Venus is hotter than Mercury?!?

keepit wrote:
There's a lot of evidence Mars had a lot of water.

keepit wrote:
That being the case, it must have had a lot of atmosphere or it couldn't have had the water for a length of time.

keepit wrote:
Mars lost so much of its atmosphere because it cooled and lost its magnetosphere and then it became vulnerable to the solar wind which blew away its atmosphere

tmiddles wrote:

keepit wrote:
Mars lost so much of its atmosphere because it cooled and lost its magnetosphere and then it became vulnerable to the solar wind which blew away its atmosphere

Is this the theory on what happened billions of years ago?

tmiddles wrote:

keepit wrote:
Mars lost so much of its atmosphere because it cooled and lost its magnetosphere and then it became vulnerable to the solar wind which blew away its atmosphere

Is this the theory on what happened billions of years ago?

James___ wrote:but I'm not you guys.

James___ wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

keepit wrote:
Mars lost so much of its atmosphere because it cooled and lost its magnetosphere and then it became vulnerable to the solar wind which blew away its atmosphere

Is this the theory on what happened billions of years ago?

What you might want to consider is if gravity is relative inversely to the distance from the Sun. And if not, then why? This does get into the heart of physics.
I'll give you something to consider. Inside the asteroid belt, rock type planets. Outside of it gas type planets. Is it possible the asteroid belt exists because it is neither? If it couldn't be both, then what would it be?
Does it matter? I think it does but I'm not you guys.

tmiddles wrote:

James___ wrote:but I'm not you guys.

What do you mean by that James? Trust me NO ONE here has any real scientific chops. That is abundantly clear. I include myself.

keepit wrote:
TMID,
Yes, as i understand it, this what happened about 4 billion years ago.

keepit wrote:
TMID,
Yes, as i understand it, this what happened about 4 billion years ago.

tmiddles wrote:

James___ wrote:but I'm not you guys.

What do you mean by that James? Trust me NO ONE here has any real scientific chops. That is abundantly clear. I include myself.

James___ wrote: You don't wonder why Venus like Mars has a lower gravity than the Earth.

keepit wrote:
Venus' atmosphere produces a magnetosphere

tmiddles wrote:

James___ wrote: You don't wonder why Venus like Mars has a lower gravity than the Earth.

Well it's clearly not just about gravity. I wonder if there are theories as to why Venus has so much CO2 but I'm guessing it's the volume and weight of the gas. Gravity isn't creating a massive effect if it's not pulling down on something massive right?

keepit wrote:there isn't a dynamo inside venus.

James___ wrote:
That's a mistake that scientists might have made.

tmiddles wrote: Trust me...

tmiddles wrote: NO ONE here has any real scientific chops.

James___ wrote:That's a mistake that scientists might have made. Can you consider the difference between the Sun's gravity which is to the 26th power and that of the Earth? What if Venus gravity is in between those 2 values?

All that would prove is that the gravitational effect increases as we move closer to the Sun. It might be true of any mass. Why inverse^2 would matter.
That seems to make the most sense.

tmiddles wrote:

James___ wrote:
That's a mistake that scientists might have made.

Well the advantage we have with most of our own solar system is we've physically visited them to take direct measurements. In orbit I think giving us enough to work with. Actually landing on Venus and those shown below!:

James___ wrote:
I am disappointed in you.

tmiddles wrote:

James___ wrote:
I am disappointed in you.

Oh I'm not visiting these planets personally James. However we can measure the gravity exerted on the probes we've sent directly. We don't have to rely on what we think the gravitational pull might be.

So the gravity has been confirmed and so we have a high degree of confidence that "science" got it right.

James___ wrote:
And scientists have used the period between 1950 and 1980 as the baseline for global warming

tmiddles wrote:

James___ wrote:
And scientists have used the period between 1950 and 1980 as the baseline for global warming

James you're jumping around a bit with subject matter.

That's a different topic but I would agree with that assessment. My Tangiers island topic was premised on just that. There was clearly warming, sea level rise, and all those goodies prior to the past 50 years of CO2 spiking.

James___ wrote:
Wasn't jumping around. Just showing where some will accept answers that fit no discernable pattern.

keepit wrote:
Magnetospheres are a little mysterious.
They result from a magnetic dynamo deep inside the planet. I'm not sure why there isn't a dynamo inside venus.
Much of Earth's CO2 is sequestered underground because of plate tectonics. That is one big factor but i'm not sure if it accounts for the huge difference in the quantity of CO2 in the atmospheres of earth and venus.

James___ wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

James___ wrote: You don't wonder why Venus like Mars has a lower gravity than the Earth.

Well it's clearly not just about gravity. I wonder if there are theories as to why Venus has so much CO2 but I'm guessing it's the volume and weight of the gas. Gravity isn't creating a massive effect if it's not pulling down on something massive right?

That's a mistake that scientists might have made. Can you consider the difference between the Sun's gravity which is to the 26th power and that of the Earth? What if Venus gravity is in between those 2 values?
All that would prove is that the gravitational effect increases as we move closer to the Sun. It might be true of any mass. Why inverse^2 would matter.
That seems to make the most sense.

tmiddles wrote:

James___ wrote:
That's a mistake that scientists might have made.

Well the advantage we have with most of our own solar system is we've physically visited them to take direct measurements. In orbit I think giving us enough to work with. Actually landing on Venus and those shown below!:

James___ wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

James___ wrote:
That's a mistake that scientists might have made.

Well the advantage we have with most of our own solar system is we've physically visited them to take direct measurements. In orbit I think giving us enough to work with. Actually landing on Venus and those shown below!:

I am disappointed in you. The question wasn't what Venus looks like. It might actually demonstrate gravity's true nature. If you consider Mars, it's not that it had water in the past but could have more in the future. In a sense perspectives like yours treats gravity like it suffers entropy. The laws of thermodynamics requires that all forces of nature suffers entropy. Gravity does not.
Still, maybe you'll consider it.

James___ wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

James___ wrote:
I am disappointed in you.

Oh I'm not visiting these planets personally James. However we can measure the gravity exerted on the probes we've sent directly. We don't have to rely on what we think the gravitational pull might be.

So the gravity has been confirmed and so we have a high degree of confidence that "science" got it right.

And scientists have used the period between 1950 and 1980 as the baseline for global warming because no warming occurred while CO2 levels were rising. As you say, "science" got it right.
Scientists changed that to the 20th Century. The warning from 1910 to 1945 was the same as from 1978 to 2008. During the earlier period CO2 levels rose by only 10 ppm. That's too inconsistent to say that the same causes were responsible.
You did answer something. Pictures are what matters. Why not understand the situation?
Sadly I cannot accept that a planet with less gravity than the Earth can have 90 times it's atmospheric pressure. That really does not allow for cause and effect either.

tmiddles wrote:

James___ wrote:
And scientists have used the period between 1950 and 1980 as the baseline for global warming

James you're jumping around a bit with subject matter.

That's a different topic but I would agree with that assessment. My Tangiers island topic was premised on just that. There was clearly warming, sea level rise, and all those goodies prior to the past 50 years of CO2 spiking.

James___ wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

James___ wrote:
And scientists have used the period between 1950 and 1980 as the baseline for global warming

James you're jumping around a bit with subject matter.

That's a different topic but I would agree with that assessment. My Tangiers island topic was premised on just that. There was clearly warming, sea level rise, and all those goodies prior to the past 50 years of CO2 spiking.

Wasn't jumping around.

James___ wrote:
Just showing where some will accept answers that fit no discernable pattern.

James___ wrote:
Science is kind of based on cause and effect.

James___ wrote:
At least with Einstein.

James___ wrote:
Why his work was ground breaking.

James___ wrote:
It showed a pattern of behavior that had been missing in science.

tmiddles wrote:

James___ wrote:
Wasn't jumping around. Just showing where some will accept answers that fit no discernable pattern.

Oh OK that's very on topic actually. The thing about the news, water cooler talk or the word on the street when it comes to anything scientific is that things which are known with a high degree of confidence and things that are very speculative get put on the same level of validity.

Some choose to take all of it and say it's a fact others throw it all out dismissing it as speculation. Really there should always be a mention of the confidence we can have in the conclusion.

We KNOW the basic facts of temperature, air pressure, gravity, distance, and all of the things a probe can measure about Venus because we have visited the planet multiple times from several countries to gather that data.

We speculate about what might have happened to the planets billions of years ago.

James___ wrote:
[ some will accept answers

tmiddles wrote:

James___ wrote:
[ some will accept answers

And it is cool we have photos! I didn't know we'd landed on nonplanets too.

tmiddles wrote:My Tangiers island topic was premised on just that. There was clearly warming, sea level rise, and all those goodies prior to the past 50 years of CO2 spiking.

James___ wrote: Wasn't jumping around.

James___ wrote: Science is kind of based on cause and effect.

tmiddles wrote:Oh OK that's very on topic actually. The thing about the news, water cooler talk or the word on the street when it comes to anything scientific is that things which are known with a high degree of confidence and things that are very speculative get put on the same level of validity.

tmiddles wrote: Some choose to take all of it and say it's a fact others throw it all out dismissing it as speculation.

tmiddles wrote: Really there should always be a mention of the confidence we can have in the conclusion.

tmiddles wrote: We KNOW the basic facts of temperature, air pressure, gravity, distance, and all of the things a probe can measure about Venus because we have visited the planet multiple times from several countries to gather that data.

tmiddles wrote: We speculate about what might have happened to the planets billions of years ago.