US Is One Step Closer to Having Program to Study Blocking Sun(earther.gizmodo.com)
earther.gizmodo.com
US Is One Step Closer to Having Program to Study Blocking Sun
https://earther.gizmodo.com/the-u-s-is-one-step-closer-to-establishing-a-research-1846552421
79 comments
I doubt they can predict all of the second order effects of doing this all over the earth; it could easily lead to an ecological, climate, or humanitarian disaster. This is a terrible idea. A unilateral action is completely uncalled for.
So far, it's a program to study it, not to do it. Unilateral action to learn stuff is fine.
Nobody wants to block the sun. But ecological, climate, and humanitarian disaster are inexorably headed our way already. If positive feedbacks seriously kick in, this has a chance of buying us some time until we can reduce carbon levels.
Besides, we've already seen this employed, by volcanoes, with global effects lasting one to two years. Disaster did not ensue.
Nobody wants to block the sun. But ecological, climate, and humanitarian disaster are inexorably headed our way already. If positive feedbacks seriously kick in, this has a chance of buying us some time until we can reduce carbon levels.
Besides, we've already seen this employed, by volcanoes, with global effects lasting one to two years. Disaster did not ensue.
I'm surprised to learn less than $2M per year goes into this type of research in the USA. Given the massive unknowns, it's something we certainly need to better understand.
Kind of like research on deflecting asteroids.
"the U.S. Government and Accountability Office (GAO)"..."estimated that about $2 million were directed to “albedo modification and less conventional CDR approaches,” so less than 0.1% of the U.S. climate change budget focused on the strategies discussed in our report." (page 185 of the report)
Kind of like research on deflecting asteroids.
"the U.S. Government and Accountability Office (GAO)"..."estimated that about $2 million were directed to “albedo modification and less conventional CDR approaches,” so less than 0.1% of the U.S. climate change budget focused on the strategies discussed in our report." (page 185 of the report)
I never thought it would be so difficult to convince people that arming robots and blocking out the sun is a bad idea. Didn't anyone see the matrix?!
Maybe they are thinking more about the subsription model?
beckman466(1)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade
>One proposed sunshade would be composed of 16 trillion small disks at the Sun-Earth L1 Lagrangian point, 1.5 million kilometers above Earth. Each disk is proposed to have a 0.6-meter diameter and a thickness of about 5 micrometers. The mass of each disk would be about a gram, adding up to a total of almost 20 million tonnes. Such a group of small sunshades that blocks 2% of the sunlight, deflecting it off into space, would be enough to halt global warming, giving ample time to cut emissions back on Earth.
> Such a group of sunshades would need to occupy an area of about 3.8 million square kilometers if placed at the L1 point. The deployment of the flyers is an issue that requires reusable rockets. With 100t LEO booster a single launch per day would allow to release the required number of sails within 20 years.
> Such a group of sunshades would need to occupy an area of about 3.8 million square kilometers if placed at the L1 point. The deployment of the flyers is an issue that requires reusable rockets. With 100t LEO booster a single launch per day would allow to release the required number of sails within 20 years.
Geez. What a terrible idea. It will:
- Harm the only true source of renewable energy we have.
- Waste gazillion of fossil fuel to send that mess in the sky.
- very likely increase space pollution around Earth and be impossible to clean up.
- Harm the only true source of renewable energy we have.
- Waste gazillion of fossil fuel to send that mess in the sky.
- very likely increase space pollution around Earth and be impossible to clean up.
Also:
- Not going to last any significant amount of time, due to the solar sail effect. Solar wind will simply blow them out of the stable L1 orbit in a few decades at most, maybe a few years
- Let people emit more CO2, because "the problem is solved" in the short term, and when it doesn't work and that 2% of sunlight comes back, it'll exacerbate the problem.
- Not going to last any significant amount of time, due to the solar sail effect. Solar wind will simply blow them out of the stable L1 orbit in a few decades at most, maybe a few years
- Let people emit more CO2, because "the problem is solved" in the short term, and when it doesn't work and that 2% of sunlight comes back, it'll exacerbate the problem.
- A 2% increase in panel efficiency would compensate for that. Most people say panel efficiency isn't a big factor in solar pricing anyway.
- The only near-term way to do this affordably would be on Starship, and at scale they're planning to fuel that with methane made from ambient CO2, for net-zero emissions
- The L1 point is about a million miles from Earth, so space junk is not an issue at all
- The only near-term way to do this affordably would be on Starship, and at scale they're planning to fuel that with methane made from ambient CO2, for net-zero emissions
- The L1 point is about a million miles from Earth, so space junk is not an issue at all
Every time I’ve seen this story pop up it always reminds me of the Matrix. “We don't know who struck first, us or them. But we do know it was us that scorched the sky.” I’m a firm believer that the Sun is our salvation and we should harness it, not block it.
Completely unrelated, but I think it's a damn shame the new Matrix movie isn't going to be a machine wars prequel.
I assume you saw The Second Renaissance? If not, you're welcome! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sU8RunvBRZ8
Or we could burn less fossil fuels, restore forests? I think of this passage every time sun-blocking solutions are discussed:
> for the fossil fuel companies and their paid champions, anything is preferable to regulating ExxonMobil, including attempting to regulate the sun. - “This Changes Everything” (Klein, 2014)
> for the fossil fuel companies and their paid champions, anything is preferable to regulating ExxonMobil, including attempting to regulate the sun. - “This Changes Everything” (Klein, 2014)
We are past the point where stopping burning fossil fuels or planting trees is sufficient to meet the Paris goal of 1.5 degrees of warming. The IPCC scenarios now include some degree of geoengineering in the form of carbon sequestration: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/09/SR15...
This technology is unproven- should it fail to be developed and scale then a sunshade might be on the table.
This technology is unproven- should it fail to be developed and scale then a sunshade might be on the table.
With the same logic, let's add the option to move to another planet.
[This report](https://energyinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/A-1....) talks about what's needed to stick to 1.5° of warming and it's a lot.
That said, I agree that blocking the sun should be a last resort.
That said, I agree that blocking the sun should be a last resort.
Also restoring forests may have adverse effect, I've heard different researches on this topic.
Yes, there are dangers in restoring forests. I'm thinking of China's Three North Shelter Program here. While very ambitious and farsighted, the monocultures they establish are vulnerable to diseases, pests and other factors, and are a weak starting point to rebuild ecosystems. If those trees die, all the resources put into the effort will go to waste. Also, the new forests put heavy strain on the water table, which worsens the effects of desertification. The water table can only recover if the forests become strong and dense enough to retain humidity and cool down the ground. My (totally uneducated) advice would be to strengthen existing forests and ecosystems, merge them (if necessary, by reallocating agricultural use to other ares) and slowly expand them towards the affected areas.
Reducing insolation may lower temperatures but would also impact crop production and solar energy output. Maybe it's better to quit burning stuff.
First paragraph: But on Wednesday, a group of scientists detailed how to develop an _insurance plan_ if the world fails to do so.
Insurance plans are a way of diffusing risk and making things more certain. This plan is just a wildcard to tweak one of the levers of a vast and complex machine. That lever may do something very different than planned. That isn't an "insurance plan", it is experimentation with the lives of billions of people and of even more animals; and it is experimentation decided upon by a few self-appointed "elites" who get to decide what to do if everyone else doesn't obey their dictates.
I think it would be more of an insurance plan to build a spaceship and terraform mars.
I think it would be more of an insurance plan to build a spaceship and terraform mars.
> I think it would be more of an insurance plan to build a spaceship and terraform mars.
A romantic, but completely ludicrous and unrealistic idea. Even the worst case scenarios for climate change leave the earth orders of magnitude more habitable than mars. You think the Earth's biosphere is complicated and therefore dangerous to tweak, yet think the way to insure against this is to literally engineer a new biosphere on a dead world?
A romantic, but completely ludicrous and unrealistic idea. Even the worst case scenarios for climate change leave the earth orders of magnitude more habitable than mars. You think the Earth's biosphere is complicated and therefore dangerous to tweak, yet think the way to insure against this is to literally engineer a new biosphere on a dead world?
The one major benefit is that there is no one currently on mars if it results in a catastrophe. But yes, it would be more difficult; we probably won't be doing either one successfully anytime soon.
Terraforming antarctica would be easier. Mars is a pipe dream.
Antarctica is actually not that difficult. Antarctica is cold because the sea currents around it insulate it from warmer waters from the north. The most straightforward way to undo this would be to fill in the Drake passage and turn it into the Drake Causeway. This is of course totally ludricous, just in case you're asking. There are deep sea trenches, ice bergs, and the waves can reach 40m high. And one would basically have to fortify a megastructure against the steady push of a sizeable amount of the Earth's oceans.
It seems like many of these approaches would negatively impact power production from solar panels. If you assume that people won’t dramatically lower their power usage (which may certainly be a false assumption) then you effectively make people who use solar power more reliant on fossil fuels.
It would also be interesting if the article included a cost comparison for this sort of wide-scale heretofore untested geo-engineering against just building more renewable/low-carbon power generation; the latter is fairly proven tech at this point.
It would also be interesting if the article included a cost comparison for this sort of wide-scale heretofore untested geo-engineering against just building more renewable/low-carbon power generation; the latter is fairly proven tech at this point.
Considering solar panels aren’t 100% efficient, then I don’t see how losing some light would matter ? I don’t think every single photon that hits the panel is utilised.
Curious about this actually.
This is like saying put less gasoline in your car, since internal combustion engines are not 100% efficient, it won't make any difference enough to matter.
I’m saying that if 2% of sun light is blocked I don’t think it will make much difference. If it does, build the panels 2% bigger.
Note that it will be 2% on everything. Also, crop production, basically all sources of energy on the planet, except nuclear. If all source of renewable energy can be made 2% bigger, why don't we do that today? What's the point of harming our only true source of renewable energy?!?
> except nuclear
> our only true source of renewable energy?!?
These things appear to contradict each other. I also can't understand the logic of "we can't use nuclear power, but please don't stop the rays from nuclear explosions far away from killing us all". If my options are let the sun kill us all, or run a risk of nuclear meltdown here on earth, my vote is firmly in the "block out the sun and run on nuclear power plants" camp.
> our only true source of renewable energy?!?
These things appear to contradict each other. I also can't understand the logic of "we can't use nuclear power, but please don't stop the rays from nuclear explosions far away from killing us all". If my options are let the sun kill us all, or run a risk of nuclear meltdown here on earth, my vote is firmly in the "block out the sun and run on nuclear power plants" camp.
Because this is an insurance policy to guard against the worst case scenario ?
For scale, Wikipedia says the US has 97,275 megawatts of installed photovoltaic and concentrated solar power capacity combined as of the end of 2020. If you add 2% loss onto that, you lose about 1,945 megawatts.
This is another case of life imitating art. The Simpsons did this decades ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyjJbhuwGkU
The ideas mentioned certainly sound plausible, but they also seem potentially catastrophic in their impact. One of the proposed methods sounds similar to cloud seeding, which could enhance our weather control capabilities. I wonder if these methods could be applied to Venus, perhaps, to make it more hospitable.
The ideas mentioned certainly sound plausible, but they also seem potentially catastrophic in their impact. One of the proposed methods sounds similar to cloud seeding, which could enhance our weather control capabilities. I wonder if these methods could be applied to Venus, perhaps, to make it more hospitable.
Think of the low dirty politics involved when you debate with your significant other over the best setting for the thermostat. Now bring in the United Nations and pretty much everyone else on earth.
The creation of any kind of central authority with the power to make truly existential decisions for humanity is an existential threat to humanity. There ought to be a clear and imminent more dangerous such threat before we resort to that. And if we do, an even higher priority will be to put our eggs in multiple baskets, so that the threat is no longer quite existential.
The creation of any kind of central authority with the power to make truly existential decisions for humanity is an existential threat to humanity. There ought to be a clear and imminent more dangerous such threat before we resort to that. And if we do, an even higher priority will be to put our eggs in multiple baskets, so that the threat is no longer quite existential.
We're practically at this stage. Climate crisis threat is rather well established. Solar shade approach, talking about 2% of energy removing, is not currently a plan A - not even a plan, just a subject of study. United Nations can be a great help and also a great brake in situations when a step forward is called for. So the result seems to be rather reasonable for today.
[deleted]
> Putting public money into the effort rather than the hodgepodge of private funding that has so far fueled a good portion of the research, including a Bill Gates-backed initiative at Harvard that wants to do a small-scale test this summer in the wild, could help provide some accountability.
I really don’t want my tax dollars going toward this quack project. I also don’t want Bill Gates involved in any public projects.
I really don’t want my tax dollars going toward this quack project. I also don’t want Bill Gates involved in any public projects.
Define "involved". Then think of all the anti-malaria work around the world. And think about how many government computers around the world run Windows and Office. Then think about who uses Azure.
> And think about how many government computers around the world run Windows and Office. Then think about who uses Azure.
I absolutely think the government should be using OSS or literally anything other than MS products.
I also would rather tax Bill Gates than have him directly involved in any public project.
I absolutely think the government should be using OSS or literally anything other than MS products.
I also would rather tax Bill Gates than have him directly involved in any public project.
Most climate change mitigation measures have positive side effects. For example, the reduction in pm2.5, NOx, noise etc from electric cars is thought by many to benefit society even more than their CO2 reduction. It would be nice if those types of measures were sufficient, but an insurance policy may be necessary.
Why not use the ever decreasing costs of space flight to lift blocks or reflectors into our planetary L1 point? We wouldn't have to affect our own atmosphere to do this, though it may cost more to get a sufficiently sized object into orbit.
It'd be a humongous sunshade if it were placed in the Earth-Sun L1 (it'd need to be slightly inwards, towards the Sun, to compensate for the solar wind push, which would also allow it to have some attitude control).
The good thing is that, when it's no longer needed, it can use those same attitude control sails to go towards the Sun-Venus L1 to start cooling down our sister planet.
I have the impression it'll take a long time to get rid of the rotten egg smell, but, if it's cool enough, we can hope to fixate some of the carbon in the atmosphere and cool it even further.
The good thing is that, when it's no longer needed, it can use those same attitude control sails to go towards the Sun-Venus L1 to start cooling down our sister planet.
I have the impression it'll take a long time to get rid of the rotten egg smell, but, if it's cool enough, we can hope to fixate some of the carbon in the atmosphere and cool it even further.
Just an idea, but it would be super cool if we could 3d print large sun shades in space and have them moved into position :)
That would be neat, and the technology developed for doing it would probably be more widely applicable as well. Could have some interesting developments with creating a supply chain in space
Isn't this the intro to Snowpiercer?
We should just wait for the eventual volcanic eruption that causes this.
You can dig a hole in Yellowstone and blow up a large nuke to cause it. Fusion bombs don't have the size limitations of fission ones and you can make one whatever size you need.
Of course, we should probably evacuate North America before trying something like that.
Of course, we should probably evacuate North America before trying something like that.
Is there a link between climate change and increased volcanic activity, and are there volcanoes large enough to cause this on their own?
The current climate change is not caused by increased volcanic activity, because there isn't one.
If volcanic activity were to increase, the effect would depend on what kind of increase. Volcanoes do produce CO2, and more CO2 would of course worsen climate change. But they can also produce SO2, which cools the climate rather than warms it. Unlike CO2, SO2 degrades, so the effect isn't as long-lasting.
Volcanoes can also put particulates into the air which block sunlight. Again, the effect is temporary, as the particles fall out. So it would take a permanent, ongoing change in volcanism to counter warming. It would also cause a lot of other climate changes, which are hard to predict.
