Unfortunately, if the solution was a gigantic, very expensive project, it would be much more popular than a long, widespread effort that envolves many small projects.
The argument I've always heard for albedo modification isn't that it's a miracle shortcut, but that it could be a stopgap while we deploy technologies like carbon capture to try to mitigate the long-term problem. It's just meant to buy time, although there's a legitimate concern that resolving the immediate threat would encourage complacency and discourage those long-term solutions. I don't know.
I don't think that we can drop the solar shade solution so easily just because it requires a large area of coverage. Solar shades can be made of very light and thin material. Think of a giant graphene sheet 20% the cross-sectional area of the earth, at the L1 point (because graphene absorbs about 10% of light letting 90% pass through it). This sheet would only weigh 33 million kg and be only 2900 km in radius (based on a lattice distance of 0.142nm and an atomic mass of 12.01 atomic units). But you would probably want more structure to the sunshade and may use another material that is cheaper or better at absorbing infrared from the sun instead of visible light. PS: My graphene sheet is so small that it couldn't gift wrap any of the planets. Though it could comfortably wrap pluto. PSS: We would still need to deal with acidification and stuff but it would help to have less sunlight.
This is great. After an idea like this is implemented then we can start debating how cool the earth should be. Who gets to set and regulate the temperature?
indeed e.g. maybe russia wouldnt mind some degrees warmer for their frozen wastelands. i on the other hand would prefer some degrees less in summer over here in europe.
Wouldnt Reducing or reflect light coming into the atmosphere affect more than just the temperature of the earth. While is true sunlight is a major heat source, the light itself does more than heat us up. Living things could be affected in unpredictable ways because manipulation of light levels.as well as other unforeseen issues
I would be hyped for a list of climate friendly replacements for items that aren't even that much different in terms of habits and life standard. For example, I didn't know about the big difference between beef and pork for the climate until I watched Hot Mess' video about it. I find avoiding beef quite feasible so far even at a canteen
Iwer Sonsch Yeah yeah. I know. Good for you mate! :D I actually read a lot of articles about sustainability in all day life. And then I summarized all the knowledge in a Google document, however it is in German, and I still have to translate it one day😅 But there are a lot of possible alternatives in many areas ;)
Iwer Sonsch Well okay. Here's the German version. docs.google.com/document/d/12O1h7a4TfHlzXc8GJJn3yUc8a5BKADzvS4mersqAZe8/edit?usp=sharing You can also tell me what you think, I'm open for criticism. Concerning the translation...yes why not. I just don't know how yet. I mean yes I can give the English document free for you but I don't have you mail address or something 🤷🏽♂️ Well just check it out for now ;D
They should paint or make the waterproofing materials white for flat roofs as an industry standard or by law. And no one would be that bothered to object cause they can't see it.
Black roofs have benefits in areas with cold climates. And in the US, it may be considered a violation of the freedom of expression to mandate this sort of thing. But yeah, white roofs are lovely.
Studies show that planting trees cools the area and if you plant enough trees you can change rainfall patterns in that area. Yet doing something to help clean the air, increase water, and people still can't get together on that.
Actually the albedo of forest is significantly lower than that of desert sand, which means, if the Sahara was a forest, the global temperature would be higher. The Sahara reflects a lot of short wavelength light directly back into space.
1. We wouldn't produce less carbon dioxide, we'd just pause emissions for a moment and release the extra afterwards. 2. The CO2 produced by human metabolisms is miniscule. 3. I know this is probably a joke, but it sounds as serious as many stupid solutions I've heard people propose.
well we should want to keep the earth cooler as a temporary fix to slow down climate change whilst we transition from fossil fuels. Keeping the earth cool means keeping the methane under the permafrost but, a sun shade is not a good idea when we are developing alternative renewable's that are in majority powered by the sun. Instead we should be reflecting from the earth to increase the albedo cooling effect. Perhaps we should focus on ground based solutions rather than atmospheric where we can better isolate and control the experiment.
We may not be able to muster the collective will to implement the best solution. Or we may do it too late. We need to consider these geo-engineering ideas more seriously than you suggest. If the problem is as critical as you claim (and I'm not suggesting it isn't) you shouldn't be cutting of any solution because it doesn't fit someone's preconceived notion of what we ought to do. Doing so smacks of a certain mindset that suggests the developed world is basically evil and needs to stop doing everything it's doing and make everybody as miserable as possible to pay for their supposed sins.
The geo-engineering solutions discussed in this video are unpractical and dangerous. They do not fit somebody's notions of what we ought to do, because this somebody is thinking straight, lucky us. Preconceived ideas are those that want to prove a point, no matter what. The ideas exposed here, are conceived with the appropriate use of arguments and information. What specific claims do you think are preconceived?
Giancarlo Pace - I don't have a problem with any specific piece of data in this video. I have a problem with the semi-sarcastic and sneering tone with which they're delivered. Along with the more general statements that we should just stop thinking about stuff like this. If the tone of the video were more "Well, someone thought of this, but it has this vexing problem. And they thought of this other thing, but it has this other vexing problem. And maybe these vexing problems can be dealt with, but so far the only real solution we can see is cutting emissions." I would feel differently about it. All solutions should be on the table. The problem is a very difficult one. I'm not going to feel ashamed or guilty or whatever for what we did in the past or for being in a rich country that used fossil carbon fuels before we understood the problem. I just want to pick the best course going forward, the course that will lead to the best possible collective outcome in the future.
I am happy that you don't feel ashamed, Eric Hopper, why should anybody feel ashamed for living in a rich country? It is not even a choice. As long as wee do see the big problems that do exist. I have no problem with the tone of the video, but that's just a matter of taste. Speaking of the facts presented, well, it is exactly as you put it: "someone thought of this, but it has this vexing problem". Which, sincerely, seem to me too big to be dealt with.
I'm not completely convinced the giant, india-sized sun-shade problem is too big to deal with. Some of the others seem like they'd be ineffectual (growing crops with a higher albedo and painting stuff white, for example) though I'd like to see that math on that. And others (like spewing sulfur compounds into the atmosphere) seem like they'd have irreversible effects, which are scary. They also didn't cover carbon sequestration techniques, though I suspect those won't work terribly well either. Where are you going to get the energy to do it? Of course, the real problem is that we don't implement a lifecycle for everything we make. I think that, in general, should be a requirement we begin placing on industry. Every single thing you produce must also be consumed somewhere by a system that demonstrably has the capacity to consume it. The only input allowed is energy. No net output is allowed. Even waste heat you must develop the capacity to radiate into space without raising the global temperature.
How do you deal with the risk that if the mirror breaks, suddenly the temperature rises at the same level it would have if the mirror were never put in place?
Please consider correcting your video, new research is showing much smaller mirror size needed and this may lead to better interests. Please see youtube correction video: "Space Mirrors Climate Change New Feasible Research Estimates". Your area and sun blocking quoted in your video are now incorrect and are off by large factors based on new research. Thank you kindly for considering correcting your video. Best regards, Alec
But one reason for higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere are higher temperatures. Lower temperatures could possibly mean a bit less CO2, less acidification, slower climate change. So, not necessarily completely senseless.
Also blocking sun light might affect plant problems. While geoengineering will likely stiff have a place in the conversation...it def has super downsides and is an illustration to just how desperately behind we are
I would have liked to hear more on the sea spraying. Solving part of the problem seems better than none of it, and for much cheaper than other solutions.
This is a grate channel. I have a question, did anyone calculate how much CO2 will be suppressed by a planting a large forest? and did anyone speculate where such a forest can by planted? Thanks.
Amir, think of forests as a form of carbon collection. How much carbon does a forest collect? Easy to answer: grow a tree. Cut down that tree. efficiently turn that tree into charcoal. the charcoal that remains is nearly pure carbon, and roughly how much carbon you've collected during the life of that tree. Now compare that to how much coal we burn. Think of coal like charcoal that is smashed with a hydraulic press to squeeze out all the air. So by volume, it's sort of like natural charcoal times 5 or so. Every coal-burning city burns multiple rail-cars of coal every day. So it takes a HUGE forest to grow enough wood to offset that. It took millions of years of growth for those coal reserves to build up. And we burnt it all in a couple centuries. That's the problem. There really isn't much room to create new forest. Places like Canada has lots of forest, and we try to manage it by cutting down trees and planting new ones in their place. But it is never going to be enough to completely offset how much CO2 we use these days. It needs to drop waaaaay down, or we are going to be in some really expensive trouble. So support things like solar, wind, and nuclear power. And our CO2 generation will gradually begin to slow down.
And an important point about temperatures rapidly jumping up back to where they would be without geoengineering: what kills off species is not so much the absolute increase in temperature but the speed of that increase.
Seeing how the current DeVries Cycle is coming to an end and we might have significant solar cooling incoming, we might want to produce some more, actually.
@Bob Trenwith exactly, thank you. I don't think what I'm asking for is unreasonable. I want a long term solution that won't result in massive unemployment and a crashing eccomny.
Yes.. could be done, only it's orders of magnitude harder and slower than just dealing with co2 in our atmosphere. You use a long series of gravitation assist passes near the Earth. NASA has used gravity assist to fling spacecraft further than if they only used rocket propulsion. To move the Earth though the gravity assist is intended to move the planet and not the spacecraft. I would have a fleet of thousands to millions of large spacecraft equipped with solar sails for maneuvers. As often as possible these spacecraft should pass behind the gas giants to steal their angular momentum and pass in front of the Earth in its orbit to deposit excess angular momentum. The solar sails are a low-mass way of tuning the spacecrafts' orbit to make gravity assist passes as often as possible. Even with a fleet of millions of spacecraft and hundreds of millions of passes the project will take tens to hundreds of thousands of years to push the Earth a measurable distance. The global warming problem requires much swifter action than a repositioning scheme can provide.
How about putting up solar collectors instead of mirrors and try to kill two birds with one stone? I kind of see some problems with that too, but it's at least worth considering.
If the power is beamed to earth, so is the heat when the power is used. It's a basic principle of thermodynamics. That said, using space-based solar collectors to generate power could possibly be a clean way to generate power. It's just that a solution for global warming still has to be found.
what if... We build a SHIELD around Earth somehow there was a movie about that, when a system fault in one of the shield things got damageD and them massive stuff started happening like Moskow being like 400*C and Rio De Jenero being like -200*C I dont know WE HAVE TO FIND SOMESINK NOW OR ELSE HUMANITY AND LIFE ON EARTH WILL SINK
Why not focus on things individuals can do personally to make their carbon usage smaller? Things like: - mow lawn less often and bury the clippings - bury food waste - travel via bicycle or electric scooter when possible - use geothermal for HVAC - use hydronic chillers for hot water and cooling. - solar hot water - grow your own food in your house or yard or buy hyper-local (within 20mi radius).
Why can't space mirrors in low orbit be fitted with an engine that use power from sunlight to generate energy to run some sort of fancy engine (have no clue),. Like a plasma engine maybe. Or just refuel that damn thing with Space X's cheap rockets
I'm a sci-fi nerd so...first thing I thought of was "2312" by Kim Stanley Robinson, in which giant mirrors HAVE been used--to cool down _Venus_. To the point where the thick atmosphere is actually falling out of the sky as snow. That's safer for the workers down there...unTIL an asteroid almost hits a mirror, which would FRY EVERYONE. ...whoopsie. And THAT'S what the problem would be with using this idea on Earth, even if it were financially feasible. Sure, our temperature isn't such that one unblocked ray of sunlight would mean certain death, but if we got really dependent on the temperatures _with_ the mirror being the right ones for crops and such, and then something broke it, or enough of the swarm got damaged...
There are other kinds of geo-engineering, you know. For instance, iron seeding seeks to do exactly what reducing carbon emissions does - it removes CO2 from the atmosphere. So does direct air capture (DAC) / carbon-capture-and-sequestration (CCS). Are any of them a good idea? Dunno. But it's not a good idea to dismiss the concept prematurely by only talking about some of the more outlandish projects. This vid was rather too short and superficial an introduction to the topic.
Just because the mirror is big doesn't mean it's impractical. It's way more expensive, but also throttleable, while atmospheric particles are just hanging out there and there's nothing tou can do about them.
A Sunshade the size of India Sound not too ridiculous. Parts of it could be manufactured in low earth orbit with raw materials launched by weekly reusable rockets like the Falcon 9. And because it will be in weightlessness the amount of mass required for a km^2 would be just a few kg. It could be extremely thin and light. And once we have the mirror it would require relatively little maintanance. This compares to the other solutions listed which would require yearly ongoing costs for indefinite time. If we perfekt this technique we could even start applying it at Venus in a century or so and give it a huge sun shade to get its average temperature to 15° after which we could start building a serious colony there.
Climate Change/Global Warming makes me feel depressed because I have a feeling that humanity will kill itself with the rising temperatures. If there’s any hope please post it in a reply, it might help me fell a bit less depressed. I HAVE NOT been diagnosed with depression btw.
You overestimate the size of space junk. The objects they track are tiny and too small to reflect a meaningful amount of light even with the amount of it.
Too many bits in orbit will bring on the Kessler Syndrome whereby space becomes inaccessible to us due to our spacecraft being destroyed by collisions.
1) Those mirrors won't be in Earth's orbit, but rather in a Lagrange point 2) If we had the capability to build those mirrors, we could just as well build a probe that clears orbits out
the imaginary spheres where we orbit our satellites and space junk is pretty high, so it's a pretty big sphere. The surface area covered by that junk is tiny. It is so tiny that in areas with low light pollution, plenty man-made satellites can be seen with the naked eye and look like gradually moving stars.
A Black plate or Photovoltaic satellite would be able to shade the Earth without being pushed back into the planet with the addition of producing power. This would be extremely effective as we would have a constant power carbon neutral energy source to convert CO2 into fuel for energy storage.
It's a shame you can't make your argument without using misleading information. The cost of damage caused by extreme weather events has gone down as a proportion of GDP. That means the apparent rising cost is a reflection of the fact that people have more material possessions, and in no way says anything about the frequency or severity of weather events. In addition the number of lives lost in extreme weather events worldwide has reduced dramatically over the last 100 years. This is probably due mostly to greatly increased wealth and knowledge enabling us to build stronger defences. May I suggest that you do more research so that you can use fact based evidence in your argument instead of emotional bias.
Something about this idea reminds me a lot of Mistborn's fictional world history. There might be a lesson relevant to all this in that particular bit of fiction. (SPOILERS) At one point someone temporarily got godlike powers and tried to get rid of a seemingly poisonous mist that had started wreaking havoc by moving the planet closer to its sun to warm it. Then the planet got too hot, so he made volcanoes that continously erupted with sun-reflecting particles. Then the planet's surface had too many of those particles on it, so he changed some sort of bacteria to be able to digest them. Aaand then the power ran out and that's how the planet was stuck. Point being there's only so long we can try and fix this mess before resources run out or it gets too out of control to sustain life as we know it, and if we waste them on an expensive experiment, as you say, that could easily make things worse...
Ok how about trapping the heat in chemical reactions and storing them deep underground... The core is anyways cooling down... We can solve two problems with one solution
Sulfate Aerosols plan gives me Stormpiercer movie vibe. In the movie something something chemtrails was ejected into the atmosphere to counter global warming that unfortunately lead to globally freezing the planet
In my opinion, we just aren't taking this hard line issue seriously enough. As nice as it sounds, when any one of us can says we are living a sustainable life style. But it really doesn't make a difference if the neighbor up the street is coal rolling there way to work. Or a mechanic in Iowa has made a living, by removing the mandated emission control devices for some whinny concervative. The fact is that the cost of polluting doesn't match the cost of the damage it does for someone else. And Geo Engineering may sound impractal; but when faced with the worst case scenario, and as we start to transition to a level one civilization, then that kind of control over there climate is going to very quickly become a necessity.
Great topic, but do not write off space mirrors or albedo modification yet. I think we need simultaneously try to block and reflect sunlight as well as reduce carbon emissions. No single action or technology can do it, we got to pursue all options. Space-based mirror doesnt have to be one large piece. Instead, it can be made of tens of thousands of smaller ones and we can add them over time. With big rockets coming online launch costs drop significantly and in coming decades we can use raw materials from the Moon or asteroids for construction. Crude factory in space, able to produce aluminium foil and steel trusses from in-situ resources is more than enough. Furthermore, this is reversible: if we decide it is not working we can order the mirrors to retract. You can not do this when spreading aerosols in the atmosphere. When aerosols are in sufficient height there is no option of pulling them back down immidiately, which is why I am not a fan of aerosol solution.
Carbon capture one plant does the work of 40million trees and you can make it into building materials or oil products making it carbon neutral because you pulled it out of the atmosphere but I like carbon-negative where you make it into building materials
We should limit the reason behind it such as overpopulation and human unnecessary activities , it worked for the ozone , so definitely would work but we should hurry before the damage could get worse
what if we started spraying aluminum nano-particles from aircraft nozzles so the particles would reflect the light back into space, and then disregarded the consequences because we were desperate? its even already patented
and better mirror design will not help with the push back from the suns rays? i dont want to believe the space mirror idea is so unfeasible... painting mountain tops white to prevent snowmelt is already being done in some parts of the earth with partial success but not on a scale of counteracting global warming everywhere.
It was too late 8 years ago. This is and will continue to happen. Accept that we're doomed or prove me wrong. I personally can't wait to tour Miami in scuba gear.
strange, that obviously unfeasible solution (space mirror) is in the title, while the feasible (cloud seeding, by sulphates or salt aerosol) are only hidden inside.
I think the best solution is to not just actively cleanse our atmosphere of carbon dioxide but to manipulate the chemistry of our atmosphere to be exactly the composition, temperature, and any other macro-state we deem necessary to achieve the most comfortable state of the atmosphere for us, our animals, and our plants.
What if we stop cutting our grass? There’s tons of grass that gets cut every year in the world simply for cosmetic reasons. That’s a lot of co2 that could go in feeding the tall plants
Is there something that common people can do to help? Or is our future completely in the hands of companies who would destroy the world for an extra penny?
I will never understand why they want us to get back to the same weather conditions we had in the late 1800's, we had severly bad harvests around the world and sweden were even harder to live in.
Hurray for stopgaps! How about using solar panels or concentrated solar power to energize (didn't want to sound repetitive) a high wattage laser array that works on frequencies transparent to our atmosphere and shoot some of that excess energy back up into space? Put a couple of these on reasonably accessible spots on Greenland and Antarctica to slow down some of the melt?
solar panels are black (for effectiveness) and not very effective (~20%). So they are not very good at cooling.. Even white panel + some coal furnace would be better. What do you mean by "shoot some of that excess energy back up into space"? Electricity is not a warm thing. It's just a way to create warm + do some electric stuff. Its like to firing bar of wood down and give some of its heat to the sky. What do you expect will happen? God will give you cube of ice for this nice laser ray?
@@chainforced7771 the sun's energy gets trapped in our atmosphere (greenhouse effect). the idea is to trasform the sun's energy into electric energy via the solar panels. then use this electric energy to power a laser to shoot the energy back into space. there by reducing global warming.
man, u mention about India a lot. I can tell by that, that u have most viewers from india. if thats true, hats off to you man, I like that concept of keeping Viewers happy
with the positive feedback loops that are already starting to happen shouldn't we be a little more concerned about pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere as well.
There are other kinds of geo-engineering. For instance, iron seeding seeks to do exactly what reducing carbon emissions does - it removes CO2 from the atmosphere. So does direct air capture (DAC) / carbon-capture-and-sequestration (CCS). Are any of them a good idea? Dunno. But it's not a good idea to dismiss the concept prematurely by only talking about some of the more outlandish projects. This vid was too short and superficial an overview.
We have not yet completely confirmed the positive feedback loops. They just make a lot of sense on paper. But yes, sequestration is likely eventually going to be a thing. Maybe not soon though. I'm sure they'll do videos on carbon sequestration soon enough.
verdatum not sure where you heard that positive feedbacks aren’t confirmed but that is just patently not the case. At least for a number of them. I’ll admit that many researchers seem to be actively looking for even more which doesn’t seem entirely productive but that is sorta beside the point. There is absolutely no doubt that methane hydrates are unstable as is. It only takes a small amount of force dislodge these gases and destabilize an entire deposit. This is the reason every country but japan has basically given up on research into harvesting them. Because a constant temperature differential is required to maintain their lattice structure, they would be incredibly susceptible to a warming ocean. Permafrost melt is another huge concern. As far as methane release by the process there is unequivocal evidence of this as permafrost is 100% receding and increased rates of ch4 have been documented in thaw lakes in northern Siberia as well as increased rates in Canada’s peat bogs. www.nature.com/articles/nature05040 agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2005jg000099 Ill admit that it has been disputed whether the Methane craters found in the Siberian tundra are new. The only major disagreement I’ve been able to find on the subject is in regards to plotting a causal relationship between temperature and co2 levels via data in ice cores. Considering the greenhouse potential of methane is 27 times that of co2 I would say that this should be humanities primary concern. At least in the short term.
Why isn't more being done to try and soak up the CO2 in the atmosphere... we know this is possible and effective, yet I am not aware of any large-scale projects aiming to do so. Am I wrong or missing something?
sorayven there are already projects that try to achieve that. You could of course plant some trees. This is also a great way to support small communities. Just use ecosia as your search engine. ;) When you mean technical stuff, then I know that scientists work on artificial photosynthesis... But really... You could also just plant real trees. Or finally there are huge filters that can soak CO2 and store it. It can then be used in greenhouses for example. However economics are still not perfect there. They made something like this in Switzerland and Canada I think. Just check out Climeworks, Carbon Engineering and Center for Carbon Removal.
There are other kinds of geo-engineering. For instance, iron seeding seeks to do exactly what reducing carbon emissions does - it removes CO2 from the atmosphere. So does direct air capture (DAC) / carbon-capture-and-sequestration (CCS). Are any of them a good idea? Dunno. But it's not a good idea to dismiss the concept prematurely by only talking about some of the more outlandish projects. This vid was too short and superficial an overview.
Mostly because we live in a capitalist market. People are very reluctant to pay more for their energy and capturing CO2 does nothing but raise energy costs. There are rather few markets for CO2. I know of one company that is using the CO2 from a power station to inject into exhausted oil wells to push up more oil. That's counter productive. Maybe it can be piped into greenhouses, but that's not sequestration on a geologic time scale. Same goes for the food and beverage industry. If you want to put away CO2 forever, it just costs money. Money that people don't want to pay.
we (and by we i mean the libertarian tea party premier saskatchewan had for far too long) are doing a CCS experiment. it isn't working out very well. for more information search for: "boundary dam" sask ccs grist.org/climate-energy/turns-out-the-worlds-first-clean-coal-plant-is-a-backdoor-subsidy-to-oil-producers/
vulcanfeline That was a good read. CCS has had major problems proving itself economical, which I don't expect to be resolved anytime soon. Still, that's something they should cover on this show, else people will keep bringing it up as a potential solution. Sadly, I don't think this show is interested in getting into climate economics debates, leaving it always seeming unrealistic.
It doesn't have mass, but it does have momentum. So whenever a photon is emitted there a 'recoil' against the particle that emits it. When it hits something that momentum is transferred to the target. It's a consequent of energy having (being the same thing as) mass, so when energy is transferred the mass or kinetic energy has to change which alters the momentum. But they still got it wrong, solar pressure would actually push the sail into a lower orbit where it's going too fast for it's location and so would actually migrate into a _higher_ orbit. It's the atmosphere that drags on things in LEO to slow them down and eventually spiral down.
Imagine if we could put something in the ground, that could take all that carbon dioxide away? Put millions of them in the ground. Put them absolutely frickin' everywhere. I hope we discover something soon...
Afforestation is slow, somewhat expensive to manage at scale and we have limited capacity to spread and sustain it. Indeed, that's why certain other geoengineering concepts arose to bypass those problems. Ocean iron seeding being the prime example. Also direct air capture (DAC) / carbon-capture-and-sequestration (CCS) projects.
There are other kinds of geo-engineering. For instance, iron seeding seeks to do exactly what reducing carbon emissions does - it removes CO2 from the atmosphere. So does direct air capture (DAC) / carbon-capture-and-sequestration (CCS). Are any of them a good idea? Dunno. But it's not a good idea to dismiss the concept prematurely by only talking about some of the more outlandish projects. This vid was too short and superficial an overview.
I wonder how large a sun absorbing panel would have to be, but right here on earth. Say like a solar panel that absorbs instead of reflecting, that would (being an actual solar panel) double as an alternative to burning that amount of fossil fuels for energy in the first place. Still the size of India? Much smaller? Much larger?
If you're reflecting all light it's about 1% of the surface. The less you reflect the bigger it has to be. Absorbing the energy doesn't help, as that's what the surface does now.
Unfortunately, if the solution was a gigantic, very expensive project, it would be much more popular than a long, widespread effort that envolves many small projects.
Giancarlo Pace this vid is just uploaded how could you place your comment 19 hours ago
Go and check "delayed quantum choice". The effect might indeed precede the cause.
Stop spreading misinformation. You can't send information back in time with the delayed quantum choice experiment.
I hereby swear that I was kidding. No information can be sent back in time in no possible way. I agree.
seasong
/r/Wooosh
3:28 All hail the Glow Cloud
All hail
ALLLLLLLLLLLLL
HAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLL
The argument I've always heard for albedo modification isn't that it's a miracle shortcut, but that it could be a stopgap while we deploy technologies like carbon capture to try to mitigate the long-term problem. It's just meant to buy time, although there's a legitimate concern that resolving the immediate threat would encourage complacency and discourage those long-term solutions. I don't know.
I don't think that we can drop the solar shade solution so easily just because it requires a large area of coverage. Solar shades can be made of very light and thin material.
Think of a giant graphene sheet 20% the cross-sectional area of the earth, at the L1 point (because graphene absorbs about 10% of light letting 90% pass through it). This sheet would only weigh 33 million kg and be only 2900 km in radius (based on a lattice distance of 0.142nm and an atomic mass of 12.01 atomic units). But you would probably want more structure to the sunshade and may use another material that is cheaper or better at absorbing infrared from the sun instead of visible light.
PS: My graphene sheet is so small that it couldn't gift wrap any of the planets. Though it could comfortably wrap pluto.
PSS: We would still need to deal with acidification and stuff but it would help to have less sunlight.
Yay new video! :D
This is great. After an idea like this is implemented then we can start debating how cool the earth should be. Who gets to set and regulate the temperature?
indeed e.g. maybe russia wouldnt mind some degrees warmer for their frozen wastelands. i on the other hand would prefer some degrees less in summer over here in europe.
Sont worry, illuminaties are working on it.
2:58
This is why everything is chrome in the future.
Brady Sullivan 😂😎
Wouldnt Reducing or reflect light coming into the atmosphere affect more than just the temperature of the earth. While is true sunlight is a major heat source, the light itself does more than heat us up. Living things could be affected in unpredictable ways because manipulation of light levels.as well as other unforeseen issues
Lagrange point is about cancelling gravitational pull. But the problem you're trying to solve is photonic pressure. And that is _not_ how orbits work.
Replace beef with pork. Replace cars with trains. Replace glowing bulbs with LEDs. Stuff like that
Iwer Sonsch Consume less in general
I would be hyped for a list of climate friendly replacements for items that aren't even that much different in terms of habits and life standard. For example, I didn't know about the big difference between beef and pork for the climate until I watched Hot Mess' video about it.
I find avoiding beef quite feasible so far even at a canteen
Iwer Sonsch Yeah yeah. I know. Good for you mate! :D
I actually read a lot of articles about sustainability in all day life.
And then I summarized all the knowledge in a Google document, however it is in German, and I still have to translate it one day😅
But there are a lot of possible alternatives in many areas ;)
German is the one language besides English that works for me. Maybe I can even help translating something
Iwer Sonsch Well okay.
