Calling out Global-Warming Deniers

[MannyIsGod]

Well, as I stated, Mars and Earth share a sun that is the biggest factor in determining our climate and, if Mars is warming, Earth may be warming for the same reasons -- increased solar activity.

By the way, it's not my theory -- I posted a link.


Whatever makes you feel better but, you're the one that is having trouble understanding how climate influences on Mars could have anything to do with climate influences on Earth, not me.

LOL!!!!

Thats because they have absolutely NOTHING to do with each other! Let me explain it to you in a fourth grade manner.

I have 2 balls filled with different gases, at different densities, at different distances and with different compisitoins both around a central heat source. One may have a tempature increase for a very different reason than the other because they have incredibly different variables. Therefor, to understand the increase in one, it doesn't matter what the increase is in the other one bit.

If you increase the thermal output from the central heat source, they may experience entirely different rates of heat because of the different variables. Therefor, one may heat at a significantly different rate than the other because of that.

You can not draw conclusions for one of the balls based on observed conditions on the other.

If you're going to try to say that the Sun is the primary reason for global warming then your proof need start and end with the Sun and its effects on Earth. Anything that happens on Mars will not further any conclusion of what will or what won't happen on Earth and that deems it irrelevant.

Do you understand that, dumb ass?

[MannyIsGod]

Manny was so wrong about Katrina, it's ridiculous him calling me out on this, but I guess most people have short memories. I posted 10 months before Katrina hit that New Orleans was vulnerable to a violent Hurricane and deadly flooding, and then just for kicks, I added that the Houston-Galveston area would get hit too, in the same year.

10 Predictions for 2005

Let's see Manny back up his claims.

First of all, what does me calling you out on the linking of global warming have to do with predictions of NO's vunerabilities before Katrina?

Secondly, do you think that you somehow managed to uncover the vulnerabilities of NO 10 months before Katrina? Thats laughable.

Thirdly, your "predictions" are really guesses. Unless you have some information or data to base your that NO and Galveston would be hit (and Galveston recived nothing more than a glancing blow, but way to toot your horn for a miss sir) then you did nothing me than pick spots on the Gulf coast and guess that a hurricane would hit there.

None of that has anything to do with Global Warming or your (incorrect) linking of Katrina to it, so why you even choose to bring it up is beyond me.

[Nbadan]

Thirdly, your "predictions" are really guesses. Unless you have some information or data to base your that NO and Galveston would be hit (and Galveston recived nothing more than a glancing blow, but way to toot your horn for a miss sir) then you did nothing me than pick spots on the Gulf coast and guess that a hurricane would hit there.

None of that has anything to do with Global Warming or your (incorrect) linking of Katrina to it, so why you even choose to bring it up is beyond me.

It all has to do with credibility Manny (you have none here), and my 'guesses' are based on my own mathamatical computations, and game theory, that you couldn't even begin to understand without at least a undergraduate math degree.

[MannyIsGod]

It all has to do with credibility Manny (you have none here), and my 'guesses' are based on my own mathamatical computations, and game theory, that you couldn't even begin to understand without at least a undergraduate math degree.

LOL

I have no cred and you have it all Dan. MY bad. You should conduct a straw poll to find out exactly how true that is.

I'd love to hear more about your advanced modeling that allows for predictions as precise as where hurricanes will hit. Please, fill us in.

[Yonivore]

LOL!!!!

Thats because they have absolutely NOTHING to do with each other! Let me explain it to you in a fourth grade manner.

I have 2 balls filled with different gases, at different densities, at different distances and with different compisitoins both around a central heat source. One may have a tempature increase for a very different reason than the other because they have incredibly different variables. Therefor, to understand the increase in one, it doesn't matter what the increase is in the other one bit.

If you increase the thermal output from the central heat source, they may experience entirely different rates of heat because of the different variables. Therefor, one may heat at a significantly different rate than the other because of that.

You can not draw conclusions for one of the balls based on observed conditions on the other.

If you're going to try to say that the Sun is the primary reason for global warming then your proof need start and end with the Sun and its effects on Earth. Anything that happens on Mars will not further any conclusion of what will or what won't happen on Earth and that deems it irrelevant.

Do you understand that, dumb ass?

Let me put it even simpler. You put two balls next to a blast furnace and then, turn up the heat, both balls are going to get hotter -- regardless of what's going on inside.

