Or we might be the first society to advance technologically fast enough to adapt to the changes we are causing. I, personally, don't like doom and gloom predictions and would rather look at the optimistic possibilities that humans can achieve.
@@ronrothrock7116”advancing technologically” is just running away from the problems imho. Wouldn’t it be better to focus on the fact that the richest people in the world pollute exponentially more than the poorest and that industrial development which has made it possible for those people to pollute so much is the common benchmark for when the problems started?
@@xa1531 Doing that ignores all the benefits that those richest countries brings to the whole of humanity, not just the richest, but the poorest also. We cannot become Luddites. We must move forward, not backwards. To do that means lowering health, lifespans, workload efficiency and so on. When looking at solutions we must weigh all things involved, both good and bad, to do a proper risk/benefit analysis.
@@ronrothrock7116 People are not talking about becoming luddites, but not burning fossil fuels. We have many clean and cleanish sources of energy, but the oligarchy refuses to change.
@@martensjdwell that's because of the anti-nuclear nutters. Notice that they are the "environmentalist" movement, and that should tell you something very important.
Ridiculous... I live in Alaska and have witnessed the change in climate. Nothing is going to stop what's coming. We keep looking for easy, feel good solutions, rather than addressing the actual problem. Unregulated capitalism and government corruption on a nearly global scale.
I've lived in Alberta all my life. I'm 60. As a kid, the Rockies were snow capped all year. We had horrendous winters with many feet of snow. Never had large forest fires, never had smoke from them in the cities. Now the snow is gone in June, the little we get, and we choke on forest fire smoke every summer that makes Mumbai look like a picnic. Even with that, most oil-loving Albertans refuse to read the writing on the wall.
I can't believe we're discussing spending tens, likely hundreds of billions on such complicated and ridiculously hard (and risky) tasks that COULD slightly mitigate the warming, while governments are still throwing trillions in subsidies to the people that are putting us in this climate change situation in the first place.
Exactly! And will somebody please talk about the huge conflict of interest that is Musk running a "government efficiency department", while federal tax dollars are paying for his fucking outer-space lego projects?
We are in 2024 and there are still people that think climate change is a hoax. Even though they can literally see the impacts of it in their backyard many times per year, wherever they are. I mean, people voted for Trump, twice. This time around, they also voted for Musk. What do you expect? We live in a post-truth era, where anything you say is considered true, even if it's backed by absolutely nothing. We live in an era where your fEeLiNgS are more important than cold hard facts. If you feel like there is no climate change, why bother?
"Buy us more time as we race towards net zero." Are we "racing" towards net zero? Or are we creeping so slowly that we're going to blow past all worst-case scenarios by the middle of this century?
Thats just doomerism. Maya is trying to inspire change by saying race. We need to be racing. Lets think of it as a race. We can win if we work hard. Lets not just ho hum, but bad things, but bad people. We can do it, its the most important thing we can do
I feel like it happens often in these conversations that we forget that the problems we experience all around the world are rooted in a disregard for the value of life and that there are entire institutions devoted to extracting as much “wealth” in the form of things-bought-and-sold from the earth and all of its inhabitants; the institutionalized destruction of the diversity of life is not a topic that we can avoid for much longer. Algae are going to be affected whether there’s clear ice or no ice as are all of us human beings if we continue to allow economists to make decisions for us. Let’s talk about that
One glaring issue I see with all of these solutions is that it will require global cooperation, and with the way things are going, I just can't see that happening until it's too late
There’s another part of permafrost thaw: heavy metals like mercury, arsenic, etc in the water supply. It’s called acid rock drainage. You can see orange rivers on Google Earth in Alaska rn, with pH as low as 2.6!!
I for one welcome an end to all this nonsense of temporary life on earth going after stupid dreams that can only end in tears. Generation after generation after generation.
as a species we aren't slowing our emissions we are slowing our growth in emissions....we aren't reducing....we are reducing the acceleration....but it nice to hear some people think we can solve our way out of it.
This might help with local climates...but on the global scale, that would probably only account for a miniscule percentage of the earths land area, let alone the full planet's area...
@@Ken_King it could still have a substantial impact on those local climates, considering how strong the urban heat island effect is. Reducing the demand for air conditioning would save huge amounts of energy
Soooo... we are now at the bargaining stage of grief? That's it? We've completely given up on doing what needs to be done because saving our species from extinction isn't profitable enough on the short term??
While I and many others love this channel and all the hard work you put into your videos, it's not reaching the people who need to see it. Here in Canada, the majority are science illiterate, and we have alternative media that’s gotten out of hand. One of those channels is called "True North" and they recently put out a video titled "Carbon dioxide is NOT WARMING the planet: Nuclear scientist". I think this channel should help the debunking community, as the channels that try to debunk the science misinformation/disinformation are quite small.
Have they really thought through this idea of pumping salt water up to the surface of the ice? Normally the ice freezes on the underside at the same time as the salt leaves and sinks to the bottom! It is also what creates the circulation of sea water all over the world! Where salty heavier water sinks to the bottom. Maybe it is possible to freeze the salt water, but it will melt earlier in the summer as it contains salt ;)
Since it's only a temporary and mitigating method it's definitely not a solve-all bullet. It's mostly about getting a bit more time, as the consequences of no arctic ice likely end up even worse.
It’s a terrible idea and the scale it would be needed to make a difference is many billions of dollars in infrastructure with unknown effects on the planet.
@@undertow2142 You say it's a terrible idea, but you also say the effects are unknown. So how do we know that it's a terrible idea? As to the issue of cost, it would certainly be less than the collective amount we are paying for climate change. At 10, 50, or even 100 billion per year it would be insignificant for the worlds' developed countries.
This approach was described in detail actually, in Ministry for the Future by Kim Stanley Robinson. It's a future in which we addressed climate change as a novel. All the nations with nuclear subs and carriers sent them to the poles to power a massive system of pumps and pipelines to spray water alllll over the pole in winter to let ice refreeze. The water came from beneath glaciers where it had been lubricating their slide into the ocean, solving another problem.
When I was travelling Europe, I was both impressed and saddened to see how much better they manage their forests, than we do in North America. But then I realized the reason for that being, they once completely destroyed all their forests. I guess the only way for us to learn, is to face a near extinction global ecological collapse.
We live in a car dependent society. It's never going to happen until we change our lifestyles. Make more side walks, bike lanes, transit systems, and dense housing
I am thinking about all that salt being put on top of the Arctic ice, by this method. When ice freezes under floating ice, the freezing produces ice that is much less salty than the sea water that is freezing. The excluded salt makes the cold sea, under the ice, more dense and helps the AMOC to take place. Snow, falling on top of Arctic ice is salt free, so makes even less salty ice than freezing sea water does. I worry that placing frozen salt water on top of the Arctic ice will make ice that melts at a colder temperature, earlier in summer than the less salty natural ice. And its more transparent, less white color than snow would also help sunlight to penetrate and melt it, earlier and faster.
This is an incredibly dynamic and extreme environment that most people can’t imagine. Movement of ice alone is incredibly powerful and destructive. If this program gets off the ground, I hope it can be successful. When I first heard of this a few years ago, I didn’t think it would actually work due to equipment failure and people underestimating the difficulty of having equipment installed through the ice during the entire winter. Perhaps I’m more optimistic now... or maybe more desperate.
So this will erase snow cover? If the snow melts out early in the season, the albedo will drop and we'll risk an ice sheet covered with salt water melt ponds. Those will absorb so much energy during arctic summer when the sun shines 24/7. We're trying to find comfort in pipe dreams while dragging our feet tackling real known issues underpinning this crisis.
I don't understand why this has to pump liquid water. Why couldn't it aerosolize the water so that it adds a layer of snow instead of just flooding the ice?
@@johnnada. they talk about it, but she didn't really say what is better to have on top, snow or ice. Unless I misunderstood, she only said that pouring water on top would remove snow and change the ecosystems. How it was brought up made it seem (at least to me) like they didn't want the sunlight getting through and starting the algae production earlier.
Adding snow reduced light penetrating the ice that algae depend on. The algae feed the fish which feed the people and animals that live in the Arctic. Adding water evidently doesn’t reduce the light. I think the water pump may also use less power than one that would aerosolize the water. My major question is how long can they run? A wind power source was mentioned, but I don’t recall it being on the surface based pumps, or the underwater drones. It’s potentially a lot to poke up through the ice
Truckers in the north use this auger technique on lake roads, drill holes, drive a big truck by it, downward force pushes water up top to freeze and voila, the ice road is thickened. But hey, they just simple men, so don’t listen to us.
0:13 when she's talking about the temperature differential between arctic and the rest of the planet the primary concern is the weakening of the Jetstream, not the AMOC. Jetstream disruptions is already having severe compacts on weather systems. It's responsible for many of the heatwaves and floods we've been seeing more recently.
The problem is the delta differential not the delta. Polar regions are increasing temperature faster than the other areas by about 3-50x depending on area. www.google.com/search?q=polar+regions+warming+50x+faster+than+equatorial+areas
You find yourself in a pit, you dug, stop digging! Reducing emissions is the way out of the pit. As much as these methods might work, reducing emissions is the important part.
