In October, the White House Office of Science and Technology began the implementation of a plan to support research into climate "interventions", involving engineering on a planetary scale to counteract the heating effect of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by spraying "stuff" into the atmosphere.
It's called Solar Radiation Management or SRM.
Make Sunsets is a venture capital-backed U.S. startup that says it's already testing an idea.
quote
Make Sunsets, backed by two venture capital funds, launched in October. It claims to have already run two internal test flights for its plan to inject sulphur via balloons into the stratosphere, more than 20km above the Earth’s surface.
The venture, named after the deep red sunsets that would occur if particles were seeded into the stratosphere, says its “shiny clouds” will “prevent catastrophic global warming” and help save millions of lives. “Any human-caused release of carbon dioxide is geoengineering,” it argues on its website, which asks people to buy “cooling credits” to fund its work. “We screwed up the atmosphere, and now we have a moral obligation to fix things!”
Edward Parson, an expert in environmental law at University of California, Los Angeles, says Make Sunsets’ claims that it could return the world to its pre-industrial temperature for just $50bn a year are “absurd”. He explains that most researchers are wary of deploying what they consider to be a desperate, last-ditch option.
But Parson says the risks in researching solar geoengineering have been overblown and that the US “is probably the bold leader on this. It would be a big step forward if we have a research program.”
The idea of recalibrating the world’s climate to deal with heat-trapping emissions isn’t new. A group of scientific advisers to [President] Johnson cautioned the US president about global heating in 1965, musing that “deliberately bringing about countervailing climatic changes therefore need to be thoroughly explored”.
Calls for [climate] intervention have grown in recent years as countries continue to dawdle over emissions cuts and as an internationally agreed limit of 1.5C of global heating over pre-industrial times [teeters on the edge of likely failure.]
"It's like my trademark 'aviator' sunglasses for the Earth."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-26-2022).]
Yeah! Let's solve global warming by polluting the atmosphere.
quote
Make Sunsets, backed by two venture capital funds, launched in October. It claims to have already run two internal test flights for its plan to inject sulphur via balloons into the stratosphere, more than 20km above the Earth’s surface.
Maybe we could use sulfur. Yeah, that would be GREAT along with a little water vapor and sunshine...
At one time, my boss asked me to look into a system that made hydrogen to inject into diesel engines. I called the people who were selling the system and I asked them about hydrogen embrittlement and sulfuric acid as a byproduct of the combustion reaction. They had no answer. They don't sell that system anymore.
It's like the story about the island that was overrun by mice. They imported cats to kill the mice and guess what happened.
"A startup [Make Sunsets] says it’s begun releasing particles into the atmosphere, in an effort to tweak the climate"
quote
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. . . .
David Keith, one of the world’s leading experts on solar geoengineering, says that the amount of material in question—less than 10 grams of sulfur per flight—doesn’t represent any real environmental danger; a commercial flight can emit about 100 grams per minute, he points out. Keith and his colleagues at Harvard University have worked for years to move forward on a small-scale stratospheric experiment known as SCoPEx, which has been repeatedly delayed.
Just more ways to fleece the middle-class tax payers of their money v-capital=NGO-->>tax deductable-->>cronie capitalism-->>shady legal $moneys$ transfer/laundering. Scheme. Suck that gov teet, slurp slurp. We need more Sam "the bankman" Frieds. Slurp slurp.
This sh!t has been done for decades, R.I.. You've just been dening it at your convenience and so has many countries. Ignorance is D-evil strength.v-capitol=NGO-->>tax deductable-->>cronie capitalism-->>shady legal $moneys$ transfer/laundering. Scheme.
Originally posted by olejoedad: So why wasn't the border wall with Mexico finished?
Some new stretches of border wall were built during the Trump administration.
Was the "kilometerage" of new border wall construction not commensurate with the amount of border wall money that was budgeted by Congress?
I say "kilometerage" instead of mileage as a courtesy to Mexico. After all, (southern) border wall (by definition) has a side that fronts towards or proximately to Mexico.
Originally posted by rinselberg: In October, the White House Office of Science and Technology began the implementation of a plan to support research into climate "interventions", involving engineering on a planetary scale to counteract the heating effect of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by spraying "stuff" into the atmosphere.
Bring back R12 refrigerant. It almost started new ice age.
