5 ms·

Only if we do it on a truely massive scale, and Global warming is known to be dangerous. This might be. The difference should be obvious.

• tsimionescu 4y ago
  If we don't do it on a massive scale, it won't help with global warming. Also, the risks of global warming are somewhat understood. The risks of this are not - it could help, or it could be much worse than even global warming. Like in medicine, the principle has to be First, do no harm. The current approach seems to be akin to coming up with a new substance that you think cures diabetes based only on molecular chemistry, and sneaking it into a diabetic's food - "diabetes is known to be dangerous. This substance might be".
  • tomjen3 4y ago
    When you test new medicine you do that in small scale trials, then you find out if it is effective and then scale it up. How would you suggest this approach is tested without testing it on a small scale?
    • tsimionescu 4y ago
      Releasing stuff into the atmosphere is not small-scale testing. Medicine is also tested in animal models before being tested in humans - so I would expect this to be tested in a lab first; and then I would expect people to first design a new kind of experiment that would allow us to study the effects of this type of climate modification before actually deploying it into the atmosphere. I don't think we even have the experimental framework in place, so deploying the actual pollutants first is just crazy. Even if they were really going for some deployment of small amounts of gas as an experiment, I would expect them to actually send some kind of instruments along with the gas as well.