We Have Another Winner!

ScreenHunter_1276 Oct. 04 17.46

October 4, 2013 at 11:38 pm

Congratulations Kyle! Let’s do the math.

950,000 PPM MarsCO2  * 0.006  / 400 PPM EarthCO2 = 14.25

The density of CO2 in Mars atmosphere is 14.25 times higher Earth, or the equivalent of 5,700 PPM on Earth. Mars should be burning up, according to the (face->palm) stupid climate alarmist community.

As far as the amount of sunlight being received at the surface, 25% of the sunlight reaching Earth’s atmosphere gets reflected back into space by clouds. Mars doesn’t have any clouds, so the amount of sunlight reaching the lower atmosphere of Mars is not tremendously different from Earth.

So why is it so cold on Mars? Simple – the atmospheric pressure is too low. The same reason why Death Valley is hot and Mt. Everest is cold.

There is a lot more CO2 on Mars than on Earth, yet it is very cold there.

Advertisements

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to We Have Another Winner!

  1. Lance says:

    Unfortunately, even highly educated folks have difficulty with this…

  2. phodges says:

    It would appear that he deconstructs CAGW while attempting to defend it. A fine illustration of Cognitive Dissonance.

    Smart.

    • Sleepalot says:

      Aiui, cognitive dissonance happens when one is presented with facts contrary to one’s beliefs – it makes you go “WTF?”

      Imo, Kyle’s got a nasty case of double-think: he uses his science knowledge to explain Mars, and uses his CAGW (ie. religious) belief to explain Earth.

      Theists do that all the time. A suprisingly large proportion of US Xians (about
      25%, iirc) simultaneously hold that a) the Earth is young and created by “God”, and b) dinosaurs roamed the Earth millions of years ago. It’s easy to maintain such double-think, so long as such thoughts are never put to the test.

      The classic example of double-think is a) knowing the Earth is round, and b) believing it’s flat. It was not uncommon in centuries past for people to watch
      their loved ones sail off to sea, and become very upset at seeing the ship apparently sink a few miles offshore: those people believed the Earth was flat.

      Had such a ship then turned, and come back to shore, the flat-Earth observer
      would’ve suffered cognitive dissonance. (“Oh no, the ship sank! Hang on a minute… WTF?”)

  3. Andy Oz says:

    Go Kyle!
    (We are supposed to be supportive of delusional people or else they get violent like Miriam Carey – psychiatry 101)

  4. It is my understanding that the consensus CO2 greenhouse theory deals with the supposed effects of an increasing CONCENTRATION of atmospheric CO2, not an increase in the absolute amount of it (at least, they always and only talk about the effect of doubling the concentration). Mars’s atmospheric CO2 concentration is, like Venus’s, over 2300 times the concentration of Earth’s atmospheric CO2 concentration (Venus’s is over 2400 times, at 96.5% of its atmosphere). Of course, anyone with any sense (which tends to exclude the believers in the greenhouse effect, both alarmist and lukewarmers) knows the difference in the mass of the atmosphere–which is responsible for the surface pressure–is the biggest reason for the relative surface temperatures of Mars, Venus and Earth, with the solar distance also of primary importance (Venus and Earth, in fact, have essentially the same temperature vs. pressure curve–over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures, and particularly, precisely so above and below the Venus cloud layer–when just their different solar distances are accounted for; this means, as I have been writing for the last 3 years now, they both are warmed by direct absorption of the same physical fraction of the incident solar radiation, not by heat from the planetary surface, which is one of a handful of major corrections to climate science provided by the Venus/Earth temperature comparison, and which all involved in the climate debates are ignoring, because their egos will not let them confront and accept those fundamental corrections).

    • X says:

      I agree regarding CO2, but if H2O had no “back radiating” effect there would be no albedo due to clouds. If the sky has the same level of cloudiness for an entire day, the morning tends to be colder and the night warmer than if there were no clouds.

      • Obviously nobody is listening to what I have been saying for the last 3 years. Venus has a thick, planetwide cloud cover, but it has no more effect upon the atmospheric temperatures above and below that cloud layer than does the nonexistent CO2 greenhouse effect. (Even within that layer, the Venus temperature is lessened, by only about 5K, from what it would be without the cloud–obviously, in my professional opinion, due to a larger specific heat within the cloud, with its suspended liquid particles, than in the clear air.) You all have to understand that, basically (ignoring the slight effect just mentioned ONLY WITHIN the Venus cloud layer), the difference in (or rather, the ratio of) the solar distances of the Earth and Venus, by itself, completely and precisely explains the Venus/Earth temperature ratio, at points of equal pressure and over the entire range of Earth tropospheric pressures. But not only does Venus’s cloud cover not have any effect on global temperature levels above and below it, neither of course does Earth’s spottier cloud cover. Earth and Venus not only have entirely different concentrations of atmospheric CO2, they have quite different albedos (from quite different cloud cover), and quite different surfaces as well (ocean vs. solid)–none of those differences have the slightest effect upon the Venus/Earth temperature ratio. This is what no one understands, except myself and possibly some of those who understand and accept the consequences of the definitive Venus/Earth temperatures comparison which I did (and anyone could easily have done, and any competent physical scientist should quickly understand and accept). This is what is needed to correct climate science, including the radiation transfer theory with its thermodynamically powerless, i.e. worthless, “back radiation”. Precisely none of the solar radiation (basically visual light) that is reflected from either Earth or Venus–thus defining their albedos–has anything to do with the actual physical fraction (in the infrared) of the incident solar radiation that warms both of their atmospheres to their equilibrium condition (with the characteristic, constant, tropospheric negative temperature lapse rate, due to the hydrostatic condition of the atmosphere, as explained in the mathematical definition of the Standard Atmosphere–or just ΔE = 0 = mcΔT + mgΔh, implying ΔT/Δh = – g/c).

        And, again, it is the concentration of CO2 in the air–the fraction of the air that is CO2–that is dealt with in the “greenhouse effect”, not the quantity, or density, of the CO2 alone; it has to warm the whole atmosphere, in the theory, not just itself. Mars doesn’t have 14 times the concentration of atmospheric CO2 as Earth, it has over 2300 times as much, or around 11 doublings of Earth’s level of CO2.

      • Sleepalot says:

        “if H2O had no “back radiating” effect there would be no albedo due to clouds.”
        Albedo is reflectance. Radiation is emmission. They’re different things.
        Rainbows are produced by reflection, which shows that water droplets are reflective.

  5. Steve Case says:

    When CAGW folks bring up Venus and its 95% CO2 atmosphere and how it’s hot enough there to melt lead, I always bring up Mars and its 95% CO2 atmosphere and how it’s cold enough there to snow dry ice.

  6. GoneWithTheWind says:

    Wait a minute! Did he really say because Mars gets 43% of the sun energy that earth does that is the reason it is colder? He gets it! He really gets it! It’s the sun not human activity.

  7. Larry Fields says:

    Steven already mentioned the lack of clouds on the 4th rock. These have warming effects at some times, and cooling effects at other times. This fact makes it very difficult to model the NET effects of clouds on our surface temperatures.

    A related point is that gram for gram, or mole for mole, gas-phase H2O is a much more potent GHG than CO2. On our fair planet, gas-phase H2O contributes the lion’s share of the terrestrial Greenhouse Effect, which is estimated to be 33K. Moreover the absorption peaks for CO2 and H2O overlap somewhat. This further marginalizes the small contribution that CO2 makes, thereby contributing to what some call the Saturated Greenhouse Effect.

    In contrast, the Martian atmosphere does not have appreciable gas-phase H2O. If we really wanted to warn up Mars’ atmosphere, and cost was not an issue, we could add scads of SO2. Perhaps we could borrow some from Venus’ atmosphere. 🙂

    The lighter GHG molecules are not reasonable candidates, because too many of them would undergo photolysis from the abundant UV, and too many of the molecular fragments would achieve escape velocity in Mars’ smaller gravitational field.

  8. Larry Fields says:

    X says:
    October 5, 2013 at 2:42 am
    “Why SO2?”

    Two reasons. First, SO2 has a reasonably high Molecular Weight.

    Second, it’s a potent GHG. Ask any Venusian about that. 🙂

    If not for the spectroscopy, and if cost was not a consideration, xenon would be a better choice. Why? Because of the moderately high MW. And because it’s a monatomic gas. That means zero low-MW photolysis fragments from the UV. Hence negligible losses from the Martian atmosphere. And since xenon is a noble gas, corrosion would never be an issue.

