/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15411330
>>15426936
(2/2)
>the albedo, when factoring in the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum (not just visible light) will not acquire a larger error (two citations)
anyone who analyzes data can easily understand the visible light spectrum is roughly flat and thus will be confidently measured. in contrast when measuring the rest of the spectrum, it's clear that the albedo is not 30% for all wavelengths of light. i mean, some wavelengths are clearly perfectly reflected and others are clearly perfectly absorbed. regarding your two citations, i've read them both and i don't see them reporting an error with their albedo. in fact, they're just citing older literature claiming the albedo is measured to be 30%. once again, what equation are you using to calculate the earth's temperature? what are the standard errors in each number used?
>absorption and reflection aren't the same, hurr durr you're stoooopid because i can't read
it's standard language in physics texts (cf. Jackson) to be concise with language via parenthetical statements. for example, see pic rel. on a random image i grabbed from jackson (a graduate text used for electrodynamics). do you honestly think jackson is trying to claim 4pi = 0 and that inside = outside?