Are they “Dimming the Sun”? (Part 2)

Exploring the real science behind the 'sun-dimming' headlines — and why informed research matters.

Following on from my breakdown of the Telegraph’s sensational “dimming the sun” headline, I wanted to take a closer look at what’s actually being funded, because the truth is far more thoughtful and far less sci-fi than the headlines suggest.

So here is part 2 - thank you for sticking with me!

Background

Human-induced climate change is causing the planet to warm up far faster than it has ever done before. And while it is happening at a reasonably steady increase, there will be certain ‘tipping points’ that will cause a big acceleration in that process, with potentially catastrophic consequences. These are events such as:

• The collapse of a major ice sheet, leading to huge sea level rises

• The melting of Permafrost in Russia or Canada, releasing vast quantities of currently trapped Methane (a very potent greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere

The dieback of the Amazon Rainforest - where it reaches a point where it can no longer sustain itself as a rainforest.

Taken from: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact ResearchTipping Elements – big risks in the Earth System​

Obviously, the main focus to tackle climate change is in reducing our use of fossil fuels, to try and limit how much carbon is emitted into the atmosphere. But even as we do that, it may not happen fast enough to prevent some of these tipping points from occurring in the coming decades.

ARIA’s website states:

If faced with a climate tipping point, our understanding of the options available remains limited. This knowledge gap has driven increased interest in whether there are approaches (also known as “climate interventions”) that could actively reduce temperatures globally or regionally over shorter timescales.

Yet, in the absence of robust data, we currently have little understanding of whether such interventions are scientifically feasible, and what their full range of impacts might be. This programme aims to gather such data so that we can better understand these approaches and their potential effects.

This boils down to - we don’t know if there’s anything we could do to cool down the necessary region to prevent the tipping point, so we want to find out what could work - would it be safe, would it work and would there be unintended consequences?

Only once we have some answers to those questions can we have an informed debate about whether we should use these techniques.

ARIA also point out that a successful outcome could:

….include ruling particular options out from further study as technically infeasible, ruling them out as infeasible due to risks that cannot be adequately constrained, or highlighting which approaches show promise and would benefit from further research and development.

What evidence do we already have?

There have been several ‘naturally occurring’ events that have given rise to the possibilities of geoengineering.

In 2014, the eruption of Iceland's Bardarbunga volcano allowed scientists to study the effects of sulphur dioxide on cloud formation and show that it caused the clouds to be brighter, and thus reflect more sunlight away from Earth, which had a cooling effect on the planet.

Photo by ruedi häberli on Unsplash

Another example can be found in shipping lanes!

Scientists had noticed that the clouds above shipping lanes were much brighter than elsewhere, and that this had a cooling effect below them. But when new regulations limiting the amount of Sulphur dioxide allowed in ships’ emissions came into force, the clouds became less bright, which led to an increase in temperature.

Photo by John Simmons on Unsplash

These examples have highlighted the potential of finding ways to reflect some sunlight back out of the atmosphere to help cool the region below. This is something that happens naturally with volcanic eruptions, so scientists want to study if it’s something that could be done in a controlled way to avert a disastrous tipping point event. And obviously work out what impacts it might have elsewhere.

Without studying it, we can’t answer that question.

Criticism of geoengineering

It’s worth noting that the main criticisms of this research from the scientific community are that it detracts from the need to cut our carbon emissions.

“The speculative possibility of future solar geoengineering risks becoming a powerful argument for industry lobbyists, climate denialists, and some governments to delay decarbonisation policies,” a group of scientists said in an open letter.

There are fears around the unintended consequences, and whether technologies that can impact the global climate should be available to individual governments.

And these are all absolutely valid concerns that will need informed and reasoned debate and discussion.

ARIA’s research funding

So, let’s take a look at where that grant money has gone, and then you can decide - from an informed position - how you feel about it.

Governance and ethics - £2.7 million

5 research grants went to groups working with communities and scientists in the Arctic, South Asia, the Philippines, and Latin America and the Caribbean to answer ethical questions and design good regulations around this potential technology.

Modelling - £8.4 million

7 grants went to groups who were using computer modelling and lab work to study the potential impacts of climate interventions on the polar regions, the Monsoon cyles in India and West Africa, developing an open-source repository for climate data specifically for the Global South, and looking at how big or small outdoor experiments would need to be to give valuable data.

