Earth's clouds are shrinking, boosting global warming(science.org)
science.org
Earth's clouds are shrinking, boosting global warming
https://www.science.org/content/article/earth-s-clouds-are-shrinking-boosting-global-warming
145 comments
re-thc(1)
> the team has turned to a single satellite, NASA’s Terra, which has been monitoring the planet for nearly a quarter-century. Looking at the same cloud systems, the team found exactly the same trends, with cloud coverage falling by about 1.5% per decade, Tselioudis says. “It’s only now that the signal seems to be coming out of the noise.” Bjorn Stevens, a climate scientist at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, says a couple percentage points may not sound important. “But if you calculate these trends, it’s massive,” he says. “This would indicate a cloud feedback that’s off the charts.”
Hurricanes and Cyclones will get worse. This is bad news for folks that wish to live near many coasts.
Hurricanes and Cyclones will get worse. This is bad news for folks that wish to live near many coasts.
Including inland mountains 700km from the coast like in Vietnam and North Carolina which both got destroyed last year as tropical depressions dumped historical levels of rain.
Why mountains in particular?
As the warm moist air is pushed upwards in mountains, on the windward side, the air will drop in temperature and will not be be able to hold the moisture dropping it as rain.
Interesting, the area I live in is expected to get more rain as climate change gets worse. So I would think we would have more cloud cover. But the article is about "reflective clouds".
As I look out my window, I see dark clouds right now as opposed to white fluffy clouds. Will need to note the colors as time goes on for my fully non-scientific surveys :)
As I look out my window, I see dark clouds right now as opposed to white fluffy clouds. Will need to note the colors as time goes on for my fully non-scientific surveys :)
Clouds are all the same color. The darkness we see is the shadows from other clouds.
How come you sometimes see very dark, lonely clouds in blue skies?
Likely because they are tall and tilted in a direction facing the sun, so that the moisture blocks more of the light than it would if the sun was hitting it at a more oblique angle.
Your relative position to the sun and the cloud.
I am not convinced. This would mean it could only be "blocking" the sun. If anything, it would be atmospheric light reflections blocked. In any case, it's not "other clouds".
I think diffraction has to play a role. Why wouldn't it? Dense, or raining clouds certainly have different water droplet sizes and shapes than fine, fluffy clouds. They may even reflect the ground or sky at some point, I imagine, like the ocean.
I think diffraction has to play a role. Why wouldn't it? Dense, or raining clouds certainly have different water droplet sizes and shapes than fine, fluffy clouds. They may even reflect the ground or sky at some point, I imagine, like the ocean.
Dark clouds are only dark from below. Look at a satellite feed for comparison.
Earth gets over 170,000 terawatts of solar energy every day—10,000 times more than humanity uses. Losing just a fraction of our cloud cover means a massive, invisible throttle is coming off the climate system. If this trend holds, we’re not just warming—we’re stepping on the gas.
terawatt is not an energy unit.
R̶e̶a̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶t̶e̶x̶t̶…̶
- A̶ ̶w̶a̶t̶t̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶d̶e̶f̶i̶n̶e̶d̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶1̶ ̶j̶o̶u̶l̶e̶ ̶p̶e̶r̶ ̶s̶e̶c̶o̶n̶d̶
̶ A̶ ̶w̶a̶t̶t̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶1̶ ̶s̶e̶c̶o̶n̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶f̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶e̶q̶u̶a̶l̶s̶ ̶1̶ ̶j̶o̶u̶l̶e̶,̶ ̶a̶ ̶m̶e̶a̶s̶u̶r̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶e̶n̶e̶r̶g̶y̶
- A̶ ̶T̶e̶r̶a̶w̶a̶t̶t̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶a̶ ̶d̶a̶y̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶f̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶a̶l̶s̶o̶ ̶a̶ ̶m̶e̶a̶s̶u̶r̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶e̶n̶e̶r̶g̶y̶.̶
[edit: The earth receives 14.9 ZettaWatts of solar power per day, and 173 Petawatts per second, I was reading it as 173 PW over a day, in which case the above works fine. Mea culpa]
See: https://gosolarquotes.com.au/amount-of-solar-energy-hitting-...
- A̶ ̶w̶a̶t̶t̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶d̶e̶f̶i̶n̶e̶d̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶1̶ ̶j̶o̶u̶l̶e̶ ̶p̶e̶r̶ ̶s̶e̶c̶o̶n̶d̶
̶ A̶ ̶w̶a̶t̶t̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶1̶ ̶s̶e̶c̶o̶n̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶f̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶e̶q̶u̶a̶l̶s̶ ̶1̶ ̶j̶o̶u̶l̶e̶,̶ ̶a̶ ̶m̶e̶a̶s̶u̶r̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶e̶n̶e̶r̶g̶y̶
- A̶ ̶T̶e̶r̶a̶w̶a̶t̶t̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶a̶ ̶d̶a̶y̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶f̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶a̶l̶s̶o̶ ̶a̶ ̶m̶e̶a̶s̶u̶r̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶e̶n̶e̶r̶g̶y̶.̶
[edit: The earth receives 14.9 ZettaWatts of solar power per day, and 173 Petawatts per second, I was reading it as 173 PW over a day, in which case the above works fine. Mea culpa]
See: https://gosolarquotes.com.au/amount-of-solar-energy-hitting-...