    Even though a stable nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere on Mars is not in the cards, it would be nice if future human colonists could walk around on the surface without pressure suits. The rebreather apparatus would be a big enough headache.

    • X says:

      Thanks for the reply.
      ” … it’s a potent GHG …”
      as exemplified by the cooling effect of volcanic eruptions, right?
      There seems to be a competition between the “radiative power” (RP) of GHGs and thermodynamic pressure in determining the temperature of planets, part of this RP works as increased albedo while other part works to keep the heat in the atmosphere.
      Do you think this balance is well known for all planets, I mean, what part is more important for the different planets?
      Thanks.

    • John Q. Galt says:

      Terraform schmerraform. I’ve always assumed the only humans that walk on Mars would be Post-humans. “Nanoform” their own bodies into Martian pressure suits (as Fred Alan Wolf would refer to the body) instead of silly geo-engineering that simply could never work. Might as well try terraforming the Moon a shade of green.

  9. Larry Fields says:

    Hi X,
    Here’s my oversimplified understanding about volcanic eruptions. SO2 is one component of the ejecta. Once in the atmosphere, it gets oxidized to another gas, SO3. SO3 has a strong affinity for water — in any form. It reacts with H2O gas to form tiny airborn droplets of liquid sulfuric acid. And yes, the resulting aerosol has a cooling effect.

    “Do you think this balance is well known for all planets, I mean, what part is more important for the different planets?”

    Hansen’s major professor, the late Carl Sagan, had a strong interest in extraterrestrial climatology, the subject of Hansen’s thesis (Venus). Sagan predicted that the Kuwait oil fires would have a much larger impact than they actually did have.

    Real climate science — ignoring the AGW BS — is still in its infancy. Legitimate proxies can give us snapshots of the past. I did that with Seat-of-the Pants Dendroclimatology in the N Sierras (guest-posted at WUWT).

    At the moment, astronomy gives the most reasonable long-term projections. But volcanism is always a wild card. If the Toba Supervolcano blows its top again, we’ll all be in for some ‘interesting times’.

    What about the medium term? I don’t even know if the multidecadal cycles, like AMO and PDO, which are so fashionable in Climate Realist circles, are for real, or if they are just seductive artefacts that we’ll all laugh about over a pint of Guinness, many years down the road.

    Once we get a handle on the long, planet-wide dust storms on Mars, weather and climate forecasting there may turn out to be easier than it is on Earth. But I wouldn’t recommend buying a vacation time-share there. 🙂

  10. Blade says:

    ( cross-posting from the other thread )

    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 …

  11. mkelly says:

    This subject is one of the reasons I was kicked off Little Green Football blog. Charles did not seem to understand or grasp lapse rate.

  12. John Q. Galt says:

    With a less dense atmosphere, doesn’t that also mean more light reaches the planet surface, even ignoring cloud cover? Just wondering.

  13. Scott Scarborough says:

    Mars does not get 43% as much sunlight as earth. It gets 43% less sunlight than earth. That is (100-43) 57% as much sunlight as earth (actually it is more than 59% as much as earth – no clouds on Mars – Optimal case on earth 1000 watts/m2 – on Mars 590 watts/m2). And he calls “deniers” stupid?
    Supposedly, the earth got 66% as much sunlight as it does now in the past (faint sun paradox) and it didn’t change in temperature at all (that’s the paradox part). So 59% as much is suppose to freeze CO2 (as it does on Mars) but 66% as much does not change the temperature at all?? Something wrong with the theory.

  14. Rosco says:

    What is it with people that talk about clouds radiating “heat” which keeps the lower atmosphere warmer ?

    Are they stupid or something ?

    Clouds only form when the water vapour condenses – that is clouds are cooler than water vapour.

    Clouds have already lost their latent heat !

    Radiation from cold objects does not heat hotter objects – to prove it sit near a huge ice block which at 0 degrees C is radiating at about the same level as the “measured back radiation”. I seriously doubt you’ll find much warmth.

    Clouds undoubtedly keep the surface warmer at night by lowering the effective convective ceiling height trapping rising air closer to the surface.

    Clouds obviously keep the surface cooler during the day by preventing sunlight reaching the lower atmosphere.

    climate scientists are either stupid or lying – perhaps both.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s