Remember me
▼ Content

The only straw the Church of AGW can grasp is Venus



Page 1 of 3123>
The only straw the Church of AGW can grasp is Venus16-09-2019 21:34
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1079)
They say Venus is hotter because Venus is 98% CO2. Venus has 100 times the atmosphere as Earth. Venus higher temperature can be easily explained by more air rather than by different composition of air. Mars is also 98% CO2 and I don't see Mars is a hot planet.
16-09-2019 21:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5191)
Tai Hai Chen wrote: They say Venus is hotter because Venus is 98% CO2. Venus has 100 times the atmosphere as Earth. Venus higher temperature can be easily explained by more air rather than by different composition of air. Mars is also 98% CO2 and I don't see Mars is a hot planet.

"They" also invent convenient planetary temperature values that they don't know but claim that "everybody knows." Let's just jump to the chase and claim that Venus is heaven and is where Climate was born. Everyone should be required to pray facing Venus five times per day.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
17-09-2019 10:46
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1508)
IBdaMann wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote: They say Venus is hotter because Venus is 98% CO2. Venus has 100 times the atmosphere as Earth. Venus higher temperature can be easily explained by more air rather than by different composition of air. Mars is also 98% CO2 and I don't see Mars is a hot planet.

"They" also invent convenient planetary temperature values that they don't know but claim that "everybody knows." Let's just jump to the chase and claim that Venus is heaven and is where Climate was born. Everyone should be required to pray facing Venus five times per day.


.


Heaven? Sounds like it's hot as hell on Venus. How many minutes, before those probes burned up? I'll admit to being amazed the managed to actually land and transmit some information, before the demise. Can't image the accuracy of the sensor data, the electronics would have been barely functional at best. Personal, I don't understand the focus on either planet, they don't share a lot similarities, both are considerably different than Earth. We have a lot of water, neither Mercury or Venus seem to have any at all.
17-09-2019 17:35
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1079)
HarveyH55 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote: They say Venus is hotter because Venus is 98% CO2. Venus has 100 times the atmosphere as Earth. Venus higher temperature can be easily explained by more air rather than by different composition of air. Mars is also 98% CO2 and I don't see Mars is a hot planet.

"They" also invent convenient planetary temperature values that they don't know but claim that "everybody knows." Let's just jump to the chase and claim that Venus is heaven and is where Climate was born. Everyone should be required to pray facing Venus five times per day.


.


Heaven? Sounds like it's hot as hell on Venus. How many minutes, before those probes burned up? I'll admit to being amazed the managed to actually land and transmit some information, before the demise. Can't image the accuracy of the sensor data, the electronics would have been barely functional at best. Personal, I don't understand the focus on either planet, they don't share a lot similarities, both are considerably different than Earth. We have a lot of water, neither Mercury or Venus seem to have any at all.


The probes break mainly break high pressure rather than from high temperature. As for Earth, you are right, Earth is a water planet, that means lots of clouds, and that means high albedo, which is why Earth is cooler than it otherwise would be, and Mars is warmer than it would be if Mars were a water planet.
17-09-2019 19:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote: They say Venus is hotter because Venus is 98% CO2. Venus has 100 times the atmosphere as Earth. Venus higher temperature can be easily explained by more air rather than by different composition of air. Mars is also 98% CO2 and I don't see Mars is a hot planet.

"They" also invent convenient planetary temperature values that they don't know but claim that "everybody knows." Let's just jump to the chase and claim that Venus is heaven and is where Climate was born. Everyone should be required to pray facing Venus five times per day.


.


Heaven? Sounds like it's hot as hell on Venus. How many minutes, before those probes burned up? I'll admit to being amazed the managed to actually land and transmit some information, before the demise. Can't image the accuracy of the sensor data, the electronics would have been barely functional at best. Personal, I don't understand the focus on either planet, they don't share a lot similarities, both are considerably different than Earth. We have a lot of water, neither Mercury or Venus seem to have any at all.


The probes break mainly break high pressure rather than from high temperature. As for Earth, you are right, Earth is a water planet, that means lots of clouds, and that means high albedo, which is why Earth is cooler than it otherwise would be, and Mars is warmer than it would be if Mars were a water planet.

No, the probes reach the surface, meaning they can easily withstand the pressure. What kills them is the temperatures, just like a personal computer processor running without a heat sink.

The emissivity of Earth is unknown. The emissivity of Mars is unknown.
The temperature of Earth is unknown. The temperature of Mars is unknown.


