Remember me
▼ Content

Venus is hotter than Mercury?!?



Page 28 of 28<<<262728
14-08-2020 04:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7466)
andeep wrote:This has relatively little to do with the laws of thermodynamics. It just absorption of radiation by a gas and re-emission.

Are you going on record then as admitting that Greenhouse Effect has nothing to do with any increase in the earth's average global temperature?

If so then we're done.


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
31-08-2020 10:46
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
Into the Night wrote:You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.
Here you go ITN. Just keep ignoring it:
Misuse of the 1st LTD, Plancks Law/SB Law, and glaring hypocrisy of "Valid Data" exposed:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/venus-is-hotter-than-mercury--d6-e2710-s720.php#post_53762

andeep wrote:
This has relatively little to do with the laws of thermodynamics. It just absorption of radiation by a gas and re-emission.
Yes all the thermodynamic complexity of a blanket.

"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
31-08-2020 16:47
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1214)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.
Here you go ITN. Just keep ignoring it:
Misuse of the 1st LTD, Plancks Law/SB Law, and glaring hypocrisy of "Valid Data" exposed:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/venus-is-hotter-than-mercury--d6-e2710-s720.php#post_53762

andeep wrote:
This has relatively little to do with the laws of thermodynamics. It just absorption of radiation by a gas and re-emission.
Yes all the thermodynamic complexity of a blanket.

"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

Already addressed ad nauseum...

Speaking of ignoring, you continue to ignore these questions that the forum has asked you to answer...
31-08-2020 19:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
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.

Random number. The temperature of the Earth is unknown. It is not possible to measure it. We don't have enough thermometers.
andeep wrote:
I believe this is usually taken by distributing a lot of thermometers around the world and taking the average.
Nope. Location grouping is significant. Time is significant. 100 thermometers in Seattle tell you nothing about the temperature of Yakima.
andeep wrote:
I'm not sure about this part to be honest.
Obviously, since you don't understand the math.
andeep wrote:
But either way, it's not that cold compared to what the surface temperature would be if an atmosphere wasn't present
No gas or vapor can warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
andeep wrote:
and the greenhouse effect didn't occur.
There is no such thing as 'greenhouse effect'. Define 'global warming'. Define 'climate change'. Buzzword fallacy.
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.
Buzzword fallacy. Define 'global warming'. Define 'climate change'.
andeep wrote:
As for a few degrees change not being a problem,
The temperature of Earth is unknown. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
andeep wrote:
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 during the so-called Ice Age either. No one was around to measure it.
andeep wrote:
So a few degrees change can make a big difference.
You are making up numbers and coming to a predetermined conclusion based on random numbers.
andeep wrote:
Keep in mind that this is average temperature.
The temperature of Earth is unknown.
andeep wrote:
A small difference in global average temperature can make big differences from region to region.
A region of Earth is not the Earth, dumbass.
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. 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.
Fear mongering. The temperature of Earth is unknown. People regularly live in temperatures ranging from below freezing in winter to over100 deg F in the summer.
andeep wrote:
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.
Temperature is not pool balls or gravity.
andeep wrote:
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
The temperature of 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.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the oceans is unknown. The pH of the oceans is unknown. It cannot be measured. The pH of ocean water varies from place to place. Rain is naturally acidic. That water becomes alkaline as it flow down creeks and rivers to the sea.

No argument given. Random numbers used as facts. Denial of math. Denial of chemistry. Denial of science.


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
31-08-2020 19:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
andeep wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
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.

Nothing but, dude. Nothing but.
andeep wrote:
Nor are historical records of temperature based on faith or even observations that were made at that time.

No one has ever measure the temperature of the Earth. It's not possible to do so.
andeep wrote:
Historical records of temperature are based on the geological record, in particular measurements of isotopes in ice cores.

Ice cores do not measure temperature. Science does not use proxies. Their use requires preconclusions.
andeep wrote:
They are no less reliable than carbon dating.

Both are unreliable. Neither have anything to do with each other. Buzzword fallacy.
andeep wrote:
Of course they won't be as precise as if someone used thermometers at the time, but given the timescale I believe they are precise enough.

