Re: Life Duty Death & Denial
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin (warrl@blarg.net)
Wed, 20 Sep 1995 08:15:37 GMT
javilk@shell1.best.com (Javilk) wrote:
>Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin (warrl@blarg.net) wrote:
>: Don't forget that H2O is a decent greenhouse gas.
> There is some contention as to the exact result of increased H2O in
>the atmosphere. Clouds dio reflect more light back into space than they
>absorb. The question is how many more clouds would there be.
That's an important point, but it's more complex than that. Last I
heard there were *many* factors, including the type of cloud and its
altitude. I can tell you that in Seattle in the winter, low clouds
certainly appear to have a net warming effect. The greenhouse effect
seems to overpower the reflective effect -- and when it clears, the
temperature plummets.
Further, not all the H2O in the atmosphere is in the form of clouds.
Some of it is gaseous (clouds are composed of water droplets or
crystals -- liquid or solid -- suspended in the atmosphere). When the
temperature rises, the *amount* of gaseous H2O in the atmosphere *can*
increase.
There's another issue I came across. Apparently some portions of the
arctic and near-arctic have desert-level precipitation. If there is
warming, precipitation in these areas is likely to increase -- and
it's *cold* there most of the year, so the precipitation will be
*snow* even though things warm up a bit first. We could see expansion
of the Arctic ice cap, due to warming. Similarly, mountain icecaps
further south could grow. There is very little doubt, snow and ice
*on* *the* *ground* are more reflective than absorptive even after
greenhouse effects are considered. If the warming turns out to be
from some transitory cause...
|