Posted on 05/01/2021 2:03:39 AM PDT by Moseley
Yes, as a % of the Martian atmosphere, that portion that is CO2 is a larger % (for Mars) than is CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere. By quantity - how much C02 - it is nowhere near the volume of CO2 in earth’s atmosphere, because the total atmosphere of each - Mars and earth - is so different. The Marian atmosphere is very thin compared to Earth. Mars atmosphere is by weight only 1% of earths. Why is Mars atmosphere so little, so thin? Likely in part because it’s gravity is 62% less than Earth’s.
“Green house” comparisons between the two is really comparing apples vs oranges. There is too much besides % of CO2 in the atmosphere that makes the two planet’s atmosphere’s different.
So...is the climate changing? Who knows for sure? Are temperatures on nearby planets rising? NASA recently said they are.If man made "climate change" is real who's most to blame? China,hands down. For every coal fired power plant that the advanced industrial nations shut down China opens up 20.
Now, do we KNOW exactly what happens with convection and the cooling of the Earth from convection and radiation out into space?
Not for sure.
But it illustrates that WE DO NOT KNOW that CO2 traps heat or acts like a blanket or warms a planet in any way.
We know convection happens. It is a fact. Every aspect of CO2 acting as a conveyor belt carrying heat from the surface to the upper atmosphere, radiating heat out into space is known — proven empirically — to be a fact.
By contrast Co2 warming any planet is sheer speculation.
We know that in a closed container in the laboratory CO2 will absorb heat energy in the form of infrared radiation.
And the average CO2 molecule will re-radiate the heat energy, the photon of IR radiation will smack another CO2 molecule and be absorbed. That IR photon will be re-emitted in a RANDOM direction and be absorbed. That photon will be re-radiated in a random direction.
On and on, heat energy bouncing through the atmosphere hundreds or thousands of times a minute. (I’m not sure of the speed off the top of m y head, and I am fairly certain it is unpredictable and variable, like the half-life of radioactive molecules).
But eventually ON NET, the heat energy will radiate out into space.
But what the fear porn alarmists don’t understand is
— the atmosphere is THINNER ABOVE
and THICKER BELOW (wherever you are, but more pronounced as convection carries heated CO2 upward).
Therefore, there is a net bias of heat energy radiating out into outer space versus heading back down toward the Earth’s surface.
Also, as convection carries heated CO2 (and the surrounding air, all heated as someone explained higher up)
the ANGLE also creates a bias for heat energy to radiate out into space because the Earth is curved.
As IR photons are emitted in random directions from CO2 molecules, not only will they face a thinner atmosphere above and a thicker atmosphere below them,
but MORE than 50% of the directions they can travel are out into space.
The curvature of the Earth at the horizon causes the Earth to (appear to) fall away.
So there are more directions aimed at space than there are aimed at the Earth’s surface.
So, on net MORE of the heat energy will escape — after bouncing around thousands of times from molecule to molecule always in random directions — out into space than will be returned downward to the Earth’s surface.
Not true that because the Martian atmosphere is so thin it has much less CO2. It is 98% CO2 and the total weight of CO2 is still 8x in weight or moles of CO2 as we have on earth. The numbers: Mars 2.3 x 10 16th, Earth 3.0 x 10 15th Kg. The IR absorption is a fubction of the number of molecules of CO2 and there are more per square meter of surface area on Mars... by a lot.
If your analysis was accurate the weight of the Martian atmosphere would not be only about 1% of Earth’s. In spite of being a lager portion of what little atmosphere Mars has, it remains that Mars atmosphere is very thin. It’s CO2 “greenhouse” effect is vastly offset by how little in volume the total atmosphere is.
Gross ignorance by yet another rambling lunatic that cannot write a coherent article.
There are measurements of the entire Earth multiple times a day. We call them weather satellites.
I agree with all of that. There is an equilibirum temperature where incoming energy (mainly solar) is equal to outgoing longwave plus relected solar. The more the energy bounces around before leaving the atmosphere, the warmer the atmosphere. From the perspective of the heat, the atmosphere is thicker.
A convenient measure of the greenhouse effect is the difference between the average surface temperature, Ts, and the planet’s effective temperature, Te. For Mars this difference is about 5K. By comparison, the Earth’s atmosphere produces a much stronger greenhouse effect of 35 K owing to a much greater abundance of water vapor.
https://curry.eas.gatech.edu/Courses/6140/ency/Chapter12/Ency_Atmos/Planetary_Atmos_%20Mars.pdf
Mars only gets halg the average sunlight, but there are many other factors affecting the average temperature.
Yes, water vapor is a giant role in a “greenhouse” effect. For sure, and more so than CO2 generally.
MY only point was that regardless of what % CO2 is to the Marian atmosphere, compared to what % CO2 is to Earth’s, Mars atmosphere is so thin (contains so little- but 1% of Earth’s), in spite of the weight of each CO2 molecule, Mars CO2 is not going to be a “green house” effect on Mars.
“Gross ignorance by yet another rambling lunatic that cannot write a coherent article.
There are measurements of the entire Earth multiple times a day. We call them weather satellites.”
Satellites cannot measure the Earth’s temperature.
First, satellites can only cover a thin slice of the Earth’s surface as they orbit the Earth. So they “measure” only a tiny swath.
Second, again (as usual), THEY ARE NOT DESIGNED FOR THAT PURPOSE.
Satellites are designed to look down and try to monitor specific locations on the ground. That is one reason why they can only measure a tiny slice of the surface at a time. They would fail at their main and designed purpose if they were not tightly focused on only a thin, narrow slice of the surface.
Third, because they are not measuring the entire Earth all at once, they cannot measure the Earth’s temperature at all.
Two days ago, here in Northern Virginia, the temperature was 81 degrees at Dulles airport.
About 15 hours later the temperature was 60 degrees.
The temperature dropped 20 degrees in less than a day.
SO if you don’t measure the ENTIRE Earth
AT THE SAME TIME
changes in the weather render the attempted measurement invalid.
If you measure the Earth’s surface in tiny slices, you are measuring WEATHER — not the Earths’ overall temperature.
Fourth, satellites DO NOT measure temperature. A thermometer or other instrument of temperature must be in direct physical contact with an object or gas to measure its temperature.
Satellites attempt to (but cannot) measure the IR radiation and there by INFER
also known as
GUESS
that the IR radiation correlates with the actual temperature at the surface.
Not sometimes.
But ALWAYS correlates.
That is the nature of science.
We are not just interested in whether something SOMETIMES happens, for reasons we do not understand.
Science requires us to validate whether it is ALWAYS true, that we understand all the variables.
Fifth, satellites cannot measure IR radiation from the Earth’s surface. The radiation travels through about 200 miles of atmosphere. It is not a valid measurement of the temperature at the Earth’s surface.
Oh, they will try.
Translation: THEY GUESS.
GUESSING is not science.
Sixth, the first LANDSAT satellite only entered orbit in the 1970s.
So even if satellites could measure the Earth’s temperature.
That would be completely worthless for the purpose of analyzing whether humans are causing any climate change.
“Satellites cannot measure the Earth’s temperature.”
Then you’ll have to explain how we’ve been doing that.
I don’t know what makes you so stupid, but it really works. Public school?
You are not a space systems guy, I can tell. I am. Certified, degreed, and got the t-shirt. I probably have more years of space systems experience than you’ve been alive.
P.S. You really should go to a community college and take at least a basic science class. Everything that you said was moronically ignorant.
Nice cartoon.
There is no such thing as a global temperature, look it up.
“P.S. You really should go to a community college and take at least a basic science class. Everything that you said was moronically ignorant.”
I studied physics at U.Mass/Amherst.
That’s the problem. The fear porn propagandists can’t fool me.
““Satellites cannot measure the Earth’s temperature.”
“Then you’ll have to explain how we’ve been doing that.”
Simple, WE HAVEN’T.
Has anyone even considered the amount of heat formerly radiated into space, that is now being retained by billions of solar panels?
“You are not a space systems guy, I can tell. I am. Certified, degreed, and got the t-shirt. I probably have more years of space systems experience than you’ve been alive.”
Nice B.S. Talk. Let’s check it:
1) WHEN was the first LANDSAT satellite launched?
YOUR ANSWER:
2) What were the LANDSAT satellites DESIGNED to measure?
YOUR ANSWER:
3) Were LANDSATS ever DESIGNED to measure the global temperature of the entire Earth at once?
YOUR ANSWER:
4) If LANDSATS were actually capable of measuring the Earth’s planet-wide temperature (ONE temperature reading for the entire planet),
how would 50 years of satellite readings provide sufficient data to evaluate planetary climate change?
YOUR ANSWER:
5) Are satellites’ temperature measurement instruments in physical contact with the Earth’s atmosphere?
YOUR ANSWER:
6) Are satellites’ temperature measurement instruments in physical contact with the Earth’s surface?
YOUR ANSWER:
7) Isn’t the DEFINITION of temperature the heat experienced by physical contact with an object?
YOUR ANSWER:
8) If I were in space in a space suit floating next to bowling ball at 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, how much heat would I experience from the 1,000 degree bowling ball floating 10 feet from me?
YOUR ANSWER:
9) At what altitude do earth-observing satellites orbit, distance from the Earth’s surface?
YOUR ANSWER:
10) Can a satellite see the Earth’s surface directly, or the light coming from the Earth’s surface after it passes through 73 miles of significant atmosphere and at least 300 miles of total atmosphere?
YOUR ANSWER:
11) Can a satellite measure infra-red radiation directly from the Earth’s surface, or only radiation filtered through 73 miles of significant atmosphere and 300 miles total of atmosphere?
YOUR ANSWER:
12) How wide is the swath of the Earth’s surface that an earth-observing satellite can observe on each orbital pass?
YOUR ANSWER:
13) Can an Earth-observing satellite measure the temperature of the Earth’s 196.9 million square miles of surface area simultaneously all at the same time.
YOUR ANSWER:
True Mars does get less radiation (50%) from the sun but if you say that CO2 blocks the re-radiation of the IR reflecting off the Earth’s surface, and that is the primary focus of managing the AGW problem, then why isn’t Mars a simple case in what CO2 does in isolation from these many other factors? There should be some effect.
Water vapor and the energy transferred is the difference. Mars only has its surface to absorb and hold heat energy. Earth has the water cycle in its atmosphere., and managing that is totally beyond us.
I would say the case of Mars with CO2 in isolation points to the key role of the bulk atmosphere. Heat captured by CO2 is immediately transferred to the bulk atmosphere here on earth. On Mars it is more likely to be lost to space. I think the equilibrium temperature is not just function of greenhouse gases, but also the density of the atmosphere as whole.
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.