You seem to be heading for the idea of seeding the atmosphere with SOx (or equivalent technologies) to increase albedo and reduce temperatures. I suspect such a project is high on the Tech Bros list in America, not least to justify their continuing the use of fossil fuels. I am scared of the unknown consequences of such actions on the World's weather, but also recognise that if environmental catastrophe is inevitable, there will come a point when desperate measures will be tried.
On that basis, some years ago I devised a way of getting warm wet air into the atmosphere in large quantities and very cheaply (i used to invent things, with some success). At the time it was a project to create additional rainfall on African coastlines so that a coastal belt of trees could thrive long enough that they would, in turn, increase rainfall in the interior of the coastal countries (As happened in Les Landes in France in the 1800's).
But I am still confused whether putting additional humidity into the atmosphere would act as a CO2 equivalent and raise temperatures, or increase albedo and reduce them. Your thoughts?
All that said, and as you already know, my feelings are that recent methane clathrate escapes in the Arctic and Antarctic are the signal the tipping point for massive methane clathrate releases because of warmer oceans has now been reached. I have realised that all the methane trapped undersea in sediments is in an uniquely delicate situation; it is held in place by water pressure and cold sea temperature that have been relatively constant for hundreds or thousand of years, and any variations have been tiny. In any location that didn't have sufficient pressure or cold enough water, the methane would already have been released. Whilst water pressure is still constant, the sea temperatures are rising, and rising faster in the Arctic and Antarctic. So ALL methane clathrates are on a hairline trigger, and the first indication of that will be with the increasing warmth in the polar seas. Like now, with recent announcements of major methane releases at sea in the Arctic and Antarctic.
So whilst I used to think that any future methane releases would track like CO2 releases, gradually over time, that is actually completely wrong. Once the seas increase in temperature by a small amount, that will trigger massive methane releases all across the globe, with immediate climate heating and more releases. A runaway feedback.
> But I am still confused whether putting additional humidity into the atmosphere would act as a CO2 equivalent and raise temperatures, or increase albedo and reduce them.
When underwater volcanoes like Hunga Tonga erupt, they release water vapor and sulfur oxides that function as opposing climate forces—a natural Yin and Yang. Both are fairly short term climate forcings in the opposite directions, although water vapors impact in this scenario decays faster. Also in this Yin and Yang ratio of a volcano impacts, the composition varies. For example, some eruptions have less SOx in a given eruption.
Amazing these technological reforms all based on the Green Arithmetic of Capitalism. Also amazing these temperature charts by climate science which totally discount the exponential rise of Capitalist exploitation, cheapening of Nature and a mass loot of the entire the planet in the name of civilization building. Is why bourgeois climate reform like this utterly fails to get anywhere, worse always devoted to Capitalism and exploitation. Keep recording the temperature and CO2 levels with a bunch of machines. Why is such a great abstraction after all.
We have a lot of correlational data because the causal process is at the edge of understanding. This suggests to me that we are still struggling to catch up in understanding what we have caused. It appears that tracking over the last twenty years has been consistently underestimating the composite temperature increase. Hansen is closest to reality with emerging hard data. But each year forces to wait, with bated breath, for the worse expectation to become reality.
If we see 2 degrees C in 2027-28 with our current political collapse, I cannot imagine the level of social insanity we will face. We have no historical records equivalent to this.
I'm a retired physician/psychiatrist with a BA in chemistry, so no climate scientist, but a fundamental rule in science is this: correlation is not causation. So, it seems to me that this post is full of correlation data and no causation data. I follow C3S and Hansen, both of whom have recently published articles with hard measurements of GAST increases of 0.4 degC over the past 2 yrs., '23-'24, so that's an average annual increase of 0.2 degC. ON THIS TRENDLINE, we may see 2 degC GAST by 2027, 3 degC by 2032, and the extinction level of 5 degC by 2042, 17 yrs. hence. Any HS kid can extrapolate these numbers and reach a similar hypothetical projection, but just imagine the future facing that kid? Let's see what this summer brings, but Phoenix has already seen 99 degF a couple of days ago.
An honest scientist with moral courage and refusing to surrender truth to ideology would clarify that "correlation is not necessarily causation" - not deliberately weaponizing a false cliche.
Really really excellent exposition. Did you cover the Hunga Tonga injection of water vapor into the upper atmosphere? What effects? I read somewhere that there are soil temp measurements and they are also recording all time highs.
Right now everyone is talking politics and I completely understand why. But we must not forget that the true existential threat is the global warming. I am posting this over to Bluesky where there is a large community of people who share our concerns.
The world is without what is one’s own, one must go on having left all behind.
The world is incomplete, insatiate, the slave of craving.”
“Great king, these are the four summaries of the Dhamma that have been taught by the Blessed One who knows and sees, accomplished and fully enlightened. Knowing and seeing and hearing them, I went forth from the home life into homelessness.”
You mentioned somewhere (I came back now and tried searching for it but couldn't find it) that the lessening of cloud formation could lead to a 0.8 °C temperature rise.
Here's an article on climate science claiming a potential +8C rise. Did you perchance misremember/typo the decimal point? Do you have a strong opinion on the matter? I'm very curious because of the utter destruction of our climate with an additional 8 °C rise.
Good post, Richard, as always. Thank you.
You seem to be heading for the idea of seeding the atmosphere with SOx (or equivalent technologies) to increase albedo and reduce temperatures. I suspect such a project is high on the Tech Bros list in America, not least to justify their continuing the use of fossil fuels. I am scared of the unknown consequences of such actions on the World's weather, but also recognise that if environmental catastrophe is inevitable, there will come a point when desperate measures will be tried.
