W>Why did you split the sentence to make it look like it was saying that the tropics are cloudier than the temperate mid latitude storm zones ?>>
I'm not sure why that happened. It was not intentional. I congratulate you for catching that, but I can't imagine why you would think I was making some point that way. I put bold face on the part I thought was significant. Now let me ask YOU, why did you not reply to the very obvious point that this page supports... my view that a warmer ocean (i.e. the tropics) indeed DOES have more cloud cover AND that the polar regions have LESS? Why major in minors? Why have you decided to tithe mint and left the weightier matters undone? This contradicts what both you and Pi have argued. Why just whiff right over that point? You might have done well to have paid attention to that part of it, rather than wasting time studying about monsoons, or imagining that I was up to something nefarious by an accidental change of punctuation after I inserted my comment in parentheses. So will you admit that this quote does indeed refute what you and he were saying...that warmer water makes less clouds...or that there are more clouds over the polar areas? (And DON'T pretend it was only PI saying it!...or that he only "expressed uncertainty"!)
>The storm clouds produce their own cool, dry air from the top of the system. It's an engine working off the heat of the ocean to produce wind and rain. Doesn't matter how uniformly warm the ocean is.<<<
If this were true then one might think there would only be taller clouds in the tropics today...or ANYWHERE where there is a body of water warmer than the air over it. I will rely on what Oard said, and also on the point I have made several times...that in order to have a net warming from GE then there must be a cooler surface below. This means that with normal surface temperatures that we have today there is longwave radiation warming from clouds which would not happen with a very warm ocean just after the flood.
>>You’ve learnt since the early stages of this thread that tall clouds (like cumulonimbus) have a neutral effect on temperature. How have you now forgotten that ?<<
And I hope you have known since BEFORE you started this thread that volcanoes cause significant global cooling. Yet you began this thread on the premise that Oard had to be WRONG about that! When will YOU admit to that error??? Are you wrong to say that volcanoes cannot cause substantial global cooling??? The warm parts of the ocean today are definitely not filled with only cumulonimbus clouds...the tall type...as your argument implies. Lower level clouds predominate. Not every ocean cloud is a hurricane, which is what the image you used is. So your idea that clouds produce their own cool dry air which always cause taller clouds when the ocean is warm is bogus. And I did use "always", because you have suggested that your visual of the cloud "engines" applies to all clouds. It does NOT.
THIS page, describes two types of convective rising of air...one is stable, and the other unstable. (The unstable is the type that makes taller "deep convective" clouds...like you showed.) Both are a result of warm/moist air rising, but it is the environmental factors that makes them different.
"Convection is controlled by atmospheric stability. It can be forced initially by the warming of air parcels near the surface, but the vertical profile of temperature determines whether convection will be deep (that is penetrating to high elevation as in Fig 3) or shallow as in Fig 2." and "If vertically displaced parcels sink back to their initial elevation after the lifting ceases, the environment is stable."
Dry Parcel Rising in Warm Environment
"If, on the other hand, we are faced with the situation shown in Fig 3 the consequences of an initial "lift" are quite different. The environmental lapse rate is 10 °C/km - higher than the adiabatic lapse rate - and the parcel continues to rise throughout the entire column."
Dry Parcel Rising in Cold Environment
(BTW, the term "dry parcel of air" can't mean no moisture in it. The dry lapse rate is always constant...at 9.8° C/km. The parcel must have moisture for it to not have a lapse rate equal to 9.8 °C/km. Or maybe it is dry in the sense that it already has the moisture condensed out to form a cloud, but it still rises. I don't think it means "no clouds".)
I believe the conditions after the flood would be more like the former...where the temp changes with altitude ("environmental lapse rate") are LESS than the adiabatic lapse rate. The ocean would cause a thicker and warmer cloud environment. And Oard agree with me. The picture Wibble showed is of the latter condition...a colder air environment, which makes deep convective clouds.
BTW, I would like for Wibble to provide the source for the image he showed...so I can read what it has to say.
>>Yes it is a lot if you completely change what was said in the paper. Here’s what it says:
Randall et al. (1984) estimated that a 4% increase in MSC cover could offset a 2-3°C global temperature rise.
I don’t understand how you’ve done that ?<<
I don't either. I surely wouldn't have intentionally changed that to make it a ridiculous number. If I were trying to pull a fast one, I'd use something more reasonable, and hope you wouldn't check it. This INVITES you to check it. I did notice weird stuff happening when I tried to cut/paste...I kept getting a "snapshot" (picture) rather than copying of text. So, the point is even more valid since it is not a ridiculous number. (My "that seems like a LOT"...proves I was doubtful of it, rather than lying about it). If indeed the cloud cover for low-level clouds went up from 25% today to just 45% (i.e. increases 5 x 4 = 20%)...that means a 10-15C global temp decrease is indeed possible, INCLUDING GE. Since land albedo and volcanic albedo would be added, then that makes it even a greater amount of cooling. This paper you cited helps to support my contention. The point is stronger after the correction. So...what ELSE can you say in reply to it? You can COUNT on me repeating this point over and over until you answer it.
>>I refer you again to the chart earlier. If Oard really thinks that tall clouds can’t form over a warm oceans then he’s talking rubbish. No other meteorologist would say that.>>
Oard would laugh at you. He understands what you don't...(and I'll admit I didn't either)...that tall clouds are formed when the rising air is UNSTABLE. That is, its cooling rate (lapse rate) is greater than 9.8 °C/km. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, depending on the environmental conditions. Even today, the tall type of clouds do NOT predominate over warm oceans. And even if they DID after the flood, then the GE would not be downward toward a warmer surface. It would go upward.
>>It says cloud at all levels. Not just low clouds. So insignificant net feedback due to clouds on temperature.>>
Yeah, but you and Pi were trying to affirm that TOTAL CLOUD COVER WOULD BE LESS...where the ocean is warmest. That is the FIRST part of it...there IS positive feedback of warm water on cloud fraction for the LOW type (MSC). There was also the SECOND part...a negative feedback where if you have fewer clouds then the ocean is heated more. (To me this implies when you combine the two, there is in totality a negative feedback loop...a self-adjustment, which God designed to keep our planet from overheating). I showed you to be wrong about warmer parts of the globe having fewer clouds. Here is the relevant quote:
Colder ocean water is
associated with increased low cloud amount in regions of
persistent MSC, such as off of the southwest coast of
North America, the west coast of South America, the
southwest coast of Africa, the coast of southern Europe,
and the west coast of Australia. Low clouds correlate
positively with SST over regions of warm SST, as is shown
by the patches of positive correlations over the Indian
Ocean, the central Pacific, the western Pacific warmpool,
and the Caribbean.
If you want to argue a DIFFERENT point (that more cloud cover won't mean more cooling) then the gracious thing to do would be to FIRST admit your error about THIS point, before "moving on", hoping no one notices you were wrong.
>>Cloud does not supply the entire albedo of the planet>>
Of course not. Land supplies 15% of the 30% we have now. At least that's one number I've seen. It might be less than that.
>>So how is tripling clouds from 28% going to triple the total albedo ?>>
You have made a fair point. I will try to adjust what I said. If the cloud "blanket" is quadrupled from 15% to 60% that would cause (7 x 4) 28C in warming. If we have 4x the cloud albedo and 1x the land albedo, that is 75% total. And the albedo site says with 75% albedo, there would be 66C in cooling...offset by that 28C in warming. Hardly a solution for you...to have global temps drop by "only" 38C, including GE. So now, that I have fixed my mistake...what is your answer? Oh, and I'm being generous here, because I think it is very reasonable that if you combine cloud and volcanic albedo post-flood, that the albedo of the planet would be GREATER than 75% for a while.
>>Also, talk of 90C cooling due to cloud albedo is nonsensical. The Earth would be 12C warmer if there were no clouds (net effect incl. GE is 5C cooling at the surface). So the albedo effect of current cloud cover of 60% allows for 12C cooling. Forgetting GE that suggests that 100% cover gives 100/60 x 12 = 20C>>
I just took a quote from the paper YOU cited, and then applied it, using the albedo site. I got 38C of cooling this time. I could reduce that a LOT to be generous and still have the 7C to 10C that I think would cause an ice age. And that doesn't even COUNT volcanic albedo. I believe Oard's figure is 5C of cooling (just from volcanoes), but I'm not sure. He says the winters would be WARMER than ours today. It would be the considerably cooler SUMMERS that he'd say brought on the ice age.
>>But none of that matters anyway because you still haven’t shown why low clouds would drastically increase and cirrus disappear in your hot ocean scenario.>>
When I say "disappear", I mean "underlain by lower and more reflective clouds." Not necessarily that they go away totally. I am not sure if there are cirrus clouds over lower clouds today...but I believe there are. In fact I'm quite sure they are because I recall seeing high and low clouds when I was on a plane in between the two types. So you could have the exact same amount of cirrus I suppose but instead of having ocean or land below them, they would have lower level clouds.
>>All the observational data that has been presented in this thread and the content of the Journal of Climatology paper shows that there is no justification for that idea (and that paper is no way equivocal as you bizarrely state).>>
That paper and other sources are indeed unclear about whether warmer ocean temps cause more or fewer clouds. There is ZERO doubt that there would be much more vapor placed into the air and if it rises then it would condense (so long as there are aerosols for the water to condense around...and there would be more of those post-flood). You have to hang your hat on the false idea that the vast majority of additional clouds would be deep convective clouds (with tons more precip...which you DON'T want) which are not warming but only NEUTRAL and that is only IF the surface is cooler than the cloud such as what we have today. Remember...heat moves toward the cooler place, not the warmer one!