Latest news with #MarineCloudBrightening
Daily Mail
09-05-2025
- Science
- Daily Mail
What we know about the secretive government agency planning to dim the sun - as experts warn of 'unwanted' consequences
Most people probably haven't heard of Aria – the secretive UK government agency funding efforts to dim the sun. Aria, or the 'Advanced Research and Invention Agency', has allocated £57 million for so-called 'geoengineering' projects that aim to slow global warming. One of these projects is Marine Cloud Brightening, which involves ships spraying saltwater into the sky to enhance the reflectivity of low-lying clouds. The salt will force water droplets in the clouds to come together or 'coalesce', which will make them more reflective and stop so much sunlight reaching Earth. Ilan Gur, chief executive of Aria, said: 'In climate change, we're essentially in a race against time in terms of the consequential, potentially devastating changes to the planet.' But some experts have warned that such outdoor experiments – which are due to begin in the next five years – could have 'unwanted side-effects'. So, you may be wondering – who, exactly, are Aria and where does their money come from? Read on to find out more about the public-funded agency, which is spending£4.1 million a year on wages for its staff alone. Aria, a research funding agency of the UK government, aims to 'unlock scientific and technological breakthroughs that benefit everyone'. 'We empower scientists and engineers to pursue research that is too speculative, too hard, or too interdisciplinary to pursue elsewhere,' it says on its website. The research agency was originally the brainchild of Dominic Cummings, Boris Johnson's former chief aide, and was set up in 2021 by ex-Tory business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng. The body, based in London, has been given a staggering £800 million budget – of taxpayers' cash – to go towards 'high-risk, high-reward' scientific research. As Aria states on its website, other research projects it is supporting include programmable plants that remove move CO2 and smarter robot bodies that 'ease the labour challenges of tomorrow'. Ilan Gur, the chief executive, is being paid around £450,000 annually, The Telegraph reports – three times more than the Prime Minister. Meanwhile Antonia Jenkinson, the chief finance officer, takes home around £215,000 and Pippy James, the chief product officer, around £175,000. In total, Aria is blowing £4.1 million a year on wages despite having just 37 staff, with the top four staff at the company pocketing nearly £1 million of taxpayers' cash each year between them. What is Aria? Aria, a research funding agency of the UK government, was announced in February 2021 and formally established January 2023. Funded by British taxpayers, it aims to 'unlock scientific and technological breakthroughs that benefit everyone'. 'We empower scientists and engineers to pursue research that is too speculative, too hard, or too interdisciplinary to pursue elsewhere,' it says on its website. When it was first set up Mr Cummings laid out his vision for the research agency, telling the House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee that Aria must have 'extreme freedom' from the 'horrific bureaucracy' of Whitehall. One committee member, Katherine Fletcher MP, said that this proposed lack of oversight made Aria vulnerable to capture by the 'tinfoil hat brigade' offering unusual and potentially transformative research, which was never likely to succeed. Questions have also been raised about their willingness to share information. A report, published in March this year by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), showed that Aria had received a Freedom of Information (FOI) request seeking information about its 'Scoping Our Planet' project. The request had come from online newsletter 'Democracy for Sale', which had asked for information regarding who had been funded under the project, which seeks to support schemes to 'fill the gaps in Earth system measurement to respond confidently to the climate crisis'. Aria responded by stating that it did not consider the requested information to be 'environmental information'. Following a complaint to the ICO, the initial request was upheld and the information was provided. The ICO's report reads: 'The Commissioner agrees that there is public interest in Aria being transparent about the projects which it is funding.' What is geoengineering? Geoengineering is the large-scale manipulation of environmental processes that affect Earth's climate, in an attempt to halt global warming. Globally, projects include injecting chemical aerosols into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight and absorbing CO2 dissolved in seawater. But critics have concerns that expensive geoengineering endeavors will backfire, causing destructive weather patterns and making climate change worse. In an online piece for Prospect Magazine, English lawyer David Allen Green said the secrecy of Aria shows 'an elite wanting public money but not public accountability'. He warned there is a notion within government 'that publicly funded projects should be closed from public scrutiny, that those with public power know best and that such information should remain private to those with power'. On its website, ARIA says: 'As a