"Michael J. Strickland" <email@example.com> wrote:
>"Greg Goss" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote
>> I love conspiracy theories, though I'm rational enough to set them >> aside when I'm done with them. >> >> My favourite at the moment is that "chemtrails" is a project to >> disperse high altitude sulfates to cancel out some global warming. >> After all, we started departing from the model predictions about 2000.
>I'm not so sure because the soot would probably just have absorbed >incoming and outgoing heat and shed it to the rest of the air.
>When something is perfectly reflected (like light into a mirror), it >delivers twice the momentum (and 4 times the energy, E = p^2/2m) as when >it is absorbed. Any attempt to "screen" out radiation with air chemicals >will just double the energy deposited in the air after the reflector >molecules are accelerated and shed their energy to neighboring >molecules. Absorbing chemicals will only add half as much energy to the >air. > >How is this "chemtrail" cancelation supposed to work. If its trying to >increase screening, I don't have much hope for it. If its trying to >react the chemicals with existing greenhouse molecules to precipitate >them out, it might work.
Soot and sulfate work differently. Soot absorbs the energy and re-radiates it. ("black body")
Sulfate reflects it. When something is perfectly reflected it absorbs double the energy? Momentum maybe, but the energy departs back into space. Energy is a scalar amount, not a vector.
If you shine a bathroom heat lamp onto a mirror, are you saying that the back of the mirror gets HOTTER than the guy standing next to the heat lamp? -- We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.