SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A recent report on climate simulations show that global warming could break up stratocumulus clouds[$], letting in more energy as High CO2 levels break up stratocumulus cloud decks, once the levels rise above 1,200 ppm. Stratocumulus provide no precipitation but do cover about 20% of the low-latitude oceans and are especially prevalent in the subtropics, cooling by providing shade. If they disappear then, according to calculations, the added sunlight hitting the ground or ocean would increase temperatures by over 8°C.
Now, new findings reported today in the journal Nature Geoscience make the case that the effects of cloud loss are dramatic enough to explain ancient warming episodes like the PETM — and to precipitate future disaster. Climate physicists at the California Institute of Technology performed a state-of-the-art simulation of stratocumulus clouds, the low-lying, blankety kind that have by far the largest cooling effect on the planet. The simulation revealed a tipping point: a level of warming at which stratocumulus clouds break up altogether. The disappearance occurs when the concentration of CO2 in the simulated atmosphere reaches 1,200 parts per million — a level that fossil fuel burning could push us past in about a century, under “business-as-usual” emissions scenarios. In the simulation, when the tipping point is breached, Earth’s temperature soars 8 degrees Celsius, in addition to the 4 degrees of warming or more caused by the CO2 directly.
Once clouds go away, the simulated climate “goes over a cliff,” said Kerry Emanuel, a climate scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. A leading authority on atmospheric physics, Emanuel called the new findings “very plausible,” though, as he noted, scientists must now make an effort to independently replicate the work.
To imagine 12 degrees of warming, think of crocodiles swimming in the Arctic and of the scorched, mostly lifeless equatorial regions during the PETM. If carbon emissions aren’t curbed quickly enough and the tipping point is breached, “that would be truly devastating climate change,” said Caltech’s Tapio Schneider, who performed the new simulation with Colleen Kaul and Kyle Pressel.
Huber said the stratocumulus tipping point helps explain the volatility that’s evident in the paleoclimate record. He thinks it might be one of many unknown instabilities in Earth’s climate. “Schneider and co-authors have cracked open Pandora’s box of potential climate surprises,” he said, adding that, as the mechanisms behind vanishing clouds become clear, “all of a sudden this enormous sensitivity that is apparent from past climates isn’t something that’s just in the past. It becomes a vision of the future.”
(Score: 0, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @07:58PM (21 children)
Different AC.
Who was alive to observe the big bang? Just because people thought something happened doesn't mean someone was around to see it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Snow on Tuesday February 26 2019, @08:04PM (19 children)
The Big Bang is a _Theory_ based on the observation of background radiation and an observation that almost everything is moving away from us.
The Bible, on the other hand, is largely a work of fiction that people try to shoehorn real world historical events into.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @08:10PM
The AC you responded to speculated that the bible was the result of "lost knowledge" from an antediluvean society. You can think of it exactly like learning about the big bang from a fake news source.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @08:56PM (12 children)
There is a serious problem with the moderation on this site. The above post is +5 insightful even though they clearly did not comprehend the post they are referencing before writing that.
(Score: 3, Funny) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday February 26 2019, @09:48PM (11 children)
The A/C post above is modded +1 Interesting even though it starts
and then speculates about some forgotten race of super-scientists who understood the molecular structure of water and left the knowledge to the ancient Hebrews who wrote it down in Genesis thereby giving a scientific basis for the Bible.
Yes, there truly are some weirdos on this site. It's partly what keeps me coming back to be fair.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @09:52PM (10 children)
You don't find thinking about that possibility interesting?
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday February 26 2019, @11:29PM (7 children)
What possibilities? That a lost race of super-scientists existed? Well, yes, it's fun to think about those sorts of things, and I enjoy sci-fi as much as the next nerd, but let's not pretend it's anything other than fiction.
The Bible has nothing coherent to say about the origins of the solar system, let along the origins of our galaxy or universe
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @11:53PM (6 children)
What is super about the theory? Sounds like a theory anyone could have come up with in the last couple hundred years.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday February 27 2019, @12:44AM (5 children)
OK, I have stopped understanding what you're getting at now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @12:56AM (4 children)
The original post about this speculated that there was some antediluvian civilization that had some theory about the sun consisting of a fluid that started glowing at some point. This was then simplified, passed down and recorded as the beginning of the book of genesis. Just look at how much gibberish was generated by people who don't understand stuff about a physics paper here: https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=19/02/25/2037223 [soylentnews.org]
Same thing on a larger scale.
All the responses here seem to be from people without reading comprehension who think the AC proposed the bible was the word of god or generated by super-beings or something.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday February 27 2019, @01:23AM (3 children)
Yeah, the bits in the OP that caught my eye were:
For which there is no evidence, and the Bible has nothing to say on the matter either.
Then he goes on:
Which just a desperate effort to shoehorn god into something the ancient Hebrews knew nothing about.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @01:33AM (2 children)
No. It is called abduction. They speculated on a possible explanation for an odd thing they read in the bible. This is absolutely a legitimate scientific activity.
Actually it is better that usual since they didn't then take their own speculative explanation to be verified by the same info used to generate it like 99% of the "science" articles posted here do.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday February 27 2019, @06:26AM (1 child)
How could any of that be a possible explanation for what they read in Genesis? I'm curious.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @10:47AM
Sorry, but you seem to be incapable of comprehending the original post. There is really no reason to be confused like you are, it was quite clear.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Wednesday February 27 2019, @01:42AM (1 child)
If you weren't most likely a millennial, I would say you'd been exposed to way too much Robert E. Howard.
When life isn't going right, go left.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @02:25AM
Why is that?
To me the funny part of this conversation is I am probably more anti-christian than anyone else in this thread. I will not step foot in a church for any funeral or wedding or other reason ever.
Still, I can understand attempts to make sense of the strange old stories written in the bible. Other people here have a mental block to doing that.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday February 26 2019, @09:55PM (4 children)
The Big Bang explains a great deal.
One would think that the Big Bang was the hottest brightest event in the universe. So bright we should see a brilliantly white sky instead of dark space.
Which brings me to the topic of that background radiation. That IS the brilliant "white light" of the big bang. But with space expanding, the wavelengths of that light get stretched out, and thus we see them at a lower frequency, and hence the background radiation.
The frequency of the background radiation, the rate of the expansion of space, and the color of light at the big bang would all be related.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug into other computer. Right-click paste.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @09:58PM (3 children)
The big bang is a theory come up with by a Jesuit priest to support the catholic church's interpretation of the bible. It is even less science-based than what was proposed by the AC (basically a mangled lay account of some ancient theory).
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday February 27 2019, @01:03AM (2 children)
Exactly this. The big-bang theory is basically creationism masquerading as science and I've always thought it was bullshit, even in childhood. Now, if it were a periodic process that consisted of an infinite number of big-bang big-crunch cycles, I would be more likely to believe it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @03:03AM
Oh like the Buddhist cycle of birth and rebirth? Much more believeable than some Christian claptrap. Thanks.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday February 27 2019, @02:46PM
That is surprising considering how widely accepted the big bang theory appears to be.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug into other computer. Right-click paste.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday February 27 2019, @03:02PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves