Quote:
Originally Posted by nemesis9
And furthermore, that infrared absorption of CO2 versus altitude data is part of a global climate model for Mars. How could one possibly attempt to characterize complex systems *without* models. Tell me that.
|
golly gee, you mean to say that absorption varies with how much matter (CO2) is present at an altitude? duh!
BTW, what is your ref. for the article. I did look around a bit but didn't find much. Was that the kludge experiment concocted after launch that points the spectrograph up in the sky rather than at the ground? It was pretty much just the usual lapse rate and also modulation due to amounts of dust absorbing energy in the atmosphere as well. It still looks like the mean surface T is right in the vacinity of what it would be were there to be no atmosphere, just from albedo and insolation at the TOA. WWWhat with all that dust absorption going on warming the planet, just how much warming has the CO2 contributed to the surface there?
sirius.bu.edu/aeronomy/withersmericarus2006.pdf
I guess I must've missed their GCM video game for mars. I didn't really noticed an iterative time based model needing to be invoked for that. Once upon a time a model meant a description of something, perhaps with some assumptions and perhaps accurately portraying measurable results. I guess we could distinguish between a model - such as the model of the sun, ie a density curve, a temperature curve, various assumptions about areas being radiative or convective yada yada yada - and distinguish between a GCM which is a time iterative attempt to figure out things without knowing what they are and without having full details or significant accuracy or resolution - sort of like maybe Laura Croft versus the god of mars in tomb raider XIV.