Greenhouse Effect om Mars - Page 6

Previous 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
Author Message
Andy G

Posts: 227

Reply: 101

PostPosted: July 1, 2005 8:53 AM 

In between work (remember what that is? Wink ) and juggling numbers, I'm coming to a's back-of-an-envelope stuff, but not without some reliable content, I think.

Every square metre above a MER contains about 220kg of CO2. (This figure is from the scale height of 11.1km multiplied by the density of 1 cubic metre of air at the surface, massing about 20g). 220kg of CO2 has a heat capacity of 185kJ per K.

For the Earth, there's 10300kg of air above each square metre (including about 3.8kg of CO2), with a heat capacity of 10860kJ per K - this is about 50 times the storage blanket that we see on Mars.

The diurnal temperature range on Mars was about 50K, according to Viking figures. That is, given the storage capacity of the atmosphere & during the night, the atmosphere absorbed about 9.2MJ per square metre from the ground, and dumped this again during the following Sol. 9.2MJ over the course of the Martian day (the diagram in my reply 98 is averaged over a sidereal sol) equates to 103 watts - 30 times higher than the figure of "3" I gave it in the diagram, based on pressure alone, and (ooo!) in accordance with ES's "30 times higher CO2 density", given the role of this gas as a greenhouse gas.

So my conclusions are:

My diagram is wrong. Increase the back radiation from "3" to "103" and make up your own figures for the atmospheric window (it'll be far less than "103", and the amount of heat stuck and then transmitted out of the atmosphere will be correspondingly bigger).

ES is wrong (but probably won't admit it) as atmospheric thickness seemingly has a huge role to play in the storage and transmission of heat, ameliorating temperatures the thicker it is.

Mars does have a greenhouse effect, but this is affected by the physical quantity of the atmosphere no matter how much CO2 is in it and this is how strong it is:

The energy from the Sun, idealised over the course of a Sol at Mars, is 147 W/m2. Since everything's in a steady-state and Mars radiates what it receives:


...where sigma is Stefan-Boltzmann's constant. Therefore:

T=215 K

The recorded average temperature for the surface of Mars ~ 220K

Therefore the greenhouse effect on Mars = ~5K (i.e. minimal) compared to ~40K for the Earth.



Extra Sense

Posts: 1471

Reply: 102

PostPosted: July 1, 2005 10:08 AM 


You compare greenhouse effects by the temperature change of the surface.

Your numbers might be correct, I take them on the face value. But I think there are importent interesting consequenced of the effect, like on the infrared coloring of the sky, on the temperature gradients, etc., that would be intersting to address.


Antonio Germano Gomes Pinto

Posts: xxx

Reply: 103

PostPosted: February 23, 2010 2:55 PM 

This is the solution of the problem of greenhouse gases that the world awaits!


The following is the most pure and crystalline truth.
It is the survival of human beings.
Please read, disseminate and if possible, take action.
Enough to discuss environmental problems, we have simple solutions, feasible, practical and realistic.

I would love to have the opportunity to give lectures on the subject at hand and thus prove that my thesis is supported by technical arguments well-founded!


The abyssal ocean trenches, the empty pockets from the retirement of oil, the faults, the desert areas are natural deposits and ideal for the storage of carbon that is "left" in the atmosphere and causing global warming.
For centuries, the oceans are believed dumps and inexhaustible natural world, belief that, to some extent reasonable, because through the rain, salts, nutrients of the soil, carbon compounds and many other residues accumulate on the sea and oceans, making them increasingly saturated and its waters increasingly saline.
But the reality is quite different, the seas and oceans are just as vulnerable to pollution than the crust. Its waters precision of light, transparency and be detoxified to generate the marine flora and fauna as necessary to life on earth, the seas and oceans.
The water, even salt, have the ability to dissolve and incorporate in their masses gases like oxygen, carbon and others. This ability increases with pressure and low temperatures. The higher pressure and lower the temperature, the higher the concentrations of those gases dissolved.
In regions of the deep seas and oceans, possibly due to these phenomena, the quantities of carbon stored "reached immeasurable quantities as to arouse the interest of oil companies operating in these" new sources of carbon. It is interesting to note the fact that deposits in the case of carbon dioxide, are not more of this type of gas, but methane crystallized what the experts have a very evocative name, calling him a carbohydrate. The ice that burns. This would be the first description of the "combination" crystallized between methane molecules and water molecules, found in deep oceans. Methane hydrates are already considered by researchers, the main source of energy for the century. However, the exploitation of this energy source can cause the biggest environmental disaster of all time due to the release of methane gas by rapid dehydration of the same. The so-called oceanic abyssal regions hold fifty-five per cent of all carbon in the planet Earth.
It comes to us the idea:

a) If the abyssal ocean regions are the natural deposits of carbon, we can take advantage of these huge spaces and still available for "trapped" carbon dioxide, the most important greenhouse gases, indirectly.
b) We use to this end, solar energy, photosynthesis and water to cultivate giant forests, abundant biomass that would be baled into containers of concrete, plastic or other corrosion-resistant material and with the help of large vessels, would be transported to those sites and submerged due to gravity. The containers or wrappers of biomass must have holes for water intake and balance of internal and external pressures to prevent possible crushing of the containers and to facilitate the sinking of the same.
c) The great advantage of using biomass to capture the carbon dioxide is the fact that only the carbon is captured, leaving free oxygen.
d) For each twelve (12) tons of carbon captured, via biomass, will be released 32 (thirty two) tones of oxygen into the atmosphere, and, most important, 44 (forty four) tones of CO2, carbon dioxide, the main gas causing the greenhouse effect, cease to exist in the atmosphere we breathe.
e) Be, in a sense, true geological repositories, these are geological cavities that are going to suffer earthquakes or accommodation of layers, they would bury these containers, making them more confident about the environment.
f) In large abyssal depths there is no development of life, similar to the surface, capable of aerobic and anaerobic reactions, carrying, with no degradation of biomass, there is no generation of gas and the atmosphere is free of gas mass that would inevitably generated if that quantity of biomass remained on the surface, to enter into natural decay or be incinerated.
g) If each harvesting biomass is planted another, gradually, the carbon dioxide would be captured and indirectly deposited in these repositories in the form of carbon with a consequent gradual cleaning of the atmosphere.
h) If the direct capture of carbon dioxide is not feasible due to its condition of gas able to occupy large volumes, develop high pressures, and other obvious risks that are not listed, we will trap carbon, "raw material", the creator of that gas, which when the atmosphere became "an implacable enemy," the main generator of greenhouse that sooner or later will eliminate the animal life on earth if not contained.
i) Fossil fuels would continue to be exploited because there is a recycling, proper disposal of a waste gas generated in the exploitation of renewable energy, by indirect and was returned to its place of origin in the depths of the earth's crust.
j) Using the same reasoning, the same logic, the biomass could be stored, taking advantage of the available space left by oil exploration. The withdrawal of oil leaves large voids that are filled with water. Why not fill those spaces with biomass?
k) The mining creates huge craters that are often simply abandoned without passing through any process of remediation. Why not take advantage of them?
l) The geological faults, huge spaces, often continental, could be used as deposits of biomass. Why not do it?
m) Similarly, could be stored large quantities of biomass in desert regions under their sands, devoid of local water. Where there is water there is life, life where there is no decomposition of organic matter, and no decomposition of organic matter there is no formation of greenhouse gases.
Mother Nature, via carbon, provided so much wealth to the man during the last century! Why not give him back during this century, part of that wealth, giving back some of this carbon to their place of origin, which should never have been withdrawn, the depths of the earth's crust, thus replenishing the Carboniferous Period?
So would close a circle, origin, use and proper disposal of the effluent produced by the industrialization of oil.
Giving a destination to waste or effluent, or more accurately the carbon feedstock gas carbon dioxide, the environment would appreciate, the world still breathing, he turned to the environmental balance and petrodollars could continue moving the world economy without posing a imminent risk to life.
Every business in the industrial area is required by law and intended to treat their effluent. Why the oil industry would be exempted from this obligation?

Antonio Germano Gomes Pinto

Chemical Engineer, Chemical Industry, Bachelor of Chemical Technology with Assignments, BA in Chemistry, Specialist in Natural Resources with emphasis on Geology, Geochemistry, Specialist in Environmental Technology and Management, Environmental Expert, Environmental Auditor and the author of two patents in the INPI, in Merco Sul, in the EU, the World Intellectual Property Organization and in many countries.


Posts: xxx

Reply: 104

PostPosted: July 3, 2010 9:04 AM 

The greenhouse effect is caused by the emission of various greenhouse gases. The three main gases are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). All three of these greenhouse gases are produced by the activities of man in some way. Nitrous oxide is primarily emitted by agricultural activities and sewage treatment. Carbon dioxide is released primarily by the burning of fossil fuels, and the production of carbon dioxide is usually related to energy production activities. Agricultural activities, waste management, and fossil fuel burning are the main contributors of methane (yes, cow farts do have a significant role). While there are natural contributors to the greenhouse effect, man is the most significant contributor. In fact, these increases have been seen almost exclusively after the industrial revolution.


Posts: xxx

Reply: 105

PostPosted: October 2, 2012 4:15 PM 

Razz omg, I LOVE MARS!!!!! Embarassed Very Happy Smile


Posts: xxx

Reply: 106

PostPosted: October 2, 2012 4:16 PM 

Mars is not hell Shocked ,Mars is heaven!!!! People!!! Mars is great!!! duh!!! Very Happy Shocked

Previous 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Join the conversation:

Very Happy Smile Sad Surprised
Shocked Confused Cool Laughing
Mad Razz Embarassed Crying or Very Sad
Evil or Very Mad Twisted Evil Rolling Eyes Wink
Powered by MTSmileys