Asteroid Dust could help Global Warming

[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 about that , but guys like WC always make me rethink about my at ude 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 to understand and you can't simply extrapolate evenly when the systems react in multiple ways.

[Wild Cobra]

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 conts uent 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 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 ing 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 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 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, subs ute 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 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:



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 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 about that , but guys like WC always make me rethink about my at ude towards the relevance of education tbh

[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.

[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, dip . It really should be obvious but I realize that you want to just stick to your dumbed down version.