The Parrot Killer
17-09-2019 20:25
keepit
★★★☆☆
(767)
THC,
The CO2 on Mars is so thin that it can't slow down the thermal energy transfer to outer space very much. Venus has a lot so thermal energy transfer is is slowed greatly.
17-09-2019 20:33
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1079)
keepit wrote:
THC,
The CO2 on Mars is so thin that it can't slow down the thermal energy transfer to outer space very much. Venus has a lot so thermal energy transfer is is slowed greatly.


No evidence to either of your claims.
17-09-2019 20:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
keepit wrote:
THC,
The CO2 on Mars is so thin that it can't slow down the thermal energy transfer to outer space very much. Venus has a lot so thermal energy transfer is is slowed greatly.


* It is not possible to slow or trap heat.
* Thermal energy does not transfer to space. There is no significant matter in space to transfer to.


The Parrot Killer
17-09-2019 23:03
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1508)
Do we really know the composition of Venus, and it's atmosphere. Seems like it's hot enough to vaporize a lot of stuff. And there are a lot of chemical reactions we have to add heat to, to get started, here on earth. I doubt Venus's atmosphere similar in anyway, to any other planet. Venus CO2 is probably just as global warming impotent, as earth's man-made CO2. A non-issue, is a non-issue, no matter where in the solar system you look...
Edited on 17-09-2019 23:04
18-09-2019 06:14
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(133)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
They say Venus is hotter because Venus is 98% CO2. Venus has 100 times the atmosphere as Earth. Venus higher temperature can be easily explained by more air rather than by different composition of air. Mars is also 98% CO2 and I don't see Mars is a hot planet.

Ja. The climate change crowd doesn't put out a rhapsody on Venus & Mars like Paul McCartney & Wings in 1975, even though they were signal case studies in understanding atmospheric radiative forcing. Let's do scratchpaper math here. The partial pressure of a gas is, approximately, the mass of that gas per unit area of planet surface divided by the planet's surface acceleration of gravity.

Mars:

640 Pa total pressure, 95% CO2, so 610 Pa of CO2
610 Pa = mass CO2/m^2 times 3.7 m/s^2
mass CO2/m^2 = 160 kg/m^2

Venus:

9.2 MPa total pressure, 97% CO2, so 8.9 MPa of CO2
8.9 MPa = mass CO2/m^2 times 8.9 m/s^2
mass CO2/m^2 = 10^6 kg, or 1000 metric tons, per m^2

Earth:

100 kPa total pressure, 0.04% CO2, so 40 Pa of CO2
4 Pa = mass CO2/m^2 times 9.8 m/s^2
mass CO2/m^2 = 4 kg/m^2

100 kPa total pressure, 1.4% H2O, so 1.4 kPa of H2O
1.4 kPa = mass H2O/m^2 times 9.8 m/s^2
mass H2O/m^2 = 143 kg/M^2

Interesting. Mars and Earth possess similar mass of greenhouse gases in their air columns, though we're told CO2 is more "potent" than H2O. Yet Mars receives only half the sunlight we do, cutting into the CO2 edge. Venus, twice the sun and overwhelming CO2.


Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
Edited on 18-09-2019 06:22
18-09-2019 17:03
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1079)
VernerHornung wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
They say Venus is hotter because Venus is 98% CO2. Venus has 100 times the atmosphere as Earth. Venus higher temperature can be easily explained by more air rather than by different composition of air. Mars is also 98% CO2 and I don't see Mars is a hot planet.

Ja. The climate change crowd doesn't put out a rhapsody on Venus & Mars like Paul McCartney & Wings in 1975, even though they were signal case studies in understanding atmospheric radiative forcing. Let's do scratchpaper math here. The partial pressure of a gas is, approximately, the mass of that gas per unit area of planet surface divided by the planet's surface acceleration of gravity.

Mars:

640 Pa total pressure, 95% CO2, so 610 Pa of CO2
610 Pa = mass CO2/m^2 times 3.7 m/s^2
mass CO2/m^2 = 160 kg/m^2

Venus:

9.2 MPa total pressure, 97% CO2, so 8.9 MPa of CO2
8.9 MPa = mass CO2/m^2 times 8.9 m/s^2
mass CO2/m^2 = 10^6 kg, or 1000 metric tons, per m^2

Earth:

100 kPa total pressure, 0.04% CO2, so 40 Pa of CO2
4 Pa = mass CO2/m^2 times 9.8 m/s^2
mass CO2/m^2 = 4 kg/m^2

100 kPa total pressure, 1.4% H2O, so 1.4 kPa of H2O
1.4 kPa = mass H2O/m^2 times 9.8 m/s^2
mass H2O/m^2 = 143 kg/M^2

Interesting. Mars and Earth possess similar mass of greenhouse gases in their air columns, though we're told CO2 is more "potent" than H2O. Yet Mars receives only half the sunlight we do, cutting into the CO2 edge. Venus, twice the sun and overwhelming CO2.


Mars may receive less sunlight than Earth does but Mars has no clouds so much less albedo and Mars has no ozone layer which reflects 98% of UV on Earth UV is most potent sunlight, so Mars should actually be about the same temperature as Earth if not more even though it's further away from Sun than Earth.
18-09-2019 17:45
keepit
★★★☆☆
(767)
Verner.
CO2 is more of a problem on earth because when you increase the CO2 on earth the CO2 stays increased for hundreds to thousands of years while H2O just rains down in a matter of days.
Mars and earth don't posses similar amounts of green house gasses.
Earth has much more water vapor which is a strong green house gas. This explains the cooler temp on mars (in addition to the distance factor).
Edited on 18-09-2019 17:58
18-09-2019 18:01
keepit
★★★☆☆
(767)
Venus' proximity to the sun doesn't explain its hotter temp. It is the incredible amount of CO2 in its atmosphere which explains the temp.
18-09-2019 18:06
keepit
★★★☆☆
(767)
Harvey,
The U.S. has landed spacecraft on the surface of Venus. They didn't last long though. 20 minutes i think.
Anyway, the spacecraft measured the composition of the atmosphere on the way down and while on the surface. What surprised me was the amount of sulfuric acid there was. They also use spectrometers to measure the composition.
NASA's APOD (you can google it) shows an exoplanet yesterday that has water vapor in its atmosphere.
Edited on 18-09-2019 18:07
18-09-2019 18:14
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1508)
keepit wrote:
Verner.
CO2 is more of a problem on earth because when you increase the CO2 on earth the CO2 stays increased for hundreds to thousands of years while H2O just rains down in a matter of days.
Mars and earth don't posses similar amounts of green house gasses.
Earth has much more water vapor which is a strong green house gas. This explains the cooler temp on mars (in addition to the distance factor).


Hundreds of years? Might have my gasses confused, and it wasn't really part of what I was looking for... But, pretty sure one of the websites I was looking through put it at less that 10 years, which seems sort of reasonable. CO2 does a lot more than global warming and feed plants. It kills coral in the oceans, and seems I remember a few other devious deeds attributed to man-made CO2. I don't hold stock in any of the, except the plant food thing, but that a good thing. The warming is such a bad thing either. Last winter was brutal, almost dropped down it the upper 30s a few nights. Of course the northern folks probably had it a little worse with Arctic Blasts, and Polar Vortex. Moved to Florida to be free of all that fun winter weather.

It's not just CO2, it's the ratios of other gasses, but most important is water. I'm fairly certain water is what keeps the planet in a livable temperature range. Sure, we go through some extremes occasionally, little brutal, but it helps weed out the bad seeds, well not as much as it use to. Guess you have to be a 'hockey'-stick fan, to appreciate Polar Bears and Penguins...
18-09-2019 18:45
keepit
★★★☆☆
(767)
Harvey,
Why don't you google the duration of an increase in CO2 concentration?
18-09-2019 19:35
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1508)
keepit wrote:
Harvey,
Why don't you google the duration of an increase in CO2 concentration?


Not all that interest, pretty sure it's mostly speculation and consensus. Different answers for different source, depending how 'green' they lean.

Google has gotten very exhausting for me lately. They refuse to get me where I want to go anymore. Was figuring on looking into some other search engines, bu have to use Google, to find them, which will likely either return total crappy ones, or similar 'green' leaning ones.

Spent much of yesterday looking for images or timelapse video of plants grown under various levels of CO2. I wanted to see if there were any done, with the target 280 ppm the green-team is shooting for, and some with really high levels 1200+ ppm. Just wanted to see a compassion. Google would only return one result, that was actually what I asked it for, but only 42 days, and 2 different CO2 levels, not real professional work either. Did learn that different plants have different CO2 needs and tolerance levels. Most need around 170 ppm to remain functional, but don't really grow. AT 150 ppm they all use up their stored resources, and die. I didn't want to rely on pothead experiments, or marketing crap for CO2 enrichment sellers.
18-09-2019 19:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
They say Venus is hotter because Venus is 98% CO2. Venus has 100 times the atmosphere as Earth. Venus higher temperature can be easily explained by more air rather than by different composition of air. Mars is also 98% CO2 and I don't see Mars is a hot planet.

Ja. The climate change crowd doesn't put out a rhapsody on Venus & Mars like Paul McCartney & Wings in 1975, even though they were signal case studies in understanding atmospheric radiative forcing. Let's do scratchpaper math here. The partial pressure of a gas is, approximately, the mass of that gas per unit area of planet surface divided by the planet's surface acceleration of gravity.

Mars:

640 Pa total pressure, 95% CO2, so 610 Pa of CO2
610 Pa = mass CO2/m^2 times 3.7 m/s^2
mass CO2/m^2 = 160 kg/m^2

Venus:

9.2 MPa total pressure, 97% CO2, so 8.9 MPa of CO2
8.9 MPa = mass CO2/m^2 times 8.9 m/s^2
mass CO2/m^2 = 10^6 kg, or 1000 metric tons, per m^2

Earth:

100 kPa total pressure, 0.04% CO2, so 40 Pa of CO2
4 Pa = mass CO2/m^2 times 9.8 m/s^2
mass CO2/m^2 = 4 kg/m^2

100 kPa total pressure, 1.4% H2O, so 1.4 kPa of H2O
1.4 kPa = mass H2O/m^2 times 9.8 m/s^2
mass H2O/m^2 = 143 kg/M^2

Interesting. Mars and Earth possess similar mass of greenhouse gases in their air columns, though we're told CO2 is more "potent" than H2O. Yet Mars receives only half the sunlight we do, cutting into the CO2 edge. Venus, twice the sun and overwhelming CO2.


Mars may receive less sunlight than Earth does but Mars has no clouds so much less albedo and Mars has no ozone layer which reflects 98% of UV on Earth UV is most potent sunlight, so Mars should actually be about the same temperature as Earth if not more even though it's further away from Sun than Earth.


Absorption of UV does not heat anything. It causes chemical reactions instead.
Absorption of visible light does not heat much. It causes chemical reactions instead.
Absorption of IR heats stuff. Most of the energy from the Sun is IR.
The emissivity of Mars is unknown.
The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
Neither CO2 nor H2O have the capability to warm a planet using IR from the surface. You cannot create energy out of nothing.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2019 19:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
keepit wrote:
Verner.
CO2 is more of a problem on earth

CO2 is not a problem. It has no capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
keepit wrote:
because when you increase the CO2 on earth the CO2 stays increased for hundreds to thousands of years

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2. It is a naturally occurring gas. It is not possible to measure where CO2 is coming from. You also seem to have forgotten how CO2 is destroyed.
keepit wrote:
while H2O just rains down in a matter of days.

WRONG. Water vapor exists everywhere on Earth, even in the driest of deserts where it might not rain for several years.
keepit wrote:
Mars and earth don't posses similar amounts of green house gasses.

There is no such thing. No gas or vapor have the capability to warm the Earth.
* You can't create energy out of nothing (1st law of thermodynamics).
keepit wrote:
Earth has much more water vapor which is a strong green house gas.

Water vapor has no capability to warm the Earth using IR from Earth's surface.
* You can't create energy out of nothing.
keepit wrote:
This explains the cooler temp on mars (in addition to the distance factor).

The temperature of Mars is unknown.
The temperature of Earth is unknown.
It is not possible to measure either temperature.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2019 19:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
keepit wrote:
Venus' proximity to the sun doesn't explain its hotter temp. It is the incredible amount of CO2 in its atmosphere which explains the temp.

The temperature of Venus is unknown. It is not possible to measure the temperature of Venus.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2019 19:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
keepit wrote:
Harvey,
Why don't you google the duration of an increase in CO2 concentration?

It is not possible to measure the source of any CO2. It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2019 21:19
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1079)
keepit wrote:
Venus' proximity to the sun doesn't explain its hotter temp. It is the incredible amount of CO2 in its atmosphere which explains the temp.


Sounds like bullshit. Do you have a source to your claim?
18-09-2019 21:22
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1079)
keepit wrote:
Verner.
CO2 is more of a problem on earth because when you increase the CO2 on earth the CO2 stays increased for hundreds to thousands of years while H2O just rains down in a matter of days.
Mars and earth don't posses similar amounts of green house gasses.
Earth has much more water vapor which is a strong green house gas. This explains the cooler temp on mars (in addition to the distance factor).


