Of course nothing can go wrong with this experiment and we now don't even have to woory about climate change. Stangely, it's autumn in Brazil and I'm sweating shirtless in a city that used to be called "The Brazilian Switzerland". The name wasn't because of cholocate, banks nor sophisticated industry - it was because how cooler the city was when compared to others in the region.
One reason I like the movie Snowpiercer is because of its first 3 minutes. If you ever worked as an engineer it is easy to see that that's exactly what will happen.
Conspiracy theorist that said scientist were working on cloud brightening to reflect solar radiation back into space? First time I’ve heard of conspiracy theorist talking about this. So what exactly are you talking about? Thank you,
what were they saying ? that scientists are considering ideas to combat the effects of 100 years of man-made unintentional climate engineering ? It's almost like you didn't bother to listen to this before commenting.
I was struck at the end by the answer to the question of when we can see this in action. He said the scientist say it is too early in the technology to discuss all the applications. The truth is that one can do the analysis now and see if it is economically feasible. The answer is very likely no.
Actually those calculations have been done in a whole variety of studies (perhaps most prominently by David Keith at Harvard). Turns out atmospheric H2SO4 aerosol injection is not only economically feasible, it is almost laughably cheap.
Answer me this: is it “economically feasible“ to live with increasing multi billion dollar storms all across the US? For hundreds of years? This is only the beginning of climate change. You’re just getting a taste of the catastrophic climate, events, your children and grandchildren will face. So you’re going to go shopping for a solution? Maybe at the dollar store??
@@yurona5155 I looked into the studies and stand corrected. If the analysis holds to be true, the theoretical cost should be much lower than I would have thought (10s of billions to cool earth by a degree). Hope we can actually get it implemented in a reasonable time frame and at that reasonable cost. It's actually pretty baffling if true in that we can solve climate change for 1% of the cost of our foreign wars that never amounted to any positive outcome for humanity.
We all know that our air conditioning and cars are more important than global warming. I don't see people giving up thier comfort for the global good. Unfortunately we are selfish. I do hope that these experiments are able to help. I could see that these clouds could raise the salinity of the ground. I think if it rains over the oceans that wouldn't be a problem.
if it was nt for the fact that its the people who are the least to blame for this that will suffer the most i would say humanity deserves everything it gets at this point. hopefully the people who really deserve punishment will get it in the next life.
Cloud brightening is great during the day, but what do they do at night when we rely on clear sky's to radiate heat to space? Unless we can increase clouds during the day, maybe with contrails, and decrease clouds at night, maybe with cloud seeding, sounds like a waist of time. Let's use the abundance of commercial airplanes over major cities to ease their heat island effect.
@@asafh04 my undergraduate and masters is in geology and geophysics, my doctorate is in engineering and taught earth science and engineering for 6 semesters including atmospherics, oceanology and heat transfer. But still have difficulty understanding how Solar visible and ultraviolet light gets re-emitted as infrared in the CO2 absorption spectrum. My guess is that atmospheric CO2 cools the earth during the day more than it warms the planet at night. So, call me skeptical.
@@freerovingbovine sabine hossenfelder has a good video about this. Infra red radiation is emitted and absorbed multiple times until it reaches the upper stratosphere, at a point where it can escape, above the co2. The crucial thing for cooling is actually the temperature of that shell
@@asafh04"Recent satellite data (2002-2019) has shown that the mesosphere and lower thermosphere have cooled by 3.1°F (1.7°C)." That's nothing compared to the Arctic Winter difference in the range of 40oF above and below the sea-ice. Polynyas and leads are the generators of sea ice. We should be increasing their extent.
What is the consequence of putting so much salt into our clouds we already have enough chemtrail dust that is killing our trees. The salt is going to effect all of our living beings on the Earth.
Gods number one, Your imaginary friend is no better than mine. FYI. If you have references to scientific data backing up your chemtrail hypothesis and/or your statement about salt sprayed over the ocean affecting the land based environment significantly, please post it here. Thank you very much, Climate change is caused by the burning of fossil fuels emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Follow the science.
16:02 That's not correct! The understanding about the correlation of carbon in the atmosphere and climate change started in the late 1950s. We were engineering nothing - we were just putting polutants in the easiest place using the cheapest methods.
If you had links in your comment that could’ve done it. Maybe some wording was a red flag for the algorithm?? I have run into this over and over again with.Why Tee. Notice I don’t even use the letters to describe this service anymore. I will say it is EXTREMELY FRUSTRATING when I compose a long, well researched comment and it disappears. You have my condolences.
Listen to Dane Wigington if you like being manipulated & misinformed, he's a fool who makes his living fooling fools like you. O.P- what about it? it was a cloud seeding operation the US deployed to extend the monsoon season in vietnam during the war. Cloud seeding today is used mostly to increase local precipitation. Texas alone has 9 companies that operate there.
You don’t happen to have any proof do you? Because thousands of scientists seem to think you’re wrong and that it’s greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. And they have data.
wrong, those are contrails (condensation trail) and they've been documented for over 100 years., and are an unintended consequence of air travel - also something that scientists are studying extensively. Look up "contrail mitigation"
One of the reasons why people have a hard time taking climate change seriously is the use of the "Precautionary Principle" by the green movement in the 1970s. If you remember there were films like "Soylent Green" and "Silent Runner" and predictions for the complete decline of nature before 1980. The exaggeration had good intentions but as always it had unexpected consquences: once the world did not end in 1980, people started not to take seriously that type of prediction. The "Precautionary Principle" states that even when predictions have little factual basis, the fact that these predictions could be atastrophic, Governements had the duty to exaggerate and act as a precaution. The principle was later incorporated by the Neo-Conservative movement and gave birth to things like "I just hope the smoking gun is not a mushroom cloud" and the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The New York Times should no better, btw. Fool you once, its a mistake, fool you twice, it's incompetence. What you are saying is that Climate Change is so bad - and it probably is - that we should try to control the climate artificially instead of bringing it back to a state in which it controls itself. You are also saying that we, citizens, can do nothing to change CO2 emission levels - or, in other words, there's no real democratic State in the west. BTW, people have been doing a lot to fight climate change but perhaps what you said is true: there's no real democracy in the Western World. Your lie is on how you said it - in a way that sugar coats it so much people don't see the feeling beneath the frosting.
Wouldn't a relatively simple plan be to mandate that all new cars, roads, tops of buildings, etc be either white or silver rather than blacktop or some other dark color? That would seem to be a relatively quick, cheaper, and less intrusive measure to make the surface more reflective. You give up a black car, but you still have a car. When you repaint your residence or building, you just have to pick a lighter color. If you live in Phoenix or Las Vegas, is it really that much of a sacrifice to put white rock in your landscaping and white shingles on your roof? A major city like London, New York, or Tokyo has a pretty good sized surface area.
We’re trying to reflect solar energy away from dark ocean surfaces. That’s why it’s “marine“ cloud brightening. The ocean absorb more than 90% of the suns radiation here on earth. That’s why the massive reduction in sea ice extent is such a big problem.
They are not "spraying", those trails behind plane are known as contrails, short for condensation trails - which have been documented for over 100 years, "chemtrails" on the other hand are a myth that only exists in the minds of the gullible and scientific illiterate.
Younger people tend to buy SUVs more than old people (can't link, but google New SUV buyers in the United States as of January 2019, by age group). You can find similar data when it comes to other polluting industries, such as fast fashion, plane travel, etc. Age is not a criteria, because our generation is just as bad as our parents'.
@@gogudelagaze1585 hmmm thats one metric. but i doubt it takes into account many things. anyway doesnt change the fact that older people were warned for decades to change their ways and did nothing in fact they became MORE materialistic. i have actually talked to a boomer who in a joking way said pfff ah well cIimate change isnt a problem for me. he had kids and quite possibly grandkids. other than that one comment he was nice enough. sometimes i remember that comment and wonder what on earth was going through his head.
Reduce carbon....that won't impact plants/trees at all... Oh wait, ignore all the carbon to oxygen theory ... Yupp - reduce the population as Doctor + Professor Bill Gates hit the nail on the head in his Ted talk.. Genius level lack of critical thought 🤯😵
Serving BS on a platter. Let’s fight bad emissions with good emissions - what a grand idea - what could possibly go wrong? The text definition of climate change supplied is erroneous, miss leading and horribly slanted to support unsubstantiated claims. Very poor reporting.
Of course nothing can go wrong with this experiment and we now don't even have to woory about climate change. Stangely, it's autumn in Brazil and I'm sweating shirtless in a city that used to be called "The Brazilian Switzerland". The name wasn't because of cholocate, banks nor sophisticated industry - it was because how cooler the city was when compared to others in the region.
i mean we will most likely need solar geoengineering of one kind or another. its that simple
Yea it used to be cold in Canada in the winter, but that doesn’t seem to happen anymore.
One reason I like the movie Snowpiercer is because of its first 3 minutes. If you ever worked as an engineer it is easy to see that that's exactly what will happen.
What about all those “conspiracy theorists” who have been saying this for years? 🤔
Conspiracy theorist that said scientist were working on cloud brightening to reflect solar radiation back into space?
First time I’ve heard of conspiracy theorist talking about this.
So what exactly are you talking about?
Thank you,
what were they saying ? that scientists are considering ideas to combat the effects of 100 years of man-made unintentional climate engineering ? It's almost like you didn't bother to listen to this before commenting.
So why keep it a secret?
It’s not secret if it’s on UA-cam and available through a subscription to the New York Times
it's not a secret.
I was struck at the end by the answer to the question of when we can see this in action. He said the scientist say it is too early in the technology to discuss all the applications. The truth is that one can do the analysis now and see if it is economically feasible. The answer is very likely no.
Actually those calculations have been done in a whole variety of studies (perhaps most prominently by David Keith at Harvard). Turns out atmospheric H2SO4 aerosol injection is not only economically feasible, it is almost laughably cheap.
Answer me this: is it “economically feasible“ to live with increasing multi billion dollar storms all across the US? For hundreds of years?
This is only the beginning of climate change. You’re just getting a taste of the catastrophic climate, events, your children and grandchildren will face.
So you’re going to go shopping for a solution? Maybe at the dollar store??
@@yurona5155 I looked into the studies and stand corrected. If the analysis holds to be true, the theoretical cost should be much lower than I would have thought (10s of billions to cool earth by a degree). Hope we can actually get it implemented in a reasonable time frame and at that reasonable cost. It's actually pretty baffling if true in that we can solve climate change for 1% of the cost of our foreign wars that never amounted to any positive outcome for humanity.
We all know that our air conditioning and cars are more important than global warming. I don't see people giving up thier comfort for the global good. Unfortunately we are selfish. I do hope that these experiments are able to help. I could see that these clouds could raise the salinity of the ground. I think if it rains over the oceans that wouldn't be a problem.
if it was nt for the fact that its the people who are the least to blame for this that will suffer the most i would say humanity deserves everything it gets at this point. hopefully the people who really deserve punishment will get it in the next life.
We are seeing catastrophic climate events almost daily in the United States. If marine cloud brightening works, we should employ it ASAP.
daily?
@@noklarok ALMOST daily. Reading comprehension bro.
@@solarwind907 euch
Coal processing overview unite 3 energy transition
15:10 You really think I should accept an explanation that uses less than 20 words for why these ideas started to be taken seriously?
Cloud brightening is great during the day, but what do they do at night when we rely on clear sky's to radiate heat to space? Unless we can increase clouds during the day, maybe with contrails, and decrease clouds at night, maybe with cloud seeding, sounds like a waist of time. Let's use the abundance of commercial airplanes over major cities to ease their heat island effect.
Are you an atmospheric researcher? If not, you probably dont need to comment on complex things you dont specialize in
marine cloud brightening would work best in the arctic summer when theres permanent daylight for months on end.
@@asafh04 my undergraduate and masters is in geology and geophysics, my doctorate is in engineering and taught earth science and engineering for 6 semesters including atmospherics, oceanology and heat transfer.
But still have difficulty understanding how Solar visible and ultraviolet light gets re-emitted as infrared in the CO2 absorption spectrum. My guess is that atmospheric CO2 cools the earth during the day more than it warms the planet at night.
So, call me skeptical.
@@freerovingbovine sabine hossenfelder has a good video about this. Infra red radiation is emitted and absorbed multiple times until it reaches the upper stratosphere, at a point where it can escape, above the co2. The crucial thing for cooling is actually the temperature of that shell
@@asafh04"Recent satellite data (2002-2019) has shown that the mesosphere and lower thermosphere have cooled by 3.1°F (1.7°C)."
That's nothing compared to the Arctic Winter difference in the range of 40oF above and below the sea-ice. Polynyas and leads are the generators of sea ice. We should be increasing their extent.
What is the consequence of putting so much salt into our clouds we already have enough chemtrail dust that is killing our trees. The salt is going to effect all of our living beings on the Earth.
Gods number one,
Your imaginary friend is no better than mine. FYI. If you have references to scientific data backing up your chemtrail hypothesis and/or your statement about salt sprayed over the ocean affecting the land based environment significantly, please post it here. Thank you very much,
Climate change is caused by the burning of fossil fuels emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Follow the science.
Million years life cycle assessment
What severity!? N climate change... Like the seasons..? Crazy...!
16:02 That's not correct! The understanding about the correlation of carbon in the atmosphere and climate change started in the late 1950s. We were engineering nothing - we were just putting polutants in the easiest place using the cheapest methods.
UNINTENTIONAL engineering.
Interesting that my long comment criticizing these ideas....disappeared...😨
thats youtube that isnt a conspiracy. my comments on every topic imaginable get deleted all the damn time
If you had links in your comment that could’ve done it. Maybe some wording was a red flag for the algorithm??
I have run into this over and over again with.Why Tee. Notice I don’t even use the letters to describe this service anymore.
I will say it is EXTREMELY FRUSTRATING when I compose a long, well researched comment and it disappears. You have my condolences.
Watch the Dimming documentary with Dane Wigington and Operation Popeye 1968.
Listen to Dane Wigington if you like being manipulated & misinformed, he's a fool who makes his living fooling fools like you. O.P- what about it? it was a cloud seeding operation the US deployed to extend the monsoon season in vietnam during the war. Cloud seeding today is used mostly to increase local precipitation. Texas alone has 9 companies that operate there.
This one’s really gonna upset the normies
We've been watching them Chemtrail since the 70's. THIS is what is holding in heat and humidity. We keep causing MORE problems.
You don’t happen to have any proof do you? Because thousands of scientists seem to think you’re wrong and that it’s greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.
And they have data.
wrong, those are contrails (condensation trail) and they've been documented for over 100 years., and are an unintended consequence of air travel - also something that scientists are studying extensively. Look up "contrail mitigation"
One of the reasons why people have a hard time taking climate change seriously is the use of the "Precautionary Principle" by the green movement in the 1970s. If you remember there were films like "Soylent Green" and "Silent Runner" and predictions for the complete decline of nature before 1980. The exaggeration had good intentions but as always it had unexpected consquences: once the world did not end in 1980, people started not to take seriously that type of prediction. The "Precautionary Principle" states that even when predictions have little factual basis, the fact that these predictions could be atastrophic, Governements had the duty to exaggerate and act as a precaution. The principle was later incorporated by the Neo-Conservative movement and gave birth to things like "I just hope the smoking gun is not a mushroom cloud" and the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The New York Times should no better, btw. Fool you once, its a mistake, fool you twice, it's incompetence.
What you are saying is that Climate Change is so bad - and it probably is - that we should try to control the climate artificially instead of bringing it back to a state in which it controls itself. You are also saying that we, citizens, can do nothing to change CO2 emission levels - or, in other words, there's no real democratic State in the west. BTW, people have been doing a lot to fight climate change but perhaps what you said is true: there's no real democracy in the Western World. Your lie is on how you said it - in a way that sugar coats it so much people don't see the feeling beneath the frosting.
Chloros the pale rider is headed our way
There should be a separate app for podcasts.
There is, it's called yootoob
There was. Not enough people used it, so now the podcasts are kept here.
Wouldn't a relatively simple plan be to mandate that all new cars, roads, tops of buildings, etc be either white or silver rather than blacktop or some other dark color? That would seem to be a relatively quick, cheaper, and less intrusive measure to make the surface more reflective. You give up a black car, but you still have a car. When you repaint your residence or building, you just have to pick a lighter color. If you live in Phoenix or Las Vegas, is it really that much of a sacrifice to put white rock in your landscaping and white shingles on your roof? A major city like London, New York, or Tokyo has a pretty good sized surface area.
yeh but you must let the ants pretend that they are in control
We’re trying to reflect solar energy away from dark ocean surfaces. That’s why it’s “marine“ cloud brightening.
The ocean absorb more than 90% of the suns radiation here on earth. That’s why the massive reduction in sea ice extent is such a big problem.
What could possibly go wrong?
We could do nothing, and have an unlivable earth by the end of the century. THAT’S WHAT COULD GO WRONG!
What about the Chem Trail spraying? They've been at that for years!
same thing, they are pretending like we aren't all living in the experiment
They are not "spraying", those trails behind plane are known as contrails, short for condensation trails - which have been documented for over 100 years, "chemtrails" on the other hand are a myth that only exists in the minds of the gullible and scientific illiterate.
Shame on the parents who had a chance to change but decided they would die before this was a problem.
Younger people tend to buy SUVs more than old people (can't link, but google New SUV buyers in the United States as of January 2019, by age group). You can find similar data when it comes to other polluting industries, such as fast fashion, plane travel, etc.
Age is not a criteria, because our generation is just as bad as our parents'.
@@gogudelagaze1585 hmmm thats one metric. but i doubt it takes into account many things. anyway doesnt change the fact that older people were warned for decades to change their ways and did nothing in fact they became MORE materialistic. i have actually talked to a boomer who in a joking way said pfff ah well cIimate change isnt a problem for me. he had kids and quite possibly grandkids. other than that one comment he was nice enough. sometimes i remember that comment and wonder what on earth was going through his head.
if you really cared you would unalive yourself
@@noklarok wow from dance lessons to telling people to kiII themselves over the internet. goes to show the internet brings out the worst in all of us
It’s clearly the vast majority of boomers.
Reduce carbon....that won't impact plants/trees at all... Oh wait, ignore all the carbon to oxygen theory ... Yupp - reduce the population as Doctor + Professor Bill Gates hit the nail on the head in his Ted talk.. Genius level lack of critical thought 🤯😵
Better Ye Tau's MIR set-up
Coal burning high level mathene emissions producing 500 dallors per ton coal burning carbon taxes
Serving BS on a platter.
Let’s fight bad emissions with good emissions - what a grand idea - what could possibly go wrong?
The text definition of climate change supplied is erroneous, miss leading and horribly slanted to support unsubstantiated claims.
Very poor reporting.
Got any data to support your BS theories? Asking for a friend
Tell your friend he has a great mind.
But what do I know.
Really a fairy tail was all you can come up with when talking about global warming?
a fairy tail. is that like a tail attached to the back of a fairy?
@@Solar.Geoengineering.AdvocateI hear the tails of fairies are very reflective in the relevant spectral windows…
@@fbrtnrsthf pesticides killed all the fairies reducing reflective fairy tales