02 Mar 18
Originally posted by @sonhouseGet Elon Musk on this. He already sent a car into space, why not something useful.
But such a sun shield could be run in reverse, say throwing concentrated sunlight on a few square kilometers of desert land conveniently populated with solar cells or concentrator mirrors and so get a huge jump in energy received right where it is needed.
08 Mar 18
Originally posted by @wildgrassNot "if". How much? How much is not known. Can't you read?
It is known. Do your homework. CO2 absorbs incoming solar energy and re-emits longwave radiation that heats the atmosphere. The effect depends on your readout, what the underlying conditions are, and what exactly you are comparing.
08 Mar 18
Originally posted by @metal-brainHow much what? How much effect is what you said, which is meaningless. What effect are you measuring and what are the relevant variables?
Not "if". How much? How much is not known. Can't you read?
08 Mar 18
Originally posted by @wildgrassHow much heating of the climate. I believe I was clear about that.
How much what? How much effect is what you said, which is meaningless. What effect are you measuring and what are the relevant variables?
08 Mar 18
Originally posted by @wildgrassyes, like a grand piano.
Get Elon Musk on this. He already sent a car into space, why not something useful.
08 Mar 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @metal-brainHeat is measured in calories. You are right, I don't think anyone has done these calculations for our climate.
How much heating of the climate. I believe I was clear about that.
Edit: Here you go. The answer is 0.9 W m−2
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1
08 Mar 18
Originally posted by @wildgrassHold on there Bubba!
Heat is measured in calories. You are right, I don't think anyone has done these calculations for our climate.
Edit: Here you go. The answer is 0.9 W m−2
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1
It is not the answer until it is tested and proven to be. Has a prediction been tested?
12 Mar 18
Originally posted by @wildgrassAnybody can make up a number. Even a best estimate can be very wrong. Besides, you stated it as a fact when the article called it an estimate and nothing more. You got a little ahead of yourself, but it happens to the best of us.
Huh? You asked a vague question, that was the closest answer I could find. Obviously the details are important, but you don't seem concerned about that.
12 Mar 18
Originally posted by @metal-brainOf course it's an estimate. We only have one Earth. Estimate does not mean someone made it up. What are you talking about?
Anybody can make up a number. Even a best estimate can be very wrong. Besides, you stated it as a fact when the article called it an estimate and nothing more. You got a little ahead of yourself, but it happens to the best of us.
15 Mar 18
Originally posted by @wildgrassIt doesn't mean they didn't make it up either. Just pointing out that estimates are not accurate until they are proven to be so. There is no evidence that estimate is accurate or even close. It could be a very horrible estimate to the point of embarrassment for all you know.
Of course it's an estimate. We only have one Earth. Estimate does not mean someone made it up. What are you talking about?
15 Mar 18
9 edits
Originally posted by @metal-brainSo that makes you against all estimates of the future that you don't like since, if you don't like them, you would dismiss them as not 'proven' to be accurate until that future is reached so that we can confirm whether they are 'accurate'.
estimates are not accurate until they are proven to be so
1, why would that not apply to an estimate that you DO like? Such as an estimate that says there will be NO future global warming?
Please explain to us in your infinite wisdom why that doesn't work both ways...
2, why is it impossible for an estimate be accurate before conformation of its accuracy?
Why would, say, tomorrow's weather forecast for rain, be impossible to inevitably going to be correct until we observe the weather tomorrow?
Please explain to us in your infinite wisdom why...
3, how exactly do you define 'how accurate' i.e. the 'amount of accuracy' an estimate is?
Say tomorrow's weather forecast is for a temperature of 1.0C and then come tomorrow it is 1.5C -how do you personally mathematically define the amount of accuracy of that?
Do you day it is 100 *1.0/1.5 = ~67% accurate?
Or do you say it is 1.0-1.5 = -0.5 accurate?
Or what, exactly?
Please explain to us in your infinite wisdom how...
4, to exactly what degree would an estimate have to deviate from complete accuracy before you say it is 'inaccurate'?
Say tomorrow's weather forecast is for a temperature of 1C and tomorrow it will be 1.5C
-would that be, according to you, 'inaccurate' because 0.5 out is 'too much'?
Or would that be, according to you, 'accurate' because it is 'only' 0.5 out?
Or, what exactly?
Please explain to us in your infinite wisdom which...
16 Mar 18
Originally posted by @humyThe estimate has not been tested to confirm accuracy. Show me a climate model prediction that confirms a long term prediction that does not over estimate warming using that estimate and we can talk. Until then you are just wasting time debating this.
So that makes you against all estimates of the future that you don't like since, if you don't like them, you would dismiss them as not 'proven' to be accurate until that future is reached so that we can confirm whether they are 'accurate'.
1, why would that not apply to an estimate that you DO like? Such as an estimate that says there will be NO future glob ...[text shortened]... it is 'only' 0.5 out?
Or, what exactly?
Please explain to us in your infinite wisdom which...
We have been over this before. Climate models have a history of being very inaccurate when predicting the future. Coming up with another estimate is just another guess. Why should I be impressed by that?
16 Mar 18
5 edits
Originally posted by @metal-brainThat is true for any estimate of the future. That doesn't mean we cannot estimate its likely accuracy.
The estimate has not been tested to confirm accuracy.
We can use reason and past evidence and our scientific understanding of the natural world, in this case, specifically the laws of physics, to deduce a very high probability of an estimate being accurate enough to take appropriate action.
We see you are unable to answer any of my questions. That proves my point well. It proves you don't know what you are talking about.
16 Mar 18
Originally posted by @humyYour questions were irrelevant. Any estimate is no more than that and accuracy is unknown until it is tested. You don't have any past evidence and the fact that you falsely assert it exists proves you don't know what you are talking about.
That is true for any estimate of the future. That doesn't mean we cannot estimate its likely accuracy.
We can use reason and past evidence and our scientific understanding of the natural world, in this case, specifically the laws of physics, to deduce a very high probability of an estimate being accurate enough to take appropriate action.
We see you are un ...[text shortened]... of my questions. That proves my point well. It proves you don't know what you are talking about.
Science is about confirmation by testing, not faith. Your faith is amusing nonsense but nothing more than that. Faith belongs in the spirituality forum. Take it there.