Asteroid Dust could help Global Warming

[InRareForm]

http://www.livescience.com/23553-asteroid-dust-geoenineering-global-warming.html

[mavs>spurs]

global warming is fake al gore made it up so you can pay a carbon tax to manbearpig

[baseline bum]

http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/simpsons-mr-burns-blocks-out-the-sun1-640x353.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

The amount of percentage they speak of would put us into an ice age I think. I'll bet they misplaced a decimal or used black body calculations instead. Radiative forcing on atmospheric temperatures are not 4th power functions like blackbody calculations are.

[Latarian Milton]

the earth endures many warming/cooling processes in the historical circle and right now it's in the process of getting warm which'll last a few centuries. a few centuries from now the earth will start cooling down and history will repeat itself over and over again, thats not what the emission of greenhouse gas can make any significant impact on imho

[Agloco]

The amount of percentage they speak of would put us into an ice age I think. I'll bet they misplaced a decimal or used black body calculations instead. Radiative forcing on atmospheric temperatures are not 4th power functions like blackbody calculations are.

Can you provide an example of the correct calculation for us? What leads you believe that blackbody calculations were used?

Also, if you could explain the basic science behind radiative forcing and blackbodies with an emphasis on how and why any differences could impact calculations.

I don't need an essay, just 5 or 6 sentences to explain these things to the less informed. Thanks in advance.

[Wild Cobra]

Can you provide an example of the correct calculation for us? What leads you believe that blackbody calculations were used?

Also, if you could explain the basic science behind radiative forcing and blackbodies with an emphasis on how and why any differences could impact calculations.

I don't need an essay, just 5 or 6 sentences to explain these things to the less informed. Thanks in advance.
If I thought this was a serious question other than you being an ankle biter, or if I thought others understood, I might take your serious. Personally, I question if you are as good at science as you claim. You have no interest in bringing such scientific knowledge into this discussion. You only try to shut those of us down you disagree with. You have the proper educational skill set to take any misuse of terminology on my part and use against me. I do not trust that you will seek the truth, but rather focus on any misplaced words I will undoubtedly use.

I will say this. Black body heat is a fourth power calculation. Direct surface temperature when equalized to radiating back out is increased, but not linear like watts (joules, etc) vs. temperature normally do. In I increase my radiant energy by 1% (1.01) then my surface temperature is increased by 0.249% (1.01^0.25). This same upward radiation goes back to 1% higher. 1.00249^4 = 1.01.

These percentages used are fine for non atmospheric celestial bodies. Reducing the suns energy to 98.3% hitting the earth changes the black body temperature to 99.67 percent before greenhouse warming. A -18 C changes to -19 C (255k * 0.983^0.25 = 254k). Only a 1 degree change, but this is before any changes of forcing by greenhouse gasses, where temperature is proportional to watts. The power traveling and heating the atmosphere is changed by about the same percentage. I find contradictory numbers for the total (not flux) radiative forcing of greenhouse gasses, but it is somewhere in the neighborhood of 325 watts/sq meter. I think we can agree on giving this a +/- 25%. In this feedback system, and yes, greenhouse gas forcing is technically a feedback system... the amplified effect is proportional to the source, being the sun. When you reduce this 325 watts/square meter to 98.3%, then it is now about 319 watts/sq meter. A reduction of 6 watts/square meter, which puts us far less than any anthropogenic forcing adds.

[leemajors]

http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/simpsons-mr-burns-blocks-out-the-sun1-640x353.jpg

Since the beginning of time man has yearned to destroy the sun.

[Agloco]

If I thought this was a serious question other than you being an ankle biter, or if I thought others understood, I might take your serious. Personally, I question if you are as good at science as you claim. You have no interest in bringing such scientific knowledge into this discussion. You only try to shut those of us down you disagree with.

Yet you bothered to respond. Thanks again for the information.

[mouse]

Scientists can surely tell us what happened "12 Billion" years ago what took place where everything settled in the universe, how the earth cooled and formed life and yet they can only give us a few months notice on an asteroid some geek happened to see with his radio shack telescope?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If I thought this was a serious question other than you being an ankle biter, or if I thought others understood, I might take your serious. Personally, I question if you are as good at science as you claim. You have no interest in bringing such scientific knowledge into this discussion. You only try to shut those of us down you disagree with. You have the proper educational skill set to take any misuse of terminology on my part and use against me. I do not trust that you will seek the truth, but rather focus on any misplaced words I will undoubtedly use.

I will say this. Black body heat is a fourth power calculation. Direct surface temperature when equalized to radiating back out is increased, but not linear like watts (joules, etc) vs. temperature normally do. In I increase my radiant energy by 1% (1.01) then my surface temperature is increased by 0.249% (1.01^0.25). This same upward radiation goes back to 1% higher. 1.00249^4 = 1.01.

These percentages used are fine for non atmospheric celestial bodies. Reducing the suns energy to 98.3% hitting the earth changes the black body temperature to 99.97 percent before greenhouse warming. A -18 C changes to -19 C (255k * 0.983^0.25 = 254k). Only a 1 degree change, but this is before any changes of forcing by greenhouse gasses, where temperature is proportional to watts. The power traveling and heating the atmosphere is changed by about the same percentage. I find contradictory numbers for the total (not flux) radiative forcing of greenhouse gasses, but it is somewhere in the neighborhood of 325 watts/sq meter. I think we can agree on giving this a +/- 25%. In this feedback system, and yes, greenhouse gas forcing is technically a feedback system... the amplified effect is proportional to the source, being the sun. When you reduce this 325 watts/square meter to 98.3%, then it is now about 319 watts/sq meter. A reduction of 6 watts/square meter, which puts us far less than any anthropogenic forcing adds.

I am not going to use your use of terminology to discount what you say. I am going to use your napkin math and simpleminded approach to thermodynamics to make fun of you.

This is no different than using a solubility chart to describe the gas emissions of the ocean. It's dumbed down such that even a fool such as you can kinda understand it. When it comes down to it though you do not understand it but instead try to apply the dumbed down version to what is obviously a much more complex system.

He asked you for the equations. Did you provide them? Nope you just give us a dumbed down version of thermodynamics

Lets first talk about your assumptions:

Is the Earth an idealized black body? No it is obviously not. Do you try and model it like it is anyway? Yup.

Do you in any way try and consider the thermodynamic properties of the materials that do make up the Earth? No, obviously do not. All you are able to consider is an idealized system and do a very poor job at it.

Is the temperature distribution on the surface of the Earth uniform? No it is obviously not. This one goes back to your poor critical thinking skills. How many times have you regaled us with tales of urban heat islands? Can you figure out why these two notions do not coexist? There are so many variables in this consideration that you, well, that you do not even remotely consider.

Is the Earth irradiated at the same rate over an equal distribution? No it obviously doesn't. You may recall the Earth spins with an axis that is not close parallel with the axis around which it orbits the sun.

Now lets consider how you try and apply these poor assumptions. First you tell us how the system is nonlinear. In this you are correct. Where you completely fail is in describing how an ideal body would behave at the temperatures the Earth is at. Is describing a body's behavior that is not the Earth at temperatures around 0 degrees F a good way to describe the Earth at the temperatures that it actually is at? Of course it's not. If the function is not linear that means the behavior is not going to be consistent across the range. Initial conditions, dimwit.

Are the mechanics of how the sun irradiates the Earth such that you can consider how said energy is going to warm the surface before you consider how it warms the atmosphere? Of course not. This too should be obvious but does that stop you? Of course not. Stupid is as stupid does.

This is just stuff that I come up with off the top of my head. But for you to think that the thousands of scientists, whose specialties range much more diverse than an associates degree from an analog of Mansfield Tech in the early 1980's, do not consider basic thermodynamics you not only insult yourself but you insult them.

Now I know you are going to say the exact same shit you did when we were talking about capacitors and the solubility of the ocean and say that what your saying is true and I cannot disprove it. I am going to say the same thing i told you those times. i don't care to discuss your stupidity. I want to discuss things germane to the discussion at hand.

We are not talking about basic thermodyamics that you understand poorly. We are talking about the behavior in actual systems. Wikipedia is not a good starting point in topics on the thermodynamics of the earth.

Show some pride and just stop.

[Wild Cobra]

What a complete fail fuzzy.

Percentage changes still matter. That's why I didn't need to go into details, and I was not shooting for the nth digit accuracy.

You are obviously, oblivious, to what matters.

[Wild Cobra]

Need I remind The Fuzzy Troll what I said before the explaination:

If I thought this was a serious question other than you being an ankle biter, or if I thought others understood, I might take your serious.
I do not trust that you will seek the truth, but rather focus on any misplaced words I will undoubtedly use.

I will say this.
Do you really expect me to spend as much time with someone who I find less than serious to offer a better explanation?

I find it really, really pathetic that you wrote such a long winded and meaningless response.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What a complete fail fuzzy.

Percentage changes still matter. That's why I didn't need to go into details, and I was not shooting for the nth digit accuracy.

You are obviously, oblivious, to what matters.

As I stated nonlinear means different behavior across the range. You simply do not understand. Of course they matter but not as matter as getting the correct initial conditions. Lets take x^2 for 1 to 2 you go from 1 to 4. That is a 400% increase. From 9 to 10 you go from 81 to 100. That is a 23% increase. It's simple yet you do not understand. That makes you worse than simpleminded.

Seriously, you need to stop trying to talk about complex systems from your simple mind.

[Wild Cobra]

As I stated nonlinear means different behavior across the range. You simply do not understand. Of course they matter but not as matter as getting the correct initial conditions. Lets take x^2 for 1 to 2 you go from 1 to 4. That is a 400% increase. From 9 to 10 you go from 81 to 100. That is a 23% increase. It's simple yet you do not understand. That makes you worse than simpleminded.

Seriously, you need to stop trying to talk about complex systems from your simple mind.
Here you are, once again, telling people what your limited mind thinks I am saying.

You are wrong.

You are stupid.

You are a fucking troll.

Do you have any idea how lame and incorrect your example is to my example? I guess not, which really shows off your stupidity. 1 to 2 is a 100%, or 200%. 2^2 is 4, or 400%.

9 to 10 is an 11.1111% increase 1.11111^2 is 1.2346... your 23%... I see you didn't follow my math. I do understand these nonlinear functions.

I see you are a single step person. If I leave out any step as to how I arrive at a solution, you say I'm wrong. Well guess what simpleton... I can do things several steps ahead. I don't have to solve problems step-by-step. Not my fault you cannot think past a step at a time. I have a really hard time "dumbing it down" for imbeciles like you.

[Latarian Milton]

says someone who knows basically nothing besides highschool knowledge w/o googling :rolleyes

[Agloco]

As I stated nonlinear means different behavior across the range. You simply do not understand. Of course they matter but not as matter as getting the correct initial conditions. Lets take x^2 for 1 to 2 you go from 1 to 4. That is a 400% increase. From 9 to 10 you go from 81 to 100. That is a 23% increase. It's simple yet you do not understand. That makes you worse than simpleminded.



Do you have any idea how lame and incorrect your example is to my example? I guess not, which really shows off your stupidity. 1 to 2 is a 100%, or 200%. 2^2 is 4, or 400%.

9 to 10 is an 11.1111% increase 1.11111^2 is 1.2346... your 23%... I see you didn't follow my math. I do understand these nonlinear functions.

smh

I was, at least, quite cordial about it.

[Agloco]

I am wrong.

I am a fucking troll.

Das ist selbstverständlich........

My inquiry was intended to give you enough rope to hang yourself with. Thanks for obliging.

[Wild Cobra]

smh

I was, at least, quite cordial about it.
I have a hard time tolerating trolls.

[Wild Cobra]

Das ist selbstverständlich........

My inquiry was intended to give you enough rope to hang yourself with. Thanks for obliging.
Oh, by all means...

Explain how I was wrong.

Bet you can't.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao
See...

You can't either.

You know that when you make your lame ass reason, I will show you why you are wrong.

Or... Like I said to Agloco:


You have the proper educational skill set to take any misuse of terminology on my part and use against me. I do not trust that you will seek the truth, but rather focus on any misplaced words I will undoubtedly use.

Do you seek the truth, or not?

Do you wish yo air our any misunderstandings, or not?

[Agloco]

I have a hard time tolerating trolls.

This from a self-confessed troll. That's rich.

I understand your point however. I don't suffer fools easily, which is why I insist you clarify your stance whenever I catch you posting bullshit about blackbodies and what not.

I simply asked why you thought that this groups estimates were off by an order of magnitude. You attempted an explanation and came up short. Feel free to hate me or your high school Algebra instructor for that.

Either way, I've got a hot date with a lady named Marnier. Have a good evening.

[Wild Cobra]

I simply asked why you thought that this groups estimates were off by an order of magnitude.

Liar. I didn't say magnitudes, and neither did you. I questioned if they misplaced a decimal point.

Can we have an honest debate, or are you going to spin lies?


You attempted an explanation and came up short.

You still didn't say how. I think that's because you do not understand.

Now I did make an error, and edited a post. I said that the 1.7% reduction changes blackbody temperature by 0.9997. Typo... (0.983^0.25 = 0.9967,) not 0.9997... I didn't make a mistake on the approximate 1 degree that changes. The earths temperature, however, cannot be calculated using black body formulas. Again that is a mistake I think they may have made, thinking they can cool the earth by 1 degree. The effect would be far greater, and the primary functional changes in the greenhouse gas response, will be a linear change. Yes, there are non linear responses as well, but they are too small to worry about.

Now, what the 99.67% matters with, is the surface temperature with no atmosphere. I pointed out this makes for a 1 degree reduction, and one of my assumptions of what they did wrong:

The amount of percentage they speak of would put us into an ice age I think. I'll bet they misplaced a decimal or used black body calculations instead. Radiative forcing on atmospheric temperatures are not 4th power functions like blackbody calculations are.
Now in misplacing a decimal, this again, was an assumption:

The amount of percentage they speak of would put us into an ice age I think. I'll bet they misplaced a decimal or used black body calculations instead. Radiative forcing on atmospheric temperatures are not 4th power functions like blackbody calculations are.
"I'll bet" is not saying "I know."

Don't you get it. I saw right away that 1.7% is too much. I assumed two possibilities. I never stated that these were the only possibilities. Now this reduction of 1.7% becomes 98.3%. I think what you, Fuzzy, and Manny are missing is that even though the increase in greenhouse gas forcing is nonlinear (primarily logarithmic) in respect to changes in gas levels, it is linear in respect to source input power, i.e.... the sun... Now I only mentioned the approximate forcing by greenhouse gasses of about 325 watt/sq meter. The total combination of the direct, indirect, and greenhouse gas warming is about 520 watts/sq meter. 98.3% of that is 511 watts. Their plan will probably reduce the total radiative forcing by about 9 watts/meter. Is this really their plan? Now it probably isn't enough to take up to an ice age, I didn't do any math before making that statement. It is still, a severe change, unless that is the level they think they need to combat.

If you wish to claim I am wrong, then please explain. No more ankle biting please.

[MannyIsGod]

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

[Wild Cobra]

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Why don't you just say you cannot show fault on my part?

[Jacob1983]

How many polar bears have died because of this dust?

[Water Cooler]

I will say this. Black body heat is a fourth power calculation. Direct surface temperature when equalized to radiating back out is increased, but not linear like watts (joules, etc) vs. temperature normally do. In I increase my radiant energy by 1% (1.01) then my surface temperature is increased by 0.249% (1.01^0.25). This same upward radiation goes back to 1% higher. 1.00249^4 = 1.01.

These percentages used are fine for non atmospheric celestial bodies. Reducing the suns energy to 98.3% hitting the earth changes the black body temperature to 99.97 percent before greenhouse warming. A -18 C changes to -19 C (255k * 0.983^0.25 = 254k). Only a 1 degree change, but this is before any changes of forcing by greenhouse gasses, where temperature is proportional to watts. The power traveling and heating the atmosphere is changed by about the same percentage. I find contradictory numbers for the total (not flux) radiative forcing of greenhouse gasses, but it is somewhere in the neighborhood of 325 watts/sq meter. I think we can agree on giving this a +/- 25%. In this feedback system, and yes, greenhouse gas forcing is technically a feedback system... the amplified effect is proportional to the source, being the sun. When you reduce this 325 watts/square meter to 98.3%, then it is now about 319 watts/sq meter. A reduction of 6 watts/square meter, which puts us far less than any anthropogenic forcing adds.


When you get a minute, my hot water faucet is broken. If you could change it by monday that would rock.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Here you are, once again, telling people what your limited mind thinks I am saying.

You are wrong.

You are stupid.

You are a fucking troll.

Do you have any idea how lame and incorrect your example is to my example? I guess not, which really shows off your stupidity. 1 to 2 is a 100%, or 200%. 2^2 is 4, or 400%.

9 to 10 is an 11.1111% increase 1.11111^2 is 1.2346... your 23%... I see you didn't follow my math. I do understand these nonlinear functions.

I see you are a single step person. If I leave out any step as to how I arrive at a solution, you say I'm wrong. Well guess what simpleton... I can do things several steps ahead. I don't have to solve problems step-by-step. Not my fault you cannot think past a step at a time. I have a really hard time "dumbing it down" for imbeciles like you.

I followed it just fine. You make up numbers and apply them to a very dumbed down model. It has nothing to do with step by step but rather the assumptions you make before you take your first step.

These numbers are mostly fantasy that you pulled out of your ass. Not only that but you just have no notion of how to model systems or how to describe them as functions. You have no real notion of the relationship between dependent and independent variables much less multivariable systems.

Hell, you do not even attempt to respond to those indictments to your assumptions. You only blather on about linear systems which you do not even understand. Here is another one you should consider: time dependence. You missed the boat on that one too. I mention 6 things that I thought of off the top of my head and you just posture like I am questioning a single step. It's not about the steps, dimwit. Applied to a simplified system for a freshman level class it makes perfect sense. What it's about is the path. We are not talking about an idealized homogenous black body in equilibrium.

I model systems for a living, dimwit. You posturing that I don't grasp simple thermodynamics much less your dumbed down approach to them is laughable. I even anticipated what your response wsa going to be. Your claim that i don't understand. It's the same lame ass shit you always claim but at the end of the day I give a clear demonstration of why your shit is stupid and you just call me stupid.

Further, you should recognize that once again, you have not a single person backing you up. Even aspie, who is just as singleminded and wishful thinking if not as stupid as you, even he distanced himself from you. that was despite your overtures. Everyone in this thread and everyone else pretty much never backs you up. Not Darrin, Yoni, CC, or any of the resident 'conservatives.'

And keep in mind that I am not very nice to people so it's not asif they are taking my side because they sympathize with me. I am not exactly the most sympathetic personality out there. Yet they still universally tell you that you are full of shit. Yet you posture on. i would be ashamed and embarrased if I were you yet you just blithely carry on. It's sad.

[Latarian Milton]

it amazes me how you manage to take this shit so seriously. good effort and you should've been rewarded at least a doctoral degree in natural science for these genius takes, let alone a bachelor degree tbh

[FuzzyLumpkins]

took me about 10 minutes to write that. :shrug: i admit that i get tired with his stupidity and I really do not like that he tries to mislead people via ignorance. I have issues with reducing my approach in explaining things. I have issues with teaching other because of that as I have expectations of what people already know. Sorry if I blather on but my mind tens to race and that is just the way that it is.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

So why didn't you point out my mistakes?

Could it be I didn't make any?

[leemajors]

LOL...

So why didn't you point out my mistakes?

Could it be I didn't make any?

He and Agloco did that on page 1, even I could follow that :lol

[Wild Cobra]

He and Agloco did that on page 1, even I could follow that :lol
Then explain what I missed. I left out unimportant things, that would avtually make my numbers higher if I were to put them in. Just keeping it simple. If I am wrong, and my values become less...

By all means...

Show me the errors...

Just because I left out insignificant items doesn't mean I am wrong. I am only showing the most significant changes.

[Agloco]

I simply asked why you thought that this groups estimates were off by an order of magnitude.


Liar. I didn't say magnitudes, and neither did you. I questioned if they misplaced a decimal point.

smh

This, in a nutshell, is why I bother to ask you questions. Things like your basic lack of understanding of the concept of magnitude come to the surface. Before proceeding any further, I'd suggest looking up what "an order of magnitude" means. "Misplacing" a decimal, as you put it, would change the magnitude of one's answers would it not? The number 7.0 is bigger than the number 0.70 no?

On the one hand you struggle to grasp a basic concept such as this, and on the other you'd have us believe that you've taken into account all of the assumptions needed to properly calculate your precious "4th power equation". You'd also have us believe that the group doing this research modeled the earth as a blackbody and failed to do so (that will probably escape you as well, as using a blackbody calculation implies a failure to recognize the set of assumptions that are valid in this instance).

So after you've become a Google expert on orders of magnitude, you can begin to research the condition(s) implicit in the use of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for this example. We don't simply throw Plancks Law out of the window because it pleases us. The group doing this research didn't either. I'd like to know what assumption(s) are necessary when one performs a definite integration of Max Plancks brainchild. I'll help you along.....think spectral frequencies then consider asteroid dust.

Once again, thanks in advance.



Don't you get it. I saw right away that 1.7% is too much. I assumed two possibilities. I never stated that these were the only possibilities. Now this reduction of 1.7% becomes 98.3%. I think what you, Fuzzy, and Manny are missing is that even though the increase in greenhouse gas forcing is nonlinear (primarily logarithmic) in respect to changes in gas levels, it is linear in respect to source input power, i.e.... the sun... Now I only mentioned the approximate forcing by greenhouse gasses of about 325 watt/sq meter. The total combination of the direct, indirect, and greenhouse gas warming is about 520 watts/sq meter. 98.3% of that is 511 watts. Their plan will probably reduce the total radiative forcing by about 9 watts/meter. Is this really their plan? Now it probably isn't enough to take up to an ice age, I didn't do any math before making that statement. It is still, a severe change, unless that is the level they think they need to combat.

If you wish to claim I am wrong, then please explain. No more ankle biting please.

You also expressed a potential error of 25% in your greenhouse forcing figure, which was conveniently left out of your final answer in your initial response to me. Can you redo that calc, this time accounting for your error margin please?

I'd also like to know how 9 watts/sq meter translates to temp. How you're arriving at your "ice age" conclusion is still fuzzy to me.

[Wild Cobra]

Agloco.

I suggest you carefully re-read what I said.

Your assumptions make you look very, very stupid.

You are implying I said things I did not. I did distance myself from the "magnitude," and yes, a misplaced decimal is an order of magnitude, but depending on where a misplaced decimal is matters too.

Again... please read my words carefully... I said I assumed two possible problems without trying to assume all they did.

Again... please read my words carefully... I said they are wrong. It would be impossible for me to know exactly how!

Can you comprehend this?

I do not "struggle to grasp" any of this. Your assumption or your greater intelligence is misplaced, especially where you cannot take what I wrote, and show me wrong. All you do is play wordgames with what I did write.

How are any of my calculations wrong?

My Ice age conclusion?

Come on now. Did you read what I said or not?

Are you going to be a lame-brained a Fuzzy and stick to statements I did not correct?

Now it probably isn't enough to take up to an ice age, I didn't do any math before making that statement.
What the fuck is wrong with you? Are you going to be as bad as Fuzzy, focusing on past words not corrected? If so, you are beneath trying to have a debate with.

What's wrong? Can't you do +/- 25% of 9 watts per meter yourself? When you only change the input power too the earth, the significant values stay at the same percentage. The percentages do change for minor forcing variable like latent heat. Again, I am not trying to be exact here. Just showing why there is error in the 1.7%. I only need to use the factors that make up the majority of changes. Can you show me why the 1.7% is a correct value to use?

Where did I say I was using temperature. Standard models are using watts/square meter. According to the IPCC, anthropogenic warming is 1.6 watt/sq meter from 1750 to 2004. I don't care what the "climate sensitivity" is. Nine is almost six times as much as 1.6.

Please...

carefully read what I said before, and stop looking like a fool.

Ask instead of accuse if you need me to elaborate on something.

As for asking for more and more calculations. I already showed you some. You show me yours first. Show me how I am wrong on my latest changes, or shut the fuck up.

[Wild Cobra]

Agloco. Does this make any sense to you?

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/graphics/EarthsEnergyBalance.png (http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/EarthsEnergyBalance.html)

Now most the numbers presented will be very close to proportional to the energy received by the sun. Thermals and Evaporation will not be linear, but still not real far from linear. Yes, there are others factors with minor effects.

[Wild Cobra]

Here are a few points to consider. It is accepted by the AGW crowd that the increase of 1.6 watt/sq meter between 1750 to 2004 increased the temperature by something like 0.6 to 0.85 degrees. I forget the exact number claimed. The article says this:

For instance, projects that reduced the amount of solar radiation Earth receives by 1.7 percent could offset the effects of a global increase in temperature of 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C).

Now it is pretty well accepted by all sides involved that the greenhouse effect adds about 33 degrees total, and that this largly comes from about 324 watts/sq meter of a greenhouse effect. There is also direct atmospheric heating by the sun as the second largest contributor. The added 1.6 watts is about 0.5%. 1.7% is three times what is needed to just counter the greenhouse effect, but it affects nearly all of the earth's heat. Not just the greenhouse effect. They do not say this percentage is to counter the future threat, but say:

The dust cloud is not a permanent cure, but it could offset the effects of climate change for a given time to allow slow-acting measures like carbon capture to take effect.
This tells me this is a more immediate project to counter what we have now, and maybe within a decade. Not what they expect for future warming.

What happens if they miscalculate, and the dust blocks the sun by 3%? 5%? more?

[DMX7]

Your assumptions make you look very, very stupid.


Typically when I write "lol", I don't actually laugh out loud. This time I did. LOL

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Agloco.

I suggest you carefully re-read what I said.

Your assumptions make you look very, very stupid.

A 4 year old has more creativity than you do, parrot.

[Wild Cobra]

A 4 year old has more creativity than you do, parrot.
please explain what is wrong with my work. You have not done so yet, except for what it would take to increase the accuracy.

Please show what disputes what I have said.

Fuzzy...

Would you please autograph this picture:

http://www.bargainbinreview.com/sitebuilder/images/troll1-200x200.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I am not going to use your use of terminology to discount what you say. I am going to use your napkin math and simpleminded approach to thermodynamics to make fun of you.

This is no different than using a solubility chart to describe the gas emissions of the ocean. It's dumbed down such that even a fool such as you can kinda understand it. When it comes down to it though you do not understand it but instead try to apply the dumbed down version to what is obviously a much more complex system.

He asked you for the equations. Did you provide them? Nope you just give us a dumbed down version of thermodynamics

Lets first talk about your assumptions:

Is the Earth an idealized black body? No it is obviously not. Do you try and model it like it is anyway? Yup.

Do you in any way try and consider the thermodynamic properties of the materials that do make up the Earth? No, obviously do not. All you are able to consider is an idealized system and do a very poor job at it.

Is the temperature distribution on the surface of the Earth uniform? No it is obviously not. This one goes back to your poor critical thinking skills. How many times have you regaled us with tales of urban heat islands? Can you figure out why these two notions do not coexist? There are so many variables in this consideration that you, well, that you do not even remotely consider.

Is the Earth irradiated at the same rate over an equal distribution? No it obviously doesn't. You may recall the Earth spins with an axis that is not close parallel with the axis around which it orbits the sun.

Now lets consider how you try and apply these poor assumptions. First you tell us how the system is nonlinear. In this you are correct. Where you completely fail is in describing how an ideal body would behave at the temperatures the Earth is at. Is describing a body's behavior that is not the Earth at temperatures around 0 degrees F a good way to describe the Earth at the temperatures that it actually is at? Of course it's not. If the function is not linear that means the behavior is not going to be consistent across the range. Initial conditions, dimwit.

Are the mechanics of how the sun irradiates the Earth such that you can consider how said energy is going to warm the surface before you consider how it warms the atmosphere? Of course not. This too should be obvious but does that stop you? Of course not. Stupid is as stupid does.

This is just stuff that I come up with off the top of my head. But for you to think that the thousands of scientists, whose specialties range much more diverse than an associates degree from an analog of Mansfield Tech in the early 1980's, do not consider basic thermodynamics you not only insult yourself but you insult them.

Now I know you are going to say the exact same shit you did when we were talking about capacitors and the solubility of the ocean and say that what your saying is true and I cannot disprove it. I am going to say the same thing i told you those times. i don't care to discuss your stupidity. I want to discuss things germane to the discussion at hand.

We are not talking about basic thermodyamics that you understand poorly. We are talking about the behavior in actual systems. Wikipedia is not a good starting point in topics on the thermodynamics of the earth.

Show some pride and just stop.

It's funny. You cannot come up with your own digs so you use the ones I say back to me. Straight up Pee-Wee Herman shit.

When you started going on about steps it became obvious you had no idea what my rebuttal was getting at. You are just a fool. I had 6 main points in there, dimwit.

Someone else gets it though. Recall, being laughed at by DMX this time.

The picture was nice if unfounded. In contrast, WC, were you or were you not diagnosed with a learning disability?

[Agloco]

Ask instead of accuse if you need me to elaborate on something.

I believe I did in my first two posts, no? Still have no answers to my questions, and by extension no surprises either.




You are implying I said things I did not. I did distance myself from the "magnitude," and yes, a misplaced decimal is an order of magnitude, but depending on where a misplaced decimal is matters too.

No, you did indeed type them. It's on the first page of this thread for everyone to see. I cannot help it if you do not understand that "misplacing" decimal points implies changes in magnitude.




I did distance myself from the "magnitude," and yes, a misplaced decimal is an order of magnitude, but depending on where a misplaced decimal is matters too.

It certainly does. Again, it's called magnitude. You're struggling mightily with 8th grade concepts.


Agloco.

I suggest you carefully re-read what I said.

Your assumptions make you look very, very stupid.

I only made one assumption...the one where I thought you might actually explain why you invoked a blackbody calculation in the manner that you did. You didn't. My bad.





I do not "struggle to grasp" any of this. Your assumption or your greater intelligence is misplaced, especially where you cannot take what I wrote, and show me wrong. All you do is play wordgames with what I did write.

You're right. It's now quite evident that you simply don't grasp it, regardless of your level of effort.



My Ice age conclusion?

Come on now. Did you read what I said or not?

Yep. In fact, that's the very comment that prompted me to pop in and ask why you said it. You them began to baackpedal and stated that it might not cause an ice age after all. That naturally begs the question of why the hell you bothered to pony up your two cents worth of bullshit in the first place.

I'll bet it's because you didn't think anyone had their bullshit meter on. I might not post often these days, but I do lurk quite a bit.



What's wrong? Can't you do +/- 25% of 9 watts per meter yourself?

You stated 25% of 325 W/M. What's it gonna be?


Again, I am not trying to be exact here. Just showing why there is error in the 1.7%. I only need to use the factors that make up the majority of changes. Can you show me why the 1.7% is a correct value to use?


This much is obvious. You're attempting to bullshit your way through this with irrelevant diagrams and verbose passages devoid of meaningful scientific facts. When you care to discuss the points I inquired about, I'll be happy to take this up with you again.



Where did I say I was using temperature. Standard models are using watts/square meter. According to the IPCC, anthropogenic warming is 1.6 watt/sq meter from 1750 to 2004. I don't care what the "climate sensitivity" is. Nine is almost six times as much as 1.6.

Nowhere, and this goes to the heart of the matter. You're attempting a partial explanation of the research through the use of formalism intended for measurements in Kelvin. The problem with that is that you lack an understanding of the assumptions implicit in making those calculations. See my first two posts in this thread.



As for asking for more and more calculations. I already showed you some. You show me yours first. Show me how I am wrong on my latest changes, or shut the fuck up.

I'll continue to ask you until you pony up something that's not completely tangential to what I'm asking about. I'm not giving you any answers for free. I'm asking you to think through the concept of blackbody radiation before spewing nonsensical bullshit. You just want to "plug-n-chug". I want you to derive and understand. I know it hurts, but asking you to try.

[mouse]

Agloco vs WC is straight up main event shit!

:corn:

[Jacob1983]

Most humans don't give a shit about global warming/climate change unless it actually affects them and threatens their way of life.

[MannyIsGod]

LOL you're so dumb WC

[Wild Cobra]

Wow...

All you guys can do is focus on the unimportant stuff. Still nothing that says why my numbers are wrong.

It's obvious you are not up to the challenge.

And AgLoco...

Isn't it obvious that if I am using +/- 25% in part of a calculation then change it by a certain percentage that the results are also +/- 25%? That should not have to be spelled out. Do you really need such simple shit spelled out?

Look at this too. When I said "I'll bet they misplaced a decimal or used black body calculations instead," the "I'll bet" is obviously not saying they factually did. Why do you worry about such trivial stuff. Someplace else, I said said that post was before I made any calculations, so stuff it asshole.

Again, it must be because you cannot show fault in my assessments.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL you're so dumb WC
If you say so, then show me why my assessments are wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

Agloco vs WC is straight up main event shit!

:corn:
You think?

I'm real disappointed in Agloco's apparent lack of intelligence. I thought he was smarter. Cannot show why my numbers are bad, but focuses on unimportant stuff instead.

[Wild Cobra]

Agloco. Does this make any sense to you?

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/graphics/EarthsEnergyBalance.png (http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/EarthsEnergyBalance.html)

[ElNono]

:lol WC is entirely happy with his ignorance and has no problem displaying it proudly. He's basically the Tod Akin of the forum. He rather be wrong than educated, so I'm not sure why do you guys even bother, tbh...

[Wild Cobra]

:lol WC is entirely happy with his ignorance and has no problem displaying it proudly. He's basically the Tod Akin of the forum. He rather be wrong than educated, so I'm not sure why do you guys even bother, tbh...
Then please, by all means, show fault in my assessments.

[ElNono]

Then please, by all means, show fault in my assessments.

You've been told already. The rest is just you being the usual fucking idiot. *THAT* is why they shouldn't waste their time.

[Wild Cobra]

You've been told already. The rest is just you being the usual fucking idiot. *THAT* is why they shouldn't waste their time.
Then I missed it.

What specifically is wrong?

[ElNono]

Learn to read, or use the search function. Or both.

[Wild Cobra]

Learn to read, or use the search function. Or both.
The problem is that nothing they said matters.

Therefore, show me. Show me I'm wrong.

What is said that matters?

[Wild Cobra]

Would somebody please, take one point that matters to the calculation, and show why it's wrong. Just one. Don't bury it with other shit. Make it clear please.

[MannyIsGod]

Its in this thread. The fact that you can understand where it is while every other visitor to the thread can see it doesn't do much for your stance that you're not a fucking idiot.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well, here are two more guys that say you are an idiot. That makes 5 so far. Zero for the "WC is not an idiot" team.

It's like the first minute of a Spurs/Blazers game.

[ElNono]

The problem is that nothing they said matters.

Apparently, nothing anybody says matter to you. More reason not to waste time with you.

[Agloco]

Cannot show why my numbers are bad, but focuses on unimportant stuff instead.

:lol:lol:lol

Yeah, I guess consideration of the spectrum of photons incident on the earth after being perturbed by asteroid dust isn't important to this discussion after all. Thanks for helping as all see the light WC. Pun intended.




I'm real disappointed in Agloco's apparent lack of intelligence. I thought he was smarter.

So am I tbh. I was succored into a discussion of thermodynamics with the likes of you. Makes me feel as if I owe everyone an apology for junking up the forum with 2 pages of your crap.

[TeyshaBlue]

Well, here are two more guys that say you are an idiot. That makes 5 so far. Zero for the "WC is not an idiot" team.

It's like the first minute of a Spurs/Blazers game.


:lmao

[TeyshaBlue]

:lol:lol:lol

Yeah, I guess consideration of the spectrum of photons incident on the earth after being perturbed by asteroid dust isn't important to this discussion after all. Thanks for helping as all see the light WC. Pun intended.




So am I tbh. I was succored into a discussion of thermodynamics with the likes of you. Makes me feel as if I owe everyone an apology for junking up the forum with 2 pages of your crap.

Please submit your apology on the label of a Shiner Bock and pass it to me.

Thx.

[Wild Cobra]

Agloco.

You still never answered my question, and I can't help but think what ever you see, is something I know is wrong. Like I said, not arguments had any merit outside of minor effects.

This dust cloud. Just how do you think it will alter the spectra enough to matter? It seems to me that it will reduce all wavelengths equally. Heat up some, and then radiate a very weak IR in all directions, including back to the sun. Not enough to worry about. How am I wrong here?

I addressed the fact the most the radiative changes in flow patterns will be 98.3% of what they were. I acknowledged not all are near linear, but the primary effects are near linear to input. Just not linear to other variables. Because of this, the final forcing will be about 98.3% as before the dish cloud. The total radiative forcing in the atmosphere is about 520 watts/sq meter, and about 390 watts/sq meter of downward forcing. If you wish to only use this 390 number, 1.7% changes it by about 6.6 watts/sq meter. Four times the warming the AGW crowd claims. This is my concern. This 1.7% ends up being so much more than needed.

Again, I ask for what is specifically wrong in my assessment. I have not seen anything that affects the primary factor I speak of, and the lesser factors account for maybe 1/5th of the changes.

Trust me.

What ever you guys are laughing about, it is over shadowed by the 1.7% change alone.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Agloco.

You still never answered my question, and I can't help but think what ever you see, is something I know is wrong. Like I said, not arguments had any merit outside of minor effects.

This dust cloud. Just how do you think it will alter the spectra enough to matter? It seems to me that it will block all wavelengths equally. Heat up some, and then radiate a very weak IR. Not enough to worry about. How am I wrong here?

I addressed the fact the most the radiative changed will be 98.3% of what they were. I acknowledged not all are linear, but the primary effects are linear to input. Just not linear to other variables.

Again, I ask for what is specifically wrong in my assessment. I have not seen anything that affects the primary factor I speak of, and the lesser factors account for maybe 1/5th of the changes.

Trust me.

What ever you guys are laughing about, it is over shadowed by the 1.7% change alone.

It's not like anyone is forgetting the posts he and I have made. You can sit there and pretend like that hasn't been asked if it makes you feel better.

We both are waiting for a justification in using a simplified homogenous blackbody in equilibrium to describe the thermodynamic behavior of the Earth.

He has been asking for a justification for that from the beginning as have I.

Once you get past that we can address your other assumptions/methods but that is an excellent starting point and its one fucking thing for your simple mind to have to deal with.

Respond to it, toolbag.

[Wild Cobra]

We both are waiting for a justification in using a simplified homogenous blackbody in equilibrium to describe the thermodynamic behavior of the Earth.

I am not using it. If you read carefully, I assumed it might be a mistake the authors used. I only pointed out the end result of 1 degree that the 1.7% would make if that was their thought. This is based on the difference that the earth would be 255 K without an atmosphere and this number changes by about 1 degree from a 1.7% change. Emissivity doesn't matter in this because it cancels itself out between the two numbers if it remains constant.


He has been asking for a justification for that from the beginning as have I.

Because like always, you brought up factors that simply do not matter. we are not going though any state changes, all other factors are equal and cancel each other out, except at very low levels. The primary factor will be linked proportionally to the 1.7%.


Once you get past that we can address your other assumptions/methods but that is an excellent starting point and its one fucking thing for your simple mind to have to deal with.

Respond to it, toolbag.

Maybe I just see no need to calculate variables that effectively cancel each other out.

Again, i ask. What specifically do you disagree with in my assessment, so i can address it. Not of your shit is sticking in my view.

[mouse]

Agloco 5

Wild Cobra 7

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Can you provide an example of the correct calculation for us? What leads you believe that blackbody calculations were used?

Also, if you could explain the basic science behind radiative forcing and blackbodies with an emphasis on how and why any differences could impact calculations.

I don't need an essay, just 5 or 6 sentences to explain these things to the less informed. Thanks in advance.


If I thought this was a serious question other than you being an ankle biter, or if I thought others understood, I might take your serious. Personally, I question if you are as good at science as you claim. You have no interest in bringing such scientific knowledge into this discussion. You only try to shut those of us down you disagree with. You have the proper educational skill set to take any misuse of terminology on my part and use against me. I do not trust that you will seek the truth, but rather focus on any misplaced words I will undoubtedly use.

I will say this. Black body heat is a fourth power calculation. Direct surface temperature when equalized to radiating back out is increased, but not linear like watts (joules, etc) vs. temperature normally do. In I increase my radiant energy by 1% (1.01) then my surface temperature is increased by 0.249% (1.01^0.25). This same upward radiation goes back to 1% higher. 1.00249^4 = 1.01.

These percentages used are fine for non atmospheric celestial bodies. Reducing the suns energy to 98.3% hitting the earth changes the black body temperature to 99.97 percent before greenhouse warming. A -18 C changes to -19 C (255k * 0.983^0.25 = 254k). Only a 1 degree change, but this is before any changes of forcing by greenhouse gasses, where temperature is proportional to watts. The power traveling and heating the atmosphere is changed by about the same percentage. I find contradictory numbers for the total (not flux) radiative forcing of greenhouse gasses, but it is somewhere in the neighborhood of 325 watts/sq meter. I think we can agree on giving this a +/- 25%. In this feedback system, and yes, greenhouse gas forcing is technically a feedback system... the amplified effect is proportional to the source, being the sun. When you reduce this 325 watts/square meter to 98.3%, then it is now about 319 watts/sq meter. A reduction of 6 watts/square meter, which puts us far less than any anthropogenic forcing adds.


Liar. I didn't say magnitudes, and neither did you. I questioned if they misplaced a decimal point.

Can we have an honest debate, or are you going to spin lies?

You still didn't say how. I think that's because you do not understand.

Now I did make an error, and edited a post. I said that the 1.7% reduction changes blackbody temperature by 0.9997. Typo... (0.983^0.25 = 0.9967,) not 0.9997... I didn't make a mistake on the approximate 1 degree that changes. The earths temperature, however, cannot be calculated using black body formulas. Again that is a mistake I think they may have made, thinking they can cool the earth by 1 degree. The effect would be far greater, and the primary functional changes in the greenhouse gas response, will be a linear change. Yes, there are non linear responses as well, but they are too small to worry about.

Now, what the 99.67% matters with, is the surface temperature with no atmosphere. I pointed out this makes for a 1 degree reduction, and one of my assumptions of what they did wrong:

Now in misplacing a decimal, this again, was an assumption:

"I'll bet" is not saying "I know."

Don't you get it. I saw right away that 1.7% is too much. I assumed two possibilities. I never stated that these were the only possibilities. Now this reduction of 1.7% becomes 98.3%. I think what you, Fuzzy, and Manny are missing is that even though the increase in greenhouse gas forcing is nonlinear (primarily logarithmic) in respect to changes in gas levels, it is linear in respect to source input power, i.e.... the sun... Now I only mentioned the approximate forcing by greenhouse gasses of about 325 watt/sq meter. The total combination of the direct, indirect, and greenhouse gas warming is about 520 watts/sq meter. 98.3% of that is 511 watts. Their plan will probably reduce the total radiative forcing by about 9 watts/meter. Is this really their plan? Now it probably isn't enough to take up to an ice age, I didn't do any math before making that statement. It is still, a severe change, unless that is the level they think they need to combat.

If you wish to claim I am wrong, then please explain. No more ankle biting please.

For everyone else, here is what WC actually said. It should be clear that the only calculations that actually did were on the basis of the dumbed down thermodynamics as has been explained. Since that time he has been arguing back and forth about his failure in napkin math. Whoops on the decimal point. So not only did he do those calculations using the dumbed down version but he also defended his arithmetic fuckup in doing so.

:lol magnitudes don't matter.

Now he is saying that he did not do this but would should be clear from reading the above, he clearly did and much more.




dis·sem·ble (d-smbl)
v. dis·sem·bled, dis·sem·bling, dis·sem·bles
v.tr.
1. To disguise or conceal behind a false appearance. See Synonyms at disguise.
2. To make a false show of; feign.
v.intr.
To disguise or conceal one's real nature, motives, or feelings behind a false appearance.

i think it will be found that the above is the case.

Now what i will do is ask the idiot what his other calculations are and what formulas he is using to justify his current stance of "I don't have to consider those variables because they cancel each other out." I think we will get the same treatment as before in asking what formulas he was using to justify his initial position ie never show the formulas or logic and posturing.

So:

Dumbass, please justify the comment about the variables canceling each other out.

[InRareForm]

I am happy to have created this thread. carry on.

[mouse]

Agloco 5

Wild Cobra 7


FuzzyLumpkins 6

[Agloco]

Please submit your apology on the label of a Shiner Bock and pass it to me.

Thx.

lulz

:cry I thought you'd care :cry

[FuzzyLumpkins]

FuzzyLumpkins 6

How do you score yourself?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What i am curious to know is how he figures a 4th order polynomial is a linear operation.


What do line mean?

His shit is so full of ignorant fail it's sad. I reread his stuff and I can understand why he ws diagnosed with a learning disability. you can see where he is limited in anything beyond cause and effect relationships. i wonder if he even understands quadratics.

[MannyIsGod]

No one really cares about the assumptions of someone who's completely unqualified to make an assessment to begin with.

[MannyIsGod]

What i am curious to know is how he figures a 4th order polynomial is a linear operation.


What do line mean?

His shit is so full of ignorant fail it's sad. I reread his stuff and I can understand why he ws diagnosed with a learning disability. you can see where he is limited in anything beyond cause and effect relationships. i wonder if he even understands quadratics.

Its just stupid that he's saying they fucked up and he has no idea how to do the calculations himself to figure out the Earth's temp. :lol misplaced decimal. Go ahead and misplace a decimal in a 4th root and see how that turns out. :lol orders of magnitude

[Wild Cobra]

For everyone else, here is what WC actually said.

You afraid people cannnot decide for themselves, so you have to tell them what to think?


It should be clear that the only calculations that actually did were on the basis of the dumbed down thermodynamics as has been explained.
The only calculations I made was extension of percentage changes. I was not doing anything with thermodynamics, but with watts.

Since that time he has been arguing back and forth about his failure in napkin math.
You inability to understand is not my failure.

Whoops on the decimal point.
You still don't understand.

I said as an assumption, before doing any math:

I'll bet they misplaced a decimal or used black body calculations instead.
This is clearly thinking out load of what they possibly did. I never stated any such thing as thinking it was factual.


So not only did he do those calculations using the dumbed down version but he also defended his arithmetic fuckup in doing so.

If you mean the fourth power math, I was only explaining how the changes work. I was not stating any specific values except that -IF- they were using blackbody math, that 1.7% would make about a 1 degree change. Go to any online black body calculator. Set the emissivity and other factors where ever you like and compare 254 K and 255 K. You will see a 1.56% difference in emitted radiance. When I did that calculation, I calculated for from 100% to 98.3%, and got just over a 1.09 degree change. I didn't have to use the whole formulation to do so.


:lol magnitudes don't matter.

Yes, magnitude absolutely matters. Again, my thinking out loud was that they possibly misplaced a decimal point, and again... idiot... I said that before I did any calculations. I did not say they did. I even stated before this was an assumption I made before doing any calculation, but your simple mind apparently cannot comprehend that.

Did you ever ask if I believe that? No. And FYI... I don't, and never did. I only had an open mind to the possibility.


Now what i will do is ask the idiot what his other calculations are and what formulas he is using to justify his current stance of "I don't have to consider those variables because they cancel each other out."
Do you understand what parts are linear and what parts are not? I was applying the 1.7% to the nearly linear parts. The nonlinear parts do not matter because they are either really small, or because we are not changing the variables that affect the larger ones. We are not change CO2 levels for example, which would require a complex and primarily logarithmic function.

Reduce the incoming solar energy by 1.7%... of the same spectra... This reduces almost all radiative numbers by very close to 1.7% as well. It is just that simple. If you disagree, show me where I am wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

What i am curious to know is how he figures a 4th order polynomial is a linear operation.


What do line mean?

His shit is so full of ignorant fail it's sad. I reread his stuff and I can understand why he ws diagnosed with a learning disability. you can see where he is limited in anything beyond cause and effect relationships. i wonder if he even understands quadratics.
Then ask someone who is applying it to my assessments of the radiative changes. I most certainly am not.

[Wild Cobra]

No one really cares about the assumptions of someone who's completely unqualified to make an assessment to begin with.
Like you?

[Wild Cobra]

Its just stupid that he's saying they fucked up and he has no idea how to do the calculations himself to figure out the Earth's temp. :lol misplaced decimal. Go ahead and misplace a decimal in a 4th root and see how that turns out. :lol orders of magnitude
That's not what I am saying. Are you really that dumb to think so?

[Wild Cobra]

It's obvious you three stooges don't want a serious discussion. No matter what I say, you respond to something else.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you mean the fourth power math, I was only explaining how the changes work.


What i am curious to know is how he figures a 4th order polynomial is a linear operation.


What do line mean?

smh

:lol fourth power math

How about you graph a 4th order polynomial with an coefficient you want and tell me if it looks like a line to you. Fuck it. I'll do it.

http://www.analyzemath.com/polynomials/graphs/polynomial_5.gif http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikibooks/en/5/55/LinearSystems3.jpg

Now which one do you think is fourth order and which one do you think is linear?

You really have no idea what you are talking about. I slammed you about not knowing about linearity a few months back and ever since you have been trying to apply it and demonstrating very clearly that it is beyond your scope.

[Wild Cobra]

Why do you think it applies to this discussion?

Stop wasting my time troll.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Because you keep acting like the phenomenon is linear when it's not.

You don't use the dumbed down version nor the linear version that you assert because you suck at thermodynamics.

(4πR2 ) σTe4 = (1 - a) πR2So

That is a simplified version. At least it tries to consider amongst other things, emissivity and boltzman's constant even if it simplifies the steady state using a disk.

Now where do you think you went wrong?

[Wild Cobra]

I didn't go wrong because I an not converting watts to degrees.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You don't use the dumbed down version nor the linear version that you assert because you suck at thermodynamics.

You simply do not understand thermodynamics. At all. As Agloco stated, you cannot just throw out plank's constant or the boltzman's constant because youre too stupid to understand it.

[Wild Cobra]

You simply do not understand thermodynamics. At all. As Agloco stated, you cannot just throw out plank's constant or the boltzman's constant because youre too stupid to understand it.
I'm not throwing them out. I am pointing out the radiative value changes only. Thermodynamics doesn't need to be calculated.

If I have a material that reflects 35% of a given set of radiative spectra, and I reduce the spectra by 1.7%, my material still reflects 35% of it.

If I have a material that absorbs 70% of of the spectra that goes through it, and I reduce the power of this spectra by 1.7%, 70% of what I throw at is still absorbed.

Do you dispute this?

[Wild Cobra]

I will ask you three stooges once again.

Does this make any sense to you?

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/graphics/EarthsEnergyBalance.png (http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/EarthsEnergyBalance.html)

All these values change with incoming solar energy. As you change the incoming solar energy, most the percentages of each path remain the same, as long as the other variables don't change.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm not throwing them out. I am pointing out the radiative value changes only. Thermodynamics doesn't need to be calculated.

If I have a material that reflects 35% of a given set of radiative spectra, and I reduce the spectra by 1.7%, my material still reflects 35% of it.

If I have a material that absorbs 70% of of the spectra that goes through it, and I reduce the power of this spectra by 1.7%, 70% of what I throw at is still absorbed.

Do you dispute this?

I dispute your ability to do math. Dr. Decimal Point.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I will ask you three stooges once again.

Does this make any sense to you?

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/graphics/EarthsEnergyBalance.png (http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/EarthsEnergyBalance.html)

All these values change with incoming solar energy. As you change the incoming solar energy, most the percentages of each path remain the same, as long as the other variables don't change.

smh

[Wild Cobra]

smh
Did your total failure hit you like a ton of bricks?

[MannyIsGod]

I will ask you three stooges once again.

Does this make any sense to you?

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/graphics/EarthsEnergyBalance.png (http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/EarthsEnergyBalance.html)

All these values change with incoming solar energy. As you change the incoming solar energy, most the percentages of each path remain the same, as long as the other variables don't change.

LOL WHY must they remain the same????

I can't wait to hear this argument.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm not throwing them out. I am pointing out the radiative value changes only. Thermodynamics doesn't need to be calculated.

If I have a material that reflects 35% of a given set of radiative spectra, and I reduce the spectra by 1.7%, my material still reflects 35% of it.

If I have a material that absorbs 70% of of the spectra that goes through it, and I reduce the power of this spectra by 1.7%, 70% of what I throw at is still absorbed.

Do you dispute this?

Uh, YES, I dispute this. This is exactly what Fuzzy is talking about. It is NOT linear. You are once again dumbing shit down to fit your simple understanding and its blatantly wrong. If this were the case we would not have ice ages on Earth from the mechanisms we do now.

[Agloco]

Agloco.
This dust cloud. Just how do you think it will alter the spectra enough to matter? It seems to me that it will reduce all wavelengths equally. Heat up some, and then radiate a very weak IR in all directions, including back to the sun. Not enough to worry about. How am I wrong here?

You have no idea if asteroid dust would uniformly absorb photons across that same spectrum.

And

We know that the contstituent materials of asteriods do not absorb uniformly across the solar spectrum.

A reasonable supposition, then, is that asteroid dust will likely not attenuate uniformly across the solar spectrum.

Now answer my question about the Stefan-Boltzmann formulation please. What is implicit in using the integrated form of Plancks Law, and why would it matter in the scenario I outlined.

I've basically walked you over to the dance floor, now it's time to see if you can waltz. The answer should be easy for you, seeing as it doesn't involve any decimals and such.

[TeyshaBlue]

btw...Ag. What the hell is that in your sig pic?

[Agloco]

btw...Ag. What the hell is that in your sig pic?

:lol

It's a warp core of course.......

Full of tropical fish. You can find it at the Radisson Blu in Berlin.

[TeyshaBlue]

I see. So the fish mediate the matter/anti-matter annihilation event. Very clever those Berliners!

[TeyshaBlue]

That hotel should haul ass!

[Agloco]

I see. So the fish mediate the matter/anti-matter annihilation event. Very clever those Berliners!

Spot on!!

It's positively hypnotic, especially at night with the ambient lighting they use. There's also an elevator that goes into the middle of it for an immersing experience. I didn;t think to ask if you could dive around in it though. Doubtful, but that would be over the top imo.

A scuba experience 1 mile from the Brandenburg Gate? Who would've thunk it?

[TeyshaBlue]

Spot on!!

It's positively hypnotic, especially at night with the ambient lighting they use. There's also an elevator that goes into the middle of it for an immersing experience. I didn;t think to ask if you could dive around in it though. Doubtful, but that would be over the top imo.

A scuba experience 1 mile from the Brandenburg Gate? Who would've thunk it?

I'm working on a couple of projects with a jazz guitarist from Berlin. I'm due a trip over there. That's definitely on my must see list if I get over there!

[RandomGuy]

Where's PoopDeck when you need him?

Quick someone start mentioning his list. I hear if you say it three times in front of a mirror by candle light, he appears and calls you out on logical fallacies.

[RandomGuy]

Because you keep acting like the phenomenon is linear when it's not.

You don't use the dumbed down version nor the linear version that you assert because you suck at thermodynamics.

(4πR2 ) σTe4 = (1 - a) πR2So

That is a simplified version. At least it tries to consider amongst other things, emissivity and boltzman's constant even if it simplifies the steady state using a disk.

Now where do you think you went wrong?


Nonlinear problems are of interest to engineers, physicists and mathematicians because most physical systems are inherently nonlinear in nature. Nonlinear equations are difficult to solve and give rise to interesting phenomena such as chaos.[1] Some aspects of the weather (although not the climate) are seen to be chaotic, where simple changes in one part of the system produce complex effects throughout. A nonlinear system is not random.

I hate the last sentence. Sue me.

[DarrinS]

This subject has fallen off my radar. Just don't care anymore.

[Latarian Milton]

college education has lost alot of credit over these years and i don't wanna give a flying fuck about that shit, but guys like WC always make me rethink about my attitude towards the relevance of education tbh

[MannyIsGod]

I honestly thought I knew a good bit about the climate system before starting my formal education process and while I did there were HUGE holes in the knowledge that I've gotten and I've seen huge holes in my understanding now that sadly haven't gotten filled. There's a lot of shit to understand and you can't simply extrapolate evenly when the systems react in multiple ways.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol

It's a warp core of course.......

Full of tropical fish. You can find it at the Radisson Blu in Berlin.

And we see the Cherenkov effect, right?

[Wild Cobra]

LOL WHY must they remain the same????

I can't wait to hear this argument.
Really? Is that a serious question? You should stop grasping at straws. I used terms like "near linear" "close to linear" etc.

Why would the absorption percentage change?

[Wild Cobra]

You have no idea if asteroid dust would uniformly absorb photons across that same spectrum.

And you are sure otherwise?

Tell me. How are small solid particles of rock going to change the spectra the earth sees from the sun?


We know that the contstituent materials of asteriods do not absorb uniformly across the solar spectrum.

It reflects what it doesn't absorb. It doesn't pass those reflected photons back to earth the same path received from the sun. Right?


A reasonable supposition, then, is that asteroid dust will likely not attenuate uniformly across the solar spectrum.

I disagree. Like I stated earlier, the variance will be very minor, in the manner of the heating up and emitting IR in all directions.


Now answer my question about the Stefan-Boltzmann formulation please. What is implicit in using the integrated form of Plancks Law, and why would it matter in the scenario I outlined.

I don't know, and it plays no significant effect in looking at the factors I am using. How is it going to effect for example, effect the the 324 watts/sq meter coming from the sun. 22.5% reflected by clouds, 8.8% reflected by the surface, 19.6% absorbed by the atmosphere, and 49.1% absorbed by the surface? Will it affect any on them by more than a fraction of a percent, and the article called for a 1.7% change. I see nothing relevant in going that deep into the formulas.

How do you think it applies here?

Again, I am looking at the total changes of the radiative forcing. Since the sun is the source of this energy, follow these paths. I am not looking at changes in temperature.


I've basically walked you over to the dance floor, now it's time to see if you can waltz. The answer should be easy for you, seeing as it doesn't involve any decimals and such.

You three stooges keep saying things that flat out do not matter except for more precise calculations than are needed.

[Wild Cobra]

Where's PoopDeck when you need him?

Quick someone start mentioning his list. I hear if you say it three times in front of a mirror by candle light, he appears and calls you out on logical fallacies.
Are you trying yo invoke him?

[MannyIsGod]

Really? Is that a serious question? You should stop grasping at straws. I used terms like "near linear" "close to linear" etc.

Why would the absorption percentage change?

You said most of those percentages don't change. Almost ALL of them change. I can't thing of one that would stay the same because of the fact that the form of water and the GHG content of the atmosphere is dependent on temperature. You keep trying to make things into some simple shit where you can extrapolate without actually doing any real math and that isn't the case. You've been told this time and time and time and time and time and time again yet you simply refuse to stop even though everyone telling you has far more experience with the subject than you ever will.

Why does the absorption change? Because the albedo might change for one. But further more you made a statement about the percentages of that image you've been posting which is fundamentally WRONG. How is the percentage of latent heat going to stay the same with a different amount of water vapor in the air when the amount of water vapor is an exponential [NOTE: NOT LINEAR] relationship with temperature? How is the albedo going to stay the same when most planetary albedo is from clouds and the clouds in the air is dependent on water vapor which is an exponential [ONCE AGAIN - NOT LINEAR] relationship with temperature? How are is the atmospheric window LW out going to change when CO2 changes with temperature and how much outgoing LW it absorbs is a logarithmic [NOT LINEAR - see a fucking trend here????] function?

I KNOW you used terms like near linear and close to linear and that's precisely why you're wrong you hard headed and ignorant dimwit.

[MannyIsGod]

And you are sure otherwise?

Tell me. How are small solid particles of rock going to change the spectra the earth sees from the sun?

It reflects what it doesn't absorb. It doesn't pass those reflected photons back to earth the same path received from the sun. Right?

I disagree. Like I stated earlier, the variance will be very minor, in the manner of the heating up and emitting IR in all directions.

I don't know, and it plays no significant effect in looking at the factors I am using. How is it going to effect for example, effect the the 324 watts/sq meter coming from the sun. 22.5% reflected by clouds, 8.8% reflected by the surface, 19.6% absorbed by the atmosphere, and 49.1% absorbed by the surface? Will it affect any on them by more than a fraction of a percent, and the article called for a 1.7% change. I see nothing relevant in going that deep into the formulas.

How do you think it applies here?

Again, I am looking at the total changes of the radiative forcing. Since the sun is the source of this energy, follow these paths. I am not looking at changes in temperature.

You three stooges keep saying things that flat out do not matter except for more precise calculations than are needed.

Someone explain to this fool why objects have different colors please then ask him to apply that simple idea to his stupid questions. LOL @ the 2nd part.

[MannyIsGod]

Note - none of this really has anything to do with global warming and everything to do with you're idiocy and inability to simply admit you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I'm not sure who you're trying to fool because I've not seen one person here with a background in understanding basic physics thinks you know a damn thing other than how to follow a diagram on which parts to replace and how to do it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The Earth is not biased, dimwit.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Let's see off the top of my head. Chemical changes, state changes, emissivity, albedo, solubility, and kinetic energy are all things that can change with temperature.

Does dumbass consider any of this in his Wiki image?

[Wild Cobra]

Why do you guys fail so miserably? The best we have is two significant digits. Only looking at a minor change under 2%. The factors that are nonlinear would result in changes less than two magnitudes difference. When the primary value changing is more than 300 and using a more refined math will change the results by under 1... Seriously. Just how much difference do you expext to see by using higher math? Maybe a third significant digit?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Note - none of this really has anything to do with global warming and everything to do with you're idiocy and inability to simply admit you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I'm not sure who you're trying to fool because I've not seen one person here with a background in understanding basic physics thinks you know a damn thing other than how to follow a diagram on which parts to replace and how to do it.

This is basically his limitation as regard to math. He can take a function, substitute numbers and get an output. The thing is he has no notion of the why or how of any of it. Instead he dumbs it down. At one point he admits that there are nonlinear feedbacks but then discounts them out of hand.

Really though reading through his shit I am just left astonished at the combination of stupidity and bias that he manifests. For example he admits that there are feedbacks but just discounts them out of hand acting like everything is just going to stay the same if 2% of solar radiation is blocked. this is obvious by statements like this gem:


I don't know, and it plays no significant effect in looking at the factors I am using. How is it going to effect for example, effect the the 324 watts/sq meter coming from the sun. 22.5% reflected by clouds, 8.8% reflected by the surface, 19.6% absorbed by the atmosphere, and 49.1% absorbed by the surface? Will it affect any on them by more than a fraction of a percent, and the article called for a 1.7% change. I see nothing relevant in going that deep into the formulas.

That he pulls directly from this:

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/graphics/EarthsEnergyBalance.png

and decides that those estimates have to not only be precise but static as well. I cannot tell which one is more dumb.

he keeps on babbling about 325 W/m but fails to consider how big the Earth is. No sense of scale. Its just more dumb and more dumb and more dumb all day long.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

5 * 1.24e14 is pretty big dumbass. The latter number is the surface integral of the dot product of the radial vector of the earth and the trajectory of the suns EM. You have no sense of scale but by all means talk about the 325 W/m2 some more.

[MannyIsGod]

Why do you guys fail so miserably? The best we have is two significant digits. Only looking at a minor change under 2%. The factors that are nonlinear would result in changes less than two magnitudes difference. When the primary value changing is more than 300 and using a more refined math will change the results by under 1... Seriously. Just how much difference do you expext to see by using higher math? Maybe a third significant digit?

Wrong. Tiny changes in insolation allocation - not even net insolation - result in huge changes in the climate system on earth. The signal for the 100k Milkanovich cycle is extremely small yet has amazingly large effects.

Just because you don't have the capability to conduct the calculations doesn't make them useless. The world does not begin and end with your knowledge (thank god for that - it truly would be a small world) so just give it up and just admit you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

[MannyIsGod]

Just stop replaying unless you're going to just acknowledge your ignorance. Every new post you type trying to somehow save face is just making it worse. Which considering how dumb posters here already consider you is, frankly, amazing.

[MannyIsGod]

Also, 2% of 300K is 6 deg C. Not exactly insignificant.

[ElNono]

college education has lost alot of credit over these years and i don't wanna give a flying fuck about that shit, but guys like WC always make me rethink about my attitude towards the relevance of education tbh

:lol

[Wild Cobra]

Wrong. Tiny changes in insolation allocation - not even net insolation - result in huge changes in the climate system on earth. The signal for the 100k Milkanovich cycle is extremely small yet has amazingly large effects.


Also, 2% of 300K is 6 deg C. Not exactly insignificant.
Are you trying to make my case?

My case is that a reduction of 1.7% is far more than what is needed to combat global warming. I have said that I have left out insignificant precision for two reasons. Primarily, they are insignificant. Second, that the majority of change would support my argument even more, and the simple number support it just fine.

Manny... Does the Mikanavich cycle exceed 1.7% in net insolation variation?

[Wild Cobra]

5 * 1.24e14 is pretty big dumbass. The latter number is the surface integral of the dot product of the radial vector of the earth and the trajectory of the suns EM. You have no sense of scale but by all means talk about the 325 W/m2 some more.
Another tangent that doesn't matter.

Go away troll.

[patricknapier]

If this dust falls to the earth...will it be possible to smoke it somehow?......It would be like some outerspace weed or cocaine

[Wild Cobra]

If this dust falls to the earth...will it be possible to smoke it somehow?......It would be like some outer space weed
No, but on a more serious note...

They were speaking of placing the asteroid the the L1 orbit between the sun and earth. I doubt the chances of anything falling to us are any greater than the meteors we already get.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ee/Lagrange_points2.svg/704px-Lagrange_points2.svg.png (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L1_Orbit)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I disagree. Like I stated earlier, the variance will be very minor, in the manner of the heating up and emitting IR in all directions.

I don't know, and it plays no significant effect in looking at the factors I am using. How is it going to effect for example, effect the the 324 watts/sq meter coming from the sun. 22.5% reflected by clouds, 8.8% reflected by the surface, 19.6% absorbed by the atmosphere, and 49.1% absorbed by the surface? Will it affect any on them by more than a fraction of a percent, and the article called for a 1.7% change. I see nothing relevant in going that deep into the formulas.

How do you think it applies here?

Again, I am looking at the total changes of the radiative forcing. Since the sun is the source of this energy, follow these paths. I am not looking at changes in temperature.

You three stooges keep saying things that flat out do not matter except for more precise calculations than are needed.

It directly applies to this statement. ie how the effect of 1.7% relates to total power.

i'm not talking about temperature, dipshit. It really should be obvious but I realize that you want to just stick to your dumbed down version.

[Wild Cobra]

Another problem with this idea of using a large asteroid to maintain a dust cloud.

NASA has four operational satellites in the L1 orbit it would interfere with.

[Wild Cobra]

It directly applies to this statement. ie how the effect of 1.7% relates to total power.

i'm not talking about temperature, dipshit. It really should be obvious but I realize that you want to just stick to your dumbed down version.
I'm not talking about calculating temperature either moron.

Please tell me. Which radiative function is far enough away from linear that it changes the total simple results more than say... 10%?

I say the total radiative forcing in the atmosphere will change from approximately 519 watts/sq meter to about 510 if we dim the solar energy to 97.3% of it's current value. A reduction of about 9 watts/sq meter. The calculation at +/- 10% error would be 7.94 to 9.71 watts/sq meter. Would these nonlinear variables make the change less than 7.94 watts/sq meter? I think not. Maybe it will make the change more than the 9.71 watt/sq meter change, because if I did work in the nonlinear variables more precise, I'm pretty certain they work in favor of my argument.

Same with the downward IR. The 324 goes decreases by 4.96 to 6.06 watts/square meter reduction if we have 98.3% of the incoming solar energy as we have now, and allow a 10% variation for using simple linear functions instead adding the nonlinear component. The IPCC claims we increased this forcing by 1.6 watts/sq meter and made about a 0.7 degree change. Do we really want to cool the earth by more than 2 degrees?

Manny is correct. A small change make a large change in radiative forcing and temperature.

Again, my claim is that the 1.7% reduction of solar energy is too much.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm not talking about calculating temperature either moron.

Please tell me. Which radiative function is far enough away from linear that it changes the total simple results more than say... 10%?

I say the total radiative forcing in the atmosphere will change from approximately 519 watts/sq meter to about 510 if we dim the solar energy to 97.3% of it's current value. A reduction of about 9 watts/sq meter. The calculation at +/- 10% error would be 7.94 to 9.71 watts/sq meter. Would these nonlinear variables make the change less than 7.94 watts/sq meter? I think not. Maybe it will make the change more than the 9.71 watt/sq meter change, because if I did work in the nonlinear variables more precise, I'm pretty certain they work in favor of my argument.

Same with the downward IR. The 324 goes decreases by 4.96 to 6.06 watts/square meter reduction if we have 98.3% of the incoming solar energy as we have now, and allow a 10% variation for using simple linear functions instead adding the nonlinear component. The IPCC claims we increased this forcing by 1.6 watts/sq meter and made about a 0.7 degree change. Do we really want to cool the earth by more than 2 degrees?

Manny is correct. A small change make a large change in radiative forcing and temperature.

Again, my claim is that the 1.7% reduction of solar energy is too much.

You think the IPCC estimates are linear I see. This is where Manny telling you that you don't know what the hell you are talking about comes in.

I also like how you are distancing yourself from


How is it going to effect for example, effect the the 324 watts/sq meter coming from the sun. 22.5% reflected by clouds, 8.8% reflected by the surface, 19.6% absorbed by the atmosphere, and 49.1% absorbed by the surface? Will it affect any on them by more than a fraction of a percent, and the article called for a 1.7% change. I see nothing relevant in going that deep into the formulas.

YOU

ARE

DUMB

[FuzzyLumpkins]

With that much less total wattage how in the hell do you figure that it wouldn't impact those testy linear operations. You don't even know what they are so I fail to see how you can possibly claim they can be discounted anyway. Wishful thinking and stupidity are the WC way.

[Wild Cobra]

You think the IPCC estimates are linear I see.
Will you ever stop being wrong?
I never said or implied that. In fact I specifically implied otherwise when i pointed out changes in greenhouse gas concentrations have a primarily logarithmic response.

This is where Manny telling you that you don't know what the hell you are talking about comes in.

I know just fine what I am talking about. I am saying that when you change in source power to the climate system, the total change is close to linear in power levels. Temperatures definitely are not linear to changes in power levels.

This biggest nonlinear component is probably water vapor. These changes will work in my favor if calculating them with their proper nonlinear response.

Clouds, work both ways. They increase trapped heat, but increase reflected solar energy too. Hard to say which effect is greater, but it is still a small factor.

The bottom line, once again, is the most significant changes in power are nearly linear to the source power.

[Wild Cobra]

I also like how you are distancing yourself from

How is it going to effect for example, effect the the 324 watts/sq meter coming from the sun. 22.5% reflected by clouds, 8.8% reflected by the surface, 19.6% absorbed by the atmosphere, and 49.1% absorbed by the surface? Will it affect any on them by more than a fraction of a percent, and the article called for a 1.7% change. I see nothing relevant in going that deep into the formulas.

I'm not distancing myself from that. How do you figure?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The 324 goes decreases by 4.96 to 6.06 watts/square meter reduction if we have 98.3% of the incoming solar energy as we have now, and allow a 10% variation for using simple linear functions instead adding the nonlinear component. The IPCC claims we increased this forcing by 1.6 watts/sq meter and made about a 0.7 degree change. Do we really want to cool the earth by more than 2 degrees?

So you bring them up sequentially and then use a linear estimate based on the IPCC value.

if the IPCC claimed .7 degrees per 1.6 watts. You took that low value of 5 and used the same rate of change and came up with 2.1 degree change. It's blatantly fucking obvious in this case its y = 3.1x. You think the IPCC measurements are based on a linear function or approximation. I would ask you to substantiate that but seeing how we have asked you to post the functions you are using and you don't ever do so it's pretty obvious taht you are talking out of your ass any way.

:lol close to linear

YOU

ARE

DUMB

AND

DISSEMBLING

Further total power is neither linear, nonlinear or anything else inherently. if you change the power output you change the power output. Your conceptualization is just ignorant bullshit. Close to linear? Are you saying that its not linear in actuality but in this part of the range it approximates it? Again I would ask you to substantiate this but ..... fuck it nm

Seriously just stop.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm not distancing myself from that. How do you figure?

so you stand by that still?

Wait why am I even asking? Wishful thinking and stupidity are the WC way.

[MannyIsGod]

Are you trying to make my case?

My case is that a reduction of 1.7% is far more than what is needed to combat global warming. I have said that I have left out insignificant precision for two reasons. Primarily, they are insignificant. Second, that the majority of change would support my argument even more, and the simple number support it just fine.

Manny... Does the Mikanavich cycle exceed 1.7% in net insolation variation?

Once again you prove you don't know what you're talking about. 1.7% would not send us into an ice age unless it was properly distributed. You have left out SIGNIFICANT precision because you have no idea how to proceed. You don't know what to calculate so why do you keep acting like you do? Your case is fucking stupid.

[MannyIsGod]

You just can't stop WC. Every time you try to post something its wrong. Every fucking time. Yet you just can't stop posting.

[TeyshaBlue]

My amusement by this thread is close to linear.

[TeyshaBlue]

I don't even know what that means.

[TeyshaBlue]

My God! I must be WC!

[TeyshaBlue]

Motherfucking hat trick!

[Wild Cobra]

1.7% would not send us into an ice age unless it was properly distributed.
No Shit Sherlock.

Care to continue being the master of the obvious?

[MannyIsGod]

As opposed to your mastery of being oblivious? Do you enjoy being a laughing stock?

[MannyIsGod]

LOL @ "none of you can prove me wrong" "precise calculations are unnecessary" "orders of magnitude"

[Wild Cobra]

Tell me Manny.

Do you think 1.7% is a proper percentage to black the sun?

How much of an effect do you think it would have on our climate system?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

In this feedback system, and yes, greenhouse gas forcing is technically a feedback system... the amplified effect is proportional to the source, being the sun. When you reduce this 325 watts/square meter to 98.3%, then it is now about 319 watts/sq meter. A reduction of 6 watts/square meter, which puts us far less than any anthropogenic forcing adds.

which is it going to be asshole? Now you are not just dumb but a lying sack of shit.

You switched your position now its become obvious that you are completely clueless and are trying the bait and switch.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Are you trying to make my case?

My case is that a reduction of 1.7% is far more than what is needed to combat global warming. I have said that I have left out insignificant precision for two reasons. Primarily, they are insignificant. Second, that the majority of change would support my argument even more, and the simple number support it just fine.

Manny... Does the Mikanavich cycle exceed 1.7% in net insolation variation?

Compare and contrast.

[mouse]

Agloco 5

Wild Cobra 12

FuzzyLumpkins 8

MannyIsGod 4

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Mouse backing the Cobra? Say it ain't so.

How you living, man?

[mouse]

Agloco 5

Wild Cobra 12

FuzzyLumpkins 9

MannyIsGod 4

[Wild Cobra]

You switched your position now its become obvious that you are completely clueless and are trying the bait and switch.
I have not switched my position. If we decrease the radiative forcing by 6 watts/sq meter, then that is almost 4 times more than what we have increased it by. This puts our total forcing at a lower level than before any anthropogenic warming.

If we go by the IPCC:

Start 1750... 0 net forcing. Anthropogenic warming 1.6 watts/sq meter. If we assume the dust reduces forcing by 6 watts/sq meter, then we end up with 4.4 watts/sq meter less forcing than in the er was before industrialization. (0 +1.6 - 6 = -4.4).

[Wild Cobra]

Manny... Does the Mikanavich cycle exceed 1.7% in net insolation variation?


Once again you prove you don't know what you're talking about. 1.7% would not send us into an ice age unless it was properly distributed.
I guess you were to clueless too answer my question. All you had to do was say yes. I didn't know, but figured it did. It appears the cycle peaks are about +/- 8% of average for 65N insolation.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

My case is that a reduction of 1.7% is far more than what is needed to combat global warming.


A reduction of 6 watts/square meter, which puts us far less than any anthropogenic forcing adds.

FClGhto1vIg ueZ6tvqhk8U

[MannyIsGod]

I guess you were to clueless too answer my question. All you had to do was say yes. I didn't know, but figured it did. It appears the cycle peaks are about +/- 8% of average for 65N insolation.

Is the entire globe located at the 65N line of latitude? No? Ok. Once again you manage to show your idiocy. I know you didn't know because you don't know shit. Keep digging.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Anthropogenic warming 1.6 watts/sq meter.

What is your basis for this claim?

[Wild Cobra]

Yes...

In your first quote, I'm saying 1.7% is more of a reduction than needed.

In the second, I am saying that the 6 watt/sq meter of cooling puts us at a lower total radiative forcing than before anthropogenic warming... Puts us at a "lesser" radiative forcing level than what anthropogenic warming "added."

Don't you know how to read?

[Wild Cobra]

Is the entire globe located at the 65N line of latitude? No? Ok. Once again you manage to show your idiocy. I know you didn't know because you don't know shit. Keep digging.
Keep throwing this shitty assumptions, instead of adding value.

[Wild Cobra]

What is your basis for this claim?
Ever read the IPCC AR4?

I disagree with this number, but that is what the AGW Alarmist Bible says.

[Wild Cobra]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the bar that says "Total Net Anthropogenic" is at 1.6.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/2007AR4TSRadiativeForcing.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yes...

In your first quote, I'm saying 1.7% is more of a reduction than needed.

In the second, I am saying that the 6 watt/sq meter of cooling puts us at a lower total radiative forcing than before anthropogenic warming... Puts us at a "lesser" radiative forcing level than what anthropogenic warming "added."

Don't you know how to read?

Don't you know how to write?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Ever read the IPCC AR4?

I disagree with this number, but that is what the AGW Alarmist Bible says.

If you disagree with the number then why are you citing it? Don't you know how to argue?

[Wild Cobra]

If you disagree with the number then why are you citing it? Don't you know how to argue?
Yes, I know how to argue, and part of that is using the oppositions material against them.

[Wild Cobra]

Is the entire globe located at the 65N line of latitude? No? Ok. Once again you manage to show your idiocy. I know you didn't know because you don't know shit. Keep digging.
I guess you would never be smart enough to understand where I was going to go with what I was going to say next. I see that since you are incapable of an actual debate, instead, you keep pounding away with shittalk.

let me know if you would actually like to debate.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yes, I know how to argue, and part of that is using the oppositions material against them.

Your using that as the basis of an argument. You are saying that the scientists that are proposing the asteroid thing are incorrect on the basis of something that IPCC said. You are saying that IPCC is right. You aren't arguing about IPCC or their conclusions. You are using their conclusions as the basis for your argument.

So do you believe in the numbers that IPCC gives or are you just talking out of your ass?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I guess you would never be smart enough to understand where I was going to go with what I was going to say next. I see that since you are incapable of an actual debate, instead, you keep pounding away with shittalk.

let me know if you would actually like to debate.

So let me get this straight.

1) You say something stupid and oversiplified :lol 65N
2) You are called on your stupidity
3) You say that you were going to say something else and he should have anticipated it
4) You don't say shit.

That's a pretty stupid train of thought you have going on there.

[Wild Cobra]

So do you believe in the numbers that IPCC gives or are you just talking out of your ass?
I believe the number. I just don't believe it is all anthropogenic, but that much of it is natural.

[Wild Cobra]

So let me get this straight.

1) You say something stupid and oversiplified :lol 65N
2) You are called on your stupidity
3) You say that you were going to say something else and he should have anticipated it
4) You don't say shit.

That's a pretty stupid train of thought you have going on there.
You have no clue what my train of though is, so it is so fucking laughable that you are arguing against a point I have not yet made. That was a first question of a multiple question game I was going to play with Manny, but he was too stupid to answer the first. You are too, so I won't bother. I'll just say this. When 65N is +8%, what is 65S?

[mouse]

Agloco 5

Wild Cobra 18

FuzzyLumpkins 13

MannyIsGod 5

[MannyIsGod]

Lol

[Wild Cobra]

Lol
Laughing at what you don't understand by chance?

How is 65S different than 65N?

Do you know?

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

Are you serious? Coming from the guy who couldn't figure out how the north pole and the south pole are different? Are you honestly thinking you know more about any earth science than I do, WC?

Shit man, this forum is great for a laugh. Look how hard you try to get acceptance WC.

[Wild Cobra]

Always the clown, aren't you Manny.

Evasive... Never answering the question, only focusing on finding fault. I guess that means you don't know.

[Latarian Milton]

:lmao

Are you serious? Coming from the guy who couldn't figure out how the north pole and the south pole are different? Are you honestly thinking you know more about any earth science than I do, WC?

Shit man, this forum is great for a laugh. Look how hard you try to get acceptance WC.
at least he knows how to put his words in a sentence that makes some sense despite not having a college degree.

[MannyIsGod]

Always the clown, aren't you Manny.

Evasive... Never answering the question, only focusing on finding fault. I guess that means you don't know.

Yeah WC. I don't know. Please, teach me. I'm eagerly awaiting. Thanks in advance.

[Wild Cobra]

Yeah WC. I don't know. Please, teach me. I'm eagerly awaiting. Thanks in advance.
First tell me. When the 65N insolation is 8% higher than average, what is the 65S insolation, or do you not know?

[DMC]

WC, the reason you get bitten around the ankles is that you keep wading into waters you are not familiar with, and you are not sharing your knowledge but doing on the fly internet searches and trying to hit the respond button on Spurstalk Jeopardy before anyone else does. Anyone here can Google and reword shit, that's just filler material that doesn't lead to a productive discussion since you cannot expound on it without further digging.

There are some things you just don't know, but you seem to lack the ability to ever admit it, thus your sore ankles.

Also, no matter the authority, you pretend to know better. I saw you once tell Kori that her lifetime experience with Muslim women is inaccurate, that you know more about it. You did that after she revealed to you how she knew what she was saying was true and you did so in a "Yabut" way. You're basically ST Cliff Claven.

[MannyIsGod]

First tell me. When the 65N insolation is 8% higher than average, what is the 65S insolation, or do you not know?

Fuck if I know. Teach me.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

As an aside, do you know how to determine the question you are asking with precision using simple vector multiplication? We all can look at a chart and act like we know what symmetry implies but do you know how to figure it out on your own?

Don't just teach Manny. I want to learn more about your staggering intellect.

[TeyshaBlue]

WC, the reason you get bitten around the ankles is that you keep wading into waters you are not familiar with, and you are not sharing your knowledge but doing on the fly internet searches and trying to hit the respond button on Spurstalk Jeopardy before anyone else does. Anyone here can Google and reword shit, that's just filler material that doesn't lead to a productive discussion since you cannot expound on it without further digging.

There are some things you just don't know, but you seem to lack the ability to ever admit it, thus your sore ankles.

Also, no matter the authority, you pretend to know better. I saw you once tell Kori that her lifetime experience with Muslim women is inaccurate, that you know more about it. You did that after she revealed to you how she knew what she was saying was true and you did so in a "Yabut" way. You're basically ST Cliff Claven.

Spurstalk Jeopardy.:lmao:lmao

[ElNono]

4003xkcTJmI

[Wild Cobra]

Fuck if I know. Teach me.
Seriously?

You don't know but you will speak of the little radiative 65N forcing that triggers the ice ages and/or coming out of them?

65S will have the opposite forcing as 65N. Not exactly the same solar value, but close, and the global value is definitely under 2%. Probably less than 1%. Thing is, 65N is primarily over land, where 65S is primarily over water.

[DMC]

Seriously?

You don't know but you will speak of the little radiative 65N forcing that triggers the ice ages and/or coming out of them?

65S will have the opposite forcing as 65N. Not exactly the same solar value, but close, and the global value is definitely under 2%. Probably less than 1%. Thing is, 65N is primarily over land, where 65S is primarily over water.
lol for some reason I imagine you sitting in a maintenance shop regaling ex-Navy ETs with tales of higher learning and not being invited to dinner.

[Wild Cobra]

lol for some reason I imagine you sitting in a maintenance shop regaling ex-Navy ETs with tales of higher learning and not being invited to dinner.
Why do you fantasize about me?

Yeeewww....

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Seriously?

You don't know but you will speak of the little radiative 65N forcing that triggers the ice ages and/or coming out of them?

65S will have the opposite forcing as 65N. Not exactly the same solar value, but close, and the global value is definitely under 2%. Probably less than 1%. Thing is, 65N is primarily over land, where 65S is primarily over water.

Like i said, pretend to understand what symmetry implies. And the heat transfer of ocean is now analogous to land.

Staggering I tell you. Staggering.

[Wild Cobra]

Like i said, pretend to understand what symmetry implies. And the heat transfer of ocean is now analogous to land.

Staggering I tell you. Staggering.
It is completely different. You are proving yourself stupid again for thinking I think otherwise. You have no idea where I am going with what I said, instead, in your single move at a time chess game, you are clueless. I think several moves in advance.

Thing is, 65N is primarily over land, where 65S is primarily over water.
Doesn't this imply I see a difference, or are you too lame to notice?

[Wild Cobra]

Fuzzy.

I suggest you stay out of this topic.

You are clearly under equipped in the mental department.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How about you tell us where you are going with this since the complexities are so beyond me. It should be fun. Another page of about a dozen people telling you are an idiot and you keep coming.

Go Robot Go!

[Wild Cobra]

How about you tell us where you are going with this since the complexities are so beyond me. It should be fun. Another page of about a dozen people telling you are an idiot and you keep coming.

Go Robot Go!
If you think you know, you tell me.

[MannyIsGod]

Seriously?

You don't know but you will speak of the little radiative 65N forcing that triggers the ice ages and/or coming out of them?

65S will have the opposite forcing as 65N. Not exactly the same solar value, but close, and the global value is definitely under 2%. Probably less than 1%. Thing is, 65N is primarily over land, where 65S is primarily over water.

Would you mind teaching me the mechanisms for these effects?

[Wild Cobra]

Would you mind teaching me the mechanisms for these effects?
Would you agree that the mechanism is different than reducing all solar power to the earth?

You make the claim that a small change makes the difference. The net change of the earth is really minor using the max at 65N. It is not the whole earth. You even pointed that out, but I wonder if you understand since you brought it up. Besides, I don't consider 8% a small amount. Do you?

How much of a small change at the solar irradiance level, globally, do you think it would take to start an ice age trigger? The Mikanavich cycle is completely different and doesn't apply, since the peak is about 8%, but the global net is near zero...

[MannyIsGod]

Would you mind teaching me the mechanisms by how these effects work? Thanks

[Wild Cobra]

Would you mind teaching me the mechanisms by how these effects work? Thanks
Not going to waste my time. You don't answer my questions. It doesn't matter for this discussion of how 1.7% affects the earth, and all you are doing is hoping I make a small mistake you can capitalize on.

[MannyIsGod]

You can just say you don't know if you don't know.

[Agloco]

You can just say you don't know if you don't know.

Yeah......no he can't.

[MannyIsGod]

The local net change to annual solar insolation is pretty much zero due to the Milkanovich cycle. The global change is zero, but you have said nothing about the temporal distribution which is zero and is far more important. If the SH was getting more insolation for the entire year it would store far more heat than the NH would lose due to the high high storage in the oceans and you would see a much different system because of this. You obviously do not understand this. Its the SEASONAL CHANGE. Ice ages form by making winters relatively WARMER and allowing more precipitation and by making Summers COOLER which results in less melt. You don't seem to understand that there is no reduction in overall annual insolation because you don't have any understanding of the fundamental workings of these things and instead think you will somehow know more than people here by googling your way to answers. Thats way you can't explain things.

Warmer air in the winter is able to hold more water vapor and thereby allows for greater precipitation amounts. Lower temperatures in the summer then changes the amount of melt and you have a net gain in ice over the NH hemisphere. Over thousands of years this builds the large ice sheets. These can't form over the SH because of the lack of land surface. You mentioned the SH lack of land but you didn't place it in any context because you lack the fundemental understanding of the system necessary to do so. LOL you've also displayed your lack of understanding of just what an ice sheet is before on this forum.

Triggering an ice age takes thousands of years because it takes a long ass time to build up the ice sheets that give them their name. You don't understand this. It also takes an increase in winter temps for increase precipitation or you wait even longer until ice sheets form or large sea ice formations take hold. I have tried to tell you time and time and time again that its not bout a simple reduction in insolation that is needed to trigger an ice age but how you distribute that insolation TEMPORALLY AND SPATIALLY.

So would we be in danger of n ice age being triggered by the dust? No, you hard headed imbecile. Instead of trying to google your way to a superficial understanding of the what is happening why don't you actually try to learn for once. You can't even say "I don't know". God damn.

[Wild Cobra]

You are the imbicel. Believe it or not, I understand all of what you said. Why are you so hard headed as not to remember me saying something, and specifically already pointing to it in post 183.

Go back and look at my words. I made a guess it could cause an ice age before I ran the numbers. Saying "I think" was allowing that I could be wrong about that.

The amount of percentage they speak of would put us into an ice age I think.
After that, I said it probably couldn't.

Now it probably isn't enough to take up to an ice age, I didn't do any math before making that statement.
Why can't you ankle biters let go?

Yes, I understand ice on land, colder on land, higher precipitation, etc. You example of taking any little bit you can for a false victory is frustrating, that's why I didn't want to make a single misstatement. Like a stupid ankle biter, you stick with that misstatement about ice sheets, that have been corrected. You are incapable of overcoming your arrogance. I can just see it when you disagree with a colleague at work, treating them like you do me, when you are completely miss what they are saying. That should go over well.

Back to what I have stuck with.

Do you think 1.7% is the right amount or not.

[Wild Cobra]

Yeah......no he can't.


Not going to waste my time. You don't answer my questions. It doesn't matter for this discussion of how 1.7% affects the earth, and all you are doing is hoping I make a small mistake you can capitalize on.
People like Manny and Fuzzy bring back past misstatements and past improper terminology and fail to acknowledge when someone corrected themselves. Are you going to continue to be the third stooge?

Now how do you think the 1.7% will affect the earth?

[MannyIsGod]

I bet it is VERY frustrating that you keep making mistakes that you then get called on. You should take that as a lesson not to talk out of your ass. Its not MY fault you say incorrect shit all the time. Its yours.

[Wild Cobra]

I bet it is VERY frustrating that you keep making mistakes that you then get called on. You should take that as a lesson not to talk out of your ass. Its not MY fault you say incorrect shit all the time. Its yours.
No, what is frustrating is that when the mistake is corrected, you still go back to it. You also make up mistakes not made, by assuming something that isn't. Remember the 600ppm level brought up when the last ice age started, and you said no it didn't happen when the CO2 was rising? That wasn't said. That was your assumption of what I think DarrinS. said. His arrtile linked said it dropped to 600 ppm. You said he was wrong, then later said the ice age started wen it dropped from over 700 ppm to 600 yourself. Again, he never claimed it was rising. You assumed wrong, and attacked him for it.

You fuckers do that repeatedly.

I don't keep bringing up past mistakes that are corrected. How many of yours could I keep on file if I was as much an asshole as you are?

Do you have an opinion of the 1.7% or not?

[MannyIsGod]

I don't remember that. Find a link, IMO.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't remember that. Find a link, IMO.
Start here (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163637&p=5634211&viewfull=1#post5634211).

[Wild Cobra]

Another trait you and Fuzzy have...

You always sidestep a question of relevance.

What do you think of the 1.7% reduction?

[Wild Cobra]

Manny...

You have agreed that the Milankovitch Cycle effectively has no net change in the suns radiative forcing. What might 1.7% do? It probably wouldn't take up to an ice age event, but how much colder would the entire earth get?

[Latarian Milton]

hey WC i have a serious question to ask, what's the mysterious force do you think that keeps the continents moving northwards? haven't found any solid answer after reading through all books & articles i could found, but i suppose you can enlighten me on this one as you're such a professor in every known subject which must include geology and whatever shit that may help explain it imho

[Wild Cobra]

hey WC i have a serious question to ask, what's the mysterious force do you think that keeps the continents moving northwards? haven't found any solid answer after reading through all books & articles i could found, but i suppose you can enlighten me on this one as you're such a professor in every known subject which must include geology and whatever shit that may help explain it imho
I don't know and I don't care.

You know, I had you on ignore for probably 3 years. I finally just took everyone off my ignore list a few months ago. Maybe I should restore it?

Serious question, my ass.

[Latarian Milton]

seriously though i've been pondering this shit for years and i kinda agree with you that there're so many false stuffs on the internet that ain't worth a shit. so im asking this question in all honesty

[Wild Cobra]

seriously though i've been pondering this shit for years and i kinda agree with you that there're so many false stuffs on the internet that ain't worth a shit. so im asking this question in all honesty
Well, I don't know. I haven't looked at tectonic plate movement for a very long time, and I don't remember contemplating such things. The moon is probably the largest contributor though.

[Latarian Milton]

im not sure, the moon might be a factor but i don't think it makes that much impact like tides tbh. it's the spinning motion of the earth itself that generates the force pointing northward, and it's a similar force that gives an UFO (flying saucer) the upthrust and propellant imho. the speed of earth's spinning has been decreasing since the beginning of time, and the loss of energy was used mainly in the crusts' motions towards the north imho

[Wild Cobra]

im not sure, the moon might be a factor but i don't think it makes that much impact like tides tbh. it's the spinning motion of the earth itself that generates the force pointing northward, and it's a similar force that gives an UFO (flying saucer) the upthrust and propellant imho. the speed of earth's spinning has been decreasing since the beginning of time, and the loss of energy was used mainly in the crusts' motions towards the north imho
The moon acts on the magma much like it does the tidal waters. I suggest you rethink your UFO analogy. I don't place any merit in it. Maybe others do.

Why would the spinning move continents north rather than south? Maybe we are upside down... Maybe your theory is right for Antarctica...

[MannyIsGod]

Start here (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163637&p=5634211&viewfull=1#post5634211).

And nothing in that thread says what you said. Link me to the specific quote. Thanks.

[MannyIsGod]

Manny...

You have agreed that the Milankovitch Cycle effectively has no net change in the suns radiative forcing. What might 1.7% do? It probably wouldn't take up to an ice age event, but how much colder would the entire earth get?

Read the study in question. What do the scientists say? See, its good when you realize that you're wrong.

[mouse]

Wild Cobra 28

FuzzyLumpkins 23

MannyIsGod 11

Agloco 8



__________________

[Wild Cobra]

Read the study in question. What do the scientists say? See, its good when you realize that you're wrong.
What am I wrong about?

All I am saying is that blocking the sun by 1.7% is much more cooling than we need to combat the warming.

[mouse]

The mere fact that we still have asteroids is further proof the solar system is not "12 Billion" years old.

[Wild Cobra]

The mere fact that we still have asteroids is further proof the solar system is not "12 Billion" years old.
Sorry, but I disagree.

[mouse]

That is your right as an American to be misinformed.

[Latarian Milton]

The moon acts on the magma much like it does the tidal waters. I suggest you rethink your UFO analogy. I don't place any merit in it. Maybe others do.

Why would the spinning move continents north rather than south? Maybe we are upside down... Maybe your theory is right for Antarctica...
the first land on the earth appeared where today's antarctica is, i think that was after water moved northward and left the seabed exposed in air. antarctica is still the highest continent as to this day by altitude imho. also you know there's a big hole in the ozone layer over the antarctica (the south pole) but you don't see a similar one north, because the atmosphere of the southern half of the globe is thinner than that of the northern half at similar latitudes imho.

the angular momentum of the earth's spinning points towards the north no matter from what direction it's viewed, and i do believe that vector multiplication is taught in most high schools tbh

[Wild Cobra]

Wild Cobra 28

FuzzyLumpkins 23

MannyIsGod 11

Agloco 8



__________________
Mouse...

You have me baffled with your point system. Is there any rhyme or reason to it?

[Wild Cobra]

the first land on the earth appeared where today's antarctica is, i think that was after water moved northward and left the seabed exposed in air. antarctica is still the highest continent as to this day by altitude imho. also you know there's a big hole in the ozone layer over the antarctica (the south pole) but you don't see a similar one north, because the atmosphere of the southern half of the globe is thinner than that of the northern half at similar latitudes imho.

the angular momentum of the earth's spinning points towards the north no matter from what direction it's viewed, and i do believe that vector multiplication is taught in most high schools tbh
You might like this:

MHlAJ7vySC8

[Agloco]

The mere fact that we still have asteroids is further proof the solar system is not "12 Billion" years old.

Care to share what proof is given by their presence mouse?

[MannyIsGod]

What am I wrong about?

All I am saying is that blocking the sun by 1.7% is much more cooling than we need to combat the warming.

LOL and you came to this conclusion based on your calculations right? LOL

Who do you think knows more about the climate system: You or the scientists with the idea?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

im not sure, the moon might be a factor but i don't think it makes that much impact like tides tbh. it's the spinning motion of the earth itself that generates the force pointing northward, and it's a similar force that gives an UFO (flying saucer) the upthrust and propellant imho. the speed of earth's spinning has been decreasing since the beginning of time, and the loss of energy was used mainly in the crusts' motions towards the north imho


The moon acts on the magma much like it does the tidal waters. I suggest you rethink your UFO analogy. I don't place any merit in it. Maybe others do.

Why would the spinning move continents north rather than south? Maybe we are upside down... Maybe your theory is right for Antarctica...

:lol:rollin:lmao:lmao:rollin:lol

Thanks LM. He knows your trolling him but he cannot help himself. Autism spectrum ftw!

[Agloco]

People like Manny and Fuzzy bring back past misstatements and past improper terminology and fail to acknowledge when someone corrected themselves. Are you going to continue to be the third stooge?

Now how do you think the 1.7% will affect the earth?

I'm sorry that you can't see past this figure and take a step back. There is a spectral perturbation that takes place long before any of this energy reaches the planet. Youre not considering the implications properly.

[DMX7]

That is your right as an American to be misinformed.

It's your right to be a paranoid conspiracy theorizing lunatic.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm sorry that you can't see past this figure and take a step back. There is a spectral perturbation that takes place long before any of this energy reaches the planet. Youre not considering the implications properly.
Please explain then. What don't I see? I know the spectrum will lean very slightly to the infrared, and I assume to an insignificant degree. If there is more than that, what is it? Are you saying the "knife edge effect" works with stellar dust being selective of spectra? Is is something else?

[Wild Cobra]

LOL and you came to this conclusion based on your calculations right? LOL

Who do you think knows more about the climate system: You or the scientists with the idea?
You already know I don't trust the way climate science is being taught.

Humor me. What do you think a 1.7% reduction of solar energy hitting the earth will do?

[Wild Cobra]

:lol:rollin:lmao:lmao:rollin:lol

Thanks LM. He knows your trolling him but he cannot help himself. Autism spectrum ftw!
Do you consider, or fail to consider my blue text?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sure thing tectonic magma boy.

[MannyIsGod]

You already know I don't trust the way climate science is being taught.

Humor me. What do you think a 1.7% reduction of solar energy hitting the earth will do?

So you do think that you know more than them?

[Agloco]

Please explain then. What don't I see? I know the spectrum will lean very slightly to the infrared, and I assume to an insignificant degree. If there is more than that, what is it? Are you saying the "knife edge effect" works with stellar dust being selective of spectra? Is is something else?

Where it will lean and how much isn't really my argument. Apparently my point flew over your head. My beef was specifically with the way you assumed that this research group used a formalism reserved for blackbodies in equilibrium. You then proceed to go down the same rabbit hole to establish your "misplaced decimal" claim.

I simply pointed out that there are spectral perturbations which will definitely lead to discontinuities in the spectrum seen on earth. Stefan-Boltzmann is a definite integration of Plancks Law across all spectral frequencies and assumes no discontinuities. Additionally, it's not as simple as breaking the resulting spectrum down into separate expressions as those discontinuities must be dealt with differently at their respective limits. This is an immediately obvious issue, even to a physicist who studies these things just for fun. I'm quite certain that the research group didn't overlook it either.

To answer your question about "knife edge effects": I assume you mean edge diffraction? We may neglect this effect for A) Sufficiently small particles (ie dust) and B) We don't have a point source of photons. The sun isn't distant enough. In the lab, we'd use lasers which are narrowly diverging, with thin slits or objects to demonstrate those constructive and destructive patterns.

Back to your original statement about causing an ice age then, it was sufficient to demonstrate that you used an invalid formulation to base your assumptions on. Your initial question should be, will the absorptive spectrum of asteroid dust overlap to an appreciable extent with those things which absorb in earths atmosphere? Now you'd be heading down the correct path. Don't forget that the overall attenuation will play into this as well. Working out the specific numbers would require data on asteroid dust attenuation. I won't pretend to know if that exists, but I'd think that would be a good place to start.

You didn't follow any of that and instead got mad and defensive when I started asking questions. You seemed to follow along in the other thread, but not this one for some reason.

[MannyIsGod]

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/node/198

Getting a close approximation of the effects really isn't very hard. Contrary to WC's assertions these calculations are 4th power equations at this basic level. Obviously when you want to model the actual affects on the atmosphere you have take many more variables into account but the basic temp of the earth is directly related to the amount of solar radiation it absorbs.

[Wild Cobra]

Where it will lean and how much isn't really my argument. Apparently my point flew over your head. My beef was specifically with the way you assumed that this research group used a formalism reserved for blackbodies in equilibrium. You then proceed to go down the same rabbit hole to establish your "misplaced decimal" claim.

I simply pointed out that there are spectral perturbations which will definitely lead to discontinuities in the spectrum seen on earth. Stefan-Boltzmann is a definite integration of Plancks Law across all spectral frequencies and assumes no discontinuities. Additionally, it's not as simple as breaking the resulting spectrum down into separate expressions as those discontinuities must be dealt with differently at their respective limits. This is an immediately obvious issue, even to a physicist who studies these things just for fun. I'm quite certain that the research group didn't overlook it either.

To answer your question about "knife edge effects": I assume you mean edge diffraction? We may neglect this effect for A) Sufficiently small particles (ie dust) and B) We don't have a point source of photons. The sun isn't distant enough. In the lab, we'd use lasers which are narrowly diverging, with thin slits or objects to demonstrate those constructive and destructive patterns.

Back to your original statement about causing an ice age then, it was sufficient to demonstrate that you used an invalid formulation to base your assumptions on. Your initial question should be, will the absorptive spectrum of asteroid dust overlap to an appreciable extent with those things which absorb in earths atmosphere? Now you'd be heading down the correct path. Don't forget that the overall attenuation will play into this as well. Working out the specific numbers would require data on asteroid dust attenuation. I won't pretend to know if that exists, but I'd think that would be a good place to start.

You didn't follow any of that and instead got mad and defensive when I started asking questions. You seemed to follow along in the other thread, but not this one for some reason.
Oh my god. Really?

I am not assuming anything you assumed I did.

Again, what you say in your initial paragraph was two thoughts of what they might be doing. Not what they did. I have distanced myself from that after I did some math. How many times must I say that? Wasn't the first time enough for you guys? Why do you guys latch on what I said before I corrected myself, and run with that as being wrong, after I say it isn't my argument?

Their idea is an asteroid that will hols a dist cloud large enough to reduce the incoming sunlight by 1.7%. My claim is nothing more than saying 1.7% is much more than what is needed.

[Wild Cobra]

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/node/198

Getting a close approximation of the effects really isn't very hard. Contrary to WC's assertions these calculations are 4th power equations at this basic level. Obviously when you want to model the actual affects on the atmosphere you have take many more variables into account but the basic temp of the earth is directly related to the amount of solar radiation it absorbs.
I didn't say they didn't have such a property, I said the end change in radiative forcing is more linear.

Any change in the physical surface temperature increases with ^0.25 in respect to downward power. And physical surface heat upward radiative energy returns with ^4, effectively being linear again for the radiative forcing numbers as the ^4 cancels out the ^0.25.

[Wild Cobra]

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/node/198

Well, that model uses 3.1 degree for a doubling of CO2 and strait black body calculations for solar changes as if the other forcings do not change with the supplied energy.

Cool to play with though.

[MannyIsGod]

So yeah, not even close to an ice age. A 1.7% reduction in incoming solar energy as a whole would definitely be in the range of the increase due to CO2.

In other words, you were wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

So yeah, not even close to an ice age. No shit. Not an ice age event. I keep saying my initial assessment was before I ran any numbers. How many times must I repeat that?
A 1.7% reduction in incoming solar energy as a whole would definitely be in the range of the increase due to CO2.

In other words, you were wrong.
We disagree.

Why am I wrong with this thought...

The basic surface change for blackbody calculations will be about 1.09 degrees. This change affects the energy available for the greenhouse effect which is about double the change of solar level. Now unless the radiative forcing of the greenhouse effect is also calculated with ^0.25 and ^4, there is a problem with the 1.7%.

The one layer calculator changes the 288 surface temperature to 286.7, and the 242.1 atmosphere temperature to 241.1. It should also affect the greenhouse radiative forcing as these changes supply the power to have a greenhouse effect.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Keep talking reading up on Wikipedia and talking out of your ass and even a mentally disabled service technician will find a nut every now and then.

Hey WC, since you like telling is everything about yourself, are you ever going to tell us what learning disability they diagnosed you with?

[MannyIsGod]

Genius, what is the ghe forecast to do in the next 100 years?

[MannyIsGod]

Also what do you think you were modeling in the one layer model? Lol

[Agloco]

Oh my god. Really?

I am not assuming anything you assumed I did.

zdyRjkIPXWY

[MannyIsGod]

lol @ "well no shit I was wrong but I won't admit I'm wrong"

[Agloco]

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/node/198

Getting a close approximation of the effects really isn't very hard. Contrary to WC's assertions these calculations are 4th power equations at this basic level. Obviously when you want to model the actual affects on the atmosphere you have take many more variables into account but the basic temp of the earth is directly related to the amount of solar radiation it absorbs.

:tu

Yes, in my usual, long-winded manner this is what I was getting at.

[TeyshaBlue]

zdyRjkIPXWY

:lol:lol:lol See my sig for another WC golden line.

[mouse]

Care to share what proof is given by their presence mouse?

Do you even know what an asteroid is made from?

[Agloco]

Do you even know what an asteroid is made up?

What?

[Agloco]

Echos......bumping up the post count.

[Agloco]

:lol:lol:lol See my sig for another WC golden line.

:lmao

The stuff legends are made of.

[mouse]

What?

Do you know what asteroids are made from?

[Agloco]

Do you know what asteroids are made from?

No idea. Why don't you dispense some knowledge.

[mouse]

No idea. Why don't you dispense some knowledge.

Why, when I can just ask the resident Scientist?

[Agloco]

Why, when I can just ask the resident Scientist?

You're fairly proficient at Googling creationist websites. What do they have to say about it?

[Wild Cobra]

Genius, what is the ghe forecast to do in the next 100 years?

The dust cloud is not a permanent cure, but it could offset the effects of climate change for a given time to allow slow-acting measures like carbon capture to take effect.