Venus is hotter than Mercury?!?

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Venus is hotter than Mercury?!? > Page 27

Page 27 of 28

24-07-2020 03:49
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	andeep wrote: tmiddles wrote: Tai Hai Chen wrote: For starters. Mercury has practically no atmosphere and Venus has a ton of atmosphere. Tai Hai Yes and it seems the scale of the density of Venus's atmosphere, the pressure at the surface, has the same extreme difference with earth and Mercury that we see with it's higher temperature. Check of what Hoffman had to say on it. Very interesting. link I think I agree that Venus is hotter than Mercury due to the greenhouse effect, and that Mercury simply dissipates the incoming radiation. In fact this could be an argument as to the fact that the greenhouse effect occurs. I checked the link by Hoffman, and I haven't had a chance to go through the details, but it seems to me that the reasoning may be too simple. The effect of the spectra of the gases on the absorption of infrared radiation isn't really taken into account. And if it shouldn't be taken into account, there should be some reason why they don't have an effect, even if the temperature ratio comes out right. But again, I think the fact that Earth and Venus are so hot is one good argument that the greenhouse effect is occuring. Isn't the 'temperature' of earth, something like 56 F? That's down-right frigid in my part of this world. You ever notice how that average global temperature is never defined? The number is rarely even given. Not particularly a scary number, even if it were to increase a few degrees. Most of Twiddles Venus probes didn't survive an hour. Not sure how much value there is in the data. Seems miraculous that they managed to transmit anything at all. It's Russia...
24-07-2020 04:45
andeep ☆☆☆☆☆ (20)	HarveyH55 wrote: andeep wrote: tmiddles wrote: Tai Hai Chen wrote: For starters. Mercury has practically no atmosphere and Venus has a ton of atmosphere. Tai Hai Yes and it seems the scale of the density of Venus's atmosphere, the pressure at the surface, has the same extreme difference with earth and Mercury that we see with it's higher temperature. Check of what Hoffman had to say on it. Very interesting. link I think I agree that Venus is hotter than Mercury due to the greenhouse effect, and that Mercury simply dissipates the incoming radiation. In fact this could be an argument as to the fact that the greenhouse effect occurs. I checked the link by Hoffman, and I haven't had a chance to go through the details, but it seems to me that the reasoning may be too simple. The effect of the spectra of the gases on the absorption of infrared radiation isn't really taken into account. And if it shouldn't be taken into account, there should be some reason why they don't have an effect, even if the temperature ratio comes out right. But again, I think the fact that Earth and Venus are so hot is one good argument that the greenhouse effect is occuring. Isn't the 'temperature' of earth, something like 56 F? That's down-right frigid in my part of this world. You ever notice how that average global temperature is never defined? The number is rarely even given. Not particularly a scary number, even if it were to increase a few degrees. Most of Twiddles Venus probes didn't survive an hour. Not sure how much value there is in the data. Seems miraculous that they managed to transmit anything at all. It's Russia... Yes the average surface temperature of the earth is about 56 F. I believe this is usually taken by distributing a lot of thermometers around the world and taking the average. I'm not sure about this part to be honest. But either way, it's not that cold compared to what the surface temperature would be if an atmosphere wasn't present and the greenhouse effect didn't occur. The reason why life as we know it can exist is because the greenhouse effect occurs and it keeps surface temperatures warm enough. As for a few degrees change not being a problem, consider that when thousands of years ago the Ice Age occured and a lot of North America was covered by thick sheets of ice, the average global temperature of the Earth was only about 5 degrees Celsius lower. So a few degrees change can make a big difference. Keep in mind that this is average temperature. A small difference in global average temperature can make big differences from region to region. Think of something like a lot of billiard balls on a pool table bouncing around. On average they go nowhere but there is still chaos. So perhaps if the global average temperature changed by a couple of degrees it still might not be so bad. But if it changed by 5 degrees that could be catastrophic. It could be the opposite of an Ice Age. It's like changing the incline of the pool table just enough to make all the balls fall to one side. It seems that a few degrees change in temperature shouldn't make much difference, but again this is an average, and the effects on melting of ice sheets in polar regions and dissolving of carbon dioxide and in the oceans and probable extinction of at least some important species is complex.
24-07-2020 05:11
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14395)	andeep wrote: That means either Mercury is heated by the radiation and its temperature will go up or it will dissipate heat just like any hot object will dissipate heat. Nope. I knew this is what you meant. You are using the word "dissipate" to mean "simply disappears" ... as in the energy vanishes into nothing ... in direct violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. You are wrong. andeep wrote: If the planet has an atmosphere, Well, it really doesn't. andeep wrote:... depending on what gases are present, the heat will get trapped in by the gases. Nope. No substance can trap heat. You seem to be living in a sci-fi fantasy delusion. andeep wrote:But since Mercury has no atmosphere, the radiation will go out into space. So although Mercury dissipates the heat, it doesn't dissipate the heat? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-07-2020 05:29
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: andeep wrote: That means either Mercury is heated by the radiation and its temperature will go up or it will dissipate heat just like any hot object will dissipate heat. Nope. I knew this is what you meant. You are using the word "dissipate" to mean "simply disappears" ... as in the energy vanishes into nothing ... in direct violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. You are wrong. andeep wrote: If the planet has an atmosphere, Well, it really doesn't. andeep wrote:... depending on what gases are present, the heat will get trapped in by the gases. Nope. No substance can trap heat. You seem to be living in a sci-fi fantasy delusion. andeep wrote:But since Mercury has no atmosphere, the radiation will go out into space. So although Mercury dissipates the heat, it doesn't dissipate the heat? . Please don't post ignorance. Next you'll be saying that Americans didn't marry their sisters and have kids. We just don't need B.S. We know American stands for "I made babies with my sister". I mean when there are only "Americans" and those other people, who are ya gonna make babies with? One of them? And in 1600, there was your sister and "one of them". I happen to love this. Basically because "Pocahontas" wasn't one of them. So who made babies with who?
24-07-2020 05:49
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14395)	James___ wrote: Please don't post ignorance. I only posted GIFs. James___ wrote: I happen to love this. Basically because "Pocahontas" wasn't one of them. So who made babies with who? Who made babies with his wife when he wasn't on first. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

24-07-2020 06:11
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: Please don't post ignorance. I only posted GIFs. James___ wrote: I happen to love this. Basically because "Pocahontas" wasn't one of them. So who made babies with who? Who made babies with his wife when he wasn't on first. . Duh!! stupid, What's on 2nd and it's wife getting the treatment she deserves. Who was on 1st!?! No one she wanted to know apparently. Why she went for 2nds. Edited on 24-07-2020 06:14
24-07-2020 10:53
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	andeep wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: andeep wrote: tmiddles wrote: Tai Hai Chen wrote: For starters. Mercury has practically no atmosphere and Venus has a ton of atmosphere. Tai Hai Yes and it seems the scale of the density of Venus's atmosphere, the pressure at the surface, has the same extreme difference with earth and Mercury that we see with it's higher temperature. Check of what Hoffman had to say on it. Very interesting. link I think I agree that Venus is hotter than Mercury due to the greenhouse effect, and that Mercury simply dissipates the incoming radiation. In fact this could be an argument as to the fact that the greenhouse effect occurs. I checked the link by Hoffman, and I haven't had a chance to go through the details, but it seems to me that the reasoning may be too simple. The effect of the spectra of the gases on the absorption of infrared radiation isn't really taken into account. And if it shouldn't be taken into account, there should be some reason why they don't have an effect, even if the temperature ratio comes out right. But again, I think the fact that Earth and Venus are so hot is one good argument that the greenhouse effect is occuring. Isn't the 'temperature' of earth, something like 56 F? That's down-right frigid in my part of this world. You ever notice how that average global temperature is never defined? The number is rarely even given. Not particularly a scary number, even if it were to increase a few degrees. Most of Twiddles Venus probes didn't survive an hour. Not sure how much value there is in the data. Seems miraculous that they managed to transmit anything at all. It's Russia... Yes the average surface temperature of the earth is about 56 F. I believe this is usually taken by distributing a lot of thermometers around the world and taking the average. I'm not sure about this part to be honest. But either way, it's not that cold compared to what the surface temperature would be if an atmosphere wasn't present and the greenhouse effect didn't occur. The reason why life as we know it can exist is because the greenhouse effect occurs and it keeps surface temperatures warm enough. As for a few degrees change not being a problem, consider that when thousands of years ago the Ice Age occured and a lot of North America was covered by thick sheets of ice, the average global temperature of the Earth was only about 5 degrees Celsius lower. So a few degrees change can make a big difference. Keep in mind that this is average temperature. A small difference in global average temperature can make big differences from region to region. Think of something like a lot of billiard balls on a pool table bouncing around. On average they go nowhere but there is still chaos. So perhaps if the global average temperature changed by a couple of degrees it still might not be so bad. But if it changed by 5 degrees that could be catastrophic. It could be the opposite of an Ice Age. It's like changing the incline of the pool table just enough to make all the balls fall to one side. It seems that a few degrees change in temperature shouldn't make much difference, but again this is an average, and the effects on melting of ice sheets in polar regions and dissolving of carbon dioxide and in the oceans and probable extinction of at least some important species is complex. That's all speculation and opinion, faith-based 'science'. Nobody made measurements, or written record of the last ice age. We had already warmed up considerably, well into the interglacial, before people started to write stuff down, created clocks and calendars, measuring tools... A consensus, of people, who believe the same speculation, isn't science, it's a faith-based cult. Math, is simply a tool. Tools can be used, or misused, to better illustrate an idea. People keep point at the tools, as if they are never wrong, and never intentionally misused. They are simply tools, and have no credibility.
24-07-2020 12:10
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	andeep wrote: tmiddles wrote:...the scale of the density of Venus's atmosphere,...has the same extreme difference with earth and Mercury that we see with it's higher temperature... ...Venus is hotter than Mercury due to the greenhouse effect,...Hoffman, ...reasoning may be too simple. The effect of the spectra of the gases on the absorption of infrared radiation isn't really taken into account. Thanks for actually being on topic andeep and for wanting to debate this. We know that thermal energy is present in air. It's present in the Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Argon that make up 99.8% of the Earth's atmosphere: And it's also present in the water vapor, CO2 and other gases that absorb infrared radiance as "Greenhouse Gases". Of course thermal energy is present in the air of Venus as well: So the point Hoffman made (not his btw it's been made many times by many people) is that if you compare Earth and Venus based on the air pressure they are consistent. The term "adiabatic lapse rate" is sometimes used to describe the drop in temperature as you go higher in the atmosphere. However if CO2 does amplify a greenhouse effect then Venus and Earth should not be consistent in their adiabatic lapse rates. Really the question I see is in comparing Mars, Venus and Earth. The brilliant VernerHornung pointed this out: link VernerHornung wrote:...The partial pressure of a gas is, approximately, the mass of that gas per unit area of planet surface divided by the planet's surface acceleration of gravity. Mars: 640 Pa total pressure, 95% CO2, so 610 Pa of CO2 610 Pa = mass CO2/m^2 times 3.7 m/s^2 mass CO2/m^2 = 160 kg/m^2 Venus: 9.2 MPa total pressure, 97% CO2, so 8.9 MPa of CO2 8.9 MPa = mass CO2/m^2 times 8.9 m/s^2 mass CO2/m^2 = 10^6 kg, or 1000 metric tons, per m^2 Earth: 100 kPa total pressure, 0.04% CO2, so 40 Pa of CO2 4 Pa = mass CO2/m^2 times 9.8 m/s^2 mass CO2/m^2 = 4 kg/m^2 100 kPa total pressure, 1.4% H2O, so 1.4 kPa of H2O 1.4 kPa = mass H2O/m^2 times 9.8 m/s^2 mass H2O/m^2 = 143 kg/M^2. As you can note in the chart in the first post MARS is not considerably hotter at ground level than it's equilibrium temp (the temp matching the radiance it gets from the sun) but the Earth is (MARS at +6 and the Earth at +33). IBdaMann wrote: The first law of thermodynamics is pretty clear on this. It doesn't matter what energy changes form, there is still the same amount of energy. Temperature cannot change without a change in the amount of energy. IBD is pretending that the Earth/Venus is an isolated system (no energy coming in or going out) which would be the only time claiming that a "fixed" quantity of energy were at issue. I layed out my argument here:link And he gave up here:link and also gave up here link He neglects to explain how it is that Venus is so hot at ground level if indeed you cannot increase temperature without an additional source of energy. But he has now joined GFM and ITN in failing to make arguments at all. HarveyH55 wrote:...You ever notice how that average global temperature is never defined? The number is rarely even given. Under what rock have you noticed this Harvey? 2017 at 58.62 F (14.9 C). It's the central headline in the Climate Debate. HarveyH55 wrote:...Venus probes didn't survive an hour. Not sure how much value there is in the data.... If you'd like to argue that we don't know anything about Venus good luck with that. We got a total of 580 min (24 earth days) on the surface of Venus, spanning 7 missions over a 13 year period. Every do any ceramics? Gets even hotter than Venus in the Kiln and guess what? A thermocouple can survive it. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN Edited on 24-07-2020 12:43
24-07-2020 16:48
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14395)	tgoebbles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: The first law of thermodynamics is pretty clear on this. It doesn't matter what energy changes form, there is still the same amount of energy. Temperature cannot change without a change in the amount of energy. IBD is pretending that the Earth/Venus is an isolated system (no energy coming in or going out) which would be the only time claiming that a "fixed" quantity of energy were at issue. This will count as today's bogus position assignment. I am not the one trying to argue that any planet is a closed system. Oh yeah, debunked in my sig. In any event, the concept of a closed system is irrelevant in considering the first law of thermodynamics. Anyone who isn't a scientifically illiterate warmizombie understands this. You have been told this multiple times, in fact, but since you don't have a clue what you are talking about you are locked into "REJECT" mode for any information that runs counter to your WACKY religious dogma. You still need to account for this fictitious additional energy that you keep trying to sneak into your scenarios, i.e. the miraculous additional energy supplied by your Global Warming that increases temperature. Open system or closed system, it doesn't matter, the 1st law of thermodynamics cannot be violated. [note: it's the 2nd law of thermodynamics that requires a closed system. whenever you open a system, the concept of entropy vanishes] tmiddles wrote: He neglects to explain how it is that Venus is so hot at ground level if indeed you cannot increase temperature without an additional source of energy. I explained this to you repeatedly, yet you continue to deny that I have done so. I laid out all of the science. It couldn't have been any simpler or clearer. Energy = Work Work = Force * Distance In fact, it was you who explained this to andeep when you wrote about the brilliant point made by VernerHornung regarding partial pressures. The work is the additional energy that increases/causes the atmospheric pressure. Then you have to shift to the Ideal Gas Law which you refuse to do: Pressure * Volume = amount * Ideal_Constant * Temperature ... and that is about the fourth time I have covered this. tgoebbles wrote: But he has now joined GFM and ITN in failing to make arguments at all. As I recall, they made very efficient arguments that dispatched your WACKY religion with the greatest of ease. Of course they did not feel compelled to waste time dealing with your intentional dishonesty, your red herrings, your semantic pivots, goalpost shifting or your other tactical fallacies. They just killed your faith DEAD, and left you to cycle through another round of cognitive dissonance. tgoebbles wrote: Under what rock have you noticed this Harvey? 2017 at 58.62 F (14.9 C). ... and where is the data for this calculation? Did you just fabricate this number? Debunked in my sig. tgoebbles wrote: If you'd like to argue that we don't know anything about Venus good luck with that. How about if I want to argue that we don't know half of what you claim that we do know? How about if I want to argue that you are a scientifically illiterate delusional Marxist loser who is desperate to be perceived as important and smart ... so he takes on the delusional role of Climate Superhero whose superpower is omniscience and scientific genius and who makes WACKY unsupported claims that are just plain wrong in order to generate panic in others so that they will cede power to him ... just like he does with Black Lives Matter ... trying to achieve importance by punishing the successful, by tearing down the greatest society that has ever been built and by using violence and terror to instill fear and capitulation? tgoebbles wrote: We got a total of 580 min (24 earth days) on the surface of Venus, spanning 7 missions over a 13 year period. No, "we" did not. You certainly weren't there. Yes, there was some technology there that humans had built but "we" weren't there. You are lying, mostly to yourself, to feed your delusional need to perceive yourself as omniscient. Are you surprised that others don't believe you when you pretend to be omniscient? Does it rub you the wrong way when your omniscience is not accepted outright? tgoebbles wrote:Every do any ceramics? I have. It didn't make me omniscient. What's your secret? Debunked in my sig. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist Attached image:
24-07-2020 19:38
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Actually, I just guessed 56 F... I didn't really pull it out of thin air though. Caves, underground spaces, are in the mid 50's. Some exceptions around the world. I expected to be corrected, surprised only a couple degrees off. I might not know all the state of the art, or exotics, but do know a few things about electronics. Heat, is the number one enemy, of most all components. A lot of them change values and characteristics, as the temperature rises. Semiconductors are very sensitive to temperature. Still think it a miracle they were able to get any data sent back, but doubt it was all that accurate. Just close enough, for what it's worth. From an electronics perspective, in order to amplify, you need to add energy. CO2 doesn't create additional energy. If that were even slightly true, we'd be exploiting that magic molecule, and all of our energy needs would have be taken care of, a long time ago. I don't know all there is to know about much of anything. I do know enough, to spot scams and total bullshit, when I read it.
24-07-2020 20:37
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14395)	HarveyH55 wrote: Heat, is the number one enemy, of most all components. I thought corrosion was the #1 enemy to components and that high temperature was the number one enemy of performance. HarveyH55 wrote: Still think it a miracle they were able to get any data sent back, but doubt it was all that accurate. Exactly. We don't know how accurate any of the equipment was after enduring the entire torturous journey through space just to get to Venus. I can tell you that an entire program to send a payload into space is extremely expensive and that a substantial portion of that is dedicated to engineering and testing the protections of the payload because all the rest of the spending becomes just a colossal waste if the payload becomes damaged along the way. The program is not simply to transport the payload but to transport the payload safely. Unfortunately, on earth we cannot replicate the journey through space as would be required for the scientific method ... ergo double and triple testing of "best guess" engineering is performed. The bottom line is that nobody (except for tgoebbles) knows in what condition any Venera probe arrived at Venus, in what condition any probe entered the atmosphere and how any of the equipment's accuracy and performance had been affected by the journey, much less the by the atmosphere, its descent through it and its ultimate negotiation with the solid surface. The probes (platforms) and the onboard equipment were not big chunks of hardened steel. The total mass of the probes was drastically limited in order to make possible their liftoff from earth and their arrival, safe or not, damaged or not, at Venus. Many of the electronics called for specific and unfortunately flimsy materials. There is only so much ruggedization that the Venera components could enjoy while still remaining within weight and volume specifications. All the Soviets could do was try, i.e. hit or miss, which is why there were so many of them. There was and still is nothing that can be done to guarantee success under these circumstances and so there is no way anyone can "just know" how accurate any of the paltry information is that we received. In fact, when a probe "goes black" on descent, was the problem a bug in the software, was it some aspect of the atmosphere that we still do not understand, was it because the probe descended into a volcano, or none of the above? If we're not tgoebbles, we simply do not know the answer. HarveyH55 wrote: From an electronics perspective, in order to amplify, you need to add energy. CO2 doesn't create additional energy. If that were even slightly true, we'd be exploiting that magic molecule, and all of our energy needs would have be taken care of, a long time ago. Yep. You have eloquently made this point several times, and each time I make mention of the "Cooking with CO2" cookbook that I will quickly publish, teaching the world how to CO2-spray a steak to perfection. Unfortunately, Into the Night has totally shattered my dream by pointing out how spraying CO2 is used to cool things ... which will limit my cookbook to ceviche and gazpacho. HarveyH55 wrote:I don't know all there is to know about much of anything. I do know enough, to spot scams and total bullshit, when I read it. That's why I like you. You fight the good fight. You keep people honest. You don't allow yourself to be bullied. ... and you remain totally polite. It's your superpower. You are to be commended. Someday when you are no longer with us, there will be a trophy called "The Harvey." It would be tough to make today because you would win it. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-07-2020 00:20
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Is there an additional energy from gravity compressing the gas? Could we say that the planet with atmosphere is warmer because of this effect or the average temperature of the planet would be the same no matter if it has the atmosphere or not?
25-07-2020 00:38
Into the Night★★★★★ (21589)	andeep wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: andeep wrote: tmiddles wrote: Tai Hai Chen wrote: For starters. Mercury has practically no atmosphere and Venus has a ton of atmosphere. Tai Hai Yes and it seems the scale of the density of Venus's atmosphere, the pressure at the surface, has the same extreme difference with earth and Mercury that we see with it's higher temperature. Check of what Hoffman had to say on it. Very interesting. link I think I agree that Venus is hotter than Mercury due to the greenhouse effect, and that Mercury simply dissipates the incoming radiation. In fact this could be an argument as to the fact that the greenhouse effect occurs. I checked the link by Hoffman, and I haven't had a chance to go through the details, but it seems to me that the reasoning may be too simple. The effect of the spectra of the gases on the absorption of infrared radiation isn't really taken into account. And if it shouldn't be taken into account, there should be some reason why they don't have an effect, even if the temperature ratio comes out right. But again, I think the fact that Earth and Venus are so hot is one good argument that the greenhouse effect is occuring. Isn't the 'temperature' of earth, something like 56 F? That's down-right frigid in my part of this world. You ever notice how that average global temperature is never defined? The number is rarely even given. Not particularly a scary number, even if it were to increase a few degrees. Most of Twiddles Venus probes didn't survive an hour. Not sure how much value there is in the data. Seems miraculous that they managed to transmit anything at all. It's Russia... Yes the average surface temperature of the earth is about 56 F. The temperature of the surface temperature of the Earth is unknown. andeep wrote: I believe this is usually taken by distributing a lot of thermometers around the world and taking the average. Not good enough. You must calculate the margin of error for any average to mean anything. andeep wrote: I'm not sure about this part to be honest. Averages are completely meaningless without the margin of error value, which is calculated from the variance and the number of samples. andeep wrote: But either way, it's not that cold compared to what the surface temperature would be if an atmosphere wasn't present The atmosphere does not change the temperature of the Earth. andeep wrote: and the greenhouse effect didn't occur. There is no 'greenhouse effect' possible. No gas or vapor can warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing. andeep wrote: The reason why life as we know it can exist is because the greenhouse effect occurs and it keeps surface temperatures warm enough. WRONG. No gas or vapor can create energy out of nothing. andeep wrote: As for a few degrees change not being a problem, consider that when thousands of years ago the Ice Age occured and a lot of North America was covered by thick sheets of ice, the average global temperature of the Earth was only about 5 degrees Celsius lower. The temperature of the Earth is unknown. andeep wrote: So a few degrees change can make a big difference. Keep in mind that this is average temperature. The temperature of the Earth is unknown. andeep wrote: A small difference in global average temperature can make big differences from region to region. A region is not the Earth. The temperature of the Earth is unknown. andeep wrote: Think of something like a lot of billiard balls on a pool table bouncing around. On average they go nowhere but there is still chaos. Not chaos. Nothing to do with temperature, averages, or statistical math, which you are denying. andeep wrote: So perhaps if the global average temperature changed by a couple of degrees it still might not be so bad. The temperature of the Earth is unknown. andeep wrote: But if it changed by 5 degrees that could be catastrophic. Why? The temperature of the Earth is unknown. andeep wrote: It could be the opposite of an Ice Age. Why? The temperature of the Earth is unknown. andeep wrote: It's like changing the incline of the pool table just enough to make all the balls fall to one side. Not an average. A slope is a scalar value. andeep wrote: It seems that a few degrees change in temperature shouldn't make much difference, but again this is an average, Math error. A scalar is not a set. The temperature of Earth is unknown. andeep wrote: and the effects on melting of ice sheets in polar regions The ice isn't melting. The global amount of ice and snow on Earth is unknown. andeep wrote: and dissolving of carbon dioxide and in the oceans and probable extinction of at least some important species is complex. Now you are denying chemistry, including equilibria, partial pressures, and acid-base chemistry. You are also jumping to a conclusion via a Pascal's Wager fallacy coupled with an appeal to complexity fallacy. Bluntly put, you have no idea what you're talking about. You deny physics. You deny chemistry. You deny statistical mathematics. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-07-2020 00:42
Into the Night★★★★★ (21589)	Xadoman wrote: Is there an additional energy from gravity compressing the gas? Could we say that the planet with atmosphere is warmer because of this effect or the average temperature of the planet would be the same no matter if it has the atmosphere or not? It's not possible to create energy out of nothing. That said, thicker atmosphere is better coupled to the surface. It is the surface that warms the atmosphere, not the other way around. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-07-2020 02:13
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14395)	Xadoman wrote: Is there an additional energy from gravity compressing the gas? Could we say that the planet with atmosphere is warmer because of this effect or the average temperature of the planet would be the same no matter if it has the atmosphere or not? We need to unpack your question into its component parts. 1. Yes, the force of gravity over the distance of compression (the aggregate total of all force acting on each molecule of the atmosphere) is equivalent to energy. energy = work; work = force * distance. Take an empty syringe (without a needle), pull the plunger most of the way out and put the tip of the nose against your arm to form a tight seal. With your thumb, push in the plunger and feel the pressure build inside the syringe. The force of your thumb over the inward distance becomes the work (energy) that increases the pressure of the air inside. This video addresses your question about temperature increasing because of the resulting increased pressure. The important thing to notice at the end is that he specifies that you quickly read the temperature before it acquiesces to the ambient temperature. That is why the answer in part #2 below is that it does NOT increase the average temperature, but instead drives everything towards the average temperature. 2. No, the planet's average global temperature does not change. The result of the increased pressure is not to "increase temperature" but to drive the earth's atmosphere towards the planet's average temperature. The moon has no atmospheric pressure and its daytime temperatures are WAY above the lunar average and its nighttime temperatures are WAY below the lunar average, and they nonetheless average out to the average. Trust me. On earth, however, there is a subtantial atmosphere with gravity pulling down on it, compressing it and creating the sea level atmospheric pressure that we experience. This has the effect of drastically increasing the atmosphere's cooling effect on the solid surface such that the earth's daytime never gets anywhere near the moon's atmosphereless daytime temperatures. The earth's atmosphere absorbs that thermal energy and carries it into the nighttime (while still radiating), which is why the earth's nighttime never gets anywhere near as cold as the moon's atmosphereless nighttime temperatures. Earth's daytime and nighttime temperatures tend to differ by only about 12°C, not by 300°C like on the moon. Then we have Venus with several times more atmosphere and much greater atmospheric pressure. We speculate that the crushing atmospheric pressure renders both daytime and nighttime temperatures to be very close to each other. 3. The planet's average temperature remains the same whether atmospheric pressure drives daytime and nighttime temperatures closer to each other, and hence closer to the planet's average temperature ... or whether a lack of atmospheric pressure results in extremely divergent daytime and nighttime temperatures that each deviate wildly from the planet's average temperature. 4. The planet's average temperature is determined exclusively by its sun's energy output and its own emissivity. [*find-VENUSMOONEARTHATMOSPHERE] Attached image:

25-07-2020 02:15
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14395)	Into the Night wrote:That said, thicker atmosphere is better coupled to the surface. It is the surface that warms the atmosphere, not the other way around. Exactly, and it is the atmosphere that cools the surface. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-07-2020 09:46
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	The planet's average temperature is determined exclusively by its sun's energy output and its own emissivity. Thanks. I needed this confirmation because global warming belivers bring up the Venus and its thick atmosphere causing greenhouse effect all the time.
28-07-2020 23:32
Sophic ☆☆☆☆☆ (1)	Venus is not warmer than Mercury, that's just stuff they tell kids in science class cause it sounds cool. In the sun, both planets surface can reach roughly the same temp, as they both have similar orbits, and receive similar solar output. The only difference is Mercury cools significantly at night, because, of course, it doesn't have an atmosphere. Ergo, the old saying "Mercury is cooler than Venus". One planet has an extremely thick atmosphere, the other basically no atmosphere, neither planet is remotely comparable to Earth
28-07-2020 23:49
Into the Night★★★★★ (21589)	Sophic wrote: Venus is not warmer than Mercury, that's just stuff they tell kids in science class cause it sounds cool. In the sun, both planets surface can reach roughly the same temp, as they both have similar orbits, and receive similar solar output. The only difference is Mercury cools significantly at night, because, of course, it doesn't have an atmosphere. Ergo, the old saying "Mercury is cooler than Venus". One planet has an extremely thick atmosphere, the other basically no atmosphere, neither planet is remotely comparable to Earth Mercury does have an atmosphere, it's just very thin. Compared to the incredibly thick atmosphere of Venus, it is often ignored. Mercury's surface also heats more rapidly than Venus as well as cools more rapidly. The atmosphere makes a real difference here. The emissivity of either planet is unknown and cannot be measure, since we don't know the temperature of either planet. We have sent probes to both planets, but there are not enough thermometers to measure the whole planet in a probe, and no way to measure the temperature at a surface site without landing on the planet. No one has yet landed a probe on the surface of Mercury. Probes that have landed on Venus lasted no more than a few minutes under the extreme conditions found there. We really have no idea what the temperature of either Mercury or Venus are. We can only estimate with the extremely little information that we do have...essentially a somewhat educated guess. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 28-07-2020 23:50
30-07-2020 22:33
andeep ☆☆☆☆☆ (20)	tmiddles wrote: andeep wrote: tmiddles wrote:...the scale of the density of Venus's atmosphere,...has the same extreme difference with earth and Mercury that we see with it's higher temperature... ...Venus is hotter than Mercury due to the greenhouse effect,...Hoffman, ...reasoning may be too simple. The effect of the spectra of the gases on the absorption of infrared radiation isn't really taken into account. Thanks for actually being on topic andeep and for wanting to debate this. We know that thermal energy is present in air. It's present in the Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Argon that make up 99.8% of the Earth's atmosphere: And it's also present in the water vapor, CO2 and other gases that absorb infrared radiance as "Greenhouse Gases". Of course thermal energy is present in the air of Venus as well: So the point Hoffman made (not his btw it's been made many times by many people) is that if you compare Earth and Venus based on the air pressure they are consistent. The term "adiabatic lapse rate" is sometimes used to describe the drop in temperature as you go higher in the atmosphere. However if CO2 does amplify a greenhouse effect then Venus and Earth should not be consistent in their adiabatic lapse rates. Really the question I see is in comparing Mars, Venus and Earth. The brilliant VernerHornung pointed this out: link VernerHornung wrote:...The partial pressure of a gas is, approximately, the mass of that gas per unit area of planet surface divided by the planet's surface acceleration of gravity. Mars: 640 Pa total pressure, 95% CO2, so 610 Pa of CO2 610 Pa = mass CO2/m^2 times 3.7 m/s^2 mass CO2/m^2 = 160 kg/m^2 Venus: 9.2 MPa total pressure, 97% CO2, so 8.9 MPa of CO2 8.9 MPa = mass CO2/m^2 times 8.9 m/s^2 mass CO2/m^2 = 10^6 kg, or 1000 metric tons, per m^2 Earth: 100 kPa total pressure, 0.04% CO2, so 40 Pa of CO2 4 Pa = mass CO2/m^2 times 9.8 m/s^2 mass CO2/m^2 = 4 kg/m^2 100 kPa total pressure, 1.4% H2O, so 1.4 kPa of H2O 1.4 kPa = mass H2O/m^2 times 9.8 m/s^2 mass H2O/m^2 = 143 kg/M^2. As you can note in the chart in the first post MARS is not considerably hotter at ground level than it's equilibrium temp (the temp matching the radiance it gets from the sun) but the Earth is (MARS at +6 and the Earth at +33). I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. It sounds to me that you're saying Hoffman might be right because the adiabatic lapse rates of Venus and Earth are consistent and therefore the greenhouse effect isn't as relevant. But from the chart the adiabatic lapse rates of Venus, Earth, and Mars seem inconsistent with the view that the thick layer of CO2 on Venus's atmosphere creates a strong greenhouse effect. Again I'm going to go through Hoffman's link because it seems interesting.
30-07-2020 22:55
andeep ☆☆☆☆☆ (20)	HarveyH55 wrote: andeep wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: andeep wrote: tmiddles wrote: Tai Hai Chen wrote: For starters. Mercury has practically no atmosphere and Venus has a ton of atmosphere. Tai Hai Yes and it seems the scale of the density of Venus's atmosphere, the pressure at the surface, has the same extreme difference with earth and Mercury that we see with it's higher temperature. Check of what Hoffman had to say on it. Very interesting. link I think I agree that Venus is hotter than Mercury due to the greenhouse effect, and that Mercury simply dissipates the incoming radiation. In fact this could be an argument as to the fact that the greenhouse effect occurs. I checked the link by Hoffman, and I haven't had a chance to go through the details, but it seems to me that the reasoning may be too simple. The effect of the spectra of the gases on the absorption of infrared radiation isn't really taken into account. And if it shouldn't be taken into account, there should be some reason why they don't have an effect, even if the temperature ratio comes out right. But again, I think the fact that Earth and Venus are so hot is one good argument that the greenhouse effect is occuring. Isn't the 'temperature' of earth, something like 56 F? That's down-right frigid in my part of this world. You ever notice how that average global temperature is never defined? The number is rarely even given. Not particularly a scary number, even if it were to increase a few degrees. Most of Twiddles Venus probes didn't survive an hour. Not sure how much value there is in the data. Seems miraculous that they managed to transmit anything at all. It's Russia... Yes the average surface temperature of the earth is about 56 F. I believe this is usually taken by distributing a lot of thermometers around the world and taking the average. I'm not sure about this part to be honest. But either way, it's not that cold compared to what the surface temperature would be if an atmosphere wasn't present and the greenhouse effect didn't occur. The reason why life as we know it can exist is because the greenhouse effect occurs and it keeps surface temperatures warm enough. As for a few degrees change not being a problem, consider that when thousands of years ago the Ice Age occured and a lot of North America was covered by thick sheets of ice, the average global temperature of the Earth was only about 5 degrees Celsius lower. So a few degrees change can make a big difference. Keep in mind that this is average temperature. A small difference in global average temperature can make big differences from region to region. Think of something like a lot of billiard balls on a pool table bouncing around. On average they go nowhere but there is still chaos. So perhaps if the global average temperature changed by a couple of degrees it still might not be so bad. But if it changed by 5 degrees that could be catastrophic. It could be the opposite of an Ice Age. It's like changing the incline of the pool table just enough to make all the balls fall to one side. It seems that a few degrees change in temperature shouldn't make much difference, but again this is an average, and the effects on melting of ice sheets in polar regions and dissolving of carbon dioxide and in the oceans and probable extinction of at least some important species is complex. That's all speculation and opinion, faith-based 'science'. Nobody made measurements, or written record of the last ice age. We had already warmed up considerably, well into the interglacial, before people started to write stuff down, created clocks and calendars, measuring tools... A consensus, of people, who believe the same speculation, isn't science, it's a faith-based cult. Math, is simply a tool. Tools can be used, or misused, to better illustrate an idea. People keep point at the tools, as if they are never wrong, and never intentionally misused. They are simply tools, and have no credibility. It's not faith-based at all. Nor are historical records of temperature based on faith or even observations that were made at that time. Historical records of temperature are based on the geological record, in particular measurements of isotopes in ice cores. They are no less reliable than carbon dating. Ofcourse they won't be as precise as if someone used thermometers at the time, but given the timescale I believe they are precise enough. I just want to make another comment though about why a few degrees change in temperature can be serious. Consider the Earth, Venus and Mars. Venus and Mars are the closest planets to Earth compared to other planets in the Solar System, yet they are wastelands. If you look out at other solar systems, it is difficult to find planets right in the "habitable zone". There are probably many exoplanets in the entire galaxy, but if you consider all the planets in the galaxy, planets in the habitable zone are rare. Earth is right in this habitable zone of the Solar System. But if you move Earth to the place of Venus or Mars, I think it will be a total wasteland. I am not sure exactly what would happen if Earth were moved to the position of Venus or Mars. Other people have addressed this question ofcourse, and it looks like the general consensus is that if all life would die out if this happened. Changing the temperature of the Earth by a few degrees would likely move it out of an effective "habitable zone". So you can think of the sensitivity of the Earth environment to global temperature like a habitable zone or Goldilocks zone (for those unfamiliar with the term Goldilocks zone, you can think of the tale about Goldilocks and the three bears and Goldilocks didn't like the porridge that was too hot or too cold. So also a planet has to have the right conditions including being the right distance from the Sun and being a certain temperature).
31-07-2020 03:27
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14395)	andeep wrote: It's not faith-based at all. It is entirely faith-based. 100%. All numbers are fabricated. All conditions are speculated. andeep wrote:Nor are historical records of temperature based on faith There is nothing but faith when speculating about the past. andeep wrote: Historical records of temperature are based on the geological record, Nope. There are no historical records. There is only speculation, i.e. guessing. What we do have is a great deal of circling the wagons around preferred speculations and claims of "my speculation about the past is better than your speculation about the past." andeep wrote: in particular measurements of isotopes in ice cores. You have to understand just how absurd you sound. Apparently you have been convinced that an ice core measurment somehow travels through time and somehow directly measures other things. You are playing the stupid game of "follow the gourd" to see whose WILD and WACKY speculation about the past gets to be called "the historical record." Too funny. andeep wrote: They are no less reliable than carbon dating. I hate to break it to you but radiometric dating (not "carbon dating") can't tell you the earth's average global temperature either. andeep wrote: Ofcourse they won't be as precise as if someone used thermometers at the time, Actually, when you fabricate numbers, you can be as precise as you want. andeep wrote:... but given the timescale I believe they are precise enough. Actually, you can fabricate numbers as precise as you want for any timescale. Watch: "Hey everybody, the earth's average global temperature, exactly 456,773,944 years ago to the day, minute and second was 17.9877779752313129156778223256°F and that's no lie!" What do I win? andeep wrote: I just want to make another comment though about why a few degrees change in temperature can be serious. First you need to address why the rapid change in temperature of more than 10°F that happens every 24 hours never causes the problem that you are about to describe. andeep wrote: Consider the Earth, Venus and Mars. Venus and Mars are the closest planets to Earth compared to other planets in the Solar System, Stop. Focus on the moon. For all intents and purposes it's the same distance. Venus and Mars are not. andeep wrote: ... yet they are wastelands. The earth was too at one point ... at least that's what I speculate. andeep wrote: If you look out at other solar systems, it is difficult to find planets right in the "habitable zone". Excuse me ... planets do not need to be able to support terrestrial life in order to support life. The "habitable zone" is as broad as the possibility of life forms ... and there are countless environments in that category. andeep wrote: There are probably many exoplanets in the entire galaxy, The number I have is 1.24 bajillion. andeep wrote: ... but if you consider all the planets in the galaxy, planets in the habitable zone are rare. Au contraire, mon frère, "countless" hardly qualifies as "rare." andeep wrote: Earth is right in this habitable zone of the Solar System. "Habitable Zone" involves environmental conditions, not spatial position. I am amazed that you tried to pull that magnitude of a goal post shift. andeep wrote: But if you move Earth to the place of Venus or Mars, I think it will be a total wasteland. ... which is your speculation. However I speculate otherwise. I happen to be a huge fan of Darwin's theory and it causes me to speculate that if you were to shift earth's position to say Mars' position, that we would simply have different life on earth ... and we would still have the exact same hypothermophile life at the ocean floor geothermal vents ... but on the surface the life that would evolve would be built for the cold and would consider the earth's mostly ice surface to be a virtual paradise, not a "wasteland." ... and my speculation is better than your speculation. andeep wrote: Other people have addressed this question ofcourse, and it looks like the general consensus is that if all life would die out if this happened. Which is why the general consensus is typically wrong and why those who make $Millions trading in markets are those who do exactly the opposite of what everyone else is doing. Is the "general consensus" that Global Warming is real? Need I say more? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
31-07-2020 12:38
Into the Night★★★★★ (21589)	andeep wrote: It's not faith-based at all. Nor are historical records of temperature based on faith or even observations that were made at that time. There are no temperature record of Earth There is no historical record. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. andeep wrote: Historical records of temperature There are none. andeep wrote: are based on the geological record, Geology is not temperature and does not measure temperature. There is no geological record. There is just geology and speculation. andeep wrote: in particular measurements of isotopes in ice cores. Isotopes do not measure temperature. Ice cores do not measure temperature. Science does not use proxy measurements, since they depend on speculations of cause. andeep wrote: They are no less reliable than carbon dating. Carbon dating doesn't measure temperature either. It doesn't even tell you the age of a rock. andeep wrote: Of course they won't be as precise as if someone used thermometers at the time, Even a thermometer used at the time is useless for describing global temperature. You can't measure the global temperature with a single thermometer. andeep wrote: but given the timescale I believe they are precise enough. There is no data. You are speculating. andeep wrote: I just want to make another comment though about why a few degrees change in temperature can be serious. Seattle suffered a warming from 10 deg F to 91 deg F in just eight months. With this kind of warming in Seattle, imagine what it'll be like in as little as a year from now! andeep wrote: Consider the Earth, Venus and Mars. Venus and Mars are the closest planets to Earth compared to other planets in the Solar System, yet they are wastelands. Venus is much closer to the Sun and has an atmosphere 900 times atmospheric pressure of Earth. There is almost no free hydrogen at all. Much of the atmosphere is CO2, a very heavy molecule. Mars is much smaller than Earth, and barely has an atmosphere as a result. andeep wrote: If you look out at other solar systems, it is difficult to find planets right in the "habitable zone". It is difficult if not impossible to find planets orbiting other stars. andeep wrote: There are probably many exoplanets in the entire galaxy, but if you consider all the planets in the galaxy, planets in the habitable zone are rare. It is not possible to consider all the planets in the galaxy, since we cannot detect planets on anything but in the very local vicinity of the Solar System. andeep wrote: Earth is right in this habitable zone of the Solar System. But if you move Earth to the place of Venus or Mars, I think it will be a total wasteland. I am not sure exactly what would happen if Earth were moved to the position of Venus or Mars. A 'whatif'. Useless speculation. andeep wrote: Other people have addressed this question of course, and it looks like the general consensus is that if all life would die out if this happened. A 'whatif'. Useless. andeep wrote: Changing the temperature of the Earth by a few degrees would likely move it out of an effective "habitable zone". The temperature of Earth is unknown. Most places on Earth undergo temperature changes of 50 to 100 deg F every year, and 20 to 50 deg F every day. We're still here, and so are all the plants and animals with us. andeep wrote: So you can think of the sensitivity of the Earth environment to global temperature like a habitable zone or Goldilocks zone What 'sensitivity'? Please describe this 'sensitivity'. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
02-08-2020 10:19
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: On earth, however, there is a subtantial atmosphere with gravity pulling down on it, compressing it and creating the sea level atmospheric pressure that we experience. This has the effect of drastically increasing the atmosphere's cooling effect on the solid surface such that the earth's daytime never gets anywhere near the moon's atmosphereless daytime temperatures. Curious if you believe this cooling is taking place on Venus as well? Also the atmosphere has a pressure from gravity already. It's not being applied in some pumping action or "going to happen" later. I watched the video you liked to:This Video The temperature increases with energy exerted by the professor compressing the gas. Gravity won't do this. As you've agreed it is not a source of energy. I would think ITN would agree with this based on his post in the other thread: Into the Night wrote:...a compressed gas cylinder...is the same as the room temperature. link IBdaMann wrote:The planet's average temperature is determined exclusively by its sun's energy output and its own emissivity. So I'll ask again (note the topic we are in) do you claim that applies to Venus as well? As noted the ground temperature on Venus at night is hotter than Mercury at high noon (Mercury's Highest temp is 430C while Venus night time temp is 465C, Mercury is half as far from the Sun, 0.4AU vs 0.7AU). The radiance leaving the surface of Venus far exceeds the radiance coming to the planet from the Sun per square meter. How is this possible if you are right in your above claim? "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
02-08-2020 11:11
Into the Night★★★★★ (21589)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: On earth, however, there is a subtantial atmosphere with gravity pulling down on it, compressing it and creating the sea level atmospheric pressure that we experience. This has the effect of drastically increasing the atmosphere's cooling effect on the solid surface such that the earth's daytime never gets anywhere near the moon's atmosphereless daytime temperatures. Curious if you believe this cooling is taking place on Venus as well? RQAA. tmiddles wrote: Also the atmosphere has a pressure from gravity already. It's not being applied in some pumping action or "going to happen" later. I watched the video you liked to:This Video The temperature increases with energy exerted by the professor compressing the gas. Gravity won't do this. As you've agreed it is not a source of energy. I would think ITN would agree with this based on his post in the other thread: Into the Night wrote:...a compressed gas cylinder...is the same as the room temperature. link IBdaMann wrote:The planet's average temperature is determined exclusively by its sun's energy output and its own emissivity. So I'll ask again (note the topic we are in) do you claim that applies to Venus as well? RQAA. tmiddles wrote: As noted the ground temperature on Venus at night is hotter than Mercury at high noon (Mercury's Highest temp is 430C while Venus night time temp is 465C, Mercury is half as far from the Sun, 0.4AU vs 0.7AU). The radiance leaving the surface of Venus far exceeds the radiance coming to the planet from the Sun per square meter. How is this possible if you are right in your above claim? Neither the temperature of Venus or Mercury are known. Mantras 25g...20a1... No argument presented. RQAA. Denial of mathematics. Answer the questions put to you: 1) What are the unambiguous definitions of Global Warming, Climate Change and Greenhouse Effect that neither violate nor deny physics? [Status: Unanswered] 2) Why should any rational adult believe in either Global Warming, Climate Change or Greenhouse Effect? [Status: Unanswered] 3) How can I unambiguously demonstrate to my children thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer? [Status: Unanswered] 4) How can I know the temperature of a large, unspecified volume, e.g. Denver, to within, say, 10degF with only one temperature measurement, e.g. the Denver airport? [Status: Unanswered] 5) What are the unambiguous definitions of "race," "negro," "black people," "white people," "brown people," "white supremacy," "white nationalsim," "white nationalist," "white supremacist," "black supremacist" and "racist"? [Status: Unanswered] The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
02-08-2020 17:16
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Disconected a sink for a very nice Lady and had to ask her opinion.Apparently Animals are going to die because of warming.which animals and where.Would it be O.K. if I shoot them first
02-08-2020 22:40
Into the Night★★★★★ (21589)	duncan61 wrote: Disconected a sink for a very nice Lady and had to ask her opinion.Apparently Animals are going to die because of warming.which animals and where.Would it be O.K. if I shoot them first Heh. Elk season has already begun in Washington, most other hunting seasons, including deer, start in September. The deadliest animal we have in Washington is deer. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
03-08-2020 08:39
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote:Neither the temperature of Venus or Mercury are known. You refuse to say if the temperature of anything is known and what you mean by "known". Here you are saying with confidence: Into the Night wrote:In the case of Venus, that atmosphere has almost no hydrogen in it at all. Into the Night wrote:The Venusian atmosphere is almost all CO2. Into the Night wrote:The surface pressure is 90 times the surface pressure on Earth. Into the Night wrote:...the high temperatures of Venus. from:the DATA MINE Each one a confident statement about Venus globally. The only reason you won't accept, as a premise, that Venus is incredibly hot at ground level, is that it unravels most of your false claims on this board. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN Edited on 03-08-2020 08:40
03-08-2020 08:46
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14395)	tmiddles wrote:Curious if you believe this cooling is taking place on Venus as well? I'm curious about whether you are going to answer the questions I asked of you. Is there some reason that I should answer questions you ask while you basically give me the finger if I ask you some questions? I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-08-2020 09:21
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:...answer the questions... Did you have something on topic? I didn't see anything. Do you mean: IBdaMann wrote: Are you surprised that others don't believe you when you pretend to be omniscient? . I see that simply as the waste of everyone's time it is. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN Edited on 03-08-2020 09:23

03-08-2020 18:01
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:Curious if you believe this cooling is taking place on Venus as well? I'm curious about whether you are going to answer the questions I asked of you. Is there some reason that I should answer questions you ask while you basically give me the finger if I ask you some questions? I can't think of any good reason...
03-08-2020 18:22
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...answer the questions... Did you have something on topic? I didn't see anything. Do you mean: IBdaMann wrote: Are you surprised that others don't believe you when you pretend to be omniscient? . I see that simply as the waste of everyone's time it is. You are giving the rest of this forum the finger when you ask many questions (and very repeatedly) of the forum, of which the forum has directly answered for you (and very repeatedly), yet in return you absolutely refuse to answer a now laundry list of questions that the forum has for you. As for myself, until you are willing to provide your answers to the full list of unanswered questions, I will no longer be answering any additional questions of yours (and will keep referring you to the list of unanswered questions). It appears that we are at a standstill...
03-08-2020 22:46
Into the Night★★★★★ (21589)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:Neither the temperature of Venus or Mercury are known. You refuse to say if the temperature of anything is known and what you mean by "known". Lie. RQAA. Semantics fallacy. tmiddles wrote: Here you are saying with confidence: Into the Night wrote:In the case of Venus, that atmosphere has almost no hydrogen in it at all. Into the Night wrote:The Venusian atmosphere is almost all CO2. Into the Night wrote:The surface pressure is 90 times the surface pressure on Earth. Into the Night wrote:...the high temperatures of Venus. from:the DATA MINE Each one a confident statement about Venus globally. The only reason you won't accept, as a premise, that Venus is incredibly hot at ground level, is that it unravels most of your false claims on this board. Venus is incredibly hot at ground level (at least compared to Earth at ground level). The temperature of Venus is unknown. I have not made any false claims on this or any other board. No argument presented. RQAA. Denial of mathematics. Denial of science. Semantics fallacy. Spamming. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
03-08-2020 22:48
Into the Night★★★★★ (21589)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...answer the questions... Did you have something on topic? I didn't see anything. Do you mean: IBdaMann wrote: Are you surprised that others don't believe you when you pretend to be omniscient? . I see that simply as the waste of everyone's time it is. Evasion. Answer the questions put to you. They are the topic: 1) What are the unambiguous definitions of Global Warming, Climate Change and Greenhouse Effect that neither violate nor deny physics? [Status: Unanswered] 2) Why should any rational adult believe in either Global Warming, Climate Change or Greenhouse Effect? [Status: Unanswered] 3) How can I unambiguously demonstrate to my children thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer? [Status: Unanswered] 4) How can I know the temperature of a large, unspecified volume, e.g. Denver, to within, say, 10degF with only one temperature measurement, e.g. the Denver airport? [Status: Unanswered] 5) What are the unambiguous definitions of "race," "negro," "black people," "white people," "brown people," "white supremacy," "white nationalsim," "white nationalist," "white supremacist," "black supremacist" and "racist"? [Status: Unanswered] 6) Is there an official list of races? [Status: Unanswered] - 6a) How do I determine my own race or that of my children? [Status: Unanswered] 7) Why should any rational adult believe that there is a problem of racism in the United States? [Status: Unanswered] 8) Why should law abiding citizens be rendered defenseless before rampant violent crime? [Status: Unanswered] 9) Where in the 1st Amendment is "hate" prohibited such that, if shown, a prosecutor can throw someone in jail for having had that emotion/thought? [Status: Unanswered] 10) Why do you claim that an atmosphere only makes a planet's or moon's solid surface hotter since you are fully aware that no place at the bottom of earth's atmosphere ever reaches anywhere close to the daytime temperatures of the moon's atmosphereless solid surface? [Status: Unanswered] 11) If we were to discover that Lisa Gherardini was actually a shitty person, would that justify Black Lives Matter storming the Louvre to destroy the Mona Lisa? [Status: Unanswered] 12) Why should we destroy artifacts and relics pertaining to history that we never want to forget or repeat? [Status: Unanswered] 13) The Aztecs committed genocide of many other tribes and practiced human sacrifice; should their artwork and artifacts be destroyed? [Status: Unanswered] 14) Why would you or anyone pretend to be a judge of what history is to be revised or destroyed? [Status: Unanswered] 15) In what substantive/meaningful way do the platforms of Black Lives Matter, ANTIFA, The National Organization of Women, the DNC, Communist Party USA and Socialist Party USA ... differ? [Status: Unanswered] The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
03-08-2020 23:23
