Arctic Methane

[Old Rocks]

[1] The magnitude and feedbacks of future methane release from the Arctic region are unknown. Despite limited documentation of potential future releases associated with thawing permafrost and degassing methane hydrates, the large potential for future methane releases calls for improved understanding of the interaction of a changing climate with processes in the Arctic and chemical feedbacks in the atmosphere. Here we apply a “state of the art” atmospheric chemistry transport model to show that large emissions of CH4 would likely have an unexpectedly large impact on the chemical composition of the atmosphere and on radiative forcing (RF). The indirect contribution to RF of additional methane emission is particularly important. It is shown that if global methane emissions were to increase by factors of 2.5 and 5.2 above current emissions, the indirect contributions to RF would be about 250% and 400%, respectively, of the RF that can be attributed to directly emitted methane alone. Assuming several hypothetical scenarios of CH4release associated with permafrost thaw, shallow marine hydrate degassing, and submarine landslides, we find a strong positive feedback on RF through atmospheric chemistry. In particular, the impact of CH4 is enhanced through increase of its lifetime, and of atmospheric abundances of ozone, stratospheric water vapor, and CO2 as a result of atmospheric chemical processes. Despite uncertainties in emission scenarios, our results provide a better understanding of the feedbacks in the atmospheric chemistry that would amplify climate warming.

And some of the chemistry;

3. Atmospheric CH4 Oxidation
[27] This section provides a brief description of the atmospheric chemistry leading to the formation of greenhouse gases from CH4emissions.

[28] CH4 oxidation leads to enhanced formation of ozone in the troposphere and lower stratosphere through a sequence of reactions involving NOx compounds. The CH3 resulting from reaction (R1) is oxidized and the reaction products are photolyzed in the presence of sunlight:

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

[29] M is an air molecule (usually N2), participating in a three-body reaction, and “hν” represents the solar photon flux. Through this cycle ozone is efficiently formed in the presence of NOx, CO and CH4. The end product of the OH and HO2 formation from CH4 is water vapor. As two H2O molecules are formed from each CH4 molecule, water vapor enhancements due to additional CH4 releases can be important in relative terms in the dry stratosphere. Reaction (R9) yields CO2, constituting another important product from CH4 oxidation. The result of the CH4 oxidation chain is thus the formation of the three greenhouse gases O3, H2O, and CO2, which comes in addition to the enhancement of CH4 concentrations due to direct emissions.

Strong atmospheric chemistry feedback to climate warming from Arctic methane emissions - Isaksen - 2011 - Global Biogeochemical Cycles - Wiley Online Library

 

[jc456]

[1] The magnitude and feedbacks of future methane release from the Arctic region are unknown. Despite limited documentation of potential future releases associated with thawing permafrost and degassing methane hydrates, the large potential for future methane releases calls for improved understanding of the interaction of a changing climate with processes in the Arctic and chemical feedbacks in the atmosphere. Here we apply a “state of the art” atmospheric chemistry transport model to show that large emissions of CH4 would likely have an unexpectedly large impact on the chemical composition of the atmosphere and on radiative forcing (RF). The indirect contribution to RF of additional methane emission is particularly important. It is shown that if global methane emissions were to increase by factors of 2.5 and 5.2 above current emissions, the indirect contributions to RF would be about 250% and 400%, respectively, of the RF that can be attributed to directly emitted methane alone. Assuming several hypothetical scenarios of CH4release associated with permafrost thaw, shallow marine hydrate degassing, and submarine landslides, we find a strong positive feedback on RF through atmospheric chemistry. In particular, the impact of CH4 is enhanced through increase of its lifetime, and of atmospheric abundances of ozone, stratospheric water vapor, and CO2 as a result of atmospheric chemical processes. Despite uncertainties in emission scenarios, our results provide a better understanding of the feedbacks in the atmospheric chemistry that would amplify climate warming.

And some of the chemistry;

3. Atmospheric CH4 Oxidation
[27] This section provides a brief description of the atmospheric chemistry leading to the formation of greenhouse gases from CH4emissions.

[28] CH4 oxidation leads to enhanced formation of ozone in the troposphere and lower stratosphere through a sequence of reactions involving NOx compounds. The CH3 resulting from reaction (R1) is oxidized and the reaction products are photolyzed in the presence of sunlight:

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

[29] M is an air molecule (usually N2), participating in a three-body reaction, and “hν” represents the solar photon flux. Through this cycle ozone is efficiently formed in the presence of NOx, CO and CH4. The end product of the OH and HO2 formation from CH4 is water vapor. As two H2O molecules are formed from each CH4 molecule, water vapor enhancements due to additional CH4 releases can be important in relative terms in the dry stratosphere. Reaction (R9) yields CO2, constituting another important product from CH4 oxidation. The result of the CH4 oxidation chain is thus the formation of the three greenhouse gases O3, H2O, and CO2, which comes in addition to the enhancement of CH4 concentrations due to direct emissions.

Strong atmospheric chemistry feedback to climate warming from Arctic methane emissions - Isaksen - 2011 - Global Biogeochemical Cycles - Wiley Online Library

So, question if there becomes more water vapor, then therefore wouldn't there be more clouds? And if there are more clouds, then wouldn't there be less warming? again, a point going nowhere.

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh my. First, you silly asses state that water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas, which is correct. Then you state that it forms clouds, which are water vapor, cool the atmosphere. Of course, if you researched the subject, you would find disagreement as to whether the net affect of clouds is cooling or warming. However, the water vapor that does not form clouds definately warm the atmosphere. So additional water vapor means a net increase in heat in the atmosphere.

Not only that, before it is oxidized, the CH4 is roughly 100 times as effective a GHG as CO2. So the present increase of 1100 ppb actually represents the equivelent of 100 ppm of CO2. The link is to the whole article. Surprise me, and actually read the article.

 

[jc456]

Oh my. First, you silly asses state that water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas, which is correct. Then you state that it forms clouds, which are water vapor, cool the atmosphere. Of course, if you researched the subject, you would find disagreement as to whether the net affect of clouds is cooling or warming. However, the water vapor that does not form clouds definately warm the atmosphere. So additional water vapor means a net increase in heat in the atmosphere.

Not only that, before it is oxidized, the CH4 is roughly 100 times as effective a GHG as CO2. So the present increase of 1100 ppb actually represents the equivelent of 100 ppm of CO2. The link is to the whole article. Surprise me, and actually read the article.

And it also means more clouds! And dude, clouds cool because they do block incoming waves.

 

[RollingThunder]

[1] The magnitude and feedbacks of future methane release from the Arctic region are unknown. Despite limited documentation of potential future releases associated with thawing permafrost and degassing methane hydrates, the large potential for future methane releases calls for improved understanding of the interaction of a changing climate with processes in the Arctic and chemical feedbacks in the atmosphere. Here we apply a “state of the art” atmospheric chemistry transport model to show that large emissions of CH4 would likely have an unexpectedly large impact on the chemical composition of the atmosphere and on radiative forcing (RF). The indirect contribution to RF of additional methane emission is particularly important. It is shown that if global methane emissions were to increase by factors of 2.5 and 5.2 above current emissions, the indirect contributions to RF would be about 250% and 400%, respectively, of the RF that can be attributed to directly emitted methane alone. Assuming several hypothetical scenarios of CH4release associated with permafrost thaw, shallow marine hydrate degassing, and submarine landslides, we find a strong positive feedback on RF through atmospheric chemistry. In particular, the impact of CH4 is enhanced through increase of its lifetime, and of atmospheric abundances of ozone, stratospheric water vapor, and CO2 as a result of atmospheric chemical processes. Despite uncertainties in emission scenarios, our results provide a better understanding of the feedbacks in the atmospheric chemistry that would amplify climate warming.

And some of the chemistry;

3. Atmospheric CH4 Oxidation
[27] This section provides a brief description of the atmospheric chemistry leading to the formation of greenhouse gases from CH4emissions.

[28] CH4 oxidation leads to enhanced formation of ozone in the troposphere and lower stratosphere through a sequence of reactions involving NOx compounds. The CH3 resulting from reaction (R1) is oxidized and the reaction products are photolyzed in the presence of sunlight:

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

[29] M is an air molecule (usually N2), participating in a three-body reaction, and “hν” represents the solar photon flux. Through this cycle ozone is efficiently formed in the presence of NOx, CO and CH4. The end product of the OH and HO2 formation from CH4 is water vapor. As two H2O molecules are formed from each CH4 molecule, water vapor enhancements due to additional CH4 releases can be important in relative terms in the dry stratosphere. Reaction (R9) yields CO2, constituting another important product from CH4 oxidation. The result of the CH4 oxidation chain is thus the formation of the three greenhouse gases O3, H2O, and CO2, which comes in addition to the enhancement of CH4 concentrations due to direct emissions.

Strong atmospheric chemistry feedback to climate warming from Arctic methane emissions - Isaksen - 2011 - Global Biogeochemical Cycles - Wiley Online Library

So, question if there becomes more water vapor, then therefore wouldn't there be more clouds? And if there are more clouds, then wouldn't there be less warming? again, a point going nowhere.

All of your specious "points" go "nowhere", JustCrazy. Scientific studies to date have generally indicated that cloud feedback is positive , not negative.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oh my. First, you silly asses state that water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas, which is correct. Then you state that it forms clouds, which are water vapor, cool the atmosphere. Of course, if you researched the subject, you would find disagreement as to whether the net affect of clouds is cooling or warming. However, the water vapor that does not form clouds definately warm the atmosphere. So additional water vapor means a net increase in heat in the atmosphere.

Not only that, before it is oxidized, the CH4 is roughly 100 times as effective a GHG as CO2. So the present increase of 1100 ppb actually represents the equivelent of 100 ppm of CO2. The link is to the whole article. Surprise me, and actually read the article.

.....same effect as 100PPM of CO2, which has no effect whatsoever on temperature on planet Earth

 

[RollingThunder]

Oh my. First, you silly asses state that water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas, which is correct. Then you state that it forms clouds, which are water vapor, cool the atmosphere. Of course, if you researched the subject, you would find disagreement as to whether the net affect of clouds is cooling or warming. However, the water vapor that does not form clouds definately warm the atmosphere. So additional water vapor means a net increase in heat in the atmosphere.

Not only that, before it is oxidized, the CH4 is roughly 100 times as effective a GHG as CO2. So the present increase of 1100 ppb actually represents the equivelent of 100 ppm of CO2. The link is to the whole article. Surprise me, and actually read the article.

.....same effect as 100PPM of CO2, which has no effect whatsoever on temperature on planet Earth

Denier cult insanity and denial of reality, starkly revealed.

 

[jc456]

[1] The magnitude and feedbacks of future methane release from the Arctic region are unknown. Despite limited documentation of potential future releases associated with thawing permafrost and degassing methane hydrates, the large potential for future methane releases calls for improved understanding of the interaction of a changing climate with processes in the Arctic and chemical feedbacks in the atmosphere. Here we apply a “state of the art” atmospheric chemistry transport model to show that large emissions of CH4 would likely have an unexpectedly large impact on the chemical composition of the atmosphere and on radiative forcing (RF). The indirect contribution to RF of additional methane emission is particularly important. It is shown that if global methane emissions were to increase by factors of 2.5 and 5.2 above current emissions, the indirect contributions to RF would be about 250% and 400%, respectively, of the RF that can be attributed to directly emitted methane alone. Assuming several hypothetical scenarios of CH4release associated with permafrost thaw, shallow marine hydrate degassing, and submarine landslides, we find a strong positive feedback on RF through atmospheric chemistry. In particular, the impact of CH4 is enhanced through increase of its lifetime, and of atmospheric abundances of ozone, stratospheric water vapor, and CO2 as a result of atmospheric chemical processes. Despite uncertainties in emission scenarios, our results provide a better understanding of the feedbacks in the atmospheric chemistry that would amplify climate warming.

And some of the chemistry;

3. Atmospheric CH4 Oxidation
[27] This section provides a brief description of the atmospheric chemistry leading to the formation of greenhouse gases from CH4emissions.

[28] CH4 oxidation leads to enhanced formation of ozone in the troposphere and lower stratosphere through a sequence of reactions involving NOx compounds. The CH3 resulting from reaction (R1) is oxidized and the reaction products are photolyzed in the presence of sunlight:

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

[29] M is an air molecule (usually N2), participating in a three-body reaction, and “hν” represents the solar photon flux. Through this cycle ozone is efficiently formed in the presence of NOx, CO and CH4. The end product of the OH and HO2 formation from CH4 is water vapor. As two H2O molecules are formed from each CH4 molecule, water vapor enhancements due to additional CH4 releases can be important in relative terms in the dry stratosphere. Reaction (R9) yields CO2, constituting another important product from CH4 oxidation. The result of the CH4 oxidation chain is thus the formation of the three greenhouse gases O3, H2O, and CO2, which comes in addition to the enhancement of CH4 concentrations due to direct emissions.

Strong atmospheric chemistry feedback to climate warming from Arctic methane emissions - Isaksen - 2011 - Global Biogeochemical Cycles - Wiley Online Library

So, question if there becomes more water vapor, then therefore wouldn't there be more clouds? And if there are more clouds, then wouldn't there be less warming? again, a point going nowhere.

All of your specious "points" go "nowhere", JustCrazy. Scientific studies to date have generally indicated that cloud feedback is positive , not negative.

