Posted on 09/21/2007 11:30:35 AM PDT by kathsua
Scientists take two approaches to determining the validity of theories. One approach involves efforts to prove the theory is valid which sometimes is difficult to do. The other approach attempts to disprove the theory, or falsify it. If the theory can be falsified,then there is no need to attempt to prove it.
Heinze Thieme has published several essays demonstrating that the greenhouse gas theory is false. In "On the Phenomenon of Atmospheric Backradiation" he shows that "An assessment conducted in the light of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the principles of vector algebra of the key greenhouse theory concept of 'atmospheric backradiation' suggests that it is simply a mirage. The only 'Backradiation Phenomenon' that needs explaining is how this physical nonsense maintains its place in numerous earth sciences textbooks at both school and university level." http://www.geocities.com/atmosco2/backrad.htm
Greenhouse gas devotees believe the such backradiation by CO2 is supposed to heat the ground and water.
In the article "Does Man really affect Weather and Climate? Are the Interactions really understood? "
http://www.geocities.com/atmosco2/Influence.htm
he discusses how humans may be affecting climate by adding water rather than by adding CO2. This affect occurs because of the thermal characteristics of water, especially water vapor rather than radiation.
The third article "The Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect - explained stepwise"
http://www.geocities.com/atmosco2/atmos.htm
he demonstrates that atmospheric pressure is more important in determining temperature than the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. In the case of Venus he provides data indicating it would actually be warmer if the atmosphere was comprised of gases other than CO2. "To avoid misunderstandings in the future it would be wise not to use the term 'greenhouse effect' anymore for the description of conditions within an atmosphere. It would be more correct to speak of an 'atmosphere Effect' [6], to describe and explain the thermodynamic temperature effects of an atmosphere."
climate change ping.
It’s the water! I’m off to buy some dirt offsets...
LOL!
Good one!
Now we know why all the enviro-whackos are water (and soap) aversive................
Ping!
CO2 is, techincally, a greenhouse gas. But all gases are. All gases hold SOME sort of heat. CO2 holds more than Nitrogen or Oxygen, but nowhere near what other gases do.
One of the ways I discovered this was reading about the hypothetical, but technically feasible, idea of terraforming Mars into a livable planet. CO2 was discussed as needed to warm the atmosphere. The amount that would be needed even to raise Mars’ temperature 3 degrees is a thousandfold what Earth has seen as an increase in the last 300 years. Therefore, can CO2 really be the whole reason Earth has warmed up?
Mars would be warmer if CO2 could heat a planet.
Its atmosphere is 95% CO2.
Its atmosphere is 95% CO2.
Except that Mars's atmosphere is 6-10 millibars VS 1015 Millibars for Earth. That's 1/100th roughly. You can't really compare the two and draw any valid conclusions.
?
A valid theory should result in correct predictions for each set of values of the variables. So, a valid theory should work on Earth and on Mars. If it doesn't, you don't have a valid theory. The laws of science don't change between planets.
Einstein's hypothesis is that all directions in space are physically equivalent. It is not necessary now to go beyond this, but we might speculate that the laws of physics and chemistry (and biology if any) would be the same on other planets even though the conditions be so different that our present laws would need extension.
Thank you.
So your contention is that a gas at 10 millibars pressure behaves the same in relation to radient heat as a gas at 1000 millibars, all other things remaining equal?
I guess if you want to promote one theory for Earth and one for Mars, you will be talking to a very select group of scientists, perhaps some alchemists from the Mideast.
I never suggested any such thing, you're putting up a straw man. You're the one who seems to be equating a 10 millibar atmosphere with a 1000 Millibar atmosphere. They don't behave at all in a similar fashion.
Perhaps you should understand something. I don't for a second think CO2, human caused or not is causing global warming. It's all cyclical, it's based on solar output and orbital mechanics. I'm trying to drive the point home that the atmospheres on the two planets can't be used to test or predict much of anything. They aren't similar at all.
The atmosphere of Venus is mostly CO2 as well. It is also roughly 93 times more dense.
Two planets, Mars and Venus, one is real hot, the other real cold. Both are primarily CO2 atmospheres. One is roughly 9300 times more dense and on average, 800 degrees hotter. Now, which do you think is more important? CO2 content or pressure? Do you think that warming is linearly graphed from low pressure to high pressure or would it be more likely to be logarithmic?
93 times more dense than the atmosphere of the Earth, 9300 times the density of Mars.
The density of the gas has an effect on it’s insulating properties. Why do you think mountains are colder than sea level? Because the air is thinner and holds less heat.
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.