[jeffreyH (OP)]

Cloud condensation nuclei promote water vapour into cloud droplets. Since water vapour is the most effective greenhouse gas it may be a useful discussion topic. I have posted a link below to a description of CCN's.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_condensation_nuclei

[jeffreyH (OP)]

And for your perusal here are the dissenters in the field.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

[puppypower]

Cloud condensation nuclei promote water vapour into cloud droplets. Since water vapour is the most effective greenhouse gas it may be a useful discussion topic. I have posted a link below to a description of CCN's.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_condensation_nuclei

Water absorbs strongly in the IR and its concentration in the atmosphere is much higher than all the other greenhouse gases, combined. Water is the main player. If we use CCN's to condense water vapor in clouds, the water still absorbs IR, but for a shorter time, since rain is heavier and will fall from the atmosphere. This can be modeled with the concept of dwell time. The excess aerosols, will reflect sunlight back to space and therefore have a cooling affect. A few decades ago global cooling was the rage due to aerosols and smoke from factory and auto emissions. There were deniers back then too.

And for your perusal here are the dissenters in the field.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Man made global warming is unprecedented in the history of the earth. There is no other time, on record, where man made, has impacted the global temperature. It is sort of like a one of a kind, prototype. In terms of data, this partial cycle, which still has not done the flood thingie, if true, would be the only data point of this particular global trigger  in the history of the earth. The problem with one data point is you can draw any curve you like through a single data point, and make it touch. 

As an example, I took a single data point from a curve I found on the net; google images. You can try this at home and school with your own curve. From that one point in parenthesize ( . )  draw the curve I saw! If gave you two points , you could at least get the angle right.

On the other hand, if we used politics, propaganda and intimidation to promote a random curve, that touches the one data point, you might be able to form a consensus, especially if you can convince everyone I am a denier, and the real curve I saw was fake. 

Show me another area in science where one point, that bucks a trend composed of many data points; natural change, means a done deal. Isn't one data point, out of place, in terms of a multipoint trend, usually modeled as margin of error? Why did science depart from its normal data handling procedure?

The term denier is an insult intended to dig a hole for the other guy, so he appears to sink lower, so the other person can create the illusion of rising above, without actually having to get taller. Where else science is this part of the science procedure? The answer is wherever there is politics.

   

[Bored chemist]

And for your perusal here are the dissenters in the field.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

That list has about 80 names
There are about 7 million scientists in the world.
I trust you will forgive me for not providing a list of those who have not published work disagreeing with the scientific explanation of global warming.

[Bored chemist]

It is sort of like a one of a kind, prototype. In terms of data, this partial cycle, which still has not done the flood thingie, if true, would be the only data point of this particular global trigger  in the history of the earth. The problem with one data point is you can draw any curve you like through a single data point, and make it touch. 

As an example, I took a single data point from a curve I found on the net; google images. You can try this at home and school with your own curve. From that one point in parenthesize ( . )  draw the curve I saw! If gave you two points , you could at least get the angle right.

I have a feeling that you tried to use this "argument" before.
Whatever-  it's a straw man.
It's not a random curve.
It is based on real things like the intensity of sunlight at the earth's surface.
So it's not "random" as you try to pretend.
So, what you are describing isn't real.


That's a straw man- and you should know better.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

And for your perusal here are the dissenters in the field.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

That list has about 80 names
There are about 7 million scientists in the world.
I trust you will forgive me for not providing a list of those who have not published work disagreeing with the scientific explanation of global warming.

I am agnostic on this point. It was posted to show there are other viewpoints.

[Bored chemist]

And for your perusal here are the dissenters in the field.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

That list has about 80 names
There are about 7 million scientists in the world.
I trust you will forgive me for not providing a list of those who have not published work disagreeing with the scientific explanation of global warming.

I am agnostic on this point. It was posted to show there are other viewpoints.

It's like being agnostic about the existence of rain.
So I pointed out the extent to which that viewpoint is a minority  one.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

No it's like being agnostic about whether or not scientists are pro or anti our involvement in climate change. It's happening either way.

[evan_au]

The problem with one data point is you can draw any curve you like through a single data point, and make it touch.

The "hockey stick curve" popularized by Al Gore is not drawing a curve through a single point.
It is tracking a trend with detailed measurements over the past 2,000 years, and drawing a trendline through the inevitable lumps and bumps that you get when measuring something like the climate whichhas many chaotic disturbers.

Some of these lumps have now been resolved, like the apparent temporary change in sea temperatures during WW2, which was eventually traced to a difference in methodology for measuring sea temperatures between British and US navies.

One of the keys of quality science is the ability to predict the future. The IPCC makes periodic predictions based on the latest models, and the actual climate has shown good agreement with the upper end of the predictions based on human contributions.

