fall-ish banter

[Dark Star]

3 hours ago, Sundog said:

The oceans will continue to absorb C02, just because they got a little warmer doesn't mean they have reached the degassing point. 

They just won't absorb CO2 (or any gas) as well as they did when they were colder. That creates a positive feedback loop for global warming unfortunately. 

But they will continue to absorb gases, just not at the same rate. 

Now one of the debaters has introduced that the net global cloud cover has been decreasing.  This is the first time I have heard this.  I just assumed the opposite, since warmer air holds more moisture?

[Sundog]

3 minutes ago, Dark Star said:

Now one of the debaters has introduced that the net global cloud cover has been decreasing.  This is the first time I have heard this.  I just assumed the opposite, since warmer air holds more moisture?

I read a study not too long ago that showed low clouds (I think it was low) were becoming less numerous because of warming. The warmer air/sea surface temps disrupt low cloud formation, leading to even more warming, leading to even more disruption, etc. 

[Dark Star]

1 hour ago, Sundog said:

I read a study not too long ago that showed low clouds (I think it was low) were becoming less numerous because of warming. The warmer air/sea surface temps disrupt low cloud formation, leading to even more warming, leading to even more disruption, etc. 

Thanks again.

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, Dark Star said:

Thanks again.

Here are two relevant papers:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0310-1

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2025GL114882

[Dark Star]

On 9/13/2025 at 4:05 PM, donsutherland1 said:

Here are two relevant papers:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0310-1

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2025GL114882

Excellent.  Thanks

[LibertyBell]

On 9/13/2025 at 4:05 PM, donsutherland1 said:

Here are two relevant papers:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0310-1

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2025GL114882

But with higher evaporation rates would high and mid level clouds become more common, Don?

 

[Sundog]

1 minute ago, LibertyBell said:

But with higher evaporation rates would high and mid level clouds become more common, Don?

 

Even if that's true (I have no idea) I think it's low clouds that do the best job at cooling the surface. So if we are losing low clouds that's bad if you want to keep the Earth's temp from rising further. 

[LibertyBell]

1 minute ago, Sundog said:

Even if that's true (I have no idea) I think it's low clouds that do the best job at cooling the surface. So if we are losing low clouds that's bad if you want to keep the Earth's temp from rising further. 

Definitely, plus either way we're cooked.  With more clouds we have more insulation to retain heat at night with less clouds we have more sunlight to cook the earth during the day.

 

[Sundog]

5 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Definitely, plus either way we're cooked.  With more clouds we have more insulation to retain heat at night with less clouds we have more sunlight to cook the earth during the day.

 

Clouds are one of the tricky variables that climate models haven't really nailed down yet. They can have cooling and warming effects. 

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

But with higher evaporation rates would high and mid level clouds become more common, Don?

 

With rising temperatures, cloud formation is occurring at higher altitudes. Thinner, high clouds are becoming relatively more common. Those clouds are idea for allowing in solar radiation and then slowing its escape. The thick stratocumulus clouds are become less frequent, yet it is those clouds that block out a lot of incoming solar radiation. This data is consistent with paleoclimate records and more recent climate modeling.

[Stormlover74]

5 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

With rising temperatures, cloud formation is occurring at higher altitudes. Thinner, high clouds are becoming relatively more common. Those clouds are idea for allowing in solar radiation and then slowing its escape. The thick stratocumulus clouds are become less frequent, yet it is those clouds that block out a lot of incoming solar radiation. This data is consistent with paleoclimate records and more recent climate modeling.

Does this have anything to do with the increase in turbulence? 

[donsutherland1]

6 minutes ago, Stormlover74 said:

Does this have anything to do with the increase in turbulence? 

No. There's a different dynamic involved. Because the Arctic warms faster near the surface but the tropics warm more in the upper atmosphere, wind shear is increasing at cruising altitudes, leading to more clear-air turbulence

[Stormlover74]

17 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

No. There's a different dynamic involved. Because the Arctic warms faster near the surface but the tropics warm more in the upper atmosphere, wind shear is increasing at cruising altitudes, leading to more clear-air turbulence

Ok thank you

[Stormchaserchuck1]

Hmm, I think global warming coincides with less low level clouds and clouds in general. This is why it was always surprising to see global precipitation increase, and precipitable water. It makes sense that warm/dry would be the trajectory, but for the last few decades more moisture has happened by a lot. 

[forkyfork]

maybe the pac jet will relax this winter

 

[LibertyBell]

14 hours ago, Stormchaserchuck1 said:

Hmm, I think global warming coincides with less low level clouds and clouds in general. This is why it was always surprising to see global precipitation increase, and precipitable water. It makes sense that warm/dry would be the trajectory, but for the last few decades more moisture has happened by a lot. 

That might be starting to turn around now, Chuck.

 

[Sundog]

5 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

That might be starting to turn around now, Chuck.

 

No chance. 

Though I would love nothing more to be true 

[donsutherland1]

Joe Bastardi is arguing that the current nor'easter  that has dumped more than 3" of rain at Norfolk over the past two days with gusts of 50 mph should be counted as a tropical cyclone:

The flaw in his reasoning is that the system has fronts. Thus, it is not a tropical cyclone.

 

[BxEngine]

Gonna be an interesting flight to jamaica next week 

[LibertyBell]

1 minute ago, Santa Claus said:

i think it should rain

I thought Santa needs snow not rain?

 

[rclab]

3 hours ago, Santa Claus said:

i think it should rain

 

3 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

I thought Santa needs snow not rain?

 

 

2 hours ago, Santa Claus said:

yeah buddy keep telling santa what he needs that’s gonna get you the toy train this year

Caution Liberty …… The coal that appears in your stocking may arrive already lit. As always ….

 

 

[forkyfork]

it's black walnut season

[uofmiami]

27 minutes ago, forkyfork said:

it's black walnut season

Squirrels have been around my yard with those for a couple of weeks now.  Always a sign of fall’s arrival. 

[FPizz]

1 hour ago, uofmiami said:

Squirrels have been around my yard with those for a couple of weeks now.  Always a sign of fall’s arrival. 

Mine produced a ton this year.  Probably the most in the 9 years ive been here.

[LibertyBell]

1 hour ago, uofmiami said:

Squirrels have been around my yard with those for a couple of weeks now.  Always a sign of fall’s arrival. 

and the summer birds have departed early

[Sundog]

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

and the summer birds have departed early

This is the first time all the red berries on my flowering dogwood have been completely picked clean this early, they were all gone by last weekend. 

[Stormlover74]

Chipmunks all over today

[forkyfork]

2 hours ago, uofmiami said:

Squirrels have been around my yard with those for a couple of weeks now.  Always a sign of fall’s arrival. 

big haul today

[LibertyBell]

18 minutes ago, Sundog said:

This is the first time all the red berries on my flowering dogwood have been completely picked clean this early, they were all gone by last weekend. 

we've actually had a real fall this year!

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, Sundog said:

It certainly doesn't help that on the other side many of the so called proponents of climate change science are constantly saying the world will end next week or that they draft legislation turning what is purely a scientific matter into some type of racial justice issue. 

It makes the very real and solid science behind climate change look foolish and ridiculous. 

Sensationalist headlines do create problems, as they draw attention from the actual science. There's a big difference from, let's say, asserting that the Arctic could be ice free by 2030 when a single ensemble member shows the possibility of an ice free (< 1 million km2) summer by 2030 and most of the members show 2040-2050 for the first such summer. "Ice free" Arctic implies all seasons. 2030 focuses on a single ensemble member. The overwhelming model consensus is 2040 or later for the first ice-free summer. 

When drafting legislation, those seeking remedies often try to attach their desired causes to other legislation to improve prospects for those causes. There are some legitimate climate justice issues e.g., location of refineries in predominantly minority neighborhoods where large cancer clusters or significant particulate pollution exists. However, using the legislation to advocate for sweeping social reforms e.g., wage reforms, that go far beyond such issues, has no connection to the science. 

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

But this cautiousness also cripples the urgency for action.

 

In part, this is true. However, science operates on the rejection of null hypotheses. Very high confidence (usually 95% or above) is needed to reject a hypothesis. That's why it took so long for the IPCC to recognize that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions had been the dominant cause of warming since the mid-20th century. Moreover, the laws of physics responsible were understood since the mid-19th century. The idea that a doubling of CO2 would lead to a large increase in temperature was understood by the turn of the 20th century. Yet, because internal variability is large, the science had to wait until the climate change signal was unmistakably apparent. 

Further, while caution can delay the onset of aggressive action, bad faith actors and weak leaders do a lot more to thwart problem-solving. Today, the reality that the world is warming and that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are driving the warming is unequivocal. Yet, key actors in society have doubled down on a desperate bid to preserve the status quo. In doing so, today's political leaders have ignored the bolder precedent set by their predecessors who tackled both the acid rain and ozone depletion issues. Then again, perhaps because Cold War era leaders had to tackle or manage existential issues far more complex and larger than those that confront today's leaders, it's probably little surprise that they were willing and able to tackle acid rain and ozone depletion without finding excuses for delay, much less denying the problems altogether. 

In the end, the scientists have done their job and exceptionally well. Their findings have stood the test of time. Political and business leaders have not done theirs.

Humanity has substantial agency to act today and humanity has enjoyed the luxury of a truly substantial amount of time to address the problem of climate change in a very gradual fashion. Unfortunately, humanity has squandered a significant and growing portion of that time. Any protests down the road that little could have been done to avert 1.5°C warming over pre-industrial levels (which may already have been reached) lack merit. In the future, impacts such as those from a rising sea level that begins to claim neighborhoods or acidification of oceans that reduces harvests of fish, will not be the unavoidable tragedies that humanity will spin. They will be the tragedies that one or more generation of impotent and short-sighted leaders chose not to prevent.