publicly funded agency, our responsibility to the taxpayer is our first priority. We therefore require visibility of the actual costs we are funding.' Marine Cloud Brightening is one of 21 so-called 'geoengineering' projects receiving £57 million from Aria, of which five will involve outdoor trials. Another University of Cambridge-led project receiving part of the funding is described as an early exploration for the potential of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI). It would involve a study on how milligram quantities of mineral dusts age in the stratosphere while contained in an air balloon. During this controlled experiment, none of these materials will be released into the atmosphere, and all the materials will be returned to the ground for recovery and analysis by scientists, Aria said. However, some scientists are concerned that expensive endeavors could fail or even backfire, causing destructive weather patterns and making climate change worse. According to official data, the UK only receives an average of 1,400 hours of sunshine per year anyway – averaging only 3.8 hours per day. Mike Hulme, a professor of human geography at the University of Cambridge, warned that Aria is leading the world down a 'slippery slope'. £57 million is a huge amount of taxpayers' money to be spent on this assortment of speculative technologies intended to manipulate the Earth's climate,' he told the Telegraph. 'Just because they 'work' in a model, or at a micro-scale in the lab or the sky, does not mean they will cool the climate safely, without unwanted side-effects, in the real world. 'There is therefore no way that this research can demonstrate that the technologies are safe, successful or reversible. 'The UK Government is leading the world down what academic analysts call "the slippery slope" towards eventual dangerous large-scale deployment of solar geoengineering technologies.' Meanwhile, Dr Naomi Vaughan, professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia UEA, said sunlight reflecting methods could create a 'new risk' to society. 'Scientists are cautious about solar radiation management research because of how it could be used or misused in the future,' she said. Scientists have proposed all sorts of solutions to fight climate change, including a number of controversial geoengineering strategies. Among the many include: Afforestation: This technique would irrigate deserts, such as those in Australia and North Africa, to plant millions of trees that could absorb carbon dioxide. Drawback: This vegetation would also draw in sunlight that the deserts currently reflect back into space, and so contribute to global warming. Artificial ocean upwelling: Engineers would use long pipes to pump cold, nutrient-rich water upward to cool ocean-surface waters. Drawback: If this process ever stopped it could cause oceans to rebalance their heat levels and rapidly change the climate. Ocean alkalinisation: This involves heaping lime into the ocean to chemically increase the absorption of carbon dioxide. Drawback: Study suggests it will have of little use in reducing global temperatures. Ocean iron fertilisation: The method involves dumping iron into the oceans to improve the growth of photosynthetic organisms that can absorb carbon dioxide. Drawback: Study suggests it will have of little use in reducing global temperatures.
Daily Mail
08-05-2025
- Science
- Daily Mail
Scientists try to change Britain's clouds to let in less sunlight in controversial experiment to combat global warming
In the battle against climate change, controversial experiments are set to take place in Britain within the next five years. The UK government 's Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA) has allocated £57 million for so-called 'geoengineering' projects that aim to slow global warming. Outdoor trials expected to start as soon as 2027 will include 'brightening clouds' in order to reflect sunlight away from Earth. Marine Cloud Brightening involves ships spraying saltwater into the sky to enhance the reflectivity of low-lying clouds. The salt will force water droplets in the clouds to come together or 'coalesce', which will make them more reflective and stop so much sunlight reaching Earth. 'You may indeed not be able to see any effect from the ground at all, but you should be able to measure it using equipment that flies through the cloud,' said Professor Mark Symes, programme director for ARIA. Scientists will build the required sprayers and carry out indoor tests before any outdoor trials take place, at as yet undecided locations in the UK, in the winter of 2027 to 2028. Initially, the saltwater sprays will cover an area 330 feet wide, but the outdoor trials could be scaled up to several miles before the end of the decade. According to Professor Symes, such an outdoor trial will be essential to determine the widespread feasibility of Marine Cloud Brightening. 'Modelling and indoor studies are vital, and they can tell us a lot, but they can't tell us everything that we wish to know about feasibility or the impacts of these approaches,' he said. 'Really, to fill that missing gap requires doing real world experiments and collecting real world data, which means experiments that are outdoors.' However, some scientists are concerned that expensive endeavors could fail or even backfire, causing destructive weather patterns and making climate change worse. Mike Hulme, a professor of human geography at the University of Cambridge, warned that Aria is leading the world down a 'slippery slope'. '£57 million is a huge amount of taxpayers' money to be spent on this assortment of speculative technologies intended to manipulate the Earth's climate,' he told the Telegraph. 'Just because they 'work' in a model, or at a micro-scale in the lab or the sky, does not mean they will cool the climate safely, without unwanted side-effects, in the real world. 'There is therefore no way that this research can demonstrate that the technologies are safe, successful or reversible. 'The UK Government is leading the world down what academic analysts call "the slippery slope" towards eventual dangerous large-scale deployment of solar geoengineering technologies.' Meanwhile, Dr Naomi Vaughan, professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia UEA, said sunlight reflecting methods could create a 'new risk' to society. 'Scientists are cautious about solar radiation management research because of how it could be used or misused in the future,' she said. In all, £57 million has been allocated by ARIA for 21 geoengineering projects which will include five outdoor trials, The Telegraph reports. Another University of Cambridge-led project receiving part of the funding is described as an early exploration for the potential of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI). It would involve a study on how milligram quantities of mineral dusts age in the stratosphere while contained in an air balloon. During this controlled experiment, none of these materials will be released into the atmosphere, and all the materials will be returned to the ground for recovery and analysis by scientists, ARIA said. Scientists at Yale University in Connecticut have already proposed Stratospheric Aerosol Injection at the north and south poles to reverse ice loss. Stratospheric Aerosol Injection is where tiny particles, typically sulfur dioxide (SO2), are released into the stratosphere by planes to reflect sunlight. Scientists at Yale University have already proposed this approach at the north and south poles to reverse ice loss Typically, Stratospheric Aerosol Injection involves the release of tiny sulfur dioxide (SO2) particles into the stratosphere by planes to reflect sunlight. In March 2023, it was revealed scientists had conducted two open-air experiments to test solar radiation management – reflecting sunlight away from the Earth. This project, not funded by ARIA, launched a high-altitude weather balloon that released sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere – the second layer of the atmosphere. Once injected into the stratosphere, sulfur dioxide forms sunlight-reflecting sulfate aerosols, said to have a cooling effect similar to that of a major volcanic eruption. However, in high levels, sulfur dioxide can cause nausea, vomiting, stomach pain and corrosive damage to the airways and lungs. Globally, other geoengineering projects include sucking carbon dioxide (CO2) out of the air with giant fans. There's also 'ocean fertilization' (adding nutrients to the upper ocean to stimulate plant growth) and 'afforestation' (planting trees in areas where there was previously no forest). But there's concerns countries will pursue poorly-regulated geoengineering projects in secret – especially sun-blocking which could have 'unintended consequences'. These could include regional droughts, crop failures and shifts to the Atlantic jet stream, which could drag hurricanes and tropical diseases north. A Bill Gates-backed project has already launched balloons over Baja, Mexico releasing sunlight-reflecting aerosols into Earth's stratosphere. ARIA said in a statement that all experiments being funded are 'subject to an environmental impact and legal assessment, which will be made publicly available before any outdoor experiment takes place'. '[They will be] developed through engagement and consultation with local communities and in line with local regulations and requirements. '[They will be] limited in size, scale, and time-bound, so the effects dissipate within 24 hours or are fully reversible.' WHAT ARE THE SIDE EFFECTS OF GEOENGINEERING STRATEGIES? Scientists have proposed all sorts of solutions to fight climate change, including a number of controversial geoengineering strategies. Among the many include: Afforestation: This technique would irrigate deserts, such as those in Australia and North Africa, to plant millions of trees that could absorb carbon dioxide. Drawback: This vegetation would also draw in sunlight that the deserts currently reflect back into space, and so contribute to global warming. Artificial ocean upwelling: Engineers would use long pipes to pump cold, nutrient-rich water upward to cool ocean-surface waters. Drawback: If this process ever stopped it could cause oceans to rebalance their heat levels and rapidly change the climate. Ocean alkalinisation: This involves heaping lime into the ocean to chemically increase the absorption of carbon dioxide. Drawback: Study suggests it will have of little use in reducing global temperatures. Ocean iron fertilisation: The method involves dumping iron into the oceans to improve the growth of photosynthetic organisms that can absorb carbon dioxide.