Random number. What is 'precise enough'? How is it determined? Please show all your work.
andeep wrote:
I just want to make another comment though about why a few degrees change in temperature can be serious.
...deleted story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears...

A fairy tale has nothing to do with the unknown temperature of the Earth, Venus, Mars, or any other planet.


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
31-08-2020 19:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
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

Mantra 16a.
tmiddles wrote:
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?

Mantras 25g...25c...the temperature of Venus is unknown.

Summarily dismissed IAW Tmiddles ordinance #1.
No argument presented. Fixation. Denial of math. Denial of science. RQAA.


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
31-08-2020 19:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted Mantras 25g...25c..20a1...20a2...20a4...15b...IAW Tmiddle ordinance #1.

No argument presented. Denial of math. Denial of science. Spam.


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
31-08-2020 19:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
andeep wrote:
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.

A gas not will radiate more than it absorbed, nor will a colder gas heat a warmer surface.
You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


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
02-09-2020 03:29
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
Into the Night wrote:...nor will a colder gas heat a warmer surface....
The reason ITN has to write that out himself, as opposed to quoting it, is that no one is every saying that.

the SUN is the only thing warming Earth.

Just the SUN.

Keep pretending anyone is saying otherwise. It's always easier to defeat made up arguments.
02-09-2020 03:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7466)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:...nor will a colder gas heat a warmer surface....
The reason ITN has to write that out himself, as opposed to quoting it, is that no one is every saying that.

the SUN is the only thing warming Earth.

Just the SUN.

Doublespeak. The conclusion of your argument has the cooler atmosphere warming the surface. You don't write the two parts of your argument together because it would make your insane gibberish immediately obvious.

Why do you EVADE the question of earth's daytime oceans not boiling away when the atmosphereless moon reaches daytime temperatures well in excess of water's boiling point?

Why do you EVADE essentially all questions put to you?


.


Could I get you to answer a few of the questions that remain unanswered? I'll post them here for your convenience. Just put your answers in red text. Branner won't mind if you answer some questions in this thread that don't pertain to the OP. He understands your answers as nonetheless being respectful to the thread.

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]
16) Which type of wood are you claiming melts (assuming the proper temperature and pressure) ... and what is that specific temperature and pressure? [Status: Unanswered]



.


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
Edited on 02-09-2020 03:42
02-09-2020 05:28
James___
★★★★★
(3173)
Why are we talking about Venus when we're debating climate change?
Anyone got a pic of Mercury? I found nothing about Mercury that's worth sharing except for cars and music.
Attached image:


Edited on 02-09-2020 05:41
02-09-2020 05:45
James___
★★★★★
(3173)
I spoke to soon. Some might think that Mercury is hotter. My bad.


p.s., either way, I'm right and it feels sooo good.

Attached image:


Edited on 02-09-2020 05:46
02-09-2020 10:44
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
IBdaMann wrote:...your argument has the cooler atmosphere warming the surface.
Quote me.
02-09-2020 15:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7466)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...your argument has the cooler atmosphere warming the surface.
Quote me.

Waste of time. You'll just point to one of your numerous self-contradictions and claim that you said "the exact opposite."

All I need to do is point to your denial of the daytime side of the moon.

Done. Your argument sounds pretty stupid when I put it in those terms.
Attached image:

03-09-2020 01:43
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Quote me.

Waste of time.
Then you got nothing.
03-09-2020 04:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Quote me.

Waste of time.
Then you got nothing.


Inversion fallacy. Void argument fallacy.


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
Page 28 of 28<<<262728





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

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Why can't you say Venus is hotter than Mercury because Venus got CO2?12919-12-2019 17:10
I don't believe CO2 makes air hotter because I don't see any experimental proof509-10-2019 03:15
The only straw the Church of AGW can grasp is Venus8826-09-2019 05:49
The only straw the Church of AGW can grasp is Venus and Mercury418-09-2019 22:37
There is no evidence water vapor makes things hotter018-09-2019 21:34
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact