@jemmm85517813@MikeChillit@PaulRoundy1 No one here was talking about computer models, but do go on with all of the pre-programmed talking points you’re paid to parrot.
@MikeChillit@PaulRoundy1@jemmm85517813 It doesn’t matter if you like the study, solar evolution looks nothing like the concave curve. But I find it amusing when “skeptics” continuously make things up, and of course it’s the scientists that need to justify and “refute.” Brandolini’s law.
https://t.co/0x9eMR63JB
@MikeChillit@PaulRoundy1@jemmm85517813 Was I supposed to care if you block me? The data just isn’t real, it’s a black box AI generated model with no physical basis.
https://t.co/F4RzLBLWij
It’s not that an ice covered snowball planet can’t be breathable. Some O2 persisted during Earth’s Neoproterozoic snowball events. But the issue w long persistence of O2 on a snowball is reaction with reduced volcanic gases that can deplete O2 over just millions of years. 1/
5/5 if Hoth doesn’t have volcanism, that would help kill an O2 sink, although that kills any hope of deglaciation through CO2 buildup. Or Hoth can oscillate between snowballs or not, over millions of years, but still on shorter timescales for O2 to be drawn down to zero.
It’s not that an ice covered snowball planet can’t be breathable. Some O2 persisted during Earth’s Neoproterozoic snowball events. But the issue w long persistence of O2 on a snowball is reaction with reduced volcanic gases that can deplete O2 over just millions of years. 1/
4/ of course you need some photosynthesis, but real snowballs are probably leaky…open leads, thin tropical ice, meltwater ponds, but in principle the O2 can be light or nutrient-limited. But there’s ways around this on Hoth…
@misterduncan@Gilles_Borghese He’s a crank, but also climate models do the spherical geometry, zenith calculations, & know about the orbit/solar position at each time step. The diagnostics are accumulated into a time average, and you can do spatial averages by grid box area. We aren’t just dividing by 4.
@PeterBrannen1@A1an_M From a modeling standpoint, CO2 is just an input (not including models with a carbon cycle), while clouds require many subroutines and schemes to represent. This requires a deep expertise at modeling centers of cloud physics. One does not need a “CO2 expert.”
@PeterBrannen1@A1an_M There are tons of products like ISCCP, MODIS,AVHRR, MISR, CloudSat, Calipso, etc. and radiation budget (CERES) and a deep literature on physics al and microbial processes, aerosol-cloud interactions, cloud regimes and organization, observational evaluation, storm resolving models