Why the World’s First Solar Geoengineering Test Is So Controversial

[@Seeker]

Hi, thanks for watching! For more Focal Point, check out our playlist here: bit.ly/2Mrs3qm

[@eduardocampos5739]

Seeker this term “solar geoengineering” is an oxymoron, morons.

[@gday8744]

Follow the Money

[@wildwoodgardencare]

Please don't spray my sky oh wait...your already doing it? what a joke hope I don't bump into any of you guys

[@johnjacob1628]

Didn't the Sumerians come up with this thousands of years ago?

[@gbgman97]

The ozone hole is smallest ever recorded right now. Don't you "climate scientists" stay informed?

[@SadHappyOogyBoogy]

*"We don't know who struck first, us or them, but we know that it was us that scorched the sky..."*

[@acewmd.]

Nice

[@Warhawk76]

So epic and appropriate, nice work

[@ThugByChoice]

Genius 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽

[@KnightViper]

I love that movie!

[@thecount25]

Ah yes a movie is a reliable source of information let's learn something from nonsense.

[@sebastianelytron8450]

Climate change is such a joke Even the Antarctic ice sheets are cracking up.

[@98TrueRocker98]

Yes they are - in the summer Climate change is because of the sun, not us

[@LA-MJ]

@@98TrueRocker98 i hope you are anti-vaxer as well

[@98TrueRocker98]

@@LA-MJ Why would you hope? Does the death of children bring you joy?

[@98TrueRocker98]

@legion Then why is arctic growing if thats the case? England in 500s was warmer than now

[@YagamiKou]

@@98TrueRocker98 the sun is actually in a cooling period rigut now... the sun has been getting even colder and colder since about 1950 but average temps are still increasing... so u literally cant blame the sun, nice try i like the joke thoe ヾ(｡>﹏

[@GroovyVideo2]

Don’t attribute to Stupidity what can be explained by Greed

[@benjaminlamptey1867]

But they're so closely related. They both lead to each other.

[@mikebar42]

I don't believe you,give me your stuff 😡😂

[@epion33]

2012: “chem trails aren’t real.” 2019: “hey let’s make some chem trails!”

[@hegeliandetective1034]

More like; 2000: "Chemtrails don't exist" 1967: "Umm.. Operation Popeye"

[@demonz9065]

thats not even remotely what a chem trail is dude

[@anthonyb8994]

@@demonz9065 Enlighten us on what a chemtrail is.

[@Master_Therion]

What if we put a bunch of mirrors in orbit to reflect some sunlight? Make the Earth like a giant Disco-ball. Plus, the aliens would see our planet and think, "Wow, those earthlings are so... cool."

[@tarekkerbedj1031]

we could also send huge speakers and play staying alive to trick them that we're still in the 1970s

[@cosmosity1693]

@@tarekkerbedj1031 Yea you mean LEDs right because siund doesn't travel through a vacuum

[@ReigBonjux]

Your idea is factible. But lets star with the reality. A bunch of big space mirrors in low earth orbit are not going to make difference if they arent humongous. The further you go the more expensive it is. You must also take in account that those mirrors are going to mive relative to the earth-sun position, so you should start considering lagrange points, especially the L1 point, far beyond the moon. Lagrange points provide a point in space where the gravitational forces of, in this case, earth and sun, equal to 0. However this are not very stable so you should attach some control thrusters, increasing the overall budget. Not impossible, so NASA and other clever people are thinking of this, although its complexities.

[@JimboTheEngineer2001]

Orbital mirrors would be a very good method of curbing the effects of climate change. The main problem would be that it would cost far too much to launch the tens of thousands of tons of material to L1. Would only be feasible if the cost per kilo of material to space dropped 100-1000x. Hopefully SpaceX Star-ship/super heavy system will make this feasible in the coming decades.

[@CarFreeSegnitz]

Comes with the danger of jealous aliens. Humanity's coolness may provoke aliens into some incel action. Or the aliens may hate disco. I know that I do. Giant heads may show up in our skies and decide that we're not schwifty enough for them so they destroy Earth. I watched the Rick & Morty documentary that warned of this possibility.

[@pandemik0]

We've already geoengineered the planet on an enormous scale, we've taken the wheel of the planets climate and we can't just suddenly take our hands off it.

[@rkb6783]

Sure we can !

[@616CC]

And you know absolutely no programs studies or any details of any data that might affect the biosphere, before coming to that conclusion. You see the problem here. *scrambles to search google for first time to prove ignorant random KZbin guy wrong*

[@j.b.1013]

@Dulce Wilcox yea because the government can't afford to

[@mysteryguest9555]

Moral of the story: Fix the root cause or the solution may be deadlier than the problem.

[@benjaminlamptey1867]

💯💯💯

[@somerandomguy7458]

Emissions havent gone down and even if they were cut to 0 the earth would continue heating up

[@badfellow8422]

So damned if we do damned if we dont

[@elessal]

so true about the ideology part. these days people make a religion out of anything and refuse to listen to other explanations.

[@robinhyperlord9053]

There's nothing wrong with religion.

[@callumjennings6336]

@@robinhyperlord9053 But Religion is highly Ideological. So essentially your saying that Ideologies can't be wrong. You'll be somewhat right, not all Ideologies are wrong, but some most certainly are, same goes with religion.

[@Cozysafeyay]

Robin Gilliver I agree religion never led to millions dying at all

[@comradeofthebalance3147]

Nicholas starr argh you sure?

[@josephk6136]

Make a religion out of anything these days? Example of a religion created "these days" please.

[@MartinNewton1981]

_"..replicating the complexity of the stratosphere in a little flow tube."_ OMG! Implementing stupid ideas produce stupid results. Tampering our stratosphere *under the old excuse that we only have 10 to 15 years left* is just CRAZY.

[@mojokuku2745]

Fiddling with global systems we barely understand is a bad idea. There is a reason why it's currently banned.

[@agnosticdeity4687]

At the risk of sounding obvious, surely we need to address this from both ends. We need to reduce emissions and study solutions for the damage already done. At the risk of sounding naïve, we could pay for this by halving the worlds military budgets. Wouldn't that be a win win ?

[@inquaanate2393]

agnostic deity what about the people who decide not to half their budgets, then the conquer you and you are a slave. Dumb idea kid.

[@Jake12220]

One of the proposed methods would have taken care of the cooling for around one tenth of the US military budget. Unfortunately the military system in America these days is more a social engineering project than a military one in a lot of respects.

[@seanurquhart3179]

The risk of sounding obvious isn't that much of a risk. The general population is not very bright. Most people do not see what should be obvious.

[@agnosticdeity4687]

@@inquaanate2393 If enough countries agreed to this proposal the remaining countries would not have a choice. I did say there was an element of naivety to this solution. Also I am not your kid, pops! I know who my father was even if you don't know who all of your kids are.

[@inquaanate2393]

@@agnosticdeity4687You're right, they wouldn't have a choice, the only logical option would be to invade the rest of the world with their pitiful militaries, you are a classical Utopian idiot.

[@McLoven-vm1ck]

These sorts of measures could help buy us the time we need to make real permanent changes needed to address this problem.

[@singularitysquaredllc.895]

"Fanboy" how apt...

[@JETJOOBOY]

All science sounds like science fiction at first

[@thegoodthebadandtheugly579]

Mayhem 2.0 Fiction is also stuff that doesn’t necessarily work in reality, or is also stuff that didn’t actually happen in reality.. not really sure what your super excited comment was supposed to do or prove 🤨🤷🏼‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️

[@beanrunnerWA]

Let's fix climate change by polluting! Yeah!

[@jacklynchson2563]

I guess I am gonna buy a first class ticket to Snowpiercer.

[@robinhyperlord9053]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/oHa7ZmWeZrmpq6M

[@stevenarvizu3602]

It’s funny cause the reason this is so controversial is because people watched movies and now they feel educated enough to contradict scientific research with Hollywood blockbusters. Elon Musk cresting AI better subscribe to Skynet

[@GavinJames47]

Remember when everyone laughed when you heard "chemtrails"....... the good ole days

[@mikeharrington5593]

We don't laugh at chemtrails, just at the retarded stoopids who believe in that utter crap.

[@carrynoweight]

@@mikeharrington5593 its documented military technology... dont call others crazy because you are too ignorant to do the research yourself.

[@Lilmiket1000]

@John Doe lol right chemtrails are definitely real! all it takes is eyes to see. regardless of what they are made of. He literally said in the same video that everything is a system and effects one another. if you can see trails in the sky you better believe at some point in time those trails interact with your air and the rest of the environment.

[@chamikk90]

@@Lilmiket1000 Fossil fuel mixes with air inside the engine to make carbon dioxide and water vapor(CxHxOx + O2 = CO2 +H20), when it's colder than 0C that water vapor turns into small ice crystals. of course you can see it with your eyes.

[@AndieBlack13]

@John Doe The controversy is in the name "Chemtrails", the name is a contraction of the two words, Chemicals and Trails...as opposed to the conventional word, Contrails, Condensation and Trails, the former with the conspiratorial, covert adding of unknown agents within the jet-fuel itself for nefarious & unknown purposes. No such nefarious events exist, but just try telling that to the Chemtrails faithful..."but we can see it!"...we can also see the moon in the sky, that doesn't mean it's made of cheese.

[@euhenyo4443]

Hehe Snow Piercer is slowly turning into reality

[@Sameer5865]

Yeah, if by chance the cooling doesn't stop we are done

[@firehawkgaming4123]

They are only doing small tests, the cooling if there is any will be slow.

[@stuartclifton4764]

That's exactly what I thought!

[@robinhyperlord9053]

That is just a Willy Wonker sequel. kzbin.info/www/bejne/oHa7ZmWeZrmpq6M

[@robinhyperlord9053]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/oHa7ZmWeZrmpq6M

[@kj55]

This is the first step to becoming a type one civilization, and I do mean just the FIRST step.

[@fergalfarrelly8545]

Testing and peer review just like we do everything else.

[@empemitheos]

just like we tested and peer reviewed oil refining and combustion engines

[@samius1149]

Goals matter in research. If you're only testing an engine for power output and stability of course it's effects on other factors won't be explored. Or should we just go forward based on how things makes us feel regardless of their objective realities?

[@hegeliandetective1034]

@@empemitheos The first combustion chamber engines ran off of plant-fuel. It was Rockefeller and DuPont that perverted them.

[@Jake12220]

The current climate change may be human caused but past ones have been entirely natural by events we couldn't hope to change. Clearly it's a good idea for us to do the research now because we will need it later, both how to cool and how to heat out planet quickly.

[@khwistal]

Matt TheChosen the problem is not only the climate change itself, it’s just happening too fast. Past climate changes took hundred thousand to millions of years and this one is happening in a century

[@gpunisher5714]

Matt heat/cold quickly is right, totally agree with you

[@acommunist1607]

More like the highest CO2 levels in a very very long time

[@pxpc2902]

John Doe thanks for the lecture but the research should be done regardless

[@Jake12220]

@@khwistal lm not talking about climate shifts, lm talking about sudden changes in climate brought about by natural events like big volcanos and asteroid impacts. The damage the eruption of Laki in Iceland in 1783 did to the climate of the northern hemisphere was a primary cause of the French revolution, mass famine, extremely hot summers and extremely cold winters. Indeed the weather changed so dramatically that the current climate change fears largely pail in comparison. I know a lot of people see dealing with the immediate climate threats as long term thinking, but it's not, it's just mid term thinking, because sooner or later shit will hit the fan and we better be prepared before it does. Laki is also far from the biggest volcanic eruption in the last few hundred years and we know of multiple volcanos that could have a similarly large eruption and effect that are ready to blow right now. Of course those volcanos might not erupt for another thousand years or ever, but some of them may well blow within the next few years and cause massive shifts in climate that we currently have no way of dealing with. Then of course there are the supervolcanos, but we might as well just give up if one of them blow, humans would survive, but our current level of civilization certainly wouldn't.

[@Glamerth]

“Controversial” Twitter you mean.

[@wastelesslearning1245]

1) wouldnt this sun light scattering reduce the efficiency of global photosynthesis and solar technology? 2) If something goes wrong you better be able to remove those gasses that were added! 3) If you could remove those gassses that you added, why bother adding random crap that doesnt patch the root cause, but instead simply remove the worlds imitions out of the atmouphere in the first place? 4) does your gasses have any means to be naturally broken down into bioavailable componets or will this be another plastic situation where it never breaks down; combine that with a delay reaction and we may find we add to much too quickly and boom now things are getting to cold for climates to adapt. 5) this technolgy seems indiscrminate as in it will just spread globaly through the atmouspher. In other words there is no zone control so what if you dont want effect an area with this gas yet neighboring countrys start pumping? This "solution" is laughed at for a reason. Harvard work on something else my goodness.

[@vangrabner7826]

Waste Less Learning learn to spell, my goodness

[@wastelesslearning1245]

@@megaman4706 Lol XD

[@wastelesslearning1245]

@@johnconstantine2639 Maybe your on to something ;)

[@iain3713]

Waste Less Learning 1 it might, we don’t know, it might improve photosynthesis efficiency too since the diffused sunlight is apparently better for plants, however, the reduction in sunlight is really minimal, a few watts per square meter is enough to cool the planet. 2 exactly there are risks, I guess the aerosol falls from the stratosphere after a few years though 3 the issue with that is that it is very expensive to directly remove CO2 from the atmosphere and we doesn’t seem like we’re willing to spend that much even though our planet is at stake, also direct air capture is quite slow, it’s not a fast acting solution unlike this 4 most proposals focus on sulphuric acid aerosol which really isn’t that bad to the environment considering how little aerosol needs to be used and I guess it can be neutralised too 5 yes it is, that’s why global governance is needed

[@jayday5]

I like how they give both perspectives at the end so the masses can hold two thoughts at once and decide rather than being told one thing. I'm learning that the masses need to see the whole presentation i think that's where we are headed with fighting viral ignorance.

[@PatternBreaking]

It baffles me how few people commenting on this think this is new. One has only had to look up in the sky for the past two decades to know that geoengineering is anything but new. There is scientific evidence to prove it, might not be “theirs”, but there is evidence for those willing to be real.

[@badfellow8422]

For those willing to be real... So it's that type of evidence you have to want to believe isn't it?

[@TheGoodContent37]

"Hey, what if we pollute less?" "Nah, let's modify the entire planet's atmosphere instead". -Humans-

[@TheGoodContent37]

@@ghevisartor6005 Why should I stop using my solar energy and public transportation? Learn to read, the problem is not poluting, is not wanting to reduce the polution. Why are always the most retarded ones and ignorant ones against this?

[@ChimeraX0401]

@@TheGoodContent37 just as in the video says "it is impossible to lower the greenhouse emissions" thats because the whole is still dependant on natural gas plus theres the natural sources of greenhouse gases. If someone can make a power source that is: 1. cheap(cheaper or as cheap as building a coal powerplant) 2. clean(cleaner than coal and nuclear power which means no to little emissions like CO2 or even water vapour and no nuclear waste) 3. renewable 4. safe(safer than nuclear) 5. can supply the energy needs of a big city(can output more energy than nuclear power) 6. Easy and cheap to maintain(like most natural gas powerplants) 7. Doesnt consume much space(just like solar or natural gas powerplants) then you'll solve a part of the problem but untill theres no better alternative then just lowering the global temperature for now is the best that humanity can do....

[@buddymoore6504]

this is why I am not willing to save the planet

[@executiveorder7146]

@@TheGoodContent37 solar heats up to a great deal and burns the birds and other wildlife and solar is not really efficient

[@executiveorder7146]

@@TheGoodContent37 reduction means drive a lot less so work from home and don't drive much and if you don't your not doing much

[@johnwbusbee]

Oh look, normalizing what I've been called crazy over for years. They've been doing this shit for decades.

[@JJs_playground]

I'm not sure if solar geoengineering is the right thing, we might end up doing more harm than good. we should concentrate on carbon recapture technology.

[@JJs_playground]

@ClickNSpam I agree about nuclear energy. But we should also do carbon recapture. Carbon engineering, in BC Canada, is doing some great work with that.

[@JJs_playground]

@ClickNSpam carbon engineering is backed by Bill Gates.

[@abz998]

@ClickNSpam most startups in a brand new sectors tend to be scams but that didn't prevent the industry from developing. If we can't get the price down then at least let's use nuclear power plants to power these carbon capture systems

[@iain3713]

Jameel Ja the main thing about solar geoengineering is that it’s cheap and fast, we should really be focusing on everything, on direct air capture, afforestation, research on solar geoengineering, investing in nuclear and renewables.

[@iain3713]

I wonder if there is a method to desaturate the ocean of carbon dioxide since the ocean is a massive carbon sink and absorbs a large bulk of our emissions

[@deluxeassortment]

What happens when we finally do reduce CO2 emission and the earth's carbon cycles return to normal? We can't exactly take all those particles out of the atmosphere... Do they evaporate or fall back to earth on their own? Or are we going to end up triggering global cooling?

[@obsoleteoptics]

They fall back to earth on their own. Look up global dimming, the aerosol masking effect, and the McPherson Paradox. Damned if we do, damned if we don't. WASF

[@klondike444]

@@obsoleteoptics McPherson is a fraud who just managed to get his name associated with a well-established phenomenon and exaggerated its significance.

[@obsoleteoptics]

@@klondike444 by citing the sources? Sure. Keep smoking that hopium.

[@klondike444]

@@obsoleteoptics McPherson misrepresents serious science to support his nonsense prediction about human beings going extinct within a few years; and he refuses to defend his "work", preferring to insult his critics. He also predicted economic collapse by 2012. He is the polar opposite of a climate change denier, encouraging his cult-like followers to give up and wait for the end. If you're not familiar with his true character you can get a flavor of it from his comments in the linked item. www.ecoshock.org/2014/09/human-extinction-not-so-much.html

[@nurwsama]

Government need to make new rules. One person must have one tree (at least), the tree must get registered and get checked and report annually by the individual person. If the tree die he must plant new tree and register it.

[@executiveorder7146]

Earth is mostly water

[@adkinsyum]

Dumping crap into the air got us into this. So let's just dump DIFFERENT crap into it. Then a volcano eruption makes us feel REAL dumb. Lol

[@samius1149]

By the same logic, we shouldn't want vaccines then. After all if bacteria makes us sick - we shouldn't inject more / different bacteria into ourselves. Equating potential planned solar geoengineering with uncontrolled greenhouse gas emissions is dishonest at best.

[@ericpa06]

We already are geoengineering earth, the whole global warming is a geoengineering thing, albeit, “a non-intentional” one. We didn't plan to warm the earth when building all those factories and you name it, but in the essence of it, we are already geonering the climate since the industrial revolution, that's how we got ourselves into this mess.

[@jcksnghst]

climateviewer.com/ weathermodificationhistory.com/ kzbin.info/door/xHTJnQ8yqA3rjDwLemtAKA The dumbest question I hear is, "Who would want to control the weather?" Who the hell wouldn't? Look up Lyndon B Johnson & his weather satellite "will rule the world" College commencement speech.

[@hannahf4584]

What if we used genetically modified cyanobacterias to directly take harmful gases out of the atmosphere🤔

[@adamsmith1813]

Once again best sollution is to stop contaminating and start cleanning the planet.

[@Ides385]

Glad they took a measured approach to this video. There is only one earth, there is no way to truly replicate its complex climate. No experiment will give you real confidence in results. It isn't scalable and well understood like for example civil engineering. Even in that field they get things wrong sometimes. If you get it wrong with the climate it can have repercussions much worse than the problem you are trying to solve in the first place.

[@ashknoecklein]

Plus in order to do experiments you have to create/pretend you have a closed system. Every experiment actually takes place in the open system of the entire universe, but that is kind of too much to ask of our current mathematical skills, lol. But even pretending our planet is a closed system, it's a really really big and complex closed system.

[@wastelesslearning1245]

Few questions still unanswered: 1) wouldnt this sun light scattering reduce the efficiency of global photosynthesis and solar technology? 2) If something goes wrong you better be able to remove those gasses that were added! 3) If you could remove those gassses that you added, why bother adding random crap that doesnt patch the root cause, but instead simply remove the worlds imitions out of the atmouphere in the first place? 4) does your gasses have any means to be naturally broken down into bioavailable componets or will this be another plastic situation where it never breaks down; combine that with a delay reaction and we may find we add to much too quickly and boom now things are getting to cold for climates to adapt. 5) this technolgy seems indiscrminate as in it will just spread globaly through the atmouspher. In other words there is no zone control so what if you dont want effect an area with this gas yet neighboring countrys start pumping? This "solution" is laughed at for a reason. Harvard work on something else my goodness.

[@uhohhotdog]

How are there so many anti science people following a science channel? So depressing to see the anti science comments here.

[@messenjah71]

Go to a climate change protest and you'll see hordes of non scientists claiming to know how the global climate works. That's anti science for you.

[@Kozak006]

A strange twist of irony isn't it? Where you sit back and pretend you are with the science but you actually have no idea what the debate is? You just believe whatever you read and never question anything, how depressing. Do your due diligence and support real climate science by educating yourself on the subject. You may be surprised you're on the wrong side of the debate. link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11191-013-9647-9 --Here's a real scientific paper which walks through the misinformation presented by the IPCC. Climate science has been heavily politicized.

[@uhohhotdog]

@@Kozak006 "believe whatever you read" The irony is very strong indeed.

[@Kozak006]

@@uhohhotdog Ah yes, I was referring to regular media coverage on the subject but I guess you didn't understand that. It's okay, I know a lot of people that elicit very strong opinions on subjects that they are not very knowledgeable about on a regular basis. So meeting people on the internet who would never take the time to read a scientific paper to educate themselves before embarrassing themselves is not new to me. Have a great existence.

[@uhohhotdog]

Kozak using one paper for your evidence is not evidence And one behind a paywall

[@mastersinr]

this seems like a lazy way of shoving our problems under the rug but due to insatiable greed this might be the only way to cool our planet

[@jordan-ho7gt]

lazy? they are doing real science! unlike these climate change ideologues that only propagate panic and propose no solution other than "stop oil, stop plastic, stop coal, stop everything!"

[@anonymouswhite7957]

jordan i mean the guy did mention it will not reduce the funneling greenhouse gasses that are trapped on earth. And uhh some of the climate change ideologues you mention of are involved in developing technology that can reduce the by products or usage of oil, plastic, coal, etc. And whilst it (greenhouse gasses, petroleum products, etc.) might not contribute to climate change, it is still capable of harming most organism on earth. Micro plastics can kill organism that can’t digest it, crude oil can kill microbes in soil and increase the soil alkalinity, Air pollution can add epigenetic marks to human DNA, and many more...

[@nantzstein3311]

Treating the Symptoms only is a horrible idea. Be careful

[@lordx4641]

Shut the tap and probs fixed its not difficult it just need support from everyone

[@lordx4641]

@Anomic Anchorite u see this is what careless is of consumers more than corporations i say now i am not doing toxic criticism but this needs to come forth soght too that we r actually pretty selfish when it comes to utilising resources and now that selfishness has hampered our selfish interests anyways major cause of global warming is still electricity production and meat production. Naturally its not that probs its just humans r creating trouble

[@lordx4641]

@Anomic Anchorite not possible usa is bothered about other countries rather than their own. That pretty much shows what they have been dojng for years to curb other nations and stay high and the consequence is usa getting outdated all the new infrastructure development is by the private corps not govt more than 40% roads in america do not have all weather roads . To make matters worse even americans r ignorant the way they live is so careless that if all started living like that we would end up destorying 5 earths (resourcefully) and this pretty much sums up the western society who follow this concept of modernity which empowers not ppl but their egos. The probs is that it affects other countrues due to west having stronger economy what others country do right in the name ofnpast it is discarded sad truth this is gonna plunge the world

[@Heyitdave]

i am pretttty sure the govt is well far out in this project.....

[@ARouser15]

I for one think we should believe our scientist overlords. If it wasnt for them we would be dealing with the 1970's Ice age right now!

[@kwik5150]

A big concern would be any gain from doing this could easily be offset by decreased photosynthesis

[@somerandomguy7458]

Farming would move to the equator

[@kathyfausett9301]

A solution in search of a problem. Cooling an already cooling planet--what could go wrong?

[@wheelmangames5366]

If we ever want to be a Class 1 Civ, this is by definition the first steps.

[@danntrev]

LOL “first test” that’s bull, they been spraying that shit in the atmosphere for decades

[@jefftrag1956]

The side effects of doing anything like this are impossible to predict. Leave well enough alone. None of the predictions of the last 40 years of climate disaster have come true so why gamble with our environment.

[@dpedd12]

Why gamble? Because we have no choice. We cant, and won't reverse the damage that's been done. Our only hope is to find ways to to fix this. It may seem like a gamble to you, but you won't be alive to see what happens if we don't fix this.

[@RumoredAtmos]

Because I’ll be alive to suffer the consequences of climate-change. Changing nothing is like asking for disaster

[@mojokuku2745]

@@dpedd12 The gamble is messing with systems we barely understand over predictions and models that have been proven to be overwhelmingly incorrect. Why meddle with it and take the risk we mess things up in far worse ways than if we had just left it alone?

[@wastelesslearning1245]

Right like this show answered no important quetions: 1) wouldnt this sun light scattering reduce the efficiency of global photosynthesis and solar technology? 2) If something goes wrong you better be able to remove those gasses that were added! 3) If you could remove those gassses that you added, why bother adding random crap that doesnt patch the root cause, but instead simply remove the worlds imitions out of the atmouphere in the first place? 4) does your gasses have any means to be naturally broken down into bioavailable componets or will this be another plastic situation where it never breaks down; combine that with a delay reaction and we may find we add to much too quickly and boom now things are getting to cold for climates to adapt. 5) this technolgy seems indiscrminate as in it will just spread globaly through the atmouspher. In other words there is no zone control so what if you dont want effect an area with this gas yet neighboring countrys start pumping? This "solution" is laughed at for a reason. Harvard work on something else my goodness.

[@wastelesslearning1245]

​@@dpedd12 Literaly we have a ton of other choices. Biochar/charcoal co2 seqestration and berryal (on a comertial or residential scale), green technolgys combined with ocean conization for added surface area to work with. Permiculture and agro-foristry to have habitats and farmland at the same time. Using unused city spaces like roof tops and desighning buildings to not block sunlight all willynily. Using some of the many bioplastics that exists (fungi, bacterial/scoby, starch-based, ect). Changes to diet. Mass implementation of decomposable technolgy. Right to repair laws. Mass guardeing on residential and comunal scales (so much prety back yards wasted for pure asthetic). Bio feuls (made comertially or residentioaly) to allow people to get off potrolium. You may notice all of these are pretty safe bets that don't involve unforeseen and iriverable consequences. The reason I say irviersable is because if they were able to take the stuff they plan on pumping into the air back out, then why bother pumping anything at all and instead just extract excess greenhouse gasses from the start? The reason I say unforeseen, is the earth is a absurdly dynamic and huge space.

[@menguinponkey8965]

What does the absorption spectrum of those particles look like and how could they affect HF and satellite communication systems?

[@captainrutabeggacrossout8482]

Military industrial complex.......

[@jjc5475]

when the people below still don't know the difference between global climate and weather... it's rowing against the stream..

[@49andrew]

I am completely in favor of the planned tests. We need the data that will help us to make informed, intelligent choices. Fear, inaction and ignorance are the enemies of effective action.

[@somerandomguy7458]

I fear geonengineering wil never happen. We are doomed to broil

[@lexruptor]

I believe in you Zhen Dai!!

[@jessedaly7847]

Even if there is no negative side effect, good luck putting sufficient materials in the stratosphere to have a significant effect...

[@liem11]

One of my concerns is who is going to pay for it? Unlike some of the others this would make no money at all.

[@HayzerX]

One of the ideas would be, that when crisis hits, governments will pay with collected taxes. The other one is that only leading countries will, thus it will be used as leverage :D - the bankster style.

[@johndifrancisco3642]

liem11 Luckily the countries science and space divisions seem to work together putting aside their differences, like in the Space Station. To bad we can't do everything like that, then we might not even need this. In the end, oil companies should pay one way or the other.

[@ashknoecklein]

In my opinion this way of thinking is part of the problem. What besides profit motive caused fossil fuel companies to bury the science for decades and during the last 30 years invest 2 trillion dollars into continued production?

[@johndifrancisco3642]

@@ashknoecklein Good point.

[@eduardosantos-xp3iw]

If we don’t do nothing to safe our planet it won’t mater who has the money

[@KrisBecker-v6k]

The first public test??? Its definitely not the first

[@RoguishlyHandsome]

Let's start popping volcanoes!

[@thatguyalex2835]

Haha, hopefully volcanos that are far from any inhabitants. :)

[@Someone-cd7yi]

yeah, the one in yellowstone seems like a good candidate to me.

[@WilliamDye-willdye]

A key point is that the proposed sun-blocks are inherently temporary. Put up an extra cloud, and it rains down on its own. The only way to sustain the dimming is to keep putting up clouds. It's not at all like introducing rabbits to Australia, or cats to Hawaii. Sun-blocks are not self-sustaining.

[@mastring1966]

so what i'm hearing is "don't give us enough time to solve the problem using technology by doing some solar engineering so that we can keep doing what we're doing that doesn't work, which will (according to the thus far continuously wrong predictions) kill us all by drowning and fire. the emmitions from the US are already significantly lower than they were, because we're using technological improvements to fix the issue. this is not the case in most of the rest of the world. They need time to catch up, geoengineering may give them that time. If any of the predictions are correct...which thus far they've not been.

[@razi_man]

The rest of the world is already moving towards electric cars, ignoring what is happening in the rest of the world is quite dumb. US has a lot of electric car tech, yet some people think "climate change isn't real" whereas the rest o the world actually knows it is real. Japan is the one moving the fastest towards an all electric transportation industry, so why have the US not caught up with this? Because of political dickheads who never takes climate change seriously like the rest of the world do.

[@mastring1966]

@@razi_man There's some really cool battery technology that's currently in the testing and scaling phase. Some neat solid state batteries and a few other really interesting carbon based ones that, when they are no longer useful, won't poison the earth when disposing them. Some of the tech that's off the drawing board and being actively worked on will both improve solar technology and battery technology. Both of which will reduce the need for fossil fuels AND look to be scalable and inexpensive. those will make it so the places that need fossil fuels the most can have the benefits of NOT polluting while still have electricity and moving into the 20th century. We're getting there, the tech is in process to solve a lot of these problems. If we can keep the government from taking the opportunity for a money and power grab like the Green new deal (of socialism takeover) then American ingenuity might be able to roll most of this back.

[@Ivan.Wright]

All you would have to do is put the chemicals in jet fule. Control which flights get the chemical fule. Flight paths turn into high or low pressure zones. Best way to implement on large scale

[@dslinger7897]

there's "No scientific evidence" of chemtrails....LMFAO!!

[@thomasford2032]

This video explains the evidence.

[@aidilmubarock5394]

This doesn't prove chemtrail tho

[@klausvonshnytke]

An idea that one nation or a group of nations could perform such project on a global scale without consent from all nations is outright totalitarian. Humanity is unable to get to unanimous agreement on much more simple matters. This is also a dangerous example of playing the God.

[@deralictv.]

Using chem trails to solar geoengineer? Lol

[@corvustartarusmechanicus3721]

Only science can solve that problem not politics 😑

[@glidinggraphite5525]

Thought this was a submarine

[@A3Kr0n]

No, just your mom's basement. :-)

[@hegeliandetective1034]

2000s: "Chemtrails don't exist" 1967: "Umm.. Operation Popeye"

[@JasonGastrich]

absolutely we’re screwed

[@GroovyVideo2]

Doomed

[@juschu85]

8:00 What? NO! You can't show a flat Earth right after you talked about chemtrails. That's really bad timing. It's like spilling coke over the floor and not cleaning it up when you have ants in your house.

[@juschu85]

@@luke_fabis But it's a 2D projection in 3D space.

[@DeePal072]

I'm going to build my own train... just in case.

[@johndifrancisco3642]

I would rather see them take a sample of the stratosphere and put it in the yellow pressure thing they have and experiment there. We should still get rid of oil though.

[@GojosBackHand]

Had no clue what that woman was saying. Dial back the music in the background.

[@samjam64]

Subtitles exist

[@moki2093]

@tommy aronson i bet you dont like foreigners because you're a proud "American citizen"

[@st20332]

tommy aronson she’s gotta go back where she came from cause you don’t like her accent, in a video, on the Internet? Lol man I hope one day you can see more in life than hate x

[@joerobinson4453]

Hello folks leave the atmosphere alone you ,we and no one else knows enough to mess with it. Science thought so many things over history that turned out to be false.

[@tord1508]

Good reflections from the interviewees.

[@highpowwered]

If you do this on the cheap, which you will because it’s gov funded, it will hurt humans.

[@AST4EVER]

It's like.... Patient: I have Cancer Doctor. Doctor: Take this candy 🍬, how's the taste ? Patient: Sweet. Doctor: You want some more. Patient: YES....

[@monkeylordofdoom14]

As they are saying. It's still helpful to know how to comfort a hurting patient while you work on the long term cure

[@Omnifarious0]

Your analogy fails. this isn't like getting candy when you have cancer. It's more like being stuck in an ice bath when you have a fever. Yeah, you have a fever because of a nasty infection. But, if you aren't cooled down you're going to die whether or not the infection is dealt with.

[@electronresonator8882]

in video games, is like keep bandaging your arms, despite where the bullets hits the body

[@Omnifarious0]

@@electronresonator8882 - Your analogy fails as well. Geoengineering measures treat symptoms. And they successfully treat symptoms. They just don't get at the underlying cause. They aren't like doing something pointless or misdirected at all.

[@mrslinkydragon9910]

One thing we as a species needs to do is find a material that acts as a photovoltaic but has a high albido number (and paint buildings white so that less energy is absorbed by the earths surface

[@collindelange5344]

Thanks for this video . I write an essay about geo engineering.

[@Friendly911]

As an Electrical Engineer, I can tell you that not enough work is being done in advancing the electrical generation technologies, we still use 100 year old methods to power our factories and homes. Every time something gets suggested, it always comes back to how much it costs, and what will the return be in dollar form...sigh, it's always about money, no one wants to invest to save the planet, so I can safely say, for now (unless people change), we and the planet we live on are doomed.

[@johncitizen3227]

Here’s hoping the IPCC doesn’t have a political agenda.

[@benjaminlamptey1867]

They don't, I know some of the members personally. They're scientists, not politicians.

[@mofo78536]

A terrible but necessary measure. This will not fix the problem by itself, but will buy extra time to pull us back from the brink. Its akin to planetary chemo... it's can help, but has potential massive side effects. Before... a scientist pushing this idea to the public would be pushed out of the community, since we should have fixed this by political measures in reducing climate change. Nevertheless, we need to start working on this. Politics had failed.

[@hellboy6507]

A terrible idea is a terrible idea. We’d be better off building technologies to live with the effects of climate change rather than risk making it worse.

[@abhijeetshinde6530]

Everyone must have take brief action on the changing of the climate

[@Second_UNIT]

This view point is actually a result of governmental and business’ shifting the blame to general populations. Generally speaking, carbon emissions in US are lower than they’ve been in a very long time, and the leaders in carbon emissions are currently Most of Asia, and Africa, countries which right now cannot afford much more economical solutions (also is probably one of the last things on China’s mind rn to be completely honest) Historically, the country who has contributed the most to global CO2 emissions is the US, followed by the EU. Currently, oil and coal produce the most CO2, not gasoline. Electricity and heat production has been the leading cause of CO2 emissions since the 1970s and 80s. Transportation remains at a steady ~20% regardless of what things have been pushed to minimize it’s effects. Industry and Agriculture has been the next highest cause of CO2 emissions, which is why plenty of individuals have been going vegan over the last couple of decades. This is all stuff available to the public if you just decide to look and do some research. Residential has a very small piece of the global pie. Really, it’s big corporations that need to kick their asses in gear, and most of it could be at least helped if some of them decided to upgrade their trucks to something more efficient and environmentally friendly. Even better if we can change to nuclear for energy, as it cuts a whole bunch of carbon emissions and coal use

[@lordx4641]

Second UNIT but big corporations serve interests of consumers if consumer r lazy,selfish in their purchase u cannot alone blame corps see how ignorantly western countries live look at the destruction scandinavia does to earth and same aermica if we all start living like them we would need 5 earths to compensate damage

[@user-cv1jb9xv2p]

Do everything to reduce carbon footprint. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Do everything to reduce, STOP use of single-use-plastics. Do everything to significantly reduced Air pollution, Water pollution and Land pollution.

[@Truf-teller]

How about we just plant more trees, I feel like nature has already made a solid solution for this issue

[@ghostwriter8631]

Where?50%of usable landmass is tied up into farm production this is the reason we have the issue in the first place.then you add all the space we take up with city's /towns .trees already possess what's left over and its not enough.

[@thedamnedatheist]

Natural solutions will work & the world will survive & adapt. The butchers bill may be higher than any of us want to pay though.

[@johnellis8401]

Trees are carbon neutral. Yes they absorb carbon dioxide while they are actively growing but they all eventually die and give up their carbon during decomposition.

[@Ks3N]

well according to research if tou want to save the earth by planting trees then you will need to plant alot, how big must it be? it must be the size of US to stop global warming

[@MichaelSHartman]

It wouldn't hurt. Droughts like in California caused by a warming El Nino, which promote wild fires exacerbate the carbon dioxide problem and warm the equatorial wind and currents (El Nino). We need to plant trees to replace what we are losing, and they may take decades to reach the same size.

[@k.wegner]

The downside of this „brilliant“ geoengineering is, not only the sunbeams are reflected, but the heat under the shield is trapped and can’t dissipate outside the stratosphere...... That’s why we have the heating up of the planet in the first place! 😳

[@jcksnghst]

Move to the front of the class.

[@MsCocknuggets]

Incorrect. The proposed calcite aerosol scatters shortwave radiation (sunlight) not longwave radiation (heat)

[@jcksnghst]

@@MsCocknuggets It creates a net temperature gain because of the blanket effect.

[@saikatpalnit]

What if we learn geo engineering here on earth and one day, implement it on venus to reduce surface temperature and then try to store the green house gas below surface there. So learning something is always valuable.

[@mr.normalguy69]

Why is this controversial again?

[@viperking6573]

Because the activists want all the fame for them :(

[@Sol_Invictus_]

Because it has the possibility to horrendously and irreversibly backfire

[@Warhawk76]

Because thinking we understand climate and the atmosphere well enough to try to modify it is foolish arrogance and could backfire terribly. The end goal of projects like this is to combine the arrogance of scientists who think they understand with the stupidity of politicians who definitely don't understand and try to modify the earth's climate. It's a recipe for disaster. My education and much of my work experience is in science and I can tell you that politics ruins science in so many ways. And so now we have scientists and activists who are convinced we are at the edge of a human extinction from climate change and politicians who are primed to listen to them even if they are exaggerating or outright incorrect. Too many people with very loud voices are pushing for all sorts of rash and poorly planned "solutions".... show me one time where such rash action has ended well.

[@viperking6573]

@@Warhawk76 Well I mean, if it's an experiment it is to try learn how to control the climate

[@Warhawk76]

@@viperking6573 as long as the experiment stays in the lab then it's all good. The trouble is that sometimes people get the idea that if it works in a lab it will work everywhere. That is not always the case.

[@KimGameDev]

I think it would better to focus on electrifying the transport infrastructure (cars, planes, boats etc.) to get CO2 down. Also start planting more trees as they consume CO2 and cools down the surrounding area. Sure researching stuff like this should be done to better our understandings, but to think geoengineering on a global scale I don't find it wise. What if there is unforeseen catastrophic affect, then what?

[@bjdastar19]

This shyt been going on since the 60’s spraying aerosols which is Nano particulates in the Air and using Haarp electrically charge the air

[@cbongiova]

I think that researching tech to control climate is useful but if it is biased with a pre-assumes problem such as global warming is a bad way of going about it. We should know how to both increase and decrease temps and also the model we have currently needs to be much much better.

[@Sid_Personal_]

Geo engineering could create more consequences than benefits.

[@spiceyfrenchtoast9421]

Protesters can protest, but unless the protesters walk the walk, they kinda are hypocrites. Mind you tax breaks for green energy & electric cars are great too tho. But shifting the blame to legislators isn't very productive when you could partially bypass them and talk directly to your peers. Creating consumer demand for green products will naturally lead(some) businesses to adopt more green habits.

[@ASCENDEDR6]

damn bro that's crazy but I don't remember asking

[@Crispy656forever]

No me neither

[@Crispy656forever]

Were gonna die because we do this shit

[@Crispy656forever]

Were all gonna die The whole planet is gonna be a hell

[@michaelgallimore3707]

@@Mksterk1998 good one! 😁👍👊🤘

[@nil981]

Geoengineering needs to be done on both the atmosphere AND the ocean to be effective.

[@4pharaoh]

What child has not been told "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." They haven't a clue what they are doing.

[@happytrails3]

Geoengineering has been happening for several decades. Dane Wigington is a good resource, for anyone interesting in learning more.

[@Crispy656forever]

Damn lets just do something that nobody wants and kill the atmosphere

[@rehaan8]

?

[@TommyDProd]

I want it and they specifically stated they're trying to not add to pollution.

[@ArtSmosh1274]

@@TommyDProd Probably will just make things work see so many things that could go work.

[@Crispy656forever]

@@ArtSmosh1274 Did you get autocorrected You mean worse right?

[@ZorroNebula_Gaming]

I'm glad they are trying to fix this issue. We all should be trying to fix our environment rather than continue to destroy it..

[@miggyrob28]

We been having climate geoengineer🤣🤣🤣 they finally came out with the truth.

[@nikkiflorio9938]

Perhaps instead of spending billions on geoengineering, we could simply stop causing environmental destruction. Geoengineering via SRM/SAI/Global Dimming is asinine. Soil microbes, plants, pollinators, and nearly every living thing on Earth needs sunlight to live. The only ones who profit off of Geoengineering are agrochemical, conventional energy companies, communications industries, transportation, trading industries (reinsurance) and the others causing the large-scale environmental destruction (ecocide) in the first place. No need to pretend that Gates/Keith or any of the other "researchers" for Harvard are working to "protect" the environment. Climate change is already occurring mostly because of climate engineering - whether it's planned or inadvertent - and not simply because of CO2/and equivalents. The Harvard geoengineering proponents are exquisitely dangerous because they have no idea about the biological implications of their climate engineering for profit hubris.

[@illogicmath]

That's like giving an antipyretic to someone who's sick with dengue fever.

[@acromantula9266]

That is what doctors do, yes. While you design or prepare a cure that takes time you need to stabilize the patient to prevent their death.

[@wastelesslearning1245]

@@acromantula9266 1) wouldnt this sun light scattering reduce the efficiency of global photosynthesis and solar technology? 2) If something goes wrong you better be able to remove those gasses that were added! 3) If you could remove those gassses that you added, why bother adding random crap that doesnt patch the root cause, but instead simply remove the worlds imitions out of the atmouphere in the first place? 4) does your gasses have any means to be naturally broken down into bioavailable componets or will this be another plastic situation where it never breaks down; combine that with a delay reaction and we may find we add to much too quickly and boom now things are getting to cold for climates to adapt. 5) this technolgy seems indiscrminate as in it will just spread globaly through the atmouspher. In other words there is no zone control so what if you dont want effect an area with this gas yet neighboring countrys start pumping? This "solution" is laughed at for a reason. Harvard work on something else my goodness.

[@acromantula9266]

@@wastelesslearning1245 1 Only something like 0.5 % of light needs to be diverted 2 These first test are for that 3 Entropy is why 4 Those particles could be natural like the ones from volcanoes or innocuous like small water droplets 5 Depends on the specific type and on this kind of research

[@wastelesslearning1245]

@@acromantula9266 1) Sunlight is what keeps us living so blocking any doesn't seem like the smartest of moves especially if it doesn't tackle the root cause. Also small numbers are deceptively underwhelming. Keep in mind a tenth of one percent of our atmosphere is greenhouse gasses and the effects are crisis worthy with a delayed data feedback. Now that room for error of that 0.5% of anti-greenhouse gas suddenly doesn't look so user friendly. climate.ncsu.edu/edu/Composition "Nitrogen accounts for 78% of the atmosphere, oxygen 21% and argon 0.9%. Gases like carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, methane, and ozone are trace gases that account for about a tenth of one percent of the atmosphere." 2) Ok so by the time the tests are complete, they would have a way of extraction of the gasses; so why not just extract the greenhouse gasses instead. that's actually a cause. That's a project I'd be behind. 3) ah entropy the great nihilists of the scientific minded. Who cares about plastic am I right cause entropy. The greenhouse gasses will entropy so no regulations requires. Why bother with taking care of the planet in general cause entropy will kill it anyway. 4) Finding a non-toxic, biodegradable, fine mist that ,after some time naturally condenses back and falls down Sounds like a waste of funding if it does not address the root causes. Just like how giving someone painkiller when their limb was ripped of is a token gesture. Worse yet it sets a president that could allow well tensioned but ignoring people to get grants to destroy our atmosphere with the next big anti-greenhouse gas all while what's putting greenhouse gasses up in the first place remains to be fixed. 5) Why bother opening that can of worms? Some are cheaper yet stay up longer. Thousands of independent country's making their own mix (not all as well researched). Others more expensive yet benign. We already see how the world handles that choice and its not the latter. Then there is the prospect of weaponizing this technology. It fixes too little for too high of a risk. All while options that address the root causes could be using that funding/ attention.

[@acromantula9266]

@@wastelesslearning1245 You don't understand, the 0.05% is of solar radiation. Entropy is the reason capturing the co2 is difficult, once you pour a glass of water in the ocean it is immensely and fundementally more difficult to recover it. There are in fact geoengineering projects that can capture co2 with the use of a special crushed olivine mineral gravel called project vesta.

[@MisterXdotcom]

NO NO AND NO! NO AND NO! SOMETIMES PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE TO SMART!

[@analyzetheblock1157]

8:00 flat earthers are you satisfied yet ?🙄

[@henrymach]

We should move towards full control of Earth's climate and technology is the only way.

[@bollymolly6011]

Everyone let's keep our fridge door open and save our plant ✊✊✊

[@bollymolly6011]

@@YearRoundHibernater Well that supposed to be a joke

[@kasperjuulrasmussen7331]

No no no you need to have ac on full power and open all windows to cool the earth

[@bollymolly6011]

@@kasperjuulrasmussen7331 OK!! Let do it 👍👍😁😁

[@jayfuckinbird6560]

@@YearRoundHibernater your fridge or air conditioner does notcool anything. It removes the heat from the designated space or bin

[@jlehm]

@@jayfuckinbird6560 yeah, Earth space, duh!

[@Caveman-n8l]

We stopped using PFC's or chemicals in aerosols like hairspray because it broke up Ozone. Couldn't we find chemicals to spray into the air that brakes up CO2 ( carbon dioxide)?

[@Caveman-n8l]

Sebastian Elytron If you are implying that global warming isn't real, or man made. Tell us this. Is the earth round or flat?