Scientists consider the possibility of adding aerosols or modifying clouds to slow global warming

July 21, 2017 by Bob Yirka, Phys.org report
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

(Phys.org)—Scientists looking at alternative approaches to staving off global warming have published two Perspective pieces in the journal Science. In the first, Ulrike Niemeier and Simone Tilmes with the Max Planck Institute and the National Center for Atmospheric Research in the U.S., respectively, address the possibility of injecting aerosols into the atmosphere as a means to limit heat passing through. In the second, Niemeier has paired up with Blaž Gasparini with the Institute of Atmospheric and Climate Science in Switzerland to look at the issues involved with attempting to disperse clouds that prevent heat in the atmosphere from escaping back into space. In an editorial in the same journal issue, Janos Pasztor, Cynthia Scharf and Kai-Uwe Schmidt consider how we might govern geoengineering attempts to prevent a reckless few from possibly destroying the planet they are trying to save.

Governments send representatives to climate meetings hoping to establish a consensus regarding carbon emission reductions, and the citizens of the world debate the source or even reality of and what ought to be done about it. Yet the planet continues to warm. Scientists around the globe are convinced that unless something is done soon, the planet could become a miserable place, or worse, we could cause our own extinction. While some progress has been made in limiting carbon emissions, most would agree such efforts are falling short. For that reason, some scientists have begun looking at other ways to prevent catastrophe. Two of the most debated are aerosol injection and .

The idea behind injecting aerosols into the atmosphere, as Niemeier and Tilmes point out, is to mimic the cooling that occurs when volcanoes erupt. Along with smoke, volcanoes also emit a lot of sulfur, which is why scientists suggest we do the same artificially. But that might be easier said than done, Niemeier and Tilmes note, because it would involve replicating an eruption the size of Mount Pinatubo every day for approximately the next century and a half.

And there are problems with cloud seeding, too, which might be done to disperse cirrus , preventing them from trapping heat—the main problem is lack of precision; doing it wrong could lead to more warming, for example.

For these reasons and many more, Pasztor, Scharf and Schmidt suggest taking a very serious look at how to prevent one country, group or even a wealthy individual from striking out on their own with such approaches. Adding a governing body to the equation, they suggest, could prevent these scenarios.

Explore further: Models show injecting aerosols into the atmosphere to prevent hurricanes possibly feasible

More information: Ulrike Lohmann et al. A cirrus cloud climate dial?, Science (2017). DOI: 10.1126/science.aan3325

Ulrike Niemeier et al. Sulfur injections for a cooler planet, Science (2017). DOI: 10.1126/science.aan3317

Janos Pasztor et al. How to govern geoengineering?, Science (2017). DOI: 10.1126/science.aan6794

Related Stories

NASA data suggest future may be rainier than expected

June 12, 2017

A new study suggests that most global climate models may underestimate the amount of rain that will fall in Earth's tropical regions as our planet continues to warm. That's because these models underestimate decreases in ...

Recommended for you

Palm oil: The carbon cost of deforestation

June 19, 2018

A recent study by EPFL and the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research (WSL) shows that intensive farming of palm oil has a major impact on the environment. Both short- and long-term solutions exist, ...

Coral reef 'oases' offer glimmer of hope

June 18, 2018

The identification of small 'oases' in the world's oceans, where corals appear to be thriving, could offer vital insights in the race to save one of the world's most threatened ecosystems.

Checking China's pollution by satellite

June 18, 2018

Air pollution has smothered China's cities in recent decades. In response, the Chinese government has implemented measures to clean up its skies. But are those policies effective? Now an innovative study co-authored by an ...

61 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

sirdumpalot
5 / 5 (3) Jul 21, 2017
Honestly, the scientific method can come up with a better method than this!
Dan12182
5 / 5 (4) Jul 21, 2017
The problem is not merely that "citizens of the world debate the source or even reality of global warming." Many citizens who live in cold climates see global warming to be beneficial to themselves.
Benni
2.8 / 5 (9) Jul 21, 2017
Honestly, the scientific method can come up with a better method than this!


........like leave it alone, because the next thing they'll need to to figure out is how to fix some other kind of a hole in the sky when their stupid models failed to predict the problem of too much cooling because they had no advance knowledge of when the next Pinatubo would erupt.

They complain there's too much carbon in the air now & their solution is to add more? I wonder if they think that an artifcially induced Ice Age is the answer to all our Climate Change problems? I guess that would be slightly more practical than trying to change Earth's orbit around the Sun in accordance with Milankovitch Cycles.

EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (5) Jul 21, 2017
"the main problem is lack of precision; doing it wrong could lead to more warming, for example."

Absolutely not. Arrogance, ignorance, and ruthlessly risking future generations with little consequences to the present actors is precisely what got our global industry to push us onto this path to extinction. Climate systems are chaotic, unpredictable - big short pushes will have unknown consequences on an essential life support system already pushed literally to the brink of extincting us.

Put all that effort into sinking carbon. Replant forests and grasslands where we mowed them down. Cultivate seaweed in the millions of hectares of dead zones, feed that crop to livestock to nearly eliminate flatulence. Watch the climate trend attractor climb back down off the ledge and revert closer to its traditional milder fractal dimension.

Don't mess harder with what you don't understand, or flirt with the risk of accelerating climate change into a new, extincting track.
EmceeSquared
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 21, 2017
Benni:
They complain there's too much carbon in the air now & their solution is to add more? I wonder if they think that an artifcially induced Ice Age is the answer to all our Climate Change problems?


Thank you for finally admitting that humans can and do control the amount of excess atmospheric carbon that causes climate change.

You will certainly see that honest comment linked to in future threads when you flipflop back into denial:

https://phys.org/..._1494948
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (8) Jul 21, 2017
Among other things, note that there seems no issue with the size at least of cloud seeding operations. They seem to think it is feasible even now. But those who deny the reality of chemtrails insist that weather modification couldn't be attempted because it is too big. In fact, chemtrails are the cause of climate change, not "fossil fuels".
Looked at even in a conventional sense, note the depraved principle of denaturing the environment, destroying quality of life to stop the effects of dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere when all it would take is action by Congress. Face it, if an individual dumps a gallon of oil into a stream, the government will be on them with SWAT teams, ready to shoot them, if necessary. Let a corporation dump billions of tons of garbage into the water and government "negotiates" fat tax write offs and deregulation with them to "induce them" not to contaminate the world!
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Jul 21, 2017
But those who deny the reality of chemtrails insist that weather modification couldn't be attempted because it is too big.

Erm...whut? What has the one to do with the other?

(And yeah...chemtrails are bunk...yet another one of those 100% proof global conspiracy theories where every couple of months you have major leaks from top secret government databases)

Jeez..some people will believe all kinds of tripe but tell them that brushing your teeth is good for you (with data) and they're all up in arms.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (6) Jul 21, 2017
julianpenrod:
But those who deny the reality of chemtrails insist that weather modification couldn't be attempted because it is too big. In fact, chemtrails are the cause of climate change, not "fossil fuels".


Please post links to peer-reviewed science articles proving "the reality of chemtrails".

Or else STFU with your boring science fiction already.
philecrawford
5 / 5 (1) Jul 21, 2017
uh, I think there is an easier way to avoid the worst effects of climate change
HannesAlfven
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 21, 2017
This regular barrage of geo-engineering articles on phys.org demonstrates just how fringe the environmental movement has become. It's curious that phys.org publishes this stuff. Get a grip.
EmceeSquared
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 21, 2017
HannesAlfven:
This regular barrage of geo-engineering articles on phys.org demonstrates just how fringe the environmental movement has become. It's curious that phys.org publishes this stuff. Get a grip.


Of course the frequency of geo-enginering articles on Phys.org means absolutely nothing about what "the environmental movement has become", whether "fringe" or otherwise. It means only that the Phys.org editors/publishers think their readers have that level of interest in the subject.

Your comment, though, does mean something. It means 1> you cannot distinguish between appearance of a subject in popular media and the subject itself; 2> you have such a hardcoded agenda against "the environmental movement" (whatever that means to you, because geo-engineering isn't part of the movement) that you'll say anything to attack it.

Both of which are defining characteristics of climate denial trolls. Like you for example.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 21, 2017
Your comment, though, does mean something. It means
@EmceeSquared
you forgot some things about hannes/reeve the pseudoscience eu sock:

3- it demonstrates his inability to do basic research which is directly contradictory to the claims that he is a researcher and interested in facts and truth

4- it demonstrates an inability to differentiate between factual evidence based science versus pseudoscience claims, which is why he denigrates all mainstream science to advocate for electric loonies

I guess he is back to using hannes because of yet another temp ban on reeve...
too bad they don't just IP ban the idiot

you did nail it on the head with that last line, though!
excellent work, MC2!
michbaskett
5 / 5 (2) Jul 21, 2017
Yet again some humans want to tinker with nature. Haven't we done enough damage by doing precisely that already?
luke_w_bradley
1 / 5 (1) Jul 21, 2017
This article exemplifies the culture of caution in science that's making the world worse. The problem isn't bold attempts at rational actions, its bold attempts at stupid crap, while science is paralyzed with caution.

Humanity has been chosen for the stars, and our first challenge is survival on an increasingly hostile planet called Earth. Those who sustain areas capable of sustaining life win.
greenonions1
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 21, 2017
luke
its bold attempts at stupid crap, while science is paralyzed with caution
I don't see science as paralyzed with caution. I see politics (the translation of science into policy) as paralyzed with stupid. Case in point. The U.S. spends around $600 billion on defense. The next country below us is China - spending $145 billion. But we are not safe - and according to Trump et al - need to spend more, more, more. Mean time - education is thrown a few bones - if they are lucky. Teachers in my State - start out earning $30,000 a year - and many public schools are collapsing out of dis-repair.

What are you proposing luke? I would cut defense to the bone, and build the greatest education system on the face of the planet - but I am an anomaly - I value science over war.
ddaye
5 / 5 (1) Jul 21, 2017
Absolutely not. Arrogance, ignorance, and ruthlessly risking future generations with little consequences to the present actors is precisely what got our global industry to push us onto this path to extinction.

I suggest instead those are symptoms of what got our industry to do those things. It's the combination of our operating system designs (economic and governing systems), which rely too heavily and too unknowingly on a human common sense that was evolved for small nomadic stone age clan life.Our systems have no way to reward us for sacrificing for future generations for example. Worse, we've been reshaping our governing systems over the past 2 generations to increase the rewards for short term planning and minimize responsibility to society and the future.There may not have been a worse time in modern history to have discovered this crisis.
BubbaNicholson
1 / 5 (3) Jul 22, 2017
It's fighting a losing battle against water vapor, since with greater heat the atmosphere will likely contain more H20. Instead very large balloons in orbit or at L1 would shade the earth by a bit more than 1% turning back some of the heat being input into the system. This will result in instantaneous lowering of earth's temperature. And, if untoward, the satellite or L1 occupant could be moved or "shot down" with ease, something impossible with aerosols.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (2) Jul 22, 2017
BubbaNicholson:
Instead very large balloons in orbit or at L1 would shade the earth by a bit more than 1% turning back some of the heat being input into the system. This will result in instantaneous lowering of earth's temperature.


Ignoring the damage done by "instantaneous" lowering of Earth's temperature, even if necessary and beneficial in the longer term (like over years/decades): The Earth's surface area that is heated is the half of its 197 million square miles that faces the Sun. 1% of that is 9.845 million sq mi. "Very large balloons"? That's the size of Canada, or China, or the USA - only Russia's area is bigger among countries.

In other words, please think about what you propose before you post it publicly. You're making these reckless geoengineers seem sagacious by comparison.
BackBurner
Jul 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Jul 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (2) Jul 22, 2017
Lex Talonis:
It's because you have all defiled the temple of the lord that he hath brought his wrath upon you.


