the polar bear climate change photo

Started Mar 24, 2007 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Tom Rowland Veteran Member • Posts: 5,891
The Answer Is

Al Patterson wrote:

It appears that the polar ice cap on Mars is also melting. Tell me
what could cause this, with no SUVs or Neocons present?

Lots of stuff, including the fact that Mars, and the rest of the planets dont orbit in a circle, and they also wobble on their axis, which is suppose to cause ice ages on the earth about every 28,000 years or so.

Could it be that big yellow ball in the sky?

Well it defintely causes things to warm up.

Not the answer for earth, which may be applicable to Mars too.

Hope I got this straight, it is all from memory.

About 100,000 years ago a lot of hydrogen fused in to helium at the core of the sun. Thru conduction at first, then convection it took that 100,000 years for that energy to reach the surface of the sun. Then light energy in the amount of 10 to the 28 ergs every second is released in all directions.

Of course only a small amount of that energy like 13 wats per square meter per 24 hours (close) high in the atmosphere reaches earth.

Some of that energy is reflected off clouds, some reaches the earth and is absorbed, and some is reflected up and if there clouds it may be reflected back down to earth again in an itterative process.

The black body temp should be about 235, our best models now say it should be about 280, but in reality it is about 257 so we are cooler than we should be. These numbers may be a little off since they are from memory, but they are close. And if you are not using kelvins use your friend google.

So the bottom line is while vulcanism and friction is responsible for a tiny fraction of global warming for pratical purposes only the sun energy needs to be modeled.

Most of what is called global warming is really a discussion about how much infra red blocking atoms and molecules slow down the rate of global cooling. The infra red blocking stuff is composed of about 95% water vapor and 5% CO2 (but some guys say it is closer to 97% water and 3% CO2). And probably 90% or so of the CO2 is from natural sources, not man made sources.

The only way a workable model can be constructed to get such small amounts of man made CO2 to be significant is if you use what is called a positive feed back loop, or come up with some kinda bound carbon theory. Not to say these things are not possible, but they are not really intuative appealing.

It also explains why lots of folks are saying given the small contribution man made CO2 reducing it may not really make any difference at all. And it explains why so much grant money is spent trying to come up with models.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
igb
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow