Venus is hotter than Mercury?!?

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Venus is hotter than Mercury?!? > Page 20

Page 20 of 28

12-03-2020 04:04
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: [quote]tmiddles wrote:...(addition of area term * inverse square law term)... It's not clear AT ALL what your commentary is but the math is now perfect. Nope. Same kinds of errors. tmiddles wrote: There is nothing at all that is being summed or added, there is no "addition": Irrelevant. tmiddles wrote: σT^44πR^2r^2/2D^2=σt^44πr^2 The formula to find the energy output with Stefan-Boltzman requires the area of the emitter. Nope. It doesn't. tmiddles wrote:* In both the case of the Sun and the object that's a sphere. So of course you use 4πR^2 in: σT^44πR^2 that is simply: σT^4A Math error: Unit error. tmiddles wrote: Every one of the Math errors you thought you found (with the exception of the extra π I'd already caught) was actually your error. No, they are YOUR errors. YOU made them. tmiddles wrote: I see no rebuttal or admission of that. Mantra 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
12-03-2020 04:27
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: The formula to find the energy output with Stefan-Boltzman requires the area of the emitter. Nope. It doesn't. Yes it does! It's PER AREA. If it didn't then a Sun the size of a basketball would have the same energy output as our sun does. Let's have a look: When "A" is not included it is understood that it is per M^2. So you have to know how many meters squared there are: So your are wrong! It makes no sense not to include area. Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: In both the case of the Sun and the object that's a sphere. So of course you use 4πR^2 in: σT^44πR^2 that is simply: σT^4A Math error: Unit error. So what are you saying the error is? That doesn't even include units of measure? I think you're being intentionally vague because you got nothing. THE MATH IS PERFECT Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Every one of the Math errors you thought you found (with the exception of the extra π I'd already caught) was actually your error. No, they are YOUR errors. YOU made them. And what errors are your citing? I refuted everyone of those you claimed and showed it was your error not mine. How about this one: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote:...t^22=T^2R(1/D) Divide both sides by 2 t^2=T^2R(1/D)(1/2) Math error. You failed to divide T^2 by 2. No it's right, see the 2 on the left divided out and the "* 1/2" now on the right. 1/2 is dividing by 2. You still saying that's wrong? ALL of your notes were wrong I just figured I'd pick one. Maybe the only think that makes you and IBD crazy is your weird Trumpesque inability to admit you are wrong. I'm wrong constantly, every day, about you name it. I have no problem admitting that and moving on. But you guys say day is night and just hold on with a death grip. It's sad. "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 12-03-2020 04:43
12-03-2020 04:54
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Do Ya'all know what would be an interesting experiment? To put something like a solar panel on the Moon. There's a reason I'd find it interesting. For about 1/2 of its orbit around the Earth, contact with it wouldn't be possible because there would be no line of sight for signals to be transmitted to the Earth. What that would do is measure solar IR. I'm not sure if it's ever been measured using a method like that. BTW, if they put the same set up on the Dark Side of the Moon, they could find out if the Earth's Van Allen radiation belts at 21,00° Kelvin radiates any energy. This is a kind of Trust but Verify kind of thing. FYI, the Moon is about 10 times further away from the Earth than the outside of the Van Allen radiation belts. Edited on 12-03-2020 05:30
12-03-2020 06:01
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	The Van Allen radiation belt gets as hot as 21,000º kelvin and not 21,00º kelvin. And if it radiates any energy, it's said that neither it nor the Sun's corona does in a way that's meaningful. p.s. If the Sun's surface is 6,000° C. then the Sun's gravity is generating that heat. The Sun's corona probably lacks the density of the Sun so its energy by become known in a different way. Basically how much energy does it take to heat rock vs a layer of the atmosphere? Edited on 12-03-2020 06:17
12-03-2020 06:29
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras TMSa7...7... 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

12-03-2020 06:42
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	James___ wrote: Do Ya'all know what would be an interesting experiment? To put something like a solar panel on the Moon. Several are already there. They operate the experiments left behind on the Moon by the astronauts. James___ wrote: There's a reason I'd find it interesting. For about 1/2 of its orbit around the Earth, contact with it wouldn't be possible because there would be no line of sight for signals to be transmitted to the Earth. If the solar panel operated a radio, that is true. James___ wrote: What that would do is measure solar IR. I'm not sure if it's ever been measured using a method like that. Solar panels don't measure IR. While some IR does produce some electricity in a solar panel, most of it comes from visible light. James___ wrote: BTW, if they put the same set up on the Dark Side of the Moon, they could find out if the Earth's Van Allen radiation belts at 21,00° Kelvin radiates any energy. This is a kind of Trust but Verify kind of thing. There is no dark side of the Moon. Day/night cycles cover every part of the Moon's surface. Any experiment set up on the far side of the Moon would not see the belts. 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
12-03-2020 10:01
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote:...How about this one:... No arguments presented. RQAA. No coherence presented ITN. I have been responsive to your post and made both arguments and asked direct questions where you've been unclear. You are simply ducking the debate. I guess when someone defeats you in a debate and points out how wrong you are you call it "preaching" are run away. R to the Q to the A A Edited on 12-03-2020 10:29
12-03-2020 11:04
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantra 22...lie...29...29...10 (RQAA<->debate)...7...23...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
12-03-2020 11:19
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantra 22...lie...29...29...10 (RQAA<->debate)...7...23...17... No argument presented. RQAA. There are no math errors ITN. You are wrong.
12-03-2020 14:59
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	This is from NASA. >> It has been known for decades that the correct explanation for why aurora occur involves distant regions of the magnetic field of Earth in the opposite direction from the Sun. As solar storms disturb Earth's magnetic field, this field rearranges itself and converts some of its stored energy into the kinetic energy of fast-moving particles. These particles, partly from the Sun and partly from Earth, flow inwards towards Earth along the polar magnetic field lines. As they encounter the ionosphere, they are boosted in energy to 6,000 volts or more, and then collide with nitrogen and oxygen atoms to produce the auroral light. There is no direct entry of solar particles into the polar regions to create the night-time aurora. Also, solar flares do not cause aurora either. << https://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/educator/Aurora79.html Particles are charged to 6,000 volts or more. That's a lot of energy. If the current is 2 amps, then that's 12,000 watts or more per particle. And the energy comes from the ionosphere. BTW, the ionosphere is inside the Van Allen radiation belts. The inner radiation belts is about 400 miles above but consider the lights happen when the pole has the least amount of sunlight...... This is from visit Senja; https://www.facebook.com/groups/1792618197423232/permalink/2947644855253888/ Edited on 12-03-2020 15:10
12-03-2020 20:11
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 23...25...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
12-03-2020 22:03
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14416)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: The formula to find the energy output with Stefan-Boltzman requires the area of the emitter. Nope. It doesn't. Yes it does! It's PER AREA. Into the Night is correct because you made a technical error. Yes, to find the POWER output you need the AREA ... but you wrote ENERGY. Change the word ENERGY to POWER and I bet he'll agree with you on that particular point... because he accepts Stefan-Boltzmann. . 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
12-03-2020 23:52
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: The formula to find the energy output with Stefan-Boltzman requires the area of the emitter. Nope. It doesn't. Yes it does! It's PER AREA. Into the Night is correct because you made a technical error. Yes, to find the POWER output you need the AREA ... but you wrote ENERGY. Change the word ENERGY to POWER and I bet he'll agree with you on that particular point... because he accepts Stefan-Boltzmann. . You guys need to learn a little something about atmospheric chemistry. This is funny I just figured out something that they know happens but can't quite explain the mechanics. It also explains how particles from the Sun heats our atmosphere. Kind of doubt I'll take the time to do the math. To get the details right it might take years to fine tune the equation so it's applicable to planets with an atmosphere. And yep, it does involve tweaking gravity a little. It has more than just linear potential. Enjoy
13-03-2020 02:22
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14416)	James___ wrote: You guys need to learn a little something about atmospheric chemistry. This is funny Chemistry always cracks me up! Nothing is funnier than tests that involve watching paint dry, water boil or plants grow ... except maybe verifying induction proofs ... but that kind of goes without saying. James___ wrote: I just figured out something that they know happens but can't quite explain the mechanics. Actually, I talked to them just yesterday and they performed a full deep-dive into the mechanics. You just missed it. They got it all on video and you can still probably catch the webinar on YouTube. James___ wrote: It also explains how particles from the Sun heats our atmosphere. It turns out that it's the other way around. Who knew? The atmosphere cools the sun's particles! I was just as surprised as you are. James___ wrote: Kind of doubt I'll take the time to do the math. I normally just do the crossword puzzle and the sudoku. James___ wrote: To get the details right it might take years to fine tune the equation ... ... or a crapload of crossword puzzles and sudokus. James___ wrote: And yep, it does involve tweaking gravity a little. It's always easier to modify the software and to tweak gravity than to go back and properly redesign the hardware. James___ wrote: It has more than just linear potential. They never live up to their linear potential. . 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
13-03-2020 02:50
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:...I bet he'll agree with you on that particular point... because he accepts Stefan-Boltzmann. ITN seems to have quit. What about you IBD? Did you find any math errors in my last derivation of the "SOLAR ABSORPTION TEMPERATURE"? Edited on 13-03-2020 02:51

13-03-2020 03:07
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: You guys need to learn a little something about atmospheric chemistry. This is funny Chemistry always cracks me up! Nothing is funnier than tests that involve watching paint dry, water boil or plants grow ... except maybe verifying induction proofs ... but that kind of goes without saying. James___ wrote: I just figured out something that they know happens but can't quite explain the mechanics. Actually, I talked to them just yesterday and they performed a full deep-dive into the mechanics. You just missed it. They got it all on video and you can still probably catch the webinar on YouTube. James___ wrote: It also explains how particles from the Sun heats our atmosphere. It turns out that it's the other way around. Who knew? The atmosphere cools the sun's particles! I was just as surprised as you are. James___ wrote: Kind of doubt I'll take the time to do the math. I normally just do the crossword puzzle and the sudoku. James___ wrote: To get the details right it might take years to fine tune the equation ... ... or a crapload of crossword puzzles and sudokus. James___ wrote: And yep, it does involve tweaking gravity a little. It's always easier to modify the software and to tweak gravity than to go back and properly redesign the hardware. James___ wrote: It has more than just linear potential. They never live up to their linear potential. . Thanks for sharing a picture of yourself. Now I know who I'm "talking" with. p.s., the SB constant only applies to TB12. It does not apply to celestial bodies. That's because TB12 has more rings than Saturn because of TB12's constant SB activity.
13-03-2020 04:20
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14416)	James___ wrote:p.s., the SB constant only applies to TB12. It does not apply to celestial bodies. Spot on. You've heard Into the Night and I emphasize repeatedly that Stefan-Boltzmann does not apply to earth, celestial bodies, molecules or pancakes. The science is clear that you need to tweak gravity over many years and avoid doing the math. Voila! . 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
13-03-2020 15:36
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote:p.s., the SB constant only applies to TB12. It does not apply to celestial bodies. Spot on. You've heard Into the Night and I emphasize repeatedly that Stefan-Boltzmann does not apply to earth, celestial bodies, molecules or pancakes. The science is clear that you need to tweak gravity over many years and avoid doing the math. Voila! . I guess people like you and tmiddles have defend your position. I mean if most of the heat in our atmosphere is actually coming from the ionosphere that would really screw things up for you, right? This is referring to the Earth obviously; Assuming the Earth is a black body and has a temperature of 300 K, how much energy is it emitting? Energy emitted = [1] [5.67 x 10-8 W m-2 K-4] [ 300 K]4 = 459 W m-2 Energy coming from the Sun; T = 6000 K Energy emitted = [1] [5.67 x 10-8 W m-2 K-4] [ 6000 K]4 = 73,483,200 W m-2 Using the inverse^2 principle, the wattage that reaches the Earth = 5,858 w/m^2. Our solar constant is only 1,334 w/m^2 and the Moon's is 1367.6 w/m^2. Since the Moon does orbit the Earth, it's average solar constant would be about the same as the Earth's. It's okay IBDM, I know you'll deflect.
13-03-2020 18:38
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 17...29...29...25...20b...22 (solar absorption temperature)...25k... 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
13-03-2020 18:41
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	James___ wrote:...deleted Mantras 20e2...20d...25k...20b2... 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 Edited on 13-03-2020 18:44
14-03-2020 07:40
Amanbir Grewal★☆☆☆☆ (123)	this is my office, Jamie. and i have the famous proposition, for you. make yourself a buck, like the wage out there, on that street you love so much. what do i do? why do i need you?that's in the contract right there, READ IT. { { { { { {gap} } } } } } that's a real cheque Jamie. we get to work, I'll be Batman, you Robin. that, is bad gotham city. no botches, no screw-ups, just do your job. i wish i could help you, but i'm kinda tied down here. ye?
14-03-2020 16:08
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Amanbir Grewal wrote: this is my office, Jamie. and i have the famous proposition, for you. make yourself a buck, like the wage out there, on that street you love so much. what do i do? why do i need you?that's in the contract right there, READ IT. { { { { { {gap} } } } } } that's a real cheque Jamie. we get to work, I'll be Batman, you Robin. that, is bad gotham city. no botches, no screw-ups, just do your job. i wish i could help you, but i'm kinda tied down here. ye? I actually want to work with a German scientist on an experiment. Kind of why understanding some of what I know is important. Without a solid hypothesis I'd just sound like an idiot, right? This is where if I were to work with someone, it would be a risk I don't need to take. They might want me to do things their way. This is where I should probably start going over the math. It does need to convey a solid hypothesis. Otherwise I'd look like an idiot, right?
14-03-2020 17:07
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14416)	James___ wrote: Kind of why understanding some of what I know is important. Why don't you shoot for understanding ALL of what you know? James___ wrote: Without a solid hypothesis I'd just sound like an idiot, right? The scientific method doesn't care how flimsy your hypothesis is, it will break it and help you make it stronger ... until you have actual science. James___ wrote:This is where if I were to work with someone, it would be a risk I don't need to take. A risk to you or to him? James___ wrote: They might want me to do things their way. ... like follow the scientific method? . 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
14-03-2020 19:48
Amanbir Grewal★☆☆☆☆ (123)	you just saved me all the time......of goin thru the write-ups!!!!!! now i know what i'm working with, or with who, for my ambition and goals.' why do i drink my coffee quietly, b'coz i have nothing to say!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
26-05-2020 14:39
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBD has agreed to resume our discussion on the 1st LTD as he has interpreted it and VENUS IBdaMann wrote: the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. How does what you claim about Venus disprove the 1st Law of Thermodynamics? . link In a nut shell it has been claimed that a planets lower atmosphere can only have a higher temperature if there is "additional energy". That the claims about CO2 resulting in a higher temp violate the 1st LTD because "where did the additional energy come from?" yet we know from Earth at 30 degrees higher and Venus at 500 degrees higher that their equilibrium temps that planets do have higher temps at the bottom of the atmosphere without an additional energy source. To recap, this was my last post as yet not responded to below this line: _____________________________________________________________ IBdaMann wrote: For any given planet that has an atmosphere, the average temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere will be higher than the planet's average black-body science temperature. This is you're saying this correct? Have you addressed this before? Perhaps I've been remiss in that somehow that's escaped our conversations here. IBdaMann wrote: 1) I am trying to figure out if the equations you are using are the same as the blackbody science laws, i.e. Planck's, Stefan-Boltzmann, etc... Have you looked at the derivation for t=T(R/2D)^0.5 above? It's perfectly conventional use of SB as far as I know. Corrections welcomed. IBdaMann wrote:...we have to address your value for emissivity. I'm assuming, for the sake of argument, we know absolutely nothing about the emissivity. It could be anything so we must include all possible values in our margin of error. Do you have a problem with that? IBdaMann wrote:...You have not provided any raw data ... For the sake of argument let's just ask this question: The CCCP and NASA have provided a value without a margin of error. Can we apply a margin of error to that value ourselves without "raw data"? Yes of course we are talking about making up a number for the sake of argument. You were willing to do that earlier. Of course I have no clue what you mean by raw data as there are no examples you will acknowledge on this board. You and ITN were in agreement on this subject in the DATA MINE and you're both thoroughly debunked on it in my sig. IBdaMann wrote: You opened by declaring a HUGE margin of error. Yes I did and I stand by it for the purposes of the debate. +/- 300 degrees when you factor in emissivity. That is +/- 300 degrees on the value provided by the "experts" from the CCCP and NASA, no IBD approved "Raw Data" at all, so a really big margin for this debate (because you're in it). I personally do not doubt their numbers. IBdaMann wrote:...you believe that your initial target margin of error applies to your data values and that you don't realize that it applies to your conclusions. Did you have a comment on my actual calculation?: Mean[TABA(Venus)] - SOLAR ABSORPTION TEMP = 508C +/- 300 degC What you've said makes no sense to me. Having a margin of error on input data will naturally effect the calculation but you do not apply the margin twice. IBdaMann wrote:....you refuse to include the Ideal Gas Law to account for the temperature effects of the atmosphere. Good luck. My calculated value, with the huge margin of error, successfully debunks most of your arguments over the past 5 years. I don't have to include any comment on the ideal gas law to debunk your errors because you didn't. IBdaMann wrote:Would you like to address these points now or later? All 5 are addressed above. Let me know if I left anything out. IBdaMann wrote:...it is not the case that NASA and CCCP have anything to say on the matter. That does not make sense as I read it. Care to elaborate? IBdaMann wrote:You don't have Venus' average planetary temperature to any usable accuracy. Really? Not about chemical composition? Temp? Pressure? Nothing? We know nothing at all? Into the Night wrote:In the case of Venus, that atmosphere has almost no hydrogen in it at all. Into the Night wrote:The Venusian atmosphere is almost all CO2. Into the Night wrote:The surface pressure is 90 times the surface pressure on Earth. Into the Night wrote:...the high temperatures of Venus. from the DATA MINE IBdaMann wrote:...the extreme heat of Venus, ... link Now I've gotta let ITN say it here: Into the Night wrote: ....You have been EVADING a sensible conversation by ...demanding data to be formatted in a particular way...Start having a discussion about the meaning of the data you have! From his thread, the Data Mine I'm saying that the bottom of the atmosphere of Venus being 200+ degrees hotter than the equilibrium temperature for that distance from the sun is a reliable conclusion we can have confidence in. I can only assume you are evading even entertaining a discussion based on that be cause you know as well as I do that it destroys most of your arguments over the past 5 years. "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 26-05-2020 14:44
27-05-2020 03:55
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted 16c...6...25g...25g...20a1...20a2...20o...20o...20g...29...29...29...20e3...20b...22e...10f...25j...25c...29...29...29...lie...30...29...4c...29...7...25g...25c...4b...4f...29...25g...20o...20g...20q1...20q2...20q5...29...25c1...25d...25e...7...20n...lie...29...4f...35c...29...25...16c..24a..29...29...29..29...16b...4c...29...20a2...25g...20o...7...39abcdfgijnopq... No argument presented. Bad math. Denial of science. Invalid proofs. Lies. 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
27-05-2020 09:19
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14416)	tmiddles wrote: In a nut shell it has been claimed that a planets lower atmosphere can only have a higher temperature if there is "additional energy". You re going to bitch and whine and moan and complain when I point out that you need to fix this subdivision of the body earth. You can't do it. The atmosphere is part of the earth. The "lower" atmosphere is part of the atmosphere which is part fo the earth. No part of the earth acts separately from the entirety of the earth. So, be forewarned, when you start bitching and whining and moaning and complaining and griping and wailing and gnashing your teeth, I will point to this post and render no sympathy. tmiddles wrote: That the claims about CO2 resulting in a higher temp violate the 1st LTD because "where did the additional energy come from?" Correct. Any increase in temperature requires additional energy. If you tell me that temperature has increased then you have told me that there is additional energy. Sometimes this additional energy comes in the form of outside forces like gravity which is the case on Venus and earth and any planet that has an atmosphere. I will give you a hint. Do you know what a grill press is? It uses gravity to cause an increase in pressure which increases the temperature and thus increases thermal energy flow ... or "heat" if you prefer. Energy = Work = Force (gravity) across Distance. The bottom of any atmosphere will experience a "grill press" effect from the planet's very own gravity. You need to account for the Ideal Gas law when discussing temperature within or at the bottom of the atmosphere or your argument will be summarily dismissed for obvious reasons. tmiddles wrote: yet we know from Earth at 30 degrees higher and Venus at 500 degrees higher that their equilibrium temps Nope. This is not something that "we know." This is merely something that you wish were the case because that would make you omniscient. We do not know any planet's average planetary temperature to any useful accuracy, sorry. We don't know any planet's emissivity to any useful accuracy. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: 1) I am trying to figure out if the equations you are using are the same as the blackbody science laws, i.e. Planck's, Stefan-Boltzmann, etc... Have you looked at the derivation for t=T(R/2D)^0.5 above? It's perfectly conventional use of SB as far as I know. Corrections welcomed. I glanced at it ... but I hate checking the proofs and derivations for errors ... especially when it's not my proof, i.e. I have to do all the thinking to see if the right equations are being used ... so ... At first glance, the σT^44πR^2 looks OK for solar power ... but that segues into an error, i.e. So the total ENERGY IN is: σT^44πR^2r^2/2D^2* It should only be the radiance that the sun emits toward the earth that becomes the power that the earth receives from the sun, i.e. *σT^4 r^2/2D^2 ... but the equation presented concentrates ALL the sun's total power in all directions ... on the earth, i.e. σT^44πR^2r^2/2D^2 Remind me again why we're talking about this. I see this as nothing but a distraction ... and I HATE doing math. I love discussing the equations and relationships but I let others proof the logic and crunch the numbers. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...we have to address your value for emissivity. I'm assuming, for the sake of argument, we know absolutely nothing about the emissivity. It could be anything so we must include all possible values in our margin of error. Do you have a problem with that? I do not if you have no problem with admitting up front that we cannot know a planet's average temperature to any useful accuracy? tmiddles wrote: Can we apply a margin of error to that value ourselves without "raw data"? Yes we can, but it quickly becomes absurd. One thing we can do is to take a planet like mercury, guesstimate its highest temperature around 750dF/400dC (?) perhaps? ... and its coldest temperature around -250dF/-160dC (?) perhaps? ... giving us a temperature SPREAD of about 1000dF/560dC roughly. We use Mercury because without an atmosphere, we can be rather confident that possible temperature variance on Mercury will be strictly greater than any variance we would expect on Venus. Ergo, if we get just one temperature reading for the whole planet of Venus, I would be VERY comfortable with the statement "Venus' average planetary temperature is X +/- 1000dF/560dC. So yes, it's certainly doable. tmiddles wrote: Of course I have no clue what you mean by raw data as there are no examples you will acknowledge on this board. ... because there are no examples on this board. tmiddles wrote: You and ITN were in agreement on this subject in the DATA MINE and you're both thoroughly debunked on it in my sig. I can't even begin to imagine what you believe you are talking about. If you are claiming to have "debunked" something then it is a virtual guarantee that you are raving incoherently. I'm not even going to pretend I understand what you are getting at, but I am certain that whatever is going through your mind is entirely dependent upon misstating my position, quoting me out of context or citing bogus non-science gibber-babble. ... but if you'd like to explain, I'm paying attention. IBdaMann wrote: You opened by declaring a HUGE margin of error. Yes I did and I stand by it for the purposes of the debate. +/- 300 degrees when you factor in emissivity. [/quote] You don't know what any emissivity is. You can't "factor it in." tmiddles wrote: What you've said makes no sense to me. Should we end the discussion then? tmiddles wrote:*Having a margin of error on input data will naturally effect the calculation but you do not apply the margin twice. Nothing is allowed to affect the measurements or the calculations, i.e. the raw data and the applied statistical math. The process needs to be as follows: 1) You decide what area or volume you wish to measure. 2) You establish the minimum acceptable margin of error. 3) Based on your target margin of error you develop your data collection plan. 4) From your data collection plan you can determine in advance what your actual margin of error will be, but you can also wait and compute it after you have gathered your data, just as you would if all you were to receive is raw data from someone else. If the actual margin of error falls below your required target, you must either reaccomplish your data collection plan or accept the previously "unacceptable" margin of error. Without the raw data you cannot do anything; you are dead in the water. gfm7175 can tell you, it's so much better knowing the margin of error. . Attached image: Edited on 27-05-2020 09:21
27-05-2020 11:42
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:...Sometimes this additional energy comes in the form of outside forces like gravity ... Energy = Work = Force (gravity) across Distance. The bottom of any atmosphere will experience a "grill press" effect from the planet's very own gravity. So you are saying gravity is an energy source? So we have the Sun + gravity as energy sources yielding the temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere? We have often discussed the Sun being the only energy source (since star light and the thermal energy remaining in the molten core of Earth can be discounted).' Wanted to focus on that a moment. Not ignoring the rest of your post.
27-05-2020 21:31
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...Sometimes this additional energy comes in the form of outside forces like gravity ... Energy = Work = Force (gravity) across Distance. The bottom of any atmosphere will experience a "grill press" effect from the planet's very own gravity. So you are saying gravity is an energy source? So we have the Sun + gravity as energy sources yielding the temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere? We have often discussed the Sun being the only energy source (since star light and the thermal energy remaining in the molten core of Earth can be discounted).' Wanted to focus on that a moment. Not ignoring the rest of your post. Go drop a hammer on your foot. I doubt then that you'll figure it out. 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
27-05-2020 22:49
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...Sometimes this additional energy comes in the form of outside forces like gravity ... Energy = Work = Force (gravity) across Distance. The bottom of any atmosphere will experience a "grill press" effect from the planet's very own gravity. So you are saying gravity is an energy source? So we have the Sun + gravity as energy sources yielding the temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere? We have often discussed the Sun being the only energy source (since star light and the thermal energy remaining in the molten core of Earth can be discounted).' Wanted to focus on that a moment. Not ignoring the rest of your post. Go drop a hammer on your foot. I doubt then that you'll figure it out. ... he could at least try a softball on his noggin... might knock some sense into it...

27-05-2020 22:57
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote:So you are saying gravity is an energy source? Go drop a hammer on your foot. I doubt then that you'll figure it out. gfm7175 wrote:... might knock some sense into it... Just to be clear ITN and GFM you are also saying that gravity is a source of energy?
27-05-2020 23:49
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14416)	tmiddles wrote:So you are saying gravity is an energy source? to focus on that a moment. Not ignoring the rest of your post. Gravity is a force, not energy. Get familiar with these equations: Energy = mass * c^2 Energy = work = Force * distance [one joule = one Newton * one meter] Force = mass * acceleration Power = work / time Power = energy / time Now relate energy to temperature: One calorie = amount of energy needed to raise one gram of water by 1°C (4.1868 joules). Now we look at the Ideal Gas law: Pessure * Volume = moles * universal_gas_constant * Temperature Pressure and Temperature necessarily move in the same direction just like Radiance and Temperature both move in the same direction. Ergo, if Pressure is increased then the Temperature is increased. Using the Ideal Gas law you can compute a temperature increase and from the above you can equate it to an amount of energy. Look at it this way ... If Venus' atmosphere were a freely floating cloud in space, it would have no pressure and would be a much cooler mass. Add Venus, it's gravity and the grill press effect and it's much hotter ... and it is hottest at the bottom of the atmosphere. . 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
28-05-2020 00:09
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote:So you are saying gravity is an energy source? Go drop a hammer on your foot. I doubt then that you'll figure it out. gfm7175 wrote:... might knock some sense into it... Just to be clear ITN and GFM you are also saying that gravity is a source of energy? No.
28-05-2020 14:59
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: Gravity is a force, not energy. So the issue being the 1st LTD you were identifying how the temperture could only be higher WITH additional energy right? You said: IBdaMann wrote: Sometimes this additional energy comes in the form of outside forces like gravity So if gravity is not additional energy am I reading the above sentence wrong in thinking you're saying it is?
28-05-2020 18:01
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Gravity is a force, not energy. So the issue being the 1st LTD you were identifying how the temperture could only be higher WITH additional energy right? You said: IBdaMann wrote: Sometimes this additional energy comes in the form of outside forces like gravity So if gravity is not additional energy am I reading the above sentence wrong in thinking you're saying it is? There is a difference between "force" and "energy". There is a difference between "additional energy" and "additional energy source". Edited on 28-05-2020 18:04
28-05-2020 18:20
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: So the issue being the 1st LTD you were identifying how the temperture could only be higher WITH additional energy right? You said: So if gravity is not additional energy am I reading the above sentence wrong in thinking you're saying it is? On the next hot and sunny afternoon, try this little experiment out: [1] Step out onto your deck (where the sun has been shining on it). [2] Place your foot onto that spot as soft as you possibly can. Note how your foot feels. [3] Press your foot onto that same spot as hard as you possibly can. Note how your foot feels now compared to before.
28-05-2020 19:56
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14416)	tmiddles wrote:So if gravity is not additional energy am I reading the above sentence wrong in thinking you're saying it is? Gravity is not energy. Gravity is a force. This is where those equations come in, especially that of the Ideal Gas law. You note the "Temperature" variable in the ideal gas law and exactly what the relationship is for it to increase, including the increase in "Pressure." What causes the increase in "Pressure"? Gravity. Is gravity energy? No. Gravity is a force that acts on the atmosphere compressing it. The work thus performed by gravity equates to energy. One more time: Gravity is not energy but the work performed by gravity is energy which results in an increased temperature which corresponds exactly to the increased pressure resulting from the work performed by force of gravity. Look at it this way. Say you have an air compressor that compresses air as its name implies, and that its motor runs on standard line current from a wall socket. Diregarding loss inherent in the system, a quantity X of electrical energy from the line current runs a motor which performs X work (still energy) to compress the air causing its pressure to increase and increasing the temperature of that air exactly what would result from X additional thermal energy. So instead of Venus' atmosphere being a freely floating cloud in space, Venus' gravity in conjunction with the Venus' solid surface work to maintain Venus' atmosphere continually compressed. Read up on the Ideal Gas law. It's rather straightforward. PV = nRT Pressure * Volume = #moles * Universal_gas_constant * 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
03-06-2020 14:34
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: Gravity is not energy. Gravity is a force. Cool just wanted you to clarify that in your own words. IBdaMann wrote: Gravity is not energy but the work performed by gravity is energy Sure enough and it should be noted that the source of the energy in this case is the sun. Just as if I pulled a rubber band back with my fingers I would be the original source of the energy, not the rubber band. The energy from the sun in this case is what is expanding gases out along the gravitational field. If the energy from the sun was not causing that gaseous expansion the gases would fall back down to the surface of Earth (well they'd be left with the thermal energy from the cooling Earth and star light). IBdaMann wrote:.... which results in an increased temperature which corresponds exactly to the increased pressure resulting from the work performed by force of gravity. This is a bit circular in it's description but let's find out where we are both going with this. IBdaMann wrote:...an air compressor...increasing the temperature of that air exactly what would result from X additional thermal energy. And what if the air had no thermal energy at all initially (not possible but hypothetically)? would compressing it make a difference? We should not take for granted the toasty air we all enjoy. It's full of thermal energy is it not? Does not air "have" thermal energy here on Earth? Doesn't compressing that air, with it's thermal energy, amount to what you are working with here? ITN LOVES to pretend I just said air stores "heat" but no no, I said thermal energy. Air, gas, "has"/"stores"/"is pregnant with" thermal energy. IBdaMann wrote:So instead of Venus' atmosphere being a freely floating cloud in space, Venus' gravity in conjunction with the Venus' solid surface work to maintain Venus' atmosphere continually compressed. Indeed it does. (you might have forgotten my initial post in this thread? Huffman who I sited is one of many to retread the explanation of planetary temperature based on pressure). Edited on 03-06-2020 14:51
03-06-2020 19:18
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14416)	tmiddles wrote:And what if the air had no thermal energy at all initially (not possible but hypothetically)? would compressing it make a difference? We have to say yes, the temperature would increase by exactly the amount of thermal energy equal to the amount of work performed to compress the air to the extent it was compressed ... and we have to say this for two reasons: 1. The first law of thermodynamics says that the work (energy) used to compress the air cannot somehow be destroyed into nothing, ergo we should expect it to change form and ultimately manifest as an increase in thermal energy ... which will be reflected in an increased temperature, and 2. The Ideal Gas Law, i.e. PV=nRT shows that the work performed to compress increases the Pressure which must increase the temperature. tmiddles wrote: ITN LOVES to pretend I just said air stores "heat" but no no, I said thermal energy. I have the same problem with your usage of wording like "store," "trap," "contain," "hold," etc... A spaghetti strainer neither "stores," "traps," "contains" or holds water; All you can say with any validity is how much water it "has" at any given moment as it is freely escaping. I think it is universally understood that water freely escapes (flows out of) a spaghetti strainer completely according to the rate gravity pulls it out. At any given moment, the amount of water flowing out of a spaghetti strainer is based only on the amount of water it has at the moment and the strainer's specific "emissivity" (size of the holes). Matter neither "stores," "traps," "contains" or holds thermal energy; All you can say with any validity is how much thermal energy it "has" at any given moment as it is freely escaping. I think it is universally understood that thermal energy freely escapes (flows out of) matter completely according to Stefan-Boltzmann. At any given moment, the amount of thermal energy flowing out of matter is based only on the amount of thermal energy (Temperature) it has at the moment and the matter's specific emissivity. tmiddles wrote: Air, gas, "has"/"stores"/"is pregnant with" thermal energy. "has" ... yes. "stores" ... no way. . 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
04-06-2020 00:06
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: Matter neither "stores," "traps," "contains" or holds thermal energy; Sure and this is also true of saying that a sponge, in open dry air, is incapable of "storing", "trapping", or "holding" water since the water is constantly evaporating from the sponge. Even a sponge that has a small trickle of water landing on it, recharging it with water, if it is also evaporating into the room, could be said to not be truly storing the water within the sponge. But what a sponge has is a "capacity" for "having" water. What matter has, including a gas, is a specific heat, a heat capacity, which is similar to the sponges capacity for water (though the sponge has a strict limit and the matter does not). The heat capacity simply allows you to calculate the thermal energy matter "has" per gram based on temperature. IBdaMann wrote: ...the work (energy) used to compress the air cannot somehow be destroyed into nothing, ergo we should expect it to change form and ultimately manifest as an increase in thermal energy Also it's a bit chicken or the egg but the pressure is similar to pulling on a rubber band. A rubber band does nothing on it's own just as gravity does nothing on it's own. The thermal energy from the Sun is pushing the atmosphere out from the planet, against gravity, the way you would pull on a rubber band. Edited on 04-06-2020 00:20

Page 20 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