Tag Archives: geoengineering

Billionaires Should Be Prohibited from Geoengineering the Planet

Posted on by
Reply

Shutterstock/John D. Sahlin

Addressing climate change is a fundamentally collective effort. We share a single planet and atmosphere, meaning every emission of greenhouse gases impacts us all.

Notably, a small percentage of individuals have a disproportionate impact. The wealthiest 1% globally account for one-fifth of total emissions since 1990. A voluntary reduction in carbon footprints by the affluent could yield significant global benefits.

However, given our understanding of human behavior, such an outcome seems unlikely. But what if the affluent sought to balance carbon outputs through financing geoengineering projects designed to cool the planet? As explored in an exclusive survey of climate scientists (see “Exclusive: Climate scientists expect attempts to dim the sun by 2100”), there are unpredictable risks associated with such initiatives, potentially leading to adverse effects like droughts or ozone depletion.

Thus, if we are to engage in atmospheric modification, it must be pursued collectively. At present, there are no barriers preventing individuals or factions from attempting to unilaterally cool the Earth. This is why over 80% of respondents in our survey advocate for a global treaty to regulate potential climate interventions.

“
The wealthiest 1% globally account for one-fifth of total emissions.
“

Such a treaty would be among the many necessary updates to global governance in our era. Another domain where affluent individuals can exert significant influence is the night sky, which is increasingly cluttered with satellites that negatively affect the atmosphere (see How worried should we be about toxic chemicals from dead satellites?). With no global restrictions on satellite launches, the number has surged into the thousands, primarily driven by Elon Musk’s Starlink initiative.

International agreements lack the allure of dramatic, high-tech solutions often envisioned in science fiction, making it challenging to win support from billionaires. However, if they wish to contribute positively, endorsing international law would be a constructive starting point.

Source: www.newscientist.com

Geoengineering Won’t Rescue the Poles From Climate Change

Posted on by
Reply

Can I slow the melting of the ice cap?

Ulrik Pedersen/Nurphoto/Shutte rstock

As carbon emissions continue to climb, is geoengineering our best hope to hinder the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, preventing significant sea level rise? A recent analysis of five major geoengineering proposals suggests otherwise.

Martin Seegert from the University of Exeter in the UK warns that promoting unworkable geoengineering solutions distracts from pressing issues. “This undermines our urgent need for decarbonization,” he asserts.

Seegert and his team assessed each polar geoengineering proposal using six criteria: effectiveness, scalability within a reasonable timeframe, affordability, international consensus, potential to create false hope for decades, and environmental risks.

In Antarctica, various ice sheets rest on the seabed, and they are melting from below due to warm seawater. One proposed solution involves erecting large “curtains” to block warm currents from reaching these ice sheets and the floating ice shelves that protect them.

The team warns that the effectiveness of these curtains is uncertain, as noted by Stephen Chaun from Monash University, Australia. “If hot water is diverted away from one ice shelf, where does it go next? Redirecting it to a nearby shelf just shifts the problem,” he states.

These curtains would need to be anchored to the seabed at depths of up to 1 kilometer, rising hundreds of meters and extending for tens of kilometers.

A significant portion of the research voyage to Antarctica is being refocused due to the hazards posed by icebergs and sea ice. “That presents considerable danger,” he notes.

Chown mentions that currently, only a single ship is capable of reaching the area where ocean curtains are required to safeguard Thwaites’ “Doomsday” glacier.

Concerns arise for glaciers that sit on land rather than floating on the seabed, as increased liquid water underneath the ice can act as a lubricant, speeding up the flow and leading to heightened sea level rise.

One proposed intervention is to drill holes in the ice and pump out any water beneath it.

“This approach necessitates a multitude of holes drilled into potentially thick ice. However, we lack precise knowledge of where the water lies,” says Sammy Buzzard from Northumbria University, UK. “Even with an understanding of the science, scalability, cost, and power supply issues make this an impractical solution.”

Another concept involves covering the Arctic Ocean’s surface with tiny hollow glass beads to reflect solar heat back into space. However, Chaun warns, “[This] could backfire completely.”

Sustaining this coverage would require the production of 360 megatons of glass beads annually—comparable to global plastic output. Following lab tests revealing the beads were toxic, the project aimed at testing this idea was discontinued.

Stratospheric aerosol injection is another proposed method, which involves releasing substances like sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere to form aerosols that reflect sunlight. This method poses significant challenges beyond just polar regions. Aerosols would not only fail to stay within the polar stratosphere but also provide minimal effectiveness during the dark polar winters against reflective ice and snow.

The scale of aerosol deployment would necessitate vast quantities, potentially damaging the ozone layer and disrupting climates in other regions, as noted by Valérie Masson-Delmotte from Paris-Saclay University, France. Affected countries may even seek compensation.

Another suggestion includes thickening Arctic sea ice by pumping seawater over it. “This would necessitate deploying millions of devices across drifting, fragile ice,” remarks Heidi Sevestre from Norway’s Arctic Surveillance and Assessment Program. “Such a scenario is technically, logistically, and economically unfeasible.”

The final concept evaluated by the researchers revolves around fertilizing the Southern Ocean to boost phytoplankton growth, thereby absorbing carbon as organic matter settles to the seabed. However, out of 12 small tests, none effectively reached the seabed. Furthermore, this approach could accelerate ocean oxygen depletion and release potent greenhouse gases like methane and nitrous oxide, warns Masson-Delmotte.

“I’m deeply worried about the overly optimistic views presented by some proponents of these strategies, which often gloss over the challenges,” states Masson-Delmotte. “I believe this article highlights that gap.”

Seegert argues that pursuing further research into these ideas squanders valuable resources. “The scale challenges are insurmountable,” he asserts.

Yet, not all researchers agree. “I believe it’s premature to dismiss any of these approaches entirely,” comments Shawn Fitzgerald from the Climate Restoration Centre in Cambridge, UK.

topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com

EPA Leaders Pledge “Complete Transparency” on Geoengineering Amidst Ongoing Weather Conspiracy Theories

Posted on by
Reply

The individual in green is R-Tenn. He mentioned that Sen. Tim Burchett is a co-sponsor of the initiative. The barchet is spreading equally perplexing assertions regarding severe weather.

A spokesman for Greene stated that lawmakers have been “discussing this matter for quite some time” and asserted that the bill is unrelated to the floods in Texas.

In a follow-up email, Greene communicated with Zeldin and expressed encouragement over his actions.

“This is an uncontrolled experiment conducted in the atmosphere without consent. It’s reckless, dangerous, and must be halted,” she stated in an email.

Burchett’s office did not immediately respond to inquiries for comment.

Following Milton and Helen, NOAA issued a factsheet in October 2024, aiming to debunk “weather modification claims” that emerged after two storms impacted Florida and North Carolina. The agency declared it would not “fund or engage in cloud seeding or any weather modification projects.”

Zeldin’s reference to more fringe theories regarding extreme weather coincides with the Trump administration’s reduction in climate change research funding and the removal of a website hosting the government’s climate assessment. President Donald Trump referred to climate change as a hoax, despite scientists uncovering stronger evidence linking the intensity and frequency of extreme weather to global warming.

Decades of research on weather modification have often fueled conspiracy theories.

From 1962 to 1982, NOAA participated in a project called Storm Fury, which aimed to investigate whether hurricane intensity could be altered. This study did not achieve its goals and was ultimately discontinued. NOAA has not undertaken similar research since. According to the factsheet.

Cloud seeding is a weather modification technology currently utilized. This practice has existed since the 1950s and typically involves dispersing silver iodide into clouds to extract moisture from the atmosphere, resulting in additional precipitation. Presently, cloud seeding programs are mainly focused on enhancing water supplies in western states. Companies are required to notify authorities before implementing such measures.

“Cloud seeding doesn’t generate water; it aids surrounding clouds in releasing 5-15% of their moisture. However, Texas was already experiencing 100% humidity, extreme moisture, and storms. The clouds didn’t require assistance,” Cappucci stated.

The proliferation of these claims coincides with escalating threats directed at meteorologists.

Geoengineering is a legitimate scientific field; however, assertions regarding its capability to control significant weather patterns and generate adverse weather are unfounded. Most geoengineering techniques remain theoretical and untested, with federal researchers making only tentative steps to evaluate their viability. Atmospheric scientists report no evidence of any large-scale programs.

Last year, in Alameda, California, a small test project in geoengineering, referred to as Marine Cloud Brightening, was disrupted by community protestors, despite researchers demonstrating its safety.

Psychotherapist Jonathan Alpert described how conspiracy theories tend to surge, particularly during moments of weather events that leave individuals feeling powerless.

“Conspiracy theories offer emotionally gratifying narratives. They restore a sense of control by framing phenomena as intentional actions by powerful entities rather than unpredictable chaotic events,” Alpert told NBC News. “In this context, believing ‘someone is doing this to us’ is more bearable than facing the idea that ‘no one is in charge.'”

While some interpret the EPA’s actions as a sign of transparency, others view it merely as a recent political maneuver to sidestep critical environmental issues.

“Some individuals question whether the bird is real or not. Will that become your next focus?” Congressman Don Beyer D-Va remarked in response to Zeldin’s comments on Thursday morning. He went on to comment on X regarding the EPA guidelines, “How much taxpayer money will be expended on this?”

Source: www.nbcnews.com

Geoengineering Can Prevent Climate Tipping Points, But Delays Will Compromise Its Effectiveness

Posted on by
Reply

Incorporating sunlight-reflecting particles into the atmosphere may help mitigate climate change

Alexnako/Shutterstock

Continuing to emit carbon dioxide poses significant threats, including the risk of triggering tipping points that can lead to major disruptions such as the shutdown of critical ocean currents. Current modeling indicates that injecting aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight could mitigate this risk, though the effectiveness diminishes significantly if it is initiated much later, such as in 2080.

“My conclusion is that if we are genuinely committed to preventing climate change, we must take solar radiation management seriously. This includes exploring its potential advantages and drawbacks,” declared Claudia Winners from Utrecht University in the Netherlands.

A tipping point signifies changes that are irreversible for centuries, including the slowing or stopping of critical marine currents that distribute immense amounts of heat, impacting the global climate.

One such current is the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), which transfers heat from the tropics to Europe. A collapse of this system could instigate rapid sea level rises in North America, severe temperature decreases in Northern Europe, and significant disruptions to the Asian monsoon.

Stratospheric aerosol injection represents a proposed geoengineering method that involves the dispersal of sun-reflective particles in the upper atmosphere via airplanes, balloons, or rockets.

According to the model employed by Winners’ team, the strength of AMOC could decrease by over 50% in the coming century under a worst-case emissions scenario. However, utilizing stratospheric aerosol injections to maintain global temperatures around 1.5°C could significantly mitigate current weakening, as Winners explained at the Exeter Climate Conference held in the UK last week.

Indeed, AMOC would not dip below this scenario under aggressive emissions reductions without geoengineering. “So, for at least the next 80 years, the effectiveness of stratospheric aerosol injections is higher than the mitigation from greenhouse gases,” Winners stated.

However, the model indicates that AMOC would fail to recover if aerosol injections are delayed until 2080, especially if they are employed to bring global temperatures back above 1.5°C after an overshoot, as suggested by the model.

The team also examined subpolar gyres in the North Atlantic, a circular current linked to AMOC that circulates around areas where cold, saline water sinks. If this sinking process halts because the oceans become fresher and warmer, it will significantly affect the climate in Europe.

In a worst-case scenario, the model predicts that sinking will cease and that commencing stratospheric aerosol injections in 2080 would not reactive the process. However, if injections start now, subsidence could be preserved in two out of the three crucial regions.

Nevertheless, these findings necessitate validation through numerous studies examining more realistic emission scenarios, as there are potential risks involved, according to Winners. “You can really mess it up too,” she cautioned.

For successful geoengineering, sustained global cooperation over centuries will be paramount. “You might say this is the largest governance challenge humanity has ever faced,” articulated ethicist Stephen Gardiner during another session at the conference from Washington University in Seattle.

For instance, if stratospheric aerosol injections are only conducted in one hemisphere without a global consensus, Winners warns that it could alter tropical rainfall patterns worldwide.

In a subsequent presentation, Jim Heywood from the University of Exeter discussed another geoengineering method, known as marine cloud brightening, which demonstrated that localized interventions could potentially incite global climatic changes.

With the risks now understood, they can be circumvented, said Haywood. “It’s merely a shift in strategy.” Yet, many researchers remain skeptical about the feasibility of managing geoengineering risks.

“Solar radiation management sounds entirely manageable. Shouldn’t we refer to it as solar radiation interference?” Stephen Rahmstorf questioned Winners after her presentation at the University of Potsdam in Germany.

There is also a concern that geoengineering could be perceived as an alternative to emission reductions. “We are not addressing the root causes of climate change,” stated Winners. “It’s merely a symptom management strategy; however, if the symptoms deteriorate excessively, it may complement a true solution.”

Due to these concerns, some climate scientists oppose even investigating the potential risks and advantages of geoengineering. The topic has become so contentious that participants at at least one meeting opted out of a session focused on it.

Winners is not the first to assert that geoengineering might need to commence immediately to avert tipping points. Last year, two independent teams concluded that solar radiation management could prevent the collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet, another significant tipping point.

“It stands to reason that delaying increases the risk of irreversible changes,” Winners mentioned to New Scientist following her presentation. “I believe that’s quite clear.”

topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com

Utilizing Space and Underwater Curtain Mirrors: Will Technology Save the Arctic Ice Caps in Time?

Posted on by
Reply

wGlacier researcher John Moore began exploring the Arctic Circle in the 1980s. The continuous warming of this area has led to the disappearance of many glaciers, as noted in The Arctic heats 4 times faster. They have simply melted away, outpacing global averages.

Four decades later, Moore’s research network identified an Arctic university. 61 Potential Interventions aim to slow, halt, and reverse the impacts of regional climate change. These concepts are regularly updated. Some will be discussed at a meeting in Cambridge this week, where scientists and engineers will explore whether radical technical solutions can buy time and mitigate the loss of polar ice caps.

Dr. Sean Fitzgerald excavates the ice. Photo: Real Ice/Cambridge University

“We aim to distill them down to about 10 concrete ideas,” Moore asserts, although he hasn’t yet shared specific developments. He emphasizes that the study should exclude “non-starters and hopeless ideas.” If no action is taken over the next 30 years, it may indeed be too late.

The focus should be on rationally valuing these interventions; otherwise, they are merely speculation.

These include methods such as Solar Radiation Management (SRM), brightening Arctic clouds to stabilize ice sheets, giant underwater curtains to prevent warm water from melting glaciers, and deploying vast mirrors in space. Ideas once considered science fiction are becoming more mainstream.

“None of these ideas will solve every issue,” Moore states, emphasizing the need to weigh potential costs against perceived benefits.

Dr. Sean Fitzgerald, director of the Climate Restoration Center at Cambridge University, which is hosting the conference, reflects on a 30-year journey of “unpaid progress” that has slowed the climate crisis, shifting focus towards preserving the Arctic.

“I felt obligated to expand knowledge into broader fields,” he notes. Among the more unusual ideas discussed is the concept of a 10km sunshade suspended between airships the size of Zeppelins and creating corridors for fixed rafts to assist Arctic wildlife reliant on ice. Other measures, such as the initiative by British startup Real Ice and a Dutch company, are underway, which involve pumping water onto ice to refreeze it.

Critics voice concerns about the ethical and legal implications of many proposed interventions, making geoengineering a contentious topic. For instance, in 2021, the Sami Council, representing the Saami people in Finland, Norway, Sweden, and Russia, voiced opposition against Harvard-led pilot projects that aimed to test stratospheric aerosol injection (Science), which simulates volcanic eruptions by dispersing aerosols in the stratosphere to reflect sunlight. The Sami Council branded the plan as a “real moral hazard.”

Inuit hunters navigate through meltwater in West Greenland. Photo: Lawrence Hislop/Alendal

With these sensitivities in mind, the Cambridge Conference will address ethics, governance, sustainability, and general engagement.

The interventions have undergone extensive study, including those identified by Moore for mitigating the Arctic climate emergency. However, many proposals are unlikely to go beyond theoretical stages and require substantial funding or large-scale implementation.

Thus far, ocean-based concepts present additional uncertainties, limitations, and risks, and the study has deemed them “unsuitable for further consideration,” scoring very low against most evaluation criteria.

One such idea, modifying ocean currents, was first proposed during the Cold War, when suggestions were made to block the Bering Strait to enhance Arctic livability. Years later, climate activist Rolf Schttenhelm proposed a similar initiative aimed at increasing Arctic sea ice.

One small-scale solution currently being implemented involves pumping water onto ice to refreeze it. Photo: Real Ice/Cambridge University

“It’s very easy to make mistakes, and no one knows the definitive answer,” Moore reflects. “Local benefits must be balanced with the hope for global gains.”

Fitzgerald remains cautious about any solutions he considers to be frontrunners, underscoring the importance of keeping an open mind and exploring a variety of approaches.


Meanwhile, SAI and Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB) are drawing significant interest. Professor Peter Wadham, leader of the Polar Ocean Physics Group at Cambridge University, describes MCB as a “very powerful” option. “It’s advantageous because it can be implemented on a small scale, allowing for cessation of activities if negative impacts arise,” he asserts.

Wadham is less enthusiastic about SAI, labeling it a risky long-term strategy compared to MCB. Additionally, he finds the proposal to thicken sea ice unrealistic due to the sheer energy required. “It could work in limited scenarios,” he notes, “but not at an impactful scale. Marine Cloud Brightening stands out as the best and most thoughtfully designed approach.”

Hunters return to Kullorsuaq, the Inuit village in Greenland, nearby Melville Bay. Photo: Reda/Universal Images/Getty

Earlier this year, UK scientists announced plans for outdoor geoengineering trials, including Marine Cloud Brightening, funded by a £50 million government initiative. However, opposition has emerged from various sectors; a discussion was held in the UK Parliament this week, and the state of Tennessee has passed legislation banning geoengineering in the US.

In critique claiming that potential disasters outweigh the benefits, Fitzgerald advises: “The risks of attempting action should be assessed alongside those of inaction. Given the rapid pace of climate change, our research efforts must accelerate.”

He adds, “If we believe current conditions are dire, we must consider what the next century may hold.”

Source: www.theguardian.com

Can Reusable Rockets Mitigate the Risks of Solar Geoengineering?

Posted on by
Reply

Rockets can transport cooling aerosols to high altitudes

Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Reusable rockets designed to deliver sun-reflecting aerosols into the upper stratosphere could help cool the planet. However, this fleet of climate-modifying rockets presents its own challenges.

The increase in global temperatures has led to a surge in research on solar geoengineering, a controversial method aimed at cooling the Earth by reflecting sunlight. The most recognized technique, known as stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), entails continuously releasing reflective particles, such as sulfur dioxide, into the stratosphere.

Typically, researchers believe that aerosols will be released from cargo aircraft flying at around 20 km high. Climate models suggest that this could offset warming caused by rising greenhouse gas levels. Nonetheless, it also presents numerous other climate risks, some of which are unknown.

One significant concern is that the aerosols absorb sunlight, warming the stratosphere itself, even while surface temperatures cool. Because of wind patterns, aerosols tend to cluster in the tropical stratosphere, resulting in more warming than in other areas of the atmosphere. This can disrupt jet streams and circulation patterns that influence global weather.

Aerosols may also hasten ozone depletion caused by chlorine, potentially postponing the recovery of ozone holes over Antarctica by as much as 50 years.

Pengfei Yu from Jinan University in China and his team explored whether injecting aerosols at much greater heights—50 kilometers in the upper stratosphere—would change these dynamics. They discovered that high-altitude injections could yield greater cooling benefits than lower altitude methods, as aerosols persist longer, particularly at the poles. This additional height also prevents the aerosols from warming the lower stratosphere until they reach the poles, avoiding the harmful heating in the tropical stratosphere.

Finally, researchers found that these aerosols interact with another chemical that depletes ozone, which results in only a five-year delay in ozone recovery. “We weren’t aware that [injecting at] 50 kilometers offered such a different perspective,” says Yu.

Since planes cannot reach nearly 50 km, researchers propose using rockets. They estimate that deploying 80 reusable, hydrogen-powered rockets every other day could inject between 3 million and 8 million tonnes of aerosols annually, which they say falls within current technological capabilities.

While this scenario may be theoretically feasible, it is likely to be significantly more complex than traditional SAI approaches, according to Douglas McMartin at Cornell University in New York. Some advantages, such as preventing warming in the tropical stratosphere, can be more easily achieved by focusing on higher latitudes instead of high altitudes.

“It may rise higher in the atmosphere for increased efficiency, but the costs are astronomical in comparison,” he states.

Moreover, the high-altitude method does not fully mitigate many risks associated with solar geoengineering, including the rapid temperature increase that could follow if injection ceases. “What happens if the rockets fail on the ground?” Yu questions. “That’s a legitimate concern.”

Topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com

Unconventional geoengineering concepts with potential for substantial reduction in radioactivity

Posted on by
Reply

Make the climate core

We all know that climate change is dangerous. In other words, it is attractive to take dramatic measures to work on it. It is placed deeper than before, such as the construction of a nuclear bomb, or deeper on the seabed.

News reporter Alex Wilkins has drawn attention to feedback on this small scheme. That is the idea of Andrew HayberryWho explained his thoughts paper It was released on ARXIV on January 11th. This is an online repository without a pear review.

The Haybalry plan is based on an existing approach called Enhanced Rock -Weathering. Rock -like rocks react with carbon dioxide in the air, slowly removing greenhouse gases, and trapped in the form of minerals. By crushing such rocks into powder, this chemical weather can accelerate and speed up CO.2 Removal. However, even if it is an optimistic estimation, this only supplements a small part of the greenhouse gas emissions.

That is where the nucleus appears. A decent nuclear explosion reduces a large amount of basalt to powder, enabling significant eruption of rock weathering. Hayberry suggests filling at least 3 km nuclear bombs from the seabed of the South Sea. The surrounding rocks restrict explosions and radiation, minimizing the risk of life. However, the explosion will crush enough rock to absorb 30 years of CO.2 Exhaust.

The first hurdle of Haybalry is the size of the necessary bombs. The biggest nuclear explosion was the explosion of TSAR BOMBA, which exploded by the Soviet Union in 1961. There was a yield equivalent to TNT 50 megaton. Hayberry is a device with 81 gigaton yield and hopes to have a bigger explosion of more than 1600 times the emperor Bomba. Such bombs are written in Sole strictly that they should not be taken lightly.

How we build this, and transport it to the infamous windy South Ocean, safely lower it to the seabed, and then send it to the sea floor a few km below. It is left. Hayberry estimates that this effort costs “about $ 10 billion”. But the feedback doesn't know how he came up with the number.

Anyway, no one tells Eron Mask.

Later generations of sneak peak

Feedbacks often experience revelation through social media media. Our latest one was due to X user's favor @pallnandiOccupational therapist, a “fair realist” posted on January 12.Heaven leaked photos It has become a social media viral. It's no wonder that Christians have decided to reach them! “”

The accompanying image shows a city engraved with white stones. The architecture looks like an intersection between Istanbul Hagia Sofia Mosque, Rome's Colosseo, and Liberdel. Road of the ring。 All hundreds of windows shine the same color of Golden Yellow. There is a dark starry sky on the city, and there are things that seem to be broken.

Therefore, the revelation of feedback: If you wait for a long time, the stupid claim that is lurking for a long time circulates again.

This dates back in 1994. Weekly world news The story of the headline was releasedHeaven taken by the Hubble Telescope“. It contains the blurred black and white image of the starfield, and there was a big shine in the middle, which contains a luxurious building collection. Remember how Asgard, the home of the Nordic gods, looked. Anyone who is Tall Movies have the right idea.

You don't have to say this image It wasn't from HubbleOr even NASA is fake. However, it was not recently as in February 2024. Emphasized in the video On Instagram Titoku。

Not one year later New image There is a similar catchphrase I became a viral。 There are some reports Pointed out that The image looks like it is generated in AI: Especially on the Milky Way, there is a pattern like a glitch.

But the real problem of feedback is that it looks like a terrible place. First of all, the star means a clear lack of air. It looks like it is frozen, and the structure is like a character of an Adam driver's monoac architect in the movie. Megalopolis。 Science fiction Author Naomi Aradman Walking BLUESKY: “Yeah, animals, plants, trees, rivers and lakes, cold marble -there is no dark sky and the sun -I can't literally see people.” It is compared to the output of the “terrible neighboring committee”.

Maybe we will get this Mome repetition, which looks like a good place for heaven to actually spend eternity. However, feedback is not recommended to stop.

Fish -like finale

The press release warns us in a new book To a large wide sea: Life in a habitat that is the most known on the earthSönkejohnsen. The author explains what we know in a huge amount of water under the sea, isolated from the air, the seabed, and continent shelves. How do you spend a lifetime in a place where you can know how the power of gravity and the slight fluctuation of the light level are up and which is down?

We don't know, we know that this fish -like book illustrator is one of Merlin Peterson.

Did you talk about feedback?

Feedback@newscientist.com allows you to send a story to feedback by email. Include your home address. This week and past feedback can be seen on our website.

Source: www.newscientist.com

Tennessee legislator outlaws geoengineering, talks about ‘chemtrails’

Posted on by
Reply

The Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill on Monday aimed at preventing geoengineering, the deliberate modification of the atmosphere to address global warming.

The bill, which has already been approved by the state Senate, includes various technological interventions. These range from theoretical concepts like solar modulation to practical methods like cloud seeding, which is used to enhance precipitation.

Most geoengineering options are still theoretical and untested. Federal researchers have only taken preliminary steps towards feasibility studies, and atmospheric scientists emphasize the lack of evidence for large-scale implementation.

On the surface, Tennessee’s bill seeks to restrict experimentation and deployment of such technologies.

However, discussions among lawmakers around the proposal blur the lines between fact and fiction, with some suggesting ongoing solar geoengineering projects and expressing fears and misunderstandings that trace back to “chemtrail” conspiracy theories.

“This will be my wife’s favorite bill of the year. She has been concerned about this for a long time. It’s been happening for years,” said Republican Sen. Frank Knisley during a public hearing on the bill last month. “If you look up, one day it will be clear. The next day it will look like angels playing tic-tac-toe. They are everywhere. There’s a photo with an X in it. They denied any involvement for years.”

None of the six Senate sponsors responded to requests for comment. Nicely, who voted in favor of the bill, also did not respond after the House vote. Republican Rep. Monty Fritz, the bill’s House sponsor, only agreed to an in-person interview, which could not be arranged before the vote by NBC News.

The chemtrail theory posits that planes are not leaving contrails but rather spraying government-created chemicals for control purposes. It is a collection of unsubstantiated ideas.

Various conspiracy theories related to chemtrails have emerged recently, with believers claiming that contrails are actually aerosols designed to manipulate weather and climate. Republican Sen. Steve Sutherland, one of the bill’s sponsors, mentioned the chemtrail theory while presenting his case for the bill to reporters, as reported by the Tennessee Lookout, a nonprofit news outlet.

“We are witnessing significant changes,” said Justin Mankin, a climate scientist at Dartmouth College. The challenge arises from the fact that the entire chemtrail conspiracy accommodates various technologies with distinct goals, making it challenging to separate them. ”

Besides Tennessee, other states like Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and South Dakota have introduced or are contemplating similar anti-geoengineering legislation.

This trend indicates a blend of conspiracy theories, confusion, and genuine environmental concerns gaining ground in public awareness and among certain Republican circles.

“People in states like Tennessee, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire fear that the chemtrail theory is factual,” Mankin explained. “By enacting legislation, policymakers are legitimizing conspiracy theories instead of relying on science to disprove them adequately.”

