Greenhouse gasses influence our climate more than the sun

Mercury, the closest planet to the sun has very little of an atmosphere. However, its minimum temperature ranges from -193 degrees celsius (-315.4 F) at night to 427 celsius (around 800.6 F) during the day. In case you do not understand, -193 degrees celsius is very very cold in comparison to the Earth's coldest temperature -89 degrees celsius. But how is that possible? Mercury IS the closest planet to the sun so how can it have such a freezing cold temperature while the Earth, which is farther away, has a minimum temperature that doesn't evencome close to it?


But anyway, lets now look at Venus, which is the second planet from the sun. Its mean surface temperature is 461.85 C (863.33 F). What is Mercury's mean surface temperature? At its equator its about 67 C (152.6).

So you see the stark difference between temperatures don't you?

Now guess why:

- Venus is boiling hot in comparison to Mercury
- The Earth's minimum temperature is actually higher than Mercury's when Mercury is the closest planet to the sun while the Earth isn't.

My answer is: a relatively thicker atmosphere which consists of greenhouse gasses.


I doubt anyone can debunk this, and it's also proof of Global Warming.

I don't think anyone was ever trying to debunk it. The main problems with "Global Warming" are:

* Since it has become a $50 billion a year industry, it has become very hard to believe everything that is coming out of the mouths of sponsored scientists.

* A sizable amount of credible scientists have been saying that the Global temperature has not risen in the past 5 odd years. If anything, it has dropped slightly. But this has rarely if ever reached mainstream media.

* The ice caps on mars have been receding faster than our own for the past 30 years.. this gives rise to the theory.. Has the sun been producing more power for the past half century?? The sun's power has dropped quite a bit recently and is now lacking in sunspots. This correlates with the plato in the earths temp.

*`Scientists being found giving false (higher) temperature's in research.

* After 9/11 - when almost 1/3 of the worlds planes were grounded for three days, there was an immediate measured increase in average global temperature of (i think) 1.5f - Al Gore contradicts this study in his 'Inconvenient Truth' movie. This gives rise to the question.. are the contrails from planes actually reflecting more heat than they are trapping??

* While the US, China and India have not fully embraced the more renewable sources of energy and less polluting vehicles. The EU, Canada and Japan have been busily implementing substantially lower emissions policies. The EU is the worlds largest economy and has cut its carbon emissions by over 30% in the past few years. Yet, some scientists say the temp is still rising while others say it is not. If it is.. then maybe carbon emissions are not to blame.

In my honest opinion.. Climate change is 100% Fact. The cause on the other hand is unknown.

Now that there is a massive industry involved in Climate Change.. we may never know the cause of it.

Hahah forgive me if I am wrong here, but I am about to bring knowledge of 'lights' into this thread.

Now its completely possible that these two mechanisms (the sun) and (lights) function completely different and are therefore not under the control of the same laws.

Regardless, when working with a light, for instance high pressure sodiums, for plant life growth. The inverse square law is used, so if for instance the Light gives up 140,000 initial lumens, by the time it travels just one foot, you've cut the lumens to only ~40,000, and by the time you reach two feet from the light your lumens drop to just 11,000. 5 Feet away, just 1781 lumens.

The formula goes like so,
45.84 x (initial lumens(140,000)) = 6417600
Then distance (in inches), squared. (Ex.24") (24x24) = 576
6417600 / 576 = 11141.68

Now I know this may appear to be completely off topic, but would it not make sense that the sun would follow (if not the exact same, then a similar) law that restricts its power over distance?

And not only does it lose power over the distance, but exponentially. Wouldn't that help make some of this more appropriate, since the distance from each planet doesnt seem to give a direct relation to temperature.

reply to post by Dermo

What on earth has this to do with the thread topic?

Ah, I see. Stand back folks, hobbyhorse at full gallop...

[edit on 10-12-2008 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Dermo

 

What on earth has this to do with the thread topic?

Ah, I see. Stand back folks, hobbyhorse at full gallop...

It has a HellOfAlot more to do with it than your one Anthrax

Originally posted by king9072
And not only does it lose power over the distance, but exponentially. Wouldn't that help make some of this more appropriate, since the distance from each planet doesnt seem to give a direct relation to temperature.