[xrayzebra]

Here is an article I found extremely interesting and may explain why we are having
this discussion. I find many of the remarks in this article revealing. Like about
the computer models used and ice melt raising ocean levels and about how much
the DONT know about the ice sheet in general. Anyhow enjoy.

Jan. 22, 2007, 9:45AM
Climate scientists feeling the heat
As public debate deals in absolutes, some experts fear predictions 'have created a monster'

By ERIC BERGER
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle
TOOLS
Email

Get section feed
Print

Subscribe NOW

Scientists long have issued the warnings: The modern world's appe e for cars, air conditioning and cheap, fossil-fuel energy spews billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, unnaturally warming the world.

Yet, it took the dramatic images of a hurricane overtaking New Orleans and searing heat last summer to finally trigger widespread public concern on the issue of global warming.

Climate scientists might be expected to bask in the spotlight after their decades of toil. The general public now cares about greenhouse gases, and with a new Democratic-led Congress, federal action on climate change may be at hand.

Problem is, global warming may not have caused Hurricane Katrina, and last summer's heat waves were equaled and, in many cases, surpassed by heat in the 1930s.

In their efforts to capture the public's attention, then, have climate scientists oversold global warming? It's probably not a majority view, but a few climate scientists are beginning to question whether some dire predictions push the science too far.

"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster," says Kevin Vranes, a climate scientist at the University of Colorado.

Vranes, who is not considered a global warming skeptic by his peers, came to this conclusion after attending an American Geophysical Union meeting last month. Vranes says he detected "tension" among scientists, notably because projections of the future climate carry uncertainties — a point that hasn't been fully communicated to the public.

The science of climate change often is expressed publicly in unambiguous terms.

For example, last summer, Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences, told the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce: "I think we understand the mechanisms of CO2 and climate better than we do of what causes lung cancer. ... In fact, it is fair to say that global warming may be the most carefully and fully studied scientific topic in human history."

Vranes says, "When I hear things like that, I go crazy."

Nearly all climate scientists believe the Earth is warming and that human activity, by increasing the level of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, has contributed significantly to the warming.

But within the broad consensus are myriad questions about the details. How much of the recent warming has been caused by humans? Is the upswing in Atlantic hurricane activity due to global warming or natural variability? Are Antarctica's ice sheets at risk for melting in the near future?

To the public and policymakers, these details matter. It's one thing to worry about summer temperatures becoming a few degrees warmer.

It's quite another if ice melting from Greenland and Antarctica raises the sea level by 3 feet in the next century, enough to cover much of Galveston Island at high tide.

Models aren't infallible
Scientists have substantial evidence to support the view that humans are warming the planet — as carbon dioxide levels rise, glaciers melt and global temperatures rise. Yet, for predicting the future climate, scientists must rely upon sophisticated — but not perfect — computer models.

"The public generally underappreciates that climate models are not meant for reducing our uncertainty about future climate, which they really cannot, but rather they are for increasing our confidence that we understand the climate system in general," says Michael Bauer, a climate modeler at NASA's Goddard Ins ute for Space Studies, in New York.

Gerald North, professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, dismisses the notion of widespread tension among climate scientists on the course of the public debate. But he acknowledges that considerable uncertainty exists with key events such as the melting of Antarctica, which contains enough ice to raise sea levels by 200 feet.

"We honestly don't know that much about the big ice sheets," North says. "We don't have great equations that cover glacial movements. But let's say there's just a 10 percent chance of significant melting in the next century. That would be catastrophic, and it's worth protecting ourselves from that risk."

Much of the public debate, however, has dealt in absolutes. The poster for Al Gore's global warming movie, An Inconvenient Truth, depicts a hurricane blowing out of a smokestack. Katrina's devastation is a major theme in the film.

Judith Curry, an atmospheric scientist at the Georgia Ins ute of Technology, has published several research papers arguing that a link between a warmer climate and hurricane activity exists, but she admits uncertainty remains.

Like North, Curry says she doubts there is undue tension among climate scientists but says Vranes could be sensing a scientific community reaction to some of the more alarmist claims in the public debate.

For years, Curry says, the public debate on climate change has been dominated by skeptics, such as Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Ins ute of Technology, and strong advocates such as NASA's James Hansen, who calls global warming a ticking "time bomb" and talks about the potential inundation of all global coastlines within a few centuries.

That may be changing, Curry says. As the public has become more aware of global warming, more scientists have been brought into the debate. These scientists are closer to Hansen's side, she says, but reflect a more moderate view.

"I think the rank-and-file are becoming more outspoken, and you're hearing a broader spectrum of ideas," Curry says.

Young and old tension
Other climate scientists, however, say there may be some tension as described by Vranes. One of them, Jeffrey Shaman, an assistant professor of atmospheric sciences at Oregon State University, says that unease exists primarily between younger researchers and older, more established scientists.

Shaman says some junior scientists may feel uncomfortable when they see older scientists making claims about the future climate, but he's not sure how widespread that sentiment may be. This kind of tension always has existed in academia, he adds, a system in which senior scientists hold some sway over the grants and research interests of graduate students and junior faculty members.

The question, he says, is whether it's any worse in climate science.

And if it is worse? Would junior scientists feel compelled to mute their findings, out of concern for their careers, if the research contradicts the climate change consensus?

"I can understand how a scientist without tenure can feel the community pressures," says environmental scientist Roger Pielke Jr., a colleague of Vranes' at the University of Colorado.

Pielke says he has felt pressure from his peers: A prominent scientist angrily accused him of being a skeptic, and a scientific journal editor asked him to "dampen" the message of a peer-reviewed paper to derail skeptics and business interests.

"The case for action on climate science, both for energy policy and adaptation, is overwhelming," Pielke says. "But if we oversell the science, our credibility is at stake."

[xrayzebra]

LOL

I have no cred and you have it all Dan. MY bad. You should conduct a straw poll to find out exactly how true that is.

I'd love to hear more about your advanced modeling that allows for predictions as precise as where hurricanes will hit. Please, fill us in.

You could dan the cut and paste man. And most of what he does cut
and paste is a waste of time anyhow. His cred with me and many others
I'm sure is exactly zero.

[MannyIsGod]

Let me put it even simpler. You put two balls next to a blast furnace and then, turn up the heat, both balls are going to get hotter -- regardless of what's going on inside.

That one might have an faster/shorter rate of increase depending on its compisition/density/distance never occured to you?

I made the mistake of giving you far too much credit yet again. Congrats!

[Yonivore]

That one might have an faster/shorter rate of increase depending on its compisition/density/distance never occured to you?

But, increase, none-the-less.

I made the mistake of giving you far too much credit yet again. Congrats!

Mistakes seem to be common to you.

[Nbadan]

Mistakes seem to be common to you

Ouch!

[Phenomanul]

LOL!!!!

Thats because they have absolutely NOTHING to do with each other! Let me explain it to you in a fourth grade manner.

I have 2 balls filled with different gases, at different densities, at different distances and with different compisitoins both around a central heat source. One may have a tempature increase for a very different reason than the other because they have incredibly different variables. Therefor, to understand the increase in one, it doesn't matter what the increase is in the other one bit.

If you increase the thermal output from the central heat source, they may experience entirely different rates of heat because of the different variables. Therefor, one may heat at a significantly different rate than the other because of that.

You can not draw conclusions for one of the balls based on observed conditions on the other.

If you're going to try to say that the Sun is the primary reason for global warming then your proof need start and end with the Sun and its effects on Earth. Anything that happens on Mars will not further any conclusion of what will or what won't happen on Earth and that deems it irrelevant.

Do you understand that, dumb ass?

Not that I'm going to side with Yoni on this one (as I've not made up my mind on the Global warming matter)...

Anyways, if an energy envelope were drawn around Mars you would find that an observed increase in average planetary temperature is in fact a reflection of an increase in solar flux. The planet's core is no where near as active as Earth's, so unless temperature is emanating from within, 99.99+% of the energy that enters Mars comes by way of our sun. The remaining cosmic energy flux is so small by comparison that it is almost negligible - and with respect to earth similar in magnitude; although earth's atmosphere does a better job of shielding the planet's surface from cosmic radiation (by either absorbing or reflecting alpha, gamma, and x-ray radiation back to space depending on the particulars of the interaction with our atmosphere).

