From: bill.sloman@ieee.org   
      
   On 22/02/2026 11:51 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:   
   > Bill Sloman  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 21/02/2026 11:55 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:   
   >>> Bill Sloman  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>> Anthropogenic global warming has already raised sea surface temperatures   
   >>>> by more than one degree Celcius over pre-industrial levels. That puts   
   >>>> 10% more water vapour in the air above the oceans, and 10% more energy   
   >>>> tinto extreme weather events.   
   >>>   
   >>> Where would that energy have gone otherwise?   
   >>   
   >> Obviously into warming the oceans even more. This decreases the amount   
   >> of CO2 they can take up, but since CO2 levels in the atmosphere are   
   >> going up a lot faster than the oceans are warming up, this is a long   
   >> term problem. At the moment  about half the extra CO2 we are emitting   
   >> ends up in the oceans   
   >   
   > A wam ocean leads to more cloud cover which reflects more energy into   
   > space which reduces the overall energy input from the Sun.   
      
   It doesn't. Clouds form in rising air as it cools and dissipate when the   
   same air hits the tropopause and starts falling and getting warmer.   
   Cloud cover pretty much has to be stable at 50%.   
      
   If you have a multilayer atmosphere it gets more complicated, but we don't.   
      
   > Sounds as though the system might be stable in the long term.   
      
   It wasn't stable enough for the last couple of million years to stop us   
   flipping between ices ages and interglacials, and there was an episode   
   of natural methane release about 55.8 million years ago   
      
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_thermal_maximum   
      
     when global temperatures went up by between 5 and  8 degree Celcius   
   for about 200,000 years. The methane turned into CO2 pretty rapidly, so   
   it's a good model for out anthopogenic global warming.   
      
   The initial rate of carbon  injection back then was slower than what   
   we've achieved recently - the initial temperature rise took about ten or   
   twenty thousand years.   
      
   The system wasn't stable back then, and it's a bit optimistic to think   
   that it might be more stable now. People who make a lot of money out of   
   digging up fossil carbon and selling it as fuel are naturally more   
   optimistic, and want the rest of us to share their unrealistic optimism.   
      
   --   
   Bill Sloman Sydney   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)