Researchers Quietly Planned a Test to Dim Sunlight Over 3,900 Square Miles (politico.com) 34
California researchers planned a multimillion-dollar test of salt water-spraying equipment that could one day be used to dim the sun's rays — over a 3,900-square mile are off the west coasts of North America, Chile or south-central Africa. E&E News calls it part of a "secretive" initiative backed by "wealthy philanthropists with ties to Wall Street and Silicon Valley" — and a piece of the "vast scope of research aimed at finding ways to counter the Earth's warming, work that has often occurred outside public view."
"At such scales, meaningful changes in clouds will be readily detectable from space," said a 2023 research plan from the [University of Washington's] Marine Cloud Brightening Program. The massive experiment would have been contingent upon the successful completion of the thwarted pilot test on the carrier deck in Alameda, according to the plan.... Before the setback in Alameda, the team had received some federal funding and hoped to gain access to government ships and planes, the documents show.
The university and its partners — a solar geoengineering research advocacy group called SilverLining and the scientific nonprofit SRI International — didn't respond to detailed questions about the status of the larger cloud experiment. But SilverLining's executive director, Kelly Wanser, said in an email that the Marine Cloud Brightening Program aimed to "fill gaps in the information" needed to determine if the technologies are safe and effective.âIn the initial experiment, the researchers appeared to have disregarded past lessons about building community support for studies related to altering the climate, and instead kept their plans from the public and lawmakers until the testing was underway, some solar geoengineering experts told E&E News. The experts also expressed surprise at the size of the planned second experiment....
The program does not "recommend, support or develop plans for the use of marine cloud brightening to alter weather or climate," Sarah Doherty, an atmospheric and climate science professor at the university who leads the program, said in a statement to E&E News. She emphasized that the program remains focused on researching the technology, not deploying it. There are no "plans for conducting large-scale studies that would alter weather or climate," she added.
"More than 575 scientists have called for a ban on geoengineering development," according to the article, "because it 'cannot be governed globally in a fair, inclusive, and effective manner.'" But "Some scientists believe that the perils of climate change are too dire to not pursue the technology, which they say can be safely tested in well-designed experiments... " "If we really were serious about the idea that to do any controversial topic needs some kind of large-scale consensus before we can research the topic, I think that means we don't research topics," David Keith, a geophysical sciences professor at the University of Chicago, said at a think tank discussion last month... "The studies that the program is pursuing are scientifically sound and would be unlikely to alter weather patterns — even for the Puerto Rico-sized test, said Daniele Visioni, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Cornell University. Nearly 30 percent of the planet is already covered by clouds, he noted.
Thanks to Slashdot reader fjo3 for sharing the news.
The university and its partners — a solar geoengineering research advocacy group called SilverLining and the scientific nonprofit SRI International — didn't respond to detailed questions about the status of the larger cloud experiment. But SilverLining's executive director, Kelly Wanser, said in an email that the Marine Cloud Brightening Program aimed to "fill gaps in the information" needed to determine if the technologies are safe and effective.âIn the initial experiment, the researchers appeared to have disregarded past lessons about building community support for studies related to altering the climate, and instead kept their plans from the public and lawmakers until the testing was underway, some solar geoengineering experts told E&E News. The experts also expressed surprise at the size of the planned second experiment....
The program does not "recommend, support or develop plans for the use of marine cloud brightening to alter weather or climate," Sarah Doherty, an atmospheric and climate science professor at the university who leads the program, said in a statement to E&E News. She emphasized that the program remains focused on researching the technology, not deploying it. There are no "plans for conducting large-scale studies that would alter weather or climate," she added.
"More than 575 scientists have called for a ban on geoengineering development," according to the article, "because it 'cannot be governed globally in a fair, inclusive, and effective manner.'" But "Some scientists believe that the perils of climate change are too dire to not pursue the technology, which they say can be safely tested in well-designed experiments... " "If we really were serious about the idea that to do any controversial topic needs some kind of large-scale consensus before we can research the topic, I think that means we don't research topics," David Keith, a geophysical sciences professor at the University of Chicago, said at a think tank discussion last month... "The studies that the program is pursuing are scientifically sound and would be unlikely to alter weather patterns — even for the Puerto Rico-sized test, said Daniele Visioni, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Cornell University. Nearly 30 percent of the planet is already covered by clouds, he noted.
Thanks to Slashdot reader fjo3 for sharing the news.
They're hardly trying (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Secrecy is the issue (Score:4, Insightful)
They should have been open about it, and probably aimed to do it off a third world country's coast. Vanuatu would probably say yes.
The secrecy just pisses everyone off, not just the denier crazies.
Re: (Score:2)
We all know thats a fallacious point. So, you excusing it tells everyone you are for the thing you are claiming to not like.
This is literally a "if they jump off a bridge..." school mentality, and you have yet to figure out why following a lemming off the bridge is not conducive to healthy living.
Re: (Score:3)
Try to hide something and the first thing people go to is the worst thing they can imaging.