Water is not necessarily a warming gas. As cloud it has cooling effective by reflection of sunlight. As ice it has cooling effect by cooling the air around it. Snow and ice is what makes it cold even by March when day length is the same as September.
18-09-2019 21:48
keepit
★★★☆☆
(767)
There are many sources for that info. The Great Courses DVD call "Earth's Changing Climate" by Professor Richard Wolfson is very good. There are many sources. Look at wikipedia.
Also, Mercury is closer to the sun that Venus yet its temp is cooler than Venus'. This is because Venus has much CO2 which acts as a greenhouse gas.
18-09-2019 22:15
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1079)
keepit wrote:
There are many sources for that info. The Great Courses DVD call "Earth's Changing Climate" by Professor Richard Wolfson is very good. There are many sources. Look at wikipedia.
Also, Mercury is closer to the sun that Venus yet its temp is cooler than Venus'. This is because Venus has much CO2 which acts as a greenhouse gas.


Mercury has practically no atmosphere, a teeny tad more than Earth's moon has. Has nothing to do with CO2. Has everything to do with atmosphere. Atmosphere creates friction between air molecules. Friction makes heat.
18-09-2019 23:47
keepit
★★★☆☆
(767)
Pretty sure the friction in venus' atmosphere isn't close to being sufficient to cause an 800 degree F temp.
18-09-2019 23:48
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1079)
keepit wrote:
Pretty sure the friction in venus' atmosphere isn't close to being sufficient to cause an 800 degree F temp.


How do you know? Have you tried it?
18-09-2019 23:50
keepit
★★★☆☆
(767)
I know enough to have a reliable intuition.
19-09-2019 02:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
keepit wrote:
There are many sources for that info. The Great Courses DVD call "Earth's Changing Climate" by Professor Richard Wolfson is very good. There are many sources. Look at wikipedia.
Also, Mercury is closer to the sun that Venus yet its temp is cooler than Venus'. This is because Venus has much CO2 which acts as a greenhouse gas.


DVD's put together by the Church of Global Warming is not a reference.
Wikipedia is not a valid reference.

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

* You can't create energy out of nothing. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm a planet by using infrared light from the surface of that planet.


The Parrot Killer
19-09-2019 02:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
keepit wrote:
There are many sources for that info. The Great Courses DVD call "Earth's Changing Climate" by Professor Richard Wolfson is very good. There are many sources. Look at wikipedia.
Also, Mercury is closer to the sun that Venus yet its temp is cooler than Venus'. This is because Venus has much CO2 which acts as a greenhouse gas.


Mercury has practically no atmosphere, a teeny tad more than Earth's moon has. Has nothing to do with CO2. Has everything to do with atmosphere. Atmosphere creates friction between air molecules. Friction makes heat.


What friction?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 19-09-2019 02:05
19-09-2019 02:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
keepit wrote:
Pretty sure the friction in venus' atmosphere isn't close to being sufficient to cause an 800 degree F temp.

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


The Parrot Killer
19-09-2019 16:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5191)
keepit wrote: I know enough to have a reliable intuition.

... but your intuition tells you to believe people who are lying to you and who are manipulating you ... and you obey your intuition ... and end up believing in many strange things like "proxy data" and deities that you can put before your Christian God if you simply don't refer to them as gods ... things that your intuition is apparently telling you are perfectly fine.




[Remember, you were the one who brought your intuition into this. There is no way for anyone to know when his/her intuition is leading him/her astray.]


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
19-09-2019 16:30
keepit
★★★☆☆
(767)
You're just making stuff up IBDM.
19-09-2019 19:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
keepit wrote:
You're just making stuff up IBDM.


No, that would be you.

You are immersed in the Church of Global Warming. You are a fundamentalist. You are trying to prove a circular argument.


The Parrot Killer
19-09-2019 21:44
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(133)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Mars may receive less sunlight than Earth does but Mars has no clouds so much less albedo and Mars has no ozone layer which reflects 98% of UV on Earth UV is most potent sunlight, so Mars should actually be about the same temperature as Earth...

Thanks. I noticed everyone always talked about how thin Mar's air is, but I wanted to see how much the CO2 above each square yard of Mars weighs. I got 160 kilograms, which is far more than Earth has. We have a thick atmosphere but very little CO2 and more H2O. As you said, a lot of other things affect the temperature, and I can't compute those. Astronomers think Mars had warm periods in the distant past, when ice melted or permafrost softened enough to flow, and that it may have started with an ocean in the solar system's early years.

keepit wrote:
CO2 is more of a problem on earth because when you increase the CO2 on earth the CO2 stays increased for hundreds to thousands of years while H2O just rains down in a matter of days.

And thanks to you. I've read the half-life of CO2 aloft on Earth is about 200 years, meaning that half the amount we inject would be gone after that time, and ¾ of it after 400 years. I've assumed CO2 could "amplify" H2O as well. Start with a little warming from CO2. That causes more water to evaporate, and then that water warms things more. Even if it precipitates in days, the vapor can always be replenished in days, by evaporation.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Last winter was brutal, almost dropped down it the upper 30s a few nights. Of course the northern folks probably had it a little worse with Arctic Blasts, and Polar Vortex. Moved to Florida to be free of all that fun winter weather...

Ha! "Brutal" here means around –7 when you head out to get the paper, and temps struggling to reach the teens by afternoon. Sometimes I'm tempted by the Florida idea, but then it's so hot and muggy by May I'd want to move back.
~


HarveyH55 wrote:
Guess you have to be a 'hockey'-stick fan, to appreciate Polar Bears and Penguins...

We had a "hockey stick" business with population worries back in the '70s. Graphs showed population humming along fairly level until it suddenly zoomed to the top of the paper at the right edge. They were just extrapolating exponential growth into the future; India was about to starve and Americans would have to settle for turnips and kale.

With climate change, the extrapolation is linear, where temps climb up a 45˚ line after 1970 or so, but it still looks like an oracle to me, foretelling the future again. I'm not sure where the confidence to do so is coming. Economic models have thousands of input-output variables and fail at predicting next year.

We don't wanna fall into the other trap, however. Population pressure is considerable and it's still going up, even if not as fast percentage-wise. And sheer human numbers is what's pushing climate change. I'm loathe to ignore these phenomena as if they were unreal. They are real, but the nonstop doomsday narratives provoke a backlash that makes other folks "circle the SUVs" and refuse to do anything at all.

I think we might have had more action on controlling US emissions if they'd been presented as a cost and risk issue. Companies install worker safety equipment to cut risks of getting injury lawsuits. The US should "buy" some insurance against climate change, not to mention the price shocks, massive tanker spills, rig fires and Persian Gulf wars involved with fossil fuels by reducing its dependence on them. Instead, we see one "Green New Deal" after another with no real chance of passage, and we're not even in the Paris deal anymore, where we'd have some leverage against climate scofflaws such as China. There's no middle ground on the issue amid the insanity from far left and far right.


Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
19-09-2019 22:21
keepit
★★★☆☆
(767)
Verner,
If we just quit spending so much money we would decease the amount of CO2 we produce.
19-09-2019 22:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
VernerHornung wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Mars may receive less sunlight than Earth does but Mars has no clouds so much less albedo and Mars has no ozone layer which reflects 98% of UV on Earth UV is most potent sunlight, so Mars should actually be about the same temperature as Earth...

Thanks. I noticed everyone always talked about how thin Mar's air is, but I wanted to see how much the CO2 above each square yard of Mars weighs. I got 160 kilograms, which is far more than Earth has. We have a thick atmosphere but very little CO2 and more H2O.

Neither CO2 nor water vapor is capable of warming a planet using the IR from the surface of that planet.
* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* You can't make heat flow from cold to hot.
* You can't trap heat.
* You can't trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
* You can't trap light.
* You can't reduce the radiance of a planet and increase that planet's temperature at the same time.

VernerHornung wrote:
As you said, a lot of other things affect the temperature, and I can't compute those.

Nothing. The only thing that affects temperature of any planet is the output of the Sun, the distance to the Sun, and the emissivity of the body absorbing the sunlight.
VernerHornung wrote:
Astronomers think Mars had warm periods in the distant past, when ice melted or permafrost softened enough to flow, and that it may have started with an ocean in the solar system's early years.

Mars never had oceans. There isn't enough water or water vapor. The only ice is some rime ice at the poles, which expand and contract in the same way the ones on Earth do.
VernerHornung wrote:
keepit wrote:
CO2 is more of a problem on earth because when you increase the CO2 on earth the CO2 stays increased for hundreds to thousands of years while H2O just rains down in a matter of days.

And thanks to you. I've read the half-life of CO2 aloft on Earth is about 200 years, meaning that half the amount we inject would be gone after that time, and ¾ of it after 400 years.

Argument from randU fallacy. CO2 doesn't have a 'half life'. It is continually produced, and it is continually destroyed. Assigning which CO2 is destroyed is pointless. CO2 is CO2.
VernerHornung wrote:
I've assumed CO2 could "amplify" H2O as well.

* You can't create energy out of nothing.
VernerHornung wrote:
Start with a little warming from CO2.

* You can't create energy out of nothing. CO2 does not warm the Earth.
VernerHornung wrote:
That causes more water to evaporate, and then that water warms things more.

* You can't create energy out of nothing. CO2 does not warm the Earth. Water vapor does not warm the Earth either.
VernerHornung wrote:
Even if it precipitates in days, the vapor can always be replenished in days, by evaporation.

Minutes, actuallly.
VernerHornung wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Guess you have to be a 'hockey'-stick fan, to appreciate Polar Bears and Penguins...

We had a "hockey stick" business with population worries back in the '70s. Graphs showed population humming along fairly level until it suddenly zoomed to the top of the paper at the right edge. They were just extrapolating exponential growth into the future; India was about to starve and Americans would have to settle for turnips and kale.

Fast forward to today. Nothing's changed about the predictions.
VernerHornung wrote:
With climate change,

Define 'climate change'.
VernerHornung wrote:
the extrapolation is linear,

What 'extrapolation'? Of what? Temperature? It's not possible to measure the temperature of Earth.
VernerHornung wrote:
where temps climb up a 45˚ line after 1970 or so, but it still looks like an oracle to me, foretelling the future again. I'm not sure where the confidence to do so is coming. Economic models have thousands of input-output variables and fail at predicting next year.

Models don't predict anything. Neither does statistical math.
VernerHornung wrote:
We don't wanna fall into the other trap, however. Population pressure is considerable and it's still going up, even if not as fast percentage-wise.

Population is not a pressure. It simple is. You REALLY need to get out into the country more.
VernerHornung wrote:
And sheer human numbers is what's pushing climate change.

Define 'climate change'.
VernerHornung wrote:
I'm loathe to ignore these phenomena as if they were unreal. They are real,

'Climate change' has no meaning. What's real about it? What phenomena? Void argument fallacy.
VernerHornung wrote:
but the nonstop doomsday narratives provoke a backlash that makes other folks "circle the SUVs" and refuse to do anything at all.

There is nothing to do. Don't panic.
VernerHornung wrote:
I think we might have had more action on controlling US emissions if they'd been presented as a cost and risk issue.

There is no reason to control the emission of CO2. It has absolutely no capability to warm the Earth using IR from the surface. Plants are currently starving for CO2.
VernerHornung wrote:
Companies install worker safety equipment to cut risks of getting injury lawsuits. The US should "buy" some insurance against climate change,

Define 'climate change'. You have to define it to run an actuarial on it.
VernerHornung wrote:
not to mention the price shocks, massive tanker spills, rig fires

Very few price shocks, which take place in any market. Very few tanker spills. What IS spilled is eaten by bacteria. Very few rig fires. Rig fires kill people, oil companies do a lot to minimize rig fires and have mitigating systems in place when they do happen. Tanker spills is wasted product. The oil companies don't want them anymore than you do.
VernerHornung wrote:
and Persian Gulf wars involved with fossil fuels

The Persian Gulf has no fossils that burn. Wars over there are religious in nature, not about oil.
VernerHornung wrote:
by reducing its dependence on them.

We don't depend on any Persian Gulf oil. We export oil.
VernerHornung wrote:
Instead, we see one "Green New Deal" after another with no real chance of passage, and we're not even in the Paris deal anymore, where we'd have some leverage against climate scofflaws such as China.

The Paris treaty was not enforceable. No one could define 'climate change' and no one could measure how much CO2 comes from man made sources. Indeed, it's not possible to measure the global atmospheric content of CO2 at all. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.
VernerHornung wrote:
There's no middle ground on the issue

False dichotomy fallacy. There is no issue.
VernerHornung wrote:
amid the insanity from far left and far right.

Just the left, and not even the far left. The far right are anarchists, and don't give a rat's ass about 'climate change'.


The Parrot Killer
19-09-2019 22:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
keepit wrote:
Verner,
If we just quit spending so much money we would decease the amount of CO2 we produce.


Time to bury the idea that CO2 we produce is harmful. It's deceased. Look at all the money we just saved!


The Parrot Killer
20-09-2019 01:41
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1508)
Actually, oil spillage does do a lot of damage, and expensive to clean up, and lots of claims from lost revenue from people along the coasts, which is also very bad PR. More legal battles, and proposed bans and restrictions. Bacteria might eat oil, but they don't have a huge appetite, takes long time. Offshore drilling has a side benefit though, it tends to release some of the pressure, and natural seepage. Yeah, oil leaks and spills, all on it's own from the ocean floors. Tar-like chunks can be found on many coastal beaches. There have been large plumes observed, and huge oil slicks, no drilling nearby, or anything to have spilled. The oil is coming out, one way or another, makes better sense to remove it, under some control, rather than let it randomly seep. Oil spills are costly, though most of the cost is passed on to consumers, and doesn't effect profits, it's still bad PR, and consumers who have to pick up the tab too long or often, are likely to support negative legislation, which can effect profit. Best not to let the optics smog up...
20-09-2019 04:18
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(133)
Into the Night wrote:
* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* You can't make heat flow from cold to hot.
* You can't trap heat.

Oh, please. This mantra again?
~


Into the Night wrote:
It's not possible to measure the temperature of Earth.

I can see it now. Nurse comes in my room at the hospital with oral thermometer on tray, picks it up, glances at it, thinks, and then puts it down. "It's not possible to measure the temperature of the human body. So we won't be taking your vital signs today..."

Into the Night wrote:
It's not possible to measure the global atmospheric content of CO2 at all. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.

"...And we won't be taking you over to radiology. It's impossible to observe the heart since blood clots aren't distributed uniformly in your coronary arteries."

Into the Night wrote:
CO2 does not warm the Earth. Models don't predict anything. Neither does statistical math.

Nurse comes back in with medicine cart, thinks a minute; leaves it over by the door. "Hi, Vern. All those clinical studies have been thrown out because they can't predict anything. Lisinopril doesn't lower blood pressure. So the doctor's stopped your order. You won't be getting the bottle we used to send home with you."

Into the Night wrote:
'Climate change' has no meaning. What's real about it? What phenomena? There is nothing to do. Don't panic.

Nurse shows up one last time. "Dearie, forgot to tell you. 'Angina attack' has no meaning. What's real about it? There is nothing to do; nitroglycerin tablets won't help. Pain cannot be observed because we'd have to use proxies for it. We're sure you'll feel better tomorrow."

Into the Night wrote:
There is no reason to control the emission of CO2. It has absolutely no capability to warm the Earth using IR from the surface.

Finally, discharge papers arrive and the dietician steps by. "No need to watch your salt intake, Vern. Salt has absolutely no capability to raise blood pressure using ACEs from your kidneys. The human body must have salt to function. Bet millions of guys like you are starving for a pepperoni pizza right now."

~~
Boy, am I glad my doctors don't think that way.

Into the Night wrote:
Plants are currently starving for CO2.

My rose bushes are doing fine.
~


Into the Night wrote:
Very few price shocks, which take place in any market. Wars over there are religious in nature, not about oil. We don't depend on any Persian Gulf oil. We export oil.

We're importing 10% of supply right now, down from 40% because of fracking. But this extends a field's lifespan only 7 or 8 years, and once we've fracked them all, game's over. The stopgap required a plush commercial margin at the global Petromart to make it pay off in the first place. Get our oil from Venezuela instead of Iran? Chavez-Maduro's screwed that country and were Iran not feeding Europe and Japan, Venezuela'd have to fill in. The world market is interconnected and fungible.

Iran's friends the Houthi rebels of Yemen shut down half of Saudi Arabia's oil production the other day, or Iran sent the drones itself as Mike Pompeo says. Brent crude opened at $65 Monday morning, up five bucks in a single night, and it went to almost $90 last October. I'm too old to be sold on stability myths about this market even if other commodities get jolted at times. Shocks hurt worse when it's a critical product.

Ja. The wars are religious or tribal in nature. But that hardly keeps us from being involved in them since 1953 when we helped overthrow Iran's former PM Mosaddegh. And we're involved mainly because of the region's oil.

Into the Night wrote:
The Paris treaty was not enforceable. No one could define 'climate change'

We agree on that. It's not legally binding and the way it was negotiated was a mess. But it does require progress tracking and offers its players a bully pulpit. We're the largest voice in every international treaty structure we founded after the war, from UN to GATT on down. The US had no reason to leave Paris except Trump's supporters hate Obama and Paris is associated with him.


Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
Edited on 20-09-2019 04:24
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate The only straw the Church of AGW can grasp is Venus:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Why can't you say Venus is hotter than Mercury because Venus got CO2?1408-12-2019 01:47
What exactly is the evidence that AGW is happening or5625-11-2019 15:53
Church of Global Warming Community630-10-2019 19:49
The only straw the Church of AGW can grasp is Venus and Mercury418-09-2019 22:37
If you believe in the AGW concept and want change but you8819-08-2019 22:09
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact