Remember me
▼ Content

Venus is hotter than Mercury?!?



Page 1 of 12123>>>
Venus is hotter than Mercury?!?16-07-2019 23:21
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1590)
Why is Venus so much hotter than Mercury. Mercury being much closer to the Sun.
typically what's found online

This is what we would expect to find without an atmosphere, versus what we do find:
acs.org Atmospheres and Planetary Temperatures
Mercury: 437 / 440
Venus: 232 / 735
Earth: 255 / 288

"The table provides evidence that an atmosphere has a pronounced effect on the temperature at the planetary surface, "

So it's pretty cool that we've been to Venus with Russian probes taking measurements through the atmosphere down to the surface on three occasions in the 1970s:


We know the pressure, temperature and composition of the atmosphere all the way down to the surface.

A real scientist in the this area, Harry Dale Huffman, (posts)has an argument here against the current meaning of "Greenhouse Effect", namely that greenhouse gases increase temperature:
there is no greenhouse effect at all, and you can prove it for yourself.

My understanding of it is that you have to compare the same atmospheric pressures on Venus and Earth, which means comparing the surface of earth with an altitude above the surface of Venus, which has a much denser atmosphere with all that CO2. If you do that the temperature is what you would expect to find based on the distance from the sun.

That of course a heavier blanket is warmer, but CO2 doesn't seem to be influencing the temperature dramatically. He is of course not refuting the original "Greenhouse Effect" as described by Fourier (or in describing actual greenhouses), but instead the newer meaning of "Greenhouse Effect" as commonly used today to describe the CO2 factor in planetary temperature.

As Venus is much much hotter than it should be without an atmosphere:
17-07-2019 00:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10267)
Already answered in another thread.
17-07-2019 00:24
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1590)
Into the Night wrote:
Already answered in another thread.


No it was not. If it was quote it.
17-07-2019 01:37
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1079)
For starters. Mercury has practically no atmosphere and Venus has a ton of atmosphere.
17-07-2019 01:40
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1590)
Mercury probe.
messenger NASA probe of mercury

So both planets have been measured with direct visits though it doesn't look like we physically landed on Mercury. So safe to say we have reliable, first hand data on Earth, Venus and Mercury for the sake of this topic.
17-07-2019 01:43
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1590)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
For starters. Mercury has practically no atmosphere and Venus has a ton of atmosphere.


Tai Hai

Yes and it seems the scale of the density of Venus's atmosphere, the pressure at the surface, has the same extreme difference with earth and Mercury that we see with it's higher temperature.

Check of what Hoffman had to say on it. Very interesting.
link
Edited on 17-07-2019 01:45
17-07-2019 02:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10267)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Already answered in another thread.


No it was not. If it was quote it.


Lie. Go read the other thread. There is no need to answer it again here.


The Parrot Killer
17-07-2019 02:09
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1590)
Into the Night wrote:
Lie. Go read the other thread. There is no need to answer it again here.


It's not there. Please quote what you're referring to.
17-07-2019 02:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10267)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Lie. Go read the other thread. There is no need to answer it again here.


It's not there. Please quote what you're referring to.

Lie.


The Parrot Killer
17-07-2019 02:42
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1590)
Into the Night wrote:
Lie.


Just quote it. Easy to do
17-07-2019 02:43
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1513)
One key thing about science, is repeatability. Everything gets done at least twice. Every experiment, every measurement. A one time deal, is maybe interesting, but basically meaningless. Repeat it, and get the same results is exciting. There are places here in America, where it gets down to -30F or lower occasionally during the winter, and well into the 90F in the summer. Each planet is different, ours is the only one that supports life, as we know it. There are quite a few differences between Mars and Venus, atmosphere might not be as significant as you hope and dream. We would need to spend more time on both planets, which sort of silly, takes years, and a lot of money, for a few minutes, before meltdown. Would be kind of cool to land, grab a couple souvenirs, and bring them back.

Oh, and Venus is hotter, because she is a Goddess, and usually sculpted partially, or completely nude. Mercury is some sissy wearing a hat with wings...
17-07-2019 02:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10267)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Lie.


