Dr. Gilbert herself has said we're looking at major sea level rise within 5-10 years when Thwaites is likely to collapse. I'm not sure why you chose to frame it as an issue for the end of the century.
Climate changes are all Human caused. We already "tampered" with our environment in self-destructive ways and have now become "the" endangered species. Why can't Humans take responsibility for this mess instead of continuing to have more babies and use more petroleum?
@@verafleck I refuse to surrender to Climate catastrophe. I have some grandkids on this Planet, and, I like Humans. Well, most of them. 😊 The WAR Mongers aren't my favorites, obviously.
Honestly the idea of the sea curtain is not practical at all and might actually have opposite effects on the climate. The curtain would obstruct sea currents, which cycles the oceans. The ice in the poles act as an enormous refrigerator to cool down these sea currents, and having a curtain blocking that behavior might actually cause more heatwaves.
No one is suggesting blocking of the entirety of the polar ocean. Just the areas where the ice sheets most prone to collapse meet the sea. "Only" a few hundred miles of barriers.
@@Meloncov Thanks for clarification. Though, in my opinion this kind of project needs research time and money to be proven harmless or have low impact on the environment. I would argue that this time and money might actually be better spent in renewable energy making it cheaper and more competitive… I don’t oppose geoengineering in general, but i think the issue needs to be solved at it’s roots and having lower imitations…
My bet is on the volcanoes deciding everything. There are 48 volcanoes in Antarctica and only 2 of them are active. Clearly if you put loads of pressure on top of a volcano (for example by covering the land with ice that is a couple of miles thick), then the land will be pressed down and the lava doesn't move much. So if suddenly there is less weight resting on top of the volcanoes to lava would be more free to move to the surface. When the lava makes it to the surface an enormous amount of ice will melt, resulting in a sudden increase in the amount of lava moving to the surface, and more ice melting. Also the ice hundreds of miles away from the volcano will be covered in black volcanic ash, so that ice will heat up in the summer sun shine. Also if you have lava heating water and there is suddenly a river of hot water traveling to the sea then everywhere between the volcano and the sea will experience ice melting. I think the volcanoes will win.
@@richardcowley4087 mankind is not in control of the climate, like a driver is not in control when they crash their car. Mankind is responsible for emitting too much CO2, which is directly changing the climate many thousands of times faster than it naturally changes.
quick, lets think of a hypothetical volcanic disaster, like in films, instead addressing the damage we are causing to our habitat and which is making the production of food in this planet so much more unpredictable.
i love that society at large will do anything except stopping fossil fuel use. like, we'll wrap a continent of ice with a skirt before being told to eat less meat or keep our AC a bit higher.
We love Climate Adam! DW is awesome as well I'm subscribed to both!! Everything in our natural world can be explained with science math and physics.. teach your children well and VOTE.
unless of course we start to see a global cooling and then we'll be headed for another ice age, and we'll be forced to admit that climate change has been going on LOOOOONG before humans were here!
You should do it! The project should be funded by the biggest polluters. Because it is simply their mess. And the same goes for many other projects for saving the environment.
Going after climate change with renewable resources is geoengineering. We are trying to reverse the current trends of the climate with the solution that is least likely to fail. It is geoengineering. It is not a distraction. It's exactly what we are doing now. To convince the conspiracy theorists you could have used actual ice and water. The current is a good example for what was described. A timelapse of the actual process happening on a small scale would be a big help in strengthening the claims.
@@richardcowley4087 There's enough being said in scientific circles about the interruption of currents and tides which is HOW the ocean cools itself. I think it's a valid statement. 🤷
I think yes, but i think there was a documentary somewhere that calculated that we don’t even have the natural resources to build such a thing. Someone please correct me if this is wrong
If you block the sun over a large area, this area will be permanently coolder than before while areas around it will still experience a day/night cycle, so there can be rather dramatic changes in air currents in the souther hemisphere affecting weather far and wide around the world.
Isn’t it possible for battery cars companies to exchange fossil fuel driven cars with battery driven cars from those who own cars? I mean if it is possible, it would be a great solution to overcome global warming.
Cutting our emissions and getting serious about employing techniques to reabsorb CO2 (rather than our governments/scientists talking about them all the time) - is obviously the best thing to do. Although I don't like the idea of geo-engineering, because of probably unexpected consequences, I think we've left it all too late to avoid needing to use them in the short term.
Carbon dioxide is actually a minor player, but governments like to talk it up. Methane is far more important but we have little control of its production. Ants and Termites produce huge amounts and it come naturally from the breakdown of organic matter. Water vapour is actually the most important gas but who wants to get rid of it? Clouds and emissions from politicians mouths?
From what I’ve seen, carbon capture is a pipe dream. Think about how easy it is to burn gasoline vs gathering the dispersed CO2 and returning it chemically into a non gaseous form. By law of thermodynamics, it is so unfeasible to bring carbon capture up to the scale that we burn fossil fuel since it requires more energy to capture than to burn in the first place. Where’s that energy going to come from?!! This is all to say we absolutely must put our strongest efforts into reducing burning fossil fuels first, and not let fossil fuel companies make you think we can just “offset” carbon emissions through carbon capture. Cuz I’ll tell you now, there’s nowhere near the amount of carbon capture happening to offset fossil fuel burning
@@chadmackie3438 true but at this point I think every little bit will help, although, the resources/funding spent developing carbon capture technology could arguably be used in far better ways to help reign in global Co2 levels.
Why do you want to get rid of co2?? its the gas of life and without it there would be no life on earth . Its a nutrient NOT a pollutant and all life on earth benefits from more of it go do some proper research and I dont mean the IPCC try independent scientists like Dr Robert Holmes, Roy Spencer, Patrick Moore etc
If we can reduce the parking lots land use by 80% by making parking garages cover them in living vines and have solar on top. All the new freed up land can have trees flower's and places for people to rest there feet in the cool shade and not the heat. This will prompt people to walk more and not drive for it will be a nice walk not a burning hot one.
Have you ever been to the United States? We need cars to do virtually everything. Every community would have to be destroyed and redesigned. Can't happen.
@@christopherd6399 um I do and it was designed for people walking then we redesigned it for the car. Also I'm talking about the big parking lots like the ones Walmart has and bigger and these places make billions every year they can afford it.
scariest part is that the oceans still haven't realized the rise of air temperature that already happened. I'm afraid that we won't have to wait the end of the century to see a lot of catastrophic events due to global warming
@@kiranraveendran2437 it probably won’t be extinct level event but definitely a huge loss of life all the natural disasters will kill off a good portion and the rest will survive off a mostly non electrical civilization for awhile
Says who ? The scientists who depend on their funding and wealth to promote this. Climate change is a natural phenomenon, it happens. The sun affects significantly what happens on earth. At one time earth was 8C warmer than today and life still existed. Storms occur , they have through all time, lands flooded or swept away , there is nothing man can do to mitigate the consequences irrespective of what they do. Any single event is just weather, unless it suits the scientists demand
I don't think we should geo engineer anything on this scale in such critical time restraints when the source of the issue could be terminated. Those in control of fossil fuels being extracted and implemented will use it as an excuse to do more of the same. You can absolutely be sure they'll even invest in these projects as a way to deflect from scrutiny or punitive legislation. My opinion: Fix it at the source.
1- Build more nuclear (micro, modular, and breeder reactors). 2- Switch from fossil fuels. 3- Prepare at-risk coastal nations for trouble. 4- Plan for ocean temperature and current changes. As a species, we'll get through this... but we need modern, small scale nuclear now. Sadly, I think that requires a die-off of the soviet-era generation who stand in the way due to obsolete fears.
To be clear, the 63 m SLR mentioned at 1:29 & Dorthe would be over 5,000 to 15,000 years under any feasible scenario. It took a few million years to build to that amount so 5,000 to 15,000 years is super duper fast.