So the models don't produce what they expect and then they say they are incorrect. So they can't produce a model that aligns with their theory. Seems I've heard or read this before. something about 120 PPm of CO2 increase and temperature. Dude, did you even watch your own video?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

number of lab experiments linking 100PPM CO2 increase to temperature is still zero

 

[RollingThunder]

[1] The magnitude and feedbacks of future methane release from the Arctic region are unknown. Despite limited documentation of potential future releases associated with thawing permafrost and degassing methane hydrates, the large potential for future methane releases calls for improved understanding of the interaction of a changing climate with processes in the Arctic and chemical feedbacks in the atmosphere. Here we apply a “state of the art” atmospheric chemistry transport model to show that large emissions of CH4 would likely have an unexpectedly large impact on the chemical composition of the atmosphere and on radiative forcing (RF). The indirect contribution to RF of additional methane emission is particularly important. It is shown that if global methane emissions were to increase by factors of 2.5 and 5.2 above current emissions, the indirect contributions to RF would be about 250% and 400%, respectively, of the RF that can be attributed to directly emitted methane alone. Assuming several hypothetical scenarios of CH4release associated with permafrost thaw, shallow marine hydrate degassing, and submarine landslides, we find a strong positive feedback on RF through atmospheric chemistry. In particular, the impact of CH4 is enhanced through increase of its lifetime, and of atmospheric abundances of ozone, stratospheric water vapor, and CO2 as a result of atmospheric chemical processes. Despite uncertainties in emission scenarios, our results provide a better understanding of the feedbacks in the atmospheric chemistry that would amplify climate warming.

And some of the chemistry;

3. Atmospheric CH4 Oxidation
[27] This section provides a brief description of the atmospheric chemistry leading to the formation of greenhouse gases from CH4emissions.

[28] CH4 oxidation leads to enhanced formation of ozone in the troposphere and lower stratosphere through a sequence of reactions involving NOx compounds. The CH3 resulting from reaction (R1) is oxidized and the reaction products are photolyzed in the presence of sunlight:

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

[29] M is an air molecule (usually N2), participating in a three-body reaction, and “hν” represents the solar photon flux. Through this cycle ozone is efficiently formed in the presence of NOx, CO and CH4. The end product of the OH and HO2 formation from CH4 is water vapor. As two H2O molecules are formed from each CH4 molecule, water vapor enhancements due to additional CH4 releases can be important in relative terms in the dry stratosphere. Reaction (R9) yields CO2, constituting another important product from CH4 oxidation. The result of the CH4 oxidation chain is thus the formation of the three greenhouse gases O3, H2O, and CO2, which comes in addition to the enhancement of CH4 concentrations due to direct emissions.

Strong atmospheric chemistry feedback to climate warming from Arctic methane emissions - Isaksen - 2011 - Global Biogeochemical Cycles - Wiley Online Library

So, question if there becomes more water vapor, then therefore wouldn't there be more clouds? And if there are more clouds, then wouldn't there be less warming? again, a point going nowhere.

All of your specious "points" go "nowhere", JustCrazy. Scientific studies to date have generally indicated that cloud feedback is positive , not negative.

So the models don't produce what they expect and then they say they are incorrect. So they can't produce a model that aligns with their theory. Seems I've heard or read this before. something about 120 PPm of CO2 increase and temperature. Dude, did you even watch your own video?

Nope, wrong again, retard. What Dr. Sherwood actually said was that some of the models appear to be in error about cloud feedback and climate sensivity, the ones that assume that all of the water vapor rises to the maximum height, where reflective clouds can form which cause a slight cooling effect and a lower climate sensivity, because those models' results don't match actual observations, which show that a large portion of the water vapor rising from the oceans only rises a much shorter distance before precipitating out and thus not forming any clouds. High daytime clouds can reflect some of the incoming solar energy but clouds at all altitudes, particularly at night, can also reflect back down some of the outgoing infrared radiation that the Earth is emitting, intensifying the warming of the Earth. Other models that incorporate the actual observed behavior of the water vapor and cloud formation have been able to more accurately reflect the scientific observations of cloud formation and temperatures now being made, indicating that clouds are more of a positive feedback and climate sensitivity is more on the high side.

 

[Kosh]

More AGW cult religious dogma being posted..

People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth.

Once again showing that AGW dogma trumps real science..

 

[jc456]

[1] The magnitude and feedbacks of future methane release from the Arctic region are unknown. Despite limited documentation of potential future releases associated with thawing permafrost and degassing methane hydrates, the large potential for future methane releases calls for improved understanding of the interaction of a changing climate with processes in the Arctic and chemical feedbacks in the atmosphere. Here we apply a “state of the art” atmospheric chemistry transport model to show that large emissions of CH4 would likely have an unexpectedly large impact on the chemical composition of the atmosphere and on radiative forcing (RF). The indirect contribution to RF of additional methane emission is particularly important. It is shown that if global methane emissions were to increase by factors of 2.5 and 5.2 above current emissions, the indirect contributions to RF would be about 250% and 400%, respectively, of the RF that can be attributed to directly emitted methane alone. Assuming several hypothetical scenarios of CH4release associated with permafrost thaw, shallow marine hydrate degassing, and submarine landslides, we find a strong positive feedback on RF through atmospheric chemistry. In particular, the impact of CH4 is enhanced through increase of its lifetime, and of atmospheric abundances of ozone, stratospheric water vapor, and CO2 as a result of atmospheric chemical processes. Despite uncertainties in emission scenarios, our results provide a better understanding of the feedbacks in the atmospheric chemistry that would amplify climate warming.

And some of the chemistry;

3. Atmospheric CH4 Oxidation
[27] This section provides a brief description of the atmospheric chemistry leading to the formation of greenhouse gases from CH4emissions.

[28] CH4 oxidation leads to enhanced formation of ozone in the troposphere and lower stratosphere through a sequence of reactions involving NOx compounds. The CH3 resulting from reaction (R1) is oxidized and the reaction products are photolyzed in the presence of sunlight:

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

• 
  
  
  • 

[29] M is an air molecule (usually N2), participating in a three-body reaction, and “hν” represents the solar photon flux. Through this cycle ozone is efficiently formed in the presence of NOx, CO and CH4. The end product of the OH and HO2 formation from CH4 is water vapor. As two H2O molecules are formed from each CH4 molecule, water vapor enhancements due to additional CH4 releases can be important in relative terms in the dry stratosphere. Reaction (R9) yields CO2, constituting another important product from CH4 oxidation. The result of the CH4 oxidation chain is thus the formation of the three greenhouse gases O3, H2O, and CO2, which comes in addition to the enhancement of CH4 concentrations due to direct emissions.

Strong atmospheric chemistry feedback to climate warming from Arctic methane emissions - Isaksen - 2011 - Global Biogeochemical Cycles - Wiley Online Library

So, question if there becomes more water vapor, then therefore wouldn't there be more clouds? And if there are more clouds, then wouldn't there be less warming? again, a point going nowhere.

All of your specious "points" go "nowhere", JustCrazy. Scientific studies to date have generally indicated that cloud feedback is positive , not negative.

So the models don't produce what they expect and then they say they are incorrect. So they can't produce a model that aligns with their theory. Seems I've heard or read this before. something about 120 PPm of CO2 increase and temperature. Dude, did you even watch your own video?

Nope, wrong again, retard. What Dr. Sherwood actually said was that some of the models appear to be in error about cloud feedback and climate sensivity, the ones that assume that all of the water vapor rises to the maximum height, where reflective clouds can form which cause a slight cooling effect and a lower climate sensivity, because those models' results don't match actual observations, which show that a large portion of the water vapor rising from the oceans only rises a much shorter distance before precipitating out and thus not forming any clouds. High daytime clouds can reflect some of the incoming solar energy but clouds at all altitudes, particularly at night, can also reflect back down some of the outgoing infrared radiation that the Earth is emitting, intensifying the warming of the Earth. Other models that incorporate the actual observed behavior of the water vapor and cloud formation have been able to more accurately reflect the scientific observations of cloud formation and temperatures now being made, indicating that clouds are more of a positive feedback and climate sensitivity is more on the high side.

blunderhead, I heard what he said. So, I see here the model doesn't follow the observed so throw it out, and when the model doesn't fit the observed in the AGW hoax you keep them. I see.

And oh BTW how does the emitted waves bounced back down at night by the clouds intensify warming? It merely holds in the heat that is already present. Especially in winter months. you're all over th place dude. But I still laugh at ya, thanks for the comic relief.

 

[RollingThunder]

Nope, wrong again, retard. What Dr. Sherwood actually said was that some of the models appear to be in error about cloud feedback and climate sensivity, the ones that assume that all of the water vapor rises to the maximum height, where reflective clouds can form which cause a slight cooling effect and a lower climate sensivity, because those models' results don't match actual observations, which show that a large portion of the water vapor rising from the oceans only rises a much shorter distance before precipitating out and thus not forming any clouds. High daytime clouds can reflect some of the incoming solar energy but clouds at all altitudes, particularly at night, can also reflect back down some of the outgoing infrared radiation that the Earth is emitting, intensifying the warming of the Earth. Other models that incorporate the actual observed behavior of the water vapor and cloud formation have been able to more accurately reflect the scientific observations of cloud formation and temperatures now being made, indicating that clouds are more of a positive feedback and climate sensitivity is more on the high side.

blunderhead, I heard what he said.

You may hear things but without any apparent comprehension.....because you're obviously so extremely retarded....

So, I see here the model doesn't follow the observed so throw it out, and when the model doesn't fit the observed in the AGW hoax you keep them. I see.

More confused retarded nonsense.

And oh BTW how does the emitted waves bounced back down at night by the clouds intensify warming? It merely holds in the heat that is already present. Especially in winter months. you're all over th place dude. But I still laugh at ya, thanks for the comic relief.

That is sooooo moronic, even for you, numbnuts.

The Earth receives an enormous amount of energy from the sun every day and has to radiate an enormous amount of longwave infrared radiation away into space every day to stay in balance and not accumulate heat. Certain gases in the atmosphere, like CO2 and H2O, trap some of the outgoing infrared energy and keep the Earth warmer than it would be without those greenhouse gases. Mankind has increased CO2 levels by over 43%, which is causing the Earth to warm up by increasing the insulating blanket of gases that hold in heat. Clouds that reflect more of that heat energy back down to warm the air and land and ocean surfaces, and thus prevent the heat energy from escaping into space, ARE in fact "holding in the heat that is already present", keeping it from leaving out of the top of the atmosphere that way it would if the clouds were not present, and thus DO "intensify warming", you ignorant imbecile.

The Net Effect of Cloudiness on Surface Temperatures
San Jose State University
The greenhouse effect is not only produced by the greenhouse gases, clouds absorb long wavelength (infrared) radiation from the surface of the Earth and radiate some of it back down. In addition to this absorption and re-radiation of infrared radiation from the Earth's surface they may simply reflect it back to the surface.

Clouds also have a major role in reflecting some of the Sun's short wavelength (visible light) radiation back into space. The proportion of incident radiation reflected by a substance is called its albedo. The albedo of low thick clouds such as stratocumulus is about 90 percent. The albedo of high thin clouds such as cirrus may be as low as 10 percent. The albedo could vary with the wavelength of the radiation, but for clouds it does not as evidenced by the fact that they are white under white light. At sunrise and sunset the incident light is red, orange or yellow and the clouds reflect this light without modification. The albedo of clouds for infrared radiation is likely the same for visible light. There are two sides, top and bottom, to clouds that may be involved in the reflection of radiation.

Thus clouds share a role with the greenhouse gases and also share a role with the ice and snow fields of the high latitudes. (The role of clouds in reflecting the thermal (infrared) radiation back to Earth's surface has generally been neglected.) Altogether Water; in its three forms as vapor, liquid droplets, and particles of ice; is the overwhelmingly dominant substance in Earth's climate.

The effects of cloud cover on temperature is a familiar experience. Without a cloud cover in an area the temperature drops sharply at night whereas with clouds the temperature drop is noticeably more moderate. On the other hand in the daytime in the summer with no clouds the temperature goes much higher than it does when there is a cloud cover.

The effect of clouds on surface temperature is the net effect of three things:

• 1. Their reflecting sunlight from their top side,
• 2. Their greenhouse effect of absorbing and reradiating downward the thermal radiation of the Earth's surface,
• 3. Their reflecting back down the thermal radiation from Earth's surface.

The effect of clouds depends upon their type and the time of day. The more interesting and important type is the low thick clouds. At night the reflection effect is zero so the greenhouse effect and reflection of thermal radiation dominate and the low thick clouds have a warming effect. One can easily see that the reflection of thermal radiation is far more important than the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect could at most return 50 percent of the outgoing radiation back to the Earth. Reflection from the underside of clouds probably returns 90 percent of the radiation. The two effects are not in competition. Clouds could return 90 percent from reflection and half of the unreflected 10 percent. Thus it is easy to see why there is such a difference in temperature between a clear night and a cloudy night in the winter. Since the greenhouse effect from the atmospheric gases would be the same on a clear and a cloudy night one could say that the effect from greenhouse gases is negligible compared to the effect of low thick clouds.

The effect of high thin cirrus clouds at night would be very small compared with that of the low thick stratocumulus clouds.

In the daytime the reflection effect can dominate the greenhouse effect and thus clouds have a net cooling effect. The cooling effect of a cloud shadow is familar to everyone.

An even more homey illustration is the effect of a hat or cap on head temperature. A head covering keeps in the body heat. It has essentially a greenhouse effect. But despite that greenhouse effect, in the bright sunlight one is cooler with a hat or cap than without one, as one can see by the amount of sweat produced. Of course, in the shade the reverse is true.

The effect of clouds in the daytime also depends upon cloud type and their height. Thin clouds reflect less sunlight so their net effect may be a slight net warming. The thick, puffy, beautifully white cumulus are highly reflective and so they have a net cooling effect in the daytime but a net warming at night. The dark rain-laden clouds are not reflective but they nevertheless intercept the nearly all of the Sun's radiation and prevent it from reaching the surface. The dark clouds themselves would be warmed by the absorbed radiation and some of absorbed energy would be re-radiated toward the surface. The dark clouds could be net warmers or net coolers depending upon conditions but the general perception is that dark clouds are net coolers in the daytime.

