Venus is hotter than Mercury?!?

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Venus is hotter than Mercury?!? > Page 13

Page 13 of 28

17-02-2020 15:09
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: For the sake of discussion let's consider a Venus with a 262C ground level temperature ... Sure. For a discussion, great!. Excellent! Now can we agree that the distance of Venus to the Sun and the radiance of the Sun can be reasonably approximated? Sure, let's presume that, for discussion of course. Look, I'm going to take a pass on arithmetic and just go with the numbers you generate. But I have to ask ... why the "one step at a time" routine? That's my red flag of an impending "Gotcha!" attempt that is based on a math error or a semantic goalpost shift, you know, like one of those "find the hidden error" puzzles. Subduction Zone operated exclusively in this mode, and if either Into the Night or I were to ask for the entire argument to simply be presented in its entirety then he would "declare" us to be "not serious about honestly discussing the topic" and whenever we would get to the error and immediately point it out, he would claim that we had conceded his point and that we were "running away" from the argument. 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
17-02-2020 21:49
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: why the "one step at a time" routine? . It is helpful in isolating the actual point of debate. This is particularly important when the definitions of words can't be looked up to clarify meaning. So the radiance coming from the sun, along with the distance to the sun, allows us to calculate the energy a planet is receiving. https://www.astro.princeton.edu/~strauss/FRS113/writeup3/ http://burro.case.edu/Academics/Astr221/SolarSys/equiltemp.html It shows us that "the equilibrium temperature of Venus = 260 K."
17-02-2020 22:14
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: why the "one step at a time" routine? . It is helpful in isolating the actual point of debate. Not for me it isn't. If you give me the entire spiel it will take me a whole three seconds to find your error ... eight seconds if you have multiple errors. This is an attempt at a GOTCHA! isn't it? tmiddles wrote: So the radiance coming from the sun, along with the distance to the sun, allows us to calculate the energy a planet is receiving. Yes, along with the inverse square you can calculate the POWER that is INCIDENT to the planet. If you had the emissivity you could calculate the planet's average temperature. . 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
17-02-2020 22:47
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: This is an attempt at a GOTCHA! isn't it? There aren't any basics you're unaware of, this is only about the basics, but you've never been willing to talk about Venus before. So no I don't really think this is a "Gotcha" more of a "What have you been thinking?" IBdaMann wrote: If you had the emissivity you could calculate the planet's average temperature. Now here I'm sure you'd agree, based on our previous discussions, is a much confused term "the planet". You average person assuming that's only the bit they are standing on, but you and I both understanding it's the whole of the planet which includes it's atmosphere (and a molten core that can be, for practical purposes, ignored). Now as emissivity has a maximum value of 1.0 (or all of it) and Venus has such conveniently large numbers we can use a maximum emissivity of 1.0 can we not? Since the question here is how Venus manages to exceed a temperature then a maximum works right? Basically we've established a very conservative minimum temperature for the ground level of Venus and we can use a maximum emissivity of 1.0 for the equilibrium temperature of the entire surface (which on Venus is almost all atmosphere) of the planet right? Edited on 17-02-2020 22:50
18-02-2020 04:44
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: Now here I'm sure you'd agree, based on our previous discussions, is a much confused term "the planet". Not so much "confused" as dishonest. A "planet" is just another body. You don't get to subdivide it if you wish to use physics. tmiddles wrote: Now as emissivity has a maximum value of 1.0 (or all of it) and Venus has such conveniently large numbers we can use a maximum emissivity of 1.0 can we not? We can pretend, yes. Hypotheticals for the sake of discussion are what we're all about, right? Of course you and I both know that we do not know Venus' emissivity. tmiddles wrote: Since the question here is how Venus manages to exceed a temperature then a maximum works right? But this is where I take three seconds to realize that you are conflating a body's average temperature (singular) with potential temperatures (plural) within a spectrum of temperatures at the bottom of the atmosphere. Then Into the Night jumps in and mocks me for being slow and taking way too long. tmiddles wrote: Basically we've established a very conservative minimum temperature for the ground level of Venus ... ... and what were you imagining we were going to accomplish by discussing temperatures at the bottom of an atmosphere? Oh, and which temperature were you planning on discussing? tmiddles wrote:and we can use a maximum emissivity of 1.0 for the equilibrium temperature of the entire surface (which on Venus is almost all atmosphere) of the planet right? Nope. You want to talk about temperatures at the bottom of a (gas) atmosphere. Emissivity does not really come into play as much as the ideal gas law. This is some of what you'll need: Pressure * Volume = Amount_of_Substance * Ideal_Constant * Temperature ... or ... Temperature = (Pressure * Volume)/(Amount_of_Substance * Ideal Constant) . 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

18-02-2020 06:35
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: ...a much confused term "the planet". Not so much "confused" as dishonest. I don't think people are being dishonest when they focus on the ground. Just a human tendency to focus on our own experience. There's also the added confusion of "Earth" also meaning dirt. Doesn't matter though as we're both clear on this (or of this). IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: ...Venus ...we can use a maximum emissivity of 1.0 can we not? We can pretend, yes. Hypotheticals for the sake of discussion are what we're all about, right? Of course you and I both know that we do not know Venus' emissivity. True we do not know it with infinite precision. We know it's not more than 1.0. It's approximated here that the Albedo is 0.75 (so an emissivity of just 0.25): https://www.universetoday.com/36833/albedo-of-venus/ But again, for the purposes of this particular discussion we'll say it's 1.0. IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Since the question here is how Venus manages to exceed a temperature then a maximum