Author Topic: Global warming update (Read 2378 times)

lazs2 · « **Reply #105 on:** May 01, 2007, 02:38:48 PM »

If mars and earth are within 1% of each other in terms of absorbing radiation from the sun then it would seem that the amount of c02 in the atmosphere would not be making any difference.

If they are increasing at the same rates and the earth has had an increasing amount of c02 while mars has stayed at a constant 95% then it would seem that c02 plays little or no part in why the suns energy is converted to warming of the planets.

Unless you are saying that mars had the same percent increase in c02 as we have had.

It seems far more likely that the winds and particulate matter are helping to absorb the suns energy in somewhat of a stable manner.

It would seem that c02 has little effect on earth or mars and that the sun is causing almost all of the change and... in a very predictable and logical manner. It is affecting both planets and their makeups in almost identical manners despite the fact that their atmospheres are so different.

lazs

oboe · « **Reply #106 on:** May 01, 2007, 03:28:18 PM »

No Laz, you are misunderstanding. Think of it this way:

For every 100 units of solar radiation that reach the Earth, only 44 units reach Mars (because Mars is farther away from the Sun and solar radiation dissipates according to the inverse of the square of the distance from the source...this is the Inverse-Square Law)

Now factoring in albedo: Of the 100 units that the Earth receives, 30%, (30 units) are reflected and 70 units are absorbed. Of the 44 that Mars receives, 29% (12.8 units), are reflected, leaving 31.2 units absorbed.

So the Earth is absorbing more than TWICE as much solar radiation as Mars is, yet since the 70s, Mars has been able to match the increase in the Earth's temperature.

I think it is fact, not theory, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. With Mars' atmosphere being 95% CO2, I'm real surprised the researchers looked past that as the warming mechanism and came up with the dust storm theory - even if the dust storms reduced the Martian albedo to 0, so the planet absorbed 100% of the solar radiation it received it would still only be about 60% of the solar radiation the Earth received.

I'm no expert but this Fenton gal's theory seems ridiculous to me. Might be a good idea to find out who funded her research.

[EDIT]Lori Fenton is a planetary geologist with the SETI Institute's Carl Sagan Center in Mountain View, CA.

Hmmm, a Carl Sagan disciple. Still don't know who funded the research though, it appears NASA researchers are involved too.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/05/MNG78P2SPV1.DTL&type=science

lazs2 · « **Reply #107 on:** May 02, 2007, 08:50:28 AM »

I don't think I missunderstood. I think I am making an observation.

If the earth and mars heated up at the same rate and mars has a stable 95% co2 atmosphere and earth has an atmosphere where the C02 is increasing..

And... both planets are showing the same increase in temp..

That would seem to point out that more energy is reaching them both and that c02 has little or no effect or... at the very least.. that it affects them differently.

If more c02 traps more of the suns energy then.. it would make sense that mars would be affected more by increased solar activity than earth... any tiny increase in solar activity would translate to a huge rise in temp on mars compared to earth with it's tiny little bit of co2.

or... think of it this way... if our rising co2 causes a rise in the greenhouse effect and a jump in temp... then mars... with a very high co2 level would have a proportionately higher rise... maybe double or more increase over us.

If this is not the case... then we need not fear c02 since we can go to 95% or so and see no change in the increase.

The sun seem to be the main driving factor and reacting equally on both planets despite the co2 levels

And... that is why you don't hear much on it... that is why dust and such is being touted. If the sacred cow co2 doesn't drive the increase then... well.. then..

ITS THE SUN STUPID.

I don't think that it is coincidence that both are rising at the same rate.... I don't think that co2 has much to do with it other than being one small factor of many that make up the way the suns energy is retained. It seems to me that mars proves that co2 is such a minor greenhouse gas that you can increase the atmosphere to 95% co2 and the suns energy will still act in a predictable way with small and predictable increases and decreases in temp to go along with the small increases and decreases in the suns activity.

That is why it is probly not talked about much.

lazs

lazs2 · « **Reply #108 on:** May 02, 2007, 08:56:44 AM »

reading that.. I guess I can simplify.

If our co2 level is twice what it once was and mars is a stable 95%.. and if c02 is such an important greenhouse gas that we can't see even a tiny percent increase without melting all the ice caps...

How is it that our temp has not shown a huge increase over that of mars? with our 50% increase in co2 shouldn't we be outpacing mars in temp rise?

Why are both planets rising the same amount (which coincides nicely with sun activity) if one planet had a huge jump in co2?

lazs

bozon · « **Reply #109 on:** May 02, 2007, 11:48:26 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by oboe
Here's the kicker: Mars is half-again further away from the Sun than Earth, so by the Inverse-Square Law receives just a little more than 2/5s of the solar radiation than the Earth receives.

If you are trying to connect global warming to solar activity, it is NOT due to a change in the solar energy flux. The energy flux from the sun is constant to within a small fraction of a percent. Solar activity is reflected mostly in UV and soft X-ray emitted from the corona. In terms of energy flux, the corona is 10^-6 of the flux emitted from the photosphere. The important effect, according to the theory, is blocking of cosmic radiation due to solar wind, which increase during high activity epochs (reducing cosmic radiation flux).