The effects of cloudiness on surface temperature as a function of cloud type are summarized below:

Net Effect on Surface Temperature of Various Cloud Types by Time of Day
___________Thick white_______Thick dark______Thin
Daytime_____cooling___________cooling______warming
Night-time___warming_________warming______warming

The effect of the thick clouds would shift from net cooling to net warming as the Sun's angle changes during the day.

 

[jc456]

Nope, wrong again, retard. What Dr. Sherwood actually said was that some of the models appear to be in error about cloud feedback and climate sensivity, the ones that assume that all of the water vapor rises to the maximum height, where reflective clouds can form which cause a slight cooling effect and a lower climate sensivity, because those models' results don't match actual observations, which show that a large portion of the water vapor rising from the oceans only rises a much shorter distance before precipitating out and thus not forming any clouds. High daytime clouds can reflect some of the incoming solar energy but clouds at all altitudes, particularly at night, can also reflect back down some of the outgoing infrared radiation that the Earth is emitting, intensifying the warming of the Earth. Other models that incorporate the actual observed behavior of the water vapor and cloud formation have been able to more accurately reflect the scientific observations of cloud formation and temperatures now being made, indicating that clouds are more of a positive feedback and climate sensitivity is more on the high side.

blunderhead, I heard what he said.

You may hear things but without any apparent comprehension.....because you're obviously so extremely retarded....

So, I see here the model doesn't follow the observed so throw it out, and when the model doesn't fit the observed in the AGW hoax you keep them. I see.

More confused retarded nonsense.

And oh BTW how does the emitted waves bounced back down at night by the clouds intensify warming? It merely holds in the heat that is already present. Especially in winter months. you're all over th place dude. But I still laugh at ya, thanks for the comic relief.

That is sooooo moronic, even for you, numbnuts.

The Earth receives an enormous amount of energy from the sun every day and has to radiate an enormous amount of longwave infrared radiation away into space every day to stay in balance and not accumulate heat. Certain gases in the atmosphere, like CO2 and H2O, trap some of the outgoing infrared energy and keep the Earth warmer than it would be without those greenhouse gases. Mankind has increased CO2 levels by over 43%, which is causing the Earth to warm up by increasing the insulating blanket of gases that hold in heat. Clouds that reflect more of that heat energy back down to warm the air and land and ocean surfaces, and thus prevent the heat energy from escaping into space, ARE in fact "holding in the heat that is already present", keeping it from leaving out of the top of the atmosphere that way it would if the clouds were not present, and thus DO "intensify warming", you ignorant imbecile.

The Net Effect of Cloudiness on Surface Temperatures
San Jose State University
The greenhouse effect is not only produced by the greenhouse gases, clouds absorb long wavelength (infrared) radiation from the surface of the Earth and radiate some of it back down. In addition to this absorption and re-radiation of infrared radiation from the Earth's surface they may simply reflect it back to the surface.

Clouds also have a major role in reflecting some of the Sun's short wavelength (visible light) radiation back into space. The proportion of incident radiation reflected by a substance is called its albedo. The albedo of low thick clouds such as stratocumulus is about 90 percent. The albedo of high thin clouds such as cirrus may be as low as 10 percent. The albedo could vary with the wavelength of the radiation, but for clouds it does not as evidenced by the fact that they are white under white light. At sunrise and sunset the incident light is red, orange or yellow and the clouds reflect this light without modification. The albedo of clouds for infrared radiation is likely the same for visible light. There are two sides, top and bottom, to clouds that may be involved in the reflection of radiation.

Thus clouds share a role with the greenhouse gases and also share a role with the ice and snow fields of the high latitudes. (The role of clouds in reflecting the thermal (infrared) radiation back to Earth's surface has generally been neglected.) Altogether Water; in its three forms as vapor, liquid droplets, and particles of ice; is the overwhelmingly dominant substance in Earth's climate.

The effects of cloud cover on temperature is a familiar experience. Without a cloud cover in an area the temperature drops sharply at night whereas with clouds the temperature drop is noticeably more moderate. On the other hand in the daytime in the summer with no clouds the temperature goes much higher than it does when there is a cloud cover.

The effect of clouds on surface temperature is the net effect of three things:

• 1. Their reflecting sunlight from their top side,
• 2. Their greenhouse effect of absorbing and reradiating downward the thermal radiation of the Earth's surface,
• 3. Their reflecting back down the thermal radiation from Earth's surface.

The effect of clouds depends upon their type and the time of day. The more interesting and important type is the low thick clouds. At night the reflection effect is zero so the greenhouse effect and reflection of thermal radiation dominate and the low thick clouds have a warming effect. One can easily see that the reflection of thermal radiation is far more important than the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect could at most return 50 percent of the outgoing radiation back to the Earth. Reflection from the underside of clouds probably returns 90 percent of the radiation. The two effects are not in competition. Clouds could return 90 percent from reflection and half of the unreflected 10 percent. Thus it is easy to see why there is such a difference in temperature between a clear night and a cloudy night in the winter. Since the greenhouse effect from the atmospheric gases would be the same on a clear and a cloudy night one could say that the effect from greenhouse gases is negligible compared to the effect of low thick clouds.

The effect of high thin cirrus clouds at night would be very small compared with that of the low thick stratocumulus clouds.

In the daytime the reflection effect can dominate the greenhouse effect and thus clouds have a net cooling effect. The cooling effect of a cloud shadow is familar to everyone.

An even more homey illustration is the effect of a hat or cap on head temperature. A head covering keeps in the body heat. It has essentially a greenhouse effect. But despite that greenhouse effect, in the bright sunlight one is cooler with a hat or cap than without one, as one can see by the amount of sweat produced. Of course, in the shade the reverse is true.

The effect of clouds in the daytime also depends upon cloud type and their height. Thin clouds reflect less sunlight so their net effect may be a slight net warming. The thick, puffy, beautifully white cumulus are highly reflective and so they have a net cooling effect in the daytime but a net warming at night. The dark rain-laden clouds are not reflective but they nevertheless intercept the nearly all of the Sun's radiation and prevent it from reaching the surface. The dark clouds themselves would be warmed by the absorbed radiation and some of absorbed energy would be re-radiated toward the surface. The dark clouds could be net warmers or net coolers depending upon conditions but the general perception is that dark clouds are net coolers in the daytime.

The effects of cloudiness on surface temperature as a function of cloud type are summarized below:

Net Effect on Surface Temperature of Various Cloud Types by Time of Day
___________Thick white_______Thick dark______Thin
Daytime_____cooling___________cooling______warming
Night-time___warming_________warming______warming

The effect of the thick clouds would shift from net cooling to net warming as the Sun's angle changes during the day.

Wow all of that to prove my point. Thanks i appreciate it. I knew you were in error.

Glad to see this retard is so spot on.

 

[mamooth]

jc, you don't have to cry like this on every thread. We get it already; you're a devoted cult buttboy.

And you've found your calling, which is attempting to derail any intelligent discussion in every active thread. Good little buttboy.

 

[jc456]

jc, you don't have to cry like this on every thread. We get it already; you're a devoted cult buttboy.

And you've found your calling, which is attempting to derail any intelligent discussion in every active thread. Good little buttboy.

I only ask for what has yet been provided. So when you provide it, buttboy can go away.

 

[RollingThunder]

jc, you don't have to cry like this on every thread. We get it already; you're a devoted cult buttboy.

And you've found your calling, which is attempting to derail any intelligent discussion in every active thread. Good little buttboy.

I only ask for what has yet been provided. So when you provide it, buttboy can go away.

LOLOLOL.....abundant evidence has already "been provided", but you, buttboy, are just too stupid and brainwashed to comprehend what you're reading.

 

[SSDD]

jc, you don't have to cry like this on every thread. We get it already; you're a devoted cult buttboy.

And you've found your calling, which is attempting to derail any intelligent discussion in every active thread. Good little buttboy.

I only ask for what has yet been provided. So when you provide it, buttboy can go away.

LOLOLOL.....abundant evidence has already "been provided", but you, buttboy, are just too stupid and brainwashed to comprehend what you're reading.

Which goes a long way towards explaining why you have fallen so hard for the hoax....your threshold for what constitutes evidence is very low. Any weak correlation seems, in your mind, to represent evidence. Correlation does not equal causation and you guys would do well to try to grasp that concept.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hoax. Measured glacial retreat on all continents. Methane bubbling up from clathrates in the Arctic Ocean, breaking the surface in boils a kilometer in diameter. Not just one, but a great many. Methane being emitted from permafrost areas. Not computer models, but real time observations by scientists. But the idiots here deny that there is any effect. Well, boys, I hope most of you are enjoying some of the effects right now.

 

[SSDD]

Hoax. Measured glacial retreat on all continents. Methane bubbling up from clathrates in the Arctic Ocean, breaking the surface in boils a kilometer in diameter. Not just one, but a great many. Methane being emitted from permafrost areas. Not computer models, but real time observations by scientists. But the idiots here deny that there is any effect. Well, boys, I hope most of you are enjoying some of the effects right now.

So you think all those same things didn't happen during the MWP, the RWP, and the Holocene Maximum? Did they result in run away warming? Did they result in climate catastrophe?

Climate change isn't the hoax...the claim that man is causing it via his CO2 emissions and that imminent catastrophe is going to be the result is the hoax....