thanks so much for having me on Rosie! always great chatting climate change (and its solutions) with you.

@jimurrata6785

Жыл бұрын

Thank you for participating! 👍

@EngineeringwithRosie

Жыл бұрын

So much fun!

@AndrewBlucher

Жыл бұрын

Hi Adam, the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs was not hundreds of millions of years ago. It was 66 million years ago. Cheers

@aaronfranklin324

Жыл бұрын

No Rosie. An Asteroid did NOT kill the dinosaurs. And NO! Should you Attempt to interfere with the periodic release of the Geochemical energy stored by Continental icesheets, you will make a FAR MORE EXPLOSIVE BLOWOUT OCCUR! Sod off you imbeciles! You have NO COMPREHENSION OF REALITY!🙄

8:00 to 9:00 - I really wish people would specify that one of the "human health effects" is that raised CO2 makes us dumber. It's impact on our ability to think as shown in Kurtis Baute's great video (though I think I saw the one on Tom Scott's channel first) where he stayed in a sealed box. That video is what got me - not necessarily a climate denier, but someone who thought we could handle it and wasn't worried about it - to finally give a damn and start taking actions. It eventually led to me realizing how we can't handle the temperature or other effects either, but "humans will get dumber if we keep doing this" really broke me out of my "well even if it happens/even if it's bad, we're a pretty smart/inventive species and we'll probably figure it out" phase. I really wish this was included more often because it helped bring me around, and has GREATLY helped discussion with my family (many of which are quite staunch climate deniers who literally fall asleep to Tucker Carlson). Temperature discussions are easy for them to dismiss as being wrong because they are more complicated (more avenues for attack) and often too abstract to easily demonstrate the problem such that people can understand/believe it. But everyone has been in a stuffy room that's hard to think in, most people have seen stuff like Apollo 13, and in general it's harder to dismiss the claims that elevated CO2 will impact our cognitive ability because it's simply less complicated and therefore has fewer attack avenues for confusion/distraction. It also directly attacks probably the most important people who can be won over, producing the most change in human action - those who think we can invent our way out of it. They depend on the idea that we're smart enough to do so - if the problem itself makes us dumber every day we don't solve it, then it really give a kick in the butt to that procrastinatory attitude (one that I previously had myself).

Just a small insignificant correction: the meteor that caused the end of the big dinosaurs, occured about 66 million years ago, and not 'hundreds of millions years ago'

@EngineeringwithRosie

Жыл бұрын

Thanks!

@lluisboschpascual4869

Жыл бұрын

Yeah well, you know climate alarmists, always "listening to the science"...

@tombh74

Жыл бұрын

@@lluisboschpascual4869 not sure what you mean. How many millions of years ago the meteor hit was not really relevant for the point he was making.

@lluisboschpascual4869

Жыл бұрын

@@tombh74 yeah, weĺl, that just comes to prove how keen climate alarmists are on real data... on real science...

@tombh74

Жыл бұрын

@@lluisboschpascual4869 well I don't consider Rosie and Adam as climate alarmist, more like realists.

My biggest problem with geoengineering is that it forms a possible "plan B". While on its own there is nothing wrong with having a "plan B", but I fear that the mere presence of a "plan B" is enough to undermine the much better "plan A", which is rapidly reducing GHG emissions. When you have a plan B, then you might get the feeling that the success of plan A is of less importance. But frankly, plan B sucks a lot, doing nothing sucks even more, we should do plan A.

@mrstock7986

Жыл бұрын

Yes. But plan A has already failed. As long as neoliberal capitalism exists, as long as entire countries are run, entire populations are exploited and wars are still started for the 'profit over everything else' motive, we, the people who care about life more than money, have no chance in hell of reducing CO2 and CH4 emissions by enough, and on time, to prevent utter catastrophe. It is already too late in any real, practical sense, because capitalism isn't gonna lay down and die tomorrow, is it?

@deanfowles3707

Жыл бұрын

We will need to do both. Call it plan A+

@EngineeringwithRosie

Жыл бұрын

I'd probably say A-

@EngineeringwithRosie

Жыл бұрын

Yep the moral hazard is one of the biggest issues. Also with direct air capture. I think it's important to be super clear in communication about these topics that it's not a get out of jail free card. SRM does NOT undo climate change. I hope I was clear on that.

@Monstar1968

Жыл бұрын

I think quite a few big industries are counting on carbon capture as plan B, but that has a lot of issues, too.

Scientist 1: We have a polution problem causing climate change Scientist 2: Lets release more polution to fix it Scientist 1: Great idea, what could possibly go wrong

@SocialDownclimber

Жыл бұрын

To be fair on the scientists, they did say "stop the pollution problem please" over and over again for forty years.

@J4Zonian

Жыл бұрын

@@SocialDownclimber Scientists aren’t who charles was criticizing, I’m pretty sure. There’s a probably-insane subset of people against all the rational climate actions we’ve had available for 40 years but for geoengimagicalism. It’ll be interesting to see who’s on that list.

An alien robot explorer lands on a barren planet, weirdly located in the star's Goldilocks' zone and finds a plaque with an inscription that reads: "There once was a civilization on this planet but we messed up our climate and kept messing it up, because we were lazy and greedy. But we were also inventive and pondered the question whether we can hack our way around this issue, by a very expensive and complicated solution, that would, however, allow as to keep being lazy and greedy. Welcome to the answer to that question."

@MattieAMiller

Жыл бұрын

truly a modern Ozymandias

I wonder how much it would affect photovoltaics; possibly making the technology go from 25% efficiency to 20% or lower?

@J4Zonian

Жыл бұрын

@bbody A study showed air pollution in cities like Delhi reduce solar output by as much as 12%.

