Climate Change Mega Thread

[foenix]

Cloud cover makes the most sense plus the study has a much better correlation than any other theory.

Over the last decade, we have had a massive grow back of coral and this probably gave the team an opportunity to relate it to cloud cover. Seeing coral are shallow water organisms, it would make sense that shallow water temperature varies much more through cloud cover cycles. Cloud cover changes more based on ocean cycles and various factors.

CO2 does not control the distribution of clouds!

More CO2, less clouds, faster heating of planet is the new theory.

Recent climate models project that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 above pre-industrial levels could cause temperatures to soar far above previous estimates. A warming earth, researchers now say, will lead to a loss of clouds, allowing more solar energy to strike the planet. ...........

It is the most worrying development in the science of climate change for a long time. An apparently settled conclusion about how sensitive the climate is to adding more greenhouse gases has been thrown into doubt by a series of new studies from the world’s top climate modeling groups.

The studies have changed how the models treat clouds, following new field research. They suggest that the ability of clouds to keep us cool could be drastically reduced as the world warms — pushing global heating into overdrive.,,,,,,,,

Recent concern about how accurately the models handle clouds has focused on the blankets of low clouds that any international flyer will have seen extending for hundreds of miles below them across the oceans. Marine stratus and stratocumulus clouds predominantly cool the Earth. They shade roughly a fifth of the oceans, reflecting 30 to 60 percent of the solar radiation that hits them back into space. In this way, they are reckoned to cut the amount of energy reaching the Earth’s surface by between 4 and 7 percent.

But it seems increasingly likely that they could become thinner or burn off entirely in a warmer world, leaving more clear skies through which the sun may add a degree Celsius or more to global warming. As Mark Zelinka of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, lead author of a review of the new models published last month, has put it: The models “are shedding their protective sunscreen in dramatic fashion.”

https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-clou ... on-warming

[Howlinwolf]

CO2 does not control the distribution of clouds!

So you are saying that a warmer planet due to greenhouse gases would not effect the amount of water vapour the atmosphere would be able to carry due to increased evaporation?

[JagXKR]

Water vapour is the MAIN greenhouse gas. Without it we would freeze. So which "greenhouse gas" are you referring? CO2?
Makes up a fraction of the total amount of GHG in the atmosphere.
Also warmth and evaporation are not tied together either proportionally or inversely. Areas of warmth have dry and moist air masses. 2 close regions, both warm, can have vastly different evaporation rates. Given 2 different days with identical temperatures one can have significantly more evaporation than the other due to the saturation of the air mass by water vapour.
Warmth is not the driving factor.
Also, when the planet was much warmer than today the atmosphere was overall more moist. Due to the increased moisture, CO2, O2 and warmth, plants grew at rates not seen by modern man. Except in greenhouses which add CO2, moisture and heat. And voila, better growing conditions for plants that we need to survive.
Oh no, the horror. Plants growing at increased rates. We're doomed.

[Jlabute]

CO2 does not control the distribution of clouds!

So you are saying that a warmer planet due to greenhouse gases would not effect the amount of water vapour the atmosphere would be able to carry due to increased evaporation?

Apparently it does not increase global precipitation measured by satellite and clouds don't always form because of higher humidity. That is not the topic though. An increase in CO2 does not cause a pattern of more clouding over specific locations like the Great Barrier Reef. Cloud distribution has patterns that more closely follow ocean conditions, solar activity, and cosmic rays. Especially with the GBR making an enormous recovery in the last 8 years, it goes to show it has nothing to do with ocean acidification, or warming in general, but recent studies show a greater correlation to cloud patterns is the issue.

[foenix]

So you are saying that a warmer planet due to greenhouse gases would not effect the amount of water vapour the atmosphere would be able to carry due to increased evaporation?

Apparently it does not increase global precipitation measured by satellite and clouds don't always form because of higher humidity. That is not the topic though. An increase in CO2 does not cause a pattern of more clouding over specific locations like the Great Barrier Reef. Cloud distribution has patterns that more closely follow ocean conditions, solar activity, and cosmic rays. Especially with the GBR making an enormous recovery in the last 8 years, it goes to show it has nothing to do with ocean acidification, or warming in general, but recent studies show a greater correlation to cloud patterns is the issue.

Except recent studies shows an increase in CO2 shows a greater correlation of less cloud cover due to increase in global warming and I'm not sure where the information is coming from that shows there hasn't been an increase of global precipitation because that's wrong.....It's fairly easy to check.....

On average, total annual precipitation has increased over land areas in the United States and worldwide (see Figures 1 and 2). Since 1901, global precipitation has increased at an average rate of 0.10 inches per decade, while precipitation in the contiguous 48 states has increased at a rate of 0.20 inches per decade.

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/ ... cipitation

[foenix]

Water vapour is the MAIN greenhouse gas. Without it we would freeze. So which "greenhouse gas" are you referring? CO2?
Makes up a fraction of the total amount of GHG in the atmosphere.
Also warmth and evaporation are not tied together either proportionally or inversely. Areas of warmth have dry and moist air masses. 2 close regions, both warm, can have vastly different evaporation rates. Given 2 different days with identical temperatures one can have significantly more evaporation than the other due to the saturation of the air mass by water vapour.
Warmth is not the driving factor.

Water vapour and CO2 are in a positive feed back loop.....

The greenhouse effect that has maintained the Earth’s temperature at a level warm enough for human civilization to develop over the past several millennia is controlled by non-condensable gases, mainly carbon dioxide, CO2, with smaller contributions from methane, CH4, nitrous oxide, N2O, and ozone, O3. Since the middle of the 20th century, small amounts of man-made gases, mostly chlorine- and fluorine-containing solvents and refrigerants, have been added to the mix. Because these gases are not condensable at atmospheric temperatures and pressures, the atmosphere can pack in much more of these gases . Thus, CO2 (as well as CH4, N2O, and O3) has been building up in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution when we began burning large amounts of fossil fuel.

If there had been no increase in the amounts of non-condensable greenhouse gases, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would not have changed with all other variables remaining the same. The addition of the non-condensable gases causes the temperature to increase and this leads to an increase in water vapor that further increases the temperature. This is an example of a positive feedback effect. The warming due to increasing non-condensable gases causes more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, which adds to the effect of the non-condensables.

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/clim ... e-co2.html

[Jlabute]

Global precipitation measured by satellite is basically stable. You’re trying to tell me, there are fewer clouds but more precipitation because of CO2? lol.

Cloud cover has increased over the last number of decades. Co2 and water vapour in a feedback loop is hilarious. Of course, I was previously speaking about cloud patterns allowing coral to make a huge comeback. More cloud on average is a smaller contributor than local patterns of cloud.

https://notrickszone.com/2019/07/11/phy ... 100-years/

D30F931D-4048-4EF3-8221-93DF5D81CE9A.jpeg

C8C1B5D4-14FF-46E9-B550-3E296153D0B3.png

[foenix]

Global precipitation measured by satellite is basically stable. You’re trying to tell me, there are fewer clouds but more precipitation because of CO2? lol.

Cloud cover has increased over the last number of decades. Co2 and water vapour in a feedback loop is hilarious. Of course, I was previously speaking about cloud patterns allowing coral to make a huge comeback. More cloud on average is a smaller contributor than local patterns of cloud.

Not at all, satellite measurements have all sorts of inherent problems such as cloud covers, different satellites using different detectors, the difference in ages of satellite used, decaying orbit, different algorithm, etc etc. That's why there are wildly varying results and data in different research papers using satellite measurements. But once all these flaws are somewhat accounted for, the consensus is that the average global rainfall has been increasing every year.

The positive feedback of CO2 and water vapour might seem hilarious to you but that's not the conclusion of the various studies on that subject, including the link I provide.

Evapotranspiration – the transfer of water from the ground into the air through a combination of evaporation and transpiration – increased globally by 10% between 2003 and 2019, according to new research.

The authors find a “statistically significant” increase in evapotranspiration of 2.3mm per year over 2003-19 – corresponding to an increase of around 10% above the long-term average. According to the study, these findings “are consistent with the hypothesis that global evapotranspiration should increase in a warming climate.”

By comparison, precipitation increased by 3% and discharge decreased by 6% over the same period, relative to their long-term averages, the study says.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/satellite-d ... ater-cycle



If the increase in cloud cover is leading to more coral world wide then why are there studies that shows other wise......

The Planet Has Lost Half of Its Coral Reefs Since 1950

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 180978701/

Global decline in capacity of coral reefs to provide ecosystem services

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 2221004747

[foenix]

Global precipitation measured by satellite is basically stable. You’re trying to tell me, there are fewer clouds but more precipitation because of CO2? lol.

...but aren't you saying the opposite? .....more clouds and less precipitation?

What the new models are saying because of increasing global warming because of increasing CO2, there will be less cloud cover.
That doesn't mean in the past to the present, the average rainfall globally haven't been increasing......but that still doesn't explain, if the increase in cloud cover over Australia is responsible for the coral re-growth there.....how come the world's coral cover has decreased dramatically as the previous links are showing?

[Glacier]

With the exception of the US and Australia the number of weather stations have been absolutely gutted around the world over the past 30 years, especially in Canada where massive cutbacks in 1995 and again 2001 cut the number stations recording precipitation by more than 50%. As a result, Canada no longer tracks precipitation trends on a national level.

In addition, weather services have been contracted out to NAV Canada, and they have little interest in keeping reliable weather records, variables like cloud cover are also going downhill fast.

I'm open to the idea that precipitation is going up or that it's going down because of climate change, but going through the data to confirm or deny any assertion is becoming increasingly hard to do because of the degradation of data in recent decades.

From the data I have analyzed, the 1970s was the peak wet period since records began in the 1800s. Since the 1990s precipitation has been going down slightly, but it's still too short a time period to draw any concrete conclusions about how this relates to climate change for obvious reasons.

[foenix]

With the exception of the US and Australia the number of weather stations have been absolutely gutted around the world over the past 30 years, especially in Canada where massive cutbacks in 1995 and again 2001 cut the number stations recording precipitation by more than 50%. As a result, Canada no longer tracks precipitation trends on a national level.

In addition, weather services have been contracted out to NAV Canada, and they have little interest in keeping reliable weather records, variables like cloud cover are also going downhill fast.

I'm open to the idea that precipitation is going up or that it's going down because of climate change, but going through the data to confirm or deny any assertion is becoming increasingly hard to do because of the degradation of data in recent decades.

From the data I have analyzed, the 1970s was the peak wet period since records began in the 1800s. Since the 1990s precipitation has been going down slightly, but it's still too short a time period to draw any concrete conclusions about how this relates to climate change for obvious reasons.

I have to mostly agree with you but......

If we're just talking about the US....then it's pretty apparent the precipitation is going up....

a.png

....and here's Australia......

b.png

There is evidence that some rainfall extremes are becoming more intense.

Although the range of natural variability in heavy rainfall is very large, there is evidence from observed weather station records that a higher proportion of total annual rainfall in recent decades has come from heavy rain days.

As the climate warms, heavy rainfall is expected to become more intense, based on the physical relationship between temperature and the water-holding capacity of the atmosphere. For heavy rain days, total rainfall is expected to increase by around 7 per cent per degree of warming. For short-duration, hourly, extreme rainfall events, observations in Australia generally show a larger than 7 per cent increase. Short-duration rain extremes are often associated with flash flooding.

https://www.csiro.au/en/research/enviro ... ng-climate

[JagXKR]

I love how you pick and choose the image that promotes your opinion and disregard the one that does not agree.
Classic.
Here is Australia as well. From your link.

raag_r1_V2-no map.png

Shows decreased or relatively unchanging precipitation.
Picking just the one area of increased moisture is misleading and very much the MO of the eco crowd.
Shameful.

[foenix]

I love how you pick and choose the image that promotes your opinion and disregard the one that does not agree.
Classic.
Here is Australia as well. From your link.

raag_r1_V2-no map.png
Shows decreased or relatively unchanging precipitation.
Picking just the one area of increased moisture is misleading and very much the MO of the eco crowd.
Shameful.

If I wanted that then the link wouldn't have been included but I'm glad you read that the southeast Australia has been experiencing less rainfall and droughts. Did you read about why?......

The drying in recent decades across southern Australia is the most sustained large-scale change in rainfall since national records began in 1900. The drying trend has been most evident in the southwestern and southeastern corners of the country. The drying trend is particularly strong between May to July over southwest Western Australia, with rainfall since 1970 around 20 per cent less than the average from 1900 to 1969. Since 1999, this reduction has increased to around 26 per cent. For the southeast of the continent, April to October rainfall for the period 1999 to 2018 has decreased by around 11 per cent when compared to the 1900 to 1998 period. This period encompasses the Millennium Drought, which saw low annual rainfall totals across the region from 1997 to 2010.

This decrease, at an agriculturally and hydrologically important time of the year, is linked with a trend towards higher mean sea level pressure in the region and a shift in large-scale weather patterns—more highs and fewer lows. This increase in mean sea level pressure across southern latitudes is a known response to global warming. There has been a reduction in the number of cold fronts impacting the southwest, and a decrease in the incidence and intensity of weather systems known as cut-off lows in the southeast regions of Australia. Cut-off lows bring the majority of rainfall and the most intense rainfalls in some regions of eastern Victoria and Tasmania.

[JagXKR]

I did and I reject that the cause is man made global warming.
No proof whatsoever in the changing climate that man is a cause or even the major cause.
More eco terrorist lies trying to prescribe man as the big baddy.
Climate changes, it must change.
Without the ever changing climate, life would never have evolved.
But hey, keep promoting the agenda of the eco terrorists.
They love having their lies spread as truths.

[foenix]

Eyes wide shut.