A caution for warmists who thirst
for funding, and getting in first
for what you intend
may turn out in the end
to obliterate you in one burst

“The precautionary measures and controls operating in this experiment inspire confidence that these species were picked up in the stratosphere.”

Of course being bacteria they could have blown in from almost anywhere.

ROM (03:42:00)

Fascinating post. And emergence of three new species of non-terrestrial bacteria in the stratosphere bodes well for new understanding of life’s origins. “”"

Seems like biologists keep on discovering new species all the time; hundreds of them every year; maybe thousands.

So what is so special about finding some bugs where they didn’t look for them before ? You should see some of the non terrestrial critters they find around black smoker vents at the bottom of the ocean.

NO they do not; they are one of the causes of climate change; sorry, what is your next question ?

These guys have it down, don’t they. Another man caused effect on climate but this one causes cooling ( and requires research in Barbados ).

So does AGW (from CO2) offset AGC (from aerosols) so there is no problem? Something tells me that we are going to have to have our behavior(s) controlled in regards to both, that’s aways seems to be the direction.

I put it in because just because something has not happened in the past does not mean it CANNOT happen in the future. However I feel the odds of CO2 being a catalyst for major feedback warming is low based on prior history to the point of being ridiculous that it is what all the warming is based on. However, I will not say that it is NOT possible, just highly improbable. I will not close my mind to a possibility that may explain what it is happening until it can be proven one way or another… As a skeptic I feel that while I may not BELIEVE until it is proven I am willing to allow people to espouse it as theory until proven correct or incorrect.

But as you say, there is no historical context for the feedback mechanism to be based on CO2. At this point it appears that CO2 is a follower of warming not the leading cause. But it will be interesting to see in the coming years what happens. I expect that in the next 4 to 5 decades this question will be at least partially answered.

Fascinating post. And emergence of three new species of non-terrestrial bacteria in the stratosphere bodes well for new understanding of life’s origins. With regard to dimethyl sulphide influence in cloud formation – there is a paper (cannot locate at the moment) demonstrating phytoplankton production of ds increases with a lowering of ocean pH (“acidification!”) This suggests an elegant system whereby atmospheric CO2 absorbed by seawater tickles the phytoplankton releasing ds that increases cloud formation. Which then modulates insolation, precipitation, heat balance etc. etc…

Factors that puny computer models do not now or in the future portend to include. It’s a far more interesting world than the doomers would have us believe!

Don’t want to paste in your entire essay ROM; but have you considered that H2O; aka water has some very specific physical and chemical properties.

Freezing point, boiling point, specific heat, latent heat of freezing, latent heat of boiling, surface tension, dielectric constant, refractive index, electric dipole moment (that 104 dergee angle business), optical absorption spectrum (the whole spectrum), the densit versus temperature function, and so on.

Those specific properties; plus its biological effects , and the large amounts of it present on earth, establish a regime of temperatures, which encompass the phase transition, from solid to liquid to gas, and vice versa, in conjunction with the earth’s atmospheric composition, its density, and specific heat, the level of solar energy input at earth’s orbit location; blah blah blah !

And together that all defines a range of temperatures; which just happens to be a satisfactory living condition for much of the life on earth.

We are not likely to change much of any of that; well you might see if the atomic physicists can get H2O to change that 104 degree angle to something else; but without it, life on earth would not exist.

So the computer games folks can play with their statistical mathematics and regressions and R^2 numbers and so on; but unless you can change the properties of water; you aren’t going to accomplish much in climate engineering.

“Clouds are described as having a cooling effect by reflecting the sunlight. However at night they have a very noticable insulating effect; the difference in temperature after a sunny day followed by a clear night is large.” “”"

Now please explain just what it is about a cloud’s intelligence that tells it to turn on its “insulating” effect at night, and turn it back off during the daytime. Well those clouds were there during that sunny day weren’t they ?

Well if not, you are just talking about last night’s weather, and not any climate phenomenon. Warm susnny days’ particularly humid ones stay warm at night, and tend to form high clouds at night. You have to have the evaporation of that warm sunny day to get any clouds; day or night.

A knowledge gap exists in the area of climate research: for decades, scientists have been asking themselves whether, and to what extent man-made aerosols, that is, dust particles suspended in the atmosphere, enlarge the cloud cover and thus curb climate warming. “”"

Now how’s that again about man made dust particles ? Do they have some good figures for how much of those recent Australian dust particles came out of somebody’s carpet.

Yes I know that poor human land use practices, can have an effect.

Under current California environmental laws; the air as far as dust particles goes is actually cleaner than what it was before man came to California.

Then how about those little words:- “enlarge the cloud cover and thus curb climate warming.” Is there some agenda here ? Are they saying the natural variation in cloud cover, is not just nature’s built in feedback regulator of earth’s temperature.

Yes dust and volcanic ash, and other short lived things from time to time can greatly enhance the cloud cover and its cooling effect; but so what else is new ?

They simply won’t let go of that “vlimate warming” issue will they. Well so we know that the climate has been warming since the last ice age; are we missing something here ?

George

But I’m going to read what they have to say anyway; it’s nice to see somebody finally paying attention to Gaia’s natural temperature regulator.

“Greenhouse gases that heat up the earth’s atmosphere have their adversaries: dust particles suspended in the atmosphere which are known as aerosols. They arise naturally, for example when wind blows up desert dust, and through human activities. A large proportion of the man-made aerosols arise from sulfur dioxides that are generated, in turn, by the combustion of fossil fuels.”

1. I understand that that pollution control devices such as scrubbers and catalytic converters capture most SO2 particulates produced from fossil fuel combustion in North America. Am I wrong?

2. The primary source of SO2 emissions are volcanoes. That dwarf the contribution from anthropogenic sources. Is this correct?

Please explain your answers. Thanks, Paddy.

That’s a very well written post for someone ‘not very well educated’.

I don’t see the bacterial influence as a primary driver but the biosphere including bacteria could well be a significant modulating factor.