[puppypower]

@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?

I looked at the first post, which was about cloud seeding. I then looked quickly at the second post, which was a list of deniers, I assumed the two were related; leading argument and goal. My first paragraph addressed cloud seeding and how it changes the phase proportions of the water altering the absorption of IR in the atmosphere. Then I addressed the second paragraph.

That aside, if you look at a plot of global temperature versus CO2 concentration, as far back as we can infer, there is no consistent correlation between CO2 and global temperature. See Figure below! If human had been around 140 million years ago and we plotted our 100 years curve, the consensus would say CO2 makes the temperature drop, since that is what the data will say.

All I am saying is this is not a done deal. How would you explain areas of the curve, with the opposite correlation between CO2 and temperature, using consensus assumptions? The model is not that flexible. This is why I go back to politics, which tends to use salesmanship and censorship tools to create that illusion.



The earth is geologically active, including under the oceans. If the crust sinks in one place, and rises in another place in the ocean, cold water can pushed under and replaced with hot water that is rising with the crust. There is another mechanism for ocean heating.

Scientists have found a large ocean of water under the mantle below SE Asia. Other scientists found a large scar in the middle of the Atlantic ocean where the mantle is exposed, suggesting sub mantle water broke through the crust and eroded it. This scenario could lead to global warming, even with initially low CO2. The heated water will cause CO2 to leave the ocean water and therefore cause the CO2 to rise as an affect.

Another mechanism is connected to forest fires. Forest fires have a two fold impact, compared to manmade, which has a one fold impact. A forest fire gives off CO2,  like burning fossil fuel. However, a forest fire also reduces the amount of photosynthesis by burning trees and grass. Below is a video from the NASA website.

Forest fires have two secondary impacts both connected to the smoke and ash. The smoke has the impact of reflecting sun. This  has a cooling affect and a reflective affect that can reduce photosynthesis. It can cool and add CO2. It also has an affect connected, to this discussion, which is make the particle nuclei, for cloud seeding, which can reduce the reflective value of clouds, adding to global warming. If you rain out the clouds faster; drastic climate change, more sun reaching the surface each day, for an added warming affect. The smile travelers far and wide so a forest fire in Siberia can impact way over there.

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003800/a003868/a010851_G2011-110_Fires_Feature_Global_Tour_ipod_lg.m4v

[Bored chemist]

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

No, I didn't.
If you look at the clauses in which those snippets appear they don't actually say what you are claiming.
However in Alan's case he really did say that we have no reliable data before 1864.
Then he went on to use data from before 1864.
Well, he can't have it both ways.
If it's not reliable don't use it.
If it's reliable enough to use then don't disparage others for using it.

It would still have been a valid comment if I had wasted time + bandwidth by quoting the whole of his post.
I didn't actually change what he said- whereas you did change what I said.
Nice try, but it's another straw man.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

"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."

Where in that lot is Alan claiming 'reliable' evidence? Is it the part where he says 'so we don't have a lot of hard evidence from non-European sources'? To me that the paragraph quoted above is distinct from Alan's previous paragraph. You have yet to discuss the topic of the thread. Is that because you would rather divert the thread away from the topic for some reason?

[puppypower]

I am not sure if anyone saw the video of the forest fire data from NASA. There was more forest fire than I expected to see. Forest fires offer a unique spin for climate change. This, by itself could lead climate change. When you burn forests, not only are you adding CO2, but you take away photosynthesis. This has double the impact compared to burning fossil fuel, since forest fires adds CO2, while lowering the capacity to reabsorb CO2.

Forest fires also make smoke and ash, which has several secondary impacts. Smoke and ash can scatter the light from the sun, while ash can serve as nuclei for cloud seeding. The former can have a cooling impact, while lowering photosynthesis; cooling with CO2 appearing to get higher. While the seeding of clouds can alter rain fall patterns; rain sooner, and increase solar input to the ground for more heating due to less clouds.

If add to this, the normal flowing of the atmosphere, the impact of a forest fire; downstream, can be variable based on which of these 4-6 parameters are being felt.

There is also a ternary impact, which is the impact of the smoke and dust as it is scrubbed by rain and snow, while also acting as nuclei. The smoke and ash adds black and gray to snow, which can accelerate the melting of glaciers; dirty snow piles will melt faster.

Manmade CO2 tends diffuse due to atmospheric flow patterns and entropy. When you add loss of photosynthesis, due forest fires, you also have pockets of lowered CO2 absorption, which keeps the global CO2 in unsteady state.

I am not saying forest fire is the magic bullet, but the impact of forest fires could singlehandedly explain most changes since it is a swiss army knife of adding and subtracting affects.

One technical spin off is, if we could control forest fires better, we could offset manmade CO2. For every CO2 molecule we save by controlling forest fires, we can add 2 by manmade, and break even. If you look at the video, Africa is the fire continent and would be the place of maximum impact.

[smart]

I'm not sure if I should add something to this or not... 

One thing I am entirely convinced of is that ash and water vapor are two different things...

Also, CCNs may play a major role in the troposphere and stratosphere.

I believe synthetic cloud condensation nuclei is not a magical thing.

The information on cloud physics (CCNs) and condensation aerosols is poorly understood.

"Climate change" is a poorly defined term for controlled manipulation of the climate using stratospheric aerosols.


 

[jeffreyH (OP)]

I'm not sure if I should add something to this or not... 

One thing I am entirely convinced of is that ash and water vapor are two different things...

Also, CCNs may play a major role in the troposphere and stratosphere.

I believe synthetic cloud condensation nuclei is not a magical thing.

The information on cloud physics (CCNs) and condensation aerosols is poorly understood.

"Climate change" is a poorly defined term for controlled manipulation of the climate using stratospheric aerosols.


 

It is really because of the conspiracy theory distraction that no one actually wants to discuss the science. Maybe that is your aim. I don't know for sure. So while you are fantasizing about Donald Trump farting out of the back of air force one the world moves on.

[smart]

It is really because of the conspiracy theory distraction that no one actually wants to discuss the science. Maybe that is your aim. I don't know for sure. So while you are fantasizing about Donald Trump farting out of the back of air force one the world moves on.

I'm not sure what is so magical about the conspiracy theory flag. I found no evidences to support this theory
fabricated by the CIA.
I think you deeply misunderstand how CCNs are affecting cloud physics. 

[jeffreyH (OP)]

I think you deeply misunderstand the notion of evidence.

[Bored chemist]

"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."

Where in that lot is Alan claiming 'reliable' evidence? Is it the part where he says 'so we don't have a lot of hard evidence from non-European sources'? To me that the paragraph quoted above is distinct from Alan's previous paragraph. You have yet to discuss the topic of the thread. Is that because you would rather divert the thread away from the topic for some reason?

Either we know what the temperature was 500 years ago; or we don't.
If you say that glacier length is a measure of temperature then that's fine.
It's just as valid as measuring the length of a column of mercury in a glass tube.
(Obviously, there are issues with other things affecting it too)

If, by some means, such as reported lengths of glaciers, we know that it was warmer then we have a measure of temperature.
If he is  saying that is not reliable, then he shouldn't rely on it.
The magic bit is when you stop thinking of mercury in glass or the resistance of a bit of platinum, and look at things like isotope ratios in ice cores.
That gives you a record of the temperature that goes back for ages.

The fact that nobody was reading it in Celsius at the time does not stop it being a record of temperature does it?

So it's simply misleading to say "We have no credible and consistent measurements prior to 1864, " because we can measure the temperature from way back.

It's particularly silly to say " we don't know what the temperature was; but we know what the temperature was"

Speaking of silly things to say:
Re."You have yet to discuss the topic of the thread. Is that because you would rather divert the thread away from the topic for some reason?"
It was Alan who tried to divert the topic, not me. He did it by by saying something that wasn't right.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

That was a good come back. Hats off to you BC.

[smart]

I think you deeply misunderstand the notion of evidence.

That's not even the main point of the thread. Why diverting the thread to your magical belief that climate engineering is not real?
I trust the reader will understand that artificial CCNs utilization in the troposphere may impact cloud physics and enhance rainfall.

[smart]

Abstract
Galactic cosmic rays have been positively correlated to the Earth’s low cloud cover. It is now evident that cosmic ray ionization is linked to lowering nucleation barriers and promoting early charged particle growth into the Aitken range. There is a substantially high probability that some of the charged particles grow to the 100 nm range and beyond to become CCN. There is also evidence that electrically charged aerosol are more efficiently scavenged by cloud droplets, some of which evaporate producing evaporation aerosol, which are very effective ice formation nuclei.
The assumption is made that artificially generated, corona effect ionization should act in much the same way as cosmic ray ionization, with some differences that might make unipolar corona effect ionization a more powerful catalyzer of cloud microphysical processes and, consequently, climate. There is much further work required to understand the cause and effect relationship between artificial ionization and weather, including electrical, chemical and physical measurements at the nanoparticle level and beyond, as well as mathematical modeling to describe the observed, measured or hypothesized atmospheric phenomena at different levels of artificial ionization, and, hopefully equal levels of cosmic ray ionization.

https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/88063.pdf

[jeffreyH (OP)]

I think you deeply misunderstand the notion of evidence.

That's not even the main point of the thread. Why diverting the thread to your magical belief that climate engineering is not real?
I trust the reader will understand that artificial CCNs utilization in the troposphere may impact cloud physics and enhance rainfall.

The climate will never react to order. To imagine that it is an easy thing to 'engineer' the climate is very naive oversimplification. You would be more likely to introduce more chaos rather than less.

[Tim the Plumber]

I think you deeply misunderstand the notion of evidence.

That's not even the main point of the thread. Why diverting the thread to your magical belief that climate engineering is not real?
I trust the reader will understand that artificial CCNs utilization in the troposphere may impact cloud physics and enhance rainfall.

Well artificial climate control is certainly not the point of this thread.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Many moons ago the company I worked for developed hydrological software whose data, gathered from remote monitoring equipment was fed into Wallingford's software and ultimately became part of the Flood Estimation Handbook.
http://www.ceh.ac.uk/services/flood-estimation-handbook
The equations developed during and preceding that time are not simply modelling what they expect to happen but using decades of data to test models used in 100 year flood estimates. So I may just have a bit of an advantage in the subject.

[smart]

Well artificial climate control is certainly not the point of this thread.

I disagree. Your magical thinking that solar geoengineering is not deeply implicated in cloud physics and rainfall is wrong.
Climate change is not just a coincidence or natural process. Man-made climate change and radiative forcing alter CCNs physics and rainfall precipitations in-situ.
 

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Well artificial climate control is certainly not the point of this thread.

I disagree. Your magical thinking that solar geoengineering is not deeply implicated in cloud physics and rainfall is wrong.
Climate change is not just a coincidence or natural process. Man-made climate change and radiative forcing alter CCNs physics and rainfall precipitations in-situ.
 

To state that everyone who does not agree with you has magical thinking is a diversionary tactic. Your use of the phrase man-made climate change makes it all sound more sinister than it is and another diversionary tactic. You could actually stop trying to be an attention grabbing sensationalist and try to make some valid points. However I doubt you have the resolve to resist the temptation.

[Bored chemist]

Well artificial climate control is certainly not the point of this thread.

I disagree. Your magical thinking that solar geoengineering is not deeply implicated in cloud physics and rainfall is wrong.
Climate change is not just a coincidence or natural process. Man-made climate change and radiative forcing alter CCNs physics and rainfall precipitations in-situ.
 

Let's face it.
If you can make me and JeffreyH agree that you are utterly wrong, you must be pretty badly wrong.

[Tim the Plumber]

Well artificial climate control is certainly not the point of this thread.

I disagree. Your magical thinking that solar geoengineering is not deeply implicated in cloud physics and rainfall is wrong.
Climate change is not just a coincidence or natural process. Man-made climate change and radiative forcing alter CCNs physics and rainfall precipitations in-situ.
 

Let's face it.
If you can make me and JeffreyH agree that you are utterly wrong, you must be pretty badly wrong.

Even include me in that. Is that a record?

[smart]

Even include me in that. Is that a record?

Collective brainwashing is no excuse for avoiding to face the evidences that our climate is being engineered
systematically in the troposphere: http://www.nuclearplanet.com/variable_heat.pdf