We’ve been Geo engineering since 1851 when we burned the first hydrocarbon chains from fossil fuels.
There is one very safe and actually beneficial on every level Geo engineering.
The spreading of micro find dust created from glacial marine rock. And incredibly high altitude.
Blocking statistically significant fraction of sunlight if done properly, raising the pH of the ocean and giving much-needed mineral availability to continental bioregions.
No risk, low tech, very effective. What more could you ask for?
This "Make Sunsets" will get totally panned in my next post. Imagine, risking all crop yields, ocean oxygen production, these particles returning to the earth on the polar regions AND THEN selling carbon credits so someone else FEELS GOOD about further polluting? WTF?????
Fun fact Andrew. We haven't seen any direct sunlight here in northern Idaho for some time with an abrupt change occurring at the end of August 2024; constant dimming to complete grey ground mist. Completely unlike anything I have experienced in my 56 years...Another fun fact, 45 billion missing from the world bank climate fund...Another fun fact, there was once a scientist that discovered the gene for insulin and donated the patent for a buck for public use. We now have people tortured for 1000s of dollars a year after insurance for the right to access insulin that takes literally pennies to produce. .... Do you understand that whatever ideas you have are absolutely irrelevant? It is the banks/corporate private capital and military that wage forever wars on humanity that will be implementing your fantasies, and not in any way that you have invisioned ....It seems pretty clear that global solar dimming is well underway. My question to you how are you personally measuring the effects on human beings? Wouldn't you love to embarass all of us Luddites? Why don't you lead the way demonstrating that what is already underway is not harming us? Where are the agencies that, first, are telling the truth? Testing me, my soil, my water and assessing how well my garden is functioning in response to this onslaught? Making sure farmers don't lose their land as you play God?
Thank you for sharing your perspective. It’s clear you’re deeply concerned about the state of the world, and I appreciate the opportunity to engage in this dialogue. There’s a lot to unpack here, and I’d like to address a few key points.
1. Lack of Sunlight in Northern Idaho
Seasonal weather patterns, wildfire smoke, and pollution are often major contributors to reduced sunlight in regions like northern Idaho. While it’s unsettling to experience such a dramatic change, it’s worth noting that many of these issues are tied to broader climate challenges, including global warming-driven wildfire seasons. Efforts like stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) aim to reduce extreme heat that fuels such wildfires—not to exacerbate cloudiness or mist.
2. On Banks, Corporations, and Power Structures
Your concern about banks, corporations, and systemic inequities resonates deeply. The history of insulin pricing is a stark reminder of how technological breakthroughs can be distorted for profit rather than public good. That said, projects like ours (Make Sunsets) are independent initiatives trying to create a transparent and accountable approach to addressing climate risks. We're actively working to involve communities and ensure the technology isn’t hijacked by the same profit-driven systems that frustrate you.
3. Global Solar Dimming and Accountability
It’s essential to clarify the distinction between unintentional solar dimming—caused by pollution, wildfires, and aerosols from industrial activity—and deliberate interventions like SAI. The former is already happening without oversight or public input, and it’s likely contributing to challenges for farmers and ecosystems. Our work focuses on exploring whether carefully measured, controlled interventions could help stabilize the climate, mitigate extreme weather, and prevent catastrophic warming.
Regarding testing and monitoring, you’re absolutely right: it’s critical to measure impacts rigorously. This is why we advocate for transparency, open research, and collaboration with scientists, farmers, and local communities. We’d love to involve independent agencies in monitoring soil, water, and agricultural systems as part of this process.
4. Addressing Harm and Leading by Example
Your question about whether we are measuring the effects on human beings is a valid one. Right now, the scale of our deployments is incredibly small—1 kg of SO₂ per launch, equivalent to a negligible fraction of industrial emissions released every second globally. These small-scale deployments are being studied to ensure safety and assess effects without causing harm.
Rather than playing “God,” we see this as a way to provide humanity with more time to address the underlying drivers of climate change. This is not a substitute for reducing CO₂ emissions but a complementary approach to mitigate the harm caused by climate extremes while longer-term solutions are implemented.
5. Truth and Transparency
You raise an important point about the need for honesty and accountability. We’re committed to sharing our data, methods, and outcomes openly. Our deployments are public, and we invite scrutiny because we believe that this work should belong to everyone, not just a select few.
I recognize that these are difficult conversations, and skepticism is healthy. My hope is that by keeping these discussions open and transparent, we can find common ground and work toward solutions that serve everyone—especially those most affected by climate change.
Thank you again for your thoughtful critique. If you’d like to continue the conversation, I’d be happy to engage further.
Thank you, Andrew, for being willing to continue in this conversation.
In your comment you state “…we see this as a way to provide humanity with more time to address the underlying drivers of climate change. This is not a substitute for reducing CO₂ emissions but a complementary approach to mitigate the harm caused by climate extremes while longer-term solutions are implemented.”
I’m sorry, but this is a fallacy, or multiple layers of fallacy.
I’m not excessively concerned about “climate change,” but extremely concerned about the manifestly terrible multitude of assaults by humans on every aspect of this planet and all other life. “Giving us more time” is an absolute insult to the recognition of these harms. If you are locked in to the preeminence of global warming resulting from CO2 emissions and concentrate your work on (supposedly) cooling the planet, all you are doing is green-lighting the “present system of things,” so that “life” can go on as normal, while at some later point you might (wishful thinking?) get global agreement on mitigating your climate issue. This use of the word “life” is entirely inappropriate since “city life” or “urban life” are actually anti-Life. And “Normal” is actually the sum-total of all the drastic human errors in all of history, including nuclear weapons, manufacture and dispersal of plastics, and burning every fuel we can find. Therefore “giving us more time” is the cry like that of a murderer properly accused, pleading in front of the firing-squad. I’m sorry, there is no more time to “give.” As I wrote in a previous post, https://kathleenmccroskey.substack.com/p/the-total-eclipse-of-the-earth if we keep pushing on the oceans like this, they could pack it in again as they have in the past, and we could be waiting as much as five million years for them to start functioning again. “Giving us more time” is no longer an option; we must scale down this human project in dramatic fashion on every level of its impact. Of course that includes reducing CO2 emissions as part of a drastic wind-down of energy consumption. Apparently, you just cannot recognize that this human assault on this planet must end! You want to find a way to paper over what you see as the main damage, some global warming, so that all the other human damage can continue. Not just continue, but continue with exponential expansion as per “normal.” That is just totally wrong. But again, any of this imaginary planning is meaningless until we establish that there is a civilization on this planet, and as things stand, that is obviously not the case. What would a visitor from another planet think when observing human behaviour? Theft, murder, wars, bombings, destroying forests, beating up the vital oceans in every possible way. Until all that is under control, humanity, continuing to act like a rogue species, will get what it deserves.
Saying that all our past emissions count as a geoengineering experiment, therefore we should try your SO2 experiment as a correction, is what I call a root error, similar to “we must build the atomic bomb before they do.” Humans might not be able to pinpoint the exact point where that argument goes astray, but the end result reveals the error of the ways. The present damage to the atmosphere was not an intended outcome; it was an unintended or outright dismissed outcome resulting from our continuous push for “progress.” It was a re-shaping of the living world into a human construct enabled by energy slaves, powered by finance. And now geoengineering proposes to carry on re-shaping the planet toward our human desires, powered by finance.
Such endeavors break my two primal rules for living in harmony with this planet, these simple concepts underlie every other imaginable constraint on progress: Do not dig more than 6” into the ground and do not use fire except for cooking. To cross these boundaries requires much more consideration to the potential outcomes than humans have ever undertaken.
Thank you, Aidan! All of these projects wish to will themselves into existence without "free, prior, informed consent" from the affected population: "Father Knows Best" on a grand scale.
We’ve been Geo engineering since 1851 when we burned the first hydrocarbon chains from fossil fuels.
There is one very safe and actually beneficial on every level Geo engineering.
The spreading of micro find dust created from glacial marine rock. And incredibly high altitude.