Here's the German version.
docs.google.com/document/d/12O1h7a4TfHlzXc8GJJn3yUc8a5BKADzvS4mersqAZe8/edit?usp=sharing
You can also tell me what you think, I'm open for criticism.
Concerning the translation...yes why not. I just don't know how yet. I mean yes I can give the English document free for you but I don't have you mail address or something 🤷🏽♂️
Well just check it out for now ;D
They should paint or make the waterproofing materials white for flat roofs as an industry standard or by law. And no one would be that bothered to object cause they can't see it.
Black roofs have benefits in areas with cold climates. And in the US, it may be considered a violation of the freedom of expression to mandate this sort of thing. But yeah, white roofs are lovely.
Studies show that planting trees cools the area and if you plant enough trees you can change rainfall patterns in that area. Yet doing something to help clean the air, increase water, and people still can't get together on that.
MerkDolf Well that's one cause why I use ecosia as my search engine ;)
Here in Brazil, some cities low some taxes to you if you have many trees in your house
Actually the albedo of forest is significantly lower than that of desert sand, which means, if the Sahara was a forest, the global temperature would be higher. The Sahara reflects a lot of short wavelength light directly back into space.
Why can't just every human on earth hold their breath at once for a minute everyday lol.
And every cow holds in their burps for a few minutes. 👍
Or just use their legs to travel
Rome Blanchard or stabs random guy we can kill ourselves
1. We wouldn't produce less carbon dioxide, we'd just pause emissions for a moment and release the extra afterwards.
2. The CO2 produced by human metabolisms is miniscule.
3. I know this is probably a joke, but it sounds as serious as many stupid solutions I've heard people propose.
well we should want to keep the earth cooler as a temporary fix to slow down climate change whilst we transition from fossil fuels. Keeping the earth cool means keeping the methane under the permafrost but, a sun shade is not a good idea when we are developing alternative renewable's that are in majority powered by the sun. Instead we should be reflecting from the earth to increase the albedo cooling effect. Perhaps we should focus on ground based solutions rather than atmospheric where we can better isolate and control the experiment.
We may not be able to muster the collective will to implement the best solution. Or we may do it too late. We need to consider these geo-engineering ideas more seriously than you suggest. If the problem is as critical as you claim (and I'm not suggesting it isn't) you shouldn't be cutting of any solution because it doesn't fit someone's preconceived notion of what we ought to do. Doing so smacks of a certain mindset that suggests the developed world is basically evil and needs to stop doing everything it's doing and make everybody as miserable as possible to pay for their supposed sins.
The geo-engineering solutions discussed in this video are unpractical and dangerous. They do not fit somebody's notions of what we ought to do, because this somebody is thinking straight, lucky us. Preconceived ideas are those that want to prove a point, no matter what. The ideas exposed here, are conceived with the appropriate use of arguments and information. What specific claims do you think are preconceived?
Giancarlo Pace - I don't have a problem with any specific piece of data in this video. I have a problem with the semi-sarcastic and sneering tone with which they're delivered. Along with the more general statements that we should just stop thinking about stuff like this.
If the tone of the video were more "Well, someone thought of this, but it has this vexing problem. And they thought of this other thing, but it has this other vexing problem. And maybe these vexing problems can be dealt with, but so far the only real solution we can see is cutting emissions." I would feel differently about it. All solutions should be on the table. The problem is a very difficult one. I'm not going to feel ashamed or guilty or whatever for what we did in the past or for being in a rich country that used fossil carbon fuels before we understood the problem. I just want to pick the best course going forward, the course that will lead to the best possible collective outcome in the future.
I am happy that you don't feel ashamed, Eric Hopper, why should anybody feel ashamed for living in a rich country? It is not even a choice. As long as wee do see the big problems that do exist. I have no problem with the tone of the video, but that's just a matter of taste. Speaking of the facts presented, well, it is exactly as you put it: "someone thought of this, but it has this vexing problem". Which, sincerely, seem to me too big to be dealt with.
I'm not completely convinced the giant, india-sized sun-shade problem is too big to deal with. Some of the others seem like they'd be ineffectual (growing crops with a higher albedo and painting stuff white, for example) though I'd like to see that math on that. And others (like spewing sulfur compounds into the atmosphere) seem like they'd have irreversible effects, which are scary. They also didn't cover carbon sequestration techniques, though I suspect those won't work terribly well either. Where are you going to get the energy to do it?
Of course, the real problem is that we don't implement a lifecycle for everything we make. I think that, in general, should be a requirement we begin placing on industry. Every single thing you produce must also be consumed somewhere by a system that demonstrably has the capacity to consume it. The only input allowed is energy. No net output is allowed. Even waste heat you must develop the capacity to radiate into space without raising the global temperature.
How do you deal with the risk that if the mirror breaks, suddenly the temperature rises at the same level it would have if the mirror were never put in place?
I am sad he didn't mention ocean seeding.
Alaric Guy true
That topic is worth an entire video. But yeah, he could've mentioned it.
Love you HM!!!
Please consider correcting your video, new research is showing much smaller mirror size needed and this may lead to better interests. Please see youtube correction video: "Space Mirrors Climate Change New Feasible Research Estimates". Your area and sun blocking quoted in your video are now incorrect and are off by large factors based on new research. Thank you kindly for considering correcting your video. Best regards, Alec
But one reason for higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere are higher temperatures. Lower temperatures could possibly mean a bit less CO2, less acidification, slower climate change. So, not necessarily completely senseless.
Woahhhhh it would be night twice a dayyyyyy even if it's for just a few minutes????
As far as last-ditch solutions go, this isn't a bad option...but let's try some of the other ditches first.
Also blocking sun light might affect plant problems. While geoengineering will likely stiff have a place in the conversation...it def has super downsides and is an illustration to just how desperately behind we are
shortcuts make for long delays guys suck it up and get rid of co2 and stop making so much of it
Also, a mirror is a bad idea, use a black surface. You absorb half the inertia that way
A giant solar array in space could charge up spaceships and also give electricity to the Earth that sounds more sensible
I would have liked to hear more on the sea spraying. Solving part of the problem seems better than none of it, and for much cheaper than other solutions.
This is a grate channel.
I have a question, did anyone calculate how much CO2 will be suppressed
by a planting a large forest?
and did anyone speculate where such a forest can by planted?
Thanks.
Amir Fecher A lot. Don't know an exact number.
Just check out the search engine ecosia if you want to help and spread the word.
Amir, think of forests as a form of carbon collection. How much carbon does a forest collect? Easy to answer: grow a tree. Cut down that tree. efficiently turn that tree into charcoal. the charcoal that remains is nearly pure carbon, and roughly how much carbon you've collected during the life of that tree. Now compare that to how much coal we burn. Think of coal like charcoal that is smashed with a hydraulic press to squeeze out all the air. So by volume, it's sort of like natural charcoal times 5 or so. Every coal-burning city burns multiple rail-cars of coal every day. So it takes a HUGE forest to grow enough wood to offset that. It took millions of years of growth for those coal reserves to build up. And we burnt it all in a couple centuries. That's the problem. There really isn't much room to create new forest. Places like Canada has lots of forest, and we try to manage it by cutting down trees and planting new ones in their place. But it is never going to be enough to completely offset how much CO2 we use these days. It needs to drop waaaaay down, or we are going to be in some really expensive trouble. So support things like solar, wind, and nuclear power. And our CO2 generation will gradually begin to slow down.
Sounds right
This means that you must also scrub carbon from the air in an industrial way
what type of "large" do you mean?
And an important point about temperatures rapidly jumping up back to where they would be without geoengineering: what kills off species is not so much the absolute increase in temperature but the speed of that increase.
*Oh God, how hard is it to understand that we MUST cut down Greenhouse Gas Emissions NO MATTER WHAT!*
Okay, I think I'm ready to watch the video now
Okay but I want a long term solution, not something that is clearly political.
Seeing how the current DeVries Cycle is coming to an end and we might have significant solar cooling incoming, we might want to produce some more, actually.
@Bob Trenwith crashing our eccomny just so you can win elections is political. I want my cake and to eat it too.
@Bob Trenwith exactly, thank you. I don't think what I'm asking for is unreasonable. I want a long term solution that won't result in massive unemployment and a crashing eccomny.
@Bob Trenwith whose being obtuse here? I told you what I want. Are you having a problem understanding me? If not I would be happy to explain.
Could have made a solar power mirror.
Please do a video about soil's capability of absorbing CO2 and its potential.
And while you're at it, talk about the ocean absorbing CO2 and its ramifications.
In the show Futurama 🤔 they Moved the earth a little farther away from the sun.... Just an idea 🤗
2:14 sounded alot like in the Matrix....
And just how do you suppose we go about doing that hmm?
Yes.. could be done, only it's orders of magnitude harder and slower than just dealing with co2 in our atmosphere.
You use a long series of gravitation assist passes near the Earth. NASA has used gravity assist to fling spacecraft further than if they only used rocket propulsion. To move the Earth though the gravity assist is intended to move the planet and not the spacecraft.
I would have a fleet of thousands to millions of large spacecraft equipped with solar sails for maneuvers. As often as possible these spacecraft should pass behind the gas giants to steal their angular momentum and pass in front of the Earth in its orbit to deposit excess angular momentum. The solar sails are a low-mass way of tuning the spacecrafts' orbit to make gravity assist passes as often as possible.
Even with a fleet of millions of spacecraft and hundreds of millions of passes the project will take tens to hundreds of thousands of years to push the Earth a measurable distance. The global warming problem requires much swifter action than a repositioning scheme can provide.
by farting robots, oviously
I know which episode that was. That lead to robot week.
How about putting up solar collectors instead of mirrors and try to kill two birds with one stone? I kind of see some problems with that too, but it's at least worth considering.
If the power is beamed to earth, so is the heat when the power is used. It's a basic principle of thermodynamics. That said, using space-based solar collectors to generate power could possibly be a clean way to generate power. It's just that a solution for global warming still has to be found.
That makes a lot of sense. Thanks.
what if...
We build a SHIELD around Earth somehow
there was a movie about that, when a system fault in one of the shield things got damageD and them massive stuff started happening like Moskow being like 400*C and Rio De Jenero being like -200*C
I dont know
WE HAVE TO FIND SOMESINK NOW OR ELSE HUMANITY AND LIFE ON EARTH WILL SINK
Why not focus on things individuals can do personally to make their carbon usage smaller? Things like:
- mow lawn less often and bury the clippings
- bury food waste
- travel via bicycle or electric scooter when possible
- use geothermal for HVAC
- use hydronic chillers for hot water and cooling.
- solar hot water
- grow your own food in your house or yard or buy hyper-local (within 20mi radius).
Why can't space mirrors in low orbit be fitted with an engine that use power from sunlight to generate energy to run some sort of fancy engine (have no clue),. Like a plasma engine maybe. Or just refuel that damn thing with Space X's cheap rockets
I'm a sci-fi nerd so...first thing I thought of was "2312" by Kim Stanley Robinson, in which giant mirrors HAVE been used--to cool down _Venus_. To the point where the thick atmosphere is actually falling out of the sky as snow. That's safer for the workers down there...unTIL an asteroid almost hits a mirror, which would FRY EVERYONE.
...whoopsie.
And THAT'S what the problem would be with using this idea on Earth, even if it were financially feasible. Sure, our temperature isn't such that one unblocked ray of sunlight would mean certain death, but if we got really dependent on the temperatures _with_ the mirror being the right ones for crops and such, and then something broke it, or enough of the swarm got damaged...
There are other kinds of geo-engineering, you know. For instance, iron seeding seeks to do exactly what reducing carbon emissions does - it removes CO2 from the atmosphere. So does direct air capture (DAC) / carbon-capture-and-sequestration (CCS). Are any of them a good idea? Dunno. But it's not a good idea to dismiss the concept prematurely by only talking about some of the more outlandish projects. This vid was rather too short and superficial an introduction to the topic.
Just because the mirror is big doesn't mean it's impractical. It's way more expensive, but also throttleable, while atmospheric particles are just hanging out there and there's nothing tou can do about them.
A Sunshade the size of India Sound not too ridiculous.
Parts of it could be manufactured in low earth orbit with raw materials launched by weekly reusable rockets like the Falcon 9.
And because it will be in weightlessness the amount of mass required for a km^2 would be just a few kg. It could be extremely thin and light.
And once we have the mirror it would require relatively little maintanance. This compares to the other solutions listed which would require yearly ongoing costs for indefinite time.
If we perfekt this technique we could even start applying it at Venus in a century or so and give it a huge sun shade to get its average temperature to 15° after which we could start building a serious colony there.
Climate Change/Global Warming makes me feel depressed because I have a feeling that humanity will kill itself with the rising temperatures. If there’s any hope please post it in a reply, it might help me fell a bit less depressed. I HAVE NOT been diagnosed with depression btw.
Question: is the current metallic space junk cloud around our planet not kind of achieving that effect? could a cloud of mirrors work?
Nobody's even suggesting a solid one-part mirror of such size. Of course a swarm is the way to go
You overestimate the size of space junk. The objects they track are tiny and too small to reflect a meaningful amount of light even with the amount of it.
Too many bits in orbit will bring on the Kessler Syndrome whereby space becomes inaccessible to us due to our spacecraft being destroyed by collisions.
1) Those mirrors won't be in Earth's orbit, but rather in a Lagrange point
2) If we had the capability to build those mirrors, we could just as well build a probe that clears orbits out
the imaginary spheres where we orbit our satellites and space junk is pretty high, so it's a pretty big sphere. The surface area covered by that junk is tiny. It is so tiny that in areas with low light pollution, plenty man-made satellites can be seen with the naked eye and look like gradually moving stars.
A Black plate or Photovoltaic satellite would be able to shade the Earth without being pushed back into the planet with the addition of producing power. This would be extremely effective as we would have a constant power carbon neutral energy source to convert CO2 into fuel for energy storage.
It's a shame you can't make your argument without using misleading information. The cost of damage caused by extreme weather events has gone down as a proportion of GDP. That means the apparent rising cost is a reflection of the fact that people have more material possessions, and in no way says anything about the frequency or severity of weather events. In addition the number of lives lost in extreme weather events worldwide has reduced dramatically over the last 100 years. This is probably due mostly to greatly increased wealth and knowledge enabling us to build stronger defences. May I suggest that you do more research so that you can use fact based evidence in your argument instead of emotional bias.
This is exactly what Musk and Bezos need to be doing with all their money..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Something about this idea reminds me a lot of Mistborn's fictional world history. There might be a lesson relevant to all this in that particular bit of fiction.
(SPOILERS)
At one point someone temporarily got godlike powers and tried to get rid of a seemingly poisonous mist that had started wreaking havoc by moving the planet closer to its sun to warm it. Then the planet got too hot, so he made volcanoes that continously erupted with sun-reflecting particles. Then the planet's surface had too many of those particles on it, so he changed some sort of bacteria to be able to digest them. Aaand then the power ran out and that's how the planet was stuck.
Point being there's only so long we can try and fix this mess before resources run out or it gets too out of control to sustain life as we know it, and if we waste them on an expensive experiment, as you say, that could easily make things worse...
Ok how about trapping the heat in chemical reactions and storing them deep underground...
The core is anyways cooling down...
We can solve two problems with one solution
There's literally a company building massive CO2 filters to take out CO2 out of the air. Give those billions of dollars to them!
Sulfate Aerosols plan gives me Stormpiercer movie vibe. In the movie something something chemtrails was ejected into the atmosphere to counter global warming that unfortunately lead to globally freezing the planet
In my opinion, we just aren't taking this hard line issue seriously enough.
As nice as it sounds, when any one of us can says we are living a sustainable life style. But it really doesn't make a difference if the neighbor up the street is coal rolling there way to work. Or a mechanic in Iowa has made a living, by removing the mandated emission control devices for some whinny concervative.
The fact is that the cost of polluting doesn't match the cost of the damage it does for someone else.
And Geo Engineering may sound impractal; but when faced with the worst case scenario, and as we start to transition to a level one civilization, then that kind of control over there climate is going to very quickly become a necessity.
Great topic, but do not write off space mirrors or albedo modification yet. I think we need simultaneously try to block and reflect sunlight as well as reduce carbon emissions. No single action or technology can do it, we got to pursue all options.
Space-based mirror doesnt have to be one large piece. Instead, it can be made of tens of thousands of smaller ones and we can add them over time. With big rockets coming online launch costs drop significantly and in coming decades we can use raw materials from the Moon or asteroids for construction. Crude factory in space, able to produce aluminium foil and steel trusses from in-situ resources is more than enough. Furthermore, this is reversible: if we decide it is not working we can order the mirrors to retract. You can not do this when spreading aerosols in the atmosphere. When aerosols are in sufficient height there is no option of pulling them back down immidiately, which is why I am not a fan of aerosol solution.
Carbon capture one plant does the work of 40million trees and you can make it into building materials or oil products making it carbon neutral because you pulled it out of the atmosphere but I like carbon-negative where you make it into building materials
We should limit the reason behind it such as overpopulation and human unnecessary activities , it worked for the ozone , so definitely would work but we should hurry before the damage could get worse
what if we started spraying aluminum nano-particles from aircraft nozzles so the particles would reflect the light back into space, and then disregarded the consequences because we were desperate? its even already patented
I'd say this sulpher reflection should only be used if we literally stop and begin trying to somehow sequester out CO2 from the atmosphere?
and better mirror design will not help with the push back from the suns rays? i dont want to believe the space mirror idea is so unfeasible...
painting mountain tops white to prevent snowmelt is already being done in some parts of the earth with partial success but not on a scale of counteracting global warming everywhere.
It was too late 8 years ago. This is and will continue to happen. Accept that we're doomed or prove me wrong. I personally can't wait to tour Miami in scuba gear.
strange, that obviously unfeasible solution (space mirror) is in the title, while the feasible (cloud seeding, by sulphates or salt aerosol) are only hidden inside.
Someone show this video to Andrew Yang. He's proposing the giant mirror idea to combat climate change. Lmao
I think the best solution is to not just actively cleanse our atmosphere of carbon dioxide but to manipulate the chemistry of our atmosphere to be exactly the composition, temperature, and any other macro-state we deem necessary to achieve the most comfortable state of the atmosphere for us, our animals, and our plants.
But when you suggest to not pollute more by not using fossil fuels
Everybody seems to be very quiet and hoping you'll go away, or is it just me?
Don't spray more chemicals in the atmosphere, 1 million more starlink satellites and problem solved.
What about using a hose to rise sulfate aerosole to stratosphere? Is Stewen Lewitt's superfreakonomics a scum?!
Wouldn't sunlight reflected off of houses or crops just be absorbed by the atmosphere on its way out? Isn't that the whole greenhouse effect?
What if we stop cutting our grass? There’s tons of grass that gets cut every year in the world simply for cosmetic reasons. That’s a lot of co2 that could go in feeding the tall plants
If some one wants to go through the trouble to build a space mirror. They can just build a mini dison sphere instead.
How much would it cost to build public transport everywhere...hmmmmmm
Make a giant vacuum cleaner and suck the CO2 out of the sky. then bury the giant tank underground.
The obvious solution is to reflect on how to stop emitting Nitrous Oxide, and we know whats the best solution is :)
Please please please make a video on molten salt reactors. You guys barely addressed advanced reactors during your first episode
Is there something that common people can do to help? Or is our future completely in the hands of companies who would destroy the world for an extra penny?
Why not just plant trees. The leaves of trees reflect the sun naturally. those same trees pump out oxygen while taken in our carbon.
I will never understand why they want us to get back to the same weather conditions we had in the late 1800's, we had severly bad harvests around the world and sweden were even harder to live in.
Where is she....
Been searching for her...
The AI that has been recommending stuff to me 🤪
Hurray for stopgaps!
How about using solar panels or concentrated solar power to energize (didn't want to sound repetitive) a high wattage laser array that works on frequencies transparent to our atmosphere and shoot some of that excess energy back up into space?
Put a couple of these on reasonably accessible spots on Greenland and Antarctica to slow down some of the melt?
solar panels are black (for effectiveness) and not very effective (~20%). So they are not very good at cooling.. Even white panel + some coal furnace would be better. What do you mean by "shoot some of that excess energy back up into space"? Electricity is not a warm thing. It's just a way to create warm + do some electric stuff. Its like to firing bar of wood down and give some of its heat to the sky. What do you expect will happen? God will give you cube of ice for this nice laser ray?
@@chainforced7771 the sun's energy gets trapped in our atmosphere (greenhouse effect). the idea is to trasform the sun's energy into electric energy via the solar panels.
then use this electric energy to power a laser to shoot the energy back into space. there by reducing global warming.
I would just use space sunshades to paraterraform Mercury, Venus, Mars and Ceres.
Simon Clark has a video on his channel explaining how climate change may already be irreversible
I remember an episode of Futurama where this exactly idea ended horribly.
man, u mention about India a lot. I can tell by that, that u have most viewers from india.
if thats true, hats off to you man, I like that concept of keeping Viewers happy
But why mirrors in space. Why dont we put mirrors in the earth's surface?
Instead of spending billions and trillions on this why we don't spend the money for that to fix climate change
with the positive feedback loops that are already starting to happen shouldn't we be a little more concerned about pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere as well.
Brendan Taylor Yeah. Trees and carbon engineering could help with that.
Check out ecosia and Climeworks if you're interested
There are other kinds of geo-engineering. For instance, iron seeding seeks to do exactly what reducing carbon emissions does - it removes CO2 from the atmosphere. So does direct air capture (DAC) / carbon-capture-and-sequestration (CCS). Are any of them a good idea? Dunno. But it's not a good idea to dismiss the concept prematurely by only talking about some of the more outlandish projects. This vid was too short and superficial an overview.
We have not yet completely confirmed the positive feedback loops. They just make a lot of sense on paper. But yes, sequestration is likely eventually going to be a thing. Maybe not soon though. I'm sure they'll do videos on carbon sequestration soon enough.
verdatum not sure where you heard that positive feedbacks aren’t confirmed but that is just patently not the case. At least for a number of them.
I’ll admit that many researchers seem to be actively looking for even more which doesn’t seem entirely productive but that is sorta beside the point.
There is absolutely no doubt that methane hydrates are unstable as is. It only takes a small amount of force dislodge these gases and destabilize an entire deposit. This is the reason every country but japan has basically given up on research into harvesting them. Because a constant temperature differential is required to maintain their lattice structure, they would be incredibly susceptible to a warming ocean.
Permafrost melt is another huge concern. As far as methane release by the process there is unequivocal evidence of this as permafrost is 100% receding and increased rates of ch4 have been documented in thaw lakes in northern Siberia as well as increased rates in Canada’s peat bogs.
www.nature.com/articles/nature05040
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2005jg000099
Ill admit that it has been disputed whether the Methane craters found in the Siberian tundra are new.
The only major disagreement I’ve been able to find on the subject is in regards to plotting a causal relationship between temperature and co2 levels via data in ice cores. Considering the greenhouse potential of methane is 27 times that of co2 I would say that this should be humanities primary concern. At least in the short term.
Why don't we just collect that energy in multitude of electrode pads?
Why isn't more being done to try and soak up the CO2 in the atmosphere... we know this is possible and effective, yet I am not aware of any large-scale projects aiming to do so. Am I wrong or missing something?
sorayven there are already projects that try to achieve that.
You could of course plant some trees. This is also a great way to support small communities. Just use ecosia as your search engine. ;)
When you mean technical stuff, then I know that scientists work on artificial photosynthesis... But really... You could also just plant real trees.
Or finally there are huge filters that can soak CO2 and store it. It can then be used in greenhouses for example. However economics are still not perfect there. They made something like this in Switzerland and Canada I think. Just check out Climeworks, Carbon Engineering and Center for Carbon Removal.
There are other kinds of geo-engineering. For instance, iron seeding seeks to do exactly what reducing carbon emissions does - it removes CO2 from the atmosphere. So does direct air capture (DAC) / carbon-capture-and-sequestration (CCS). Are any of them a good idea? Dunno. But it's not a good idea to dismiss the concept prematurely by only talking about some of the more outlandish projects. This vid was too short and superficial an overview.
Mostly because we live in a capitalist market. People are very reluctant to pay more for their energy and capturing CO2 does nothing but raise energy costs. There are rather few markets for CO2. I know of one company that is using the CO2 from a power station to inject into exhausted oil wells to push up more oil. That's counter productive. Maybe it can be piped into greenhouses, but that's not sequestration on a geologic time scale. Same goes for the food and beverage industry. If you want to put away CO2 forever, it just costs money. Money that people don't want to pay.
we (and by we i mean the libertarian tea party premier saskatchewan had for far too long) are doing a CCS experiment. it isn't working out very well. for more information search for: "boundary dam" sask ccs
grist.org/climate-energy/turns-out-the-worlds-first-clean-coal-plant-is-a-backdoor-subsidy-to-oil-producers/
vulcanfeline That was a good read. CCS has had major problems proving itself economical, which I don't expect to be resolved anytime soon. Still, that's something they should cover on this show, else people will keep bringing it up as a potential solution. Sadly, I don't think this show is interested in getting into climate economics debates, leaving it always seeming unrealistic.
So you mean CO2 will likely double in the next few decades?
He meant CO2 output probably.
70% of the air is NOT CO2, it is nitrogen. CO2 is 0.04%., or 400 ppm.
@@CursedJoker 79%
That would be just fighting symtoms, not the root of the problem.
Ooooo this one's more interesting than all the hot mess videos
Osm idea
Futurama did the mirror thing and it was a funny gag. The mirror turned around and set fire to everything
if that happened wouldn't it reflect onto something else and what would be the reaction?
USE the Fuxken MOON to hold the MIRRORS!!!
I definitely prefer Joe. I find a really high pitch voice hard to listen to.
1:04 what??? Light doesn't have mass. Just theoretically.... Can someone explain
It doesn't have mass, but it does have momentum. So whenever a photon is emitted there a 'recoil' against the particle that emits it. When it hits something that momentum is transferred to the target. It's a consequent of energy having (being the same thing as) mass, so when energy is transferred the mass or kinetic energy has to change which alters the momentum.
But they still got it wrong, solar pressure would actually push the sail into a lower orbit where it's going too fast for it's location and so would actually migrate into a _higher_ orbit. It's the atmosphere that drags on things in LEO to slow them down and eventually spiral down.
Imagine if we could put something in the ground, that could take all that carbon dioxide away? Put millions of them in the ground. Put them absolutely frickin' everywhere.
I hope we discover something soon...
Afforestation is slow, somewhat expensive to manage at scale and we have limited capacity to spread and sustain it. Indeed, that's why certain other geoengineering concepts arose to bypass those problems. Ocean iron seeding being the prime example. Also direct air capture (DAC) / carbon-capture-and-sequestration (CCS) projects.
JUST COVER OUR ROOFTOP WITH MIRROR....IS MUCH MORE SIMPLE SOLUTION
The amount I like this video is directly proportional to the no. of puns
Interesting speculation, since science is not the foundation of proof.
6th
So pollute more, just with different stuff, to stop our original pollution from killing us.
There are other kinds of geo-engineering. For instance, iron seeding seeks to do exactly what reducing carbon emissions does - it removes CO2 from the atmosphere. So does direct air capture (DAC) / carbon-capture-and-sequestration (CCS). Are any of them a good idea? Dunno. But it's not a good idea to dismiss the concept prematurely by only talking about some of the more outlandish projects. This vid was too short and superficial an overview.
yes, i always liked acid rain and dunno why they made this big effort to stop it.
....for the occasional reader /sarcasm off
That’s a great idea except not really
I wonder how large a sun absorbing panel would have to be, but right here on earth. Say like a solar panel that absorbs instead of reflecting, that would (being an actual solar panel) double as an alternative to burning that amount of fossil fuels for energy in the first place. Still the size of India? Much smaller? Much larger?
If you're reflecting all light it's about 1% of the surface. The less you reflect the bigger it has to be. Absorbing the energy doesn't help, as that's what the surface does now.
would other places that are getting colder, even colder?