Posted on 11/26/2014 7:58:30 PM PST by America_Right
Hi fellow Freepers,
I have been away since the last general election, but since we cleaned up in this midterm, I have been getting back into the news and politics a little more.
Anyway, I was reading a globull warming article's comments on some website, and one of the comments was from a physicist named Harry Dale Huffman. He used an equation to show that there is almost NO difference between Earth and Venus when it comes to atmospheric temperature, even though Venus has an atmosphere composed almost entirely of CO2.
With indisputable math, he is able to show absolute proof that there is NO WAY CO2 emissions can be causing any kind of atmospheric temperature changes.
Enjoy! Follow the link to the article, and you can go from there to Harry's blog - the comments are awesome. More than a few Warmists had their eyes opened by this.
Earths temperature at the surface is 288 Kelvin. (15 C). The atmospheric pressure at the surface of the Earth is 1000 millibars. The temperature of Venus at 1000 millibars is 339 Kelvin (66 C) Using only the distance from the sun, we can determine that Venus should be about 17.6% hotter than Earth in degrees Kelvin. (explanation below) BIG NEWS: Venus’s temperature at 1000 millibars is almost exactly the same as Earth’s … based solely on the distance from the sun. (differing only by about 0.5%.) The temperature comparisons continued to hold true all the way from 1000 millibars through 200 millibars, varying by a maximum of 5% and by less than 1% in most cases.
(Excerpt) Read more at newandamazing.shadowsofadistantmoon.com ...
Yes, but what might be interesting is to find out that anywhere in our Solar System where the pressure is the same as sea level on Earth, the temperature is about the same.
Yes there is. Just not much.
Matter of fact, it is almost the opposite of Earth. Little water vapor and lots of C02.
Due to it's parabolic orbit, the Earth is closer to the SUN in WINTER (for North America anyway) and further away during the SUMMER.
It doesn't really matter one way or the other whether it is happening or not. Concern over the Earth's climate isn't important.
Solving global warming is not what the UN wants. If you read up on the Kyoto Protocol, it is really nothing more than an attempt at a massive transfer of wealth from industrialized countries to poor ones through the use of "flexibility mechanisms" (i.e. carbon credits). The global warming scare is how this transfer of wealth has been sold to the public.
Due to it's parabolic orbit, the Earth is closer to the SUN in WINTER (for North America anyway) and further away during the SUMMER.
Huh? What's that have to do with anything? Venus is always closer to the Sun than the Earth ... but not close enough to the Sun to account for the radical temperature differences, as I said.
CO2 levels during the Carboniferous Period were 400 times higher than present levels.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html#anchor147264
I think there’s some confusion here. The original post was referring to the similarity of temperatures (allowing for distance from the sun) of the two atmospheres at the same pressures, not at the planets’ surfaces. 1000 millibars is the pressure at the surface of the Earth, but that pressure exists in Venus’s atmosphere at 50-65 km above the surface. The temperature at that altitude is what is being compared to the temperature of the atmosphere at Earth’s surface, not the temperature at Venus’s surface.
Still even at 0.04% that is not even remotely close to being enough to blanket the globe in a thick enough blanket to trap heat- not even close- As mentioned before, it’s far more likely that this piddly 0.04% is in tiny insignificant pockets scattered 1000’s of miles apart all over the globe and couldn’t possibly be big enough to tap anything-
And, EVEN IF there was a blanket trapping heat from escaping, wouldn’t it also mean that the CO2 PREVENTS heat from entering fro m the sun in equal force thereby cancelling out any effect that trapping has??
We are about to have trillions of dollars stolen from us over this lie- and the GOP sits idly by allowing it to happen without asking the critical questions like how it’s possible for only 4/10’ths of 1% of our atmosphere can be causing warming on a global scale-
The only ‘answer’ I can find online makes the asinine argument that CO2 is like poison, and that ‘it wouldn’t be a good thing to have 0.04% arsenic or risin in a cup of tea” or the equally asinine argument that “our bodies contain .05% iron, but if it gets more, it’s deadly” (not sure on the percentage of iron- but ran across that moronic argument the other day)-
Their only ‘answer’ is that CO2 is “like a a poison”? Really? That still doesn’t even come close to answering how just 0.04% of the atmosphere can cause warming on a global scale
[[It is 460 degrees day or night, at the poles or at the equator]]
Sooooo you’re saying there’s no need for ovens any longer? Woohoo- ovens are energy hogs- We can bake our turkeys outside for free now!
[[CO2 constitutes 0.039% of the Earth’s atmosphere. Not 10%, not 1%, not 0.1%; just 0.039%. About 4 parts per 1,000. Climate change alarmists have never explained how a gas that constitutes such an infinitesimally small percentage of the atmosphere could have oh so powerful an effect on climate.]]
Yep- the ‘best’ I can find from them is that they liken it to poison- apparently that is the best they can muster for a feeble attempt at defending their scam
[[Solar energy is mostly in the UV spectrum, which is not absorbed by CO2. Radiant energy form the Earth is in the IR spectrum, which is absorbed by CO2]]
Ok that explains one of the questions I had about CO2 reflecting the sun’s energy or not- But even if it isn’t absorbed, can it be reflected by CO2?
[[How does the molecule know which direction the heat is coming from?]]
Star navigation?
Well. if the guy cannot write clearly then what’s the use?
Further. it’s a bogus comparison in the first place - comparing dissimilar things and then equating them is idiotic. To go on to make a statement deriving from that guy’s bogus equating, is exactly what the man-made climate disruptioners do. So the math and the conclusions are pure made up BS - the guy cannot even keep Kelvin and Celsius straight.
One could make a “mathematical” case that the moon is really made of green cheese by comparing the height of the average lunar surface feature to the height of the cheese counter in the grocery store, the placement of the green cheese on windy days right after a full moon ... and so on ...
Fine, have it your way. By the way, your post 59 confuses temperature with pressure, and Celsius with Fahrenheit, so I hope you’ll forgive me if I don’t take you very seriously.
Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.
No it does not confuse anything - the bit about pressure is a separate item and nothing to do with temperature argument preceding, beyond the physics that increased pressure increases the temperature of a medium.
Be sure to have an extra helping of Turkey and make the gal at Salon happy ...:)
Doesn’t that only work at night?
s/ running rampant
Read your own post, please. This is what appeared: “(1000 millibars = temp at the surface)”. A millibar is a unit of pressure, not temperature. You also stated “There is no way that Venus has a balmy surface temp of 65.8 degrees Fahrenheit.”, when the original post refers to 66 degrees Celsius and makes no mention of Fahrenheit. Nor of Venus’s surface temperature, for that matter.
Not sure what that Salon reference is supposed to mean, but no doubt it’s extremely crushing.
I don’t feel like wasting more time on you. Go ahead and have the last word, and then tell yourself how brilliant you are, and how you got the best of the exchange.
Only moisture and blanket cloud cover can absorb and develop the kind of warming they talk about. CO2 does not even condensate nor reflect/trap infrareds like clouds do.
The level of CO2 has risen from 280ppm to 400ppm. Had mankind not been around the level would have risen from 280 to 290 at most due to warming after the Little Ice Age. Instead it has risen to 400ppm.
As for 400 ppm having no effect, that is not true either. The first 20 ppm has a huge effect (i.e. 20 ppm versus zero). The warming decreases with each added 20 ppm, so man's added CO2 doesn't have a very large effect. But without that first 20 ppm of CO2, we would have an iceball planet.
And, by the way, it is 0.04% not 0.004%
Most definitely. The earth's water has a number of effects such as thermal inertia, latent heat transfer (global cooling), and global warming by water vapor. The largest effect is warming, but we don't have the thick clouds that venus has that also trap heat there. There are too many different factors to make simple conclusions based on atmospheric pressure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.