Asteroid Dust could help Global Warming

[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, dip . 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 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 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 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 ing 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.

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 bull . 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 ..... 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 ing stupid.

[MannyIsGod]

You just can't stop WC. Every time you try to post something its wrong. Every ing 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]

Mother ing hat trick!

[Wild Cobra]

1.7% would not send us into an ice age unless it was properly distributed.

No 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 .

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.