More on the run-away greenhouse
Andrew Usher
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/browse_frm/thread/b7dd90cd8a35a07/c2f7a852c240f001?tvc=1&q=run-away+greenhouse#c2f7a852c240f001
here, and also http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro/msg/37f72c4284954030
here (and other posts in that thread).
My previous comments were essentially correct, but I feel the need to
expand on them.
- Venus and Earth
First, whether Venus ever did have a true run-away, and whether the
Earth will have. A planet in a run-away greenhouse state, with its
entire ocean entering the atmosphere, will surely be shrouded in
cloud, and the cloud will be extremely thick (optical depth >1,000) as
the atmosphere is almost pure water. The albedo of an infinite water
cloud, in a water-vapor atmosphere, to the spectrum of sunlight should
be about 0.5 .
I will here denote by Ie the current solar radiation recieved at
Earth, and express possible values in that unit. The SKI limit for
pure water is about 0.85 Ie, so with an albedo of 0.5 we have 1.7 Ie
for the run-away point. This was reached by Venus about 2 billion
years in the past, and will be reached by Earth about 5 billion years
in the future. So it seems the answer to my query is yes.
However, the points for both Venus and Earth can be delayed about a
billion years by the increased SKI limit caused by the other gases in
the atmosphere (i.e. N2). Note that a billion years ago is about the
latest that Venus could have lost its ocean, given the observed age of
the surface.
Gliese 581c, which was reported in the press as a possibly habitable
planet, has a solar input around 2.5 Ie, which is well above the run-
away point (in fact, the threshold is lower around M dwarfs as water
clouds have a lower reflectivity to the redder spectrum of light). So,
even if this planet is Earth-like, it will now resemble Venus.
- The surface temperature of a run-away planet
I said in my first post that the Earth after run-away should reach
about 700 K, according to the adiabat for pure water. To stabilise at
this temperature, however, it would need to radiate to space above the
SKI limit. Is this possible?
When more heat is added to this atmosphere, evaporation will thin the
cloud layer. It will shrink on both its top and bottom, though only
the top is relevant to the radiation balance. When the cloud top moves
to a higher temperature, the lapse rate in the region vacated (which
is still fairly optically thick) will rise to the dry adiabat, which
is much higher than the cloud lapse rate. This raises the temperature
of the effective radiating layer, allowing it to cool and thus
maintain balance. So the surface need not warm significantly for a
small change in solar radiation.
Eventually, if the sun brightened sufficiently, the cloud layer would
vanish altogether. The surface temperature could be computed at that
point by applying the dry adiabat down from the radiating layer. The
radiating layer will be (under Earth's gravity) about 100mb and 350 K,
and for a surface pressure of 500 bar (1 Earth ocean), we get ~1800 K.
That's hot enough to melt rock, but terrestrial planets will not reach
it, as the ocean will be lost soon after the run-away begins.
- Gas planets
The cloud layer of a planet experiencing a run-away qualitatively is
the same as that of a gas giant, so it seems appropriate to term these
gas planets. Many 'super-Earths' and even Earth-mass planets born with
a high percentage of volatiles will become permanent gas planets, as
they can't lose all their gas in any practical time. Indeed, as
simulations suggest that such planets may be born with 10% of water,
such a planet above the critical insolation will essentially be a gas
giant with extremely high metallicity.
Is Venus, then, currently a gas planet? I don't think I'd regard it as
one; it differs in the nature of its cloud layer from normal gas
planets, and it is a run-away only with respect to CO2. Nonetheless
its atmospheric structure strongly resembles one.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
Sam Wormley
>
> Venus and Earth
>
About half a billion years ago Venus underwent radical change
in the form of volcanism that resurfaced a lot of the planet...
that heat was probably more than sufficient to leave the planet
in the state we find it today.
Our Earth has been a lot hotter (and a lot colder) than has been
in the last four million years or so... I don't know any of the
science community advocating we could go into a run-away thermal
green house scenario in the near future.
Another half billion years ago... due to the increasing solar
output... it gonna get pretty hot!
