Planetary Modeling and Shadow Boxing
(Thanks to Wil Wirtanen)
Here is an interesting op-ed which puts the arguments against Anthropogenic Global Warming into easily understood terms. The author (Kevin Roeten) does a fine job of laying out the issues in a concise, easily understood manner. This is a decent resource to keep handy for use when the Green Beings come after you!
One point he misses, though, when discussing the Earth`s increasing albedo (cloud cover) is that higher altitude clouds can also act as a blanket, trapping heat in the atmosphere (as they do on Venus). As a result of the increase in cloud cover, the Earth has been warmed slightly. Couple this with a peak in solar activity over the last century, and you have an easy explanation for the small temperature increase we have witnessed. CO2 levels are inconsequential.
You know, the planet Mars has an atmosphere which is 95% Carbon Dioxide, yet it is bitterly cold-far colder than scientists had expected. Why is that, if CO2 is such a dangerous greenhouse gas? The genesis of the Greenhouse theory was observations of Venus, which, at 900* F is much hotter than expected, leading planetographers to speculate that the CO2 in the Venusian atmosphere was trapping in heat from the Sun, causing a runaway greenhouse effect. If it happened to Venus, the thinking goes, it could happen here.
But Mars contradicts this in some ways. One must ask the Goldilocks question; why is Venus` atmosphere so dense and hot, Mars` atmosphere so thin and cold, while Earth`s Atmosphere is just right?
The answer is ultimately guesswork, but Venus has some very unusual properties which have driven conditions there. Venus barely rotates, for example, and her rotation is retrograde (backwards). A Venusian day lasts 243 Earth days, while her year is 224.7 Earth days, so a day is longer than a year on Venus. This slow rotation means that Venus has no magnetic field to speak of, so the planet is struck by cosmic rays and the solar wind. It also means that Venus has a very thin crust , and, instead of a ring of fire such as Earth has, the entire surface of Venus is prone to vulcanism, which means the planet has been outgassing massive amounts of CO2 and powerfully corrosive acids such as sulphuric and sulphluric, which chrystalize in the clouds as water vapor does on Earth. Originally Venus had a temperature of around 200* F, and there was water on the planet, but a change in solar output raised the temperatures above the boiling point, and all of the water was lost to space. Heavy volcanic activity (Venus is subject to greater tidal stress from the Sun than Mars also) increased the density of her atmosphere; it is now 96 bars, or 96 times as dense as the Earth`s. All of these things conspire to trap and hold heat on the Venusian surface; the massive amounts of CO2, the cloud cover (which reflects most sunlight, it should be added, although what it lets through comes as long-band lightwaves such as infrared, and that keeps the temperatures up just as the cheese on a pizza traps heat in the dough and burns the roof of your mouth when you bite it.) The point is, the density and albedo of the Venusian atmosphere, coupled with the lack of rotation (rotation helps thin the atmosphere out) and the fact that Venus is closer to the Sun and thus gets more radiation all conspire to make Venus the searing black hell it is today.
Mars, on the other hand, has an atmosphere with pressure between 6 and 13 millibars; it is no thicker than the very top of the Earth`s atmosphere. (Earth is 1 bar.) Mars has a lower gravitational gradient, so her atmosphere is thinner at the surface (it stretches out into space farther) than on Earth, and Mars also does not have a magnetic field. Mars once had an atmosphere which may have been as thick as the Earth`s, and was probably comparably warm with running water. Yet Mars, for some reason, cooled until most of her atmosphere either drifted away or froze. Without serious vulcanism, it wasn`t replaced, and large ice caps formed at both poles. These are a combination of water-ice and frozen CO2 (dry ice). Should Mars ever warm, those ice caps would sublimate into the atmosphere, and the air-pressure would increase, which should, theoretically, warm the planet more. Why Mars is in such a frozen state now suggests that solar activity has been at a nadir, and that atmospheric CO2 levels may follow solar activity-not the other way around. We know that Mars is currently warming (so is Pluto), which should suggest to even the most casual observer that Anthropogenic Global Warming should be taken with a grain of salt.
The point is, Mars and Venus have very different conditions, despite their similar atmospheric compositions. These conditions are, of course endemic to their particular statistical realities; they are different, and those differences are crucial. Of course, both are radically different than Earth (if anything, Mars is more Earthlike than Venus, despite similarities in size between the second and third planets.) To attempt to model Earthly climate change on Venusian conditions is daft-especially when Mars contradicts some of this nonsense.
In fact, we just don`t understand the details well enough to make such broad pronouncements as the Global Warming crowd makes. We don`t understand the link between temperature and CO2 levels, we don`t understand the vaguries of the Sun, we don`t understand the importance of tidal forces (the Earth`s Moon effects our climate, but how?) What is obvious is that solar intensity changes, and climate seems to follow the solar cycle. This does not necessitate a causal link, but it is assuredly more solid than the GW people will give it credit for.
Oh, and the Sun oscillates around the center of mass in the Solar System, and this effects planetary climate in some manner.
So, if one is to make calamitous decisions which will effect our futures and our children, shouldn`t those decisions be based on an adequate understanding of circumstances? The GW people would have us rush into draconian environmental regulations based on guesswork and unproven theory, on the off chance that something might happen if we don`t. If they want to worry about things, perhaps they should promote the space program, promote the development of technology which would allow us to move asteroids and comets before they strike the Earth; this HAS happened before, and wiped the Dinosaurs out. This is something with direct evidence, while GW is a trendy theory without solid evidence.
But, of course, this has never been about science, or the public welfare; it is about social engineering, money, and internationalism. Tilting at windmills is safer and more effective than fighting real problems (like Islamic Jihad). The GW gang prefers to box shadows.
Here is an interesting op-ed which puts the arguments against Anthropogenic Global Warming into easily understood terms. The author (Kevin Roeten) does a fine job of laying out the issues in a concise, easily understood manner. This is a decent resource to keep handy for use when the Green Beings come after you!
One point he misses, though, when discussing the Earth`s increasing albedo (cloud cover) is that higher altitude clouds can also act as a blanket, trapping heat in the atmosphere (as they do on Venus). As a result of the increase in cloud cover, the Earth has been warmed slightly. Couple this with a peak in solar activity over the last century, and you have an easy explanation for the small temperature increase we have witnessed. CO2 levels are inconsequential.
You know, the planet Mars has an atmosphere which is 95% Carbon Dioxide, yet it is bitterly cold-far colder than scientists had expected. Why is that, if CO2 is such a dangerous greenhouse gas? The genesis of the Greenhouse theory was observations of Venus, which, at 900* F is much hotter than expected, leading planetographers to speculate that the CO2 in the Venusian atmosphere was trapping in heat from the Sun, causing a runaway greenhouse effect. If it happened to Venus, the thinking goes, it could happen here.
But Mars contradicts this in some ways. One must ask the Goldilocks question; why is Venus` atmosphere so dense and hot, Mars` atmosphere so thin and cold, while Earth`s Atmosphere is just right?
The answer is ultimately guesswork, but Venus has some very unusual properties which have driven conditions there. Venus barely rotates, for example, and her rotation is retrograde (backwards). A Venusian day lasts 243 Earth days, while her year is 224.7 Earth days, so a day is longer than a year on Venus. This slow rotation means that Venus has no magnetic field to speak of, so the planet is struck by cosmic rays and the solar wind. It also means that Venus has a very thin crust , and, instead of a ring of fire such as Earth has, the entire surface of Venus is prone to vulcanism, which means the planet has been outgassing massive amounts of CO2 and powerfully corrosive acids such as sulphuric and sulphluric, which chrystalize in the clouds as water vapor does on Earth. Originally Venus had a temperature of around 200* F, and there was water on the planet, but a change in solar output raised the temperatures above the boiling point, and all of the water was lost to space. Heavy volcanic activity (Venus is subject to greater tidal stress from the Sun than Mars also) increased the density of her atmosphere; it is now 96 bars, or 96 times as dense as the Earth`s. All of these things conspire to trap and hold heat on the Venusian surface; the massive amounts of CO2, the cloud cover (which reflects most sunlight, it should be added, although what it lets through comes as long-band lightwaves such as infrared, and that keeps the temperatures up just as the cheese on a pizza traps heat in the dough and burns the roof of your mouth when you bite it.) The point is, the density and albedo of the Venusian atmosphere, coupled with the lack of rotation (rotation helps thin the atmosphere out) and the fact that Venus is closer to the Sun and thus gets more radiation all conspire to make Venus the searing black hell it is today.
Mars, on the other hand, has an atmosphere with pressure between 6 and 13 millibars; it is no thicker than the very top of the Earth`s atmosphere. (Earth is 1 bar.) Mars has a lower gravitational gradient, so her atmosphere is thinner at the surface (it stretches out into space farther) than on Earth, and Mars also does not have a magnetic field. Mars once had an atmosphere which may have been as thick as the Earth`s, and was probably comparably warm with running water. Yet Mars, for some reason, cooled until most of her atmosphere either drifted away or froze. Without serious vulcanism, it wasn`t replaced, and large ice caps formed at both poles. These are a combination of water-ice and frozen CO2 (dry ice). Should Mars ever warm, those ice caps would sublimate into the atmosphere, and the air-pressure would increase, which should, theoretically, warm the planet more. Why Mars is in such a frozen state now suggests that solar activity has been at a nadir, and that atmospheric CO2 levels may follow solar activity-not the other way around. We know that Mars is currently warming (so is Pluto), which should suggest to even the most casual observer that Anthropogenic Global Warming should be taken with a grain of salt.
The point is, Mars and Venus have very different conditions, despite their similar atmospheric compositions. These conditions are, of course endemic to their particular statistical realities; they are different, and those differences are crucial. Of course, both are radically different than Earth (if anything, Mars is more Earthlike than Venus, despite similarities in size between the second and third planets.) To attempt to model Earthly climate change on Venusian conditions is daft-especially when Mars contradicts some of this nonsense.
In fact, we just don`t understand the details well enough to make such broad pronouncements as the Global Warming crowd makes. We don`t understand the link between temperature and CO2 levels, we don`t understand the vaguries of the Sun, we don`t understand the importance of tidal forces (the Earth`s Moon effects our climate, but how?) What is obvious is that solar intensity changes, and climate seems to follow the solar cycle. This does not necessitate a causal link, but it is assuredly more solid than the GW people will give it credit for.
Oh, and the Sun oscillates around the center of mass in the Solar System, and this effects planetary climate in some manner.
So, if one is to make calamitous decisions which will effect our futures and our children, shouldn`t those decisions be based on an adequate understanding of circumstances? The GW people would have us rush into draconian environmental regulations based on guesswork and unproven theory, on the off chance that something might happen if we don`t. If they want to worry about things, perhaps they should promote the space program, promote the development of technology which would allow us to move asteroids and comets before they strike the Earth; this HAS happened before, and wiped the Dinosaurs out. This is something with direct evidence, while GW is a trendy theory without solid evidence.
But, of course, this has never been about science, or the public welfare; it is about social engineering, money, and internationalism. Tilting at windmills is safer and more effective than fighting real problems (like Islamic Jihad). The GW gang prefers to box shadows.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 4:54 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home