Climate change technology: is shading the earth too risky?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 чер 2024
- If the world is getting too hot, why not give it some shade? Solar geoengineering could halt global warming, but there are risks to this controversial technology.
00:00 - Is solar geoengineering worth the risks?
00:41 - On the frontline of climate change
01:40 - What is solar geoengineering?
02:05 - Why the Saami Council stopped a research project
03:33 - Why we need more research
05:05 - The risk of global political tension
06:12 - The risk of termination shock
07:07 - What is marine cloud brightening?
09:04 - The risk of unequal effects
View all of The Economist’s climate change coverage: econ.st/37suszu
Sign up to our climate change newsletter: econ.st/3uX0qNx
Watch our previous video on solar geoengineering: econ.st/3vwTTYD
Read our explainer about the IPCC’s recent report: econ.st/37vw77x
Listen to our podcast about whether a 1.5°C climate target is attainable: econ.st/3xEj1zC
How heatwaves in Europe are strengthening environmentalism: econ.st/3EsW2sA
Mumbai’s ambitious net-zero plan: econ.st/3JQ053i
Will the energy crisis spark American clean tech innovation?
econ.st/37o4rS9
They are doing it and blaming you. Priceless 🤣 🦎
When humans have tried to be better or wanted to play with nature rule
Nature has always showed humans who's the boss here
Exactly, and I hope she fights back with a vengeance!!
One could argue the changes in agriculture and other areas which have resulted in the higher living standards of modern society are all down to bettering nature. We changed crop yields and quality by natural selection, modified our environment to be suitable for fields and changed our role in relation to nature. Humans innately modify and attempt to better nature, sometimes to our own determent, but other times to our benefit 🙂
Considering that the current high-altitude spraying programs use aluminum dioxide and other metals which are toxic to humans, I would say, yes, it is too risky. Most people are completely unaware that this has been underway for decades.
There are no current programmes.
There are other alternatives non-toxic particles.
What happens when the sun heats the metals in our atmosphere, what happens when we breath these metals. I think we are watching the side-effects of geoengneering .
Blocking sun rays is tantamount to imminent death, agriculture could suffer & it'll give birth to new diseases
Err, how would it give birth to new diseases exactly?
@@user-1281 by destroying immunity - and viruses thrive in absence of sunlight.
@@user-1281 Vit D carency, melatonin erratic secretion, effect of the products used to cause the shade etc..
We don't know how or what the effect on human body can be. So it is a risky bet. Reducing our GHG is way safer.
@@etienne8110 Not exactly new is it though?
Edit: except the thing about products shading the earth
@@user-1281 If you want to argue on the "new" then fine, your win.
Doesn't really change the red string here : it's dangerous and we don't unedrstand fully the consequences. On something with global effects, it's just a desperate bet, I'd rather not take it.
The biggest risk here is humans themselves. Imagine having the problem temporarily solved, but people got complacent that we continued doing what we're doing, then when the temporary solution broke down or expires, we end up being far worse than where we started
They didn't want to give up their taxes, governments, monkey go-carts and meaty treats, they blamed other nations and the billionaires. Astroturf the garden and fly to NZ for a weekend break on a speedbird.
This idea far left wing dumb satanic communist agenda. Very dangerous to block the sun. Also this is going to make billionaires trillionres and hard working tax payers have to pay for their projects. Remember global warming happens once every few hundred years and that's nothing worry about.
Solar cycles are the problem 😊
@@wobblybobengland They blamed the billionaires for a reason. 100 companies are responsible for more than 70% of CO2 emissions. Ecocid is occurring ecocid is capitalist and there is no capitalist solution to a capitalist ecocid. That’s what a lot of people think in France maybe in US you are too brainwashed about capitalism to understand .
Also, this temporary “solution” could never be considered a fix because it also ignores the absolutely massive problem of ocean acidification which has nothing to do with heat but with CO2 being absorbed into the oceans. The only option to try and begin to unfuck ourselves is to stop polluting. We need many different ideas and millions of people working on this problem from every angle, it’s the only way forward for us.
Talking about stocks, Forex trading/ investment is the most profitable venture I ever invested in, I reached my goalof $120k monthly trade earnings. wondering if viewers here are familiar with Lucy's trading platform
I keep wondering how people earn money in financial markets, i tried trading on my own made a huge loss and now l'm scared of investing more.
@@rosewin7560 I totally agree with you it has been an eye-opening experience for a lot of people..
Amazing,I thought I'm the only one she has helped walk through the fears and falls of stock trading.
Extraordinary is the right word for expert Mrs Lucy, she's experience as a trader and so unique..
@Dov zigler You don't need to be surprised because I'm also a huge beneficiary of expert Mrs Lucy trading service, I'm winning consistently trading with with her
They are already geo engineering in the uk and it’s causing us to have constant cloudy days and darkness, doesn’t seem to matter how it affecting the health of the people who are being deprived of essential sunlight 😢
Average world cloud coverage has gone down from 65 to 62% since 2000, the world is getting sunnier not cloudier, england has always had one of the lowest yearly sunshine hours.
@@albin4323 have you got any evidence to back that up? I don’t think farmers would agree with you, also what rainfall?
@@bobbymac1319 He didn't even capitalize England so probably not, just another bot hired to spread lies.
@@alegomanYTPsOP didn’t capitalise UK. Gave no evidence for their assertions. Funny how you didn’t consider them to be a ‘bot hired to spread lies’
Seems that you call people ‘bots’ depending simply on whether or not their words conflict with your beliefs/ politics
Cooling by geo-engineering has been happening for years already. I live in British Columbia, Canada. During the COVID lockout there were no commercial flights but the sky was crossed by a huge number of aircrafts with very long trace of condensed gas; immediately after clouds started to form and in a few hours cloudiness covered the previous beautiful blue sky. I am wondering if the aluminum colloidal particles spayed by those aircrafts deposited on trees were the cause of the wildest fires in the boreal forests of western Canada and the US, since aluminum is a very flammable metal at particle level.
Aluminium also makes a fine hat.
Seriously did Canada have planes doing this during lockdown because in UK we had constant clear blue sky almost every day with no commercial flights and No cloud seeding at all
Just goes to show how much more corrupt Canada is from UK
No. It was the fairies. Wood sprites start the fires.
@@grindupBakerLies, I just read a book where they say it's the fire salamanders. And the rains are provoked by planes but piloted by Sylphs, obviously the hard work is mainly pulled by the Undines who have to dive to bring water droplets to BC.
Aliminium spraying =
dementia, in humans & bees
Aren’t we just treating the symptom, and not addressing the root cause?
Messing with a system so nonlinear and we know so little about is dangerous. This shading proposal is almost saying that a nuclear winter is a blessing.
Proponents of geoengineering projects would argue that addressing those symptoms can give us more time to address the root causes (reducing greenhouse gasses emissions, and removing enormous quantities of carbon from the atmosphere).
We appear to be moving in the right direction of lowering carbon emissions, but we might not get there fast enough to avoid catastrophic climate change unless we also lean on some form of geoengineering as an interim solution while we finish decarbonizing our energy production and pulling enough carbon from the atmosphere to make that interim solution no longer necessary.
..📩☝ Let's talk!..🚀..
Thanks for watching
No; you treat both; as is common with many illnesses.
Precisely :)
It is not risky: it is utterly insane...
is it more insane than not using solar radiation management?
One only needs to watch the evening weather forecast to realize how much we don't understand how our earth works. How can you seriously think about altering something when you have no idea what all your consequences will be? The unforeseen problems would be catastrophic with no ability to rewind when it goes wrong. "Well that didn't go as planned" or "ooops sorry" are not phrases we want to hear from a group of scientist as we're plunged into total darkness. No, just no, bad idea.
The consequences are already here with all the fire incidents occurring in Spain and other parts of Europe.
Very well said...
@@ghada.El.Khoury fires are part of natures way of cleaning up and we only pay more attention to them cause we move and build in the forest. This is a terrible idea that has no off switch and when it goes bad we're stuck with the consequences. No, just no.
Such is the folly of man. Driven by hubris to believe they are the masters of the universe and everything is within their control. Scientists should stop tinkering with forces beyond their control lest they unleash consequences beyond their imagination.
Our skies are being sprayed every day do you not notice the chemtrails everywhere?
A solution to a problem almost always creates another. The benefit depends on how well you manage the following consequences.
Penicillin was great but now we have to deal with super microbes.
Same goes for how companies told us to use plastics to protect from the overuse of paper/killing trees
Bio-engineered crop designed to act as a pesticide itself to protect from cropeater 1, successfully killed it when it tried to munch on the crop and hence BioE-crop achieved its purpose. But cropeater 1 who also used to eat cropeater 2 is now no more, so now cropeater 2 takes his place and gets to eat the crop, As you can see that, certain crop ecosystem have new boss with new rules. As a final result, nothing changed, infact situation became worse than before.
@@korinostream
Humans are the crop-eater # 2
Our technology is suicide in the long run.
@Perseus Arkouda - Solutions to fake "problems" are definitely a skam to manipulate and hypercontrol us. _THAT_ is what it is really all about.
That's mostly due to massive overuse of antibiotics by factory farming.
Utterly irresponsible. The fact that it is even being considered shows the extent to which our economies and societies are intoxicated by 'unlimited' growth
The bad thing is that if they really look at it, our rate of growth is decreasing. It is very likely that it will peak in about 2060. Yet they are willing to destroy our civilization and possibly all life just to stop something that is not real.
True that
True, instead of less consumism and a complete switch to renewables The Economist brings false hope for this ridiculous idea. Oil companies and coal extractors can continue, we will reduce the sun intensity on earth! Everyone will accept it, we will love a colder climate, plants will love less sun.
If we keep defunding Nuclear Research, this is what we end up with.
We are one GREEDY, SHAMELESS species. We are the problem and must go...
This was literally what happened in the Matrix.
..📩☝ Let's talk!..🚀......
Thanks for watching!
I was thinking that too, they blacked out the sky so the machines couldn't use solar power
Listen we have to rely on technology for the solutions to our problems. I say plug me in baby
And WW III
snowpiercer
I think we urgently need to retrace our steps of how we got here and dedicate more resources into undoing all that harm, hopefully our grandchildren will see the benefits. I feel like we would be creating more imbalances using these technologies and would make the problem worse. It takes energy to implement all these solutions and we're not doing to great on that. Imagine stopping this after 30 years due to a lack of energy. The consequences would be disastruous. Please don't.
science says it's safe so no more denial please
Science flies you to the moon, religion into skyscrapers.
@@antireligionwhyreligionmus2819 so you think they flew the planes into the towers strictly for religious purposes? That’s false, it was payback and an attempt to collapse financial system.
Wow, the audience here is broad, educated and most people seem to agree with this comment, I think.
That's horrible. Look at us fearing progress. Look at us hoping to go backwards. When was the last time we were so afraid of our own potential?
Climate manipulation is already being done but to deliberately cause more problems and push more farmers into going broke and you into starvation so you become more compliant.
Hope that engineers consult with geologists to fully understand planetary dynamics, and Snowball Earth. In the geological record, Earth was in most cases an ice cube of a plant with little to no life. Also, reducing the amount of sunlight will reduce plant growth, affecting food production, and other unintended consequences.
Science flies you to the moon, religion into skyscrapers.
Has been " reducing " / destroying & toxifying All Life, 4 many decades & still ONGOING.
Patented CE, since 1947.
In the Skies above you 2022, Day & Night.
🙏
Snowball Earth was a couple of billion years ago, we are in an ice age cycle today now. Earth is going through the warming part of the cycle that comes just before the cooling. The ice period is coming back no matter what we do.
Geoengineering has been fully deployed for decades. The media lies and says that they might need to deploy it. This fact desperately needs to be exposed to the public if we are to stop it.
I encourage you to watch the documentary "the dimming" on youtube. It fully exposes these programs for what they are.
