Yes, I understand this is a plasma (ionized quasi-neutral gas) in the Sun’s magnetic field.

Slightly revised def: Plasma = Ionized cloud in the sun’s electric current. The magnetic field is an expression of the current here, not vice versa.

The effects due to J X B are insignificant compared to the modeling errors in the entry vehicle’s aerodynamics and the atmosphere’s free stream density. I can ignore J X B.

Right.

However the fact that there are two different atmospheres transitioning from 98 km to 156 km altitude is interesting not only from a scientific “gee whiz” perspective but also in how it impacts the heating on the spacecraft’s thermal protection system, i.e. radiative heat flux.

The apparent temperature of the outer ionized band is not that relevant, it is simply a reflection of the electric current that passes through it. The density of the ionized cloud, the initial velocity and the trajectory of the spacecraft descent at the outer layer boundary reflects on the radiative heat flux. I presume you have some values to plug into your model to account for this.

Lazar is the Howard Dean of AGW.

Does this game end when someone calls me Hitler?

Somebody posting as Lazar stops by loaded for bear with the assumption that all right-wing radicals, especially those at this site, “do not believe in GW”

I made no such assumption. I also did not make the statement you put in quotes.

My question is why are people like Lazar “going technical” on us as some sort of selling technique?

I’m not trying to sell. I don’t care if you believe in fairy dust, or disbelieve in planetary motion. My attention was directed toward encouraging Richard to up his game (as I believe he’s smart, decent, and he writes well). The subsequent fascination shown by some toward me is neither desired nor reciprocated.

technicians like Lazar with their logarithmic scales of concentrations yadda yadda yadda. That stuff belongs in the QA/QC circles of the scientific community.

Someone named ‘anton’ asked a question in an open forum. I knew the answer so I responded.

Of course, if atmospheric temperature profile AND humidity distribution could be considered “given”, it is possible (theoretically) calculate radiation balance.

If I may rephrase that as; We can calculate radiative transfer for any given atmospheric profile to some accuracy, but errors in the atmospheric profile itself such as may be caused by discrepancies in representations of convective flows of heat and moisture, mean that the radiative flux, though accurate for the given profile, is to a lesser degree representative of the ‘real world’ which has a different atmospheric profile.

Parameterizations are constrained by knowledge; by observations and theory. Are you claiming a parameterization is completely unconstrained, and if so, which one?

So, going back to wretchard’s post, what do you think of Finsbury’s idea? (my opinion is up @ 46 and not much different from yours… again, if I accept the premise)

On the surface it seems reasonable, but as stated, my opinion on this ain’t worth squat.

If I may respond directly to #46…

If you really believe we face imminent disaster, you follow the model of war mobilization from WW1 and WW2–clamp down on gross emitters with regulations, force technological conversion with an iron hand, and maybe tax the hell out of fossil fuel to pay for it… you don’t pussyfoot around with permits and hidden cross-subsidies and black markets and all the rest,

Apart from those (interesting) points about implementation, is there anything else intrinsic to “Finsbury’s plan” that might make it less efficient/successful?

your policy ideas ain’t going to fly

I made it abundantly clear that my policy knowledge is inadequate and my opinions were given reluctantly, in good faith, to humor your demands to have ‘my opinion’. As your criticisms do not move beyond assertion it is possible that you have no better idea than I… in which case you are better served asking questions of a policy guy than trying to rip me.

Oh never mind, I don’t care.

Fool me once…

“Finally, there are a thousand very good reasons to reduce our energy consumption and move away from fossil fuels at a steady, sensible rate. It’s just that global warming isn’t one of them.”

There it is in a nutshell. I agree totally.

In my humble opinion the whole AGW discussion is bogus because within two decades, a gallon of gasoline will cost $30 due to fossil fuel depletion, i.e. Peak Oil. We’re all going to be walking, riding bicycles or electric cars not because Al Gore was right but because fossil fuels became too expensive.

“This solar “atmosphere” is a free molecular gas extending from the Sun’s photosphere to the outer Solar System.”

Twobyfour responded:

“Don’t be hasty!
There is no “solar gas”. The plasma and solar plasma is governed by other rules than fluid dynamics. Using terms that are related to fluid dynamics leads you to conclusions that may be quite a bit off from what is really out there.”

Yes, I understand this is a plasma (ionized quasi-neutral gas) in the Sun’s magnetic field. There is a J X B term and MHD considerations. I’m modeling the Venusian atmosphere so I can simulate the trajectory of a spacecraft. The effects due to J X B are insignificant compared to the modeling errors in the entry vehicle’s aerodynamics and the atmosphere’s free stream density. I can ignore J X B. However the fact that there are two different atmospheres transitioning from 98 km to 156 km altitude is interesting not only from a scientific “gee whiz” perspective but also in how it impacts the heating on the spacecraft’s thermal protection system, i.e. radiative heat flux.