the events of the last several years revealed very clearly to the world. But fortunately these lunatics are currently losing power and it doesn't look like they will be achieving their global dictatorship fantasy anytime soon.
and if that NOBODY don't care about others' rights, what can you do? At the end of the day, the strong make the action, the weak can only spectate. Therefore, be strong.
It's a bit late, we started polluting wide spread areas a couple thousand years ago and really got going in the last couple hundred years. And seeing as there is no world government or even a move towards cooperation, there's not much we as individuals can do. Although a little more knowledge is at least appreciated.
The only problem I have with these kinds of geoengineering solutions is that if you apply them on a large scale for a decade or two, then what happens if you stop? You'll get over a few years decades worth of temperature rise, which might be really dangerous. So it becomes a commitment, basically. And we all know how good we are at being committed to anything for a long time.
At least there’s some sanity in the comments section Geoengineering will increasingly be argued as necessary because we’ll do anything and everything before acknowledging biophysical limits
@duanemartin1383 Meddling with very complex systems which we don't fully understand yet puts humans at high risk of creating another unforseen disaster. We're not talking about general technology, we're talking about changing and influencing the weather systems of mother earth itself. IMO it sounds rather dangerous.
Climate activists be like : Accidently geo-engineering earth to become hotter : looks 😠 but acts like 👍😴 Willingly trying to reverse climate rather than "JUST STOP OIL" 👎😡
Put ai for work to control earth climate to support biography of 🌍 problem sloved it's will be like today ai update from earth climate to support life like that AgI forever live 🦾
It's not a good solution, but it's the best we got. Even if we stop burning all fossils right now (which would cause other problems) the damage is already done so that won't be enough.
0:02 - Sorry, Sabine, some people are IMPOSSIBLE to predict, even groups of people. Even elections in the U.S. seem darn impossible to predict and et voilà, we have our First Felon in the White House again.
@@msromike123 Sabine's said "Scientific progress is difficult to predict. But human behavior is not." I offered a rebuttal with a concrete example that showed a big slice of humanity was not that predictable. Q.E.D
If all countries start doing their own climate engineering, the global net effect will probably be close to zero, however, the local effects for the poorest countries might be devastating
That makes no sense, we are already doing global geoengineering through industralisation. You think that if everyone on Earth does cloud seeding the effect won't be even more catastrophic? This isn't a case of 'balancing it out'. This is a case of finding symbiosis with nature instead of taking lazy short cuts just because people want material bs and advanced technology that looks neat but is slowly destroying the planet and eroding our sense of community.
The major problem I see is that the more power and money gets concentrated, the more likely it is also that these problems get addressed in some ''We do it now as we like, because we can ! ... Also without the consent of others !'' kind of way. When the consequences are affecting many nations and billions of people, I don't like the idea that a bunch of powerful people with enough money start taking things in their own hand and do whatever they like without asking the rest and then everyone on this planet has to live with the outcome ... 🤥 ( My point of view is still that this planet belongs to everyone and that noone has the right to act as if they own it all by themselves )
We must not delude ourselves because geoengineering is inevitable if we are to restrict global warming to +2°C above pre-industrial. CO2 total cumulation will continue rising for the foreseeable future thanks to business-as-usual's rampant consumerism being aggressively promoted by corporate greed & its financial chokehold on equally greedy politicians. Thus geoengineering will be forced upon us, sooner rather than later, despite being untried, untested, & with little knowledge of the potentially disastrous unforeseen consequences from deploying it.
We won that battle when we invented proper air conditioned basements built outside of egregious flood zones. Also, refrigerated storage and fertilizers. 'Nuff said.
Don't let anyone fool you. We don't fully understand how this complex climate system works. Mankind doesn't have the best record for fixing things they don't understand.
It's understandable that climate activists would oppose regional geoengineering, both because it is a half-measure which doesn't address causes, and because it is unnatural, with unpredictable, externalized effects. After all the fundamental problem is lack of accountability for externalities, and this just adds more. It may be cheaper than global measures, but probably _isn't_ cheaper than regulating emissions.
@@okankyoto It's already too late to avert disaster, at this point we are just trying to get any effective mitigation done, at a price that governments are willing to pay. In the U.S. under current leadership, that is little to nothing, but cheaper options are more feasible than expensive ones.
Yeah, but climate engineering is at least on purpose with a goal The last 150 years was a global fail. Well.. the last 70 years was a fail, because that's when we knew that we were messing with our climate.
It might change the dominant plants in various ecosystems yes. Unfortunately, most of the strategies to reduce the amount of CO2 cannot be applied universally so while this might be beneficial to arctic regions where microbial growth is responsible for taking more CO2 out of the atmosphere than plants you wouldn’t necessarily want to apply this system to a rain forest.
Not a problem given sufficient energy storage and community energy schemes. Renewable energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels in the UK and most of the world. Just study the reports of the International Energy Agency. The US is doing the equivalent of promoting canals in the era of railways.
The unintended consequences of environmental concerns about unintended consequences is that we can't quantify any unintended consequences garaunteeing the final consequences will be unintended, poorly implemented and unmittigated.
Maybe Kessler syndrome will increase the albedo of the planet sufficiently to help. Not sure whether the cure will be better than the disease... I used to be against climate engineering, but it's increasingly clear that we have to try something.
God save us all from the good intentions of imbeciles convinced that they are geniuses! ESPECIALLY those who work in government!!! There is zero chance their efforts will end well.
I see unintended consequences all over.
Geostorm baby! Bring it!
Who said they were unintentional?...
And I see some intended consequences. Some disturbing ones
Intended consequences, like the stuff they're doing already.
Such as?
All these solutions have something else in common: we have no clue about the longterm effects.
But the "wise response" - ie. a dramatic reduction in emissions - seems politically and economically un-doable. The long term 'green transition' is under way, but slow. Perhaps engineering solutions offer a chance to bridge the gap. I don't think we've got much to lose at this stage of the game.
@@philiprice6961 the problem is that you assume climate change science is sound when it has been proven to be a political tool since the 80s. If the science were better than, "there is a negligible increase of CO2 in the atmosphere due to deforestation and industry."
What would these people think they could do during the ice age? Throw a lasso around the sun and pull it closer? Ignorant of the effects it would have long-term.
but we have a good idea of what will happen if we just keep on with current behaviour
@@human_isomer Correct.
SCIENCE DEMONSTRATES FOSSIL FUELS, CO2 AND OTHER GHGs WILL NOT CAUSE CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL WARMING AND EXTREME WEATHER
+ Reliable Science is Based on Validating Theoretical Predictions With Observations, Not Consensus, Peer - Review, Government Opinion or Cherry-Picked or Falsified Data
+ The Models Predicting Catastrophic Warming and Extreme Weather Fail the Key Scientific Test: They Do Not Work, and Would Never Be Used in Science.
+ 600 Million Years of CO2 and Temperature Data Contradict the Theory That High Levels of CO2 Will Cause Catastrophic Global Warming.
+ Atmospheric CO2 Is Now “Heavily Saturated,” Which in Physics Means More CO2 Will Have Little Warming Effect.
+ The Theory Extreme Weather is Caused by Fossil Fuels, CO2 and Other GHGs is Contradicted by the Scientific Method and Thus is Scientifically Invalid
@@human_isomer what is the "good idea"? Because most people during the ice age probably wouldn't have predicted global warming due to industry (their words not mine.) The idea that we're destined for ruin is based on frankly fragile assumptions that humanity is causing more harm than is natural to the geological processes of the planet as a whole.
Even cloud seating can amount to one group of people stealing water that otherwise would have fallen on another group of people.
She makes some good points. I will add one thing. Local weather engineering from large countries has the potential to destroy smaller countries, even entire regions, and could ignite WW3.
Preventing studies on things that might happen is always bad, unless you want surprises.
The Greek Oracles were the last Futurists scam, and they missed the Greek collapse.
Agreed! The activists who are preventing experiments from being done today are _literally_ anti-science. They are directly working to prevent us from knowing things we need to know about geoengineering options. _Never_ trust anyone who works to take an option off the table _and_ keep us in the dark about it.
we don't like surprises!😅
The current worldwide strategy is to continue fossil fuel sales and just let climate change happen. The US and EU are almost irrelevant in the discussion.
No one on EARTH is more deluded about their political power than climate scientists. They just don't get that people don't want to listen to the smarties anymore.
@@SabineHossenfelder The study about Rotherham grooming gangs has shown that members of grooming gangs were predominantly Pakistani men. Keir Starmer tried to cover up the evidence to present Britain as successful multicultural society and you try to present him as a victim because he was criticized on the internet?
The concept of corporate sponsored weather is as amusing as it is horrifying
Surely you meant 'company-sponsored weather on a subscription basis'? 🤣
I imagine how people beg for water in mad max.
The difference between an insurance and a protection racket is the ability to cause mayhem to people who don't buy your service.
Weather modification projects are numerous, on-going, and have been happening for decades now. It's an open secret. There are even public websites tracking these projects. Last time I check there were about 80 happening world wide. The sheep are instructed to remain in denial about it however.
I'm just putting this comment here in hopes that it'd be seen. What about the roads? And the asphalt roofs? And the actual heat being generated, one roof in the sun is probably beyond a cars engine running.
I’m certain that the conspiracy-theorists will be ecstatic when the stratospheric chemtrails become officially sanctioned.
Chemtrails are defined by conspiracy theorists as toxic chemicals meant to have nefarious, targeted effects. Stratospheric particles to create clouds do not meet this definition.
And Im certain people will continue ignoring them.. lol
If "THEY" were going to gas us all somehow, they'd just put it in the gasoline and diesel fuel. Far more direct.
So then it is not conspiracy then? Geoengineering using chemtrails is not conspiracy, it is secrecy.
🤣
I dunno, it seems to me that we, as a species, are all collectively going through the same process of bad decision making, poor judgement and finally, when it is too late, panic...the same general decision process we always tend to use when faced with new and difficult challenges.
stress aka: anger,hostility,resistance, grief, guilt, fear,indifference,separation, no choice : let everybody tend to more bad decisions.
It is not coded in genes.
I suggest to do first research into the mechanisms of how cognitive dissonance interferes with decision making. How do these mechanisms work that make us look away (don't look up), sticking with fighting symptoms instead of looking into causes, keeping stimulating emissions. Taboo? Because of cognitive dissonance?
This all reminds me of Mao Zedung's war on sparrows.
Or Britain's war on badgers.
They intend the same end result.
Or Klaus Schawbs war on proles
That in turn reminds me of the Emu War in Australia, but something tells me the war on Sparrows and this local geoengineering will be much more catastrophic
It seems that killing a billion sparrows ended up killing thirty-five million Chinese people. I learnt something new about Maoism.
“Bad idea - we do it anyways!” - that really is team humanity’s motto
Most of the world's best ideas were discovered that way.
Like pumping CO2 into atmosphere with increasing amounts.
