Moontanman

Is it possible to calculate the greenhouse effect of an atmosphere? Consider the Earth except with 10 times the air pressure, would the greenhouse effect be 10 times as much? Is there a way to figure out a good approximation of the greenhouse effect? The greenhouse effect of the Earths atmosphere raises the temp 36C I am trying to use this site Planet Designer to calculate a planet 3 AU from the Earths sun that would be inhabitable. I am looking at an atmosphere of about 150 psi at the surface. I need close to 300C in greenhouse effect to do this. So far I have found out that adding helium to the planets atmosphere lowers it's specific heat capacity, i would assume that this would lower the greenhouse effect? I have figured out how to change the value of specific heat capacity and assuming a greenhouse effect of 150C I get a typical surface temp of 22.9C but the 150C number is just an assumption. I can't figure out how to predict the greenhouse effect of the planets atmosphere.

Foam suggests an organic impurity in your water. Industrial water in good condition is not a particularly specific description. Do you measure the parameters of your intake water? What sort of industry does this water come from? Is foaming a new problem or an old one? A foam fractionator could remove the foam easily enough, especially if the impurity is organic. I reread your post and realized I am not sure a fractionator that large exists...

I always play it at the least resolution it will allow. Sometimes it helps most of the time it doesn't. Most of it has to do with my 10 yo computer I am sure.

The main difference is that religious morals are based on a book written 2500 years ago and suggest some pretty mean things like killing homosexuals and adulterers, genocide, and slavery are moral Secular morals assert that harming others is bad and is based on our social behavior as social animals. other social animals have morals, they are not the morals we have but they are morals but morals based on the different needs of that species. I disagree with the bolded line above. all across the US Religious views are being used to take rights away from those who do not believe the same way.

Smoothness of stream, quite a big difference too...

Does anyone have any idea why you tube videos play better when I access them through SFN?

Tunguska come to mind.... The Earth has natural radioactivity, dinosaur bones, for instance, are often radioactive and this has been used to assert that dinosaurs attained intelligence just before their extinction and a nuclear war was the end game of the dinosaurs. But it can also be shown that groundwater containing uranium concentrates in bones and accounts for the radiation. Now which is more likely, a dinosaur nuclear war or ground water depositing uranium in bones? BTW the reason you can't find a reference to the "glass" in india is because the site is in north Africa not India and the site is indeed covered by yellowish glass and the consensus is that a meteor exploded before impact the melted a section of the desert. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_desert_glass Your discovery channel show is confusing an old Indian myth and the reality of glass caused by meteorite impacts in North Africa... Glass associated with a crater... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_glass

You do realize that meteors do not necessarily leave craters don't you? They can detonate above ground and the results are very much like a nuclear explosion...

Your link proves nothing, in fact it asserts quite a bit but it supports that with nothing but baseless claims...

You are mistaken, this forum is not a PM system...

You should show some supporting evidence of your claims...

You realize we are talking about neutrinos, by what mechanism could the human brain focus neutrinos? The point is that focusing neutrinos is not the same thing as focusing photons... The human brain does receive external energy, it's called chemical energy ie food... Human thoughts are made by the brain, they do not come from an outside source. I see no reason to suggest human thoughts come from an outside source... No, neutrinos are not just a form of light, light is made of photons, photons interact with matter quite readily, neutrinos do not readily interact with matter, in fact they almost never do... Most researchers think neutrinos do have a tiny amount of mass... I want to ask, Why do you think some sort of outside source is needed for thoughts to begin with?

So far everything you have asserted has been horse feathers, I have been respectful and offered you links to evidence of your mistakes. You however insist on simply making baseless claims with no evidence what so ever.

I suggest you support those assertions with some real evidence not baseless claims...

dmaiski! dude, if we are going to get this urban legend going you have to stop pointing out the reality of the situation...

I never suggested that David, please do not put words in my mouth... Mars does have clouds... Care to try again astrology? http://www.solarviews.com/eng/marscld.htm

Actually this is not entirely accurate, there are places on Mars that has air pressure high enough for liquid water to exist for short periods of time, the bottom of deep valleys... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars

No, not true, gravity holds an atmosphere, ozone has nothing to do with it... Again no.... ozone has nothing to do with this...

Don't you think it's more proper to say space/time had a beginning rather than just time?

No astrology, the ozone layers is a layer of quite rarefied gas, it "contains" nothing but is nothing but a side effect of having an atmosphere that contains oxygen and a Sun that gives off UV rays, the UV rays make the ozone, the ozone is not capable of containing anything... but it does keep most of the UV out... Gravity is what holds our atmosphere in place, not a layer of rarefied gas.

No, gravity contains an atmosphere....

I've given this some thought.... ok there... I can't see how anyone can say time had a beginning... space-time yes but time is just a measurement and the ideas behind the Ekpyrotic Universe theory suggest that what we call space time is just a small portion of a greater whole... has to be a joke in there someplace... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe

Astrology, what we have here is a failure to communicate. I am assuming that English is not your first language but even so it is obvious that you have a mistaken idea of what an atmosphere is. Atmosphere is not synonymous with Earth's atmosphere. You seem to be asserting that if the gases surrounding a planet do not match the ones surrounding the Earth then it has no atmosphere, nothing could be further from reality. I suggest you do a little bit of research on google and find out exactly what an atmosphere is...

Mars lost most of it's atmosphere due to it's lack of a magnetic field, when the planet cooled, if it ever had a magnetic field, the field shut down and the solar wind tore away most of it's atmosphere. This process has been confirmed by NASA space probes. There is no need to suppose that Mars is moving away from or closer to the sun to explain it's current conditions...