Reply With Quote
So you do think that you know more than them?
Sure thing tectonic magma boy.
So you do think that you know more than them?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No . Not an ice age event. I keep saying my initial assessment was before I ran any numbers. How many times must I repeat that?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.
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?
Genius, what is the ghe forecast to do in the next 100 years?
Also what do you think you were modeling in the one layer model? Lol
lol @ "well no I was wrong but I won't admit I'm wrong"
Yes, in my usual, long-winded manner this is what I was getting at.
See my sig for another WC golden line.
Do you even know what an asteroid is made from?
Last edited by mouse; 10-15-2012 at 09:07 PM.
Echos......bumping up the post count.
The stuff legends are made of.
Do you know what asteroids are made from?
No idea. Why don't you dispense some knowledge.
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?
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