@@user255 not a big deal though
@ OK lol
Quite opposite scientists and politicans are frequently too scared by public opinion- that have close to zero idea about many topics to push for innovative ideas even for small scale trials we experienced it few years ago with mRNA vaccines.
How many things have we humans just started doing, cause we think "How wonderful" ? ... Only to find out we have no idea what we've done !
Such as?
most of them, probably
The internet
though mostly it goes wrong when exploitation, money and wall street gets involved.
Well since the world is complex with millions of variables and we don't have the ability to predict the future how could it be any other way
@ Why do you have 3 days to read them all if I'd list them... How about using mercury as medicine, happily hunting Buffalo (to near extinction), war, innumerable financial bubbles, militarism, slavery, all of the many things disregarding the environment, racism, Colonialism, sexism, ...
So all those times i got asked "you think we're paying to heat the outdoors?" The answer was technically yes.
😂
Heating for the crows, as some say.
@tvuser9529
No, it was actually an unconscious attempt to melt the ice floes because it is simply too cold in winter. The attempt worked. Unfortunately a little too well.
But that's nothing new. Who would have thought in the past that the internet would be used mainly for videos, at least if you go by the amount of data. The developers at DARPA would certainly not have assumed that they were working in the spirit of the slogan "Make love not war". 🤣
@@Waldemar_la_Tendresse You think the internet ISN'T the world's battleground now? Naive ...
@@capnkirk5528
I think I should stop assuming that much of this species would be the least bit logical, provided you subtract the terms "greed, ...", oh, that's it, from the equation.
This could get out of control in a very nasty way
What if it already is.
I think there was a StarTrek TNG episode where they tried to meddle with a planets climate and nearly killed everyone... And they had a talking supercomputer. Ah.
But but but! If the history of mankind has proven one thing, then surely it is that mankind always acts in a well-considered and prudent manner. 🙃
It already is, and it's going to get much, much worse... There is no difference between Weather Warfare and Geoengineering, except Geoengineering legally tares up all anti-weather warfare treaties.
Tomorrow's solutions are today's problems, true...
Prepare for unforeseen consequences
Funny how its biggest opponents don’t realise the Industrial Revolution itself was an act of geoengineering with unintended consequences.
I think they do realise that, and that's exactly why they oppose it.
@@hermenegildakociubinska6665 To be consistent, shouldn't they be at least working towards ending the original project's unintended consequences?
Big Oil knew.
What would you prefer? Terrible diseases like the plague, non-existent sanitation, no medical research, no sophisticated medical treatment, starvation when the weather dries up? The list goes on. The "unintended consequences" have led to a standard of living that even the richest in earlier times could not have imagined.
@@Peter-y5y9i Why can't we accept those benefits but still work towards a sustainable future? What good is any of this if it comes at the cost of plunging humanity into all those historic challenges yet again, without the resources to recover as we did?
Cool, another reason for countries to be unhappy about neighbours ...
Oh hey, it could be worse - unless you're Ukrainian - or CANADIAN.
Still trying to work out how much aviation fuel $30Bs worth of flights would use. It sounds like burning plastic rubbish on your bonfire to stop it blowing into the sea.
when you look at co2 emmisions, planes + ships are the least of our concerns (really its just personal transport, aka cars, the solution - work from home xd)
@@infty1369 Cars contribute just 6% of global CO2 emissions . I don't know if that is a lot, but I was surprised that it wasn't more. The biggest contributor will most likely be electrical power plants. And that will remain so as long as third world countries burn coal to produce their electricity.
Concrete is a much larger source of CO2 emissions than the whole aviation industry. Even the Google (RUclips!), Meta, Amazon, Apple emit more than planes...
And concrete then act as a heat sink, and has much worse properties for global warming than the vegetation it replaces.
I am thinking an effective waste management infrastructure that captures plastic instead of allowing escape into the environment would be a good move. When plastics or anything that is mostly carbon burns the result is carbon dioxide. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are thought to be the root cause of global Warming, so I am not OK with burning plastic.
@@luck484 Firstly, nobody burns plastic refuse as a way of getting rid of it. Burning plastic produces acids that destroy incinerators. Secondly, western societies are the last ones to let plastic refuse escape into the environment. Nearly all the plastic waste floating around in the oceans stems from countries such as India and China. I've seen it for myself in these countries, it's a common sight how islands of plastic refuse float down rivers in direction of the sea.
Neal Stephenson's termination shock (2021) discusses a scenario like this - where a small group of nations with the most to lose from climate change start geoengineering unilaterally. Much like with climate change a big part of the problem we face is one of coordination.
Not gullibility? No?
Yep. Good idea. Build big gun in Texas. Shoot aerosol shells into the stratosphere.
If we dim the Sun, does it cause plants to convert less CO2 into O2, and counteract our efforts?
The tragedy of the commons. US liberal eco-fantasists 'fix the planet' and destroy Africa accidentally.
It is such a fabulous book! T.R. McHouligan ! Seriously though it does flesh out the dymanic that would occur if many global actors began geoengineering because it would affect different regions in different ways. Such a thoughtful, believable book. An a fun book
Snow Piercer is another book/movie/TV series that shows geoengineering going out of control. The concept of a train with the last survivors is totally ludicrous but does point to the need for more research rather than blindly shooting chemicals into the atmosphere.
Too often people only try to solve a particular problem without seeing the whole picture, like a heart doctor over prescribing hypertension meds, but not getting to see the problem of old people fainting and breaking bones. As the saying goes, you can't properly fix a problem unless you fully understand what's wrong, fix the cause not the symptoms.
Imagine a world where livable conditions rely on continuous climate engineering. An economic downturn or war interrupts that climate engineering. Woops.
Agreed, but we are already there. If the global economy fails, or global trade fails, or the electrical gird fails (or fill in the blank) you could easily see 100s of millions of humans die. Now, next year, soon. That's not hyperbole. I am not saying we should rely on geoengineering to be the sole method of reducing or even slowing global heat gain. It's just a tool in the toolbox. Why limit your options because of a notion that it might detract from the only "true solution," that so far is failing. No matter what the anti-corporate, anti-hydrocarbon zealots would lead you to believe, successfully tackling this problem does not have a single solution.
Sounds like a good Mutually Assured Destruction method to me.
As the song goes: Clowns to the left of me. Jokers to the right. Here I am, stuck in the middle with you
I use that one all the time when talking about American politics!
That's good! (coming from an American) LOL
Going to go with the Jokers nowadays.
Nearly everyone in American politics is some flavour of right wing (with a few exceptions) I’m not sure this tracks for the US.
german war dance
Climate scientists already face challenges in forecasting the climate accurately. The fundamental issue with climate engineering is that it creates an unprecedented state, making it impossible to reliably predict its outcomes. The potential consequences could be catastrophic. Furthermore, it diverts attention and resources away from sustainable solutions.
Par for the course, as they say in golf. Climate forecasts are usually wrong because all the models are crap.
the best solution is DONT PLAY WITH THE CLIMATE
@@nerolowell2320
You mean stop playing with the climate. We’ve been climate engineers since the Industrial Revolution.
@@raydrexler5868 So who was doing it before the industrial revolution?
@
Actually, since sapiens have been around, they have burned down every forest they could. I realize that could have been accidental and they couldn’t put out forest fires, but they did have a massive effect. That’s documented in the fossil record. But, since the IR, the greenhouse gas emissions have skyrocketed, the graphs are readily available when you search, as long as you don’t keep scrolling down until you find something you agree with and stay with the actual facts. Curve matches the temperature pretty well, and was predicted as far back as 1840, or at least explained. In short, lots of things impact climate, just none as much as emissions, and even if they were a smaller part, it’s still a part. Every part counts.
Today’s weather is already being brought to us by corporations and the oil industry.
That’s right. It seems that geoengenering is fine as long at you don’t care about the consequences.
The removal of sulphur from marine fuel is alleged to have caused an increase in temperature.
Here’s a thing. How about making sure we don’t remove things that remove co2 from the atmosphere like oh I don’t know trees.
Put the trees in mineshafts and then grow more trees.
The trees absorb 20% of CO2... The majority is absorbed by the ocean. Measured by satellite the planet is greener than before.
@@florin604 So we need more ocean?
Trees can be turned into boccherini and the byproduct can be used as fuel
You mean like in California, where leaving all that brush fueled massive forest fires??
I am happy to see the energy and thought in all these comments. I'm glad to be here to read it. I'm happy to have found Sabine's channel!
Back in high school I was in a town with continuous drought and heat waves. I remembered quite clearly there was one day that rain clouds started to gather but it just didn't rain, then I saw the rockets for cloud seeding fired from across the school. It did work, there was rain but in a very weird pattern. It really felt like a man made shower because the water droplets were really small and it evaporated really quickly, and formed no puddles despite it seemed it rained a lot. It also made the sky a lot darker, but I don't if it was actually the weather or the cloud seeding. But it was the weirdest rain I've ever encountered in my life
Interesting, thanks for sharing!
@@wathog01 weather manipulation was used during the Vietnam war. We flooded out the Ho Chi Minh trail to deter the North Viet Cong replenishing posts behind enemy lines.
@@66realdeal Weather manipulation is an active industry and is happening all over the world right at this moment, dozen of projects. It's not speculation, the companies doing it aren't event trying to hide what they are doing, and there are public websites that track these projects.
@@66realdeal I am familiar with the story. In that war, the US won every battle and lost the war. I am wondering if that is the going to be the way Climate Engineering goes, spend lots of time, money, energy and resources and achieve results that are ignored for the purposes of process improvement.
@@luck484 The reason why we lost the war was that the Pentagon officials kept pulling back our troops from captured areas, only to have to go retake the same boobytrapped areas over and over again. Any locals that did not resist the US troops were butchered like pigs with their bodies left to rot on display for the US troops to see when they retook an area. A former US soldier neighbor of mine in the mid-1980's had PTSD from viewing people he had been friends with on display 6 weeks after his company had been ordered back. The unstated goal that came out after the war was NOT to win the war, but to show that the US was willing to waste troops and lives to continue a war for decades if need be...
I can’t wait to hear all the bizarre new conspiracy theories that will follow a nuanced discussion weighing the pros and cons of implementing such programs! 🎉
😂chem-trails reloaded - second level.
Why don't these sickos figure out why certain groups can't behave, before we start engineering the climate.
Oh, you mean like that bunch of crazies that were talking about "chem-trails"? Yea, they were crazy conspiracy theorists. Now, let's get on with this aerosol spraying experiment.
To be fair if you can cause heatwaves and drought on the other side of the world or worse.... You have a new kind of supper weapon every abit akin to small pox and nukes.
What i find most curious is how we have accepted things previously considered CTs.
A gun that makes the target have a heart attack.
The gov plot on JFK basically going ignored after being declassified.
To everyone warning of guaranteed failure if we try to remedy global warming, my favorite quote: "Any jackass can kick a barn down; it takes a carpenter to build one."
carpenter is a tried and true science thats been practiced for thousands of years. Remedying the weather not even close, what 60 years? Kicking a barn down has very small consequences vs good possibility of destroying the planet because whoever thinks their theory is correct in the name of "fixing it". Apples to oranges comparison
Carpentry has been offshored a long time ago.
Problem is we don't have anyone that can build a climate and you don't hire a carpenter to build rocket engine.
We DO have lots and lots and lots of jackasses however. That seems to be the major issue that got us into this mess to begin with.
Problem is they won't understand the meaning of the quote.
A solution that treats the symptoms but not the cause isn't a solution. It's a business model.
Robber barons thought they could hire half the population to "deal with" the other half. Let's use the same tactic against them and use for-profit industry to topple a different for-profit industry.
A solution that relies on people doing things against their immediate short-term self-interest is not a solution. It is a moralistic delusion.
@@andreinowikow2525 Yes, that is why we still try to appeal to the masses, but focus on getting legislature to sign the necessary laws. Sadly the EU only does so for very niche topics, like the ban on plastic straws, but at least it begins slowly. People also freaked out about the government forcing people to wear seatbelts, you are right, we can't wait for them to do the best on their own.
Well you better stop using painkillers then, cos that's exactly what they are. Also insulin. And much else besides.
Well we use those aplenty already. That's what painkillers are. What insulin is. Etc.
Happy to hear you bring attention to this Sabine. 🌦️I've been following Jim Lee of Climate Viewer, he has a vast amount of information on this subject and might be selected by RFK Jr to work with the incoming administration on creating some transparency into Climate Engineering.
I hope I’m not around when the unexpected consequences kick in if/when this disaster is started.
The world is ruled by fascist lunatics, but the tide is turning on that.
Thank you for the video!
I want to add two things:
1. The (unintended, via wars, defects, hacks, economic crisis etc.) stop of said engineering mechanisms would lead to an even more drastic increase in temperature, leaving even less time for ecosystems to adapt somehow. For me this is the heaviest argument against geo-engineering and if communicated in the right way it might potentially help people understand the "we are all sitting in one atmosphere" concept. I agree with your call for more research, to further lay out the interconnectedess you touched on in the video.
1. A bit off topic:
I agree with the part of percieved non-affectedness of smaller (global north) countries. However this overlooks the factor of climate induced migration, which I think is an very very important factor in the bigger picture, influencing especially said smaller countries. I think it is worth mentioning it especially in this context.
I hope you have a good day!
Wouldn't stratospheric aerosol injection also reduce photosynthetic productivity?
=> Less natural carbon capture, less food, less productive ecosystems.
yea, soon as the air is unbreathable and the water undrinkable nobody gonna care about rain and heat.
I've got mirrors on my roof. It reverses the urban heat island effect. It also keeps my home cooler, and no longer needs to be airconditioned in the summer.
Solar panels would be better don't ya think?
So in the winter it needs to be heated more? Genius.
Isn't a white roof just as reflective as a mirror? And probably easier to maintain. It's a nice idea though.
And occasionally you get free roasted chicken from the sky!
You should check out that paint which reflects the specific wavelength of light that can more easily escape into space instead of being reabsorbed by the atmosphere after the mirror reflects it.
I put a mirror on my lawn and that’s solving the climate 💯
You're lawn is like, "bruh."
Teach that pesky sun who's boss 😎
The mirror does what exactly? You might be better off harvesting all that energy and using it to do work. Energy used for doing work doesn't heat the troposphere.
@@kayakMike1000Wrong
@@kayakMike1000 Actually it leads to heat gain by conversion inefficiencies. Sabine did something on this last year or year before.
Looks like I need to book a first-class ticket on Snowpiercer.
I´m afraid, first-class tickets are sold out.😉
I'll be down with third class tickets but please not the tail section
Having finished watching the TV show just this afternoon for the fourth time, the first class tickets are around 400 million dollars.
So, that's just so out of my budget for the next, uh, several dozen lifetimes. 😅
I'd pack your own food.
In my small country they do yearly cloud seeding since the 1970s. Controlled experiments have shown this to increase rain amounts and frequency by as much as 15%, though the success rate isn't great - they still do it anyway because "adding a bit is better than not adding a bit", and here at the edge of the desert we'd take any bits we can have. It also helps that it is not expensive.
Climate or geoengineering is the only approach that has any chance of preventing a 3C temperature increase in the next 50 years. It is a short term intervention until we can reduce greenhouse gas concentrations enough to prevent a global catastrophe.
Glad I can breathe easy now. Whew.
How fortunate that “Stratospheric Aerosol” describes most of the world’s CEOs. Or did I hear that wrong?
I was hoping someone else would make the joke before I had to!
It would probably help if we put out Los Angeles.
Builde a concrete factory so theyre houses dont burn down all by one.
Consequences of enviromentalist assholes saving fish.
Even Native Americans knew about forestry management, but CA has been moving backwards along with the clown cult of pseudoscience since at least the 70s.
Micro plastics in the ocean bad, micro plastics in the air good! Or something.
What are you talking about???
I agree with your opinion on this.
Humanity right now is afraid to meddle with the climate, cause of its possible unpredictable consequences, but soon we will be even more afraid of the climate change and the frequent natural disasters that we will have no option but to interfere with it.
The recent Science paper about this, pointed out that "lack of any cloud cover, low or high" added to surface and global warming. So why are we making airplanes reduce contrails, and use low-sulphur fuels. This was also observed in shipping lanes, where the press to low sulphur fuels seems to have contributed also. For practical purposes, we have already been tampering with the environment, but seem to have been doing the wrong things. Some of the Indian science organizations tried this "seeding" years ago, to try to reduce local heat waves. Rain seeding tried decades ago, and actually worked in our area.
