• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Make Sunsets: Climate Tweakers

MrRING

Android Futureman
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
6,053
This seems a bold step into uncharted territories
https://www.technologyreview.com/20...atmosphere-in-an-effort-to-tweak-the-climate/

A startup says it’s begun releasing particles into the atmosphere, in an effort to tweak the climate​

Make Sunsets is already attempting to earn revenue for geoengineering, a move likely to provoke widespread criticism.
By
  • James Temple
    A startup claims it has launched weather balloons that may have released reflective sulfur particles in the stratosphere, potentially crossing a controversial barrier in the field of solar geoengineering.

    Geoengineering refers to deliberate efforts to manipulate the climate by reflecting more sunlight back into space, mimicking a natural process that occurs in the aftermath of large volcanic eruptions. In theory, spraying sulfur and similar particles in sufficient quantities could potentially ease global warming.
    It’s not technically difficult to release such compounds into the stratosphere. But scientists have mostly (though not entirely) refrained from carrying out even small-scale outdoor experiments. And it’s not clear that any have yet injected materials into that specific layer of the atmosphere in the context of geoengineering-related research.

    That’s in part because it’s highly controversial. Little is known about the real-world effect of such deliberate interventions at large scales, but they could have dangerous side effects. The impacts could also be worse in some regions than others, which could provoke geopolitical conflicts.
    Some researchers who have long studied the technology are deeply troubled that the company, Make Sunsets, appears to have moved forward with launches from a site in Mexico without any public engagement or scientific scrutiny. It’s already attempting to sell “cooling credits” for future balloon flights that could carry larger payloads.

    Several researchers MIT Technology Review spoke with condemned the effort to commercialize geoengineering at this early stage. Some potential investors and customers who have reviewed the company’s proposals say that it’s not a serious scientific effort or a credible business but more of an attention grab designed to stir up controversy in the field.

    Luke Iseman, the cofounder and CEO of Make Sunsets, acknowledges that the effort is part entrepreneurial and part provocation, an act of geoengineering activism.
    He hopes that by moving ahead in the controversial space, the startup will help drive the public debate and push forward a scientific field that has faced great difficulty carrying out small-scale field experiments amid criticism.

    “We joke slash not joke that this is partly a company and partly a cult,” he says.

    Iseman, previously a director of hardware at Y Combinator, says he expects to be pilloried by both geoengineering critics and researchers in the field for taking such a step, and he recognizes that “making me look like the Bond villain is going to be helpful to certain groups.” But he says climate change is such a grave threat, and the world has moved so slowly to address the underlying problem, that more radical interventions are now required.
    “It’s morally wrong, in my opinion, for us not to be doing this,” he says. What’s important is “to do this as quickly and safely as we can.”

    Wildly premature​

    But dedicated experts in the field think such efforts are wildly premature and could have the opposite effect from what Iseman expects.

    “The current state of science is not good enough … to either reject, or to accept, let alone implement” solar geoengineering, wrote Janos Pasztor, executive director of the Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative, in an email. The initiative is calling for oversight of geoengineering and other climate-altering technologies, whether by governments, international accords or scientific bodies. “To go ahead with implementation at this stage is a very bad idea,” he added, comparing it to Chinese scientist He Jiankui’s decision to use CRISPR to edit the DNA of embryos while the scientific community was still debating the safety and ethics of such a step. Shuchi Talati, a scholar in residence at American University who is forming a nonprofit focused on governance and justice in solar geoengineering, says Make Sunset’s actions could set back the scientific field, reducing funding, dampening government support for trusted research, and accelerating calls to restrict studies.
    The company’s behavior plays into long-held fears that a “rogue” actor with no particular knowledge of atmospheric science or the implications of the technology could unilaterally choose to geoengineer the climate, without any kind of consensus around whether it’s okay to do so—or what the appropriate global average temperature should be. That’s because it’s relatively cheap and technically simple to do, at least in a crude way.

    David Victor, a political scientist at the University of California, San Diego, warned of such a scenario more than a decade ago. A “Greenfinger, self-appointed protector of the planet … could force a lot of geoengineering on his own,” he said, invoking the Goldfinger character from a 1964 James Bond movie, best remembered for murdering a woman by painting her gold.

    Some observers were quick to draw parallels between Make Sunsets and a decade-old incident in which an American entrepreneur reportedly poured a hundred tons of iron sulfate into the ocean, in an effort to spawn a plankton bloom that could aid salmon populations and suck down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Critics say it violated international restrictions on what’s known as iron fertilization, which were in part inspired by a growing number of commercial proposals to sell carbon credits for such work. Some believe it subsequently stunted research efforts in field.
    Pasztor and others stressed that Make Sunset’s efforts underscore the urgent need to establish broad-based oversight and clear rules for responsible research in geoengineering and help determine whether or under what conditions there should be a social license to move forward with experiments or beyond. As MIT Technology Review first reported, the Biden administration is developing a federal research plan that would guide how scientists proceed with geoengineering studies.
They do have a website up:
https://makesunsets.com/


 
All summer the cloud-sculptors would come from Vermilion Sands and sail their painted gliders above the coral towers that rose like white pagodas beside the highway to Lagoon West. The tallest of the towers was Coral D, and here the rising air above the sand-reefs was topped by swan-like clumps of fair-weather cumulus. Lifted on the shoulders of the air above the crown of Coral D, we would carve sea-horses and unicorns, the portraits of presidents and film-stars, lizards and exotic birds. As the crowd watched from their cars, a cool rain would fall on to the dusty roofs, weeping from the sculptured clouds as they sailed across the desert floor towards the sun.

Of all the cloud-sculptures we were to carve, the strangest were the portraits of Leonora Chanel. As I look back to that afternoon last summer when she first came in her white limousine to watch the cloud-sculptors of Coral D, I know we barely realised how seriously this beautiful but insane woman, regarded the sculptures floating above her in the calm sky. Later her portraits, carved in the whirlwind, were to weep their storm-rain upon the corpses of their sculptors.


Continued in great style:
https://www.you-books.com/book/J-G-Ballard/The-Cloud-Sculptors-of-Coral-D
 
"(...) released reflective sulfur particles in the stratosphere, potentially crossing a controversial barrier in the field of solar geoengineering."

Sounds like one of those things that you could sarcastically say "What could possibly go wrong?" about.
 
"(...) released reflective sulfur particles in the stratosphere, potentially crossing a controversial barrier in the field of solar geoengineering."

Sounds like one of those things that you could sarcastically say "What could possibly go wrong?" about.
Because we need more sulfur in our atmosphere. Have they any idea about acid rain?:roll: My guess is that they are 30 somethings.

Let's not do any research, but be provocateurs. Idiots.
 
They're polluting the atmosphere and altering the climate without consulting the rest of us.
Shut them down now!
 
A different idea: ejecting moon dust from giant cannons into the atmosphere:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/a42815619/radical-plan-cool-earth-moon-dust/
There’s a Radical Plan to Cool the Earth With ... Moon Dust

It involves space cannons. And it’s 100 percent legit.

By Darren OrfPublished: Feb 10, 2023



  • In an effort to keep Earth’s rising temperature in check, scientists are researching ways to artificially shield the planet from the sun’s radiation.
  • Scientists from the University of Utah suggest that moon dust could be used to create a reflective “sunshield” around Earth.
  • Although capable of reflective a significant amount of the sun’s radiation, the plan requires extensive lunar mining infrastructure and electromagnetic space cannons.

A long time ago (in every sense of the phrase), a Mars-sized celestial object named “Theia” smacked into Earth and formed our moon. Now, 4.5 billion years later, scientists want to put that moon back to work by using its dust to cool down its fever-induced planetary neighbor.

Scientists from the University of Utah suggest that “ballistically eject[ing]” millions of pounds of lunar dust around Earth could help deflect the sun’s rays and cool down the planet. The idea follows similar solar geoengineering concepts like ejecting reflected sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the stratosphere to gain the same sun-reflecting benefits (but with less potential health concerns).

However, this research is decidedly more sci-fi as it would likely require lunar infrastructure, electromagnetic cannons, and even orbital space platforms. The results of the study were published in the journal PLOS Climate.

The idea comes from studying planetary formation in early star systems. During those chaotic days (technically millions of years) following the birth of a new star, a lot of dust gets kicked up and surrounds the host star. If humans were able to artificially eject dust around Earth, creating what the researchers call a “sunshield,” it just might be enough to stave off 1 or 2 percent of the sun’s usual radiation—enough to forestall some of the worst effects of climate change.