It is a very good idea. Increase the depth of sea Ice in winter at both poles so we have stronger albedo in summer reflecting more of the suns energy back into space. We have a lot of heat trapped in our atmosphere so it will still melt, but the albedo will last longer. Until we stop abusing the earth’s resources it can only be a short term fix. The current attempts seem too little too late and there is not enough motivation in enough of the population to be confident that we can successfully overcome what is now a massive endeavour. Good luck everybody
It's amazing to me that humans can geo engineer the climate of the planet. However, with fossile fuels we've been geo engineering the planet for decades we just ignored it. $500B dollars is a drop in the bucket when you think of all the profits made by companies that spew CO2 into the atmosphere. There can be a tax on companies that contribute to CO2 to offset that cost.
You would likely need to have reverse osmosis filters on ocean water source to remove the salt before spraying the water into the air above the ice. This way no salt will be incorporated in the ice, just like the existing sea ice pushes the salt out of the ice crystals into the surrounding water as it forms.
@@patrickmorse7549 They didn't mention anything about removing salt. I think it would make it too cost prohibitive if they did. Maybe it will freeze anyway if it's cold enough. Either that or they filter out the salt, spray it and just dump the salt back into the ocean.
Yea we are all going to die because a video on TH-cam scares you. Dispute humans with almost no technology handling far dramatic changes in the past. Like sea level change of 60mm per year 14,500 years ago. Like a planet with a average global temperature 12 degrees colder about 50,000 years ago.
@@dbadagna Says who? The WHO say that the optimal temperature for humans is 22 degrees, currently the world average temperature is 15 degrees. More people die from the cold than the heat. Having heat is energy, having ice is having no energy. You can use heat to produce a cooler environment. You can't use a cooler environment to produce heat. It is basic thermodynamics. You lack comprehension on the subject.
I watched an interest video of something similar to your fixit demo above. It was in the Himalaya region where glaciers are melting fast. Using pumps to water ice pyramids to freeze in winter as a means to store water for summer use! Ingenuous!
Nature is the only way. Nature has power far beyond our capacities. Nature works only through interconnected and balanced systems. We need to keep working with nature, by stopping our pollution and restoring ecosystems. The growth of plants and the restoration of ecosystem balances are far quicker are more powerful agents of change than any single minded geoengineering tech we could devise or manage to deploy.
I agree. The problem of the controversy lies somewhere around the fact that these geoengineering fantasies disregard their positioning within the same system that has created these crises. There is no market solution to global eco-cide; the solution is to move away from using market logics to solve problems that those same logics create.
Best thing you can do as an individual is to switch to a plant based diet. Animal agriculture contributes to about 30% of GHG and is the number one cause of deforestation. Even just reducing the amount of beef you eat can significantly contribute to reduced emissions.
and the freezing temp of salt water is way lower than fresh water so i fear that without desalination, the new ice on the top will melt way more easily, which will then leak salt into the non-salty pre-existing ice, making the freezing temp of that lower, until more is melted than would have been without the pumps. I'm honestly shocked they didn't go into that at all
Ocean water freezes at about -1.5c to -3c depending on salt water content. There is not much difference from freshwater. Seawater ice has a higher Albedo than fresh water ice www.google.com/search?q=does+sea+ice+of+freshwater+ice+have+a+higher+albedo so is a greater aid to reducing warming.
Yes, any and all options should be on the table, but they need to be studied and used reasonably and safely - until humanity gets off poison petroleum based products.
Google a graph called ice melt phase change temperature vs time, the way ice melt works is most of the heating is offset by the extra ice melting then as soon as the ice is gone the heating manifests for real.
Sadly, it's too late for any of that; a new study (doi:10.1038/s41467-024-54508-3) published in Nature Communications predicts that the first ice-free day in the Arctic Ocean would occur within 3-6 years, potentially before 2030.
Funnily enough, we don't even have four years now. Climate clock says we have until that til 2 degrees, but we have reached 1.5 earlier than expected because science didn't measure clouds not forming enough.
If the AMOC shuts down completely, Northern Europe then becomes much colder. And methane entering the atmosphere would cause temporary heat spikes before rapidly disappearing. Maybe we put a damper on this "escape pods to other planets" talk
@@iwiffitthitotonacc4673 In no way was I attempting to make a connection between the separate issues of the AMOC and methane leaks. You've misinterpreted my comment.
The idea that “net zero” emissions will be our savior is misleading at best and irresponsible at worst. We know that the lag time for us to be able to measure the warming effect of increased greenhouse gas emissions is somewhere around 40 years. Effectively that means that today’s levels of emissions won’t be measurable until the mid 2060s. Time is not on our side and our perpetual head -in-sand strategy isn’t going to work. Seems like we have crossed several tipping point thresholds and are teetering on the brink of many more. I would love to be optimistic, but I’m struggling.
I can provide you with some optimism! How about we stop trying to switch to electricity and continue on with the cheap carbon based fuels. Then we save all that money up that we would have spent on converting to electricity. By time the sh1t starts to hit the fan we will have trillions upon trillions saved up to deal with the changes as they start to show. We would have the money to build sea walls to fight back rising sea levels Have the money to either rebuild or move people and infrastructure to places that are not getting flooded. We would have the money to move farming farther north or to buy new/different farming equipment for farmers who have to switch the crops they grow because the ones they used to do grow there any more. And money for so many other things to deal with the changes. If we take that approach we have our nest egg and are ready. And for people like me who don't think there will be this huge disaster, we have this huge surplus of money to spend on all sorts of things to help society. This idea of trying to stop it is just to ridiculous, because we won't be able to pull it off. Best to safe for the rainy day and be prepared to deal with it. If the rainy day never comes then we are even luckier. Even if the worst of the disasters happen, nature will adapt to the changes, it does every 100,000 years as the earth goes through ice age cycles. Humans have grown technologically enough so that we are also able to deal with the changes as well. This is optimism. This is how you fight back against the doom and gloom that is predicted. You don't try to fight it, you learn to deal with it.
@@ronrothrock7116are you fucken kidding me. Do you not comprehend how expensive that would be, how many people would die, that these events would deflate our fake money system, and that gas will run out with or without the climate crisis???? Gee are Americans and Europeans going to welcome all these refugees with open arms??!!! Like wtf fantasy land is this. There are no trillions of trillions of dollars left through oil. The whole world isn’t one big oil extraction economy. There are entire national economies that contribute to the global one without being direct players in oil. The damage will cause economic crises in equatorial, poor, and oil poor countries. Economic crises lead to people buying less and saving more. Those magical trillions you’re imagining start to become worth shit as our economies destabilize cause again money is fake! Those trillions can magically become today’s billions if our economies really go to shit. Which they will with immigration crisis, infrastructure failure, natural disasters, social unrest, and scarcity wars.
Nuclear and Trees. Trees and Nuclear... You can't even get the general population to pronounce nuclear properly. Some dictionaries are even giving the incorrect pronunciation. The outlook is seriously grim. I only hope our replacement species will be able to evolve quickly enough to survive the mess we just made.
I have cautious optimism for this specific Geoengineering method after reading Kim Stanley Robinson's Ministry For The Future (I highly recommend it; it's harrowing, enthralling, and enlightening). If the ~$10 billion claim is true, it's a no-brainer. Obviously the industrial and logistic challenges would be immense, but the fact remains that while we must first and foremost focus on stopping fossil fuels, we will also need to "manually" repair climate systems like sea ice if we don't want to wait centuries for some systems to snap back into balance on their own.
Yeah, definitely needs more research, but even the $500B price tag would be expensive but worth it to postpone total circulation collapse while we get our shit together. That's bank-bailout scale money, expensive, but doable, especially if it's split internationally. But for $5-10B? That's a steal. Bill Gates could fund that himself and not be seriously impacted. Regarding the snow-layer vs ice-layer thing, maybe there could be some way to aerate the pumped water so it freezes with bubbles in it so it then filters light more like snow than an ice cube. Also should include a way to filter the salt that would normally precipitate out when the ice freezes form below in order to preserve salinity levels.
You'd also need a small army of engineers to keep them running - mechanical maintenance, fuel/energy supply chain (even if electric someone has to keep the windmills running), pulling fish out of the water pipes, whatever. And then you have to figure out how to feed and house all those people.
Wouldn’t that speed up the Amok collapse ? You’re transferring the cold water to the top which means less of it will be at the bottom and that difference between the cold and warmer water - lessening the distance even a little would leave less pressure moving the water. Sounds like giving a blood pressure pill to lower blood pressure but at the end of the day it doesn’t cure the disease of heart failure or plaque buildups that cause heart disease
Nope, it'd be less than the naturally formed sea ice, at least until snow falls on it in a thick enough layer. However it would still reflect more solar radiation than ice-free water. Maybe the drones can help create snow as well to combat that issue
Powering/recharging the 500,000 Drones in arctic conditions seems a difficult issue ? Fields of black solar panels on the ice-sheet will negate/lessen the results of the drones.
solar wouldn't be feasible in the arctic, the drones would be run in winter with 24 hour nights. Wind is really the only renewable energy option for this
@@thepeaksandthetroughs Yea, I agree, powering that many drones will be the biggest challenge since it'll be difficult no matter what the proposal will be. I suppose the only plus is that the drones could return to a base where they're recharged, but then you need to worry about them running out of power or having their batteries freezing. Drones really are just an overly complicated solution to a problem that I think would be a lot easier solved with several large scale shore based radiators using IR cooling paints and cycling fluids through the radiators for maximum efficiency as I roughly outline in a separate comment here.
This idea is new to the region, but not new on a global scale. In Ladakh, India, experiments are under way with artificial glaciers. The #icestupa project.
Wow I'm a 50 yr. Alaskan .. ....live close to nature......haven't noticed much change at except the 2 week long winter cold snaps only last about a week or so.......cant complain about that.......
Mid-European here - our heatwaves went from 1 week spread apart to 3 weeks in a row. The soil is dry enough to reach 2 meters below, then the flooding season begins and it cannot absorb anything since it's rock hard
I think your channel putting out this information inspires people to make choices that are positively helping in this struggle. Thanks for staying positive amid this global issue. 🙏🏻
Why am I the only one who sees how AI robots don’t care about environmental issues. And let’s not pretend that they are replacing the frail, corrupt, and self destructive human meat puppets
The short version of this video could last 6 seconds. Title, 4 seconds: "Arctic warming is out of control. But we can fix it?" Answer, 2 seconds: "We can but we won't."
Sometimes I find it really frustrating watching this show because the focus is exclusively on climate change and carbon emissions without linking those AT ALL to our financial, political, and cultural institutions, and ecological overshoot writ large.
"As we RACE toward net zero?" You gotta be kidding. Most people are so stupid that they can't tell the difference between weather and climate. Let's face it. We're toast.
There’s a no let’s face it, facing it IS taking action. Fuck the pessimism. We have to keep going, even if the crisis gets worse what then? We’re gonna cry and stop everything we’re doing? Hell no. Life doesn’t stop. We keep going, that’s all we can do.
@@nayhboseguera1774 You mentioned that "pessimism" stops "everything we're doing." The sad truth is that we aren't really doing anything. We haven't even begun to fight. Most people expect science or some god will come and save us. Planting trees won't save us, Neither will electric vehicles, solar panels (etc). The crisis is much too severe and immediate. What we're dealing with is big business and big government. We have the best government $$$$ can buy and it's funded by the entrenched fossil fuel industry, the big Banks, insurance companies and Wall Street. We have to fight City Hall or we and our children are toast.
Has anyone considered the effect of 500,000 drones on the mammals and fish that live under the ice? What will happen to the whales? How will the walruses and seals react? And why the soft peddling of these absolutely urgent issues? You sound like you’re trying to convince a bunch of People of something that’s optional rather than stating absolute hard truth. Please consider the tone and ramp up the urgency.
If you disagree with their climate views, your post will be deleted. I have read several books, and countless studies on the subject of anthropogenic global warming. I developed a viewpoint that I can paste on other channels, but not this one. This speaks volumes, and proves this channel is about compliance not science.
@michaelcap9550 Censorship is only necessary when the science is unproven. Noone is censored for saying the earth is flat, because there is adequate science proving it isn't. People don't complain about disinformation, when someone claims the earth is flat.
What I have observed over the last two years is that white ice crystals normally glow in many different colors in the sun in winter. What colors for example red, green, blue, yellow, purple. It's crazy, a meadow with ice crystals glows colorfully like a Christmas tree in the sun after a cold night. The radiation can no longer leave the atmosphere even though there are no clouds. that is here in Germany. it may be different elsewhere. Best regards, perhaps you have made a similar observation?
Is it racing if you're moving backwards at increasing speed? Because CO2 emissions have been going up, not down, and that's before we factor in the melting permafrost which is happening and will very quickly double the current CO2 levels. We're already going extinct, we just don't know it yet.
The saving grace is that the way nature functions can act as a wave that will stop humanity in its tracks. The drag of course is that we will have to die. How to get on that track sooner than later will be the interesting part of the next period.
@@mrcujosoccer If we can avoid a nuclear apocalypse while civilization collapses, then some humans may survive 7M of sea level rise, the tropics becoming uninhabitable (36ºc kills humans even with unlimited water and shade), and a possible complete collapse of the ocean food web for decades to centuries (acidification of seawater could wipe the phytoplankton)
This is something that has been getting done on offshore oilfields in Alaska or decades. When the sea ice is thick enough it becomes storage for drill pipe. clean drill pipe before someone freaks out. To get it to freeze faster, and thicker, we pumped sea water on top of the ice in the area you want to use for storage. Its not a new concept. and if you go too far you will ground out the sea ice. Think about the impact that might have.
"There are huge non climate effects of carbon dioxide which are overwhelmingly favorable which are not taken into account. To me that's the main issue that the earth is actually growing greener. This has been actually measured from satellites the whole earth is growing greener as a result of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So it's increasing agricultural yields, it's increasing the forests, it's increasing all kinds of growth in the biological world and that's more important and more certain than the effects on climate." ~Freeman Dyson, Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey.
On one hand we have dooming marine and adjacent terrestrial artic ecosystems, on the other we have giving ourselves more time to hold oil companies responsible. I hate this world.
Meh, you just have to understand that all we are is a species of Great Ape. We are just doing what smart apes do. There is no reason to hate evolution. It just is.
Oil corporations are not responsible for the pollution that comes from the use of fossil fuel. Oil corporations exctract oil because we consume oil. A lot of it. Every single thing that we use or consume on a daily basis needed oil at multiple steps of its manufacturing and transportation process to exist. Your electricity most likely comes from fossil fuel as well. As most people in the world you might have a car powered by petrol as well. However, of course, oil corporations are responsible for the pollution that comes from the extraction of the oil itself and for oil spills.
Ever heard of the Bible prediction in the last days of the coming "Son of Perdition"? The word perdition means: a state of eternal punishment and damnation into which sinful and unrepentant person passes into after death. "Drill, drill, drill". Who said this recently? The prophecies of the eternal God WILL BE FULFILLED. JESUS CAME TO SAVE ALL MANKIND. Strive to enter in at the narrow gate, Wide is the way that leads to destruction, and many there be who enter in thereat. Narrow is the way that leads to life, and few there be that find it. Jesus did not come to judge the world, but His very coming judged the prince of this world. Jesus will accept ANYONE who comes to Him, and that person will be totally forgiven and will enter Heaven. Jesus is compassionate, merciful and accepts you with free grace. Jesus loves you so much that He died for you. NO ONE would DIE for you unless He was the one true Son of God. God bless every one who reads this!
You are doing a GREAT disservice by giving people false hope through technology. To think promoting technology-as-an-answer is a good approach to get people activated in building a REAL response than I give up on this channel.
What do I think?!? YOUR VIDEO IS NOT NATURE-INSPIRED, it is capitalism ~ business-as-usual inspired! First, your video started with a car ad (Kia), followed by the annoying baerskintactical ad, and then, an Adidas ad. It followed with a fake BC (Canada) cares about your addictions ad along with a Black Friday Wall Street Journal ad. Then, the video suddenly stopped playing and I lost my comment when I went to look for it again - luckily, I had done a recent copy of it! You say that Andrea Ceccolini has a "part nature" aspect to his business-plan, but let me guess, it does not include antinatalism because that would hurt business-as-usual (as we must still be politically-correct during an existential crisis) and too closely fit the definition of "Anthropocene?!?" :( PBS Terra, have you thought of maybe NOT being part of the problem when offering this easily digestible and incongruent false-hope?!? Stop with the geo-engineering already. Just focus on the flaws in so-called "human" thinking, as THIS is what explains the Anthropocene, not the lack of geo-engineering machinery and industry! Use condoms, get vasectomies and don't allow yourselves to get to the point where you need to advocate for abortion clinics in every neighbouhood because you are still too controlled (all demographics) by your hormones - as this only proves your lack of maturity for raising your own offspring! Asking people to use contraception is a lot, but seeing their children and grand-children living in environments that quickly approaches HELLISH landscapes while alive for decades is nothing compared to how hard it is to avoid pregnancies! :( Yes, the climate intervention of birth-control has an impact, it means that you will not need as big a house taking up valuable space among ecosystems, and also, you'll be in much less debt! Wow, what a horrible price to pay when you live by your credit-scores and care not about having trees and gardens to help maintain near your family-homes! HINT: There is NO RACE to a net-zero, this is only your species' misinformation...as even more recent evidence during this past month's various international forums! :( Let's build drones so that the villainous species causing the Anthropocene does not have to become uncomfortable accept for those working in mines and under-developed countries making parts for your drones! :( IF YOU ESTIMATE THE COST OF THE MITIGATION PROJECT IN MONEY, AGAIN, YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT OF PEOPLE-PRIMATES BEING THE VILLAINS DURING THIS ONGOING MASS-EXTINCTION! :( When the host said that this idea was promising, as an "Homo sapien," I started thinking that deadly viruses only harmful to our species was the only hope that I could think of! Indeed, as our species only ACCELERATES the Anthropocene, the only nature-based solution would come from the Biosphere and at no monetary-cost to LIFE whatsoever...IF YOU WILL PLEASE - and I speak for the Biosphere here - START CLEANING YOUR POLLUTION, compost your dead, AND DECOMMISSION YOUR NUCLEAR INDUSTRIES! You silly, SILLY, "Homo communia!" Professor-Marty. PS. When you say "America's" hottest city, you include the entire continent from north to south...Do you understand my use of the English-language here?!?
in my experience the biggest change people could make is fixing their thermostats to only kick in the heat at less then 55F and the cooling only if it goes over 85. also a great way of minimizing the utility bills. easily halved the bills at two different places this way. biggest issue is having to keep a close watch on hypothermia and heat exhaustion. turns out the medical professional around here don't even know nothing about the latter. two people nearly died of it yearly for several years and the doctors all came up empty as to the cause
This sounds like a better form of geoengineering than the atmosphere aerosol thing. At this point we need to use pretty much all the tools we have available.
@ I agree but can you honestly promise that all this will ever get better it’s only getting worse from here no more polar bears sea ice current stopping and earth freezing !!!
I would like to see a PBS Terra show on how much carbon is sequestered by sea grasses, mangrove estuaries, and kelp beds. I would like to see the show examine how much carbon we could sequester by increasing the quantity of those three approaches through human intervention. They could raise abalone and sea urchin roe. Winning.
Another great idea is to cover all of the glaciers around the world with a reflective fabric like teflon or tin foil or something and keep them from blowing away in the strong winds with rocks or something. (12:16 wasted)
Not on sea ice, nor lake glacier, because then no light passes through and you're sure to destroy the fragile balance of the arctic foodweb from algae to bears and orcas...
I like your well-rounded take on geoengineering! As you emphasize, this is not a replacement for renewables, but hopefully it will help. I only wonder how well you could automate the navigation and distribution of underwater drones en masse.
If you cant see that Geoengineering/Weather Warfare is in full use currently, and how "Climate Change" is a lie to cover up the effects of weaponized Geoengineering as being a natural occurance, then you need to wake up.
We needed to start this 500 years ago, instead of focusing on barely/uncontrolled growth. Planting a tree or 10 for every new birth would be a good start to reducing CO2 problems. Removing the excesses from society, and switching back to as many natural and organic methods as possible is a sustainable solution.
Technology used in ignorance of, or just plain ignoring of, consequent problems is why we are in major breach of six of the nine planetary boundaries. Let's see comprehensive, independent and transparent ecosphere impact assessments of all future tech before it is allowed out into the real biophysical world.
If all these smart people who are trying to slow down the problem started working on a real solution to the problem itself, no more CO2 emissions, then there might still be hope. The delaying solution mentioned here is not bad in itself, but if the real problem is not addressed, humanity as we know it will no longer exist in 2100.
Someone said the same about the ocean cleanup project, and they were wrong. Dedicated conscious effort in any field yields results when done intelligently
@@JaredWyns Those are 2 very different things to try to compare. One is literally cleaning up trash and restoring the environment to it's original state. The other is totally designed to eff up the environment by changing the ice to a different type and salty at that. Honestly I think that not only will this idea not work, but the salty ice they put on top will melt at lower temperatures and cause the sea ice melt much faster. This idea is very bad all around.
@@ronrothrock7116 Fair point on the salt, though I'd say as the goal is to help restore ice to levels in the 1970s the mindset in starting the project would be similar. In practice the final solution may be far different. A cursory look indicates that salt is expelled from the water during the freezing process so the salinity may not increase substantially. However if they did the drone & drill idea I could very much see that being a problem if there's nowhere for the salt to go, and obviously desalinating the water would be a similarly bad problem. As noted in the video the actual solve is to stop creating as much carbon dioxide, just like not having a garbage patch means to stop littering and making more trash. But as humanity is an environmentally incompetent species overall, left to it's own devices will result on global destruction so at the very least I'm glad to see someone trying to come up with practical solutions even if the execution looks different in the end
"We'll be the first society not to save ourselves because it is not cost effective", Kurt Vonnegut.
Or we might be the first society to advance technologically fast enough to adapt to the changes we are causing. I, personally, don't like doom and gloom predictions and would rather look at the optimistic possibilities that humans can achieve.
@@ronrothrock7116”advancing technologically” is just running away from the problems imho. Wouldn’t it be better to focus on the fact that the richest people in the world pollute exponentially more than the poorest and that industrial development which has made it possible for those people to pollute so much is the common benchmark for when the problems started?
@@xa1531 Doing that ignores all the benefits that those richest countries brings to the whole of humanity, not just the richest, but the poorest also. We cannot become Luddites. We must move forward, not backwards. To do that means lowering health, lifespans, workload efficiency and so on. When looking at solutions we must weigh all things involved, both good and bad, to do a proper risk/benefit analysis.
@@ronrothrock7116 People are not talking about becoming luddites, but not burning fossil fuels. We have many clean and cleanish sources of energy, but the oligarchy refuses to change.
@@martensjdwell that's because of the anti-nuclear nutters. Notice that they are the "environmentalist" movement, and that should tell you something very important.
Ridiculous...
I live in Alaska and have witnessed the change in climate. Nothing is going to stop what's coming. We keep looking for easy, feel good solutions, rather than addressing the actual problem. Unregulated capitalism and government corruption on a nearly global scale.
Yes! Our current capitalism first system is not going to allow anything to get fixed. We need to get AWAY from the oil barron countries as well.
I've lived in Alberta all my life. I'm 60. As a kid, the Rockies were snow capped all year. We had horrendous winters with many feet of snow. Never had large forest fires, never had smoke from them in the cities. Now the snow is gone in June, the little we get, and we choke on forest fire smoke every summer that makes Mumbai look like a picnic. Even with that, most oil-loving Albertans refuse to read the writing on the wall.
There are too many People on this Planet. We dont have enough resources to life well
@@joestrat2723 And yet ... Texberta and Duchess Smith are a BIG problem.
Go watch how civilization limits us from Adrewism
might be something you might like
Satellites have measured a slowdown of the AMOC, not “some people believe”
Well ya but every satellites haven't observed it. Checkmate.
@@TherealRTZ973 You're playing checkers.
Yeah... gonna have to press X to doubt that one. Too many variables to declare it is slowing down or, if it is, that the slowdown is abnormal.
@@TherealRTZ973 People who have been studying it for decades say it's slowing - it's at 50% the firstly measured idea.
Man what they fail to show. Is the scientist that have dissenting opinions!!
Hate that about government propaganda.
I can't believe we're discussing spending tens, likely hundreds of billions on such complicated and ridiculously hard (and risky) tasks that COULD slightly mitigate the warming, while governments are still throwing trillions in subsidies to the people that are putting us in this climate change situation in the first place.
Exactly! And will somebody please talk about the huge conflict of interest that is Musk running a "government efficiency department", while federal tax dollars are paying for his fucking outer-space lego projects?
I'm convinced the politicians are controlled by satanists who's primary interest on the planet is to maximize suffering. I'm not even joking.
satanists
It’s about the now and not the future. Sadly they don’t care or can’t see the future and since they aren’t in it they don’t care.
We are in 2024 and there are still people that think climate change is a hoax. Even though they can literally see the impacts of it in their backyard many times per year, wherever they are.
I mean, people voted for Trump, twice. This time around, they also voted for Musk. What do you expect? We live in a post-truth era, where anything you say is considered true, even if it's backed by absolutely nothing. We live in an era where your fEeLiNgS are more important than cold hard facts. If you feel like there is no climate change, why bother?
"Buy us more time as we race towards net zero."
Are we "racing" towards net zero? Or are we creeping so slowly that we're going to blow past all worst-case scenarios by the middle of this century?
what's the difference you're trying to articulate here?
Thats just doomerism. Maya is trying to inspire change by saying race. We need to be racing. Lets think of it as a race. We can win if we work hard. Lets not just ho hum, but bad things, but bad people. We can do it, its the most important thing we can do
If a fact sounds like doomerism.
We are doomed no?
We are racing towards the so-called deadline of so-called net zero.
We're not even heading to "net zero".
I feel like it happens often in these conversations that we forget that the problems we experience all around the world are rooted in a disregard for the value of life and that there are entire institutions devoted to extracting as much “wealth” in the form of things-bought-and-sold from the earth and all of its inhabitants; the institutionalized destruction of the diversity of life is not a topic that we can avoid for much longer. Algae are going to be affected whether there’s clear ice or no ice as are all of us human beings if we continue to allow economists to make decisions for us. Let’s talk about that
One glaring issue I see with all of these solutions is that it will require global cooperation, and with the way things are going, I just can't see that happening until it's too late
it's been too late for at least a decade.....get out go have some fun.
There’s another part of permafrost thaw: heavy metals like mercury, arsenic, etc in the water supply. It’s called acid rock drainage. You can see orange rivers on Google Earth in Alaska rn, with pH as low as 2.6!!
And Canada, and probably in Siberia.
@@andrenadeau4462 Andes too
Saw that😢😢😢
Tnx. Wonder why you are the one whom taught me this,, not all of the water documentaries on water I watch.
Yea, it looks like the earth is bleeding
I hate that we are now negotiating for more time 😡😤😠 Desire for money and unrealistic expectations of infinite growth are gonna end us all
I for one welcome an end to all this nonsense of temporary life on earth going after stupid dreams that can only end in tears. Generation after generation after generation.
Gotta negotiate more time for enough wealth to be extracted to insulate those with money from the repercussions of their actions/inactions
Infinite growth on a finite planet . It's a bit of a predicament, to say the least 🙄
Legit the like 0.1% of humans holding us back, need to instead be held accountable. That's all I'll say on TH-cam but man it really bothers me
@@MrSvenovitch Pessimistic Nihilism is for mugs.
as a species we aren't slowing our emissions we are slowing our growth in emissions....we aren't reducing....we are reducing the acceleration....but it nice to hear some people think we can solve our way out of it.
At least stopping the acceleration of the damage gives a constant problem to deal with not a logarithmic runaway disaster.
Paint all roofs white ?
Don't just paint them white, paint them with IR rejecting paint that can make the roofs cooler than ambient temperature!
No color anymore I want to paint it black
@@michaelmayhem350 The whole world is looking black ATM.
This might help with local climates...but on the global scale, that would probably only account for a miniscule percentage of the earths land area, let alone the full planet's area...
@@Ken_King it could still have a substantial impact on those local climates, considering how strong the urban heat island effect is. Reducing the demand for air conditioning would save huge amounts of energy
Soooo... we are now at the bargaining stage of grief? That's it? We've completely given up on doing what needs to be done because saving our species from extinction isn't profitable enough on the short term??
Actually, i like that point of view. It feels fair.
While I and many others love this channel and all the hard work you put into your videos, it's not reaching the people who need to see it. Here in Canada, the majority are science illiterate, and we have alternative media that’s gotten out of hand. One of those channels is called "True North" and they recently put out a video titled "Carbon dioxide is NOT WARMING the planet: Nuclear scientist". I think this channel should help the debunking community, as the channels that try to debunk the science misinformation/disinformation are quite small.
the world is controlled by satanism
Have they really thought through this idea of pumping salt water up to the surface of the ice? Normally the ice freezes on the underside at the same time as the salt leaves and sinks to the bottom! It is also what creates the circulation of sea water all over the world! Where salty heavier water sinks to the bottom.
Maybe it is possible to freeze the salt water, but it will melt earlier in the summer as it contains salt ;)
Interesting. Would this still be better than having no ice at all?
Since it's only a temporary and mitigating method it's definitely not a solve-all bullet. It's mostly about getting a bit more time, as the consequences of no arctic ice likely end up even worse.
It’s a terrible idea and the scale it would be needed to make a difference is many billions of dollars in infrastructure with unknown effects on the planet.
@@undertow2142 You say it's a terrible idea, but you also say the effects are unknown. So how do we know that it's a terrible idea? As to the issue of cost, it would certainly be less than the collective amount we are paying for climate change. At 10, 50, or even 100 billion per year it would be insignificant for the worlds' developed countries.
This approach was described in detail actually, in Ministry for the Future by Kim Stanley Robinson. It's a future in which we addressed climate change as a novel. All the nations with nuclear subs and carriers sent them to the poles to power a massive system of pumps and pipelines to spray water alllll over the pole in winter to let ice refreeze. The water came from beneath glaciers where it had been lubricating their slide into the ocean, solving another problem.
When I was travelling Europe, I was both impressed and saddened to see how much better they manage their forests, than we do in North America. But then I realized the reason for that being, they once completely destroyed all their forests. I guess the only way for us to learn, is to face a near extinction global ecological collapse.
We live in a car dependent society. It's never going to happen until we change our lifestyles. Make more side walks, bike lanes, transit systems, and dense housing
Data storage and AI are also gobbling up an ever-increasing amount of energy.
15 minute cities and small villages like they had 500 years ago worked for generations.
I am thinking about all that salt being put on top of the Arctic ice, by this method. When ice freezes under floating ice, the freezing produces ice that is much less salty than the sea water that is freezing. The excluded salt makes the cold sea, under the ice, more dense and helps the AMOC to take place. Snow, falling on top of Arctic ice is salt free, so makes even less salty ice than freezing sea water does. I worry that placing frozen salt water on top of the Arctic ice will make ice that melts at a colder temperature, earlier in summer than the less salty natural ice. And its more transparent, less white color than snow would also help sunlight to penetrate and melt it, earlier and faster.
This is an incredibly dynamic and extreme environment that most people can’t imagine. Movement of ice alone is incredibly powerful and destructive.
If this program gets off the ground, I hope it can be successful. When I first heard of this a few years ago, I didn’t think it would actually work due to equipment failure and people underestimating the difficulty of having equipment installed through the ice during the entire winter. Perhaps I’m more optimistic now... or maybe more desperate.
Why would you want destructive ice everywhere?
So this will erase snow cover? If the snow melts out early in the season, the albedo will drop and we'll risk an ice sheet covered with salt water melt ponds. Those will absorb so much energy during arctic summer when the sun shines 24/7. We're trying to find comfort in pipe dreams while dragging our feet tackling real known issues underpinning this crisis.
I don't understand why this has to pump liquid water. Why couldn't it aerosolize the water so that it adds a layer of snow instead of just flooding the ice?
9:32 talks about snow
@@johnnada. they talk about it, but she didn't really say what is better to have on top, snow or ice. Unless I misunderstood, she only said that pouring water on top would remove snow and change the ecosystems. How it was brought up made it seem (at least to me) like they didn't want the sunlight getting through and starting the algae production earlier.
Sea water would clog quickly spray nozzles
@@gopackgo933 lack of snow cover was framed as a negative, due to reduced albedo and increased transparency
Adding snow reduced light penetrating the ice that algae depend on. The algae feed the fish which feed the people and animals that live in the Arctic. Adding water evidently doesn’t reduce the light.
I think the water pump may also use less power than one that would aerosolize the water. My major question is how long can they run? A wind power source was mentioned, but I don’t recall it being on the surface based pumps, or the underwater drones. It’s potentially a lot to poke up through the ice
I try to control myself so as not to be too critical and hateful in comments on YT, but then I find videos like this...
I’ll join you. My comment: insanity!
Why in hot areas do we still make dark colored roofs, it’s not hard to make them and they help a lot with free cooling
Truckers in the north use this auger technique on lake roads, drill holes, drive a big truck by it, downward force pushes water up top to freeze and voila, the ice road is thickened. But hey, they just simple men, so don’t listen to us.
How many truckers are willing to drive their rigs out onto the Arctic Ocean? How much more CO2 will they be emitting in order to do so?
That’s fresh water.
0:13 when she's talking about the temperature differential between arctic and the rest of the planet the primary concern is the weakening of the Jetstream, not the AMOC. Jetstream disruptions is already having severe compacts on weather systems. It's responsible for many of the heatwaves and floods we've been seeing more recently.
The problem is the delta differential not the delta. Polar regions are increasing temperature faster than the other areas by about 3-50x depending on area. www.google.com/search?q=polar+regions+warming+50x+faster+than+equatorial+areas
I've heard that more, too. However, the cooling of the surface water in polar regions help drive the AMOC. So, with less cooling...
You find yourself in a pit, you dug, stop digging! Reducing emissions is the way out of the pit. As much as these methods might work, reducing emissions is the important part.
@@monkeyfist.348 Exactly, it hurts when I do this, then don't do this.
I propose we build a swarm of robots to continuously circulate around the top of the hole
It is a very good idea. Increase the depth of sea Ice in winter at both poles so we have stronger albedo in summer reflecting more of the suns energy back into space. We have a lot of heat trapped in our atmosphere so it will still melt, but the albedo will last longer. Until we stop abusing the earth’s resources it can only be a short term fix. The current attempts seem too little too late and there is not enough motivation in enough of the population to be confident that we can successfully overcome what is now a massive endeavour. Good luck everybody
It's amazing to me that humans can geo engineer the climate of the planet. However, with fossile fuels we've been geo engineering the planet for decades we just ignored it.
$500B dollars is a drop in the bucket when you think of all the profits made by companies that spew CO2 into the atmosphere. There can be a tax on companies that contribute to CO2 to offset that cost.
Trillions spent on space while our planet is in trouble.
@@sacredrain7757 And the knowledge we gained from space study has been enormously beneficial.
And those tax levies would be immediately deferred to the end consumer. The companies wouldn’t end up paying a dime.
