Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Clouds over ocean a positive feedback?

Expand Messages
  • Wayne
    Thinning clouds over the ocean exacerbate global warming by leading to more rapid temperature increases, according to the results of a new study, published
    Message 1 of 8 , Aug 2, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Thinning clouds over the ocean exacerbate global warming by leading to more rapid temperature increases, according to the results of a new study, published today.

      The research combined data, collected by observers on ships and satellites, going back over a century.

      The effect clouds have on climate has been something of a mystery to atmospheric scientists, with some researchers hoping they would provide a silver lining by acting as a brake on climate change.

      One possibility was that higher temperatures would mean more clouds, which in turn would bounce more of the sun's radiation back into space, but this theory has not been reflected in the study's findings.

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/23/cloud-cover-oceans-global-warming
    • poitsplace
      Nope, it s ambiguous. Did the warming cause the lack of cloud formation or did something (like ocean currents...which seem to have that affect) cause the lack
      Message 2 of 8 , Aug 2, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Nope, it's ambiguous. Did the warming cause the lack of cloud formation or did something (like ocean currents...which seem to have that affect) cause the lack of cloud formation...which in turn caused the warming.

        I maintain my assertion that CO2 has a negligible affect on the climate and that the gradient across the troposphere is maintained pretty much exclusively by water vapor and its phase changes. I will offer up one piece of evidence for this. Every DAY over 1300 cubic kilometers of water evaporate (and fall again). Just for kicks, work out how much energy that is and compare it to the daily energy budget of the earth. Seriously...it'll blow your mind.


        --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Wayne" <kb0syf@...> wrote:
        >
        > Thinning clouds over the ocean exacerbate global warming by leading to more rapid temperature increases, according to the results of a new study, published today.
        >
        > The research combined data, collected by observers on ships and satellites, going back over a century.
        >
        > The effect clouds have on climate has been something of a mystery to atmospheric scientists, with some researchers hoping they would provide a silver lining by acting as a brake on climate change.
        >
        > One possibility was that higher temperatures would mean more clouds, which in turn would bounce more of the sun's radiation back into space, but this theory has not been reflected in the study's findings.
        >
        > http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/23/cloud-cover-oceans-global-warming
        >
      • Wayne
        What causes the ocean currents? Could it be warming?
        Message 3 of 8 , Aug 3, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          What causes the ocean currents? Could it be warming?

          poitsplace wrote:
          > Nope, it's ambiguous. Did the warming cause the lack of cloud formation or did something (like ocean currents...which seem to have that affect) cause the lack of cloud formation...which in turn caused the warming.
          >
          > I maintain my assertion that CO2 has a negligible affect on the climate and that the gradient across the troposphere is maintained pretty much exclusively by water vapor and its phase changes. I will offer up one piece of evidence for this. Every DAY over 1300 cubic kilometers of water evaporate (and fall again). Just for kicks, work out how much energy that is and compare it to the daily energy budget of the earth. Seriously...it'll blow your mind.
          >
          >
          > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Wayne" <kb0syf@...> wrote:
          >
          >> Thinning clouds over the ocean exacerbate global warming by leading to more rapid temperature increases, according to the results of a new study, published today.
          >>
          >> The research combined data, collected by observers on ships and satellites, going back over a century.
          >>
          >> The effect clouds have on climate has been something of a mystery to atmospheric scientists, with some researchers hoping they would provide a silver lining by acting as a brake on climate change.
          >>
          >> One possibility was that higher temperatures would mean more clouds, which in turn would bounce more of the sun's radiation back into space, but this theory has not been reflected in the study's findings.
          >>
          >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/23/cloud-cover-oceans-global-warming
          >>
          >>
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • poitsplace
          ... Ummmm...no. We ve got evidence of the AMO, PDO and other such currents going back thousands of years.
          Message 4 of 8 , Aug 3, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, Wayne <kb0syf@...> wrote:
            >
            > What causes the ocean currents? Could it be warming?

            Ummmm...no. We've got evidence of the AMO, PDO and other such currents going back thousands of years.




            > poitsplace wrote:
            > > Nope, it's ambiguous. Did the warming cause the lack of cloud formation or did something (like ocean currents...which seem to have that affect) cause the lack of cloud formation...which in turn caused the warming.
            > >
            > > I maintain my assertion that CO2 has a negligible affect on the climate and that the gradient across the troposphere is maintained pretty much exclusively by water vapor and its phase changes. I will offer up one piece of evidence for this. Every DAY over 1300 cubic kilometers of water evaporate (and fall again). Just for kicks, work out how much energy that is and compare it to the daily energy budget of the earth. Seriously...it'll blow your mind.
            > >
            > >
            > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Wayne" <kb0syf@> wrote:
            > >
            > >> Thinning clouds over the ocean exacerbate global warming by leading to more rapid temperature increases, according to the results of a new study, published today.
            > >>
            > >> The research combined data, collected by observers on ships and satellites, going back over a century.
            > >>
            > >> The effect clouds have on climate has been something of a mystery to atmospheric scientists, with some researchers hoping they would provide a silver lining by acting as a brake on climate change.
            > >>
            > >> One possibility was that higher temperatures would mean more clouds, which in turn would bounce more of the sun's radiation back into space, but this theory has not been reflected in the study's findings.
            > >>
            > >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/23/cloud-cover-oceans-global-warming
            > >>
            > >>
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > ------------------------------------
            > >
            > > Yahoo! Groups Links
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
          • Wayne
            Of course. The ocean is warmed by energy from the sun. Changes in that energy would undoubtedly change the magnitude or the vectors of circulation in the
            Message 5 of 8 , Aug 3, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Of course. The ocean is warmed by energy from the sun. Changes in that
              energy would undoubtedly change the magnitude or the vectors of
              circulation in the ocean.

              poitsplace wrote:
              > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, Wayne <kb0syf@...> wrote:
              >
              >> What causes the ocean currents? Could it be warming?
              >>
              >
              > Ummmm...no. We've got evidence of the AMO, PDO and other such currents going back thousands of years.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >> poitsplace wrote:
              >>
              >>> Nope, it's ambiguous. Did the warming cause the lack of cloud formation or did something (like ocean currents...which seem to have that affect) cause the lack of cloud formation...which in turn caused the warming.
              >>>
              >>> I maintain my assertion that CO2 has a negligible affect on the climate and that the gradient across the troposphere is maintained pretty much exclusively by water vapor and its phase changes. I will offer up one piece of evidence for this. Every DAY over 1300 cubic kilometers of water evaporate (and fall again). Just for kicks, work out how much energy that is and compare it to the daily energy budget of the earth. Seriously...it'll blow your mind.
              >>>
              >>>
              >>> --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Wayne" <kb0syf@> wrote:
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>> Thinning clouds over the ocean exacerbate global warming by leading to more rapid temperature increases, according to the results of a new study, published today.
              >>>>
              >>>> The research combined data, collected by observers on ships and satellites, going back over a century.
              >>>>
              >>>> The effect clouds have on climate has been something of a mystery to atmospheric scientists, with some researchers hoping they would provide a silver lining by acting as a brake on climate change.
              >>>>
              >>>> One possibility was that higher temperatures would mean more clouds, which in turn would bounce more of the sun's radiation back into space, but this theory has not been reflected in the study's findings.
              >>>>
              >>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/23/cloud-cover-oceans-global-warming
              >>>>
              >>>>
              >>>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>> ------------------------------------
              >>>
              >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > ------------------------------------
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
            • poitsplace
              ... Possibly, however the currents seem to function at significantly higher temperatures (holocene optimum) and lower temperatures (little ice age). Also, in
              Message 6 of 8 , Aug 3, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, Wayne <kb0syf@...> wrote:
                >
                > Of course. The ocean is warmed by energy from
                > the sun. Changes in that energy would
                > undoubtedly change the magnitude or the vectors of
                > circulation in the ocean.

                Possibly, however the currents seem to function at significantly higher temperatures (holocene optimum) and lower temperatures (little ice age). Also, in the previous warm period, out of the pacific decadal oscillation, atlantic multidecadal oscillation and the north atlantic oscillation (persistent air patterns that affect warming/cooling over northern europe) only two were in warming modes. In the warming cycle that just ended, all three went into warming modes simultaneously. The PDO is on a 50-60 year cycle, the AMO is on a 70-80 year cycle and I forget what cycle the NAO is on but it is actually different than the AMO.

                And back to CO2... I still say it hasn't got much of an effect. The water vapor deals with amounts of energy that make overpowering ANY amount of CO2 forcing trivial. Water vapor maintains a gradient across the atmosphere like a column still. The energy necessary for 1.35e18 CC of water (1350 cubic kilometers) per day is about 830 petawatts! CO2's supposed forcing for a doubling...is .4% of that.
              • Wayne
                The differential of temperature and salinity along with the Coriolis effect are the drivers of ocean circulation. While water is definitely a greenhouse gas,
                Message 7 of 8 , Aug 3, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  The differential of temperature and salinity along with the Coriolis
                  effect are the drivers of ocean circulation.


                  While water is definitely a greenhouse gas, it is largely self
                  correcting. When another greenhouse gas such as CO2 enters the picture,
                  the equilibrium is stressed and more water is held in the atmosphere.
                  http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/seminars/971105DD.html

                  poitsplace wrote:
                  > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, Wayne <kb0syf@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >> Of course. The ocean is warmed by energy from
                  >> the sun. Changes in that energy would
                  >> undoubtedly change the magnitude or the vectors of
                  >> circulation in the ocean.
                  >>
                  >
                  > Possibly, however the currents seem to function at significantly higher temperatures (holocene optimum) and lower temperatures (little ice age). Also, in the previous warm period, out of the pacific decadal oscillation, atlantic multidecadal oscillation and the north atlantic oscillation (persistent air patterns that affect warming/cooling over northern europe) only two were in warming modes. In the warming cycle that just ended, all three went into warming modes simultaneously. The PDO is on a 50-60 year cycle, the AMO is on a 70-80 year cycle and I forget what cycle the NAO is on but it is actually different than the AMO.
                  >
                  > And back to CO2... I still say it hasn't got much of an effect. The water vapor deals with amounts of energy that make overpowering ANY amount of CO2 forcing trivial. Water vapor maintains a gradient across the atmosphere like a column still. The energy necessary for 1.35e18 CC of water (1350 cubic kilometers) per day is about 830 petawatts! CO2's supposed forcing for a doubling...is .4% of that.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                • poitsplace
                  ... So a self-correcting, 830 petawatt juggernaut is going to be stessed by a 3 petawatt change in absorption...that it bypasses anyway. The result of this
                  Message 8 of 8 , Aug 3, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, Wayne <kb0sy>

                    > While water is definitely a greenhouse gas, it
                    > is largely self correcting. When another green-
                    > house gas such as CO2 enters the picture, the
                    > equilibrium is stressed and more water is held
                    > in the atmosphere.
                    > http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/seminars/971105DD.html

                    So a self-correcting, 830 petawatt juggernaut is going to be "stessed" by a 3 petawatt change in absorption...that it bypasses anyway. The result of this supposed "stress" is that the 830 petawatt self-correcting system...will "correct" and become even more powerful.






                    > poitsplace wrote:
                    > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, Wayne <kb0syf@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > >> Of course. The ocean is warmed by energy from
                    > >> the sun. Changes in that energy would
                    > >> undoubtedly change the magnitude or the vectors of
                    > >> circulation in the ocean.
                    > >>
                    > >
                    > > Possibly, however the currents seem to function at significantly higher temperatures (holocene optimum) and lower temperatures (little ice age). Also, in the previous warm period, out of the pacific decadal oscillation, atlantic multidecadal oscillation and the north atlantic oscillation (persistent air patterns that affect warming/cooling over northern europe) only two were in warming modes. In the warming cycle that just ended, all three went into warming modes simultaneously. The PDO is on a 50-60 year cycle, the AMO is on a 70-80 year cycle and I forget what cycle the NAO is on but it is actually different than the AMO.
                    > >
                    > > And back to CO2... I still say it hasn't got much of an effect. The water vapor deals with amounts of energy that make overpowering ANY amount of CO2 forcing trivial. Water vapor maintains a gradient across the atmosphere like a column still. The energy necessary for 1.35e18 CC of water (1350 cubic kilometers) per day is about 830 petawatts! CO2's supposed forcing for a doubling...is .4% of that.
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > ------------------------------------
                    > >
                    > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.