Yeah the units cancel, that's the issue. The phrasing implies that after half a day it's received 85k terawatts which doesn't make any sense.
Power (kg m^2 / s^3) * Time (s) = Energy (kg m^2 / s^2)
Now from context it's obvious that what was meant is that Earth continually receives 170 terawatts from the sun. The phrasing is technically inaccurate, but it's a turn of phrase that works fine.
Power (kg m^2 / s^3) * Time (s) = Energy (kg m^2 / s^2)
Now from context it's obvious that what was meant is that Earth continually receives 170 terawatts from the sun. The phrasing is technically inaccurate, but it's a turn of phrase that works fine.
[deleted]
so... close... petawatts ;)
So, not knowing any better, I read it as meaning 170k TW/day, so 85k TW/12 hours made sense to me, but you’re right… [1]. The earth receives 14.9 ZettaWatts of solar radiation per day…
[1]: https://gosolarquotes.com.au/amount-of-solar-energy-hitting-...
[1]: https://gosolarquotes.com.au/amount-of-solar-energy-hitting-...
[deleted]
No they don't, you need to divide, not multiply just like you would with every other unit. 1l of rain every day is 1l/day, not 1l * day
. Which means Watt per day is J/s^2
I think a clearer example would be saying a car runs 20KM/H every day.
On the other hand batteries energy capacity is commonly rated in Watt hour.
Watt*day is a perfectly cromulent energy statement although a bit misleading.
Watt*day is a perfectly cromulent energy statement although a bit misleading.
Watt*day is weird, but at least unit of energy. Watts a day is not.
Really common mistake in general to use kWh as a kW. Watthour is unit of energy. As watt is energy by time period. So you get back to units of energy.
Technically watt/day could be change in power consumption.
Really common mistake in general to use kWh as a kW. Watthour is unit of energy. As watt is energy by time period. So you get back to units of energy.
Technically watt/day could be change in power consumption.
That’s changing “every day” into “per day”. Judging by the downvotes that is how people are reading it, but “specified time” of a rate-quantity is an integration, to me. Which makes it a multiply op over the time specified.
If you pour out one bucket of sand every hour, and you do that for 10 hours, I expect the quantity of sand to be measured in buckets.
If you pour out one bucket of sand every hour, and you do that for 10 hours, I expect the quantity of sand to be measured in buckets.
If you want to be nitpicky about semantics, I think the only valid interpretation then is to take OP by their words and assume they meant energy transfer for 24h, since they did not write "per day" as you suggest:
"Earth gets over 170,000 terawatts of solar energy every day"
= 170 PW × 1d
= 170 × P(J/s) × 86.4 × ks
= 170 × 10¹⁵ × (J/s) × 86.4 × 10³ × s
= 14.6 × 10²¹ × J
= 14.6 ZJ
However, I also think "of solar energy" could be read as specifying the type of energy for the "rate of energy transfer", which is already implied in 'watt'. And since it's related to energy usage (rate), there really is no need to leave the "rate of energy transfer" interpretation at all and get hung up on "energy vs. power":
"Earth receives 170 petawatts as solar energy - 10,000 times the energy humanity uses, at any moment.
Edit: And let's be real, we all only feel very smart here because we just watched the latest Technology Connections video https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/OOK5xkFijPc :D
"Earth gets over 170,000 terawatts of solar energy every day"
= 170 PW × 1d
= 170 × P(J/s) × 86.4 × ks
= 170 × 10¹⁵ × (J/s) × 86.4 × 10³ × s
= 14.6 × 10²¹ × J
= 14.6 ZJ
However, I also think "of solar energy" could be read as specifying the type of energy for the "rate of energy transfer", which is already implied in 'watt'. And since it's related to energy usage (rate), there really is no need to leave the "rate of energy transfer" interpretation at all and get hung up on "energy vs. power":
"Earth receives 170 petawatts as solar energy - 10,000 times the energy humanity uses, at any moment.
Edit: And let's be real, we all only feel very smart here because we just watched the latest Technology Connections video https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/OOK5xkFijPc :D
[deleted]
I like the use of watts/day instead of joules here because we have some intuition about watts. Earth must dissapate 170 exawatts per day of sunshine, in addition to letting off some amount of heat from the molten core.
