The density (grams/litre) of CO2 molecules in Mars atmosphere is much higher than on Earth, yet temperatures there are as cold as the interior of Antarctica.
Without an IPCC to educate it, Mars CO2 just doesn’t know how to trap heat.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- The Worst Disaster Year In History
- Harris Wins Pennsylvania
- “politicians & shills bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry”
- UN : CO2 Killing Babies
- Patriotic Clapper Misspoke
- New York Times Headlines
- Settled Science At The New York Times
- “Teasing Out” Junk Science
- Moving From 0% to 100% In Six Years
- “Only 3.4% of Journalists Are Republican”
- “Something we are doing is clearly not working”
- October 26, 1921
- Hillary To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Ivy league Provost Calls For Assassination
- Record Arctic Sea Ice Growth
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- Bob G on “falsely labeling”
- Bill on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- William on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- Mac on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- arn on Protesting Too Much Snow
- Disillusioned on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- Disillusioned on IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Disillusioned on Protesting Too Much Snow
- arn on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
This sounds like a job for the EPA – when does the next space flight leave?
Obama, to Mars!
Yes please.
I doubt it. Mars CO2 is trapping heat just fine but it is immediately beaming it to the depths of Martian rock just like our CO2 is beaming its energy to the bottom of the oceans and hiding it there, in both cases without affecting the temperature of the planet’s atmosphere or the surface. It is an amazing and completely misunderstood gas. Instead of wasting money on windmills and ruminants’ gases we need to figure out how to use CO2 to beam matter and energy from one place to another without regard to time or distance. That way we could build a small transmission plant, beam it close to the Sun in an instant and have it immediately start beaming the trapped heat, with pinpoint accuracy, to each home, factory and government office on Earth.
Great Idea. I like the way you think!
Mars should be fine though… now that the various probes have discovered water on Mars, all we have to do is sit back and watch the joules roll in. First a little ice sublimates — that increases the green house effect — which means that MORE ice sublimates and that warms things even MORE, and more ice sublimates, and so on and so on! Before we know it Mars will be one vast expanse of swamp and ice just waiting for the loving stewardship of Greenpeace! I propose that we rename the planet Hansenstan. Or maybe Manntopia!
OK, let’s be fair and say that the Mars is much farer away from the sun than the earth
Good to see a scientist over here. The almost non existent atmospheric pressure is also a factor.
With CO2 concentrations of about 950,000 PPM, shouldn’t Mars be the Red Hot Planet?
“With CO2 concentrations of about 950,000 PPM, shouldn’t Mars be the Red Hot Planet?”
(face -> palm)
PPM’s don’t mean much when the total atmosphere is tiny. At 0.087 psi, average surface pressure is about 0.6% of that of Earth’s 14.7 psi.
And then there’s the dearth of H2O vapor when it’s -200deg.
Don’t forget that at 1.52 times as far from the Sun as Earth, it gets just 43% of the amount of sunlight.
Science denier stupidity is a hoot.
As I mentioned in the article, the density (grams/liter) of CO2 molecules in Mars atmosphere is much higher than on Earth.
Did you actually bother to do the math before shooting yourself in the foot?
You might also note that clouds in the Earth’s atmosphere reflect much of the sunlight back into space, so there is little difference in solar radiation at the surface of the two planets.
Now who is stupid?
But at least you made a good case for H2O being the only important greenhouse gas.
Yea, but the Earth being almost a 100 times more dense of an atmosphere than Mars, the relative sparce density of CO2 is a red herring. The warming effect of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is an established fact.
ROFLMAO – the whole scam is based on the amount of CO2…..
Again though, relative density of CO2 on Mars vs Earth irrelevent. Mars has no oceans and only a very thin atmosphere, which means there is very little thermal inertia – the climate is much more susceptible to change caused by external influences.
Great job Steve!
You roped in these two short-bus retards Avery and Kyle, and hogtied them to contradictory arguments between Venus and Mars!
RETARDS IN A NUTSHELL: ‘On Venus atmospheric pressure and closeness to the sun DOES NOT matter, on Mars it means EVERYTHING’ 😉
Sagan single-handedly put the “pop” in Science and ruined a generation of otherwise normal human thinkers. The result is a bumper crop of idiots who are no more intelligent than the superstitious medieval alarmists ready to sacrifice the nearest virgin to stop a flood or plague or drought or comet or …
Steve, even Realclimate says “…the effect of water vapour and clouds is between 66 and 85%…” but CO2 is still important on Earth
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/calculating-the-greenhouse-effect/
Earth-Venus-Mars Comparison
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/EVMcomp.htm
I just spent an hour reading some of that thread on Real Climate. That was a nice discussion that took place back in 2006. Apart from a lot more measurements we have today, the understanding of the water vapor, co2 and atmosphere sensitivity science was well established back then. The more you read of actual scientist saying what they know and why they know what they know; it is incumbent for us laymen to stay humble and recognize that a subject as big as climate science should keep us a perpetual students. We know a lot already, but there is a lot we don’t know. Too bad it all had to get caught up in our domestic politics.