“That was the seed of the idea,” Ben Bromley, astronomy professor and lead author of the study, said in a statement. “If we took a small amount of material and put it on a special orbit between the Earth and the sun and broke it up, we could block out a lot of sunlight with a little amount of mass.”

The paper analyzes two approaches to injecting space dust. The first involves firing dust (things like salt or coal) from Earth to a way station at Lagrange Point 1 (L1). Lagrange points are stable areas of space where the gravitational pull of two large masses equals the centripetal force needed for a small object to keep pace, which means much less fuel is needed to stay in position. Because of these stability benefits, important space missions like the James Webb Space Telescope are parked at Lagrange points (L2, specifically).

However, dust isn’t quite the same thing as a 14,300-pound space telescope. Because of its incredibly light mass, dust is blown off these Lagrange points in only a few days thanks to solar winds, radiation, and gravity, so the dust would need to be consistently reapplied to maintain an effective sunshield. This makes continually launching dust from Earth’s surface a costly measure because of the planet’s gravity. Thankfully, the moon also has tons of dust and only 17 percent of Earth’s gravity—and that’s where scenario two comes in.

Using “electromagnetic mass drivers” (aka space cannons), a large mining operation based on the moon could fire space dust to L1 much more affordably than launching dust from Earth. The only downside is the fixed cost of getting all the equipment to the moon in the first place, but the advantageous firing positioning from the moon means a way station at L1 may not be necessary at all.

Any effort to tackle climate change, whether trying to suck carbon out of the air, injecting SO2 into the upper atmosphere, or creating a lunar sunshield with electromagnetic cannons, must be in addition to humanity’s steady work to decarbonize all aspects of society.

But if you want to put electromagnetic space cannons on the moon, you’ll get no arguments from us.
 
...and then realise that it was the wrong thing to do, and there isn't anything they can do about it but put a load of other stuff up there to negate the effects which they themselves induced.
And so on.
And thusly, low Earth orbit will be stuffed full of junk that we can't remove.
 
Have they any idea about acid rain?:roll: My guess is that they are 30 somethings.

The founder is, in fact, turning 40 next month (according to Google), at which point he will doubtless see the error of his ways.

As a 30-something myself, I see no harm in this, and have just ordered some weather balloons and a big box of sulphur to do my own geoengineering.
 
The founder is, in fact, turning 40 next month (according to Google), at which point he will doubtless see the error of his ways.

As a 30-something myself, I see no harm in this, and have just ordered some weather balloons and a big box of sulphur to do my own geoengineering.
Just make sure the balloons are tethered securely over your house, for the best possible result.
 
The founder is, in fact, turning 40 next month (according to Google), at which point he will doubtless see the error of his ways.

As a 30-something myself, I see no harm in this, and have just ordered some weather balloons and a big box of sulphur to do my own geoengineering.
And my question is valid. I guessed the age because anyone born in the '90s probably have not heard about acid rain - fish dying, trees dying of acid rain pollution. Sulphur is a component of acid rain.

The problem of acid rain was, thankfully, remedied.

There also was ozone loss in the atmosphere several decades ago due to CFCs which were subsequently discontinued.

I don't believe that throwing something into the atmosphere is a valid solution as it stands. Just because you can doesn't mean that you should. Research is needed. What are the ramifications of these actions? Is it just going to create another problem?

The company is claiming that this experiment in geo-engineering will effectively deal with climate change because it is similar to what happens when a volcano erupts. Well, volcano eruptions do cause problems with the immediate environment. Also there are not vast areas that have regular volcanic activity. I live in Canada. We don't have many volcanic eruptions as per this article:
https://chis.nrcan.gc.ca/volcano-volcan/can-vol-en.php

This article outlines what volcanic activity does to the environment and according to it, the different gaseous components can either warm or cool the environment:
https://www.usgs.gov/programs/VHP/volcanoes-can-affect-climate

We shouldn't just replace one problem with another. It is my planet too. I certainly have not given a random startup permission to fuck around with where I live. We all know that what we do in one area of the planet travels and affects another. Just ask anyone who lives in the Arctic regions.

Ok I better jump off my box but I did find your response flippant.
 
It was intended to be flippant.

