"Global Dimming" - A Brand New "Buzzword"?

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > "Global Dimming" - A Brand New "Buzzword"? > Page 3

Page 3 of 3

3

28-06-2024 23:01
Into the Night★★★★★ (22983)	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, 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. 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! 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. Quite right. Convection causes air to rise. Cooler air is above the surface. As air rises, the water vapor can no longer stay in suspension and it comes out of the air as liquid or ice (clouds). This is why clouds tend to be flat on the bottom, but often appear 'piled up' on top. The air continues to rise, taking part of the cloud with it. If the cloud is dense enough, precipitation will begin. If that convection is fast enough, you get thunderclouds and the precipitation may quite easily be hail. Clouds can also form at the boundary of warm fronts (typical of Seattle clouds). As moist air climbs up and over the colder air below, a band of clouds forms as that moist air cools. These clouds are typically the stratus variety (sheet-like), with little lumpiness to them, even on top. Precip from these, if it happens, is typically drizzle and usually little wind. GasGuzzler wrote: So, unless you like to explain how reflected sunlight creates clouds, you remain gullible...and a moron. He's a moron. A reflection means no energy was absorbed. So...nothing was heated, and no convection takes place. 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
28-06-2024 23:47
Into the Night★★★★★ (22983)	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, 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. 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! 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. The statement is that the tiny particles reflect sunlight AND spur the formation of clouds. Particles are not necessary to form a cloud. See the works of John Wilson. Im a BM wrote: The clouds most certainly are not CREATED by reflected sunlight. But you said they are. Which is it, dude? Im a BM wrote: They are created by the aerosol particle acting as a nucleus for liquid water condensation and droplet formation. Particles are not necessary for cloud formation. Im a BM wrote: In the absence of aerosols, clouds are formed of much larger water droplets, and are not so highly reflective. Clouds are not reflective at infrared light. They are also not reflective at some frequencies of UV, and most radio frequencies. Clouds absorb infrared light, just like water anywhere. Im a BM wrote: With aerosols present, much more reflective clouds formed of smaller water droplets are created. Particulates are not necessary for cloud formation. Im a BM wrote: Now, the aerosol particle alone can reflect sunlight, if that is what confused you. Particulates absorb sunlight. Im a BM wrote: 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. Paradox. Irrational. Im a BM wrote: To get more reflective clouds to form and cool things off. Clouds reflect some frequencies, absorb others (such as infrared and some UV bands), and are transparent to most frequencies. You can't cloud see something that doesn't exist. You can't cloud see where there are no clouds. Im a BM wrote: They got spooked into holding off the testing. Cost too much money? Im a BM wrote: Do you know how to present an argument without resorting to insults? You are describing yourself again. You can't blame anybody else for your problem. 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
28-06-2024 23:57
Into the Night★★★★★ (22983)	sealover wrote: 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, 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. 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! 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. 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 condensation and droplet formation. So explain how the process of condensation differs so greatly between an aerosol and a particle of dust. Does a gullible moron have to explain that a very small particle of dust IS an aerosol? It comes in cans? What brand do you use? sealover wrote: Mineral dust is one of the most common aerosols in the atmosphere. But only if there's competing brands. sealover wrote: "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. Just what is a 'large water droplet'? Buzzword fallacy. 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. What 'mirror like clouds'??? WTF??? sealover wrote: Gullible moron? Apology accepted! Assumption of victory 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
28-06-2024 23:59
Into the Night★★★★★ (22983)	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. 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: Gullible moron? Until you can explain it, yes. 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. Science isn't a degree, moron. You use sulfur in your aerosols? Shall I call you Old Yellowstain? 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
29-06-2024 00:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (22983)	sealover wrote: This article was published in the Washington Post on June 6, 2024. So you are just mindlessly cutting and pasting from the Washington Composts. Meh. Stop spamming. [b]sealover wrote: Could spraying sea salt into the clouds cool the planet? By Nicolas Rivero [/b] No. You cannot destroy energy into nothing. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. 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

03-07-2024 11:08
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14955)	I want to have the ten most recent posts. But, to make it official ... Go CLIMATE!
07-12-2024 20:33
Im a BM ★★★★☆ (1922)	In March, 2022 "sealover" started multiple threads, including this one, about science related to global change. Global dimming is a counterbalance to global warming. All the extra soot and aerosols emitted as China and South Asia got in on the fossil fuel combustion game helped dim the sunshine enough to significantly hold back the pace of global warming. The direct sun blocking effect of the pollution particles themselves, and the indirect sun blocking effect of creating more reflective clouds composed of much smaller rain droplets due to aerosol nucleation of drop formation. It is such an important piece of the climate change puzzle that global dimming cannot be ignored in any meaningful, rational discussion about the subject. [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.

Page 3 of 3

3

Join the debate "Global Dimming" - A Brand New "Buzzword"?:

Related content

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

▲ Top of page

Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact