Now this is what I call an interesting topic and awesome video! Great job there! I was also interested in moving into geoengineering so I can work on these things, and try to help finding a solution. I don’t know if it can save earth though but always worth trying. All those things out there, so interesting, almost science fiction just not enough funding yet… hopefully soon
Always a pleasure hearing from you Vagabond Turtle :) geoengineering is a very controversial topic for many, hence the lack of funding and a general distaste towards any more tampering with Earth. However, society will have to make a difficult decision very quickly to either bear the full force of what is coming or try to mitigate it as much as possible with geoengineering. A time will come when the benefits outweigh the risks and these ideas start to be taken seriously. But to be honest, I believe that any realistic geoengineering strategy will involve using the ocean to sequester carbon. Stay tuned for part 2 where I'll explain how that could work!
The first video of yours I've watched and I like it. Easy to understand and it covers some really important solutions without spending too long on the scary stuff. Only thing is there are some scientists who are very anti geoengineering and that may have been worth covering. Also my question to any climate solution is who's going to pay for it?
Thanks for the feedback! All the information related to the risks, costs, and uncertainty with geoengineering will be covered in Part 3 of this series on the topic. To fit all the information, worries, costs, planning, etc. into one video would be too much all at once. I hope you stick around for it to get the full scope :)
We need to do it to refreeze the arctic to restore albedo and stop permafrost melting. But we still need to get off fossil fuel. We need a 2 pronged approach of both solar geoengineering and carbon sequestration.
This is spot on. Emissions reductions will not happen fast enough on it's own but relying solely on geoengineering is expensive and doesn't fix other CO2 related issues (Ocean Acidification). Combining emissions reductions with one, or multiple geoengineering strategies is our best shot.
@@PlanetZeroVideos Yes, but the aerosols should be ones that don't damage the ozone layer, like calcium dioxide, aluminum, sand, chalk, etc. Sulfur dioxide harms the ozone layer. But good videos. Glad there are some UA-camrs talking about this serious topic.
@@PlanetZeroVideos If we keep the arctic frozen, which means most tipping points will not be triggered, we will be fine. Majority of the tipping points are in the arctic. Methane clathrates, permafrost, loss of albedo, etc. During the Cretaceous period, solar irradiance was about 5% dimmer than today (because the sun was younger). If we could dim the sun by about 5% using solar geoengineering and keep co2 at manageable levels, below 1000 ppm, like it was during the Cretaceous, we will be fine. Dimming the sun by 5% would only cost a few billion a year if we do it now. The longer we wait, the more expensive geoengineering would be annually and the more aerosols we would need, which might start interfering with photosynthesis.
@@NashHinton That's funny you should mention that because that was the topic for the first funding proposal I ever wrote. It was focused on the biogeochemical effects of a calcite aerosol used for SRM (calcite being calcium carbonate CaCO3). It wouldnt harm the ozone layer at all or risk ocean acidification/acid rain. More research for those strategies needs to be done soon.
@@NashHinton There are legitimate concerns about what 5% reduction in solar radiation would do to photosynthesis, solar photovoltaic efficiency, etc. You cant concentrate these aerosols in one area like the arctic. Stratospheric wind currents will scatter them all thinly to encompass the Earth. Marine cloud brightening and sunshades could however, making these of serious interest for avoiding certain tipping points
Do you think solar radiation management is a good way to help reduce rising global temperatures? Let us know! 🌥
amazing video! keep it up!
Now this is what I call an interesting topic and awesome video! Great job there!
I was also interested in moving into geoengineering so I can work on these things, and try to help finding a solution. I don’t know if it can save earth though but always worth trying. All those things out there, so interesting, almost science fiction just not enough funding yet… hopefully soon
Always a pleasure hearing from you Vagabond Turtle :) geoengineering is a very controversial topic for many, hence the lack of funding and a general distaste towards any more tampering with Earth. However, society will have to make a difficult decision very quickly to either bear the full force of what is coming or try to mitigate it as much as possible with geoengineering. A time will come when the benefits outweigh the risks and these ideas start to be taken seriously.
But to be honest, I believe that any realistic geoengineering strategy will involve using the ocean to sequester carbon. Stay tuned for part 2 where I'll explain how that could work!
@@PlanetZeroVideos agree I read about that, the ocean based solutions. I’m looking forward to your next video!
The first video of yours I've watched and I like it. Easy to understand and it covers some really important solutions without spending too long on the scary stuff. Only thing is there are some scientists who are very anti geoengineering and that may have been worth covering. Also my question to any climate solution is who's going to pay for it?
Thanks for the feedback! All the information related to the risks, costs, and uncertainty with geoengineering will be covered in Part 3 of this series on the topic. To fit all the information, worries, costs, planning, etc. into one video would be too much all at once. I hope you stick around for it to get the full scope :)
@@PlanetZeroVideos Absolutely!
i think we absolutely should do it
Stay tuned for Part 3 where I'll go over which of the five ideas I believe would be best to implement
@@PlanetZeroVideos im a stratospheric aerosol injection guy all day.
Can you make a video about celestial mining
Are you talking about asteroid mining or potential terrestrial operations on another planet?
We need to do it to refreeze the arctic to restore albedo and stop permafrost melting.
But we still need to get off fossil fuel.
We need a 2 pronged approach of both solar geoengineering and carbon sequestration.
This is spot on. Emissions reductions will not happen fast enough on it's own but relying solely on geoengineering is expensive and doesn't fix other CO2 related issues (Ocean Acidification). Combining emissions reductions with one, or multiple geoengineering strategies is our best shot.
@@PlanetZeroVideos Yes, but the aerosols should be ones that don't damage the ozone layer, like calcium dioxide, aluminum, sand, chalk, etc. Sulfur dioxide harms the ozone layer. But good videos. Glad there are some UA-camrs talking about this serious topic.
@@PlanetZeroVideos If we keep the arctic frozen, which means most tipping points will not be triggered, we will be fine.
Majority of the tipping points are in the arctic. Methane clathrates, permafrost, loss of albedo, etc.
During the Cretaceous period, solar irradiance was about 5% dimmer than today (because the sun was younger).
If we could dim the sun by about 5% using solar geoengineering and keep co2 at manageable levels, below 1000 ppm, like it was during the Cretaceous, we will be fine.
Dimming the sun by 5% would only cost a few billion a year if we do it now.
The longer we wait, the more expensive geoengineering would be annually and the more aerosols we would need, which might start interfering with photosynthesis.
@@NashHinton That's funny you should mention that because that was the topic for the first funding proposal I ever wrote. It was focused on the biogeochemical effects of a calcite aerosol used for SRM (calcite being calcium carbonate CaCO3). It wouldnt harm the ozone layer at all or risk ocean acidification/acid rain. More research for those strategies needs to be done soon.
@@NashHinton There are legitimate concerns about what 5% reduction in solar radiation would do to photosynthesis, solar photovoltaic efficiency, etc. You cant concentrate these aerosols in one area like the arctic. Stratospheric wind currents will scatter them all thinly to encompass the Earth. Marine cloud brightening and sunshades could however, making these of serious interest for avoiding certain tipping points