6 ms·

Geoengineering test launched in Alameda

54 points by hammock 3y ago

idunnoman1222 3y ago
it has to be kept secret, because otherwise people might complain - if it gets so hot that people start dying on mass, the leaders of that country are going to start dumping aerosol into the atmosphere and nothing short of war is going to stop them
- thatguy0900 3y ago
  This will be the future everywhere. Wait til a country experiencing drought gets the choice to start stealing rain that should have fallen on their neighbors
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
jerlam 3y ago
According to this article, the experiment is marine cloud brightening: https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/national-international/marine-cloud-brightening-alameda/3381546/ https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/national-international/ma... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_cloud_brightening https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_cloud_brightening
- dr_dshiv 3y ago
  My favorite opportunity for Marine Cloud Brightening is in the shipping industry. If container ships had saltwater aerosolizers or new fuel additives, it should be possible to bring back the shiptracks—these are the low marine clouds that were recently diminished due new clean fuel standards [1]. Those standards are great but they inadvertently increased the warming effect of shipping by about a third [2]. Ouch. Solar is doubling in capacity every ~2.5 years — roughly a 25% annual growth rate [3]. That means, in 30 years, we might have some 1500 terawatts of solar. That would dwarf current fossil fuel use. The point is that shouldn't avoid figuring out the science of climate management (geoengineering etc) because we are afraid people will just keep using fossil fuels. We need to get the heat balance undercontrol before 30 years go by. [1] https://www.nasa.gov/missions/aqua/nasa-study-finds-evidence-that-fuel-regulation-reduced-air-pollution-from-shipping/ https://www.nasa.gov/missions/aqua/nasa-study-finds-evidence... [2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/marine-clouds-climate-change-1.7016498 https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/marine-clouds-climate-change... [3] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/installed-solar-pv-capacity https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/installed-solar-pv-capaci...
cjensen 3y ago
I have no issue with experiments. But putting particulates into the air of a population center seems like a pointless risk and will generate needless controversy.
- CalRobert 3y ago
  I have some bad news for you about exhaust and tire wear....
patrickdavey 3y ago
According to this link [1] I saw yesterday, the UAE is seeding clouds to cause rainfall too.... I'm not sure where this ends, but, once you start taking water which might fall someplace else it seems it might end badly.... 1. https://mastodon.solar/@dave/112233242269447817 https://mastodon.solar/@dave/112233242269447817
- lumost 3y ago
  We're fast approaching the point where many events will "happen". Geo-engineering is easy and economical. Small Governments/Billionaires/Corporations will pursue it barring a legal framework to ban it. Given the lack of progress on nuclear, and slower than needed progress on renewables. It seems certain that a large scale geo-engineering project will be pursued by someone to lower atmospheric CO2/temperature.
  - patrickdavey 3y ago
    Termination shock here we come...
  - pc86 3y ago
    Why is "happen" in quotes?
- soared 3y ago
  There are 8 approved organizations in Colorado that can seed clouds, but it’s dubious if it actually works as it’s effectively impossible to test/prove. More snow means millions in more revenue for huge skiing/travel companies, but even they don’t do it regularly. https://cwcb.colorado.gov/focus-areas/supply/weather-modification-program https://cwcb.colorado.gov/focus-areas/supply/weather-modific...
- LunaSea 3y ago
  This ends very quickly when the neighbouring country sues you in international court because you stole some of the clouds that would have arrived on your territory. An example of this is the fight between various Spanish provinces on this exact topic.
JamesLeonis 3y ago
"We don’t know who struck first, us or them. But we know that it was us that scorched the sky." [0] We're fixing the fallout from burning fossil fuels by adding more particulates to reflect more energy back. Seems a bit counterproductive. We probably should look at the alternatives first. [0]: https://www.matrixfans.net/movies/the-matrix/transcript/ https://www.matrixfans.net/movies/the-matrix/transcript/
- lainga 3y ago
  On a narrower window, we're fixing the fallout from eliminating acid rain[]. Think of it like we were cloud seeding for free, and now we can do it with aerosolized salt instead of sulfates. [] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfate#Reversal_and_accelerated_warming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfate#Reversal_and_accelerat...
- slothtrop 3y ago
  The alternatives are being explored. It's not a long list, and this is the approach that is most readily implementable and cost-permitting as of right now.
- exoverito 3y ago
  That particular plot point is about denying all solar energy to the machines. Needless to say it's a fictional movie and more serious calculations should motivate our analyses. It's been estimated that current increases in CO2 have a radiative forcing effect of about 2 watts per square meter, compared to the total solar irradiance of 1361 W/m2. If CO2 levels doubled to 800 ppm then it's estimated this would have a radiative forcing effect of 6 W/m2. This scenario would require mitigation strategies like stratospheric aerosol injection to reduce solar irradiance by about 0.4%. In the context of plant growth this reduction in sunlight would be negligible given that photosynthesis is only 1 to 2% efficient. If anything we should see significantly accelerated plant growth by about 10 to 50% due to the CO2 fertilization effect at 800ppm. The alternatives consist of completely replacing all energy infrastructure, which will cost trillions of dollars and significantly reduce economic growth. We can already see the negative effects of these policies in Europe, such as Germany which irrationally shut down their nuclear reactors, pushed the deployment of solar, while ultimately relying on Russian natural gas. They now burn more coal than they did before, and risk deindustrializing due to high energy costs. This is an epic strategic blunder since China, India, and Africa will continue burning hydrocarbons irrespective of the West's economic self-sabotage. There's also no realistic way to extract the amount of CO2 that's been emitted into the atmosphere. Simple thermodynamics would have us expend far more energy than we cumulatively gained from burning hydrocarbons since the industrial revolution to extract such an extremely diffuse gas from the atmosphere.
NEETPILLED 3y ago
[flagged]
- therein 3y ago
  They'll say it was never a secret in two years.
91bananas 3y ago
related: https://sawpa.gov/santa-ana-river-watershed-weather-modification/ https://sawpa.gov/santa-ana-river-watershed-weather-modifica...
berkeleynerd 3y ago
What if we go further out on the carbon limb since this or a similar technology allows us to further delay implementing carbon reductions and then, for some reason, our civilization fails and we can no longer continue to dope the atmosphere to protect us from the now even more serious consequences of our emissions? This approach strikes me as madness; like the behavior of a junkie who takes uppers to wake up in the morning because they've become addicted to downers to get to sleep.
- alas44 3y ago
  Shared feeling
- lainga 3y ago
  You will need to create and propagate a religion that emphasizes the virtue of smashing up silicate rocks and wetting the dust. It's a lot more tedious than cloud seeding, but it's low-tech and works at scale. Ed. this produces carbonic acid, but if you feed it slowly into the biosphere, small friends will turn it into bone and shell
- silverquiet 3y ago
  I've been thinking about it a bit like medicine. My grandmother over her life had a kidney removed, an artificial heartvalve implanted, both hips replaced, a pacemaker implanted and upgraded, and had a rather involved drug regime eventually to service a lot of that. I doubt she would have lived past her 60's without all that. Of course she eventually died, but she did get a couple more decades with all the interventions. I suppose it's the best you can hope for sometimes.
- thinkingtoilet 3y ago
  The important thing to say out loud is we've lost. We blew right past 400ppm without looking back. In the coming decades, the right heat wave in the right place at the right time will cause death and destruction on a level never before seen. If we can do anything, anything, to help mitigate that we should. Especially since first world countries with wealth will be better able to handle it, yet it's literally all our fault. We can and should be doing anything to help the situation. We can do geoengineering and fight to limit the burning of carbon at the same time.
wing-_-nuts 3y ago
I've read many of the recent popSci books on global warming, and I fully believe that the path we're on leads to catastrophic warming (3c+). I also believe that many geoengineering techniques are dangerous and we should be focusing on limiting CO2, as that's the only safe way to address global warming. Having said all that, I simply do not believe we'll stand by and watch the world burn without trying a 'ministry of the future' style geoengineering effort. Is it ideal? No way, but IMHO it will happen. It drives me insane that the scientific community is so vehemently against geoengineering research for fear that it will create a moral hazard that makes it's deployment more likely.
- lainga 3y ago
  >I've read many of the recent popSci books on global warming Have you read any of the IPCC reports? Are you familiar with the RCPs?
  - wing-_-nuts 3y ago
    I've read the summaries and yeah I'm vaguely familiar with the RCPs from various youtube vids covering the topic. I think the last I've seen for projections off our current commitments is 2.7-3.4C.
- slothtrop 3y ago
  The prevailing view right now appears to be that limiting CO2 is no longer sufficient.
  - askvictor 3y ago
    Yes. But one danger is once we start geoengineering, people will give up on trying to limit carbon emissions
    - wing-_-nuts 3y ago
      There's no way geoengineering will be consequence free. I think when we start using it as a temporary measure it will become very clear what the downsides are, and that reducing our emissions are still the best path forward. I just don't buy the apocalyptic doomerism so breathlessly described in most books on global warming. When it gets bad enough, we will act. It won't be ideal, but there's no way we're just going to sit by, accept our fate and let the world burn.
throwaway5959 3y ago
Why aren’t the people conducting this test in jail? Who gave them the authority/permission to run these tests? Geoengineering is literal cloud cover for further GHG emissions.
justinzollars 3y ago
Geoengineering from a political engineering website: politico.com. We are scientistic.

54 points by hammock 3y ago

it has to be kept secret, because otherwise people might complain - if it gets so hot that people start dying on mass, the leaders of that country are going to start dumping aerosol into the atmosphere and nothing short of war is going to stop them

thatguy0900 3y ago
This will be the future everywhere. Wait til a country experiencing drought gets the choice to start stealing rain that should have fallen on their neighbors
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

jerlam 3y ago

According to this article, the experiment is marine cloud brightening: https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/national-international/marine-cloud-brightening-alameda/3381546/ https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/national-international/ma... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_cloud_brightening https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_cloud_brightening

dr_dshiv 3y ago
My favorite opportunity for Marine Cloud Brightening is in the shipping industry. If container ships had saltwater aerosolizers or new fuel additives, it should be possible to bring back the shiptracks—these are the low marine clouds that were recently diminished due new clean fuel standards [1]. Those standards are great but they inadvertently increased the warming effect of shipping by about a third [2]. Ouch. Solar is doubling in capacity every ~2.5 years — roughly a 25% annual growth rate [3]. That means, in 30 years, we might have some 1500 terawatts of solar. That would dwarf current fossil fuel use. The point is that shouldn't avoid figuring out the science of climate management (geoengineering etc) because we are afraid people will just keep using fossil fuels. We need to get the heat balance undercontrol before 30 years go by. [1] https://www.nasa.gov/missions/aqua/nasa-study-finds-evidence-that-fuel-regulation-reduced-air-pollution-from-shipping/ https://www.nasa.gov/missions/aqua/nasa-study-finds-evidence... [2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/marine-clouds-climate-change-1.7016498 https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/marine-clouds-climate-change... [3] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/installed-solar-pv-capacity https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/installed-solar-pv-capaci...

cjensen 3y ago

I have no issue with experiments. But putting particulates into the air of a population center seems like a pointless risk and will generate needless controversy.

CalRobert 3y ago
I have some bad news for you about exhaust and tire wear....

patrickdavey 3y ago

According to this link [1] I saw yesterday, the UAE is seeding clouds to cause rainfall too.... I'm not sure where this ends, but, once you start taking water which might fall someplace else it seems it might end badly.... 1. https://mastodon.solar/@dave/112233242269447817 https://mastodon.solar/@dave/112233242269447817

lumost 3y ago
We're fast approaching the point where many events will "happen". Geo-engineering is easy and economical. Small Governments/Billionaires/Corporations will pursue it barring a legal framework to ban it. Given the lack of progress on nuclear, and slower than needed progress on renewables. It seems certain that a large scale geo-engineering project will be pursued by someone to lower atmospheric CO2/temperature.
- patrickdavey 3y ago
  Termination shock here we come...
- pc86 3y ago
  Why is "happen" in quotes?
soared 3y ago
There are 8 approved organizations in Colorado that can seed clouds, but it’s dubious if it actually works as it’s effectively impossible to test/prove. More snow means millions in more revenue for huge skiing/travel companies, but even they don’t do it regularly. https://cwcb.colorado.gov/focus-areas/supply/weather-modification-program https://cwcb.colorado.gov/focus-areas/supply/weather-modific...
LunaSea 3y ago
This ends very quickly when the neighbouring country sues you in international court because you stole some of the clouds that would have arrived on your territory. An example of this is the fight between various Spanish provinces on this exact topic.

JamesLeonis 3y ago

"We don’t know who struck first, us or them. But we know that it was us that scorched the sky." [0] We're fixing the fallout from burning fossil fuels by adding more particulates to reflect more energy back. Seems a bit counterproductive. We probably should look at the alternatives first. [0]: https://www.matrixfans.net/movies/the-matrix/transcript/ https://www.matrixfans.net/movies/the-matrix/transcript/

lainga 3y ago
On a narrower window, we're fixing the fallout from eliminating acid rain[]. Think of it like we were cloud seeding for free, and now we can do it with aerosolized salt instead of sulfates. [] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfate#Reversal_and_accelerated_warming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfate#Reversal_and_accelerat...
slothtrop 3y ago
The alternatives are being explored. It's not a long list, and this is the approach that is most readily implementable and cost-permitting as of right now.
exoverito 3y ago
That particular plot point is about denying all solar energy to the machines. Needless to say it's a fictional movie and more serious calculations should motivate our analyses. It's been estimated that current increases in CO2 have a radiative forcing effect of about 2 watts per square meter, compared to the total solar irradiance of 1361 W/m2. If CO2 levels doubled to 800 ppm then it's estimated this would have a radiative forcing effect of 6 W/m2. This scenario would require mitigation strategies like stratospheric aerosol injection to reduce solar irradiance by about 0.4%. In the context of plant growth this reduction in sunlight would be negligible given that photosynthesis is only 1 to 2% efficient. If anything we should see significantly accelerated plant growth by about 10 to 50% due to the CO2 fertilization effect at 800ppm. The alternatives consist of completely replacing all energy infrastructure, which will cost trillions of dollars and significantly reduce economic growth. We can already see the negative effects of these policies in Europe, such as Germany which irrationally shut down their nuclear reactors, pushed the deployment of solar, while ultimately relying on Russian natural gas. They now burn more coal than they did before, and risk deindustrializing due to high energy costs. This is an epic strategic blunder since China, India, and Africa will continue burning hydrocarbons irrespective of the West's economic self-sabotage. There's also no realistic way to extract the amount of CO2 that's been emitted into the atmosphere. Simple thermodynamics would have us expend far more energy than we cumulatively gained from burning hydrocarbons since the industrial revolution to extract such an extremely diffuse gas from the atmosphere.

NEETPILLED 3y ago

[flagged]

therein 3y ago
They'll say it was never a secret in two years.

91bananas 3y ago

related: https://sawpa.gov/santa-ana-river-watershed-weather-modification/ https://sawpa.gov/santa-ana-river-watershed-weather-modifica...

berkeleynerd 3y ago

What if we go further out on the carbon limb since this or a similar technology allows us to further delay implementing carbon reductions and then, for some reason, our civilization fails and we can no longer continue to dope the atmosphere to protect us from the now even more serious consequences of our emissions? This approach strikes me as madness; like the behavior of a junkie who takes uppers to wake up in the morning because they've become addicted to downers to get to sleep.

alas44 3y ago
Shared feeling
lainga 3y ago
You will need to create and propagate a religion that emphasizes the virtue of smashing up silicate rocks and wetting the dust. It's a lot more tedious than cloud seeding, but it's low-tech and works at scale. Ed. this produces carbonic acid, but if you feed it slowly into the biosphere, small friends will turn it into bone and shell
silverquiet 3y ago
I've been thinking about it a bit like medicine. My grandmother over her life had a kidney removed, an artificial heartvalve implanted, both hips replaced, a pacemaker implanted and upgraded, and had a rather involved drug regime eventually to service a lot of that. I doubt she would have lived past her 60's without all that. Of course she eventually died, but she did get a couple more decades with all the interventions. I suppose it's the best you can hope for sometimes.
thinkingtoilet 3y ago
The important thing to say out loud is we've lost. We blew right past 400ppm without looking back. In the coming decades, the right heat wave in the right place at the right time will cause death and destruction on a level never before seen. If we can do anything, anything, to help mitigate that we should. Especially since first world countries with wealth will be better able to handle it, yet it's literally all our fault. We can and should be doing anything to help the situation. We can do geoengineering and fight to limit the burning of carbon at the same time.

wing-_-nuts 3y ago

I've read many of the recent popSci books on global warming, and I fully believe that the path we're on leads to catastrophic warming (3c+). I also believe that many geoengineering techniques are dangerous and we should be focusing on limiting CO2, as that's the only safe way to address global warming. Having said all that, I simply do not believe we'll stand by and watch the world burn without trying a 'ministry of the future' style geoengineering effort. Is it ideal? No way, but IMHO it will happen. It drives me insane that the scientific community is so vehemently against geoengineering research for fear that it will create a moral hazard that makes it's deployment more likely.

lainga 3y ago
>I've read many of the recent popSci books on global warming Have you read any of the IPCC reports? Are you familiar with the RCPs?
- wing-_-nuts 3y ago
  I've read the summaries and yeah I'm vaguely familiar with the RCPs from various youtube vids covering the topic. I think the last I've seen for projections off our current commitments is 2.7-3.4C.
slothtrop 3y ago
The prevailing view right now appears to be that limiting CO2 is no longer sufficient.
- askvictor 3y ago
  Yes. But one danger is once we start geoengineering, people will give up on trying to limit carbon emissions
  - wing-_-nuts 3y ago
    There's no way geoengineering will be consequence free. I think when we start using it as a temporary measure it will become very clear what the downsides are, and that reducing our emissions are still the best path forward. I just don't buy the apocalyptic doomerism so breathlessly described in most books on global warming. When it gets bad enough, we will act. It won't be ideal, but there's no way we're just going to sit by, accept our fate and let the world burn.

throwaway5959 3y ago

Why aren’t the people conducting this test in jail? Who gave them the authority/permission to run these tests? Geoengineering is literal cloud cover for further GHG emissions.

justinzollars 3y ago

Geoengineering from a political engineering website: politico.com. We are scientistic.