Sunlight Reflection Startup Raises $500K to Test Its Atmospheric Cooling Plans (cnbc.com) 96
"Luke Iseman, a serial inventor and the former director of hardware at Y Combinator, has raised at least $500,000 to launch his sunlight reflection company, Make Sunsets," reports CNBC.
"Make Sunsets plans to launch three balloon test launches releasing sulfur dioxide to cool the atmosphere in January from the land Iseman owns in Baja, Mexico." "We make reflective, high-altitude, biodegradable clouds that cool the planet. Mimicking natural processes, our 'shiny clouds' are going to prevent catastrophic global warming," reads the site's About page.... The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines released thousands of tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, temporarily lowering average global temperatures by about 1 degree Fahrenheit, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
The idea of replicating these conditions to fight climate change has generally been dismissed as more science fiction than real science. But as the effects of climate change have grown more dire and obvious, the idea has gotten more serious attention, and the White House is in the process of coordinating a five-year research plan to study it. On the downside, injecting sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere could damage the ozone layer, cause respiratory illness and create acid rain. It would also cost as little as $10 billion per year to run a program that cools the Earth by 1 degree Celsius, UCLA environmental law professor Edward Parson told CNBC in 2022. That's remarkably cheap compared to other mitigation techniques....
In January, Make Sunsets plans to launch three latex weather balloons that will release anywhere between 10 and 500 grams of sulfur dioxide. The balloons will include a flight tracking computer, a geo-locating tracking device, and a camera, mostly provided by hobbyist suppliers. Within a week of each flight, Make Sunsets will publish data on its website about what it was able to find.
"Make Sunsets plans to launch three balloon test launches releasing sulfur dioxide to cool the atmosphere in January from the land Iseman owns in Baja, Mexico." "We make reflective, high-altitude, biodegradable clouds that cool the planet. Mimicking natural processes, our 'shiny clouds' are going to prevent catastrophic global warming," reads the site's About page.... The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines released thousands of tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, temporarily lowering average global temperatures by about 1 degree Fahrenheit, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
The idea of replicating these conditions to fight climate change has generally been dismissed as more science fiction than real science. But as the effects of climate change have grown more dire and obvious, the idea has gotten more serious attention, and the White House is in the process of coordinating a five-year research plan to study it. On the downside, injecting sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere could damage the ozone layer, cause respiratory illness and create acid rain. It would also cost as little as $10 billion per year to run a program that cools the Earth by 1 degree Celsius, UCLA environmental law professor Edward Parson told CNBC in 2022. That's remarkably cheap compared to other mitigation techniques....
In January, Make Sunsets plans to launch three latex weather balloons that will release anywhere between 10 and 500 grams of sulfur dioxide. The balloons will include a flight tracking computer, a geo-locating tracking device, and a camera, mostly provided by hobbyist suppliers. Within a week of each flight, Make Sunsets will publish data on its website about what it was able to find.
Stupid, scammy and dangerous ... (Score:5, Insightful)
We just discussed this company some 12 days ago ...
A startup is releasing particles into the atmosphere to tweak the climate [slashdot.org].
Sounds scammy and stupid, as well as reckless ...
So now they raised half a million? Lots of gullible people to go around ...
Re: (Score:3)
These tests are releasing between 10 and 500 grammes of sulfur dioxide, so they're a long way from causing any real harm at this point.
Re:Stupid, scammy and dangerous ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Found the optimist.
I love your positive energy, but has anything...literally anything...from the past 3 years given you any reason to believe that the adults are in charge?
Re: (Score:2)
has anything...literally anything...from the past 3 years given you any reason to believe that the adults are in charge?
In my high school history class, we read The Guns of August [wikipedia.org], about how misjudgment, miscommunications, and petty political squabbles led to the First World War and 20 million deaths in a conflict fought for no good reason, resolved nothing, and had a "do-over" 21 years later.
The adults have never been in charge.
Re: (Score:1)
Unfortunately, modern concept of history overestimates the factor of input of individual humans or small groups of humans.
There are tendencies in the world history that at individual level is impossible to affect significantly. They constitute the result of efforts of millions of people driven by natural human desires for success, comfort, power.
The factors you mentioned are all true. They were present, no argument here, but there were other factors as well, independent of politicians, that led to the war.
O
Re: (Score:2)
I love your positive energy, but has anything...literally anything...from the past 3 years given you any reason to believe that the adults are in charge?
3 years? What on earth would cause you to pick that specific range of time? I don't see any evidence within my lifetime.
Re: (Score:1)
Our covid response was a shitshow from start to finish, your point is well taken.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It is stupid and fucking moronic. We need to fix the problem and not just bandaid it. This problem has to be fixed at the national level. Not but a bunch of environmentalist "cowboys" that think they have a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Stupid, scammy and dangerous ... (Score:2)
Re: Stupid, scammy and dangerous ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wind and solar are cheaper than fossils. They make fossils more expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I agree we need to have a national level fix for this mess
America is responsible for 15% of GHG emissions.
We need a Global level fix.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
China is responsible for 30% of GHG emissions. What is your point?
Re: (Score:2)
China is responsible for 30% of GHG emissions. What is your point?
My point is that America can't solve GW on its own because 85% of emissions occur elsewhere.
You appear to be agreeing with me, so I'm not sure what your point is.
Re:Stupid, scammy and dangerous ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Reducing the light from the sun is a maddeningly dangerous approach, in terms of the impacts it will have on agriculture and ecosystems. Most land-plant growth on Earth - including crops - is sun-limited.
In addition to destroying ozone and increasing acid rain, this approach also does nothing whatsoever to do with ocean acidification. Furthermore, it's just "hide the problem". If they stop, all that "hidden warming" suddenly rushes in.
I also strongly suspect that this approach would also change global weather patterns, and not in a "revert to pre-GHG-levels" cooling manner.
Re: Stupid, scammy and dangerous ... (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
So the real problem is our, i.e., human, civilization. Human civilization is entirely dependent on the consumption and use of energy. The degree of human flourishing is a function of the availability of cheap, reliable energy.
Re: (Score:2)
Reducing the light from the sun is a maddeningly dangerous approach, in terms of the impacts it will have on agriculture and ecosystems. Most land-plant growth on Earth - including crops - is sun-limited.
In fact, that is false, or at least it's false in the way you wrote it. AGW is actually causing more and more plants to be sun-limited in exactly the opposite of the way you think they are — conditions are too hot for them to function. When temperatures get above about 100 degrees F then pretty much all plants shut their stomata and cannot engage in respiration, which means they also cannot engage in photosynthesis. Reducing insolation can actually increase functional cropland.
However, using anything
Re: (Score:2)
So, I'm literally completing a horticulture degree here, and that's just not true. If "most plants" were in a constant state of drought stress, there would be visible signs; as a general rule, drought stress is not exactly subtle in most plants.
Also, you group all plants together, but there's a big difference between C3 and C4 plants. C4 plants (such as grasses) like it hot, and perform much better in warm temperatures (they also need less time with their stomata open, and deal with drought better - though
Re: (Score:2)
** By "deep ocean" I mean "far out at sea", not "at great depth"; plants living at depth are of course highly light constrained.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
$500K is nothing, won't get you much beyond some basic scientific data collection or an engineering feasibility study, certainly not both.
Re: (Score:3)
$500K is nothing, won't get you much beyond some basic scientific data collection or an engineering feasibility study
They aren't collecting data and are not conducting any feasibility study.
$5k is to pay for the balloons. The other $495k is for blackjack and hookers.
Re: (Score:2)
You're probably not far off. And if anyone can prove it that's fraud and a felony. But I'm skeptical any thing will happen. Money will disappear and in two years we won't even remember this "business".
Morons with money... (Score:2)
If they were really into releasing sulfur into atmosphere, they would have done better by eating more broccoli or asparagus. [healthline.com]
Then simply let nature do its thing.
This is something a small (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The University might say they need $50K for funding some engineering student project. But at the same time the University is accepting tuition from those same students. The real world operates much differently. A 3 month contract with a data scientist is going to cost you at least $50k, perhaps $75K. Let alone all the other staff you'll need to do any proper research.
Re: (Score:2)
Team of 3rd year engineering students could throw together for under 50k. They raised nearly a million bucks for doing this? Wow. Kudos to them.
They won't be nearly as rich as SBF, but they probably won't be in prison either.
Re: (Score:2)
Geoengineering not replacement for decarbonization (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Geoengineering not replacement for decarboniza (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Explain why, though. If the problem is heating, surely a method of cooling could be the solution, right?
I'm not necessarily supporting the TFA, but your reaction is scientifically illiterate at best and downright deliberately malignant at worst.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
GP was talking about geoengineering generally, which includes many technologies beyond sulfur seeding, with the claim that it cannot replace decarbonization.
Like I said, I'm not necessarily supporting the proposal in TFA, but if we can introduce enough cooling to offset the heating caused by emissions in an economically viable way, why not?
Re: (Score:1)
why not?
The biggest objection is that geoengineering will diminish the urgency to reduce GHG emissions.
Other objections are that cooling does nothing to reduce other problems, like ocean acidification.
I don't think either of these is a valid objection. There isn't much urgency anyway, so it is hard to see it getting worse. Just because we can't solve ocean acidification, doesn't mean we shouldn't reduce cooling.
Also, some GEO-Eng proposals, such as oceanic iron fertilization, DO solve ocean acidification.
Re: Geoengineering not replacement for decarboniza (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Man, humans, people... are not bigger than nature.
Go for a swim in the Western Aral sea and then tell me that. Oh, wait, you can't, only a little bit of the Eastern part is left now. Maybe you should dig a hole somewhere and examine the distinct natural layers that form in the soil... except, you'll have to find one of the rare spots where the soil has not been turned over by human activity and removed those layers. The simple fact is that, yes, nature is huge and majestic, etc. but human activity is also a huge force that most certainly does affect nature
Re: Geoengineering not replacement for decarboniz (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think q_e_t pretty much said it all, but still I want to add that the atmosphere is massive. It's extremely vast. Since the density is variable, stating it in terms of volume is tricky, but it masses something like 5.148 quadrillion tons. That's 643,500 tons of atmosphere per person, which seems like a pretty big number and would seem to lend support to your theory about nature simply overwhelming human activity. Consider, however, that human activity since the industrial revolution has increased the CO2
Re: Geoengineering not replacement for decarboniza (Score:2)
scientifically illiterate
... says the person who thinks thermal energy flows from cold to hot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Explain why, though. If the problem is heating, surely a method of cooling could be the solution, right?
Because the system is not that simplistic. The problem is actually that, when an adequate amount of sunlight comes in, too much of the heat energy produced by it is trapped. The solution being proposed here is to block sunlight so that we no longer have adequate levels of sunlight. That means things like lower agricultural productivity. It's not a sane solution to the actual problem.
Re: Geoengineering not replacement for decarboniza (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, the acid rain will kill the plants before the lack of sunlight.
Fair enough.
Re: (Score:2)
farting in the wind (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So these guys are going to save the planet by farting in the wind? I'm no expert, but don't volcanoes release more sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere than what this endeavor could possibly launch with balloons?
My understanding is farting is to study the chemistry / effects of sulfur dioxide plumes in the atmosphere. While I certainly don't advocate these schemes personally I think it is fair to at least let people harmlessly experiment and collect data without actually engaging in geoengineering.
Brawndo is *not* what plants crave (Score:1)
For years, Man has yearned to destroy the Sun. I plan to do the next best thing, block it out!
We don't know who struck first... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Carbon mitigation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
DEBT. (Score:2)
>> Takes a few keystrokes to erase
Nope, you got it wrong.
It takes just a few keystrokes to create.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, wrong address.
I was looking for the obligatory "What could possibly go wrong" joke.
Story had so much potential for Funny, but...
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, nothing in our economic system is made to be funny.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the best humor find the funny sides of the the sad realities?
