Planetary Global Warming - Earth Vs. Venus

[oomblikkies]

Your whole argument in this video is based on the huge difference in reflectivity between Venus and Earth. You say Venus has a high reflectivity - I disagree, looking with a telescope at Venus shows the yellow/brownish colour of its clouds. Incoming uv-rays from the sun are easily absorbed by the sulphuric acid clouds which and this heat is carried into the atmosphere. Earth has none of this and even if the temp. do go up, it will cause more clouds - thus an even higher reflectivity.

[bessymaypearl]

From my readings liquid vapour contributes 95% of all greenhouse, 3% CO2 and the rest methane etc. Dr. John makes no reference to the massive amount of liquid vapour on Venus as a contribotor. Mars has a CO2 level of 95%, 5% nitrogen, Venus has 97% CO2, Earth 0.004%CO2 however Mars almost no liquid vapour and has temps from -50 to -150. Why?

[delaney4664able]

Your right but lack of rotation is the reason for the greenhouse not computation of the thermal affects of the sun. Earth rotates as does Mars with a 24 hour clock Venus and Mercury do not rotate so it would be quite obvious that heat would have difficulty dissipating to a point that it would melt rock and literally convert everything to gas and that gas would then escape into orbit. What happened to mass is a constant? Dry driving down the road while locking your wheels in place.Scarecrow

[Kuergun]

This Dr John is full off BULL SHIT!!!!!

[mati123ish]

in 2012 december 19 venus become the hot star which temperature is 3000c hot and in 21 december the earth change the move of planet and there will be problem with earth in december 21 2012 the earth will ahve earthquakes tornados wars and astreoids wil hit earth

[dberry2003]

Important Notes ! Venus Atmosphere is 92 times more dense that of earth (earth as a reference point = 1). Mars atmosphere is 7/1000 (.007 times) as dense as earth. Mars atmosphere is also about 95% CO2.

Oregon Petition update ! 31,000 American Scientists have signed on. This includes 9000 PHD's.

[ash4432]

bull shit mars dont have Oz let alone a green house effect. so your argument is flawed. venus is 800 degrees on average. and its closer to the sun. nice try you and the rest of skeptic movement cant prove that CO2 cant trap heat.

[dermotk5]

you stupid wanker

if you really want to stop global warming, after you finish sucking AL GORES BALLS! start worrying about water vapor

co2 is the last place to start

[TheAndrewMan1000]

@ash4432 Yeah but heat never reaches the surface of venus, the atmosphere is to thick, most of it gets deflected back. All the heat in venus is trapped by CO2. This is basic stuff man.

[TheAndrewMan1000]

@ash4432 Also, Mars does have an atmosphere and it is so thin that it gets very cold. The reason it is so cold is due to the lack of sufficient GHG

[steven288]

co2 is not the cause , the sun getting warmer is the cause, just GOOGLE 'oregon petition' , 19000 SCIENTISTS, who are not paid by politians or the UN, disagree with 'man made global warming'

the sun has increased emissions by 0.5 % every decade for the last few decades

watch on youtube 'watch?v=6FTfmimPymQ&'

[ash4432]

yes it is were burning CO2 at a high rate. it takes earth over millions of years to produce fossil fuels. and we burning it over 200 years. and for those so call 31000 sciencetist oregon petition is proven to be a fraud...can they prove that C02 cant trap more heat..

[baley7]

Hmm a black body is supposed to be black aka non reflective. What you did is to consider the inner planets as grey which is not wrong at all simply the column "Black Body Temp. (computed)' is wrong. You would expect a black body temp of Venus much bigger than earths and smaller of Mercury of course!

[jas2754]

Point of correction in your statements and conclusion.

The idealized black body temp of Venus is lower than Earth because of Venus high reflectivity.... thus less Sunlight is absorbed by Venus and thus radiated back from the Surface( where the black body assumption is used).

I could have labeled the column better.

[saintguitars]

Also, simply because of the structure of our atmosphere, the absorptive wavelengths for CO2 are near saturation, meaning additional CO2 does little for GHE, unless there is a massive evaporation of our oceans, we'll be fine. What about sulfur dioxide clouds?

[saintguitars]

Venus is close to 97% CO2, we're at about .04%. Water vapor makes up 75%-90% of the greenhouse effect on earth. GHG's account for less than 5% of the total atmosphere, not 95%, and there's no way we'll ever get there. Comparing these two planets and saying all additional warming on both is due to GHG is ridiculous.

[Jiggle2Wiggle]

If there is anything I may do, besides being mindful of everyday activities I do, please let me know!

[Jiggle2Wiggle]

Your video was enlightening and made me realize much more, the importance of this issue! The movies are great special effects, but the "true" nature and "understanding" make a world of difference, literally.

[jas2754]

Hello Jiggle2Wiggle Thank You .... the more I delve into this subject the messier it is getting from my perspective. There are so many factors at play. So I am here to try to expose those factors and make some scientific sense out of all this hype.

[GonjoGifuAlAkir]

I would like to get an explanation how increasing CO2 by 5% due to human life and technology will tip over the scale of the heating when all the IR that the heat from the earth that CO2 can absorb is already being absorbed by the current amount of CO2? I mean nice math and all but where is this IR coming from?

[jas2754]

It is a great question...Here is the point.... the current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not absorbing all the IR leaving the Earth's surface. I believe at the current concentrations it is still in a linear regime.....ie the amnount of IR absorbed by the CO2 and converted into Heat is directly proportional to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

[GonjoGifuAlAkir]

Apparenlty you are not aware to the fact that co2 can only absorb at most from 8% of the whole IR spectrum. Everythign CO2 can absorb is being absorbed within 10 meter from the ground level. So if even if you double the co2 you only reduce the distance from 10 to 9.7 meters.

[jas2754]

Actually I am well aware that CO2 does absorb only a portion of the IR. Just look at the spectral plots I show in the video... should be obvious. This still does not preclude what I am saying about the CO2 concentration. Also from these videos keep in mind the Earth is already substantially heated by the Greenhouse effect.... the greenhouse effect is a good thing! :-)

[GonjoGifuAlAkir]

You seem to miss the point that more CO2 doesnt mean more heat, cause you need more IR to increase the heat CO2 can absorb... CO2 doesnt increase the IR on the ground, that would be what we call free energy, aka a nice story.

[jas2754]

I'll be showing how and why more CO2 means more heat on Earth. We are not near a saturation point with respect to CO2, and there is a relationship between the CO2 and the amount of Water Vapor in the atmosphere.... lots of complex interactions going on...not something that can be answered in a few sentences

[GonjoGifuAlAkir]

I will be looking forward for you to show that one. And yes more CO2 means more plant life which means more water vapor. Thing is CO2 cant heat the oceans which is the main reason for the increase in CO2 and also water vapor increase. But again its not CO2 driving the temperature its the sun and CO2 and water vapor are effects of the increased solar activity.

[Triple88a]

From memory the average high CO2 level recorded in the past is .015%.. Today that level is doubled.. 200% so it's no longer only .015%. Now it's .03% and rising. Small numbers like that can be tweaked easily and us humans have done just that.

[trondreitan]

Thanks! It's also my experience that video making takes much more time than anticipated.

[trondreitan]

I really liked the presentation. The analysis yields results yet should be understandable to a wide audience. What media tools did you use?

[jas2754]

Hello,

Thank You.... What I used was a combination of power point and Microsoft Movie Maker. What you indeed outlined is my goal... to try to go beyond the superficial, but make it understandable at lets say freshman college level.. :-)

[trondreitan]

It really looks like you've succeeded. Five stars.

[jas2754]

If you want any tips... (but I am an amateur)... feel free to E-mail me. I am trying something new with each video. ..but this takes all so much more time than I thought it would!