Asteroid Dust could help Global Warming

[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 , 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.

[ElNono]

[Wild Cobra]

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 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 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 ers 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.

[Wild Cobra]

Another trait you and Fuzzy have...

You always sidestep a question of relevance.

What do you think of the 1.7% reduction?