Marine cloud brightening. Seems like the lowest risk here, in terms of adverse and unpredictable side effects. Not that I'm a scientist. Just a "gut" feeling about it.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-28-2022).]
Marine cloud brightening. Seems like the lowest risk here, in terms of adverse and unpredictable side effects. Not that I'm a scientist. Just a "gut" feeling about it.
Well, here it is, the Earth Orbiting Torus Space Station, on a scale never before imagined, a habitat for humanity to evolve within long before travelling to distant exoplanets. Millennial timeline, centuries of constant construction, the entire resource of the Solar system exploited, for humanity. ' Wheels ? Where we're going, we won't need wheels ! '
I don't know if this has any direct connection with the White House Office of Science and Technology's budgetary mandate, but some scientists are sizing up the idea of helping the Earth to keep its "cool" (so to speak) with moon dust.
Here's the science journal report itself:
quote
We revisit dust placed near the Earth–Sun L1 Lagrange point as a possible climate-change mitigation measure. Our calculations include variations in grain properties and orbit solutions with lunar and planetary perturbations. To achieve sunlight attenuation of 1.8%, equivalent to about 6 days per year of an obscured Sun, the mass of dust in the scenarios we consider must exceed 1010 kg. The more promising approaches include using high-porosity, fluffy grains to increase the extinction efficiency per unit mass, and launching this material in directed jets from a platform orbiting at L1. A simpler approach is to ballistically eject dust grains from the Moon’s surface on a free trajectory toward L1, providing sun shade for several days or more. Advantages compared to an Earth launch include a ready reservoir of dust on the lunar surface and less kinetic energy required to achieve a sun-shielding orbit.
"Could Space Dust Help Protect the Earth from Climate Change?"
quote
Dust launched from the Moon’s surface or from a space station positioned between Earth and the Sun could reduce enough solar radiation to mitigate the impacts of climate change.
The authors stress that their new study only explores the potential impact of this strategy, rather than evaluate whether these scenarios are logistically feasible.
"We aren't experts in climate change, or the rocket science needed to move mass from one place to the other. We're just exploring different kinds of dust on a variety of orbits to see how effective this approach might be. We do not want to miss a game changer for such a critical problem," says Bromley.
One of the biggest logistical challenges—replenishing dust streams every few days—also has an advantage. The Sun’s radiation naturally disperses the dust particles throughout the solar system, meaning the sunshield is temporary and particles do not fall onto Earth. The authors assure that their approach would not create a permanently cold, uninhabitable planet, as in the science fiction story, "Snowpiercer."
"A little moon dust goes a long way."
Just a little something to help us get by while we work out other ways to stabilize and limit the Earth-warming greenhouse effect that is an unintended consequence of burning fossil fuels and all the other greenhouse gas emitting activities and processes.
"We'd be crazy not to do it."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-09-2023).]
Just a little something to help us get by while we work out other ways to stabilize and limit the Earth-warming greenhouse effect that is an unintended consequence of burning fossil fuels and all the other greenhouse gas emitting activities and processes.
"We'd be crazy not to do it."
So, we slowly dissipate the moon's mass, dispersing it into oblivion. The tides slowly wane, and with them all of their important work. The impact to marine life is incalculable. What have you got against our fishy friends?
I can only conceive of it as a (relatively) short term measure.
It can't be allowed if it's going to result in an orbitally and gravitationally significant decrease of the moon's mass.
It's interesting because the physics of gravity and rotation is gradually increasing the distance between the moon and the earth.
Remember, it's just an idea. A work in progress. It may look better to Arizonians when the current century is farther along. We Californians are already sold on it. After all, we are the state that elected a "Governor Moonbeam".
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-09-2023).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: I don't know if this has any direct connection with the White House Office of Science and Technology's budgetary mandate, but some scientists are sizing up the idea of helping the Earth to keep its "cool" (so to speak) with moon dust.
How much money will it take to put a catapult on the moon, and the support industry to make it happen ?
How much money will it take to put a catapult on the moon, and the support industry to make it happen ?
Why Moon dust and not Kalifornia soil?
I can't talk "money" but I can talk "moon dust".
"Why Moon dust and not Kalifornia soil?" is a question that is addressed in the PLOS Climate journal article:
quote
[Instead of trying to launch Kalifornia soil into orbit à la "cliffw"] a simpler approach is to ballistically eject dust grains from the Moon’s surface on a free trajectory toward L1, providing sun shade for several days or more. Advantages compared to an Earth launch include a ready reservoir of dust on the lunar surface and less kinetic energy required to achieve a sun-shielding orbit.
