"Read the whole story for once rather than cherry picking your data.
You are the perfect example of someone who will accept anything vaguely scientific sounding as a reason to dismiss GW while ignoring well accepted and easy to find counter information. I doubt even Glenn beck would claim there is no green house effect on Mars or Venus."
I had to look up "Glenn Beck":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Beck
Sounds charming.
I did not claim there was no green house effect on Mars or Venus. I have pointed out that there could be other factors and explanations involved. Actually, I was wondering if you would allow the tiny portion of water vapor in Mars' atmosphere to provide some greenhouse effect, but I restrained myself.
But I do dismiss the hysteria associated with "GW", and as we begin enter the 11th year of "non warming" I find it remarkable that so many continue with belief. With such faith, it's a wonder some aren't walking on water.
Now, Mercury has over 3 times the solar radiation per sq meter as compared to Venus.
And I said:
"If Mercury had 1 atm of nitrogen it would be closer to Venus in terms of average temperature, give Mercury 90 atm of nitrogen and it would as hot or perhaps much hotter than Venus."
Now, perhaps there is someone with enough knowledge in this matter that could give you a more precise answer.
Or perhaps, you feel you could provide a more precise answer.
But if I were to attempt to give a more precise description of a Mercury's average global temperature if it had 90 atm of Nitrogen, I probably would mention the possible temperature variation dependent upon whether Mercury was in Perihelion: 46 million km or Aphelion: 69.8 million km.
As for the greenhouse affect of Mars', I have heard a couple of different estimates. None, as I recall had it making Mars very much warmer.
Google, says:
"It is estimated that the Greenhouse effect on Mars warms the atmosphere at the surface by less than 10 degrees Fahrenheit".
http://nova.stanford.edu/projects/mod-x/id-green.html
Do you have a more precise answer?
9.99 F perhaps?
Flame » in reply to More Misleading "Facts" From GB
re: More Misleading "Facts" From GB
The whole thread (100 posts)
- Scientists Say No to AGW, Sign Petition
- "Unless we announce disasters no one will listen."
- U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
- New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears
- Why do some denialists claim to be environmentalists?
- More on the "petition"
- Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics
- Hans Schreuder's Letter to EPA
- Sometimes ordinary people get it right, even if they have wierd reasons.
- It is a well-known scientifical fack - - -
- Facts and Fancies
- Who exactly are you trying to fool?
- I certainly am connecting those dots.
- Facts and Fancies
- Who ARE these people?
- re: Who ARE these people?
- A response
- Give Me A Scientific Reason That Increasing A Greenhouse Gas Won't Warm a Planet's Atmosphere
- Photosynthesis
- re: Give Me A Scientific Reason That Increasing A Greenhouse Gas Won't Warm a Planet's Atmosphere
- re: Could you direct me to the experiment?
- Give Me A Scientific Reason That Increasing A Greenhouse Gas Won't Warm a Planet's Atmosphere
- re: Who ARE these people?
- re: Scientists Say No to AGW, Sign Petition
- re: Scientists Say No to AGW, Sign Petition
