Remember me
▼ Content

22 Reasons to be Skeptical of Man-Made Global Warming



Page 2 of 6<1234>>>
28-12-2019 04:46
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
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.
Edited on 28-12-2019 04:50
28-12-2019 06:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
tmiddles wrote: This is one where deniers talk out of both sides of their mouth.

Too funny! Guess who's about to do this ...

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

Nope. You do not know this. I realize your absolute NEED to think of yourself as an omniscient god but you only get to do that in your little happy place.

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

Right, the question is whether something you don't know is boosting something that isn't real. Since this is a story created from your wild imagination, you are the only one who can tell us the answer.

On this point, in your little fantasy, who specifically saves the planet? Is it a real person or is it also someone who isn't real? I realize that I'm asking for a spoiler, but I am kind of curious.

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

Nope. "No change at all" doesn't violate any physics, unlike any "greenhouse effect" dogma.


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.

Exactly. "No change at all" doesn't violate any physics, unlike any "greenhouse effect" dogma.

tmiddles wrote: Venus radiates about what it gets.

Actually, Venus radiates exactly what it absorbs.


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: 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.

Nope. There is no death. A rapid temperature change causes the corals to expel their zooxanthellae that give the corals the bright colors. Once the zooxanthellae are ejected, the corals are left white. A few months later, all the zooxanthellae will have returned (well, not actually the same zooxanthellae) and the corals will be just like nothing ever happened.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-12-2019 11:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
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,
No, you don't. You are speculating.
tmiddles wrote:
that we've been naturally warming since the ice age
No, you don't know that. You are speculating.
tmiddles wrote:
so of course sea levels are rising.
You don't know that either. You are speculating.
tmiddles wrote:
The question is only if AGW is boosting that significantly.
Define 'global warming'.
tmiddles wrote:
Any claim that there has been no change at all should beg the question how could that be!
Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.
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.
RDCF. The Stefan-Boltzmann law has no frequency term. It is not possible to trap thermal energy. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
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.

Define 'climate change'.


The Parrot Killer
28-12-2019 16:59
spot
★★★★☆
(1317)
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, at least that what I have heard maybe we have better science journalists over here but the reports I saw never claimed that acidification was responsible, it might hamper the reefs recovery if the bleaching event turns out to be a one off event, I suspect it wont though.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
28-12-2019 20:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
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,
Bleach is a chemical.
spot wrote:
at least that what I have heard
What you heard is wrong.
spot wrote:
maybe we have better science journalists over here but the reports I saw never claimed that acidification was responsible,
Bleach is an alkaline.
spot wrote:
it might hamper the reefs recovery
The reef recovers from any damage within a year.
spot wrote:
if the bleaching event turns out to be a one off event,
Is someone putting bleach on the coral reef?
spot wrote:
I suspect it wont though.

You suspect a serial coral bleacher crime?


The Parrot Killer
28-12-2019 23:50
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
spot wrote:
On point 21 recent coral bleaching is due to heat stress,
Yes of course. I'll admit though that I glossed over headlines initially and saw Ocean Acidification, and saw Coral Bleaching and assumed they were related. I believe that using the term "Acidification" is deliberately misleading, as is the term "Bleaching". Most people are familiar with PH balance and that suffices to describe what's happening. Headlines should be "Ocean PH drop" and Coral "stripping", that's more accurate.

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.

"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
29-12-2019 00:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
tmiddles wrote: Most people are familiar with PH balance and that suffices to describe what's happening.

Except that it's not happening as far as anyone can tell. All belief that it is happening is religious in nature.

Headlines should be "Ocean PH drop simply assumed" and "Temporary Coral Ejection of Zooxanthellae."

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

The answer is yes, it does. And when the additional thermal energy is normalized across all the mass, to include the additional mass, the average temperature remains the same.

Question for you Spot, I know tmiddles will never discuss math.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-12-2019 05:27
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
IBdaMann wrote:... the average temperature remains the same.
So why is Venus so hot?
29-12-2019 06:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:... the average temperature remains the same.
So why is Venus so hot?

It's really close to the sun.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-12-2019 07:07
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
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?
29-12-2019 08:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
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?


