25-04-2022 01:37 | |
IBdaMann![]() (14945) |
Into the Night wrote:sealover wrote:Most people just probably see a control freak. Just HAS to control the conversation. Severe penalties for those who disobey.You are describing yourself as well. He is describing his dreams. Attached image: ![]() |
25-04-2022 17:40 | |
Swan![]() (6128) |
Into the Night wrote:Swan wrote:IBdaMann wrote:Swan wrote: Everyone in the room already knows that you do not think. Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa |
25-04-2022 23:09 | |
Into the Night![]() (22922) |
Swan wrote:Into the Night wrote:Swan wrote:IBdaMann wrote:Swan wrote: Lame inversion fallacy. You are acting like a little child. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
26-04-2022 15:37 | |
GretaGroupie![]() (350) |
Into the Night wrote: ITN I never thought of it that way and she does have autism so I hope she thinks for herself. ![]() |
26-04-2022 15:44 | |
GretaGroupie![]() (350) |
Swan wrote: Swan her message may be 0 but her effort is 100 and that is what I admire in her that she makes an amazing effort even with the problems she faces and maybe she is like me in that she does not know enough about climate change to tell what is true and what is not but she is trying and if others are misleading her then one day she will find out as long as she keeps trying. ![]() |
26-04-2022 17:42 | |
IBdaMann![]() (14945) |
GretaGroupie wrote:Into the Night wrote: Greta doesn't have autism. She is being marketed as "overcoming adversity" to garner even more attention. Like I said, you are being manipulated. Have you ever seen a magic act? Perhaps you are aware that magicians engage in misdirection, i.e. they direct your attention to what they want you to see and away from what they don't want you to see. The political cabal behind the Greta manipulation fabricate claims of autism and other adversity that you cannot verify ... as a means of getting you to focus more heavily on Greta and to open up with ever growing levels of sympathy. Thus you will more readily accept/embrace the scripts that they write for her and you will be even easier to manipulate. It's all a lie. I would recommend you not fall for it. Greta is not the phony image you have of her. The wonder-story that has given you so much motivation is sheer fabrication, like any movie. It just isn't true; any of it. I hate to be the guy that is splashing you with cold water, and of course, I'm not going to pretend to tell you what to believe. I am simply recommending that you recognize that the magician is creating an illusion for you and that he is actually performing a trick. |
27-04-2022 17:16 | |
GretaGroupie![]() (350) |
IBdaMann wrote: No you are not and I like that you help me see another side of climate change that I never heard. Speaking of magic I had a dream that me and Bible Troll took a space ship in to outer space and we met the tooth fairy and had a party and then seelover was there and did not want to have fun so we put seelover on the moon where he could be with people like him and he was happy and we went to the planet with rings were happy. Does Bible Troll ever go to outer space? ![]() ![]() |
27-04-2022 19:07 | |
IBdaMann![]() (14945) |
GretaGroupie wrote:Does Bible Troll ever go to outer space? Yes, but he stays local. The Bible Troll rarely goes beyond the moon. He holds his annual "Sermon on the Mount" on the lunar surface because it's one of the few places he is assured of getting a permit. I don't mind telling you that LGBTQIA+ keep protesting his services and prevent him from getting permits in NYC, LA, Detroit, Chicago, Victoria, Montreal, New Orleans, Toronto, Vancouver and a host of other places. So, the moon it is. . Attached image: ![]() |
28-04-2022 15:54 | |
GretaGroupie![]() (350) |
IBdaMann wrote: Next time I am in one of those cities I will get Bible Troll a permit so he can preach here too. ![]() |
07-06-2023 02:22 | |
sealover★★★★☆ (1775) |
[quote]sealover wrote: "Global Dimming" - A Brand New "Buzzword"? No discussion about the science of climate change would be complete without global dimming being incorporated. The data makes no sense without it. Global dimming is NOT a brand new "buzzword". I'm getting pretty old, and I remember it well as a young science student. "Nuclear winter". Past mass extinction events. The written historic record. Crop failures in China pinpoint the year of the big volcanic eruption that ended the Minoan civilization. The sky grew so dark for a year that crops froze in China. By the time people invented thermometers they had more proof. Krakatoa (probably not spelled right), east of Java. When that volcano blew, there were cold-induced crop failures far and wide. And there was temperature data showing that it really got COLDER that year. More recently, temperatures were rising fast at the end of the 80s, early 90s. Then Mt Pinatubo blew its top. It got COLDER that year world wide. Then it went back to rising temperatures. But those 1990s temperatures would have risen even FASTER without the enhanced GLOBAL DIMMING caused by rising emissions from China. Some of global dimming is caused by the sun blocking effect of the anthropogenic emissions themselves. Dark soot. Light absorbing sulfur compounds, etc. But much of global dimming is caused by the effect of anthropogenic aerosols on cloud formation. Aerosol particles provide a nucleus for droplet formation, as water droplets condense and form clouds. In the presence of aerosols, clouds are comprised of much smaller droplets, in much larger numbers, than natural clouds. These clouds are far more reflective, but not so great for providing rain. Global dimming is such an important piece of the puzzle that it needs its own thread for a focused discussion. |
07-06-2023 02:23 | |
sealover★★★★☆ (1775) |
Im a BM wrote: |
07-06-2023 02:24 | |
sealover★★★★☆ (1775) |
[quote]sealover wrote: Global Dimming - The Cosmic Ray Connection What do cosmic rays have to do with global dimming? The answer may surprise you. Natural aerosols have always existed. Aerosols, natural or anthropogenic, have always been able to cause nucleation of cloud droplet formation. Cosmic rays can interact with the aerosols and droplets to enhance formation of many very small droplets in a more highly reflective cloud. Periods of history with more cosmic ray activity have included more global dimming. There was a time when this finding was distorted to claim that cosmic rays, or lack thereof, were responsible for the alleged anthropogenic global warming. |
07-06-2023 02:25 | |
sealover★★★★☆ (1775) |
[quote]sealover wrote: Shifting Geography of Global Dimming There was a time when most of the world's anthropogenic aerosol emissions originated from North America or Europe. The geography of global dimming was a consequence of its point of origin. The north Atlantic, for example. For more than a century, until the late 1970s, aerosol emissions from Europe caused significant dimming over the north Atlantic. When European countries took measures to significantly reduce aerosol emissions, there was significantly less dimming over the north Atlantic. Unprecedented drought in Africa has been attributed to this change. Other places that didn't use to emit so many aerosols are now major emitters. The newest shift in global dimming geography is over the Indian Ocean. India finally got to contribute her fair share of pollution to the atmosphere. At least this will relieve some of the coral bleaching in the Indian Ocean. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ by by [quote]sealover wrote: Global Dimming - The Cosmic Ray Connection What do cosmic rays have to do with global dimming? The answer may surprise you. Natural aerosols have always existed. Aerosols, natural or anthropogenic, have always been able to cause nucleation of cloud droplet formation. Cosmic rays can interact with the aerosols and droplets to enhance formation of many very small droplets in a more highly reflective cloud. Periods of history with more cosmic ray activity have included more global dimming. There was a time when this finding was distorted to claim that cosmic rays, or lack thereof, were responsible for the alleged anthropogenic global warming. |
07-06-2023 02:26 | |
sealover★★★★☆ (1775) |
[quote]sealover wrote: Global Dimming, Albedo, and Evaporative Cooling. Anthropogenic global dimming is a major counterbalance to anthropogenic global warming. Not enough to STOP global warming, but enough to SLOW IT WAY DOWN. Global dimming influences how much of the visible light entering the atmosphere actually reaches the earth's surface. Fun fact - In tropical countries they don't need greenhouses to keep plants warm enough. But you often see black net mesh structures used to provide a little shade for plant nurseries. Blocking just enough sunlight with the black mesh netting improves the growth of the seedlings, compared to direct sunlight, regardless of whether or not it is a "shade tolerant" species or not. The sun wasn't nearly as bright when photosynthesis first evolved as it is today. But what happens to the visible sunlight that does NOT get blocked by global dimming when it reaches the surface? It depends a lot on ALBEDO and EVAPORATIVE COOLING. Albedo is term used to quantify how much visible light is reflected by a surface. Dark surfaces have low albedo. White or light colored surfaces have high albedo. It is no secret that a black tee shirt gets hotter than a white one when you are out in the sun. Human activity has changed the albedo of the earth's surface in many places. Snow and ice used to be the most reflective surfaces on earth. Dark soot from human activity has darkened the ice and snow, causing it to absorb more visible light, transform it into heat, and melt the ice more rapidly. Humans have cleared much of the earth's natural forest cover for agriculture. The albedo of barren soil, especially after drying, is much higher than the albedo of a green leaf. That land now absorbs more visible light to transform into heat. The deforested site now reflects back more visible light. Did that make it COOLER? NO. Just the opposite. It was ten or twenty degrees cooler before they cleared the forest. How does higher albedo result in higher temperature? It doesn't. The difference is evaporative cooling. The leaves of the forest were transpiring a lot of water before the forest was cleared. The dark, low albedo leaves were absorbing the visible light and transforming it into heat. But most of the heat was consumed by the evaporation of water as the leaves transpired it. A standing body of water does the same thing, but not nearly as well. Sunlight hits the water, visible light