Venus is hotter than Mercury?!?

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Venus is hotter than Mercury?!? > Page 17

Page 17 of 28

04-03-2020 22:14
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 6...2...2...29...29...25g...25c... No argument 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
04-03-2020 23:08
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14388)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: So ... what's the distance between earth and Venus? Oh you were hoping I would take time to figure it out, for no reason, on you demand? No I'm not going to do that. Thank you. Welcome to my world. Do you have a point to make? tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: There is a range over time of course. ... but there is only one distance value at any given moment. And your point is? That you well know that temperature and distance are instantaneous, single-value measures but that you intentionally convolute conversations with bogus "range" terms and other dishonest tactics because you merely want to disrupt all threads that do not glorify Climate. tmiddles wrote: Question [to which you provided a clear answer that I ignored]: Do you IBD or ITN think it reasonable (or use your own language) that we can be confident the atmosphere of Venus is composed of 96.5% carbon dioxide, 3.5% nitrogen, and traces of other gases, most notably sulfur dioxide? I answered it with a "Yes." This is the second time. . 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
04-03-2020 23:28
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:...you were hoping I would take time to figure it out, ... ...Welcome to my world. I repeatedly ask you why you don't accept what is looked up. I don't ask you to do novel calculations or your own research. IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: There is a range over time of course. ...temperature and distance are instantaneous, single-value measures...you intentionally convolute conversations with bogus "range" terms OK do you not believe ANYTHING has a range? Because what you've just said applies to EVERYTHING with a range as far as I understand it. IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:... think it reasonable ...Venus is composed of 96.5% carbon dioxide, 3.5% nitrogen,... "Yes." So why do you accept that but not the temperature measurements?
04-03-2020 23:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantra 30...22....lie...16b...25j...29...25c... No argument 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
05-03-2020 00:51
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:... think it reasonable ...Venus is composed of 96.5% carbon dioxide, 3.5% nitrogen,... "Yes." So why do you accept that but not the temperature measurements? No argument presented. RQAA. Still not answered by ITN

05-03-2020 02:59
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14388)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:... think it reasonable ...Venus is composed of 96.5% carbon dioxide, 3.5% nitrogen,... "Yes." So why do you accept that but not the temperature measurements? No argument presented. RQAA. Still not answered by ITN Well, I need to clarify that I responded "yes" for the sake of discussion, but that I accept the measurements with a substantial margin of error. I notice that you didn't list any but then again, you and I weren't debating the accuracy of the atmospheric nitrogen levels, for example. Do we somehow need to be debating the atmospheric nitrogen levels of Venus? We were debating your claims of omniscience regarding planetary temperatures, of which you claim there is only one, and your justification is your bogus "range" claim that you admit is just to be difficult because you fully understand that a temperature measurement is a single instantaneous value. Ergo, I still do not accept your omniscience. . 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
05-03-2020 03:46
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:... think it reasonable ...Venus is composed of 96.5% carbon dioxide, 3.5% nitrogen,... "Yes." So why do you accept that but not the temperature measurements? No argument presented. RQAA. Still not answered by ITN 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
05-03-2020 04:21
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Still not answered by ITN RQAA You most certainly did not answer that question ITN. IBdaMann wrote:I accept the measurements with a substantial margin of error. Sure that's reasonable. So why don't you also do that with the temperature? IBdaMann wrote:We were debating your claims of omniscience Well I think you'd agree it's my willingness to accept the measurements provided by the CCCP. I do not allege they are incompetent (we both agree they are not dishonest in this case). IBdaMann wrote:...regarding planetary temperatures, of which you claim there is only one, and your justification is your bogus "range" claim that you admit is just to be difficult because you fully understand that a temperature measurement is a single instantaneous value. You contintually confuse the "measurement" with what is being measured. A temperature measurement, singular, is yes, singular. It is measuring a temperature that is never singular. Why would every molecule in any subject being measured have precisely the same thermal energy? Why do we care about that as a topic at all? Are you claiming the temperature can never be known under any circumstances? Get to the point.
