22 Reasons to be Skeptical of Man-Made Global Warming

spot wrote:
17) It's often claimed by CAGW-alarmists that the modern sea level rise is alarming and unprecedented
Its alarming if your house gets swallowed by the the sea. .

spot wrote:
18) This is very esoteric and is supposed to be compelling proof.

spot wrote:
19)Another widespread misconception is that (the mythical planet) Venus is hot ... the blog writer suggests that adiabatic compression is responsible for the heat of the surface.

spot wrote:
[i]21) It's claimed the increase in CO2 is causing the ocean to acidify
In chemistry acidify means the PH to change away from alkaline to more acidic anyway you... moment.

tmiddles wrote: This is one where deniers talk out of both sides of their mouth.

tmiddles wrote: We know sea levels are much lower in an ice age,

tmiddles wrote: The question is only if AGW is boosting that significantly.

tmiddles wrote: Any claim that there has been no change at all should beg the question how could that be!

tmiddles wrote: I don't see why, given that thermodynamic equilibrium is achieved, there would be a claim that less radiance would come from Earth in any frequency.

tmiddles wrote: Venus radiates about what it gets.

tmiddles wrote: That it's the mass of the atmosphere that is a huge factor could be true as far as I can see now.

tmiddles wrote: This is confused deliberately by alarmists. They are happy to let people think the ocean was bleached by acid water when the white coloring is simply due to death from a violent change in environment.

tmiddles wrote:

spot wrote:
17) It's often claimed by CAGW-alarmists that the modern sea level rise is alarming and unprecedented
Its alarming if your house gets swallowed by the the sea. .

This is one where deniers talk out of both sides of their mouth. We know sea levels are much lower in an ice age,

tmiddles wrote:
that we've been naturally warming since the ice age

tmiddles wrote:
so of course sea levels are rising.

tmiddles wrote:
The question is only if AGW is boosting that significantly.

tmiddles wrote:
Any claim that there has been no change at all should beg the question how could that be!

tmiddles wrote:

spot wrote:
18) This is very esoteric and is supposed to be compelling proof.

#18 is basically an accusation the IPCC was wrong in its models. It quotes David Evans an electrical engineer published in the Financial Times. I read the debunking of his work here: https://skepticalscience.com/david-evans-understanding-goes-cold.html. As for what's included in #18 it's very vague. I don't see why, given that thermodynamic equilibrium is achieved, there would be a claim that less radiance would come from Earth in any frequency. Venus radiates about what it gets. 18 seems like a crap poinnt.

tmiddles wrote:

spot wrote:
19)Another widespread misconception is that (the mythical planet) Venus is hot ... the blog writer suggests that adiabatic compression is responsible for the heat of the surface.

So this point deserves discussion. Mars has more greenhouse gases than Earth

tmiddles wrote:
but a much less dense atmosphere ...deleted redundant Holy Link...), and a minor increase in temp compared to Earth. That it's the mass of the atmosphere that is a huge factor could be true as far as I can see now.
[quote]tmiddles wrote:
[quote]spot wrote:
[i]21) It's claimed the increase in CO2 is causing the ocean to acidify
In chemistry acidify means the PH to change away from alkaline to more acidic anyway you... moment.

This is confused deliberately by alarmists. They are happy to let people think the ocean was bleached by acid water when the white coloring is simply due to death from a violent change in environment. It's a difference without a distinction. Violently changing the environment results in death.

tmiddles wrote:

spot wrote:
17) It's often claimed by CAGW-alarmists that the modern sea level rise is alarming and unprecedented
Its alarming if your house gets swallowed by the the sea. .

This is one where deniers talk out of both sides of their mouth. We know sea levels are much lower in an ice age, that we've been naturally warming since the ice age so of course sea levels are rising. The question is only if AGW is boosting that significantly. Any claim that there has been no change at all should beg the question how could that be! In any case #17 is really just a claim its not extreme.

spot wrote:
18) This is very esoteric and is supposed to be compelling proof.

