Venus is hotter than Mercury?!?

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Venus is hotter than Mercury?!? > Page 18

Page 18 of 28

07-03-2020 02:09
Bode ☆☆☆☆☆ (21)	You were given data with the equation. Correct units are in power per unit area. In addition to mercury the moon and venus also exceed maximum equilibrium temperatures
07-03-2020 02:46
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Bode wrote: You were given data with the equation Have you calculated the energy per meter squared from the Sun at Mercury's distance out? You're simply wrong and I'd be happy to show you how if you'll do the above. How much energy per meter squared does the Sun deliver to Mercury and what is the corresponding temperature? That will clear up your confusion. I haven't done the calculation myself which is why I'm asking you to. Edited on 07-03-2020 03:14
07-03-2020 03:07
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: What raw data do we have? Earlier in the thread. If you want to continue ducking this it's your right. I know youre smart enough to know you can't win. IBdaMann wrote: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. I do not agree with you. Your definitions overlap hopelessly. So I will adapt here just for you IBD. "Planetary temperature" and "equilibrium temperature" are both retired temporarliy. I will use a new title of my own: SOLAR ABSORPTION TEMPERATURE which I define as the temperature which corresponds to the emission of radiance for the entire surface area of any object with that emission of energy being equal to the energy absorbed from the Sun. IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: 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? . Nah let me help you out with that. It is: Mean[TABA(Venus)] - SOLAR ABSORPTION TEMP = 508C +/- 300 degC So my hypothesis is that we can be confident that the answer is between 208C and 808C. That is correct. So the "cold" end of that margin is 208C. None of this is new. I've already presented all of it. The temperature provided by NASA and the CCCP is 462C. We put a +/-200 degree margin on that simply to set aside extreme skepticism I don't myself possess. The albedo of Venus is estimated at 0.6 which gives us a SOLAR ABSORPTION TEMP for a sphere the size of Venus of -46C, an albedo of 0.0 would give us 55C so we put a +/- 100C margin on that for the same reason. If you want to go on to pretend "raw data" is needed for a requirement go ahead. You have been thoroughly debunked on that subject: no data is valid for IBD Besides which this is the reason for the +/-200 degree margin, the skepticism you presumably have about the ability of the CCCP and NASA to get it right. IBdaMann wrote: 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. "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 07-03-2020 03:32
07-03-2020 06:03
One Punch Man★☆☆☆☆ (139)	Bode wrote: You were given data with the equation. Correct units are in power per unit area. In addition to mercury the moon and venus also exceed maximum equilibrium temperatures That assumption is wrong I think. The effective blackbody tempertaure of a planet is supposedly calculated by the equation: Where Teq is the equilibrium or effective tempertaure, Io is the luminosity or TSI, AB is the albedo and σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. Mecrury has an Io of about 9082.7 W/sq.m with an albedo of 0.068 (before anyone here chimes in saying that the albedo is unmeasurable, I get it already). The data above is from the Mercury NASA Fact Sheet. So, for Mercury the effective tempertaure comes out to be 439.5K and the average temperature comes out to be 440K (according to the NASA Fact Sheet). That looks OK to me. The calculated effective temperature of Mercury is about the same as its average temperature according to the data from NASA. What about the Moon then? The Moon is harder as information on its average temperature is hard to find. But it has a TSI of about 1361 W/sq.m (the same as Earth) which means its temperature cannot exceed 394K and according to NASA data the maximum temperature on the Moon is about 390K. Moon data from NASA. Mercury data from NASA. Nathan-D Edited on 07-03-2020 06:13
07-03-2020 06:17
Bode ☆☆☆☆☆ (21)	Yes the original post was the calculation. I'm just pointing out where real world data contradicts a theory. A good way to understand mathematics/physics is to take it to a limiting case such as min/ max values or approach zero or infinity with the variables. If the theory is correct is should hold for all cases.

07-03-2020 06:27
One Punch Man★☆☆☆☆ (139)	Yes the original post was the calculation. What original post are you referring to? I'm just pointing out where real world data contradicts a theory. Well, OK, but didn't I show that your assumption is wrong? (at least according to the data above). Nathan-D Edited on 07-03-2020 06:27
07-03-2020 06:37
Bode ☆☆☆☆☆ (21)	Show your work
07-03-2020 06:51
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	One Punch Man wrote:...the Moon...a TSI of about 1361 W/sq.m...temperature cannot exceed 394K and according to NASA data the maximum temperature on the Moon is about 390K... Thank you OPM! That's exactly what I would expect to see. Bode wrote:...I'm just pointing out where real world data contradicts a theory.... It only contradicted your misunderstanding of the theory. This was the area of confusion which was evidenced by your describing a "Maximum equilibrium temperature" which makes no sense since it's not a range but the average temperature of the entire surface. If I told you the mean height of humans on Earth was 5' 6" and you told me I was wrong because your friend Kevin exceeded the maximum mean being 6' it would be similar to what you've said about equilibrium temp. If I say "the surface temperature of that 747 over there" It would be the mean thermal energy for the entirety of off the molecules that compose that airplanes outer surface, it's emitting and absorbing surface. That would include hot spots and cold spots all. Temperature is by definition the average of thermal energy over the total mass of whatever you're identifying the temperature of. If we knew the temperature of the 747's surface, and that total surface area, we could calculate the radiance emitted. Edited on 07-03-2020 06:58
07-03-2020 07:14
Bode ☆☆☆☆☆ (21)	Measured maximum moon temperature exceeds 532 kelvin the question to you is why?
07-03-2020 07:17
One Punch Man★☆☆☆☆ (139)	Bode wrote: Show your work Show my work? I did the calculation on the Web 2.0 calculator, not on the back of an envelope. Effective tempertaure result for Mercury using the NASA data: Effective tempertaure for the Moon again using the NASA data: Maximum tempertaure of the Moon implied by the TSI of 1361 W/m2: Nathan-D Edited on 07-03-2020 07:24
07-03-2020 07:37
Bode ☆☆☆☆☆ (21)	Good job, ask your self why the theory does not hold up at high temperatures. . In every case presented T max measured exceeds T max calculated
07-03-2020 07:45
One Punch Man★☆☆☆☆ (139)	Bode wrote: Good job, ask your self why the theory does not hold up at high temperatures. . In every case presented T max measured exceeds T max calculated What case have you presented? You haven't done anything as far as I've seen. What do you find wrong with my explanations above and NASA's data? Nathan-D
07-03-2020 07:47
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	One Punch Man wrote: I did the calculation on the Web 2.0 calculator,... Nicely done. Bode wrote: Measured maximum moon temperature exceeds 532 kelvin the question to you is why? Bode wrote:....ask your self why the theory does not hold up at high temperatures. I'm assuming you just goofed up writing 532K for the moon. There is no evidence it's gotten that hot there. You don't seem to understand a few things here Bode. Temperature is the average thermal energy for something (what ever you are saying the temperature of ____ is). An average is the sum divided by the total. Unless all of the values in a set being average are equal then the maximum value will exceed the mean. This really isn't an issue with your being baffled by equilibrium temperature (which isn't really a theory at all, just a reference). You have simply, and totally, not understood what it means to say "The temperature of an object" and that it includes hot spots and cold spots. Whatever is there is all averaged into the temperature of the total object. I've explained it several times. You have not responded to what I've written. So I'm going to let it go now. Edited on 07-03-2020 08:16
07-03-2020 07:52
One Punch Man★☆☆☆☆ (139)	Bode wrote: Measured maximum moon temperature exceeds 532 kelvin the question to you is why? Where did you get this from? The NASA Fact Sheet for the Moon implies a maximum tempertaure of 390K. Nathan-D Edited on 07-03-2020 07:53
07-03-2020 19:45
Bode ☆☆☆☆☆ (21)	My mistake 399K @ 1437 w/m2 which Is still greater than available 1361 w/m2

07-03-2020 20:07
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Bode wrote: My mistake 399K @ 1437 w/m2 which Is still greater than available 1361 w/m2 They'll probably say Stefan-Boltzmann constant while it could just be refracted solar radiation. on the Moon's surface. Still, no one has explained why Venus' atmospheric pressure is 92 times greater than the Earth's while it's gravity is about 0.9 m/s^@ slower or less than the Earth's. It's atmosphere being mostly CO2 doesn't explain it. After all, Mars has less gravity that the Earth and has very little in the way of an atmosphere. I think this shows that we still have a lot to learn about our solar system.
07-03-2020 21:27
One Punch Man★☆☆☆☆ (139)	Bode wrote: My mistake 399K @ 1437 w/m2 which Is still greater than available 1361 w/m2 Where are you getting the figure of 399K for the maximum temperature on the Moon? NASA gives 390K. Nathan-D
07-03-2020 23:58
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	One Punch Man wrote: Bode wrote: My mistake 399K @ 1437 w/m2 which Is still greater than available 1361 w/m2 Where are you getting the figure of 399K for the maximum temperature on the Moon? NASA gives 390K. Space.com https://www.space.com/18175-moon-temperature.html references NASA and 396.15k. It seems the Moon's surface doesn't heat evenly. This link to JPL/NASA https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=2191 mentions to more than 389.15k.
08-03-2020 00:08
One Punch Man★☆☆☆☆ (139)	James___ wrote: One Punch Man wrote: Bode wrote: My mistake 399K @ 1437 w/m2 which Is still greater than available 1361 w/m2 Where are you getting the figure of 399K for the maximum temperature on the Moon? NASA gives 390K. Space.com https://www.space.com/18175-moon-temperature.html references NASA and 396.15k. It seems the Moon's surface doesn't heat evenly. This link to JPL/NASA https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=2191 mentions to more than 389.15k. Yes, there appears to be different values from different sources. My source is straight from NASA's Moon Fact Sheet which I believe is the most accurate. Either way, the figure you gave of 396K is only 2K above my calculated effective tempertaure. Nathan-D
08-03-2020 01:55
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	One Punch Man wrote: James___ wrote: One Punch Man wrote: Bode wrote: My mistake 399K @ 1437 w/m2 which Is still greater than available 1361 w/m2 Where are you getting the figure of 399K for the maximum temperature on the Moon? NASA gives 390K. Space.com https://www.space.com/18175-moon-temperature.html references NASA and 396.15k. It seems the Moon's surface doesn't heat evenly. This link to JPL/NASA https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=2191 mentions to more than 389.15k. Yes, there appears to be different values from different sources. My source is straight from NASA's Moon Fact Sheet which I believe is the most accurate. Either way, the figure you gave of 396K is only 2K above my calculated effective tempertaure. That's one thing space.com showed was that surface composition influences the Moon's temperature. So an exact temperature wouldn't be the issue. With me, I think there's a reason that Venus is hotter than Mercury and it's not because of CO2. It's also not accepted science so really doesn't matter right now.
08-03-2020 02:56
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14212)	James___ wrote:It's also not accepted science so really doesn't matter right now. James__, there is no such qualifier for science. A model is either science or it is not. There is no branch "accepted science." . 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
08-03-2020 19:38
Into the Night★★★★★ (21306)	One Punch Man wrote: Bode wrote: You were given data with the equation. Correct units are in power per unit area. In addition to mercury the moon and venus also exceed maximum equilibrium temperatures That assumption is wrong I think. The effective blackbody tempertaure of a planet is supposedly calculated by the equation: Where Teq is the equilibrium or effective tempertaure, Io is the luminosity or TSI, AB is the albedo and σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. Mecrury has an Io of about 9082.7 W/sq.m with an albedo of 0.068 (before anyone here chimes in saying that the albedo is unmeasurable, I get it already). The data above is from the Mercury NASA Fact Sheet. So, for Mercury the effective tempertaure comes out to be 439.5K and the average temperature comes out to be 440K (according to the NASA Fact Sheet). That looks OK to me. The calculated effective temperature of Mercury is about the same as its average temperature according to the data from NASA. What about the Moon then? The Moon is harder as information on its average temperature is hard to find. But it has a TSI of about 1361 W/sq.m (the same as Earth) which means its temperature cannot exceed 394K and according to NASA data the maximum temperature on the Moon is about 390K. NASA has no data about the Moon or Mercury. It is not possible to measure the temperature of either. 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
08-03-2020 19:42
Into the Night★★★★★ (21306)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 25g...20e1...25j...29...25c...22...10 (radiance<->temperature)...paradox..20b... 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
08-03-2020 19:44
Into the Night★★★★★ (21306)	One Punch Man wrote:...deleted Mantras 29...25c...25g...29...29...37a... 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
08-03-2020 19:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (21306)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 4b...16...28...12...16...22 ('equilibrium temperature')...22...20h...12...29...lie...7... 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
08-03-2020 19:57
Into the Night★★★★★ (21306)	One Punch Man wrote:...deleted Mantras 21...25g...37a... No argument presented. NASA is not God. 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
08-03-2020 20:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (21306)	James___ wrote:...deleted Mantra 10 (equation<->constant)...lie...20o...20r...20h... 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
08-03-2020 20:05
Into the Night★★★★★ (21306)	[quote]One Punch Man wrote:...deleted Mantras...23a...25f...38a.../quote] 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
08-03-2020 21:11
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: NASA has no data about the Moon or Mercury. It is not possible to measure the temperature of either. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: No one can know the temperature of Denver. He's absolutely correct.... How is it we know about the atmosphere of Venus then ITN? And we know you have no argument presented. You don't need to repeat that. Into the Night wrote: No argument presented. RQAA. Into the Night wrote: No argument presented. RQAA. Into the Night wrote: No argument presented. RQAA.
