Posted on 12/03/2007 11:09:35 AM PST by kathsua
I think the description was poorly written or the experiment was poorly designed.
They never discussed the "check valve effect". The salt plate will transmit back out the longer wavelengths from reradiation better than the glass model. By interposing glass before the salt plate, the experimenter blocked the longer wavelengths beyond glass's cutoff.
IR Spectrometery was not in any serious use till the 1940's, and as late as the 1960's IR Imaging was primitive.
1909 was a long, long way from FLIR. I would be tempted to dissmiss the work as a well-intentioned quaint attempt at understanding, like the Ether Theory and Spontaneous Generation of microorganisms, myself.
Venus has a higher average temperature on the day side than Mercury.
Maybe a wizard did it? :p
You can block something by either reflecting it away or absorbing it, think mirror sunglasses versus dark sunglasses. CO2 works like the dark sunglasses, preventing the escape of IR into space by absorbing the radiation and warming up.
The greenhouse effect is real. The hysteria about CO2 is B.S. though. The article looks to be a hoax or quackery.
Maybe a wizard did it? :p
Is it safe to say that something other than SUVs affect the atmosphere of Venus? The Warmists' charts tell us that warming precedes CO2 increases and still rises for a bit after the cooling trend begins.
Thais possible, but I hope the experimenter put that glass plate far enough away so that the solid angle presented to the emitter was small.
My explanation is that this experiment was still seeing all the natural greenhouse gases between the apparatus and cold space, so the natural greenhouse effect was never eliminated.
I'm sure its proximity to the giant heat radiating fireball in the sky has nothing to do with it.
Venus is hotter than Mercury, which is much closer to that "giant heat radiating fireball in the sky".
Try reading the paper. The bottom line is that the way the earth behaves is very much different than how a greenhouse behaves and the notion that either is warmed by 'reflective' radiation is a fundamental violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
What is the atmosphere of Mars composed of?
It doesn’t follow the models. Look at the satellite data.
~~ AGW™ ping~~
This is explained by the fact that Mercury is travelling faster than Venus, and therefore cools more due to Solar Wind Chill.
Don't you know nothin?
= 9
I think they should tear down the greenhouses, before the greenhouse gas emissions kill us all!
Global warming advocacy may be ridiculous, but so is pretending that this 98 year old document brings anything to the debate.
That’s why I agree with you. It’s the reason Mars is so HOT! (not)
>>Gases are composed of atoms that contain kinetic energy. This energy is not lost, but merely redistributed among other atoms during collisions (law of conservation of energy)... Also, energy exists between electron shell states of the atom (potential energy)...<<
I know that gases are composed of atoms, and that “temperature” is an expression of the kinetic energy of atoms in motion. I also believe that I may have once heard of that pesky “Law of the Conservation of Energy.”
I merely stated that the Green House Effect is not attributable to carbon dioxide “storing” (in the sense of absorbing and accumulating over time) thermal energy. (If it were to do so, that thermal energy would still somehow have to be transmitted (e.g. by convection or conduction) to the surface of the Earth.
Rather, the carbon dioxide absorbs and instantly re-radiates infrared rays. About half of that re-radiated infrared radiation is aimed at the surface of the Earth (the other half “escapes” into space), where it ultimately increases the Earth’s temperature.
This is, of course, an over-simplification. As someone else here pointed out, one could speak of the CO2 “trapping” the heat (but the use of such words can easily lead to misunderstandings). But I’m no meteorologist or atmospheric physicist.
In response to what a few other posters have claimed here: I believe that Venus would, indeed, be quite cooler (or “not so hot”) if it had no atmosphere. Likewise, I believe that Mars, though cold (by Earth standards), is warmer than it would be without its (predominantly CO2) atmosphere.
Just my 2 cents.
However, I will answer your question. Mars' atmosphere is almost entirely CO2, like Venus'. The big difference is that Venus has about 90 times the total atmospheric density as Earth, while Mars is about 1/170th.
While Mars has very little atmosphere, it still has about 12 times the density of CO2 as Earth. Yet Mars is still much colder than Earth. All three planets are warmer than they would be without atmospheres, Mars is slightly warmer, Earth quite a bit warmer, and Venus "hellishly" warmer.
The big difference is that amount of atmosphere on each planet rather than the particular gasses that make it up.
Makes as much sense as Al Gore. ;-)
Actually 15X ( 14.86 ). Mars should be in a state of "runaway" and "tipping point" global warming with 1/14 the density of CO2 that it currently has, according to the Warmists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.