Blocking statistically significant fraction of sunlight if done properly, raising the pH of the ocean and giving much-needed mineral availability to continental bioregions.
No risk, low tech, very effective. What more could you ask for?
Agreed, you can take action here: https://makesunsets.com/products/join-the-next-balloon-launch-and-cool-the-planet
This "Make Sunsets" will get totally panned in my next post. Imagine, risking all crop yields, ocean oxygen production, these particles returning to the earth on the polar regions AND THEN selling carbon credits so someone else FEELS GOOD about further polluting? WTF?????
We need to only diffuse 1-2% of the sun's energy to get the intended cooling effect. Fun fact, our method increases crop yield due to diffusion of light and CO2 fertilization: https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/files/tkg/files/fan_et_al_2021_nature_food.pdf?m=1622034220
Fun fact Andrew. We haven't seen any direct sunlight here in northern Idaho for some time with an abrupt change occurring at the end of August 2024; constant dimming to complete grey ground mist. Completely unlike anything I have experienced in my 56 years...Another fun fact, 45 billion missing from the world bank climate fund...Another fun fact, there was once a scientist that discovered the gene for insulin and donated the patent for a buck for public use. We now have people tortured for 1000s of dollars a year after insurance for the right to access insulin that takes literally pennies to produce. .... Do you understand that whatever ideas you have are absolutely irrelevant? It is the banks/corporate private capital and military that wage forever wars on humanity that will be implementing your fantasies, and not in any way that you have invisioned ....It seems pretty clear that global solar dimming is well underway. My question to you how are you personally measuring the effects on human beings? Wouldn't you love to embarass all of us Luddites? Why don't you lead the way demonstrating that what is already underway is not harming us? Where are the agencies that, first, are telling the truth? Testing me, my soil, my water and assessing how well my garden is functioning in response to this onslaught? Making sure farmers don't lose their land as you play God?
Thank you for sharing your perspective. It’s clear you’re deeply concerned about the state of the world, and I appreciate the opportunity to engage in this dialogue. There’s a lot to unpack here, and I’d like to address a few key points.
1. Lack of Sunlight in Northern Idaho
Seasonal weather patterns, wildfire smoke, and pollution are often major contributors to reduced sunlight in regions like northern Idaho. While it’s unsettling to experience such a dramatic change, it’s worth noting that many of these issues are tied to broader climate challenges, including global warming-driven wildfire seasons. Efforts like stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) aim to reduce extreme heat that fuels such wildfires—not to exacerbate cloudiness or mist.
2. On Banks, Corporations, and Power Structures
Your concern about banks, corporations, and systemic inequities resonates deeply. The history of insulin pricing is a stark reminder of how technological breakthroughs can be distorted for profit rather than public good. That said, projects like ours (Make Sunsets) are independent initiatives trying to create a transparent and accountable approach to addressing climate risks. We're actively working to involve communities and ensure the technology isn’t hijacked by the same profit-driven systems that frustrate you.
3. Global Solar Dimming and Accountability
It’s essential to clarify the distinction between unintentional solar dimming—caused by pollution, wildfires, and aerosols from industrial activity—and deliberate interventions like SAI. The former is already happening without oversight or public input, and it’s likely contributing to challenges for farmers and ecosystems. Our work focuses on exploring whether carefully measured, controlled interventions could help stabilize the climate, mitigate extreme weather, and prevent catastrophic warming.
Regarding testing and monitoring, you’re absolutely right: it’s critical to measure impacts rigorously. This is why we advocate for transparency, open research, and collaboration with scientists, farmers, and local communities. We’d love to involve independent agencies in monitoring soil, water, and agricultural systems as part of this process.
4. Addressing Harm and Leading by Example
Your question about whether we are measuring the effects on human beings is a valid one. Right now, the scale of our deployments is incredibly small—1 kg of SO₂ per launch, equivalent to a negligible fraction of industrial emissions released every second globally. These small-scale deployments are being studied to ensure safety and assess effects without causing harm.
Rather than playing “God,” we see this as a way to provide humanity with more time to address the underlying drivers of climate change. This is not a substitute for reducing CO₂ emissions but a complementary approach to mitigate the harm caused by climate extremes while longer-term solutions are implemented.