You would likely need to have reverse osmosis filters on ocean water source to remove the salt before spraying the water into the air above the ice. This way no salt will be incorporated in the ice, just like the existing sea ice pushes the salt out of the ice crystals into the surrounding water as it forms.
@@patrickmorse7549 They didn't mention anything about removing salt. I think it would make it too cost prohibitive if they did. Maybe it will freeze anyway if it's cold enough. Either that or they filter out the salt, spray it and just dump the salt back into the ocean.
We're screwed.
You are BORN screwed! Now what? Stop complaining and do something…
Yea we are all going to die because a video on TH-cam scares you. Dispute humans with almost no technology handling far dramatic changes in the past. Like sea level change of 60mm per year 14,500 years ago. Like a planet with a average global temperature 12 degrees colder about 50,000 years ago.
@@AORD72 An icebox earth is easier to survive than a hothouse earth.
@@dbadagna Says who? The WHO say that the optimal temperature for humans is 22 degrees, currently the world average temperature is 15 degrees. More people die from the cold than the heat. Having heat is energy, having ice is having no energy. You can use heat to produce a cooler environment. You can't use a cooler environment to produce heat. It is basic thermodynamics. You lack comprehension on the subject.
And they wonder why people are choosing not to have children
My biggest contribution to the solution was getting my tubes tied.
The real reason is that the 1% hoard all the money and expect us to make a family with the scraps and no housing prospects
It's already too late. We are living thru an extinction level event right now. A slow march to our own demise.
Planetary hospice
Is it not the other way around when e tipping point is passed than there is a point of no return and the ice is gone!?
I'm from Phoenix and it was a huge wake-up call to me too when even the cactus started dying.
Is excessive UV is also factor?
I watched an interest video of something similar to your fixit demo above. It was in the Himalaya region where glaciers are melting fast. Using pumps to water ice pyramids to freeze in winter as a means to store water for summer use! Ingenuous!
ALL rooftops should be covered with solar panels.
Nature is the only way. Nature has power far beyond our capacities. Nature works only through interconnected and balanced systems. We need to keep working with nature, by stopping our pollution and restoring ecosystems. The growth of plants and the restoration of ecosystem balances are far quicker are more powerful agents of change than any single minded geoengineering tech we could devise or manage to deploy.
7 of 9 Planetary Boundaries are exceeded. Nature is suffering and weak
I agree. The problem of the controversy lies somewhere around the fact that these geoengineering fantasies disregard their positioning within the same system that has created these crises. There is no market solution to global eco-cide; the solution is to move away from using market logics to solve problems that those same logics create.
In other words we need to return a lot of rocks back to the Quarry
Best thing you can do as an individual is to switch to a plant based diet. Animal agriculture contributes to about 30% of GHG and is the number one cause of deforestation. Even just reducing the amount of beef you eat can significantly contribute to reduced emissions.
Reduce consumption to needs only, not wants and the problem disappears. House, vehicle, food, clothing needs reduce by 70% using this strategy.
Does it matter the sea water is salty? It can still freeze but it is different from ice formed from snow.
and the freezing temp of salt water is way lower than fresh water so i fear that without desalination, the new ice on the top will melt way more easily, which will then leak salt into the non-salty pre-existing ice, making the freezing temp of that lower, until more is melted than would have been without the pumps. I'm honestly shocked they didn't go into that at all
Ocean water freezes at about -1.5c to -3c depending on salt water content. There is not much difference from freshwater. Seawater ice has a higher Albedo than fresh water ice www.google.com/search?q=does+sea+ice+of+freshwater+ice+have+a+higher+albedo so is a greater aid to reducing warming.
Yes, any and all options should be on the table, but they need to be studied and used reasonably and safely - until humanity gets off poison petroleum based products.
Nuclear power is the only answer
Maya, absolutely! We'll take whatever we can get at this point!
Google a graph called ice melt phase change temperature vs time, the way ice melt works is most of the heating is offset by the extra ice melting then as soon as the ice is gone the heating manifests for real.
Sadly, it's too late for any of that; a new study (doi:10.1038/s41467-024-54508-3) published in Nature Communications predicts that the first ice-free day in the Arctic Ocean would occur within 3-6 years, potentially before 2030.
th-cam.com/video/kVOTPAxrrP4/w-d-xo.html
Geoengineering has been working so well for 50 years let’s ramp it up! What could possibly go wrong?
My point exactly! If you don't like what has happened so far, don't promote more of the same!
Ya, lets all ignore the sun blocking solar geoengineering that has been deployed for decades..
But, but, Dearest Smartest Bestest Leader says "DRILL BABY DRILL".
Y'all got TOOK. SUCKERS.
Wait four years... and then realize you must changed the nature of the discussion on a fundamental level.
Funnily enough, we don't even have four years now. Climate clock says we have until that til 2 degrees, but we have reached 1.5 earlier than expected because science didn't measure clouds not forming enough.
@@turkizno The difference between social and science
@@turkizno Over the past year some months were 1.6 and 1.7.
The only statistic that makes me hopeful about the planet’s future is the declining human birth rate globally.
The problem is capitalism not human beings
Animals will consume their habitat without predators to keep them in check.
If the AMOC shuts down completely, Northern Europe then becomes much colder. And methane entering the atmosphere would cause temporary heat spikes before rapidly disappearing. Maybe we put a damper on this "escape pods to other planets" talk
Northern Europe is a very small percentage of the surface of Earth.
You do realize that methane is coming from other places than northern Europe, right?
@@iwiffitthitotonacc4673 Yes, a wide swath of sparsely populated Siberia. Do you have a point?
@@snakebyteOne The AMOC collapsing won't make methane leaks stop in those locations, therefore it won't rapidly disappear.
@@iwiffitthitotonacc4673 In no way was I attempting to make a connection between the separate issues of the AMOC and methane leaks. You've misinterpreted my comment.
We're gonna fix it? We broke it!! We deserve whatever comes next
The idea that “net zero” emissions will be our savior is misleading at best and irresponsible at worst. We know that the lag time for us to be able to measure the warming effect of increased greenhouse gas emissions is somewhere around 40 years. Effectively that means that today’s levels of emissions won’t be measurable until the mid 2060s. Time is not on our side and our perpetual head -in-sand strategy isn’t going to work. Seems like we have crossed several tipping point thresholds and are teetering on the brink of many more. I would love to be optimistic, but I’m struggling.
I can provide you with some optimism! How about we stop trying to switch to electricity and continue on with the cheap carbon based fuels. Then we save all that money up that we would have spent on converting to electricity. By time the sh1t starts to hit the fan we will have trillions upon trillions saved up to deal with the changes as they start to show. We would have the money to build sea walls to fight back rising sea levels Have the money to either rebuild or move people and infrastructure to places that are not getting flooded. We would have the money to move farming farther north or to buy new/different farming equipment for farmers who have to switch the crops they grow because the ones they used to do grow there any more. And money for so many other things to deal with the changes.
If we take that approach we have our nest egg and are ready. And for people like me who don't think there will be this huge disaster, we have this huge surplus of money to spend on all sorts of things to help society. This idea of trying to stop it is just to ridiculous, because we won't be able to pull it off. Best to safe for the rainy day and be prepared to deal with it. If the rainy day never comes then we are even luckier. Even if the worst of the disasters happen, nature will adapt to the changes, it does every 100,000 years as the earth goes through ice age cycles. Humans have grown technologically enough so that we are also able to deal with the changes as well. This is optimism. This is how you fight back against the doom and gloom that is predicted. You don't try to fight it, you learn to deal with it.
@@ronrothrock7116are you fucken kidding me. Do you not comprehend how expensive that would be, how many people would die, that these events would deflate our fake money system, and that gas will run out with or without the climate crisis???? Gee are Americans and Europeans going to welcome all these refugees with open arms??!!! Like wtf fantasy land is this. There are no trillions of trillions of dollars left through oil. The whole world isn’t one big oil extraction economy. There are entire national economies that contribute to the global one without being direct players in oil. The damage will cause economic crises in equatorial, poor, and oil poor countries. Economic crises lead to people buying less and saving more. Those magical trillions you’re imagining start to become worth shit as our economies destabilize cause again money is fake! Those trillions can magically become today’s billions if our economies really go to shit. Which they will with immigration crisis, infrastructure failure, natural disasters, social unrest, and scarcity wars.
Nuclear and Trees. Trees and Nuclear... You can't even get the general population to pronounce nuclear properly. Some dictionaries are even giving the incorrect pronunciation. The outlook is seriously grim. I only hope our replacement species will be able to evolve quickly enough to survive the mess we just made.
According to ex president Bush it's pronounced nu-cu-lar.
Lets not confuse "can" with "will"
I asked Bob the builder if we could fix it and he said “No!” 😭
I have cautious optimism for this specific Geoengineering method after reading Kim Stanley Robinson's Ministry For The Future (I highly recommend it; it's harrowing, enthralling, and enlightening). If the ~$10 billion claim is true, it's a no-brainer.
Obviously the industrial and logistic challenges would be immense, but the fact remains that while we must first and foremost focus on stopping fossil fuels, we will also need to "manually" repair climate systems like sea ice if we don't want to wait centuries for some systems to snap back into balance on their own.
Yeah, definitely needs more research, but even the $500B price tag would be expensive but worth it to postpone total circulation collapse while we get our shit together. That's bank-bailout scale money, expensive, but doable, especially if it's split internationally. But for $5-10B? That's a steal. Bill Gates could fund that himself and not be seriously impacted.
Regarding the snow-layer vs ice-layer thing, maybe there could be some way to aerate the pumped water so it freezes with bubbles in it so it then filters light more like snow than an ice cube. Also should include a way to filter the salt that would normally precipitate out when the ice freezes form below in order to preserve salinity levels.
Every oil pumping station should pay for one water pump. It would be in their own interest.
That would take money out of their pocket.
What is the ecological cost for that many drones, though?
You'd also need a small army of engineers to keep them running - mechanical maintenance, fuel/energy supply chain (even if electric someone has to keep the windmills running), pulling fish out of the water pipes, whatever. And then you have to figure out how to feed and house all those people.
The CEA of Real Ice said in the video it'd still be nowhere near the ecological cost of losing the sea ice
Wouldn’t that speed up the Amok collapse ? You’re transferring the cold water to the top which means less of it will be at the bottom and that difference between the cold and warmer water - lessening the distance even a little would leave less pressure moving the water.
Sounds like giving a blood pressure pill to lower blood pressure but at the end of the day it doesn’t cure the disease of heart failure or plaque buildups that cause heart disease
Is the albedo of the "artificial" ice the same as floating ice?
Nope, it'd be less than the naturally formed sea ice, at least until snow falls on it in a thick enough layer. However it would still reflect more solar radiation than ice-free water. Maybe the drones can help create snow as well to combat that issue
It as all about the reflectivity of the ice.
The ice will be gone by the time they get funding and are ready to go at the scale they believe is required.
Powering/recharging the 500,000 Drones in arctic conditions seems a difficult issue ? Fields of black solar panels on the ice-sheet will negate/lessen the results of the drones.
Pretty sure the plan's to use wind, but that's still not without it's ecological impacts.
@@beskamir5977 I'm not sure about wind farms surviving the rigors of the Arctic's weather ? But maybe I'm wrong ?
Tidal power is a great option especially since strong tides are escalating in the Arctic Ocean
solar wouldn't be feasible in the arctic, the drones would be run in winter with 24 hour nights. Wind is really the only renewable energy option for this
@@thepeaksandthetroughs Yea, I agree, powering that many drones will be the biggest challenge since it'll be difficult no matter what the proposal will be. I suppose the only plus is that the drones could return to a base where they're recharged, but then you need to worry about them running out of power or having their batteries freezing.
Drones really are just an overly complicated solution to a problem that I think would be a lot easier solved with several large scale shore based radiators using IR cooling paints and cycling fluids through the radiators for maximum efficiency as I roughly outline in a separate comment here.
very good. Maiya, i was surprised to learn recently that you studied to be a weathercaster! (i believe?) good to know a bit about you :)
This idea is new to the region, but not new on a global scale. In Ladakh, India, experiments are under way with artificial glaciers. The #icestupa project.
Wow I'm a 50 yr. Alaskan .. ....live close to nature......haven't noticed much change at except the 2 week long winter cold snaps only last about a week or so.......cant complain about that.......
Mid-European here - our heatwaves went from 1 week spread apart to 3 weeks in a row. The soil is dry enough to reach 2 meters below, then the flooding season begins and it cannot absorb anything since it's rock hard
We will fucking pay for what we have done to this planet.
I think your channel putting out this information inspires people to make choices that are positively helping in this struggle. Thanks for staying positive amid this global issue. 🙏🏻
Why am I the only one who sees how AI robots don’t care about environmental issues. And let’s not pretend that they are replacing the frail, corrupt, and self destructive human meat puppets
It's worth looking further into in addition to other solutions.
No it is not. Humans are bad for the planet
impressive
stupidity...
I *love* this! Get on it!
The short version of this video could last 6 seconds. Title, 4 seconds: "Arctic warming is out of control. But we can fix it?" Answer, 2 seconds: "We can but we won't."
Sometimes I find it really frustrating watching this show because the focus is exclusively on climate change and carbon emissions without linking those AT ALL to our financial, political, and cultural institutions, and ecological overshoot writ large.
Like… where is the financial backing going to come from for a project like re-freezing the Arctic when there is ZERO return on investment?
Yeah I'm thinking that's the whole point of the channel
"As we RACE toward net zero?" You gotta be kidding. Most people are so stupid that they can't tell the difference between weather and climate. Let's face it. We're toast.
There’s a no let’s face it, facing it IS taking action. Fuck the pessimism. We have to keep going, even if the crisis gets worse what then? We’re gonna cry and stop everything we’re doing? Hell no. Life doesn’t stop. We keep going, that’s all we can do.
@@nayhboseguera1774 You mentioned that "pessimism" stops "everything we're doing." The sad truth is that we aren't really doing anything. We haven't even begun to fight. Most people expect science or some god will come and save us. Planting trees won't save us, Neither will electric vehicles, solar panels (etc). The crisis is much too severe and immediate.
What we're dealing with is big business and big government. We have the best government $$$$ can buy and it's funded by the entrenched fossil fuel industry, the big Banks, insurance companies and Wall Street. We have to fight City Hall or we and our children are toast.
I thought of this decades ago. Didnt think it would be affective, But hey worth a shot.
No we won't so anything. We're completely toast.
@@TheDoomWizard 🤣
@@OldScientist🤣
Has anyone considered the effect of 500,000 drones on the mammals and fish that live under the ice? What will happen to the whales? How will the walruses and seals react? And why the soft peddling of these absolutely urgent issues? You sound like you’re trying to convince a bunch of People of something that’s optional rather than stating absolute hard truth. Please consider the tone and ramp up the urgency.
If you disagree with their climate views, your post will be deleted. I have read several books, and countless studies on the subject of anthropogenic global warming. I developed a viewpoint that I can paste on other channels, but not this one. This speaks volumes, and proves this channel is about compliance not science.
Al Gore is a YT censor?
@michaelcap9550 Censorship is only necessary when the science is unproven. Noone is censored for saying the earth is flat, because there is adequate science proving it isn't. People don't complain about disinformation, when someone claims the earth is flat.
What I have observed over the last two years is that white ice crystals normally glow in many different colors in the sun in winter. What colors for example red, green, blue, yellow, purple.
It's crazy, a meadow with ice crystals glows colorfully like a Christmas tree in the sun after a cold night. The radiation can no longer leave the atmosphere even though there are no clouds. that is here in Germany. it may be different elsewhere.
Best regards, perhaps you have made a similar observation?
Is it racing if you're moving backwards at increasing speed? Because CO2 emissions have been going up, not down, and that's before we factor in the melting permafrost which is happening and will very quickly double the current CO2 levels. We're already going extinct, we just don't know it yet.
The saving grace is that the way nature functions can act as a wave that will stop humanity in its tracks. The drag of course is that we will have to die. How to get on that track sooner than later will be the interesting part of the next period.
Climate change is not an extinction level threat for humanity. Other animals, yes, but not humans.
@@mrcujosoccer If we can avoid a nuclear apocalypse while civilization collapses, then some humans may survive 7M of sea level rise, the tropics becoming uninhabitable (36ºc kills humans even with unlimited water and shade), and a possible complete collapse of the ocean food web for decades to centuries (acidification of seawater could wipe the phytoplankton)
"Net zero" isn't zero.
@@ryuuguu01 What will happen to the unattended reactors at the world's 400+ nuclear power plants in such an event?
This is something that has been getting done on offshore oilfields in Alaska or decades. When the sea ice is thick enough it becomes storage for drill pipe. clean drill pipe before someone freaks out. To get it to freeze faster, and thicker, we pumped sea water on top of the ice in the area you want to use for storage. Its not a new concept. and if you go too far you will ground out the sea ice. Think about the impact that might have.
1:41 😂 yeh race hahaha but we are going the wrong direction lol increasing emissions. get real
This is a kernel of an idea that might require outside of the box combinations of tech to work in time.
"There are huge non climate effects of carbon dioxide which are overwhelmingly favorable which are not taken into account. To me that's the main issue that the earth is actually growing greener. This has been actually measured from satellites the whole earth is growing greener as a result of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So it's increasing agricultural yields, it's increasing the forests, it's increasing all kinds of growth in the biological world and that's more important and more certain than the effects on climate." ~Freeman Dyson, Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey.
This happened also in 1000 B.C., there was 25 degrees summer temperatures on the ice-free North Pole
On one hand we have dooming marine and adjacent terrestrial artic ecosystems, on the other we have giving ourselves more time to hold oil companies responsible. I hate this world.
Meh, you just have to understand that all we are is a species of Great Ape. We are just doing what smart apes do. There is no reason to hate evolution. It just is.
@@shakeyj4523 but this smart ape just voted for death
Oil corporations are not responsible for the pollution that comes from the use of fossil fuel.
