A Startup Is Releasing Particles Into the Atmosphere To Tweak the Climate 147
An anonymous reader quotes a report from MIT Technology Review: 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. [...] 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."
[...] By Iseman's own description, the first two balloon launches were very rudimentary. He says they occurred in April somewhere in the state of Baja California, months before Make Sunsets was incorporated in October. Iseman says he pumped a few grams of sulfur dioxide into weather balloons and added what he estimated would be the right amount of helium to carry them into the stratosphere. He expected they would burst under pressure at that altitude and release the particles. But it's not clear whether that happened, where the balloons ended up, or what impact the particles had, because there was no monitoring equipment on board the balloons. Iseman also acknowledges that they did not seek any approvals from government authorities or scientific agencies, in Mexico or elsewhere, before the first two launches. "This was firmly in science project territory," he says, adding: "Basically, it was to confirm that I could do it." The company is already attempting to earn revenue from the cooling effects of future flights. It is offering to sell $10 "cooling credits" for releasing one gram of particles in the stratosphere -- enough, it asserts, to offset the warming effect of one ton of carbon for one year. "What I want to do is create as much cooling as quickly as I responsibly can, over the rest of my life, frankly," Iseman says, adding later that they will deploy as much sulfur in 2023 as "we can get customers to pay us" for. The company says it has raised $750,000 in funding from Boost VC and Pioneer Fund, among others, and that its early investors have also been purchasing cooling credits. Shuchi Talati, a scholar in residence at American University who is forming a nonprofit focused on governance and justice in solar geoengineering, was highly critical of the company's scientific claims, stressing that no one can credibly sell credits that purport to represent such a specific per gram outcome, given vast uncertainty at this stage of research.
"What they're claiming to actually accomplish with such a credit is the entirety of what's uncertain right now about geoengineering," she says. Talati adds that it's hypocritical for Make Sunsets to assert they're acting on humanitarian grounds, while moving ahead without meaningfully engaging with the public, including with those who could be affected by their actions. "They're violating the rights of communities to dictate their own future," she says.
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."
[...] By Iseman's own description, the first two balloon launches were very rudimentary. He says they occurred in April somewhere in the state of Baja California, months before Make Sunsets was incorporated in October. Iseman says he pumped a few grams of sulfur dioxide into weather balloons and added what he estimated would be the right amount of helium to carry them into the stratosphere. He expected they would burst under pressure at that altitude and release the particles. But it's not clear whether that happened, where the balloons ended up, or what impact the particles had, because there was no monitoring equipment on board the balloons. Iseman also acknowledges that they did not seek any approvals from government authorities or scientific agencies, in Mexico or elsewhere, before the first two launches. "This was firmly in science project territory," he says, adding: "Basically, it was to confirm that I could do it." The company is already attempting to earn revenue from the cooling effects of future flights. It is offering to sell $10 "cooling credits" for releasing one gram of particles in the stratosphere -- enough, it asserts, to offset the warming effect of one ton of carbon for one year. "What I want to do is create as much cooling as quickly as I responsibly can, over the rest of my life, frankly," Iseman says, adding later that they will deploy as much sulfur in 2023 as "we can get customers to pay us" for. The company says it has raised $750,000 in funding from Boost VC and Pioneer Fund, among others, and that its early investors have also been purchasing cooling credits. Shuchi Talati, a scholar in residence at American University who is forming a nonprofit focused on governance and justice in solar geoengineering, was highly critical of the company's scientific claims, stressing that no one can credibly sell credits that purport to represent such a specific per gram outcome, given vast uncertainty at this stage of research.
"What they're claiming to actually accomplish with such a credit is the entirety of what's uncertain right now about geoengineering," she says. Talati adds that it's hypocritical for Make Sunsets to assert they're acting on humanitarian grounds, while moving ahead without meaningfully engaging with the public, including with those who could be affected by their actions. "They're violating the rights of communities to dictate their own future," she says.
