Remember me
▼ Content

Venus is hotter than Mercury?!?



Page 5 of 28<<<34567>>>
23-07-2019 02:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
keepit wrote:
There's a lot of evidence Mars had a lot of water.
None. The only water on Mars is a very small amount of ice at each pole.
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.
It never had a lot of water.


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
23-07-2019 02:15
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
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?
23-07-2019 02:56
James___
★★★★★
(3169)
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.
23-07-2019 03:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
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?


Yes. A nonscientific theory.


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
23-07-2019 03:20
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
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.
23-07-2019 03:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
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.

Word salad.


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
23-07-2019 03:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
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.


Argument of the stone 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
23-07-2019 03:22
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
TMID,
Yes, as i understand it, this what happened about 4 billion years ago.
23-07-2019 03:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
keepit wrote:
TMID,
Yes, as i understand it, this what happened about 4 billion years ago.


And how did Mars acquire this atmosphere, with such a low gravity? Where did all that water go?


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
Edited on 23-07-2019 03:24
23-07-2019 03:28
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
keepit wrote:
TMID,
Yes, as i understand it, this what happened about 4 billion years ago.


Very cool! It's interesting to think that there could have been life on another planet but we're a billion years late in meeting them.
23-07-2019 03:41
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
There may be subterranean life on mars now.
The planet is releasing methane which gets broken down quickly by the sun so any methane that is in the atmosphere is of recent origin. There are generally 3 sources of methane, the soil itself but that is discounted because of lack of evidence, volcanoes but that is discounted because of lack of recent volcanoes, and life (as in cows for example). No cows but there could be subterranean bacteria releasing great amounts of methane. The supporting fact is that the methane is seasonal which may indicate bacteria that flourish in certain season because of temp and die off at different seasons because of temp.
Edited on 23-07-2019 04:02
23-07-2019 03:44
James___
★★★★★
(3169)
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.



You don't wonder why Venus like Mars has a lower gravity than the Earth. All the while it's atmospheric pressure is 90 times as much. Since Venus' atmosphere is 97% CO2, that explains everything, right? If it doesn't then Venus can't be compared to the Earth.
23-07-2019 03:46
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
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?
23-07-2019 03:50
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
Venus' gravity is about the same as earth's but much more than mars'.
Venus' atmosphere produces a magnetosphere due to an interaction between the sun and the atmosphere. The magnetosphere prevents venus' atmosphere from being blown away by the solar wind.
This brings up the question, "Why doesn't mars have that same interaction producing a magnetosphere?"
I don't know but it may be due to its proximity from the sun - mars is much farther from the sun than venus.
23-07-2019 03:54
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
keepit wrote:
Venus' atmosphere produces a magnetosphere


Other way around?:
Why doesn't Venus have a magnetosphere?
23-07-2019 04:01
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
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.
23-07-2019 04:46
James___
★★★★★
(3169)
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.
23-07-2019 04:47
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
keepit wrote:there isn't a dynamo inside venus.


yeah one more of those crazy variables that we have going for us on Earth.
23-07-2019 04:54
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
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!:

23-07-2019 05:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
tmiddles wrote: Trust me...

Who would be stupid enough to do that? You are nothing but a scientifically illiterate source of international misinformation.

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

This coming from the scientifically illiterate moron who can't tell who is teaching science and who is preaching WACKY religious dogma. This from the guy who will believe and promulgate any egregious error, fallacy or contradiction as long as it's written in Wikipedia.

You are so insecure and conscientious about being a moron that you have developed a compulsion to declare everyone else morons in order to make yourself feel better.


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
23-07-2019 05:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
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.

It makes no sense.

The sun's gravity is not "to the 26th power."

The constant of gravity does not change with proximity to the sun, nor does the theory of gravity.

Inverse-squared has nothing to do with gravity; it pertains to electromagnetic radiation.


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
23-07-2019 05:55
James___
★★★★★
(3169)
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.
23-07-2019 06:01
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
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.
23-07-2019 06:31
James___
★★★★★
(3169)
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.
23-07-2019 06:35
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
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.
23-07-2019 06:51
James___
★★★★★
(3169)
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. Just showing where some will accept answers that fit no discernable pattern. Science is kind of based on cause and effect. At least with Einstein. Why his work was ground breaking. It showed a pattern of behavior that had been missing in science.
23-07-2019 07:06
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
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.
Edited on 23-07-2019 07:26
23-07-2019 09:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
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.


Not really mysterious at all. Either a planet has one or it doesn't. Neither Venus nor Mars has a magnetic field.


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
23-07-2019 09:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
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.


Nope. The gravity of Venus is strictly due to its mass.


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
23-07-2019 09:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
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!:



And we still don't know the temperature of Venus.


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
23-07-2019 09:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
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.

The laws of thermodynamics have nothing to do with forces of nature. Neither does entropy.


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
23-07-2019 09:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
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.


It doesn't matter what you accept. It is what it is.
It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 concentration.


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
23-07-2019 09:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
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.


Define 'global warming'. It is not possible to measure the global sea level. You have no reference point.

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content. You are just making shit up 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
23-07-2019 09:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
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.

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

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

WRONG. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
James___ wrote:
At least with Einstein.
Einstein didn't change a thing about what science is.
James___ wrote:
Why his work was ground breaking.
But not for those reasons.
James___ wrote:
It showed a pattern of behavior that had been missing in science.
WRONG. Behavior patterns are not science and Einstein never addressed them.


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
23-07-2019 09:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
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.

There's the key word right there: speculate. That means you're GUESSING. It has nothing to do with 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
23-07-2019 10:00
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
James___ wrote:
[ some will accept answers


And it is cool we have photos! I didn't know we'd landed on nonplanets too.
23-07-2019 19:33
James___
★★★★★
(3169)
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.


Off topic but I got interested in the science aspect because I think carbon capture technology can be improved. People aren't into stuff like that.
23-07-2019 19:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
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.

You've got to be joking. You have never seen any valid datasets showing any "global warming," any "sea level rise," or any other Climate Change "goodies."

There is absolutely nothing "clear" about your WACKY faith-based contentions.


Oh, and you still haven't defined your terms.


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
23-07-2019 19:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
James___ wrote: Wasn't jumping around.

Yes you were ... very incoherently.

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

Science is based entirely on cause -> effect. Science exists to predict nature, i.e. what causes will have what effects.


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 23-07-2019 19:40
23-07-2019 19:54
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
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.

Only amongst the scientifically illiterate who need others to do their thinking for them. All people are free to look at relevant science and see what it says; science speaks for itself.

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

Then there are yet others who look up the science and find out what it says.

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

For the scientifically illiterate they can be 100% certain that they are to obey the conclusions they are told to believe, and those who take a moment to see what the science says become 100% certain of what the science actually says.

It's funny how that works.

In any event, there is always 100% certainty ... of something.


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.

We only know the measurements and we each speculate as to the accuracy of those measurements since no probe can be calibrated after it has left the launch pad. The list of things that affect calibration is endless, including everything involved in space transport but primarily acoustics, temperature and rate of temperature change.

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

... and everyone speculates a bit differently, based on their opinions, biases and agendas.

.


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
Page 5 of 28<<<34567>>>





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