How many posters here are smarter than all the world's scientists?

[Crick]

The relative humidity of air above water is 100% - for a boundary layer a few molecules thick and is simply the result of the interaction of evaporation and diffusion. The standard elevation for atmospheric calculations of "surface conditions" is two meters. At that elevation, RH above the oceans is roughly 80%. A logarithmic gradient exists between the two elevations.

You neglect uplift in the atmosphere ... what happens to RH when pressure is going down ...

It increases. My point was that cloud formation and the actual net effect of changing cloud cover are not well understood. Given that there has been no discernible change while temperature has increased significantly leads me to believe that the increased water content in the atmosphere is offset by the atmosphere's increased capacity. It particularly seems likely since they are both driven by the same mechanism.

Does it ever bother you that you constantly jump from one idea to another to another in your attempts to refute AGW or contend it represents no threat or that some natural process will bring it in check? Doesn't it seem to you as if you might be making up your mind in advance of an evaluation of the facts? Cause that's what it looks like.

PS: has there been a change in the amount of uplift taking place? Last time I checked, there was as much air going up and there was going down and a strong likelihood it's going to remain that way for the foreseeable future.

 

[ReinyDays]

The relative humidity of air above water is 100% - for a boundary layer a few molecules thick and is simply the result of the interaction of evaporation and diffusion. The standard elevation for atmospheric calculations of "surface conditions" is two meters. At that elevation, RH above the oceans is roughly 80%. A logarithmic gradient exists between the two elevations.

You neglect uplift in the atmosphere ... what happens to RH when pressure is going down ...

It increases. My point was that cloud formation and the actual net effect of changing cloud cover are not well understood. Given that there has been no discernible change while temperature has increased significantly leads me to believe that the increased water content in the atmosphere is offset by the atmosphere's increased capacity. It particularly seems likely since they are both driven by the same mechanism.

Does it ever bother you that you constantly jump from one idea to another to another in your attempts to refute AGW or contend it represents no threat or that some natural process will bring it in check? Doesn't it seem to you as if you might be making up your mind in advance of an evaluation of the facts? Cause that's what it looks like.

PS: has there been a change in the amount of uplift taking place? Last time I checked, there was as much air going up and there was going down and a strong likelihood it's going to remain that way for the foreseeable future.

Oh, I get that YOU don't understand cloud formation ... but this is well documented and the physics clearly understood by anyone who's taken a class in the subject ... the problem is measuring atmospheric conditions where cloud typically form ... weather station are on the surface, conditions just a few thousand feet up can be radically different ... the only way to get this data is either a weather balloon or fly an airplane through ... the former is done at about two dozen stations across the USA, and the latter is a special unit of the Air National Guard used to monitor hurricanes ... this is the biggest challenge to forecasting weather, we only have a two-dimensional view of weather conditions, and must extrapolate the conditions aloft ... a dicey situation at best ...

I'm focused on addressing your claim that average cloudiness decreases with higher surface temperatures ... and you've made this claim without the knowledge of how clouds form ... guessing since you don't know, nobody knows ... when in fact, all the details of the physics is taught in the first class in meteorology ... and one of the main reasons a full year of physics is required before the student can enroll in beginning meteorology ... I certainly have an open mind in these matters, up until there's a violation of a basic Law of Nature ... like putting more water vapor in the atmosphere produces less liquid water in the atmosphere ... the Conservation of Mass is a basic Law of Nature, yet you seems to think you can violate that willy-nilly, whatever it takes to convince people your prophecies are true ...

PS: has there been a change in the amount of uplift taking place? Last time I checked, there was as much air going up and there was going down and a strong likelihood it's going to remain that way for the foreseeable future.

Spot-on correct ... higher surface temperatures --> more water vapor in the atmosphere --> same uplift--> MORE clouds ... where else could this extra water go? ... these facts come from the citation you posted, maybe you should read it sometime ...

Let's take our air parcel at 25ºC, 80% RH, two meters above the ocean surface ... now uplift this air parcel to a temperature of -40ºC at roughly 25,000 feet elevation ... what happens to RH? ...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Somehow, atmospheric CO2 heats the deep oceans.

That's right dummy! Did you know the oceans actually touch the atmosphere? I mean, small children know this, but apparently you needed a remedial refresher.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Oh, I get that YOU don't understand cloud formation

How about the culmination of the scientific community at IPCC that taught you anything you could ever possibly know about any of this...

Do they understand?

 

[ReinyDays]

Oh, I get that YOU don't understand cloud formation

How about the culmination of the scientific community at IPCC that taught you anything you could ever possibly know about any of this...

Do they understand?

The IPCC report clearly state they make this assumption ... do you know the difference between scientific theory and scientific assumption? ...

 

[Crick]

From an early NOAA website:

CLOUD CLIMATOLOGY: SIMPLE EARLY VIEWS OF CLOUDS​

The earliest attempts to predict how changes in cloud cover would affect greenhouse warming concluded that they would have no net effect: clouds would neither speed nor slow a change in climate. That conclusion was based on the belief that any change that made clouds better at cooling the Earth would also make them more efficient at retaining heat near the surface. For example, if cloud cover were to increase (as many thought it would, assuming that warmer temperatures would speed evaporation), the amount of sunlight reaching Earth's surface would decrease, but then the thermal radiation trapped by the cloud might increase by the same amount.

Even such a simple scenario has problems, though. Because the decrease in solar heating would affect surface temperatures, whereas the change in the emission of thermal radiation would affect air temperatures at higher altitudes, additional cloud cover would reduce the temperature contrasts between the surface and the higher altitudes that drive the winds. Any reduction of winds might in turn inhibit the formation of clouds. The early studies did not account for this possibility.

Another idea is that higher atmospheric temperatures could create denser clouds, since greater evaporation rates at higher temperatures would make more water vapor available in the atmosphere for cloud condensation. Because denser clouds reflect more sunlight, there would be an enhanced cooling effect. This would reduce the magnitude of the greenhouse warming. On the other hand, denser clouds might also lead to an increase in precipitation (rainfall and snowfall), possibly from storm clouds, whose tops are especially high and cold. Such clouds, which are particularly good absorbers of thermal radiation, could more than make up for their tendency to block sunshine. In that case the warming would be intensified. Observations have shown, however, that warmer temperatures seems to create less dense, low-level clouds instead. The evidence we have so far suggests that this effect occurs because, as temperature increases, the air near the surface becomes drier, causing the cloud base to rise and reducing the cloud layer thickness. Earlier studies did not consider this possibility.

Such "what-if" discussions can go on indefinitely. All of the changes mentioned above are physically reasonable and there are many more to be considered. The question is: How many and which ones will actually take place when the climate changes and exactly how large will they be? In all likelihood, all of these changes and more would occur together, but we don't know what the net effect would be.

Another kind of complication is that clouds come in many forms , depending on the weather conditions that create them. Low, dense sheets of stratocumulus clouds hanging just above the ocean cool more than they heat. They make efficient shields against incoming sunlight, and because they are low — and therefore warm — they radiate upward almost as much thermal radiation as the surface does. In contrast, the thin, wispy cirrus clouds, which soar at 6,000 meters (20,000 feet) and higher, reflect little sunlight, but they are so cold that they absorb most of the thermal radiation that comes their way. Hence they warm more than they cool. The net cooling effect of clouds is the sum of a large number of such specific effects, many of which cancel one another.

Atmospheric scientists have been aware for nearly two decades that the complex effects of clouds on radiation and water exchanges pose a major challenge to the understanding of climatic change. In 1974 an international conference of investigators in Stockholm highlighted the need for greater understanding of clouds as one of the two biggest obstacles to further progress in climate research. The second was inadequate knowledge of ocean currents. Recent comparisons of the predictions made by various computer climate models show that the problem has not gone away. In some models, for instance, clouds decrease the net greenhouse effect, whereas in others they intensify it.

CLOUD CLIMATOLOGY: HOW CLOUDS MIGHT CHANGE WITH GLOBAL WARMING​

Although simple relations may hold between climatic conditions and the radiative properties of certain kinds of cloud, predicting how the global distribution of various kinds of clouds would change with global warming is complicated by their interaction with regional wind systems. Consider the roles of clouds in seasonal climatic change. In the midlatitudes, winter brings a substantial decline in solar heating, yet the corresponding drop in air temperature near the surface is between 70 and 80 percent less than what the decline in solar heating would seem to imply. More abundant and thicker winter clouds, with slightly higher tops, trap heat better.

In the tropics, despite significantly greater cloud cover in the rainy season, there is only a small seasonal variation in surface temperature. In part the variation is small because the effects of tropical clouds on thermal and solar radiation nearly cancel one another, but even more important is the controlling influence of heat transports by atmospheric winds.

The quest for more data about clouds and climate continues in parallel with the refinement of climate models. It is a slow-going process: each new piece of information must be incorporated throughout. With certain findings the models themselves may have to be reformulated. But the result should be an increasingly precise understanding of how sensitive the clouds are in response to changes in external forces and what effect those changes would have on global warming. One must hope that the model building and data collection activities will lead to an understanding of climatic change before that change comes to pass.

 

[Crick]

From Clouds, Precipitation, and Climate Change | UCAR Center for Science Education​

​

Clouds, Precipitation, and Climate Change​

Evaporation, Precipitation and Climate Change​

Rising global temperatures are likely to accelerate evaporation rates worldwide. So more evaporation is likely to lead to more rainfall, in a globally averaged sense. Many scientists speak of a "spun up" water cycle as a result of global warming; meaning there would be more water cycling through the atmosphere as a result of the increased precipitation rate.
There is no guarantee, however, that these increased evaporation and precipitation rates will be distributed evenly worldwide. Some areas may experience floods, and other areas droughts, as the traditional locations of rain belts and deserts shift in response to a changing climate. Some climate models predict that coastal regions will become wetter and the middle of continents will become drier. Also, some models forecast more evaporation and rainfall over oceans, but not necessarily over land.
Warmer temperatures and increased carbon dioxide levels may encourage plant growth in many regions. Increased transpiration, the release of water into the air by plants as a result of photosynthesis, would be likely in such a scenario. Uptake of water from the soils by plants would also need to increase if there were more plants, or if plants began to grow more rapidly.

Clouds and Climate​

Different types of clouds have different affects on the Earth's climate. While some types of clouds help to warm the Earth, others help to cool it. For example:

• Stratus clouds: A thick, low grey blanket, stratus clouds block sunlight from reaching the Earth like an umbrella and thus have a net cooling effect.
• Cirrus clouds: Wispy high clouds as much as 20 kilometers above the Earth's surface, cirrus clouds let most sunlight pass through but may trap heat from getting out of the Earth system. Therefore, they have a net warming effect.
• Cumulus clouds: With sharp edges and a cotton ball appearance, cumulus clouds can block sunlight, but also trap the Earth's heat depending on their heights and thicknesses.

Currently, the combined effect of all clouds is one of net cooling, meaning that clouds are dampening the rate of global warming. But scientists are looking into whether clouds will have the same effect on climate as the Earth continues to warm. If the proportion of different cloud types changes, it could affect the rate of climate change. This is an area of ongoing research.
What if climate change causes the number of cooling clouds to increase? What if it causes the number of warming clouds, to increase? If so, clouds may be able to temper the amount of warming in a negative feedback loop. Most scientists doubt that the net cooling effect of clouds will ever be large enough to completely offset ongoing warming, but it might slow the rate of ongoing warming.
However, what if climate change causes the number of warming clouds to increase? What if it causes the number of cooling clouds to decrease. Scientists say the current net cooling effect of clouds on the Earth's climate would decrease and the rate of warming would increase in a positive feedback loop.
For more information about clouds and climate:

• CMMAP: Studying Clouds and Climate The mission of the Center for Multiscale Modeling of Atmospheric Processes (CMMAP) is to find better ways to understand clouds and their roles in the global climate system via climate models that better take clouds into account.
• Clouds: The Wildcard of Climate Change This NSF Special Report highlights current research about understanding how climate and clouds are related. It includes background from the CMMAP project and a video narrated by NCAR Scientist Emerita Dr. Peggy LeMone.
• The Effect of Clouds on Climate: A Key Mystery for Researchers This article from Yale Environment 360 (Aug 30, 2010) summarizes some of the challenges related to figuring out the connection between clouds and climate change.

 

[Crick]

Clouds and Climate: NOAA Physical Sciences Laboratory

US Department of Commerce, NOAA, Physical Sciences Laboratory

psl.noaa.gov

Cloud Characteristics​

Depending on their altitude, structure and composition (ice or water) clouds will regulate energy differently. One cloud may trap heat by reflecting energy back to the surface. Another may reflect sunlight and cause the surface to cool. You may have noticed that a cloudless night can be much colder than a cloudy night. Without the heating of the sun and a layer of clouds to insulate us, the surface radiates more heat into space on cloudless nights, making them colder.

 

[Crick]

The point is though several people have predicted an increase in cloud cover from global warming, such a thing has not been observed. And even if such changes took place, no one knows whether they would enhance warming and cause cooling. So, your assumption that increased cloud cover will offset warming is not supported (or refuted) by current knowledge.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Somehow, atmospheric CO2 heats the deep oceans.

That's right dummy! Did you know the oceans actually touch the atmosphere? I mean, small children know this, but apparently you needed a remedial refresher.

Are you seriously claiming that the additional CO2 in the atmosphere now generates heat sufficient to warm the deep ocean?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Somehow, atmospheric CO2 heats the deep oceans.

That's right dummy! Did you know the oceans actually touch the atmosphere? I mean, small children know this, but apparently you needed a remedial refresher.

Are you seriously claiming that the additional CO2 in the atmosphere now generates heat sufficient to warm the deep ocean?

Just look at the atmosphere, it touches the ocean.
There is so much extra CO2 heat, I'm surprised the surface doesn't boil.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oh look I found this reliable data set of water vapor and cloud cover from 1890.

Did you see it under the period at the end of the last sentence?

 

[Crick]

Somehow, atmospheric CO2 heats the deep oceans.

That's right dummy! Did you know the oceans actually touch the atmosphere? I mean, small children know this, but apparently you needed a remedial refresher.

Are you seriously claiming that the additional CO2 in the atmosphere now generates heat sufficient to warm the deep ocean?

Frank, water's density is inversely temperature dependent until it begins to crystallize into ice. Water's density increases as its temperature drops till it reaches a temperature of about 4C. At that point the water molecules begin to arrange themselves in the fashion they will utilize to become ice. That decreases their density. The result of this is that ice floats and that the water at the bottom of the ocean is 4C. It will always be 4C as long as there are areas on the Earth that can cool it to that temperature. When the Earth has warmed enough that all the polar sea ice is gone and the polar surface water is warmer than 4C, the water on the bottom will begin to change temperature.

Be that as it may, global warming IS increasing the average temperature of the ocean and there is vertical circulation like the AMOC which brings bottom water back to the surface.

Is that what you wanted to see or were you hoping to catch someone? It gets pretty obvious when you repeat a question over and over again, particularly when it really has no bearing with the current debate.

 

[ReinyDays]

The point is though several people have predicted an increase in cloud cover from global warming, such a thing has not been observed. And even if such changes took place, no one knows whether they would enhance warming and cause cooling. So, your assumption that increased cloud cover will offset warming is not supported (or refuted) by current knowledge.

Thank you for this condensed version of your Wall-o-Text ...

... such a thing has not been observed ...

The same can be said about CO2's roll in temperatures ... if we can't say how much cloud cover effects this, then we can't say how much of a roll this plays in determining temperature ... and then we can't say how much CO2 plays into this ... therefore the Alarmism is completely unfounded ... we don't know this information, and research continues ...

What's good for the goose is good for the gander ...

 

[Batcat]

You know those scientists believe in climate change before they start working on it, Scientists have agendas too. And the financial rewards from people who are only trying to redistribute wealth for those scientists are huge.

Sounds like someone there just made a predetermined conculsion based on entirely on his politics instead of any evidence, and it wasn't the scientists.

By now NYC was supposed to be underwater and there should be no polar ice caps anymore. It is bullshit.

The problem with crying wolf as the global warming advocates have done for years is that eventually people not only don’t believe the “experts” but start laughing at them.

If global warming is actually a serious threat crying wolf to get change was a foolish tactic.

Also if global warming is real China and India should be making every conceivable effort to curtail their use of fossil fuel. The fact that they are not convinces many people that global warming is just a scheme to redistribute wealth and our nation is supposed to generously give up it up. China has excellent scientists who can evaluate the true threat of global warming. If the threat was real it will effect China just as it does the rest of the world.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Somehow, atmospheric CO2 heats the deep oceans.

That's right dummy! Did you know the oceans actually touch the atmosphere? I mean, small children know this, but apparently you needed a remedial refresher.

Are you seriously claiming that the additional CO2 in the atmosphere now generates heat sufficient to warm the deep ocean?

Frank, water's density is inversely temperature dependent until it begins to crystallize into ice. Water's density increases as its temperature drops till it reaches a temperature of about 4C. At that point the water molecules begin to arrange themselves in the fashion they will utilize to become ice. That decreases their density. The result of this is that ice floats and that the water at the bottom of the ocean is 4C. It will always be 4C as long as there are areas on the Earth that can cool it to that temperature. When the Earth has warmed enough that all the polar sea ice is gone and the polar surface water is warmer than 4C, the water on the bottom will begin to change temperature.

Be that as it may, global warming IS increasing the average temperature of the ocean and there is vertical circulation like the AMOC which brings bottom water back to the surface.

Is that what you wanted to see or were you hoping to catch someone? It gets pretty obvious when you repeat a question over and over again, particularly when it really has no bearing with the current debate.

Shuck. Jive. Shuck and Jive.

There's no math in your Shuck and Jive answer, just shuck - and jive.

Does it take less or more energy to heat equal volume of water compared to air with both at sea level?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The IPCC report clearly state they make this assumption .

What assumption? Be very specific, so that I can go check on that.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Does it take less or more energy to heat equal volume of water compared to air with both at sea level?

We are not your assistants. Make your false point.

 

[ding]

The point is though several people have predicted an increase in cloud cover from global warming, such a thing has not been observed. And even if such changes took place, no one knows whether they would enhance warming and cause cooling. So, your assumption that increased cloud cover will offset warming is not supported (or refuted) by current knowledge.

Wouldn't the other conclusion be that since there is no increase cloud cover there is no increased global warming? Or maybe it's that they don't have enough statistically valid data to make that comparison? Or maybe they are comparing it to the wrong reference point? Lot's of places for error to confirm one's bias.

 

[ReinyDays]

The IPCC report clearly state they make this assumption .

What assumption? Be very specific, so that I can go check on that.

That cloud cover will remain constant through the next several hundred years ...