Birdnow's Aviary

June 23, 2026

It's the Albedo Stupid!

Timothy Birdnow

Lookie here; A new study shows that the sea level in Chile' during the mid Holocene was yards higher than it is now!

All that without carbon dioxide from emissions warming the planet!

From the paper:

Field observations of past sea-level variations are needed to validate models predicting future sea

level rise. Along tectonically active coasts, separating tectonic and non-tectonic sea-level components

is challenging as both have similar amplitudes but necessary to decipher sea-level histories driven

by climate forcing. Here, we present a new framework to decipher Holocene sea-level changes

using marine terraces–geomorphic features formed by wave erosion of bedrock–mapped with high

resolution LiDAR data and numerical modelling. Applied to 266 sites along 500 km of central Chilean

coast, we found that Holocene terrace elevations linearly correlate with Late Pleistocene terrace

elevations, evidencing steady-state tectonics over the past 125,000 years. This proof of steady

state uplift allows subtracting tectonic components from Holocene elevations using uplift rates

from Pleistocene terraces. We find that during the mid-Holocene, sea level reached 3.18 ± 0.15 m

above modern elevation, only 0.33 m below glacial isostatic model predictions with 2·1020 Pa·s

mantle viscosity. We validated this relationship by reproducing Holocene terrace elevations using a

landscape evolution model and glacial isostatic sea-level curves. Our results suggest that accounting

for millennial-scale vertical land motion rates that average many seismic cycles may improve future

relative sea-level change projections, highlighting the potential of rocky-shore geomorphology for sea

level research along tectonically active coastlines.

How can that be if the planet is warmer now than in all of history and yet the sea level is lower than back in the mid Holocene?

Well, the paper explains it so read the whole thing. The point is it had nothing to do with atmospheric carbon dioxide then and it has nothing to do with it now.

Meanwhile changes in clouds led to climate warming in Krakow:

"…the main factor driving the rise in temperature after 1988 was also a radical increase in sunshine. These results indicate the fundamental role of changes in cloud structure, and consequently sunshine, in shaping the observed rise in air temperature.”

"The regression analysis revealed that the variability of the three considered factors – SD, the intensity of the western circulation in winter (NAO), and radiative forcing (∆F) – completely explained (within the estimation errors) the observed increase in annual air temperature in Kraków.”

So at least in Poland the decline in cloud cover has caused warming. One suspects that decline is the cause of most if not all planetary warming we've seen since 1980.

I would add that climate change theory says there should be MORE couds as warming from CO2 should evaporate more water vapor, making clouds more common. They aren't. They have been declining for decades. And while it's hard to determine if there is more or less rainfall the data we have show no increase in rain, which is what one would expect from a carbon dioxide-drive warming. Fewer clouds, no increase in rainfall, and some modest warming. What does that tell us?

According to NOAA, which has always fudged data and has an ax to grind, precipitation increased worldwide by a whopping 0.003 percent between 1901 and 2023. That is clearly statistically insignificant and is likelly a result of changes in measuring techniques over the years and data smoothing. It was just a little more in the U.S. at 0.018 . Given this is being recorded by the same data stations that Anthony Watts one must question even this very modest increase in precipitation.

In fact research suggests the Earth's land areas are [linkhttps://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adq6529]drying out rather than getting water logged as woulld be the case if the theory is correct.

It tells me that the idea that carbon dioxide is the primary driver of planetary warming is wrong.

Another study suggests that this is happening in Brazil as well.

The drop in planetary albedo, or reflectivity, is generally blamed on a loss of ice in the polar regions but in fact most of it is a result of the drop in cloud cover. Clouds reflect sunlight and we are seeing fewer of them in the last few years.

Check out the graph here. It shows the drop in planetary albed over the years. This shows the decline in planetary albedo since the year 2000 (and one wonders if it hasn't been ongoing since 1980 but the graph does not go back that far). Naturally the paper blames carbon dioxide for the decline but theere is no proof of that and really no good explanation of how increased planetary carbon dioxide could cause a drop in cloud cover. It should increase it by the basic tenants of the theory.

The paper states:

Earth’s albedo (or reflectivity) is the portion (percent) of incoming solar radiation that is reflected back

to space. As shown in Fig. 1, in the period of precise satellite data (since early 2000), Earth’s albedo has

decreased about 0.5%. We described this change as a BFD6,7 because it has staggering implications.

Solar radiation reaching Earth is about 340 W/m2, averaged over Earth’s surface, so the 0.5% albedo

decrease is a 1.7 W/m increase of absorbed solar energy, much larger than the estimated potential drift2

(<0.085 W/m2 per decade) of the satellite data.

A 1.7 W/m2 increase of absorbed solar energy is huge. If it were a climate forcing, it would be

equivalent to a CO2 increase of 138 ppm,5 but most of this albedo change must be climate feedback. Of

the two substantial long-term climate forcings – human-made greenhouse gases (GHGs) and aerosols –

the effect of GHGs on Earth’s albedo is negligible, as GHG absorption in the solar spectrum is weak.

"Direct” aerosol forcing – i.e., change of the reflection and absorption of sunlight by aerosol change per

se – is also small, at most ~0.1 W/m2. The only substantial climate forcing affecting Earth’s albedo is the

"indirect” aerosol forcing that occurs via the effect of aerosols on cloud formation and cloud brightness.

IPCC estimates this indirect aerosol forcing change in the past 25 years as only about +0.1 W/m2, while

we – based on the geographical and temporal change of absorbed solar radiation – estimate a larger

aerosol forcing, +0.5 W/m2, due to reduced aerosol emissions from ships and thus reduced cloud cover.

The upshot is that most of the 1.7 W/m2 increase of energy absorbed by Earth must be due to climate

feedbacks. Using our estimate of aerosol forcing, ~1.2 W/m2 of increased absorption is climate feedback

(Fig. 2), while, if IPCC’s estimate of the aerosol forcing were correct, feedbacks would be >1.5 W/m2.

In either case, the huge increase of absorbed energy must be provided by some combination of the two

climate feedbacks that significantly alter Earth’s albedo: (1) change of the surface albedo, which is due

mainly to change of sea ice area, and (2) change of clouds. The sea ice change is readily identified in

satellite data and the resulting regional change of Earth’s albedo is accurately measured, amounting to5

0.15 W/m2 in the period 2000-2024, averaged over Earth’s surface. Thus, the one remaining feedback

that affects Earth’s albedo – the cloud feedback – is very large. Rounding off, if our estimate of the

aerosol forcing is right, the cloud feedback is increasing the flux of energy into the Earth system by an

amount that has increased ~1 W/m2 in the past 25 years. If IPCC’s estimate of the aerosol forcing were

right, the cloud feedback has increased the flux of energy into the system by ~1.5 W/m2. In either case,

the cloud feedback is so large that it rules out a climate sensitivity so low as IPCC’s best estimate of 3°C

for doubled CO2, as we show below. The simplest way to understand this is to use Charney’s approach:

consider the equilibrium climate response to the large (4 W/m2) doubled CO2 climate forcing.

Yet the authors of this never once wonder if it is the drop in albedo that is driving climate change and not carbon dioxide.

Here is another paper showing how a dearth of clouds causes planetary warming.

And the Earth's albedo also has changed as a result of urbanization aka the Urban Heat Island Effect. See here.

Humans have definitely caused warming as a result of land use change. Cut down a forest and build a city and you warm the climate locally - and that is figured into the whoe planetary temperature as divined by NOAA and NASA and the Hadley Center in Britain.

Planetary albedo has been dropping since the 1070's when the climate change alarmism began.

One of the reasons for this may well be a reduction in atmospheric aerosols. In other words, we did it to ourselves because the environmentalists made us quit emitting particlates.

Whatever the cause it's clear that the drop in planetary albedo is real and is causing planetary warming. Coupe that with the other non- carbon dioxide reasons - like land use changes (as Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. long argued) and other, less understood things like the drop in the planetary magnetic field, and the role of carbon dioxide becomes increasingly thin. It is much like the old Medieval argument over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. In the end Nature rules and the Gang Green who support the alarmism drool.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 03:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1568 words, total size 12 kb.

Hide Comments | Add Comment