#18 is basically an accusation the IPCC was wrong in its models. It quotes David Evans an electrical engineer published in the Financial Times. I read the debunking of his work here: https://skepticalscience.com/david-evans-understanding-goes-cold.html. As for what's included in #18 it's very vague. I don't see why, given that thermodynamic equilibrium is achieved, there would be a claim that less radiance would come from Earth in any frequency. Venus radiates about what it gets. 18 seems like a crap poinnt.

spot wrote:
19)Another widespread misconception is that (the mythical planet) Venus is hot ... the blog writer suggests that adiabatic compression is responsible for the heat of the surface.

So this point deserves discussion. Mars has more greenhouse gases than Earth but a much less dense atmosphere (thank you Verner), and a minor increase in temp compared to Earth. That it's the mass of the atmosphere that is a huge factor could be true as far as I can see now.

spot wrote:
[i]21) It's claimed the increase in CO2 is causing the ocean to acidify
In chemistry acidify means the PH to change away from alkaline to more acidic anyway you... moment.

This is confused deliberately by alarmists. They are happy to let people think the ocean was bleached by acid water when the white coloring is simply due to death from a violent change in environment. It's a difference without a distinction. Violently changing the environment results in death.

spot wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

spot wrote:
17) It's often claimed by CAGW-alarmists that the modern sea level rise is alarming and unprecedented
Its alarming if your house gets swallowed by the the sea. .

This is one where deniers talk out of both sides of their mouth. We know sea levels are much lower in an ice age, that we've been naturally warming since the ice age so of course sea levels are rising. The question is only if AGW is boosting that significantly. Any claim that there has been no change at all should beg the question how could that be! In any case #17 is really just a claim its not extreme.

spot wrote:
18) This is very esoteric and is supposed to be compelling proof.

#18 is basically an accusation the IPCC was wrong in its models. It quotes David Evans an electrical engineer published in the Financial Times. I read the debunking of his work here: https://skepticalscience.com/david-evans-understanding-goes-cold.html. As for what's included in #18 it's very vague. I don't see why, given that thermodynamic equilibrium is achieved, there would be a claim that less radiance would come from Earth in any frequency. Venus radiates about what it gets. 18 seems like a crap poinnt.

spot wrote:
19)Another widespread misconception is that (the mythical planet) Venus is hot ... the blog writer suggests that adiabatic compression is responsible for the heat of the surface.

So this point deserves discussion. Mars has more greenhouse gases than Earth but a much less dense atmosphere (thank you Verner), and a minor increase in temp compared to Earth. That it's the mass of the atmosphere that is a huge factor could be true as far as I can see now.

spot wrote:
[i]21) It's claimed the increase in CO2 is causing the ocean to acidify
In chemistry acidify means the PH to change away from alkaline to more acidic anyway you... moment.

This is confused deliberately by alarmists. They are happy to let people think the ocean was bleached by acid water when the white coloring is simply due to death from a violent change in environment. It's a difference without a distinction. Violently changing the environment results in death.

On point 21 recent coral bleaching is due to heat stress,

spot wrote:
at least that what I have heard

spot wrote:
maybe we have better science journalists over here but the reports I saw never claimed that acidification was responsible,

spot wrote:
it might hamper the reefs recovery

spot wrote:
if the bleaching event turns out to be a one off event,

spot wrote:
I suspect it wont though.

spot wrote:
On point 21 recent coral bleaching is due to heat stress,

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: That it's the mass of the atmosphere that is a huge factor could be true as far as I can see now.

Factor ... in ... what ... exactly?

tmiddles wrote: Most people are familiar with PH balance and that suffices to describe what's happening.

tmiddles wrote: Doesn't the simple mass of an atmosphere allow for more thermal energy to be present.

IBdaMann wrote:... the average temperature remains the same.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:... the average temperature remains the same.

So why is Venus so hot?

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:... the average temperature remains the same.

So why is Venus so hot?

It's really close to the sun.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:... the average temperature remains the same.

So why is Venus so hot?

It's really close to the sun.

Mercury is even closer. Why is Venus so much hotter than Mercury?

tmiddles wrote: Mercury is even closer. Why is Venus so much hotter than Mercury?

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: That it's the mass of the atmosphere that is a huge factor could be true as far as I can see now.

Factor ... in ... what ... exactly?

So point #19 is the interesting one to me. Doesn't the simple mass of an atmosphere allow for more thermal energy to be present. Perhaps Venus has such a high ground temp due simply to the massive atmosphere.

Question for you Spot, I know IBD will never discuss Venus.

Into the Night wrote:
The temperature of Mercury is unknown.
The temperature of Venus is unknown.

IBdaMann wrote:...not knowing the average planetary temperatures of either Venus or Mercury,...

spot wrote: As for pressure causing the increased temperature. pressure alone does not determine temperature otherwise I could tell what O2 cylinders were full by putting my hand on them and seeing if they are are warm or not.....
Because of the cloud cover, the surface temperature of Venus would be a chilly -42C if were not for the greenhouse effect of its atmosphere.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
The temperature of Mercury is unknown.
The temperature of Venus is unknown.

IBdaMann wrote:...not knowing the average planetary temperatures of either Venus or Mercury,...

Don't forget Denver guys. You also claim the temperature of Denver is unknown.

Here are the facts: If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there. If Mercury were a black body, it would have roughly the temperature we found there.

But keep running away fellas. Keep pretending "We don't know exactly" is the same thing as "We know nothing at all". It disqualifies nearly all knowledge but it suits you. I get it.

Now back to an actual discussion:

spot wrote: As for pressure causing the increased temperature. pressure alone does not determine temperature otherwise I could tell what O2 cylinders were full by putting my hand on them and seeing if they are are warm or not.....
Because of the cloud cover, the surface temperature of Venus would be a chilly -42C if were not for the greenhouse effect of its atmosphere.

No I don't think it's just pressure. I think it's that the incoming radiance is diffused by the atmosphere. It's the amount of atmosphere that affords a greater diffusion. Remember also Mars has more greenhouse gases than Earth but produces less of a greenhouse effect by far. The going theory is that O2 and N2 have nothing to do with it right? So why is Earth seeing a much bigger boost than Mars?

Great link from you as usual! I see that someone asked about Mars in that post and they provided a link:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/

But they don't discuss the issue Verner raised. Why does Mars not have more of a greenhouse effect?

I think the mass of the atmosphere playing a role is similar to the ocean being a "heat battery": The ocean is the largest solar energy collector on Earth.

Because thermal energy is able to convect through the liquid. If we had a very thin ocean it would have far less thermal energy storage capacity. Similarly with less of an atmosphere there is less thermal energy storage capacity.

Also just as O2 and N2 don't have a direct relationship with radiance (they don't absorb it directly) neither does all the water below the surface of the ocean, as the radiance is absorbed before it get's down very far.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them

spot wrote:
Why Mars does not have a pronounced greenhouse effect? short answer its due to pressure even though as a percentage the amount of CO2 is greater the amount of actual CO2 molecules is not greater. If you look into it I'm sure you can find an in depth explanation.

tmiddles wrote:

spot wrote:
Why Mars does not have a pronounced greenhouse effect? short answer its due to pressure even though as a percentage the amount of CO2 is greater the amount of actual CO2 molecules is not greater. If you look into it I'm sure you can find an in depth explanation.

No see that's not the case. Mars has MORE CO2 by far than Earth.

Verner calculated it:

VernerHornung wrote:
Earth pressure 101.3 kPa, 0.04% CO2, 1.4% H2O
partial pressure of CO2 is 0.0004 x 101.3 kPa = 41 Pa
molar mass of CO2 = 44
molar mass of air = 29
gravity = 9.8 m/s^2
so mass (CO2) = (41 x 44) /(29 x 9.8) = 6.3 kg of CO2 per square meter

partial pressure of H2O is 0.014 x 101.3 kPa = 1420 Pa
molar mass of H2O = 18
so mass (H2O) = (1420 x 18) / (29 x 9.8) = 90 kg of H2O per square meter

Mars pressure 640 Pa, 95% CO2, 0.03% H2O
partial pressure of CO2 is 0.95 x 640 Pa = 608 Pa
molar mass of Martian air = 43.5
gravity = 3.7 m/s^2
so mass (CO2) = (608 x 44)/(43.5 x 3.7) = 166 kg of CO2 per square meter.

So Mars has WAY more greenhouse gas but far far less atmosphere. So why would Earth win at being warmer than expected?

I think it's because the mass of the atmosphere, like the mass of the ocean, plays a major roll in storing thermal energy. It's there to "soak up" the energy that greenhouse gases, the ground/water condustion and convection pass on to it.

spot wrote:
OK I was wrong about the amount of CO2 but there is much less of everything in the atmosphere of mars, gaps between molecules lets the heat radiate to space much easier

spot wrote:
Neutralizing the sea would be an alternative but we are making it more acidic

spot wrote:
the sea isn't PH neutral and PH neutral is not a natural state for it to be in.

spot wrote:
As for pressure causing the increased temperature. pressure alone does not determine temperature otherwise I could tell what O2 cylinders were full by putting my hand on them and seeing if they are are warm or not.

spot wrote:
Also if pressure is the main factor does that explain Titan with a surface pressure of 1.75 bars? What about Uranus and Neptune the pressure on those planets is far in excess of Venus if you go deep enough.

spot wrote:
Someone has already answered the question anyway

spot wrote:
Because of the cloud cover, the surface temperature of Venus would be a chilly -42C if were not for the greenhouse effect of its atmosphere.
...deleted Holy Link...

tmiddles wrote:
Here are the facts: If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there. If Mercury were a black body, it would have roughly the temperature we found there.

tmiddles wrote:
But keep running away fellas. Keep pretending "We don't know exactly" is the same thing as "We know nothing at all". It disqualifies nearly all knowledge but it suits you. I get it.

tmiddles wrote:
Now back to an actual discussion:

tmiddles wrote:

spot wrote: As for pressure causing the increased temperature. pressure alone does not determine temperature otherwise I could tell what O2 cylinders were full by putting my hand on them and seeing if they are are warm or not.....
Because of the cloud cover, the surface temperature of Venus would be a chilly -42C if were not for the greenhouse effect of its atmosphere.

No I don't think it's just pressure.

tmiddles wrote:
I think it's that the incoming radiance is diffused by the atmosphere.
It's the amount of atmosphere that affords a greater diffusion.

tmiddles wrote:
Remember also Mars has more greenhouse gases than Earth

tmiddles wrote:
but produces less of a greenhouse effect by far.

tmiddles wrote:
The going theory is that O2 and N2 have nothing to do with it right?

tmiddles wrote:
So why is Earth seeing a much bigger boost than Mars?

tmiddles wrote:
Great link from you as usual! I see that someone asked about Mars in that post and they provided a link:
...deleted Holy Link...

tmiddles wrote:
But they don't discuss the issue Verner raised. Why does Mars not have more of a greenhouse effect?

tmiddles wrote:
I think the mass of the atmosphere playing a role is similar to the ocean being a "heat battery"

tmiddles wrote:
...deleted Holy Link...
The ocean is the largest solar energy collector on Earth.[/url]

tmiddles wrote:
Because thermal energy is able to convect through the liquid.

tmiddles wrote:
If we had a very thin ocean it would have far less thermal energy storage capacity.

tmiddles wrote:
Similarly with less of an atmosphere there is less thermal energy storage capacity.

tmiddles wrote:
Also just as O2 and N2 don't have a direct relationship with radiance (they don't absorb it directly)

spot wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
The temperature of Mercury is unknown.
The temperature of Venus is unknown.

IBdaMann wrote:...not knowing the average planetary temperatures of either Venus or Mercury,...

Don't forget Denver guys. You also claim the temperature of Denver is unknown.

Here are the facts: If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there. If Mercury were a black body, it would have roughly the temperature we found there.

But keep running away fellas. Keep pretending "We don't know exactly" is the same thing as "We know nothing at all". It disqualifies nearly all knowledge but it suits you. I get it.

Now back to an actual discussion:

spot wrote: As for pressure causing the increased temperature. pressure alone does not determine temperature otherwise I could tell what O2 cylinders were full by putting my hand on them and seeing if they are are warm or not.....
Because of the cloud cover, the surface temperature of Venus would be a chilly -42C if were not for the greenhouse effect of its atmosphere.

No I don't think it's just pressure. I think it's that the incoming radiance is diffused by the atmosphere. It's the amount of atmosphere that affords a greater diffusion. Remember also Mars has more greenhouse gases than Earth but produces less of a greenhouse effect by far. The going theory is that O2 and N2 have nothing to do with it right? So why is Earth seeing a much bigger boost than Mars?

Great link from you as usual! I see that someone asked about Mars in that post and they provided a link:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/

But they don't discuss the issue Verner raised. Why does Mars not have more of a greenhouse effect?

I think the mass of the atmosphere playing a role is similar to the ocean being a "heat battery": The ocean is the largest solar energy collector on Earth.

Because thermal energy is able to convect through the liquid. If we had a very thin ocean it would have far less thermal energy storage capacity. Similarly with less of an atmosphere there is less thermal energy storage capacity.

Also just as O2 and N2 don't have a direct relationship with radiance (they don't absorb it directly) neither does all the water below the surface of the ocean, as the radiance is absorbed before it get's down very far.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them

Why Mars does not have a pronounced greenhouse effect? short answer its due to pressure even though as a percentage the amount of CO2 is greater the amount of actual CO2 molecules is not greater. If you look into it I'm sure you can find an in depth explanation.

tmiddles wrote:

spot wrote:
Why Mars does not have a pronounced greenhouse effect? short answer its due to pressure even though as a percentage the amount of CO2 is greater the amount of actual CO2 molecules is not greater. If you look into it I'm sure you can find an in depth explanation.

No see that's not the case. Mars has MORE CO2 by far than Earth.

So Mars has more greenhouse gas, ~100 vs ~ 150, but far far less atmosphere. So why would Earth win at being warmer than expected?

tmiddles wrote:
I think it's because the mass of the atmosphere, like the mass of the ocean, plays a major roll in storing thermal energy.

tmiddles wrote:
It's there to "soak up" the energy that greenhouse gases,

tmiddles wrote:
the ground/water conduction and convection pass on to it.

tmiddlle wrote:
And/Or the pressure build as you get near the ground level results in more thermal energy being located near the ground then you'd have otherwise.

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
The temperature of Mercury is unknown.
The temperature of Venus is unknown.

IBdaMann wrote:...not knowing the average planetary temperatures of either Venus or Mercury,...

Don't forget Denver guys. You also claim the temperature of Denver is unknown.

Here are the facts: If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there. If Mercury were a black body, it would have roughly the temperature we found there.

But keep running away fellas. Keep pretending "We don't know exactly" is the same thing as "We know nothing at all". It disqualifies nearly all knowledge but it suits you. I get it.

Now back to an actual discussion:

spot wrote: As for pressure causing the increased temperature. pressure alone does not determine temperature otherwise I could tell what O2 cylinders were full by putting my hand on them and seeing if they are are warm or not.....
Because of the cloud cover, the surface temperature of Venus would be a chilly -42C if were not for the greenhouse effect of its atmosphere.

No I don't think it's just pressure. I think it's that the incoming radiance is diffused by the atmosphere. It's the amount of atmosphere that affords a greater diffusion. Remember also Mars has more greenhouse gases than Earth but produces less of a greenhouse effect by far. The going theory is that O2 and N2 have nothing to do with it right? So why is Earth seeing a much bigger boost than Mars?

Great link from you as usual! I see that someone asked about Mars in that post and they provided a link:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/

But they don't discuss the issue Verner raised. Why does Mars not have more of a greenhouse effect?

I think the mass of the atmosphere playing a role is similar to the ocean being a "heat battery": The ocean is the largest solar energy collector on Earth.

Because thermal energy is able to convect through the liquid. If we had a very thin ocean it would have far less thermal energy storage capacity. Similarly with less of an atmosphere there is less thermal energy storage capacity.

Also just as O2 and N2 don't have a direct relationship with radiance (they don't absorb it directly) neither does all the water below the surface of the ocean, as the radiance is absorbed before it get's down very far.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them

Why Mars does not have a pronounced greenhouse effect? short answer its due to pressure even though as a percentage the amount of CO2 is greater the amount of actual CO2 molecules is not greater. If you look into it I'm sure you can find an in depth explanation.

So pressure has something to do with this 'greenhouse effect'? Describe this 'greenhouse effect' without violating any law of physics.

spot wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

spot wrote:
Why Mars does not have a pronounced greenhouse effect? short answer its due to pressure even though as a percentage the amount of CO2 is greater the amount of actual CO2 molecules is not greater. If you look into it I'm sure you can find an in depth explanation.

No see that's not the case. Mars has MORE CO2 by far than Earth.

Verner calculated it:

VernerHornung wrote:
Earth pressure 101.3 kPa, 0.04% CO2, 1.4% H2O
partial pressure of CO2 is 0.0004 x 101.3 kPa = 41 Pa
molar mass of CO2 = 44
molar mass of air = 29
gravity = 9.8 m/s^2
so mass (CO2) = (41 x 44) /(29 x 9.8) = 6.3 kg of CO2 per square meter

partial pressure of H2O is 0.014 x 101.3 kPa = 1420 Pa
molar mass of H2O = 18
so mass (H2O) = (1420 x 18) / (29 x 9.8) = 90 kg of H2O per square meter

Mars pressure 640 Pa, 95% CO2, 0.03% H2O
partial pressure of CO2 is 0.95 x 640 Pa = 608 Pa
molar mass of Martian air = 43.5
gravity = 3.7 m/s^2
so mass (CO2) = (608 x 44)/(43.5 x 3.7) = 166 kg of CO2 per square meter.

So Mars has WAY more greenhouse gas but far far less atmosphere. So why would Earth win at being warmer than expected?

I think it's because the mass of the atmosphere, like the mass of the ocean, plays a major roll in storing thermal energy. It's there to "soak up" the energy that greenhouse gases, the ground/water condustion and convection pass on to it.

OK I was wrong about the amount of CO2 but there is much less of everything in the atmosphere of mars, gaps between molecules lets the heat radiate to space much easier

tmiddles wrote:

spot wrote:
OK I was wrong about the amount of CO2 but there is much less of everything in the atmosphere of mars, gaps between molecules lets the heat radiate to space much easier

Yeah it's such a thin atmosphere it doesn't really surprise me that it's less effective at warming the ground level. We have a very small amount of CO2 to start with so it's easy for Mars to win that contest.

In any case it seems safe to say it's not as simple as counting the greenhouse gases only. At least in comparing planets.

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
The temperature of Mercury is unknown.
The temperature of Venus is unknown.

IBdaMann wrote:...not knowing the average planetary temperatures of either Venus or Mercury,...

Don't forget Denver guys. You also claim the temperature of Denver is unknown.

Here are the facts: If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there. If Mercury were a black body, it would have roughly the temperature we found there.

But keep running away fellas. Keep pretending "We don't know exactly" is the same thing as "We know nothing at all". It disqualifies nearly all knowledge but it suits you. I get it.

Now back to an actual discussion:

spot wrote: As for pressure causing the increased temperature. pressure alone does not determine temperature otherwise I could tell what O2 cylinders were full by putting my hand on them and seeing if they are are warm or not.....
Because of the cloud cover, the surface temperature of Venus would be a chilly -42C if were not for the greenhouse effect of its atmosphere.

No I don't think it's just pressure. I think it's that the incoming radiance is diffused by the atmosphere. It's the amount of atmosphere that affords a greater diffusion. Remember also Mars has more greenhouse gases than Earth but produces less of a greenhouse effect by far. The going theory is that O2 and N2 have nothing to do with it right? So why is Earth seeing a much bigger boost than Mars?

Great link from you as usual! I see that someone asked about Mars in that post and they provided a link:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/

But they don't discuss the issue Verner raised. Why does Mars not have more of a greenhouse effect?

I think the mass of the atmosphere playing a role is similar to the ocean being a "heat battery": The ocean is the largest solar energy collector on Earth.

Because thermal energy is able to convect through the liquid. If we had a very thin ocean it would have far less thermal energy storage capacity. Similarly with less of an atmosphere there is less thermal energy storage capacity.

Also just as O2 and N2 don't have a direct relationship with radiance (they don't absorb it directly) neither does all the water below the surface of the ocean, as the radiance is absorbed before it get's down very far.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them

Why Mars does not have a pronounced greenhouse effect? short answer its due to pressure even though as a percentage the amount of CO2 is greater the amount of actual CO2 molecules is not greater. If you look into it I'm sure you can find an in depth explanation.

So pressure has something to do with this 'greenhouse effect'? Describe this 'greenhouse effect' without violating any law of physics.

Read a book

keepit wrote:
Also, Mars doesn't have any H2O in its atmosphere, which can act as a strong greenhouse gas.

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:


Read a book

Not a description. Try again.

tmiddles wrote:
If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.

keepit wrote:
Also, Mars doesn't have any H2O in its atmosphere, which can act as a strong greenhouse gas.

spot wrote:

keepit wrote:
Also, Mars doesn't have any H2O in its atmosphere, which can act as a strong greenhouse gas.

No but its the lack of density of the individual molecules that is the most important thing to take away.

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:


Read a book

Not a description. Try again.

Having the last word is important to you isn't it?

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:
Read a book

Not a description. Try again.

Having the last word is important to you isn't it?

I am waiting for your last word. Define 'climate change'.

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:


Read a book

Not a description. Try again.

Having the last word is important to you isn't it?

I am waiting for your last word. Define 'climate change'.

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:


Read a book

Not a description. Try again.

Having the last word is important to you isn't it?

I am waiting for your last word. Define 'climate change'.

Bum, Willie,

Really solid and well written stuff! I like it a lot.

how long though?

5. CO2 has diminishing effects beyond 20 ppmv. Is ppmv the same as ppm?

9. There is an unknown source of CO2. Couldn't it just be positive feedback (plant growth) and the fluctuations you get with anything in the real world?

Are you saying that CO2 would have to account for the increase in temp instantaneously? That there couldn't be a gradual accumulation of thermal energy? VENUS just as hot at night so of course the thermal energy is accumulated. So that math doesn't sound right to me.

And I wouldn't waste too much time on this guy One Punch Man, he doesn't believe the temperature of Denver is knowable.

One Punch Man wrote:
I believe that the CO2 increase is most likely coming from the oceans, ...
https://www.quora.com/What-if-it-is-warming-that-is-causing-an-increase-in-the-concentration-of-greenhouse-gases-in-the-atmosphere-instead-of-the-reverse/answer/Richard-Evans-213

One Punch Man wrote:...the high-temperatures on Venus need to be accounted for by something else other than solar radiation which is supposedly very weak on Venus despite it being closer to the Sun.

One Punch Man wrote:

Really solid and well written stuff! I like it a lot.

Thanks, and sorry for the late reply.

how long though?

CO2 has a half-life in the atmosphere of around 5-10 years depending on the source with equilibration taking around 40-48 years or 4 half-lives (see point 10 in the linked article).

5. CO2 has diminishing effects beyond 20 ppmv. Is ppmv the same as ppm?

Yep. They're the same. V just stands for volume, i.e. parts per million by volume.

9. There is an unknown source of CO2. Couldn't it just be positive feedback (plant growth) and the fluctuations you get with anything in the real world?

I believe that the CO2 increase is most likely coming from the oceans, due to changes in biological activity and a decrease in CO2's solubility. As most people here probably already know, as the ocean warms more CO2 is outgassed into the atmosphere and changes in oceanic biological activity can apparently potentially have huge changes in atmospheric CO2. For instance, if all biological activity in the ocean were removed that could change CO2's partial pressure in the atmosphere by a factor of around 5. See my post on Quora in the link below talking about this in more depth.

https://www.quora.com/What-if-it-is-warming-that-is-causing-an-increase-in-the-concentration-of-greenhouse-gases-in-the-atmosphere-instead-of-the-reverse/answer/Richard-Evans-213

Are you saying that CO2 would have to account for the increase in temp instantaneously? That there couldn't be a gradual accumulation of thermal energy? VENUS just as hot at night so of course the thermal energy is accumulated. So that math doesn't sound right to me.

No, I'm not saying that. There is a relationship between radiation-intensity and temperature that is governed by the Stefan-Boltzmann law. I merely used that law to show that the high-temperatures on Venus need to be accounted for by something else other than solar radiation which is supposedly very weak on Venus despite it being closer to the Sun. To make up the shortfall between solar radiation and the observed temperature on Venus you need a radiation-intensity of about 16,000 W/m2.

And I wouldn't waste too much time on this guy One Punch Man, he doesn't believe the temperature of Denver is knowable.

I know. He's like a broken record.