Cosmic rays affect the ionization degree of the upper atmosphere and can affect the cloud formation for example.

oboe · « **Reply #110 on:** May 02, 2007, 12:01:12 PM »

You've made some large assumptions, there Lazs.

Another huge factor to consider is the density of the Martian atmosphere - its practically non-existent compared to Earth's. The atmospheric pressure on the surface of Mars is apparently only about 1% of the atmospheric pressure on Earth. So even though its 95% CO2, its very very thin compared to Earth's.

Where did you get the idea that our CO2 level has increased 50%? I've heard its now about 380 ppm, which is about 80 ppm higher than historic highs.

The question for me is not why our planet has not shown a huge increase in temp compared to Mars, but how the heck did Mars keep pace with us despite receiving so much less solar radiation than we do?

I'm real surprised with all the talk of CO2 and global warming, that a study of global warming on Mars would ignore the fact that its atm. is 95% CO2.

Yknurd · « **Reply #111 on:** May 02, 2007, 12:30:03 PM »

Arguing about global warming is like lesbians blaming men for all their problems.

oboe · « **Reply #112 on:** May 02, 2007, 01:33:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by bozon
If you are trying to connect global warming to solar activity, it is NOT due to a change in the solar energy flux. The energy flux from the sun is constant to within a small fraction of a percent. Solar activity is reflected mostly in UV and soft X-ray emitted from the corona. In terms of energy flux, the corona is 10^-6 of the flux emitted from the photosphere. The important effect, according to the theory, is blocking of cosmic radiation due to solar wind, which increase during high activity epochs (reducing cosmic radiation flux).

Cosmic rays affect the ionization degree of the upper atmosphere and can affect the cloud formation for example.

I think Laz is the one trying to connect global warming to solar activity. At least that's the way I interpret his "ITS THE SUN STUPID" tagline.

Bozon I wish I could've followed more closely what you tried to explain.
What do you mean by 'flux'?

And by 'cosmic', do you mean having an origin outside our solar system?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #113 on:** May 02, 2007, 02:25:37 PM »

Neuron Stars, Quasars, Super Novas (novea) and other objects in the galaxy and beyond eject protons which hit the earth and are called cosmic rays, (like 90% of CR are protons anyway..) although the Sun blows protons our way too, most cosmic rays come from stuff other than the Sun.

A recently published paper linked cosmic rays to cloud formation, and clouds reflect a lot of solar energy so cluods reduce the Earth's absorption tof the Suns energy.

lazs2 · « **Reply #114 on:** May 02, 2007, 02:32:13 PM »

to me... solar wind is solar activity.

oboe... large assumptions? the whole idea of "man made global warming" is nothing but large assumptions... I am just playing the game as they do.

also.. I am not talking about a 50% increase over historic highs (whatever that means) I am talking about a 50% increase (about) over the last 50 years or so.. didn't we go from like 240 to 380 or some such?

My point being that with such a large increase... If co2 was the main driving aspect then... we should have had a much higher temp increase than mars did with it's stable c02 level. If c02 had any effect at all it would appear to be miniscule compared to suns activity.

Think of it this way... mars has a stable c02 percentage.. during the same period... earth has a rapidly rising one...

Both recieve the same amount of solar activity and both have the same rise in temp.

Again... your car is overheating... you ignore the radiator...you ignore the thermostat and the timing and engine and drive line condition and instead...

you concentrate on one of the left rear wheels lug nuts..

That is what blaming co2 is like.

probly.. you could get 100 shops to agree with you too if they all did only lug nut repair work exclusively.

lazs

Xargos · « **Reply #115 on:** May 02, 2007, 02:35:11 PM »

Lug nut being Al Gore.

oboe · « **Reply #116 on:** May 02, 2007, 04:30:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
My point being that with such a large increase... If co2 was the main driving aspect then... we should have had a much higher temp increase than mars did with it's stable c02 level. If c02 had any effect at all it would appear to be miniscule compared to suns activity.

All things being equal, perhaps. But there are so many differences between Mars and Earth that I think your comparison is not valid. I think your assumptions are too simplified.

I don't think you can state with certainty that we should've experienced a much higher temp increase than Mars, or even whether Mars has had a stable CO2 level for the past 30 years.

lazs2 · « **Reply #117 on:** May 03, 2007, 09:12:27 AM »

maybe you can't....

But if you pin the whole "man made" global warming boogieman on co2 then you have to back it up. You have to say that increases in co2 will bring corresponding increases in temp no matter what else happens otherwise....

you have to admit that in at least in some scenarios... the amount of co2 has nothing at all to do with the amount the global temp rises.

That other factors as yet unknown (what is that big yellow ball?) may make co2 an non player.

lazs

oboe · « **Reply #118 on:** May 03, 2007, 09:16:45 AM »

I'm not pinnning anything on anything. I'm just saying I'm surprised the researchers ignored the obvious implication between CO2 and global warming when doing their Mars study. NOt sure I'm qualified to go any deeper than that. It just sounds suspicious to me.

lazs2 · « **Reply #119 on:** May 03, 2007, 02:27:40 PM »

Probly shouldn't have said "you" when I really meant "those who believe in man made global warming".

The man made global warming acolytes pin everything on co2... they got nothing else..

lazs