|
Post by socold on Nov 12, 2009 22:47:10 GMT
noone on this forum has a climate model of mars
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 12, 2009 22:54:28 GMT
Why would you need a climate model? Assuming a slab state, one should be able to figure out the forcing of the co2. After all, everything else would be stagnant. I am curious why there isn't a diff in temp on Mars. Seems the co2, while there in huge concentration, doesn't do anything to the temp. I find this strange.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 12, 2009 23:14:41 GMT
Absorption would need to be calculated across the full height of the atmosphere given it's temperature profile to know how much outgoing IR is absorbed by the atmosphere. There is no quick way of calculating it.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 12, 2009 23:25:49 GMT
OK....no quick way. But why is the temp 250K, and that TSI indicates 250K. With all that co2, shouldn't there be an imbalance somewhere?
I had never thought about this, did a bit of digging on NASA's site.....but I know so little, but now just enough to ask questions.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 12, 2009 23:31:48 GMT
Absorption would need to be calculated across the full height of the atmosphere given it's temperature profile to know how much outgoing IR is absorbed by the atmosphere. There is no quick way of calculating it. If you know the absorption characteristics of CO2 and how much CO2 is in the Mars atmosphere unless CO2 is a different element on Mars why can't you calculate that?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 12, 2009 23:53:52 GMT
Because I am not a gas absorption database. I have never done that for the Earth for example.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 13, 2009 0:08:43 GMT
Because I am not a gas absorption database. I have never done that for the Earth for example. you have walked into the hypothetical value of 'forcing' which (as we have said ad nauseam) is modeled at the tropopause of a slab (held unchanging) atmosphere as if the concentration of a green-house-gas was simultaneously doubled. This is in the unicorn and angels on a pin end of physical calculations and is probably impossible to calculate for Mars which I do not believe has a tropopause as it has winds but no hydrologic cycle. It may also require real astrophysical scientists being involved who may balk at the climatological methodologies for calculation of forcing.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 13, 2009 0:15:16 GMT
Because I am not a gas absorption database. I have never done that for the Earth for example. Gee, Socold I thought you knew all there was to know about CO2. Guess it must be more of a faith-based thing for you.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 13, 2009 0:16:39 GMT
Because I am not a gas absorption database. I have never done that for the Earth for example. you have walked into the hypothetical value of 'forcing' which (as we have said ad nauseam) is modeled at the tropopause of a slab (held unchanging) atmosphere as if the concentration of a green-house-gas was simultaneously doubled. This is in the unicorn and angels on a pin end of physical calculations and is probably impossible to calculate for Mars which I do not believe has a tropopause as it has winds but no hydrologic cycle. It may also require real astrophysical scientists being involved who may balk at the climatological methodologies for calculation of forcing. OK.......I must be dumb. IF in fact Mars has 15X the co2 of earth....why the energy in and out with no apparant GHG effect? Or is NASA's site wrong?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 13, 2009 0:17:01 GMT
Because I am not a gas absorption database. I have never done that for the Earth for example. you have walked into the hypothetical value of 'forcing' which (as we have said ad nauseam) is modeled at the tropopause of a slab (held unchanging) atmosphere as if the concentration of a green-house-gas was simultaneously doubled. This is in the unicorn and angels on a pin end of physical calculations and is probably impossible to calculate for Mars which I do not believe has a tropopause as it has winds but no hydrologic cycle. It may also require real astrophysical scientists being involved who may balk at the climatological methodologies for calculation of forcing. It does have a tropopause, a hydrological cycle isn't necessary for a tropopause to exist. As for "astrophysical scientists", Hansen originally studied and modelled the atmosphere of Venus. Atmospheric science is very much tied to studying physics on other planets too. There are climate models for other planets.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 13, 2009 0:18:15 GMT
Because I am not a gas absorption database. I have never done that for the Earth for example. Gee, Socold I thought you knew all there was to know about CO2. Guess it must be more of a faith-based thing for you. Have you ever unearthed a t-rex fossil or is your belief that t-rex once roamed the earth faith based?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 13, 2009 0:20:25 GMT
you have walked into the hypothetical value of 'forcing' which (as we have said ad nauseam) is modeled at the tropopause of a slab (held unchanging) atmosphere as if the concentration of a green-house-gas was simultaneously doubled. This is in the unicorn and angels on a pin end of physical calculations and is probably impossible to calculate for Mars which I do not believe has a tropopause as it has winds but no hydrologic cycle. It may also require real astrophysical scientists being involved who may balk at the climatological methodologies for calculation of forcing. OK.......I must be dumb. IF in fact Mars has 15X the co2 of earth....why the energy in and out with no apparant GHG effect? Or is NASA's site wrong? There are a number of different values for the surface temperature of Mars. I kept finding new ones when I googled around. Who is right? After seeing how much variation there is between night and day and across the year I gave up because it's clear noone can pin down the actual surface temperature average with any certainty due to such variation. Given that the greenhouse effect would be significantly smaller than on Earth, it's probably within that uncertainty.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 13, 2009 0:38:33 GMT
Have you ever unearthed a t-rex fossil or is your belief that t-rex once roamed the earth faith based? I don't know much about T-Rex except that I saw the skeleton of one in a museum about 50+ years ago. What does this have to do with the temperature of Mars?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 13, 2009 0:47:56 GMT
OK.......I must be dumb. IF in fact Mars has 15X the co2 of earth....why the energy in and out with no apparant GHG effect? Or is NASA's site wrong? There are a number of different values for the surface temperature of Mars. I kept finding new ones when I googled around. Who is right? After seeing how much variation there is between night and day and across the year I gave up because it's clear noone can pin down the actual surface temperature average with any certainty due to such variation. Given that the greenhouse effect would be significantly smaller than on Earth, it's probably within that uncertainty. Thank you SoCold. But another question. Why would the greenhouse effect be significantly smaller than on earth? I know the pressure is less and am not learned enough to extrapolate that pressure diff to the 15X co2. And you are finding the same thing. The wide variations in temp on Mars. Yet, even with that variation, why equal in and out? That is the part that puzzles me as it would defy, dang it, brain drain.....the co2 law.
|
|
|
Post by spaceman on Nov 13, 2009 3:23:14 GMT
socold,
What happened to the run a way increase in heat? Mars atmosphere is 95% co2. With that much co2 it is pretty easy to calculate the amount of retained heat based on the model they did for earth minus pressure and watts/m^2. What happened to all that heat leaving the surface? Where's the model for that? Why aren't they explaining the warm Martian atmosphere based on a very high co2 level and equating it to earth's atmosphere with 4/10ths of 1%. If we have a missing 150 watts/m^2, then where is a similar number for Mars. Mars should be a lot simpler to model: no water, no UHI, no OHC, no clould formation and no pesky magnetic field, just a spinning rock with a lot of co2.
|
|