Decadal Doubling of Darkening Rate

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Here is a graph recently published by Professor Eliot Jacobson.  It shows that the rate of darkening of the Earth is now more than doubling every decade.

 

From 2003 to 2013, the Earth darkened by 0.15%, measured by the albedo ratio falling from 29.33% to 29.18%. 

 

From 2013 to 2023, this rate doubled to 0.3%.  Since 2023, the decadal darkening rate is 0.66%, more than double again.

 

In watts per square meter per decade, these numbers equate to half a watt  more heat absorption in the decade to 2013, one watt to 2023, and over two watts since 2023.

 

It appears plausible that this darkening trend will continue to accelerate as forcings and feedbacks increase.  Darkening is a primary planetary security emergency.

 

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

[robert...@gmail.com]

Hi all

This chart that RobertT has brought to our attention is truly troubling.  There's more material on Jacobson's website that just piles on the pressure.

I don't know about others, but I'm becoming inured to this burgeoning stream of climate bad news.  All it's doing is just confirming what we've all known for some time.  I find it hard to see how more bad news of this type is going to make much difference.

The key words there are 'of this type'.  The problem seems to be that most people, and that includes members of the global elite who actually have the power to do something about climate change, seem to struggle to make a link between this flow of data signalling how we're accelerating down a calamitous path and the need for urgent action.  The lesson I think we have to learn from this is that until the harms from climate change happen at sufficient economic scale, there's little incentive for these elites to spring into action.

It's not like this information isn't readily available.  It seems implausible that government advisers and decision makers aren't aware.  The inaction can only be understood as a matter of priorities.  Climate change isn't yet at the top of the list, or even that close to it.  Right now Greenland is!  How nonsensical is that?

If we want to avoid climate harms occurring at a scale that would finally provoke the elites into action, we need a different strategy.  What we're doing now clearly isn't working.

Regards

RobertC

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/011f01dc8908%24cd980cf0%2468c826d0%24%40rtulip.net.

[Robert Chris]

A further quick comment.

It'll be fascinating to see how big a role, if any, climate change plays in this year's World Economic Forum about to start in Davos.

Regards

RobertC

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Hi Robert,

 

This decadal doubling of darkness is quite different from the usual doom messages.  It illustrates quite vividly that nothing we do about carbon can possibly make any difference to the accelerating decline of planetary reflectivity, and therefore to the resulting absorption of heat which now well outstrips the heating from the greenhouse effect from new emissions.

 

But it makes it perfectly reasonable to be optimistic about a sudden paradigm shift to deploy sunlight reflection methods.  All it needs is a good story.

 

A simple calculation is that the greenhouse effect from new emissions adds about 0.04 w/m² to planetary heating each year (IPCC p3).  This latest CERES data confirms that the current annual albedo heating rate is now over 0.2 w/m².  0.2 = 0.04 x 5.  That means albedo loss is causing five times as much direct heating as new emissions, on a first approximation.  Feedbacks far outstrip forcings five to one. Hello Pareto?

 

This is an emotional and psychological and scientific and political catastrophe for the current climate action paradigm, which is thoroughly obsolete, with its dangerously false and unscientific mass delusion that energy reform is more important than sunlight reflection as a climate strategy.

 

My call is to recognise that planetary salvation requires deployment of solar geoengineering as a substitute for decarbonisation.  This view is generally dismissed out of hand on the basis that no one promotes it and of course it is obviously wrong.  Obviously many people dislike the concept of saving the world, so of course are unwilling to discuss it other than in vague metaphorical terms rather than the practical strategy of a critical governance and engineering path.   Such a path requires a pause on emission reduction in order to create oxygen for albedo.

 

The arguments and data about this entire topic of planetary darkening are simply ignored, not only in mass media but also in academic climate literature, except among pariahs like Hansen.  This is an extreme moral and intellectual scandal, vastly worsening the difficulties and suffering from climate change.

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/99eb1347-96d0-44be-ac41-2f7ed9327257%40gmail.com.

[H simmens]

From what I can gather reading the posts by the two Roberts’s the theory of change (ToC) that Chris articulates is “that until the harms from climate change happen at sufficient economic scale, there's little incentive for these elites to spring into action.”

Whereas the ToC that Tulip articulates requires a “ sudden paradigm shift to deploy sunlight reflection methods. All it needs is a good story.”

Two very different ToC. 

Any other ToC out there? 

I would comment that the Climate communication literature while quite diverse and even contradictory does seem to agree on three characteristics that effective climate communication requires:

Clear simple message

Repeated over and over again

Delivered by highly trusted messengers 

Regarding the ToC that requires large scale economic harms that obviously is as yet not demonstrated or proven. 

Nor can it be I would thinkunless and until those harms materialize. 

(Some may say those economic harms have already materialized. I saw a recent analysis that estimated that the United States alone has experienced on the order of $1 trillion in climate related direct and indirect damages.)

Is there any research or empirical evidence or historic analogy that supports your ToC Robert C or yours Robert T? 

If and until HPAC and others on these lists coalesce around an agreed-upon ToC and develop an action plan based upon the agreed-upon ToC our efforts will continue to have marginal impact at best. 

Herb

Herb Simmens

Author  of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

“A wonderful achievement, a SciencePoem, an Inspiration, a Prophecy, also hilarious, Dive in and see"

 Kim Stanley Robinson

@herbsimmens

On Jan 19, 2026, at 9:41 AM, rob...@rtulip.net wrote:



 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/011f01dc8908%24cd980cf0%2468c826d0%24%40rtulip.net.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/99eb1347-96d0-44be-ac41-2f7ed9327257%40gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/010c01dc8951%24b5a4b960%2420ee2c20%24%40rtulip.net.

[Douglas Grandt]

Robert,   (MikeM and DougM see below)

Fortunately, or unfortunately, Google news notified me of the phys.org article :

Jan 12, 2026

• Earth
 
• Earth Sciences

• Earth
 
• Environment

 The GIST

Atmospheric physicists find error in widely cited Arctic snow cover observations

by Chris Sasaki, University of Toronto

Which led me to the paper published in the journal Science Advances:

Determining the cause of inconsistent onset-season trends in the Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent record

And now, I read your email.

I'm becoming inured to this burgeoning stream of climate bad news.

 I agree with your admonition:

we need a different strategy.

So at risk of exacerbating your consternation, I’m addressing MikeM and DougM as to their qualitative assessment “how significant is this discovery … fractions or orders of magnitude?”

I suspect the former, in which case it’s irrelevant in terms of strategy.

Perhaps their assessment, or Dr. Chris’ insights will put this new discovery aside 

The only [quantitative] aspect of the paper that I recognized was “student t” and that dates back five decades (Dr. Sheffé, Statistics 201, UC Berkeley ca. 1968) 

Cheers,

Doug Grandt 

Sent from my iPhone (audio texting)

On Jan 19, 2026, at 8:40 AM, robert...@gmail.com wrote:



Hi all

This chart that RobertT has brought to our attention is truly troubling.  There's more material on Jacobson's website that just piles on the pressure.

I don't know about others, but I'm becoming inured to this burgeoning stream of climate bad news.  All it's doing is just confirming what we've all known for some time.  I find it hard to see how more bad news of this type is going to make much difference.

The key words there are 'of this type'.  The problem seems to be that most people, and that includes members of the global elite who actually have the power to do something about climate change, seem to struggle to make a link between this flow of data signalling how we're accelerating down a calamitous path and the need for urgent action.  The lesson I think we have to learn from this is that until the harms from climate change happen at sufficient economic scale, there's little incentive for these elites to spring into action.

It's not like this information isn't readily available.  It seems implausible that government advisers and decision makers aren't aware.  The inaction can only be understood as a matter of priorities.  Climate change isn't yet at the top of the list, or even that close to it.  Right now Greenland is!  How nonsensical is that?

If we want to avoid climate harms occurring at a scale that would finally provoke the elites into action, we need a different strategy.  What we're doing now clearly isn't working.

Regards

RobertC

On 19/01/2026 05:59, rob...@rtulip.net wrote:

Here is a graph recently published by Professor Eliot Jacobson.  It shows that the rate of darkening of the Earth is now more than doubling every decade.

 

From 2003 to 2013, the Earth darkened by 0.15%, measured by the albedo ratio falling from 29.33% to 29.18%. 

 

From 2013 to 2023, this rate doubled to 0.3%.  Since 2023, the decadal darkening rate is 0.66%, more than double again.

 

In watts per square meter per decade, these numbers equate to half a watt  more heat absorption in the decade to 2013, one watt to 2023, and over two watts since 2023.

 

It appears plausible that this darkening trend will continue to accelerate as forcings and feedbacks increase.  Darkening is a primary planetary security emergency.

 

<image001.jpg>

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/011f01dc8908%24cd980cf0%2468c826d0%24%40rtulip.net.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/99eb1347-96d0-44be-ac41-2f7ed9327257%40gmail.com.

[robert...@gmail.com]

HI Herb

I wasn't promoting the idea that change doesn't happen until after disaster has struck although I think there is good theory behind such a proposition.  I was merely observing that what we're doing now isn't working so we need to think outside the box.

As to the theory behind disaster first, change second, I think that complex adaptive systems theory provides just that.  I've dealt with this before and not got much interest so I won't go through it again in detail here.  But all these ideas are contestable because change occurs all the time for many different reasons in many different circumstances.  So looking for the Mother of All Theories of Change is a bit of a waste of time.  Let me give you just one simple example of when collapse was a sufficient trigger of structural change, although it may not have been necessary.

The so-called rules-based order that emerged after WWII, building on earlier unsuccessful attempts following WWI, arose because the international order had been broken by the two wars and the geopolitical circumstances favoured a regeneration.  In the 80 years since then, that rules-based order has become increasingly fragile because nations have learned how to exploit it to their advantage and do not want to see that advantage undermined by changes that would rebalance power in favour of others.  This is basis of Realism in international affairs.  That resistance to change causes the system to become increasingly unstable so that when it receives a sufficient shock, its resilience is overcome and it collapses.  That collapses, again creates the circumstances for a regeneration.  Of course, there's no guarantee that that regeneration will be fairer than its predecessor, but it will be more stable, at least at the outset.  In due course, it will also collapse.  We have short memories.  And so the cycle continues.

In brief, the success of a system is that it enables the accumulation of power and capital.  Those that control that power and wealth increasingly work to protect and conserve it.  That conservation introduces inequities in the system that eventually grow to undermine its resilience - the system becomes 'an accident waiting to happen'.  Sooner or later an external shock will arrive that is sufficient to tip the system into collapse mode.  You only know you've got there after it's happened because beforehand, it's always possible that those conserving their power and wealth will realise that less of it is better than none of it, so they willingly (and probably grudgingly) relinquish some of what they have to others to restabilise the system by strengthening its resilience to shocks that, by definition, have yet to happen.

So, going back to your comments about theories of change, there's always more than one way to do anything.  The challenge is to find the right balance between effectiveness and benignity.  What we have right now in regard to climate change is that it fails on both counts.

Regards

Robert

[robert...@gmail.com]

Hi Robert

Let me highlight this comment from you below:

My call is to recognise that planetary salvation requires deployment of solar geoengineering as a substitute for decarbonisation.  This view is generally dismissed out of hand on the basis that no one promotes it and of course it is obviously wrong.  Obviously many people dislike the concept of saving the world, so of course are unwilling to discuss it other than in vague metaphorical terms rather than the practical strategy of a critical governance and engineering path.   Such a path requires a pause on emission reduction in order to create oxygen for albedo.