People born between 1983-1993 know what acid rain is. We were brought up on a diet of acid rain and ozone holes. Every children's book and TV show drummed that stuff into us. Our parents had "The Gaia Atlas of Planet Management" on their bookshelves. We were reading "The Blue Peter Green Book" and going on school trips to plant trees or to exhibitions about our changing Earth. We were treated to dreadful low-rent series like "Captain Planet" and "The Smoggies", whose plotlines revolved around environmental catastrophe. Acid rain was on the news constantly (until it wasn't).

With that in mind, I hope you can understand why it might be disconcerting to be told I'm in a group that's unlikely to know and less likely to care about these things. Personally I'm not comfortable with generalising by age group in any case, but this time it seems particularly odd.

For what it's worth, I agree about 'geoengineering' being an incredibly dumb idea.
 
on the news constantly (until it wasn't).
I was born 1966. We had a similar thing that was on the news constantly (until it wasn't)....'The new ice-age'.
It was constantly being referred to, in much the same way as 'climate change' is now, right through until about 1976, IIRC, when we were suddenly being told that far from being too cold, we were now going to be too hot, because ...um...1976.
 
I was born 1966. We had a similar thing that was on the news constantly (until it wasn't)....'The new ice-age'.
It was constantly being referred to, in much the same way as 'climate change' is now, right through until about 1976, IIRC, when we were suddenly being told that far from being too cold, we were now going to be too hot, because ...um...1976.
Must be annoying, that some of us are old enough to remember that last lots of bullshine. :)
 
It was intended to be flippant.

People born between 1983-1993 know what acid rain is. We were brought up on a diet of acid rain and ozone holes. Every children's book and TV show drummed that stuff into us. Our parents had "The Gaia Atlas of Planet Management" on their bookshelves. We were reading "The Blue Peter Green Book" and going on school trips to plant trees or to exhibitions about our changing Earth. We were treated to dreadful low-rent series like "Captain Planet" and "The Smoggies", whose plotlines revolved around environmental catastrophe. Acid rain was on the news constantly (until it wasn't).

With that in mind, I hope you can understand why it might be disconcerting to be told I'm in a group that's unlikely to know and less likely to care about these things. Personally I'm not comfortable with generalising by age group in any case, but this time it seems particularly odd.

For what it's worth, I agree about 'geoengineering' being an incredibly dumb idea.
I guess my comment came off as generalizing an age group. It was not really intended as such, but only guessed at because of the start ups use of sulphur components. I thought it strange that they would even think that this would be good to put in the atmosphere. I also guessed the ”thirty something” age because by the 90’s acid rain was never really mentioned and we had another environmental issue. My comment was not to imply that people in their 30’s wouldn’t care, but that I was questioning the research these people were working with.
 
They'll put things up there in space to change the climate and then one day, we'll have another Carrington Event. Then we'll lose control of the things we've put into orbit. Then it'll all be beyond our control.

If/when we have another Carrington all the gubbins we've put up in the sky will be the least of our concerns.
 
In the event of another 'Carrington Event', would stuff on the side of the Earth farthest from the Sun be shielded from the effects somewhat?
 
was born 1966. We had a similar thing that was on the news constantly (until it wasn't)....'The new ice-age'.
It was constantly being referred to, in much the same way as 'climate change' is now, right through until about 1976, IIRC, when we were suddenly being told that far from being too cold, we were now going to be too hot, because ...um...1976.
This was mostly the fault of one man, Nigel Calder, who wrote for New Scientist and made documentaries for the BBC. He was one of the few science writers at the time who supported the idea of global cooling; unfortunately he was very prolific.

I was studying environmental science at uni at the time, and we had a more balanced view; most published scientific papers at the time pointed towards anthropogenic global warming, but Calder's documentaries and articles were very influential in the public eye. Just goes to show how one dickhead can affect the public consciousness.
 
I was studying environmental science at uni at the time, and we had a more balanced view; most published scientific papers at the time pointed towards anthropogenic global warming, but Calder's documentaries and articles were very influential in the public eye. Just goes to show how one dickhead can affect the public consciousness.
And now we have multi dickheads only one click away.
 
Interesting doco about chemtrails/contrails causing global dimming and climate change.
In the past, I've dismissed 'chemtrails' because of various logical reasons (e.g. where is all the stuff being made), but I am astounded that patents exist for these technologies (I am assuming that the patents shown in the doco are real).
If it is real (and I am not saying I think it is), what is driving this? What is the projected outcome?
 
Back
Top