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
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
From: planetary-...@googlegroups.com <planetary-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of robert...@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, 20 January 2026 12:40 AM
To: planetary-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [prag] Decadal Doubling of Darkening Rate
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.
--
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.
H simmens
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.
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.
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.
RobertC
Alan Kerstein
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.
rob...@rtulip.net
Reply to Robert Chris on SRM and salvation.
Hi Robert, going back to this discussion from January, you asked about my use of the term “planetary salvation”. I used this phrase to mean the stabilisation of the world climate in order to enable the ongoing flourishing of civilisation. In the passage you quoted I referred to ‘saving the world’ as a practical engineering objective. That directly refers to the human world of culture and civilization. ‘Planetary’ is also often used in this human sense that you question.
These themes have cropped up for me in two recent places, in my conversation with Eliot Jacobson about doom versus hope, and in a sermon I gave on hope. Some in the scientific community dislike religion, especially vague terms like salvation. That dislike could be interpreted as reflecting a weakness within scientific values. I am drawn to that interpretation as a provocative way to challenge the failure of the scientific community to advocate for SRM deployment, as though the future of humanity did not matter. Your suggestion that the “distinctly theological meaning and usage of the concept of salvation” may not be relevant to climate policy also reflects some of this cultural tension. Theology is grounded in the idea that caring for people is intrinsically good. We are not going to find an effective climate policy that ignores religion, in view of the significant ethical resources available within faith. My view is that old religious concepts such as saving the world can usefully be repurposed to generate social traction for effective climate policy. The ethics of science alone are not going to save us.
On your question about the numbers justifying a substitution agenda between albedo and carbon, my reply today to Tom Harris quantifies how shortwave radiative forcing (~albedo) drastically outweighs longwave RF (~carbon) as a net source of warming. That has major implications for the optimal balance between albedo and carbon as climate policy tools. There is also Hansen’s calculation that the last decade of albedo decline is equivalent to forty years of CO2 emissions. I think these numbers show that saving the world would be far better served if the climate community made a radical switch to focus mainly on albedo, just for a few years, in order to remedy the appalling imbalance of the current farcical policy which is the total opposite of Pareto optimal. That is not to “completely abandon decarbonisation”, as you wrongly put it, just to recognise that policy on albedo and carbon requires a paradigm shift with intensive dedicated moonshot resourcing to slow the avalanche of darkness.
I assume that there will be little change in ongoing emission quantity for the next two decades, based on assessments from Climate Action Tracker. Within that probable RCP, SAI at 20 megatons a year could restore Holocene temperature this century according to Doug McMartin et al. My view is that would provide the time and stability to ramp up large scale carbon mining using ocean photosynthesis, in order to reduce CO2 concentration to Holocene levels alongside ongoing emissions over the next century. For now, energy reform is mainly relevant to environment and economy, not climate. I think it likely we will find productive uses for fossil carbon at scale, such as soil and infrastructure and biomass, as well as energy density, that justify ongoing extraction, as long as we can convert more of it into useful products and sinks than we extract. I expect we will find the benefits of climate management with SRM so vastly outweigh any problems that it will continue long term to optimise agriculture and biodiversity etc and to maintain Holocene conditions for many thousands of years.
I do find the distinction you draw between world order and planet rather strained. Eliot also discussed this doomist trope, suggesting that real care for the planet, with focus on biodiversity, accepts a rapid collapse of world order on the Seneca Cliff grounds that delay only worsens suffering. I find that quite inhuman, and prefer the call from Pope Francis to integrate care for humanity and care for nature as a way of saying our world order can be redeemed. So I don’t find it ‘unhelpful’ to conflate civilization and rock as you put it. I should note that your question “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'?” wrongly mixes two overlapping but distinct groups.
In what you unkindly called my “rant”, I defined “saving the world” as “the practical strategy of a critical governance and engineering path”. That is a perfectly reasonable definition and I am sorry if it confused you. It is also perfectly reasonable to argue that people who disagree with the need for such a path don't sufficiently care about avoiding undesirable outcomes. I am not sure why you would dispute that.
