6 ms·

Iron Salt Aerosol for Climate Control

39 points by dr_dshiv 5y ago

foobarian 5y ago
These sorts of schemes always remind me of this part in the intro of localroger's "Passages in the Void" series hosted on his personal site [1]. The whole thing is some of the most amazing SF I've ever read! "Then, about six thousand years after we were invented, it became clear that the Earth was entering one of its periodic Ice Ages. Left to its own devices this would not have been much of a problem, but it was a nuisance both we and the humans felt we could avoid. We built enormous sun-mirrors and seeded the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, and easily reversed the temperature dip. In fact, we succeeded much too well. Within a hundred years it became obvious that we had overshot our goal. But our efforts to cool the planet were not as successful as our efforts to warm it. Both ice caps melted, the sea level rose sixty meters, and vast land areas became sea floor. This was a different nuisance, but it was not the final catastrophe. The Antarctic continent had been crushed for millions of years beneath its three kilometer thick shield of ice; like a ship relieved of a heavy cargo it now wanted to rise, its lighter rocks buoyed up by the denser material of the Earth's mantle. And that lifting did not occur evenly. Great fault lines opened up into ranges of volcanoes as long-trapped magma suddenly found paths to the surface. New mountain ranges added their weight to the strain on the ancient continental plate as Antarctica regained its equilibrium. All the while a dense soot cloud blanketed the Earth and the brief summer of warming darkened into a cruel permanent winter. The ice caps returned, but the southern snow accumulation did not stop the volcanoes. Glaciers raced toward the Equator, and after they met the oceans began to freeze. Later the atmosphere's carbon dioxide began to collect as snow on the poles. We had long since given up on saving our creators and worked instead to record their accomplishments and understand their biology before they were gone." [1] http://localroger.com/ http://localroger.com/
- dr_dshiv 5y ago
  It would have been a boring SF story if they had been successful with climate control, right? That’s the dystopian bias. It’s hard to make positive future visions emotionally interesting, so we revert to the more entertaining visions of catastrophe.
  - nckmi 5y ago
    "Solarpunk is a literary genre and art movement that envisions how the future might look if humanity succeeded in solving major contemporary challenges with an emphasis on sustainability, human impact on the environment, climate change, and pollution." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solarpunk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solarpunk
    - dr_dshiv 5y ago
      I’ve heard of Solar Punk as an idea. Know of a book to recommend?
- DennisP 5y ago
  So this idea is what makes you think of that story, and not the century we've spent actually seeding the atmosphere with greenhouse gases? Maybe we should put some thought into reversing this massive artificial change we've made, before we suffer the sort of consequences described in the story.
- unsupp0rted 5y ago
  That was a fun read, thanks!
- al_hag 5y ago
  Why sun mirrors? Mirrors facing the sun add to the earth’s albedo and thus contribute to a net heat energy loss in the atmosphere (which is why it’s being proposed to counteract warming impacts today). I must be misunderstanding sun-mirrors as referenced in this story.
  - _0ffh 5y ago
    I'd guess orbital mirrors reflecting light onto the earth that would otherwise have missed it.
dr_dshiv 5y ago
If you are curious, here are 3 other technologies for climate change mitigation posted today. 1. Rock dust carbon sequestration on farm land: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31199271 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31199271 2. Algae tech to amplify photosynthetic carbon capture https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31178435 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31178435 3. “High Hopes”: using airships to capture carbon ice in the upper atmosphere (stoners!) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31178667 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31178667 And yes, let’s be curious! After all, many scientists are seeking to ban science in this area. Hard to believe. https://climateandcapitalism.com/2022/01/17/climate-scientists-ban-solar-geoengineering/ https://climateandcapitalism.com/2022/01/17/climate-scientis...
Koffiepoeder 5y ago
Makes me think of the last time we shot metals through our exhausts. Do we really know all the consequences of algae growth and iron particle rain this time around? Or are we going to have a leaded gasoline, chapter 2?
- dr_dshiv 5y ago
  I feel like this is a logical fallacy. Do we know all the consequences of trying to solve other problems? Of course not. Imagine if we stopped trying to solve any problem due to a “precautionary principle.”
  - Koffiepoeder 5y ago
    Very valid point. I think for me an important distinction here is the problem size and complexity. The larger your problem, the more certainty you need that your solution works. This is also why we write thousands of tests for large software projects, while just a couple might suffice for a hobby project. Does this mean that we should not explore new science and innovative solutions? Certainly not. But before you start engaging in macro-ecological interventions, you better be damn sure that what you are doing is safe, now and tomorrow, both in first, second and nth order effects.
    - dr_dshiv 5y ago
      Agree! If the only way to test these technologies was at a massive scale, I’d be worried. But they can all be tested at a small scale. That’s the other logical fallacy: e.g., just because the intention is large scale deployment doesn’t mean the testing requires large scale deployment. So, to your point, we really need to be investing in testing these different possibilities. Meanwhile, many scientists are trying to ban research in the area. I don’t get it. https://climateandcapitalism.com/2022/01/17/climate-scientists-ban-solar-geoengineering/ https://climateandcapitalism.com/2022/01/17/climate-scientis...
    - DennisP 5y ago
      If only that sort of testing had been done before we added two and a half trillion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere. Sadly, now we don't have a choice between making a massive change or making no change. We just have a choice between leaving one change in place that we know is massively harmful, or using another method to reverse that change.
ResNet 5y ago
Solutions like these seem like they very well may do a good job in slowing global warming with relatively little effort/cost invested, but for political reasons won't see the light of day until they become a last resort, far too late in the game. I can imagine humans a century from now wishing we had deployed them sooner and prevented so much unnecessary destruction.
castratikron 5y ago
Why was their Twitter account suspended?
verisimi 5y ago
Why anyone thinks that its ok to attempt to alter the climate, is beyond me. How can this be ok? How can someone else (a government) decide what weather I can have!?? What happens if oil companies lobby for extra coldness and cloud cover, as they know they will more than make up the expense in additional fuel costs? What if other vested interests get involved in what is bound to become a political scam? Is it possible that a slightly warmer climate will be of benefit to most people? The chutzpah that the governance structure has in believing themselves righteous in determining not just the level of fines, or of the required licensing you need, or taxation, but now even the weather is unbelievable! Who gave them the right? Does say the US have the right to determine the weather for other countries? The whole concept would surely be illegal, if law was even based morality.. which its not.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  We already alter the climate with every action we take, or every action we don't take. It is less dangerous to take deliberate actions with intent than take actions without intent. Every government on the planet is ALREADY determining what weather you and others have. Countries that burn large amounts of coal have an impact, as do countries that ban coal!
  - verisimi 5y ago
    > Every government on the planet is ALREADY determining what weather you and others have. I agree that they are determining the weather already, and I don't like it. I don't want government to force cold weather on me. Do I get a choice on that? No. Neither do you. All we get is the governance structure attempting to convince us of the validity and righteousness of their actions. If they do a good job, you will agree with what they say. That is propaganda. I do not recognise that government can be righteous. All I see is forcible fine extraction from the citizens it purports to help. Climate change + technology will be an excuse to take away more freedoms (of travel, life style), levy more fines and licenses, while also justifying government intrusion and micro-management (how much water, electrity, travel credits). Greater gifts and power to those that already have power. Its a wheeze. The trick is to make you think you want it.
netfl0 5y ago
Please don’t do this.
nickelas 5y ago
Would this help ocean acidification?
- DennisP 5y ago
  I think it would, since they say it would remove CO2 from the oceans.
captainbland 5y ago
When you're in a hole you want to get out of, it's usually a good idea to stop digging. The "spewing even more manufactured crap into the atmosphere" solution to climate change doesn't really pass the smell test.
oofbey 5y ago
Proposals like this seem promising but are hard to take seriously when they refuse to acknowledge potential risks. Merely stating the risk is “very low” does nothing to persuade people’s legitimate concerns about climate engineering. That said I’m all for climate engineering. Being scared of it is like telling somebody obese that they should stick to sugary soda because nutrasweet could have unknown health side effects. Or teaching abstinence instead of safe sex education. I know all sorts of buttons are being pushed with these analogies. But we obviously have a massive problem on our hands. There is a path out (reducing fossil everything) that we know is extremely difficult to implement, and by all current measures not going to work. So rationally we absolutely should try alternatives - at least TRY. And not assume they are bad while continuing to yell at the world that they need to be more virtuous.
- maxerickson 5y ago
  It seems like a project like this would be able to manage potential risks pretty well, scale up over time, gather data as you go, be prepared to stop, things like that.
  - oofbey 5y ago
    I agree. I’d love to read about how they plan to monitor and react to such risks instead of just saying “nothing will go wrong!”
    - maxerickson 5y ago
      There is a faq answer about safety that is vague but sounds reasonably measured.
  - robonerd 5y ago
    > be prepared to stop For very human reasons, this can be easier said than done. People often don't like to admit they were wrong.
    - DennisP 5y ago

39 points by dr_dshiv 5y ago

These sorts of schemes always remind me of this part in the intro of localroger's "Passages in the Void" series hosted on his personal site [1]. The whole thing is some of the most amazing SF I've ever read! "Then, about six thousand years after we were invented, it became clear that the Earth was entering one of its periodic Ice Ages. Left to its own devices this would not have been much of a problem, but it was a nuisance both we and the humans felt we could avoid. We built enormous sun-mirrors and seeded the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, and easily reversed the temperature dip. In fact, we succeeded much too well. Within a hundred years it became obvious that we had overshot our goal. But our efforts to cool the planet were not as successful as our efforts to warm it. Both ice caps melted, the sea level rose sixty meters, and vast land areas became sea floor. This was a different nuisance, but it was not the final catastrophe. The Antarctic continent had been crushed for millions of years beneath its three kilometer thick shield of ice; like a ship relieved of a heavy cargo it now wanted to rise, its lighter rocks buoyed up by the denser material of the Earth's mantle. And that lifting did not occur evenly. Great fault lines opened up into ranges of volcanoes as long-trapped magma suddenly found paths to the surface. New mountain ranges added their weight to the strain on the ancient continental plate as Antarctica regained its equilibrium. All the while a dense soot cloud blanketed the Earth and the brief summer of warming darkened into a cruel permanent winter. The ice caps returned, but the southern snow accumulation did not stop the volcanoes. Glaciers raced toward the Equator, and after they met the oceans began to freeze. Later the atmosphere's carbon dioxide began to collect as snow on the poles. We had long since given up on saving our creators and worked instead to record their accomplishments and understand their biology before they were gone." [1] http://localroger.com/ http://localroger.com/

dr_dshiv 5y ago
It would have been a boring SF story if they had been successful with climate control, right? That’s the dystopian bias. It’s hard to make positive future visions emotionally interesting, so we revert to the more entertaining visions of catastrophe.
- nckmi 5y ago
  "Solarpunk is a literary genre and art movement that envisions how the future might look if humanity succeeded in solving major contemporary challenges with an emphasis on sustainability, human impact on the environment, climate change, and pollution." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solarpunk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solarpunk
  - dr_dshiv 5y ago
    I’ve heard of Solar Punk as an idea. Know of a book to recommend?
DennisP 5y ago
So this idea is what makes you think of that story, and not the century we've spent actually seeding the atmosphere with greenhouse gases? Maybe we should put some thought into reversing this massive artificial change we've made, before we suffer the sort of consequences described in the story.
unsupp0rted 5y ago
That was a fun read, thanks!
al_hag 5y ago
Why sun mirrors? Mirrors facing the sun add to the earth’s albedo and thus contribute to a net heat energy loss in the atmosphere (which is why it’s being proposed to counteract warming impacts today). I must be misunderstanding sun-mirrors as referenced in this story.
- _0ffh 5y ago
  I'd guess orbital mirrors reflecting light onto the earth that would otherwise have missed it.

dr_dshiv 5y ago

If you are curious, here are 3 other technologies for climate change mitigation posted today. 1. Rock dust carbon sequestration on farm land: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31199271 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31199271 2. Algae tech to amplify photosynthetic carbon capture https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31178435 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31178435 3. “High Hopes”: using airships to capture carbon ice in the upper atmosphere (stoners!) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31178667 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31178667 And yes, let’s be curious! After all, many scientists are seeking to ban science in this area. Hard to believe. https://climateandcapitalism.com/2022/01/17/climate-scientists-ban-solar-geoengineering/ https://climateandcapitalism.com/2022/01/17/climate-scientis...

Koffiepoeder 5y ago

Makes me think of the last time we shot metals through our exhausts. Do we really know all the consequences of algae growth and iron particle rain this time around? Or are we going to have a leaded gasoline, chapter 2?

dr_dshiv 5y ago
I feel like this is a logical fallacy. Do we know all the consequences of trying to solve other problems? Of course not. Imagine if we stopped trying to solve any problem due to a “precautionary principle.”
- Koffiepoeder 5y ago
  Very valid point. I think for me an important distinction here is the problem size and complexity. The larger your problem, the more certainty you need that your solution works. This is also why we write thousands of tests for large software projects, while just a couple might suffice for a hobby project. Does this mean that we should not explore new science and innovative solutions? Certainly not. But before you start engaging in macro-ecological interventions, you better be damn sure that what you are doing is safe, now and tomorrow, both in first, second and nth order effects.
  - dr_dshiv 5y ago
    Agree! If the only way to test these technologies was at a massive scale, I’d be worried. But they can all be tested at a small scale. That’s the other logical fallacy: e.g., just because the intention is large scale deployment doesn’t mean the testing requires large scale deployment. So, to your point, we really need to be investing in testing these different possibilities. Meanwhile, many scientists are trying to ban research in the area. I don’t get it. https://climateandcapitalism.com/2022/01/17/climate-scientists-ban-solar-geoengineering/ https://climateandcapitalism.com/2022/01/17/climate-scientis...
  - DennisP 5y ago
    If only that sort of testing had been done before we added two and a half trillion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere. Sadly, now we don't have a choice between making a massive change or making no change. We just have a choice between leaving one change in place that we know is massively harmful, or using another method to reverse that change.

ResNet 5y ago

Solutions like these seem like they very well may do a good job in slowing global warming with relatively little effort/cost invested, but for political reasons won't see the light of day until they become a last resort, far too late in the game. I can imagine humans a century from now wishing we had deployed them sooner and prevented so much unnecessary destruction.

castratikron 5y ago

Why was their Twitter account suspended?

verisimi 5y ago

Why anyone thinks that its ok to attempt to alter the climate, is beyond me. How can this be ok? How can someone else (a government) decide what weather I can have!?? What happens if oil companies lobby for extra coldness and cloud cover, as they know they will more than make up the expense in additional fuel costs? What if other vested interests get involved in what is bound to become a political scam? Is it possible that a slightly warmer climate will be of benefit to most people? The chutzpah that the governance structure has in believing themselves righteous in determining not just the level of fines, or of the required licensing you need, or taxation, but now even the weather is unbelievable! Who gave them the right? Does say the US have the right to determine the weather for other countries? The whole concept would surely be illegal, if law was even based morality.. which its not.

s1artibartfast 5y ago
We already alter the climate with every action we take, or every action we don't take. It is less dangerous to take deliberate actions with intent than take actions without intent. Every government on the planet is ALREADY determining what weather you and others have. Countries that burn large amounts of coal have an impact, as do countries that ban coal!
- verisimi 5y ago
  > Every government on the planet is ALREADY determining what weather you and others have. I agree that they are determining the weather already, and I don't like it. I don't want government to force cold weather on me. Do I get a choice on that? No. Neither do you. All we get is the governance structure attempting to convince us of the validity and righteousness of their actions. If they do a good job, you will agree with what they say. That is propaganda. I do not recognise that government can be righteous. All I see is forcible fine extraction from the citizens it purports to help. Climate change + technology will be an excuse to take away more freedoms (of travel, life style), levy more fines and licenses, while also justifying government intrusion and micro-management (how much water, electrity, travel credits). Greater gifts and power to those that already have power. Its a wheeze. The trick is to make you think you want it.

netfl0 5y ago

Please don’t do this.

nickelas 5y ago

Would this help ocean acidification?

DennisP 5y ago
I think it would, since they say it would remove CO2 from the oceans.

captainbland 5y ago

When you're in a hole you want to get out of, it's usually a good idea to stop digging. The "spewing even more manufactured crap into the atmosphere" solution to climate change doesn't really pass the smell test.

oofbey 5y ago

Proposals like this seem promising but are hard to take seriously when they refuse to acknowledge potential risks. Merely stating the risk is “very low” does nothing to persuade people’s legitimate concerns about climate engineering. That said I’m all for climate engineering. Being scared of it is like telling somebody obese that they should stick to sugary soda because nutrasweet could have unknown health side effects. Or teaching abstinence instead of safe sex education. I know all sorts of buttons are being pushed with these analogies. But we obviously have a massive problem on our hands. There is a path out (reducing fossil everything) that we know is extremely difficult to implement, and by all current measures not going to work. So rationally we absolutely should try alternatives - at least TRY. And not assume they are bad while continuing to yell at the world that they need to be more virtuous.

maxerickson 5y ago
It seems like a project like this would be able to manage potential risks pretty well, scale up over time, gather data as you go, be prepared to stop, things like that.
- oofbey 5y ago
  I agree. I’d love to read about how they plan to monitor and react to such risks instead of just saying “nothing will go wrong!”
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    There is a faq answer about safety that is vague but sounds reasonably measured.
- robonerd 5y ago
  > be prepared to stop For very human reasons, this can be easier said than done. People often don't like to admit they were wrong.
  - DennisP 5y ago