5. Truth and Transparency
You raise an important point about the need for honesty and accountability. We’re committed to sharing our data, methods, and outcomes openly. Our deployments are public, and we invite scrutiny because we believe that this work should belong to everyone, not just a select few.
I recognize that these are difficult conversations, and skepticism is healthy. My hope is that by keeping these discussions open and transparent, we can find common ground and work toward solutions that serve everyone—especially those most affected by climate change.
Thank you again for your thoughtful critique. If you’d like to continue the conversation, I’d be happy to engage further.
Thank you, Andrew, for being willing to continue in this conversation.
In your comment you state “…we see this as a way to provide humanity with more time to address the underlying drivers of climate change. This is not a substitute for reducing CO₂ emissions but a complementary approach to mitigate the harm caused by climate extremes while longer-term solutions are implemented.”
I’m sorry, but this is a fallacy, or multiple layers of fallacy.
I’m not excessively concerned about “climate change,” but extremely concerned about the manifestly terrible multitude of assaults by humans on every aspect of this planet and all other life. “Giving us more time” is an absolute insult to the recognition of these harms. If you are locked in to the preeminence of global warming resulting from CO2 emissions and concentrate your work on (supposedly) cooling the planet, all you are doing is green-lighting the “present system of things,” so that “life” can go on as normal, while at some later point you might (wishful thinking?) get global agreement on mitigating your climate issue. This use of the word “life” is entirely inappropriate since “city life” or “urban life” are actually anti-Life. And “Normal” is actually the sum-total of all the drastic human errors in all of history, including nuclear weapons, manufacture and dispersal of plastics, and burning every fuel we can find. Therefore “giving us more time” is the cry like that of a murderer properly accused, pleading in front of the firing-squad. I’m sorry, there is no more time to “give.” As I wrote in a previous post, https://kathleenmccroskey.substack.com/p/the-total-eclipse-of-the-earth if we keep pushing on the oceans like this, they could pack it in again as they have in the past, and we could be waiting as much as five million years for them to start functioning again. “Giving us more time” is no longer an option; we must scale down this human project in dramatic fashion on every level of its impact. Of course that includes reducing CO2 emissions as part of a drastic wind-down of energy consumption. Apparently, you just cannot recognize that this human assault on this planet must end! You want to find a way to paper over what you see as the main damage, some global warming, so that all the other human damage can continue. Not just continue, but continue with exponential expansion as per “normal.” That is just totally wrong. But again, any of this imaginary planning is meaningless until we establish that there is a civilization on this planet, and as things stand, that is obviously not the case. What would a visitor from another planet think when observing human behaviour? Theft, murder, wars, bombings, destroying forests, beating up the vital oceans in every possible way. Until all that is under control, humanity, continuing to act like a rogue species, will get what it deserves.
Saying that all our past emissions count as a geoengineering experiment, therefore we should try your SO2 experiment as a correction, is what I call a root error, similar to “we must build the atomic bomb before they do.” Humans might not be able to pinpoint the exact point where that argument goes astray, but the end result reveals the error of the ways. The present damage to the atmosphere was not an intended outcome; it was an unintended or outright dismissed outcome resulting from our continuous push for “progress.” It was a re-shaping of the living world into a human construct enabled by energy slaves, powered by finance. And now geoengineering proposes to carry on re-shaping the planet toward our human desires, powered by finance.
Such endeavors break my two primal rules for living in harmony with this planet, these simple concepts underlie every other imaginable constraint on progress: Do not dig more than 6” into the ground and do not use fire except for cooking. To cross these boundaries requires much more consideration to the potential outcomes than humans have ever undertaken.
Thank you, Aidan! All of these projects wish to will themselves into existence without "free, prior, informed consent" from the affected population: "Father Knows Best" on a grand scale.
Thank you, I have updated this info in new post:
https://kathleenmccroskey.substack.com/p/a-presentation-to-the-ijc-re-climate
Geoengineering is already in progress, however, with the wrong particles size resulting in a massive perturbation of the hydrological cycle.