08-03-2020 21:46
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote:It's also not accepted science so really doesn't matter right now. James__, there is no such qualifier for science. A model is either science or it is not. There is no branch "accepted science." . If you understood science better, you would know there is. This is one reason why many scientists have "pet" theories. This is where a philosophical approach to science doesn't work very well.

08-03-2020 23:48
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14212)	James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote:It's also not accepted science so really doesn't matter right now. James__, there is no such qualifier for science. A model is either science or it is not. There is no branch "accepted science." This is one reason why many scientists have "pet" theories. Pet theories are theories that have not endured the scrutiny of the scientific method and are therefore not science. In other words, it is not the case that they are science that is not "accepted [by any consensus]" but rather they are simply not science. . 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
09-03-2020 02:29
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote:It's also not accepted science so really doesn't matter right now. James__, there is no such qualifier for science. A model is either science or it is not. There is no branch "accepted science." This is one reason why many scientists have "pet" theories. Pet theories are theories that have not endured the scrutiny of the scientific method and are therefore not science. In other words, it is not the case that they are science that is not "accepted [by any consensus]" but rather they are simply not science. . You don't know science. Einstein's Theory of Relativity was his "pet" theory. No one would publish it until it landed on Max Planck's desk. As you said; >> simply not science. << That's what Einstein was told. All you're doing is showing that philosophy does not comprehend science.
09-03-2020 13:46
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	VENUS also disproves an assertion relied on heavily here by ITN/IBD: ITN: You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase it's temperature because that violates Stefan-Boltzmann and Planck's law. IBD: ...saying temperature increases while Earth's atmospheric radiance decreases is a direct violation of Planck's Law. Both statements mean pretty much the same thing: The greenhouse theory claims Earth will radiate less while it get's hotter. If the Earth gets hotter it has to radiate more, not less. Planck's law and SB give us the same thing: For a given temperature you'll see a given radiance. Just a few of the many times this has been used are linked below for reference. link Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote:...greenhouse gases allow visible light from the sun to pass through while absorbing some of the infrared radiance...results in...a higher temperature at ground level. Violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law dude. You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time. link Into the Night wrote: VernerHornung wrote:...I wanted to see how much the CO2 above each square yard of Mars weighs.... ...CO2 nor water vapor is capable of warming ... * You can't reduce the radiance of a planet and increase that planet's temperature at the same time. link Into the Night wrote: B2dx wrote:....analysis of co2 and it absorption of ir,... No gas or vapor has the capability of warming the Earth. ... * You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.... link Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Again this was from the textbook:University Physics Volume 2 * You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time. This book ignores all of these things. It denies the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. link Into the Night wrote: keepit wrote: 5- Earth doesn't need an additional energy source if the atmosphere is retaining energy. That's the whole thing, isn't it. You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time (Stefan-Boltzmann law). You cannot trap light. You cannot trap thermal energy. You cannot create energy out of nothing (1st law of thermodynamics). link IBdaMann wrote: One Punch Man wrote: When people say that the radiance out to space decreases and the radiance back to Earth increases they are not suggesting that greenhouse gases are increasing in temperature and yet decreasing in radiance. What they are saying is that "greenhouse gases" increase earth's atmospheric temperature while decreasing earth's atmospheric radiance into space. This is a violation of Planck's Radiation Law. IBdaMann wrote: One Punch Man wrote:I do not know how greenhouse gases intercepting radiation from the surface thereby leading to less radiation escaping to space would violate Planck's law. Irrespective of this not actually happening, you nonetheless claim that: 1. Earth's atmospheric temperature increases 2. Earth's atmospheric radiance decreases That is a direct violation of Planck's Law. You cannot resolve this through any convolution of radiation of any individual photons. link IBdaMann wrote:2. Temperature as the Dependent Variable (in violation of Planck's Law). So my argument as to how Venus proves this application of SB and PL is false: First off the claim that greenhouse theory states that the radiance of "Earth" is reduced is false. It does not. "Earth" includes it's atmosphere of course, so while the radiance coming off the ground/water is intercepted by some greenhouse gases, they eventually give that energy up and exactly the same amount of energy that would leave an Earth without an atmosphere will be leaving this Earth which includes an atmosphere. The difference between "Earth" and the "Surface of Earth" is an important distinction to make as well. The "Surface of Earth" is of course not it's molten core, things underground, things under a roof, partially things under a cloud, and partially things under gases. The "SURFACE" is the collection of molecules that are radiating out into space and the collection of molecules first receiving radiance from the Sun. The "SURFACE" of your body is your skin, and only your skin. Secondly having the temperature below the surface of a object increase in temperature, while the surface radiance is unchanged, doesn't violate SB or PL. Take my avatar for example. If you were to slice that man's chest open a heart and internal organs about 4 degrees hotter would be revealed as they suddenly became the surface where they are not now. The claims made by ITN/IBD are disprove by Venus. Before we ever visited Venus we thought/hoped it might be habitable because the radiance from Venus told a much different story than what Venera landers measured later. The radiance from the "surface" of Venus, which is likely mostly high in it's atmosphere, was first observed using telescopes setup to filter out reflected radiance of the Sun and thermocouples to measure the infrared. From Sinton's "Taking the Temperature of the Moon and Planets": It was found to be a chilly, but survivable -39C. This temperature was a pretty accurate measurement for one taken in 1924 as it turns out the Equilibrium Temperature of Venus is estimated at 227K=-46C. So we had no idea at that time that the ground level of Venus was so incredibly hot. Why? Because the radiance coming off of Venus, as per Stefan-Boltzman and as per Planck's law, is in line with it's Equilibrium temperature of course, at a chilly -46C. So how can it be that the ground level is 462C and the radiance of Venus, the temperature of the collection of molecules that compose it's "surface" are 500 degrees colder at -46C ? Because it is not a law that an object must have a uniform temperature throughout. Your skin is 4 degrees colder than your guts. But before one speculates on the how, the exact why, a planet can have a ground level temperature that is considerably hotter than the radiance leaving the planet, it must be acknowledged that Venus is an undeniable example of this being a reality. Even giving it a 400 degree margin of error, which is absurd, establishes this. So if anyone wants to claim it can't happen, or that bumble bee's can't fly, they'll need to explain away the evidence first. "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 09-03-2020 14:34
09-03-2020 16:18
One Punch Man★☆☆☆☆ (139)	If people are against the greenhouse gas theory increasing the temperature of Venus above its effective/equilibrium temperature then are there other possibilities that you would consider rather than simply saying "measurements aren't valid". The heat emanating from the interior as suggested by the Velikovskian theory? Pressure? The thick Venusian cloud-layer perhaps? Nathan-D Edited on 09-03-2020 16:19
09-03-2020 16:22
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	This is for tmiddles and for everyone else to consider. 1 mol is about 22.4 m^3 of space. With Venus' temperature and pressure, according to the Ideal Gas Law, it should have about 32,500 mols of gas in the 22.4 m^3 of space. What this suggests is that gas molecules under pressure release heat content, ie., gases under pressure cool because they release their heat. Like steam condensing into water. If I remember correctly, 1 quart of water can make 16,000 quarts of steam unless it's under pressure which would require more energy for it to remain as steam. After all, Venus is hotter than Mercury because of CO2, right? By all accounts CO2 should be close to being a liquid. Since it's atmosphere is a gas, please explain. Science requires an explanation. And if this cannot be explained then we cannot say that Venus' atmosphere and/or temperature matters as far as the 4 interior planets of our solar system go. That is to extreme of a variable for it to be used for any comparison to anything else. In a way it is personal tmiddles, 1,334 psi is a lot of pressure. The same as being 3,008 feet deep in the ocean. There is something that can explain this. It's my "pet" theory. It would be a the "missing variable" and would allow for the observations that have been made to be correct. And tmiddles, with this, I am doing it to get your attention to make you aware that what you are using to make a point is not a valid consideration at this time. @All, also another thought. At an elevation at 65 kilometers above Venus surface are sulphur dioxide clouds. On the Moon, it's temperature is it's highest where there is sulphur dioxide on it's surface. This would also need to be taken into consideration when considering Venus' temperature. This is because do we know what the temperature of Venus' atmosphere is based on? It's reading above or below it's clouds of sulphur? Yep, it would need to be known how sulphur in Venus' atmosphere matters. I don't think that has been discussed as of yet. One thought would be if Venus' sulphur clouds are trapping heat. If so those clouds might also be hotter than the atmosphere below it. This is an example of what I'm talking about. Is the heat being released by sulphur gas responsible for the heat observed coming from Venus? https://earthsky.org/science-wire/have-venus-volcanoes-been-caught-in-the-act Enjoy Edited on 09-03-2020 16:29
09-03-2020 18:31
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	I thought I would add some facts about Venus' atmosphere. Sulphur burns at about 455º C. and when it does, the heat it releases is about 1,250º C. tmiddles, can you say if this influences how hot Venus is? Getting into the Atmospheric Chemistry of Venus. I could say it's warmer above the clouds because sulphur is burning. There's also is it mimicking the Chapman cycle here on Earth? What they say; The researchers believe that the sulphur dioxide derives from the sulphuric acid mist in the upper atmosphere of Venus. https://phys.org/news/2010-11-sulfur-dioxide-venus-atmosphere-key.html I'll leave ya'all alone now. I know I'm a problem child Edited on 09-03-2020 18:47
09-03-2020 19:50
Into the Night★★★★★ (21306)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 29...17... 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
09-03-2020 19:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (21306)	James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote:It's also not accepted science so really doesn't matter right now. James__, there is no such qualifier for science. A model is either science or it is not. There is no branch "accepted science." This is one reason why many scientists have "pet" theories. Pet theories are theories that have not endured the scrutiny of the scientific method and are therefore not science. In other words, it is not the case that they are science that is not "accepted [by any consensus]" but rather they are simply not science. . You don't know science. Einstein's Theory of Relativity was his "pet" theory. No one would publish it until it landed on Max Planck's desk. As you said; >> simply not science. << That's what Einstein was told. All you're doing is showing that philosophy does not comprehend science. Compositional error fallacy. Buzzword fallacy. Mantra 10 (pet theory<->science, consensus<->science)...21...20k...37d. Philosophy is what defines science, and gives the reasoning for that definition. It also defines 'religion', and the concepts of 'reality' in the same way. Discarding philosophy discards all meaning of these words. 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
09-03-2020 20:26
Into the Night★★★★★ (21306)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 38a So my argument as to how Venus proves this application of SB and PL is false: ...deleted Mantras 20b3...20e2...20s...20b4...20g...20a2...20e2...26...31...7...21...25c...20b1...25k...25g...20b1...20e2...22 (equilibrium temperature)...25j...25g...31...20a3...20b1...20b3...20b4...25g...25c...20e1...37c...21.... No argument presented. No proof available in an open system. 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
09-03-2020 21:50
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote:It's also not accepted science so really doesn't matter right now. James__, there is no such qualifier for science. A model is either science or it is not. There is no branch "accepted science." This is one reason why many scientists have "pet" theories. Pet theories are theories that have not endured the scrutiny of the scientific method and are therefore not science. In other words, it is not the case that they are science that is not "accepted [by any consensus]" but rather they are simply not science. . You don't know science. Einstein's Theory of Relativity was his "pet" theory. No one would publish it until it landed on Max Planck's desk. As you said; >> simply not science. << That's what Einstein was told. All you're doing is showing that philosophy does not comprehend science. Compositional error fallacy. Buzzword fallacy. Mantra 10 (pet theory<->science, consensus<->science)...21...20k...37d. Philosophy is what defines science, and gives the reasoning for that definition. It also defines 'religion', and the concepts of 'reality' in the same way. Discarding philosophy discards all meaning of these words. All you're saying ITN is that because you think, you are God. Philosophy defines nothing because it's not posting in here but you are. And science states that philosophy is ßüll Śhїt. With Much Love Science

Page 18 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