(Life has evolved on the edge of a knife, at the narrow balance point between enormous energies that cancel out just so. I often think that at the beach, looking out across the ocean, marveling that the water is almost never sloshing around at any scale proportional to itself. It's up to us to educate those who don't understand positive feedback loops and the existential risk they present to any system in equilibrium.)
(Life has evolved on the edge of a knife, at the narrow balance point between enormous energies that cancel out just so. I often think that at the beach, looking out across the ocean, marveling that the water is almost never sloshing around at any scale proportional to itself. It's up to us to educate those who don't understand positive feedback loops and the existential risk they present to any system in equilibrium.)
[deleted]
>watts/day instead of joules
You mean watt days (watts * days).
You mean watt days (watts * days).
I don't see what's wrong about OP's use of the term in the context they are using it. In the context given the number of days in the denominated unit is 1. Which means as dividend or factor it is going to give you the same result. Again in this context watts per day is much more intuitive for most people too reason about.
I don't mean to be rude, but anyone who thinks watts/day and watt days are ever interchangeable will have severe problems reasoning about anything electricity-related or energy-related.
It is akin to thinking that "2 apples" and "an apple divided by 2" are interchangeable because both expressions involve the concept of an apple and the number 2.
It is akin to thinking that "2 apples" and "an apple divided by 2" are interchangeable because both expressions involve the concept of an apple and the number 2.
> over 170,000 terawatts of solar energy every day
i'd definitely rewrite it myself, but it's also a correct way to specify that there are no days of the week, year, or whatever (solar cycle) in which the terawattage is below 170k. Not very intermittent, is it!
i'd definitely rewrite it myself, but it's also a correct way to specify that there are no days of the week, year, or whatever (solar cycle) in which the terawattage is below 170k. Not very intermittent, is it!
I deleted the part of my comment you quoted. Sorry about that.
I agree with you, FWIW.
I agree with you, FWIW.
I think we may be talking at cross purposes. I specifically used the number one because it behaves like a unit here. unlike 2 or any other number, 1 is also the standard 1D unit vector, so 1apples is indeed the same quantity as apples/1, but because it is a unit we usually imply its presence rather than express it explicitly as above.
watts/unit thus seems fine to me, whatever the unit may be, even if it itself is derived from time. watts per day would just work out to joules/second/1/24*60*60, making 1 watts per day a derived unit that expresses joules/84600 seconds, or an instantaneous rate of one 84600th of a joule.
watts/unit thus seems fine to me, whatever the unit may be, even if it itself is derived from time. watts per day would just work out to joules/second/1/24*60*60, making 1 watts per day a derived unit that expresses joules/84600 seconds, or an instantaneous rate of one 84600th of a joule.
[deleted]
Your comment still reads like watts are energy, which they are not. Maybe you mean "watt-days instead of joules". Watts/day is nonsense, and joules/day are watts. (With some coefficient)
You're right and I'm sorry I didn't catch it before the edit timer expired. I made another mistake - 100k terawatts is .1 exawatts.
Watts/day are not comparable to joules. One is a measure of change in power and the other is energy.
It's the opposite: joules/day and watts are both units of power.
It's the opposite: joules/day and watts are both units of power.
Nevertheless the meaning is clear, and it serves to illustrate their point about reduction in cloud cover.
The meaning is not clear at all. As a reader, what I got is "the writer made such a basic mistake that what they claim cannot be trusted."
Units provided were power not energy. The number provided is just the product of the solar constant and the cross-sectional area of Earth [0], roughly.
[0] https://bionumbers.hms.harvard.edu/bionumber.aspx?id=100943
[0] https://bionumbers.hms.harvard.edu/bionumber.aspx?id=100943
If you read it like "Earth gets over 170,000 terawatts of solar energy- all day, every day" then it works.
These types of comments are pointless. We are destroying the world. Ok. What’s the solution? All involve pain, but no one wants to talk about that. Tech isn’t going to solve it. For one, the kind of person on this site is contributing literally 10000x more to the issue than the worlds bottom, so we can start there.
People love tech solutions, because then they don’t have to stop consuming and live modestly.
People love tech solutions, because then they don’t have to stop consuming and live modestly.
We could solve this problem in a few years with technology if we really wanted to.
Not without pain, nope. Reality is the world’s rich are the culprits. If they stop consuming problem solved. No amount of angry downvotes will change this basic fact.
People will learn to live modestly, voluntarily or by force.
People will learn to live modestly, voluntarily or by force.
Net zero will come. Whether by collapse or by us shaving the wasteful excess. Excess being the leeches who don't pay taxes or follow rules.
The issue isn’t taxes. The world’s rich (top 25%) pay virtually all the taxes already but contribute to also virtually all the emissions.
