this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2025
48 points (98.0% liked)

Global News

4655 readers
627 users here now

What is global news?

Something that happened or was uncovered recently anywhere in the world. It doesn't have to have global implications. Just has to be informative in some way.

Post guidelines

Title formatPost title should mirror the news source title.
URL formatPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefixOpinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
Country prefixCountry prefix can be added to the title with a separator (|, :, etc.) where title is not clear enough from which country the news is coming from.

Rules

This community is moderated in accordance with the principles outlined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which emphasizes the right to freedom of opinion and expression. In addition to this foundational principle, we have some additional rules to ensure a respectful and constructive environment for all users.

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. No social media postsAvoid all social media posts. Try searching for a source that has a written article or transcription on the subject.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.

Companion communities

Icon generated via LLM model | Banner attribution

If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
BrikoX@lemmy.zip
48
Researchers quietly planned a test to dim sunlight. They wanted to ‘avoid scaring’ the public. (www.politico.com)
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by BrikoX@lemmy.zip to c/globalnews@lemmy.zip
45 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Hundreds of documents show how researchers failed to notify officials in California about a test of technology to block the sun’s rays — while they planned a much huger sequel. 

Archived version: https://archive.is/20250728172625/https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/27/california-sunlight-dimming-experiment-collapse-00476983

Disclaimer: The article linked is from a single source with a single perspective. Make sure to cross-check information against multiple sources to get a comprehensive view on the situation.

all 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 29 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Honestly, we need to get over ourselves when it comes to sunlight modification. The fact that people are hand wringing about small trial projects that are just meant to investigate the concept is peak luddite thinking.

Do we need to be careful with the secondary effects? Yes. That's why we start with pilot projects, see how they go, and work our way up. Is a termination shock a possibility? Yes, but who cares? The alternative is we just stew in the high temps all day every day.

I get the opposition to the technology, but ultimately it comes from a place of hubris and pride. People just don't want to admit we've fucked things up so badly that now we need to resort to something as desperate as solar modification.

Well I'm sorry, but we're out of time. We're sitting here whining about possible side effects of this, when the consequences of not doing it are potentially biosphere-collapsing. Yes, I wish we had gone all in on renewables starting in 1980, but we don't live on that timeline. It takes a long time to change the course of a ship the size of an industrial civilization, and there has been immense political headwinds. Hang all the oil execs if you want, that won't change the fact that at this point, we have no reasonable path to avoiding the deaths of hundreds of millions of people and the collapse of entire biomes if we don't do solar modification. We're sitting here congratulating ourselves on not playing God as we watch as the Amazon rain forest burns down as a consequence of our own actions.

We need this technology. Yes, it sucks that we have to resort to it. But we are out of time. Right now, we are realistically looking at losing between 2-10% of the total human population by 2050 due to climate induced heat stroke and famine. Right now, the permafrost at the polls and the Greenland ice sheet are rapidly collapsing. Positive feedback loops are kicking in that mean that even if we cut off all emissions tomorrow, the temperature will still continue to snowball. This is a runaway train at this point. And the only hope we have of slowing it down is solar modification.

But people would rather keep their hands clean, refuse to "play God," and do nothing as the world burns.

[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

It's literally our only option to buy us time to sequester carbon. I don't agree with aerosol or particle based shields that aren't easily removed, but a metal or solid shield in space locked between the sun and earth to deflect a % of the rays is totally doable and needed. I personally think a partially living shield made of 3D printed vulture head skin would work well but it is quite gruesome, so a bunch of metal is probably more likely than that.

[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I would think the aerosol or particle based shields would be even easier to remove than something up in orbit. The stuff in orbit will need to be pretty high up if you don't want it to immediately decay and reenter, so anything in orbit will remain that way for some time. Plus there's Kessler to worry about. But sulfurs and other aerosols wash out of the atmosphere pretty quickly. That's the whole reason people talk about termination shocks, and fret that we'll have to keep the aerosol effort continuously going. To me this seems like a virtue. If at any time we decide we don't like the effects, we can simply stop. There's no long term commitment.

[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

What I'm proposing is something like the start of the technology of a dyson sphere tbh, it would be further out into space and ideally only maintained by machine, no humans. If it has issues, the panels can be turned perpendicular to the direction of energy coming from the sun to let in more sun, or fuck, we could just set bombs on it and later remote detonate it if it's truly a concern.

