It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The world's clouds are shifting, but not in a good way

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2016 @ 07:07 AM
link   
An interesting read here about how Climate Change is affecting the clouds and how/where those clouds cover the Earth. According to a study that goes back as far as 1983, cloud cover has shifted toward the poles and this means more heat at the equator where there are no clouds to block the sun and more heat at the poles where there are more clouds now to trap heat; the clouds trap more heat because they are getting taller according to the study.



The way clouds cover the earth has dramatically changed over the last few decades, and what it means for our planet isn't very good. Using satellite data to track cloud patterns since 1983, a new study published in Nature found that, because of climate change, cloud coverage has shifted toward the poles. This has caused the subtropical dry zones — between 20 and 30 degrees latitude in both hemispheres — to expand. In addition, the researchers found that the cloud tops are stretching higher into the atmosphere. Taken together, these cloud changes can accelerate the warming of the planet. Because of the orbital relationship between the earth and the sun, there's more solar radiation in the tropic regions than at the poles, so cloud coverage in these areas is particularly important. Clouds' bright-white nature increases the planet's albedo, or the earth's ability to reflect the sun's energy and radiation back into space. So, without those clouds over the tropics, there will be less reflection and the earth is liable to warm faster. In addition, the rising cloud tops increase their "greenhouse effect," meaning that clouds are now trapping more warm air beneath them. This could also accelerate the warming trend of the planet. cloud patterns Global cloud patterns. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center While most climate models predicted these kinds of changes, clouds have been notoriously difficult to study because of their shape-shifting nature, and there had been some disagreement between the climate models related to how clouds would be affected. Still, this study is further evidence that significant climate change has already begun, and that future changes could mean more warming than was previously thought. "I guess what was surprising is that a lot of times we think of climate change as something that's going to occur in the future," Joel Norris, a climate scientist at the University of California at San Diego, told NPR. "This is happening right now, it's happened during my lifetime. It was a bit startling."


This is interesting; especially since this information has been known since the early 80's. Which isn't a lot of time geologically, but it does show us an unchanging pattern for 33years. What say you, ATS?

www.businessinsider.com...?r=UK&IR=T
edit on 14-7-2016 by lostbook because: word edit




posted on Jul, 14 2016 @ 08:00 AM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

I see there is a collection of new papers "Papers Supporting a Skeptical-of-the-Consensus Position for 2016
240 total papers (January-June) "

- See more at: notrickszone.com...

11 on clouds and aerosols for anyone interested . I looked or tried to look at the link to the paper in your link but it doesn't get to the paper .just saying .
edit on 14-7-2016 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)


ETA from the piece (www.npr.org... ) "So will other climate researchers buy this new history of clouds? Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado isn't so sure.

"This is a very good attempt to try and get a handle on this, but I don't think it's the final answer," says Trenberth, who notes that the time frame studied was pretty short and included a period often described as the global warming hiatus, from 1999 to 2013. "
edit on 14-7-2016 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-7-2016 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2016 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Another incomplete study that fails to include space weather, and the weakening magnetosphere.

Only half the story as usual.



posted on Jul, 14 2016 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

Well, you just blew your argument lol

"According to a study that goes back as far as 1983, cloud cover has shifted toward the poles and this means more heat at the equator where there are no clouds to block the sun and more heat at the poles where there are more clouds now to trap heat; the clouds trap more heat because they are getting taller according to the study."

So if more clouds trap more heat and no clouds allow more heat, what's the solution? Turn off the sun for a couple of hours a day because the sun is producing the heat? Fail ;-)

Cheers - Dave



posted on Jul, 14 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Taking the info at face value, it would seem then that all the contrails we put in the skies that were supposed to help shield us from the suns rays are now assisting in keeping earth's temps too warm.


The sheer number of contrails generated on a typical day in busy air corridors can come as a shock. A NASA satellite took this enhanced infrared image of the southeastern U.S. on January 29, 2004.

***SNIP***

A lingering concern

If conditions are right, newly formed contrails will begin feeding off surrounding water vapor. Like vaporous cancers, they start growing and spreading. In time, they can expand horizontally to such an extent that they become indistinguishable from cirrus clouds, those thin, diaphanous sheets often seen way up high. These artificial cirrus clouds can last for many hours, and the amount of sky they end up covering can be astonishing. One study showed that contrails from just six aircraft expanded to shroud some 7,700 square miles.

www.pbs.org...


Maybe we should quit trying to affect mother nature and learn to live with her instead of control her.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 11:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: lostbook

I see there is a collection of new papers "Papers Supporting a Skeptical-of-the-Consensus Position for 2016
240 total papers (January-June) "

- See more at: notrickszone.com...

11 on clouds and aerosols for anyone interested . I looked or tried to look at the link to the paper in your link but it doesn't get to the paper .just saying .

ETA from the piece (www.npr.org... ) "So will other climate researchers buy this new history of clouds? Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado isn't so sure.

"This is a very good attempt to try and get a handle on this, but I don't think it's the final answer," says Trenberth, who notes that the time frame studied was pretty short and included a period often described as the global warming hiatus, from 1999 to 2013. "


I don't know if the paper is true, but just because someone is a skeptic doesn't mean they're automatically more objective.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 11:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: lostbook

Well, you just blew your argument lol

"According to a study that goes back as far as 1983, cloud cover has shifted toward the poles and this means more heat at the equator where there are no clouds to block the sun and more heat at the poles where there are more clouds now to trap heat; the clouds trap more heat because they are getting taller according to the study."

So if more clouds trap more heat and no clouds allow more heat, what's the solution? Turn off the sun for a couple of hours a day because the sun is producing the heat? Fail ;-)

Cheers - Dave


What's fail is that you don't think there's any difference between brazil (on equator) and the antarctic.
edit on 15-7-2016 by winterwind93 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: winterwind93

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: lostbook

Well, you just blew your argument lol

"According to a study that goes back as far as 1983, cloud cover has shifted toward the poles and this means more heat at the equator where there are no clouds to block the sun and more heat at the poles where there are more clouds now to trap heat; the clouds trap more heat because they are getting taller according to the study."

So if more clouds trap more heat and no clouds allow more heat, what's the solution? Turn off the sun for a couple of hours a day because the sun is producing the heat? Fail ;-)

Cheers - Dave


What's fail is that you don't think there's any difference between brazil (on equator) and the antarctic.


Your argument or theirs is still a fail;

"So if more clouds trap more heat and no clouds allow more heat, what's the solution? Turn off the sun for a couple of hours a day because the sun is producing the heat? Fail ;-)"

Play the ball, not the player. You or they have made a contradictory statement as to thermal delivery and/or retention of heat energy. The obvious reason is the sun and by your or their statement has nothing to do with cloud cover or the lack thereof.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: winterwind93

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: lostbook

Well, you just blew your argument lol

"According to a study that goes back as far as 1983, cloud cover has shifted toward the poles and this means more heat at the equator where there are no clouds to block the sun and more heat at the poles where there are more clouds now to trap heat; the clouds trap more heat because they are getting taller according to the study."

So if more clouds trap more heat and no clouds allow more heat, what's the solution? Turn off the sun for a couple of hours a day because the sun is producing the heat? Fail ;-)

Cheers - Dave


What's fail is that you don't think there's any difference between brazil (on equator) and the antarctic.


Your argument or theirs is still a fail;

"So if more clouds trap more heat and no clouds allow more heat, what's the solution? Turn off the sun for a couple of hours a day because the sun is producing the heat? Fail ;-)"

Play the ball, not the player. You or they have made a contradictory statement as to thermal delivery and/or retention of heat energy. The obvious reason is the sun and by your or their statement has nothing to do with cloud cover or the lack thereof.

Cheers - Dave


I assume they mean clouds act like a two sided heatsink.

And then I thought you needed to be told you fail because you didn't have an immediate image of the antarctic as a windswept frozen tundra and equatorial lands as hot and tropical.

edit on 16-7-2016 by winterwind93 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: lostbook

Well, you just blew your argument lol

"According to a study that goes back as far as 1983, cloud cover has shifted toward the poles and this means more heat at the equator where there are no clouds to block the sun and more heat at the poles where there are more clouds now to trap heat; the clouds trap more heat because they are getting taller according to the study."

So if more clouds trap more heat and no clouds allow more heat, what's the solution? Turn off the sun for a couple of hours a day because the sun is producing the heat? Fail ;-)

Cheers - Dave


The solution to ignorance is understanding atmospheric physics. The description is correct, but it was written by a journalist who didn't know, or bother to explain the mechanism.

How the Earth stays warm:

First is direct sunlight, emitted from the Sun, concentrated in optical (high) frequencies. The atmosphere, absent clouds, is clear to this.

Then, the ground/sea warms up and re-emits thermal (infrared) electromagnetic radiation, invisible to human visual perception. Some of this radiation is intercepted on the way out to space by molecules of the atmosphere, most prominently water and carbon dioxide, and these molecules re-radiate again in all directions, half of which are pointing back down. This is the greenhouse effect.

So at the surface, your heating consists of a combination of direct (or filtered) sunlight and greenhouse radiation---and the more, the more, and the hotter.

Now clouds are interesting---because they reflect sunlight to space (reducing direct optical heating) but are also greenhouse gases in their humidity.

Now, near the equator, you get overhead sunlight for most of the day, and the dominant influence on temperature is optical radiation. Closer to the poles, you get less direct sunlight, and therefore, relatively, the greenhouse effect is quantitatively more important there.

Analogy (not exact but halfway): when you're in Saudi Arabian desert, if you remove your white robe and go naked, you will feel even warmer. (white robe == clouds). When you're walking in Antarctica, when you go from naked to putting on more clothes, you will also feel warmer---because there it is more important to retain the heat that you already have.



So, if clouds move towards the poles and away from tropics, this can in fact mean heating both places, because in the tropics, there will be even more bright clear sunlight, but in the poles, where there wasn't that much sunlight to begin with, there is even more greenhouse effect relatively (in particular at night).
edit on 18-7-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join