They've already been doing this since WW2. Do any of you LOOK UP? It is ALREADY killing the world.
I'm shocked at the number of people who have never heard of these "plans" that are already in use.
For 75+ years…
All anyone needs to do is do a search of weather modification or geoengineering and you will find many documents and patents on weather modification proving they are already on going massive programs that have been going on for 75 years.
I'm sick of planes filling the sky's with chemicals everday
@@rodgie84 yes chemicals like water vapor
@@santiagovelamorales1029 what they have Internet in Brazil now?
This is hard to take seriously, when humanity hasn’t even tried to reduce carbon emissions, or seriously considered a plan for material life that is not energy intensive. In fact, we continuously promote further growth, encouraging further development, with production and consumption beyond sufficiency. And blocking the sun does not remove the carbon in the atmosphere - it temporarily masks the symptoms. And it sacrifices the oceans - which I wasn’t aware we had decided to write off as less important than quarterly returns…
Well yeah the thing is I think the main interest is only in solutions that lets them keep on doing what they are doing.
The direction of progress of civilization only goes towards higher energy consumption, in the Kardashev scale. The question is how to do it without messing things up. We are at level zero, still.
@@koyaanisqatsi78 yup
If the sun is dimmed, surely plants will convert less CO2 back to oxygen, meaning further raising of greenhouse gases.
@@davidfdzp the kardashev scale is and always has been faulty. It ignores reality completely thinking instead in exponentials not just purely in terms of energy but of population as well.
Population is the limiting physical factor.
Moreover you seem to be missing the entire point of this thread.
What about painting roofs white, and creating more reflective surfaces everywhere?
If we all put on refletive tinfoil sombreros could also help
@@ristorantanen5769 Comically, you are right.
The idea of Solar geoengineering is suicidal, it will disrupt rainfall patterns all across the world especially affecting countries that depend on monsoon rainfall for food production like India, and reducing the rate of photosynthesis in plants as a direct consequence of global dimming, causing acute food crisis all over the world.
Its been going on for 20 years. Go look up at the sky.
Aaaand you got these studies from where? 🤨
coool opportunity for more power grab
Sorry but what you speak of is actually happening globally NOW, Go and research David Keith thoroughly....a sinister man.
They've been geoengineering for decades. Please w a t c h & share T h e D I M M I N G (documentary)
The risks are too high. Knowing how human beings behave, we are definitely going to rely 100% on the geo engineering and not cut emissions. This sounds like the last resort to temporarily delay the end rather than a solution, but not that we have any solution right now. Politicians only care about their next election and that’s it, extremely simple minded. Majority of human beings only care about the immediate future and not the long term. This natural selfish behavior of human beings is the reason why we are where we are now, destroying the environment for the benefit of their own generation to enjoy life while making it impossible for their children and the next generation to survive and thrive. One would think a global disaster like global warming will bring society and countries together and more United, less conflict. It’s seems the complete opposite, more war, conflict, less trust, less cooperation.
Yep for sure.
We have been geo engineering for years this is BS .
You are right my friend they've been doing it for quite a while now I agree this video is b*******
@Alex I don't do drugs or alcohol open your eyes and look up and try watching the Deming it's free on UA-cam
@Alex
Those persisting stratospheric clouds made by jet aircraft are quite visible often covering much of the sky where I live, and it's a low population area with few commercial flights. They *blanket* the atmosphere up to the stratosphere where there are usually few clouds. The atmosphere thus blanketed, being warmer to way up there, disrupts the global wind circulations. The chaotic jet streams bring warm air up over Greenland melting the glaciers, and Arctic winds flow down making extra cold winters in places down almost to the tropics (notably Texas last year), and of course we are seeing super hot summers. The other effect is that the warm air can hold far more moisture to a higher altitude, so it doesn't rain where and when it usually does, and when it finally lets go, it's "rivers from the sky" with floods that wash away cars and cows. Or giant hail stones.
It does decrease insolation: nice sunny days become hazy and solar panel output drops way down. But the blanketing effect makes the world warmer, not colder, just like any cloudy night is milder than a clear night.
PS: The example volcanic ash that reduces temperatures? It's DARK colored. The clouds they think will have the same cooling effect are WHITE!
@@craigcarmichael5748 ash blocks sunlight not because it’s black but because it‘s ASH. White reflects sunlight literally yes.
C'mon man, you've been applying this madness for years, cause the problem first then provide the solution, game over.
💊->🤪
I'd like to know the carbon footprint of the amount of Aircraft used to dim out the sun. Everyday, there are thousands of aircrafts flying dumping chemicals and my question is how much fuel is being used????
The idea of people trying to control the climate through adding something to the atmosphere is terrifying. There are so many ways for this to go wrong and the fact that it would need to be done on such large scale really does make me think doomsday immediately. If geo engineering was focused on what can we extract from the environment that humans have put there or increased I would be able to get onboard with further exploration.
I tell you even more. This thing has been going for decades now. They just don’t need to hide it anymore.
That's a funny statement. We are already adding 'something' to the atmosphere that is affecting the climate. It's already gone wrong and doomsday is probably a forgone conclusion.
Like adding trillions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere?
Look up,
Dane Wigington
@@themechanictangerine4337 yes we have added trillions of tons of carbon to the atmosphere my point is instead of focusing on adding to solve the problem our basis for geo engineering should be focused on what can we remove from the atmosphere our environment. I.e carbon capture … removing micro plastic from the ocean.
Why can't humans just solve Climate Change the right way, rather than solving 1 problem with more problems. Plant trees stop deforestation clean the ocean recycle stop wasting switch to green energy. It’s not hard
It can be done, but the oil companies won`t allowed, they have many people working politically and many people convinced that there's no problem at all, so they can get his money to live in the moon or in subterranean bunkers maybe.
People are too indoctrinated with economics and individualism in general. Stopping mindless growth and generally doing things that benefit people outside your country are frowned upon in the current society.
WE DID NOT START THIS LYING PROBLEM THEY HAVE ITS ALL MADE UP THEY ARE CAUSING IT
"We shouldn't research alternative solutions to the problem because then we might not try as hard to solve the problem the current way" is absolutely mental as an argument & I do not understand how or why it was given any weight at all
Why so much deceit? Geoengineering has been going on for years, I discovered the criss-crossed skies in 2014 and connected the dots. It's been the longest eight years of my life trying to wake people up to these atrocities on earth's atmosphere which has almost completely decimated the ozone.
Exactly
That’s what I ask people as well. Even scientists who speak honestly about irreversible climate change and say that it’s game over, still stop at talking about the elephant in the sky. It really is every wo/man for themselves, you have to find out the truth for yourself, can’t expect the “experts” to be honest about anything.
@@meerkatreserve7543 If you speak out the truth in academies, you'll end up like Guy McPherson.
Never hinder research. Forbidding it is like not teaching kids how to use knives, hoping they'll never touch one.
Research is already hindered by funding.... Universities steer away from cheap and workable solutions, chasing research grants that are bigger and bigger, shying away from things that dont attract the big dollars. Sadly greed has replaced common sense, and clever thinkers.
📩☝ Let's talk!..🚀..
Thanks for watching
The issue is "research" in this case is just used to delay the actions we knew we needed to make decades ago. Half of all emmisions have been made in the last 2 decades so all that "research" instead of deployment of renewable energy solutions and curbing our energy demand over the last 2 decades has literally made the problem 2x worse. More of that path we can't afford to walk we must end the ff era ASAP
@@DanA-nl5uo I get you but you cannot underrate research. Efficient technologies are been experimented with. I will say the slow uptake is due to low interest by governments and policymakers. Individual actions are not enough.
@@coolclimate6783 it is the policy makers who keep telling you that they need to do research today to deflect from taking action today.
intervening with complex systems in this way is batshit insane. We have no idea what the secondary etc effects of this will be
Or maybe it's actually a solution. We have been intervening massively with burning fossil fuels since the steam age in the wrong way. It is possible to run small scale trials for decades to figure these things out even as we decarbonise but if we say no it's too pristine to test this then...
That's literally what we're doing right now anyway.
@@joythought maybe isn't not a solution. do you make wishes in every part of your life?
we've been burning fossil fuels for over 150 years now and the world has become only more prosperous, healthier, safer. people live longer, have less injuries and ailments, have economically enhanced lives some 10x the standard of living of 1850, and the global poverty rate is declining, along with war and famine
you, Sir, are out of touch with reality
I jumped into the comments expecting a lot of Snowpiercer references but I'm utterly surprised to see little to none.
me too 😂
@@NeilsonBuntowa it's sad to see that the comments are so dry of culture 😂
FYI: the climate has been changing ever since there was a climate.
Just sayin'.
Thanks for proving to be that i havent landed here in the twillight zone
If ppl find out that climate change is a natural unavoidable occurrence the 🇺🇸 won't be able to steal money from its people to invest in methods of future slavery and subjugation.
Yeah: the problem is that humans are changing the climate.Are you new here?
@@tinaandro1178 proof?
@@patrickbodine1300 ...The scientists consensus ? The multiple studies published? The leaked studies from Exxon and Shell that confirm they knew this since 1980? The IPCC reports?
when i watch youtube clips on problems humanity face to advance, I am filled with hope listening to people with intelligent ideas, achievements of scientist, than I watch the news and walk out of my house reality of our society hits me like a high speed train, all hopes dissepear in a flash...
Excellent comment, except for the typo at the end - “…. all hopes disappear in a FLUSH…” (or 10 flushes, if you’re TFG) 😂
Thought-provoking video. I do not think that we should implement geo engineering. We need to live sustainably, working with nature, not against it. Engineering a "solution" on this scale will undoubtedly cause all kinds of unwanted disastrous side effects, and ultimately incite yet more conflict between nations. If nations cannot agree in Carbon emission reduction targets, then what chance they will agree on geo engineering?
Geo engineering should be researched, but only for implementation on other planets.
It's been underway for decades. Hence all the X's and grid patterns in the sky.
@@WildWizardWolf please explain more, i have never heard of that before.
The industrial revolution is why we are in this situation to begin with we don’t need to create another problem to try and solve this one. We need completely stop all fossil fuel burning immediately and stop all plastic production. It’s cold hard facts that a lot of people don’t want to believe but we are to late I believe to stop this change
Lol its already happening wake UP
The metals being disseminated in the aerosol do fall to Earth over time. We then breathe them , drink them, and eat them.
In case you haven t looked up at the sky lately, they have been doing Stratospheric Aerosol Injections and Solar Radiation Management since WW2, for 75 years already. Its not a proposal. Lyndon Johnson stated "He who controls the weather controls the world". How is that working out so far? After 75 years has geoengineering made your life better or worse???
what about the unintended consequences we can't possibly foresee? this is a large scale global system leave it alone.
📩☝ Let's talk!..🚀..
Thanks for watching
@AvengeVoltaire leave nature alone dude, mankind interferes too much already. Now you want to block out the sun? This is stupidity.
Political leaders don’t give me much hope about humanity preventing the worst impacts of this.
..📩☝ Let's talk!..🚀......
Thanks for watching!
We have sun dimming for at least 2.5 years in extreme form. During March 2020 no planes in the sky. Blue skies and high temps. No rain. Here in Western Europe as soon as the planes began to fly, only rain, hailstones, snow 🌨 in March and April 2023 where there was no snowing before. Very low temperatures with minus 3 degrees in the night in april 2023. Crops are freezing. Only gray skies. Everywhere very gloomy. Even in Venice where there are blue skies. In 2021 huge floods and hailstones with apocalypse like winds all through Europe. Crazy natural disasters in Turkije. Man made. They are applying geoengineering on world wide scale for decades but after the p l andemic it went skyrocketing. 🌨️🌍😬
How they kept straight faces is impressive.
The Sun Blocker was a device developed by Charles Montgomery Burns. In the Episode Who Shot Mr. Burns?
..📩☝ Let's talk!..🚀......
Thanks for watching!
The Answer to this question is (Yes) it's to risky. It could inadvertently cause another Ice-age and that's just for starters.
I listened to this. I got solar engineering would change the weather patterns.
Aren't they already Geoengeneering the whole planet? Why the debate, look up!
Chemtrails.... They've been doing it for decades
While I appreciate the sentiment behind the Saami objections to this technology, at the rate things are going it will be the only roll of the dice we have left. Oil companies, buoyed by record high oil prices, are spending literally hundreds of millions of dollars DAILY on oil and gas exploration. Governments across the planet are not only dragging their feet on fighting climate change, but are approving these new oil and gas megaprojects as fast as they can, while they line their own pockets. Let's face it, things are only getting worse, and as more people die from heat or starvation and sea levels keep rising, there may be nothing else left to try to save ourselves.
As an oceanographer I have to disagree. How does the earth naturally sequester carbon back to the geologic cycle? It is mostly through algal photosynthesis in the ocean. The limiting factor in most oceanic systems right now is either light or nutrients. If we decrease light we decrease algae and then we ironically slow down natural carbon sequestration. Oceanographers have been screaming for years that these sulfur projects are asinine.
@@jazzys4390 I'm not an oceanographer so lack the expertise to counter your argument. If we are to save ourselves from climate change, there are clearly no easy answers.
@@SmashPhysical I will say that at the end of the video when they talked about using water particles to cool down the great barrier reef locally it isn't a terrible idea because locally the tropics arent light limited and are actually nutrient limited. My fear is that particles like sulfur could make it to temperate oceans where a lack of light would severely decrease photosynthesis.
This very vid being made by Economist clearly demonstrates that geoengineering already is seen as option having potential to help us get out of trouble. Emissions' total are already way over what might be considered safe. Now Big Economy finally accepts that them pesky environmentalists were right all along, and they also realize stabilizing, let alone _decreasing_ emissions is almost impossible, especially since the Economist clients still wish to make money - _lots of it, can we_ . Climate change is unrolling so fast anyway, that geoengineering will be seen as the extra measures needed to try get things in check. The masters of the world , either political or business, will look more at them with every climate related incident hitting the Markets - err, I mean, People.
So, prepare for headlines and public debates and large scale experiment before 2030
See the documentary The Dimming. They're not just exploring the idea. They've been doing it for years.
I think they're experimenting in PR. It's been unnaturally hazy lately and we had a couple of rain storms during dry seas9n.
This technology is insane. I live in Scandinavia. We need all the rare sun we can get after such long and dark winters. I have worked on the Great Barrier Reef too. Humans and life on earth need sunlight. It drives our biological systems.
But I hate electric cars !!
@J Silva Myb YOU need to accept things as they are and shut up because you know nothing about this experimental solution. Are you the one who is forcing people to vaccinate themselves even thought you don't know what long term side effects are going to be? I hate sheeps who just jump and do what ever others want them to do without thinking, that's why humanity suffers
@J Silva blocking sunlight anywhere in the world is just a bad idea. Just to give you a couple of examples, it gives humans vitamin d and helps boost serotonin in the brain and plants rely of sunlight for photosynthesis.
Not to mention solar power would be less effective.
I believe the sense of urgency is overhyped alot as well, but I'm not a scientist, so what would I know.
(FYI - I'm from Australia)
@J Silva Yes, it's fall here now (we call it autumn). Well, Australia is known for being hot, but the summer we just had wasn't as hot as other summers we've had and minimal bushfires this year as well. I mean, we still had days of over 40°C, but it was stagnant, where usually we get a couple of 'heatwaves' each summer, with a week or more of 45°C days and only dropping to mid 20s at night. It was more humid than hot, if that makes sense haha. In saying that, I've noticed that the intensity of our climate is on a cycle lasting around 10 - 12 years.
I'm of the opinion that, 1.5°c warming averaged over the whole planet isn't going to dramatically change the climate. The earth is very versatile and will adapt to balance out the conditions over time, historically c02 was more than 5 times today's levels, but on the point of cycles, a long term example of this is when earth experiences 'ice ages' every 50,000 years or so.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for having cleaner energy and less emissions etc. But I don't think going to zero emissions will stop the climate from changing.
@J Silva I am a biologist, and I am a global citizen. I have lived in the tropics and still do. My comment was an educated one not a selfish one. I have spent my entire life educating others about the natural world and how precious it is. Have you? Sunlight and cold are different things. Life on earth needs sunlight. I am guessing you are uneducated and part of the problem.
Aren't we supposed to wait until war against AI before we initiate operation dark storm?
..📩☝ Let's talk!..🚀......
Thanks for watching!
LOL
We need scientists as world leaders to protect our planet, we cannot rely on leaders who less care or don't care about the changes that harms our planet earth
Xi Jinping has a degree in chemical engineering.
@@xuimod then he must be working in a chemical factory
@@lathapauline1063 he is
@@Batman-mg3dy who is a scientist? 🤔
Remember back in the 70s when scientists were warning us all that the Earth was cooling too much?
In the 80's it was "Hole in the Ozone layer" ...
They change the narrative every so many years
Long term shift in temperature and weather change is from El Niño and La Niña and it also causes droughts like we are seeing today and can go on for years. It is not from human activity and fossils fuel burning. All of the co2 in the atmosphere has already been around on earth. I think the real reason temperature are rising is because the earth produces crude oil for a reason like in cars we use oils to keep temperature from elevating in the motor and to provide a cushion for the crank bearings. I believe the earth use the crude oil in the same way to help keep temperature from elevating but since majority of the oil is been pump out of where it needs to be the earths temperature is raising and is looking for a way to cool it self down so it turns to the water sources to release heat through oceans and the lakes that why were seeing drought all over the place the earth is trying to cool itself
Marine cloud brightening seems useful and harmless but all the other ideas terribly risky.
📩☝ Let's talk!..🚀.
Thanks for watching!
Marine cloud brightening is like putting the Earth is on permanent life support. We still don't know if carbon capture will ever work at scale.
@@garysarela4431 From the video it seems that mcb is a temporary measure tha can be stopped anytime. So not like permanent life support imho
@@capeorbobserver3903 Greenhouse gases are the underlying problem and marine cloud brightening is like temporary relief. That's why I say it's like putting Earth on life support. If for some geopolitical reason MCB were to stop, the Earth very quickly heats right back up again, as long as greenhouse gases are still there. MCB can buy time, but it doesn't address the underlying problem.
@@garysarela4431 Well, when you're in hospital and you have a choice between dying or life support, most people choose the life support. If we had plausible progress to stopping climate change (i.e. recovering), then sure. But we don't. So if it's really a crisis that we'd do anything to solve, why isn't think one of the anythings we'd consider?
Why not harvest our sun's energy instead of deflecting it into space? Why not use the same amount of time, money, brain power, and human might that would be needed to develop the infrastructure needed for effective mass solar geoengineering to instead to develop efficient and profitable methods for harvesting & distributing renewable sources of energy?
That wouldn't make $$$
@@NoOneAM2 Value is subjectively determined. Anything can be profitable if humans collectively decide for it to be. 🌞
@@user-dh7ff1ur4f collectively humans decide nothing.
Because we've been doing that for 2 decades and have barely gotten anywhere. While some nations have made progress, others have become even more reliant on fossil fuels. Renewable energy is fine and dandy, but it has serious drawbacks when it comes to availability and reliability. It can still be a part of the solution, but we need to be looking at a more comprehensive solution, rather than just focusing 100% on renewable energy like we've been doing.
We will have to do something to take carbon out of the atmosphere and the companies that are researching how to do that are getting the same backlash about how taking carbon out of the atmosphere using technology is really just giving fossil fuel companies breathing space to continue existing and producing more fossil fuels. The current suggestion to carbon removal is to plant more trees, however we've been seeing increased deforestation in just about every country with a tropical rainforest.
If this issue is as catastrophic as it appears, we will need a comprehensive and diversified approach.
Solar has too many flaws like pollution generated from manufacturing and disposing of them. The next big thing is likely Geothermal energy, it's making a comeback with cheaper, more efficient drilling methods and big oil companies are already investing in it since they already do deep-well drilling.
Nature have a mechanism, which corrects itself. Predicting the exact outcome would be a trickiest part, if you wanna tamper with this mechanism (considering every possible variables into account) or else it could trigger process of self-annihilation.
The 'climate change" pseudoscience maniacs and those manipulated by them and paid by them don't want to understand this simple fact, and they don't want others to understand it.
We're already on a process of self-annihilation.
Solutions that won’t work for a problem that doesn’t exist. Very fitting.
Great solution, they should combine it with a train that circles the earth once a year.
they want to create the Snowpiercer
I remember a Saturday in L.A., a few years ago, planes building a crisscross pattern of "water vapor" in the sky. The next Sunday, a strange haze made the weather sunny, but not. It didn't look or feel right.
The sun gives needed elemental energy to biological systems, and it is worrisome to think of adding yet another layer of toxic behavior, to cover up other toxic behaviors.
Yeah, that's called smog
@@l.baileyjean3719 Hm
Same in Puerto Rico....it's been very hazy lately and it's not normal!
We are so arrogant to believe we can nature better than nature?
Unless emissions are reduced drastically in next few decades, this will be the only solution left to avoid catastrophic warming.
Cobra effect. Dont forget that everytime you create solution you create another problem or worsen existing one.
📩☝ Let's talk!..🚀......
Thanks for watching
Arrest them all pilots to and hold them all on chemical war crimes against humanity give them no amnesty and all those who cover this crime up. They been doing this for decades.
Dane Wigington has been screaming about this for over a decade.
He has a YT channel that is well worth watching.
What is the point of living under a shadow when we inhale smoke with lots of bio gases and carbon dioxide when we drink water which contain factory wastes and micro plastics
o ok I get it.. they're doing it now so they can research it later..
Would have been nice if you had covered space based mirrors too. Very interesting technology that could power the space Industrie and a moon base. It also doesn’t have as many drawbacks as sulfur based approaches.
Yes, at least someone here isn't completely uneducated. Way easier to deorbit a satellite then removing particles from the atmosphere. We should really learn from past mistakes like cfc's
I guess the mirror lobby guys aren't so fast. Or the chemical crooks spent it more money.
@@atlanciaza Thanks to bring up the cfc example. Dudes act like "wow we can't pull the thing out atmosphere in a couple years" and they basically don't understand how chemicals interact with EVERYTHING I suppose... They think the sea and rain won't be affected by it.
🛰A space based solution is clearly superior.
🧩 A space based solution is clearly more complicated.
💰 A space based solution is clearly more expensive.
@@BS-vx8dg Depends, on each of the three statements.
It may be superior, but cloud brightening as an example might work better. Hard to say without research.
Space may be more complicated. Or it may just be a massive very very thin inflatable sun shield that then just floats around in orbit. The pressure needed to inflate it would be almost nothing.
Space may be more expensive - or something like Starship may dramatically reduce the price to orbit and suddenly make it very economic.
The answer is we don't know, can't know, and don't need to know. The right answer to technological progress is to research everything, because you don't know what works until you try. Picking winners has pretty much always failed. I'm always on the side of people who say "let's research some more" rather than the side of the people who say "don't research that, it's a dead end." How can they know? Progress comes from trying things.
