fox news would never touch this for a number of reasons. 1. the fossil fuel industry are likely anti solar geoengineering, the logic is that srm if it was widely known about that we're in such a terrible situation that serious people are seriously considering doing it, that'd surely speed the death of the ff industry considerably. 2. fox…
fox news would never touch this for a number of reasons. 1. the fossil fuel industry are likely anti solar geoengineering, the logic is that srm if it was widely known about that we're in such a terrible situation that serious people are seriously considering doing it, that'd surely speed the death of the ff industry considerably. 2. fox knows their audience are all into chemtrail conspiracies and wouldnt want to ruffle their feathers that way 3. fox knows that their audience dont even accept that climate change is happening and is man made, why would they want to present a solution for something that their audience doesnt believe exists. 4 fox news knows their audience are all anti science anti intellect halfwits. theyre not going to do a deep dive on something complex and nuanced like this. 5. now i think of it fox did make a very brief and very simplistic expose on solar geoengineering i think it was probably a segment on a lesser watched part of the show, it definitely wasnt prime time, and unsurprisingly they presented it in a completely negative light.
It would be such a non-cost for the fossil fuel companies to just release SO2 into the stratosphere to offset the CO2 effects and keep doing the same business without the hustle of the climate change doomsday prophets. Only downturn would be that it's somehow admitting the negative effects of the fossil fuel. But then do it hidden through some other companies. Just erase the arguments.
the only problem with that is that all and i mean ALL of the scientists working on solar geoengineering say that we need to cut co2 emissions and that using solar geoengineering to mask ever increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere walks us into a more and more dangerous and unpredictable world. for instance at a certain co2 concentration we lose cloud decks and then its all over no matter how much solar geoengineering you do. also solar geoengineering does nothing for ocean acidification so without a doubt solar geoengineering does not change anything about the need to stop using the atmosphere as a sewer
Hi Tomas. let me share something that might be of great interest as a fellow srm enthusiast. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91YPA4PEkdc in this video they mention twice that "the planes are being built" but they dont elaborate beyond that..... i mean the subject is stratospheric aerosol injection so presumably they mean a prototype of the plane that's needed for that. they say it once at 55:25 and again at 1:02:13 and this is a talk hosted by janos pasztor. he's not gonna host people who dont know what they're talking about. so i found this very interesting as i have heard that nowhere else, and i follow all news srm very closely, if the first planes for this job are being built i would think that massive news but i havent heard it in any other article or video. i have tried reaching out to the people in question, but you never hear back from these folks. anyway so i was wondering do you know anything about this?
hi Tomas. well for one thing every expert i have heard talk on this subject agrees, deployment even with planes is so cheap to a government it may as well be free. so cost will not be the deciding factor. but did you click on the link? they say it. the planes are being built! in the usa.
1. The quoted numbers for airplanes are $20B and above. I fear this might be optimistic because we need a type of airplane that can reach the stratosphere with huge amounts of payload, something that is impossible today short of a rocket. In highly highly doubt that they can create a new airplane technology doing something so complicated that no civilian or military has achieved, to perform an action without direct economic benefit.
2. I fear that cost would only cover the production of the airplanes. Operating them would also be expensive. I have not seen any projected cost breakdownd, I'd be interested.
3. If they had succeeded, we would know. If anything, by building they mean prototyping.
4. $20B is a lot. When they say it's not much, what they mean is "It's not much compared to the amounts we would need for decarbonization", and that's true. But it's not because we won't spend $100T on decarbonization that we will spend $20B on airplanes.
5. When I talked with them about balloons, none of the experts could tell me why they wouldn't work. It looks like somebody at some point said it couldn't be possible, and others took it for granted.
I look forward to data points that either reinforce or weaken any of these points, but your comment fits right in to this narrative, and hence it didn't update my prior. Does that make sense?
it does make sense, and i am not an expert by any means im just a layman who follows srm closely. well no i have heard it explained that the srm is cheap comparison is not compared to decarbonizing. srm with planes is cheap in comparison to suffering impacts of climate change. Gernot Wagner made the comparison, if srm prevents one forest fire from happening then it has more than paid for itself. as for balloons not working yes i heard that recently Doug Macmartin said that balloons just cant realistically get the kind of quantities needed up there. i did wonder if by that he also meant the hose and balloon technique that they were going for with the spice project.