The temperature of Mercury is unknown.
The temperature of Venus is unknown.


The Parrot Killer
29-12-2019 10:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
tmiddles wrote: Mercury is even closer. Why is Venus so much hotter than Mercury?

Aside from you not knowing the average planetary temperatures of either Venus or Mercury, you don't know the emissivity of either planet.

This is where you make your complete ignorance out to be my fault.

.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-12-2019 13:26
spot
★★★★☆
(1317)
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.


Neutralizing the sea would be an alternative but we are making it more acidic the sea isn't PH neutral and PH neutral is not a natural state for it to be in.

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.

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.

Someone has already answered the question anyway

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.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lessons-from-venus/


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
29-12-2019 14:06
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
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
Edited on 29-12-2019 15:05
29-12-2019 15:10
spot
★★★★☆
(1317)
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.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
29-12-2019 15:17
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
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 more greenhouse gas, ~100 vs ~ 150, 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 conduction and convection pass on to it. 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.
Edited on 29-12-2019 15:21
29-12-2019 15:21
spot
★★★★☆
(1317)
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


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
29-12-2019 15:24
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
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.
Edited on 29-12-2019 15:30
29-12-2019 20:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
spot wrote:
Neutralizing the sea would be an alternative but we are making it more acidic

Nope. Not possible. Ocean water is alkaline.
spot wrote:
the sea isn't PH neutral and PH neutral is not a natural state for it to be in.

No ocean water has been found with a pH of 7.
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.

This is correct.
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.
Also correct.
spot wrote:
Someone has already answered the question anyway
Both me and IBDaMann have answered those questions.
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...

How do you know? There is no 'should be' in science. Please describe the 'greenhouse effect' without violating the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


The Parrot Killer
29-12-2019 21:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
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.

So increasing absorptivity makes it COLDER???
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.

Compositional error fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Now back to an actual discussion:

You aren't having a discussion. You are just preaching and insulting.
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.

Nope. Pressure doesn't warm anything unless the pressure CHANGES.
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.

Diffusion is not a source of energy. You can't create energy out of nothing.
tmiddles wrote:
Remember also Mars has more greenhouse gases than Earth

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. No gas or vapor is a source of energy in and of itself. You can't create energy out of nothing.
tmiddles wrote:
but produces less of a greenhouse effect by far.

Describe this 'greenhouse effect' without violating the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
tmiddles wrote:
The going theory is that O2 and N2 have nothing to do with it right?

You tell me. Describe the 'greenhouse effect' without violating any law of physics.
tmiddles wrote:
So why is Earth seeing a much bigger boost than Mars?

What boost?
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...

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

Describe this 'greenhouse effect' without violating any law of physics.
tmiddles wrote:
I think the mass of the atmosphere playing a role is similar to the ocean being a "heat battery"

Heat is not something that can be stored.
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted Holy Link...
The ocean is the largest solar energy collector on Earth.[/url]

True, since 7/10th's of Earth's surface is ocean.
tmiddles wrote:
Because thermal energy is able to convect through the liquid.

I don't think you know what 'convection' is or what it does or why it is a form of heat.
tmiddles wrote:
If we had a very thin ocean it would have far less thermal energy storage capacity.

It is not possible to store thermal energy. There is always heat.
tmiddles wrote:
Similarly with less of an atmosphere there is less thermal energy storage capacity.

It is not possible to store thermal energy.
tmiddles wrote:
Also just as O2 and N2 don't have a direct relationship with radiance (they don't absorb it directly)

Both O2 and N2 absorb sunlight directly.


The Parrot Killer
29-12-2019 21:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
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.


The Parrot Killer
29-12-2019 21:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
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?

There is no 'should be' in science. Science doesn't 'expect' anything.
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.

It is not possible to store thermal energy. There is always heat.
tmiddles wrote:
It's there to "soak up" the energy that greenhouse gases,

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. No gas or vapor can warm the Earth.
tmiddles wrote:
the ground/water conduction and convection pass on to it.

Buzzword fallacies.
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.

Simply because there is more mass. HOWEVER, that does not necessarily translate to a higher temperature.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 29-12-2019 21:16
29-12-2019 21:16
spot
★★★★☆
(1317)
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


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
29-12-2019 21:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
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

WRONG. You cannot trap light.


The Parrot Killer
29-12-2019 21:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
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.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. No gas or vapor can warm a planet.


The Parrot Killer
29-12-2019 21:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
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

Not a description. Try again.


The Parrot Killer
29-12-2019 23:48
keepit
★★★★☆
(1220)
Also, Mars doesn't have any H2O in its atmosphere, which can act as a strong greenhouse gas.
30-12-2019 01:04
spot
★★★★☆
(1317)
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.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
30-12-2019 01:08
spot
★★★★☆
(1317)
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?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
30-12-2019 01:59
keepit
★★★★☆
(1220)
Boy, do i have mud all over my face.
I just read about the supersaturation of water vapor in mars' atmosphere. It was discovered in 2011.
Just goes to show you that i should pay the price for new books but those older used books were so cheap.
30-12-2019 03:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
tmiddles wrote:
If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.

Too funny. No physics-violating dogma can be too brazen. This has to go into my signature.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-12-2019 20:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
keepit wrote:
Also, Mars doesn't have any H2O in its atmosphere, which can act as a strong greenhouse gas.


Mars has water in it's atmosphere. Not much, but it's there.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm a planet.


The Parrot Killer
30-12-2019 20:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
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.


Molecules don't have a density.


The Parrot Killer
30-12-2019 20:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
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'.


The Parrot Killer
30-12-2019 20:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
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'.

I, however, am waiting for an UNAMBIGUOUS definition. I have had my fill of tmiddles' unfalsifiability, totally ambiguous definitions and non-repeatable examples.

Science is expressed in math to eliminate all ambiguity. Warmizombies fight tooth and nail to ensure their religious dogma remains completely undefined.



.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
31-12-2019 08:12
spot
★★★★☆
(1317)
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,


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
31-12-2019 23:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
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,


Not the definition of 'climate change'. Try again?


The Parrot Killer
21-01-2020 15:01
One Punch ManProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(134)
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.


Nathan-D
21-01-2020 15:32
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
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
So I don't think this is presented as a "chicken or egg" theory correct?, but one where there is a different source other than CO2 that is causing warming. I still need to read Evan's theory as well as any rebuttal I can find. Maybe here:
https://skepticalscience.com/david-evans-understanding-goes-cold.html

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.
Weak at ground level but the atmosphere is getting that radiance right? I personally think Venus is the place to study to really figure out what the deal is. Why wouldn't the gases of the atmosphere be free to accumulate thermal energy absorbed from solar radiance? Do you consider the oceans of Earth to be a "heat trap"?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-heat-does-the-ocean-trap-robots-find-out/
Why wouldn't an atmosphere as incredibly dense as what you find of Venus do the same?
It's like if I put a pot on the stove full of say refried beans and don't stir it (acts like a solid) the edges will burn while the middle is comparatively cool. If I stir it continuously (acts like a liquid) the entire mix will rise in temperature together. Different portions of the mix will take turns being the outer surface before flowing back into the middle. Doesn't it make sense that thick mix of matter that is free to flow and convect will soak up a lot of energy and that Venus is proof?

Anyway saw you were online and wanted to write something but I'll write more later.
Edited on 21-01-2020 15:39
21-01-2020 18:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
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.


No gas or vapor has the capability to warm Venus. You can't create energy out of nothing.

The broken record is YOU.


The Parrot Killer
Page 2 of 6<1234>>>





Join the debate 22 Reasons to be Skeptical of Man-Made Global Warming:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Made a graph of low equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates to show that the IPCC's best estimate o203-03-2020 02:17
man made or natural31527-01-2020 21:32
The Only Way To End The Economic Trade War Is Avoid The "Currency Middle Man"120-01-2020 06:06
Best place to live in Europe( could also recommend some other place) for health reasons?1901-01-2020 10:33
Does anyone knew that plastic bags were made to save the planet ?215-11-2019 02:19
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact