5 ms·

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 aro

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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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.
- fnordpiglet 4y ago
  I think this is actually the fallacious statement. Failing to list any consequences doesn’t require listing all consequences to rectify. I agree with the statement that saying risks are “very low” is insufficient, especially when considering pumping a ton of stuff into the atmosphere. Rather one would expect a thoughtful analysis of what “very low” risks have been identified and why they’re low risk.
  - dr_dshiv 4y ago
    Yeah, I mean, honesty this sounds like it is an innovation coming from a some guy (or girl) in a garage. But I’m pretty ok with that. Let’s see if they can take it forward. Am I wrong to think that it would be professionally toxic for a “real” climate scientist to work on a project like this?
willis936 4y ago
I wouldn't worry about it getting too much traction. Even stratospheric injection of sulfiric acid (something that volcanoes do) is blackballed from even being researched, let alone considered.
- DennisP 4y ago
  This idea actually seems safer to me, since rather than just blocking the sun, it actually takes our excess CO2 emissions back out of the atmosphere. And also methane. It's the first idea I've seen for doing that.
  - tambourine_man 4y ago
    And doesn't produce acid rain, like sulfur does.
    - dr_dshiv 4y ago
      Acid rain resulted from the 30+ million tons of sulfur dioxide released into the lower atmosphere. To cut global warming in half, 25,000 tons of sulfur dioxide would be needed in the upper atmosphere. So, 3 orders of magnitude less SO2. Meaning, mitigating global warming with SO2 would not meaningfully increase acid rain. Source: https://www.technologyreview.com/2013/02/08/84239/a-cheap-and-easy-plan-to-stop-global-warming/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2013/02/08/84239/a-cheap-an...
      - bayesianbot 4y ago
        That 25,000 tons figure sounds really controversial. Even the article mentions > David [Keith] thinks it is going to be easy and cheap, and I don’t agree,” says Robock. He estimates that several million tons of sulfur would have to be injected into the atmosphere annually to offset doubled levels of carbon dioxide, but if the particles clump together, “it could be many times that.” I found a review of sulfate injection geoengineering studies[0] published in 2017 and with a quick read I can't find any mentions under millions of tons annually. [0] https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/3879/2017/acp-17-3879-2017.pdf https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/3879/2017/acp-17-3879...
yabones 4y ago
They knew that leaded gas was a bad idea before it even hit the market. The inventor himself suffered from lead poisoning mere weeks before a major product announcement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr.#Leaded_gasoline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr.#Leaded_gaso...
sacred_numbers 4y ago
According to the source, "Current man-made and natural ISA emissions total over 100,000 tonnes and have many beneficial climate effects". They are not advocating for doing anything particularly new, just scaling up those (partially natural) emissions by a factor of 2. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea. Forest fires are natural, but we would need to study very carefully before we attempted to double the amount of forest fires by artificial means. In my opinion, though, it would take some pretty strong evidence that this would be actively harmful to dissuade me from wanting to run large scale experiments. Shoot, if leaded gasoline had the potential to slow down climate change it might even be worth bringing it back, considering the damage that climate change has already begun to cause and is projected to cause.
maxerickson 4y ago
I mean, we do know that lead is somewhat different than iron (one is required for us to live, the other is extremely harmful in tiny amounts). The chemistry sounds well understood, so probably not going to create exotic compounds that are bad for us.

dr_dshiv 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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.
fnordpiglet 4y ago
I think this is actually the fallacious statement. Failing to list any consequences doesn’t require listing all consequences to rectify. I agree with the statement that saying risks are “very low” is insufficient, especially when considering pumping a ton of stuff into the atmosphere. Rather one would expect a thoughtful analysis of what “very low” risks have been identified and why they’re low risk.
- dr_dshiv 4y ago
  Yeah, I mean, honesty this sounds like it is an innovation coming from a some guy (or girl) in a garage. But I’m pretty ok with that. Let’s see if they can take it forward. Am I wrong to think that it would be professionally toxic for a “real” climate scientist to work on a project like this?

willis936 4y ago

I wouldn't worry about it getting too much traction. Even stratospheric injection of sulfiric acid (something that volcanoes do) is blackballed from even being researched, let alone considered.

DennisP 4y ago
This idea actually seems safer to me, since rather than just blocking the sun, it actually takes our excess CO2 emissions back out of the atmosphere. And also methane. It's the first idea I've seen for doing that.
- tambourine_man 4y ago
  And doesn't produce acid rain, like sulfur does.
  - dr_dshiv 4y ago
    Acid rain resulted from the 30+ million tons of sulfur dioxide released into the lower atmosphere. To cut global warming in half, 25,000 tons of sulfur dioxide would be needed in the upper atmosphere. So, 3 orders of magnitude less SO2. Meaning, mitigating global warming with SO2 would not meaningfully increase acid rain. Source: https://www.technologyreview.com/2013/02/08/84239/a-cheap-and-easy-plan-to-stop-global-warming/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2013/02/08/84239/a-cheap-an...
    - bayesianbot 4y ago
      That 25,000 tons figure sounds really controversial. Even the article mentions > David [Keith] thinks it is going to be easy and cheap, and I don’t agree,” says Robock. He estimates that several million tons of sulfur would have to be injected into the atmosphere annually to offset doubled levels of carbon dioxide, but if the particles clump together, “it could be many times that.” I found a review of sulfate injection geoengineering studies[0] published in 2017 and with a quick read I can't find any mentions under millions of tons annually. [0] https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/3879/2017/acp-17-3879-2017.pdf https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/3879/2017/acp-17-3879...

yabones 4y ago

They knew that leaded gas was a bad idea before it even hit the market. The inventor himself suffered from lead poisoning mere weeks before a major product announcement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr.#Leaded_gasoline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr.#Leaded_gaso...

sacred_numbers 4y ago

According to the source, "Current man-made and natural ISA emissions total over 100,000 tonnes and have many beneficial climate effects". They are not advocating for doing anything particularly new, just scaling up those (partially natural) emissions by a factor of 2. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea. Forest fires are natural, but we would need to study very carefully before we attempted to double the amount of forest fires by artificial means. In my opinion, though, it would take some pretty strong evidence that this would be actively harmful to dissuade me from wanting to run large scale experiments. Shoot, if leaded gasoline had the potential to slow down climate change it might even be worth bringing it back, considering the damage that climate change has already begun to cause and is projected to cause.

maxerickson 4y ago

I mean, we do know that lead is somewhat different than iron (one is required for us to live, the other is extremely harmful in tiny amounts). The chemistry sounds well understood, so probably not going to create exotic compounds that are bad for us.