Outdoor monitoring - £9.8 million

4 grants went to groups studying natural high-altitude cloud formation, and those developing new technologies such as drones, to monitor activity that high up in our atmosphere

Controlled, small-scale outdoor experiments £24.5 million

5 grants went to groups who have the intention of performing some small-scale outdoor experiments, once they have proven their work has been successful indoors, they have gained local support, they have proven that the experiments will be short-lived, reversible, and that they will not release any toxic substances into the atmosphere

The projects include spraying sea water onto glaciers to thicken them, spraying seawater into the air above the Great Barrier Reef to see if it has any protective, cooling effects, and looking to find better potential materials than Sulphates for possible use in Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (releasing tiny reflective particles high up in our atmosphere to reflect some of the sunlight back out).

I will include details of all the projects at the end so you can read through them if you’re interested.

Conclusion

I hope you’ll agree that far from “UK government spends £58 Million on dimming the sun” - this is a some really important work covering everything from governance and ethics to detailed modelling of potential side effects, and from monitoring solutions to the beginnings of finding out if these ‘interventions’ will even work.

None of these projects will actually make any attempt to ‘dim the sun’. The closest they come is using scenarios that already happen naturally - sea spray above the ocean, etc, - to study if they can be used in a controlled way.

This work matters. We have research and potential action plans in place for dealing with asteroid strikes, and these tipping points could have a similar impact on the planet.

We need to get this research right in order to save lives by averting the disaster in the first place, and to allow policymakers to base their decisions on evidence rather than panic or ideology.

There will, of course, still be people who have legitimate concerns about this work, and that’s important. We can only have a grown-up discussion about whether these are interventions we want to use if and when they are needed, if we have a really good understanding of how they work, and what their impacts might be.

If these tipping points are likely, don’t we need to know all of our options - even the uncomfortable ones?

And if we don’t invest in this science now, who will, and on whose terms?

I really hope this has been useful to understand the science behind the headlines.

Thank you to those who subscribe and share my articles with friends and colleagues. I love getting your feedback, so please leave a comment or get in touch if there are issues you’d like me to address in future! And thank you to those who support me in this work with coffee donations and by upgrading to a paid subscription - it really helps!

Photo by Megan Watson on Unsplash

I have summarised all the grants funded by ARIA in this project below.

Full details can be found on the ARIA website

Governance and ethics

• Strategic Foresight on Climate and Geopolitics: Toward governance of earth cooling approaches

  Award: £1.25 million over 15 months

  Working with academics, policy makers and civil society organisations to create good governance

• How to speak about climate cooling? Co-creating an engagement toolkit in the Arctic and the UK

  Award: £360k over 45 months

  Working with communities in the Arctic to encourage engagement and empower them to be part of the decision-making process in future.

• Evidence-based Assessments to Guide Perceptions, Governance, and Ethical Frameworks for South Asia: Comparing Marine Cloud Brightening strategies vis-à-vis carbon dioxide removal and mitigation efforts

  Award: £574k over 3 years

  Improving the understanding of potential climate cooling technologies within the ethical, governance and social context of South Asia.

• PULSE Project: Public Understanding, Leadership, and Social Ethics in the governance of earth cooling technologies in communities impacted by volcanic activity in the Philippine context

  Award: £135k over 2 years

  Working with the communities in the Philippines living near volcanoes, who have real-world experience with the types of atmospheric changes that could be created by geoengineering.

• Ethics and Governance of Earth Cooling Research: from concepts to implementation

  Award: £453k over 2 years

  This project will build a Latin America/Caribbean-UK research network that will address fundamental questions regarding the ethics and implications of these approaches, as well as nurturing a new community of experts in the region.

Modelling

• GRID-CC: Global to Regional Impacts Downscaling for Climate Cooling

  Award: £2m over 3 years

  Building an open-source repository of detailed Global South climate data to help researchers develop more accurate modelling of the potential impacts of these approaches

• Ecological Impact Assessment of Earth Cooling Experiments in the Arctic (Eco-ICE)

  Award: £4.8million over 4 years

  This project will provide an independent impact assessment of potential climate interventions at the poles using lab experiments and climate and ecosystem models.

• Investigating the Impacts of Earth Cooling Approaches on the Variability and Wet-Dry Spell Dynamics of the West African Monsoon

  Award: £257k over 3 years

  Detailed research into how Earth cooling approaches might impact the vital West African Monsoon climate system

• Space Reflector Baseline Survey

  Award: £400k over 15 months

  To computer model different conceptual designs for potential space-based reflectors and what their impact could be on atmospheric dynamics, chemistry, and ocean/ice feedbacks

• Towards Robust and Unbiased validation of SAI Simulations (TRUSS)

  Award: £345k over 3 years

  Using advanced statistical and machine learning techniques applied to climate model outputs, this project looks to ensure that impact predictions of climate interventions, especially crucial regional assessments, are robust and unbiased.

• Simulating the effects of Earth cooling approaches on the Dynamics and Thermodynamics of Monsoon and Precipitation Extremes

  Award: £140k over 2 years

  This computational analysis will deliver crucial, regionally-specific evidence to help evaluate the potential risks these approaches may pose to indispensable water cycles and resources.

• Defining the Minimum Scale of an SAI Test: A fundamental first step towards an outdoor experiment

  Award: £445k over 2 years

  Using theoretical modelling to understand what would be the smallest scale atmospheric experiment that could be done to still ensure it would provide sufficient real-world data for useful analysis. This work will inform the necessary guidance needed to run these experiments

Outdoor monitoring

• De-risking cirrus modification

  Award: £3.6m over 36 months

  Gaining a better understanding of how dust and soot particles affect high-altitude cirrus clouds, by gathering real-world data and combining it with computer modelling and satellite data

• Ice-Nucleating Particles in the Upper Troposphere: Advancing Cirrus Control and Experimental Science Strength “INPUT:ACCESS”

  Award: £1.3m over 36 months

  Addressing the uncertainties around cirrus cloud formation around naturally occurring particles, which will lead to a better understanding and modelling of climate projections

• StratoGuard - Global Monitoring of Climate Engineering using Micro High-Altitude Balloons

  Award: £600k over 36 months

  Developing low-cost, lightweight micro-balloons (under 4kg, <5m diameter) equipped with sensors, capable of navigating the stratosphere above 55,000 feet for up to 30 days, which will enable cheaper and more sustained data collection for general climate observations as well as for monitoring any potential climate interventions.

• Monitoring Aerosol Climate Engineering (MACE)

  Award: £4.3m over 48 months

  To develop advanced, automated drone technology specifically designed for observing and analysing emissions from active volcanoes, which will help inform the research into potential climate interventions.

Controlled, small-scale outdoor experiments

• Re-Thickening Arctic Sea Ice (RASi)

  Award:£9.9m over 42 months

  This is research that is a continuation of small-scale research that has already been happening in Canada.

  They will pump seawater from beneath the ice and spread it on top to see whether this thicker ice lasts longer into the summer, how it might impact ice movement and what the possible ecological impacts might be.

• Marine Cloud Brightening in a Complex World

  Award: £1m (potentially rising to £5m with matched funding) over 5 years

  This will use computer modelling and indoor testing of spraying seawater into the air as a means of cooling and protecting vulnerable ecosystems such as the Great Barrier Reef.

  If the results are good, and subject to all the necessary independent safety reviews, regulatory approvals, and continued co-design and partnership with Traditional Owner groups, local stakeholders, and the broader community of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, they will move to trialling the technique in controlled outdoor experiments.

  This is vital to find out if this technique is feasible and safe for protecting vulnerable ecosystems at a regional scale.

• A REsponsible innovation Framework for assessing noveL spray tEChnology research To examine local albedo changes from marine brightening and its multi-scale impacts (REFLECT)

  Award: £6.1m over 3 years (initial phase)

  This is a project to develop and test spray technologies that could be used for future cloud brightening experiments. These tests will replicate natural processes that generate sea spray over the ocean, and will develop spray systems such as those that are already employed to cool crowds with fine mists of water and dampen construction sites to suppress pollution.

  The research will begin with computer modelling and indoor testing, and will only move onto small-scale outdoor experiments once all the strict safety and governance guidelines have been met

• BrightSpark – Cloud brightening with electric charge

  Award: £2m over 36 months

  This research will study the use of controlled electric charge, a natural atmospheric phenomenon, to influence cloud formation.

  The outdoor experiments will only take place in the 3rd year, provided they have secured community engagement, co-design, and adherence to ARIA’s rigorous safety and ethical governance framework.

• Natural Materials for Stratospheric Aerosol Injection

  Award: £5.5m over 36 months

  At the moment, sulfates are the most commonly proposed materials for potential Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) (releasing tiny reflective particles high up in our atmosphere to reflect some of the sunlight back out). But sulfates come with significant hazards, so this project is going to study the potential of other naturally occurring materials found in mineral dust.

  Initial work will involve lab studies and computer modelling.

  No materials will be released into the atmosphere - they will just be sent up in specially adapted weather balloons and then returned to earth to study the effects of the stratospheric conditions on their properties.