goddamnedfrank Re: #111

My, my a little testy I see:

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?

Free lance? I have designed and implemented some modern and complex control systems, but that is not the limits of my skills. I have done some research in biology as an undergrad before switching to engineering. But trust me, I have been invited to review scientific proposals to NASA for new missions because I am well versed in the physics and the engineering to make it happen. I do not discuss much of my skills on the website.

And your expertise is …? Freelance curmudgeon?

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 s

Wrong. The inverse square law only dictates the solar flux reaching a distance from the sun. It does NOT account for the solar radiation reaching the surface. Care top guess which planet gets more radiation to its surface - Venus or Mars?

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

Er, self evident by the pictures showing the ice cap retreating. Are you one of those who is going to jump into wild conspiracy theories about the faked moon landing or something? The pictures are clear - the ice cap disappeared. Is there something you want to challenge here? Do you deny it? Jump in here with something concrete Frank.

here 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.

LOL! Way dude. You did grasp the points right? You did know Mars has a sold core therefore no magnetic field? You did know that if not for our magnetic field our atmosphere (and oceans) would have been long ago gone? You do know about water being a heat sink?

You seem unwilling to debate the points with facts. Do you have more than denial Frankie?

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

What missing energy did I propose Frank? Please explain what went ‘missing’. I explained to you how a fraction of the energy from the Sun reaches the Earth’s surface, and how the ocean acts as a huge thermal stabilizer. It doesn’t ‘go missing’.

Let’s try and exemplify with something you can grasp. Did you ever notice that along the ocean it can be many degrees warmer at night than inland less than 100 miles away? Every notice how it can be cooler near the ocean on hot days just a few miles in shore? That is the effect of the massive amount of water has because it stays more stable than the atmosphere. That’s pretty much how it works Frank. Mars has no such heat sink reservoir, thus it is prone to greater swings in atmospheric temperature under much smaller swing in solar radiance. That is planetary physics my friend.

And you called me a denier! That’s rich. But since you came armed with HS Physics and I have many more years of physics, science and earth sciences I guess we could see where this would end.

Nice try.