If volcanic activity were to increase, the effect would depend on what kind of increase. Volcanoes do produce CO2, and more CO2 would of course worsen climate change. But they can also produce SO2, which cools the climate rather than warms it. Unlike CO2, SO2 degrades, so the effect isn't as long-lasting.
Volcanoes can also put particulates into the air which block sunlight. Again, the effect is temporary, as the particles fall out. So it would take a permanent, ongoing change in volcanism to counter warming. It would also cause a lot of other climate changes, which are hard to predict.
The explosive eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 injected enough sulfur-containing compounds into the stratosphere to substantially reduce the amount of sunlight reaching Earth's surface. In response to the increased reflectivity of the planet, the surface temperature cooled by about 0.3°C during 1992, with temperatures returning to their normal levels by 1994. But what happens when a much, much large eruption occurs?
Roughly 74,000 years ago, a "super-eruption" took place in Indonesia, the largest know eruption in the past 100,000 years. The Toba eruption was enormous, throwing out roughly 1000 times as much rock as the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens (Fig. 1). Dust trapped in polar ice cores shows that ejected material spread around the globe, indicating that the eruption injected substantial material into the stratosphere, where it can strongly affect climate. How much and for how long the Toba eruption actually affected climate and life on the Earth's surface has been the subject of intense debate.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_12/
Roughly 74,000 years ago, a "super-eruption" took place in Indonesia, the largest know eruption in the past 100,000 years. The Toba eruption was enormous, throwing out roughly 1000 times as much rock as the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens (Fig. 1). Dust trapped in polar ice cores shows that ejected material spread around the globe, indicating that the eruption injected substantial material into the stratosphere, where it can strongly affect climate. How much and for how long the Toba eruption actually affected climate and life on the Earth's surface has been the subject of intense debate.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_12/
1. Yes
2. Yes
2. Yes
This sounds like a kind of grim sounding future. We fucked up local ecosystem by bringing in invasive species (knowingly and unknowingly). We fuck up atmosphere, and actively poisoning seas to the point where doctors are dis-advising eating fish due to heavy metal poisoning.
And now we are going into futurama teritory - just drop a giant ice cure into the sea - solutions. What could possibly go wrong -_-'
We just can't seem to break free from the power structures of current capitalism.
And now we are going into futurama teritory - just drop a giant ice cure into the sea - solutions. What could possibly go wrong -_-'
We just can't seem to break free from the power structures of current capitalism.
This is intended as a plan B in case we fail to reduce emissions, and we set off the Clathrate Gun or one of the other nightmare scenarios.
But yes, It sure does sound like dystopian sci-fi, doesn't it?
But yes, It sure does sound like dystopian sci-fi, doesn't it?
It's like rigging your house with explosives in case you get hit by a tornado.
No it's like planning fallout shelters just in case the balance of terror doesn't hold, and we end up with world leaders pushing buttons that are best left untouched. It's just that actually building them could cause irreversible damage as well, but fortunately this is research and not an actual construction project.
I agree that this is a radical move that could have disastrous consequences, but if humanity screws up the climate so bad that we have to resort to orbital mirrors/deflectors to prevent further damage, then it's better to have some of the basic science done in advance. Stuff planned in blind panic once we have screwed up could have even worse consequences.
The downside is that we now may have an actual plan B and that people might not take plan A seriously anymore.
I agree that this is a radical move that could have disastrous consequences, but if humanity screws up the climate so bad that we have to resort to orbital mirrors/deflectors to prevent further damage, then it's better to have some of the basic science done in advance. Stuff planned in blind panic once we have screwed up could have even worse consequences.
The downside is that we now may have an actual plan B and that people might not take plan A seriously anymore.
A doomsday cult is planning a doomsday machine to get one up on the deniers. They want a mandatory tithe (carbon tax), they sell indulgences (carbon credits), they have a child prophet (Greta) and of course now they want even more to fund the doomsday machine. They think they're saving the world and there's no amount of upending society that bothers them.
You're not worried enough about this. If you think religious people being religious is scary, wait until the non-religious people take a turn.
You're not worried enough about this. If you think religious people being religious is scary, wait until the non-religious people take a turn.
whatever you are on, I want some too. I could really take a edge off (or the whole side - judging by your comment).
If you want the specific idea: There's no such thing as a non-religious person. The world completely opened up before my eyes when I realized this. The new religions are very plain when you realize everyone is still as religious as they've ever been.
To clarify, even if we stopped 100% of carbon emissions today, the planet would still continue to warm for about about 100 years. It's not some future scenario, it's already done, we're just in the waiting period.
Doctors are not "disadvising" eating fish.
no of course they are not
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-70205-9
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-70205-9
> moving forward with a plan to block incoming sunlight could alter rainfall patterns and cause monsoon rains that millions of farmers in India rely on to dry up
First, global north capitalist governments and firms force India (and other global south countries) to make their clothes, [1] their iPhones, [2] and more [3], for peanuts. Then they go and fuck up their food security. What a marvellous system.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaGp5_Sfbss&t=31s
[2] https://www.thetricontinental.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09...
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7iv1fef6qo, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkV-eeXrlUg
First, global north capitalist governments and firms force India (and other global south countries) to make their clothes, [1] their iPhones, [2] and more [3], for peanuts. Then they go and fuck up their food security. What a marvellous system.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaGp5_Sfbss&t=31s
[2] https://www.thetricontinental.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09...
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7iv1fef6qo, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkV-eeXrlUg
Isn't this the Matrix? I suppose fighting climate change is a good stand-in for deadly AI.
Haven’t they seen the TNT future documentary Snowpiercer about a failed effort of precisely this kind?
At least a space sunshade is easy to undo - stop maintaining it and its "heliostatic orbit" (not quite - it'd be held in place by solar winds and the push would be controlled by rotating parts of the parasol) will destabilize. And also can be used to help terraforming Venus.
Either of those large scale projects is still well beyond our ability, but should be within reach in a century or so, if we manage to successfully insustrialize the Moon.
Either of those large scale projects is still well beyond our ability, but should be within reach in a century or so, if we manage to successfully insustrialize the Moon.
Isn't the moon a better place to build a solar powered thin film factory? Build the whole thing into a single starship, or series of starships and use an EM launcher to leave the surface.
100T launch every day for 20 years is a lotta launches.
100T launch every day for 20 years is a lotta launches.
We'd need to manufacture most of the mass on the Moon and rail launch it. It's still a lot of launches, but they could use the sails themselves for braking when arriving at L1. Would take a couple years to get there, but most of the mass could be the parasol itself.
Lunar soil is 1500kg/m^3 and the average lunar density is 3300kg/m^3
So 100T of moon is not hard to come up with. I wonder if the shade can basically be a really thin sheet of aluminum foil.
How aluminum foil is made (on earth) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LolDAOxdLxk
I was thinking about this before, I was wondering if you could heat a ball of metal on a shaft and then spin the shaft so that the ball pancakes out and the rotational force pulls the sheet into an extremely flat disk. Manufacturing in low g could enable entirely different construction techniques.
Maybe something like https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092442472...
So 100T of moon is not hard to come up with. I wonder if the shade can basically be a really thin sheet of aluminum foil.
How aluminum foil is made (on earth) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LolDAOxdLxk
I was thinking about this before, I was wondering if you could heat a ball of metal on a shaft and then spin the shaft so that the ball pancakes out and the rotational force pulls the sheet into an extremely flat disk. Manufacturing in low g could enable entirely different construction techniques.
Maybe something like https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092442472...
That's probably how it would be done, with whatever is the most easily available viable material there.
Metallurgy on the Moon will be very interesting - there is the low gravity and the vacuum to play with.
Metallurgy on the Moon will be very interesting - there is the low gravity and the vacuum to play with.