Adding reflectors to roofs and pavements and similar strategies could globally reflect 87 W/m² more incoming solar radiation than is reflected on an annual basis currently, cooling the surface. In contrast, the sum of the accumulated annual anthropogenic radiative forcing from greenhouse gases (GHG) since 1750 is 2.72 W/m².
A new study analyzes the effectiveness of global warming reduction strategies via albedo modification – enhancing the reflection of incoming solar radiation – using reflectors on roofs and pavements, shade structures, foam water covers, and landscape modification.
The authors suggest that while the background reflected solar radiation is 21.7 W/m² globally (per ERA5 observations), these proposed surface albedo modifications could enhance the annual global outgoing solar radiation by 87 W/m² – to 109 W/m². This is “a factor of five larger” than the unaltered reflectivity. In some localities – especially in cities – the reduction of global warming potential through albedo modification could be over 200 W/m².
Meanwhile, the authors point out that the sum of the accumulated annual anthropogenic radiative forcing since 1750 is 2.72 W/m², a warming effect applied to the reduction of outgoing longwave radiation. Reducing the annual incoming solar radiation by 87 W/m² more than the background rate would thus have a 32 times larger impact on Earth’s radiation imbalance than all the accumulated forcing from anthropogenic GHG emissions.
Considering 40 years of governmental policies designed to reduce GHG emissions and transition to a “green” energy future have only meant that “global net emissions continue to rise” anyway, an albedo modification strategy that could eliminate (and then some) the impact of anthropogenic emissions altogether would appear to be the wiser approach.
This assumes the intent of governments’ GHG mitigation policies is actually to reduce the positive energy imbalance and thus global warming. Is it?
17 responses to “Scientists: Enhancing Earth’s Surface Reflectiveness 32x More Effective Than Eliminating GHG Emissions”
Deploy a lot of reflectors, and a big army to keep them clean ..
A few years ago, there was a suggestion to paint everything white.
An exercise that could start and never finish.
Another idea was for roads to be made of solar panels. They needed to be tougher than hardened steel. They weren’t.
I did put white-ish shingles on my roof. Shortly after, the global warming “pause” started and Moncton has posted 97 times on it.
“Adding reflectors to roofs and pavements”
Structures with roofs cover only a tiny percentage of our planet’s surface.
Who would keep those reflectors clean?
Pavement reflectors would get dirty and wear out quickly.
This sounds like an expensive pipedream to me.
Mr Richard’s choice of studies to publicize remains puzzling.
Richard Greene missed the point again. If NoTricksZone points out that there was a time when there were proposals to eliminate Arctic sea ice by dumping black soot over the ice from aircraft, this does not mean that NTZ agrees this is realistic and efficacious idea that will achieve its stated goal (at the time it was 1975 and this climate modification proposal was intended to warm up the Arctic).
Obviously the article is about how inconsistent it is to believe that we could globally (yes, the authors claim this can be achieved globally) reduce incident solar radiation by 87 W/m² over background just by putting reflectors on structures and foam seals over water bodies, but instead the policy is to eliminate CO2 emissions, which would only mean we’d presumptively reduce radiative forcing by a few W/m² over the next 100 years. If these surface modification proposals could actually work, it would be foolish to focus on reducing radiative forcing by a few W/m² vs. 87 W/m².
Sometimes we highlight papers just to expose the ridiculous inconsistencies of the Anthropocenist beliefs. This was either unclear to Richard, or he was doing his usual sniping. Neither explanation is flattering.
Use your efforts to refute predictions of a coming climate emergency and claims that bad weather are proof of such a climate emergency.
Don’t waste space on other subjects that have no relevance.
You do so constantly.
Climate reconstructions of some local area a thousand years ago.
Studies that are very hard to believe, such as the recent one claiming CO2 causes global surface cooling by enhancing plant growth.
A ridiculous claim of using surface reflectors in this latest “study” that belongs at the Babylon Bee website.
Are you capable of writing an article DIRECTLY refuting what the climate alarmists are claiming, and what Nut Zero is doing, let’s say to the UK, or is this the best that you can do?
“proposals to eliminate Arctic sea ice by dumping black soot over the ice from aircraft,”
There is already enough soot falling on Arctic ice from coal power plants in Russia and China. Could be responsible for some melting through albedo change.
I think exposing inconsistencies in Anthropocenist beliefs has relevance.
Nope. All I can do is write irrelevant articles, Richard.
“Nope. All I can do is write irrelevant articles, Richard.”
Good sense of humor.
How about one article on “modern” climate science, which is mainly predictions of doom and claiming bad weather is caused by “climate change”.
The Climate Howlers don’t spend much time talking about the past climate. They claim it has barely changed in 1000 years and since 1975 had unprecedented global warming.
Then they predict 2x faster global warming in the future, forgetting to mention those predictions began in the 1970s, grossly overestimating the rate of global warming for about 50 years so far.
And then there is the unaffordable and infeasible Nut Zero green dream to write about, and the grossly underestimated battery capacity (to keep down costs) required for solar and wind power.
And the mineral requirements versus the lack of progress in opening new mines around the world.
There are lots of current, relevant subjects.
But you seem mainly interested in other subjects, such as the estimated local temperatures in Nowheresville, Antarctica 2000 years ago
… while the Climate Howlers scaremonger about the FUTURE climate
… and they are winning the climate change propaganda war.
You and the Climate Howlers are in different time zones!
PS: If you stopped replying to my comments, you would have saved enough time to write a new article about current climate scaremongering with junk science!
Would it reduce UHI and Airport effects thereby negating the problem of badly sited waether stations and bringing about an apparent cooling
Someone really really wants a glaciation event!
Build a cube with a mirror roof. Measure inside and outside ambient and surface temperatures, for about 5 years, then get back to us.
This would of course do nothing for surface thermometers 2 meters above the ground.
This is a stupid waste of money, unless it can be shown that it reduces air conditioning costs for homes.
We know some nations that are dominated by WHITE buildings (Bermuda, for example), and it’s probably not by accident.
So maybe it’s not a terrible idea – if economics supports it.
Surround all land based weather stations with reflectors aimed at the Stevenson screens to turbocharge global warming. Could be a Nobel Prize for this suggection,
Please don’t give the alarmists any more ideas on how to waste amy more of my tax dollars. We may be heading into a grande solar minimum and there are no reasons to be exploring ways to cool the planet.
The ‘normal’ for Earth is 1376 Wm2.
Locally in KY we have gotten +- 1000 Wm2.
Now they say a drop of just 24 Wm2 – 1376 down to 1373 Wm2 causes cooling.
So what will 350 +-Wm2 less do to Earths Climate…ICE AGE ANYONE?!!!?
You know WHAT controls the PLANETS (Plural – Mercury to Pluto) climate?
That big ass ball of plasma in the sky called Sol…the SUN!
And the Sun is ‘taking a nap’ you might say cuz it’s output has dropped.
Enjoy and buy warm…er clothes!
The nagging weakness in the opposition to the CAGWH is failure to affirmatively advance the probability that CO2 does not warm but cools. Freeman Dyson, no minor physicist of the period, repeatedly objected that it was a cooling gas, concluding his remarks with ‘”nobody listens to old people.” It may be time to listen.
1. CO2’s peak radiant interaction with solar irradiance is at minus 80 Celsius (193.13K). It is visible in satellite images, but the temperature seems never referred to.
2. Fossil fuel combustion produces offsetting aerosols such that a 1971 NASA study hoping CO2 would warm, concluded that aerosol cooling offset, and must eventually overwhelm, warming. The paper called fossil fuel combustion a “coolant.”
3. CO2 is among the atmospheric gases that radiate away incoming solar energy and radiate outgoing surface radiation to space.
4. Encouraging plant growth it greens the planet, cooling land temperatures, and evapotranspiration adds water vapor for more cooling cloud.
It may be time to shrug off alarmist charges and develop the arguments that stand up the preponderantly unconfirmed claims of warming. All of it together looks like a viable argument. Why does nobody make it?
“You gotta accentuate the positive, devaluate the negative, latch on to the affirmative; don’t mess with ‘Mr. In-between.’” Popular ballad of the 1940s.
“Stand up to ‘
I may have mentioned previously that the key factor that is consistently underplayed, is the upper atmosphere’s response to incoming explosive material – CME’s in effect – or the lack of that input. It is well documented that this causes the expansion and contraction of the upper layers – the Thermosphere – what is less well discussed is that the expansion does not just happen in one direction, how could it? Self evidently it expands sideway as well as vertically. This pushes and pulls on the atmospheric structure and profiles at lower levels, manipulating the paths followed by surface level cyclonic activity. Sorry if I’m being a little over simplistic here, but this – during solar quiet times – can result in masses of hot tropical air being thrown unusually far towards the Polar Regions. Hence claims that the poles are “Warming Faster”. Entropic influences then result in that heat being lost to space. We then have the conflict of apparent warming while overall cooling is actually taking place. Interesting confusion! And a good subject for debate over a few beers !