It must be extremely hot on Mars

Will Martians have to vacate their own planet?


It must be extremely hot on Mars

By Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser

Some 95% of the atmosphere of Mars is said to be comprised of that so-called greenhouse gas, CO2, that has been claimed by some scientists (and politicians) to drive this planet’s temperature to record highs.

You might be forgiven to think, therefore, that the “air” temperatures on Mars would be extremely hot.

Nothing to fear though, despite that CO2 level being over 2,000 times higher on Mars than on Earth, the claimed effect of CO2 on temperature appears to exist on earth only.

The day-time temperatures on the surface of Mars are quite comparable to that here (around 50 F). The nights though are a bit colder on Mars at MINUS 110 F, or so.

That observation alone ought to set you on the right path forward, i.e. Cap &Trade, is an absolute Must!

Clearly then, upon arrival on the Red Planet, one of your first tasks must be to properly educate the Martians about the dangers of climate change from all that carbon dioxide in their atmosphere. Cap[ping] of CO2 (not just in Martian polar dry-ice caps) and Trade of the “carbon menace,” preferably with other inter-galactic communities must become an important cornerstone of their future wellbeing.

Obviously, without a solution to that CO2 problem on Mars, the Martians may just have to vacate their own planet and move on to a more hospitable place themselves.

_____________________________________________

Dr Klaus L E KaiserDr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser is a professional scientist with a Ph.D. in chemistry from the Technical University, Munich, Germany. He has worked as a research scientist and project chief at Environment Canada‘s Canada Centre for Inland Waters for over 30 years and is currently Director of Research at TerraBase Inc. He is author of nearly 300 publications in scientific journals, government and agency reports, books, computer programs, trade magazines, and newspaper articles.

Dr. Kaiser has been president of the International Association for Great Lakes Research, a peer reviewer of numerous scientific papers for several journals, Editor-in-Chief of the Water Quality Research Journal of Canada for nearly a decade, and an adjunct professor. He has contributed to a variety of scientific projects and reports and has made many presentations at national and international conferences.

Dr. Kaiser is author of CONVENIENT MYTHS, the green revolution – perceptions, politics, and facts
convenientmyths.com

Dr. Kaiser can be reached at:mail@convenientmyths.com


20 thoughts on “It must be extremely hot on Mars”

  1. You know, if you injected a load of water vapour into the Martin
    Atmosphere, like 20% of the CO2 values it might just warm up a tad.
    After all water vapour far exceeds CO2 in its power as a green house gas. But then again you can’t Cap and Trade water, or can you?

  2. The Martians will have to move to earth where the CO2 level is much lower.

    Being aliens, the first people they meet will be Democratic voter registration workers. The next people they meet will be global warming scientists telling them that everything the Martians know about Mars is wrong.

  3. The above says that Mars has over 2000 times more CO2 than Earth, and I would like to correct it, because it doesn’t take into account the difference between Earth’s and Mars’ air pressure.

    Mars’ atmosphere is much, much thinner than Earth’s as a whole. So the total partial pressure of Mars’ CO2 is about 585 pascals (about 95% of the whole atmosphere which is 610 pascals). Earth on the other hand has a total of 101 325 pascals of air pressure, which with 0.04% CO2 works out to a partial pressure of 41 pascals (101 325*0.0004(the 0.04 percent expressed as a decimal)). So, instead of Mars having 2000 times as much CO2 as Earth, it only has about 14 times as much.

    Mars is 1.52 AU from the Sun, while Earth is 1 AU away. So Mars gets 1/1.52 the greenhouse power that Earth does from any given greenhouse gas at the same partial pressure. So Mars should get about 14.4/1.52 times the greenhouse temperature increase from carbon dioxide. That equals 9.5. So Mars should get 9.5 times as much heat from carbon dioxide’s greenhouse effect as Earth.

    Mars has a gravity of 0.38 times Earth’s. So its atmosphere lofts 1/0.38 times as high. That’s about 2.6. Mars has to have about 2.6 times as much of any given gas in its atmosphere by mass to make the same partial pressure. Mars, then, has 2.6*14.4 times as much carbon dioxide in its atmosphere than Earth. So 38 times as much.

    The numbers that I am writing here are rounded a bit so I don’t have to write all the decimals. I am calculating with the decimals.

    We have to correct the 9.5 thing from before now that we’ve revised the total amount of CO2. So 2.6*9.5 is about 25. Mars gets 25 times as much heat from the greenhouse effect (only counting carbon dioxide) than Earth does.

    Given all this, Mars at its current temperature is -50 degrees Celsius (according to http://lasp.colorado.edu). Mars’ equilibrium temperature (what it would be without its total greenhouse effect) is -55 degrees Celsius (that figure from the same source). Since CO2 is basically the only greenhouse gas in Mars’ atmosphere abundant enough to make a difference, Mars’ amount of CO2 gives Mars 5 degrees an increase in temperature. If that were Earth’s distance from the Sun, it would give it 1.52*5 degrees the increase (7.6 degrees increase). But Mars has 38 times as much CO2 as Earth, so Earth gets 7.6/38 degrees of heat from CO2 (0.2 degrees Celsius increase, 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit increase). Earth’s temperature is 32 degrees Celsius higher than its equilibrium temperature (15 degrees Celsius vs -17). So CO2 makes up for 0.2 degrees of that, or 0.625% of Earth’s total atmospheric heating. The rest of the excess heat has to come from other sources.

    Wow, this comment went much further than I had expected to go with it. I was only trying to correct how much CO2 was in Mars’ atmosphere compared to Earth’s. Anyway, make what conclusions you will, sorry for the wall of text. Thanks

    • There is no greenhouse “power” or “effect” – the temperature data from the Moon prove this let alone the other violations of the established laws of physics inherent in the “greenhouse effect”.

      The only “effect” one can claim for so called GHGs is that they may reduce the rate of radiation emitted to space and thus any heating is entirely due to the Sun. This is because reducing the cooling of anything has never been shown to increase its temperature unless it is being heated by an external or internal source of real power. Earth has no internal source of real power other than volcanic activity from the hot core and it is obvious this rules out GHG induced heating.

      As for heat trapping by GHGs why do all of the satellites records definitively show Earth emits more radiation to space over the warming period, not less ?

      How could satellites measure higher temperatures if GHGs reduce the radiation to space.

      Think about it – the whole GHG mantra is gobbledygook !

      You are right that Mars’ atmosphere is a fraction of Earth’s but you are wrong when you say “Mars gets 25 times as much heat from the greenhouse effect (only counting carbon dioxide) than Earth does.”

      CO2 cannot cause heating as it has absolutely zero properties that produce energy.

      Only a source capable of emitting energy with a higher heating power than the target can induce heating – this is fundamental basic physics.

      The Sun can heat the surface because the emitted radiation has a “temperature signature” with a value of over 5780 K with an emission power of the order of ~62,940,000 W/m2.

      A heat lamp can heat your bathroom because the emitted radiation has a “temperature signature” with a value of over 3000 K with an emission power of the order of 4,592,700 W/m2 although the emitting area of the filament is very small and so your bathroom doesn’t catch fire.

      A block of ice cannot heat ambient Earth temperature objects because the emitted radiation has a “temperature signature” with a value of ~273 K with an emission of ~315 W/m2.

      Cold objects simply cannot increase the temperature of hotter objects – never !

      Thus gases at a lower temperature than a surface cannot heat the surface by “back radiation” and especially so when you consider that fact that all gases emit discrete line spectra whilst solids and liquids have continuous spectra.

      Hence a gas cannot emit as much power as a solid at the same temperature – spectrometry has proven this !

      No one denies the atmosphere can absorb thermal energy and no one denies the low radiating power of gases means it has a capacity to hold thermal energy – BUT – I say again – the satellite records prove Earth emits radiation in accordance with its temperature and the record also proves Earth has emitted more as it has warmed slightly over the satellite era.

      GHG theory says Earth’s atmosphere will warm at the surface and cool at the top of the troposphere must emit less to space.

      Listen to this nonsense from http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange1/02_1.shtml

      “Not all the gases in the atmosphere are equally active in keeping Earth warm. In fact, the atmosphere’s most abundant gas, molecular nitrogen, does very little in this regard, and the same is true for the second most abundant gas, molecular oxygen. ”

      99% of the atmosphere doesn’t keep us warm ?

      Seriously, what psychedelic drugs have these guys been taking ?

      When the temperature hits 95 F “the atmosphere’s most abundant gas, molecular nitrogen, does very little in this regard,” ???

      Come on ! How stupid is this claim.

      99% of the atmosphere may not absorb significant infra-red radiation from the Earth’s surfaces but it gets pretty damn hot anyway.

      And if it can’t emit significant infra-red radiation then it can’t cool down by emitting infra-red radiation to space either !

      Thus 99% of the atmosphere is the REAL heat trap – if such a thing is possible !

      Thus if, as Trenberth et al claim, 83% of Earth’s radiation to space comes from the atmosphere, 99% of the atmosphere can’t emit infra-red radiation to space then how precisely does increasing the concentration of the only molecules that can REDUCE the infra-red radiation to space ?

      Surely more “coolant” enhances cooling not induce warming.

      Think about it – the whole GHG mantra is gobbledygook !

      • So true. Mars data from Curiosity rover is that its surface pressure is around 10mb during summer and drops to about 7mb when all that CO2 freezes solid at its poles! Therefore reducing the surface pressure. Thats still 100 time lower than Earth and Earth has 100 times LOWER than Venus @ 100b! Both Mars and Venus have about 95% CO2 and NO GHG effect on either! Also Titan has 10% Methane another LARGE so called greenhouse gas, and NO GHG there either! not with lakes of liquid methane. I think Mars temp variation is about (same data source) Seasonal temp range at Gale crater, Mars, -10C to-90C.

      • Rosco wrote, “CO2 cannot cause heating as it has absolutely zero properties that produce energy. Only a source capable of emitting energy with a higher heating power than the target can induce heating – this is fundamental basic physics. … Cold objects simply cannot increase the temperature of hotter objects – never ! … etc.”

        Oh, good grief. This is nutty “sky dragon” gibberish. If you really believe that nonsense, Rosco, then try leaving your overcoat home when you go out in the snow this winter, and see whether you really are just as warm without it.

        Even though your overcoat never reaches your body temperature, your cool overcoat nevertheless helps your much warmer body stay warm.

    • “Mars gets 25 times as much heat from the greenhouse effect (only counting carbon dioxide) than Earth does.”

      Sorry Cooper, you’re making the same mistake as some Earthlings. CO2 does NOT produce heat.

    • Cooper, don’t apologize. It’s nice to see others who are willing to actually do calculations on a back-of-the-envelope basis to determine for themselves whether or not what is fed to them by warmists and skeptics alike is “true”. Too many are unwilling or incapable of even basics (like you just demonstrated to the world wide web) what every person with critical thinking skills should—and can—determine on their own.

      More people need to see what you just wrote, and then draw a conclusion of their own based on the physics and math. Dollars to doughnuts, they’ll be incapable of saying that yes, CO2 is the big boogeyman it’s presumed to be. And if they do say yes, they’re ignoring basic science in favor of Arrhenius’ work because of religious fervor. It truly is a sad state of science in the world today.

    • Actually, 1/1.52 isn’t accurate, it’s quite lower than that. Inverse-square law shows that the power received drops off logarithmically, not linearly, with distance.

      Mars is also smaller than Earth, and even at an identical 1AU, would receive less energy from the sun from that alone.

    • Very good, Cooper!

      One nit: you wrote, “Mars is 1.52 AU from the Sun, while Earth is 1 AU away. So Mars gets 1/1.52…”

      But TSI goes down with the square of the distance. So a planet 1.52x as far from the Sun as Earth gets 1/2.31 as much sunlight per unit of surface area.

  4. So, Cooper, what you are basically saying is CO2 has very little effect on temperature no matter what planet it’s on. While your calculator is still warm, could you run the numbers for all that methane on Titan. LOL

  5. There is all this talk lately about going to Mars and setting up a space research colony in the 2030’s. But isn’t that a little ridiculous? It seems a facility on the Moon would be a logical first step which might actually be do-able in that time frame. And if a station can be sucessfully established on the moon, then perhaps a foray to Mars could be attempted by the late 21st C. With a base on the moon, many details, some unforseen, could be worked out. Plus an astronomical observatory on the moon has the potential to be something that far exceeds the orbiting Hubble telescope. It’s kind of surprising that one has not yet been created, when did we last set foot on the moon? 1969, and it’s almost 2017 nearly 50 years later. Astounding. I don’t get it. 😉

  6. Going to the Moon won’t really teach us anything about Mars as the two environments are totally different. And Mars is much more similar to Earth than the Moon is.

    • Nobody expects to learn about Mars from the Moon, but it is the logical first stepping stone for manned ventures beyond Earth’s orbit. A Telescope on the Moon would provide crystal clear views better than any Earth based telescope, and it could be made larger than the Hubble, and as large as some of the largest on Earth. We already know a lot about Mars, but the days when men establish a base on Mars is IMO a very long way into the future. Mars has little to offer in the way of resources or fuel, and the Moon has little to offer in that department as well, but there is some water on the Moon, and with some moondust and a little ingenuity, you can make concrete for platforms and shelters. Also the Moon is much much closer than Mars . https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14977-astronauts-could-mix-diy-concrete-for-cheap-moon-base/

      • I agree that putting a telescope on the far side of the Moon would be a great idea. Regarding the water situation, Mars has far more water than the Moon has. and is easier to obtain.

        • It wouldn’t have to be on the far side. The Lunar day is 29.5 earth days long. Only drawback is viewing would be not available on a daily(nightly-earth based) basis, but would be in roughly 15 day long increments.

  7. Taxing water would be in the same class made by the rich minority metropolitan elites current gaff with AGW, as that made by Marie Antoinette and her attributed comment – let them eat cake, she and her family lost their heads in the political debacle which followed it, and laid the foundation for Marxism and the century’s of political warfare which has followed it, with the greatest loss of life made by the working class and the impoverished, sSo much for socialism protecting workers.
    The UN and its propagandist IPCC promote wars and economic redistribution at the expense of individual liberty and the right to property and profit. Rouge states like Russia profit because of the inaction by the UN Security Council due to Russia SC veto.
    The current UN is now in the same state as the pre- war League of Nations, toothless and practising fraud by a Carbon Credit Ponzy scheme.

Comments are closed.