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: Venus is incredibly hot at ground level (at least compared to Earth at ground level). And that is all we need to know to explore the following: Venus is "incredibly hot" compared to Earth (at ground level) Venus is 0.7 au from the Sun and Earth 1.0 au, so it's not receiving an increased amount of solar radiance, relative to Earth, to explain that difference. Yet you say we can't talk about it.... "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
04-08-2020 10:31
Into the Night★★★★★ (21589)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: Venus is incredibly hot at ground level (at least compared to Earth at ground level). And that is all we need to know to explore the following: Venus is "incredibly hot" compared to Earth (at ground level) Venus is 0.7 au from the Sun and Earth 1.0 au, so it's not receiving an increased amount of solar radiance, relative to Earth, to explain that difference. Yet you say we can't talk about it.... RQAA. Answer the questions put to you. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-08-2020 03:21
andeep ☆☆☆☆☆ (20)	tmiddles wrote: andeep wrote: tmiddles wrote:...the scale of the density of Venus's atmosphere,...has the same extreme difference with earth and Mercury that we see with it's higher temperature... ...Venus is hotter than Mercury due to the greenhouse effect,...Hoffman, ...reasoning may be too simple. The effect of the spectra of the gases on the absorption of infrared radiation isn't really taken into account. Thanks for actually being on topic andeep and for wanting to debate this. We know that thermal energy is present in air. It's present in the Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Argon that make up 99.8% of the Earth's atmosphere: And it's also present in the water vapor, CO2 and other gases that absorb infrared radiance as "Greenhouse Gases". Of course thermal energy is present in the air of Venus as well: So the point Hoffman made (not his btw it's been made many times by many people) is that if you compare Earth and Venus based on the air pressure they are consistent. The term "adiabatic lapse rate" is sometimes used to describe the drop in temperature as you go higher in the atmosphere. However if CO2 does amplify a greenhouse effect then Venus and Earth should not be consistent in their adiabatic lapse rates. Really the question I see is in comparing Mars, Venus and Earth. The brilliant VernerHornung pointed this out: link VernerHornung wrote:...The partial pressure of a gas is, approximately, the mass of that gas per unit area of planet surface divided by the planet's surface acceleration of gravity. Mars: 640 Pa total pressure, 95% CO2, so 610 Pa of CO2 610 Pa = mass CO2/m^2 times 3.7 m/s^2 mass CO2/m^2 = 160 kg/m^2 Venus: 9.2 MPa total pressure, 97% CO2, so 8.9 MPa of CO2 8.9 MPa = mass CO2/m^2 times 8.9 m/s^2 mass CO2/m^2 = 10^6 kg, or 1000 metric tons, per m^2 Earth: 100 kPa total pressure, 0.04% CO2, so 40 Pa of CO2 4 Pa = mass CO2/m^2 times 9.8 m/s^2 mass CO2/m^2 = 4 kg/m^2 100 kPa total pressure, 1.4% H2O, so 1.4 kPa of H2O 1.4 kPa = mass H2O/m^2 times 9.8 m/s^2 mass H2O/m^2 = 143 kg/M^2. As you can note in the chart in the first post MARS is not considerably hotter at ground level than it's equilibrium temp (the temp matching the radiance it gets from the sun) but the Earth is (MARS at +6 and the Earth at +33). IBdaMann wrote: The first law of thermodynamics is pretty clear on this. It doesn't matter what energy changes form, there is still the same amount of energy. Temperature cannot change without a change in the amount of energy. IBD is pretending that the Earth/Venus is an isolated system (no energy coming in or going out) which would be the only time claiming that a "fixed" quantity of energy were at issue. I layed out my argument here:link And he gave up here:link and also gave up here link He neglects to explain how it is that Venus is so hot at ground level if indeed you cannot increase temperature without an additional source of energy. But he has now joined GFM and ITN in failing to make arguments at all. HarveyH55 wrote:...You ever notice how that average global temperature is never defined? The number is rarely even given. Under what rock have you noticed this Harvey? 2017 at 58.62 F (14.9 C). It's the central headline in the Climate Debate. HarveyH55 wrote:...Venus probes didn't survive an hour. Not sure how much value there is in the data.... If you'd like to argue that we don't know anything about Venus good luck with that. We got a total of 580 min (24 earth days) on the surface of Venus, spanning 7 missions over a 13 year period. Every do any ceramics? Gets even hotter than Venus in the Kiln and guess what? A thermocouple can survive it. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN It is interesting that the temperature ratio works out right. However it seems to me that, for one, Hoffman doesn't consider the complexity of the situation. There are all kinds of factors that can be involved in finding the temperature ratio. Still, given that the temperature ratio is so close, this does suggest the difference in greenhouse gas composition doesn't have an effect on the temperature ratio. Perhaps there could be a reason for this. However, even if this were correct, this doesn't prove that there is no greenhouse effect at all. The temperatures on Venus and Earth are so high compared to if there were no greenhouse effect at all that there must be a greenhouse effect. I think Hoffman needs to distinguish between the greenhouse effect on overall temperature and temperature ratio.
14-08-2020 03:38
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	andeep wrote:...this does suggest the difference in greenhouse gas composition doesn't have an effect on the temperature ratio.... I would say that it suggests that it's not the dominant/only factor as it's sometime portrayed. andeep wrote:...this doesn't prove that there is no greenhouse effect at all. The temperatures on Venus and Earth are so high compared to if there were no greenhouse effect at all that there must be a greenhouse effect... Yes the Fourier Greenhouse Effect theory from 1824 long predates Tyndalls work with CO2 in 1859. A "greenhouse effect" theory does not require CO2 even being considered (Fourier didn't when he coined the term). Today "Greenhouse Effect" is used to also mean the theory that CO2 is a major/dominant player in the process so it's unclear much of the time what someone means. I tried to summarize what I thought was the popular CO2 theory here: https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/do-i-have-the-co2-calamity-math-right-help-from-an-expert-please-d10-e2720.php You'll notice that the mass of the atmosphere, atmospheric pressure, never comes into it. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN Edited on 14-08-2020 03:40
14-08-2020 03:57
Into the Night★★★★★ (21589)	tmiddles wrote: andeep wrote:...this does suggest the difference in greenhouse gas composition doesn't have an effect on the temperature ratio.... I would say that it suggests that it's not the dominant/only factor as it's sometime portrayed. andeep wrote:...this doesn't prove that there is no greenhouse effect at all. The temperatures on Venus and Earth are so high compared to if there were no greenhouse effect at all that there must be a greenhouse effect... Yes the Fourier Greenhouse Effect theory from 1824 long predates Tyndalls work with CO2 in 1859. A "greenhouse effect" theory does not require CO2 even being considered (Fourier didn't when he coined the term). Today "Greenhouse Effect" is used to also mean the theory that CO2 is a major/dominant player in the process so it's unclear much of the time what someone means. I tried to summarize what I thought was the popular CO2 theory here: https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/do-i-have-the-co2-calamity-math-right-help-from-an-expert-please-d10-e2720.php You'll notice that the mass of the atmosphere, atmospheric pressure, never comes into it. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm a planet. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-08-2020 04:05
andeep ☆☆☆☆☆ (20)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: andeep wrote:...this does suggest the difference in greenhouse gas composition doesn't have an effect on the temperature ratio.... I would say that it suggests that it's not the dominant/only factor as it's sometime portrayed. andeep wrote:...this doesn't prove that there is no greenhouse effect at all. The temperatures on Venus and Earth are so high compared to if there were no greenhouse effect at all that there must be a greenhouse effect... Yes the Fourier Greenhouse Effect theory from 1824 long predates Tyndalls work with CO2 in 1859. A "greenhouse effect" theory does not require CO2 even being considered (Fourier didn't when he coined the term). Today "Greenhouse Effect" is used to also mean the theory that CO2 is a major/dominant player in the process so it's unclear much of the time what someone means. I tried to summarize what I thought was the popular CO2 theory here: https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/do-i-have-the-co2-calamity-math-right-help-from-an-expert-please-d10-e2720.php You'll notice that the mass of the atmosphere, atmospheric pressure, never comes into it. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm a planet. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. This has relatively little to do with the laws of thermodynamics. It just absorption of radiation by a gas and re-emission.

Page 27 of 28

Join the debate Venus is hotter than Mercury?!?:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Fossil Fuel Substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium..	392	01-12-2023 21:58
Why can't you say Venus is hotter than Mercury because Venus got CO2?	129	19-12-2019 17:10
I don't believe CO2 makes air hotter because I don't see any experimental proof	5	09-10-2019 03:15
The only straw the Church of AGW can grasp is Venus	88	26-09-2019 05:49
The only straw the Church of AGW can grasp is Venus and Mercury	4	18-09-2019 22:37