No, it's because you hate your knife wielding feminist mother. Repent!
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (6) Jul 22, 2017
antalias_physorg displays how witless "science" devotees will behave to deny the truth. The article posits cloud creation, aerosol doping of the sky seriously. When I mentioned chemtrails, those who deny their reality said it was impossible to produce enough substance to affect the weather, yet, here, it's being suggested by supposedly respected "scientists". And I stated that fact that here they are saying it is possible to produce enough to control the atmosphere, but chemtrail deniers said it was impossible. Yet antalias_physorg asks what the connection is. Of course, it's really antalias_physorg's ham handed attempt to suggest there's no connection between chemtrails and the weather, but it shapes up like they can't even read the points I made plainly.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (6) Jul 22, 2017
Among other things, not necessarily surprising EmceeSquared would resort to vulgarity.
In terms of "peer reviewed" articles, note that you can find "verified" articles that promoted waiting until a child was older to expose them to allergens, which resulted in the rate of peanut allergies skyrocketing 250 percent. There was "respected" material promoting Vioxx, Nexium, Bextra, thalidomide and the bladder sling. "Science" was content to withhold the fact that the infrastructure of Iraq was insufficient to support mass production of banned weapons systems. But "respected" "journals" praised every single one of the failed "education" systems that have been implemented over the decades leading to the U.S. being near the bottom in academic achievement. And don't expect EnmceeSquared to admit that it's been admitted that 90 percent of all "peer reviewed" articles make unsubstantiated claims.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (2) Jul 22, 2017
julianpenrod:
In terms of "peer reviewed" articles, [...]

And don't expect EnmceeSquared to admit that it's been admitted that 90 percent of all "peer reviewed" articles make unsubstantiated claims.


So no, you have no peer reviewed articles. STFU.

Also, if peer review was so easy to pass through, there would be at least one peer reviewed article supporting your paranoia about chemtrails, but there aren't. You can't even think your way through that simple fallacy. Stop posting your vulgar, boring science fiction. Shut The Fiction Up already.
Geni-us
3 / 5 (2) Jul 22, 2017
Looks like this comment section summed up the B*llSH*T in this article nicely. :)
JRi
1 / 5 (2) Jul 22, 2017
Maybe some sort of additive could be added to all commercial kerosene used by airplanes to cause more clouds on day side of the earth. A bit like when they use urea to lower NOx of diesel cars. And no additive on the night side so heat could dissipate to space there.
EmceeSquared
3.8 / 5 (4) Jul 22, 2017
JRi:
Maybe some sort of additive could be added to all commercial kerosene used by airplanes to cause more clouds on day side of the earth. A bit like when they use urea to lower NOx of diesel cars. And no additive on the night side so heat could dissipate to space there.


Er, "the night side" becomes the day side after at most 12 hours, carrying your new pollutant into the sunlight.

If you don't know that, you have no business proposing how to monkey with a planetary climate system that our lives depend on, that we've already driven over the brink of destroying us.
archytype_net
1 / 5 (4) Jul 23, 2017
What an absolutely Stupid idea!
So those trails from planes we have seen for years are all just contrails then, even the ones that form at altitudes where the physics says they can't form! All, maybe, just maybe, they've been injecting aerosols already and now they are trying to justify it?

Yes lets spray sulfur into our atmosphere, that will really help.....NOT
dustywells
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 23, 2017
We have been injecting aerosols into the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere for over seven decades. These seven decades just happen to be the same decades that the AGW cabal is touting as the highest degree of recently changing climate.

This suggestion of injecting more aerosols almost appears to be a desperate attempt to force warming that will prove the models to be correct. Followed by a lament that their efforts were too little and too late to prevent the heating that they deliberately caused.
Whydening Gyre
Jul 23, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (2) Jul 23, 2017
dustywells:
This suggestion of injecting more aerosols almost appears to be a desperate attempt to force warming that will prove the models to be correct. Followed by a lament that their efforts were too little and too late to prevent the heating that they deliberately caused.


Your post *almost* seems like the product of sanity.

But it's not. Your paranoid conspiracy ramblings have no place on a science site. Take them to the many lunatic discussion sites. And say hi to Bigfoot there - he's behind it all anyway.
Cave_Man
1 / 5 (3) Jul 23, 2017
Chemtrails may not be as real as some people are purporting but they have been spraying chemicals into the air since the 70's where i live, from ground based stations. To increase snowpack and funnel more water into Phoenix, the forest service totally admits this. Extremely hard to find evidence of it though because it is a liability thing.
http://winterwate...2015.pdf
So if you somehow honestly think the govt or private corps wouldn't spray shit on us. they could put anything in the jet fuel in small amounts. Most of Cali has been seeing huge increases in heavy metals and other chems in their water that is not attributable to any known industry. Leaks say Koch Bros, who have massive amount of coal fly ash to dispose of, figured it would be cheaper to disperse the coal fly ash in our upper atmosphere.
Origin314
1 / 5 (3) Jul 23, 2017
Honestly, the scientific method can come up with a better method than this!


........like leave it alone, because the next thing they'll need to to figure out is how to fix some other kind of a hole in the sky when their stupid models failed to predict the problem of too much cooling because they had no advance knowledge of when the next Pinatubo would erupt.

They complain there's too much carbon in the air now & their solution is to add more? I wonder if they think that an artifcially induced Ice Age is the answer to all our Climate Change problems? I guess that would be slightly more practical than trying to change Earth's orbit around the Sun in accordance with Milankovitch Cycles.


Carbon actually helps plants grow, what happens if carbon levels get so low crops start dying? The world has never been so green thanks to the industrial revolution..

What we need is not less carbon but less TOXINS in the air :X
dustywells
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 23, 2017
Your paranoid conspiracy ramblings have no place on a science site.
But the fear-mongering and pseudo-science of the AGW cabal have repeatedly been proven to be fake. What are YOU doing on what you call a "science site?"
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (4) Jul 23, 2017
dustywells:
But the fear-mongering and pseudo-science of the AGW cabal have repeatedly been proven to be fake. What are YOU doing on what you call a "science site?"


Post the proof that anthropogenic global warming is fake. Now.
dustywells
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 23, 2017
Post the proof that anthropogenic global warming is fake. Now.
You sound like a petulant child who wants his ice cream "Right Now!"

Proof of the fakery has been posted on this site many times before. If you always deliberately ignore or dismiss it, my posting it again won't convince you this time either.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (4) Jul 23, 2017
dustywells:
Proof of the fakery has been posted on this site many times before. If you always deliberately ignore or dismiss it, my posting it again won't convince you this time either.


There is no proof, just the stupid evasions like that one. Everyone knows that if there were proof of your garbage you'd post it here in a second. You're a terrible liar. But you did just prove that there is no proof.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2017
Proof of the fakery has been posted on this site many times before
@dusty-brained idiot
no, it has not
the bulk of your "proof" consisted of either you saying "it's fake", links to some opinion blog of an idiot saying "it's fake" or links to some political idiot saying "it's fake"

not once have you ever been able to provide any empirical evidence that it's fake, even when you were offered $30,000 cash to produce said evidence (http://dialogueso...and.html )

point being: just because you believe something doesn't mean it's true, especially since your conspiracist ideation demonstrates you believe a lot of sh*t that aint true (IOW- delusional)

at least you provide evidence to validate this link:
http://journals.p....0075637
dustywells
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 24, 2017
@stumped idiot

the bulk of your "proof" consisted of either you saying "it's true", links to some opinion blog of an idiot saying "it's true" or links to some political idiot saying "it's true"

not once have you ever been able to provide any empirical evidence that AGW is real. NOTE: That's AGW as opposed to natural climate variations.

point being: just because you believe something doesn't mean it's true, especially since your conspiracist ideation demonstrates you believe a lot of sh*t that aint true (IOW- delusional)

Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2017
enter the rabbit hole
links to some opinion blog of an idiot saying "it's true" or links to some political idiot saying "it's true"
@dusty-idiot
you mean like your lies here ? https://phys.org/...day.html

that single link show's you're a liar
but then again, i can post quite a few more that prove that
or that prove you can't comprehend basic science (like how to tell if CO2 that is measured is natural versus man made?)

as for your belief that i've not proven AGW is real
i've sent you Lacis et al, and Francis et al, plus dozens more that include validation
https://scholar.g...dt=0%2C4

you ignored them - you will simply ignore everything else that doesn't fit your delusional beliefs

all one has to do to refute your claim usually is google your own name and the point... it's on PO and you failed to comprehend the science already
dustywells
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 24, 2017
that single link show's you're a liar but then again, i can post quite a few more that prove that
Please do. But also present the quotes, not just the links, and your reasons why you call me a liar.
you will simply ignore everything else that doesn't fit your delusional beliefs
Why are my conclusions delusional while yours, that are based on an unproven hypothesis and cherry picked observations, have any merit at all?
as for your belief that i've not proven AGW is real i've sent you Lacis et al, and Francis et al, plus dozens more that include validation
as for your belief that i've not proven AGW is fake I've sent you links showing that CO2 bears no relationship to global temperature. But "you ignored them - you will simply ignore everything else that doesn't fit your delusional beliefs."
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (2) Jul 24, 2017
Captain Stumpy:
you mean like your lies here ? https://phys.org/...day.html

BTW, it's pretty easy to link directly to a specific comment in a discussion thread. In Chrome and Firefox (and other browsers): Right-click on the comment body to get a context menu. Select the "Inspect [Element]" item to open a tool pane. The comment body tag is contained in <div></div> tags. Immediately preceding that is a tag <section id="cm_nnnnnn" class="com-text"> . Just copy the cm_nnnnnn value and append it to the page URL with a #:
https://phys.org/...day.html#cm_936106

Makes chasing rabbits and slapping mad hatters a much more precise game.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (2) Jul 24, 2017
dustywells:
as for your belief that i've not proven AGW is fake I've sent you links showing that CO2 bears no relationship to global temperature. But "you ignored them - you will simply ignore everything else that doesn't fit your delusional beliefs."


Of course we ignore your links to other liars bloviating without science. You're delusional, but thousands of actual climate and atmospheric scientists for over a century are not. You think that since 1 = 1 therefore 1 lie = 1 truth. You're stupid. You've got Dunning Kruger disease.
JRi
1 / 5 (1) Jul 24, 2017
JRi:
Maybe some sort of additive could be added to all commercial kerosene used by airplanes to cause more clouds on day side of the earth. A bit like when they use urea to lower NOx of diesel cars. And no additive on the night side so heat could dissipate to space there.


Er, "the night side" becomes the day side after at most 12 hours, carrying your new pollutant into the sunlight.

If you don't know that, you have no business proposing how to monkey with a planetary climate system that our lives depend on, that we've already driven over the brink of destroying us.


Well, if you have ever watched air plane trails, you know they evaporate away after awhile. So by precise control based on wind and humidity conditions, the whole thing could be automated even maybe by remote centralized control.

When 911 happened, the sky cleared from trails quite quickly and measurable after commercial air business was halted for security reason.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Jul 24, 2017
to use MC^2 specifics
your reasons why you call me a liar
@dusty brained idiot
1- in your "the bulk of your 'proof'" quote, you lied: https://phys.org/..._934891, or #cm_936988

proved you lie
but you can also see
2- your intentional bias and refusal to accept proven validated studies, like this
That is why I can not accept the seemingly religious fervor that tries to push the CO2 dogma
#cm_936361
this despite the evidence you completely ignored in that thread alone

so you claim you want evidence, but then your comments are... let me use your own words
are based on an unproven hypothesis and cherry picked observations
(see above)
this demonstrates that your entire intent for posting is to insert FUD for your own purpose
you're not a skeptic, you're a denier of evidence and science
especially if it's validated and directly contradicts your own biased beliefs

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Jul 24, 2017
@dusty brained idiot
so lets examine the next-
Why are my conclusions delusional
this is simple and using the exact same comments, you can see where you're intentionally refusing to accept validated science posted in links in that very thread (#cm_936988)

so, it this a trend with you?
yes, it is
https://phys.org/...day.html]https://phys.org/...day.html[/url]

https://phys.org/..._1106761

https://phys.org/...m_942649
#cm_942736

the trend in those threads
greatly exaggerated cherry picked data, with a serious refusal to accept any refuting studies (even validated ones) that directly contradict your claims

when presented with evidence, you simply ignore it: https://phys.org/...day.html]https://phys.org/...day.html[/url]

where is your refute of any of those studies?
where is your equivalent evidence against that science?

there is none at all
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Jul 24, 2017
@dusty brained idiot - last
as for your belief that i've not proven AGW is fake I've sent you links showing that CO2 bears no relationship to global temperature
please link where you have provided equivalent evidence to demonstrate AGW is fake
AND
that CO2 bears no relationship to global warming

this must be equivalent to the studies i've presented to you that not only establish our culpability in AGW and the overwhelming evidence that CO2 is a major factor, but it also must be validated by secondary non-related sources like the studies i've linked to you

when you can do this, it must also overturn the remaining studies that have established evidence for AGW

this will make you not only $30K richer, but will guarantee you a nobel and CEO job with the koch bro's, so make it stick!

evidence is king
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (3) Jul 24, 2017
JRi:
if you have ever watched air plane trails, you know they evaporate away after awhile.


They don't "evaporate away", there is no "away". They diffuse into low concentration so they can't be seen, but the contents of those trails are still contained in the atmosphere. If anything they become more potent reflectors/absorbers of sunlight after they diffuse, because their bulk is no longer blocked by their outer surface. So their much larger surface area exposed to sunlight reflects/absorbs more of the light. They circulate for perhaps years, not merely hours.

Look, you don't know what you're talking about. Why do you insist on talking about it?
dustywells
1 / 5 (3) Jul 24, 2017
Of course we ignore your links to other liars bloviating without science.
Another false assumption unless you can show where I offered such links.
You're delusional, but thousands of actual climate and atmospheric scientists for over a century are not.
I have to agree, that thousands of actual climate and atmospheric scientists are not delusional. But those that flog catastrophic AGW in order to get government grants are criminals.
dustywells
1 / 5 (3) Jul 24, 2017
@stumped idiot
I am not a bot. I don't have the time to chase your avalanche of links. If you have issues with past comments, quote the pertinent sentence and say how it proves your point.
you're a denier of evidence and science especially if it's validated and directly contradicts your own biased beliefs
Right back at you.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2017
dustywells:
Of course we ignore your links to other liars bloviating without science.
Another false assumption unless you can show where I offered such links.


Haha - when I ask for links, you already offered them elsewhere so cannot do so now. When I refer to your links, you didn't offer them. Woo-hoo, you're a fruitcake.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Jul 24, 2017
@dusty brained idiot
I don't have the time to chase your avalanche of links
1- so, you are admitting that you choose not to follow the evidence because you don't want to know

2- there are 3 linked threads and annotations of some specific posts

3- just because you don't want to know doesn't mean others won't - which is why i responded with evidence in your own words to validate my claims
If you have issues with past comments, quote the pertinent sentence and say how it proves your point
already linked above

just because you choose not to see doesn't mean everyone is as stupid as you
Right back at you
then why can't you provide said equivalent evidence that directly refutes AGW?

you claim you have posted it in the past, so why not link it?

that is easily answered: there isn't any evidence
only your belief

this is why you have not provided a single valid verifiable point

your denial of evidence - it's all above in B&W and your own words
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Jul 24, 2017
@dusty brain idiot

PS
you cannot and will not post any studies that directly refute AGW - if you had the evidence, you would link it

the reason you won't link anything is because you know that it will demonstrate what i pointed out above

and it will show that your point has never once been brought up "proving" AGW is false with evidence because it doesn't exist

not only does it not exist, but the bulk of your "proof" lies with opinion blogs, conspiracist ideation or similar political rhetoric

so by all means, continue to post your belief and rhetorical stupidity
it's not even original material
dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Jul 25, 2017
@stumped idiot
1- so, you are admitting that you choose not to follow the evidence because you don't want to know
Evidence that my posts ask legitimate questions? My, how "Scientific" your posts have become.
3- just because you don't want to know doesn't mean others won't - which is why i responded with evidence in your own words to validate my claims
No, the links you offer to illustrate my "sin" show that I want to know why you and the cabal are insisting that CO2 is the only cause of climate change. I have been asking that question on this site for nearly six years and have yet to receive an answer. In case I missed or forgot your answer, feel free to provide a link.
dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Jul 25, 2017
@EmceeSquared
dustywells:
Of course we ignore your links to other liars bloviating without science.
Another false assumption unless you can show where I offered such links.


Haha - when I ask for links, you already offered them elsewhere so cannot do so now. When I refer to your links, you didn't offer them. Woo-hoo, you're a fruitcake.
Just do as the sump says, Google my handle, or better yet, check my posts on Disqus.
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Jul 25, 2017
@dusty brained idiot denier
Evidence that my posts ask legitimate questions?
nope
evidence that you are a liar and that you actively deny the science, especially when it's validated
No, the links you offer to illustrate my "sin" show that I want to know why you and the cabal are insisting that CO2 is the only cause of climate change
1- please show me where i have ever stated that CO2 is the "only" cause of climate change
you will never see this on here or any other site because i've never once said it anywhere, mostly because i follow the science

but then again, my links above also show where you actively move goalposts, create strawman arguments as well as regurgitate false assumptions and claims about everyone's argument that is against what you state

2- i will freely provide links to my answer to your strawman as soon as you can provide links to show where this has ever been stated to be the position of science

good luck with that one

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Jul 25, 2017
@dusty brained idiot liar and denier
Just do as the sump says, Google my handle
cop out

for starters, you yourself are asking others to provide links and references
but when i provide them to you proving my point, you state, and i quote
I don't have the time to chase your avalanche of links
there were only three threads i linked for a reason... because i know the denier mentality and it's inability to focus on anything for more than 2 seconds (surely your spouse and family can sympathize with me on this)

this tactic is essentially the same tactic that the idiot denier movement use

point being: if you can't substantiate your claim with links and references - which you have yet to be able to do -

then you're a lair

plain and simple

especially given that i've proven not only that you deny the science, but that you intentionally ignore any and all evidence that refutes your claims

and that isn't supposition on my part - that is validated by you
dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2017
@Sump
I asked you to quote the comments that bother you because my browser seems to only open to the article that you link to. With hundreds of comments to sift through I can't spare the time to find and guess which of my comments you object to. The comment numbers that you reference are rendered meaningless because they don't show on the screen. So if you can't actually include the quote from the comment, we have no basis for discussion.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2017
dustywells:
Just do as the sump says, Google my handle, or better yet, check my posts on Disqus.


What kind of a sucker does your homework for you? The kind of sucker who finds nothing but gibberish backing you up. That is why someone who wants to make a point is responsible for making it.

You lunatics are so lazy. And self indulgent - all those posts blathering about how you have links but won't post them because reasons... instead of just posting them. Because you have none, or worse than none: just a load of other lunatics.

Why do you bother infesting science sites? In science "where's your evidence" is job #1, but you can't do it. Go find a science fiction site that wants your boring claptrap. You'll find it much less painful to post there.
dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2017
@EmceeSquared

OK
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jul 26, 2017
@dustybrain
I asked you to quote the comments that bother you because my browser seems to only open to the article that you link to
copy and paste works
so does CTRL+F

it works for everyone else on the site
it works for people in other OS's
it will work for you as well
So if you can't actually include the quote from the comment, we have no basis for discussion
so, you ask for specifics and because of your own ineptitude, you claim there is no cause or basis for discourse????

how f*cking stupid are you, really?

I mean, MC^2 shows you exactly what to do, which is why i specifically stated i was using said method

this is indicative of your problem
you see the data, and you can test this for yourself, as well as validate the claims of others
but you *choose* not to learn or do anything that isn't handed to you on a silver platter
this is why you repeat denier rhetoric but you can't understand the science

try this: https://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.