Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

typodupeerror
Slashdot Deals: Cyber Monday Sale Extended! Courses ranging from coding to project management - all eLearning deals 20% off with coupon code "CYBERMONDAY20". ×

## Comment Re:Useless (Score 1)358

Ah, you're right about the formula. It's the "/4*sigma" part that accounts for the difference in area between a disk and a sphere as in the area of a circle is pi*R^2 and the area of a sphere is 4*pi*R^2. My bad. The Wikipedia page on Climate Models has a pretty good explanation of the formula. If Hansen and all the others studying the climate are wrong as you say then you should publish your proofs. It's pretty basic stuff.

## Comment Re:Useless (Score 1)358

I agree that the radiation per unit area will drop as you get away from the point of the Earth closest to the Sun because the angle of the surface compared to the incoming radiation increases spreading out that radiation over more area. But wouldn't a flat disk that was the radius of the Earth that was perpendicular to the Sun intercept the same amount of radiation as the spherical Earth does, just over more area?

I think you got your formula "Te = [So(1 -A)/4*sigma] ^(1/4)" wrong. Shouldn't it be "Te = [So(1 -A)/4*sigma]*(1/4)"? It's that "*(1/4)" factor that accounts for the area increase of a sphere over a flat disk.

As I said I sincerely doubt Hansen got that calculation wrong. He got a PhD in astrophysics in the 1970's and was studying Venus and other planets before he turned his attention to Earth. If he got that wrong it would have been pointed out by others long ago. It's too simple a thing to be otherwise.

## Comment Re:15 years old? (Score 1)358

It doesn't work that way. In the carbon cycle there are three great reservoirs of carbon, the atmosphere, the oceans and the biosphere/soil. The distribution ratio of carbon between them remains about the same regardless of the total amount of carbon in the cycle (at least so far). If we reduce emissions by 50% the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere will slow but the increase in the oceans and biosphere/soil will also slow by equivalent amounts. So atmospheric CO2 would continue to increase, just at half the current rate. The only long run answer is to reduce net anthropogenic carbon emissions to zero.

## Comment Re:Not doing his job? (Score 1)358

You really need to get over that exhaling CO2 thing. The CO2 you exhale comes completely from CO2 that plants absorbed not too long before you ate them (or ate the animals that ate them). Now there may be fossil fuels used in processing and delivering the food to you but that's not a requirement. The CO2 and methane you emit from your body has nothing to do with anthropogenic global warming.

## Comment Re:Our descent into the bowels of fascism and deca (Score 1)358

... or for failing to defend the Constitution of the United States because he fought a foreign conflict without a Congressional declaration of war.

That horse left the barn a long time ago. there hasn't been a formal declaration of war by the US since World War II.

## Comment Re:Useless (Score 1)358

As an astrophysicist I doubt Hansen got the calculation wrong. Concave or convex is pretty much the same thing when it comes to the impingement of radiation on the surface and the distance to the Sun from the point on the Earth closest to the Sun and the terminator is pretty much a rounding error compared to the distance to the Sun.

## Comment Re:15 years old? (Score 1)358

In the long run the only way to stop the problem is to reduce net carbon emissions to zero. If we don't it probably means the end of our complex worldwide civilization within 100 years. Yes we're a long way from zero carbon emissions but as they say the longest journey starts with the first step.

If you can't learn to do it well, learn to enjoy doing it badly.

Working...