is transformed into heat, and there is cooling. But that cooling is limited by how much surface area of water contacts the atmosphere. Within the leaves of a tree shading 100 square meters of soil surface, there are orders of magnitude more surface area than 100 square meters of standing water. Much more evaporative cooling from trees than from standing water. What happens to the heat that is removed from the earth's surface by evaporative cooling? That heat is released somewhere else later, when the water vapor condenses back to liquid water. This heat is typically released far from the earths surface, and much of it radiates back out to space. Without evaporative cooling, the surface would be a LOT warmer. As the sun's increasing luminosity caused more and more of the water on Venus to evaporate, warmer water vapor was lost to outer space, little by little. Venus was already steam sauna while there was still water on the surface. Once the last of the water was lost to outer space, there was no more evaporative cooling on Venus. No more clouds of water to block incoming light either. That's when the steam sauna became an oven. |
07-06-2023 02:30 | |
sealover★★★★☆ (1775) |
[quote]sealover wrote: "Global Dimming" - A Brand New "Buzzword"? No discussion about the science of climate change would be complete without global dimming being incorporated. The data makes no sense without it. Global dimming is NOT a brand new "buzzword". I'm getting pretty old, and I remember it well as a young science student. "Nuclear winter". Past mass extinction events. The written historic record. Crop failures in China pinpoint the year of the big volcanic eruption that ended the Minoan civilization. The sky grew so dark for a year that crops froze in China. By the time people invented thermometers they had more proof. Krakatoa (probably not spelled right), east of Java. When that volcano blew, there were cold-induced crop failures far and wide. And there was temperature data showing that it really got COLDER that year. More recently, temperatures were rising fast at the end of the 80s, early 90s. Then Mt Pinatubo blew its top. It got COLDER that year world wide. Then it went back to rising temperatures. But those 1990s temperatures would have risen even FASTER without the enhanced GLOBAL DIMMING caused by rising emissions from China. Some of global dimming is caused by the sun blocking effect of the anthropogenic emissions themselves. Dark soot. Light absorbing sulfur compounds, etc. But much of global dimming is caused by the effect of anthropogenic aerosols on cloud formation. Aerosol particles provide a nucleus for droplet formation, as water droplets condense and form clouds. In the presence of aerosols, clouds are comprised of much smaller droplets, in much larger numbers, than natural clouds. These clouds are far more reflective, but not so great for providing rain. Global dimming is such an important piece of the puzzle that it needs its own thread for a focused discussion |
RE: The counterbalance to global warming01-05-2024 17:10 | |
sealover★★★★☆ (1775) |
sealover wrote: --------------------------------------------------- This past year was an odd one for the tug-of-war between global warming and global dimming, and it was a lose-lose. Global warming got an unexpected boost from a massive plume of water vapor from an undersea volcano, some of which shot all the way into outer space. Water vapor is the weakest of greenhouse gases, but enough of it can make a big difference with a big enough increase in its concentration, however temporary. Global dimming got an unexpected reduction as what began as a devastating fire season got dampened before it reached its peak. All that extra water vapor (from the undersea volcano) caused more rain at a time when wildfires would have been at their worst. So, the models seriously underestimated how quickly the temperature would rise. This put global warming ahead of schedule. One more point about global dimming. On 9-11, Nearly all airline flights over the US were cancelled for a day. With less dimming from the jet exhaust plumes, temperatures increased by about 1 degree. |
01-05-2024 23:20 | |
IBdaMann![]() (14945) |
sealover wrote: This past year was an odd one for the tug-of-war between global warming and global dimming, and it was a lose-lose. There was no tug-o-war between any two undefined things. sealover wrote: Global warming got an unexpected boost from a massive plume of water vapor from an undersea volcano, some of which shot all the way into outer space. No such event happened. sealover wrote: Water vapor is the weakest of greenhouse gases, There is no such thing as greenhouse effect, and thus there is no such thing as greenhouse gas. The idea that you are somehow a scientist is absurd. sealover wrote: but enough [undefined buzzword] can make a big [undefined] difference I totally get it. sealover wrote: Global dimming got an unexpected reduction as what began as a devastating fire season got dampened before it reached its peak. It wasn't devastating. Fire seasons happen every fire season. The one to which you are referring was particularly smokey. That does not make it "devastating." sealover wrote: All that extra water vapor (from the undersea volcano) caused more rain at a time when wildfires would have been at their worst. There was the normal amount of rain. sealover wrote: So, the models seriously underestimated how quickly the temperature would rise. There are no "the models." sealover wrote: This put global warming ahead of schedule. Not only is there no schedule, there doesn't seem to be any global warming. sealover wrote: One more point about global dimming. You haven't made any points thus far; you can't somehow make one more. sealover wrote: On 9-11, Nearly all airline flights over the US were cancelled for a day. With less dimming from the jet exhaust plumes, temperatures increased by about 1 degree. Why should any rational adult believe this obvious crap? |
