This film is an honest attempt at unpacking the ever contentious world of Solar Radiation Management — a set of proposals to counter global warming by reflecting sunlight back into space.
A big thank you to my awesome guests:
– David Keith (Professor of Applied Physics at the Harvard)
– Zeke Hausfather (Climate Lead @Stripe)
– Jesse Reynolds (Executive Secretary, Climate Overshoot Commission)
Though this may be a brief departure from Carbon Removal I believe understanding SRM further bolsters the case for Carbon Removal as well as reminding us of the utter urgency for massive emissions reductions.
source
Thanks for making this. Found it through Zeke's twitter. I hope more people sees it, as it's clearly something we need to consider having in our arsenal just in case of a worst-case-scenario.
The Earth is cooler w the atmos/GHGs/albedo not warmer.
To perform as advertised the GHGs require "extra" energy upwelling from the surface radiating as a black body.
The kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmos molecules render that scenario impossible.
No greenhouse effect, no GHG heating, no ma /CO2 driven climate change or Gorebal warming.
Another incredible, well produced video mate
You certainly found three of the most knowledgeable people to talk about this subject. Great work. Love the animations.
Global warming will be used to usher in the replacement for both communism and capitalism. The Third way blending of the two is called communitarianism. This new form global of governance was alluded to by a attorney Ana Marie Huber at the six hour long 2017 Harvard Solar Radiation Forum. Available on Youtube.
An estimate of the climate problem from the Hadley Centre is that we are retaining 1.7 watts per square metre more that we should. The mean 24-hour solar input is 340 watts per square metre so increasing the reflectivity of the earth by only 0.5% would solve the problem.
Cloud reflectivity is between 25% and 75%. Low-level clouds cover about 18% of the oceans. Twomey showed that reflectivity depends on the size distribution of drops. For the same liquid water content, lots of small drops reflect more than a smaller number of bigger ones. Doubling the drop number increases reflectivity by a bit over 5%.
Drop formation needs some form of seed called a condensation nucleus. These are plentiful over land but scarce in clean mid-ocean air. Latham suggested that salt residues from the evaporation of a submicron spray of filtered sea water would provide extra nuclei and so brighter clouds. Nuclei would be spread by turbulence in the marine boundary layer. He was surprised at how little spray would be needed to return to preindustrial temperatures. The solar energy reflected by a cloud drop is many millions of times more than the surface tension energy needed to make the nucleus on which it grew. Nuclei would be washed out by the next rain so, depending on how well we can forecast wind speed and direction a few days ahead, we have high-frequency low phase-lag control of cooling by region and season.
Design of wind-driven spray vessels is nearly complete. Initial cost estimates for a world fleet to moderate typhoons and reverse sea level rise, based on index-linking the 1940 cost of corvettes and present-day earth moving machinery, are about half that of the recent sale of Chelsea Football Club.
How do you silence a climate change alarmist? Ask them this question: What is the proper amount of atmospheric CO2…They have no answer.
First it was air pollution, then it was global warming, now it’s climate change. In the ’70’s air pollution was going to blot out the sun and put us into an ice age and mass starvation. We were also going to run out of oil. Many claims were made by the (well funded) “experts” that never happened.
Then the (well funded) “expert” climate watchdogs transitioned into frightening claims about global warming. They ignored climate history showing warmer global temperatures before the industrial age showing no human cause and effect to temperatures but never the less tried to convince us with their inaccurate computer predictions.
Now we have (well funded) “experts” telling us the weather system is broken and using the term “climate change” to prove it. What did climate do before it changed?
Here’s the problem as I see it. Humanity has been subjected to over fifty years of (well funded) “expert” claims that didn’t happen. Have any of those spewing lies ever been held accountable? No. They continue on (well funded) unabated.
Here’s where I think this whole scene needs to go. Funding stops until claims are specifically defined, measured and verified, the climate change alarmists must describe exactly what is wrong with the climate, how they know that, can prove it with verifiable testing (isn’t that how real science works?) before humanity is deprived of the many benefits of fossil fuel just because they say so.
Have they said what the proper amount of atmospheric CO2 should be? No. How will they prove the number they decide on will fix climate change? How will anyone know when climate change has been fixed?
There seems to be no scientific method at work here only assumptions, emotional warnings and ultimatums. Could billions of dollars in grant money prompt someone to say something they don’t really believe and can’t prove?
Folks there are too many unanswered questions to take any of this seriously.