Robbie, It is a remarkable statement.
It may be true … BUT … I am worried about the statement . The planet has definitely dimmed and the removal of sulphur on shipping fuel has definitely dimmed the planet ( as well as coal fire power stations) The problem is how do you measure albedo? It is difficult. One method I like, is to measure albedo by looking at the “Earth Glow” ( sunlight reflected from the earth illuminating the moon) . I need to look at the way the albedo has been measured. cheers Alan On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 at 05:49, 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering < [email protected]> wrote: > In his January 2024 newsletter titled *Global Warming Acceleration: > Causes and Consequences*, Professor James Hansen stated that reduced > albedo since 2015 is equivalent to a sudden increase of atmospheric CO2 > from 420 to 530 ppm (bolded text in email below). > > > > I am writing to seek comment on this remarkable statement. If albedo loss > over the last decade has the same warming effect as 110 ppm CO2, this > appears to be ¾ of the effect of the historic CO2 rise from 280 to 425 ppm, > equal to 145 ppm. 110/145 = 75.8%. > > > > Does this mean darkening of the world in the last decade has had three > quarters of the warming effect of all emissions since the Industrial > Revolution? > > > > If so, that suggests an urgent impetus for solar geoengineering to slow > this accelerating feedback. > > > > Regards > > > > Robert Tulip > > *From:* James Hansen <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Saturday, January 13, 2024 3:01 AM > *Subject:* Global Warming Acceleration: Causes and Consequences > > > > View this email in your browser > <https://mailchi.mp/caa/global-warming-acceleration-causes-and-consequences?e=f99fbe43ae> > > > > A PDF of this Communication is available on my* webpage > <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=a1a018956b&e=f99fbe43ae>*, > along with prior Communications and other resources. > > > > [image: Tweet to your followers] > <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=0239cda383&e=f99fbe43ae> > > Tweet to your followers > <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=07537bbce5&e=f99fbe43ae> > > [image: Share on your Facebook] > <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=7d4fd1dfe2&e=f99fbe43ae> > > Share on your Facebook > <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=0dcc72dbcc&e=f99fbe43ae> > > [image: Forward to your friends] > <https://us1.forward-to-friend.com/forward?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=2b319f463b&e=f99fbe43ae> > > Forward to your friends > <https://us1.forward-to-friend.com/forward?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=2b319f463b&e=f99fbe43ae> > > > > *Fig. 1. Global temperature relative to 1880-1920 based on the GISS > analysis.[1],[2] * > > > > *Global Warming Acceleration: Causes and Consequences* > > 12 January 2024 > James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy > > > > *Abstract**.* Record global temperature in 2023 helps reveal acceleration > of global warming on decadal time scales. The proximate cause of the > acceleration is increase of Earth’s energy imbalance, specifically a > substantial darkening of the planet (decreased albedo) equivalent to a CO2 > increase of more than 100 ppm, although it is difficult to apportion the > albedo change between aerosol forcing and cloud feedbacks because of > limited global measurements. Large 2023 warming is consistent with key > findings in *Global Warming in the Pipeline*:[3] reduced aerosol cooling > and high climate sensitivity. We expect record monthly temperatures to > continue into mid-2024 due to the present large planetary energy imbalance, > with the 12-month running-mean global temperature reaching +1.6-1.7°C > relative to 1880-1920 and falling to only +1.4 ± 0.1°C during the following > La Nina. Considering the large planetary energy imbalance, it will be clear > that the world is passing through the 1.5°C ceiling, and is headed much > higher, unless steps are taken to affect Earth’s energy imbalance. > > > > Global temperature in the GISS analysis increased 0.28°C in 2023, from > 1.16°C to 1.44°C (Fig. 1), the largest annual increase in the 144-year > record. This annual rise is largely due to the ongoing tropical El Nino > warming, but no prior El Nino engendered as much warming, which points to > an additional drive for global warming acceleration. We have argued[3] that > the imminent threat of human-made climate change is understated in > IPCC[4] assessments, which are based predominately on global climate models > (GCMs). We suggest that the IPCC best estimate for climate sensitivity (3°C > for 2×CO2 or 0. 75°C per W/m2) is an underestimate, as we find real-world > (paleoclimate) evidence for a sensitivity of 4.8°C ±1.2°C for 2×CO2 (1.2°C > per W/m2). In addition, we suggest that IPCC underestimates (negative) > aerosol climate forcing and global cooling by aerosols that partly > counterbalances greenhouse gas (GHG) warming. These two errors compensate > and allow GCMs with low sensitivity to match observed warming of the past > century by using an unrealistically small aerosol effect. Compensation is > not an accident; it is a result of overreliance on GCMs. With aerosol > forcing unmeasured, it is natural for modelers to focus on an aerosol > forcing that yields agreement with global warming of the past century. Some > clarification will be possible in 2024. > > Global surface temperature is well measured since about 1950,[5] but there > are large interannual fluctuations of temperature that make it difficult to > confirm a change in the rate of global warming until the change is large. > Given that the El Nino/La Nina cycle is the main cause of interannual > variability, comparison of global temperatures at the well-defined peaks of > strong El Ninos may provide potential for early detection of global warming > acceleration.[6] The three most recent strong El Ninos are 1997-98, > 2015-16, and 2023-24. The first of these was prior to reduction of > human-made aerosols. The second occurred just after the January 2015 > imposition of restrictions on sulfur content of ship fuels by the > International Maritime Organization (IMO), and the third occurred after > strengthening of the restrictions in January 2020. Fig. 2 compares global > temperatures during these years (red lines) with the prior record monthly > temperatures (gray area). > > > > > > *Fig. 2. Global temperature during El Nino origin years (left side) and El > Nino peak years, compared with monthly record high temperatures prior to > the last three strong El Ninos.* > > > > The strong 1997-98 “El Nino of the century” produced 8-9 clear global > temperature records, the 2015-2016 El Nino produced 10 clear record months, > and the 2023-24 El Nino has already produced 7 record months about half way > through the period of Nino-elevated temperature. The rate of warming > between the first two El Ninos, i.e., between 1998 and 2016, was > 0.23°C/decade, moderately larger than the 0.18°C/decade warming rate during > 1970-2010. Another eight months of temperature data are needed to assess > the warming rate between the last two El Ninos. > > > > > > *Fig. 3. Nino3.4 SST (upper panel) and temperature of ocean upper 300m in > equatorial region.[7]* > > > > Use of El Ninos as a measuring stick depends on the El Ninos being > comparable. The Nino3.4 temperature (Fig. 3) may be a flawed measure of El > Nino strength. It implies that the 2015-16 El Nino was stronger than the > “El Nino of the (20th) century” in 1997-98. A better measure is probably > the heat content anomaly in the upper 300m of the equatorial Pacific (Fig. > 3, bottom) because the 300m heat anomaly is a direct measure of the excess > heat available for expulsion to the atmosphere. The 300m heat content shows > that the three El Ninos successively decrease in magnitude, with the > 2023-24 El Nino notably unimpressive. Further discussion and illustration > of this matter is in a prior communication.[8] A declining strength of the > El Ninos only enhances our conclusions. > > *How do we know global temperature will continue to grow in the next 5-8 > months, carrying the 12-month running-mean to at least 1.6-1.7°C? The main > reason is the large increase of global absorbed solar radiation (ASR) since > 2015 (Fig. 4), which is a decrease of Earth’s albedo (reflectivity) by 0.4% > (1.4/340).[9] This reduced albedo is equivalent to a sudden increase of > atmospheric CO2 from 420 to 530 ppm.* Increase of EEI (Fig. 5) is smaller > than the increase of ASR because the warming increases thermal emission to > space. The increase of ASR since 2015 is particularly important because it > acts as a “fresh forcing,” regardless of whether it is a forcing, a > persistent feedback, or a combination thereof. Given the absence of > monitoring of global aerosol forcing, ASR provides our best clue as to the > changing drives for global warming. These assertions warrant discussion. > > > > > > *Fig. 4. Global absorbed solar radiation and Earth’s energy imbalance > relative to the mean of the first 120 months of CERES data. CERES > data[10] are available at http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/ > <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=9b2861a13c&e=f99fbe43ae>* > > > > > > > *Fig. 5. Percent of equilibrium global surface temperature response to > instant CO2 doubling.[11]* > > > > Almost half of the global temperature change in response to a climate > forcing occurs within the first decade after imposition of the forcing > (Fig. 5), the remaining response requiring many decades and centuries.[10] > Earth’s energy imbalance was about 0.7 W/m2 in the first 15 years of this > century[12] and solar radiation absorbed by Earth was relatively constant > (Fig. 4). The change since 2015, especially the increase of absorbed solar > radiation, is a BFD (a big deal).