Solar geoengineering is the theory that humans can ease “global warming” by deliberately reflecting more sunlight into space. One possible means, climate alarmists believe, is spraying sulphur dioxide in the stratosphere.
It is highly controversial given, among other issues, that blasting chemicals into our immediate orbit tampers with the natural order, making weather less predictable or threatening populations’ food supplies by causing drought.
The UK effort was not a test of or experiment in geoengineering itself. Rather, the stated goal was to evaluate a low-cost, controllable, recoverable balloon system, according to details obtained by MIT Technology Review.
Remarkably, the system has been named – SATAN. It’s an acronym for ‘Stratospheric Aerosol Transport and Nucleation’.
Andrew Lockley, an independent researcher previously affiliated with University College London, led the effort last autumn, working with European Astrotech, a company that does engineering and design work for high-altitude balloons and space propulsion systems.
His paper about his SATAN experiments has been submitted but has not yet been published. When he discovered his paper had been “leaked” Lockley wrote an email to MIT Technology Review:
“Leakers be damned! I’ve tried to follow the straight and narrow path and wait for the judgment day of peer review, but it appears a colleague has been led astray by diabolical temptation. There’s a special place in hell for those who leak their colleagues’ work, tormented by ever-burning sulphur.”
Lockley’s balloons were equipped with instruments that could track flight paths and monitor environmental conditions. They also included several safety features designed to prevent the balloons from landing while still being filled with potentially dangerous gases.
Shuchi Talati, a scholar in residence at American University who is forming a non-profit focused on governance and justice issues in solar geoengineering said: “I’m really concerned about what the intent here is. There’s a sense of them having the moral high ground, that there’s a moral imperative to do this work.”
Talati said that forging ahead in the way Lockley did is ethically dubious because it takes away any opportunity for others to weigh in on the scientific value, risks, or appropriateness of the efforts before they happen. She added that part of the intent seemed to be a provocation.
David Keith, a Harvard scientist who has been working for years to move ahead with a small-scale stratospheric balloon research program, questioned both the scientific value of the effort and its usefulness in terms of technology development. When asked if being provocative might have been a partial goal of the effort, Keith said: “You don’t call something SATAN if you’re playing it straight.”....<<<<Read More>>>...