On that basis, some years ago I devised a way of getting warm wet air into the atmosphere in large quantities and very cheaply (i used to invent things, with some success). At the time it was a project to create additional rainfall on African coastlines so that a coastal belt of trees could thrive long enough that they would, in turn, increase rainfall in the interior of the coastal countries (As happened in Les Landes in France in the 1800's).
But I am still confused whether putting additional humidity into the atmosphere would act as a CO2 equivalent and raise temperatures, or increase albedo and reduce them. Your thoughts?
All that said, and as you already know, my feelings are that recent methane clathrate escapes in the Arctic and Antarctic are the signal the tipping point for massive methane clathrate releases because of warmer oceans has now been reached. I have realised that all the methane trapped undersea in sediments is in an uniquely delicate situation; it is held in place by water pressure and cold sea temperature that have been relatively constant for hundreds or thousand of years, and any variations have been tiny. In any location that didn't have sufficient pressure or cold enough water, the methane would already have been released. Whilst water pressure is still constant, the sea temperatures are rising, and rising faster in the Arctic and Antarctic. So ALL methane clathrates are on a hairline trigger, and the first indication of that will be with the increasing warmth in the polar seas. Like now, with recent announcements of major methane releases at sea in the Arctic and Antarctic.
So whilst I used to think that any future methane releases would track like CO2 releases, gradually over time, that is actually completely wrong. Once the seas increase in temperature by a small amount, that will trigger massive methane releases all across the globe, with immediate climate heating and more releases. A runaway feedback.
I suspect we will find out very soon.
> But I am still confused whether putting additional humidity into the atmosphere would act as a CO2 equivalent and raise temperatures, or increase albedo and reduce them.
When underwater volcanoes like Hunga Tonga erupt, they release water vapor and sulfur oxides that function as opposing climate forces—a natural Yin and Yang. Both are fairly short term climate forcings in the opposite directions, although water vapors impact in this scenario decays faster. Also in this Yin and Yang ratio of a volcano impacts, the composition varies. For example, some eruptions have less SOx in a given eruption.
Amazing these technological reforms all based on the Green Arithmetic of Capitalism. Also amazing these temperature charts by climate science which totally discount the exponential rise of Capitalist exploitation, cheapening of Nature and a mass loot of the entire the planet in the name of civilization building. Is why bourgeois climate reform like this utterly fails to get anywhere, worse always devoted to Capitalism and exploitation. Keep recording the temperature and CO2 levels with a bunch of machines. Why is such a great abstraction after all.
We have a lot of correlational data because the causal process is at the edge of understanding. This suggests to me that we are still struggling to catch up in understanding what we have caused. It appears that tracking over the last twenty years has been consistently underestimating the composite temperature increase. Hansen is closest to reality with emerging hard data. But each year forces to wait, with bated breath, for the worse expectation to become reality.
If we see 2 degrees C in 2027-28 with our current political collapse, I cannot imagine the level of social insanity we will face. We have no historical records equivalent to this.
This mirrors my concerns. Also newly discovered methane leaks are a wild card.
Spot on there. Agreed.
I'm a retired physician/psychiatrist with a BA in chemistry, so no climate scientist, but a fundamental rule in science is this: correlation is not causation. So, it seems to me that this post is full of correlation data and no causation data. I follow C3S and Hansen, both of whom have recently published articles with hard measurements of GAST increases of 0.4 degC over the past 2 yrs., '23-'24, so that's an average annual increase of 0.2 degC. ON THIS TRENDLINE, we may see 2 degC GAST by 2027, 3 degC by 2032, and the extinction level of 5 degC by 2042, 17 yrs. hence. Any HS kid can extrapolate these numbers and reach a similar hypothetical projection, but just imagine the future facing that kid? Let's see what this summer brings, but Phoenix has already seen 99 degF a couple of days ago.
An honest scientist with moral courage and refusing to surrender truth to ideology would clarify that "correlation is not necessarily causation" - not deliberately weaponizing a false cliche.
Really really excellent exposition. Did you cover the Hunga Tonga injection of water vapor into the upper atmosphere? What effects? I read somewhere that there are soil temp measurements and they are also recording all time highs.
Right now everyone is talking politics and I completely understand why. But we must not forget that the true existential threat is the global warming. I am posting this over to Bluesky where there is a large community of people who share our concerns.
“The world is unstable and swept away.
The world is shelterless and without a protector.
The world is without what is one’s own, one must go on having left all behind.
The world is incomplete, insatiate, the slave of craving.”
“Great king, these are the four summaries of the Dhamma that have been taught by the Blessed One who knows and sees, accomplished and fully enlightened. Knowing and seeing and hearing them, I went forth from the home life into homelessness.”
You mentioned somewhere (I came back now and tried searching for it but couldn't find it) that the lessening of cloud formation could lead to a 0.8 °C temperature rise.
Here's an article on climate science claiming a potential +8C rise. Did you perchance misremember/typo the decimal point? Do you have a strong opinion on the matter? I'm very curious because of the utter destruction of our climate with an additional 8 °C rise.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/cloud-loss-could-add-8-degrees-to-global-warming-20190225/
So I guess 1.6 C is no big deal, there's barely any slowdown in economy or quality of life in most countries.
Well, for example the Arctic ice is melting at record speed so the total negative effects of the current warming has not been seen just yet.