[13] The magnitude, longevity, and growth > of the phenomenon rule against some unexplained natural climate > oscillation. Instead, it is likely a combination of a climate forcing(s) > and feedbacks. Our interpretation[3] is that a reduction of human-made > aerosols, especially the two-step (2015 and 2020) reduction of marine > aerosols, causes an increase of climate forcing of at least ~0.5 W/m2, > possibly as great as 1 W/m2. Aerosol modeling studies[14] report a global > climate forcing due to the change of regulations on ship emissions only of > the order of *O*(0.1 W/m2), while we suggest a forcing *O*(1 W/m2), i.e., > at least ~0.5 W/m2. Despite the absence of global monitoring of the > aerosol climate forcing, it should be possible to resolve this issue within > the next few years with the help of the great inadvertent aerosol > experiment caused by the sharp imposition by the International Maritime > Organization of rule changes on ship emissions. > > The significant climate feedbacks that affect ASR are changes of sea ice > and clouds. There is little trend of Arctic sea ice since 2015. The large > loss of Antarctic sea ice in the past year may contribute to the spike in > absorbed solar radiation in the last few months of data in Fig. 4, which > will be testable from the geographic and seasonal variation of the observed > ASR. Analysis of cloud feedbacks will be more difficult because both the > aerosol forcing and cloud feedbacks operate via cloud changes, but > superficial examination of the ASR data supports the idea of an aerosol > forcing *O*(1 W/m2) as well as a significant cloud feedback (Fig. 22 in > *Pipeline* paper). > > Our interpretation – that aerosol forcing changes constitute a substantial > fraction of the change of ASR, not ~ 0.1 W/m2 – seems to place us at odds > against another community: aerosol/climate modeling. We wonder, however, > whether the small values from aerosol models are not influenced by the > expected results based on IPCC aerosol estimations. There is still large > uncertainty in aerosol modeling. As noted above, the situation may be > clarified within the next few years, which will be none too soon, as better > understanding is required for policy considerations. > > > > > > *Fig. 6. Global temperature relative to 1880-1920 based on the GISS > analysis.[1],[2] Projected El Nino warming and La Nina cooling discusses in > text and decadal acceleration in **Pipeline**.[3]* > > > > *Summary**.* > > Empirical evidence related to aerosol climate forcing will become clearer > soon. If the forcing change is as large as we believe, it will push global > warming to at least +1.6-1.7°C (Fig. 6), well above the level that would be > expected for the moderate ongoing El Nino, and it should also limit the > decline of global temperature following the El Nino. > > The coupled aerosol forcing & climate sensitivity issue is not unrelated > to the coupled ocean overturning & sea level issue that spurred the writing > of the *Pipeline* paper. In both cases, we assert that IPCC has excessive > reliance on global models with inadequate attention to analyses that pay > comparable attention to paleoclimate information, global models, and > evidence from ongoing observed climate changes. A case in point is the > present tug-of-war occurring in the Southern Ocean. Global warming seems to > be pushing the sea ice boundary south, diminishing sea ice cover. But we > found in our *Ice Melt* paper[15] that freshwater injection from observed > shrinking of ice shelf volume was already sufficient to begin cooling of > the Southern Ocean mixed layer, pushing the sea ice area north. This topic > is discussed in one of our recent communications.[16] > > This story is to be continued. The climate situation needs to be clarified > in the next several years, as that clarification will help define the > actions that are needed to assure a bright future for young people and > future generations. We appreciate your concerns and support. We are > grateful to the people who responded to our appeal for support[15] of > Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions, thus helping assure an additional > perspective in the discussion of actions needed to address ongoing global > climate change. > > > > [1] Lenssen NJL, Schmidt GA, Hansen JE *et al.* Improvements in the > GISTEMP uncertainty model > <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=ebc5baab04&e=f99fbe43ae> > ,* J Geophys Res Atmos* 2019;*124(12)*:6307-26 > [2] Hansen J, Ruedy R, Sato M *et al.* Global surface temperature change > <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=5063fc5139&e=f99fbe43ae> > . Rev Geophys 2010;*48*:RG4004 > [3] Hansen J, Sato M, Simons L *et al*. Global warming in the pipeline > <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=c167fec112&e=f99fbe43ae>. > *Oxford Open Clim Chan* 2023;3(1):kgad008, doi.org/10.1093/oxfclm/kgad008 > [4] IPCC. *Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis > [Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Pirani A et al. (eds)]. *Cambridge and New > York: Cambridge University Press, 2021 > [5] There were still significant flaws in the World War II period because > of limited and changing sources for sea surface temperature data. See > Hansen J, Sato M, Kharecha P *et al.