People like to conveniently fool themselves.
http://edu-observatory.org/psd/2008/Global_Warming_Workshop.html
Andrew Usher
> Andrew Usher wrote:
>
> > Venus and Earth
>
> About half a billion years ago Venus underwent radical change
> in the form of volcanism that resurfaced a lot of the planet...
> that heat was probably more than sufficient to leave the planet
> in the state we find it today.
No, the heat would long since have equilibrated. However, that episode
of vulcanism may have produced most of the CO2 in the atmosphere
today, which is largely responsible for its heat.
> Our Earth has been a lot hotter (and a lot colder) than has been
> in the last four million years or so... I don't know any of the
> science community advocating we could go into a run-away thermal
> green house scenario in the near future.
No, we can't, unless we were knocked closer to the sun.
Andrew Usher
Sam Wormley
> On Aug 4, 8:13 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> Andrew Usher wrote:
>>
>>> Venus and Earth
>> About half a billion years ago Venus underwent radical change
>> in the form of volcanism that resurfaced a lot of the planet...
>> that heat was probably more than sufficient to leave the planet
>> in the state we find it today.
>
> No, the heat would long since have equilibrated. However, that episode
> of vulcanism may have produced most of the CO2 in the atmosphere
> today, which is largely responsible for its heat.
You're making a bit more sense as the high temperature of Venus is
primarily due to a runaway greenhouse effect caused by the heavy
atmosphere of carbon dioxide.
>
>> Our Earth has been a lot hotter (and a lot colder) than has been
>> in the last four million years or so... I don't know any of the
>> science community advocating we could go into a run-away thermal
>> green house scenario in the near future.
>
> No, we can't, unless we were knocked closer to the sun.
>
> Andrew Usher
We only have to wait... the Sun's getting hotter all by itself.
Andrew Usher
> >> About half a billion years ago Venus underwent radical change
> >> in the form of volcanism that resurfaced a lot of the planet...
> >> that heat was probably more than sufficient to leave the planet
> >> in the state we find it today.
>
> > No, the heat would long since have equilibrated. However, that episode
> > of vulcanism may have produced most of the CO2 in the atmosphere
> > today, which is largely responsible for its heat.
>
> You're making a bit more sense as the high temperature of Venus is
> primarily due to a runaway greenhouse effect caused by the heavy
> atmosphere of carbon dioxide.
Why are you trying to insult me? I'm posting a reasonable discourse.
Andrew Usher
Spaceman
Andrew,
Sam is a typicle relativist that thinks relativty is the final answer for
all and no other theories about nature are needed.
Many here are of the same "philosophy" and ignore any real discussion
of different theories.
Just ignore them, or laugh at them.
They have simply been brainwashed beyond help to understand
any new thinking about anything.
Sam Wormley
Actually I was pleased that you recognize that CO2 on Venus is a
major component of trapping solar radiation on that planet. So it
was a compliment really.
Mike Jr.
Andrew,
Believe me, Sam was not trying to insult you.
Venus has a thick atmosphere made of 96% carbon dioxide (CO2), 3.5%
nitrogen (N2), and 0.5% other gases. The earth, on the other hand, has
an atmosphere composed of "78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93%
argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, trace amounts of other gases, and a
variable amount (average around 1%) of water vapor". This last was
from Wikipedia. BTW, it strikes me that 0.038% qualifies as a trace
gas but I stray from my point.
The earth has a semi-transparent atmosphere, Venus does not. As for
Mars, see http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf
Esp. "9.2 Mars".
The earth is in no danger of becoming Venus for at least the next 4
billion years.
--Mike Jr
Andrew Usher
> > > You're making a bit more sense as the high temperature of Venus is
> > > primarily due to a runaway greenhouse effect caused by the heavy
> > > atmosphere of carbon dioxide.
>
> > Why are you trying to insult me? I'm posting a reasonable discourse.
>
> Andrew,
> Believe me, Sam was not trying to insult you.
I don't believe you. San clearly is just here to promote AGW and
apparently doesn't care about the actual thread.
> Venus has a thick atmosphere made of 96% carbon dioxide (CO2), 3.5%
> nitrogen (N2), and 0.5% other gases. The earth, on the other hand, has
> an atmosphere composed of "78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93%
> argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, trace amounts of other gases, and a
> variable amount (average around 1%) of water vapor". This last was
> from Wikipedia. BTW, it strikes me that 0.038% qualifies as a trace
> gas but I stray from my point.
I surely know this already.
> The earth has a semi-transparent atmosphere, Venus does not. As for
> Mars, see http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf
> Esp. "9.2 Mars".
Yes, and that's not a source you should use, probably. It is rather
bizarre,
devoted to proving conventional climate models wrong and claiming that
there is no significant global warming from anthropogenic CO2.
Mars is somewhat interesting: cold CO2 has only one important
absorption band, so Mars's greenhouse is relatively low even
though it has more CO2 than we do. The lesson is that Mars could
be warmed significantly if we could get more water vapor in its
atmosphere, which actually happens during high obliquity periods.
> The earth is in no danger of becoming Venus for at least the next 4
> billion years.
This was, of course, a point of my original post.
Andrew Usher
Mike
> On Aug 5, 11:18 pm, "Mike Jr." <n00s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > You're making a bit more sense as the high temperature of Venus is
> > > > primarily due to a runaway greenhouse effect caused by the heavy
> > > > atmosphere of carbon dioxide.
>
> > > Why are you trying to insult me? I'm posting a reasonable discourse.
>
> > Andrew,
> > Believe me, Sam was not trying to insult you.
>
> I don't believe you. San clearly is just here to promote AGW and
> apparently doesn't care about the actual thread.
I agree that "San" believes in AGW but IMHO, you are being a little
hard on him. At some point the evidence will become compelling and I
trust that his devotion to science will win out over his devotion "to
the cause".
>
> > Venus has a thick atmosphere made of 96% carbon dioxide (CO2), 3.5%
> > nitrogen (N2), and 0.5% other gases. The earth, on the other hand, has
> > an atmosphere composed of "78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93%
> > argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, trace amounts of other gases, and a
> > variable amount (average around 1%) of water vapor". This last was
> > from Wikipedia. BTW, it strikes me that 0.038% qualifies as a trace
> > gas but I stray from my point.
>
> I surely know this already.
>
> > The earth has a semi-transparent atmosphere, Venus does not. As for
> > Mars, seehttp://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf
> > Esp. "9.2 Mars".
>
> Yes, and that's not a source you should use, probably. It is rather
> bizarre,
> devoted to proving conventional climate models wrong and claiming that
> there is no significant global warming from anthropogenic CO2.
You should try to understand the physics presented in the paper before
making such a judgment. The climate models used by the IPCC *are*
wrong. See, "Roy Spencer, "Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis
from Observational Data: A Simple Model Description", Journal of
Climate (pending publication)." when it comes out.
Dr. Spencer talks about the subject here,
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=e12b56cb-4c7b-4c21-bd4a-7afbc4ee72f3
Roy Spencer has a PhD in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin-
Madison, and has been involved in global warming research for close to
twenty years. He has numerous peer reviewed scientific articles
dealing with the measurement and interpretation of climate variability
and climate change. He also is the U.S. Science Team Leader for the
AMSR-E instrument flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite.
>
> Mars is somewhat interesting: cold CO2 has only one important
> absorption band, so Mars's greenhouse is relatively low even
> though it has more CO2 than we do. The lesson is that Mars could
> be warmed significantly if we could get more water vapor in its
> atmosphere, which actually happens during high obliquity periods.
>
> > The earth is in no danger of becoming Venus for at least the next 4
> > billion years.
>
> This was, of course, a point of my original post.
Good for you!
>
> Andrew Usher
Sam Wormley
>
> Mars is somewhat interesting: cold CO2 has only one important
> absorption band, so Mars's greenhouse is relatively low even
> though it has more CO2 than we do. The lesson is that Mars could
> be warmed significantly if we could get more water vapor in its
> atmosphere, which actually happens during high obliquity periods.
Have you any data that shows that the surface of Mars (globally)
warms during periods of high obliquity?
Lloyd
Uh, sorry, no. Spencer is in a tiny minority of denialists. Read
what the IPCC says. Read what EVERY scientific group in the world --
NASA, EPA, American Geophysical Union, American Physics Society, NOAA,
Royal Society, National Academy of Sciences -- says. Read Nature and
Science. AGW is real.
> Dr. Spencer talks about the subject here,http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStor...
>
Yep, a Republican press release.
> Roy Spencer has a PhD in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin-
> Madison, and has been involved in global warming research for close to
> twenty years. He has numerous peer reviewed scientific articles
> dealing with the measurement and interpretation of climate variability
> and climate change. He also is the U.S. Science Team Leader for the
> AMSR-E instrument flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite.
>
So if you go to 100 doctors and 2 tell you you're OK and 98 say you
have cancer and need surgery, what do you do?
Mike
Spencer has Aqua data to back up his position. Argue the data please.
>
> > Dr. Spencer talks about the subject here,http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStor...
>
> Yep, a Republican press release.
Why do you say that? Do you believe that physics has to be viewed
through the lens of politics? That is an interesting insight.
>
> > Roy Spencer has a PhD in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin-
> > Madison, and has been involved in global warming research for close to
> > twenty years. He has numerous peer reviewed scientific articles
> > dealing with the measurement and interpretation of climate variability
> > and climate change. He also is the U.S. Science Team Leader for the
> > AMSR-E instrument flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite.
>
> So if you go to 100 doctors and 2 tell you you're OK and 98 say you
> have cancer and need surgery, what do you do?
Those "98 doctors" are using flawed models.
"The long standing misinterpretation of the classic semi-infinite
Eddington solution has been resolved. Compared to the semi-infinite
model the finite
semi-transparent model predicts much smaller ground surface
temperature and a larger
surface air temperature. The new equation proves that the classic
solution significantly
overestimates the sensitivity of greenhouse forcing to optical depth
perturbations."
Miskolczi (2007)
Andrew Usher
> Have you any data that shows that the surface of Mars (globally)
> warms during periods of high obliquity?
You don't really care about my answer to that, do you? You just
want to continue to harass me.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> On Aug 6, 6:47 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 5, 11:18 pm, "Mike Jr." <n00s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > You're making a bit more sense as the high temperature of Venus is
> > > > > primarily due to a runaway greenhouse effect caused by the heavy
> > > > > atmosphere of carbon dioxide.
>
> > > > Why are you trying to insult me? I'm posting a reasonable discourse.
>
> > > Andrew,
> > > Believe me, Sam was not trying to insult you.
>
> > I don't believe you. San clearly is just here to promote AGW and
> > apparently doesn't care about the actual thread.
>
> I agree that "San" believes in AGW but IMHO, you are being a little
> hard on him. At some point the evidence will become compelling and I
> trust that his devotion to science will win out over his devotion "to
> the cause".
I also believe in global warming, though I don't make a religious
point of it. I don't think your evidence is compelling, though I will
try to look at Spencer's article if it becomes available.
Andrew Usher
Sam Wormley
Actually I wan to know if you have seen data that shows the
surface of Mars (globally) warms during periods of high obliquity?
You say it... What's the evidence?
Mike
Andrew,
Have you ever read any of de Bono's books?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Bono_Hats
"Black hat (Judge's robe): Criticism, judgment, negative aspects,
modus tollens (objective)"
When you present ideas on usenet, you should expect to have your views
subjected to "black hat" scrutiny. In science, the person making a
statement of fact (e.g. "Mars (globally) warms during periods of high
obliquity") should be prepared to back that statement up. All that
Sam was doing was asking you to backup your statement.
An ad hominem argument "consists of replying to an argument or factual
claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the
person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the
substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Sam was not, and to my knowledge never has, engaged in ad hominem
style attacks. IMHO, it is unfair to accuse Sam of that.
--Mike Jr
Lloyd
The data does not back up his position. Have YOU seen the data?
NASA says: "Our study confirms the existence of a positive water
vapor feedback in the atmosphere, but it may be weaker than we
expected,"
See also:
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Increase_In_Atmospheric_Moisture_Tied_To_Human_Activities_999.html
>
>
>
> > > Dr. Spencer talks about the subject here,http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStor...
>
> > Yep, a Republican press release.
>
> Why do you say that?
Because Inhofe is a far right-wing Senator who puts out these press
releases.
>Do you believe that physics has to be viewed
> through the lens of politics? That is an interesting insight.
Do you believe a right-wing Senator's press release is the best way to
learn science?
>
>
>
> > > Roy Spencer has a PhD in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin-
> > > Madison, and has been involved in global warming research for close to
> > > twenty years. He has numerous peer reviewed scientific articles
> > > dealing with the measurement and interpretation of climate variability
> > > and climate change. He also is the U.S. Science Team Leader for the
> > > AMSR-E instrument flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite.
>
> > So if you go to 100 doctors and 2 tell you you're OK and 98 say you
> > have cancer and need surgery, what do you do?
>
> Those "98 doctors" are using flawed models.
Oh BS.
>
> "The long standing misinterpretation of the classic semi-infinite
> Eddington solution has been resolved. Compared to the semi-infinite
> model the finite
> semi-transparent model predicts much smaller ground surface
> temperature and a larger
> surface air temperature. The new equation proves that the classic
> solution significantly
> overestimates the sensitivity of greenhouse forcing to optical depth
> perturbations."
> Miskolczi (2007)
Yeah, all great science gets published in Hungary after being rejected
by the top science journals. Further, the paper is not cited at all
according to scholar.google
Check out discussions here too:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=232818
Mike
>
> NASA says: "Our study confirms the existence of a positive water
> vapor feedback in the atmosphere, but it may be weaker than we
> expected,"
>
> See also:
>
> http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Increase_In_Atmospheric_Moisture_Ti...
Read the fine print. Altitude matters. Only 5% of the water vapor
exists above 500hpa
but this 5% accounts for 50% of the total greenhouse effect. This is
where the
the AIRS satellite measurements are showing the drying.
See: http://www-airs.jpl.nasa.gov/Documents/Papers/Pierce_2006GL027060.pdf
Anyway, how did they measure atmospheric water vapor content prior to
2002?
>
>
>
> > > > Dr. Spencer talks about the subject here,http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStor...
>
> > > Yep, a Republican press release.
>
> > Why do you say that?
>
> Because Inhofe is a far right-wing Senator who puts out these press
> releases.
>
> >Do you believe that physics has to be viewed
> > through the lens of politics? That is an interesting insight.
>
> Do you believe a right-wing Senator's press release is the best way to
> learn science?
I didn't see the press release that you mentioned, only a transcript
of his testimony.
Remember the definition of an ad hominem attack. Please stick to
refuting the data.
>
>
>
> > > > Roy Spencer has a PhD in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin-
> > > > Madison, and has been involved in global warming research for close to
> > > > twenty years. He has numerous peer reviewed scientific articles
> > > > dealing with the measurement and interpretation of climate variability
> > > > and climate change. He also is the U.S. Science Team Leader for the
> > > > AMSR-E instrument flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite.
>
> > > So if you go to 100 doctors and 2 tell you you're OK and 98 say you
> > > have cancer and need surgery, what do you do?
>
> > Those "98 doctors" are using flawed models.
>
> Oh BS.
Opinions vary.
>
>
>
> > "The long standing misinterpretation of the classic semi-infinite
> > Eddington solution has been resolved. Compared to the semi-infinite
> > model the finite
> > semi-transparent model predicts much smaller ground surface
> > temperature and a larger
> > surface air temperature. The new equation proves that the classic
> > solution significantly
> > overestimates the sensitivity of greenhouse forcing to optical depth
> > perturbations."
> > Miskolczi (2007)
>
> Yeah, all great science gets published in Hungary after being rejected
> by the top science journals. Further, the paper is not cited at all
> according to scholar.google
"It is the true believers who, when they have no facts on their side,
try to silence their critics. When former NASA mathematician Ferenc
Miskolczi pointed out that “greenhouse warming” may be mathematically
impossible, NASA would not allow him to publish his work. Miskolczi
dared to question the simplifying assumption in the warming model that
the atmosphere is infinitely thick. He pointed out that when you use
the correct thickness—about 65 miles—the greenhouse effect disappears!
Ergo: no AGW. Miskolczi resigned in disgust and published his proof in
the peer reviewed Hungarian journal Weather."
From Physicist Walter Cunningham, NASA Apollo 7 Astronaut, article
in the July/August 2008 Issue of Launch
Galileo Galilei would sympathize. BTW, you should be ashamed.
Lloyd
You mean like this:
"The atmosphere's water vapor content has increased by about 0.41
kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m²) per decade since 1988, and natural
variability in climate just can't explain this moisture change. The
most plausible explanation is that it's due to the human-caused
increase in greenhouse gases."
And this:
"Despite the relatively short length (19 years) of the observed water
vapor data, we were able to identify a "fingerprint" of human
activities in this observational record.
Unlike most previous "fingerprint" work, our study used results from
virtually all of the world's major climate models. We showed that our
identification of a human "fingerprint" in satellite-based water vapor
records was robust to current uncertainties in climate models."
Yep, reading that is eye-opening.
> Anyway, how did they measure atmospheric water vapor content prior to
> 2002?
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > Dr. Spencer talks about the subject here,http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStor...
>
> > > > Yep, a Republican press release.
>
> > > Why do you say that?
>
> > Because Inhofe is a far right-wing Senator who puts out these press
> > releases.
>
> > >Do you believe that physics has to be viewed
> > > through the lens of politics? That is an interesting insight.
>
> > Do you believe a right-wing Senator's press release is the best way to
> > learn science?
>
> I didn't see the press release that you mentioned, only a transcript
> of his testimony.
Given when Inhofe was chair of the committee and invited only
denialists.
>
> Remember the definition of an ad hominem attack. Please stick to
> refuting the data.
Then you learn the damn science. Go to ANY scientific group's site
and READ.
If you quote from a political site, you can't expect nobody to call
you on the politics.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > Roy Spencer has a PhD in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin-
> > > > > Madison, and has been involved in global warming research for close to
> > > > > twenty years. He has numerous peer reviewed scientific articles
> > > > > dealing with the measurement and interpretation of climate variability
> > > > > and climate change. He also is the U.S. Science Team Leader for the
> > > > > AMSR-E instrument flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite.
>
> > > > So if you go to 100 doctors and 2 tell you you're OK and 98 say you
> > > > have cancer and need surgery, what do you do?
>
> > > Those "98 doctors" are using flawed models.
>
> > Oh BS.
>
> Opinions vary.
>
But facts do NOT. You may be of the "opinion" that the moon is made
of green cheese. It's not.
>
>
>
>
> > > "The long standing misinterpretation of the classic semi-infinite
> > > Eddington solution has been resolved. Compared to the semi-infinite
> > > model the finite
> > > semi-transparent model predicts much smaller ground surface
> > > temperature and a larger
> > > surface air temperature. The new equation proves that the classic
> > > solution significantly
> > > overestimates the sensitivity of greenhouse forcing to optical depth
> > > perturbations."
> > > Miskolczi (2007)
>
> > Yeah, all great science gets published in Hungary after being rejected
> > by the top science journals. Further, the paper is not cited at all
> > according to scholar.google
>
> "It is the true believers who, when they have no facts on their side,
> try to silence their critics. When former NASA mathematician Ferenc
> Miskolczi pointed out that “greenhouse warming” may be mathematically
> impossible, NASA would not allow him to publish his work.
How did they "not allow" this?
>Miskolczi
> dared to question the simplifying assumption in the warming model that
> the atmosphere is infinitely thick. He pointed out that when you use
> the correct thickness—about 65 miles—the greenhouse effect disappears!
> Ergo: no AGW. Miskolczi resigned in disgust and published his proof in
> the peer reviewed Hungarian journal Weather."
Because no real journal would publish it!
>
> From Physicist Walter Cunningham, NASA Apollo 7 Astronaut, article
> in the July/August 2008 Issue of Launch
>
> Galileo Galilei would sympathize. BTW, you should be ashamed.
>
>
>
> > Check out discussions here too:
>
> >http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=232818
>
> > > > > > Mars is somewhat interesting: cold CO2 has only one important
> > > > > > absorption band, so Mars's greenhouse is relatively low even
> > > > > > though it has more CO2 than we do. The lesson is that Mars could
> > > > > > be warmed significantly if we could get more water vapor in its
> > > > > > atmosphere, which actually happens during high obliquity periods.
>
> > > > > > > The earth is in no danger of becoming Venus for at least the next 4
> > > > > > > billion years.
>
> > > > > > This was, of course, a point of my original post.
>
> > > > > Good for you!
>
> > > > > > Andrew Usher
Gee, an astronaut overrules thousands of scientists and all the
world's scientific bodies. Gee, what an idiot you think we are if you
think scientists believe that.
Andrew Usher
> "The atmosphere's water vapor content has increased by about 0.41
> kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m²) per decade since 1988, and natural
> variability in climate just can't explain this moisture change. The
> most plausible explanation is that it's due to the human-caused
> increase in greenhouse gases."
This number can't be right - it's equal to about 500 millibars! They
must mean 0.41 grams; even that is surely more than the
secular trend caused by global warming, since it's about 0.5 K
in dew point.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
Well, I can try to give an honest answer. I apologise if you were
genuinely inquiring.
I have looked at the literature;
it seems that no one has calculated global warming in this case,
however they admit that their models didn't include greenhouse
warming by water vapor, which is an error that pretty much
invalidates the conclusion.
Nor did the most recent models account for CO2 exhange with the
regolith, though it is believed to have adsorbed 30-50 mb. This could
mean a warming of 5-10 K (even without H2O) in high-obliquity
states.
Even at that, they show that seasonal liquid water is likely in
the northern high latitudes.
My own reasoning was almost given already: the reason Mars
can't get more water in its atmosphere is because of the cold-trap
at the poles. High obliquity eliminates this as a factor.
Andrew Usher
oriel36
The 'tilt'of the Earth is actually the rotational orientation of the
planet generated by the daily rotation of the Earth,a motion which
gererates day and night,gives us the familiar Polaris effect and does
little else.Take the time out to look at the daily rotation of Uranus
which in turn generates it unique rotational orientation -
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1999/11/video/b
For any planet to keep its rotational orientation pointing in one
direction in space,a planet must orbit the central Sun in a specific
way.Turn again to that video of Uranus and you will notice that the
Equatorial rings change their orientation to the central Sun.A person
who looks at the motion of the rings might imagine that the axis is
changing its direction in space but that is not the case for Uranus
and it is not the case for the Earth -
http://www.astro.psu.edu/users/niel/astro1/slideshows/class39/023-uranus-seasons.jpg
The over-reliance of using 'axial tilt' to explain the seasons and
possible variations in climate detracts from what actually causes the
seasonal differences in daylight/darkness everywhere but at the
Equator,the fact that you can actually see a seperate motion as Uranus
orbits the central Sun (apart from diurnal rotation and its 'tilt')
makes it all the more urgent to modify the original reasoning od
Copernicus in respect to the cause of the seasons as that colors
climate studies as seen in the article below -
"Like ice ages on Earth, Martian ice ages are driven by variations in
the planet's orbit, particularly the tilt of the planet's axis. But
Martian ice ages, unlike ice ages on Earth, appear to begin as the
polar regions warm, rather than cool."
http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/03/pr03149.htm
The planet Uranus,because of its unique rotational orientation and
Equatorial rings,is the nearest thing to see how orbital motion
behaves in the absence of axial rotation,the motion of the Equatorial
rings through 360 degrees over the course of an annual orbits shows
that that while axial rotation causes day and night,the seasonal
variations in daylight/darkness come from the specific way the Earth
orbits the Sun.
Even allowing for unfamiliarity,I am bewildered that not even actual
images of another planet can alter the long held adherence to
obliquity or 'axial tilt',in short,before scientists try to comprehend
climate chage they should understand what causes the seasonal
variations in daylight/darkness first.
Andrew Usher
<snip nonsense>
What the hell is this? There are more errors here than I know
how to deal with.
Andrew Usher