It’s not a moral conversation … we need to wake up to that reality
I have noticed a huge decline in the bug population both in a city (Grand Rapids) and a more North rural area of Michigan. I know some wild life populations have cycles, where the population of a species will be small, and 10 years later (for example), will again be large, (Snowshoe and Cotton Tail rabbits for one example), but I have never seen "cycles" in a summer bug population. In Grand Rapids, I noticed Geo engineering, (when most do not), starting about my last 7 years there. 3 years before I moved, I noticed a approx bug decline of about 40% at my yard lights (and bumper of the car). My last 2 summers in Grand Rapids, the bug population was depleted almost 100%, (with 5 little bugs flying around my lights.). Then I moved back to my rural area near Manistee Michigan, and with my garage doors open with the lights on at night, the garage would fill up with bugs. (I had a effective way to get them out before I closed shop). That was over 5 years ago. Today, the bug population in my shop at night is less than 1% of what it was, (a couple bug species seem to be unaffected.). Now I don't know for sure if there is a correlation between Geo engineering and the massive bug depopulation, and nobody seems willing to research it. But I don't see a lot of factors in this equation.
I only swatted about 6 mosquitoes in the summer of 2023 in my rural, semi swampy area. I have cans of "deep woods off" that are now 2-3 years old because I don't need it anymore.
Just no, absolutely no, no more particles in our atmosphere. There is way better options.
Name them
@@kylenolan2710 pv as photovoltaic? Parabolic CSP coupled with steam turbine?
COWARDDDD
Stop using vehicles then
@@themechanictangerine4337 stop cooking food then
If it relies on global cooperation to be implemented, it's DOA.
Also a nitpick: reducing emissions alone won't give us 1.5 degrees target, most likely we need both (and anything else we can come up with)
..📩☝ Let's talk!..🚀......
Thanks for watching!
It doesn't really. One billionaire could do it.
@Sen Se It's true that the heavy bunker fuel that large ships use do some shading, and regular city air pollution too. Very unhealthy to breath but slightly reducing albedo.
That's a lie. Even if we do nothing at all, the temperature increase will not exeed 1.5° in 2100.
@Sen Se
Nope, we are at 0.9° of increse since 1850 and til 2030 we will fall back to 0.2° again.
That's called climate science. That's what the climate armists have zero clue of.
…..but they’ve been doing this almost every single day for years! Just look up, for goodness sake. That stuff is NOT condensation.
Considering how dangerous climate change and all the tipping points are for humanity no its not too risky at all in fact its about our only hope
If Harvard proposed doing their first major experiment over the USA, others might be a tad more persuaded to listen.
Climate has always been changing.....
The idea that exploring this option would inhibit progress on reducing emissions seems to assume that there is or will be such progress.
What we don't realise is the most technology we use the situation is worse. It's kind of digging a big hole to cover a small one.
Finally, technology and our mindset brought us all this problems because technology lets us transform nature faster than it can regenerate itself.
We just need to stop overconsuming resources and nature will heal itself.
Can we provide shade only for the caps. And could this help the caps stay in ice form?
Imagine having to shade the world so that oil companies can keep profiting. Apparently just doing the right thing is too hard for some.
If the amount of sunlight is reduced, what effect do you think it would have on PLANTS.
We’d have no food
Already being done…. Pay attention 🤔
Living things including humans need sunlight.
@@letang6772 how would we ever survive the night?!
Just have it reflect away UV and Infrared light, while letting visible light pass through, this allows us to see while also allowing plants to grow.
I think this last pandemic has proven the devastating effects of man monkeying with nature by radical, all-encompassing and irreversible "solutions". I've had enough. The science should be very humble and implement any man-made change gradually and only after small-size trials. A lot of things could go wrong; why risk it all on one lucky strike? I think geo-engineering is a bad idea for the wellbeing of humans.
We have had global pandemics at the start of every global minimum so this one was no different it will just be much deeper!
Unfortunately, it seems that our only hope is a hail-marry pass.
@@terenceiutzi4003 this pandemic was engineered and planned, tough guy
@@RobertMJohnson just like the black plague during the dark ages and the plagues when the earth has cooled every other time?
The time for small scale experiments in geoengineering is here !
Thank you for u support
We could just, you know, lower emissions?
Then wait 50 years. If we can cool the earth within a year by using these technologies then why wait that long?
@@napoleonbonaparte1260 but it’s more expensive, harder, more damaging, and not practical
@@PremierCCGuyMMXVI technology requires investment now which requires emissions and time in the next decades. There will be the technology then for sure. If not, were all done out
@@dimwit3006 that’s why we have to lower emissions
📩☝ Let's talk!..🚀..
Thanks for watching
Let's go back to the learning during COVID 19 global luck down which reduce industrialisation heat generated. What can we learn from the climate differentiation of this season compare to the previous period?
📩☝ Let's talk!..🚀......
Thanks for watching
there's a super bright white paint that if everybody painted their house roofs with it their houses would stay cooler and it would reflect the heat back into the atmosphere. ❤️
7+ billion people to feed and you need heat and sunlight to grow that food.
Engraçado como a maioria das pessoas tem a solução, mas não enchergam a solução kkkk
Todos querem um planeta com ar puro.. mas ninguém quer fazer nada para ajudar a diminuir o impacto kkkkk
Lembre-se que a redução das emissões e da destruição ambiental passa justamente por uma atitude simples de cada um.. parar de usar transportes individuais, reduzir as compras de itens industriais, evitar usar energia não renováveis. Não é fácil abrir mão das tecnologias e escolher viver sem Grandes Confortos ou de bens que consomem muitos recursos naturais em sua produção...kkk praticamente impossível..
O que se pode se esforçar é buscar viver com o menor impacto deixando de utilizar os bens que utilizam combustíveis fósseis, itens produzidos com excessiva matéria prima.
Outra possibilidade é buscar desenvolver tecnologias que não consomem recursos naturais.
♻️🌍🇧🇷🕊🔥
We always need something to keep going on and about. Take what we can and make the best of it. It will make ends meet in the least. And better on the upside. Life goes on
Its no response...they are CAUSING it.
NO ONE CAN CONTROL THE CLIMATE.
Ummm... Hey people of Sweden have you not looked up in the skies? Geoengineering has been going on for years, decades
It's treated here as if the main question isn't, Will solar dimming help save us from excessive warming?, but, What will be the inequities involved (usually without comparing them to the inequities involved in the absence of doing it)? That is morally bankrupt. Other leaps in logic abound in this short video, too, but that one is enough to show how badly the producers' moral compass is skewed.