IPCC makes predictions. Puppypower, please post your predictions here, leaving out the human contributions, and we will see how well it predicts the future.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph

[Bored chemist]

No it's like being agnostic about whether or not scientists are pro or anti our involvement in climate change. It's happening either way.

Since scientists are actually quite good at evaluating data, you wouldn't expect them to be anti (belief in rain).
In the same way you wouldn't expect them to be anti (belief in anthropogenic global warming)

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Why are you labouring this point? It is not the main point of the thread.

[Bored chemist]

Why are you labouring this point? It is not the main point of the thread.

Dear Pot,
thanks for your comments,
sincerely
Kettle

[puppypower]

Why are you labouring this point? It is not the main point of the thread.

The initial point of the thread was about cloud seeding to lower the greenhouse impact of water. But the second post brought up the politics of the denier label, used to silence the opposition, via a social stigmatism. It is like calling someone a Communist during Cold War Years, so they will be avoided out of fear of being accused of collaboration by the fascists self servers. The political side of climate change allows the layman to participate in the discussion with the masses ultimately influencing budgeting through their representatives. Science is not self sufficient in terms of resources but need to promote need.

In physics, there is the standard model and there is also String theory, each of which is different, yet one is not calling other the denier. Rather both are allowed to exist side by side, with everyone able to freely choose which they prefer to study, without being labelled a leper. This is science at its best. There is something very different going on with climate change, that is not science.  It sounds more like high school social politics.

One thing that is different about climate change is the politics of fear. The standard model and String theory may both up-sell to compete for limited resources, but neither uses fear and name calling for added leverage to the sales pitch.  Fear can add leverage, even if not based on conclusive science.

As an analogous example, the fear of terrorism has led to the creation of a huge bureaucracy, designed to predict and proactively appease this fear. If you compare the number of deaths due to terrorism, to other things like falling in the shower, gang violence, or auto accidents, it seems like overkill in terms of the resources spent per unit of benefit; per life saved. However, because the drum beat of fear, connected to terrorism, is the loudest of all, less can appear to mean more. There a magic multiplier, not based on science and facts, but drum beat.

If you try to neutralize the fear, to help people gain  proper proportions, you are called a denier of sorts, who supports terrorism, instead of labelled as someone who is hoping to achieve objective proportions. Fear is helping to drive the politics behind climate change. Only one side is working to make us all safer, from the fear of doom that the same side is predicting.

If you look at American colleges, the young people are no longer open minded and willing to discuss controversial topics, but have been trained to demonstrate against free speech, so there is only one side of the argument is allowed on campuses. This is all connected and driven by fear. The denier label is there to silence anything that does not enhance the fear, since the fear is needed as a tool to leverage resources, until you can create a self standing bureaucracy, this is too big to fail, which can then be used to take away rights such as free speech and objective science.

The left has given away part of its hand, in terms of how the media is dealing with president Trump. Although what the left leaning media presents, may have supporting facts, it tends to promote only the negative side instead of reflecting proper reality proportions, which includes the good. 

As an example, If I presented you in terms of the low points of your life; your life's bloopers, but present none of your achievements, this will still be based on valid data and facts, but it will not create a clear picture of you, since you are both things. The one sided facts, will turn you into a 1-D cartoon character that is easier to memorize and recite instead of discuss.

 You can do the same thing with global warming and climate change. You can present facts to support one side needed to attract resources, but not all the facts, creating the illusions of a 1-D done deal. The left appears very vulnerable to 1-D thinking. This is why the discussions always go back to one sided politics on both sides.

[Bored chemist]

"But the second post brought up the politics of the denier label,"
It's not a "label" as such- it is a description.
If, the phrase "climate change denier" has taken on some "evil" meaning, perhaps that is because of the company it keeps.
Maybe, if it wasn't for the fact that many of them seem allied to the sort of propagandist  nepotistic purposes that the Communists went in for, the  description wouldn't have those connotations.
Those communist governments were, after all, deniers of science.
They denied evolution- and gave their people the disaster that was lysenkoism.
And they denied global warming.
And they still seek to deny it.
http://www.france24.com/en/20170331-russian-president-vladimir-putin-says-humans-not-responsible-climate-change

And on the other side of the pond, the Republican party is so scared of the truth that they have practically banned  their scientists from working on it.
The republicans- perpetually funded by big oil and its customers, have a very clear reason to deny it.
Perhaps the reason that the word "denier" has such negative connotations is simply  that it's used to describe a bunch of nasty people.

"Science is not self sufficient in terms of resources but need to promote need. "
Silly.
There was need before there was science.
"One thing that is different about climate change is the politics of fear. The standard model and String theory may both up-sell to compete for limited resources, but neither uses fear and name calling for added leverage to the sales pitch.  Fear can add leverage, even if not based on conclusive science.
"
LOL
What "fear" could they play on?
Anyway, the "two sides" there don't really disagree.
The standard model says there are particles. Nobody disagrees
The String Theory says that, maybe, those particles are vibrations in a string.
Well, whether they are  or not, the particles are still there.
So it's another of your straw men (and I note you haven't  replied to my post asking you why you posted the last one).

Mind you, it's good to see we agree about something.
"As an analogous example, the fear of terrorism has led to the creation of a huge bureaucracy, designed to predict and proactively appease this fear. If you compare the number of deaths due to terrorism, to other things like falling in the shower, gang violence, or auto accidents, it seems like overkill in terms of the resources spent per unit of benefit; per life saved. However, because the drum beat of fear, connected to terrorism, is the loudest of all, less can appear to mean more. There a magic multiplier, not based on science and facts, but drum beat. "
Yes, terrorism is being blown out of all proportion by governments who want to use fear to control people.
Have you noticed that it's the Right wing of politics that's specialising in this, while the Left point out that, perhaps, it would be better not to provoke the attacks in the first place?

So, it's the ones who promote  rule by fear who are the ones who deny AGW.
As you say "If you try to neutralize the fear, to help people gain  proper proportions, you are called a denier of sorts, who supports terrorism, instead of labelled as someone who is hoping to achieve objective proportions. "

It's Bush who declares a "war on terror" and it's Bush who denies the existence of AGW.
Interesting, isn't it?
It's the same with the "war on drugs", by the way.
As far as I know, the "war on immigrants" hasn't been declared yet- but I propose a testable prediction; if/ when it is, declared, it will be by a Right wing politician.

All of these things-
the reasonable concerns of those who see US intervention in other countries as a threat
The choice of some people to take drugs
The decision by some people to try to better themselves by moving to a different country-
are not really threats to  others.
Yet the Right wing portrays them as such. They claim these people are a great evil.

So the Right has no qualms about using fear to gain political advantage.
Yet they don't do it with AGW.

Why not?
Well, because it's not in their financial interests- adn that's all they care about.
So, what do they do?
well they spread the lie that the environmentalist lobby is in the same leagues as the drug users and terrorists.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/30/green-movement-greatest-threat-freedom-says-trump-adviser-myron-ebell

Now that's not just picking a label that might have political connotations; that's outright lying.

So, why are you not grumbling about it?

[jeffreyH (OP)]

@puppypower The thread is NOT about cloud seeding to mitigate climate change. Don't put words into my mouth that are not there. Have you actually read the first wikipedia link I posted or have you just jumped to conclusions?

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Why are you labouring this point? It is not the main point of the thread.

Dear Pot,
thanks for your comments,
sincerely
Kettle

Well let's just leave this one to posterity.

[alancalverd]

The "hockey stick curve" popularized by Al Gore is not drawing a curve through a single point.
It is tracking a trend with detailed measurements over the past 2,000 years,

If only..... We have no credible and consistent measurements prior to 1864, when the Stevenson Screen was invented. From 1864 to 1975 we only had measurements of surface air temperature from inhabited and "civilised" places on the solid 25% surface of the globe, and most of these changed character significantly between 1930 and 1970. Nobody had visited the poles until the 1900s, let alone made any longterm measurements there. Satellite data has been "adjusted" several times, remarkably always in the "warmist" direction. And there still seems to be no consensus as to exactly what the curve claims to represent, at least as far as this forum knows.

What we do know of the last 2000 years is that Europe has been a lot hotter and a lot colder that it is now, and Canadian glaciers were a lot smaller 500 years ago. I'm sure there are good Indian and Chinese sources of recorded history too, but human activity is profoundly affected by snow and ice (or their absence) so we don't have a lot of hard evidence from non-European sources.

There is no doubt that the climate is changing, and always has, but the mechanism is not clear and predictive models have not had a good track record to date. 

As for clouds, the greenhouse effect of liquid or solid water is quite different from that of the gas phase. The phase changes involve enormous exchanges of energy, and clouds reflect radiation over a very broad spectrum both upwards and downwards, restricting both daytime heating and nighttime cooling. The complexity of cloud physics, or even atmospheric water vapor physics,  is orders of magnitude greater than a naive "CO2" model and casts serious doubt over allegations of simple and significant anthropogenic climate change. 

[Bored chemist]

We have no credible and consistent measurements prior to 1864,

What we do know of the last 2000 years...

Which of those is true?

[jeffreyH (OP)]

We have no credible and consistent measurements prior to 1864,

What we do know of the last 2000 years...

Which of those is true?

That's what you call extreme cherry picking of out of context snippets.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

@Bored chemist
You did say, did you not, "forgive me for not providing ... the scientific explanation of global warming".