Aye, inverse square law.

Whenever anyone says that Pluto (39AU) probably warming 2'C is evidence of increasing solar activity causing warming on earth (1AU), just take the distances into account and be amazed that we have not evaporated.

But ignorance can readily beat basic physical science.

[edit on 10-12-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by king9072
Hahah forgive me if I am wrong here, but I am about to bring knowledge of 'lights' into this thread.

Now its completely possible that these two mechanisms (the sun) and (lights) function completely different and are therefore not under the control of the same laws.

Regardless, when working with a light, for instance high pressure sodiums, for plant life growth. The inverse square law is used, so if for instance the Light gives up 140,000 initial lumens, by the time it travels just one foot, you've cut the lumens to only ~40,000, and by the time you reach two feet from the light your lumens drop to just 11,000. 5 Feet away, just 1781 lumens.

The formula goes like so,
45.84 x (initial lumens(140,000)) = 6417600
Then distance (in inches), squared. (Ex.24") (24x24) = 576
6417600 / 576 = 11141.68

Now I know this may appear to be completely off topic, but would it not make sense that the sun would follow (if not the exact same, then a similar) law that restricts its power over distance?

And not only does it lose power over the distance, but exponentially. Wouldn't that help make some of this more appropriate, since the distance from each planet doesnt seem to give a direct relation to temperature.

I know about the inverse square law. It applies for both visible light and infrared radiation (which is responsible for heating us up). Do you know that?

If it was the absolute determinant of the temperature of planets, then whatever you are spewing would be correct. You avoided reading the fact that Venus, while being farther away from the sun, is far hotter than Mercury which is the closest planet to the sun. Also, ironically, Mercury, being the closest planet to the sun, reaches lower temperatures than the Earth. Not to mention that the Earth is closer to the sun when the Northern Hemisphere gets winter.

I mean, while Earth is in the "goldilocks zone" of the solar system, what determines our climate is essentially the thickness of our atmosphere and the amount of greenhouse gasses within it.

In other words, You've proved nothing yet.

Originally posted by Dermo
I don't think anyone was ever trying to debunk it. The main problems with "Global Warming" are:

* Since it has become a $50 billion a year industry, it has become very hard to believe everything that is coming out of the mouths of sponsored scientists.

Proof please.

Also, why do you hate capitalism?

* A sizable amount of credible scientists have been saying that the Global temperature has not risen in the past 5 odd years. If anything, it has dropped slightly. But this has rarely if ever reached mainstream media.

Proof please. And anyway, for the long run this proves absolutely nothing.

* The ice caps on mars have been receding faster than our own for the past 30 years.. this gives rise to the theory.. Has the sun been producing more power for the past half century?? The sun's power has dropped quite a bit recently and is now lacking in sunspots. This correlates with the plato in the earths temp.

Mars's atmospheric composition =/= Earth's

Not to mention that we have thousands of different instruments measuring Earth's temperature, while we only have a few probes on Mars.

*`Scientists being found giving false (higher) temperature's in research.

Again, Proof please.

Also, not to mention that the "skeptics" you get your information from are paid by big oil to muddle the global warming debate.
www.gaiaonline.com...

Two can play the "being paid off" game.

Continuation,..

* After 9/11 - when almost 1/3 of the worlds planes were grounded for three days, there was an immediate measured increase in average global temperature of (i think) 1.5f - Al Gore contradicts this study in his 'Inconvenient Truth' movie. This gives rise to the question.. are the contrails from planes actually reflecting more heat than they are trapping??

Must I ask proof for everything?

Oh how you conservatives invoke the Al Gore boogeyman. I have yet to cite Al Gore in this debate. This is not about Al Gore. He is not a scientist.

...

In my honest opinion.. Climate change is 100% Fact. The cause on the other hand is unknown.

Now that there is a massive industry involved in Climate Change.. we may never know the cause of it.

Come on, is that all you can sling at me? I was expecting a bigger fight from you guys.

I'm all ears for Debunkers. This is very interesting.

Sorry for the triple post. I guess I'm still lurking around, to obtain a better understanding of this place.


How do you edit posts? Is there a deadline to when you can edit your own posts?


My previous posts appeared a bit mean, I just want to lighten it up a bit. And the link I found on Gaiaonline still has the redirection URL, apparently.

Any help is appreciated.

Danke.

Come on, can anyone prove me wrong here?

Originally posted by ablissfulman

Proof please.

COME ON!!!!!

Are you blind, deaf and living in a cave with a bag over your head listening to nothing but the bullsh*t that Fox news tells you?
Where are the MASSIVE RISING WATER LEVELS THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ENGULFING OUR CITIES?

There's your proof..

Also.. its a lot easier to pay off the 52 official 'Global warming' scientists than the thousands of other reputable ones that are completely against the """"""""""""""""""""""""Global Warming""""""""""""""""""""""""" idea we are surrounded by.

Also, why do you hate capitalism?

Come on.. Don't start this "American freedom" bullsh*t with me. The cold war is over.

BTW... this isn't capitalism.. its f*cking rape...

* A sizable amount of credible scientists have been saying that the Global temperature has not risen in the past 5 odd years. If anything, it has dropped slightly. But this has rarely if ever reached mainstream media.

Proof please. And anyway, for the long run this proves absolutely nothing.

Blaa blaa blaa blaa blaa..

Check current events.

Also... I quote one of those "Infamous american presidents"..

"you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time... but you cant fool all of the people all of the time.

Two can play the "being paid off" game.

Am......

I think this was my original point.

Read my post again please.. you obviously COMPLETELY missed the whole idea i was introducing into your tiny little closed environment.

reply to post by Dermo

You know, the person who doesn't seem to be paying attention to real life is you. Even The Economist, which for years stood firm against any suggestion that humans were contributing substantially to climate change (remember Bjorn Lomborg?) has long since accepted that we are in fact doing so.

No harm hanging on to your opinions, however bizarre they may be; however, attempting to pass them off as widely held is as uncalled for as attempting to pretend that there is any actual scientific evidence for them.

I join my call to that of the member you've been arguing with: proof, please.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Dermo

 

I join my call to that of the member you've been arguing with: proof, please.

Also.. to you. I never said that Humans have never contributed to climate change. Its obvious that we have contributed to it over over the past two centuries. Read my bloody post and stop getting down my throat over it.

I simply said

Climate change is 100% Fact. The cause on the other hand is unknown.

Now that there is a massive industry involved in Climate Change.. we may never know the cause of it.

Is that so hard to wrap your head around???

[edit on 15/12/08 by Dermo]

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Dermo

 

I join my call to that of the member you've been arguing with: proof, please.

I can also say that to you.

Proof please.

Because.. noone has any substantial unbias proof from either end of the arguement but yet people retain their little arguements because they are scared.

You say my claims aren't widely held? www.abovetopsecret.com...
This took 2 seconds to find.. and was even on this site.

Also, If you bother your ass even googling what i said in my original post you would find out all the information you need about it.. Instead, you both are just sitting behind your little computers being sceptical for the sake of it.

TBH, It doesn't bother me whether you want to keep an open mind or not but I find more respect for people that have a slightly flexible mindset.. especially when to comes to things they actually have no clue about.

And finally..
I NEVER SAID THAT GLOBAL WARMING WAS FALSE.. I ONLY LISTED SOME PROBLEMS THAT WERE NOT BEING ADDRESSED BY THE OFFICIAL AUTHORITY.





[edit on 15/12/08 by Dermo]

Originally posted by ablissfulman
Come on, can anyone prove me wrong here?

Maybe, maybe not, But it is a moot point.
At this point, the available information is not at my fingertps but it is fairly easy to say that the differences between the sizes of the planets along with distance from the sun and depth and density of atmosphere will cause a more complex outcome than you expect. On the most basic level you might be correct but there are more variables than you are accounting for. But I'm really not trying to tell you you are wrong

The fact that the earth is warming is not even in contention. It has been getting warmer since somewhere around 18000 years ago when there were glaciers as far south as Texas. These interglacials are part of a larger 100000-150000 glacial age that nobody really is sure is done or not.
The earth has been much warmer than it is now on many occasions as it has been much colder as well.
Has man contributed to the RATE at which the present warming trend is increasing? Sure. How much has he increased it? Probably less than you think. Most likely more than others want you to believe.
Can we stop it?
No.

If everything man does were suddenly to stop, right now, the earth might slow down a bit but she's going to keep on doing what she's been doing since early north Americans stood and stared at those glaciers in Texas.

Then one day in the future, if we're still around for it, people will start saying"Man is causing global cooling."

Merry Christmas.




[edit on 15-12-2008 by badgerprints]

I'll have a go at testing your hypothesis.

If CO2 is the main driver then you'll need to explain why Mars is so much colder than Venus despite having a similar concentration of CO2. You make your case comparing Venus to Mercury. Venus is approximately 1.9x further from the sun than Mercury yet is hotter. Mars is approximately 2.1x further from the sun than Venus yet is much colder than Venus. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 in the Martian atmosphere is 95%, while for Venus it is 96%.

Your comparison of distance for Mercury and Venus is to show that the distance from the sun is not very relevant. So you'll have to keep the same assumption when comparing Mars and Venus.

The difference, then, is atmopsheric pressure. Venus is so hot because the atmospheric pressure at the surface is approximately 90 times that of Earth. As gases are compressed they are heated (as with a bicycle pump), so the high density of the Venusian atmosphere creates the heat that makes the planet so warm.

For further evidence, compare the temperature of the Venusian atmosphere to that of Earth at 1 bar. The average atmospheric temperature on Venus at 1 bar is around 360 Kelvin. Earth's average atmospheric temperature at 1 bar is around 288 Kelvin. So factoring in pressure alone you are down to a temperature differential of around 70 degrees Kelvin.

Now, factor in that Venus is 38% closer to the Sun than Earth on average and will therefore receive a higher dose of solar radiation. The temperature when related to the distance from the sun changes by the inverse quare root of the change in distance. So you would expect Venus to have a temperature 17.5% compared to that of Earth. 288K x 1.175 = 338K.

So now we are down to a temperature differential of around 22 degrees Kelvin when you compare the temperature at the same pressure after factoring in the distance from the Sun.

Earth's CO2 concentration is around 0.0385%. On Venus it is 96%. Lets accept that the remainder of the warming is down to CO2 differences only. To get from 0.0385% to 96% CO2 concentration you need to double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere 11.2 times. Hence you get a temperature sensitivity to CO2 of approximately 1.78 degrees Kelvin (or Celcius) per doubling of atmospheric CO2 as an absolute maximum value if you assume that all remaining temperature differential on Venus is CO2 induced.

If there are other factors, then naturally this is reduced. At the very least it demonstrates that, using Venus as an example, the IPCC's estimates of 3 degrees +/- 1.5 degrees is far too high.

I havent done a similar calculation yet for Mars to see what that CO2 sensitivity yields but it would be an interesting exercise and may lower the ceiling even more. I may do so tomorrow if i find the time.

I think that should add some more food for thought to the thread.

reply to post by Dermo

You say my claims aren't widely held? www.abovetopsecret.com...
This took 2 seconds to find.. and was even on this site.

650 scientists? Dear me, that must count as an overwhelming consensus, mustn't it?

Listen, I read that thread before you pointed me at it. And if that's your idea of 'proof', I'm afraid it will butter no parsnips.

Try this instead: Climate Change: A Guide for the Perplexed.

If the sun holds such a low position in global warming, in your opinion, can you please explain this?

National Geographic: Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

So all those Global Ice age pundits of the 70-80's(the main IPCC media scientists) that are now in the Global warming camp, why was there data so wrong then and correct now? Would they not be using the same data sets that were 'proving' we were heading for a global cooling may be even an Ice Age (IPCC scientists were still banging on about this well into the early 90s).

Anytime a government tell you something or does something for our own good you can bet that it will affect us all adversely and cost us more!

I'm fairly confident that that big yellow ball is the source for our particular warming and cooling and it’s already been proven that our contribution is miniscule compared to all the other effectors i.e. Plant's and the big one the oceans.

Ive always thought that huge nuclear and chemical combustion engine 332800 times the mass of the earth with a surface temp of over five thousand degrees centigrade and inner temp of around 15 thousand which resides only roughly 90 million miles away didn't effect our climate much...