Image 01 Image 03

“Experts” Claim the Diminished ‘Ship Track’ Clouds From Pollution Cuts Added to “Global Warming”

“Experts” Claim the Diminished ‘Ship Track’ Clouds From Pollution Cuts Added to “Global Warming”

The media blackout on reports showing the impact of geology and the Sun on the complex behavior of the Earth’s climate continues.

One of the most frustrating aspects of covering science and technology news is the continuous media blackout on reports showing the impact of geology and the Sun on the complex behavior of the Earth’s climate.

For example, Science just published an article claiming that the reduction of sulfur-particulate pollution from ships diminished the cloud coverage and resulted in even more global warming than the dreaded fossil-fuel-generated carbon dioxide generated by itself.

The scariest part of the story: The “experts” toy with the possibility of some ill-advised geoengineering based on pet theories.

Regulations imposed in 2020 by the United Nations’s International Maritime Organization (IMO) have cut ships’ sulfur pollution by more than 80% and improved air quality worldwide. The reduction has also lessened the effect of sulfate particles in seeding and brightening the distinctive low-lying, reflective clouds that follow in the wake of ships and help cool the planet. The 2020 IMO rule “is a big natural experiment,” says Duncan Watson-Parris, an atmospheric physicist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. “We’re changing the clouds.”

By dramatically reducing the number of ship tracks, the planet has warmed up faster, several new studies have found. That trend is magnified in the Atlantic, where maritime traffic is particularly dense. In the shipping corridors, the increased light represents a 50% boost to the warming effect of human carbon emissions. It’s as if the world suddenly lost the cooling effect from a fairly large volcanic eruption each year, says Michael Diamond, an atmospheric scientist at Florida State University.

The natural experiment created by the IMO rules is providing a rare opportunity for climate scientists to study a geoengineering scheme in action—although it is one that is working in the wrong direction. Indeed, one such strategy to slow global warming, called marine cloud brightening, would see ships inject salt particles back into the air, to make clouds more reflective. In Diamond’s view, the dramatic decline in ship tracks is clear evidence that humanity could cool off the planet significantly by brightening the clouds. “It suggests pretty strongly that if you wanted to do it on purpose, you could,” he says.

Meanwhile, the sun has blasted out the highest-energy radiation ever recorded, which is raising questions for solar physics.

In a record-breaking discovery, scientists detected our very own sun emitting an extraordinary amount of gamma rays — wavelengths of light known to carry the most energy of any other wavelength in the electromagnetic spectrum. This is quite a big deal as it marks the highest-energy radiation to ever be documented coming from our planet’s host star.

Something like 1 trillion electron volts, to be exact.

“After looking at six years’ worth of data, out popped this excess of gamma rays,” Meher Un Nisa, a postdoctoral research associate at Michigan State University and co-author of a new paper about the findings released Wednesday (Aug. 3), said in a statement. “When we first saw it, we were like, ‘We definitely messed this up. The sun cannot be this bright at these energies.'”

Upon deliberation, however, the team realized that such brightness definitely existed — and it was simply due to the sheer amount of gamma rays the sun seemed to be spitting out.

“The sun is more surprising than we knew,” Nisa said.

It’s heartening to see a scientist admit the sun offers surprises. Perhaps they will eventually consider the enormous role our star has on heat and light levels, which impact important global climate factors…like temperature.

Legal Insurrection readers may recall I note studies reviewed by Watts Up With That indicating the Hunga-Tonga Volcanic eruption may have generated enough water vapor (a more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide) to raise global temperature. The European Space Agency confirmed NASA’s finding, then assessed that the eruption was responsible for “the unprecedented increase in the global stratospheric water mass by 13%.”

Further analysis of the numbers confirms these assessments.

From a recent publication, “Global perturbation of stratospheric water and aerosol burden by Hunga eruption” bold mine:

The eruption of the submarine Hunga volcano in January 2022 was associated with a powerful blast that injected volcanic material to altitudes up to 58 km. From a combination of various types of satellite and ground-based observations supported by transport modeling, we show evidence for an unprecedented increase in the global stratospheric water mass by 13% as compared to climatological levels, and a 5-fold increase of stratospheric aerosol load, the highest in the last three decades.

I guess it’s hard to extract money and power by regulating underwater volcanoes. Hence, the media is disinterested in this information.

Life began on Earth about 3.8 billion years ago. Until “experts” are willing to identify all the players in Earth’s climate, for the sake of continued life on this planet, I urge a ban on geoengineering on a global scale.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I certainly can’t complain about removing sulfur emission. We don’t allow it on land ( which is why ships use it ) and sweet crude is cheaper then sour crude. Sulfur emission creates hydrogen sulfide, a not so nice gas. still over the ocean, the amounts released are likely absorbed without much notice.

As of the increase in gamma radiation from the sun, not so important globally. The increase in temperature on the Earth would not be much as 1TEV is roughly 10E-16 megawatt-hrs. On the scales that it is used — high energy physics– that would be roughly 8 extra Higgs bosons. In terms of total energy absorbed by the Earth of the sun. A B roughly 1E-15% increase the gamma radiation

What is more significant about it scientifically is that we don’t understand stellar evolution as well as we thought we did.

AAs for mucking with the weather, I agree we are playing with fire that way.

    There are many things we don’t understand as well as we think we do. With many things new answers just unlock more questions.

    One of my least favorite things was in semi-science book directed at children. In a book on dinosaurs at the end they had a bunch of things we used to believe about them. Then it said “But now we KNOW that whatever current theory was”. On many things with that topic and other we have conjecture and theory based on evidence available but to say “We know” is often an overstatement.

      There are many things we don’t understand as well as we think we do. With many things new answers just unlock more questions.

      But… but … but… “The Science is settled!”

      In all seriousness, an astute observation I read a few years ago: Anyone who claims the “science is settled,” just proves they don’t understand the first thing about science.

The climate we experience is largely a result of the self regulation of the various systems impact on earth. Monkeying around and tinkering with the natural processes that create an eventual equilibrium is Cray Cray. We don’t have a clue how much disruption a small, well intentioned but deliberate artificial input may cause.

What a surprise. … We had more warming than expected, but of course it’s not the Sun …

What a bunch of lying assholes…

And just 50 or so years ago, we were planning on living in igloos in San Antonio…”the New Ice Age would be upon us by 1984…”…I remember those stories….

So reducing actual pollution, as opposed to plant food, is now bad?
These “experts” want to do to the entire planet what the Covid “experts” did to gullible humans? What could possible go wrong.

So let me get this straight. They claim that emissions from ships caused cooling for the past century and that recent warming trends are being caused by the cessation of said emissions – while simultaneously claiming that the planet has been warming for the past hundred years due to the increase in such emissions? I don’t claim to be a scientist, so there’s probably some really good explanation for that.

    Ironclaw in reply to txvet2. | August 7, 2023 at 11:52 am

    No, there isn’t. It’s all just a control scheme.

    henrybowman in reply to txvet2. | August 8, 2023 at 2:26 am

    Just the first two premises to this article say it all.
    The Greenies whined and bitched about foul pollutants until we reduced them.
    The very reduction of those pollutants actually increased global warming (so they say).
    The lesson here is when processes are too complex for you to understand, don’t f* with them, and clearly you don’t understand climate.
    And the upshot of the article is that they are still insisting on ignoring that lesson entirely.

So reducing actual pollution, as opposed to plant food, is now bad?
These “experts” want to do to the entire planet what the Covid “experts” did to gullible humans? What could possibly go wrong.

By “studies” they usually mean, “running models based on how we’ve already claimed things work,” not actual, you know, data-gathering that might confirm or refute those models.

    Or, “not running models that don’t align with observed data.”

    Because in science, if the model-predicted data doesn’t match the observed data, the model is assumed to be flawed and gets re-worked.

    But in “climate science”, if the model-predicted data doesn’t match the observed data … well … the model is “settled science” and assumed perfect, ergo it’s the data that must be flawed and needs to be re-worked.

    Because “Science!” (read: “Government Grant Funding!”) Or something.

very interesting

this dovetails really nicely with the widely-published 2021 CERES analysis in the Atmosphere journal

Our new publication “Radiative Energy flux variation from 2001 – 2020″ has brought to light a surprising result for climate science: the warming of the Earth in the last 20 years is mainly due to a higher permeability of clouds for short-wave solar radiation. Short-wave radiation has decreased sharply over this period (see figure), equally in the northern and southern hemispheres (NH and SH). With solar radiation remaining nearly constant, this means that more shortwave radiation has reached the Earth’s surface, contributing to warming. The long-wave back radiation (the so-called greenhouse effect) contributed only to a lesser extent to the warming. It was even largely compensated for by the likewise increasing permeability of the clouds to long-wave radiation emanating from the Earth. The authors come to this clear conclusion after evaluating the CERES radiation data.

After the entire Covid DEBACLE, once I see “experts” quoted, I stop reading.