You are right though, there will be a correction.
You are right though, there will be a correction.
Just to be clear though: "the world's rich" here doesn't mean "billionaire CEOs" that a lot of people think of. It means the average American and European.
I don't necessarily agree with GP's comment but they do have a valid point.
> We could solve this problem in a few years with technology if we really wanted to.
Everybody wants to solve the problem with technology. What if, the solution is just plain old hard work like planting trees, conservation, better recycling, better laws that help in saving ecosystem. But who would do that. So let's keep on creating problems with technology and then solve them with more technology.
> We could solve this problem in a few years with technology if we really wanted to.
Everybody wants to solve the problem with technology. What if, the solution is just plain old hard work like planting trees, conservation, better recycling, better laws that help in saving ecosystem. But who would do that. So let's keep on creating problems with technology and then solve them with more technology.
What technology specifically has caused the clouds to shrink?
Humanity has tendency to do things wrong and then decades later realize that what we were doing was awful to the planet.
Anything that facilitates or requires extracting carbon from the ground: Coal plants, petrol engines, cars, airplanes, mass production, modern agriculture processes.
The only way to stop global warming is to stop extracting carbon from the ground, where it's stored. After that we can think about capturing carbon. But first if all we need to stop pumping it into the atmosphere at a faster rate than the earth can absorb it (about 40% is absorbed at the moment, 60% of all human carbon use is added to the atmosphere).
The only way to stop global warming is to stop extracting carbon from the ground, where it's stored. After that we can think about capturing carbon. But first if all we need to stop pumping it into the atmosphere at a faster rate than the earth can absorb it (about 40% is absorbed at the moment, 60% of all human carbon use is added to the atmosphere).
Sorry, but did you read the question or the article at all?
Yes, what do you mean? The biggest climate effect at the moment is human carbon use, which is changing weather patterns, and the cause of the cloud shrinkage is changing weather patterns => cloud shrinkage is driven, to some degree (I would guess strongly, but let's be careful, so some degree) by human carbon extraction.
I'm not disagreeing, but we don't even need technology, all we need is the political will to truly stop subsidising fossil-based energy.
In the just over a minute it took me to read your comment and write this reply, the fossil industry received _another_ USD 14 Million: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/06/fossil-f...
In the just over a minute it took me to read your comment and write this reply, the fossil industry received _another_ USD 14 Million: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/06/fossil-f...
If we immediately stopped all CO2 and methane emissions, the problem wouldn't be solved. There's still more warming that's going to happen as a result of the past emissions.
True. The warming we see today is from emissions years ago. The inertia is real.
But even if we would spend only the explicit subsidies we would have a trillion dollar each and every year to spend on things like carbon capture and other mitigations which are not dangerous large-scale geoengineering projects like cloud seeding.
But even if we would spend only the explicit subsidies we would have a trillion dollar each and every year to spend on things like carbon capture and other mitigations which are not dangerous large-scale geoengineering projects like cloud seeding.
Most likely mass migration from the equator into the colder north or geoengineering. It's already overly hostile for over a billion people with the 1.4C warming we've had. School closures for multiple weeks a year, difficulty working outside. The human body did not evolve for these wet bulb temperatures.
We'd be well net neutral and way positive on the just/unjust scale with just two fucking changes.
Get rid of the millionaires excessive destructive power (both structural/political and the personal excessive consumption) and by eliminating factory animal agriculture.
Neither would diminish well-being. At least the actual. Some ego/envy issues though as narcissistic "successful" people couldn't feel their power, but I'm willing to sacrifice that for my kids future.
The benefits are many fold as per Durkheim and more recently Wilkinson and Pickett have shown us.
Easy peasy guys.
Get rid of the millionaires excessive destructive power (both structural/political and the personal excessive consumption) and by eliminating factory animal agriculture.
Neither would diminish well-being. At least the actual. Some ego/envy issues though as narcissistic "successful" people couldn't feel their power, but I'm willing to sacrifice that for my kids future.
The benefits are many fold as per Durkheim and more recently Wilkinson and Pickett have shown us.
Easy peasy guys.
What causes the shinkage of clouds? By writing "we’re stepping on the gas" you seem to imply that somehow humanity is causing this.
Do you mean my dog or other animals are responsible for this? Humans are the only species that are capable of modifying the environment.
No we are not, and a brief look at the history of the planet will show that. We're driving most of the changes today, but the planet itself also changes on it's own (tectonic shifts, for one), as do extra-planetary factors (solar cycles), and both of these impact our upper atmosphere.
From the article, there's significant uncertainty what's driving the currently measured effect:
> Climate scientists now need to figure out what’s causing these cloud changes.
> The team also found that 80% of the overall reflectivity changes in these regions resulted from shrinking clouds, rather than darker, less reflective ones, which could be caused by a drop in pollution. For Tselioudis, this clearly indicates that changes in atmospheric circulation patterns, not pollution reductions, are driving the trend.
> But Loeb, who leads work on the set of NASA satellite instruments called Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System, which tracks the energy imbalance, thinks pollution declines may be playing an important role in the cloud changes, especially in the Northern Hemisphere. “The observations are telling us something is definitely changing,” he says. “But it’s a complicated soup of processes.”
To your point, however, we do appear to be the only ones capable of intentionally modifying the environment, so if anybody's going to understand and address this, it'll be us.
From the article, there's significant uncertainty what's driving the currently measured effect:
> Climate scientists now need to figure out what’s causing these cloud changes.
> The team also found that 80% of the overall reflectivity changes in these regions resulted from shrinking clouds, rather than darker, less reflective ones, which could be caused by a drop in pollution. For Tselioudis, this clearly indicates that changes in atmospheric circulation patterns, not pollution reductions, are driving the trend.
> But Loeb, who leads work on the set of NASA satellite instruments called Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System, which tracks the energy imbalance, thinks pollution declines may be playing an important role in the cloud changes, especially in the Northern Hemisphere. “The observations are telling us something is definitely changing,” he says. “But it’s a complicated soup of processes.”
To your point, however, we do appear to be the only ones capable of intentionally modifying the environment, so if anybody's going to understand and address this, it'll be us.
How large a scale and with how many countries participating would cloud seeding be able to reverse these effects? Last I remember it was only a few countries in Asia that were attempting anything of the sort.
Disregard the obvious environmental risks of spraying silver iodide in the air, cloud seeding will artificially redirect rainfall in specific areas, which may deprive downstream regions of water, harming biodiversity. Note that cloud seeding is currently used for drought management, not global warming mitigation.
Cloud seeding aims to increase precipitation, not to increase evaporation. It might actually reduce cloud cover overall, since precipitation causes moisture to fall out of the air.
How many countries participating would reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. It’s 2025 and we’re still having stupid discussions.
We burn more coal than ever! Yeah, we’re so close to peak usage…
We’ve known coal was a big problem for 40 years:
https://youtu.be/Wp-WiNXH6hI?si=Dk-Xa_MHgFhPl2yE
We burn more coal than ever! Yeah, we’re so close to peak usage…
We’ve known coal was a big problem for 40 years:
https://youtu.be/Wp-WiNXH6hI?si=Dk-Xa_MHgFhPl2yE
There's a serious proposal to do that with a fleet of wind-powered ships, seeding low-lying clouds with seawater. Wikipedia cites a cost of $5 billion/year for a large deployment, and a maximum potential of offsetting two-thirds of our current anthropogenic warming. If we stopped doing it then things would be back to "normal" in a couple weeks. There would be local weather changes, but less than what's caused by unabated heating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_cloud_brightening
A disadvantage of solar radiation management like this is that it does nothing for ocean acidification. But it could buy us time by heading off feedback effects that cause the planet to emit a lot more greenhouse gas of its own, due to melting permafrost, forest fires, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_cloud_brightening
A disadvantage of solar radiation management like this is that it does nothing for ocean acidification. But it could buy us time by heading off feedback effects that cause the planet to emit a lot more greenhouse gas of its own, due to melting permafrost, forest fires, etc.
IMO implementing solar shielding measures, while still pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is a recipe for a rapid climate apocalypse, an epic dilemma, probably worse than adapting to progressive climate worsening.
We've just got a taste of it, when we realized the sulfur contamination by crude oil burning cargo ships was unknowingly off-setting climate effects by solar shielding, because cleaning up emissions apparently accelerated climate change. So there we have a horrible scenario: Pollute the environment or suffer rapid global warming.
Imagine the fun, if we engineered and employ a shielding "solution", intentionally. Comfortably sitting around 1.5°C, at some point, me may notice out there is some horrible chemistry happening in the upper atmosphere due to our "inert" shielding agents, where the fallout increasingly sterilizes every mammal on the planet, but we also kinda, uppsie-doopsie now additionally have 4°C worth of CO2 in the atmosphere waiting for prime time, so... stopping with the shielding emission would cause extremely rapid warming acceleration collapsing every ecosystem on the planet.
Caught between a rock and a hot plate.
We've just got a taste of it, when we realized the sulfur contamination by crude oil burning cargo ships was unknowingly off-setting climate effects by solar shielding, because cleaning up emissions apparently accelerated climate change. So there we have a horrible scenario: Pollute the environment or suffer rapid global warming.
Imagine the fun, if we engineered and employ a shielding "solution", intentionally. Comfortably sitting around 1.5°C, at some point, me may notice out there is some horrible chemistry happening in the upper atmosphere due to our "inert" shielding agents, where the fallout increasingly sterilizes every mammal on the planet, but we also kinda, uppsie-doopsie now additionally have 4°C worth of CO2 in the atmosphere waiting for prime time, so... stopping with the shielding emission would cause extremely rapid warming acceleration collapsing every ecosystem on the planet.
Caught between a rock and a hot plate.
> chemistry happening in the upper atmosphere
That's not a concern for the idea I linked, which restricts itself to the lower atmosphere, using nothing more than seawater.
That's not a concern for the idea I linked, which restricts itself to the lower atmosphere, using nothing more than seawater.
I hope you still get the point. It might have unforeseeable consequences and at some point we may end up trapped in a dilemma.
When we've gone carbon neutral, we may think about these measures to reduce the temperature a bit again, but it's just a recipe for disaster, if used to "buy some time".
When we've gone carbon neutral, we may think about these measures to reduce the temperature a bit again, but it's just a recipe for disaster, if used to "buy some time".
Against your unforeseeable consequences, I'll balance the entirely foreseeable consequences of excess heat, plus the unforeseeable consequences of excess heat. It's not like our choices are between cloud seeding and a pristine planet.
The reason we need this to buy some time is that those climate feedbacks aren't far away. We've seen in the geological record that really doesn't take much excess heat (usually from orbital variations) to kick off a warming cycle that would take things entirely out of our hands.
Simply eliminating emissions would have been a great plan, but we're beyond that now. A lot of climate scientists say the safe CO2 level is 350ppm. I remember when we blew past that and they said "ok, but seriously don't go past 400ppm." Now we're at 425ppm with emissions going strong. Solar power, electric cars, all this stuff gives me hope for the future if we can do it in time, but we're in a race and we're losing.
And it's not like this sort of cloud seeding would deploy all at once. We'd ramp up gradually and see how it goes. At the very least, we could replace the cloud cover that the article says we've eliminated over the past twenty years.
The reason we need this to buy some time is that those climate feedbacks aren't far away. We've seen in the geological record that really doesn't take much excess heat (usually from orbital variations) to kick off a warming cycle that would take things entirely out of our hands.
Simply eliminating emissions would have been a great plan, but we're beyond that now. A lot of climate scientists say the safe CO2 level is 350ppm. I remember when we blew past that and they said "ok, but seriously don't go past 400ppm." Now we're at 425ppm with emissions going strong. Solar power, electric cars, all this stuff gives me hope for the future if we can do it in time, but we're in a race and we're losing.
And it's not like this sort of cloud seeding would deploy all at once. We'd ramp up gradually and see how it goes. At the very least, we could replace the cloud cover that the article says we've eliminated over the past twenty years.
It's worth noting Neptune clouds are doing similar due to the suns 11 year solar cycle.
https://science.nasa.gov/missions/hubble/neptunes-disappeari...
AI summary; "Yes, astronomers have observed that Neptune's prominent clouds have largely disappeared, and NASA scientists suggest this phenomenon is linked to the sun's 11-year solar cycle and its impact on Neptune's atmosphere"
https://science.nasa.gov/missions/hubble/neptunes-disappeari...
AI summary; "Yes, astronomers have observed that Neptune's prominent clouds have largely disappeared, and NASA scientists suggest this phenomenon is linked to the sun's 11-year solar cycle and its impact on Neptune's atmosphere"
Oh dear, that does not sound very promising. Seems like the simulation results mentioned in this article might not be so outlandish, and rather a relevant potential worst-case scenario projection: https://www.quantamagazine.org/cloud-loss-could-add-8-degree...
We are going to need geoengineering solutions to manage solar radiation, and we are going to need to deploy them relatively soon. I don’t know if this will undo the cloud effects, but there’s no more time for screwing around.
And yet screwing around is exactly what is going to happen. We've just guaranteed four years of exacerbating the problem from one of the major greenhouse gas producers.
I'm not a fan of geoengineering, which I see as "screwing around" because we don't know nearly enough to predict its effects. Nonetheless, we may well reach a point where it cannot make things worse, and that point just became even more likely.
I'm not a fan of geoengineering, which I see as "screwing around" because we don't know nearly enough to predict its effects. Nonetheless, we may well reach a point where it cannot make things worse, and that point just became even more likely.
I don’t know if we should actually deploy geoengineering. My fear is that we will soon reach a point where we’re pretty certain that we’re headed towards a major tipping point, and even aggressive GHG reductions won’t be enough. (It’s possible that the findings in TFA are the literal representation of that realization.) We need a hail-Mary option at that point and we might need it in a hurry.
BTW I am actually cautiously optimistic about the GHG reduction piece. We’re way past where we should be at this stage, but rapid decarbonization now looks like it will be at least technically possible. Most global emissions are in China and Asia, and China is actually deploying the technology we need to eliminate those emissions. The US shouldn’t be screwing around the way it is, but I’m hopeful that what’s happening with renewable technology costs in Asia will eventually be more meaningful than any short term political interference that’s limited to the US. (This is very much a lemonade-out-of-lemons opinion, but the alternative is to be very depressed.)
BTW I am actually cautiously optimistic about the GHG reduction piece. We’re way past where we should be at this stage, but rapid decarbonization now looks like it will be at least technically possible. Most global emissions are in China and Asia, and China is actually deploying the technology we need to eliminate those emissions. The US shouldn’t be screwing around the way it is, but I’m hopeful that what’s happening with renewable technology costs in Asia will eventually be more meaningful than any short term political interference that’s limited to the US. (This is very much a lemonade-out-of-lemons opinion, but the alternative is to be very depressed.)
Wait, doesn't that mean less greenhouse effect?
Clouds have two main impacts: reflect incoming, shortwave radiation back to space and absorb (and re-radiation up and down) outgoing, longwave radiation from the surface. The interplay and relative proportion between these two impacts has long been a challenge and depends upon the cloud altitude (low/high), composition (water,ice), and optical depth.
No, greenhouse effect is mostly controlled by CO2, although water vapor plays a role. But clouds mostly act to reflect sunlight back to space, so fewer clouds will mean more warming, not less.
You are right that water is a green house gas. You are wrong to assume the only water in the air is clouds. Clouds is basically water condensation. That happens a bit less in warm air; but the water is still there. You need cool air for condensation to happen. Warm air can hold more water in gas form.
Clouds reflect light and infrared radiation from the sun. Less clouds means more of that heat gets absorbed and then trapped by green house gases. Like water.
Clouds reflect light and infrared radiation from the sun. Less clouds means more of that heat gets absorbed and then trapped by green house gases. Like water.
Water vapor in the atmosphere is complicated. At some altitudes, it causes atmospheric warming, at others, it increases albedo -- reflectivity -- and thus is cooling. Of course wrt to anthropogenic climate change the focus is usually on CO2; but man made water vapor emissions are relevant eg. in the context of air travel.
NX9mqsSv8(2)
honeybadger1(2)
My pet theory is that we are only a few decades away from turning earth into venus 2.0 at this point. It feels like we keep finding new catastrophic tipping points every few months at this point.
It is worth mentioning that we are already in the last few hundred million years of earth's lifespan -- the sun was much dimmer last time the planet had this much GHG and warming going on. We may have already set the conditions for the oceans to boil away and the heat death of our planet without massive geoengineering.
It is worth mentioning that we are already in the last few hundred million years of earth's lifespan -- the sun was much dimmer last time the planet had this much GHG and warming going on. We may have already set the conditions for the oceans to boil away and the heat death of our planet without massive geoengineering.
if it bleeds it leads.
These are climate scientists, not tabloid reporters. But don't worry, they'll be fired and silenced by the feds soon enough. Everything is fine, please ignore the rapid increase in tornados and hear waves.
> My pet theory is that we are only a few decades away from turning earth into venus 2.0 at this point. It feels like we keep finding new catastrophic tipping points every few months at this point.
Given that the glaciers should’ve all melted by now, and that we can’t even predict with certainty whether it will rain tomorrow, I wouldn’t pay much attention to predictions.
Given that the glaciers should’ve all melted by now, and that we can’t even predict with certainty whether it will rain tomorrow, I wouldn’t pay much attention to predictions.
Ever been in the famous Mer de Glace in France ? In the 1980s they had to build a cable car to descend from the old train station (which the glacier _almost_ reached at some point) to the surface level of the glacier, which had started descending. By the time they finished building the cable car, the glacier had descended so _much_ _more_ that in the 90s an extra 500 steps staircase had to be built to cover the ever-growing gap from the cable car stop to the new surface of the glacier. ~5 years ago, this gap was so large it would take an hour or so to climb up/down, so they had to build _a 2nd cable car_ to cover the new gap.
The new cable car even when it was in construction _already_ did no longer reach the glacier, as the glacier has descended another 20 steps since construction started: https://www.chamonix.net/english/news/chamonix-new-telecabin...
You can see with your own eyes not only how it is disappearing, but how much the speed at it which disappears increases year-by-year. If you ever plan to visit it, better do it so now; I find it unlikely there will be anything visitable left of it by the end of next decade.
The new cable car even when it was in construction _already_ did no longer reach the glacier, as the glacier has descended another 20 steps since construction started: https://www.chamonix.net/english/news/chamonix-new-telecabin...
You can see with your own eyes not only how it is disappearing, but how much the speed at it which disappears increases year-by-year. If you ever plan to visit it, better do it so now; I find it unlikely there will be anything visitable left of it by the end of next decade.
