5 ms·
There's a group that is advocating for spraying an Iron Salt Aerosol into the atmosphere, which apparently catalyzes the natural decomposition process. I haven
by alexose 4y ago
There's a group that is advocating for spraying an Iron Salt Aerosol into the atmosphere, which apparently catalyzes the natural decomposition process. I haven't done a deep dive into the subject, but on the surface it seems pretty compelling.
https://ironsaltaerosol.com/home/isa_summary https://ironsaltaerosol.com/home/isa_summary
- beders 4y agowhat could possibly go wrong? Let's put iron chloride where it doesn't belong, outside of our control. Haven't we done enough harm yet?
- rootusrootus 4y agoSeems like we've come far enough to understand that doing nothing and conserving our way out of this problem isn't viable. The time for engineering is upon us.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoyou could say the same about anything. Installing solar or wind power isn't natural part of the environment, and "something" could go wrong, better not do that either.
- SV_BubbleTime 4y agoI think that falls within his qualifier as “under our control”… and also previously tested. I have no dog in the fight, but be honest about what the argument really is.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoI guess I don't understand the distinction. Why one is out of our control? Certainly we could stop injecting extra iron into the atmosphere just as easily and dismantling a solar plant. It seems like a lot of people conflate "out of control" with "I don't understand it".
- SV_BubbleTime 4y agoOk, releasing the iron compound into the sky we find causes immeasurable amounts of suffering. Go up there and get it back. You know exactly what the topic is an you are pretending not to - for some reason.
- jxramos 4y agoit's interesting folks have interpreted this as a blocking call to effectively do nothing in the face of such uncertainty. To me it was an invitation to begin to engage in second order thinking.
- quantum_magpie 4y agoWell they haven't tested any of their assumptions in the field and their atmospheric chemistry cycle diagram has some bullshit reaction mechanisms so it is pretty much shit. Also the following statement surprisingly lacks any mention of anything related to atmospheric or earth scientists: >We seek funding for a world-first trial in Australian waters under scientific supervision, in cooperation with the marine biology community and with industries including insurance, fishing, tourism, energy and shipping.
- dr_dshiv 4y agoHow much money is worth “wasting” to investigate new possible solutions to global warming? If you look at the “official” plans, they all rely on the emergence of magical new technologies. So we’d better start testing even the less promising approaches. Shotgun strategies are needed. Of course, at the moment, many are seeking to ban research science in this area because it is viewed as morally dangerous [1]. [1] https://climateandcapitalism.com/2022/01/17/climate-scientists-ban-solar-geoengineering/ https://climateandcapitalism.com/2022/01/17/climate-scientis...
- quantum_magpie 4y agoIn this case, I think people want to ban large-scale deployments of untested, unvalidated technologies with no definitive positive effect and a non-negligible probability of disastrous consequences. I myself am an atmospheric chemist and no one has banned me from doing scientic research.
- dr_dshiv 4y agoRead their letter and paper. They don’t want to ban large scale deployments. They want to ban any deployments, even for small-scale research purposes. This will ensure that all unvalidated technologies remain untested. That’s unfortunate because we all know we can’t decarbonize in time. We need other braking mechanisms and we should be pretty open to experimentation. If no one is upset with your particular atmospheric research, maybe you aren’t ambitious enough. Just kidding— I’d love to know what you are working on.