Regards
Robert Tulip
--
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.
robert...@gmail.com
Hi Robert
Some quick comments.
You refer to 'the failure of the scientific community to advocate for SRM deployment, as though the future of humanity did not matter'. It isn't the scientific community's responsibility to advocate for anything. The individuals in the scientific community may, qua citizens, want to advocate for SRM, or human rights, or freedom of expression, or whatever, but that isn't the role of the scientific community. Its job is to do the science. I'll accept that they have some moral agency about what research to do but if they become advocates for policies based on their scientific work, they risk their credibility as independent impartial observers being compromised.
You say: 'Theology is grounded in the idea that caring for people is intrinsically good.' That's as maybe, but first, it doesn't follow that those who don't cleave to theology don't think that caring for people is intrinsically good. Second, my personal problem with theology is that it is actually grounded in teleology and despite strenuous efforts in my early life, I was never able to reconcile this with reality. Any explanation for anything in the natural world that is based on it being imbued with an intrinsic purpose seems to me to be an article of faith incapable of any evidential support. I see no need to resort to such devices to explain the natural world.
You say: 'I assume that there will be little change in ongoing emission quantity for the next two decades, based on assessments from Climate Action Tracker.' I agree that that is definitely plausible, if not highly probable. When I put that into WTF I get some very challenging results. Atmospheric CO2 rises to well above 500ppm by 2100 and requires significant emissions reductions and CDR thereafter to reverse that trend. The need for SRM grows accordingly. I consider it reckless to promote such a future without first assessing the implications of the high level of continuous SRM (whether by SAI or whatever) that this would require if surface temperature was to be kept close to 1.5oC (and even more so if the target were set at a more sensible <1oC). I have no time for the moral hazard argument. If the objective is overall risk reduction, it would be prudent not to take the foot of the decarbonisation accelerator. Just as we both consider it unlikely that emissions will be dramatically reduced in the short-term, I also consider it unlikely that SRM will be scaled sufficiently to avert one or more of the cascading tipping points discussed elsewhere, from tipping. The message we should be stressing is decarbonisation and reduced absorbed solar radiation, both as much and as soon as we can. Our responsibility os to get these processes underway so that those in the not too distant future can decide how much of each is actually needed. Adaptive policies will be essential so that targets and actions can be continually updated as new evidence emerges.
Does Climate Tracker work out how much SRM might be needed? I reckon that scenario would require 3Wm-2 by 2060 building to 4Wm-2 by 2300.
As I have mentioned elsewhere, I regard the point you keep making about the increasing proportion of warming coming from decreased albedo as being an interesting fact of little policy significance. Whatever the proportion and its rate of change, the requirement for SRM rests solely on the fact that it can reduce EEI faster than decarbonisation. End of. That is not a reason to substitute SRM for decarbonisation, as you have proposed, for the reasons I covered in the previous paragraph.
You might not like the Seneca Cliff notion. I had to look this up (thanks for the link!) I discover that it describes a process well covered in complex adaptive systems theory (see my PhD thesis!) that explains, with plenty of supporting evidence from the natural world, that such systems routinely grow slowly and collapse fast. Nothing new there. As to you preferring the call from Pope Francis, that's fine. We'd all like people 'to integrate care for humanity and care for nature'. Where's the evidence that such a call resonates with the current Zeitgeist sufficiently for it to take hold at scale and speed? Sadly, our capacity to devise better paths is not matched by our capacity to choose them. I have long held the view that the course of human history is like a rising saw blade. Over time there is progress but there are regular reversals, some deeper than others. I don't think that humanity is even remotely close to working out how to create a monotonic future of rising wellbeing. I once joked that we weren't sufficiently evolved yet to cope with a problem like global warming. I no longer think it was that funny; others have recently developed this theme. It is likely to the the fundamental reason that the coming climate catastrophe will not be averted. Of course, it could be. But where's the evidence that the accumulating warnings are being translated into the necessary action with the urgency and scale demanded? It doesn't take much of a frost to kill all the green shoots!
RobertC