Is Global Warming Solar Induced? NOT ACCORDING TO THE PLANETS!
Roger Coppock
By Phil Plait
There's a meme going around the internets and in the MSM that Earth is
not alone in global warming: other planets, according to this story,
are experiencing it too.
The usual crowd, along with many others, are taking this idea and
running with it, saying that if other planets are warming up,
obviously the warming on Earth is not man-made. But there's a small
problem with this: it's wrong (for a more detailed analysis of this,
see my blog post at Bad Astronomy).
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/
The idea is that evidence shows that Mars, Jupiter, Neptune's moon
Triton, and even tiny, distant Pluto are warming up. The only thing
these objects have in common is the Sun-- so therefore the Sun must be
the culprit, and we -- the polluting, self-absorbed humans -- are off
the hook.
However, as an astronomer and a skeptic, I did something most ditto-
heads don't do: I actually did some research. What I found is that
first of all, the evidence that Mars is warming up is tentative;
basically, the southern ice cap appears to be shrinking, and along
with other evidence this indicates that there is some sort of climate
change going on. However, the change may very well be local, confined
to the southern region. Plus, we already know that other factors, like
the shape of the orbit of Mars, contribute to climate change there.
Looking to the Sun as the source of this is unwarranted.
The claim about Jupiter warming is simply wrong. There are localized
places where gas from deep in the atmosphere (where it's warmer) is
bubbling up, but this is again a localized effect, and not an
indication of global change. Jupiter's atmosphere is a very weird,
turbulent place, and honestly we don't understand it all that well.
Calling this jovian global warming is premature at best.
Triton is entering its summer season, and due to the peculiar orbit it
has, this summer will be a particularly extreme one. If it's warming
there, it's a seasonal change, and expected.
And as for far, wee Pluto, it's so far out that if any warming there
were from the Sun warming up, the Earth, which is much closer to the
Sun, would be roasted. Since the effects of GW here on Earth are
subtle, it's safe to ignore Pluto.
My blog post about this on my site has generated a lot of ire, of
course. No one likes having huge, gaping holes pointed out in their
claims! But science and skepticism aren't about denying, they're about
being rational. And that means looking at evidence, weighing it
fairly, applying critical thinking, and then discussing it clearly.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phil-plait/is-global-warming-solar-i_b_47271.html
Peter Muehlbauer
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote
> Is Global Warming Solar Induced? NOT ACCORDING TO THE PLANETS!
> By Phil Plait
>
> There's a meme going around the internets and in the MSM that Earth is
> not alone in global warming: other planets, according to this story,
> are experiencing it too.
>
> The usual crowd, along with many others, are taking this idea and
> running with it, saying that if other planets are warming up,
> obviously the warming on Earth is not man-made. But there's a small
> problem with this: it's wrong (for a more detailed analysis of this,
> see my blog post at Bad Astronomy).
> http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/
Who is this guy who calls himself "The Bad Astronomer?"
Is he really bad? Is he really an astronomer?
Selling T-Shirts and other stuff at his "Bad Astro Store" on this page.
Nothing but big blah blah blah and commercial spam on this site.
Maybe he is kTs buddy on his simulated space orbiter, feeding kT and
telling him what to do backing into a parking space on mars.
Roger Coppock
wrote:
> "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote
>
> > Is Global Warming Solar Induced? NOT ACCORDING TO THE PLANETS!
> > By Phil Plait
>
> > There's a meme going around the internets and in the MSM that Earth is
> > not alone in global warming: other planets, according to this story,
> > are experiencing it too.
>
> > The usual crowd, along with many others, are taking this idea and
> > running with it, saying that if other planets are warming up,
> > obviously the warming on Earth is not man-made. But there's a small
> > problem with this: it's wrong (for a more detailed analysis of this,
> > see my blog post at Bad Astronomy).
>
> Who is the Bad Astronomer?
> Who is this guy who calls himself "The Bad Astronomer?"
two seconds with Google would find:
http://epo.sonoma.edu/group/plait.html
Peter Muehlbauer
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:1178105276....@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
"Balancing his enthusiasm of public outreach and writing...
He also has an alter-ego: as "The Bad Astronomer" he fights
myths and misconceptions people have about astronomy...
where he will use them to help create workshops and interactive
astronomy-based games..."
Schizophrenia and, as I said, kTs buddy in a "serious" space orbiter
game.
Ah, that Phil Plait.
Roger Coppock
By Phil Plait
There's a meme going around the internets and in the MSM that Earth
is
not alone in global warming: other planets, according to this story,
are experiencing it too.
The usual crowd, along with many others, are taking this idea and
running with it, saying that if other planets are warming up,
obviously the warming on Earth is not man-made. But there's a small
problem with this: it's wrong (for a more detailed analysis of this,
see my blog post at Bad Astronomy).
hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com
> There's a meme going around the internets and in the MSM that Earth is
> not alone in global warming: other planets, according to this story,
> are experiencing it too.
And that meme is more likely than not to be correct. It's not just
the fact that Mars is warming, it's also when this warming is
occurring and the rate at which it is occurring. Both seem to track
changes here on Earth. You have to be in some serious psychological
denial to dismiss this significance.
DefendUSA.blogspot.com
Let's see, one guy posts a rational argument with link to more
information. The other guy just says "no, you are in psychological
denial", but can provide no evidence. Seems like a case of the pot
calling the kettle black.
Let me see. I think I'll go with the sane one.
------------------------------------------------
http://www.cafepress.com/bush_doggers?pid=2794571
hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com
> Let me see. I think I'll go with the sane one.
Thank you, for your support.
Queda @gorefamilytobbaccofarm.com Al Queda Gore
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:1178103691.1...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Is Global Warming Solar Induced? NOT ACCORDING TO THE PLANETS!
> By Phil Plait
>
LOL ! Phil Plait ROFLMAO!
Here listen to a real PHD.
http://www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/two-new-books-confirm-global-warming-is-natural-moderate
Two New Books Confirm Global Warming is Natural, Moderate
Tuesday January 30, 2007
Two powerful new books say today's global warming is due not to human
activity but primarily to a long, moderate solar-linked cycle. Unstoppable
Global Warming Every 1500 Years, by physicist Fred Singer and economist
Dennis Avery was released just before Christmas. The Chilling Stars: A New
Theory of Climate Change, by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and former
BBC science writer Nigel Calder (Icon Books), is due out in March.
Singer and Avery note that most of the earth's recent warming occurred
before 1940, and thus before much human-emitted CO2. Moreover, physical
evidence shows 600 moderate warmings in the earth's last million years. The
evidence ranges from ancient Nile flood records, Chinese court documents and
Roman wine grapes to modern spectral analysis of polar ice cores, deep
seabed sediments, and layered cave stalagmites.
Unstoppable Global Warming shows the earth's temperatures following
variations in solar intensity through centuries of sunspot records, and
finds cycles of sun-linked isotopes in ice and tree rings. The book cites
the work of Svensmark, who says cosmic rays vary the earth's temperatures by
creating more or fewer of the low, wet clouds that cool the earth. It notes
that global climate models can't accurately register cloud effects.
The Chilling Stars relates how Svensmark's team mimicked the chemistry of
earth's atmosphere, by putting realistic mixtures of atmospheric gases into
a large reaction chamber, with ultraviolet light as a stand-in for the sun.
When they turned on the UV, microscopic droplets-cloud seeds-started
floating through the chamber.
"We were amazed by the speed and efficiency with which the electrons
[generated by cosmic rays] do their work of creating the building blocks for
the cloud condensation nuclei," says Svensmark.
The Chilling Stars documents how cosmic rays amplify small changes in the
sun's irradiance fourfold, creating 1-2 degree C cycles in earth's
temperatures: Cosmic rays continually slam into the earth's atmosphere from
outer space, creating ion clusters that become seeds for small droplets of
water and sulfuric acid. The droplets then form the low, wet clouds that
reflect solar energy back into space. When the sun is more active, it
shields the earth from some of the rays, clouds wane, and the planet warms.
Unstoppable Global Warming documents the reality of a moderate, natural,
1500-year climate cycle on the earth. The Chilling Stars explains the why
and how.
###
Queda @gorefamilytobbaccofarm.com Al Queda Gore
"Peter Muehlbauer" <spam...@frankenexpress.de> wrote in message
news:f19tst$68n$1...@news1.nefonline.de...
>
> "Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:1178105276....@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 2, 4:17 am, "Peter Muehlbauer" <spamt...@frankenexpress.de>
>> wrote:
>> > "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote
>> >
>> > > Is Global Warming Solar Induced? NOT ACCORDING TO THE PLANETS!
>> > > By Phil Plait
>> >
>> > > There's a meme going around the internets and in the MSM that Earth
>> > > is
>> > > not alone in global warming: other planets, according to this story,
>> > > are experiencing it too.
>> >
>> > > The usual crowd, along with many others, are taking this idea and
>> > > running with it, saying that if other planets are warming up,
>> > > obviously the warming on Earth is not man-made. But there's a small
>> > > problem with this: it's wrong (for a more detailed analysis of this,
>> > > see my blog post at Bad Astronomy).
>> > >http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar...
>> >
>> > Who is the Bad Astronomer?
>> > Who is this guy who calls himself "The Bad Astronomer?"
>>
>> two seconds with Google would find:
http://www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/two-new-books-confirm-global-warming-is-natural-moderate
==================
Yeah we already know.
Queda @gorefamilytobbaccofarm.com Al Queda Gore
From The Sunday Times
April 29, 2007
Climate change hits Mars
Mars is being hit by rapid climate change and it is happening so fast that
the red planet could lose its southern ice cap, writes Jonathan Leake.
Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s.
This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the
same period.
Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary
climates could be natural phenomena.
The mechanism at work on Mars appears, however, to be different from that on
Earth. One of the researchers, Lori Fenton, believes variations in radiation
and temperature across the surface of the Red Planet are generating strong
winds.
In a paper published in the journal Nature, she suggests that such winds can
stir up giant dust storms, trapping heat and raising the planet's
temperature.
Fenton's team unearthed heat maps of the Martian surface from Nasa's Viking
mission in the 1970s and compared them with maps gathered more than two
decades later by Mars Global Surveyor. They found there had been widespread
changes, with some areas becoming darker.
When a surface darkens it absorbs more heat, eventually radiating that heat
back to warm the thin Martian atmosphere: lighter surfaces have the opposite
effect. The temperature differences between the two are thought to be
stirring up more winds, and dust, creating a cycle that is warming the
planet.
Queda @gorefamilytobbaccofarm.com Al Queda Gore
Bruce Scott TOK
the Sun, since the heat from the interior dominates over solar
irradiation for that planet.
Localised physics of convection is the likely mechanism for anything
there, as Plait's article suggests.
--
ciao,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
Roger Coppock
wrote:
[ . . . ]
> Let's see, one guy posts a rational argument with link to more
> information. The other guy just says "no, you are in psychological
> denial", but can provide no evidence. Seems like a case of the pot
> calling the kettle black.
>
> Let me see. I think I'll go with the sane one.
Thanks for pointing to the difference, Defender.
hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com
> It is particularly silly to attribute any of these Jupiter effects to
> the Sun, since the heat from the interior dominates over solar
> irradiation for that planet.
It's definitely not solar IR at that distance. But it doesn't seem,
at least to me, like infrared is primarily responsible for the changes
on Earth and Mars either. However, magnetic fields and solar wind
could be responsible for all of these changes. Plus, the entire solar
system, and everything tagging along with it, is, more or less, in
same place with respect to our galactic center, and everything else in
the universe.
Lloyd
> > not alone in global warming: other planets, according to this story,
> > are experiencing it too.
>
> And that meme is more likely than not to be correct. It's not just
> the fact that Mars is warming, it's also when this warming is
> occurring and the rate at which it is occurring.
You unable to read news, or unable to understand it? Google Mars and
warming -- it was just in the news. Hint: "dust."
Lloyd
farm.com> wrote:
> "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1178103691.1...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Is Global Warming Solar Induced? NOT ACCORDING TO THE PLANETS!
> > By Phil Plait
>
> >========================
>
> LOL ! Phil Plait ROFLMAO!
>
> Here listen to a real PHD.
>
>
> Two New Books Confirm Global Warming is Natural, Moderate
> Tuesday January 30, 2007
>
> Two powerful new books say today's global warming is due not to human
> activity but primarily to a long, moderate solar-linked cycle. Unstoppable
> Global Warming Every 1500 Years, by physicist Fred Singer and economist
> Dennis Avery was released just before Christmas.
Oh great, a creationist and a nonscientist.
>The Chilling Stars: A New
> Theory of Climate Change, by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and former
> BBC science writer Nigel Calder (Icon Books), is due out in March.
>
And reputable scientists always publish in books instead of peer-
reviewed journals, right?
> Singer and Avery note that most of the earth's recent warming occurred
> before 1940, and thus before much human-emitted CO2.
Then they're lying.
>Moreover, physical
> evidence shows 600 moderate warmings in the earth's last million years. The
> evidence ranges from ancient Nile flood records, Chinese court documents and
> Roman wine grapes to modern spectral analysis of polar ice cores, deep
> seabed sediments, and layered cave stalagmites.
>
> Unstoppable Global Warming shows the earth's temperatures following
> variations in solar intensity through centuries of sunspot records, and
> finds cycles of sun-linked isotopes in ice and tree rings. The book cites
> the work of Svensmark, who says cosmic rays vary the earth's temperatures by
> creating more or fewer of the low, wet clouds that cool the earth. It notes
> that global climate models can't accurately register cloud effects.
>
Except research disproves this.
> The Chilling Stars relates how Svensmark's team mimicked the chemistry of
> earth's atmosphere, by putting realistic mixtures of atmospheric gases into
> a large reaction chamber, with ultraviolet light as a stand-in for the sun.
> When they turned on the UV, microscopic droplets-cloud seeds-started
> floating through the chamber.
>
> "We were amazed by the speed and efficiency with which the electrons
> [generated by cosmic rays] do their work of creating the building blocks for
> the cloud condensation nuclei," says Svensmark.
>
> The Chilling Stars documents how cosmic rays amplify small changes in the
> sun's irradiance fourfold, creating 1-2 degree C cycles in earth's
> temperatures: Cosmic rays continually slam into the earth's atmosphere from
> outer space, creating ion clusters that become seeds for small droplets of
> water and sulfuric acid. The droplets then form the low, wet clouds that
> reflect solar energy back into space. When the sun is more active, it
> shields the earth from some of the rays, clouds wane, and the planet warms.
>
> Unstoppable Global Warming documents the reality of a moderate, natural,
> 1500-year climate cycle on the earth. The Chilling Stars explains the why
> and how.
>
> ###
Creationists write books too. To the ignorant, they seem plausible.
That would seem to include you.
hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com
> You unable to read news, or unable to understand it? Google Mars and
> warming -- it was just in the news. Hint: "dust."
Oh, if it was just in the news; then it must be dust. Yes, yes, of
course. Dust.
Bush Lost Iraq War
Subjects you know NOTHING About...
Jupiter Got hit by an asteroid/comet larger than the Alveraz asteroid
that
killed off the dinosaurs 65,000,000 years ago. When the Alverez
Asteroid
struck it hit at an angle towards the North American Continent. A
divot
the size of a mountain was ejected to space and fell as a second set
of
burning meteorites. 90% of all living things died. The forests all
burned
worldwide. Sunlight was blotted out for decades. North America was
sterilized and not colonized by large living things for more than
3,000,000 years.
The Shoemaker-Levy Asteroid/comet that hit Jupiter in 1994 was much
bigger. The multiple explosions were larger than the size of planet
Earth.
The after effects will not die away for 100,000s of years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Shoemaker-Levy_9
"... The first impact occurred at 20:15 UTC on July 16, 1994, when
fragment A of the nucleus slammed into Jupiter's southern hemisphere
at a
speed of about 60 km/s. Instruments on Galileo detected a fireball
which
reached a peak temperature of about 24,000 K, compared to the typical
Jovian cloudtop temperature of about 130 K, before expanding and
cooling
rapidly to about 1500 K after 40 s. The plume from the fireball
quickly
reached a height of over 3,000 km [3]. A few minutes after the impact
fireball was detected, Galileo measured renewed heating, probably due
to
ejected material falling back onto the planet. Earth-based observers
detected the fireball rising over the limb of the planet shortly after
the
initial impact [4].
Astronomers had expected to see the fireballs from the impacts, but
did
not have any idea in advance how visible the atmospheric effects of
the
impacts would be from Earth. Observers soon saw a huge dark spot after
the
first impact. The spot was visible even in very small telescopes, and
was
about 6,000 km (one Earth radius) across. This and subsequent dark
spots
were thought to have been caused by debris from the impacts, and were
markedly asymmetric, forming crescent shapes in front of the direction
of
impact.
Over the next 6 days, 21 discrete impacts were observed, with the
largest
coming on July 18 at 07:34 UTC when fragment G struck Jupiter. This
impact
created a giant dark spot over 12,000 km across, and was estimated to
have
released an energy equivalent to 6,000,000 megatons of TNT (750 times
the
world's nuclear arsenal). Two impacts 12 hours apart on July 19
created
impact marks of similar size to that caused by fragment G, and impacts
continued until July 22, when fragment W struck the planet. ..."
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0306450887/104-8494141-1649537?v=glance&n=283155
Impact Jupiter: The Crash of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 (Hardcover)
by David H. Levy
# Hardcover: 290 pages
# Publisher: Plenum Publishing Corporation (September 1995)
# Language: English
# ISBN: 0306450887
"... On a cloudy winter night in 1993, Levy and his friends and fellow
skywatchers Gene and Carolyn Shoemaker discovered the oddly shaped
comet
that, just six months later, crashed into Jupiter and provided
earthlings
with a spectacular and sobering demonstration of nature's might. As
Levy,
popular author of numerous books, including The Quest for Comets
(1994),
chronicles the entire fascinating Shoemaker-Levy 9 saga, we're struck
by
how radically science has been changed by computer technology. We're
now
capable of the instantaneous transmission of information and images
not
only from anywhere on earth, but, with the advent of mobile robotic
observers such as the Hubble Space Telescope, from far out in the
galaxy.
Hubble captured one astonishing picture after another of the comet
fragments hurtling toward Jupiter, the plumes their impacts sent
spraying
up into space, and the "wounds" sustained by the gas giant. Millions
of
people watched the glorious demise of Shoemaker-Levy 9 both on
television
and on the Internet, and Levy's delight in the technology that made
this
media hype possible, and in his own moments in the spotlight, is
palpable
in his fast-paced, informatively descriptive account. Donna
Seaman ..."
Jupiter got hit by a big mother asteroid, the explosions themselves
were
as big as the Earth, just recently. When something much less than that
happened last time on Earth it burned down the world and changed the
climate for millions of years. It nearly killed much of higher life on
land, and finished off the dinosaurs. Jupiter's climate will be
purturbed
for hundreds of thousands of years, swamping out all other possible
natural variations.
The sun radiation intensity (warming) has been very very little. The
reports of "global warming" on Mars and Pluto as proof that the Sun is
at
fault for Global Warming on Earth fail to account for why thirty other
worlds and moons are not warming. If the sun is the main reason, then
ALL
the planets have to show warming.
If the sun was at fault it would be far worse for mankind, as we could
do
SOMETHING about man-made warming, but we can do NOTHING about solar
warming. It's a good thing that the records going back 100 years show
very
little variation in solar radiation.
On the other hand Mars and Pluto have more "greenhouse gases" than
Earth
does. If a tiny bit of extra sunlight causes major warming on Mars
with an
atmosphere mostly made of CO2 than we should learn from that to keep
CO2
levels from increasing in our air.
Neither Mars nor Pluto have thick protective gas envelopes to stop
many
high energy radiation particles from penetrating to surface like Earth
does -- one cannot compare these worlds as if they would react
identically
to Earth to any input changes. It is equivilent to science frauds to
make
definitive statements about other planets with so little actual data.
Nobody has visited these worlds, and instruments have only recently
started building the records of facts of things we may be somewhat
sure of
about some of the other planets.
http://home.case.edu/~sjr16/advanced/mars.html
As can be seen in the table below, Mars' atmosphere is much less than
Earth's and Venus', and it exerts a pressure of only 0.000636 bars at
the
surface. Its composition is nearly all CO2; the rest is
approximately:
* CO2: 95.32%
* N2: 2.7%
* Ar: 1.6%
* O2: 0.13%
* CO: 0.08%
* H2O: 0.021%
* NO: 0.01%
* Ne: 0.00025%
* HDO: 0.000085%
* Kr: 0.00003%
* Xe: 0.000008%
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Mars/atmosphere.html
Atmosphere of Mars
Not such a bad place to visit, and you couldn't live there.
Mars has a thin atmosphere:
Here is a comparison of the atmospheric composition of Earth and Venus
and
Mars. I list the number of molecules per m2 of surface area of the
planet
in each planet's atmosphere relative to the total number of molecules
per
m2 in Earth's atmosphere.
Earth Venus Mars
N2 0.79 2 3 x 10-4
O2 0.20 < 0.001 10-7
Ar 0.01 0.005 2 x 10-4
CO2 0.0003 64 0.009
H2O ~ 0.02 ~ 0.01 ~10-6
Total 1.00 90 0.01
--------------------------
H2O 3 km 0.5 mm small
liquid
+ vapor
(A technical note: This is based on a pressure ratio of 0.0056/1,
a surface gravity ratio of 0.38/1.0, and a mass per molecule
ratio of 1.5/1.0 for Mars/Earth.)
Note that Mars has more carbon dioxide in its atmosphere than does
Earth,
but Mars has a lot less of everything else.
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/P/Pluto.html#atmosphere
Atmosphere
Pluto has very thin atmosphere with a surface pressure 100,000 times
less
than that on Earth. It is composed of 98% nitrogen and small amounts
of
methane and carbon monoxide - much like the atmosphere of Neptune's
moon
Triton.
Pluto's atmosphere gradually freezes and collects on the surface as
the
planet moves away from the Sun. Yet, interestingly, observations have
shown that between 1989, when Pluto was at perihelion, and 2002, the
atmospheric pressure increased threefold. The explanation probably has
to
do with the fact that materials take time to warm up and cool off,
which
is why the hottest part of the day on Earth, for example, is usually
around 2 or 3 p.m. rather than local noon, when sunlight is the most
intense. The fact that Pluto's atmosphere is still building up rather
than
freezing out, as many scientists expected, is good news from the
standpoint of what the New Horizons probe, launched toward Pluto in
2006,
might learn of the ninth world.
Peter Muehlbauer Lies About Global Warming For Exxon
Peter Muehlbauer Helped Kill 36 Human Beings with Global Warming Lies
that Delay Correction.
Heat wave in Orissa, 36 dead
Jajati Karan
http://www.ibnlive.com/news/india/05_2007/heat-wave-in-orissa-36-dead-
39594.html
Bhubaneshwar: The heat wave in Orissa has claimed the lives of 36 people
though official figures put the toll at six. With temperature rising over
43 degrees Celsius particularly in western part of the state, there is no
respite in sight for the people of Orissa.
For 44-year-old Birendra Mahasuara, a priest at the Kedar Gouri temple in
Bhubaneswar, an early morning bath in the temple pond is a daily ritual.
But with temperatures crossing 43 degrees Celsius, it is not a ritual any
more but a compulsion.
"I am a priest; I cannot afford AC in my house. So by bathing at least
four times in a day I try to keep my body cool," says Birendra Mahasuara.
The state government has already initiated some measures to combat the
heat like changing the working hours for labourers and school timing for
children.
Even the Meteorological department in Bhubaneswar says the heat wave will
not abate soon.
"There is some sea breeze in coastal Orissa but that does not reach
western Orissa due to North westerly hot winds flowing there. So it's
becoming very hot out there," Director of Meteorological department
(Bhubaneswar) SC Sahoo says.
So far in Orissa the highest temperature has been 50.1 degree Celsius
recorded at Titlagarh in 2003. The people in Orissa have already
experienced such extreme weather in the past and that is why they have
also learnt the art of beating the heat.
Peter Muehlbauer Lies About Global Warming For Exxon
Peter Muehlbauer Helped Kill 36 Human Beings with Global Warming Lies
alanm...@yahoo.com
> Is Global Warming Solar Induced? NOT ACCORDING TO THE PLANETS!
> By Phil Plait
>
> There's a meme going around the internets and in the MSM that Earth is
> not alone in global warming: other planets, according to this story,
> are experiencing it too.
>
> The usual crowd, along with many others, are taking this idea and
> running with it, saying that if other planets are warming up,
> obviously the warming on Earth is not man-made. But there's a small
> problem with this: it's wrong (for a more detailed analysis of this,
>
> The idea is that evidence shows that Mars, Jupiter, Neptune's moon
> Triton, and even tiny, distant Pluto are warming up. The only thing
> these objects have in common is the Sun-- so therefore the Sun must be
> the culprit, and we -- the polluting, self-absorbed humans -- are off
> the hook.
>
> And as for far, wee Pluto, it's so far out that if any warming there
> were from the Sun warming up, the Earth, which is much closer to the
> Sun, would be roasted. Since the effects of GW here on Earth are
> subtle, it's safe to ignore Pluto.
All else equal, the expected temperature ratios for different
planets would be proportional to the square root of the distance.
Pluto is just about 40 AU distant from the sun, so proportionately
any warming would be between 1/6 and 1/7 of the warming on Earth.
The percentage increase 288.6/288 = 0.2% could be expected on each
planet. Of course not everything is equal, the two planets have far
different
compositions.
- A. McIntire
(cut)
john fernbach
Right ....
"It's NOT carbon dioxide -- it's all the fault of the BIG BANG!"
----------------------------------------------
john fernbach
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Square root of the distance - not the square?
alanm...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes. The luminosity is inversely proportional to the square of
the distance, temperature is proportional to the 4th root of
luminosity, therefore temperature falls of as the square root of the
distance.
Of course I added the qualifier all else being equal. From what I
understand, Pluto and Titan's atmospheres increased in mass several
fold recently- that alone would account for more warming than that
square root factor- A. McIntire
alanm...@yahoo.com
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Yes. The luminosity is inversely proportional to thesquareof
> luminosity, therefore temperature falls of as thesquarerootof thedistance.
> Of course I added the qualifier all else being equal. From what I
> understand, Pluto and Titan's atmospheres increased in mass several
>
> - Show quoted text -
I misspoke there. Temperature is proportional to the square root of
the distance, it falls off as the square of the distance. A planet 9
times as far from the sun as planet P will have an absolute
temperature 1/3 that of planet P.- A. McIntire
Bush Lost Iraq War
wrote:
All things are not equal. Pluto is a tiny dot in our telescopes and a
mighty small target. Which would you expect to receive more solar
energy: a football-field sized solar array, or one solar cell the size
of a postage stamp? The tiny dot of tiny demoted former planet Pluto
can't even be seen by the naked eye.
All things are not equal. I have a thinking brain and you have a Rush
Drugbaugh Dittohead-sized brain. Too bad for you.
alanm...@yahoo.com
The luminosty flux is proportional to the surface area. A planet
the size of
Pluto would intercept a certain amount of sunlight proportional to
its surface area. A planet with 100 times Pluto's surface area, but
at the same distance and with the same composition as Pluto, would
intercept 100 times as much wattage as pluto. The watts per unit
surface area for the two planets would be the same, and they would
have the same temperature - A. McIntire
(childish insult deleted)