works right? ...you are conflating a body's average temperature (singular) with potential temperatures (plural) within a spectrum of temperatures at the bottom of the atmosphere. You'll be free to do that sure. May we proceed though? We are in agreement it's safe to say that there is a 200C margin of error on the temperature measured at the "bottom of the atmosphere" or the "ground level", depending on your preference in describing that portion of Venus. IBdaMann wrote:You want to talk about temperatures at the bottom of a (gas) atmosphere. Emissivity does not really come into play as much as the ideal gas law. That certainly sounds right to me. Estimates are that only about 6% of the sun's radiance reaches "bottom of the atmosphere"/"ground level" so I don't think the emissivity of dirt on Venus matters much. But then we don't care anyway because we're just slapping a 1.0 emissivity on this to play it safe. Good so far? (and I'm not trying to be overly incremental but you had a pretty lengthy response to my last step forward so I don't want to miss anything important). For Venus we have the distance from the sun is 0.72 AU AU is 1.0 for Earth of course and 1.0 AU is 1.510^8KM So Venus is 1.0810^8KM from the Sun. To calculate the "surface" temperature of a body receiving a particular radiance from the sun, and emitting that same amount, in equilibrium, ("the equilibrium temperature") we use the formula found here:link1 link2 T = (temperature of the sun)1.0(full emissivity)^1/4 [(radius of sun)/2distance from the sun]^1/2 Or 5770K1.0[(710^5)/[2(1.0810^8)]]^0.5 5770*(7/2160)^0.5=328K So that's means that a black body with emissivity 1.0, the same distance from the Sun as Venus, would have an equilibrium "surface" temperature of 328K This is consistent with the high albedo figure of 260K that is the going estimate for the equilibrium temperature for Venus. Now neither of us is confused about the "surface" not being an equivalent meaning to what Venera landed on. The ground level or "bottom of the atmosphere" is NOT the surface in the equation above. Obviously it's not! Since even with our 200 degree margin of error the "bottom of the atmosphere" is at least a wopping 535K, some 207 degrees above the black body temp of 328. Good so far? Edited on 18-02-2020 07:08
18-02-2020 17:00
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote:Good so far? Unfortunately no. There are a few things we need to clear up. tmiddles wrote: I don't think people are being dishonest when they focus on the ground. It is dishonesty anytime someone insists on continuing to subdivide the body after I have explained multiple times why it cannot be done while using blackbody models. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Of course you and I both know that we do not know Venus' emissivity. True we do not know it with infinite precision. Anytime you try to slip in qualifiers like this we have to stop, back up and address them. Not only do we not know Venus' emissivity to infinite precision, we do not know it to any usable accuracy. At this point you must choose. You either need to state unequivocally that you agree ... or you need to elaborate on the value and margin of error that is "known" by providing the valid datasets that support your conclusion. What will it be? Also, accuracy and precision are not the same thing. If you are in the bad habit of writing "precision" when you mean "accuracy" then I recommend you drop it. I'll save you the time of researching the difference if you don't know. Accuracy is how closely our measure is to reality. Precision is the number of decimal places to which we can measure. You can have measurements that are extremely precise and horrendously inaccurate and vice-versa. Example: Let's say a particular temperature is actually 77.2994641222367898754897 deg You get two measures from two different sources: Source A: 73.189009754224 Source B: 77.3 Source A is extremely precise, but its inaccuracy makes it unusable. Source B is spot on ... it just isn't very precise. tmiddles wrote: We know it's not more than 1.0. Yes, a theoretical limit in blackbody science, which implies equilibrium unless shown otherwise. tmiddles wrote: It's approximated here that the Albedo is 0.75 (so an emissivity of just 0.25) ... but the building custodian here recommends an emissivity of 0.64, so maybe we should go with that because, after all, he is a building custodian, and no one knows more about the emissivity of Venus than a building custodian. tmiddles wrote: But again, for the purposes of this particular discussion we'll say it's 1.0. OK, I am suspending disbelief as I write this. tmiddles wrote: We are in agreement it's safe to say that there is a 200C margin of error on the temperature measured at the "bottom of the atmosphere" or the "ground level", depending on your preference in describing that portion of Venus. This is when I reiterate that if you are going to subdivide the body and discuss temperatures at the bottom of an atmosphere then "emissivity" and "blackbody science" will not be used. You will be using the ideal gas law: Pressure * Volume = Substance_Amount * Temperature * Ideal_Const tmiddles wrote: That certainly sounds right to me. Estimates are that only about 6% of the sun's radiance reaches "bottom of the atmosphere"/"ground level" so I don't think the emissivity of dirt on Venus matters much. It doesn't matter at all. The 2nd law of thermodynamics takes care of that. tmiddles wrote: Good so far? So I'm glancing at your math and it doesn't look right. I'm expecting a "divide by distance-squared", i.e. inverse square law, i.e. multiply by distance^(-2) T = (temperature of the sun)1.0(full emissivity)^1/4 [(radius of sun)/2distance from the sun]^1/2 I'm not expecting to see that "^1/2" at the end there, but rather a "^2" In fact, I think you might have compounded the error in your overall ratio ... and this is why I hate the arithmetic part. I recommend you go over it again and start with all the parts rather than rushing to simplify. Body's Singular Temperature* = { [ Incident_Power * Distance^(-2) ] / Stefan-Boltzmann-Constant }^(1/4) Once you get this worked out, I'm eager to see how you plan on tying this to the Ideal Gas Law and surface temperatures. . 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
18-02-2020 23:26
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:...subdivide the body after I have explained...slip in qualifiers ...accuracy and precision... emissivity of 0.64... Worthy of discussion for sure but I think we can set those aside momentarily in the interests of focus. IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: But again, for the purposes of this particular discussion we'll say it's 1.0. OK, I am suspending disbelief as I write this. It does not require disbelief to recognize an upper or lower limit. Of course we are not saying the emissivity of Venus is in actuality 1.0, we are simply using that upper limit in our calculation for "It cannot be more than this, no way". IBdaMann wrote: I'm not expecting to see that "^1/2" at the end there, but rather a "^2" Take a look at the links. I was attempting to represent the math in pure ASCII and so maybe things came across wrong. I believe I got the correct result. link1 link2 IBdaMann wrote: Body's Singular Temperature = { [ Incident_Power * Distance^(-2) ] / Stefan-Boltzmann-Constant }^(1/4) Fully recognized this is calculating for the singular, unsubdivided, "surface" temperature of a body. This has nothing to do specifically with the temperature at a particular location other than the "surface" which would be the matter which is radiating directly into space, which is NOT the dirt, or very bottom of the atmosphere of Venus. As for the math they are showing temp of sun * [area of sun / 2Distance]^(-2) maybe thats basically [ Incident_Power Distance^(-2) ] Edited on 19-02-2020 00:07
19-02-2020 01:51
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: Fully recognized this is calculating for the singular, unsubdivided, "surface" temperature of a body. This has nothing to do specifically with the temperature at a particular location other than the "surface" which would be the matter which is radiating directly into space, which is NOT the dirt, or very bottom of the atmosphere of Venus. Yes it is. At this point you are subdividing. You need to completely forget about trying to figure out what radiates directly into space. Some dirt does. Some atmosphere at 2km AGL does. Forget about it. All you have is the "body" and it radiates directly into space. The body will manage to do that without you trying to track every photon. Just stick with "the body." Just let the body hit the flo'. tmiddles wrote:As for the math they are showing temp of sun * [area of sun / 2Distance]^(-2) maybe thats basically [ Incident_Power Distance^(-2) ] p.s. - do you know to what the phrase "suspension of disbelief" refers? . 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
19-02-2020 02:03
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: Just stick with "the body." It certainly matters what the surface is and is not but for now we can set that aside. IBdaMann wrote:... the phrase "suspension of disbelief" refers? I usually use that phrase in reference to a film I can choose to forget is not real. We are employing the maximum emissivity and a very wide margin of error for the ground level temp to have the lowest ground level temperature, to ensure that the disparity is one we can be confident in. So an "avoidance of critical thinking or logic" as "suspension of disbelief" is sometimes defined, is not appropriate. So 328K as the upper limit for the equilibrium temperature for Venus the planet and a mean temp of 535K as the lower limit for just the "bottom of the atmosphere"/"ground level" are reasonable than correct? We can say that we are confident there is at least a 207 degree gap between the equilibrium temperature and the ground level temperature. Edited on 19-02-2020 02:31
19-02-2020 02:36
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Just stick with "the body." It certainly matters what the surface is and is not but for now we can set that aside. Tell me, in what way does this "concern" actually matter? I'd like to know of any physics violations for which I should be watching. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:... the phrase "suspension of disbelief" refers? I usually use that phrase in reference to a film I can choose to forget is not real. Right. Exactly. Even though there is no such thing as a body of 1.0 emissivity, for purposes of this discussion I am willing to "suspend disbelief" and press on. tmiddles wrote: So 328K as the upper limit for the equilibrium temperature and 535K as the lower limit for the "bottom of the atmosphere"/"ground level" are reasonable than correct? No, at least not yet. You were going to show me how you plan on tying in the Ideal Gas Law to establish the temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere. As it stands, you just fabricated a temperature. . 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
19-02-2020 02:46
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:...I am willing to "suspend disbelief" and press on. I don't know what you mean when you say that. How are you defining it? IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: So 328K as the upper limit for the equilibrium temperature and 535K as the lower limit for the "bottom of the atmosphere"/"ground level" are reasonable than correct? No, at least not yet. You were going to show me how you plan on tying in the Ideal Gas Law to establish the temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere. As it stands, you just fabricated a temperature. How did I *fabricate* temperature? Also I am not making this so, we are working on what information we can be confident in. If you're suddenly saying you're not confident in it then say why.
19-02-2020 03:11
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...I am willing to "suspend disbelief" and press on. I don't know what you mean when you say that. How are you defining it? I don't know if you ever tried to watch The Hobbit but there are no such things as trolls and giant spiders and elves, among other things. If you can't suspend disbelief then you aren't going to enjoy the movie. I don't know if you ever tried to have a discussion about hypothetical things that don't really exist but if you can't suspend disbelief then you won't get very far at all. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: So 328K as the upper limit for the equilibrium temperature and 535K as the lower limit for the "bottom of the atmosphere"/"ground level" are reasonable than correct? No, at least not yet. You were going to show me how you plan on tying in the Ideal Gas Law to establish the temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere. As it stands, you just fabricated a temperature. How did I *fabricate* temperature? How did you calculate the temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere using the Ideal Gas Law? You didn't? Exactly. . 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
19-02-2020 03:33
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...I am willing to "suspend disbelief"... ...to have a discussion about hypothetical things that don't really exist... So Venus exists, the ground level/bottom of the atmosphere there exists, the measurements taken by three countries exist, the radiance of the sun exists, the size of the sun exists, the distance of Venus from the sun does as well, since Venus exists. What am I missing here? What is it you consider "fabricated"? or "don't really exist"? IBdaMann wrote: How did you calculate the temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere... I didn't calculate the temperature there at all. It was measured directly. We're giving a hilariously broad +/-200 degree margin of error on that measurement. Why are you trying to bring in a theory as to why that measurement is what it is before you even agree to the lower limit of the measurements margin of error? (which you'd already agreed to and seem to be backing out of now) You seem to be wondering "what I'm up to". It's simple: Venus has such extreme temperatures (and gas pressures) it allows us to discuss things with a huge margin of error. I fully admit we cannot assign a huge margin of error to Earth and have much of a debate about the physics of planetary temperature. So Venus presents an opportunity to discuss things beyond skepticism about measurement accuracy. It allows us to set aside "the temperature of _____ is not known". Edited on 19-02-2020 04:25
19-02-2020 04:56
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote:So Venus exists, the ground level/bottom of the atmosphere there exists, the measurements taken by three countries exist, the radiance of the sun exists, the size of the sun exists, the distance of Venus from the sun does as well, since Venus exists. What am I missing here? This is becoming absurd. You need to tell me what part of the following you simply cannot grasp ... and we'll work from there: IBDaMann wrote: Even though there is no such thing as a body of 1.0 emissivity, for purposes of this discussion I am willing to "suspend disbelief" and press on. I'm willing to go as slowly as you need. I have tried multiple times to explain this very straightforward concept multiple ways and I clearly have not met with success so you're going to have to work with me here. tmiddles wrote: I didn't calculate the temperature there at all. It was measured directly. OK. ... and we're also going with the Wikipedia claim that Venus is of uniform temperature, yes? tmiddles wrote: It allows us to set aside "the temperature of _____ is not known". I'm wondering how you are going to get there with such a huge margin of error, but I have already suspended my disbelief for this discussion so keep pressing on ... . 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

19-02-2020 05:17
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: OK. ... and we're also going with the Wikipedia claim that Venus is of uniform temperature, yes? Not at all. Venus was measured directly and the figure provided is ~462C for the ground level (and it was this temperature every time it was measured, day or night, with freakish consistency, again, according to those who gathered the data). We are saying, no it's not going to be 462.00000C on every portion of the planet we can't assume that at all. We can assume that there is a +/- 200 degree margin of error on the mean ground level temp though. So we are not saying it's 462C on the nose, we are confident the mean ground level (bottom of the atmosphere) temperature of Venus is between 262C and 662C. Why such a huge margin of error? Why not. For the purposes of our initial discussion it will work. We can talk about a more reasoned margin in the future should the need arise. Nothing at all is coming from Wikipedia in that. IBdaMann wrote:...I have already suspended my disbelief... You seem intent on not defining that here. Do you or do you not consider it to be beyond your own reasonable doubt (You I mean, your own belief) that the mean ground level temperature of Venus is somewhere between 262C and 662C ? Would you like me to go over all of the direct measurements taken? Or maybe you'd like a 250 degree margin? Edited on 19-02-2020 05:36
19-02-2020 16:27
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote:So we are not saying it's 462C on the nose, we are confident the mean ground level (bottom of the atmosphere) temperature of Venus is between 262C and 662C. OK. Sure. I'd like to ask if we need to use the word "mean"? Is it not sufficient to say that if we were to send another probe with perfect temperature-measuring accuracy to Venus' surface, i.e. any arbitrary point at the bottom of the atmosphere, that we would expect a temperature between 262C and 662C, and that we aren't going to make any claims about any "mean" temperature? tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...I have already suspended my disbelief... You seem intent on not defining that here. Do you or do you not consider it to be beyond your own reasonable doubt (You I mean, your own belief) that the mean ground level temperature of Venus is somewhere between 262C and 662C ? I thought I had defined it and described in detail several times. I understand the scenario and I'm considering for the sake of argument an emissivity of 1.0 despite it being an unattainable theoretical limit ... let's press on. What does my unsuspended belief have to do with anything? . 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
19-02-2020 22:20
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: we would expect a temperature between 262C and 662C, and that we aren't going to make any claims about any "mean" temperature? To my thinking that is the same thing. Again we aren't saying we know what the mean is, or what temperature we would get other than to say it would be between 262 and 662. For the purposes of our discussion we are saying it is at least 262. IBdaMann wrote: I thought I had defined it and described in detail several times. I understand the scenario and I'm considering for the sake of argument an emissivity of 1.0 despite it being an unattainable theoretical limit ... let's press on. What does my unsuspended belief have to do with anything? You compared it to the Hobbit, Hobbit's being fictional, and said I fabricated numbers. That has nothing to do with what we are discussing. That Venus is real, that the temperature is over 262 at the bottom of the atmosphere, and that the emissivity is less than 1.0, are things we can be confident of. Again we are NOT saying Venus is 262.000C or that the emissivity is 1.00000, we are saying, rather, that the temperature is >262C and the emissivity is <1.0. The emissivity of 1.0 gives us an upper limit for the equilibrium temperature for the distance Venus is to the Sun of 328K / 55C. So with the 262C ground level minimum temperature (262-55=207) this is the what we can be confident of: Venus has a temperature at the bottom of it's atmosphere which is more than 200 degrees higher than the equilibrium temperature for the planet. This is something real we can be confident of. While the estimate is that the gap is 735-260= 475 degrees, it really doesn't matter. 100 would work. The bottom line is that the bottom of the atmosphere is a lot hotter than the equilibrium temperature. Also conveniently the air pressure is so incredibly huge (about 90 times our own) that for the purposes of ideal gas law we could assign a huge margin of error to that and still have more than enough confidence there is "enough" pressure. Good so far?
19-02-2020 23:35
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: we would expect a temperature between 262C and 662C, and that we aren't going to make any claims about any "mean" temperature? To my thinking that is the same thing. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: we would expect a temperature between 262C and 662C, and that we aren't going to make any claims about any "mean" temperature? Again we aren't saying we know what the mean is, or what temperature we would get other than to say it would be between 262 and 662. These are not the same. It appears that you completely agree with me that the word "mean" should be dropped to avoid confusion, yes? tmiddles wrote: For the purposes of our discussion we are saying it is at least 262. ... because our "purposes" are to build a GOTCHA! Look, I don't mind rolling with your scenario for discussion purposes ... but you are practically begging me to not give you any leeway in anything ... that I should nitpick everything lest you say "Nope, sorry, you already agreed to that and you can't go back on it now ... so Gotcha!" Why is our purpose suddenly to determine what the coldest possible temperature is? I don't recall that ever being our objective. Are there record cold temperatures on earth, in places like Antarctica, i.e. occasionally it gets far colder than normal for that time of year, perhaps due to a storm or something? Maybe there is a record cold temperature going on right now on Venus somewhere, getting down to a freezing 198C. Is our purpose to decide what the coldest possible temperature can be or shall we limit our discussion to probabilities and expectations? tmiddles wrote: You compared [a theoretical limit that doesn't exist in nature] to the Hobbit Nope. You experienced a reading comprehension snafu. I compared the nonexistent 1.0 emissivity to nonexistent trolls and hobbits. Focus on "do not exist." Are you sure you know what "suspension of disbelief" means? I'm starting to think you don't. tmiddles wrote:Hobbit's being fictional, Hobbit's being nonexistent. Focus on "do not exist." Nor do cave trolls. tmiddles wrote:Again we are NOT saying Venus is 262.000C or that the emissivity is 1.00000, we are saying, rather, that the temperature is >262C and the emissivity is <1.0. Actually, this is NOT what we are saying. Correct me if I am mistaken but we ARE saying that there was a measurement of one spot at the bottom of Venus' atmosphere by a probe ... and that we are giving that measurement a wide berth due to severe potential calibration issues, yes? We are NOT saying that we somehow have a bajillion other measurements from all around the bottom of Venus' atmosphere. We ARE trying to determine the highest and lowest possible temperature for one particular spot at the bottom of Venus' atmosphere at that particular moment, but we are NOT claiming to know if that temperature was taken in the "summer" time and that we should expect much colder possible temperatures in that location at different times ... or if it was taken in a "winter" whereby our expectations should be of higher temperatures ... yes? tmiddles wrote: Venus has a temperature at the bottom of it's atmosphere which is more than 200 degrees higher than the equilibrium temperature for the planet. ... and Venus has a temperature high in the nighttime atmosphere that is 200C colder than the equilibrium temperature. What have we shown? tmiddles wrote: Also conveniently the air pressure is so incredibly huge (about 90 times our own) that for the purposes of ideal gas law we could assign a huge margin of error to that and still have more than enough confidence there is "enough" pressure. That's not the point. If you want to be working with actual values then you need to be able to show how you arrived at those values. I am merely suggesting that you utilize the Ideal Gas Law as a tool for giving some credibility to your numbers. tmiddles wrote: Good so far? We're awesome. . 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
19-02-2020 23:53
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:...you completely agree with me that the word "mean" should be dropped to avoid confusion, yes? Yes IBdaMann wrote:...I should nitpick everything lest you say "Nope, sorry, you already agreed to that and you can't go back on it now ... so Gotcha!" Not if you're confident you're right, which I think you are. So getting to the point is expedient. IBdaMann wrote:Why is our purpose suddenly to determine what the coldest possible temperature is? The purpose is to establish a disparity between the the temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere and the equilibrium temperature of the planet. So we are using the two extremes: Hottest possible equilibrium temp, and lowest possible ground level temp. Probabilities and expectations work here. Again I'm simply trying to have you confident in: Venus has a temperature at the bottom of it's atmosphere which is more than 200 degrees higher than the equilibrium temperature for the planet. So that we can move on with that as the premise. IBdaMann wrote: ...we ARE saying that there was a measurement of one spot at the bottom of Venus' atmosphere by a probe ... and that we are giving that measurement a wide berth due to severe potential calibration issues, yes? We are NOT saying that we somehow have a bajillion other measurements from all around the bottom of Venus' atmosphere.... So you would seem to be backing out of +/- 200 degree margin being something you're confident in. Do I really need to go back over how much time, how many moments, now many locations, are involved to get a +/- 200 degree margin ? IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Venus has a temperature at the bottom of it's atmosphere which is more than 200 degrees higher than the equilibrium temperature for the planet. ... and Venus has a temperature high in the nighttime atmosphere that is 200C colder than the equilibrium temperature. What have we shown? We've shown you really don't like giving an affirmative response because that was sure not a "Yes I'm confident of that". As I understand it Venus is so cold in it's upper atmosphere CO2 ice forms. But can we just focus long enough to get one single thing on the table? So you, IBD, are personally confident that: Venus has a temperature at the bottom of it's atmosphere which is more than 200 degrees higher than the equilibrium temperature for the planet. I swear there is no trick there. The disparity between ground level and planetary equilibrium temps is interesting for very obvious reasons and none you're not aware of as far as I know. This would allow us to have the first ever discussion on this board that get's past the "temperature is not known" shut down because Venus is so accommodating here with it's huge values. Edited on 20-02-2020 00:04
20-02-2020 02:39
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote:I swear there is no trick there. The disparity between ground level and planetary equilibrium temps is interesting for very obvious reasons and none you're not aware of as far as I know. Fine. I'm eager to let you get the ball rolling, it's just that there are some weird things going on that have me confused. It still appears that you are more interested in getting me to commit to something than you are in discussing a particular scenario. In fact, you don't want to reveal the scenario until I have made this commitment. Regardless, I'm happy to play along ... but ... You are asking me to "be confident" about things for which we are speculating. How does it change things if I were to confess that I cannot "be confident" in what we have only agreed to presume? Can we agree that you simply will not be satisfied with mere speculation for the sake of argument? You have an inner need to be able to say that things are "what we know" ... even if we are merely agreeing to presume these things. I am very comfortable presuming that there exists a temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere that is warmer than the planet's average temperature (or "above average temperature" or "AAT"). My confidence in this remains strong if we are talking about a 40C AAT figure. I have no confidence, however, at your figure of 200C AAT. I'm not saying that I cannot be convinced, just that I would need you to show me how you got this number. In short, I am happy to agree in principle, but I honestly cannot commit to that specific number. Would you care to build my confidence on the 200C figure? . 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
20-02-2020 03:24
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: ....I have no confidence, however, at your figure of 200C AAT. . so that's a NO Let me go back ovet it: First of all AAT ? It's not above "Average Temperature" it's the "equilibrium temperature" the temp that corresponds to a radiance equal to what the sun is putting out at that distance. Using the albedo that's "believed" for Venus that "equilibrium temperature" is 260K. But to overcome "the emissivity of Venus is unknown" we can say with total confidence 328K, for an emissivity of 1.0, is higher than whatever the true "equilibrium temperature" for Venus is. The probes that landed measured 735 K. Giving that a +/- 200 the low end is 535. So 535 - 328 = 207 We can be very confident that the bottom of the atmospher is over 200 degrees hotter than the "equilibrium temperature".
20-02-2020 04:25
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: so that's a NO Correct, for the present. I presume you will show me why I should have confidence at the higher figure. tmiddles wrote: First of all AAT ? It's not above "Average Temperature" Yes it is. That is exactly what it is. tmiddles wrote: The probes that landed measured 735 K. Giving that a +/- 200 the low end is 535. Now we're back to you conflating surface temperatures with the planet's average planetary temperature. _________________________ 735K = 462C measured ... +/- thermometer tolerance planetary temperature = 462C +/- thermometer tolerance +/- margin of error. Do you have confidence that this is the correct formula for determining our temperatures? . 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
20-02-2020 04:37
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: First of all AAT ? It's not above "Average Temperature" Yes it is. That is exactly what it is. No it is not. They might be the same, you may have some theory as to why they are, but that is not what is calculated here: tmiddles wrote: https://www.astro.princeton.edu/~strauss/FRS113/writeup3/ http://burro.case.edu/Academics/Astr221/SolarSys/equiltemp.html It shows us that "the equilibrium temperature of Venus = 260 K." But more specifically what is your problem with ""the equilibrium temperature"? You seem really worried I "Gotcha" IBD. Relax, you should be confident you're right and have nothing to worry about. IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: The probes that landed measured 735 K. Giving that a +/- 200 the low end is 535. Now we're back to you conflating surface temperatures with the planet's average planetary temperature. No I've said nothing about "planet's average temperature" particularly as I have no clue what that is for Venus. The probes landed at the bottom of the atmosphere. That is not the "surface", it is the ground. IBdaMann wrote: planetary temperature = 462C +/- thermometer tolerance +/- margin of error. Do you have confidence that this is the correct formula for determining our temperatures? OK it's not "planetary temperature" it's the temperature at ground level only. "+/- thermometer tolerance +/- margin of error" is easily less than 200 degrees so 200 should cover it. By the way I am confident they got it to within 5 degrees easy. We're working on what you find reliable. So let me know. +/- 200 is ridiculously huge and I'm not putting that on you, I proposed it Edited on 20-02-2020 04:40
20-02-2020 05:11
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: First of all AAT ? It's not above "Average Temperature" Yes it is. That is exactly what it is. No it is not. Yes it is. Exactly the same thing. Key in on the word "equilibium." It can't be anything else. tmiddles wrote: By the way I am confident they got it to within 5 degrees easy. ... and let's call a spade a spade ... your confidence is based on your vast experience engineering and testing spacecraft, yes? tmiddles wrote: +/- 200 is ridiculously huge and I'm not putting that on you, I proposed it It definitely is huge, but that is a typical "unusable" margin of error resulting from an invalid dataset. At this point I would ask you to consider this scenario. A colleague of yours tells you the earth's average global temperature is 3C. You ask for the margin of error and he says he isn't really sure. You ask for the dataset from which he calculated his global average temperature. He pulls out a napkin and hands it to you. You notice it contains only one temperature: 3C. You ask him where exactly this temperature was measured and he responds that he doesn't know. What are your conclusions? On another day that same colleague tells you he knows the temperature of Venus. You ask for the dataset and he hands you another napkin with, that's right, just one temperature value, taken at some unspecified spot at the bottom of the atmosphere, at some unknown elevation, at some unknown time of year. When you mention that he is handing you very little with which to work, he tells you to just assume that the lone temperature value represents all the points at the bottom of the atmosphere. You ask why you should assume that and he tells you to wait 15-20 minutes and then check Wikipedia. What are your conclusions? . 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
20-02-2020 05:29
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: Yes it is. Exactly the same thing. OK if it is for you. So you won't mind calling it "Equilibrium temperature" right? IBdaMann wrote: What are your conclusions? No IBD. What are yours. Is +/- 200 not broad enough? Really? Make up your mind. Since you belabor the point here you go: This is just the Russian's: We got a total of 580 min (24 earth days) on the surface of Venus, spanning 7 missions over a 13 year period. 117 days to reach Venus 1970 Venera 7 lasted 23 minutes on th surface 1972 Venera 8 50 minutes, 11 seconds 1975 Venera 9 53 minutes 1975 Venera 10 65 minutes 1978 Venera 11 95 minutes 1978 Venera 12 110 minutes 1982 Venera 13 127 minutes 1983 Venera 14 The lander functioned for at least 57 minutes (the planned design life was 32 minutes) in an environment with a temperature of 465 °C (869 °F) and a pressure of 94 Earth atmospheres (9.5 MPa). 1985 Venera 15, 16 1985 not landing http://mentallandscape.com/V_Venera11.htm While it seems we are constantly dueling with you saying I think I know too much and me saying you claim nothing can be known, Venus does allow us, if we are being sincere, to have a very comfortable middle ground since the disparity I want to discuss is so huge. Edited on 20-02-2020 05:32
20-02-2020 15:43
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Yes it is. Exactly the same thing. OK if it is for you. So you won't mind calling it "Equilibrium temperature" right? Sure. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: What are your conclusions? No IBD. What are yours. No tmiddles, what are yours? Make up your mind. tmiddles wrote: Since you belabor the point here you go: We got a total of 580 min (24 earth days) on the surface of Venus, spanning 7 missions over a 13 year period. Great, that should be a relatively small dataset that you can post right here in this thread. tmiddles wrote: While it seems we are constantly dueling with you saying I think I know too much and me saying you claim nothing can be known, Venus does allow us, if we are being sincere, to have a very comfortable middle ground since the disparity I want to discuss is so huge. Sure. Why don't you post the dataset you referenced above? That would be the easiest way to cover EVERYTHING that we know, yes? . 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
20-02-2020 17:45
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: At this point I would ask you to consider this scenario. A colleague of yours tells you the earth's average global temperature is 3C. You ask for the margin of error and he says he isn't really sure. You ask for the dataset from which he calculated his global average temperature. He pulls out a napkin and hands it to you. You notice it contains only one temperature: 3C. You ask him where exactly this temperature was measured and he responds that he doesn't know. What are your conclusions? That he has little to no knowledge about logic and mathematics. IBdaMann wrote: On another day that same colleague tells you he knows the temperature of Venus. You ask for the dataset and he hands you another napkin with, that's right, just one temperature value, taken at some unspecified spot at the bottom of the atmosphere, at some unknown elevation, at some unknown time of year. When you mention that he is handing you very little with which to work, he tells you to just assume that the lone temperature value represents all the points at the bottom of the atmosphere. You ask why you should assume that and he tells you to wait 15-20 minutes and then check Wikipedia. What are your conclusions? . That he has little to no knowledge about logic and mathematics.
