[yor_on]

Thinking of it. Forgot to reply on bullying Collin. There's also the trick where you place someone in a corner, making it untenable for that person, you don't touch him, you just keep on bullying until he loses it.


spelling

[yor_on]

It doesn't excuse anything, but it explains a lot.

[yor_on]

So I stated that with more dust, the more nuclei for those those raindrops to form. NASA seems to think otherwise though, expecting a 'dust minimum' to become a future norm.

2021   https://www.nasa.gov/feature/esnt/2021/nasa-study-predicts-less-saharan-dust-in-future-winds

Alan mentioned supersaturation, and it makes me wonder how that humidity can fall out in a absence of nuclei? It should become another tricky one, if that prognosis becomes correct. But I doubt it to matter that much, we create dust everywhere we exist.

[yor_on]

Still, that type of dust may not reach high enough to make clouds, instead staying at lower elevations. And if that is the cause you shouldn't get rain. You should get fog instead, high humidity and condensation. Wet bulb temperatures.

[yor_on]

https://www.thoughtco.com/overview-of-fog-1435830

[yor_on]

And if that got you curios?

Ecohydrology, and that topsoil.

And we just luv those synonyms, don't we? 'Blue water' and 'green water' cycles. Made me think of 'blue', 'gray', and 'green' methane.  But they have their reasons, in both cases. Subterfuge in the case of methane, the first more inside reason to me.

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/60/11/898/329071

[alancalverd]

NASA seems to think otherwise though, expecting a 'dust minimum' to become a future norm.

Interesting that they talk about the Sahara. Most of the Saharan dust that falls on the UK is quite large grit, much bigger than you need to nucleate raindrops.

Also worth noting that the Sahara probably isn't very old. There is evidence of grass and trees around 10 - 15000 years ago in what are now barren regions, and a suspicion that the present desert is to some extent man-made.

And whilst water vapor can supersaturate in very calm conditions, turbulence can initiate condensaton and crystallisation. There is plenty of turbulence in the upper atmosphere.

[yor_on]

Yes, and clouds are still a open question in climate science even though it knows a lot about them..It's incredibly tricky to model, and if you add thing like aerosols, normally considered to have a cooling effect, it gets even trickier. Then we have soot, micro plastics and all those other types of dust, especially if Arctic regions continues to burn as they've been doing lately. I'm not sure if you can get a nucleation, aka rain or snow, without nuclei preexisting, if you have a link to a study proving this it would be nice.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/physics-and-astronomy/ice-nuclei


spelling

[yor_on]

aerosols and the poles

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/02/arctic-has-cloud-problem/618159/

[yor_on]

https://www.quantamagazine.org/cloud-loss-could-add-8-degrees-to-global-warming-20190225/

[yor_on]

This one covers a lot of base

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo3/l4_p6.html
=

Actually, maybe this is a better place to start.

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo3/node/2223

[yor_on]

And here's a somewhat basic description of clouds and their warming respective cooling effects.

https://phys.org/news/2020-09-clouds-piece-climate-puzzle.html

Add to it that at night those clouds reflect IR, heat coming from the ground and water.

[yor_on]

This one makes me smile a little. 'The Great Filter'. It seems quite probable to me, looking at us.

https://www.livescience.com/fermi-paradox

[yor_on]

It doesn't matter how long it took for us to reach this point, if it was millions of years. We're burning out very quickly today.

[yor_on]

Seem to remember some new tech from Hawaii, measuring biological signatures in radiation, that they've tried on a extinct species. Planning to test it on searching for extraterrestrial life. The good about is that it doesn't need someone actively using radio or any other man made artifact. Those signatures are expected to be there anyway in the radiation.

The bad thing? Well, assume they find 'life', but no artifacts existing, no one 'communicating'. What does that state about our chances today?

[yor_on]

Of course, this is assuming that intelligence is evolutionary for all life, for aliens as well as us. It could be that intelligence hasn't any meaning for evolution, in which case it, and we, don't matter at all. Us becoming a distortion of it, something unintended by nature, mother earth, the universe, or just 'life'..

[yor_on]

What we can notice there is a bias, shared by most of us, and all religions. That life means intelligence, and that it also makes us a privileged species.Or a 'privileged nation', or human. Without that intelligence no religion can exist.

[yor_on]

A bias, and hubris, hand in hand.

[alancalverd]

Apropos clouds, your quoted physorg source says

High, thin clouds let sunlight through while effectively preventing heat from escaping to space as infrared radiation, providing a net warming effect. Low, thick clouds strongly reflect sunlight, while having little impact on infrared radiation escaping to space, creating a net cooling effect.

The first statement is contradictory to observation. Strong surface heating generally produces "thermals" which, if moist (i.e.British!), produce cumulus clouds with a base at 2 - 15,000 ft above strong updraughts (OK, you won't find a 15,000 ft Cu base in these islands, but it's not uncommon in Texas) . As any glider pilot knows, the merest veil of cirrus (ice clouds generally above 40,000 ft)  prevents the formation of strong thermals because the high-level ice reflects most of the infrared even though it has little visual effect at ground level. So net cooling during the daytime.

"Low thick cloud" may be cumuloform, which generally disperses at night, or stratiform, which is associated with warm moist air cooling as it traverses cold land. Stratiform clouds actually release heat at low level as they form.

It's a lot more complicated than the physorg article suggests! 

[Colin2B]



Thinking of it. Forgot to reply on bullying Collin. There's also the trick where you place someone in a corner, making it untenable for that person, you don't touch him, you just keep on bullying until he loses it.

Ah, yes, now I understand.
So, for example. If in your own country someone disagrees with you you can put them in prison and deny them access to the press etc. However, if they move abroad into a country that allows criticism then they can continue. That clearly pushes you into an untenable corner and you are justified in taking action and having them kill(oops, sorry) neutralised.
So, Litvinenko and Skripal, you were the bullies and Putin the innocent victim.
So @hamdani yusuf  eat your heart out, this is the new universal moral standard.