Dear Fellow Mushroom,
Life in the mushroom bed is dark and the BS keeps us warn, so shut the F*** up and quit trying to let the light in.
Seriously, Cliff the answer to your question is probably both, which is why it is difficult to control the weather.
A cloud cover sufficiently thick and sufficietyly impregnated with dust or matallic particle would probably cool the planet - because it would tend to reflect both ultrviolet and visible light. While a thin layer that serves only to reflect sunlight would probably heat the planet. Here is why.
Though when we stand in the sun we feel the warmth on our skins the warmth does not come from the visible spectrum of light that we see, rather it comes from our skin's response to the increased bombardment of ultraviolet light on our skin. On a moderately cloudy day although sunlight would be blocked and we might feel otherwise slightly cooler, the ultraviolet light is not being blocked and its effect, on us or our surroundings is essentially the same. When ultrviolet light strikes an object it cannot penetrate the high frequency ultraviolet photons are absorbed but knock loose some of the lower frequency infrared radiation that we feel as heat. This is released back into the atmosphere as heat energy.
Where this heat energy goes from there is dependant on so many factors that even supercomputers can do little more than model a few minutes, or days of the potential paths. This is what we call weather, and the movements of air, water, the characteristics, both absorptive of ultraviolet and reflective of infrared are all involved.
So the fact is, the equations involved are extremely complex and therefore, depending on all the factors involved, which include, but are by no means limited to, greenhouse gas effect, are so complex and some of them so difficult to pin down that the best the computers can do is to throw the known quantities into the fractal geometries and hope for a model that resembles reality. Change those factors even a minor amount in one direction or another and the effects can either reverse, or magnify on the other side of the models.
A few words about greenhouse effect. Theoretically an increase in the levels of gases that are heavier than the majority gases in the air, that is Oxygen and Nitrogen, will acculate near the surface and therefore tend to absorb more of the heat energy that is being released by the reflection of ultraviolet light off the surfaces there - much like a greenhouse traps the intense sunlight that streams through the windows allowing the heat energy to be radiated into the room but does not let the heated air out into the surrounding air. Of course this is affected by Brownings Law on the distribution of a gas in a vacuum which simply says that gases will tend to diffuse from an area of greater concentration to an area of lesser concentration.
The greenhouse effect is still highly theoretical since there haven't been nearly enough years of data available to tell if this is real or simply a local phenomena associated with our perspective in time and areas that tend to concentrate greenhouse gases during certain periods of time or atmospheric conditions, such as inversion layers, etc. Currently there is only sufficient increases in local areas of CO2 to account for maybe 1 percent of any of the currently measured temperature increases. That means that whatever is heating our atmosphere or planet is probably not related to human activity except in a minor way.
As for Chemtrails... I won't go there for now...
Resistance is Fractal
Nine of Eleven
: Greetings, Fellow Mushrooms!
: OK, so WHICH is it? More clouds hold in MORE heat thereby
: warming the planet, or more clouds reflect MORE sunlight,
: thereby cooling the planet?
: Seems like it's national "take your pick" week!
: After too many years of hearing scientists put forth both
: scenarios as the immutable gospel, thereby cleverly
: disguising what is, in truth, the mere opinion of one
: faction or another...
: AND...
: After being mercilessly whiplashed by the collection tray,
: endlessly being passed by both sides of the issue...
: I am forced, as a truly desperate and final measure of last
: resort... to form my OWN opinion!
: AND...
: My own personal suspicion,(and preference) is that MORE clouds
: hold in MORE heat!
: I proudly point out as proof of my position, the way the
: entire subject is causing both camps of pointy headed
: scientists, (who are continuously coming up with all this
: indecisive hem/haw horse manure) to engage each other in
: over-heated rhetoric to the point of terminal heat stroke!
: This affliction then enables them to escape a well deserved
: legal prosecution for running their mouths without their
: agendas in gear.
: ...Oh, That's right, I forgot! They don't need an agenda,
: because those other pointy heads, the Enviro-fascists
: already have an "either/or" agenda ready and
: waiting for we "mere mortals"!
: An agenda that conveniently makes them the "payee"
: regardless of outcome!
: Now, WHY didn't I think of an angle like that?
: Say! ...Perhaps we should ask the clouds on Venus?
: At least THEY appear to have had some hands-on experience!
: -CliffMickelson
: ***
: By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID
: Associated Press
: May 27, 2004, 8:21 PM EDT
: WASHINGTON -- Scientists studying earthshine -- the amount of
: light reflected by the Earth -- say the planet appeared to
: dim from 1984 to 2001 and then reversed its trend and
: brightened from 2001 to 2003.
: The shift appears to have resulted from changes in the amount
: of clouds covering the planet. More clouds reflect more
: light back into space, potentially cooling the planet,
: while a dimmer planet with fewer clouds would be warmed by
: the arriving sunlight.
: That means the changes in brightness could signal climate
: change, though it's too early to tell.
: Steven Koonin, a California Institute of Technology physicist
: and co-author of the paper, said that "at the moment,
: the cause of these variations is not known, but they imply
: large shifts in the Earth's radiative budget. Continuing
: observations ... will be necessary to learn their
: implications for climate."
: "This work is probably going to be used in arguments for
: and against global warming. Our paper neither proves or
: disproves the carbon dioxide effect," said Enric
: Palle, lead author of the report appearing in Thursday's
: issue of the journal Science.
: "Our results are only part of the story, since the
: Earth's surface temperature is determined by a balance
: between sunlight that warms the planet and heat radiated
: back into space, which cools the planet," said Palle,
: of the Big Bear Solar Observatory in California, operated
: by the New Jersey Institute of Technology.
: Climate change "depends upon many factors in addition to
: (reflected light), such as the amount of greenhouse gases
: present in the atmosphere. But these new data emphasize
: that clouds must be properly accounted for and illustrate
: that we still lack the detailed understanding of our
: climate system necessary to model future changes with
: confidence."
:
: http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-earthshine,0,1655060,print.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines
Serving Freedom
and Liberty