CO2 percentage is much lower than that. In the tropics it is only 3%, and additional CO2 does almost nothing.
Appeals to authority? ROFLMAO
The more you read of actual scientists changing what they said they knew……
rotfl
Thank you for the basic facts, although some evidently don’t have the capacity to grasp them. Or perhaps, they didn’t pay attention in school. Clearly their minds are incapable of handling more than one variable. Maybe they are too busy praying for pie in the sky after they die!
Hansen has not used his red and brown crayons to adjust Mars’ temperature. It will have no trouble sustaining life if he is allowed to do his handiwork.
The Martian heat is hiding in the Martian oceans…
Perhaps the most damning evidence (or lack of it, for a better term) against the “deniers” is the examples of India and China. Both, as emerging (already huge) industrial economies and growing markets, are producing HUGE amounts of CO2, and have multitudes of scientists funded by their respective governments.
If there was any CREDIBLE science that would prove (or even hint) that climate change, as defined now, was not the result of humans, or that there were other, significant factors other than those already identified, these countries would be pumping out as much scientific evidence that would support alternative reasons for climate change. Not just for the sake of science, but for informing their respective populations that their continued development and growth isn’t responsible, and that it should continue.
But they aren’t… despite that they have spent much money trying to, they can’t find any other reasons than the cause is entirely caused by man.
Those with the most to gain by “debunking” the current scientific knowledge have not been able to enforce their opinion through any significant scientific research.
Think about that.
Steve, as I understand it, it is not the lower level co2 that should be the focus. As you go up, it all evens out affecting the globe equally.
No one has EVER offered a reasonable explanation of how a gas – CO2 – that undergoes no phase changes at ambient temperatures anywhere on Earth can “trap” heat – NEVER.
It absorbs IR, heats up, rises into the atmosphere and cools – how is that trapping heat ?
Are you saying the vast bulk of the atmosphere doesn’t absorb energy and heat up even if only by contact with the heated surfaces of the Earth including the oceans ?
Are you saying the vast bulk of the atmosphere doesn’t radiate IR ?
If that is true then O2 and N2 are the real “heat trapping” gases because there is no doubt they have the same temperature as the ambient air temperature but the only method available for them to cool if they do not radiate IR is the relatively random collisions with GHGs which ARE able to radiate IR to space.
At a maximum concentration of a few percent water vapour that is less then 1 collision in about 30 resulting in loss of energy to space for water vapour and 1 collision in about 2500 for CO2.
I do not for one minute believe that.
And I do not for one minute believe the radiative forcing claims either.
If you have a thermometer at air temperature of 18 degrees C and then heat it to 36 degrees C using a heat lamp – i.e. by radiation – it emits an extra ~110 watts per square metre as calculated by the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.
At 18 C – 291 K – ~407 Watts per square metre
At 36 C – 309 K – ~517 Watts per square metre
How do you account for that extra 110 Watts per square metre ?
If you say the heat lamp is providing only this 110 Watts per square metre adding radiative fluxes as climate scientists do then a block of ice in close proximity – which at 0 degrees C emits about 315 Watts per square metre – should heat it even more.
315 >>> 110.
If you agree with logic and common sense that it requires energy at least the equivalent of 36 degrees C to achieve this you have proven one of the fundamental tenets of climate science wrong.
Only radiation from objects which are hotter induce temperature increases in only objects that are cooler
Only a fool would suggest if I were to try to heat the thermometer to 36 C by conduction I could use ice !
I goggled this, I learned something myself. I appreciate your interesting response as well.
“CO2, is nearly transparent to the solar radiation emitted from the sun, but partially opaque to the thermal radiation emitted by the earth. As such, it allows incoming solar radiation from the sun to pass through it and warm the earth’s surface. The earth’s surface, in turn, emitts a portion of this energy upwards toward space as longer wavelength or thermal radiation. Some of this thermal radiation is absorbed and re-radiated by the atmosphere’s CO2 molecules back toward earth’s surface, providing an additional source of heat energy. Without water vapor, CO2, and other radiatively-active trace gases in the air, the planet’s average temperature would be about 34°C cooler than it is at present.”
CO2 is transparent to sunlight, partially opaque to radiating heat from the earth.
So the next time the Washington Post shows a picture of CO2 coming out of a smokestack, you will have to beat on them mercilessly for lying to their readers again.
Come on Steve, reply to the interesting point I made. I admit I just learned it myself. You all always talk about how innocuous CO2 is, I just found out why it is considered to be a threat. Something that lets sunlight in to warm the earth yet retains infrared heat coming back from the earth. That explains the greenhouse effect. At least let people know what the debate is about.
we’re talking to a moron……..
a know nothing, know it all
come on AVery, reply to the interesting point Rosco made, he’s not at the bottom of the learning curve