Just quote it. Easy to do


I am not going to reproduce your conversation and our responses from the 1st page of the Tangier thread here. Go back and read it.


The Parrot Killer
17-07-2019 02:45
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1590)
HarveyH55 wrote:Venus is hotter, because she is a Goddess


OK that is funny

So you're saying you don't consider the temperature data to be reliable enough to be usable at all?

Keep in mind we had three russian visits to venus that actually landed on the planet and NASA had a probe orbit Mercury.

Into the Night wrote:I am not going to reproduce your conversation


This forum isn't us PM ing each other. The information should be usefully organized for everyone.

Think if someone comes asking the same question in a year. They should find your point of view as easily as possible.
Edited on 17-07-2019 02:47
17-07-2019 02:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10267)
HarveyH55 wrote:
One key thing about science, is repeatability. Everything gets done at least twice. Every experiment, every measurement. A one time deal, is maybe interesting, but basically meaningless. Repeat it, and get the same results is exciting. There are places here in America, where it gets down to -30F or lower occasionally during the winter, and well into the 90F in the summer. Each planet is different, ours is the only one that supports life, as we know it. There are quite a few differences between Mars and Venus, atmosphere might not be as significant as you hope and dream. We would need to spend more time on both planets, which sort of silly, takes years, and a lot of money, for a few minutes, before meltdown. Would be kind of cool to land, grab a couple souvenirs, and bring them back.

Oh, and Venus is hotter, because she is a Goddess, and usually sculpted partially, or completely nude. Mercury is some sissy wearing a hat with wings...


Science needs no repeats. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories. One does not need to repeat a theory that already exists.

You are describing measurements, which are observations. Since all observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology, it's a good idea to repeat them from another source. Science, however, isn't measurements. It is just the falsifiable theories themselves.


The Parrot Killer
17-07-2019 02:50
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1590)
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]HarveyH55 wrote:
Science needs no repeats. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories. One does not need to repeat a theory that already exists.


So what, in your view, does science tell us about why Venus is so much hotter than Mercury?
17-07-2019 02:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10267)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:Venus is hotter, because she is a Goddess


OK that is funny

So you're saying you don't consider the temperature data to be reliable enough to be usable at all?
It's usable as a measurement of a single point in an atmosphere near the surface. That is all. It tells you NOTHING about anywhere else.
tmiddles wrote:
Keep in mind we had three russian visits to venus that actually landed on the planet and NASA had a probe orbit Mercury.
Yup. A total of three temperature readings. Not enough to describe the temperature of a planet or its surface. It only describes three points on the surface taken at three different times.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:I am not going to reproduce your conversation


This forum isn't us PM ing each other

This forum is made up of PMs, public comments, and a few polls. It runs in two languages, and is excellently run by branner. You asked a fair question. It was answered. You asked again. It was answered again. Stop asking the same question over and over. You've been answered. Go read the Tangier thread.

tmiddles wrote:
The information should be usefully organized for everyone.
[quote]tmiddles wrote:
Think if someone comes asking the same question in a year.
[quote]tmiddles wrote:
They should find your point of view as easily as possible.



The Parrot Killer
17-07-2019 02:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10267)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]HarveyH55 wrote:
Science needs no repeats. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories. One does not need to repeat a theory that already exists.


So what, in your view, does science tell us about why Venus is so much hotter than Mercury?

It isn't. Argument by repetition. Stop asking the same question over and over. You've been answered.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 17-07-2019 02:57
17-07-2019 03:00
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1590)
Into the Night wrote:It's usable as a measurement of a single point in an atmosphere near the surface. That is all. It tells you NOTHING about anywhere else.

...You asked a fair question. It was answered.


It was not. What was the answer?

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:tell us about why Venus is so much hotter than Mercury?

It isn't.


Woah!!! An answer. So you say that Venus isn't hotter than Mercury!

OK so Into the Night is the only one on this forum to go on the record with a real answer. The answer being that Venus isn't hotter than Mercury which would of course preempt a question of why it is. Unsupported, wacky, but an answer.

Curious, how many measurements would be enough? Do we have enough to know the temperature of Earth?
Edited on 17-07-2019 03:06
17-07-2019 03:39
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1513)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
One key thing about science, is repeatability. Everything gets done at least twice. Every experiment, every measurement. A one time deal, is maybe interesting, but basically meaningless. Repeat it, and get the same results is exciting. There are places here in America, where it gets down to -30F or lower occasionally during the winter, and well into the 90F in the summer. Each planet is different, ours is the only one that supports life, as we know it. There are quite a few differences between Mars and Venus, atmosphere might not be as significant as you hope and dream. We would need to spend more time on both planets, which sort of silly, takes years, and a lot of money, for a few minutes, before meltdown. Would be kind of cool to land, grab a couple souvenirs, and bring them back.

Oh, and Venus is hotter, because she is a Goddess, and usually sculpted partially, or completely nude. Mercury is some sissy wearing a hat with wings...


Science needs no repeats. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories. One does not need to repeat a theory that already exists.

You are describing measurements, which are observations. Since all observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology, it's a good idea to repeat them from another source. Science, however, isn't measurements. It is just the falsifiable theories themselves.


I'm not a follower of Karl Popper. This forum is the only place where I've been exposed to his views. I sort of need the repeatability, before I accept some things. I do try to keep an open mind, learning is still learning, some is just more useful. To me, philosophy was a strict discipline. I had an abundance of that as a child, so tend to avoid it, and things that dictate how I';m going to think, or how I should see things. I don't want to be locked into a binary though process, where everything has to be right, or wrong, nothing in between. Even philosophers of different schools, don't agree on everything, sometimes get into silly arguments. There are just different ways at looking at things.
17-07-2019 05:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5237)
tmiddles wrote:Why is Venus so much hotter than Mercury.

What makes you think this is the case?

What do you claim is the temperature of Venus and why do you believe that?

What do you claim is the temperature of Mercury and why do you believe that?

Obviously we can't discuss an exact explanation for what you specifically believe without specifying exactly what you believe and why. The problem could very well be on your end.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-07-2019 06:05
James___
★★★★☆
(1855)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Why is Venus so much hotter than Mercury.

What makes you think this is the case?

What do you claim is the temperature of Venus and why do you believe that?

What do you claim is the temperature of Mercury and why do you believe that?

Obviously we can't discuss an exact explanation for what you specifically believe without specifying exactly what you believe and why. The problem could very well be on your end.



Maybe because it's the barriers that protect it's atmosphere couldn't block the solar wind? You know, what can block the ignorance that you and ITN spew like a burned out volcano when it's nothing but hot air!!!
Don't you understand the basics of how planets in our solar system work? Obviously not.
Sadly the book you like discourages discovery. You are Republican, right?
Have to love geology
17-07-2019 06:45
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1590)
IBdaMann wrote:
What do you claim is the temperature of Venus and why do you believe that?


IBdaMann

This really clarifies where you're coming from for me.

As you know a Russian space craft traveled to Venus on three occasions and landed on the surface. This provided first hand measurements which could then test the remote measurements being taken as well as the theory of what scientists thought they would find.

Do you doubt that the measurements taken of Venus directly by our own spacecraft were accurate?

If so do you also doubt the measurements taken of earths temperature right now?

There's no point in presenting someone with data if you only find out they don't believe you can trust data.
17-07-2019 12:36
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1590)
Wow just checked the conversion. Earths atmospheric pressure is 14 lbs per square inch, on Venus it's 1350 !
17-07-2019 13:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5237)
James___ wrote:Maybe because it's the barriers that protect it's atmosphere couldn't block the solar wind? You know, what can block the ignorance that you and ITN spew like a burned out volcano when it's nothing but hot air!!!
Don't you understand the basics of how planets in our solar system work? Obviously not.
Sadly the book you like discourages discovery. You are Republican, right?
Have to love geology


You avoided the questions that you need to answer ... and you blamed me for it.

What do you claim is the temperature of Venus and why do you believe that?

What do you claim is the temperature of Mercury and why do you believe that?

Obviously we can't discuss an exact explanation for what you specifically believe without specifying exactly what you believe and why. The problem could very well be on your end.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-07-2019 13:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5237)
tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann

This really clarifies where you're coming from for me.

... that you need to answer some questions first.

You avoided the questions that you need to answer ... and you blamed me for it.

What do you claim is the temperature of Venus and why do you believe that?

What do you claim is the temperature of Mercury and why do you believe that?

Obviously we can't discuss an exact explanation for what you specifically believe without specifying exactly what you believe and why. The problem could very well be on your end.


tmiddles wrote:As you know a Russian space craft traveled to Venus on three occasions and landed on the surface. This provided first hand measurements which could then test the remote measurements being taken as well as the theory of what scientists thought they would find.

So we can now officially attribute your confusion to specific problems on your end.

1. You don't understand what a "planet's temperature" means and you ignored the posts that explained to you what it is.

2. You are mathematically incompetent and have no understanding of the data requirements for a valid dataset to determine a planet's temperature.

3. What anyone "expected" is completely irrelevant, especially if he or she was mistaken.

4. I don't know how far you got in school but you apparently look at temperature maps of the bottom of the atmosphere (i.e. the surface) as in this example, and believe that there is only one single "the temperature" which you strangely insist is the entire planet's temperature, with zero margin of error.



Ergo, you are clueless yet you refuse to learn anything. I can only suggest you pull aside the first sixth-grader you find and ask for a review of the very basic fundamentals. He or she probably won't even care if you then refuse to learn anything.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-07-2019 13:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5237)
James___ wrote: Maybe because it's the barriers that protect it's atmosphere couldn't block the solar wind?

So, you mean the lack of barriers permitted the solar winds?

James___ wrote: Don't you understand the basics of how planets in our solar system work?

Trick question. Planets don't work.

James___ wrote: Sadly the book you like discourages discovery.

The Spanish-English dictionary?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-07-2019 14:09
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1590)
IBdaMann,


What do you claim is the temperature of Venus and why do you believe that?

How about you answer that question too.

I trust that the measurements taken by the Russians through the atmosphere down to the surface of Venus are accurate. The temperatures used by Hoffman as well, because they have no motive to lie and thermometers work.

The surface temperature is roughly 462 degrees celcius.

NASA sent a probe to Mercury so same answer. 167 C
They have no reason to lie and temperature, infra red and measuring instruments are far more accurate than is needed to establish the dramatic surface temperature differences between the planet's.

So what's your answer?
Edited on 17-07-2019 14:31
17-07-2019 16:27
James___
★★★★☆
(1855)
James___ wrote: Maybe because it's the barriers that protect it's atmosphere couldn't block the solar wind?

IBdaMann wrote:
So, you mean the lack of barriers permitted the solar winds?


That's actually right from the perspective of both planets and the Sun.

James___ wrote: Don't you understand the basics of how planets in our solar system work?

IBdaMann wrote:
Trick question. Planets don't work.


Planets orbit the Sun. Work is defined as mass times distance. When they move they have performed work.

James___ wrote: Sadly the book you like discourages discovery.

IBdaMann wrote:
The Spanish-English dictionary?


Nah, the one from 1848. I think you call it a historical work of great import because of how it divides labor/work for maximim efficiency.
17-07-2019 16:37
L8112
★☆☆☆☆
(106)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: Maybe because it's the barriers that protect it's atmosphere couldn't block the solar wind?

So, you mean the lack of barriers permitted the solar winds?

James___ wrote: Don't you understand the basics of how planets in our solar system work?

Trick question. Planets don't work.

James___ wrote: Sadly the book you like discourages discovery.

The Spanish-English dictionary?

No.
17-07-2019 16:57
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5237)
tmiddles wrote: What do you claim is the temperature of Venus and why do you believe that?

So, we're done?

Let me know when you want to answer your required questions and we'll be able to resume.

tmiddles wrote: I trust that the measurements taken by the Russians through the atmosphere down to the surface of Venus are accurate.

Exactly. You trust. You have faith. You are devoted to what you were told to believe. You know not who took what measurements with what equipment with what tolerances ... and most importantly, you have no valid dataset from which to draw any conclusions.

All your conclusions were mandated to you. You apparently will not conclude anything on your own. That's why you avoid science at all cost.

You're in a world of hurt.

tmiddles wrote: The temperatures used by Hoffman as well, because they have no motive to lie and thermometers work.

Nobody needs any motive to be mistaken or to draw erroneous conclusions.

tmiddles wrote:The surface temperature is roughly 462 degrees celcius.

I'm glad you posted this so that the public can see. You speak of the surface temperatures as if there is only one, and as though it is the entire planet's temperature. I covered this in my previous post which you apparently ignored ... because I asked you to answer a couple of questions and I asked you to provide some science and to provide at least one valid dataset ... so you went into extreme cognitive dissonance and deluded yourself into believing that my post never existed ... forming the basis for your complaint that I never answered your question multiple times.

tmiddles wrote: infra red and measuring instruments are far more accurate than is needed to establish the dramatic surface temperature differences between the planet's.

... but you haven't the vaguest idea how accurate or inaccurate any of them are for any application. You simply believe whatever conclusions you are ordered to regurgitate.

So let's focus on having you post the valid datasets supporting your beliefs in the planetary temperatures of Venus and Mercury.

The valid datasets.

Then we can have a ball of a discussion.

... or you can admit that you are scientifically illiterate, that you should be taking notes on whatever I tell you, and that nobody knows the average planetary temperatures of Venus and Mercury to any usable accuracy ... and then we can certainly move forward from there.

... or the valid datsets.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-07-2019 17:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5237)
James___ wrote: That's actually right from the perspective of both planets and the Sun.

I'm glad we found a point of agreement. I think I'll pay tribute by having breakfast.

James___ wrote: Planets orbit the Sun. Work is defined as mass times distance. When they move they have performed work.

Incorrect. If your Volvo breaks down and you push it 100 meters then the work performed is 100 Volvo-meters ... but the work was not performed by your Volvo.

James___ wrote: Nah, the one from 1848. I think you call it a historical work of great import because of how it divides labor/work for maximim efficiency.

Well, that particular book discourages people being free to "discover" without government approval, after which it simply proscribes the elimination of all motivation for people to "discover."


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-07-2019 18:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10267)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:It's usable as a measurement of a single point in an atmosphere near the surface. That is all. It tells you NOTHING about anywhere else.

...You asked a fair question. It was answered.


It was not. What was the answer?

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:tell us about why Venus is so much hotter than Mercury?

It isn't.


Woah!!! An answer. So you say that Venus isn't hotter than Mercury!

OK so Into the Night is the only one on this forum to go on the record with a real answer. The answer being that Venus isn't hotter than Mercury which would of course preempt a question of why it is. Unsupported, wacky, but an answer.

Curious, how many measurements would be enough? Do we have enough to know the temperature of Earth?

There is NO measurement of the temperature of Venus. Only it's surface. Again, you are making a false equivalence and now you are taking things out of context.


The Parrot Killer
17-07-2019 18:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10267)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
One key thing about science, is repeatability. Everything gets done at least twice. Every experiment, every measurement. A one time deal, is maybe interesting, but basically meaningless. Repeat it, and get the same results is exciting. There are places here in America, where it gets down to -30F or lower occasionally during the winter, and well into the 90F in the summer. Each planet is different, ours is the only one that supports life, as we know it. There are quite a few differences between Mars and Venus, atmosphere might not be as significant as you hope and dream. We would need to spend more time on both planets, which sort of silly, takes years, and a lot of money, for a few minutes, before meltdown. Would be kind of cool to land, grab a couple souvenirs, and bring them back.

Oh, and Venus is hotter, because she is a Goddess, and usually sculpted partially, or completely nude. Mercury is some sissy wearing a hat with wings...


Science needs no repeats. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories. One does not need to repeat a theory that already exists.

You are describing measurements, which are observations. Since all observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology, it's a good idea to repeat them from another source. Science, however, isn't measurements. It is just the falsifiable theories themselves.


I'm not a follower of Karl Popper.

He is not a god, so there is no need to worship him. You should, however, at least become familiar with his arguments before you make judgement on them.
HarveyH55 wrote:
This forum is the only place where I've been exposed to his views. I sort of need the repeatability, before I accept some things.

Philosophy needs no repetition. Once the arguments are made, they stand as is or fail as is. In philosophy, its about the reasoning to get there.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I do try to keep an open mind, learning is still learning, some is just more useful

Ain't it the truth! Some things, however, are useful, even if not immediately so.
HarveyH55 wrote:
To me, philosophy was a strict discipline.

Nah. It's not strict at all. It's very open. It's only real rule is that the one presenting the argument must also present his own reasoning. He can't use someone else's, simply because it's no longer his argument if he does. Beyond that, the field is wide open.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I had an abundance of that as a child, so tend to avoid it, and things that dictate how I';m going to think, or how I should see things. I don't want to be locked into a binary though process,

I don't know who showed you what philosophy was, but it is not a strict discipline at all. Any argument may be made. All that is required is that the reasoning be provided with it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
where everything has to be right, or wrong, nothing in between.

Nothing in philosophy is right or wrong. Nothing in philosophy forces a dichotomy. I suspect that whoever showed you 'philosophy' was simply trying to justify a control mechanism over people.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Even philosophers of different schools, don't agree on everything, sometimes get into silly arguments.

The only reason any argument is silly is because the reasoning is faulty.
HarveyH55 wrote:
There are just different ways at looking at things.

Indeed there are. Though you have been exposed to Karl Popper's views only in this forum, I recommend that you examine them. His definitions for science and religion come from very solid reasoning. They are not 'right' or 'wrong'. They are simply the result of solid reasoning.

Go read his stuff. Then decide for yourself, but don't prejudge the man or his philosophy.


The Parrot Killer
17-07-2019 18:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10267)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
What do you claim is the temperature of Venus and why do you believe that?


IBdaMann

This really clarifies where you're coming from for me.

As you know a Russian space craft traveled to Venus on three occasions and landed on the surface. This provided first hand measurements which could then test the remote measurements being taken as well as the theory of what scientists thought they would find.

Do you doubt that the measurements taken of Venus directly by our own spacecraft were accurate?

If so do you also doubt the measurements taken of earths temperature right now?

There's no point in presenting someone with data if you only find out they don't believe you can trust data.

You are repeating your mistake yet again. The surface temperature is NOT the temperature of a planet. The surface temperature at a single point is NOT the temperature of the surface.


The Parrot Killer
17-07-2019 18:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10267)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann,


What do you claim is the temperature of Venus and why do you believe that?

How about you answer that question too.

I trust that the measurements taken by the Russians through the atmosphere down to the surface of Venus are accurate. The temperatures used by Hoffman as well, because they have no motive to lie and thermometers work.

The surface temperature is roughly 462 degrees celcius.

NASA sent a probe to Mercury so same answer. 167 C
They have no reason to lie and temperature, infra red and measuring instruments are far more accurate than is needed to establish the dramatic surface temperature differences between the planet's.

So what's your answer?

Again, you repeat your mistake. The surface temperature at a single point is not the temperature of the surface. The surface temperature is not the same as the temperature of the planet.


The Parrot Killer
17-07-2019 19:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10267)
James___ wrote:
Planets orbit the Sun. Work is defined as mass times distance. When they move they have performed work.


No, James. Work is a mass affected by a FORCE * distance. A planet in orbit is not doing any work. In other words, there has to be an acceleration.

Yes, gravity is a force, but the planet is not pulling away from its own gravity against the Sun, or crashing into the Sun.

The potential energy of a planet at aphelion is converted to kinetic energy when the planet is at perihelion. It just trades back and forth. There is no gain or loss of total energy, so, no work.

Now, if you were to orbit into the path of a planet in the opposite direction, that would be work performed when you collided. Your acceleration would become quite great as the planet smacked into you .

It's not the fall that counts, it's the sudden stop at the end.


The Parrot Killer
17-07-2019 20:41
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1590)
IBdaMann wrote:
a valid dataset


Stop hiding behind personal attacks to fill up your posts.

Explain yourself and give an example.

I know you've got nothing and I'm calling your bluff.

You just sound conspiracy theorist crazy on here.

So IBdaMann what's something you consider to be a "valid dataset"?
17-07-2019 21:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5237)
tmiddles wrote:Stop hiding behind personal attacks to fill up your posts.

I will continue with the lucid observations, thank you very much.

tmiddles wrote:Explain yourself and give an example.

I know you've got nothing and I'm calling your bluff.

OK.

[ blank ]

Note: I'm not the one making any claims. I have nothing to present.




tmiddles wrote:So IBdaMann what's something you consider to be a "valid dataset"?


Brush up on your statistics and read this DATA MINE post on Politiplex and then read through This DATA MINE thread here on Climate-Debate.

Let me know if you have any questions pertaining to dataset validity.

Remember, always focus on the margin of error. If you want to compute for a planet with a usable margin of error then you will need hundreds of millions of synchronized, calibrated measurements, and that's without an atmosphere and hydrosphere.l


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-07-2019 21:17
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1513)
The main problem with those measurements, is the small area sampled, and the short period. I can easily go around and take measurements, that will vary by 20 F or more. My thermostat is set around 80 degrees, but the air coming out of the vents is much cooler. The walls facing the sun, usually get noticeably hot. I blocked off the vent in the room I use for my 3d printer, noticeably warmer than the rest of the house. We don't know if the readings were taken over a hot spot, like our volcanoes, or maybe a much cooler than average spot. They didn't get but a few minutes, so they had no idea how much change, from day to night. Might be hotter, be the data isn't complete enough to guess why. Temperature effects electronics, and usually not in a good way. Most of the time, when a part gets hot, it's value changes. Some, you can anticipate, and compensate, to a point. It be tough, since all the parts on every board, would be getting hot, kind of quick. Think they were lucky to get as much as they did, but I would consider that data accurate or reliable. Besides, it's the Russians. Our government's propaganda warns us about their government all the time. Hard to to tell, who's lying these day, both governments do the same stuff. Been a few things blamed on Russia, which I didn't see why they would bother. Tend to believe they were just a handy scapegoat, for stuff we did, and didn't want to take credit/responsibility. The election meddling made no sense, we mess it up ourselves, didn't need help. I would have believed them backing Hilary though, Clintons are well know for helping out their friends...
17-07-2019 21:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5237)
HarveyH55 wrote:The main problem with those measurements, is the small area sampled, and the short period.


Harvey, you are spot on with regards to the small sample area ... but the temperature is an instantaneous thing. There is no minimum time period needed over which to take temperature measurements. An ideal temperature measurement involving multiple sensors/thermometers will be instantaneous across synchronized sensors that cover sufficient area/volume to incur a usable/acceptable margin of error.

HarveyH55 wrote: Been a few things blamed on Russia, which I didn't see why they would bother. Tend to believe they were just a handy scapegoat, for stuff we did, and didn't want to take credit/responsibility.

Yes. You would be correct on this point.

HarveyH55 wrote: The election meddling made no sense, we mess it up ourselves, didn't need help. I would have believed them backing Hilary though, Clintons are well know for helping out their friends...

You understand the situation completely.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Page 1 of 12123>>>





Join the debate Venus is hotter than Mercury?!?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Why can't you say Venus is hotter than Mercury because Venus got CO2?5213-12-2019 21:47
I don't believe CO2 makes air hotter because I don't see any experimental proof509-10-2019 03:15
The only straw the Church of AGW can grasp is Venus8826-09-2019 05:49
The only straw the Church of AGW can grasp is Venus and Mercury418-09-2019 22:37
There is no evidence water vapor makes things hotter018-09-2019 21:34
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact