Live data from Hacker News

Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

cnbc.com

181–190 of 272 posts

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#181
post #165

The theory goes something like. volcanoes put a geologic amount of what we would consider polluting gasses into the atmosphere. why then is there a tendency for global cooling after a large volcano eruption and not global warming? The answer is that volcano plumes may emit a large amount of sulfur dioxide which has the cooling effect. But we worked very hard to remove sulfur compounds from our fuels, after all nobody…

But this does not get us out the mess, it just kicks the can down the road, and if we stop kicking once, it explodes.

So the solution is to just do nothing and die? Because all this moral self wanking is great and all but you aren’t doing anything to fix it.

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#182
post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so it's ok to do experiments with the atmosephere of the people of Mexico? So it's okay to do experiments with the atmosphere, as long as you re-brand them as "pollution" instead of as "experiments"? (and of course, organizationally separate the scientists performing the data collection/analysis steps)

Well it s not an experiment if it's pollution: it's a compromise. We know we degrade it, we dont know an alternative, or dont want to try. An experiment is limited in time, serves no purpose but knowledge acquisition, and can fail. When you burn coal to heat your people, you're not gonna fail, and people are gonna last one more day, they can accept the compromise. A foreign startup trying something before saying "sor…

Sure, I know the definitions.

> A foreign startup trying something before saying "sorry lol didnt work, good luck" is not gonna convince many to try.

It won't seriously deter them either. The public outcry over even the attempt is a more concerning deterrent.

> When you burn coal to heat your people, you're not gonna fail

Tell that to Texas.

> people are gonna last one more day, they can accept the compromise.

Yes, people tend to overvalue immediate visible benefits and undervalue long-term costs (like the climate 100 years hence) or invisible benefits (like gaining scientific knowledge by performing insignificant-scale geoengineering tests).

People are irrational. This is known. We should strive to be less irrational.

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#183

We have proven conclusively that we will NOT reduce emissions. So we have 2 options: Geo-engineering OR catastrophic climate change. Choose.

we actually only have 1 option, which is that climate changes, no matter what humans do, and we can change it on the margins though are actions as well. dumping gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere is geo-engineering. it is just unintentional. saying that climate change (of the anthropocentric CO2 caused variety) will necessarily be catastrophic is scientifically unsupportable. there is a possibility that it will be c…

It's very clear we are not planning to stop. Given that decision, there is no need for us to lie to ourselves and pretend things will be ok, or that what we are doing is no big deal. Or that we can "adapt" our way out of being 20m under water etc...

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#184
post #171
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that kind of SO2 release the cause of acid rain? Because that's not good. If we're going to release those millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere anyway, maybe it makes sense to release it into the stratosphere instead, to duplicate the cooling effect of the volcano. Although that's not so easily done. Also, apart from a cooling effect, what other effects did that volcanic release of SO2 have?

The cooling effect comes in part from a reduction of light reaching the Earth's surface, lowering the amount of energy that plants receive to grow.

I looked it up on Wikipedia:

> The powerful eruption of such an enormous volume of lava and ash injected significant quantities of aerosols and dust into the stratosphere. Sulfur dioxide oxidized in the atmosphere to produce a haze of sulfuric acid droplets, which gradually spread throughout the stratosphere over the year following the eruption. The injection of aerosols into the stratosphere is thought to have been the largest since the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa, with a total mass of SO 2 of about 17,000,000 t (19,000,000 short tons) being injected – the largest volume ever recorded by modern instruments (see chart and figure).

> Satellite measurements of ash and aerosol emissions from Mount Pinatubo This very large stratospheric injection resulted in a volcanic winter, a reduction in the normal amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface by roughly 10% (see figure). This led to a decrease in Northern Hemisphere average temperatures of 0.5–0.6 °C (0.9–1.1 °F) and a global decrease of about 0.4 °C (0.7 °F).[21][22] At the same time, the temperature in the stratosphere rose to several degrees higher than normal, due to the absorption of radiation by the aerosol. The stratospheric cloud from the eruption persisted in the atmosphere for three years. The eruption, while not directly responsible, may have played a part in the formation of the 1993 Storm of the Century.[23]

> The eruption had a significant effect on ozone levels in the atmosphere, causing a large increase in the destruction rate of ozone. Ozone levels at middle latitudes reached their lowest recorded levels, while in the Southern Hemisphere winter of 1992, the ozone hole over Antarctica reached its largest ever size until then, with the fastest recorded ozone depletion rates. The eruption of Mount Hudson in Chile in August 1991 also contributed to southern hemisphere ozone destruction, with measurements showing a sharp decrease in ozone levels at the tropopause when the aerosol clouds from Pinatubo and Hudson arrived. Another noticeable effect of the dust in the atmosphere was the appearance of lunar eclipses. Normally even at mid-eclipse, the moon is still visible although much dimmed, whereas in the year following the Pinatubo eruption, the moon was hardly visible at all during eclipses, due to much greater absorption of sunlight by dust in the atmosphere. It has also been suggested that excess cloud condensation nuclei from the eruption were responsible for the "Great Flood of 1993" in the Midwestern United States.

So while no effect on plant growth is mentioned, it may have caused a major storm, a major flood, and enlarged the hole in the ozone layer. Sounds like a bad idea overall. Especially since that reduction in temperature was only temporary. For this approach to have any long-term impact, you'd have to keep injecting SO2 into the stratosphere every year.

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#185
post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure I follow you any more. In what way would you like to rethink this ethical schema? What schema?

The wildly disproportionate pollution vs geoengineering double standard that paralyzes us in the face of arguably the greatest existential threat to our species (perhaps second only to nuclear weapons). >> apparently the rule here is that you can hurt people (for amoral profit), but don't you dare try to help people!

I think that's a big misunderstanding. Climate change is not exactly an immense existential threat to our species. It's threatening the livelihood and sustainability of life in almost all impoverished regions, and will cause the death and suffering of 100s of millions/billions of people.

The average 1-percenter who participates in this forum will probably see nothing more than a few tourist destinations changed, need to crank up the AC a bit more, less options for skiing in winter, and price of exotic fruits increasing.

The combination of climate change, loss of wildlife habitat, biogeochemical flows, ocean acidification, etc, could very well be a threat to our existence as a species, yes. Climate change is only one of them, and the injection of SO2 in the atmosphere only solves this one, with unclear and potentially negative consequences on all the other planetary boundaries.

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#186
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Ton” itself can also refer two different units: The 2240 lb British long ton and the 2000 lb American short ton. And “metric ton” refers to “tonne”. Tl;dr: a ton of confusion.

Funny, as "Tonne" is the german word for barrel or cask. And also for a metric ton, equaling 1000 kilograms, or 2000 german "Pfund", i.e. pounds.

Same origin; the extant word in English is "tun" for the barrel, and a ton was equal to the mass of the contents of a tun.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ton#English

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tun#English

https://www.etymonline.com/word/ton#etymonline_v_15357

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, basically what all those youtubers do when sending balloons up? Mark my utterly unimpressed. I think the rainbow background very fitting so, they only forgot to add the pink unicorn.

Yes, this is how engineering works. They calibrate their equipment's altitude and flight pattern predictions, then modify the equipment to vent at the target altitude (both the balloon gas, to arrest ascent, and the cloud chamber, to disperse the chemical), then test to make sure their modifications are working correctly. Then they finalize that design and enter into production of a calibrated device whose target alt…

That's not how engineering works. But what do you expect from someone with a Bachelor of Science from Wharton Business school and no education in anything engineering related?

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#188
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also brought up for "regular old pollution". Neighbouring countries of Germany are pushing for Germany to stop polluting the atmosphere with coal. South Korean associations are making efforts in China to stop them from building incinerators on their east coast, outside of Beijing. You probably are just not living in an area of concern.

> Neighbouring countries of Germany are pushing for Germany to stop polluting the atmosphere with coal. Which is ridiculous on its own, Poland has been ordered for years to shut down the Turow open-pit mine on the border to Germany and Czechia, they refused and were sentenced to 500.000€ per day of continued operation [1], got 15 million € in EU disbursements held back [2]... the size of that thing is insane [3]. [1]…

Your description is slightly inaccurate:

In February 2021, the Czech Republic sued Poland over the mine at the European Court of Justice, the first time that an EU member state had sued another one over an environmental issue.[10]

In May 2021, Poland defied an injunction by the court that ordered the immediate closure of the mine, claiming it would have an adverse impact the country's energy system and lead to the loss of thousands of jobs.[11]

Because Poland had not ceased lignite extraction activities at the Turów mine, on 20 September 2021, the Vice-President of the Court ordered Poland to pay the European Commission a daily penalty payment of half a million euros,[13] but the Polish government refused to comply.[4]

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#189

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…

Compare the emissions to driving a car, flying a plane, or launching a rocket... or a volcano

Re: Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering

#190
post #59

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.

Partially diffuse globally, partially come down in a downplume. The area under the downplume gets the maximum cooling effect.

I think the area shadowed by the downplume would get the most cooling, while the area downwind of the downplume gets the fallout. Baja is dependent on fishing along the coast, though not in the hotter months.
Post reply on HN