11-05-2024 00:44 | |
sealover★★★★☆ (1775) |
All the most relevant posts of this thread are compiled, beginning half way down this page. The "wildfire" thread discussion of the "cooling effect" of smoke from wildfires inspired this newest barrage in the spam attack. "Global Dimming" - A Brand New "Buzzword"? No discussion about the science of climate change would be complete without global dimming being incorporated. The data makes no sense without it. Global dimming is NOT a brand new "buzzword". I'm getting pretty old, and I remember it well as a young science student. "Nuclear winter". Past mass extinction events. The written historic record. Crop failures in China pinpoint the year of the big volcanic eruption that ended the Minoan civilization. The sky grew so dark for a year that crops froze in China. By the time people invented thermometers they had more proof. Krakatoa (probably not spelled right), east of Java. When that volcano blew, there were cold-induced crop failures far and wide. And there was temperature data showing that it really got COLDER that year. More recently, temperatures were rising fast at the end of the 80s, early 90s. Then Mt Pinatubo blew its top. It got COLDER that year world wide. Then it went back to rising temperatures. But those 1990s temperatures would have risen even FASTER without the enhanced GLOBAL DIMMING caused by rising emissions from China. Some of global dimming is caused by the sun blocking effect of the anthropogenic emissions themselves. Dark soot. Light absorbing sulfur compounds, etc. But much of global dimming is caused by the effect of anthropogenic aerosols on cloud formation. Aerosol particles provide a nucleus for droplet formation, as water droplets condense and form clouds. In the presence of aerosols, clouds are comprised of much smaller droplets, in much larger numbers, than natural clouds. These clouds are far more reflective, but not so great for providing rain. Global dimming is such an important piece of the puzzle that it needs its own thread for a focused discussion. |
11-05-2024 18:41 | |
Into the Night![]() (22922) |
sealover wrote: No. An old buzzword. sealover wrote: There is no 'science of climate change'. Climate cannot change. The Church of Global Warming denies and discards science. sealover wrote: Buzzword fallacy. sealover wrote: There is no data. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. sealover wrote: It's an old buzzword. sealover wrote: You deny and discard science. sealover wrote: Buzzword fallacies. sealover wrote: You cannot destroy energy into nothing. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. sealover wrote: It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. sealover wrote: You cannot destroy energy into nothing. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. sealover wrote: You cannot destroy energy into nothing. sealover wrote: Not necessary for cloud formation. sealover wrote: Not necessary for cloud formation. sealover wrote: No difference. sealover wrote: You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law again and quantum mechanics. sealover wrote: Buzzword fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
13-05-2024 19:07 | |
sealover★★★★☆ (1775) |
All the most relevant posts of this thread are compiled, beginning half way down this page. The "wildfire" thread discussion of the "cooling effect" of smoke from wildfires inspired this newest barrage in the spam attack. "You cannot destroy energy into nothing." - Into the Night No, I cannot. I don't think ANYONE can. However, SHADE can prevent light from from reaching the surface. Without "destroying" any energy into "nothing", shade can result in lower temperature at the surface. "Global Dimming" - A Brand New "Buzzword"? No discussion about the science of climate change would be complete without global dimming being incorporated. The data makes no sense without it. Global dimming is NOT a brand new "buzzword". I'm getting pretty old, and I remember it well as a young science student. "Nuclear winter". Past mass extinction events. The written historic record. Crop failures in China pinpoint the year of the big volcanic eruption that ended the Minoan civilization. The sky grew so dark for a year that crops froze in China. By the time people invented thermometers they had more proof. Krakatoa (probably not spelled right), east of Java. When that volcano blew, there were cold-induced crop failures far and wide. And there was temperature data showing that it really got COLDER that year. More recently, temperatures were rising fast at the end of the 80s, early 90s. Then Mt Pinatubo blew its top. It got COLDER that year world wide. Then it went back to rising temperatures. But those 1990s temperatures would have risen even FASTER without the enhanced GLOBAL DIMMING caused by rising emissions from China. Some of global dimming is caused by the sun blocking effect of the anthropogenic emissions themselves. Dark soot. Light absorbing sulfur compounds, etc. But much of global dimming is caused by the effect of anthropogenic aerosols on cloud formation. Aerosol particles provide a nucleus for droplet formation, as water droplets condense and form clouds. In the presence of aerosols, clouds are comprised of much smaller droplets, in much larger numbers, than natural clouds. These clouds are far more reflective, but not so great for providing rain. Global dimming is such an important piece of the puzzle that it needs its own thread for a focused discussion. |
13-05-2024 21:28 | |
Into the Night![]() (22922) |
sealover wrote: There is no global shade. The Earth is more than the surface. sealover wrote: There is no global shade of the Earth. sealover wrote: There is no science of 'climate change'. Climate cannot change. sealover wrote: There is no data. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
27-06-2024 18:54 | |
sealover★★★★☆ (1775) |
This article was published in the Washington Post on June 25, 2024. We've been accidentally cooling the planet - and it's about to stop. By Shannon Osaka. This is an article from the popular press about global dimming. "..burning fossil fuels doesn't just cause global warming - it also causes global cooling." "Tiny particles from the combustion of coal, oil, and gas can reflect sunlight and spur the formation of clouds, shading the planet from the sun's rays. Since the 1980s, those particles have offset between 40 and 80 percent of the warming caused by greenhouse gases." "Most of the cooling from air pollution comes through sulfur aerosols, in two ways. The particles themselves are reflective, bouncing the sun's rays away and shading the Earth. They also make existing clouds brighter and more mirror-like, thus cooling the Earth." "...aerosols may have been masking much more heat than previously thought." When I was still a researcher in the Ivory Tower at UC Berkeley 21 years ago, it was estimated that global dimming was counteracting about half the global warming. In other words, it would have warmed up twice as fast, if not for global dimming. New estimates are that it could be as high as 80%. This means it would have warmed up FOUR TIMES as fast as it has, if not for global dimming from anthropogenic aerosols. The north Atlantic Ocean warmed much faster than the rest of the world in the late 1970s and 1980s. European nations had enacted aerosol emissions reductions. The Indian Ocean cooled as the rest of the world got warmer in the 1990s and early 2000s. China and South Asian nations had significantly increased aerosol emissions. No discussion about the science of climate change would be complete without global dimming being incorporated. The data makes no sense without it. Global dimming is NOT a brand new "buzzword". I'm getting pretty old, and I remember it well as a young science student. "Nuclear winter". Past mass extinction events. The written historic record. Crop failures in China pinpoint the year of the big volcanic eruption that ended the Minoan civilization. The sky grew so dark for a year that crops froze in China. By the time people invented thermometers they had more proof. Krakatoa (probably not spelled right), east of Java. When that volcano blew, there were cold-induced crop failures far and wide. And there was temperature data showing that it really got COLDER that year. More recently, temperatures were rising fast at the end of the 80s, early 90s. Then Mt Pinatubo blew its top. It got COLDER that year world wide. Then it went back to rising temperatures. But those 1990s temperatures would have risen even FASTER without the enhanced GLOBAL DIMMING caused by rising emissions from China. Some of global dimming is caused by the sun blocking effect of the anthropogenic emissions themselves. Dark soot. Light absorbing sulfur compounds, etc. But much of global dimming is caused by the effect of anthropogenic aerosols on cloud formation. Aerosol particles provide a nucleus for droplet formation, as water droplets condense and form clouds. In the presence of aerosols, clouds are comprised of much smaller droplets, in much larger numbers, than natural clouds. These clouds are far more reflective, but not so great for providing rain. Global dimming is such an important piece of the puzzle that it needs its own thread for a focused discussion.[/quote] |
27-06-2024 20:14 | |
GasGuzzler★★★★★ (3056) |
sealover wrote:"Tiny particles from the combustion of coal, oil, and gas can reflect sunlight and spur the formation of clouds, Wow. You really earned your Gullible Moron trophy this time. Good work. @IBdaMann It's been a while since we've seen any of your amazing graphics. If you could spare minute from your productive a profitable life, I think we need a Gullible Moron trophy. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Edited on 27-06-2024 20:15 |
27-06-2024 20:46 | |
Im a BM★★★★☆ (1810) |
GasGuzzler wrote:sealover wrote:"Tiny particles from the combustion of coal, oil, and gas can reflect sunlight and spur the formation of clouds, The graphic can already be found at the top of this page. Yes, the strongest scientific argument to counter evidence that aerosols influence cloud formation is to cite "Gullible Moron". Gullible Moron is such a MORON! And so GULLIBLE! I was a firefighter with the US Forest Service two summers in a row in the late 1970s, in northern California. In the decades since I studied forest science and did extensive field investigations in northern California forests. I attended multiple scientific conferences about the changing wildfire situation in northern California. I am so gullible that I believe my own lying eyes about the wildfire situation in northern California having changed dramatically in the past few decades. The article referenced gets into northern California's wildfire reality in some detail. Yes, it was relatively easy to put the wildfires out before they got out of hand in the years I was on fire crews. Maybe we will get lucky this summer and won't set too many new records. |
27-06-2024 21:03 | |
GasGuzzler★★★★★ (3056) |
Im a BM wrote:GasGuzzler wrote:sealover wrote:"Tiny particles from the combustion of coal, oil, and gas can reflect sunlight and spur the formation of clouds, Your entire post stands on this statement... "Tiny particles from the combustion of coal, oil, and gas can reflect sunlight and spur the formation of clouds, Clouds are formed by colder air which condenses water vapor from warmer air into liquid. So, unless you like to explain how reflected sunlight creates clouds, you remain gullible...and a moron. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Edited on 27-06-2024 21:05 |
27-06-2024 21:25 | |
Im a BM★★★★☆ (1810) |
GasGuzzler wrote:Im a BM wrote:GasGuzzler wrote:sealover wrote:"Tiny particles from the combustion of coal, oil, and gas can reflect sunlight and spur the formation of clouds, The statement is that the tiny particles reflect sunlight AND spur the formation of clouds. The clouds most certainly are not CREATED by reflected sunlight. They are created by the aerosol particle acting as a nucleus for liquid water condensation and droplet formation. In the absence of aerosols, clouds are formed of much larger water droplets, and are not so highly reflective. With aerosols present, much more reflective clouds formed of smaller water droplets are created. Now, the aerosol particle alone can reflect sunlight, if that is what confused you. Maybe later today I'll pull up the article about how Alameda County was going to use salt for cloud seeding. Not to try to get more rain. To get more reflective clouds to form and cool things off. They got spooked into holding off the testing. Do you know how to present an argument without resorting to insults? |
27-06-2024 21:39 | |
Im a BM★★★★☆ (1810) |
I posted this right after posting about extreme wildfire frequency increasing. I misunderstood that "gullible moron" was a reference to that, forgetting that this was actually about global dimming. So, eventually I got to answering the actual point about the role of aerosols in forming more reflective clouds. Im a BM wrote:GasGuzzler wrote:Im a BM wrote:GasGuzzler wrote:sealover wrote:"Tiny particles from the combustion of coal, oil, and gas can reflect sunlight and spur the formation of clouds, |
27-06-2024 21:55 | |
GasGuzzler★★★★★ (3056) |
Im a BM wrote:GasGuzzler wrote:Im a BM wrote:GasGuzzler wrote:sealover wrote:"Tiny particles from the combustion of coal, oil, and gas can reflect sunlight and spur the formation of clouds, So explain how the process of condensation differs so greatly between an aerosol and a particle of dust. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan |
28-06-2024 01:02 | |
GasGuzzler★★★★★ (3056) |
Crickets. I have to assume you are stumped. Good. Happy to have that cleared up. |
28-06-2024 10:27 | |
IBdaMann![]() (14945) |
Im a BM wrote: So, eventually I got to answering the actual point about the role of aerosols in forming more reflective clouds. Where's the science? What is the formula for calculating global average equilibrium temperature differential/delta from atmospheric aerosol composition? You have not yet showed this. Therefore, you have not yet showed that aerosols somehow reduce earth's emissivity. Therefore you have not answered any point about any role of aerosols. I hope you get your kids' table soon. Make sure it has plenty of crayons. |
28-06-2024 11:55 | |
IBdaMann![]() (14945) |
GasGuzzler wrote:So explain how the process of condensation differs so greatly between an aerosol and a particle of dust. GasGuzzler wrote: Kudos to you. You were very polite. Your mistake was asking Robert to clarify something he was claiming to be thettled thienth. He won't answer your question because he doesn't know anything about what he has been ordered to preach by his indoctrinating biogeoclergy. He just simply preaches the obligatory sermons and moves on to the next thread to spam. ![]() One thing you might have noticed; Robert quoted an article that was doing his thinking for him: "Tiny particles from the combustion of coal, oil, and gas can [if they wish] reflect sunlight and spur the formation of clouds ..." Obviously this cannot be science. Science predicts specific effects given specific causes. The same conditions always produce the same results (and the inability to consistently reproduce results via experiment precludes anything from being science). Ergo, science is never expressed as "these conditions can have one result one day and a different result on another day." The word "can" takes it into the realm of religion, painting those dastardly particles from the combustion of "fossil fuels" as tiny sentient spirits that are up to no good, and who can decide to use their magical superpowers to screw with earth's average global equilibrium temperature, despite what thermodynamics or Stefan-Boltzmann might have to say on the matter. You'll notice that I joined you in your mistake by asking Robert to share the science, i.e. the particulate-temperature equation, so that we can both share in the enjoyment of his EVASION. I thank you for getting the ball rolling. GasGuzzler wrote:@IBdaMann I'll start by making a graphic of a gullible moron award winner. ![]() |
28-06-2024 17:35 | |
sealover★★★★☆ (1775) |
GasGuzzler wrote:Im a BM wrote:GasGuzzler wrote:Im a BM wrote:GasGuzzler wrote:sealover wrote:"Tiny particles from the combustion of coal, oil, and gas can reflect sunlight and spur the formation of clouds, Does a gullible moron have to explain that a very small particle of dust IS an aerosol? Mineral dust is one of the most common aerosols in the atmosphere. "Clouds are formed by colder air which condenses water vapor from warmer air into liquid" True. This is how you get large water droplets in clouds. But no mention of any kind of dust/aerosol playing any role to form the "mirror like" clouds referred to in the article. Gullible moron? Apology accepted! |
28-06-2024 17:55 | |
GasGuzzler★★★★★ (3056) |
sealover wrote:But no mention of any kind of dust/aerosol playing any role to form the "mirror like" clouds referred to in the article. But no explanation of how the condensation process differs with various condensation nuclei. Can you explain it at all? I feel like you are asking me to just BELIEVE it. sealover wrote: Until you can explain it, yes. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Edited on 28-06-2024 17:56 |
28-06-2024 18:04 | |
Im a BM★★★★☆ (1810) |
GasGuzzler wrote:sealover wrote:But no mention of any kind of dust/aerosol playing any role to form the "mirror like" clouds referred to in the article. Actually, the "debate" was about whether or not the process existed at all for ANY kind of aerosol. The "gullible moron" award was for believing that ANY aerosol could do this. Perhaps if you learn how to read, you can avoid digging yourself into positions you have to deny later. Indeed, specific quotes were cited about SULFUR based aerosols. Because not all aerosols are equal in their ability to catalyze droplet formation. Some solid surfaces are more hydrophobic or hydrophilic than others. But, it is pointless to keep "explaining" things to you. Enjoy your award, you gullible moron... But the biggest problem is you are basically ugly and obnoxious and unworthy of the kind of attention you demand. Obviously you have never earned any degree in science or anything else. |
28-06-2024 18:19 | |
GasGuzzler★★★★★ (3056) |
Im a BM wrote:GasGuzzler wrote:sealover wrote:But no mention of any kind of dust/aerosol playing any role to form the "mirror like" clouds referred to in the article. Nope. Your claim that droplets formed on a nucleus of particles from the the combustion of gas creates a more reflective cloud remains unexplained. I am the GasGuzzler. You have to know your insults will only bounce off of my reflective surface. Will you be immediately deleting your insults in a continued effort to achieve your censorship sub forum? Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Edited on 28-06-2024 18:19 |
28-06-2024 19:28 | |
IBdaMann![]() (14945) |
sealover wrote: Does a gullible moron have to explain that a very small particle of dust IS an aerosol? Yes, it's covered under "unambiguously defining all your terms.". You won't define it because you haven't the vaguest idea what you're talking about in the first place, and you will need for the term to conveniently mean whatever you want it to mean at any given moment, and to conveniently not mean whatever you need it to not include at any given moment, and to be able to say at any given moment "I never said it meant that" and to blame others for any confusion. Unambiguously define "aerosol." sealover wrote: Mineral dust is one of the most common aerosols in the atmosphere. Nope. Mineral dust does not match any unambiguous definition you provided. |
28-06-2024 19:40 | |
IBdaMann![]() (14945) |
Im a BM wrote: Actually, the "debate" was about whether or not the process existed at all for ANY kind of aerosol. ... without ever defining "aerosol.". Is everything an aerosol? Can we presume that "aerosols" have magic superpowers to perform feedback and forcing miracles, in defiance of thermodynamics? Do aerosols break Stefan-Boltzmann? If they do, I need to see all of this included in the definition. If I do not see all of this in the definition, you will know in advance how your argument will be imminently going down in flames. sealover wrote: The "gullible moron" award was for believing that ANY aerosol could do this. No unambiguous definition you provided says that any cannot. Edited on 28-06-2024 19:41 |
28-06-2024 21:09 | |
sealover★★★★☆ (1775) |
This article was published in the Washington Post on June 6, 2024. Could spraying sea salt into the clouds cool the planet? By Nicolas Rivero "Marine cloud brightening" is what they are calling it. Alameda County, California, was considering permitting an experiment to be conducted, spraying sea salt particles into the clouds. "Salt particles help clouds form tiny, shiny droplets, which reflect sunlight away from the earth before it can heat the planet" The key point is the average SIZE of the water droplets that form in the presence of aerosols. One way or another, water vapor will condense into liquid when it is cooled. An aerosol is a particle of solid material, small enough to be suspended by Brownian motion as gas molecules constantly collide with it in the atmosphere. Aerosols can provide a "nucleus" for droplet formation, as water vapor attaches to the solid particle surface with hydrogen bonding. Different solid materials have different affinities for water molecules and hydrogen bond formation. Clouds formed in the presence of aerosols are made of much smaller droplets of water, on average, and are much more reflective than clouds formed otherwise. As the article BELOW points out, "Most of the cooling due to air pollution comes through sulfur aerosols" It is the SULFUR in the fossil fuel that is most responsible for creating the kind of aerosols upon combustion that attract water molecules for droplet formation. This article was published in the Washington Post on June 25, 2024. We've been accidentally cooling the planet - and it's about to stop. By Shannon Osaka. This is an article from the popular press about global dimming. "..burning fossil fuels doesn't just cause global warming - it also causes global cooling." "Tiny particles from the combustion of coal, oil, and gas can reflect sunlight and spur the formation of clouds, shading the planet from the sun's rays. Since the 1980s, those particles have offset between 40 and 80 percent of the warming caused by greenhouse gases." "Most of the cooling from air pollution comes through sulfur aerosols, in two ways. The particles themselves are reflective, bouncing the sun's rays away and shading the Earth. They also make existing clouds brighter and more mirror-like, thus cooling the Earth." "...aerosols may have been masking much more heat than previously thought." When I was still a researcher in the Ivory Tower at UC Berkeley 21 years ago, it was estimated that global dimming was counteracting about half the global warming. In other words, it would have warmed up twice as fast, if not for global dimming. New estimates are that it could be as high as 80%. This means it would have warmed up FOUR TIMES as fast as it has, if not for global dimming from anthropogenic aerosols. The north Atlantic Ocean warmed much faster than the rest of the world in the late 1970s and 1980s. European nations had enacted aerosol emissions reductions. The Indian Ocean cooled as the rest of the world got warmer in the 1990s and early 2000s. China and South Asian nations had significantly increased aerosol emissions. No discussion about the science of climate change would be complete without global dimming being incorporated. The data makes no sense without it. Global dimming is NOT a brand new "buzzword". I'm getting pretty old, and I remember it well as a young science student. "Nuclear winter". Past mass extinction events. The written historic record. Crop failures in China pinpoint the year of the big volcanic eruption that ended the Minoan civilization. The sky grew so dark for a year that crops froze in China. By the time people invented thermometers they had more proof. Krakatoa (probably not spelled right), east of Java. When that volcano blew, there were cold-induced crop failures far and wide. And there was temperature data showing that it really got COLDER that year. More recently, temperatures were rising fast at the end of the 80s, early 90s. Then Mt Pinatubo blew its top. It got COLDER that year world wide. Then it went back to rising temperatures. But those 1990s temperatures would have risen even FASTER without the enhanced GLOBAL DIMMING caused by rising emissions from China. Some of global dimming is caused by the sun blocking effect of the anthropogenic emissions themselves. Dark soot. Light absorbing sulfur compounds, etc. But much of global dimming is caused by the effect of anthropogenic aerosols on cloud formation. Aerosol particles provide a nucleus for droplet formation, as water droplets condense and form clouds. In the presence of aerosols, clouds are comprised of much smaller droplets, in much larger numbers, than natural clouds. These clouds are far more reflective, but not so great for providing rain. Global dimming is such an important piece of the puzzle that it needs its own thread for a focused discussion. |
28-06-2024 21:22 | |
GasGuzzler★★★★★ (3056) |
Squealer wrote: So water reflects sunlight better than water. Got it. Edited on 28-06-2024 21:22 |
28-06-2024 22:51 | |
Into the Night![]() (22922) |
Im a BM wrote:GasGuzzler wrote:sealover wrote:"Tiny particles from the combustion of coal, oil, and gas can reflect sunlight and spur the formation of clouds, You could always do something about all the arsonists. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
Threads | Replies | Last post |
The Rebirth Of Soviet Union Under A Better Version Brand Will Lead To World Peace | 5 | 24-01-2022 04:11 |