Scientists in Hong Kong have demonstrated a new ultra-white ceramic material that can drastically cool buildings by reflecting sunlight and heat at record highs. The beetle-inspired material gets its ability from its nanostructure, stays tough to the elements and should be relatively easy to scale…
Ultra-white ceramic cools buildings with record-high 99.6% reflectivity::undefined
Sure, but there is more than just transparent gases, there is also some solid objects. Those would be heated by outgoing radiation. There is also convection currents that can affect weather and migration patterns…
That’s one part of it yeah, and there is absolutely no scientific data on the resulting reflection issues. It’s also funny that ice age answer kinda proves my point, if sheets of ice can make an ice age worse… yeah coating a bunch of stuff with this will absolutely affect stuff. And you are claiming it won’t? Because this answer directly contradicts your previous ones….
Can I see your sources I’m actually quite interested in this and I’m surprised people are answering this with grade school level answers that aren’t even close to being correct.
And all the greenhouse gases it will heat up as it passes through them? You can’t just ignore these gases…
It’s not that simple, and you claiming it is show you have zero understanding of the potential issues. Your ice age example shows that it can affect the globe at scale. Thank you for part of the answer, I’m surprised you’re still arguing after proving my point.
Green house gases absorb radiation unlike transparent gases. It directly refutes one of your claims since they exist at the same time. Why are you talking about reflection here…?
You clearly don’t know enough to answer the question correctly. And you completely incorrectly explaining greenhouse gases and how radiation affects it just proves it all the more. Have a great day, I’m sorry you thought you knew more than you thought here. It happens.
You claim it’s basic, yet each of your “basic” points have easily been refuted by going to intermediates, it’s not as simple as you claim it is… and you claiming it is also just shows you have zero credibility understanding of the subject.
So who’s the troll here? The one getting flustered from having their “basic” explanations refuted with just as basic science, or the one contesting with examples that show it’s not actually that basic…?
Removed by mod
Sure, but there is more than just transparent gases, there is also some solid objects. Those would be heated by outgoing radiation. There is also convection currents that can affect weather and migration patterns…
That’s one part of it yeah, and there is absolutely no scientific data on the resulting reflection issues. It’s also funny that ice age answer kinda proves my point, if sheets of ice can make an ice age worse… yeah coating a bunch of stuff with this will absolutely affect stuff. And you are claiming it won’t? Because this answer directly contradicts your previous ones….
Can I see your sources I’m actually quite interested in this and I’m surprised people are answering this with grade school level answers that aren’t even close to being correct.
Removed by mod
And all the greenhouse gases it will heat up as it passes through them? You can’t just ignore these gases…
It’s not that simple, and you claiming it is show you have zero understanding of the potential issues. Your ice age example shows that it can affect the globe at scale. Thank you for part of the answer, I’m surprised you’re still arguing after proving my point.
Removed by mod
I understand that fine…
Green house gases absorb radiation unlike transparent gases. It directly refutes one of your claims since they exist at the same time. Why are you talking about reflection here…?
You clearly don’t know enough to answer the question correctly. And you completely incorrectly explaining greenhouse gases and how radiation affects it just proves it all the more. Have a great day, I’m sorry you thought you knew more than you thought here. It happens.
You claim it’s basic, yet each of your “basic” points have easily been refuted by going to intermediates, it’s not as simple as you claim it is… and you claiming it is also just shows you have zero credibility understanding of the subject.
So who’s the troll here? The one getting flustered from having their “basic” explanations refuted with just as basic science, or the one contesting with examples that show it’s not actually that basic…?