Cloud mystery above Dominica.  Hmmm.
Posted: 30 July 2017 11:04 AM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1466
Joined  2016-12-24

Cloud mystery above Dominica.  Hmmm.

This comes from another thread, one of those deep left field wingers meant to distract from the supposed discussion at hand.
That’s why I’m starting a new thread.  Understanding clouds and understanding paleoclimate are two rather different topics, don’t you know.

MikeYohe - 29 July 2017 11:18 PM

Point being. In today’s news, this article by an atmospheric scientist about how the models can’t yet explain how clouds work. And yet I can find thousands of articles explaining how the clouds work. Yet this atmospheric scientist claims that “People have been guessing for years, but not everybody agrees”. Meaning that the data for how clouds work needs to be established before the computer models can work.

Cloud physics could be the key to understanding climate change
qz.com/1034370/the-weather-in-dominica-isnt-as-it-appears-and-the-clouds-that-form-there-could-change-our-predictions-of-climate-change/

Right out the gate Mike misrepresents the article, it is not written by an atmospheric scientist, it’s written by Georgia Frances King a Deputy Editor for the Ideas team at Quartz Media whoever they are?

Georgia Frances King writes:
But warm clouds sit below the freezing level, meaning there are no helpful ice crystals to help the fusion process along.
“How warm clouds rain is a hot topic in cloud physics at the moment,” Watson says, laughing.
“People have been guessing for years, but not everybody agrees.”

The problem with warm clouds is that similarly sized water droplets bounce off each other instead of fusing together.
So you need to create a whole bunch of different sized droplets in your cloud—called a cloud droplet spectrum—
so the larger droplets absorb the smaller ones when they bump together.

There are a few solid theories on how warm clouds generate this broad spectrum, most of which take up to three hours to gestate.

Oh so the science hasn’t actually been “guessing” game - that was just a cute expression a scientist used during a conversation with a reporter.
Then a rereading makes clear that this scientific “guessing game” is about why the clouds behave so uniquely above Dominica.
It may well have implication for general cloud modeling, but again, tiny impacts don’t take away from the overall reality.

MikeYohe - 29 July 2017 11:18 PM

this article by an atmospheric scientist {NOT!} about how the models can’t yet explain how clouds work.

Funny that, the first sentence in King’s article reads:

It’s raining above Dominica, and cloud physics can’t quite explain why.

The article is not about general atmospheric cloud physics,
it’s about a special case study of a freak situation that will to help better understand fine internal mechanisms.

Scientists have been very clear in their understanding and in enunciating their uncertainties
It’s an area of intensive studies, but here is that example of contrarian’s ignoring the 90% understanding in favor of bizarre crazy-making
and sowing confusion rather than clarity.

MikeYohe - 29 July 2017 11:18 PM

Most people of knowledge understand that when people resort to name-calling they are propagandists who use this technique hoping people will reject ideas base on the negative remarks instead of looking at the evidence with logic.

Labeling someone who deceives and misrepresents and lies, “a liar” - is not name-calling, it’s a descriptive. 

Also we see here the hideous faith-blinded double standard. - A reading of Merchants of Doubt make clear that the forces of climate science contrarianism and denial is found on nothing but a string of vicious fabricated slander and libel at every step of the way.

But back to the article - this is what it is about. 

In Dominica, however, that process happens in 10 to 12 minutes. In the time it takes you to boil pasta, Dominica’s mountains can make a cloud, manufacture a large enough droplet spectrum that it begins to pour, and then quickly dissipate. “All of the current theories on warm clouds can’t explain how this process happens fast enough that you get rain falling so rapidly and heavily in Dominica,” says Watson, who is now working with IBM Research their related business, The Weather Company. “When we look at the data, it throws it back at us. We’re trying to marry observations and modeling to understand a very complicated process.”

... A surprising discovery by the team were tiny aerosols floating in the air above Dominica on windless days. Much like the spray from a can of hair spray, aerosols are so small they remain suspended in the air. Some aerosols are naturally occurring, like pollen, spores, smoke, sea salt, and dust, while others come from human activities, like the CFCs that were responsible for the ozone hole over Antarctica. The aerosols above Dominica were naturally occurring and appeared to dramatically affect the cloud droplet spectrum.

Aerosols are important because they are a necessary ingredient for cloud formation.

It promises to add a tiny increment of better understanding to cloud models - it offers nothing revolutionary one way or the other.  It is a distraction - based on the reality that scientist will never have the absolute understanding so alway seek deeper knowledge - than the Faith-shackled mind demands and can’t imagine living without.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 July 2017 09:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2135
Joined  2013-06-01

Really, nit-picking are we. Are you really saying you did not know what I meant? Got a bug in your butt, do you?
Talk about side-stepping misrepresenting. The point here is, “People have been guessing for years, but not everybody agrees”. This is coming from a respected researcher from a world class college that is known for this type of research.
 
I brought this article up to prove a point. In JohnH posting “What caused global temperatures to fall in the past?” JohnH says - I’m talking about events that happened more than 100,000 years ago and involved temperatures dropping 5 degrees. There doesn’t seem to be solid explanations why that happened.  You respond saying - Plus you delude yourself into thinking you can skip the physics of greenhouse gases and still arrive at any satisfactory answers about paleoclimatology. Can’t be done.
How is JohnH skipping the physics of greenhouse gases? Are you saying that greenhouse gases caused the temperature to drop 5 degrees? I called you on your tactics and you created this post to confuse the debate. 
The point of Alison D. Nugent PH.D. was that the working models of clouds (water vapor is the most important of the greenhouse gases) is crucial and a key to understanding climate change.
 
What paleoclimatology does tell us in around a 100K ago that the sea levels were between 5 to 10 meters higher than they are today and that global mean annual surface temperatures were never more than 2°C higher than pre-industrial times. 
 
JohnH has ask a question that is right on point and a lot of people would like to know the answer to. Is that not correct? You keep telling everyone what I think. And you are wrong most of the time. It seems to me that you decide what people’s ideas and thoughts are so you can down grade them. I wish you would stop doing that. If you want to know what someone’s views are, just ask.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 July 2017 12:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1466
Joined  2016-12-24
MikeYohe - 31 July 2017 09:35 AM

How is JohnH skipping the physics of greenhouse gases?

Well he’s yet to openly acknowledge how detailed and thorough the scientific understanding of the “CO2 theory’ is.

He’s not been able to acknowledge that the question you’re referring to, is a heat distribution issue, it does not put the physics into doubt in the least.

In fact, he’s been absolutely incapable of a simple constructive dialogue on the topic - instead he’s approached it as your typical contrarian, never quite making any concrete statement, alway castings an ignoramuses’ shadow of doubt on serious science, without offering serious justifications, but than he doesn’t seem to understand the science beyond parroting contrarian memes.  It’s a shame too, as opposed to you, John’s written some things that impress the heck out of me - he just ought to keep away from topics such as climate science that he obviously knows so little about.  Because I will continue calling bullshit on deceptive misinformation about climate science.  Don’t care how prettily anyone tries to couch it.

Hell at this point, timid scientists’ aren’t even beyond my wrath.  cool smirk

Confronting another failure in scientific communication - Antarctic’s Iceberg A-68
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/07/failed-communication-antarctic.html

Enough is enough of the self-delusional thinking we’ve institutionalized.

Profile