Scientist want outer space sun shade to combat climate change

[ding]

Why should I believe anything from a lying piece of shit like you?

It's not from me, dummy. It's been known a really long time. Why don't you already know this?

 

[Crick]

It's not from me, dummy. It's been known a really long time. Why don't you already know this?

What a insanely stupid lying piece of SHIT!!!

 

[Flash]

Hey, lets stop the energy of the sun from getting to earth, what could possibly go wrong?"

 

[Crick]

Hey, lets stop the energy of the sun from getting to earth, what could possibly go wrong?"

The shade would stop a tiny fraction of the sun's energy and would probably have half a dozen ways to take itself completely out of the picture. Worst case you send a rocket up there to snag it and drag it aside.

 

[ding]

What a insanely stupid lying piece of SHIT!!!

The paper on Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Convective Adjustment says otherwise.

Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Convective Adjustment.

The states of thermal equilibrium (incorporating an adjustment of super-adiabatic stratification) as well as that of pure radiative equilibrium of the atmosphere are computed as the asymptotic steady state approached in an initial value problem. Recent measurements of absorptivities obtained for...

ui.adsabs.harvard.edu

 

[Crick]

The paper on Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Convective Adjustment says otherwise.

Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Convective Adjustment.

The states of thermal equilibrium (incorporating an adjustment of super-adiabatic stratification) as well as that of pure radiative equilibrium of the atmosphere are computed as the asymptotic steady state approached in an initial value problem. Recent measurements of absorptivities obtained for...

ui.adsabs.harvard.edu

The paper talking about creating a general circulation climate model 60 years ago. Meaningless twaddle you lying piece of shit.

 

[ding]

The paper talking about creating a general circulation climate model 60 years ago. Meaningless twaddle you lying piece of shit.

It's not meaningless. It's based upon the theoretical GHG effect of all the GHG in the atmosphere which predicts the surface temperature should be 42 deg. C warmer than it is.

But because warm air is less dense than cold air, it rises. Colder air moves in to take its place and in turn becomes heated so the cycle begins. The rising hot air eventually starts to cool and when colder than its surrounding air it will sink and become drawn back to where it gets heated again.

Thus reducing the theoretical GHG effect temperature at the surface by ~44%. It's just science and math.

 

[Crick]

It's not meaningless. It's based upon the theoretical GHG effect of all the GHG in the atmosphere which predicts the surface temperature should be 42 deg. C warmer than it is.

But because warm air is less dense than cold air, it rises. Colder air moves in to take its place and in turn becomes heated so the cycle begins. The rising hot air eventually starts to cool and when colder than its surrounding air it will sink and become drawn back to where it gets heated again.

Thus reducing the theoretical GHG effect temperature at the surface by ~44%. It's just science and math.

That you thought this paper was still relevant after 60 years and that you completely failed to realize they were building a model and not talking about the real world is something about which you should be profoundly embarrassed. It's hard to believe you want to bring it back up, but maybe that's normal for ignorant lying pieces of shit.

 

[tyroneweaver]

By seeing the world through the filter you've created; that everything you don't understand is a liberal conspiracy, you've effectively turned yourself into an obsessed imbecile.

Ya I know, but it’s just my way

 

[Crick]

Ya I know, but it’s just my way

You're not stuck with it.

 

[ding]

That you thought this paper was still relevant after 60 years and that you completely failed to realize they were building a model and not talking about the real world is something about which you should be profoundly embarrassed. It's hard to believe you want to bring it back up, but maybe that's normal for ignorant lying pieces of shit.

You are a moron. You ignore science. You don't understand that paper at all.

 

[Crick]

You are a moron. You ignore science. You don't understand that paper at all.

I realized that the entire paper was concerned with building an early GCM when you thought it was a study of convection in the atmosphere. That's a pretty fundamental error on your part.

 

[ding]

I realized that the entire paper was concerned with building an early GCM when you thought it was a study of convection in the atmosphere. That's a pretty fundamental error on your part.

The error is all yours. You don't understand why "it" was needed in first place.

 

[Crick]

The error is all yours. You don't understand why "it" was needed in first place.

I disagree. And what do you mean by "it"?

 

[ding]

I disagree. And what do you mean by "it"?

The paper. Why was the paper written?

 

[Crick]

To convey what they had determined when attempting to get a GCM model to accurately reflect certain climate parameters. They were not discussing some new revelation in atmospheric physics. They were trying to figure out what was needed in a model to reproduce certain features accurately.

 

[ding]

To convey what they had determined when attempting to get a GCM model to accurately reflect certain climate parameters. They were not discussing some new revelation in atmospheric physics. They were trying to figure out what was needed in a model to reproduce certain features accurately.

Incorrectly stated. Try again. They were addressing the difference between the theoretical surface temperature associated with all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed surface temperature associated with all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

 

[Crick]

Incorrectly stated. Try again. They were addressing the difference between the theoretical surface temperature associated with all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed surface temperature associated with all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Wrong. They were addressing the difference between the real world and their model outputs with and without dynamic convection.

 

[ding]

Wrong. They were addressing the difference between the real world and their model outputs with and without dynamic convection.

With the real world being that only 44% of the theoretical GHG of the entire atmosphere is realized at the planet's surface. Their model was built to make predictions that lowered the theoretical surface temperature to what was actually trapped at the surface.

But the point you keep glossing over is the fact that only 44% of the entire atmosphere's GHG only trap 44% of their theoretical heat at the planet's surface because convective currents transport the heat away from the surface.

 

[Crick]

With the real world being that only 44% of the theoretical GHG of the entire atmosphere is realized at the planet's surface. Their model was built to make predictions that lowered the theoretical surface temperature to what was actually trapped at the surface.

But the point you keep glossing over is the fact that only 44% of the entire atmosphere's GHG only trap 44% of their theoretical heat at the planet's surface because convective currents transport the heat away from the surface.

And what do you think that matters? Do you think the decades-long effort to calculate accurate values for ECS and TCR failed to take into account basic atmospheric physics known 60 years back?