fox news would never touch this for a number of reasons. 1. the fossil fuel industry are likely anti solar geoengineering, the logic is that srm if it was widely known about that we're in such a terrible situation that serious people are seriously considering doing it, that'd surely speed the death of the ff industry considerably. 2. fox knows their audience are all into chemtrail conspiracies and wouldnt want to ruffle their feathers that way 3. fox knows that their audience dont even accept that climate change is happening and is man made, why would they want to present a solution for something that their audience doesnt believe exists. 4 fox news knows their audience are all anti science anti intellect halfwits. theyre not going to do a deep dive on something complex and nuanced like this. 5. now i think of it fox did make a very brief and very simplistic expose on solar geoengineering i think it was probably a segment on a lesser watched part of the show, it definitely wasnt prime time, and unsurprisingly they presented it in a completely negative light.
It would be such a non-cost for the fossil fuel companies to just release SO2 into the stratosphere to offset the CO2 effects and keep doing the same business without the hustle of the climate change doomsday prophets. Only downturn would be that it's somehow admitting the negative effects of the fossil fuel. But then do it hidden through some other companies. Just erase the arguments.
the only problem with that is that all and i mean ALL of the scientists working on solar geoengineering say that we need to cut co2 emissions and that using solar geoengineering to mask ever increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere walks us into a more and more dangerous and unpredictable world. for instance at a certain co2 concentration we lose cloud decks and then its all over no matter how much solar geoengineering you do. also solar geoengineering does nothing for ocean acidification so without a doubt solar geoengineering does not change anything about the need to stop using the atmosphere as a sewer
Everybody agrees we should reduce CO2!
Hi Tomas. let me share something that might be of great interest as a fellow srm enthusiast. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91YPA4PEkdc in this video they mention twice that "the planes are being built" but they dont elaborate beyond that..... i mean the subject is stratospheric aerosol injection so presumably they mean a prototype of the plane that's needed for that. they say it once at 55:25 and again at 1:02:13 and this is a talk hosted by janos pasztor. he's not gonna host people who dont know what they're talking about. so i found this very interesting as i have heard that nowhere else, and i follow all news srm very closely, if the first planes for this job are being built i would think that massive news but i havent heard it in any other article or video. i have tried reaching out to the people in question, but you never hear back from these folks. anyway so i was wondering do you know anything about this?
This is 1-2 orders of magnitude more expensive than balloons. Ain’t gonna happen.
hi Tomas. well for one thing every expert i have heard talk on this subject agrees, deployment even with planes is so cheap to a government it may as well be free. so cost will not be the deciding factor. but did you click on the link? they say it. the planes are being built! in the usa.
Didn't click: I can't watch 1h30m
Here's my prior:
1. The quoted numbers for airplanes are $20B and above. I fear this might be optimistic because we need a type of airplane that can reach the stratosphere with huge amounts of payload, something that is impossible today short of a rocket. In highly highly doubt that they can create a new airplane technology doing something so complicated that no civilian or military has achieved, to perform an action without direct economic benefit.
2. I fear that cost would only cover the production of the airplanes. Operating them would also be expensive. I have not seen any projected cost breakdownd, I'd be interested.
3. If they had succeeded, we would know. If anything, by building they mean prototyping.
4. $20B is a lot. When they say it's not much, what they mean is "It's not much compared to the amounts we would need for decarbonization", and that's true. But it's not because we won't spend $100T on decarbonization that we will spend $20B on airplanes.
5. When I talked with them about balloons, none of the experts could tell me why they wouldn't work. It looks like somebody at some point said it couldn't be possible, and others took it for granted.
I look forward to data points that either reinforce or weaken any of these points, but your comment fits right in to this narrative, and hence it didn't update my prior. Does that make sense?
it does make sense, and i am not an expert by any means im just a layman who follows srm closely. well no i have heard it explained that the srm is cheap comparison is not compared to decarbonizing. srm with planes is cheap in comparison to suffering impacts of climate change. Gernot Wagner made the comparison, if srm prevents one forest fire from happening then it has more than paid for itself. as for balloons not working yes i heard that recently Doug Macmartin said that balloons just cant realistically get the kind of quantities needed up there. i did wonder if by that he also meant the hose and balloon technique that they were going for with the spice project.
Hoses are not viable on land because of aviation.
They can be used in international waters though.
I hear the naysayers on balloons, but have not seen yet a substantial takedown
Maybe they should
yes we probably will need to to some extent. we're too far gone