05-03-2020 06:56
One Punch Man★☆☆☆☆ (139)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:... think it reasonable ...Venus is composed of 96.5% carbon dioxide, 3.5% nitrogen,... "Yes." So why do you accept that but not the temperature measurements? No argument presented. RQAA. Still not answered by ITN RQAA Your posts are so thorough and well thought out. Nathan-D
05-03-2020 17:14
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14388)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:I accept the measurements with a substantial margin of error. Sure that's reasonable. So why don't you also do that with the temperature? I did. You suggested a 200deg margin of error and I said "OK" for discussion's sake. It turned out, however, that you had not thought it through and that you didn't realize that you had killed any "conclusions" you were planning to draw. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:We were debating your claims of omniscience Well I think you'd agree it's my willingness to accept the measurements provided by the CCCP. I do not allege they are incompetent (we both agree they are not dishonest in this case). ... but the dishonesty lies with those who present that data sans any margin of error ... as though those values are known "via omniscience" and no margin of error therefore exists. If the margin of error is +/-200 degrees then the true values could have been 200 degrees cooler ... and you don't get to simply eliminate that possibility by proclaiming your faith that the Greenhouse Effect energy source only increases temperature ... by the maximum amount of the margin of error. Can we agree that the CCCP did not make that claim by any stretch? tmiddles wrote: You contintually confuse the "measurement" with what is being measured. Never. I know the difference between "thermal energy" and, say, 45C. I know the difference between Coca-Cola and "2 liters." I don't get those things confused. tmiddles wrote: A temperature measurement, singular, is yes, singular. It is measuring a temperature that is never singular. ... and yet you write it down and gather data ... and statistical math provides you with your information ... which validly becomes "what you know." Do you see how that works? tmiddles wrote: Why would every molecule in any subject being measured have precisely the same thermal energy? Why do you claim that it would? tmiddles wrote: Why do we care about that as a topic at all? We like to build technology to control nature. Have you ever used a TV remote? Good times. tmiddles wrote: Are you claiming the temperature can never be known under any circumstances? You repeatedly claim that I claim that. Why did you get started on that in the first place? Oh yeah, I remember. You have this frequently recurring need to claim to know stuff that nobody knows and then you get butt-hurt each and every time it is pointed out that you don't really know that. You quickly became frustrated and knee-jerked your "blame others for my screw-ups" and began lashing out at Into the Night and myself, absurdly asserting that we somehow claim that "nothing can be known." Only you can truly understand what was going on in your mind when you had your meltdown. Dilbert talks to tmiddles: . 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
05-03-2020 17:51
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:....You suggested a 200deg margin of error and I said "OK" ....If the margin of error is +/-200 degrees then the true values could have been 200 degrees cooler ... And are you still willing to discuss that? Do you agree presently to discuss this with a 200 degree margin of error for the temperature of Venus as the bottom of the atmosphere (ground level)? The value provided is 462C so that is a margin of from 262C to 662C. OK?
05-03-2020 19:46
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14388)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:....You suggested a 200deg margin of error and I said "OK" ....If the margin of error is +/-200 degrees then the true values could have been 200 degrees cooler ... And are you still willing to discuss that? Do you agree presently to discuss this with a 200 degree margin of error for the temperature of Venus as the bottom of the atmosphere (ground level)? The value provided is 462C so that is a margin of from 262C to 662C. OK? I am happy to discuss. Could I possibly persuade you to discuss the matter instead of trying to turn this into a sales pitch or a sermon. What overarching conclusion (hypothesis) are you looking to test/support/reach? If you start with that, we can better analyze what we will need. You happen to be in luck. This is what I do. I can help you avoid getting your geese seemingly in a row only to then find out you needed ducks and have to start over. Let's start with the tmiddles hypothesis. That would be __________ . . 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
05-03-2020 21:10
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 29...25c...37a...10 (element<->average)...25j...30...29...23...29... No argument 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
05-03-2020 21:13
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 25g...25c...25g...29... No argument 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
06-03-2020 02:08
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: Let's start with the tmiddles hypothesis. That would be __________ . The number we are "given by the experts" for the ground level/temperature of Venus is 462C. Putting a big margin of error gives us from 262C to 662C. The COLD end of that range is 262C so let's work with that number. Venus ground level temp is more than 262C We don't know the exact emissivity of Venus but we know it's less than 1.0. We can also use the approximate distance of Venus to the sun. This allows us to calculate the maximum "equilibrium temperature" for ANY OBJECT the same distance from the sun as Venus is. This is the temperature which will radiate the same amount of energy as what is being absorbed at that distance. The equilibrium temperature for Venus is less than 55C So with those to limits on confidence established we can be confident in saying that: The bottom of the atmosphere / ground level of Venus is MORE THAN 200 degrees hotter than the equilibrium temperature for the planet. That is what I'm saying. Further, based on that, I'm saying: The ideal gas law does not, and cannot create energy. That is a violation of the 1st LTD. The ONLY source of energy at issue here is the Sun. Venus proves that: The ground level temperature can exceed the equilibrium temperature, that it can exceed the input energy. They do not have to be equal and on Venus they are not equal. There it is. The full hypothesis. All the calculations were done earlier in the thread.

06-03-2020 02:28
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14388)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Let's start with the tmiddles hypothesis. That would be __________ . The number we are "given by the experts" for the ground level/temperature of Venus is 462C. Putting a big margin of error gives us from 262C to 662C. The COLD end of that range is 262C so let's work with that number. This is not a hypothesis. You are submitting a data point. Can we start with your hypothesis? Let's talk about your data point. It is not for the bottom of Venus' atmosphere. It is for a particular point on Venus. It's just as if you were to give me the temperature taken at the tower at the Denver airport. It is a measure for a particular point at a particular time. You would not accept it as any sort of average "bottom of the atmosphere" temperature for earth. Our discussion should be about the temperature at that point on Venus at that time of year during either the day or night (whenever the temperature was taken). tmiddles wrote: Venus ground level temp is more than 262C We don't know the exact emissivity of Venus but we know it's less than 1.0. We can also use the approximate distance of Venus to the sun. This allows us to calculate the maximum "equilibrium temperature" for ANY OBJECT the same distance from the sun as Venus is. ... and once again you are conflating "average planetary temperature" with "average temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere." Maximum average planetary temperature does not apply if you are talking about the average temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere, but you do need the Ideal Gas Law and you need to know the elevation of the temperature in question. tmiddles wrote: This is the temperature which will radiate the same amount of energy as what is being absorbed at that distance. Nope. You are conflating the average planetary temperature with the average temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere. tmiddles wrote: The equilibrium temperature for Venus is less than 55C We don't know this precisely because we don't know Venus' emissivity. So with those to limits on confidence established we can be confident in saying that: tmiddles wrote:The bottom of the atmosphere / ground level of Venus is MORE THAN 200 degrees hotter than the equilibrium temperature for the planet. That is what I'm saying. Obviously, to verify this we need an average planetary temperature for Venus and we need an average temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere ... and then we need to subtract. Before we begin, what is your accpetable margin of error FOR YOUR HYPOTHESIS (note, this is not the error of your data point)? . 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
06-03-2020 02:39
Bode ☆☆☆☆☆ (21)	Your concept of equilibrium temperature is problematic. Available heat from the sun to mercury is 9082 w/m2. Heat moves from hot to cold. Are mercury and venus hotter than the sun? Max Temperature of mercury is 722k corresponding to 15,407 w/m2.
06-03-2020 02:41
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: Let's talk about your data point. It is not for the bottom of Venus' atmosphere. No it's not one point. It's the "number provided by the experts" for the entire ground level of Venus based on the total of the research done. A 200 degree margin of error should easily compensate for the level of accuracy. Do you or do you not accept the +/- 200 degree margin of error? IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:...the maximum "equilibrium temperature" for ANY OBJECT the same distance from the sun as Venus is. ... and once again you are conflating "average planetary temperature" with "average temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere." No I didn't say the "average planetary temperature" of Venus. That would be the average for every molecule of the planet from it's core out to the ends of it's atmosphere. I don't know how you could begin to figure that out. I said the "EQUILIBRIUM TEMPERATURE" for "ANY OBJECT", note: "ANY OBJECT", that distance from the Sun (with an emissivity of 1.0). Does that make sense? IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: The equilibrium temperature for Venus is less than 55C We don't know this precisely because we don't know Venus' emissivity. Yes we do know this. I didn't say what it was, I said what it was less than. IBdaMann wrote: what is your accpetable margin of error FOR YOUR HYPOTHESIS (note, this is not the error of your data point)? My hypothesis is not for a value it is to say that it is greater than a value. So the margin is already there. Edited on 06-03-2020 02:48
06-03-2020 02:49
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Bode wrote: Your concept of equilibrium temperature is problematic. Available heat from the sun to mercury is 9082 w/m2. Heat moves from hot to cold. Are mercury and venus hotter than the sun? Max Temperature of mercury is 722k corresponding to 15,407 w/m2. It's a planet, sphere, it's got a dark side too. You don't just calculate for the hot spot.
06-03-2020 02:56
Bode ☆☆☆☆☆ (21)	Calculation on one meter squared on the daytime side. The reported high daytime temperature is a problem for you.
06-03-2020 03:10
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantra 37a..22 (expert)...25g...25c...25f...6...31...25g...25k...20n...20o...25k...22 ('equilibrium' temperature)...25g...25c...20a1...25k...20o...20a1...20f...31...25f... 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
06-03-2020 03:20
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Bode wrote: Calculation on one meter squared on the daytime side. The reported high daytime temperature is a problem for you. A one sided object cannot exist. Pretend it's not a planet but a piece of 4' x 8' plywood floating in space. One side it being struck by the sun, the other side is dark. The entire surface of the plywood will radiate out. That surface temp, the whole thing, roughly 64.5 square feet, will be at the equilibrium temperature. Not just the hot spot.
06-03-2020 03:20
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 25j...37d...20l...25c...25f...29...10b...22...26...25f...25g...31...20o...25c... 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
06-03-2020 03:21
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: Bode wrote: Your concept of equilibrium temperature is problematic. Available heat from the sun to mercury is 9082 w/m2. Heat moves from hot to cold. Are mercury and venus hotter than the sun? Max Temperature of mercury is 722k corresponding to 15,407 w/m2. It's a planet, sphere, it's got a dark side too. You don't just calculate for the hot spot. Then why are you calculating for the hot spot? 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
06-03-2020 03:23
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: Bode wrote: Calculation on one meter squared on the daytime side. The reported high daytime temperature is a problem for you. A one sided object cannot exist. Pretend it's not a planet but a piece of 4' x 8' plywood floating in space. One side it being struck by the sun, the other side is dark. The entire surface of the plywood will radiate out. That surface temp, the whole thing, roughly 64.5 square feet, will be at the equilibrium temperature. Not just the hot spot. Mantras 16b...25g...22 ('equilibrium temperature')...20o... 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
06-03-2020 03:32
Bode ☆☆☆☆☆ (21)	At high noon plywood on planet mercury at 722K is hotter than the sun?
06-03-2020 03:35
Bode ☆☆☆☆☆ (21)	At high noon plywood on planet mercury at 722K is hotter than the sun?
06-03-2020 06:10
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Bode wrote: At high noon plywood on planet mercury at 722K is hotter than the sun? Why are you taking about plywood on Mercury? I said plywood floating in space. "High Noon" and "Midnight" both exist for every object in the solar system. Where is 722 coming from?
06-03-2020 07:46
Bode ☆☆☆☆☆ (21)	nasa provided data that contradicts equilibrium temperature using P/A=sigma*T^4 Maximum temperatures are found on the daytime side of a planet.
06-03-2020 10:13
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Bode wrote: nasa provided ... where?

06-03-2020 16:22
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14388)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Let's talk about your data point. It is not for the bottom of Venus' atmosphere. No it's not one point. It's the "number provided by the experts" for the entire ground level of Venus based on the total of the research done. A 200 degree margin of error should easily compensate for the level of accuracy. Do you or do you not accept the +/- 200 degree margin of error? Let's put "margin of error" on hold for the moment and let's discuss the raw data first. What raw data do we have? tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:...the maximum "equilibrium temperature" for ANY OBJECT the same distance from the sun as Venus is. ... and once again you are conflating "average planetary temperature" with "average temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere." No I didn't say the "average planetary temperature" of Venus. That would be the average for every molecule of the planet from it's core out to the ends of it's atmosphere. I don't know how you could begin to figure that out. I said the "EQUILIBRIUM TEMPERATURE" for "ANY OBJECT", note: "ANY OBJECT", that distance from the Sun (with an emissivity of 1.0). Does that make sense? No. The average planetary temperature does not involve the core or the mantle. We have covered this. What you call the planet's "equilibrium" temperature is the planet's average temperature. You are welcome to use your term "equilibrium temperature"and I will be using the term average planetary temperature. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: what is your accpetable margin of error FOR YOUR HYPOTHESIS (note, this is not the error of your data point)? My hypothesis is not for a value it is to say that it is greater than a value. So the margin is already there. Nope. On this point we cannot be vague and we cannot be ambiguous. We need an unambiguous hypothesis and your declared "acceptable" margin of error before we can begin. My understanding of your hypothesis is: TABA = "Temperature at the Bottom of the Atmosphere" Mean[TABA(Venus)] - Equilibrium(Venus) > 200degC +/- ?degC Is this correct? The next step is to examine the existing raw data because we won't be taking any measurements of our own. . 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
06-03-2020 19:00
Bode ☆☆☆☆☆ (21)	Maximum temperatures http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/eoc/special_topics/teach/sp_climate_change/p_planet_temp.html
06-03-2020 19:27
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14388)	Bode wrote:Maximum temperatures http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/eoc/special_topics/teach/sp_climate_change/p_planet_temp.html Bode, what makes you think any of this is correct? Is it because you found it on the internet? . 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
06-03-2020 19:59
Bode ☆☆☆☆☆ (21)	I do not have a lot of faith in the temperatures for such a small number of samples and sample period. The same goes for earth temperatures
06-03-2020 22:05
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Bode wrote: I do not have a lot of faith in the temperatures for such a small number of samples and sample period. The same goes for earth temperatures This is where some of the information might have come from. https://www.space.com/11160-nasa-spacecraft-mercury-orbit-messenger.html If so, they could use different wavelengths, radio, micro, etc. to determine how the atmosphere influences them. That can be translated. As far as the Earth goes, measurements are taken everyday all across the planet. Possibly in the millions, literally. And this could confirm satellite data. With Mars, rovers are on it just as with the Moon so satellite data once again can be confirmed. I think with IBDM as with ITN and GFM, their logic isn't fallible but science is. They have previously made this statement. It's a matter of logic, if a hypothesis can be shown to be wrong, but their logic is never wrong. Therefore they are superior. That's the intent IMHO behind their logic. This is what IBDM wants to debate with me. That his definitions are correct. If a person has no interest in science then that is all they need to know. https://photos.app.goo.gl/UpH17LxQ67cSiHDi8 Attached image:
06-03-2020 22:41
Bode ☆☆☆☆☆ (21)	Earths temperature data is incomplete both in sample period and samples per square mile.
06-03-2020 23:07
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	James___ wrote: Bode wrote: I do not have a lot of faith in the temperatures for such a small number of samples and sample period. The same goes for earth temperatures This is where some of the information might have come from. https://www.space.com/11160-nasa-spacecraft-mercury-orbit-messenger.html If so, they could use different wavelengths, radio, micro, etc. to determine how the atmosphere influences them. That can be translated. As far as the Earth goes, measurements are taken everyday all across the planet. Possibly in the millions, literally. And this could confirm satellite data. With Mars, rovers are on it just as with the Moon so satellite data once again can be confirmed. I think with IBDM as with ITN and GFM, their logic isn't fallible but science is. They have previously made this statement. It's a matter of logic, if a hypothesis can be shown to be wrong, but their logic is never wrong. Therefore they are superior. That's the intent IMHO behind their logic. This is what IBDM wants to debate with me. That his definitions are correct. If a person has no interest in science then that is all they need to know. https://photos.app.goo.gl/UpH17LxQ67cSiHDi8 Satellites are incapable of measuring an absolute temperature. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. The emissivity of Venus is unknown. 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
06-03-2020 23:10
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: Bode wrote: I do not have a lot of faith in the temperatures for such a small number of samples and sample period. The same goes for earth temperatures This is where some of the information might have come from. https://www.space.com/11160-nasa-spacecraft-mercury-orbit-messenger.html If so, they could use different wavelengths, radio, micro, etc. to determine how the atmosphere influences them. That can be translated. As far as the Earth goes, measurements are taken everyday all across the planet. Possibly in the millions, literally. And this could confirm satellite data. With Mars, rovers are on it just as with the Moon so satellite data once again can be confirmed. I think with IBDM as with ITN and GFM, their logic isn't fallible but science is. They have previously made this statement. It's a matter of logic, if a hypothesis can be shown to be wrong, but their logic is never wrong. Therefore they are superior. That's the intent IMHO behind their logic. This is what IBDM wants to debate with me. That his definitions are correct. If a person has no interest in science then that is all they need to know. https://photos.app.goo.gl/UpH17LxQ67cSiHDi8 Satellites are incapable of measuring an absolute temperature. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. The emissivity of Venus is unknown. Your mantra has been noted.
06-03-2020 23:12
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: Bode wrote: I do not have a lot of faith in the temperatures for such a small number of samples and sample period. The same goes for earth temperatures This is where some of the information might have come from. https://www.space.com/11160-nasa-spacecraft-mercury-orbit-messenger.html If so, they could use different wavelengths, radio, micro, etc. to determine how the atmosphere influences them. That can be translated. As far as the Earth goes, measurements are taken everyday all across the planet. Possibly in the millions, literally. And this could confirm satellite data. With Mars, rovers are on it just as with the Moon so satellite data once again can be confirmed. I think with IBDM as with ITN and GFM, their logic isn't fallible but science is. They have previously made this statement. It's a matter of logic, if a hypothesis can be shown to be wrong, but their logic is never wrong. Therefore they are superior. That's the intent IMHO behind their logic. This is what IBDM wants to debate with me. That his definitions are correct. If a person has no interest in science then that is all they need to know. https://photos.app.goo.gl/UpH17LxQ67cSiHDi8 Satellites are incapable of measuring an absolute temperature. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. The emissivity of Venus is unknown. Your mantra has been noted. Inversion fallacy. Mantras 25c...25k... 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
07-03-2020 01:52
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Bode wrote: Maximum temperatures http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/eoc/special_topics/teach/sp_climate_change/p_planet_temp.html Your link: http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/eoc/special_topics/teach/sp_climate_change/p_planet_temp.html "Mercury - 275 °F (- 170°C) + 840 °F (+ 449°C)" EQUILIBRIUM TEMPERATURE is the temperature that corresponds to the energy emitted per area that will equal the energy in. It is NOT the same thing as "planetary surface temperature" though they may have the same value. To assume they are the same would be like saying the US bugdet is without question 3.863 Trillion because that is the fiscal equilibrium budget. Now I don"t doubt Mercury's suface is it's ground level and that it is in equilibrium with the sun. The information we have is consistent with that. So Bode you wondered how we could have a high temp above the equilibrium temp? Because the energy received from the sun is based on what 1/2 a sphere receives divided by a whole sqhere. If you calculate the energy from the sun without dividing by area I'd expect it would be just above that 449C value. Want to see if I'm right? Edited on 07-03-2020 01:55

Page 17 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