Josh Horton, a senior fellow studying solar geoengineering policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, mentioned that as far as he knows, Tennessee is the first state to pass such a bill in both chambers of the legislature.

If the governor signs the bill, it would prohibit the deliberate release of chemicals into the atmosphere for the purpose of influencing temperature, weather, or sunlight intensity.

The bill suggests that the “federal government” or its agents have implicated in geoengineering experiments by intentionally spraying chemicals into the atmosphere.

A White House official clarified that the government is not involved in outdoor solar radiation control testing or implementation. They mentioned engaging in limited research activities like modeling, measurement, monitoring, and laboratory studies.

The vote in Tennessee on Monday evening sparked controversy.

Democratic Rep. John Ray Clemons playfully attached an amendment to the bill suggesting that geoengineering could endanger Sasquatch habitat. His amendment did not pass.

“It’s fitting that this bill is on the calendar on April 1,” quipped Rep. Beau Mitchell, another Democrat.

The bill’s House sponsor, Fritz, cited federal funding for aerosol research as proof of the government’s intentions.

“There is intent and a plan,” he asserted. “Some individuals looking into solar radiation modification are aiming to reflect sunlight from Earth by injecting chemicals, compounds, substances, and devices into the upper atmosphere. I believe so.”

It is not surprising that lawmakers are grappling with the complexities of geoengineering. The term is broad and poorly defined, encompassing many speculative ideas from scientists brainstorming ways to combat global warming.

“It’s not fully fleshed out. It doesn’t exist,” Horton remarked. “There is jargon everywhere.”

Solar geoengineering, which the Tennessee bill seeks to prohibit, falls under this broad category. It includes activities like stratospheric aerosol injection, an unproven theory aimed at cooling the planet by injecting particles into the stratosphere from high-altitude aircraft.

Other geoengineering methods like ocean cloud brightening, cirrus thinning, and using ice cubes to absorb heat are not covered in the bill.

Tennessee’s bill also outlaws weather modification, including cloud seeding, a practice used for decades in Western states to enhance rainfall.

While some states regulate cloud seeding efforts to boost snowfall in mountainous regions, most other forms of geoengineering remain unregulated. “The Wild West of the regulation world,” Mankin noted.

The committee hearings on the bill led to a mix of truth, insinuations, and fiction.

The bill’s sponsor, Dr. Dennis Sibley, testified before both chambers of the legislature and insinuated that the federal government was releasing chemicals into the atmosphere.

“There’s no denying that weather modification is happening in our state,” Sibley stated, adding, “I am opposed to the intentional use of particulate aerosols or heavy metals to block sunlight.”

She referenced a 2023 White House Report as evidence, portraying a concept paper on geoengineering research without detailing an actual program.

Sibley did not respond to requests for comment.

During the hearing, lawmakers conflated contrails with “chemtrails,” questioning whether cloud seeding caused wildfires in Western states or if geoengineering led to higher cancer rates.

Republican Rep. Bud Hulsey even speculated if geoengineering was responsible for the decline of honey bees.

“Exactly—that’s why the bees are disappearing,” replied testimonial support David Perry, who claimed to have been a licensed healthcare provider for four decades. “Their ecosystem is impacted by these aerosols.”

There is no evidence to support Perry’s assertions. A Tennessee chiropractor with the same name mentioned during the testimony did not provide a response to requests for comment. Bees face real threats like pest pressure, habitat loss, and insecticide exposure.

“All these concepts—weather modification, chemtrails, contrails, and geoengineering—are getting muddled and intertwined,” Horton explained after reviewing recent congressional testimony.

Democratic State Sen. Heidi Campbell voted against the bill.

“It’s alarming how conspiracy theories resonate so strongly here,” Campbell expressed, also pointing out that the bill diverts attention from the primary climate issue.

Mankin and Houghton concurred that important discussions are warranted on guiding and regulating solar geoengineering research, a controversial topic among many scientists.

“Is the Tennessee Legislature the appropriate venue for this deliberation?” Horton wondered. “Probably not.”

Source: www.nbcnews.com