3:18 to be fair, as a citizen of the UK, I fully support Elon Musk putting aside valuable time saving the world, to insult the British PM.
I agree with Freeman Dyson, concerning climate change.
Freeman Dyson was a theoretical physicist, although his contribution in weather was to plan man made hurricanes by incendiary bombs, such as that in Dresden.
We just have to meddle with the environment, that's what we're here for - us and the beavers.
And the termites, and the trees and grasses, and... in the end, we are the environment just as much as anything else is. How we contribute to it is up to those of us with the power and wealth to decide.
@Ithirahad Don't have to be wealthy to contribute ch4 and co2
We are already geoengineering without purpose at least this Geo engineering will be done intentionally.
Trying to fix a problem that don't exist.
It's not that trying geo-engeneering earth is a great option but at this point it may be the only realist avenue we have to minimise human caused climate change.
If "just stopping oil" was possible, we would have already done that by now.
Stopping CFC emission to repair the ozone layer was not a small task, but humanity did it because it was very necessary and possible with realist alternative.
Finding an alternative to every uses of all the types of fossil fuel/energy is much MUCH harder.
It helped that the CFC alternative was one that producers could make more money with, but not so with fossil fuels.
I agree that at this point it looks like the only realistic option left.
You do know that Just Stop Oil want to stop NEW oil wells from being drilled..
Make 5 years lock down or ai will pause Internet because of earth 🌍 ethics to support biography life ai live
Thank you, @DuncanAtkinson . Also, if the heaps of research on the impact of fossil fuel use resulted only in marginal decrease of them, it is naive to think that results of geoingeneering impact research would stop any bad outcomes of it.
@@veronikakerman6536sounds like giving up. The good news is that green energy is starting to put price fossil fuels, this is a tipping point I can get behind!
Our "research/Simulation or Observation" capabilities are fairly limited when it comes to complex Earth systems. And historically such interventions have created more problems. The argument that it is going to happen anyhow, is not a convening one. Such interventions delay actual actions, like making a task force (industry) dedicated to moving a toddler from the train tracks (rather than addressing the reason for which todllers are ending up there). Now, since toddlers are being kept safe by whatever "Transient" "solution" we implemented (and now there is a big market for it, employing thousands), so there is no IMMEDIATE NEED for addressing the root cause.
This "inertia" problem is very real, which not only diverts the funding and effort away from needed intervention but promots morally corrupt remedies.
even if it works to reduce temperature, it gives an incentive for china and india and everyone really, to keep burning stuff for energy
@ToddGibsonArt-xd1zb Chinese Industry works for West, hence it burns stuff of Western countries. West is the biggest driver of the climate change (historically as well as contemporary). So this rhetoric of China & India is not helpful (other than satisfying your own issues). Global Industrial over capacity and High Energy Intensive Life style needs to be addressed (again, western countries have very high consumptive life style).
At some point its going to be "do untested geoengineering or die". So I agree, I suspect this will end up being what happens.
I love how any idea that might solve a problem that anyone ever has is either too impractical to be relied on, or else so practical that people are too scared to allow it, for fear of a slippery slope. It actually is impossible to implement a solution people can use, because if there's any benefit to it at all, then people will benefit from it unevenly, and that's terrible.
God help us if people think they can "fix" the climate by doing any of this junk
Lucky for us, climate scientists (who aren't getting paid by the UN) are becoming increasingly vocal in blowing the whistle on the whole charade.
God won't help us, that should be obvious by now
The current plan is to burn even more fossil fuels, and if you want God's help with that you should look into the book of Revelations where it says God plans to destroy the Earth via fire, though apparently we don't even need God for that.
We can't fix it, we can only mend it. Will we mend it successfully without too much of bad/unintended consequences, now that's a 7-8 billion people question...
Yeah, but if we can Scare them enough Think of all the more Profit and Con-Troll we'll have over them👁🚜💰🤓👍
Are not insults to the british prime minister deserved?
no one deserves insults.
Good gracious!……let’s all jump on express trains to lands of unintended and unforeseen consequences……
We put ourselves in this situation. To be honest, unintended and unforeseen consequences might be a better chance than the near guarantee we won't all agree to create a sustainable planet in other ways. We haven't, don't, and won't change our habits, not in time. We're just not wired that way. We're likely going to have to roll those scary dice.
Thanks Sabine,I always wanted to know about these things 😊
The best geoengineering we can do immediately(-ish) is replace all coal plants with nuclear power plants. The "Energiewende" is utter shit in that regard, shutting down safely functioning nuclear plants was beyond stupid.
Thank you for mentioning ocean acidification! That's a reminder that all these solutions have two more things in common: 1) they're powered by burning more fossil fuels, and 2) they do not address the root problem we face, of which climate change is but one symptom, and that is ecological overshoot.
They will, by encouraging BAU in all other respects, make the problem worse and harder to solve for generations to follow.
the medium of exchange we rely on to survive as a collective has no means to signal oversupply without our economic circulations to break down.. this is what drives ecological overshoot - our markets can't signal saturation without recessions following, so everything is trying to keep growing economic activity to ever higher levels.
The thing is that green energy and green technology is JUST BETTER on account of not needing massive mining and fuel transport operations just to stay on. But these things only become true when it is actually mature, and it has had time for people and infrastructure to adapt, neither of which are currently true. The "root problem" is that it isn't maturing fast enough to avoid climate change, and geoengineering can solve that if and only if people are allowed to study it at a small scale to avoid the worst unexpected effects. There is simply no locus of control by which the entire world can be forced to go green meaningfully faster than it will naturally; we signed that kind of power away in the name of such lofty (and IMO short-sighted) ideals as "freedom" and "believing in peace" and "principles of self-governance".
To be fair, from an engineering point of view, when you can't find a solution for whatever reason, you can seek for mitigation and workarounds. That's the engineering way.
As long as money is being spent. That is all that matters.
Except that there likely is no problem that needs solving, as thousands of scientists have been yelling from the hilltops for well over a decade now, armed with their mountains of peer reviewed published research.
@ I don't get it. They trying to cool down the planet.
We do have a solution: solar panels, windmills, heat pumps, EVs. It isn't an engineering problem.
@ Have you seen Sabine's videos? That's not enough. First, those technologies have lower emissions, but they still will keep polluting. Second, let's say we magically stop all emissions. Greenhouse gases will not magically disappear, and the planet will keep warming.
Isn’t that how it all went to shit in the Matrix?
no, it went all to shit because some dude took a pill from a stranger and went nuts.
The best option is to accelerate CO2 sequestration into carbonate rocks.
Scientific American reported a study on 14.08.24 that stated that cleaner fuels from shipping were increasing ocean temps due to reduced pollution....there are ALWAYS side effects
Sooo.. cloud seeding is a conspiracy theory..
You misunderstood. Conspiracy seeding is a cloud theory.
Cloud seeding was never a conspiracy theory. It's chemtrails which is conspiracy theory.
But tin foil hat conspiracists cannot differentiate both
Hey, let's try to fix our pumping chemicals into the environment by pumping more chemicals into the environment!
Isn't pollution brilliant ?
the environment is already made out of chemicals
@@SpiceAndFox And always has been. Everything everywhere is made of chemicals and nothing else. Still, I get the OP's vibe.
@@SpiceAndFox There's naturally occurring compounds, and then there's man made compounds
I mean... yes, let's do that. You and I could not take down Exxon, Shell, BP et al., and you and I could never force the world's various governments to borrow trillions of dollars in order to stop their industries and populations emitting CO2 and methane. You and I could absolutely get a boat and dump bioavailable iron powder into the ocean somewhere.
Sure, lets interfere more in Earths atmosphere, what can go wrong !?
We have being doing this for years, maybe not consciously, but farming, forest clearing, urbanisation etc etc
We have never been good at group thought or group action. I think you are completely correct. We are going to see climate engineering on small scales all over the world.
Its official humanity löst its mind!
I don't care who you are, who you know, or what you have, NOBODY and I mean NOBODY has the right to screw around with everyone else's air, food or medical records.
Not even Hilary Clinton?
They already have, and those complicity in it have already got away with it. Remember the petrochemical industry has known the severity of their actions for 45 years..or more
They tyrants think they own us, and the world, and are convinced they have every right to do whatever they want to us and the earth. As the events of the last several years revealed very clearly to the world. But fortunately these lunatics are currently losing power and it doesn't look like they will be achieving their global dictatorship fantasy anytime soon.
and if that NOBODY don't care about others' rights, what can you do? At the end of the day, the strong make the action, the weak can only spectate. Therefore, be strong.
It's a bit late, we started polluting wide spread areas a couple thousand years ago and really got going in the last couple hundred years. And seeing as there is no world government or even a move towards cooperation, there's not much we as individuals can do.
Although a little more knowledge is at least appreciated.
Most climate deaths occur during cold weather.
Would be a shame if that changed...
No they not. Heat wave are very dangerous. And what about fires?
@magilviamax8346 yes they are. Look it up.
@@magilviamax8346 More people die from cold weather than from heat. By far. Not even close, expecially vulnerable poulations.
that's fakenews spread by oil companies
The only problem I have with these kinds of geoengineering solutions is that if you apply them on a large scale for a decade or two, then what happens if you stop? You'll get over a few years decades worth of temperature rise, which might be really dangerous. So it becomes a commitment, basically. And we all know how good we are at being committed to anything for a long time.
At least there’s some sanity in the comments section
Geoengineering will increasingly be argued as necessary because we’ll do anything and everything before acknowledging biophysical limits
Whenever man meddles with nature, it’s always disastrous.
Exactly what I was thinking
These tyrannical lunatics must be stopped.
Except...when it's not. Unless you want to live in a cave and hunt for your food.
@duanemartin1383 Meddling with very complex systems which we don't fully understand yet puts humans at high risk of creating another unforseen disaster. We're not talking about general technology, we're talking about changing and influencing the weather systems of mother earth itself. IMO it sounds rather dangerous.
Climate activists be like :
Accidently geo-engineering earth to become hotter : looks 😠 but acts like 👍😴
Willingly trying to reverse climate rather than "JUST STOP OIL" 👎😡
Put ai for work to control earth climate to support biography of 🌍 problem sloved it's will be like today ai update from earth climate to support life like that AgI forever live 🦾
It's not a good solution, but it's the best we got.
Even if we stop burning all fossils right now (which would cause other problems) the damage is already done so that won't be enough.
The laws of physics will give way to the law of unintended consequences.
If thirty billion dollars is "nothing", why can't we end starvation and poverty on this planet?
For the same reason why we still use fossil fuels: corporate greed.
Don't worry about musky insulting the British prime minister, that's what the brits are doing too!
0:02 - Sorry, Sabine, some people are IMPOSSIBLE to predict, even groups of people. Even elections in the U.S. seem darn impossible to predict and et voilà, we have our First Felon in the White House again.
Relevance?
@@msromike123 Sabine's said "Scientific progress is difficult to predict. But human behavior is not." I offered a rebuttal with a concrete example that showed a big slice of humanity was not that predictable. Q.E.D
If all countries start doing their own climate engineering, the global net effect will probably be close to zero, however, the local effects for the poorest countries might be devastating
That makes no sense, we are already doing global geoengineering through industralisation. You think that if everyone on Earth does cloud seeding the effect won't be even more catastrophic? This isn't a case of 'balancing it out'. This is a case of finding symbiosis with nature instead of taking lazy short cuts just because people want material bs and advanced technology that looks neat but is slowly destroying the planet and eroding our sense of community.
Why would it be a net zero though? If it causes local cooling, there's no inherent reason it must create an equivalent amount of heat elsewhere.
The major problem I see is that the more power and money gets concentrated, the more likely it is also that these problems get addressed in some ''We do it now as we like, because we can ! ... Also without the consent of others !'' kind of way. When the consequences are affecting many nations and billions of people, I don't like the idea that a bunch of powerful people with enough money start taking things in their own hand and do whatever they like without asking the rest and then everyone on this planet has to live with the outcome ... 🤥
( My point of view is still that this planet belongs to everyone and that noone has the right to act as if they own it all by themselves )
And the people who say "It's for the greater good" or "We are Keeping you safe" are the worst offenders.
We must not delude ourselves because geoengineering is inevitable if we are to restrict global warming to +2°C above pre-industrial. CO2 total cumulation will continue rising for the foreseeable future thanks to business-as-usual's rampant consumerism being aggressively promoted by corporate greed & its financial chokehold on equally greedy politicians. Thus geoengineering will be forced upon us, sooner rather than later, despite being untried, untested, & with little knowledge of the potentially disastrous unforeseen consequences from deploying it.
Meddling with mother Nature is usually a bad idea. She tends to fight back.
We won that battle when we invented proper air conditioned basements built outside of egregious flood zones. Also, refrigerated storage and fertilizers. 'Nuff said.
@@kayakMike1000 A lot of the gaian cult is about returning to a past without those things.
*We* *are* *already* *doing* *climate* *engineering.*
Last year we pumped more CO2 into atmosphere, than ever before.
Dear grandchildren, please thank profusely and profanely the well-meaning morons who gifted you with this "unexpected" Ice Age.
Don't let anyone fool you. We don't fully understand how this complex climate system works. Mankind doesn't have the best record for fixing things they don't understand.
It's understandable that climate activists would oppose regional geoengineering, both because it is a half-measure which doesn't address causes, and because it is unnatural, with unpredictable, externalized effects. After all the fundamental problem is lack of accountability for externalities, and this just adds more. It may be cheaper than global measures, but probably _isn't_ cheaper than regulating emissions.
But its more likely to happen than getting everyone on the same page in time to avert disaster.
@@okankyoto It's already too late to avert disaster, at this point we are just trying to get any effective mitigation done, at a price that governments are willing to pay. In the U.S. under current leadership, that is little to nothing, but cheaper options are more feasible than expensive ones.
We have already manipulated the climate in the last 150 years. Climate engineering is not different, there is only a purpose behind it
Yeah, but climate engineering is at least on purpose with a goal
The last 150 years was a global fail. Well.. the last 70 years was a fail, because that's when we knew that we were messing with our climate.
Ai should come between because in 2025 🌍 ethics matter correct me if I am worng
🌍 earth belong to everyone not only humans
Only a clown would think that Earth's climate was "better" 150 years ago.
We already have Geo Engineering.
Only we're doing it badly.
Just ask Exxon.
What do all these plans have in common? They sound like ideas from comic book supervillains.
Elon better build a Snowpiercer! Don't use EV batteries, they stink in freezing temperatures!
If you block more sunlight, won't photosynthesis drop? And then more CO2 builds up because plants aren't using it as much.
It might change the dominant plants in various ecosystems yes. Unfortunately, most of the strategies to reduce the amount of CO2 cannot be applied universally so while this might be beneficial to arctic regions where microbial growth is responsible for taking more CO2 out of the atmosphere than plants you wouldn’t necessarily want to apply this system to a rain forest.
Trying to replace fossil fuels with intermittent wind and solar.
Bad idea, but we'll do it anyway.
Not a problem given sufficient energy storage and community energy schemes. Renewable energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels in the UK and most of the world. Just study the reports of the International Energy Agency. The US is doing the equivalent of promoting canals in the era of railways.
When we will be near 4 ° planetary temperature anomaly. ..you will find solar panel very friendly. ...
@@jeromejerome2492 Why? Solar panels are less efficient in hot temperatures, but nuclear doesn't care.
The British Prime Minister force his party to vote No against investigating the raping gangs.
He doesn’t have to be insulted, he has to resign asap.
Well said!
We have been doing bad geoengineering for a while.
The unintended consequences of environmental concerns about unintended consequences is that we can't quantify any unintended consequences garaunteeing the final consequences will be unintended, poorly implemented and unmittigated.
Maybe Kessler syndrome will increase the albedo of the planet sufficiently to help. Not sure whether the cure will be better than the disease... I used to be against climate engineering, but it's increasingly clear that we have to try something.
God save us all from the good intentions of imbeciles convinced that they are geniuses! ESPECIALLY those who work in government!!! There is zero chance their efforts will end well.
Washington University and The University of Washington are two entirely different institutions. One in Missouri, one in Washington.
sorry about that!
I guess if I lived in Missouri, I'd pretend to live in Washington, too.