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 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."
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...
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. "
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
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.
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
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