04-07-2024, 12:43 PM
This post was last modified 04-09-2024, 11:31 PM by Maxmars.
Edit Reason: formatting
Well, it is fitting that this "practical application" experiment is being conducted in San Fransisco, using quasi-military resources... because anyone else could be sued to death when it turns out to be a catastrophic idea.
The move led by researchers at the University of Washington has renewed questions about how to effectively and ethically study promising climate technologies that could also harm communities and ecosystems in unexpected ways. The experiment is spraying microscopic salt particles into the air, and the secrecy surrounding its timing caught even some experts off guard.
Secrecy indeed... it translates into "[We] don't need anyone questioning our infallible wisdom and knowledge, so best let them remain ignorant until it's over and done with."
Suffice to say they don't know how, or whether, they will be able to measure the effects, or even if there will be one. This is a huge "let's try this" scenario... and research grants are spewing dollars by the millions over it. I suspect that Scientific American is providing us with the usual "press release" reporting...
Similarly, I had encountered this manner of 'quick fix' marketed science project elsewhere...
From: Farming, climate, technology... the "We know what's best!" fallacy (denyignorance.com)
(from the thread)
"... And finally Point 6: We're not learning.
(From BGR:) The latest extreme climate change solution involves dehydrating the stratosphere
This concept seems based upon the idea that "water" in the atmosphere "acts as a greenhouse gas." And that if we were to inject ice-forming particulates into the atmosphere we could reduce the amount of 'greenhouse effect' it produces in our climate.
This would essentially dehydrate the stratosphere, and we would only need to remove around three percent of the water vapor found in our planet’s atmosphere to start seeing a global effect, the study outlines. The researchers say that going about this solution would only provide some wins in the battle against climate change. They say there are no cons or side effects to worry about.
"They say there are no cons or side effects to worry about." Sounds like famous last words to me. But once it is done, and companies have extracted their profit from the exercise... they will have the standard "who knew?" response to the outcomes.
Ultimately this is why science has no place accepting inputs from activism. The propensity for climate activism to posture itself as 'virtuous' leads to misplaced efforts and funding, ultimately slowing down real progress in our understanding of the dynamics of knowledge we haven't understood thus far.
The main problem being that no public speaker ever seems to want to illuminate the key facts of science... A: We don't know every g-d dammed thing, and B: some of what we do know is flat out wrong, or at least incomplete.
Science isn't about "proving" things, it's about increasing the body of knowledge we have, (regardless of where that leads us.) It is not a "feel good" PR activity, like say... activism. "
The move led by researchers at the University of Washington has renewed questions about how to effectively and ethically study promising climate technologies that could also harm communities and ecosystems in unexpected ways. The experiment is spraying microscopic salt particles into the air, and the secrecy surrounding its timing caught even some experts off guard.
Secrecy indeed... it translates into "[We] don't need anyone questioning our infallible wisdom and knowledge, so best let them remain ignorant until it's over and done with."
Suffice to say they don't know how, or whether, they will be able to measure the effects, or even if there will be one. This is a huge "let's try this" scenario... and research grants are spewing dollars by the millions over it. I suspect that Scientific American is providing us with the usual "press release" reporting...
Similarly, I had encountered this manner of 'quick fix' marketed science project elsewhere...
From: Farming, climate, technology... the "We know what's best!" fallacy (denyignorance.com)
(from the thread)
"... And finally Point 6: We're not learning.
(From BGR:) The latest extreme climate change solution involves dehydrating the stratosphere
This concept seems based upon the idea that "water" in the atmosphere "acts as a greenhouse gas." And that if we were to inject ice-forming particulates into the atmosphere we could reduce the amount of 'greenhouse effect' it produces in our climate.
This would essentially dehydrate the stratosphere, and we would only need to remove around three percent of the water vapor found in our planet’s atmosphere to start seeing a global effect, the study outlines. The researchers say that going about this solution would only provide some wins in the battle against climate change. They say there are no cons or side effects to worry about.
"They say there are no cons or side effects to worry about." Sounds like famous last words to me. But once it is done, and companies have extracted their profit from the exercise... they will have the standard "who knew?" response to the outcomes.
Ultimately this is why science has no place accepting inputs from activism. The propensity for climate activism to posture itself as 'virtuous' leads to misplaced efforts and funding, ultimately slowing down real progress in our understanding of the dynamics of knowledge we haven't understood thus far.
The main problem being that no public speaker ever seems to want to illuminate the key facts of science... A: We don't know every g-d dammed thing, and B: some of what we do know is flat out wrong, or at least incomplete.
Science isn't about "proving" things, it's about increasing the body of knowledge we have, (regardless of where that leads us.) It is not a "feel good" PR activity, like say... activism. "