* Young people's burden: requirement > of negative CO2 emissions. > <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=9fe03810e7&e=f99fbe43ae>* > Earth Syst Dyn* 2017;*8*:577-616 > [6] Grantham, J., The Race of Our Lives Revisited > <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=bb89d85861&e=f99fbe43ae>, > GMO White Paper, August 2018 > [7] Nino3.4 data are ERSSTv5 (1991-2020 base period) for 5°S-5°N, > 170-120°W > <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=146ba2a470&e=f99fbe43ae>, > while the equatorial upper 300m temperature data use 1981-2010 base > period.for 5°S-5°N, 180-100°W > <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=7ac9f59ef9&e=f99fbe43ae> > 1744 > [8] Hansen, J, Sato M, Ruedy, R. Global warming acceleration: El Nino > measuring stick looks good > <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=6c348cff61&e=f99fbe43ae>, > 14 December 2023 > [9] The average solar energy incident on Earth is about 340 W/m2. > [10] Loeb NG, Johnson GC, Thorsen, TJ *et al.* Satellite and ocean data > reveal marked increase in Earth’s heating rate > <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=7ac1e00654&e=f99fbe43ae>. > *Geophys Res Lett* 2021;*48*:e2021GL09304 > [11] The graph shows results for two Goddard Institute for Space Studies > GCMs defined in the *Pipeline* paper, but the approximate 100-year > e-folding time for surface temperature response is common to most global > climate models. > [12] Miniere A, von Schuckmann K, Sallee JB, Vogt L. Robust acceleration > of Earth system heating observed over the past six decades > <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=09c8f92297&e=f99fbe43ae>. > *Nature Sci. Rept*;13: 22975. 2023/ > https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-49353-1 > [13] Climate Emergency Forum. Nov 26, 2023. Dr. James E. Hansen in > Conversation with Paul Beckwith [Video]. YouTube: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTWUJ8Lvl-U&t=1s > <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=acb104ce62&e=f99fbe43ae> > [14] Diamond MS. Detection of large-scale cloud microphysical changes and > evidence for decreasing cloud brightness within a major shipping corridor > after implementation of the International Maritime Organization 2020 fuel > sulfur regulations > <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=f84966a10e&e=f99fbe43ae>, > *Atmos Chem Phys* 2023;*23*:8259-69 > [15] Hansen J, Sato M, Hearty P *et al.* Ice melt, sea level rise and > superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern > observations that 2 C global warming could be dangerous > <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=2fd2b03b9a&e=f99fbe43ae> > . *Atmos Chem Phys *2016;*16*:3761-812 > [16] Hansen J, Kharecha P, Sato M. "A Miracle Will Occur" Is Not Sensible > Climate Policy > <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=ee0b7593c8&e=f99fbe43ae>, > 7 December 2023 > > > > *Donate to CSAS Columbia* > <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=ad5a9cf02c&e=f99fbe43ae> > > *Donate to CSAS, Inc.* > <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=2fe9b1fa89&e=f99fbe43ae> > > *FOLLOW US HERE * > > > > [image: Subscribe to my future Communications] > <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=8e3be390c6&e=f99fbe43ae> > > Subscribe to my future Communications > <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=87425eb2e2&e=f99fbe43ae> > > > > [image: CSAS EI Website] > <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=3f08ae2324&e=f99fbe43ae> > > CSAS EI Website > <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=ee35116d2a&e=f99fbe43ae> > > > > [image: CSAS, Inc. Website] > <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=772ee56b91&e=f99fbe43ae> > > CSAS, Inc. Website > <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=0868452f6e&e=f99fbe43ae> > > > > [image: Dr. Hansen's Webpage] > <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=36d3954c10&e=f99fbe43ae> > > Dr. Hansen's Webpage > <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=c30cb7d31b&e=f99fbe43ae> > > > > [image: Dr. Hansen's Facebook] > <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=96269b8f66&e=f99fbe43ae> > > Dr. Hansen's Facebook > <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=8408eee679&e=f99fbe43ae> > > > > [image: Dr. Hansen's Twitter] > <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=2b55dbc517&e=f99fbe43ae> > > Dr. Hansen's Twitter > <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=8b9af7b2bb&e=f99fbe43ae> > > > > [image: CSAS YouTube] > <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=0c298a2e4b&e=f99fbe43ae> > > CSAS YouTube > <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=160e9103ad&e=f99fbe43ae> > > > > > > *Copyright © 2024 Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions. All rights > reserved.* > > > Want to change how you receive these emails? > > You can update > <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/profile?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=2256fd804a&e=f99fbe43ae&c=2b319f463b> > your preferences or unsubscribe > <https://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=2256fd804a&e=f99fbe43ae&c=2b319f463b> > from this list. > > > > > -- > > Jim Hansen, Director > > Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions Program > > Columbia University Earth Institute > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/03f001dace96%24a959c5a0%24fc0d50e0%24%40yahoo.com.au > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/03f001dace96%24a959c5a0%24fc0d50e0%24%40yahoo.com.au?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAApjBt2EhhYWAG_twqHJ4PzE7cRDz47pk%2BPXV39MCSps0CyrMw%40mail.gmail.com.