I'd be interested to see the numbers on which you base the claim that 'planetary salvation requires deployment of solar geoengineering as a substitute for decarbonisation'.  What emissions trajectory are you assuming?  How quickly would the SRM need to be ramped up to what level to ensure 'planetary salvation'?  For how long would the SRM need to be continued?  When, if ever, would decarbonisation become relevant? 

What is 'planetary salvation'?  The planet has undergone changes much more radical than those it now faces, why does it now need salvation?  'Salvation' has a distinctly theological meaning and usage, how is that relevant here?  Why do you use this word rather than more secular terms that refer to risk reduction or minimising harm?  If you're really referring to humanity, or life in general, it would be better to talk about that rather than 'the planet'.  If you're really just talking about preserving the current geopolitical world order and the current global economic system, again, it's unhelpful to talk about 'the planet'.

On what basis do you claim that those that dismiss out of hand the idea of abandoning decarbonisation in favour of SRM, dislike the concept of 'saving the world'?  Is your claim simply that disagreeing with you is sufficient proof that such people don't care about avoiding whatever the undesirable outcomes you're alluding to may be?

You may well have some valid points in here but unfortunately, if there are any, they get lost in the rant.  

There probably isn't anyone on this list that doesn't understand that SRM is now necessary.  That doesn't need to be laboured in this group.  Whether it's sufficient, allowing us to completely abandon decarbonisation, is an entirely different matter.  That's a worthwhile question to consider but it needs to be done through sound argument, not polemic.

Regards

RobertC

[Michael MacCracken]

Hi Doug G--First, a very good example of how discrepancies lead to closer looks for reconciliation help advance understanding and generally reduce uncertainties. There are lots of examples of this happening--it is often how science advances.

On the importance of this change, I'd say very modest, except to say it was interesting how precise the measurements are interpreted given how limited the resolution is--snow in our area first accumulates on the grass with its low heat capacity and only later on roads, which are often dark, perhaps a bit warmer, but have greater heat capacity (thermal conductivity).

The season and latitude they are talking about has relatively low sun angle and so the change in albedo effect is likely very small and and greater or lesser amount of heat associated with the change is likely quickly radiated away. The inputs to the change in global average temperature are changes in the average of the maximum and minimum daily temperatures, and the small amount of snow they are talking about would likely lead to very small changes in either value even if timing might end up being slightly different. I any case, observations don't go into the model simulations, so this would have no effect on them.

In my view, very nice and detailed job in clearing up a strange discrepancy in observational data. When a "show-me-the-proof" colleague of mine at Livermore from Missouri (the show me state) came out with an article titled "Which Should You Believe, Models or Data", for himself arguing data, my comments were that, first, scientists should not "believe" anything--they should be convinced by the evidence, and second, they should be equally skeptical of both, models and data.

Best, Mike

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/BFDD0A3E-6BB8-421B-A875-865FDE238476%40mac.com.

[Michael MacCracken]

Dear Roberts C and T--Just an observation that albedo does not tell the whole story. For example, Venus has a very high albedo and yet a surface temperature that melts lead (or something like that). Its albedo is so high that it absorbs less solar radiation per square meter than the Earth even though it is much closer to the Sun. That this is the case is a result of its GHG concentration. So, just to note, that one has to be thinking about both.

On what it will take some major disaster to convince the elites, one problem with this argument is that the disasters tend to be geographically concentrated and so any given one at most seems to strike only a very few of the decision-making elite (collapse of a major ice stream and prospective sea level rise of a meter of more in a few decades may be an exception--but by then it would be too late). A second problem is that the integrated assessment models tend to estimate the cost to the global economy in decades ahead as only a few per cent (so roughly equivalent to one year's growth in the economy over a 50 to 100 year period) so is this really catastrophic for the elite when annual raises may more than make up for the loss.

The retired business colleague with whom I have been discussing the issue for over a decade has a view that we really do need to look to two other potential drivers: greed and family safety, so the first has to do with the potential for the new technologies becoming the basis for the largest new companies as the fossil fuel companies fade and the second key for the elites is preserving intergenerational wealth and family safety (as he notes, think about what is important and would convince the Rothchilds of the world).

Personally, likely too idealistically and less cynically than my colleague who is also likely much more realistic, I'm hopeful that what will incentivize the transition is more cost effective technologies that will drive the old technologies from the field--and these seem to be coming, so we need climate intervention to shave off excessive warming until this can happen.

Best, Mike

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/99eb1347-96d0-44be-ac41-2f7ed9327257%40gmail.com.

[Paul Klinkman]

So what is 'planetary salvation'? 

My first solution, for turning smaller strips of Greenland's 3000 meter high ice sheet whiter on top, is a collection of perhaps 100 wind-powered buoys that spray mist into the near-surface ocean air, creating far more humidity than normal.  The slightly cooled remaining mist particles fall back into the ocean, cooling the local ocean slightly.  A rather narrow river of humid air gets blown by a prevailing breeze onto Greenland and up the ice sheet.  It condenses over a strip of Greenland's ice sheet, adding a few centimeters of new white snowfall over the current sun-concentrated soot.  The breeze shifts direction and another strip of Greenland turns whiter.   After perhaps two weeks the array of buoys is towed to a different spot to cover more of Greenland.  https://klinkmansolar.com/knightfog.htm#U4d

My second tool is a tiny, cheap pump to enhance midwinter Arctic ice formation.   https://klinkmansolar.com/kfrozen.htm#R3

My third tool is an air tube that channels humid air up a mountainside to restore a summer-long glacier on the mountain's peak. https://klinkmansolar.com/kchimney.htm

The advantage of local brightening of the earth through snow or ice is that local populations often reap some of the benefit.  If some local population wants to cut off their nose to spite their face, meh.  

Yours,

Paul Klinkman

[Alan Kerstein]

Herb,

You are asking exactly the right question. Here’s my ToC in the context of the albedo history data posted by Robert T, following up on extensive previous discussion of albedo.

I agree in principle with Robert T’s point that all it needs is a good story, but there are some devilish details to sort out. It’s one thing to convince people who are predisposed to buy into the evidence and implications of albedo decline, but another to convince people who will suffer from cognitive dissonance when confronted with this. The latter is the crucial first step. You mention trusted messengers, so the immediate need is for a trusted messenger within the climate science community to be willing at least to endorse the claimed evidence and implications of the scientific findings if asked, if not to actively advocate in this regard. Obvious candidates are Jim Hansen and people in his orbit. Unless someone like that is willing to be at least minimally supportive, then I don’t see a path forward.

Assuming success in this regard, then it is of utmost importance to keep the focus solely on the science and to maintain absolute silence on the policy implications. This gives current opponents of SRM a face-saving way of acknowledging the new scientific findings without embroiling the process with emotive elements that unavoidably involve subjective judgments that muddy the waters. Here I’m assuming that there is at least some significant portion of the scientific community that will assess the evidence objectively and that the salience of the albedo problem will thereby become a mainstream viewpoint if not the dominant viewpoint.

At that stage, the need to address the albedo problem will be an unavoidable corollary, and those who are not determined to die on the hill of ERA will be able to assert, without losing face, that new scientific evidence requires a revision of policy priorities with regard to addressing climate change. HPAC can then re-engage in the policy arena to the extent that opportunities to add value to the policy effort are identified. It’s hard to speculate now about what form that might take because it will depend on presently unforeseeable global developments. So I advise approaching the situation with ‘strategic patience.’

Alan

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/3423dec2-046a-4c71-9f7e-c5c1ae1d6b07%40gmail.com.