Oil corporations exctract oil because we consume oil. A lot of it. Every single thing that we use or consume on a daily basis needed oil at multiple steps of its manufacturing and transportation process to exist. Your electricity most likely comes from fossil fuel as well. As most people in the world you might have a car powered by petrol as well.
However, of course, oil corporations are responsible for the pollution that comes from the extraction of the oil itself and for oil spills.
@@PatG-xd8qn I've read some dumb comments, but yours is in the top 5.
@@shakeyj4523 The simple fact that you have nothing more intelligent to say to prove me wrong actually proves that I'm right.
As Rockström puts it, the land matters. Land use has always been integral to climate change.
Dont worry Trump will make a Deal with earth making it stop warm and make the moon pay for it...
Aka we're doomed
😂😂😂😂😂…😢
Ever heard of the Bible prediction in the last days of the coming "Son of Perdition"? The word perdition means: a state of eternal punishment and damnation into which sinful and unrepentant person passes into after death. "Drill, drill, drill". Who said this recently? The prophecies of the eternal God WILL BE FULFILLED. JESUS CAME TO SAVE ALL MANKIND. Strive to enter in at the narrow gate, Wide is the way that leads to destruction, and many there be who enter in thereat. Narrow is the way that leads to life, and few there be that find it. Jesus did not come to judge the world, but His very coming judged the prince of this world. Jesus will accept ANYONE who comes to Him, and that person will be totally forgiven and will enter Heaven. Jesus is compassionate, merciful and accepts you with free grace. Jesus loves you so much that He died for you. NO ONE would DIE for you unless He was the one true Son of God. God bless every one who reads this!
You are doing a GREAT disservice by giving people false hope through technology. To think promoting technology-as-an-answer is a good approach to get people activated in building a REAL response than I give up on this channel.
PArtial use of technology can help, the main problem is overconsumption, overgrowth, and greed.
What do I think?!?
YOUR VIDEO IS NOT NATURE-INSPIRED, it is capitalism ~ business-as-usual inspired!
First, your video started with a car ad (Kia), followed by the annoying baerskintactical ad, and then, an Adidas ad. It followed with a fake BC (Canada) cares about your addictions ad along with a Black Friday Wall Street Journal ad.
Then, the video suddenly stopped playing and I lost my comment when I went to look for it again - luckily, I had done a recent copy of it!
You say that Andrea Ceccolini has a "part nature" aspect to his business-plan, but let me guess, it does not include antinatalism because that would hurt business-as-usual (as we must still be politically-correct during an existential crisis) and too closely fit the definition of "Anthropocene?!?" :(
PBS Terra, have you thought of maybe NOT being part of the problem when offering this easily digestible and incongruent false-hope?!? Stop with the geo-engineering already. Just focus on the flaws in so-called "human" thinking, as THIS is what explains the Anthropocene, not the lack of geo-engineering machinery and industry!
Use condoms, get vasectomies and don't allow yourselves to get to the point where you need to advocate for abortion clinics in every neighbouhood because you are still too controlled (all demographics) by your hormones - as this only proves your lack of maturity for raising your own offspring!
Asking people to use contraception is a lot, but seeing their children and grand-children living in environments that quickly approaches HELLISH landscapes while alive for decades is nothing compared to how hard it is to avoid pregnancies! :(
Yes, the climate intervention of birth-control has an impact, it means that you will not need as big a house taking up valuable space among ecosystems, and also, you'll be in much less debt! Wow, what a horrible price to pay when you live by your credit-scores and care not about having trees and gardens to help maintain near your family-homes!
HINT: There is NO RACE to a net-zero, this is only your species' misinformation...as even more recent evidence during this past month's various international forums! :(
Let's build drones so that the villainous species causing the Anthropocene does not have to become uncomfortable accept for those working in mines and under-developed countries making parts for your drones! :(
IF YOU ESTIMATE THE COST OF THE MITIGATION PROJECT IN MONEY, AGAIN, YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT OF PEOPLE-PRIMATES BEING THE VILLAINS DURING THIS ONGOING MASS-EXTINCTION! :(
When the host said that this idea was promising, as an "Homo sapien," I started thinking that deadly viruses only harmful to our species was the only hope that I could think of!
Indeed, as our species only ACCELERATES the Anthropocene, the only nature-based solution would come from the Biosphere and at no monetary-cost to LIFE whatsoever...IF YOU WILL PLEASE - and I speak for the Biosphere here - START CLEANING YOUR POLLUTION, compost your dead, AND DECOMMISSION YOUR NUCLEAR INDUSTRIES!
You silly, SILLY, "Homo communia!"
Professor-Marty.
PS. When you say "America's" hottest city, you include the entire continent from north to south...Do you understand my use of the English-language here?!?
in my experience the biggest change people could make is fixing their thermostats to only kick in the heat at less then 55F and the cooling only if it goes over 85. also a great way of minimizing the utility bills. easily halved the bills at two different places this way. biggest issue is having to keep a close watch on hypothermia and heat exhaustion. turns out the medical professional around here don't even know nothing about the latter. two people nearly died of it yearly for several years and the doctors all came up empty as to the cause
@1:40 "Race towards net zero" is this a comedy show?
This sounds like a better form of geoengineering than the atmosphere aerosol thing.
At this point we need to use pretty much all the tools we have available.
It's funny that the music is all "rush rush rush", when we're already too late. It should be funeral music.
Exactly I appreciate there hope but at this point it far too lately most have accepted what’s too come
While I agree, I will also say that hope is the one thing which should never be abandoned.
@ I agree but can you honestly promise that all this will ever get better it’s only getting worse from here no more polar bears sea ice current stopping and earth freezing !!!
We should have done this decades ago
Battling a changing climate is different from confronting a Climate Catastrophe
I would like to see a PBS Terra show on how much carbon is sequestered by sea grasses, mangrove estuaries, and kelp beds. I would like to see the show examine how much carbon we could sequester by increasing the quantity of those three approaches through human intervention. They could raise abalone and sea urchin roe. Winning.
Another great idea is to cover all of the glaciers around the world with a reflective fabric like teflon or tin foil or something and keep them from blowing away in the strong winds with rocks or something. (12:16 wasted)
Not on sea ice, nor lake glacier, because then no light passes through and you're sure to destroy the fragile balance of the arctic foodweb from algae to bears and orcas...
Better to cover the non snow areas with reflective material (even light colured plants) has a greater net effect.
I like your well-rounded take on geoengineering! As you emphasize, this is not a replacement for renewables, but hopefully it will help. I only wonder how well you could automate the navigation and distribution of underwater drones en masse.
If you cant see that Geoengineering/Weather Warfare is in full use currently, and how "Climate Change" is a lie to cover up the effects of weaponized Geoengineering as being a natural occurance, then you need to wake up.
We need to start this now.
Never going to happen
@@hackedbyBLAGH Then were all just screwed.
We needed to start this 500 years ago, instead of focusing on barely/uncontrolled growth. Planting a tree or 10 for every new birth would be a good start to reducing CO2 problems. Removing the excesses from society, and switching back to as many natural and organic methods as possible is a sustainable solution.
@ it’s like planting a tree the best time is 20 years ago the second best time is now.
Technology used in ignorance of, or just plain ignoring of, consequent problems is why we are in major breach of six of the nine planetary boundaries. Let's see comprehensive, independent and transparent ecosphere impact assessments of all future tech before it is allowed out into the real biophysical world.
If all these smart people who are trying to slow down the problem started working on a real solution to the problem itself, no more CO2 emissions, then there might still be hope. The delaying solution mentioned here is not bad in itself, but if the real problem is not addressed, humanity as we know it will no longer exist in 2100.
it warms and it cools just like throughout history. There is time lapse pictures showing this over the years.
This guy's going to make a fortune.. It's obviously not going to work but that's one way to make money.
Someone said the same about the ocean cleanup project, and they were wrong.
Dedicated conscious effort in any field yields results when done intelligently
@@JaredWyns Those are 2 very different things to try to compare. One is literally cleaning up trash and restoring the environment to it's original state. The other is totally designed to eff up the environment by changing the ice to a different type and salty at that. Honestly I think that not only will this idea not work, but the salty ice they put on top will melt at lower temperatures and cause the sea ice melt much faster. This idea is very bad all around.
@@ronrothrock7116 Fair point on the salt, though I'd say as the goal is to help restore ice to levels in the 1970s the mindset in starting the project would be similar. In practice the final solution may be far different.
A cursory look indicates that salt is expelled from the water during the freezing process so the salinity may not increase substantially. However if they did the drone & drill idea I could very much see that being a problem if there's nowhere for the salt to go, and obviously desalinating the water would be a similarly bad problem.
As noted in the video the actual solve is to stop creating as much carbon dioxide, just like not having a garbage patch means to stop littering and making more trash.
But as humanity is an environmentally incompetent species overall, left to it's own devices will result on global destruction so at the very least I'm glad to see someone trying to come up with practical solutions even if the execution looks different in the end
Best news I've heard for years.