> we can’t even predict with certainty whether it will rain tomorrow
It is very similar to the birthday paradox - it is an order of magnitude easier to predict average weather, than the exact weather at a specific time.
Despite that, we care about the former for our long term survival, and for the latter on whether to put on a rain coat today.
It is very similar to the birthday paradox - it is an order of magnitude easier to predict average weather, than the exact weather at a specific time.
Despite that, we care about the former for our long term survival, and for the latter on whether to put on a rain coat today.
It isn't a prediction as much as it is a simple fact. Runaway greenhouse is inevitable, if we continue doing things to increase the greenhouse effect while simultaneously dropping the planet's albedo then the runaway greenhouse will happen much sooner.
Pretty much every 'breakthrough' in climate research in the last few decades has been finding new data showing we are dropping the planet's albedo much faster than expected. The biggest climate shock we have experienced in the last 20 years has been reduction in use of bunker oil fuel in ships which was masking the albedo loss from ice melt by flooding the upper atmosphere with reflective particulate pollution.
I am not worried about the increase in severe weather as much as I am worried about runaway greenhouse pretty much instantly destroying all multicellular life on the planet.
Pretty much every 'breakthrough' in climate research in the last few decades has been finding new data showing we are dropping the planet's albedo much faster than expected. The biggest climate shock we have experienced in the last 20 years has been reduction in use of bunker oil fuel in ships which was masking the albedo loss from ice melt by flooding the upper atmosphere with reflective particulate pollution.
I am not worried about the increase in severe weather as much as I am worried about runaway greenhouse pretty much instantly destroying all multicellular life on the planet.
Anyone that has revisited a glacier they visited 10-20 years ago can see with their own eyeball(s) that the glaciers might still be there, but not for long at this rate. Besides, it begs the question of who made this “prediction” to begin with (yes, the U. S. National Parks Service at Glacier NP, which they’ve since corrected after much-deserved ridicule.)
> Climate scientists now need to figure out what’s causing these cloud changes..
Only if we have enough funding for the scientists to study these important changes for the sake of future generations
Only if we have enough funding for the scientists to study these important changes for the sake of future generations
[deleted]
There is an ancient text that predicts every body of water becoming like blood.
There is an algae that flourishes in warm water that almost solidifies water into a reddish goop. That goop is much like blood.
We, society, are making this happen. And, it’s happening at a prodigious rate.
The earth’s cooling mechanisms rely upon these bodies of water. The warmer the water the greater the chances of these algal blooms.
Yay us.
There is an algae that flourishes in warm water that almost solidifies water into a reddish goop. That goop is much like blood.
We, society, are making this happen. And, it’s happening at a prodigious rate.
The earth’s cooling mechanisms rely upon these bodies of water. The warmer the water the greater the chances of these algal blooms.
Yay us.
(.pdf) https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3974146/v1/df9... ("Oceanic cloud trends during the satellite era and their radiative signatures")
I just noticed that the author of the paper has a @nasa email address, and I feel sad thinking that this kind of research won't be happening anymore soon, because Republicans don't like the truth and prefer to lie / deny / obscure the truth about climate change, rather than face it sincerely head-on.
[deleted]
The earth has dimmed 1 Watt/Meter. The loss of cloud coverage is due to Carbon Dioxide energy. It doesn’t allow cloud formation as the freezing point is increased. This CO2 effect on clouds was first published in 2017. The weather models of the 80s, 90s and oughts did not account for this. A 2019 Model showed high global temperatures by 2028-2032 in the high improbable range; however, those temperatures were experienced with a very close precision in 2024. You all can look this up.
cloud seeding?
A naive question: why is global warming bad for the earth, especially for the environmentalists? I mean I get it that it will be bad for human, but the biosphere thrived in much warmer pre-historical ages, right? Or rain forests still have the highest biodiversity nowadays, right? For people who hate human activities to preserve a thriving earth, wouldn't they welcome global warming?
On an ecological scale, it isn’t the heat that is a problem, it is the speed it is increasing.
In the past, temperature changes have been slow enough for evolution and ecological systems to adapt, but now it is happening fast enough that these systems can’t adapt fast enough.
In the past, temperature changes have been slow enough for evolution and ecological systems to adapt, but now it is happening fast enough that these systems can’t adapt fast enough.
Speed. Adaptation to change takes time, fast changes lead to mass extinctions.
And we are not in a stable situation, we don’t know wha will be the new normal, nor when it will be reached, and finding more positive feedback loops like this one put everything in the extreme side of things.
And we are not in a stable situation, we don’t know wha will be the new normal, nor when it will be reached, and finding more positive feedback loops like this one put everything in the extreme side of things.