21-02-2020 09:31
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:...that should be a relatively small dataset that you can post right here in this thread. So that's a NO then correct? You are backing away from your previous willingness to accept a +/- 200 degree margin of error on the temperatures claimed? So do you believe they are engaged in a massive fraud? You can't believe the instrumentation and measurement methods are an issue that large. What margin of error would work for you? 2000 degrees? 20,000 degrees? You must be as sure as I am I will mop the floor with you if you actually debate me. And here:Venera 8: Measurements of Temperature, For what it's worth I was giving you some undeserved benefit of the doubt here that you actually believed in your own position enough to have a real debate. As it is this just trumps ITN's refusal to accept measurement of the emissivity of human skin in the journal of Biomedical Optics as the best example of "No data is ever valid" for you two. "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 21-02-2020 09:52
21-02-2020 15:59
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...that should be a relatively small dataset that you can post right here in this thread. So that's a NO then correct? So that's a "no" then, correct? tmiddles wrote: You are backing away from your previous willingness to accept a +/- 200 degree margin of error on the temperatures claimed? So I was correct. Your purpose all along has been to confuse the crap out me with appeals to completely ambiguous arguments, one step at a time, in order to get me to commit to a statement (within an absolutely vague concept) so that you can perform subsequent context shifts while claiming that I cannot back out of my syntactical "commitment." So yes, I am backing out of everything. Lay your entire argument all at once and then I will mop up the floor with you all at once. . 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

21-02-2020 21:40
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...that should be a relatively small dataset that you can post right here in this thread. So that's a NO then correct? ...deleted Mantras 29...30...25c...25c...25c...6...7...4a...4a...6...25e...4b...29...30... Mantra 15 No arguments presented. 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 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
22-02-2020 02:45
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: So that's a "no" then, correct? To what question? I provided more data in my link. tmiddles wrote: And here:Venera 8: Measurements of Temperature, IBdaMann wrote:Your purpose all along has been to confuse the crap out me ... Let's be clear IBD, we'll never be friends. That's a nice clear dynamic for a debate in my opinion. I have not been confusing and your attempt to pretend I have been is just you trying to weasel out of a debate, again. This is what we have: Measurements were taken directly from landers on Venus and the scientists responsible have represented that the temperature is ~460C. You have stated you thought the extreme temperatures may have caused the instrumentation to be in error and of course there may be variation in temperature from place to place. I proposed that we give a very wide margin of error to allow for your concerns to be set aside. You agreed. Then you decided that +/- 200 degrees was not acceptable to you. You have stated that you do NOT have confidence that the ground level temperature of Venus is at least 262C. Your reasons are a mystery to me if you actually have any. I suspect you do not but simply understand that you've be throwing BS here for 5 years and all I need is one piece of real information about planetary thermodynamics on the table for you to be proven wrong and exposed as a fraud. No one else doubts that the temperature of Venus at the bottom of the atmosphere is at least 262C, just you (and probably ITN and GG). It is so far into the realm of certainty that to deny it is to expose yourself for what I always thought you were, a protester and saboteur of debate itself on this topic. So thank you for that at least I'm sure others will find this example to be very clear. IBdaMann wrote:I am backing out of everything. It's 3oclock behind the school house but you have a piano lesson and your Mom will be mad if you're not home on time. Oh well. I guess this is one way to win. Though I would have preferred an actual debate. Are you even confident the bottom of the atmosphere of Venus is above 0 Kelvin? How about above 10 Kelvin? When someone denies everything it's just too easy to make them look stupid. "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 22-02-2020 03:39
22-02-2020 05:02
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: I provided more data in my link. You deserve to be mocked ... for not knowing the difference between data and a text document of someone's notes. tmiddles wrote: Let's be clear IBD, If only you could be. tmiddles wrote: I have not been confusing Gee, here I was thinking that you were really confusing, but alas, you are confirming that you weren't so obviously I must be mistaken. tmiddles wrote: ... is just you trying to weasel out of a debate, again. There never was any debate. You can't formulate a coherent expression of what we're even supposedly talking about. I'm in for the debate. You flee from debate. When you want to debate, do so honestly and lay out your argument. tmiddles wrote:Measurements were taken directly from landers on Venus and the scientists responsible have represented that the temperature is ~460C. This is ALL that we know: One temperature value scribbled on a napkin. We know only that it was taken at some point at the bottom of Venus' atmosphere, but we don't know where or at what elevation, whether it was next to some type of thermal vent, we don't know during what time of year, we don't know how desperately the thermometer was in need of calibration. Fortunately, what we lack in data we can forthwith compensate with your extensive background in engineering. Great. The debate is on. What is your argument? tmiddles wrote: You have stated you thought the extreme temperatures may have caused the instrumentation to be in error and of course there may be variation in temperature from place to place. Yes, high temperatures and the stresses from the long spece journey itself (as well as from takeoff from earth). tmiddles wrote: Your reasons are a mystery to me if you actually have any. I suspect you do not but simply understand that you've be throwing BS here for 5 years and all I need is one piece of real information about planetary thermodynamics on the table for you to be proven wrong and exposed as a fraud. I'm enjoying your temper tantrum. I'm not consenting to being setup for a GOTCHA! Now's your opportunity to lay out your argument in it's entirety. If you need to we can wait for you to finish your tantrum; I'm not in any particular hurry. tmiddles wrote: No one else doubts that the temperature of Venus at the bottom of the atmosphere is at least 262C, ... because you are an omniscient mindreader ... and I accept that. tmiddles wrote: just you (and probably ITN and GG). It is so far into the realm of certainty that to deny it is to expose yourself for what I always thought you were, a protester and saboteur of debate itself on this topic. i.e. "I'm a leftist and if you disagree with me I will label you a 'denier,' a 'racist' and a 'TROLL!' When I say something is certain, that is your clue to fall in line." Give me your argument, I'm getting my mop. . 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
22-02-2020 09:19
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:Measurements were taken directly from landers on Venus and the scientists responsible have represented that the temperature is ~460C. This is ALL that we know: One temperature value scribbled on a napkin. So the question, again, IBD, is based on the measurements taken of Venus what are you confident of as a minimum temperature for the bottom of the atmosphere. Let's start there. You have now balked at a +/- 200 degree margin of error on what you've characterized as a single momentary measurement scribbled on a napkin. So you describe your own position. IBdaMann wrote: ...lay out your argument. I'm saying the temperature at the bottom on the atmosphere of Venus is more than 200 degrees higher than the equilibrium temperature of Venus. Oh and one other question. Do you find Venus interesting? What about space travel? You've said in the past you're a math and science fan. So I have found your profound show of disinterest and lack of knowledge about those subjects surprising. "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 22-02-2020 10:16
22-02-2020 17:05
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote:Let's start there. Nope. Lay out your argument. If you have no argument then I have no response. tmiddles wrote: You have now balked at a +/- 200 degree margin of error on what you've characterized as a single momentary measurement scribbled on a napkin. You have been playing stupid games. I have tried valiantly to work with you but you offer nothing with which to work. I'm happy to help you out with any theory you might have but you have to present it. Have we agreed that no thermal energy flows from cooler to warmer? tmiddles wrote:I'm saying the temperature at the bottom on the atmosphere of Venus is more than 200 degrees higher than the equilibrium temperature of Venus. Your position seems absurd on its face. I was being polite by refraining from spelling out just how stupid this assertion is but I'm guessing you would prefer the cold, hard truth over uninformative pleasantries, so let's rephrase your argument: [tmiddles argument rephrased:] "I claim there is only one temperature at the bottom of venus' atmosphere (notice my use of the definite article "the") and I claim with certainty that it is vastly hotter than Venus' average planetary temperature which I claim to have no idea what it is." I think we should all take a moment to bask in that brilliance. . 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
22-02-2020 19:17
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: [tmiddles argument rephrased:] "I claim there is only one temperature at the bottom of venus' atmosphere . I have said repeatedly that everything with a temperature has a range and an average/mean. The average/mean temperature of Venus at the bottom of it's atmosphere is estimated at ~460C. Now the question is what margin of error removes any reasonable doubt. 460C is 713K. As 0K isn't possible and Venus isn't hotter than the Sun, we can know Venus has no locations outside of the 0K to 15700000K range. Are you unsure of a +/- 700 degree margin of error IBD? You think they measured 713K but it's really an average of 12K or less? What communists say: https://www.nytimes.com/1971/01/27/archives/soviet-says-craft-landed-on-venus-and-radioed-data-unmanned-ship.html After just the first landing those comunists in russia claimed "It was 475 degrees Centigrade, with a margin of error of 20 degrees in either direction. " "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 22-02-2020 19:53
22-02-2020 20:39
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: I have said repeatedly that everything with a temperature has a range and an average/mean. AND you have been told just as repeatedly that that is nonsense. No temperature has an average of itself. No temperature is a range of temperatures. tmiddles wrote: The average/mean temperature of Venus at the bottom of it's atmosphere is estimated at ~460C. Tell me, how do estimates come about? [hint: there's a dataset involved] Can you guess what my next question is going to be? tmiddles wrote: Now the question is what margin of error removes any reasonable doubt. Nope, that is NOT the next question. The FIRST question to start your argument is what margin of error do you find acceptable? Did you notice that you never answered this question? You are supposed to tell everyone what YOU consider an acceptable margin of error up front. This is not for anyone else to do. What you determine up front will be what is used to critique your dataset. So, anytime you are ready ... . 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
22-02-2020 21:49
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	tmiddles wrote: ....deleted TMSa3... No argument presented. 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
22-02-2020 21:54
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	tmiddles wrote: ...deleted Mantras 10 (constant<->set)...10 (constant<->average)...25f...TMSa3 No argument presented. 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
23-02-2020 00:40
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	Tmid, I think that's a relevant point about every thing with a temperature has a range and an average. I don't see how anyone could complain about it, after all, temp is defined as the average kinetic energy of all the components and that implies a range unless every molecule has the exact same kinetic energy. It seems so fundamental that i hesitate to even discuss it here.

Page 13 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