Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 272 posts

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#131

Post by irthomasthomas »

OtomotO wrote: post #124
irthomasthomas wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't they just stick to Colorado, where most other weather modification programs are run? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34380470

Can you divide the effects from each other? So if project A does something, what if it influences project B?

The signal is so weak, anyway, that's it's practically impossible to decide cause and affect. I think it's mentioned in that article that they start with an area that's already got some rain or snow clouds and try to boost their output by a few points and hope that a trend emerges over time.

Also, they do these on a small local scale, like spraying this morning to boost the rain this afternoon.

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#132

Post by schiffern »

irthomasthomas wrote: post #120
wolverine876 wrote: post #29

This isn't a Mexican company; the person behind it is. > Luke Iseman, a serial inventor and the former director of hardware at Y Combinator ... he started tinkering with releasing sulfur dioxide particles into the atmosphere with balloons, raised venture capital to fund the startup, and brought on co-founder Andrew Song to manage sales. Why did they choose Mexico? They couldn't get away with it in the US, so it's ok…

Why don't they just stick to Colorado, where most other weather modification programs are run? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34380470

> Colorado, where most other weather modification programs are run

Are you sure? That claim doesn't appear in the linked article.

Here's the official list of projects in the US:

https://library.noaa.gov/Collections/Digital-Collections/Wea...

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#133

Post by scottcodie »

HPsquared wrote: post #117
dubcanada wrote: post #79

I really don’t like the idea of solar geoengineering. If we start sending up sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere and it fixes the problem. What do you think we’re going to do? Stop caring about global warming entirely, and pump way more green house gases… why wouldn’t we? We can just fix it with more sulfur dioxide. Then you send up more and more and more. And eventually something breaks. Now for some reason a countri…

You could make the same argument against medical care. "If we start healing the sick, people will stop taking care of their health". That's not even considering potential side effects of therapies, medicines, etc. Any action has a balance of good and bad, both directly and indirectly.

Usually you don't consider health insurance to be a moral hazard in this way. However, in healthcare, a moral hazard can occur when people use more healthcare services because the cost for them is low.

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#134

Post by schiffern »

jaggs wrote: post #126
schiffern wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're long past dystopia, then. 500 grams of SO2 is released by a 737 flying less than 100 miles.

That's something of a straw man. Air pollution is one thing. Deliberate experimentation with hazardous emissions calculated to be scaled up on a global level with impacts on us all, is a completely different thing.

You have it exactly backwards.

Your semantics game is the "straw man." The atmosphere doesn't care what we call it, only what we dump in it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34529944

>calculated to be scaled up on a global level

You say that like polluting industries don't try to scale up to a global level.

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#135

Post by __alexs »

schiffern wrote: post #85
marginalia_nu wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [...] experiments with the atmosephere of the people of Mexico? Yeah I'm not sure that's how the atmosphere works. Surely this stuff would diffuse and affect the atmosphere globally.

If nations don't have national sovereignty over their slice of the atmosphere, then are we saying all air pollution is an international crime? [For clarity I don't particularly disagree with this stance, but my mostly-overlooked point is that:] If people really think this, why is it that (on HN in particular) we overwhelmingly hear this point made in the context of geoengineering, and not for regular old pollution? I…

Do you not consider anthropogenic climate change an air pollution issue?

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#136

Post by jaggs »

schiffern wrote: post #134
jaggs wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's something of a straw man. Air pollution is one thing. Deliberate experimentation with hazardous emissions calculated to be scaled up on a global level with impacts on us all, is a completely different thing.

You have it exactly backwards. Your semantics game is the "straw man." The atmosphere doesn't care what we call it, only what we dump in it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34529944 >calculated to be scaled up on a global level You say that like polluting industries don't try to scale up to a global level.

Industries don't try to scale up pollution. The pollution is a by-product of trying to scale up profits. And one wrong doesn't make the other a right.

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#137

Post by schiffern »

MrOwnPut wrote: post #129
schiffern wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, my point is that the atmosphere doesn't care what we call it. It's just a semantics game. People care, but we do it in such a backwards way that the rule is apparently "you can hurt (for amoral profit), but don't you dare try to help!" Clearly, if anything, the move is to re-brand geoengineering as "normal pollution". It wouldn't even be hard: every 737 emits 500 grams of SO2 in less than 100 miles, and not a pee…

You still didn't answer the original question posed to you by the GP, so I don't know your stance or line of reasoning. And I dispute, "but don't you dare try to help", since you it's not known it helps. These experiments / solar geo-engineering / terraforming may hurt . There's justifications for Mexico to stop these experiments, do you agree or disagree?

My stance is that GP is asking misleading questions that distract from the main issue (all-source emissions).

> And I dispute, "but don't you dare try to help", since you it's not known it helps.

The critical word is "try."

Apparently, the rule is that your intent is all that matters. If you're trying to profit, it's pollution and it's fine. If you intend to help, all hell breaks loose.

Exxon can burn down the world, but utter the words "geoengineering" and you can't so much as swat a fly.

I'm not saying this is logical or correct. I'm just saying that these appear to be the rules as constrained by (not always rational) public opinion.

> There's justifications for Mexico to stop these experiments, do you agree or disagree?

There are justifications both "for" and "against" (like any complex real-world issue), but the public debate has been extremely skewed.

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#138

Post by brazzy »

ibz wrote: post #123
HPsquared wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could make the same argument against medical care. "If we start healing the sick, people will stop taking care of their health". That's not even considering potential side effects of therapies, medicines, etc. Any action has a balance of good and bad, both directly and indirectly.

And that's essentially what has happened. We are sicker than ever because we have easy cures. The problem is that modern medicine works on the symptoms, not on root causes. So the more we "cure" symptoms, the more sick we become, overall.

That's a lovely bunch of non sequiturs you got there.

Most primarily we're more sick than ever because of two things that have absolutely nothing to do with "curing symptoms":

* We're so good at curing diseases and conditions that used to be fatal that people get a lot older than they used to, and old people get sick far more often.

* Automation and increased productivity make a sedentary lifestyle possible and even incentivize it.

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#139

Post by dmazin »

sonofhans wrote: post #5

> The tiny startup Make Sunsets, which had been experimenting with releasing sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight in order to cool the earth. This is the mechanism in Neal Stephenson’s _Termination Shock_. The book’s plot depends on a future US government which is non-functional, thus no one can shut them down. These folks were planning to release 500g of sulfur dioxide — that’s completely insignifi…

Important note: in another YC post the founder said he was inspired by Termination Shock.

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#140

Post by quickthrower2 »

schiffern wrote: post #134
jaggs wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's something of a straw man. Air pollution is one thing. Deliberate experimentation with hazardous emissions calculated to be scaled up on a global level with impacts on us all, is a completely different thing.

You have it exactly backwards. Your semantics game is the "straw man." The atmosphere doesn't care what we call it, only what we dump in it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34529944 >calculated to be scaled up on a global level You say that like polluting industries don't try to scale up to a global level.

Whataboutism
Post reply on HN