So with the loss of our polar ice cap it's hypothesized that there will be even more warming because of the loss of its sunlight reflecting capability. However, when the cap melts the ocean will warm and thus there will likely be more humidity in the air. Thus there will be more cloud formation. Is there a likelihood that with the loss of the cap there will be more cloud formation that would replace the reflecting function? With the global dimming effect, even the contrails of our planes can supposedly affect temperature. What about a crap load of clouds?
Maybe you caught the same show on NPR that I did, whereby scientists are studying the feasibility of installing solar "umbrellas" to combat a warming climate. It's troublesome to me that instead of changing the manner in which we use energy, we look to "cures" that will have yet another set of consequences for our planet. As one example, I wonder what a modified quantity of sun will do to the native flora. Already there are reports of native flora migrating northerly of their native range due to the slightly warmer temperatures. Modify the amount of sun available and it's sure to have an equally dramatic effect. And then what of the species that use the sun for orientation during migration? Judging by our actions of the past, we'll surely not study the affects of these sunshades to a degree that would ease concerns of all the possible consequences. And then again, maybe that's not even what you were talking about????
I'm not suggesting we create more clouds to nullify global warming. That'd be too shortsighted a solution. I'm just querying out loud whether the effect of the global warming will be diminished by naturally occurring clouds WHEN the ice cap melts.
geo-engineering is certainly a rather disconcerting concept. I think the most likely path would be putting loads of sulfer into the stratosphere (essentially what large volcanic eruptions do). this has the effect of reflecting incoming radiation back into space. Ultimately, I think it won't happen because there are just too many things that could go wrong. At this point I think economics are going to be kicking in more and more as the number of countries with a decent standard of living increases the demand for fossil fuels is going to really force us to look at alternatives.
I don't think that thicker water vapor will help much, at least for awhile. Higher humidity holds more heat... or, more heat holds more humidity. One way or another, less ice surface to reflect is bad news. I like the idea of using light-colored materials whenever possible to reflect sunlight. I wonder if that would help in large cities, which exhibit the heat-sink effect?
It would save us loads of money, but americans hate light coloured roofs. That may change. Down in the SW white roofs are common but the architecture often hides the roof so it works well. In other part of the country it would take some convincing.
your logic makes sense but im pretty sure that clouds reflectivity rating is much much lower than snow...
Is reflectiveness of light a function of color only? I don't know, but some of the worst sunburns I've ever gotten was while skiing. At the same time, some of the most blinding light I've seen is when I'm flying over pure clouds.
no, reflectivity also works on smoothness of surface. very flat surfaces will have a higher reflectivity rating even if the color is darker than a whiter uneven surface. cars are shiny and reflect because the wax fills in small inperfections in the surface essentially making then smootehr. surfaces reflect at complimentary angles to incoming light. if the surface is uneven, the light gets reflected back at multiple angles dulling the image seen and reducing the intensity of the reflection to any single point of reference. getting sunburn while skiing is mostly the white white of the snow and getting sun from above: radiated and below: reflected... so kind of a double whammy
"geo-engineering is certainly a rather disconcerting concept. I think the most likely path would be putting loads of sulfer into the stratosphere (essentially what large volcanic eruptions do)." I have a feeling the planet will do this with or without us. as the planet warms, earthquake and volcanic activity seem likely to increase. If there's a big enough one, it will block out quite a bit of sunlight. When was the last major eruption anyways? I don't think it's wise to try and mimic the upper atmosphereic effects of a volcano. What happens if we do this and then an eruption occurs on top of that?
Just a guess based on general physics. Higher heat = higher energy or more molecular movement, as well as increased volume of matter. Increased volume and energy in magma = more cracks and booms.
Don't think it works that way. If it were warmer for millions of year maybe. Tectonic cycles have a much more profound influence on the atmosphere than the other way around.
True. But that doesn't mean atmosphere can't affect tectonics either. AGW seems to cause all kinds of anomolies, so it wouldn't suprise me to see seismic activity worldwide rising slowly. It just seems like we're due for a major eruption. Of course, no one knows really, Esp. me.
Yeah, but the amount of heat required would be far higher than what the atmosphere can provide. The melting point of SiO2 (quartz) is something around 700 deg C at STP. Quartz has the lowest melting point for the igneous/metamorphic minerals. Tectonics is defo influenced by events in the atmosphere, like glaciations, so in that sense a warmer earth would have an impact via isostatic rebound in the affected areas. Still, this would be occuring on the scales to 10's to 100's of thousands of years.
Hmmm. I'm not sure if a 5-10 degree increase in atmospheric temperature would affect the volcanic activity of magma which is easily over 1000 degrees C. But I'm just speculating.