BBC News
07-05-2025
- Science
- BBC News
Experiments to 'dim the sun' one step closer in the UK
Geo-engineering is the process of artificially modifying the atmosphere and climate. SRM techniques which try to mimic the natural cooling that occurs after the eruption of volcanoes releasing ash and gases, is one of the most controversial. ARIA programme director Mark Symes said "there is a critical missing gap in our knowledge on the feasibility and impacts of SRM and to fill that gap requires real-world outdoor experiments". The agency announced on Wednesday it will fund five projects that could lead to these real-world experiments. These include thickening Arctic sea ice to make it more reflective, Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB) and Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI), both intended to add material into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight. Outdoor experiments could take place as soon as this winter. They will also fund a modelling based project that would investigate mirrors or shades deployed into space. One proposed MCB experiment is to spray a fine mist of natural sea water into the atmosphere from a coastal location in the UK. The hope is that it would brighten existing cloud and increase its reflectivity. Another funded SAI project could involve adding a small amount of natural mineral dust high into the atmosphere from a weather balloon in either the UK or US. ARIA stress that "before any outdoor experiment takes place there will be a full and transparent public consultation with necessary environmental assessments taken place". And any outdoor experimentation "will only occur after robust oversight measures which won't include the release of any toxic materials". But Raymond Pierrehumbert, Professor of Planetary Physics at Oxford University is "extremely worried" about SRM. "People want a Plan B if we don't reduce global emissions. But there really is no Plan B, it just kicks the can down the road because [solar geo-engineering] doesn't take away the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere".
Gulf Insider
26-04-2025
- Science
- Gulf Insider
UK To Greenlight Experiments To "Dim The Sun" In Bid To Stop Global Warming
It's a project reminiscent of the movie Snowpiercer, in which governments institute a global experiment to spray chemicals into the atmosphere to stop global warming and end up creating a new ice age instead. Once again reality is downstream from fiction as the UK is set to bankroll an experiment to 'dim the sun'. This goal will be pursued in field trials which could include injecting aerosols into the atmosphere, or brightening clouds to reflect sunshine. The project is being considered by scientists as a way to prevent 'runaway climate change', despite the fact that there is zero evidence to support the claim of runaway climate change. Aria, the Government's advanced research and invention funding agency, has set aside £50 million for projects, which will be announced in the coming weeks. Prof Mark Symes, the program director for Aria (Advanced Research and Invention Agency), said there would be 'small controlled outdoor experiments on particular approaches'. 'We will be announcing who we have given funding to in a few weeks and when we do so we will be making clear when any outdoor experiments might be taking place,' he said. 'One of the missing pieces in this debate was physical data from the real world. Models can only tell us so much. Everything we do is going to be safe by design. We're absolutely committed to responsible research, including responsible outdoor research. We have strong requirements around the length of time experiments can run for and their reversibility and we won't be funding the release of any toxic substances to the environment.' One major area of research is Sunlight Reflection Methods (SRM), which includes Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) whereby tiny particles are released into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight. Another potential project is Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB) in which ships would spray sea-salt particles into the sky to enhance the reflectivity of low-lying clouds. Climate scientists say efforts to reduce carbon emissions are not working fast enough and that levels are 'too high', leading to irregular weather patterns and eventually the temperature 'tipping point' in which an exponential crisis is created by heat creating carbon and then carbon creating more heat. The problem is that nothing in this theory is backed by causational evidence or the climate history of the Earth. In other words, climate scientists are siphoning up government grant money to create solutions to a problem that doesn't exist. Click here to read more…