Anyways, by drawing the imaginary energy boundary around the planet attributes such as the planet's atmospheric composition, atmospheric reaction set, green-house effect, atmospheric density, diffractive radiation, are taken out of the picture. The fact of the matter is that for a relatively constant atmospheric composition, density etc... the temperature in Mars has managed to increase. Since we know that this increase can be attributed to solar flux with almost 100% certainty. It should follow that earth has also been subjected to this mean increase in solar flux. Not to mention the fact that solar flux is inversely proportional to the square of the average distance from the sun. And with Earth being 48 million miles closer to the sun than Mars, any observed increase in flux would impact the Earth by a factor of 2.3 times greater.

The only difference between the planets with respect to an energy balance is the difference in satelite orientation. Earth's moon is bigger and can shield a larger amount of solar flux when positioned in front Earth, but it can also radiate a large amount of solar flux back to Earth's night side. Since Mars' moons are smaller, and further away they don't impact the planet's energy flux as much as Earth's moon does.

You are correct in asserting that Earth's different atmospheric properties would react/behave differently to an increase in solar flux. At least with respect to Mars

But the fact remains, an increase in solar flux can in fact be concluded if a temperature increase has in fact been observed for our brother planet. That is all that can conclusively be stated with the given data set.

[Nbadan]

All this could be true if we were in a unusal period of solar flare activity, but by most historical calculations, we are on the down-side of a solar cycle.

[Yonivore]

Not that I'm going to side with Yoni on this one (as I've not made up my mind on the Global warming matter)...

God forbid!

Anyways, if an energy envelope were drawn around Mars you would find that an observed increase in average planetary temperature is in fact a reflection of an increase in solar flux. The planet's core is no where near as active as Earth's, so unless temperature is emanating from within, 99.99+% of the energy that enters Mars comes by way of our sun. The remaining cosmic energy flux is so small by comparison that it is almost negligible - and with respect to earth similar in magnitude; although earth's atmosphere does a better job of shielding the planet's surface from cosmic radiation (by either absorbing or reflecting alpha, gamma, and x-ray radiation back to space depending on the particulars of the interaction with our atmosphere).

Anyways, by drawing the imaginary energy boundary around the planet attributes such as the planet's atmospheric composition, atmospheric reaction set, green-house effect, atmospheric density, diffractive radiation, are taken out of the picture. The fact of the matter is that for a relatively constant atmospheric composition, density etc... the temperature in Mars has managed to increase. Since we know that this increase can be attributed to solar flux with almost 100% certainty. It should follow that earth has also been subjected to this mean increase in solar flux. Not to mention the fact that solar flux is inversely proportional to the square of the average distance from the sun. And with Earth being 48 million miles closer to the sun than Mars, any observed increase in flux would impact the Earth by a factor of 2.3 times greater.

The only difference between the planets with respect to an energy balance is the difference in satelite orientation. Earth's moon is bigger and can shield a larger amount of solar flux when positioned in front Earth, but it can also radiate a large amount of solar flux back to Earth's night side. Since Mars' moons are smaller, and further away they don't impact the planet's energy flux as much as Earth's moon does.

You are correct in asserting that Earth's different atmospheric properties would react/behave differently to an increase in solar flux. At least with respect to Mars

But the fact remains, an increase in solar flux can in fact be concluded if a temperature increase has in fact been observed for our brother planet. That is all that can conclusively be stated with the given data set.

Isn't that exactly what I said; except with about eleventy-million fewer words?

[MannyIsGod]

Not that I'm going to side with Yoni on this one (as I've not made up my mind on the Global warming matter)...

Anyways, if an energy envelope were drawn around Mars you would find that an observed increase in average planetary temperature is in fact a reflection of an increase in solar flux. The planet's core is no where near as active as Earth's, so unless temperature is emanating from within, 99.99+% of the energy that enters Mars comes by way of our sun. The remaining cosmic energy flux is so small by comparison that it is almost negligible - and with respect to earth similar in magnitude; although earth's atmosphere does a better job of shielding the planet's surface from cosmic radiation (by either absorbing or reflecting alpha, gamma, and x-ray radiation back to space depending on the particulars of the interaction with our atmosphere).

Anyways, by drawing the imaginary energy boundary around the planet attributes such as the planet's atmospheric composition, atmospheric reaction set, green-house effect, atmospheric density, diffractive radiation, are taken out of the picture. The fact of the matter is that for a relatively constant atmospheric composition, density etc... the temperature in Mars has managed to increase. Since we know that this increase can be attributed to solar flux with almost 100% certainty. It should follow that earth has also been subjected to this mean increase in solar flux. Not to mention the fact that solar flux is inversely proportional to the square of the average distance from the sun. And with Earth being 48 million miles closer to the sun than Mars, any observed increase in flux would impact the Earth by a factor of 2.3 times greater.

The only difference between the planets with respect to an energy balance is the difference in satelite orientation. Earth's moon is bigger and can shield a larger amount of solar flux when positioned in front Earth, but it can also radiate a large amount of solar flux back to Earth's night side. Since Mars' moons are smaller, and further away they don't impact the planet's energy flux as much as Earth's moon does.

You are correct in asserting that Earth's different atmospheric properties would react/behave differently to an increase in solar flux. At least with respect to Mars

But the fact remains, an increase in solar flux can in fact be concluded if a temperature increase has in fact been observed for our brother planet. That is all that can conclusively be stated with the given data set.

(I'm rewriting my post after rereading your post)

I never in any way implied that there was not an increase in solar activity which was leading to a warming of Mars. I'm not sure you can conclude that based on a single study or a single set of data, but thats not the point.

I just want it to be made very clear, that data that shows Mars is warming is irrelevant to climate change theory here on Earth. Mars warming due to increased solar activity does not in anyway show that an increased level of CO2 in our atmosphere is not causing additional warming here. Climate Change modeling does not argue that the sun is not providing more energy, it is saying that the CO2 in our atmosphere is causing additional warming that is growing at a exponential rate.

No conclusions can be drawn on whether or not that is true based on any data from Mars, and that renders the Mars data completely irrelevent.

[MannyIsGod]

Isn't that exactly what I said; except with about eleventy-million fewer words?

No, what he said is much closer to what I've been saying but I don't expect you to possess the reading comprehension to understand why.

[MannyIsGod]

Ouch!

You ready to provide information on your models that are far more accurate than anything the any weather agency is using at the moment? I'd would geniuenly love to see what you have to offer.

[Yonivore]

No, what he said is much closer to what I've been saying but I don't expect you to possess the reading comprehension to understand why.

Okay, if you say so. Explain to me how the Earth, which is closer to the Sun than Mars, couldn't be warming for the same reason that Mars is warming?

It appears, according to what I read that the Mars polar ice caps are melting at a faster rate than are Earth's. And, if that's the case, maybe the -- what did you call it -- oh yeah, maybe the different gasses, different densities, and different compositions (I left out the distance thing because, well, that would tend to intensify not mitigate the affects of the Sun, no?) are actually lessening or mitigating the severity of the affects this "solar flux," or whatever it's called.

So, I guess the argument could be made that all this crap in the atmosphere -- whether we put it there or not -- is actually keeping us cooler than if we were like Mars. After all, we're closer to the Sun than is Mars and, yet, we seem to be less affected by the increased solar activity.

Yeah Global Warming!

You're full of Manny.

[MannyIsGod]

BTW Hector, one point you made in your 2nd paragraph is severely flawed. You mentioned that the Earth would see an effect directly proportional to Mars effect based on the distance from the Sun. This is incorrect.

There are too many variables that would cause the effect to be greater or less here on earth such as:

1) Magnetic field differences
2) Atmosphere composition and density differences

If your statement were correct, then we could expect an even greater increase of Venus' temperature because it is even closer to the Sun. But the density and composition of Venus' atmosphere provides it a much more stable temperature and the much thinner atmosphere of Mars would actually render it much more susceptible to solar changes. It is possible to have an increase of solar output that would increase the temperature on Mars and have no effect on Earth's temperature further proving my point the the observations on Mars bear no relevance to climate change theory.

[MannyIsGod]

Okay, if you say so. Explain to me how the Earth, which is closer to the Sun than Mars, couldn't be warming for the same reason that Mars is warming?

It appears, according to what I read that the Mars polar ice caps are melting at a faster rate than are Earth's. And, if that's the case, maybe the -- what did you call it -- oh yeah, maybe the different gasses, different densities, and different compositions (I left out the distance thing because, well, that would tend to intensify not mitigate the affects of the Sun, no?) are actually lessening or mitigating the severity of the affects this "solar flux," or whatever it's called.

So, I guess the argument could be made that all this crap in the atmosphere -- whether we put it there or not -- is actually keeping us cooler than if we were like Mars. After all, we're closer to the Sun than is Mars and, yet, we seem to be less affected by the increased solar activity.

Yeah Global Warming!

You're full of Manny.

No Yonivore, it is just too much for you to understand apparently. I'll discuss the issue with Hector. You're free to follow along if you wish, but you've apparently missed the whole point I've been trying to make this entire time which is not whether or not the temparture change on Earth is due to to primarily solar forcing, but that the data from Mars was irrelevant to a discussion on human caused climate change.

Hector stated that the data on Mars could be used to draw a conclusion that there is an increase of Solar Activity, but thats it. He does not say that said increase in Solar Activity effects the Earth's temparture or that observed warming on Mars in any way can be used to prove that there is not warming being caused by increased CO2 levels on Earth.

[Yonivore]

No Yonivore, it is just too much for you to understand apparently. I'll discuss the issue with Hector. You're free to follow along if you wish, but you've apparently missed the whole point I've been trying to make this entire time which is not whether or not the temparture change on Earth is due to to primarily solar forcing, but that the data from Mars was irrelevant to a discussion on human caused climate change.

How can you say it is irrelevant when, in fact, it may be that human caused climate change is a farce in the face of something cosmically bigger than humanity -- The freakin' Sun.

Hector stated that the data on Mars could be used to draw a conclusion that there is an increase of Solar Activity, but thats it.

No, that's not it. The data on Mars indicates this increased solar activity is causing warming.

And, while it's true that Earth's atmosphere is different than Mars', if we are closer to the sun than is Mars and if Mars is warming faster than the Earth, it is logical to conclude that whatever atmospheric differences we do have are mitigating the Sun's effects -- not exacerbating them.

He does not say that said increase in Solar Activity effects the Earth's temparture or that observed warming on Mars in any way can be used to prove that there is not warming being caused by increased CO2 levels on Earth.

Actually, he did...You just weren't paying attention.

Mars' core is cooler than Earth's and Like Earth -- the core of Mars is only getting cooler not warmer. Therefore, it is logical to assume that any warming on Mars is caused by solar activity (what other source is there?).

Our atmosphere is -- as you accurately pointed out -- different than the one on Mars. However, it is different in that it is more dense than is the atmosphere on Mars and, since we appear to be warming at a slower rate than is Mars it can be logically concluded that this is because of our atmosphere -- regardless of why our atmosphere is dense. This is where the relevance of the affects of solar activity on Mars comes in.

So, all that to say, man-made global warming is a farce and man-made global climate change is yet to be demonstrably good or bad...if if you prove it to be true. In fact, it appears it could be a good thing...protecting us from the intensified warming affecting Mars while still ameliorating our weather so that we have longer growing seasons and fewer droughts.

[Nbadan]

You ready to provide information on your models that are far more accurate than anything the any weather agency is using at the moment? I'd would geniuenly love to see what you have to offer.

Please, I don't claim to be better than atmospheric models year in and year out, I'm no farmers almanac, I simply don't care about the weather that much, but at any given point I can apply known models and my own axioms and give you a reasonable expectations that could be more accurate than computer-generated models. Any mathematician could do it.

[Yonivore]

BTW Hector, one point you made in your 2nd paragraph is severely flawed. You mentioned that the Earth would see an effect directly proportional to Mars effect based on the distance from the Sun. This is incorrect.

There are too many variables that would cause the effect to be greater or less here on earth such as:

1) Magnetic field differences
2) Atmosphere composition and density differences

If your statement were correct, then we could expect an even greater increase of Venus' temperature because it is even closer to the Sun. But the density and composition of Venus' atmosphere provides it a much more stable temperature and the much thinner atmosphere of Mars would actually render it much more susceptible to solar changes. It is possible to have an increase of solar output that would increase the temperature on Mars and have no effect on Earth's temperature further proving my point the the observations on Mars bear no relevance to climate change theory.

After reading this, I'm beginning to wonder if you even understand why we have Winter and Summer.

[Phenomanul]

BTW Hector, one point you made in your 2nd paragraph is severely flawed. You mentioned that the Earth would see an effect directly proportional to Mars effect based on the distance from the Sun. This is incorrect.

There are too many variables that would cause the effect to be greater or less here on earth such as:

1) Magnetic field differences
2) Atmosphere composition and density differences

If your statement were correct, then we could expect an even greater increase of Venus' temperature because it is even closer to the Sun. But the density and composition of Venus' atmosphere provides it a much more stable temperature and the much thinner atmosphere of Mars would actually render it much more susceptible to solar changes.

Venus re-radiates (reflects) solar flux with a luminous intensity 5.5 times greater than Earth. But that obscures a finer point; Venus' average temperature is harder to determine because 99.999% of the surface is cloud covered 100% of the time. Infrared measurements don't penetrate the CO2 laden atmosphere enough to accurately determine said temperature average. SO2 is also present in the Venusian atmosphere at a concentration 10,000 times greater than that of Earth... It is this SO2 content that is responsible for most of Venus' reflective brilliance, but it also unfortunately is the component that adds noise to the the infrared measurements that attempt to determine surface temperature. We do know however, from less accurate gamma back-scatter measurements, that the surface temperature can soar as high as 950 degrees Fahrenheit. Not withstanding, it wasn't until one of the Venera missions 'landed' on Venus that these temperatures were confirmed - on instances even recording higher temperatures than what the orbital satelites were recording above.

Anyways, the 5.5 factor above is significant in that Venus and Earth share a similar net solar flux magnitude depite the fact that Venus is closer to the sun. The effect of Earth's distance, is canceled out by the effect of Venus' luminous and highly irradiant atmosphere. This is magnified by the fact that any reference point on Venus' surface would see the sun for an average of 116 days before seeing the first night.

So in this light, what you stated earlier does hold some merit: atmospheric properties do affect the overall incorporation of solar energy. What's harder to assess is whether or not Venus has in fact experienced an increase in average surface temperature as a result of the aforementioned increase in solar flux that caused the temperature rise on Mars. Without the sacrifice of more lander probes I don't know how we would be able to conclusively claim that the temperature has or hasn't increased... On an aside consider this: the most robust probe to date survived for 127? minutes in the harsh Venusian climate.

It is possible to have an increase of solar output that would increase the temperature on Mars and have no effect on Earth's temperature further proving my point the the observations on Mars bear no relevance to climate change theory.

All things being equal (and that is the operative factor):

Earth's atmospheric composition hasn't dramatically changed over the past 5 years.

Earth's atmospheric density hasn't dramatically changed over the past 5 years.

Earth's atmospheric pressure hasn't dramatically changed over the past 5 years.

The magnitude of Earth's electro-magnetic field hasn't dramatically changed over the past 5 years.

etc...

Therefore with an increase in solar flux Earth would tend to absorb more of the energy rather than reflect it. That ratio is not constant. Absorbption is based on wavelength properties inherent to the composition of the atmosphere whereas reflection (irradiance) is governed by incipient angles, mostly independent of the atmosphere's composition, and ones which wouldn't change with changes to solar flux (i.e. the radiative vectors remain the same even if the radiation magnitude changes). Furthermore, the shielding effect provided by the magnetosphere is relatively constant (depending on Earth's dynamo). If the flux increases beyond what the electromagnetic shield can deflect then the net flux will usually end up being positive not negative.

But that's just it.... What attribute changes above can be considered as 'not being significant'... as 'not having dramatically changed over the past 5 years'???? Gauging those is much more fuzzy than what we believe it to be.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

http://cns.utexas.edu/communications...mpacts2006.pdf

oops

dr parmesan has a nice butt

[MannyIsGod]

Please, I don't claim to be better than atmospheric models year in and year out, I'm no farmers almanac, I simply don't care about the weather that much, but at any given point I can apply known models and my own axioms and give you a reasonable expectations that could be more accurate than computer-generated models. Any mathematician could do it.

So at any given point you can use a model to out predict models?

Please layout the process in detail that led you to your New Orleans "prediction". Seriously Dan, I'm very intrigued to know what sort of advanced mathmatics provides you with enough information to predict the landfall locations of hurricanes. I'm sure the rest of the world would love for you to share this as well.


Surely if you are a mathmatician you know the value of showing the process in order to repeat it and prove its accuracy. Surely you could provide us with that information.