Asteroid Dust could help Global Warming

[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 ing 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.

, 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 genous 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 you always claim but at the end of the day I give a clear demonstration of why your 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 . 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 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

[Wild Cobra]

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

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 nuts , 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 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 up.

[Wild Cobra]

Agloco. Does this make any sense to you?



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:

[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 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 .

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 you bothered to pony up your two cents worth of bull in the first place.

I'll bet it's because you didn't think anyone had their bull 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 bull 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 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 bull . 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 !

[Jacob1983]

Most humans don't give a 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 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 !

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?