This is a topic of interest to Austin_G at least, and there is news, so I will start one more thread. Start with the news Cloud-brightening experiment tests tool to slow climate change This is different because it just uses super-tiny water droplets. The typical schemes refer to putting sulfate aerosol up high, where clouds are (at least sometimes) starved for condensation nuclei. One sulfate shot has been done (last year?). Otherwise there are modeling efforts. Volcanoes are the best at this, and there is abundant evidence it works for one to few years. If surface T increases prove to be much more important that rainfall redistribution and marine acidification, then +CO2 can well be addressed in this way. I am not a fan, but that should not hinder discussion.
At some point the science gets overtaken by politics. Let's say it works. Does it only change the climate and not the weather? It will not take long to figure out that if rainfall somewhere can be affected by this, then climate control becomes a non-issue compared to rain manipulation. Who decides how much gets applied and where? What if the source country benefits and a downstream country is adversely affected. Bottom line is the short term political effects will overwhelm any long term scientific intents if any results do pan out.
My first thought was to make all man-made structures 'white' or reflective. The problem is the CO{2} blanket is still there and all 'white' might eviscerate PVC. Another approach might be to target CO{2} absorption spectra, pulling the fangs of the CO{2} blanket . . . at least for man made structures. Still, experimentation is good. Bob Wilson
Dont mess with what you dont have a clue about as climate scientists. Climate scientists dont have a clue about climate. If you start geoengineering mindlessly ,it will surely end in a premature ice age. I borrowed the "climate scientists dont understand climate" from Freeman Dysan the Einstein of our time.
Apparently mojo will make a short trip to Silicon valley and insist that this experiment not be done. After y'all have read (above) about the scale (one boat), you might doubt that it could bring on an ice age. Which leads us back, does mojo just want to not know things, or is there something deeper in play? A lack of understanding of earth climate calls for improved understanding. Current incomplete understanding benefits no one, right?
Well he claims to live in the area. Fortunately the free course, Denial 101x, is available and could give him a clue about how to be more effective. Bob Wilson
i thought for a long time roofs should be painted white. just to save on AC in summer. the next step would be a "smart roof" that turns from white to black in winter to save on heating. well, try to explain it to the homeowner association that requires black roofs here in the heart of dixi.
A smarter roof would power the heating and cooling directly. Unfortunately, I have the ultimate in a smart "roof", oak trees stealing my power.
Climate scientists are so full of BS. They dont understand anything about climate.But they know that the ultimate temp of Earth is whatever it was 100 years ago before CO2 rose. Thats BS . The past 10,000 years were warmer that today. There was no runaway warming, no catastrophe and it wasnt caused by CO2 levels. There is no correlation between CO2 levels and geological temps. CO2 is not the geologic control knob . Only a fool would attempt to claim that Tohochitu. If you care to prove how now correlation between CO2 and Earths temp, Im game. But explain it in your own words please. If Earths temp rises another 1 degree C it will probably be a boon to agriculture and mankind. After all its the temp weve happily lived through for the the past 10,000 years. When it dipped to cold in the Little Ice Age is when human society suffered.
This is rich, coming from a poster who claimed that 2015 Arctic sea ice is way up from two years ago, without noticing that his reference article was timelined from the summer of 2014. Are you going to tell me to STFU again?
Out of respect for Doug, I had not set 'ignore user' for this troll but insulting Doug was a bridge too far. My patience is at an end. This troll's signal-to-noise ratio is very low with no original technical content or insightful commentary. Thanks to Denial101x and a couple of tests, I've mapped him out and find such posters boring and a waste of time. They are frozen in a self-defeating, Kabuki-like behavior and it is sad. But sometimes 'God is mindful of the smallest sparrow.' Bob Wilson
Fuzzy your so cute when you are angry. I admited you where correct in pointing out I posted last years link and added a current one. Arctic ice EMBIGGENS, returns to 1980s levels of cap cover • The Register So back on topic fuzzy ,care to demonstrate how CO2 is Earths control knob?
@10. oh gawd. "The past 10,000 years were warmer that today." All of them? everywhere? So there was no LIA in Eorope? I do help people refine their scientific ideas for publication, but mojo wants to be de-psychosed for free? It would be a different thing. "There is no correlation between CO2 levels and geological temps.' After you take the time to read Dana Royer et al. 2004, CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate. GSA Today; 14(3), doi: 10.1130/1052-5173(2004)014<4:CAAPDO>2.0.CO;2. let us return to the topic. Perhaps. you can think of a humorous, insulting misspelling of Royer's name. I got nothing' there. But on the sciencey side, he is a force to be reckoned with. Or, ignored or insulted, I guess. "If Earths temp rises another 1 degree C it will probably be a boon to agriculture and mankind." Mojo and I both hope so. The research is not entirely comforting or convincing. Any higher than that, it seems we could enter 'yah tah hey' territory. It seems hard to predict benefits as high-population humans have never been 'there' before. The wider population gets to decide among the paths offered. I hope. "But explain it in your own words please." Will do. After you read Royer (above) and say "I (mojo) don't understand ..., " I will explain it to the best of my ability. Believe it or not, little m, proud as you are, I am not talking to you here mainly. I am hoping that our 'drive bys' will take the time to read what you will not. Lift the general level of understanding. If little m gets left behind it will be sad, but probably PC will not hang me. I did my best.
AndyP, I hope you are entertained, but if you could put just 5% of your CPU into learning something about the topics on offer, that would be even better.
Around midnight It was still very warm and humid as the dogs and I went for a walk. Halfway down the block, a light sprinkle started but it was warm. We kept going and as it increased, it never did get cooler. I hadn't felt this since Okinawa. Global warming means in addition to the heat, more frequent high humidity which can lead to tepid showers like last night. Bob Wilson
Your repeated use of profanity at other users reveals a lot about your character, and about the emptiness of your argument. I know you admitted to the error. But this isn't the first time this has happened. And most of the folks you are denigrating are sufficiently observant to avoid this type of error. It is relevant to the mindset of your arguments. I don't recall making that particular claim. Can you point to the post where I did?
Where did you read that? One branch of climate science tries to accurately reconstruct past temperatures and carbon dioxide levels. I don't know of any ultimate level. Carbon dioxide rises and falls, but the 403 ppm reported from mona loa is historically very high, and definitely the highest in this inter-glacial period. You seem to have a case of the "NOs" like a toddler. Even your source watts up with that doesn't believe these things. Global temperatures were definitely colder during your great granparents lives than today. Sea levels are higher. There is definitely a physics explanation of the correlation between the log of carbon dioxide concentration and the warming effect of the atmosphere, and definitely positive feedback on that warming too. We just don't know the sensitivity. Please watch this long video. I too am optimistic that man can develop crops that thrive in the changed climate and mitigate damage. I thought from earlier in this post you didn't believe it was colder in the Little ice age, but man adapted then too. Other creatures may not be as lucky. 1 degree wouldn't be bad. I am a little more frightened by 4 or 5 degrees. We never have been there (mankind) and may not fare as well. We probably should take steps to reduce as an insurance policy. Natural gas, sun, and wind produce electricity as well as coal, but with a lot less pollutants and carbon dioxide. Efficient cars take you from point a to b as well as guzzlers. We should research these geo enineering solutions as well as reduce fossil burn, just in case we need it.