Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.

On Friday, 15 June 2018 18:43:29 UTC+2, Mike Collins wrote:

No that was me. And it wasn’t a project. It was just farmers using
greenhouses ( often makeshift) to grow crops. You may not be aware of a
similar effect in the USA.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/...ts-own-weather

But other crops can have the opposite effect and cause warming.

At a large scale crops can affect CO2 as demonstrated by the fall in
atmospheric CO2 from the rapid regrowth of the Amazon forest after the
population collapse. This ended the medieval warm period.

Trumpty Dumbty built a GRATE wall. Trumpty Dumbty had a great fall:
And all the Kim's men couldn't put Trumpty Dumbty together again.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/...imate-missions

On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 10:43:29 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:

Gary Harnagel wrote:

Since the earth is 71% ocean and 29% land, and only 3% of the land is
covered by infrastructure (including roads), that could have at most a
1% change in insolation. But it would be less than that because the
of ocean is 0.07 and the albedo of land is about 0.2

http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/Courses/...do_Surface.pdf

(Table 3), so most of the earth's insolation comes from the oceans.

Shall we paint the oceans white? :-)

Was it you, John, that mentioned a project in Europe covering many
hectares with used plastic film? Seems like space-based mylar mirrors
in stationary orbit over the oceans would be a way to go ...

Gary


No that was me.

Sorry, Mike. Guess I need to get some Prevagen :-)

And it wasn’t a project. It was just farmers using greenhouses ( often
makeshift) to grow crops. You may not be aware of a similar effect in the
USA.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/...ts-own-weather

Thanks, Mike, that's VERY interesting, although some of the speculation
about what is causing it seems counter-intuitive. For example, they say
it might be due to photosynthesis releasing H2O, but H2O is a greenhouse
gas and should have an opposite effect.

But other crops can have the opposite effect and cause warming.

Their photosynthesis DOESN'T release H2O? :-)

The takeaway, then, is grow more corn?

At a large scale crops can affect CO2 as demonstrated by the fall in
atmospheric CO2 from the rapid regrowth of the Amazon forest after the
population collapse. This ended the medieval warm period.

The end of the Medieval warm period was coincident with other processes,
too, one being large volcanic eruptions around the world. Such eruptions
produce lots of greenhouse gas, so wouldn't that offset the rainforest
growth effect? The Maunder minimum didn't occur until later, but it may
have exacerbated the situation.

In article ,
says...

On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 10:43:29 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:
................
And it wasn?t a project. It was just farmers using greenhouses
( often makeshift) to grow crops. You may not be aware of a similar
effect in the USA.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/...ts-own-weather

Thanks, Mike, that's VERY interesting, although some of the speculation
about what is causing it seems counter-intuitive. For example, they say
it might be due to photosynthesis releasing H2O, but H2O is a greenhouse
gas and should have an opposite effect.

H2O is also a gas which frequently condenses in our atmosphere and is
then transformed to liquid form as a large number of small droplets.
These droplets form clouds, which reflects incoming light from the Sun,
causing a cooling. Rain can also fall out from the couds, which causes
additional cooling.

So increased H2O alone does not necessarily warm the atmosphere, it might
just as well cool it. However, if the atmosphere is warmed in some other
way, e.g. by increased CO2, then it can hold more H2O before it
condenses, and then the greenhouse effects of H2O can increase the
effects of CO2 warming.

On the planet Mars, CO2 plays a similar role as H2O does on Earth, since
on Mars, CO2 can condense and evaporate. That never happens naturally on
Earth.

In article ,
says...

On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 5:06:00 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

In article ,
says...

But ANYTHING that causes a temperature rise is amplified by water vapor,
including the solar constant variations.

Yes - but we cannot control the variations in the solar output.

Not the point: the point is that solar output variations are about the
same size as heat flux exhaust of MASSIVE changes in CO2 levels.

Btw the Maunder minimum (of solar activity) for some 70 years centered
around the year 1680 is believed to be an explanation for the Little
Ice Age around and after those years.

That's ONE explanation. The other is volcanic activity, but probably both.
The question is how much is attributed to each.

Why the Maunder minimum should contribute to global cooling was unexplained
until the CLOUD experiment demonstrated nucleation of clouds by cosmic rays
and the measurements that the cosmic ray flux has been increasing with the
abatement of the solar wind. After all, the solar constant INCREASES when
there are fewer sunspots.

No, it doesn't. You forget, or perhaps you are unaware of, the effect of
the solar faculae which also increase as the solar activity increases.
The net effect is that the solar output is slightly higher when the solar
activity is high.

CHeck the diagram over the solar output during three solar cycles, from
1975 to 2005: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle#Solar

Near solar minimum the solar constant is 1365.5 W/m^2 and near solar
maximum it increases by one W/m^2 to 1366.5 W/m^2. On individual days
the solar constant varies somewhat more, but not much more.


Pruitt himself, of course, ought to be able to explain where he got
his ideas from.

I don't know what his justification is, but the MODTRAN app

Is MODTRAN also available as an app? Where can I download it?

I'm only aware of it as an online "app."

An app is run locally. A web page is not an app.

certainly
confirms his position when a doubling of the CO2 level, which will take
200 years, produces enough direct effect to rival solar constant
variations. Cloud cover has a VERY large effect, initially to reduce
heat flux into space, but long-term to produce cooling by increasing
earth's albedo.

The effect of cloud cover for the local albedo, reducing incoming light
and heat from the Sun to the ground, will be just as instantaneous as its
effect of reducing heat flux from below into space.

But clouds reduce the heat flux coming up from the surface.

No, they don't. But the clouds do radiate IR radiation back to the
ground. And since the clouds are cooler than the ground, the clouds also
reduce IR radiation out into space. Maybe that's what you meant.

I played with
different types of clouds and cumulus and altostratus reduced the outgoing
flux by about 30 W/m^2 while nimbostratus only reduced it by about 6 W/m^2.
So the effect of less power coming in is offset by more heat being retained,
but eventually, that heat leaks out and a new balance is reached. The
heat capacity of the earth delays the cooling effect.

Furthermore, the initial effect of increased cloudiness has a warming
effect, but the long-term trend is to lower temperature due to
decreased input from the sun.

Please explain why the clouds absorption and re-radiation of IR is more
instantaneous than their reflection of visible light. Both of them ought
to be just as instantaneous. When a cloud passes in front of the Sun,
you'll feel the reduced light and heat from the Sun immediately, not
several years later...

I was amazed how cool it got during the total eclipse last year. But that
or a cloud passing in front of the sun are LOCAL effects. And during the
night, cooling is restrained by cloud cover which traps the heat.

A well-known effect - no disagreement here. More clouds cools the ground
in daytime and warms it during night. That's why it can be so hot in
deserts during the day but then almost freezing at the following night.

On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 5:22:22 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 10:43:29 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:
...............
And it wasn?t a project. It was just farmers using greenhouses
( often makeshift) to grow crops. You may not be aware of a similar
effect in the USA.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/...ts-own-weather

Thanks, Mike, that's VERY interesting, although some of the speculation
about what is causing it seems counter-intuitive. For example, they say
it might be due to photosynthesis releasing H2O, but H2O is a greenhouse
gas and should have an opposite effect.

H2O is also a gas which frequently condenses in our atmosphere and is
then transformed to liquid form as a large number of small droplets.
These droplets form clouds, which reflects incoming light from the Sun,
causing a cooling. Rain can also fall out from the couds, which causes
additional cooling.


Indeed!

So increased H2O alone does not necessarily warm the atmosphere, it might
just as well cool it. However, if the atmosphere is warmed in some other
way, e.g. by increased CO2, then it can hold more H2O before it
condenses, and then the greenhouse effects of H2O can increase the
effects of CO2 warming.

On the planet Mars, CO2 plays a similar role as H2O does on Earth, since
on Mars, CO2 can condense and evaporate. That never happens naturally on
Earth.

On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 5:39:43 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 5:06:00 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

In article ,
says...

But ANYTHING that causes a temperature rise is amplified by water
vapor, including the solar constant variations.

Yes - but we cannot control the variations in the solar output.

Not the point: the point is that solar output variations are about the
same size as heat flux exhaust of MASSIVE changes in CO2 levels.

Btw the Maunder minimum (of solar activity) for some 70 years centered
around the year 1680 is believed to be an explanation for the Little
Ice Age around and after those years.

That's ONE explanation. The other is volcanic activity, but probably
both. The question is how much is attributed to each.

Why the Maunder minimum should contribute to global cooling was
unexplained until the CLOUD experiment demonstrated nucleation of\
clouds by cosmic rays and the measurements that the cosmic ray flux has
been increasing with the abatement of the solar wind. After all, the
solar constant INCREASES when there are fewer sunspots.

No, it doesn't. You forget, or perhaps you are unaware of, the effect of
the solar faculae which also increase as the solar activity increases.
The net effect is that the solar output is slightly higher when the solar
activity is high.

CHeck the diagram over the solar output during three solar cycles, from
1975 to 2005: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle#Solar

Thanks, Paul, that exacerbates the variations since there would be less
cloudiness at solar maximum.

Near solar minimum the solar constant is 1365.5 W/m^2 and near solar
maximum it increases by one W/m^2 to 1366.5 W/m^2. On individual days
the solar constant varies somewhat more, but not much more.

Looking at NOAA data:

ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DA...5_07_0310a.dat

the solar constant seems to vary between 1364.4 to 1367.7 W/m^2.

Pruitt himself, of course, ought to be able to explain where he got
his ideas from.

I don't know what his justification is, but the MODTRAN app

Is MODTRAN also available as an app? Where can I download it?

I'm only aware of it as an online "app."

An app is run locally. A web page is not an app.

certainly confirms his position when a doubling of the CO2 level,
which will take 200 years, produces enough direct effect to rival
solar constant variations. Cloud cover has a VERY large effect,
initially to reduce heat flux into space, but long-term to produce
cooling by increasing earth's albedo.

The effect of cloud cover for the local albedo, reducing incoming light
and heat from the Sun to the ground, will be just as instantaneous as
its effect of reducing heat flux from below into space.

But clouds reduce the heat flux coming up from the surface.

No, they don't. But the clouds do radiate IR radiation back to the
ground. And since the clouds are cooler than the ground, the clouds also
reduce IR radiation out into space. Maybe that's what you meant.

I'm talking about the NET effect. Clouds reduce the amount of heat escaping
into space, but they also reduce the amount of solar energy coming in.

I played with different types of clouds and cumulus and altostratus
reduced the outgoing flux by about 30 W/m^2 while nimbostratus only
reduced it by about 6 W/m^2. So the effect of less power coming in is
offset by more heat being retained, but eventually, that heat leaks out
and a new balance is reached. The heat capacity of the earth delays the
cooling effect.

Furthermore, the initial effect of increased cloudiness has a warming
effect, but the long-term trend is to lower temperature due to
decreased input from the sun.

Please explain why the clouds absorption and re-radiation of IR is more
instantaneous than their reflection of visible light. Both of them ought
to be just as instantaneous. When a cloud passes in front of the Sun,
you'll feel the reduced light and heat from the Sun immediately, not
several years later...

I was amazed how cool it got during the total eclipse last year. But that
or a cloud passing in front of the sun are LOCAL effects. And during the
night, cooling is restrained by cloud cover which traps the heat.

A well-known effect - no disagreement here. More clouds cools the ground
in daytime and warms it during night. That's why it can be so hot in
deserts during the day but then almost freezing at the following night.

Yup.

On 20/06/2018 20:21, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 5:39:43 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 5:06:00 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:


The effect of cloud cover for the local albedo, reducing incoming light
and heat from the Sun to the ground, will be just as instantaneous as
its effect of reducing heat flux from below into space.

But clouds reduce the heat flux coming up from the surface.

No, they don't. But the clouds do radiate IR radiation back to the
ground. And since the clouds are cooler than the ground, the clouds also
reduce IR radiation out into space. Maybe that's what you meant.

I'm talking about the NET effect. Clouds reduce the amount of heat escaping
into space, but they also reduce the amount of solar energy coming in.

The net effect depends both on the height and *type* of the cloud.

High cirrus is optically thin, cold and lets in plenty of solar energy
but is dense to outgoing thermal radiation and have a net warming effect.

Low optically dense clouds reflect a high proportion of incoming solar
radiation are warm and have a slight net cooling effect - although their
main effect is to significantly reduce diurnal temperature variation.

Deep convective clouds tend to be just about neutral for energy balance.
See:

http://nenes.eas.gatech.edu/Cloud/NASAClouds.pdf

For a reasonably accessible review.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 3:46:09 AM UTC-6, Martin Brown wrote:

On 20/06/2018 20:21, Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 5:39:43 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

But clouds reduce the heat flux coming up from the surface.

No, they don't. But the clouds do radiate IR radiation back to the
ground. And since the clouds are cooler than the ground, the clouds also
reduce IR radiation out into space. Maybe that's what you meant.

I'm talking about the NET effect. Clouds reduce the amount of heat
escaping into space, but they also reduce the amount of solar energy
coming in.

The net effect depends both on the height and *type* of the cloud.

See the options in MODTRAN.

High cirrus is optically thin, cold and lets in plenty of solar energy
but is dense to outgoing thermal radiation and have a net warming effect.

It's not that simple:

https://experts.illinois.edu/en/publ...-pool-microphy

Low optically dense clouds reflect a high proportion of incoming solar
radiation are warm and have a slight net cooling effect - although their
main effect is to significantly reduce diurnal temperature variation.

Deep convective clouds tend to be just about neutral for energy balance.
See:

http://nenes.eas.gatech.edu/Cloud/NASAClouds.pdf

For a reasonably accessible review.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

"The balance between the cooling and warming actions of clouds is very
close although, overall, averaging the effects of all the clouds around
the globe, cooling predominates."

The gatech link is pretty old but did mention a NASA program (CERES) which was
launched just last year:

https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/

"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
high clouds over the tropics seen in recent NASA observations, according to
research led by scientist Hui Su of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in
Pasadena, California."

So more outgoing radiation?