📩☝ Let's talk!..🚀..
Thanks for watching
I did not get that at all. Perhaps you should watch it again.
@@kylenolan2710 I totally did. All the comparisons were implicitly to a fictional world where we're magically combating global warming. If you assume that we're failing to (we are), then instead of saying "there's a risk that if you ever stopped geo-engineering you'd go off a cliff" you'd say "there's a risk that if we don't start geo-engineering, we'll go off a cliff".
@@kylenolan2710 Dense MC moment
More data need to analyse geosolar eng before further planning n implementation...is it reversible?
While the concept of intentionally shading the Earth to mitigate the effects of climate change has been proposed by some scientists, it is still a highly speculative and theoretical idea. The risks and potential consequences of such a drastic intervention in the Earth's climate system are not fully understood, and there are significant technical, environmental, and political challenges that would need to be addressed before any such technology could be implemented.
Some proponents of shading the Earth argue that it could help to slow down or reverse the impacts of global warming by reducing the amount of solar radiation that reaches the planet's surface. This could potentially lower temperatures, slow down sea level rise, and reduce the intensity of extreme weather events. However, there are also significant drawbacks and uncertainties associated with this approach.
One major concern is the potential impact on ecosystems and food production. Shading the Earth could significantly reduce the amount of light and heat that plants need to grow, which could have major implications for agriculture and food security. It could also disrupt ecosystems by altering the distribution and abundance of species, which could have cascading effects on other parts of the food web.
Another major challenge is the technical feasibility of such a project. Shading the Earth would require deploying massive amounts of reflective materials, such as mirrors or reflective films, in space or on the ground. This would require significant investment in research and development, as well as international cooperation and coordination. It would also raise questions about governance and regulation, as well as issues of equity and justice in terms of who bears the costs and benefits of such a project.
In summary, while shading the Earth is an intriguing idea that has captured the imagination of some scientists and policymakers, it is still a highly speculative and uncertain concept that raises many more questions than answers at this point in time. More research is needed to better understand the potential risks, benefits, and feasibility of such an approach before any decisions can be made about whether to pursue it further. speculative and theoretical idea. The risks and potential consequences of such a drastic intervention in the Earth's climate system are not fully understood, and there are significant technical, environmental, and political challenges that would need to be addressed before any such technology could be implemented.
Some proponents of shading the Earth argue that it could help to slow down or reverse the impacts of global warming by reducing the amount of solar radiation that reaches the planet's surface. This could potentially lower temperatures, slow down sea level rise, and reduce the intensity of extreme weather events. However, there are also significant drawbacks and uncertainties associated with this approach.
One major concern is the potential impact on ecosystems and food production. Shading the Earth could significantly reduce the amount of light and heat that plants need to grow, which could have major implications for agriculture and food security. It could also disrupt ecosystems by altering the distribution and abundance of species, which could have cascading effects on other parts of the food web.
Another major challenge is the technical feasibility of such a project. Shading the Earth would require deploying massive amounts of reflective materials, such as mirrors or reflective films, in space or on the ground. This would require significant investment in research and development, as well as international cooperation and coordination. It would also raise questions about governance and regulation, as well as issues of equity and justice in terms of who bears the costs and benefits of such a project.
In summary, while shading the Earth is an intriguing idea that has captured the imagination of some scientists and policymakers, it is still a highly speculative and uncertain concept that raises many more questions than answers at this point in time. More research is needed to better understand the potential risks, benefits, and feasibility of such an approach before any decisions can be made about whether to pursue it further.
To reduce the global warming I think instead of thinking to reduce the sun's ray we should reduce the pollution which we are responsible!
...📩☝ Let's talk!..🚀
Thanks for watching!!...
Why not reduce temperatures without crashing the economy
..📩☝ Let's talk!..🚀..
Thanks for watching
@@dimwit3006 you have to realize that walking away from fossil fuels do create new jobs my friend and it won't crash the economy. I suggest you go get educated on other ways to leave fossil fuels behind once and for all!
@@rogermartinez78 the number of jobs that we can currently make with green energy is far far outweighed by the number of jobs and lives that currently require fossil fuels. I get that tapering off them is a necessity and governments are doing it now. But why not do both. The main problem with fossil fuel burning is global warming. If we can limit this without taking away livelihoods with fossil fuels, why not do it at least in the short term
I love how they act like they’re not already spraying stuff in the skies. What if it’s backfiring and making it hotter??
Letting Earth warm would cause much greater risks such as famine. Let me quote Ben 10: Secret of the Omnitrix.
"Ben, you don't know what you're doing!" (imagine Ben as Arctiguana cooling the Earth)
"It's better than what'll happen if I don't!"
We dont have much time. We have to do anything like that right now to protect the earth and human.
The woman from the Saami counsel is entitled to object to having the experiment take place over her people's land, and there could be negative side effects from attempting to influence the Earth's climate. But I hard disagree with what she said about geoengineering being a substitute for climate action. We won't hit our Paris target (for 2030 there is zero chance, maybe better for 2050) so we should definitely be pursuing an emergency plan B.
I fully agree, Spacetweek!
The problem is that there is talk, talk, talk but very little action undertaken. The last idea, the one with the sea spray over the Great Barrier Reef sounds more applicable than the others.
What she meant is that if geoengineering became a thing then industries and politicians who are making dollars from the non-renewables industry would push for it to further pollute the earth. Sure, the emissions won't raise the temperature of the earth, but the air quality will plummet because corporations have a safety net and that is geo engineering. That's the biggest worry. Companies and politicians always find a way to use things that save lives into something that fuels their wallet.
Reminds me of conservation efforts. Organizations hyperfocused on one particular issue unable to see the big picture, and constantly bickering at the other side.
I literally remember this idea from some movie... oh isn't it the Matrix or something? Human tried to stop robots by blocking sunlight in an attempt to incapacipate robots that rely on solar power.
The Animatrix
Any geoengineering is really terrifying..