Climate Scientist reacts to

[@ClimateAdam]

check out Hank's original vid here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpyboap7aK51r8k and huge thanks to Miriam for joining me: kzbin.info

[@ujjalshill6442]

We have already geo engineered planet

[@ujjalshill6442]

😂 cooling centre for humans what happens to other animals an ecosystem can't survive for the sake of one species

[@MyKharli]

@@ujjalshill6442 And we cannot survive without a vibrant ecosystem , it doesn`t look good , but all this proves is were not the species to move forward , it will be something else having a go and good luck to them escaping their success that causes there own destruction that happens to all species that over exploit there resources .

[@oleonard7319]

We haven't even exited the denial stage yet

[@oleonard7319]

and the lesson that will be learned is to pump more sulfur into the air

[@Abidontknow]

I'm here from Hank's response video and I'm very happy to be introduced to your and zenturo's channels, to start getting educated on climate change in a practical and understandable way by actual climate scientists. Especially as a lot of the internet gives the message of 'everything sucks, we're beyond the point of no return, just give up'

[@LostLargeCats]

Same for me. It's good to hear more detail and find these other awesome channels.

[@deus_ex_machina_]

You might've also come across Simon Clark, a friend of Adam's who gave a shoutout to Adam's video on CCU&S, which is how I found this channel.

[@zentouro]

i'm always hype to see climate conversations on these here tubes, thanks for expanding the discussion and for letting me ramble about policy for a couple minutes!

[@natesofamerica]

He says "accidentally" change the climate but nothing is an accident if you continue doing it for 70 years after realizing what is happening.

[@v.heywood]

Absolutely!

[@louishennick6883]

Good point

[@SheepShearerMike]

Well done Adam, I heard you on the BBC Climate Question this week. You came across very well, and got in the punching in the head thing, very good, and easy to understand .

[@michaeljames5936]

One of the things I took from Hank's video, was that the aerosols needn't be injected into the stratosphere, just shoved up by a ship and that the effects could be local-ish. Given the 'worrisome prospect' of AMOC collapse, really soon-possibly, I think anything we can do protect the Iceland ice sheet, should be done now, including trying aerosols. Desperate times, desperate means.

[@FelipeKana1]

Hang on a minute champ. Desperate measures can very well worsen even the most dire situations. It didn't took much to nearly destroy the ozone layer a few decades ago.

[@sjsomething4936]

@@FelipeKana1I agree with your statement that desperate measures can make dire situations even worse, but the ozone example confused me at first because it is a notable success humans have had in reversing our impacts on the planet. I think it needs more explanation, which I think I figured out as I began to respond. Hopefully I’ve got your reasoning correct here: We discovered that specific compounds were leading to ozone depletion and banned those, and the situation improved dramatically. However, the concern is that the very aerosols we might deploy to do *solar radiation management* might either 1. reintroduce the ozone problem, or 2. even if carefully chosen to ensure they don’t affect ozone, they could have a different interaction as yet unknown to us, for random example possibly with the ocean and impact currents etc.

[@DrSmooth2000]

Troposphere Aerosol Injection was the near global epidemic known as Smog and Acid Rain

[@DrSmooth2000]

​@sjsomething4s936 sulfur dioxide in SRM will wreck ozone

[@dianewallace6064]

Hank Green and Adam and Miriam together!!! All my favorites. So cool! This is the 2nd time this week I have heard about the trolley problem.

[@IdrisFashan]

I live in Alberta where we do cloud seeding. Global geo engineering at small local scales is one thing to discuss, but doing global scale sun blocking would alter every plant and fish on earth in unfathomable ways.

[@afgor1088]

it's not unfathomable.

[@incognitotorpedo42]

@@afgor1088 Indeed. It's entirely "fathomable". We have a number of natural or accidental experiments that provide data. We could easily gather yet more data with microscopic releases of particulates that we would then follow through time. Some people are so terrified of the concept that they don't even want that sort of thing to be done. Instead, someone, for example Saudi Arabia, might unilaterally decide to implement stratospheric sulfate aerosol injection on their own so that they don't literally DIE from excessive heat. Do you want that to happen with or without more knowledge of what might happen? The fear over SRM drives me crazy. It's not like we do one planeload and the world blows up. The aerosols wash out over time. They don't stay there forever. It is possible to start slowly and carefully observe the results over a span of years.

[@robgeach8105]

hahaha. you mean it would stop tons of dead fish from washing up on beaches around the world? oh the horror.

[@Erndea]

​@@robgeach8105you could alter the weather in unforseen ways, compounding the problem.

[@LuckyW23]

It’s already being done and is the reason for the crazy weather. The mainstream is just pretending they’re not doing it already so they can cause more “climate change” for profit and control

[@lamiagumbo]

I live in the Pacific Northwest part of the US and we had 170 people die due to our last heat dome and those are just the deaths that were directly attributed to the heat dome.

[@ClimateAdam]

💯 - extremely rare heat is being made more extreme and less rare cos we're heating the planet. and it's costing lives. today. and that sucks.

[@LuckyW23]

Heat dome created by constant chemtrails

[@michaelashby9654]

Where's the proof that claim?

[@michaelashby9654]

Haven't people always died from excess heat and excess cold?

[@kj_H65f]

​@@michaelashby9654it was 116 degrees at my house in NW Oregon. Highs of 110+ for three days in row. In June. Our average high for that time of year is mid 70s and we had previous to that never seen a high above 106 ever. Ever in recorded history. This was excess of excess, and your argument is "but people have always died from heat exhaustion" as if that has any bearing on the heat dome. Please stop and listen to the experts. Please.

[@johnthomasriley2741]

In my Cli-Fi books, I propose the Iron Seas Fleet. It is made up of hundreds of sailing yachts converted into monitoring platforms. Any effort to save the oceans needs to have dozens of monitoring ships on site at all times and near-real-time costal labs supporting them. The people operating these ships will have great stories.

[@FelipeKana1]

Cool concept. I've been toying with the idea of huge sea "cities" for climate research, garbage collection, and aquaponic farming. Of course, in my fiction it is a dystopia, so these cities are overrun by corruption as everywhere.

[@brandonm1708]

One of your main points in the video is that we don’t fully know the effects that cloud seeding (or geoengineering in general) has. While this is true to some extent, I’d argue that because we have been doing it (though with a different method) for decades through sulfur, we have a pretty good idea there won’t be many noticeable drawbacks. If we don’t immediately overhaul the world with intentional cloud seeding, but start with a similar amount that had been going on beforehand, there’s a pretty small likelihood it would be bad for us

[@abloogywoogywoo]

People of the UK know what cloud seeding's effects are. Makes our weather miserable for days, blocks out light, dizzles constantly, ruins crops, and adversely affects the local ecosystem.

[@brandonm1708]

@@abloogywoogywoo how do you know that is caused by cloud seeding and not just the other climate factors? And if it is the case, there’s still other options like using it over open water or areas that need more rain, like the Sahara or California (in summer)

[@abloogywoogywoo]

@@brandonm1708 because the contrails expand over the sky over a timescale of several hours, getting wider and wider, thicker and thicker, if there isn't enough wind from the east to disperse it. When the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption happened, the skies were beautiful, no contrails to be seen. I never knew the sky could be that beautiful.

[@MarcosProjects]

I definitely appreciate the extra context and was swayed back onto the fence by it somewhat but my two cents are that I'm still leaning toward agreeing with Hank's point of view. I'm always struck by the (relatively small) amount of attention tipping points get. Obviously they get some, I loved your recent video about the AMOC, but there are tons of others (especially worrisome to me is permafrost thawing and releasing tons of methane) where my understanding is that if they tip, they're self-reinforcing and unstoppable at that point. Obviously there's huge risks to geoengineering and any steps need to be taken as carefully as possible but I've yet to hear an argument that would justify to me NOT taking whatever steps necessary to avoid these cliffs from which there is no return and whose consequences seem to be downright apocalyptic...

[@ClimateAdam]

the methane question is a complex one, that I need to look into far more. but my understanding is that the 'cliffy' nature of it is often overstated (due to the short lifespan of methane in the atmosphere). anyway - as I say, need to much better formulate my thoughts and get to the grips with the literature, but I do hope I'll be able to make a video on precisely that point in the not-too-distant-future.

[@MarcosProjects]

@@ClimateAdam I would absolutely love to see a video from you on that topic THANK YOU! I remember you saying something to the same effect in a video from a couple of years ago, that the methane issue may be overstated in that it won't reach some magical point where it just starts gushing out all at once, the trickle might just get a get a little faster, so I get that, but my intuition would suggest that if that trickle does reach some speed where the amount of methane being added to the air is going to start heating things up faster than we can slow things down then it would just become a runaway feedback loop that can't be stopped. And even if it takes centuries wouldn't the majority of the methane in the permafrost eventually get released and isn't there roughly double the CO2 eq of carbon in the permafrost relative to what's currently in the atmosphere? I know that it's way shorter lived than CO2 but since it's also something like 80x more potent at warming, if there's a steady stream of it into the atmosphere that we can't stop because it's self-perpetuating, that sounds pretty 'cliffy' to me...

[@stonecoldcarebear]

​@@ClimateAdamA discussion on this topic would be greatly appreciated 👍

[@gavinwatson344]

I agree we will most likely be kicking ourselves years from now that we did not try these things when it would have done a lot of good, and prevented serious tipping points.

[@davidbranch2020]

Not sure if they have a named Paradox for this, but, by allowing things to get bad proponents of geoengineering will have greater political will with which to implement it. Strangely it's seems to be many of the same people whom strongly believe that we can innovate our way out of trouble who call out human induced climate change messages as alarmist and fear mongering, while fear and uncertainty are the very thing that will be needed in order for many to decide it is worth the risk to try it; and like you’ve said that may be better sooner than later. I’ve wondered if the new branch of the US Military the Space Force, if it’s still called that, has as one of their goals the geoengineering of the planet. While I haven’t been able to find any information at all on the subject it may be feasible to export greenhouse gases to space. I’d imagine that bioengineering plants, algae etc. to sequester greenhouse gasses is also being looked into. I’d expect there to be a period of trying many different approaches out and/or moving gradually into the what appears to be the best option; especially after the whack a mole results from clean shipping. BTW the story was not widely reported but after 9-11 while plane flight was restricted climatologist found that temps rose considerably in areas which normally had heavy plane traffic so yes the clean ships increasing temps was not a surprise

[@vernugt]

Concerns: 1. Would light refracting aerosols also reflect heat back down to earth trapping it like a Mylar blanket? 2. Would Injecting desiccants for cloud seeding be part of the plan? Could the drying affect of the desiccants in the atmosphere create drought and increase electricity in the air leading to more dangerous storms as well? 3. Are the chemicals in the aerosols safe for the environment? How do we know? 4. Who would oversee the what chemicals that are being sprayed? The EPA has done a terrible job with water (Detroit, Newark) how can the trust be restored to allow them to oversee spraying stuff on us? 5. Who would prevent weather manipulation from becoming a weapon? 6. How will this affect trade winds and ocean currents? 7. Could carbon emissions from planes and spraying aerosols so close to the ozone layer damage it? Remember when they told us to stop using aquanet hair spray to save the ozone layer? How much aquanet is the equivalent of spraying the entire planet in the stratosphere with aerosols? 8. In order to cover such vast areas nano particles would have to be used. Particles so small can penetrate on the electron level which is why nanotechnology has been a huge break through in medicine. How can we be sure that anything that tiny, no matter how benign is safe in our water and for life? 9. Where are the safety studies? These are just some common sense questions I would like answered before I sign on. Thx!

[@3ngi_n33r]

Great questions. I’ve read that cloud seeding shouldn’t be done at night as it possibly has a greenhouse effect and will trap heat. . And as of a couple years ago there’s no real governance of this technology. The most noticeable effect that I’ve noticed is the overly acidic rain is tearing up asphalt roads and roof shingles. I wonder how home owner’s insurance factors into things.

[@vernugt]

@@3ngi_n33r !!!!!!

[@ichardmith3926]

I think Hank and John Green are amazing at making videos. Their attitudes and performances are great. Ive spent many many years watching their videos and i have learnt so much from just a 10 min video..

[@davedave7818]

Here from Hank's channel. Thank you for delving deeper into this vitally important issue, while still explaining it for us laymen to understand. 👏

[@SarahRoseStiles]

Thank you for adding some good commentary to flesh out the complexities of geo-engineering. Sometimes what we do with good intent can also lead to undesired accidents.

[@thedamnedatheist]

There will be unintended consequences of geo engineering. It should be kept as a last resort, for if & when we become truly desperate. I think solar shades in geo synchronous orbit would be a better idea. The same technology that would take us back to the Moon, or to Mars, could put large flimsy shades in orbit above the poles & Greenland, or at intervals around the equator. But no one idea is going to work by itself.

[@SenorZorros]

shades are probably more expensive and less effective as well as having to deal with the difficulty of getting stuff into space which is not good for the climate as well.. Additionally, the further away you put one of these screens the more expensive and less effective it is going to be. Then there is the difficulty of control and risk of accidents. You are in effect building a massive solar sail. Pumping reflective gases into the upper atmosphere is cheaper and probably even less dangerous.

[@DrSmooth2000]

​@@SenorZorrosthere's no danger of a flimsy solar sail not burning in our atmo if destabilized No ozone due to SAI is a known concern

[@DrAndrewSteele]

Great video, and a fantastic introduction to geoengineering generally too! I hope Hank sees and shares it. :) I think the wildest thing about geoengineering is how potentially unilateral it is-I’ve seen numbers in the not-enormous-billions suggested, which is totally within the reach of even medium-sized economies. We need some international regulation ASAP!

[@ClimateAdam]

indeed! things which are definitely easy but not necessarily safe are quite scary things..!

[@Shiv-ym1rr]

​@@ClimateAdamsimple but terrible solutions to a complex problem

[@Ulyssestnt]

I think we should be careful with putting to many roadblocks for a technology we are going to be needing later on. Geo engineering does conjure up horror scenarios like the Matrix,("it was us who scorched the sky). But having seen multiple presentations for investor relations panels and read the literature,it can be done with benign substances,and it's a temporary measure so if there's adverse effects we do not continue the program and it goes back to normal.

[@oleonard7319]

Ok I actually spent time reading the study. It didnt say all the warming was caused by this. It said some of it, and that some was not a huge percentage. This is what I hate about youtube. People making presentations based on a headline and maybe a summary, without reading. The actual material

[@travcollier]

​@@oleonard7319Yep. As Adam says, the importance of this "accidental experiment" is that it helps further quantify an effect we already knew about. It helps us better predict what will happen if we engage this particular sort of aerosol "dimming". As for the questions around international agreement and such... I understand, but it isn't like the current norms are effectively addressing AGW right now. I also find the criticism that this sort of geoengineering doesn't "solve" climate change pretty absurd. Of course it doesn't... It just masks the effects somewhat. It's a stopgap to mitigate the damage a bit while we are trying to bring down GHG levels.

[@MyKharli]

Totally bonkers as the underlying conditions remain so any interruption , would be catastrophic , assuming it worked at all which it almost certainly won`t. Great post too !

[@ClimateAdam]

thank you for bringing that up - I was sad I didn't have time to get into termination shock. that said, some proponents argue that any plan would (at least at first) be carried out to a marginal degree, so the changes (positive and negative) - and the risks of termination - would be lower

[@ciragoettig1229]

@@ClimateAdam hopefully any serious consideration of this kind of intervention should be focused on merely partial mitigation of some of the warming we end up with, to lower some of its impacts. Clearly we need to stabilize ghg concentrations in the atmosphere asap regardless.

[@carollollol]

I wish the news was more like this. Where you feel like you are really informed well, rather the having 3840 more questions after. really nicely done. THANKS!

[@ClimateAdam]

what lovely feedback - thank you!

[@giancarlopellizzari1751]

The first thing we should be doing is a mandate that all new roofs must be white. Old roofs would be allowed some time to ajust, like 10 years or so. There are already some charity orgs painting roofs in India. Its a small but an easy and harmless form of geoengeneering that can be safely implemented.

[@LuckyW23]

It’s not even record heat, the geo engineering is causing the crazy heat drought flood patterns.

[@xponen]

@@LuckyW23 Where is the proof that painting roof white cause heat drought and flood?

[@giancarlopellizzari1751]

@@xponen white roofs help compensate global warming. They prevent its effects like heat,drought and flood. They reflect excess heat. They are the good guys.

[@MrCurlz]

The most concerning is that there is like zero information about geoengineering. It's like it doesn't exist

[@LuckyW23]

There’s plenty of articles online that show the pros and cons from even a decade ago, and we’re seeing the side effects of it today!

[@MrCurlz]

@@LuckyW23 It's maybe true but they're not being popularized, at least not enough

[@DrSmooth2000]

​@@MrCurlzyou won't find anything much unbiased. Pro geoengineering are funded by coal companies and anti geoengineering are disorganized and overlaps with chemtrails scene

[@THarSul]

lol, kinda failed to mention that the fact that the geoengineering he was excited about was very specifically the fact that people are talking about using aerosolized sea water as the new nucleation source for the cloud cover that has been protecting us this whole time, which is already a source for cloud cover near the coast, and has no quantifiable environmental impact outside the intended reduction of temperature. anything to give us more time is good, especially when it's basically just restoring a beneficial condition we had already been creating, one which doesn't seem to have any direct impact on the rainfall anyone was experiencing on land, considering the fact that it has been the normal state for the past hundred years or so. not to mention, we seem to have glossed over the fact that sea surface temps are a massive contributing factor to the severity of tropical storms, so working to actively reduce the surface heat will have a direct impact on the amount of power these destructive storms are able to soak up before they hit land. ultimately, the hesitancy you have demonstrated is part of why we are having a hard time actively combating these problems, because people, who admit the problem is too big for them to understand, are too afraid of the consequences of something that will ultimately have a less severe impact than the otherwise predicted conditions, if it does go wrong in some way. yes, this is the trolley problem, and i'd prefer to flip the switch that will save the larger number of people, rather than avoid changing anything for fear of the consequences, leaving it on its current course, and allowing the carriage to perform multi-track-drifting across both rails at once, killing the most people it can.

[@tommclean7410]

The trolley problem can be a bit more difficult if it's your family on the siding.

[@DrSmooth2000]

MCB is a sideshow. Please don't obscure topic

[@illiteratemochi4150]

I’m a student studying marine biology for a masters degree right now, and we’ve been discussing all of these sorts of variables with a marine focus. I found it interesting that there was a slight gap in information in this video in regards to the ocean. Which is fine, especially if that isn’t your particular focus or expertise. But I would like to see people with other perspectives on these issues weigh in to get a better picture of the problems as a whole

[@philosophy-of-science-and-law]

Excellent video, Adam, thank you! more critical feedback to other vloggers, please!

[@paulzozula1318]

What is going on now should make it apparent that we are currently critical. Though it's certainly imperative, we need to do much more than just eliminate all greenhouse emissions. Much sooner than we can sufficiently bring down emissions, levels of greenhouse gases resident in the atmosphere will increase feedbacks to level that are very difficult to control. Such feedbacks are self reinforcing and compounding. These are things that are ramping up at a high rate, such as attrition and burning of forests, peat and other ecosystems, increases in methane and nitrous oxide from natural sources, loss of cryospheric albedo and further derangement of climate systems with attendant intensifications. Feedbacks include impacts of societal mitigations, adaptations, disaster responses, relocation, effects of likely increasing conflict, the environmental cost of needed reformation of the human enterprise and other black swans. Over time there are numerous things that can be deployed, such as enhancing sinks of the more potent greenhouse gases. As promoted by Paul Beckwith, iron salt aerosols are a possibility for effectively reducing methane resident in the atmosphere. However, in order to stop the attendant havoc, derangements and intensifications we would have to simultaneously and immediately reduce the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases to something close to pre industrial while bringing down temperature. However, it is not possible to bring down emissions immediately. Unfortunately, we are at a state where we will need to begin terraforming Earth itself in order to preserve long established ecosystems that are humanities cradle. Otherwise, the extreme rapidity of current developments present a bleak scenario for all life on Earth Even without mounting feedbacks, acidification and huge amounts of stored heat, actually about 90%, in the oceans from the recent very fast increase in Earth's energy imbalance will remain a problem for some time. As being called for by the UN, a group of more than a hundred scientists, James Hansen and many others, we must at least begin to do some solar radiation management in order to alleviate otherwise inevitable highly impactful feedbacks. Unlike bringing down greenhouse gas levels, this can be done very quickly in various ways and at low cost. Trepidation about unintended consequences is nonsensical when one gives recognition to what we we have been doing at very large scale. By rapidly filling the atmosphere with greenhouse emissions, the human enterprise is already engaged in the most reckless form of laissez-faire geo-engineering as emphasized by James Hanson et al in the recent paper titled "Global Warming in the Pipeline." Bringing down temperature will buy us time to transform our presence on this planet in a more reasonable manner, reducing its impact. Otherwise, as things are going, soon we will likely panic and subsequent frantic activities,alone, will put us over the edge. Among other notables, professor William Rees as well described the the ecological predicament of overshoot, which must be considered if we are to get through this. Considering what is already occurring along with the prospects outlined above, I am beginning to think that to not bring down temperature is masochistic and self victimizing. Of course we must do something about fossil fuel usage. According to Thomm Hartman we could easily nationalize fossil fuel companies by buying controlling shares of those operating in the US for much less than the amount of tax cuts gifted to the very wealthy by Mr Trump. This could be done in many other countries as well. In so doing, corporate chartering could be modified in order redirect business models into environmental sustainability and acknowledgment of otherwise ignored externalities What was promoted by James Hansen decades ago could bring us a long way. A Fee and Dividend Carbon Tax approach would deftly employ personal advantage in order to lead rather than institutionalized imperatives to push. With such an arrangement fossil fuels and embedded carbon could be taxed at levels high enough to be equivalent to the environmental and social harm being done without impoverishing the nation's citizens. This is so, since all revenue would be redistributed to the public in a progressive manner. As such individuals would be inclined to select more environmentally friendly choices when making purchases. Also, it would be instrumental in engaging most other nations, since fees collected on imports would be redistributed in the importing country when the exporting country does not participate domestically in the arrangement. As well, after being deployed for a period of time demand for fossil fuels would decline and become much less inflexible, so that price shocks would not be possible. Information about this online is readily available and I highly recommend everybody looking into it. As you can tell, I am aligned with James Hansen. I recommend reading his paper, "Global Warming in the Pipeline" and/or Paul Beckwith's unpacking of the same paper. Also, I have a high regard for Peter Carter and Jason Box even though I disagree with his stance on solar radiation management. In his most recent post on KZbin,, Jason gives the most comprehensive explanation of why the startling North Atlantic SST anomaly is occurring. Also I have a high regard for Prof William Rees, Michael Dowd in many others. I am appreciative of Guy McPherson's alarm, but it should be noted that he does admit to some hope if we were to follow through with the Meer Framework Project, which is one form of SRM. It is special in that it would provide fine control over local effects to the extent of being synergistic. For example, by placing mirrors over water reservoirs there would be more water available for public needs, since evaporation would be greatly reduced. Certainly international entitlement and cooperation will be the primary problem and methods must be carefully analyzed before deployment. SRM certainly does not have to be all or nothing. It can be locally as well as gradually Introduced in an effort to optimize benefit and minimize negative consequences.

[@kaputfretudy]

The term “unintended consequences” comes to mind…one factor that links altered climate patterns and humans are ecosystems and the essential services they provide to humans - stabilizing soils, trapping carbon in soils and forests, soaking up rainfall, pollination, supporting food production, keeping viruses at bay, spiritual value etc. Many species rely on stable and bounded rainfall, temperature and sunlight regimes. Geo-engineering could give the push needed, on top of existing climate destabilization and other human pressures, to knock ecosystems into different, far less biodiverse steady states. E.g the Amazon transitioning to savanna or grassland.

[@incognitotorpedo42]

We are already changing the biosphere in a haphazard and irresponsible way. This is having obvious and terrible consequences. How large of a human body count, and how many thousands of species extinctions will it take before vague concerns over "unintended consequences" give way to cautious gathering of knowledge about SRM being allowed?

[@distantmind956]

Personally I think geoengineering is unavoidable at this point. You mention things we can do, like taking measures to prevent people from working outside during heatwaves, setting up cooling centers, etc. That's all well and good, for people. Wildlife doesn't have access to that, and we are still dependent on natural systems for creating our food. What worries me the most about geoengineering is how much irreversible damage is being done to important ecosystems between now and when we ultimately start the geoengineering process.

[@crains8087]

This

[@LuckyW23]

Geo engineering has been going on for decades and is a reason for the wacky weather you’re seeing

[@distantmind956]

@@LuckyW23 Geoengineering from injecting co2 and methane into the atmosphere heating it up, I assume you mean? We're talking about geoengineering by injecting aerosols (Hopefully calcite, as it's more reflective and not toxic to health or ozone, but people mostly talk about sulphur dioxide because it's easier to criticize) into the stratosphere to cool down the planet. We're gonna have to draw down the co2 to safe levels before we can stop.

[@robgeach8105]

@@distantmind956 that's why building space bubbles at L1 with cascading reserves to prevent termination shock is a better global idea.

[@distantmind956]

@@robgeach8105 I would prefere that, but does that sound like something that can be put in place in a reasonable timeframe? We should at the very least have a backup plan with modified planes and aerosols in case we trigger one of the big feedback loops by then.

[@BenLymanO_o]

I’m so glad to find your channel! What playlist of yours should I start with to get up to speed?

[@jaysimoes3705]

The problem with those against do not have models to support their claims. And a claim "you can't research it and get certainty" is just that: a claim. It has been said by denialists of climte change for a long time too...Also models show that solar engineering does get not only temperatures back in check but also rainpatterns. While not exactly it is far closer than you seem to indicate. There are also ethics against not researching cooling, like getting people killed in Tuvalu (sealevel) or Pakistan/India that would be saved if we allowed this sort of (shortterm?) fix..Protecting billions in Pakistan and India with your measures are not feasible. Very costly and ever thought of the distances people would need to travel to get in a cooling centre? Leaving livelihood etc behind? We need to research it, there can be no dogma. And face it: we know very well what we are getting ourselves into and do way too little to really address this problem. Good look with trying to curb it around. It is happening but the rate is far too low. Are you aware of Australia already testing marine cloud brightening to prevent the Great Barrier from collapsing. They are testing this model an it alread is in its second iteration. My bet is that Australia will not be theonly one. Now how are we going to stop India or Pakistn, nuclear powers, to do the same if feasible to coldown their country and prevent another deadly heathwave which are getting more and more normal if we continue this way. And we are also because India has approved a lot of coal powerplants as did CHina. Are we going to tell them anything and what are we going to do. Such local experiments that are not unlikely to surface and potentially are far more disruptive compared to descicions made by all of us to cool things down. The current problem is the temperture. The cause is CO2 but there are no signs that that cause will go anywhere in the next decades. We are getting into this swamp because countries can unilaterally decide to make things worse (cola plants in CHina and Indian, not ding nearly enough to curb emissions down in the West etc). In the end: scientists of any kind are here for one reason. To get us facts. Their opinions (whch is the only thing they have if they do not have facts) are of the same value as anyone elses. You are not in a position to be of more value when it comes to opinions at all.

[@Xgya2000]

Came from Hank's response! I'm an frank pessimist when it comes to climate, with my best ideas to combat it being in the "keep the planet in order long enough that we can make another planet humanity's home" category. I still love this kind of discussion. Hey, geoengineering might be part of making another planet hospitable, so any research about it, even if we don't apply the results, still serves a longer term purpose :)

[@johnbennett1465]

Adam mentions adding insulation to homes to deal with heat waves. This is a good idea, but if it is done on a large scale, it is a minor form of geo-engineering. It will change both the quantity and distribution of energy usage. That will have an effect on the climate. Reducing CO2 emissions is undoing accidental geo-engineering. But that makes it intentional geo-engineering. The point is that ANYTHING we do to fix the current problems IS geo-engineering. Some actions are lower risk than others, but they all have risks. Even if all you do is reduce the amount of human created CO2, the climate will not neatly reverse its changes. There will be both predictable and unpredictable changes compared to previous conditions. The best that can be done is international cooperation to improve our understanding and choose actions with the best chances of overall desirable results.

[@abloogywoogywoo]

1. insulation does nothing by itself. We've insulted the hell out of our house, we've overengineered our house to be as warm as possible, and yet it still gets freezing cold when the north wind hits us. 2. CO2 makes up about 0.04% of our atmosphere. If it goes any lower than that - we're in BIG trouble. Plants stop photosynthesising, and we all starve to death.

[@thecountingthot7638]

Another issue is that as soon as we start geoengineering, we have to keep doing it forever to stop shocks to the system. aerosols have a short lifetime in the atmosphere, generally! If we stop for a month, because of say, a giant pandemic, the climate will quickly rebound to its non-aerosolized level.

[@tenthz]

Here from vlogbrothers! One thing that I find interesting is that this conversations tend to be an either/or proposition. I think this is typically because it is difficult for humans and our brains to comprehend the idea that anything as complex as the climate of our planet may require multiple solutions which are taken on by different groups at all different levels of society in different areas of the globe. There is a lot of talk of "we" can do this or that, but it is not a singular "we". Many different solutions will be needed and each of us can do our part while also encouraging our governments to put money into researching many different efforts. I turned 40 this year. When I was born there were less than 5 billion people on this planet. Now there are over 8 billion people. In the 90s the biggest problem being talked about was the hole in the ozone layer. You know what, "we" fixed it. It took people making individual choices, companies making changes, and governments putting regulations into effect to solve the problem. I am confident that as long as there are scientists talking about these problems and discussing solutions that "we" will be able to work towards a multi-solution approach that will give future generations a better planet.

[@Cedders001]

The ozone hole was one problem where an international ban fixed things, but they've singularly failed to ban or even cut back on the main cause of climate change. Yes, there are multiple interlocking problems with multiple interlocking solutions, but climate change and ocean acidification can basically be boiled down to amount of carbon being dug up. And the fact people are seeing green technologies as add-ons rather than total replacements leads us to desperate consideration of last-ditch temporary palliatives. The way CCS and geoengineering are becoming more than speculation really is just a sign of how badly we have failed. You can come up with far better technical solutions, but if vested interests are determined not to implement them at scale, the problem is social, not technical.

[@ushalexa]

Beautifully done! Thanks for this great piece.

[@mfuson77]

Geoengineering will be a component of the solution. The climate problem is massive and requires all hands on deck and all options on the table. We're out of time.

[@abloogywoogywoo]

We have 1 billion years before the Sun boils away our oceans, ending all life. We have 1 million years before a close encounter with another star hurdles comets towards us, ending all life. We have 100 thousand years before the next major asteroid impact that sends us back to the stone age (if we survive). We have 100 years if these alarmists take out all the CO2 plants need for photosynthesising and we starve to death.

[@walterpaul9105]

So I remember during the global cooling scare (late 1970's), there was a geoengineering proposal to scatter coal dust over the arctic ice cap. I am all for brainstorming potential geoengineering responses to climate issues, but some reservation and humility should be required. We can't be as sure as some think.

[@ubellubo]

I am here because Sabine Hossenfelder recommended your channel on Twitter.

[@inelouw]

One thing that scares me the most about geoengineering the atmosphere to reflect more sunlight out into space is that plants actually need that sunlight. Plants don't grow on water and CO2 alone, they need sunlight and lots of it. Sunlight hasn't increased over the past 150 years like temperature has, so suddenly decreasing the amount of sunlight will have unforeseen effects on plant life. With harvests already failing more often, we have no idea what a decrease in available sunlight will do to crop yields. We might be geoengineering ourselves into a worldwide famine.

[@parrsnipps4495]

It's very interesting that spewing shipping fuel exhaust into the atmosphere dims sunlight, reducing temperature, and cleaning up that fuel reduces dimming raising temperature, but the idea of purposely going back to dirty fuel to cause dimming is a Non-Starter. I'm not saying that's what you're video says, but that does seem to be the world's response so far. And on the surface it is a strange idea to cause pollution to dim to reduce temperature, but that guy has a point I agree with, if we need to buy more time to transition to renewables/hydrogen.

[@prongs4137]

I'm so glad you made this video and thus Hank tagged you in his dooblydoo and thus I found your channel! Yay!😄

[@ClimateAdam]

Yay welcome!

[@andyking6051]

Geoengineering - Operation Cirrus 1946/7 ( usa ) Operation Popeye 1967 ( vietnam ) The Lynmouth Incident RAF 1953 England Winter Olympics 2022 Beijing To name a few examples . I also watched it on tv on BBC1 prime time uk in 1977 . It has been going on since 1946 .

[@heronimousbrapson863]

Ironically, the smoke from the forest fires here in Canada, which are becoming more frequent and more severe due to climate change, is helping to reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth's surface. Unfortunately, it comes with severe effects on respiratory health.

[@JinKee]

we could spray the chemicals out the back of airliners, and make pretty trails across the sky.

[@annedromeda9857]

Oh for goodness sake!

[@KarolaTea]

Ohh great video, thanks you two! Really interesting topic :) I guess the crucial part about modifying the climate "intentionally" is that we'd need to know *exactly* what the impacts would be. *All* of the impacts, on the climate, local current weather, or any other changes in the environment or people's health. Otherwise it'd just be another wild experiment like burning fossil fuels was in the beginning, where we know one positive outcome (steam engine go brrrrrrr) but not all of the side effects, both short and long term. If we (scientists) manage to figure out *all* of the effects, then we (all countries/communities worldwide) can decide whether it's worth it. But from the sounds of it not all of the effects are known yet.

[@vincentbaldry350]

I understand the bit about thinking if we try to reduce the heat with the geoengineering without stopping burning fossil fuels. Its like having all your doors and windows closed and turning the central heating on, then you turn on the Air Con as it gets too hot but you do not turn off the central heating.

[@LudvigIndestrucable]

I've really appreciated the haircut, thank you so much.

[@KOSTNOT]

Can we please decide on climate change action now while conservatives are still in denial ??

[@PeterAGW]

Something that makes it seem unlikely that the North Atlantic heat anomaly is largely due to reduced ship emissions is that the emission reduction looks to have come into force in 2020, and there was not a dramatic increase in temperatures in 2021-22. There's no reason I can see why the effect would jump up in 2023. This suggests the particularly high anomaly this year is due to something else such as anomalous ocean currents or weather variability.

[@nicevideomancanada]

34C in Calgary Alberta tomorrow, it's never been this hot here in the past 43 years I have live here. I work outside Detail Cleaning Vehicles. 16C forecast for Friday. I love your channel Adam.

[@ClimateAdam]

Thanks for sharing. I hope the heat isn't too tough for you tomorrow!

[@RieCherie]

Please consider having Marianne Williamson on your channel. I think she is experiencing a media black out in the USA due to her position on Climate Change! She also is great at bringing topics together into a wholistic view. I think you would enjoy speaking with her! Please! Please! Please! I saw a comment recently that she is also not receiving any press in the UK. She has the power to plant seeds of love where ever she goes. She is an example of the types of leaders we need if we are going to survive. Love your channel BTW

[@Ulyssestnt]

I support geo engineering as well as a nuclear rennesaince. Many in the finance sector understand that our current ambitions are mostly window dressing as is. It is also as you say ,not really achievable on a realistic basis to stop burning hydrocarbons for energy. The classic renewables EROEI/EROI doesn't make sense,every hydrocarbon molecule produced will be burned somewhere on the globe and stopping production is intrinsically linked to the economy and people's standard of living. The global south are industrializing and who are we to deny them to aspire to our western standard of living. Your standard of living is defined by how much energy you can use. I think it's no overstatement that energy is life. Geo engineering and nuclear power at scale is going to be part of the Overton window more and more as we see climate destruction have an effect on an ever increasing scale. I don't mean to be a contrarian and I respect your viewpoint ,I felt I could contribute with channeling the opinions mostly heard behind closed doors at this point.

[@rebeccaburnell9319]

"Who is the 'we' in this sentence?" is indeed what Hank needed to interrogate (multiple times through the video) before he published any of that.

[@ClimateAdam]

I'd be super interested to know what his audience make-up is like, as he often discusses from a super US centric perspective (e.g. giving figures that are only for the US without even specifying they're from the US). surely I'm not the only non-USA-person watching his vids!

[@zentouro]

@@ClimateAdam there is a nerdfighteria census every year! kzbin.info/www/bejne/goSbkHtur9KAg5I so he has a pretty good idea of his audience. however as a US-ian who also sucks, we're just self-centered....

[@rebeccaburnell9319]

@@ClimateAdam - yep, and even if ONLY Americans watched his channel, the question would still stand, because particularly in the affluent world, that 'we' needs to be interrogated when it shows up in these questions! As you rightly indicated in your video. 👍

[@alectricity3072]

we is anyone with enough cash to do it...there are plenty of goverments and even indiviuals with the resources to do this. i doubt if they do there will be anything "we"can do to stop them.

[@rebeccaburnell9319]

@@alectricity3072 Yep, all pretty critical to the discussion.

[@kevinconrad6156]

Miriam's rant was interesting. Highlights the biggest problem in the room, human politics. So worried about offending each other (fighting over the kill instead of sharing) we will continue to not do enough.

[@v.heywood]

Victim blaming, much You're acting like this is an ego vs ego situation when it's actually a "we don't care about killing the poors, it's for the greater good" vs the "you were the ones that caused this issue to begin with and just wanna beat your kill count"

[@_buns_]

@climateadam @zentouro This was a wonderful video! I appreciate the very balanced opinions here, and scientific corrections to Hank. Unrelated to the video, but I will say that majority of people online who unilaterally oppose SRM seem to come from privileged rich north who won't be as impacted by climate change as us in the south. I will unfortunately likely say goodbye to my ancestral home by 2100 (a year in which I very much will likely still be alive. Crazy to think!), and SRM is one of the only viable options to save it (since I dont see us decarbonizing quickly enough). This was a good video with lots of nuance, and the conversation around SRM is still far from complete. Thank you for the thoroughness :)

[@ClimateAdam]

Thanks so much for sharing your perspective - really interesting to think about.

[@touyats1]

As long as you people in the south end up being used to justify SRM, because I hope you understand that that's a risk of that happening, right?

[@jezlawrence720]

I tend to fall on the side of 'we don't know what we're doing and vested interests will use it as an excuse to not do the things we need to do'. The experience of how we have managed carbon credits seems like a way more likely outcome than how we managed CFCs, we're just far too far from the horrors of the second world war to remember why co-ordinated, committed collaboration was considered important.

[@giggabiite4417]

2 Questions-ish: 1) "Is our purposeful inaction equivalent to purposeful action when we know about as much about our inaction as our actions?" Does the cleaning up of the diesel fuel used by those ships count as geoengineering. I feel it does because we have changed the status quo (albeit one that has not been around for very long). Considering that as the case, would it be any more irresponsible to change the particulate to salt as opposed to what was being used, sulfur.? edit: Also I've heard the argument (and its touched on in this video) that because geoengineering just extends the amount of time for the planet to heat up a whole lot more, and that we have enough time to fix it means that it shouldn't be done. BUT, surely slowing the speed at which climate change happens also delays some of the effects. I mean, naturally the best answer would be to discuss all these things internationally before making a change. But because of the complexity of geo-climate politics, some bills will be passed without the direct intention to change the climate, but whose effects will anyway. 2) I guess what I'm trying to get at with the previous section, is that before we even talk internationally about climate-changes (and geoengineering) we need to figure out how we want to talk about it.

[@henrikfox8960]

eoengineering is the deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth's climate system in order to moderate its effects. There are two main types of geoengineering: solar radiation management (SRM) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR). SRM aims to reflect sunlight back into space, thereby cooling the planet. One proposed method of SRM is to inject sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere, which would mimic the cooling effect of volcanic eruptions. CDR aims to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, thereby reducing the greenhouse effect. One proposed method of CDR is to plant trees, which absorb carbon dioxide from the air. Hank Green argues that the accidental experiment of cleaning up ship fuel could be a crucial opportunity to learn about SRM. Before the International Maritime Organization (IMO) required ships to use cleaner fuels in 2020, sulfur dioxide emissions from ships were a major source of sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere. When these emissions were reduced, there was a noticeable cooling effect in the Arctic. This suggests that SRM could be a viable way to cool the planet. However, many scientists are skeptical of geoengineering. They argue that it is too risky and that we don't fully understand the potential consequences. For example, SRM could disrupt rainfall patterns and lead to droughts in some regions. CDR could also have unintended consequences, such as the release of harmful pollutants from the soil. Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to pursue geoengineering is a complex one. There are no easy answers. However, the accidental experiment of cleaning up ship fuel has shown that SRM is a potential tool that we could use to combat climate change. More research is needed to understand the risks and benefits of geoengineering before we can make a decision about whether or not to use it. Here are some additional points to consider: Geoengineering is a controversial topic, and there is no consensus among scientists about its feasibility or safety. Some of the potential risks of geoengineering include: unintended consequences, such as changes in rainfall patterns or ocean acidity; the possibility of creating a new set of problems that are worse than the original problem; and the possibility that geoengineering could be used for military purposes. The potential benefits of geoengineering include: the ability to rapidly cool the planet and mitigate the effects of climate change; the possibility of reducing the need for emissions reductions from other sources; and the potential to create new economic opportunities. The decision of whether or not to pursue geoengineering is a complex one that should be made on a case-by-case basis, with careful consideration of the risks and benefits.

[@ChrisMcSweeney]

...is that from ChatGPT?

[@henrikfox8960]

@@ChrisMcSweeney no from bart

[@laxisusous]

It is my understanding that clouds both cool (block radiation) and heat (reflect radiation back to the surface). Last I heard, the net affect of clouds is largely a wash.

[@ClimateAdam]

Different types of clouds have different net effects, which also depend on where those clouds are. Quantifying this for any particular situation (e.g. Ship tracks) is tough, which is why studies like this are so useful.

[@dr.zoidberg8666]

I love Hank, but at the end of the day, there's a class analysis here. Hank is a business owner. For him, solutions that step on the toes of capitalism or the profit motive are out of the question... so in his view the only thing left that could save the day is geoengineering. In my opinion, it'd be a lot better to change the way our global society & economy works, rather than changing the globe to suit the greediest minority among us.

[@annesmith9642]

I disagree about your opinion of Hank's motives, though.

[@dr.zoidberg8666]

@@annesmith9642 I'm not saying Hank has bad motives, I'm saying his perspective is colored by his experience & class position. Think about Hank. How has he made positive change in the world? He's done it with profitable businesses & by working with extremely rich & powerful people. Hank has learned to work within this system very well, so he's naturally going to be resistant to any proposal like "This way of doing things is fundamentally incapable of success at the scale we need." Just like everybody, Hank has a perspective & basic material interests. Disingenuous movements like techno-optimism & Steven Pinker Our World In Data-style nonsense are tailor made to appeal to the confirmation bias of good, intelligent, successful people like Hank -- & to a certain degree it's worked. Like I said, I love Hank. I just think he has a blind spot here -- & in fairness, I think we've all seen John gently push back on that blind spot on occasion, as well.

[@robgeach8105]

there is zero chance this comment isn't a CIA Op trying to prop up capitalism by making socialists look insane.

[@Somebodyherefornow]

⁠hank is a big business owner though? he is biased though?

[@dr.zoidberg8666]

@@Somebodyherefornow Yes, Hank is a business owner. He owns businesses & harvests profit from the work of his employees. His social class is that of a capitalist. That comes with a bundle of basic class interests which are different & oppositional to the class interests of an employee. That doesn't mean he has to act according to those interests. But it does mean that he has socioeconomic forces pushing on him to reject the idea of any massive civilizational change.

[@trinsit]

The only geoengeneering i want to see is swales being built up across all hillsides where water capture makes sense to revive old river systems. And seeding the swales with trees and other plants to reverse desertification. More trees!

[@bruceb7464]

The trouble is there seems to be no subtlety when talking about geoengineering. It seems all or nothing. Open the valve on the aerosol release and let it rip. But that cannot be the way it would work. Surely the approach would be cautious. Start with a small concentration, monitor the effects, and if not adverse then ramp up the concentration a bit. A series of slow cautious steps. Perhaps over a decade or two. If there are adverse effects then stop. The aerosol or other method chosen would have to be one that dissipates over time. Stop putting the aerosol in the atmosphere and overtime things would return to what they were before - as bad as that may be. Sulphur dioxide does that but there must be more benign aerosols available. Also there are more localised geoengineering options. For example, cloud whitening. I think that is pretty benign. It is also very reversible. Also white rooves and white roads. Even carbon capture and storage can be thought of as geo-engineering. I hope people aren’t arguing against those. They can be adopted without significant risk. However what I would say about large scale geo-enginnering, I would definitely NOT support it if it was used to justify and allow the fossil fuel industry to continue to pump their poison into the atmosphere. Fossils fuel use would have to be on a definite locked-in downward trajectory and the world united on an absolute zero CO2 policy. If not I would be out on the barricades saying no way to large scale geo-engineering. It is absolutely despicable that the world has gotten to a situation where we have to consider this type of potentially risky action when we could have phased out fossil fuels by the end of the 20th century. I would prefer to see the human race go extinct than for it to be used to extend their immoral industry. Hopefully the species that would replace us would be a lot smarter.

[@jpg0927]

Anthropogenic climate change likely won't be an issue by the time edtremophile bacteria evolve to replace us.

[@betseyspencer5370]

Finally geoenineering is being discussed. One thing I have no doubt about is that the military has been experimenting with weather as a weapon for a long time. Even just playing with it on a civilian level is scary. What could possibly go wrong?😢 we never learn. Tell me a time that we tinkered with manipulation of nature when there haven't been negative impacts?

[@LostLargeCats]

This feels like an odd take to me.

[@ChrisMcSweeney]

Having recently read the horrifying, depression-inducing Sam Hall (pseudonym) article "The Busy Worker's Guide to the Apocalypse", I'm suddenly extremely enthusiastic about geoengineering, regardless of the risks. Get the spray boats spraying, get the white paint down wherever we can get it, now now now. (Don't read that article unless want a serious and immediate hit to your mental health, seriously).

[@emceegreen8864]

Thanks for the heads up on Sam Hall’s apocalypse.

[@ChrisMcSweeney]

@emceegreen8864 I ignored a similar warning when I read it in the first place and haven't slept particularly well ever since. The viability of turning down the sun a few notches with big hurried projects makes me feel an awful lot less panicked - we will desperately need more time to get off fossil fuels, having squandered almost all of it to this point.

[@andrewshotathompson5116]

I would recommend buckleberry's video on that article

[@andrewshotathompson5116]

Also if your susceptible to panic like I am, I'd also recommend never reading medium articles in general lol

[@ChrisMcSweeney]

@andrewshotathompson5116 Yeah, saw that one straight after as I was looking around for second opinions - somewhat comforting, but all very bleak all the same. I think the copper problem is the most troubling, can't see a way around that one.

[@bélalugrisi]

The MacPherson Paradox is when you don't update your Mac, and it crashes, but if you update it, it crashes faster.

[@brawndo8726]

Ocean fertilization seems like the optimal solution to me. It's cheap, it sequesters carbon, and it supports the marine food chain from the bottom up.

[@brawndo8726]

@@robertmarmaduke9721it occurs all the time when Saharan dust is blown into the ocean. I don't know that it's been tried although I do know of one arrest made prior to an attempt.

[@Joulfreunde]

Thanks Adam, well done! :)

[@spijkerpoes]

Ok great video again Few tips: Elisabeth Kolbert wrote a book about past attempts at geoengineering: Under A White Sky spoiler: it is grim. Despite that, I think it is a very important book. (As well as the one she wrote before that) Another thought: just like the atomic bomb, once the technology is out there, people will get a hold of it. There would be no control. Say, India wants to protect the glaciers of the Himalaya, there is no stopping them from putting in the atmosphere whatever crap they think works best for their situation. Final thought, I have always loved the Greens work.. ..but optimism scares the *^% out of me.

[@emceegreen8864]

Try reading “Under a Green Sky” by Dr Peter Ward. It’s beyond grim.

[@altosack]

Optimism is selected for, but not everything that’s selected for is beneficial to our specie or to earth’s climax ecosystem. For example, clicks -> profit does not take into account quality or benefits of content, but it certainly evolves our politics in “interesting” ways.

[@spijkerpoes]

hn.. hmmn.. I doubt if optimism is the better way if pondering whether there is or is no tiger in that scrub. Also: the timeframes are unequal. We live in a fast timeframe yet came from a slow one. For example: rape and racism were evolutionary benefits for a long time. Now, not so much. Clicks, well yeah.. in 2000 years no one will give a toss. @@altosack

[@spijkerpoes]

ah about extinction. great fun. Kolbert also wrote 'the 6th extinction' which I found educating and surprisingly funny written. Also 'extinction a very short introduction' by paul wignall is a good one. Thanks for the tip.@@emceegreen8864

[@altosack]

@@spijkerpoes - Optimism is _generally,_ and on average, selected for; there will always be outliers such as your example. (Edit: a moth to a flame is not indicative of the efficacy of its overall far-off light-based navigational strategy) My optimism believes the dustbin will claim it in ten years, not 2000.

[@emceegreen8864]

More would join Hank’s team if the GHG problem was looking like it was going to get solved. Then SRM becomes a temporary medicine until carbon (and equivalents) are balanced. But now it’s obvious that “we” aren’t getting that job done. An international agreement on Carbon Quantitative Easing would provide the resources and give humility and faith that we actually work together on a global problem. The problem of the survival of the living planet.

[@craigrussell7542]

Thanks for this!

[@SenorZorros]

Certainly we need to be mindful of the risks but at some point it feels like a physicist in motion outranks a climate scientists debating policy. Especially when weather patterns are already changing and the current trend is towards broad areas of inhabitability. Every risk people talk about is already happening so what it there to lose?

[@ujjalshill6442]

We are part of an ecosystem without the ecosystem we dont exist

[@pickle133hp]

I love Mackenzie-Childs pottery. Couldn’t help being distracted by the black and white Alice in Wonderland style pot. Ohh…Shiny!

[@Casimir-t3i]

What is international consensus, UN?

[@em945]

I would like to see some geoengineering on every bit of cleared land on the planet. Make ALL cleared land , sustainable appropriate green growth. All of it. How can we seriously look at the terrifying Maui fires ripping across old dead dry crappy scrubby ex- agricultural land as well as the Greek islands screwed over by millennia of humans and not look at the basics of green ground. Do an experiment, go out in a warm day and walk on 1) green grass 2) dirt ground 3)road and concrete 4)then walk through a stand of trees. Don't let Hank and Co. Do their experiements. Their brains are too heavily conditioned by technology and film etc. Get outside Hank, and plant something. Find clean water. Learn about clean , healthy soil. Build something of beauty and value for YOUR ANCESTORS.

[@durwoodmaccool890]

The thing that upsets me is how this is always discussed in terms of how it affects humans, with no consideration for anything else. All the things you listed for coping with heat don't do anything for coral, or jungles or any of the millions of species that are being affected by this. I wish that was at least acknowledged in some way.

[@zentouro]

in the international policy sphere, the members of the Convention on Biological Diversity were some of the first to put out statements opposing solar radiation management and geoengineering in general. so it is definitely a major part of the conversation.

[@durwoodmaccool890]

Well that's something, I suppose.

[@incognitotorpedo42]

@@zentouro That is certainly irresponsible and short-sighted of them.

[@byrongsmith]

And how many of the proponents of unilateral geoengineering acknowledge that solar radiation management involves stunting primary production-cutting photosynthesis very directly-by reducing the amount of sunlight that reaches the surface? Or acknowledge it could exacerbate stratospheric ozone depletion, exposing the other-than-human life of the planet to increased harmful UV-B radiation?

[@xponen]

@@byrongsmith well then just stay-at-home like during covid, let animal rejoice and we in prison for our sin. Pretty sure dolphin, deer, and animals start appearing and greeting us on river and street.

[@neithanm]

You don't need those giant airquotes if you already say "what we call geoeng...". In fact they are never needed, years ago nobody used them and we understood each other just as bad, I think it's a lousy trend that stuck with us apes. There's a bit of echo in your audio, I always recommend a cheap lavalier mic because for little money it greatly improves how you are heard. Your job can't be easy, especially in the post-truth era we live in. All power to you buddy, we really need to fix the climate (the explosion of intelligence will kill us first though but oh well). Good luck!

[@aatkarelse8218]

Well first lets reintroduce the sulfur rich fuel for cargo ships lets put a separate fuel tank in there with sulfur poor fuel for the last 100 miles or so to port. After that we will see, one step at a time.

[@dekelpolak4190]

Do our thoughts influence nature? Indeed, our thoughts influence nature. We live in a single global-integral system of nature, we influence it with our thoughts, and we receive feedback accordingly. Similar to laws that operate on mechanical, electronic, electromagnetic and other material and biological scales, when we press, push or constrain something, we receive a response. Likewise, when we think positively or negatively about others, we accordingly receive a response. The global-integral reality in which we live is a closed system, and we receive responses from it according to our attitudes to it.

[@Thomas-gk42]

After Sabine recommended this channel, I´m here now subscribing.😊

[@gudldj]

He wasn't talking about geoengineering broadly, he was talking about having cargo ships mist seawater into the air such that it would seed clouds and reflect sunlight. I'm really worried that because we are allowing the oceans to heat up we'll lose huge ecosystems that would otherwise help sequester CO2. Kelp forests can't survive in warm water. Misting the ocean with its own water seems entirely reasonable to me. If you're concerned that ameliorating climate effects will provide major polluters cover to pollute more, then maybe we should mobilize people to interrupt those industries cuz it sounds like your arguing that we should punish ocean habitat for the crimes of large polluters. I'd much rather hear constructive critique rather than "geoengineering is problematic" and leaving it at that. Maybe talk about how we would approach something like this while tracking and accounting for consequences in the water cycle, or how we could protect and lift up developing communities in the potentially affected regions while developing a policy.

[@gudldj]

also the types of cloud seeding we're already doing are so much worse than this. Pumping Silver Iodide into the atmosphere over decades sounds like it could disrupt the soil microbiome and/or bioaccumulate in larger animals, but we do it all over the world.

[@SameAsAnyOtherStranger]

What about the truth about 9-11? But seriously. Is there any truth about all of the planes in the U.S. being grounded that caused a rise in temperatures due to the disruption in "global dimming"?

[@ClimateAdam]

My understanding is that there was lots of research suggesting this at the time, but that more recent work has suggested that the conclusions were overstated.

[@insu_na]

Isn't one of the problems that make things go wrong even faster the planet's albedo? I thought our melting glaciers and ice caps reduce our albedo enough to increase the effects of climate change. Isn't this a particular problem that could be solved by geo-engineering or orbital engineering?

[@sapientisessevolo4364]

3:15 Don't forget the literal mass extinction! Not helping your mental health am I... As a side note, theoretically how much CO2 could be sequestered if we placed (native) bushes wherever they fit? I mean they have more leaf area than grass, so they probably photosynthesize more overall So place them in every spare corner of parking lots, lawns, next to sidewalks, etc

[@thamiordragonheart8682]

I think there are exactly 2 types of geoengineering that I could unequivocally support as very unlikely to screw things up politically or environmentally. The first is the large-scale deployment of daytime radiative cooling coatings. They are actually very close to an anti-greenhouse effect by not just reflecting sunlight but emitting infrared in the atmospheric window so that the heat can escape to space. Given that these cooling coatings can stay a few degrees below ambient air temperature in direct sun, city scale deployment could completely eliminate or reverse urban heat islands, and global-scale deployment is equivalent to capturing a few years worth of global CO2 emissions. Especially given that there is so much research money being poured into making better and better coatings, and there are a few companies selling them, notably Skycool systems, and frantically scaling up, it seems likely to actually happen if only to make cities livable in a warmer world. it doesn't hurt that it can also be used for radiators on air conditioners to make them dramatically more efficient, since we'll need more air conditioning in a warmer world too. The second kind of geoengineering that seems likely to me is desert reclamation, widespread cover cropping, and generally increasing the total green cover. It has a large local cooling effect due to the higher albedo of plants compared to dry ground and evapotranspiration. Evapotranspiration also helps reduce global radiative forcing by transporting heat above most of the atmosphere's mass (and therefore greenhouse gasses) before releasing it as infrared radiation when the water vapor condenses into clouds. Given that, like radiative cooling in cities, reversing desertification has huge benefits for the climate resistance of rural communities, it seems like another very likely "grassroots" piece of intentional geoengineering to mitigate climate change.

[@hyric8927]

What would happen if aerosols got deployed on top of the pole (Arctic or Antarctic) that's getting longer days? The idea being that this would interrupt the self-reinforcing feedback loop of heat melting ice and reducing the surrounding albedo. How would this strategy affect the global climate?

[@xponen]

it helps but unfeasible. No flight route, no ship route, no human presence in Artic and Antarctic.

[@redjack2629]

I feel like the primary context of the video was missed in the response: Doing it intentionally to replace the positive effects from ship pollution.

[@xponen]

yea, basically we want to reintroduce stuff that was removed, because it had a positive effect. This shouldn't be controversial at all nor need deep thinking.

[@tomo1168]

If the western "free" world doesn't make small scale test in geoengineering, we won't have the data how good / bad it is. At some time the autocracies will do it large scale without knowing if it will actually do harm. F.i. China or Saud Arabia or some other country. We have to do small scale trials. Also to know the exact way how to do it and in what quantity. It is possible that at some point we suddenly have to do it very rapidly and we still don't know how and in what scale. We have to be prepared.

[@christerdehlin8866]

My instinct is that we should focus far more on drawdown instead. That approach can only have positive outcomes.

[@prongs4137]

1:56 You're so funny and relatable(I have been interrupted a lot this way while presenting academic papers) lmao.😂

[@njipods]

in other words. yes!

[@FelipeKana1]

"Sorry Botswana, your quota this month doesn't allow for any more rain, maybe try asking for some from Denmark, ok?"

[@joeanderson8839]

We should try to create more rain forests. We should build large pipelines that can carry fresh water from flooded regions to places that have drought. We should build more underground because the earth can insulate our homes and we would need less energy in every season. All parking lots should be covered, and the coverings should have solar panels. Roofs should have a combination of solar panels and reflective surfaces. We should stop clear cutting forests and only cut selectively, leaving the ecosystems intact. We need to start storing large amounts of fresh water. We need to start farming underground because the surface is becoming too hot. We need to build and manufacture things that will last, and stop throwing everything away. We are too wasteful. We need more people to be small farmers so that we can preserve the diversity of our plants and animals. We need to re-use packaging and containers instead of recycling everything. I am not the only person with ideas. We need to get people to start thinking about how we are going to survive. Because we are dealing with stronger, more frequent, and more deadly storms. The forest fires are destroying what little we have left. We need to stop being so greedy and work together.

[@bobleclair5665]

Whatever chemicals they put in the atmosphere will eventually come down and we will be breathing it . Plants and trees will take it up into their system, The best geo engineering is planting trees, lots of trees . Trees love co2 and in return give us oxygen . 🌲

[@nicholaspalmer2220]

You and Miriam emphasise the risks from SRM geoengineering as being rather unknown, but haven't we already done it over many decades? I refer to the famous cooling trend from about 1940 -> 1975 which denialists often bang on about as some sort of 'proof' that rising GHG levels do not warm the planet. This is often attributed to the large increase in coal powered emissions down to increasing industrialisation of the 'developed' nations. It is further attributed (to the removal of acid gases and particulates) that the introduction of acid gas/particulate filters onto power plant and industry chimneys from the 1980s onwards to counteract 'acid rain' and the transition away from coal power removed a strong 'brake' on global warming and the trend duly reversed (in short order!) and global average temperatures started to climb. My point is that that 35-40 years period was not notable for all sorts of climate instabilities being created which, of course, does not mean that if we did it deliberately, that this time it might go wrong but it is rather suggestive that the fears some raise about it may be overwrought. I lived through part of that period and apart from local effects like the great 1952 'pea souper' fog in London, the climate back then seemed more reliable with fewer extremes from both 'tails' of the Bell curve happening. I wouldn't like anyone out there to assume that I am suggesting SRM as an alternative to a large reduction in net GHGs, but it very well could be an extremely useful (and partially tested already over decades) tool to have in reserve if GHG reductions do not proceed fast enough to keep global average temperatures down enough

[@freeheeler09]

Important talk! Ethical ecological impacts are too often overlooked. And, new haircut looks great.

[@justsomeguy697]

Crazy how the earth is becoming more and more green with rising co2 levels. Almost like a greenhouse effect.

[@polifemo3967]

geoengineering feels less like "hacking the climate" and more like "hacking at the climate"

[@georgesos]

So glad to have found your channel.

[@adamphilip1623]

Great video, I think Hank was right though, you were both a bit too nice to him 😂

[@ClimateAdam]

ahah I accept this critique! next time he won't have it so easy!