We could add a reflective or white curtain on top of the water or a white color to the water to keep the water from heating up as much and allow it to be cooler to freeze easier
Maybe a cheaper, easier solution might be to fertilize plankton, alga, and so on in the World's oceans? There are a couple of clips on RU-vid about this. I've heard about some fairly inexpensive experiments done in the Antarctic Ocean, where there was iron oxide (rust) applied during its summer, and ka-ching a few days later an alga bloom. A decade or two back, so it works, I guess. Which was snaffled right up by some passing whales.
You are talking about intentionally creating algae blooms in the middle of the oceans at such a massive scale that it changes the global climate, a technique with the potential to disrupt ecosystems in ways we don't currently understand and create a lot of damage. It should be a last resort if we ever attempt it.
Ambient night temperatures are a great example of the heating and heat energy amplification of atmospheric rivers, like we just seen with floods around the world.
aren't the polar caps heating up faster than the rest of the world? putting a curtain would just trap that heat or divert it towards other glaciers, no? seems very short sighted to me.
Since the formation of the earth, the poles have mostly been ice-free. Ice ages are exceptions, the warm periods make up 80 to 90% of the earth's history. In this "normal state" the average temperature of the earth is 20 to 25 °C.
@@uwedallinger4887 so I guess our climate is just changing back to its "normal state" and we shouldn't even be talking about under water curtains and melting glaciers.
Wouldn't it honestly make more sense to just capture these chunks of ice and tow them to the nearest port cities? Like LA or NYC? All it is is solidified fresh water.
So.... Glaciers are pushed downhill by the weight of the ice that builds up on land. Not one climate scientist ever mentions the surface mass balance of the ice sheets, this would include ice lost in the sea AND the amount of ice that accumulates inland from the copious amounts of winter snow.
It's measurable but ultra-tiny compared with this ice sheet prediction quantities (it hasn't started yet of course, it's science-based prediction though).
Dithering until it's too late and then improvising solutions is what we humans will do regarding climate change. Massive population displacement will likely cause conflict. Maybe those who survive will have access to technological advances in a less populated war-weary world. Might be a sort of golden age. We'll see.
Cosmetics such as blue nail polish promote consumerism which is a direct cause of many of society's problems. Learn to be happy with who you are and teach others to do the same and observe how this contributes to less consumption of goods and services and stabilizes our environment. Small things add up to make a big difference.
They are way past over depleting the aquifers in Germany and other countries around the world, poop will hit the fans soon as it's only getting hotter.
That's a very expensive and carbon releasing band aid that slows it down a very small amount for a short amount of time. Seriously, is this what smart people come up with?
I think it would help if they stopped running almost ice breakers through the Arctic Ice chipping it off and having it float into more temperate Waters of course that's too late now that's already done
Human intervention even those with best of intentions can end up being opposite. Case in point is Plastic. Some one thought plastic would be great to save all the natural resources and since then plastic has been worst for nature. The idea behind EV was to save fossil fuels but way US industry is mass producing high torque cars that need huge LIon pack for Instant juice is turning each electric car production 3 times more dirty. What people need to learn is moderation. Small fuel efficient cars, less consumerism , less wastage
I have a question: why don't we pipeline Greenland's ice melt inland to keep freshwater from going in the salt water? Inland's all been in drought now with our heated world. We desperately need more freshwater.
Has anyone ever calculated land reclaim done world wide. Places where there was sea once now we see houses, airports, container terminal and parks. Its like puting bricks upon bricks in a swimming a pool and than complaining rise in water level. Just calculate the total area of sea water displacement due to land reclaim and than see how that relates to sea level increase.
could you spray saw dust at the faces of the ice caps in autumn to create pykrete barrier on the ice cap's surface? also, will not the desalination of the southern ocean make ice more likely to form?
Panic solutions from our pathetic species realising that for most of its later existence, it’s been building major settlements in the wrong places and assuming that nothing ever changes.
Can we please commit to Modern advanced nuclear energy options. It will give us a stable electrical grid where we can also connect renewable alternative energy options to it. Where right now, we run alternative energy from a grid that's based on fossil fuels.. c'mon, our tech, knowledge, and understanding of safety and material science/engineering/chemistry has advanced so far that we can move past our PAST. We can heal from our trauma. There's a lot of positive waiting to be potentially utilized. We just need to give it a shot. Anything is better than what we currently are experiencing.
Hi Ben, have you checked out our previous reports on nuclear energy yet? Do we need nuclear power to stop climate change? ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-9X00al1FsjM.html Is nuclear fusion the key to fighting climate change? ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-eyHovWQ49MI.html Tell us what you think in the comments!
Let imagine where I'm living far away from the beach 3 hours to drive or 120km, one day my grand child can see the beach from our house, so I don't have to move to the beach anymore
I do not agree with such way of tampering with the nature It could lead to every worse outcome due to underestimated consequences from project of such proportions and type
Have we crossed the point of no return in terms of damaging the planet? There is no such point. We need to trust that our thought, which is our greatest quality, can change nature. We only need to understand the direction to which we should aim our thoughts. What should we think about? What condition or state should we aspire to and ask for? In order to save our planet, we should think about positive human connections. That is, how can we, in our connections, keep nature safe? How can we all together protect our world? If we truly wish to better our planet, then we should see people holding a concern for how to positively connect everywhere that we look. It has nothing to do with recycling or other activities that we commonly associate with as being sustainable. If we come closer to and consider each other, that we will reach an entirely organic, perfectly connected and round state, then the negative forces will disappear from the world. We need to understand that if we start thinking better about each other, then the planet will recover from all harm, because our thoughts are the strongest force in nature. Likewise, our negative thoughts about each other are entirely to blame for damaging the planet. That is why the more we recycle and invest in energies and activities that we commonly think of as being sustainable, the worse our planet becomes. Nothing will work to benefit us until we reach a state where our attitude changes toward each other for the better to protect and improve our planet.
The curtain could stop 100m below the ice base and still do a good job of stopping water flow. The curtain could be at 100 km out from the ice edge base and still do a good job of stopping water flow provided that it's a fully-closed containment. A containment 100 km out from the ice edge base from sea bed to 200 m below surface would do a good job but 150m below the surface would be better and 100m below the surface would be better yet. The surface gets frozen at -1.8 degrees or lower in winter, it's the deepish water at 200 m to 800 m below the surface that's the warm water at -1 to 4 degrees and melts ice, not the top 200 m well-mixed surface water.
If hot water, doesn't get to cool down, by warming the ice sheets in a thermal reaction, wouldn't that make the seas worldwide so much hotter, that mass extinction of sealife occurs?
Mass extinction is well underway, we're much further past various tipping points than we realize - we're past tipping points that we don't even know exist
Someone could build a giant freezer and just refreeze all that ice again. That's how funny people sound when they say that carbon will be pumped out from the atmosphere or "net zero" and stuff like that. That's a perfect example for their rhetoric. Their words do not fit our dimension.
If you look at the historical temperature of the Earth you would see we are in a cold spell now. It is supposed to get warmer. It has been getting warmer for a long time before human intervention.. As the folk who used to live on Doggerland or those who happily crossed the Bering land bridge. We picked a bad time to develop our civilization on the coastlines. Sea level will continue to rise. As Ice melts it speeds up due to the Albedo of its surface. Do not try to mess with this force. We know not the consequences.
its not supposed to get as warm as we have already made it. If we are in a cold spell, this cold spell is 1-2degrees higher than it should be... we are currently seeing the efffects with extreme weather happening more frequently. I would reccommend to watch Simon Clark's RU-vid video called "Was England really warmer in medievel times" in which he shows the historical global tempurature graphs which shows the Average Tempurate increase in accordance to current science. the Earth is getting warmer and its due to us, humans, pumping too many greenhouse gases into the atmosphere which needs to change now, as rightly you said "We know not the consequences."
Here’s a novel way to stop 🛑 ice 🧊 sheets collapsing and melting into the ocean 🌊-just add lots and lots of CW7 to the upper layers of the atmosphere and cool down the globe 🌎 by about 50C. That’ll give sea 🌊 level rise one blaze 🔥 of a beating.
What if we find a way to remove salt from see water and makevit usable in drought struck regions. Plus we can put the brine back to rhe ocean since climate is also dependant on level of salt in the sea water. The only downside is the enourmous energy required to do it
I realize how cynical this is of me to say but maybe it is a good thing the oceans are rising.. we are now at eight billion people worldwide and at our current stage of everything that is too many. Perhaps when we have solved clean energy for everyone and localized food production then the world may thrive with eight billion of us.
You are looking the subject from very narrow window. The answer is no! We can not stop ice melting because we have already missed the chance. Heat is very enough now for melting the permafrost. So more CH4 is entering into atmosphere. Albedo effect is decreasing by the melted ice from poles. So this is a chain reaction now. The scary part of ice melting is not sea rising. Instead, sea current! Sea currents are increasing and this makes the weather unstable. This is basics of thermodynamics. Once the heat increased more in 20 years, the remaining ice will not help for thermodynamics for sea currents. It will slow down and stop. Around 2050 +- 10 yrs sea current will almost stopped. Which means the weather (seasons) will stop! All stop! We can not do much from nowon. This will happen. We have lost the window. But we can clean the pollution from oceans and fossil particles from the atmosphere. Which means, if we lose the breathable air than we lost all. However we must (MUST) protect trees and phytoplankton!!!
why don't we just put giant freezers in the sea , won't that stop the ice caps melting , we have so much electricity in this world , why not use it on something useful .
That curtain is like a child's answer, it's all curiosity and fun, but impractical and shortsighted. Who would go to one of the harshest environments in freezing water and build a ginormous curtain, it's just stupid, get back to "no emission", be realistic
You know i had read that 87% of earth whole history, it didn’t have ice capes. So I guess the mear fact that human are here now and it seems we just are trying to keep it the same rather then changing naturally. Don’t get me wrong are carbon output is definitely one main issue among many. Just an interesting look. Another question I have is how much is adding to sea rise though I feel it would be low but still a small factor. Land reclaiming in the oceans and pumping water from aquifers underground adding to ocean lvls
You know i had read that 80% of earth whole history, oxygen levels were lower than 5% and there were no animals or plants. So it would be perfectly natural and irrelevant if we killed everything.
I wonder if the idea for geoengineering specifically from older generations is a form of guilt (or legacy securement), and thus the need to provide a quick fix for the younger generations
What we need to is slow the earths rotation, this will reduce friction and we all know friction makes heat. Only if we slow it too much, there will be another ice age.
Hi Obes, you might find this report interesting: "Why fossil fuel companies should be lawyering up" ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-yVYzHgHx8U4.html Let us know what you think in the comments!
Short answer 😌 no Before the life ending event, that caused the glacier's, animals were found in the Arctic frozen Standing upright with mouths of sub tropical foliage
tectonic plates shift so the evidence for that kinda life doesn't really mean it was happening at the poles. Antarctica was part of part of the last super continent and has drifted downwards since. From what I understand it's land was once in a position similar to today's Australia. I'd like to see what you're saying on this if you could source me.
@@biodiversityfanatic2454 Pangea existed between about 299 million years ago (at the start of the Permian Period of geological time) to about 180 million years ago (during the Jurassic Period) the extinction level event that took out the dinosaurs was ~60,000 years ago I'm referring to the younger dryas impact ~14,000 year's ago
@@mrglasecki Ok I was aware of the discoveries made about live back in those periods, I wasn't aware of significant life so close to now. I'll look into that thank you.
@@biodiversityfanatic2454 Animals found frozen Standing in the Arctic had mouths of sub tropical foliage on Google Earth was struck more than likely hitting a lead deposit in the Earth's crust atomizing it and flash freezing the atmosphere and providing atmospheric Rivers of frozen moisture than rained on earth for a while Earth Will return to the state prior to the younger dryas impact, ie,.) Tropical foliage In the Arctic