I think the impact of spreading a bunch of sulfur or other particulates in the air is just a bad idea in terms of health for everyone (a major component of smog/pollution is sulfur, and we know sulfur works bc during covid, less ships running meant less sulfur and heating accelerated) and having a large blanket or shield in space would be less risky in that aspect but yes, more technically challenging. However, Beijing, MIT, Stanford, Japan, and Germany etc should be able to figure it out easily - they pretty much already made a cure for HIV and rabies together and permanently altered warfare w invention of drones and AI.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

We're talking about a project that would require long-term, generational buy in or it'll blow up in our faces, and apparently the only way to do it, even now, is apparently to lie about it and go behind everyone's backs. That's not how science is done, it's highly unethical and erodes public trust in science, and there will be backlash. Every time there's been a news article about a state "banning chemtrails," the headline is lying and what they're actually banning are these sorts of experiments, with that political will already present at the state level, I don't see a program like this lasting even a decade, let alone a century. And that's assuming there are no unexpected side effects, imagine running on, "Chemtrails are real and giving you cancer but we have to keep doing them, for the environment," and that platform has to win every election forever. And you're lecturing the skeptics about "hubris?"

Even if you ignore the political problems, it's a temporary, stopgap solution. You've got this all backwards, if we do this without addressing the root problem of emissions, things will keep getting worse until we're in the exact same boat down the road but also we have to keep doing cloud seeding forever. And if your plan is to just increase the intensity of cloud seeding indefinitely to address that, then congrats on finding the closest real thing to the Futurama solution of "dropping ever larger ice cubes into the ocean."

[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The point is we don't have time anymore to address the root causes. If we had started decades ago, maybe we wouldn't have needed solar modification. But now we're just still playing pretend that we can solve this via CO2 cuts alone.

Here's the problem. It takes decades to ramp up the industry and infrastructure necessary to move everything away from fossil fuels. There are hard requirements on material extraction that just can't be popped up overnight. This isn't software engineering; this is real physical industry and production. We are currently in the middle of an energy transition. But it's going to take decades. If we just shut off that tap for fossil fuels tomorrow, billions of people would die from the fallout. We're talking about completely rebuilding an infrastructure that we've spent the last two centuries constructing. We need to do all of this, while also having our production and construction sectors strained from all the adaptation we need to do to deal with the fallout of the warming climate!

It's just magical thinking. It's letting perfect be the enemy of the good. Yes, I wish we could waive a magic wand and make oil go away overnight. But this is a 50 year project ahead of us, and we are already completely out of time. We've already passed +1.5C, and things are rapidly spiraling out of control.

I don't give a shit if this is the perfect solution. I don't care if it has downside risks. And I know full well the types of risks you're talking about. But frankly, we just don't have the luxury of worrying about those right now. Again, we are out of time. You'll be smuggly patting yourself on the back, congratulating that you avoided the Futurama scenario, thankful that we never played God...as the last coral reef dies and the Amazon is a distant memory. The biosphere will be wrecked beyond repair, but at least we never got caught in that cloud seeding trap!

[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Yes, and our demise is actually polycausal, meaning it isn't strictly carbon related. We not only need to handle the carbon thing, but also pollution and other issues, asap: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 days ago

None of this addresses any of my arguments. As I said, if cloud seeding is implemented in such a way that depends on public support, then it will fail, and if it fails, it'll do more harm than good. It's like saying, "What we're doing now isn't working and we need to do something, so I'm going to burn down a forest." If it's not going to work, then we shouldn't do it, no matter how desperate we are.

One of the big problems with environmental issues is the delay between cause and effect. Even in the best case scenario, all you'd be doing is increasing that disconnect. People are going to have to see and the consequences if we're ever going to change. You're just buying time for us to keep fucking around, but the more time we have to fuck around without finding out, the worse the problem will get.

I'm not inherently opposed to cloud seeding - but only once we're on the right track. If we have a solid plan towards recovery and just need a bit more time to make it through a tight spot, then sure. But if we're just spiraling, then it's just enabling us the make the problem worse. Even in the worst-case scenario you describe, it's still more of a problem of having the willpower to direct effort and resources at the problem than it being physically impossible to address.

[–] shani66@ani.social 3 points 1 week ago

Luddites really need to fuck off in general. They are just worthless cowards that don't want to see humanity succeed.

[–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 week ago

Much huger

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Oh no, clouds over the ocean. How dreadful.

Not even dimming sunlight, just reflecting more of it, with more clouds. You'd think we were talking about a black haze across the sky.

But critics of the technologies warn that they could also disrupt weather patterns — potentially affecting farm yields, wildlife and people.

And if we do nothing, all of those things are safe forever. Yeah?

Even if they succeed in cooling the climate, temperatures could spike upward if the processes are abruptly shut down before countries have transitioned away from burning planet-warming fossil fuels, an outcome described by experts as “termination shock.”

Oh for fuck's sake. 'What if it works, but they suddenly stop?! That'll be worse somehow! What could we possibly do then, aside from resume doing the thing that worked?!'

[–] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago

I was hoping for Matrix levels of scorching the skies

[–] blargh513@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

So does this mean that sunlight will now be something we pay for?

Pay your sun bill or its February forever

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No, this is ridiculous.

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

As ridiculous as selling water rights to Nestlé, then paying them for the rain?

Robber barons don't give a fuck how ridiculous you consider anything.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 4 points 1 week ago

Like half the world: Really? Gimme!

[–] vane@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

Mandatory Animatrix covering sky scene https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTLMjHrb_w4

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 3 points 1 week ago

rick and morty dyeing the sun instuitionally grey to cause depression,.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Is this why it was pretty cold in the middle of July a few days ago? 🤔 ^/s^

[–] Odo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Wasn't there an entire season of Smallville about this?

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 week ago (7 children)

Fuck, no! We do not understand anything about anything, well enough to start fucking with shit on this scale.

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Isn't that the point of tests? Do something at a more limited scale to see what the results of that are?

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 week ago (2 children)

1st of all...the Sun isn't the problem. It isn't getting brighter or hotter. The problem is us. So, "fixing" something that isn't broken, isn't going to actually "fix" anything. It will just introduce additional variables to an already ridiculously complex equation.

Not to mention, it may even give the fossil fuel industry and its supporters a justification to continue doing more damage, under the false pretense that the problem has been "solved". So, where does it stop? When we've blocked out the Sun entirely, but are still choking to death on our own industrial exhaust?

[–] wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Not necessarily disagreeing with your premise but the sun is slightly warmer right now.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

The Sun has its own natural cycle of activity. But that has nothing to do with why the planet is warming.

[–] shani66@ani.social 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You're right, we should just let the world end instead

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

Lol! This isn't going to save it. The problem will just keep getting worse, no matter how dim we make the sun...because the sun isn't the problem.

[–] Fizz@lemmy.nz 9 points 1 week ago

Fuck it we ball. Nerds, start turning those knobs and dials until the problem is fixed or we die.

[–] crazyminner@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 week ago

We actually do. Cargo ships used to give off white smoke because they burned sulpher. A new law went into effect that stopped them from burning sulpher and the clouds went away and we saw a spike in temperature.

So we have some data. We've already been experimenting with global climate. Might as well experiment to try and fix it.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And therefore we should not do anything that could help us learn about this?

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca -2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What could we possibly learn from this, other than brand new ways to fuck up our environment?

If we are serious about "solving" the climate change problem, we should try fixing the things that are actually causing it...not altering the variables that aren't.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What could we possibly learn from this, other than brand new ways to fuck up our environment?

We could learn brand new ways to fix up our environment.

we should try fixing the things that are actually causing it

You may have noticed, we're trying that already and it's not working particularly well. Your proposal, then, is to not try anything new but instead just keep on trying the thing we know isn't working?

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

No offense, but we aren't "trying that already". We have spent decades trying everything except that...and this is just the latest and most desperate attempt at not doing anything to actually address the root causes of climate change.

We would rather block out the Sun, than stop burning fossil fuels. It would not surprise me, at all, if it turned out that the fossil fuel industry was behind this whole idea. It sure would be convenient to kick the can down the road a little longer, so we can keep killing ourselves for profits that you and I will never share in.

[–] crazyminner@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

We actually do. Cargo ships used to give off white smoke because they burned sulpher. A new law went into effect that stopped them from burning sulpher and the clouds went away and we saw a spike in temperature.

So we have some data. We've already been experimenting with global climate. Might as well experiment to try and fix it.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Honestly, that is actually a perfect example of how stupid this whole idea is. Imagine actively promoting the burning of sulfur, in order to try and reflect sunlight. That is the definition of the solution creating even more problems than it solves.

[–] baldingpudenda@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

volcanic winter

There was a planned test of getting a glider up to the stratosphere and releasing SO2 and H2S and watching effects, temps, dispersal, etc. Someone made an article and there was so much uproar that the test was canceled.

We're able to create, destroy, vent, and dump whatever as long as there's a profit, but a small test to see what happens absolutely NOT. Science is all about pulling threads, trying to figure out something new however small in the hopes others can build on it. Nature already does this. We just doing it in a controlled manner.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 week ago

Why would you need to do a test if something, when you can simply observe the same results from a naturally occurring event?

Science isn't about doing things just to see what happens. That's absurd. And wildly unethical.

[–] crazyminner@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

You wouldn't need to use sulfur if you actually did it on purpose. You could use many other methods to make clouds.

[–] DesolateMood@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I almost thought you were being serious until I read this one lol

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 days ago

He is. Irrational people are irrational.