What climate solution do you love best or love to hate? ClimateAdam and I will be discussing and ranking in a livestream on May 8. Comment here or join us LIVE to make sure your best and worst are included: kzread.info2NfNOU0hxp0?feature=share

@MichaelFree103

Жыл бұрын

I am interested in ocean carbon dioxide removal, out of the possible geoengineering solutions I find it the most intuitive, but know very little about it, particularly when it comes to practicality. Is there a path to economic ocean carbon dioxide removal? and what are the downsides?

@tommclean7410

Жыл бұрын

Deep closed loop geothermal power seems like a promising candidate for firming up solar and wind power especially for long periods of renewable power droughts (i.e. dull doldrums). It is cheaper, cleaner, and more flexible (load following) than nuclear. It uses very little land as it is mostly underground and can be installed almost anywhere, i.e. it does not have the usual geological requirements of typical geothermal power.

@TheDanEdwards

Жыл бұрын

"What climate solution" - there is not one. Human society is too complex and faulty to undergo such an idealized thing as a "climate solution". Call me a doomer, but I challenge you to go observe humans.

@HaldaneSmith

Жыл бұрын

My least favorite climate change solution is eliminating single family housing and relacing it with high density, car-free neighborhoods. While we should provide the latter along transit corridors, and we should create great bike infrastructure, it won't save enough CO2 compared with electric vehicles, more telecommuting and more bike commuting to force it on everybody. Coercing people out of their single family homes will unnecessarily antogonize people against climate solutions. We should pursue changes like renewable energy, EVs and heat pumps that reduce CO2 without pointlessly disrupting people's lives.

@J4Zonian

Жыл бұрын

@@HaldaneSmith Your vision of this is people being rounded up in the night & forced into bare apartments by the yard police?

Keen to see you discuss ocean fertilisation as CO2 capture and storage next! Also the space mirrors are already being developed by China, but for putting more sunlight into earth rather than pushing it away, for city lighting purposes.

As you rightly pointed out, we need to sharpen the knives and keep them ready (so to speak), should there be an emergency. But broadly, we would be much better off not using them ever.

@deanfowles3707

Жыл бұрын

Were gonna need to use them. It's pretty much a certainty now

LOOOOOVE THIS COLLAB!

Glad to see you are talking about it. In too many circles it is still heretic to bring it up. For me it is the equivalent to a pain killer. It won't solve the underlying issue, but it can make the time to solve the underlying issue more bearable and buy us some time to mend. The other argument is statistics. We currently run a bet that sufficient people will rapidly reduce emissions to keep the problem in check. But with billions of people and a probability below 100% for each one, statistics sounds a cautious note. Contrasting that with atmospheric geoengineering, the same statistic should make us contemplate that it is likely to happen: For geoengineering not to happen no one must do it. But the probability of anyone not doing it is lower than 100%. So the same statistical thinking should indicate a considerable likelihood of someone doing it.

Thanks Rosie; interesting as always!

Wow, I need to replace my roof. I guess I should look into a more reflective color than my current black roof. Not a game changer but every little bit helps.

@EngineeringwithRosie

Жыл бұрын

Based on the reports I've seen from western Sydney, residents are most definitely noticing the effect of a black roof. They're reporting that they need their air con on on any sunny day.

@chow-chihuang4903

Жыл бұрын

Our roof feels much cooler switching to very light grey (partner refused to go bright white) from a light-to-medium green. It now feels warm but easily tolerable instead of painfully hot on a sunny summer day. I imagine it’d feel cooler yet were it white. On top of being reflective, there are chemical pigments available that not only reflect most light, but what light is absorbed gets re-emitted in infrared or near-infrared so they’re even cooler than plain white shingles or paint. Alas, GAF only uses those in their white shingles.

Painting roofs in Sydney - Rosie I heard about painting streets white in areas of California for the same purpose.

We're already using solar geoengineering since we started burning fossil fuels. Because when you burn fossil fuels you also release aerosols in the atmosphere, the current amount of aerosols blocks about 55% of the sunlight coming to earth. We've reached a point that we need slash the burning of fossil fuels rapidly. But when we do this we'll loose the current cooling capicity of the aerosols that are currently in the atmosphere, because according to James Hansen those aerosols only stay in the atmosphere for about 5 days. So to counterattack the loss of aerosols by burning less fossil fuels, we'll need some other form of SRM, not to lose the current cooling that we have because of the aerosols. Without SRM the temperature on the planet will rise much more fast when we start cutting back on burning of fossil fuels. I think because of the coronalockdowns we had a drop in CO2 emissions and therefore a drop in aerosol masking, so while 2020 was a La Nina year, it become the 2nd warmest year on record, after 2016 which was a strong El Nino year.

I think the unintended consequences of solar geoengineering are an enormous risk. Reversing the atmospheric geoengineering that we have already done by burning fossil fuels raising CO2 , methane and other GHGs is the first priority or we risk a thousand year extinction where the earth remains uninhabitable. If we "overdo" solar geoengineering, we could destroy the biosphere or induce rapid cooling and iceball earth. The earth is the most complex living system and the mass-flow of energy is too complex to model or predict reliably. We don't have another perfect spaceship earth to move to if we F this one up. Thanks for this video Rosie!

@deanfowles3707

Жыл бұрын

I think they undersell srm with this one. The modelling you disregard is the same modelling we have used to predict climate change. So though modelling isn't perfect it's not nothing either. I recommend talks by David Keith, Pete Irvine, stewart Patrick, Jesse Reynolds and wake smith if you want to really learn more. Many of the points against srm in this video are kinda wrong or not fairly presented.

@solexxx8588

Жыл бұрын

@@deanfowles3707 The models have all predicted less warming than we have measured. Complex systems like our whole planet and ecosphere can't be reliably modeled yet. Ask yourself what an order of magnitude mistake in geoengineering might do. It could be too late for a plan B or the result could cause a unpredicted cascade of tipping points.

@deanfowles3707

Жыл бұрын

@@solexxx8588 even more reason to take solar geoengineering seriously then. If it turns out that global warming is much worse than models predict then we're going to need to artificially cool the planet or face our own extinction.

@J4Zonian

Жыл бұрын

@@deanfowles3707 Yes, if we think we know what it would do we should use it. If we have no idea what it would do then we should use it even more! Don’t see anything wrong with that logic? After some initial investigation I’ve mostly dismissed geoengimagicalism as too insane to contemplate, especially since 1) it’s impossible to know even within a couple of orders of magnitude what will happen, because they’re not "the same models” and 2) it’s absolutely 100% inevitable that anyone in power (& thus inextricably linked to fossil fuel, agro-chemical, media, banking & other industries) who thinks geoengimagicalism is possible (or even doesn’t) will use it as an excuse to do even more nothing than they already are. And to do it for longer. To resist reality, they’ll double down on dishonesty, cheating, stealing, manipulating & violence & there’s no way that can end except very, very badly.

@deanfowles3707

Жыл бұрын

@@J4Zonian but we do have some ideas of what it would do and we're working o understanding it more and more. Like I said maybe not clear enough, we don't even know how bad climate change will be and how fast things will escalate, the only thing we can safely rule out is that it won't be that bad or slow. So given that we have to weigh up all the options we have. Solar geoengineering is the only way we can cool the planet within our lifetimes for example or within an election cycle. Emissions cuts, carbon drawdown yeah we need to do them and everyone working on solar geoengineering says those two things are the biggest priorities especially the former. I would dismiss anyone who says we just need to do solar geoengineering and that alone as a nutcase. So we need to do them as priority but the benifits of doing them take a long long time to be felt.

Thank you for the great video, again. Wouldn't SRM reduce the output of solarpanels? So if we use it we would have to compansate the outputdifference with other energy resources. most likely fossile resources, which would than produce more CO2-equivalent. So the permission to do this would be that not more CO2-equivalent is released into the atmospher from the process.

- 3:55 The effects would be that fast? So we WOULDN'T have enough time to build a massive train-ark system à la _Snowpiercer_ when the planet begins to freeze? - 11:03 The aerosols would dissipate quickly? So _The Matrix_ WOULDN'T happen with the sun being blocked out for years and years to stop the machines? - It's almost as if fiction isn't realistic. 🤔

What a great, easy to understand explanation of srm! Thank you 😊 On a video editing note, I much prefer hearing natural pauses between sentences rather than having the pause cut out if that makes any sense? As per above, great video on srm 👍

Considering a lot of our oxygen comes from the ocean, like coral reefs, and ocean acidification is bad for the ocean you'd think that alone would be enough incentive for rich countries to do something big about climate change

@EngineeringwithRosie

Жыл бұрын

You'd think...

@theairstig9164

Жыл бұрын

If there was a net decrease in oxygen concentration that caused rich old white men to die early, then yes rich countries would fund a fix

Two obvious issues would also be the decrease in solar irradiation per meter-squared negatively affecting plant life with all the knock-on effects a reduction in primary productivity would have on ecosystems and of course the reduction in solar energy yields. Weighing up the benefits of reducing heat energy while simultaneously reducing primary productivity against tolerating increased heat energy while maintaining primary productivity for the many ecosystems our planet is gonna be a tough nut to crack for the scientific community and an even tougher call to make for policymakers, once the findings are out. I thought of it as an agreeable method to buy humanity time, but the sudden realization has really upped the ick-factor for me…

What if we go beyond white paint and use the new radiative cooling paints that can get a surface below ambient temperature in direct sunlight by radiating heat directly to space? I think that if you coated every roof with a paint that had a net cooling power of 100W/m^2, you offset almost all of the 3W/m^2 excess heat trapped by human greenhouse gas emissions. Skycool Systems is the only currently purchasable commercial product I know, but there are so many companies and researchers working on it. It seems like you might even be able to get them in a range of colors at the cost of lower, but not zero, cooling performance.

It kinda sounds like the plan is to turn earth into venus. Sulphur at the top, CO2 at the bottom.

@deanfowles3707

Жыл бұрын

Errr no

Thanks for the explanation

Thank you both❤️❤️

@atanacioluna292

11 ай бұрын

I wanted to say that. ❤

Thank you Rosie! Very interesting approach to some solutions (?) to climate Change. I love your channel. I write you from San Lorenzo de El Escorial in Madrid province, Spain. Could you please speak more slowly! 😅 it's stressful how you rush through the very interesting information. Thank you! 😊

@EngineeringwithRosie

Жыл бұрын

Oof I must have been having a very "Aussie" day when I recorded this. You're the third comment I've seen so far saying the same thing. Thanks for the feedback, I'll try to speak more clearly in the future. And for the existing videos, please try the subtitles. I take great care to make sure there are accurate subtitles for every video.

@robertweir8958

Жыл бұрын

Hi Victoria, Just in case you haven't tried it - you can slow down (r speed up) playback using the settings utube settings icon. Hope this helps 🙂

In 1991, we had a massive snowstorm known as the halloween blizzard... the same year as the Mount Pinatubo eruption. Glad to finally have some additional explanation around the event.

🤯 Test it on your home planet before trying it on mine 🌍

The road to unintended consequences is paved with good intentions.

I remember back in September 2022, on Labor Day (a US 3 day weekend), when I was camping, there was a huge range fire. The smoke cloud was so huge, it loomed miles away from the fire, 1000's of ft above the 8000ft elevation I was at, and it turned a 95 F afternoon temp, to 75 F. The sunlight coming through the smoke, was a bright bronze color. So I could see how aerosols could work, but would this affect photosynthesis of plants?

At about 6:40 you suggest that injecting ice nucleation particles would cause thinning of cirrus clouds. We already do inject ice nucleation particles, mainly soot but also some sulphates, from regular aircraft exhaust, and it causes more cirrus clouds to form (where local conditions of ice supersaturation exist), which we call persistent contrails. These are net warming, though can be cooling if formed in the early part of the day (a combination of greenhouse and albedo effects, but albedo doesn't work at night). Not sure how that adds up with that suggestion, though you said the modelling is uncertain (as it is with contrails, though it's accepted to be net warming, just not sure how much).

Only just started watching but my first thought rè injecting sulphuric aerosols into the atmosphere is sulphuric acid rain...

I would like you to include plant emitted VOCs in your next video on this topic. I am especially interested in Willie Smit's research in Borneo and some of the work that is being done in the Amazon

Correction! The upgraded B-52's with pilots on oxygen or autonomous pilots can fly high enough to do initial flights. I'm an Aeronautical Engineer.

Wouldn't reducing sunlight mean reducing the ouptut of solar panels and making up that difference by burning more fossil fuels adding to the CO2 problem? Geoengineering sounds like a cunnng plan by fossil fuel companies to save their business rather then counter global warming.

@mx2000

Жыл бұрын

The reduction is very small, relatively.

@eclecticcyclist

Жыл бұрын

@@mx2000 Then geoengineering seems very expensive and risky for such small effects.

@deanfowles3707

Жыл бұрын

​​​​​@@eclecticcyclist no the reduction in the energy produced by solar panels would be very small. The reduction in global temperature though could be whatever humanity chose it to be. Most I listen to close to the topic normally talk about say taking 1 degree celcius off of global warming though or holding the temperatures at present day level. Source - I've been following this subject closely for quite a while. One other thing no solar geoengineering is actually very inexpensive, so much so that there is a worry of just any old country being able to rush ahead and doing it.

@thomasstuder1624

Жыл бұрын

The imbalance from human emissions causing climate change is in the ballpark of about 2W/m2. The average solar radiation beyond the troposphere averages more than 400W/m2 (1344W/m2 light intensity projected on the earth surface). So if 0.5% of the incoming sunlight could be diverted away, that would be sufficient. The solar panels would consequently also only see a 0.5% output reduction.

Hi Rosie, the climate engineering idea I'd like to hear discussed is ocean iron seeding, or any similar approach. Thanks.

Here in the US, the electric utilities are doing everything they can to repeal net metering laws, making grid-tied solar less appealing. Also in the US, our National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has asked for proposals for on-site use of PV-generated electricity. Already demonstrated as cheap and reliable have been PV-->DHW with diversion of any surplus to space heat. Yes, PV is that cheap. The company I work for is working on a PV-->air dehumdification system. PV-->EV charging is trivial with a boost-mode DC-DC converter and EVs that support DC slow charging. We need to pursue on-site use of PV electricity as a work around for our electric companies and state governments that are standing in the way of widespread adoption of PV.

@theairstig9164

Жыл бұрын

Why not lobby to use excess household PV to sequester CO2? That technology already exists

Were you saying that toads themselves are disgusting? Toads aren't disgusting. Have you seen their golden eyes? I guess cuteness and beauty are in the eye of the beholder. What is disgusting is human ignorance and undeserved confidence. Great video collab BTW.

@paultrgnp

Жыл бұрын

Non-native toads in the Australian environment ARE disgusting, in numerous ways!!!!

I have heard of companies adding things like crushed glass or crushed shells to asphalt to reduce how much temperature the roads. Being roads have to be resurfaced every few years wouldn't making a combination of additives to road surfaces reduce temperature cheaply and not be a fix except for city temperatures. Again not a solution to climate change but a minor help with minuscule cost to roads to limit there effects on global temperature issues. Many large projects are needed to stop the crisis but how much effect do you think additions to asphalt in road surfaces could reduce there effects (again I know this will not be a major solution but something minor)

@jimurrata6785

Жыл бұрын

Cool pavements (IR reflective) are a very real thing in the desert southwest of the United States.

Thanks Rosie, as always a very clear explanation! And thanks to Adam too! This triggered a a question: could these arerosols be used at lower altitudes to reduce methane in the atmosphere? I heard that during the pandemic CO2 emissions dropped, but because of also less reactive chemicals in the air, methane increased. As that is a much more potent GHG it would be good to reduce this, with most likely less side effects and a more sustained climate effect?!?

Try looking up!

Huge swings are easily avoided, for example just do enough SAI to mitigate AGW, simple.

Aerosols are incredibly difficult to manage such as to reverse, it seems to this layman. Even the wild mirrors are more easily managed, such as reversed even by simply reflecting less solar energy by simply changing the angle of the mirrors. Of course the mass of the mirrors might require a massive amount of CO2 generation simply to produce as well as to deliver to the site they're needed. I think we must work to remove GHG's as well as stop emitting them.

Cooling just the Arctic and Antarctica and avoiding global cooling with SAI could be an optimum solution

The object of the efforts is to gain cooling before cloud cover sealed the sky and we entered run away heating from cloud cover oven.

Good topic though more numbers would have been great I look forward to real solutions being discussed in the carbon sequestration video cheers

A test run with seasalt or sahara dust (could also be used over vegetation) as aerosole over a pole could be good. Beeing only local would be just fine, as we would be trying to simulate the effects of the ice that is already lost.

@hurrdurrmurrgurr

Жыл бұрын

Dumping salt or dust on the poles would melt them even faster.

A similar interesting topic might be the effect of airplane contrails

I recently built a large barn and roofed it with bright white roof sheets. This is because I figured that it would help with climate change as well as keeping the shed cool in the summer. It would be very interesting to know how much CO2 equivalent it is effectively offsetting. Any thoughts? An yes, why aren't all roofs white if not covered with solar panels.

@deanfowles3707

Жыл бұрын

Actually by some Complex knock on effects seemingly painting all roofs white as much as they'd cool the interior of the building they would make outdoor climate change worse.

Space force!

All those airplanes flying chemicals into the upper atmosphere would be emitting greenhouse gases all the way. The heating impact of that should be deducted from the cooling effect of the substances intentionally released from the aircraft.

So let's recreate the same conditions that killed the dinosaurs and a large proportion of life on this planet. Crazy bastards.

Should we? ...NO.

@deanfowles3707

Жыл бұрын

If you're saying no it's because you don't realize how dire the situation is I'm sorry to say. We're going to need solar geoengineering end of story. Luckily there seems to be strong evidence that it would work to at least take the worst harms away from climate change

@J4Zonian

Жыл бұрын

@@deanfowles3707 We must destroy the village in order to save it. We must bulldoze the burning house in order to save it. There is 100% certain evidence that geoengimagicalism will do...something...if we try it. Any more than that is a mystery.

It would be nice if we could do white solar panels. Getting a double use of the panels plus keeping down their temperature, helping with their electric production too.

@JohnR31415

Жыл бұрын

There is a reason they’re designed to absorb visible light.

@deanfowles3707

Жыл бұрын

There is a global warming mitigation technology called MEER. Look it up. It's ground level mirrors basically to reflect the sun's energy. But yes they're now looking into making it a solar panel/ reflector. How that works is beyond me

@jackcoats4146

Жыл бұрын

I have seen various colors and texture on architectural panels that also are PV panels. Not as efficient as dark, but can cover much more areas on building exteriors.

@EngineeringwithRosie

Жыл бұрын

Head over to the video we did on Climate Adam. We included "solar power on everything" in the tier list

The discussion should not form around using SO2. There have been studies that recommended against this. At least one recommends using calcite. This will have minimal impact on resident stratospheric ozone. When it rains out it will alleviate, somewhat, acidification in the oceans. As well, on land there will be beneficial effects. Consider, there was a study that recommended applying calcite to cropland with high amounts of heavy metals in order to reduce crop uptake. Even more so, it should be recognized that what the Human Enterprise is currently doing to our climate is insanely risky. At the same time there has been non-selective aerosol masking provided by ongoing fossil fuel emissions and if not compensated for there will be a cumulative increase of the global mean temperature of about .8 degrees Celsius when we ultimately, by necessity, cease all emissions. Largely, the risks that we are currently incurring stem from numerous factors.There are mounting and some looming major feedbacks from natural carbon reservoirs, such as forests, peat, permafrost and Arctic Ocean Shelf methane hydrates. Reductions of marine tropical high albedo stratocumulus clouds, increasing intensifications from both weather system and oceanic overturning derangements are some of the natural system wild cards. Many of these have potential to prematurely trigger additional feedbacks. Unanticipated, or too complex to model developments are occurring. As well sinks are being diminished. Often overlooked are individual and societal climate impacts of mobilizations in regard to adaptation, mitigation, recovery, rebuilding and relocation as additional feedbacks. Then there is the risk of a disabling breakdown of polite society. This should be viewed as a major tipping point. If SRM where to be cautiously and slowly initiated it seems that risk could be fairly well managed. I think the primary risk is the moral hazard of giving further license to fossil fuel producers to continue with their business model. A simple fee and dividend, large enough, carbon tax would go a long ways to managing this most concerning downside. If you're not familiar with this strategy after some investigation you might find it the most benign and least imposing approach. I think the biggest problem is international consensus.

How about enhanced radiative cooling. So using renewable energy convert ambient and latent heat to radiation wavelengths best suited to escape the atmosphere (like Skycool).

Issue I see with criticisms is that other proposed strategies like ways to address CO2 also suffer rate bottlenecks as well as human error otherwise called "being a governmentally obstinate dickhead." And ultimately, there isn't a magic pill for climate change, no single approach that's going to fix everything. Exploring this as means to at least pointedly address local spaces may very likely be needed to assist with mitigating some of the worst climate events to come. Especially when you factor in the cost of natural disasters coupled with the time it takes to get places back up and running post time consuming cleanup, we need as many approaches as is feasible.

Excellent info. To effect the average temperature, what percentage of air would sulfur represent? We all need to learn how to get by with 95% less stuff.

I had a dream about this when i was a child. It was so significant to me. I cant believe im seeing this. I refer to it as an apocalyptic nightmare btw.

Question if the Sahara were forested would that not warm the earth by the greenery be less reflective than the bare rock. And converting light energy into biomass energy?

@theairstig9164

Жыл бұрын

It’s nowhere near that simple. Greening the Sahara would stop sand from moving around and change the rainfall patterns for the surrounding areas. Less water in the atmosphere means less heat reflected back to earth plus the biomass sequesters CO2. It’s a multiplication not an addition. More trees means less rain more often and less CO2 in the air. Less trees means the CO2 stays in the air as does the moisture and when it finally rains … you don’t want to be around. The Tongan volcano eruption in January 2022 gave us a preview of the future

@jeffbybee5207

11 ай бұрын

@@theairstig9164 thankyou for reply. I think I understood most of it especially large forest area induce more frequent but lighter rain storms. But does the darker forest is net plus or negative temp change. Maybe I'm simple but I like trees

👍

In nature there is only one thing colder than ice and that is melting ice 😮

We have seen several videos and movies claiming practicing permaculture farming practices could dramatically decrease carbon by storing it in the soil. Is there science supporting this claim? It seems to make sense.

@J4Zonian

Жыл бұрын

@tech “You’d have to be an evil genius to do worse than agriculture.” Bill Mollison, founder of permaculture "Food sovereignty: five steps to cool the planet and feed its people" Graphic: “How the industrial food system contributes to the climate crisis” "Regenerative Organic Agriculture and Climate Change: A Down-to-Earth Solution to Global Warming" Rodale Institute Research by Rodale Inst. over more than half a century shows organic practices sequester large amounts of carbon while chemical ag releases it as it destroys soil organics & communities. Organic permaculture’s principles, use of perennials, edible forest gardens, & other techniques make it even higher yield, more-sequestering, more water-conserving... Rodale Institute’s Farming Systems Trial has accumulated solid data on the differences between organic and conventional farming for 40 years. Overall, organic and conventional management have similar yields - except in drought years, when conventional yields plummet but organic yields hold more or less steady, producing about 30% more than conventional. the organic plots have also been more profitable - even without the organic price premium. "Can Regenerative Agriculture Reverse Climate Change?" One Small Step youtube 12 min. video "Building Resilience for an Unpredictable Future: How Organic Agriculture Can Help Farmers Adapt to Climate Change" Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome, August 2006 New research suggests that a chemical group known as phenolics may help soils on organic farms retain more carbon Scientific American June 11, 2013 Organic farms need to be small-scale to sequester enough carbon Until we address the problem of many organic farms being all too similar to their conventional counterparts, they won’t help prevent climate change [as much as they could] Switching to EV farm machines would help. theguardian 21 Jul 2015 Climate Change and Family Farmers farm aid June 6, 2016 Allan Yeomans (yeomans concepts soil-carbon-tests-big-cheap-easy) ”Converting land from conventional agriculture to organic production could reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the run-off of excess nitrogen from fertilisers, and cut pesticide use. It would also, according to a new report, be feasible to convert large amounts of currently conventionally farmed land without catastrophic harm to crop yields and without needing huge amounts of new land. [A huge understatement. In fact, a low-meat diet produced with organic permaculture methods on small family & collective farms would use less land to feed everyone better, with not just a lot less ecological harm but positive regenerative effects that can help the world recover from chemical industrial agriculture’s production of food, fiber, materials, & medicine. Like the fossil & fissile fuel (& ICEV, rail, media, banking, industrial ag, & other) industries' relentless lies about climate & renewable energy, the chemical industrial ag industry has engaged in a nearly century-long disinformation campaign against organic methods. (Permaculture is almost entirely ignored by establishment ag; generally the only attention it gets is ridicule.) Both renewable energy & organic permaculture have also been opposed by a solid bipartisan coalition in the US, acting in the short-term interests of oligarchs in those industries. "The Farm Bureau: Big Oil’s Unnoticed Ally Fighting Climate Science and Policy” A study "published in the journal Nature Communications, found that by combining organic production with an increasingly vegetarian diet, ways of cutting food waste, and a return to traditional methods of fixing nitrogen in the soil instead of using fertiliser, the world’s projected 2050 population of more than 9 billion could be fed without vastly increasing the current amount of land under agricultural production.” "Organic Resilience in Extreme Weather" Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture Compared with industrial agriculture, organic farming is less energy intensive, helps pollinators and other beneficial insects flourish, and promotes biodiversity. Organic systems provide greater resilience in the face of climate-related weather impacts like drought and floods by improving soil structure and soil water-holding capacity. By sequestering more carbon in the soil than industrial practices, organic and other conservation-based farming systems are crucial climate change mitigation strategies. ("Can Organic Farming Feed the World?” EcoWatch Jul 01, 2016) "Only small farms can feed the world-UN report" (technologywater) “Organic farming can feed the world” by Worldwatch Inst. (technologywater) A new analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists finds that federal funding for "sustainable nutrition science"-a field of research and education at the intersection of food production, climate and environment, and nutrition-is abysmally low, amounting to less than 25 cents out of every thousand dollars in federal research funding. (Common Dreams 2021/09/17) “Revealed: majority of politicians on key EU farming panel have industry links” The Guardian 2018/may/24

Cough* chemtrails *Cough

@russellshoemaker4412

Жыл бұрын

Exactly

It's causing it

Where are battery’s 😊

Yeah, right, whatever keeps the sweet sweet oil flowing and the beautiful clean coal burning.

This is already going on! And just one result is more forest fires! 🥵

OMG, if we used aircraft to disperse aerosols, the conspiracy nuts would go *Bonkers* !

Is it possible to selectively spray, to cover certain areas? If so, I think it is worth trying it over the arctic, as methane release from melting permafrost, seems to be the first tipping-point, we have already triggered.

@autohmae

Жыл бұрын

next up is over the equator as temperatures spikes are higher and people are gonna die in larger numbers

The nations first outdoor test to limit global warming by increasing cloud cover launch Tuesday April second 2024 from the deck of a decommission aircraft carrier in the San Francisco Bay, The experiment which organizers didn’t widely announce to avoid public backslash , marks the acceleration of a contentious field of research known as solar radiation modification The concept involves shooting substances such as aerosols into the sky to reflect sunlight away from the Earth, we will soon find out if any side effects

I hope Rosie will verify if this is the correct equation to find the power output of wind mills. Power output equals one half the air density multiplied by the cube of wind speed multiplied by the area sweep of the rotors.

@EngineeringwithRosie

Жыл бұрын

Yep, that's the power available in the air stream. but then you've got to multiply by the efficiency of the wind turbine, Cp.

@brianjonker510

Жыл бұрын

@@EngineeringwithRosie Thank You very much. Are the efficiencies of commercial wind turbines very close?

@theairstig9164

Жыл бұрын

@@brianjonker510 as in are they nearly the same? Yes

The cane toad analogy was just silly. SAI is self-limiting (unlike cane toads) because aerosols wash out of the atmosphere in a few years which Adam points out immediately after the cane toad bit. The problem with demonising SAI is we're almost certainly going to need it because we're not going anywhere near fast enough on mitigation. So when we do need it would you rather have SAI well researched and well understood with the technology ready to go, or in a state of panic because some God-awful feedback has kicked in? As for messing with the climate system, we've already done that!

Up

Dear Rosie, I enjoy your videos immensely and have learned a lot from them. You are at the very top of my list of renewable energy KZreadrs who can be taken seriously. But, even though English is my first language (American), I sometimes have difficulties understanding you and have to listen very closely. That alone would not be a problem, but, I live in Europe and regularly want to recommend your videos to friends, who's native language is not English, even though most of them speak and understand it very well. They have commented back to me that they have extreme difficulties understanding what you say, and have often resorted (at my suggestion) to reducing the playing speed of the video, with mixed results. In the interest of broadening your international viewer base, could you consider speaking more slowly and more clearly? It would really help. 😊👍

@jamesgrover2005

Жыл бұрын

Subtitles 😊

@EngineeringwithRosie

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for the feedback, I know the Aussie accent is hard to understand sometimes. I do try to speak clearly but I won't go so far as to put on an American or British accent, that would be so weird to me! I make sure to have human generated subtitles for every video so could you try those to help understand?

@loislane5092

Жыл бұрын

@@EngineeringwithRosie Yes, I always forget about subtitles and will suggest that to my friends who are having difficulties. Now, I will tell you something that could make you happy and let you know that your videos really are worth your effort. As a normal, non-technical person, but one who is very interested in the environment, the global climate crisis, and renewable energy sources, I often gain a new perspective from your presentations. For instance, the economic aspects of renewable energy projects, which we laypeople often disregard, be it in smaller scale wind turbines, offshore projects, hydrogen, etc. We usually think: if it produces energy, it's good, go for it, full stop. But you discuss why that isn't always the full story. So after watching your videos I will very often - almost always - sit down with my friends and we will discuss what we have learned from you and your guests. You have made major contributions to many long evenings in the pub and long racing bike rides (we're all cyclists). You have changed and shaped many of our opinions and let us see things from angles we wouldn't have otherwise considered. Other youtube channels present things, but you explain them on the nitty-gritty level, using your personal experience, which we all very much appreciate. I will sometimes have to watch a video 2-3 times to fully grasp the information, e.g. with your turbine wing designer guest, but it's worth it. Thank you very much and keep it up. 😊

@EngineeringwithRosie

Жыл бұрын

@@loislane5092 You're right, that did make me happy 🙂 thanks for letting me know that, it's exactly the effect I dream of my videos having. By the way, I'm also a cyclist and also use my long rides for deep thinking!

TH

Please note two things. 1. You said the SO2 particles essentially stay where we put them (although they eventually attenuate). 2. We could put them some place we want the light to be reflected, such as the equator or the poles. In the one case, it would reflect light at the hottest point of insolation; in the other, it would spur refreezing of polar ice. 3. Highly-specified placement would avoid rebound shock. If we chose this strategy, it might give us enough time to fix our real problem (GHGs in the atmosphere), and it would be a maintainable while we solve the problem (or deconstructable if we solve the problem).

No I don't have a PhD in public health from UC Berkeley. BS biology BA chemistry MA toxicology Environmental industrial toxicology and environmental restoration Certified radiation safety State of California Biotechnology major equivalent and biochemistry major equivalent.

The arguments against are really just unscientific anxiety. Listen to yourselves! Otherwise I really like your commentary in other videos Rosie!

@robgeach8105

Жыл бұрын

it's a video of personal incredulity. the most scientific youtube video.

#StopBurningStuff like coal gas and oil

12:42 It’s not that leaving climate change to “do its thing” is worse, it’s that 1. It’s not doing its thing at all; we’re doing its thing-or rather, 2. the rich & the right are doing all its things because of financial, political but ultimately psychological reasons*. They don’t want to stop causing the problem. Might they be willing to allow other problems to overcome climate cataclysm as long as the “solutions” are just as bad as the problem? Decades of experience with the far right duopoly party in the US suggests yes. Yet another reason not to even think about it, & to outlaw funding. Geoengimagicalism Of course many people pushing SRM consider it a magical way to avoid having to stop causing the problem. As such it’s a major force in getting people to delay the real solutions. Considering it as a last resort keeps all the other resorts from happening & may be the final nail in the coffins there will be no one to build. We don’t have a couple of decades, btw. We have 7 years. * short version: domination, nihilism (the ultimate domination), & symbolism (as a way to express domination). So I guess yeah, really short version: Domination.

My thought was to somehow spray melting glacier areas with some super-reflective substrate to halt the solar absorption, and thus prevent them from melting as quickly.

Why does no one talk about Dansgaard-Oeschger events that happen about every 1,500 years and cause warming of up to 16°C within a few decades time? Pollution is bad, but it seems like 2° in the past two centuries may not be quite the unprecedented warming event it's being made out to be.

This is just swell. Crazy ideas for crazy politics. The main one is fabulous: "This event exterminated most life on Earth, including the dinosaurs. So let's do the same again!" 🤦🤦🤦

Hi Rosie. Thanks for your excellent content. You speak a bit to fast for me with such interesting content. I listen at 0.75 speed but it sounds a bit weird.

Proposals 😂😂😂

So this is why we are not having decent sunny summer days! Stop messing with our climate.

Most of the negative side effects are a consequence of spraying with SO2, which is just ridiculous. A far better option is CaCO3 (that's lime stone) which even helps with deacidification. And talking about acidity, we are already doing that type of solar geoengineering as we speak. Every coal power plant, every massive container ship, every car already burns plenty of Sulphur mixed in their fuel. And it's exactly that Sulphur that actually keeps global temperatures at least -1C than what they could have been without it. Yes, we are already past the point of no return and we have been for a long time. Year after year we make promises and year after year emissions keep rising :D :D This is the ONLY solution, please support it

@deanfowles3707

Жыл бұрын

Yes you're right, I think sulphates are the most considered because it's the substance that nature already puts into the stratosphere naturally. So it's the most understood one. But others are being looked Into also. If we do solar geoengineering we may start off with sulphates and then try these other ones later. Lol what a crazy world we live in eh

@EngineeringwithRosie

Жыл бұрын

It is funny that we accept unintentional geoengineering (whether it's sulfer or greenhouse gases) even though we know exactly what it's doing. But we are so squeamish about doing it on purpose. I know it's somewhat illogical but I still feel super hesitant about SRM

@deanfowles3707

Жыл бұрын

@@EngineeringwithRosie I'm not squeemish. I think we ought to be doing it properly ASAP. I also think you sell solar geoengineering short in this video. Many of the problems you lay out with it here are likely not all that big in the scheme of things or already debunked. I'm not a scientist but I've just looked into this subject a lot the last few years

@J4Zonian

Жыл бұрын

@@EngineeringwithRosie Does anybody here accept UGM? (Unintentional GeoengiMagicalism)?

Chemed to death in San Diego. Look at what Final Days caught on federal cameras in Alaska😮

A few things here. Not claiming to be a scientist, I am not. But I have listened to A LOT of talks on srm. So acid rain would be increased. Yes but not by much, still not as bad as it was in the 70s and it would be globally distributed the amount of sulphates we would put into the stratosphere would only be a small fraction of the sulphates we put into the lower atmosphere where we are. We wouldn't destroy the ozone layer with srm, we would delay the healing of the ozone hole. In fact depending on which substance we used we could actually speed up the healing of the ozone hole. As for crops being negatively effected, possibly but crops will also be negatively effected by high temperatures. According to modelling srm would actually have a positive effect on crop production by keeping temperatures cooler and this reducing evaporation. Anyway that's not to say that there won't be any downsides to it, there almost certainly will be but it I so often hear what the science says about srm being distorted or misrepresented. This video is no exception. I recommend talks by David Keith, Pete Irvine, stewart Patrick, Jesse Reynolds and wake smith. In that order if you really want to learn about srm

@J4Zonian

Жыл бұрын

@dean "Not claiming to be a scientist, I am not”. You could have ended there. It explains everything without all the rest of that stuff.

@deanfowles3707

Жыл бұрын

@@J4Zonian I'm parotting what actual experts have said people who have studied it for decades. and you're not one. The fact that you keep calling it geomagicalisms or whatever tells me you're possibly not arguing in good faith. Do you even believe anthropogenic climate change is real or are you one of these the climate is always changing m0r0ns

I think the best use for artificial sulphuric aerosols is to merely slow the rate of warming.

@deanfowles3707

Жыл бұрын

Hmmm. U less it's slowed by a lot I gotta disagree. We've got to bring global temperatures back down to a sane level and keep them there. Say 1 degree C above pre industrial.

@J4Zonian

Жыл бұрын

@@deanfowles3707 We’re barely over that now, & even while the warming is still catching up to the CO2 level & the ecological, weather, social, & other effects are still catching up to the warming, we’re suffering from increasingly disastrous conditions all over the world. 1° over is far too high.

@deanfowles3707

Жыл бұрын

@@J4Zonian you know, I've never heard it put like that but you're probably right

I see the problem of that unpredictability. Say suddenly a region becomes cooler and it starts to rain for days with casualties and much damage. Would somebody be responsible?

Interesting videos you make. 👍 However, I find Rosie's dialect quite difficult to understand. (English is my 5th language, not first). 🤷‍♀

@EngineeringwithRosie

Жыл бұрын

Yep the Australian accent isn't the easiest! I put human-generated subtitles on all my videos so I hope that will help you 🙂

Side effects aside, i think this is something to explore, if only on a short term basis. Its pretty clear we will fall far short of the 1.5°C target. Using this method could buy us time to remove excess atmospheric CO2 and further our transition away from fossil fuels. On the other side though, if we have this option as an alternative, it could reduce the urgency of transition and become the defacto primary option.

Time to look at solar cycles and truly evaluate their impact on climate. Recent studies suggest we are entering a cooling period that may last 30 years.

If you can't get the Dinosaur asteroid date correct, what else is wrong?

What if we were able to increase the water vapor in the atmosphere, that would help. Plants will grow faster and immediately solve the water shortage in the world. There are now a number of start-ups that convert seawater into freshwater. A European fund has been created for this. Pilot project in Spain?

I personally prefer the idea of ocean fertilization,.. as at least there's the potential to actually sequester CO2 and help to restore fish stocks. That is to say, even if we were to hypothetically go carbon neutral overnight on account of a clean energy revolution, it'd still be worthwhile investigating OF as a means to sequester legacy emissions and restore ocean nutrient cycles.

I don't understand why space mirrors are considered to be ridiculous. We send satellites into space all the time and it's estimated to cost only 5 trillion over 50 years. Who knows how that price changes with Starship and economies of scale. Plus you get much more fine grained control by just turning the mirrors. You could easily adjust the amount of shade daily. Try getting the aerosols out of the air again when you overshoot. Plus you could do a lot more with them than just shade. Like increasing sunshine in polar places or on a moon colony, powering light sail spacecraft, make them double as a giant interferometric telescope, etc. Plus it would probably also help kicking off solar power satellites. Which is the only energy technology besides nuclear that can sustainably provide energy growth over the next hundreds of years. At 4% growth, we'll have covered all urbanized spaces with renewables in the next 100-150 years. Unless you want to pave over the whole planet, conventional renewables aren't really an option beyond that. I'd rather we invest into space industry sooner rather than later, because we'll have to do it eventually anyway.