My current sociological and philosophic speculation involves the bootstrap problems. Many kinds, but one example involves language. We're much smarter than we have to be in order to use language, but we (at least some of us) had to get that smart to create language in the absence of any prior users and teachers of language. More broadly, we create society and then society creates people, and it goes back and forth. The "evolutionary" steps
Re: Carbon mitigation (Score:2)
Cool, but.. (Score:1)
Just like how recycling is a scam (Score:1)
Faustian bargain (Score:2)
You want Snowpiercer? (Score:5, Insightful)
lemme get this straight (Score:1)
Each year volcanoes spew out 25 million tons of SO2.. and that's your usual average slow year, they can go way beyond 100 million tons.
Sooo, how is this drop in the bucket going to make much difference?
Preview of their results to be published (Score:4, Funny)
The balloon carrying 10 grams of SO2 released its payload. The event was recorded visually and audibly. There was no visible impact of releasing the gas, in other words, nothing changed in the view through the before/during/after phase. The audio track consisted of a brief "hissing" sound. If you were to write it out, it would probably be spelled "sssssssss". To the relief of our scientists, there was no trace of a "wop" or "foop" character to the sound.
The duration of the hissing sound was precisely measured to be 1200 milliseconds.
Another balloon was recorded while releasing 500 grams of SO2. To the surprise of the team, the duration of the "sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss" sound was 55,310 milliseconds. There was much debate around the surprising fact that the duration was not exactly 60,000 milliseconds, as expected based on the law of proportionality. One scientist steadfastly asserted this was due to a subtle "wop" sound he perceived near the end of the period, but independent verification efforts were unable to confirm this to be the case. This was also a great relief to all the scientists who did not hear the alleged sound.
In the video record, great excitement ensued when a brief flash of brilliance was observed during the release of the gas. Upon closer study, however, it was concluded that it was just a glint of sunlight off the carcass of the (now falling) balloon that had just recently released the 10 grams of SO2 in the prior experiment. The notes clearly show that future tests (future funding permitting) should ensure an adequate gap in time between SO2 releases to allow earlier balloons to fall fully clear of the video perspective of any subsequent balloon SO2 releasement experiments.
Re: (Score:1)
Ran out of points - please, someone mod the parent up. Thx
Absolute non-starter (Score:2)
They're shoving costs someplace else. This could be like a Pinatubo eruption, ie, "volcanic winter". If you consider that extreme weather events can result from that too, they're just shoving costs on to other people. The wiki article for Pinatubo says the eruption may have contributed to the "1993 storm of the century " nor 'easter, and the Mississippi flood of the same year. If climate models can reasonably demonstrate cause and effect, everybody who suffers from such events could have cause for actio
Someone shoot him now. (Score:1)
Clueless pop science is NOT what is needed to deal with climate change. Shoot him now.
MEER (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why Ye Tao's MEER project doesn't get more air time. He has addressed many concerns that I share. He has presented at COP26 and COP27.
I don't understand why you didn't include a link on a forum where comments are written in HTML. I also don't understand why you think any of us know who you are, or care about your concerns that we don't know what they are. COP conferences are bullshit fuckoff wastes of time at which nothing is intended to get done, where fossil fuel lobbyists outnumber any other group.
Re: (Score:1)
Wait a minute.. (Score:1)
sulfur dioxide... (Score:1)
Bad idea. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Better solution (Score:2)
Here's a better solution: just shake your fist at god.
speaking of the science fiction aspects... (Score:2)
one scenario where this sort of thing makes economic sense. The fact is, we
need a billion-dollar sewage treatment plant to support a city, and to
support an entire planet... the cost, here, isn't much of a counterargument.
What IS a killer argument, is loss of glaciers and snowpack.
One possibility, that the Ganges might
run dry in summer, basically renders hundreds of millions of people homeless.
So, short of war, how do we
Its about time we moved back to democracy (Score:1)
Its about time we moved back to democracy, before people go ahead and do something stupid that effects all of us, I think we should get to have a say.