Or, (paraphrasing), you can openly shout from the rooftops that you're going to rob people and you'll develop a reputation for honesty.
Re: (Score:2)
From their open letter [solargeoeng.org]:
Re: (Score:3)
"because it 'cannot be governed globally in a fair, inclusive, and effective manner.'"
"inclusive"? Would the clouds somehow let different amounts of sun in for different races?
You know that word means more than your chosen narrow interpretation - right?
Re: (Score:2)
"because it 'cannot be governed globally in a fair, inclusive, and effective manner.'"
"inclusive"? Would the clouds somehow let different amounts of sun in for different races?
You know that word means more than your chosen narrow interpretation - right?
not the OP, but YOU know that that's exactly what it means in this context. Or rather not just "race" , but the whole "traditionally victimized groups" or "protected classes" or whatever the approved incantation is in your area.
it's ultimately a variation on the old quip
[if there was nuclear Armageddon, the next day's NY Times headline would read, ]
“WORLD ENDS, WOMEN & MINORITIES HARDEST HIT.”
For years, Man has yearned to destroy the Sun (Score:1)
I plan to do the next-best thing: block it out!
Re: (Score:2)
Simpsons did it.
We had to keep it a secret from the machines (Score:2)
If we're going to need to scorch the sky, we'd better start planning now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Both things can be true (Score:2)
More than 575 scientists have called for a ban on geoengineering development," according to the article, "because it 'cannot be governed globally in a fair, inclusive, and effective manner.'"
Some scientists believe that the perils of climate change are too dire to not pursue the technology
Utter insanity to believe we can control something at planet scale.
We also may have to do things at planet scale that we can't control.
Re: (Score:2)
774â"775 carbon-14 spike. worldwide; aka global.
We hardly control anything; most of us act more like animals with a mask of intelligence.
Re: (Score:3)
I would totally support a ban on activities that alter climate or weather on a global scale. Like, for example, increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere. Shall we start enforcing it?
We're already changing the climate. If we're not going to ban all geoengineering, it doesn't make sense to ban only the carefully thought out interventions that have a chance of helping, while continuing to allow the ones we know are catastrophically harmful.
Re: (Score:2)
"because it 'cannot be governed globally in a fair, inclusive, and effective manner.'"
Did Norway [slashdot.org] get world-wide buy in to pump CO2 into "our" planet?
I'll just leave this here... (Score:2)
They should do this over the San Joaquin (Score:3)
I'm sure covering the San Joaquin in salt would be wonderful for vegetable growing. Perhaps they should test this over Great Salt Lake, or Bonneville Salt Flats.
Already testing it in Australia (Score:4, Interesting)
As seen right here on slashdot:
https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
They've been testing this for quite a while and on a small scale it seems to work. The pictures are actually quite spectacular. These very low-level artificial clouds were carried up by the breeze and joined with natural low-level clouds.
Re: Already testing it in Australia (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
> 'They've been testing this for quite a while and on a small scale it seems to work.'
'Testing' on a 'small scale' my ass. They have been spraying us daily in this US state for 15+ years, and it's been going on for decades out on the west coast. It's called "chemtrails." That's geoengineering, aka weather modifications.
10000 square kilometres (Score:3)
Profits wins again (Score:2)
Strange, how this isn't a problem when a country restarts 10 toxic coal-burning power-plants. Anything that wins the global profit-making pissing-contest is the magically unavoidable price of modern life.
WTF???? (Score:1)
Seriously? Decades of promoting solar power... and now that it has some good support and adoption, you want to blot out the sky? Sounds like some evil psychopaths.
Eexxcellent (Score:2)
Seriously? Decades of promoting solar power... and now that it has some good support and adoption, you want to blot out the sky? Sounds like some evil psychopaths.
Since the beginning of time, man has yearned to destroy the sun. I shall do the next best thing: block it out. (Monty Burns)
While their at it (Score:2)
Why don't they humidify the atmosphere off the cost of the southwest us and make it rain more often. Could use more water in the atmosphere upstream from dryer parts of the southwest.
Bill Gates (Score:1)
"Trying" my ass. We are lab rats (Score:1)
"Chemtrails" = geoengineering, aka weather modification. They've been spraying the shit out of this state for about 15 years, and the west coast for decades. All of this "we're thinking about trying this cool new experiment" noise is bullshit; the experiment has been going on a long time, while they gaslight us and pretend it's not happening. We are lab rats.
Yep, salting the earth is such a great idea... (Score:2)
This may just do wonders for agriculture...
HQ (Score:2)
"At such scales, meaningful changes in clouds will be readily detectable from space" said a 2023 research plan The program does not "recommend, support or develop plans for the use of marine cloud brightening to alter weather or climate," Sarah Doherty. There are no "plans for conducting large-scale studies that would alter weather or climate," she added, speaking from a large white control room with a gigantic display screen showing a globe of the earth, and surrounded by vintage 9-track mainframe tape dri