Why Didn't We Prove Greenhouse Effect on Mars?

The Pasadena Pundit ^ | January 13, 2007 | Stephen Rashid

[WayneLusvardi]

Why Didn't We Prove Greenhouse Effect on Mars?

Stephen S. Rashid - Advanced Turbomachine Pasadena Pundit - Jan. 13, 2007

People tend to confuse a statistical connection with cause and effect. A statistical connection is necessary, but not sufficient, to prove cause and effect. One must also define the mechanism, and prove it through calculation and/or experiment, by which something happens. For example, it can be proven statistically that virtually everyone involved in a car accident has eaten carrots recently before the accident occurred. That, however, is not proof that eating carrots causes car accidents. You have to prove why eating carrots causes car accidents, and that the converse is also true, that not eating carrots prevents car accidents.

If we assume that CO2 causes global warming by absorbing energy, we have to realize the implications of that premise. In order to have an equal effect on global temperature as the other atmospheric components, CO2 would need to absorb 500 times the energy per pound as O2, and 1700 times the energy per pound as N2. To control the global temperature, CO2 would need to surpass these energy absorption levels, as extreme as they seem already. So, it's not enough to prove that CO2 absorbs "more" energy than O2 or N2, you must prove it absorbs a lot more energy, in fact, at least the amount of energy noted above.

By my calculation, Mars should have twice the greenhouse effect as Earth, based on it's atmospheric CO2 content, planetary surface area, and solar flux, however, it actually is colder than one would expect (based on it's distance from the Sun). Such a greenhouse effect would have been easy to prove. A simple temperature probe on the 2 Mars rovers we sent up could have measured the temperature in the sun prior to entering the Martian atmosphere, and again, in a sunny spot on the surface. The greenhouse effect of the 96% CO2 Martian atmosphere should have been evident with the surface temperature being hotter than the temperature in near space. To pull off such an experiment would have been peanuts in cost compared to the overall cost of the mission, and would have proved, or disproved, one of the most important environmental discussions of human history.but, we didn't do that. I wonder why?

We always have to remember two things. One, that science has politics too. If I want a grant to study the possible link between eating carrots and car accidents, I'll get more traction with the assertion that the premise is true (with grave implications for future humanity), than I will if I say up front that I don't expect to find a real connection. And once I get that grant, others in my field will naturally try to get on the gravy train with their own studies. Eventually, the "consensus" of thought on the issue will be "overwhelming", and entire industries will spring up trying to remedy this carrot eating menace. At that point too many people have too much invested to go back and re-examine the initial premise. (Think about asbestos removal, today. The asbestos used in insulation is white asbestos, which is reasonably safe. It's brown asbestos that poses the health risk. And we replace the white asbestos with fiberglass, which is worse than the asbestos we removed.) Second, real science always wins. We may be in for some expensive detours along the way, but eventually, science will overcome myth and politics.

[B.O. Plenty]

Greenhouse Bump

[Argus]

I'm no expert but isn't it true that the Martian atmosphere is extremely thin and constantly leaking off into space? There's no liquid water, no ozone layer, etc. Aren't these complicating factors that make an analogy with Earth atmosphere inexact?

[Keflavik76]

Just recently NASA showed proof that liquid water may exist on Mars for short periods of time.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mars/news/mgs-20061206.html

[Yo-Yo]

Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

[I got the rope]

Why are you worried about water? Oh! Because it's makes up 95% of all so-called greenhouse gases? I wonder why Algore didn't mention that.

Interesting. The author of this fails to point that out by the way. He also failed to mention the amount of energy needed to heat water.

[The Great RJ]

The greenhouse effect of the 96% CO2 Martian atmosphere should have been evident with the surface temperature being hotter than the temperature in near space.

That's the inconvenient truth.

[altura]

There's been a big increase in obesity.

There's been a big increase in life expectancy.

Ergo, being fat makes you live longer.

[delacoert]

great post

[Free Vulcan]

bookmark

[Solitar]

So we need to INCREASE the greenhouse effect on Mars! Drop in some more water from some snowball comets. Maybe get some carbon dioxide and methane comets too. Get that atmosphere up to some decent pressure -- at least as thick as that on the summit of Mt Everest.

[ukie55]

For example, it can be proven statistically that virtually everyone involved in a car accident has eaten carrots recently before the accident occurred. That, however, is not proof that eating carrots causes car accidents. You have to prove why eating carrots causes car accidents, and that the converse is also true, that not eating carrots prevents car accidents.

It would be enough for a liberal. *liberal logic* is an oxymoron.