Oh boy (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure we should be trusting a startup with this. And what ever happened to emissions laws? Do I get to create a startup and roll coal in thousands of F450 trucks?
Re:Oh boy (Score:5, Interesting)
Thats why the fucker is doing it in mexico instead of california.
Its *stupid*. Of all the geoengineering ideas, sulphur is the worst, because of ocean acidity (which, btw reduces the oceans ability to absorb CO2).
Like fuck, at least do one of the safer experiments. Water vapor towers around the arctic. Raise the albedo, slow down warming of greenland and the siberian permafrost. At least with that idea, if it backfires you just stop doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah if he's using something that can worsen ocean acidity, a problem which already goes completely unabated by any kind of SRM efforts, then he's ruined a trolling masterstroke with legitimate ecological concerns. Mind you an average semi-truck probably releases more of this stuff over the course of a normal work day than one of these balloons and nobody's batting an eye...
Re: Oh boy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The concepts a bit less low tech. You basically build a big bunch of giant chimneys on barges in a ring around the arctic, and just spray seawater into the air.
There was a study on it once that priced the towers at about 2mil each, and you'd build a few hundred of them, and they calculated you could drop the temps around the arctic by about 2c.
Re:Oh boy (Score:5, Informative)
What are you trusting this startup with exactly? They're releasing irrelevant amount of particles into the atmosphere to sell indulgences to people who went too deep into "planet is going to die in 12 years if we don't destroy our way of life" cult.
It's a harmless way to let some people alleviate some of their extreme anxiety. Nothing more, nothing less.
Re: (Score:2)
My problem isn't his scam. It's obviously stupid and has no effect.
The moron who comes after him, using this guy as his precedent, who actually does do something impactful is the one that concerns me.
Re: (Score:3)
We dump an absolute shit ton of CO2 in the atmopshere as a whole. In last fourty years, all we managed is a measly 0,3 degrees celcius rise. And that's coupled with the natural post ice age warming trend.
Forgive me for not worrying about "the next guy with big delusions about how he'll change climate" against backdrop of reality.
Re: (Score:2)
No one has yet tried to intentionally alter the atmosphere in a real way. Everything has just been the unintended side effect of industry and general population growth.
With enough money, and there are numerous billionaires out there who effectively control their governments, and less than 50-100 years they could wreak havoc.
Re: (Score:2)
So your argument went from "The moron who comes after him, using this guy as his precedent, who actually does do something impactful is the one that concerns me" to....
"With enough money, and there are numerous billionaires out there who effectively control their governments, and less than 50-100 years they could wreak havoc."
Yes, I'm sure that if most of humanity was really focused on this for a century, we could do a thing or two. Heck, it's actually not that hard. Just detonate enough nukes just below th
Re: (Score:2)
IPCC are liars? That's literally their number.
I guess you have THE TRUTH (TM) somewhere?
Re: (Score:2)
Do tell us THE TRUTH (TM) then.
Don't hold it back. You know you want to!
Re: (Score:2)
Wait until you find out about corporate "other nations". And then, you'll find out about other nations in general.
You'll probably need some of those pills. For all its sins, corporate America isn't all that bad when you stop comparing it to utopia and instead compare it to reality.
Sounds like a cash grab (Score:5, Insightful)
With no monitoring gear on the test at all, plainly all the launches were for was to get attention... attention for investor dollars, which they can basically run off with by claiming that a $1 mylar balloon costs $1 million to assemble and launch, and in tern provide valuable carbon credits for investors.
No way this is not a giant scam.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, my take as well. Similar scams have worked nicely in the past tough, and this one may work too.
Oh it's much worse (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Everything is either a class warfare conspiracy or a corporate conspiracy.
What else could anything possibly be?
I'm with you, Brother!
Re: (Score:2)
A balloon which actually does the job costs maybe $100-$200 hundred bucks rather than $1. Monitoring equipment would be another couple hundred but be reusable. Ham clubs do this all the time.
The amount of carbon he's claiming to offset is sketchy but otherwise there is no need for it to be a scam.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Sounds like a cash grab (Score:3, Informative)
https://www.currentresults.com... [currentresults.com]
Re: (Score:2)
No need to explain.
It didn't get down to -10 degrees, neither degrees F nor degrees C. It got down to just below freezing, which happens from time to time.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called weather. It's why my Florida house has a heater built in from the original builder. When I was a kid in California we had hail once, too. Shit happens.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that an isotope of balonium?
Re: (Score:2)
Safely, huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that precisely what was supposedly causing acid rain??
Further, are they bonded so we can sue them when falling temperatures lead to widespread crop failures and famine??
Re: Climate alarmism (Score:2)
Lots of very smart people disbelieve the climate change alarmism
Really? So you can name three then?
Re:Climate alarmism (Score:5, Insightful)
It is simply not true that all scientists are in agreement, or even most scientists.
The vast majority of scientists with expertise in the area are in agreement. Bringing up contrarians without expertise is like taking notice of your electrician's contrarians views on how water naturally flows uphill.
Re: (Score:2)
And how does that work out after you exclude those with a financial conflict of interest? I'm not a climate change denier so much as skeptical that the consensus comes from a group of individuals who are essentially out of funding and out of the job if they were to reach a different conclusion but gain a massive windfall with the conclusions they claim to have found. Especially when they universally are unwilling to share their raw data for peer review.
There is similar problem with substance abuse/addiction
Re: (Score:3)
And how does that work out after you exclude those with a financial conflict of interest?
The statistics on support look even more convincing in terms of the consensus.
the consensus comes from a group of individuals who are essentially out of funding and out of the job if they were to reach a different conclusion
If they reach the wrong conclusion reality catches up and they are out of a job. If you can show climate change doesn't matter you'd get more funding and a Nobel prize, not a pink slip.
There is similar problem with substance abuse/addiction. Most of the support comes from fMRI studies which are similar to simulations in that the parameters input can dictate the outcome and those doing the research generally specialize in the field and run addiction clinics and the like. Basically if they concluded, nope marijuana is fine, they'd personally be out millions of dollars.
No, if reality doesn't match the research, you end up out of a job, so the requirement is to be correct.
we need skeptics in related fields without skin in the game
Many of them are not skeptics and not in related fields, though. Knowing the science is important, and it is not common for people to be able to
Re: (Score:2)
"If you don't understand that climate would still require study it's fairly pointless trying to debate this with you."
Of course we would need to study the climate. It would just go from a 10 on a 10 point priority scale to perhaps a 2 as neither an area of likely risk nor one likely to have or support something that has any practical utility. That means a small fraction of the army of researchers in this field and those having to compete with the plethora of 6+ priority areas of research for funding. That i
Re: (Score:2)
If you discount everyone you mention then you also have to discount everyone that has any connection to the fossil fuel industry (or other industries that use the skies as a free dumping ground). That wouldn't leave very many experts.
Re:Climate alarmism (Score:4, Insightful)
It is simply not true that all scientists are in agreement, or even most scientists.
The vast majority of scientists with expertise in the area are in agreement. Bringing up contrarians without expertise is like taking notice of your electrician's contrarians views on how water naturally flows uphill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] It's either 100 percent, or >99 percent. Not certain where our buddy got his information. because he's wrong. The problem with AGW denialism and scientists is that for it to be true, we have to discard some pretty important things.
We have to discard the energy retention characteristics of an atmosphere based upon it's composition. We have to deny radiative forcing, the method by which that happens. We have to deny the effects of anti greenhouse gases like Ozone and sulfur aerosols. We have to deny the biggest greenhouse "gas" of all, water vapor.
All of these have been hypothesized, tested, and found accurately described.
The only possible alternatives that doesn't require a rewrite of physics is that somehow, some way, that these things are accurate on a tiny level, but have no effect at all on a global level, ad that some other mechanism is making that fail - all the while making observable result that sortakinda seem like the accepted methods, while the accepted methods are wrong.
The other is that the sequestered Carbon dioxide we've been releasing is somehow special and doesn't act like regular CO2.
To date, no such mechanism has been found, and the silly cherry picking of incomplete data just shows the scientists where to look to update things. Just pecuniary or political influence trying to refute the laws of physics with money. And no, Michael Mann is not an asshole - as if that would prove anything anyway. Good luck deniers - your thinking at best is wishful. But to be blunt, and like they say - "wish in one hand, and shit in the other, then tell us which fills up faster.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hansen was wrong lol. He used a bad climate model. Climate models have changed a lot since then.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Climate alarmism (Score:2)
This is why nobody takes climate change deniers seriously, and for the same reasons that we also donâ(TM)t take anti-vaxxers and flat earthers seriously. When faced with overwhelming evidence that is supported by the majority of experts in a given field, there is always some fringe outlier group who obstinately refuses to accept it unless they are spoon fed that evidence a very specific way with a laundry list of conditions.
I have a much better idea. How about we just say no to your demands for the pro
Re: (Score:2)
Environmental vigalantism
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're really saying is, go along with whatever we say or we poison the atmosphere to punish everyone? No.
How about no to "the process" and to releasing SO2 into the atmosphere?
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is asking you to "go along."
Nobody is asking the rest of us to "go along," they're just fucking up the environment.
Who the fuck do people think they are to insist, "It can only be fucked up in this one way that makes this one set of companies lots of money! Nobody gets to try to counteract the problem, because they didn't ask permission!"
Guess what? Nobody asked permission to poison the planet. They lied about the outcome. They continue to lie about the outcome.
People are going to take actions to try
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, this is why people are just going to ignore process and try to get something done.
If you don't like it... support process. Denialism isn't a useful argument against climate vigilantism.
You're against the very process you want people to wait for...
Here's the thing. The damage has already been done, we are on the roller coaster rid now. While it makes sense to not do more damage, we should understand we are well into diminishing returns. My opinion is not popular, but not without merit.
The idea of trying to lower the average temperatures via SO2 injection is stupid. It will probably destabilize rainfall patterns. Fact is, we don't know. Regardless, it takes volcano levels of injection to make a difference, and the injection will have to be continuous
Re: (Score:2)
It will probably destabilize rainfall patterns. Fact is, we don't know.
We already destabilized rainfall patterns. They're not stable now. So of all the uncertainties, that isn't one; it will not destabilize rainfall patterns.
Re: (Score:3)
We know exactly what happens when tens to hundreds of millions of kilograms of SO2 are released into the atmosphere. We've measured and still actively measure these effects locally at many volcanos around the world as well as planet wide. They use actual scientific instruments to do the measuring too!
Isn't SO2 one of the primary contributors to forming acid rain?
Re: (Score:2)
In the troposphere, yes. In the stratosphere I think much less, but some.
Re: (Score:2)
When you get Jordan Peterson and Bjorn Lomberg to agree that your climate change actions are rational, then you can start adjusting the climate. Not before.
Why is waiting for irrational people to agree that something needs to be done a requirement?
Jordan Peterson has been going downhill recently. After his antidepressant problems, he's been apocalyptic and not terribly rational.
I used to like the guy, and his earlier stuff is okay, or at least interesting. Now, nope.
Sulphur, so good ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
heh - I just finished reading this a few weeks ago..
Very much not a billionaire, he just sent up a few grams of sulfur according to the summary... Maybe will add a few raindrops to Cuba? Watch out for unspecifically-enhanced soldiers! Tho by the sounds of it wouldn't take much more than a pellet gun to stymie operations at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
More likely, Kim Stanley Robinson: The Ministry for the Future
No, you're not a "Bond Villain" (Score:2)
You're just one of those run of the mill, ordinary assholes with more money than sense.