A "simpler approach"... KISS. Having to use a lesser amount of kinetic energy is better, because energy isn't free.
"L1" is shorthand for Lagrangian Point 1 of the Earth-Moon orbital system. After being catapulted from the moon's surface, the moon dust drifts away from the moon until it reaches L1, where the dust is balanced between the gravitational attraction of the moon, which is trying to pull its dust back, and the gravitational attraction of the earth, which wants to glom onto the dust and pull it all the way to the earth's surface.
At the L1 gravitational equilibrium or balancing point, the dust is suspended "nicely" between the earth and the moon, so it kind of hangs there, at the L1 distance from earth, and orbits the earth, just as the moon orbits the earth.
This gives the dust its persistence as a "solar shield" for the earth, because the dust is going to spread out into a kind of Saturn-like ring all the way around the earth, and so there is always some dust between the earth and the sun to reflect a carefully calculated amount of sunlight away from the earth (by catapulting a carefully calculated amount of moon dust.) This counteracts the global warming effect of overabundant greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere.
A man-made satellite with solar panels is depicted as orbiting the earth at the L1 point of the earth-moon system.
The dust is seen crossing the face of the sun, as viewed from earth.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-10-2023).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: After being catapulted from the moon's surface, the moon dust drifts away from the moon until it reaches L1, where the dust is balanced between the gravitational attraction of the moon, which is trying to pull its dust back, and the gravitational attraction of the earth, which wants to glom onto the dust and pull it all the way to the earth's surface.
At the L1 gravitational equilibrium or balancing point, the dust is suspended "nicely" between the earth and the moon, so it kind of hangs there, at the L1 distance from earth, and orbits the earth, just as the moon orbits the earth.
Your a funny guy.
The moon dust just drifts away from the moon ? Like a Chinese spy balloon ? What puts it over your house ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: ... it kind of hangs there ...
Suspended "nicely" between the earth and the moon ?
What makes that drifting Moon dust hang in a "nicely" position ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: ... some scientists ...
Some science FICTION seems to become true, but, if it does, it will be after the Earth is flooded. Speaking of history, if you ignore it, it will bite you in the azz later.
Do you remember the first [color]electric vehicle push ? We were supposed to reach "peak oil" ?
We were told, in 1953, that by 2000 we would reach "peak oil". Peak oil is the hypothetical point in time when the maximum rate of global oil production is reached, after which it is argued that production will begin an irreversible decline.
Another failed attempt to make us buy an electric vehicle.
The lunar regolith or "moon dust" is hurled upwards from the surface of the moon by a powerful catapult. The kinetic energy that this imparts to the dust particles is sufficient for the material to overcome the opposing force of the moon's gravity and move far enough away from the moon to reach that Lagrangian point 1 or "L1" that I explained in my previous message.
The dust orbits around the earth at the Lagrangian 1 distance, which is closer to the moon than to the earth. Each catapult's worth of dust soon dissipates in space, and so to create an effective solar shield for the earth, the catapulting of moon dust has to be repeated "ad infinitum", or for as long as a solar shield for the earth is desired. I don't know whether that would be one catapult shot per minute, or one per day, or one per month. I guess it depends on the size of the catapult. Or there's a number of catapults.
The dust either falls (gradually) to the surface of the earth, or back to the moon, or gets pushed completely away from the earth and moon and into the solar system at large by the force of sunlight and the force of the solar wind.
Of all the solar shield options that I have presented in this forum thread, this lunar dust idea strikes me as the lowest risk option. It doesn't involve anything that would contaminate the earth's atmosphere or fall back on the earth's surface. Any of the moon dust would burn up in the earth's upper atmosphere before it could contaminate any of the earth's land or oceans
I think for it to work without backfiring, the fraction of this dust that ever reaches the earth's atmosphere would have to be very negligible, or spread out over so many years that it is negligible compared to the solar shielding effect. I think that is likely considered in the mathematical and physical analysis and computer modeling that's been set up as part of this research report for PLOS Climate.
"Global warming doesn't stand a chance"
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-11-2023).]
Yeah, that would be GREAT along with a little water vapor and sunshine...
