re: #104 AJStrata

Re: #78

Dude, I work for NASA.

Your about page identifies you as a freelance software systems engineer, not a NASA climatologist, not a research scientist. So why exactly would you attempt argumentum ad authoritatum by weak association?

What makes you think I did not factor that in?

The fact that nowhere on your website do you factor it in, or discuss it at all.

OK, some planetary science lessons are in order. Yes, Mars and Jupiter are farther out (duh!). But distance is not the only (or the major) factor here.

yes.it.is. The inverse square law is hands down the dominant factor when discussing relative solar intensity. If you are attributing the observed delta T of any planet to a proposed variance in solar output, then you have to assume a concurrent delta T on earth in exponential relation to the difference in the two planets’ distance from the Sun.

First off, as shown by HST the Mars polar ice caps disappeared in a matter of months. That is self evident.

And that is a non-thought, self evident of what?

But the difference is how solar radiation plays on the Martian and Earth surfaces. First off, Earth’s atmosphere is thicker and contains more water. This tends to minimize the effect of solar irradiance, unlike Mars which has a thin dry atmosphere. We also have ozone which filters out some of the radiation (UV). All in all, there is a massive difference in what reach our planet’s surface compared top Mars. So while the radiation drops by r-squared, what is important is the the radiation reaching the surface and and any resulting atmospheric temperature increases. 2nd, Mars has no liquid core, therefore no magnetic field. The Earth’s magnetic field acts as a huge shield diverting a lot of solar energy. The Martian surface is completely exposed to this additional onslaught of the solar wind. With less energy hitting our atmosphere or surface you get an attenuated increase in temperature.

You are grasping at straws. There is no way for the differences between Earth and Mars to scale up the way you are proposing, such that they can negate the inherent exponential difference inherent in the intensity of radiation they will receive under any solar variance scenario. No matter how much you turn up the Sun, the amount of radiant energy we see will be 2.25 times greater than Mars, that means that the increase itself will ALWAYS hit us 2.25 times stronger.

Finally, we have massive oceans. Water is an excellent heat sink and stabilizer of the global heat balance. Much of the atmosphere’s temperature is cooled by the water and also by the rains which dump the heat back into the oceans (75% of the Earth’s surface). This means we can absorb a lot more energy without seeing very much atmospheric change.

Heat sinks work both ways, and ocean temperatures do not reflect the amount of missing energy that you are proposing.

This is why (and I hinted to it in the post) Mars experienced a much more dramatic response than Earth did. It is no surprise at all when you factor in all the parameters. It is actually a stronger indicator this is a solar system wide phenomena, because the Earth and Mars reacted in a manner that reflects their core differences.

No, you have done nothing but grotesquely misrepresent basic high-school level physics. Good day.