On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 00:19:27 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing
wrote:

On Jul 22, 11:50*pm, abelard wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:26:49 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing

wrote:
On Jul 22, 8:06*pm, abelard wrote:

btw what's wrong with the experiment on venus?

What experiment on venus?

it's as hot as mercury and much further out....
the global warming conspiracy reckons it's a greenhouse
* * *effect (term used to annoy you :-) )

You make the elementary error of confusing heat energy and
temperature.

I would bet you that if you check the range of temperatures
experienced on mercury it would be much greater than the range of
temperatures experienced on venus.

doubtless...
but what has that to do with average temperatures?

Unlike mercury venus has an
atmosphere and a particularly viscous one at that.

that is at the centre of global warming claims....
an atmosphere more viscous...to heat transfers.....

This fluid
atmosphere stores heat in the form of the translational energy of the
molecules that comprise it just as a pan of hot water or even a cup of
tea will store heat energy for a considerable time after they have
been heated.

not sure why you make this point...read on
we live in that pan....if t gets hotter much changes for the biosphere

as with link i last quoted to you....

Mercury on the other hand is no more than a chunk of rock orbitting
the sun. The sun side of this rock is heated during the Mercurian day
and temperatures will rise much higher than any on Venus. During the
night this heat will be dissipated into space by normal radiative
emission and temperatures will fall lower than any place on earth.

ok....but where are 'we' going....read on some more

For the same reason the surface of the airless moon will become more
torrid than any place on earth during the lunar day. At night it
becomes much colder than any place on earth. Nobody says the earth is
warmer than the moon.

a few metres below surface, perhaps the equivalent to
atmospheric conditions on earth....maybe 20*c below
ah, here's more
http://www.asi.org/adb/02/05/01/surf...mperature.html

try making your case about the spectroscopic thingy for outgoing
* * *radiation....your claim about incoming radiation is persuasive
* * *to gullible me....

I was talking of outgoing radiation!

i did wonder....that at least is a positive change....

A plant consists essentially of cellulose, water, a little starch and
small amounts of various sugars dissolved in the water.

and lignin?

Lignin forms when living plant material (sapwood) dies and becomes
heartwood. Heartwood contains a lower proportion of water than sapwood
and so is much less susceptable to decay. I think this is what your
man means and is the reason why peoples in hot countries lay out meat,
fish and soft fruits in the sun so as to preserve them and why hay and
straw are placed in stooks and stacks.

Bugger all to do with CO2.

i'll believe you....
but the article is still claiming much more material formed....
higher temperatures also increasing formation...

which may move more quickly towards a new/faster carbon
balance/sequestration if we give it time, as some speculate....


the following is not much but also interesting....to me...
http://environment.newscientist.com/...rbon-sink.html
"A seasonal bloom of ocean plankton fertilised by the Amazon river
pulls much more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere than researchers
had previously supposed.

The unexpected bloom may, in fact, be enough to turn the tropical
Atlantic Ocean from a net source of atmospheric carbon into a net
sink."

regards

--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------