It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Then what was the point of bringing it up?
In the case of Neptune it is impossible that the warming of it's thermosphere is caused by radiative forcing.
I would be interested in hearing yours if it differs from the scientific "version."
I could give you my own opinion or the scientific version?
originally posted by: intergalactic fire
originally posted by: Greven
originally posted by: WeAre0ne
originally posted by: intergalactic fire
So what's the deal with Neptune, only have trace amounts of GHG yet temperatures are reaching +400ºC?
I'm sorry, did you just say Neptune is +400ºC ?
He doesn't know what the hell he is talking about, as is well demonstrated in this thread.
Typical of those who deny climate change.
He probably read it on the internet somewhere.
Please quote myself where i ones said i deny climate change.
Your attitude is far away from respectful but I hope you get a kick out of it somehow.
The only thing you are talking about is co2/warming/Stefan-Boltzmann and how the skeptics are funded by right wing corporations so their opinion and observations are useless unscientific claims.
Denying the skeptics isn't how science works but you seems to do nothing more than that. If you deny the works of Roy Spencer is just disrespectful against science itself, Spencer is a very intelligent and respected man within the science community even among the believers and there are many others. As I said in my comment to "elysiumfire" .
But believe what you want and I'll do that to, but if within a decade or so it turns out the models and predictions were wrong, would you reconsider your believes? I know will.
originally posted by: intergalactic fire
This paper won't change a thing nor does any other that disproves man made global warming.
It's become that far that it starts to smell like a religion,
and we know what they want right. There is a good reason they want people to believe the scam
The further you look into it the nastier it becomes.
The war started a looong time ago.
btw. link doesn't work
link
originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: Greven
What do personal feelings or your derriere has to do with any of this? I'm not offended by anyone or anything, I just think your attitude is inappropriate.
But i believe you don't care what i think, right. So why the discussion?
originally posted by: intergalactic fire
Please quote myself where i ones said i deny climate change.
originally posted by: intergalactic fire
This paper won't change a thing nor does any other that disproves man made global warming.
It's become that far that it starts to smell like a religion,
and we know what they want right. There is a good reason they want people to believe the scam
I'm left with the impression that you do have some inkling of reality, yet are willfully misrepresenting things. I wonder why?
originally posted by: intergalactic fire
So you are probably looking for the answer 'greenhouse effect' but that is the easy-way-out-answer.
originally posted by: intergalactic fire
Yes every planet experience to some extend a greenhouse effect but wasn't there news some years ago that every planet in the solar system is experiencing a rise in greenhouse effect?
originally posted by: intergalactic fire
So why is there a major difference in temperature on Venus and Mars but both have almost same levels of co2 and nitrogen in their atmosphere? It must be because of the distance to the sun right?
originally posted by: intergalactic fire
So what's the deal with Neptune, only have trace amounts of GHG yet temperatures are reaching +400ºC?
I don't really understand how low solar radiation would cause more gasses to be trapped (where do they go when solar radiation is high?), but thanks for your version.
So for example if the strength of the magnetosphere or the concentration of solar radiation(pressure, velocity, temperature) is low it will trap more GHG because there is less exchange and less particles to act upon.
No. Heat content doesn't have much to do with solar output or temperature. It is a measure of how much thermal energy is contained in a given volume at a given density. For example; if you have a 10 gallon bucket of water and a 20 gallon bucket of water both at 30º, the 20 gallon bucket has twice as much heat. The same principle applies to equal volumes of different densities. In this case, since the thermosphere is so diffuse, even though it has high temperatures it does not have much heat. This is an important concept.
Heat content? As in solar output? The higher the output or input ,depends on which way you look at it, will cause a higher temperature.
a reply to: Phage I see this phenomena often here in the mountains, yes. So for the fog to clear you sometimes need a strong current to wipe away the inversion. Isn't that possible in the high atmosphere, like a strong solar wind? What makes it more vulnerable and a less efficient barrier? Would you have an opinion on the possibility temperature and co2 rise are caused by external factors?
originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: Phage
a reply to: Phage I see this phenomena often here in the mountains, yes. So for the fog to clear you sometimes need a strong current to wipe away the inversion. Isn't that possible in the high atmosphere, like a strong solar wind? What makes it more vulnerable and a less efficient barrier? Would you have an opinion on the possibility temperature and co2 rise are caused by external factors?
did you happen to read the article i posted in the other thread?
file.scirp.org...
originally posted by: WeAre0ne
originally posted by: intergalactic fire
So you are probably looking for the answer 'greenhouse effect' but that is the easy-way-out-answer.
So lets get back on track again...
Yes I was looking for the answer "greenhouse effect", because that is what is happening, it is proven science. Do you understand the greenhouse effect, and how it works?
Do you understand how it keeps the Earth warm at night? If so, please do explain why. Show us your knowledge of this basic scientific fact.
originally posted by: intergalactic fire
Yes every planet experience to some extend a greenhouse effect but wasn't there news some years ago that every planet in the solar system is experiencing a rise in greenhouse effect?
I don't think so. Please show your source.
originally posted by: intergalactic fire
So why is there a major difference in temperature on Venus and Mars but both have almost same levels of co2 and nitrogen in their atmosphere? It must be because of the distance to the sun right?
No, its because Mars has a really thin atmosphere. Mars' atmosphere is less than 1% of Earth's atmosphere. There is not enough atmosphere to block radiation, nor retain heat at the surface. Basically, not enough atmosphere to have a significant greenhouse effect.
Venus is the exact opposite. Venus' atmosphere is 90 times thicker than Earth's atmosphere. Although both Mars and Venus have around 95% to 96% CO2, the volume of CO2 is different, you do the math. Basically, Venus' atmosphere is so thick that the greenhouse effect keeps it warmer than planet Mercury which is closer to the Sun.
So here you have it, proof that planets with thicker atmospheres that contain more greenhouse gases by volume are hotter. So what do you think will happen to Earth as we pump more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and make it thicker?
originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: Phage
Sry phage why should i answer your question if you denied dozens of my previous questions to you?
In the case of Neptune it is impossible that the warming of it's thermosphere is caused by radiative forcing.