Disagreeing doesn't make someone hypocritical (Score:2)
I get that Talati disagrees with what this company is doing but the fact that they didn't consult people about what to do doesn't make them hypocritical. It means they have different views about what's helpful than you do.
And it's not like Talati made sure to ask people before *not* releasing particles into the atmosphere. This attitude imposes a huge status quo bias (any action you take that affects the status quo needs affirmative approval but not taking that action doesn't).
Re: (Score:2)
Status quo bias? Aka, don't let some random fucks do stupid shit and change things just because so they can scam up a few bucks from other people with more money than brains.
This clown has NO IDEA what's he's doing and thankfully he's done so little it will have zero impact on the planet.
Before ANYONE starts doing some crazy ass geo-engineering on the only planet we have we absolutely REQUIRE a "status quo bias" of monumental proportions so they can PROVE what they're doing will ONLY improve the planet, BE
Climate credits are a magnet for graft (Score:5, Insightful)
On the one hand you've got religion-caliber certitude that Man is a sinner and must repent. On the other you've got people ready to sell indulgences to the highest bidder.
It's only because the climate-woke usually don't bother with learning history *and* think they're too smart to get conned that it works.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are both nutters.
Violation of a UN treaty (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder who arrests them? I guess Mexico is a signatory to the treaty so they're probably obliged, and it doesn't sound like these morons have enough bribe money to keep them out of jail.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm like 99% sure they're violating a UN treaty banning large scale, long-term atmospheric modification here.
1. What UN treaty? Citation needed.
2. They aren't doing anything "large scale". "Micro scale" is more accurate.
3. They aren't doing anything "long term" either. SO2 has a mean lifetime in the atmosphere of ten days.
Re: (Score:2)
1. XXVII In the Chapter of UN treaties, but ultimately it's irrelevant as even if this was large enough to matter, Mexico is not a signatory and never ratified it.
Re: Violation of a UN treaty (Score:2)
a UN treaty banning large scale, long term atmospheric modification here
Geez, they're not enforcing that very well, since that's what we've been doing since the steam age.
Re: (Score:2)
a UN treaty banning large scale, long term atmospheric modification here On Purpose
And one would argue that for *most* of the industrial age, the modifications were ‘accidental’
Re: (Score:2)
"Off the top of my head, which I should know because of what I do for a living"
Are you a phrenologist?
"they're violating a UN treaty... I wonder who arrests them?"
UN treaties carry no force of law. Nations then, on a voluntary basis, implement their own laws in order to comply with the terms. Even if they have beyond some policy changes it is unlikely anyone goes around enforcing them unless there is some kind of highly visible public backlash.
"may have realeased" WTF? (Score:3)
What a shit experiment.
Re: (Score:2)
So, all they really know is that they released some balloons. They have no way of knowing whether any of them functioned properly and actually released anything into the stratosphere. In fact, does anyone have any evidence that the balloons carried any sort of real payload?
Re: (Score:2)
He says he did it to see if he could. So he was the audience for the test. He has memory of if he put the stuff in, or not, and if he released it, or not. That memory will serve as effective evidence for himself, the entire audience. If the balloon contained the amount of helium he believed it did, then it most likely released the contents at the intended altitude. It isn't exactly rocket science.
Everybody wants to criticize him, but much of the criticism is... weak, and lacks critical thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
Was his ability to put the stuff in and let go of the balloon in doubt? Because that is all there is to 'he could.' It seems to me the purpose of the experiment was PR.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, like most people, you have a hard time with tenses. Times. Existential reality.
If he says he did it to prove to himself that he could, then 100% of the evidence you have is that he wasn't sure that he could. That's not a hard one.
He did it months before creating the company, and only admits to it now. It seems that he didn't have any need for the PR at the time, and only now decided that he might get that value out of it. It is... not a high quality argument. It relies on him being as stupid and incom
Re: (Score:2)
"If he says he did it to prove to himself that he could, then 100% of the evidence you have is that he wasn't sure that he could."
No, that isn't 100% of the evidence. His statement might be evidence but it isn't credible evidence and the only data with ANY meaning we can extract from it is the path it points toward. The only thing credibly supported by evidence is that he made a claim... dramatically trying to spin himself as some sort of daredevil. The audience of the claim (media) and attempting to spin a
Re: (Score:2)
In fairness people do this all the time. Ham clubs often send up balloons like this equipped with cameras to take horizon pictures and such and there are online calculators for the amount of helium to use, the type of balloons, etc.
While I agree it is a shit experiment there really isn't much to experiment with just add a gram of SO2 into the balloon, fill it per the calculator and it'll go up there and pop.
Re: "may have realeased" WTF? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was not an "experiment," it was a test of the ability to assemble and launch the balloons.
It would have been a better to have instrumentation allowing a more complete analysis, sure. And perhaps that has also been done, or is planned. But it is a normal part of the engineering process to throw together an ad-hoc prototype to prove some concept within the design arena, even just "can we assemble it?"
It is laughable that educated people mistake an act of engineering, the making of a thing, with a study, wh
Re: (Score:2)
What a shit test.
What a pathetic comment.
Oh goodie! (Score:2)
Now India can send a hit squad into Mexico!
Yes, someone already said Termination Shock
Re: (Score:2)
Or if they read Kim Stanley Robinson: Ministry for the Future, then India might instead fund their own national program to do similar work.
Re: (Score:2)
In Termination Shock, they did too.
Coal smoke does that (Score:2)
Here we go again... (Score:2, Interesting)
When people started burning stuff, and pumping CO and CO2 into the atmosphere, nobody saw any global downside. It was thousands of years before people suddenly (in historical terms) decided that CO2 in the atmosphere was a terrible planet-killing thing.
With CFCs, some people at a company came up with something cool and beneficial, and started releasing it into the atmosphere. A few decades later people were screaming about holes in the ozone layer and the stuff was banned.
It can take a long time to see all
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
When people started burning stuff, and pumping CO and CO2 into the atmosphere, nobody saw any global downside.
A couple points - burning things like wood simply releases any carbon in them a bit quicker than it would have if it just rotted, and other things like burning petro oil from seepages would be pretty miniscule.
The other thing is not long after we got serious about releasing sequestered CO2, it was known what the greenhouse effect was. Joseph Fourier identified the energy retention characteristics of an atmosphere based on it's gaseous composition in 1824, and some other scientists ran with that in the 18
if they were doing this at scale which of course t (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't sulfur dioxide a major contributor to acid rain [epa.gov]?
Acid Rain (Score:2)
Sulfuric acid is a major component of acid rain. Acid rain can damage forests and crops, change the acidity of soils, and make lakes and streams acidic and unsuitable for fish.
Our kids future is truly fucked.
These people are criminals (Score:2)
Can't we at least get them for littering, and creating a nuisance?
"yes sir, Officer Obie, I cannot tell a lie. I put that envelope under that garbage."
Great (Score:2)
SO2 in the atmosphere? Creates acid rain. Wonderful stuff.
Of course, the amount they're likely to be able to put into the atmosphere will do precisely nothing.
Re:Gates Money No Doubt (Score:5, Informative)
This is like releasing GM mosquitoes with no one's permission.
That is a poor analogy.
Mosquitoes reproduce exponentially. If a genetic modification was advantageous, it could rapidly spread and have a big effect.
This project is a handful of guys dumping a few kilograms of SO2 into the atmosphere as part of a scam to sell "cooling credits."
For comparison, Kilauea emitted 15 MILLION kilograms of SO2 per day during its recent eruption.
What they are doing won't make an iota of difference, and anyone buying the credits is a fool who deserves to be separated from their money.
Re:Gates Money No Doubt (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I probably emit 15Kg of SO2 per year, but no one except my wife complains.
I've been meaning to say something, but have been waiting for the right time...
Re: (Score:2)
Probably H2S actually.
Re: (Score:3)
More like releasing a single mosquito who's been "genetically engineered" to buzz more akin to the sound of bagpipes, by breeding it in diluted scotch.
Then demanding millions of dollars for more scotch.
Iseman says he pumped a few grams of sulfur dioxide into weather balloons and added what he estimated would be the right amount of helium to carry them into the stratosphere.
He expected they would burst under pressure at that altitude and release the particles.
But it's not clear whether that happened, where the balloons ended up, or what impact the particles had, because there was no monitoring equipment on board the balloons.
Sure, trying to "fix" climate change by creating acid rain and destroying ecosystems is idiotic. Even morons tubthumping for aerosol injection concede it should be done over South Pole. And should the resulting hole in the ozone and ecological devastation fry Australia... well... It's not us, right?
But the ef
Re: (Score:2)
Having just watched a guitar pedal company launch a pedal into "space" with a weather balloon that they equipped with GPS and a GoPro, I have to wonder what the heck they were even thinking if they couldn't attach a couple technobaubles to the balloons before release. If a bunch of half-stoned guitar players could, you'd think an "ambitious startup" could. This seems mostly like an attempted huckster move, rather than a real attempt at any form of "science."
Glitter bombs (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is also why the ultra-wealthy are so obsessed with other places to live at the moment. Once their peers have sapped the planet of anything resembling sustainability, they'll want a place to transplant those with enough money to make the trip. And hey, if the ultra-wealthy get to treat the somewhat wealthy as subservient for buy-in? So much the better for them.
It's a spiral of stupid brought on by greed and capitalism allowed to run amok. Go team human!
Re: (Score:2)
Bravo on getting mods to vote up your creimer crap. Well played. They obviously voted you up before reading past the first sentence.
Why do we even have a mod system anymore?
Re: (Score:2)
If you're not trying to stop global warming by blocking out the Sun [wikipedia.org]with an orbital sun shade [wikipedia.org], I'm not impressed.
Of course, that seems like a perfect fit for Elon, if he'd stop jacking around with the bird website, he could knock that out in a couple of weeks. But if you can build a orbital solar shade, you can easily design it to be reconfigurable as a sun gun [wikipedia.org] and I'd trust Elon wit
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
First that article talks about a concave mirror on a satellite. But Elon already controls swarms of thousands of interlinked satellites; if he wanted to go all bond villain then why send anything new up when he could just reconfigure them to swarm together into a concentric ring pattern to form a flat lens? Or for that matter what would stop him from (or having done) the launch of a set of purpose built sats for that purpose under the authorization of launching starlink sats?
So far all he has done is bought
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to the oligarch overlords who resist any attempt at meaningful change because it doesn't line their pockets?
Yep. All of them. We need to start gathering with torches & pitchforks & cutting off heads. Either that or make them pay their fair share of taxes. I don't mind which.
Re: (Score:3)
You're not supposed to be afraid of climate change mitigation, though, so... perhaps you merely forgot what that word means?
Re: (Score:2)
When some random fuck sets off a bomb in the middle of the street, that's terrorism.
When my trained and talented local bomb squad sets off a bomb in the middle of the street in a controlled and safe manner, that's a public service.
The idiot in this article is a low grade wannabe terrorist.
Re: (Score:2)
Still can't find the root word in "terrorism," eh?
Re: (Score:3)
A bomb set outside your driveway wouldn't scare you! You are so brave! Golly!
Is that your best? Or were you just drunk posting that nonsense?
Re: (Score:2)
Spray paint is vandalism. Eggs are vandalism. Toilet paper is vandalism.
Building an IED and setting it to go off in a populated area is terrorism.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't a city bus or commuter train essentially a subscription vehicle?
In my area you can buy a monthly pass for unlimited rides. How is public transit not a subscription?
What's wrong with that, anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
Only attempt at the obligatory joke? Maybe it missed Funny because you forgot "possibly"?