Global warming on solar planets

Angelo Campanella wrote:
Zane wrote:

Again, I'm in favor of pretty extreme measures to reduce human
contributions to global warming, but the shrill cries from the
Europeans aren't helping things, they just make us mad and obstinate.


Europeans have nothing better to do, being coddled by their
socialist governments... too much vacation time, I say.

But consider a new insight: Have you noticed the plethora if oil
rigs in the Gulf of Mexico? A recent sketch in the Wall Street Journal
showing the then-projected path of storm Rita also depicted the
locations (maybe hundreds) of oil rigs in the northwestern and central
Gulf waters. Consider the burn off heat of unusable volitiles and
probable use the Gulf waters to cool their oil production equipment (and
A/C). That 85 degrees F Gulf water heat had to come from them as well as
old Sol.

You are lacking a sense of proportion: do the calculation and you will
see that these effects are trivial on such a large body of water. And
if you can't do the calaculation...

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply have a physician remove your spleen

In article ,
Angelo Campanella wrote:
Zane wrote:
Again, I'm in favor of pretty extreme measures to reduce human
contributions to global warming, but the shrill cries from the
Europeans aren't helping things, they just make us mad and obstinate.

Europeans have nothing better to do, being coddled by their socialist
governments... too much vacation time, I say.

......and this was written by someone who wastes time posting here
on Usenet.... go back to work, you hypocrite! g


--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

Because lawyers, enviros, and their lackey scientists haven't yet
figured a way to make Sol pay for their dinners. It's so much easier
when you can blame a large company, or even better, wealthy governments
for all of the problems.

Angelo Campanella wrote:
Pierre wrote:
Why is it that no one ever discusses the quantitative radiation
level from the sun at our location? Why is it that no one here has a
firm handle on the amount of radiation that reaches the Earth each year.
We keep careful record of rainfall, of degree-days for heating and
cooling, but NO ONE ever quotes numerically the solar influx daily,
monthly, or yearly. We need one percent precision.

Cowards all!


Angelo Campanella


Pierre MK-UK

Angelo Campanella wrote:
Pierre wrote:

So, we are now told that Mars is having a bit of global warming. This
at the time when the Sun seems to be behaving in an uncharacteristic
way and providing a late solar minimum 'maximum'.
Any chance that the Earth (closer to the Sun) might be suffering from
the same effects? (OK, I know, greenhouse effect and all)


Why is it that no one ever discusses the quantitative radiation
level from the sun at our location?

Because that would imply they were real scientists who were working in
this area of research. I presume they generally have better things to
do than to hang out with a bunch of thick-headed amateur astronomers who
wish to argue about things they in fact know little about! :-)

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply have a physician remove your spleen

Pierre wrote:

So, we are now told that Mars is having a bit of global warming.

So... Where are all the cars?
or
Come On! We've only got two vehicles on Mars!
:-)

It is therefore entirely credible that a (natural) rise in global
temperature has resulted in less efficient photosynthesis to the extent
that atmospheric CO2 levels have risen, thus providing the correlation
that is observed between human CO2 production, atmospheric CO2 increase
and global temperature increase.

I did say something to the extent that an alternative explanation would need
to be very convincing. That isn't, but it would be a rather boring post
about statistics over the last few hundred years to comment on it. Still it
should be easy to test the changing efficiency of photosynthesis because for
example the temperature in my garden varies daily by some orders of
magnitude more than the rise in Earth temperature. The oil and energy
companies can carry on coming up with hypotheses to test for ever.
Incidentally, it is not actually strictly correct to refer to 'natural'
rises in global temperature. Something causes it, and there is nothing
unnatural about people burning things.

John Brockbank wrote:
It is therefore entirely credible that a (natural) rise in global
temperature has resulted in less efficient photosynthesis to the extent
that atmospheric CO2 levels have risen, thus providing the correlation
that is observed between human CO2 production, atmospheric CO2 increase
and global temperature increase.

I did say something to the extent that an alternative explanation would need
to be very convincing. That isn't, but it would be a rather boring post
about statistics over the last few hundred years to comment on it. Still it
should be easy to test the changing efficiency of photosynthesis because for
example the temperature in my garden varies daily by some orders of
magnitude more than the rise in Earth temperature. The oil and energy
companies can carry on coming up with hypotheses to test for ever.
Incidentally, it is not actually strictly correct to refer to 'natural'
rises in global temperature. Something causes it, and there is nothing
unnatural about people burning things.


CO2 gives you better crops !! In greenhouse raising, they actually
burn gas, just to get more CO2 and higher production.