We can brighten clouds to reflect heat and reduce global warming. But should we?

Phys.Org ^ | November 9, 2017 | by Stuart Leavenworth

[shotgun]

Says the scientist that can’t model clouds or account for cloud coverage in their models...

[rwoodward]

the annuaki used Gold Dust. How about we try that?

[Wuli]

I was making a facetious argument, just say that the mental attitude that humans have messed up the environment is surely not also one that would trust human endeavors to intentionally mess with it to “correct” something.

As far as CO2 and the environment, you were preaching to the choir.

[Pollster1]

Exactly. The “Medieval Warm Period” or “Medieval Climate Optimum” was a very good thing for mankind. Today’s Ctrl-Left is panicking over the possibility that we might experience the same temperatures as we had then.

[Bob434]

was more getting the info out for everyone- many folks don’t realize how little CO2 man actually produces

[miniTAX]

“Acid rain was a problem in Europe and upstate New York decades ago.”

Acid rain was never a problem in Europe or elsewhere, only in the alarmist mythology peddled by the greenies with the complicity of the lying media.
There is now ample evidence that they had conflated some dying patches of forests (something that has always existed and will always exist) to a supposedly large scale environmental catastrophe to sell fear.

[miniTAX]

“The physics is clear. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and will warm the planet. The coefficients and feedback loops are obscure”

---

So the physics is “clear” but the coefficients are “obscure”???
But hey, it’s climate “science”.

[Pollster1]

So the physics is “clear” but the coefficients are “obscure”???

The problem is that the coefficients come from interactions that are a question of biology, chemistry, solubility, etc. We know what CO2 does to sunlight transmission (physics) and to infrared transmission (physics). We do not know quantitatively how that effect relates to temperature change, other than it should produce some temperature change and there should be (mostly negative) feedback loops that suppress that change.

[catnipman]

“Ever-higher temperatures are melting the ice sheets faster than projected. Sea level is rising. “

uh, yeah. prove it.

[miniTAX]

“We know what CO2 does to sunlight transmission (physics) and to infrared transmission (physics).”

---

Knowing such thing is trivial and doesn’t mean that “the physics is clear” and even less that more “CO2 means more warming”.
1) CO2 has much less absorbing bands than H2O, thus is a much less powerfull the greenhouse gas than H20 (physics). 2) More CO2 means less H20 because the sum is supposed to be constant and set by pressure which is set by gravity (physics).
So more CO2 means more weak GHG as a whole (physics), means less “greenhouse” effect, means LESS warming.

Besides, CO2 absorbs the same bands that are already absorbed by H2O and since H20 is much more concentrated and more absorbant, there is not much left for CO2 (the “forcing” law of CO2 as a function of concentration is logarithmic and is out of the hat, not much physics in here, accept for window dressing).
So adding CO2 (and supposing it does not displace H20, which is an UNphysical hypothesis) to an already saturated medium should not change anything, like using black paint on an already black surface.

So no, the physics is NOT clear. It may be as well be that the “greenhouse” effect (which BTW has nothing to do with the real greehouse effect which involves convection, isn’t that telling us how bad climatism is?) has never existed, except in computers.

[clearcarbon]

“She swallowed the bird to catch the spider;
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly;
I don’t know why she swallowed a fly - Perhaps she’ll die!”

[fwdude]

Maybe “progressives” should just breath less - a LOT less.