[ableChair]

So, you're claim is that one of the most respected authorities on the subject is wrong because...you say so. Not very convincing.

[Boot Hill]

8	“So, you're claim is that one of the most respected authorities on the subject is wrong because...you say so. Not very convincing.”

University of Delaware says atmospheric absorption is 16%, not 95%...

 

University of Oregon says atmospheric absorption is 19%, not 95%...

 

How many more do you need?

--Boot Hill

[DB]

Your going to have to do better than I have a book that "says so".

The Web is a big place. Find an online reference to support your position.

If you bother to go over the link I provided it goes into detail about the subject.

How do you explain being able to see the stars at night with 95% of their light absorbed, diffracted or otherwise??? They'd simply be a dim blur at best...

The stars are in fact only a little brighter in space than on earth on a clear night. The biggest improvement in space is the elimination of scintillation which allows much sharper images.

All of the reflection/absorption numbers in those links are based on cloud cover, water vapor and other factor averages over the whole earth.

On a clear day, it's a clear day. Then over 70% of the suns light makes it to the ground. That's how a 13% efficient solar cell produces 130 watts per square meter on a sunny day... Otherwise it wouldn't be possible...