How far have we already gone?

[Big Fitz]

And still all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world state that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. But these dingleberries know so much more than the scientists. Wonder why none of them ever present their evidence in a scientific paper? Could it be they have none?

And STILL THE GODDAMNED PLANET ISN"T CONFORMING TO YOUR PREDICTIONS.

DAMNIT!

Apparently Mother Nature doesn't realize who's in charge here.

Whatta ***** she is.

 

[code1211]

Your entire argument is an attack on the science behind global warming (you called it pseudoscience many times). Therefore attacking an organization that does not carry out its own original research or monitor climate change is a straw man fallacy and “laughable”.

As for your other post, you clearly are regurgitating talking points from the conservative media and are showing that it is indeed you do not have much “intellectual wattage” invested in your position. The greenhouse effect does NOT violate the Second Law of thermo dynamics because planet earth is not in a closed energy system and the heat source is a constant influx of energy from the sun. If the sun was somehow turned off then there would be no greenhouse effect, but the sun is always on.

To discuss the causes of global warming is one thing, but to imply that a greenhouse effect does not exist is beyond ignorant. How is it possible that the average surface temperature on Venus is hotter than Mercury when Mercury is much closer to the sun? Which of those two planets has a CO2 rich atmosphere and which one doesn’t?

I cannot post any links because I am a new member, but if you want a sources, a simple Google search on these topics should give you a sufficient starting point. Based on your responses I doubt that you possess an open mind to look at any information from an unbiased point of view, or that you would even read anything for that matter. I think you are just here to post insults to those who you don’t agree with, and make yourself feel like an internet tough guy rather than have an intelligent open-minded discussion on this topic.

There are various reasons to doubts that AGW is a valid conclusion.

Is there a proof that you would care to present that CO2 is prime driver of climate?

Ok as I alluded to earlier, let’s make some observations about planets Mercury and Venus and then draw some conclusions.
- Venus is nearly twice the distance from the sun than Mercury is.
- Venus is completely covered in clouds which reflect 90% of the sun’s light into outer space, preventing most of the sun’s energy from reaching the surface.

Both of these things would lead one to assume that the surface temperature on Venus should be much cooler than that of Mercury. Yet somehow Venus’s average surface temperature is hotter...

Now let’s look at their CO2. Venus has a very thick atmosphere that consists of 96.5% CO2 while Mercury’s atmosphere is very weak and CO2 is only found in tiny trace amounts.

Based on these simple observations it should be obvious that the CO2 in the atmosphere of Venus is acting as a greenhouse gas and trapping heat on the surface of the planet. This explains why the surface of Venus is hotter than Mercury, and illustrates how CO2 can be a driving force in climate.

You accused me of not being a thinker, but I’d like you to think about what I stated objectively, crosscheck my facts if you don’t believe me, and draw your own unbiased conclusions.

Then if you’d like to offer another explanation for why the surface temperature of Venus is hotter than that of Mercury I am willing to hear it.

Well, half a truth is better than none, I suppose.

What lowers the average temperature of Mercury is the very cold side that is away from the Sun. There is indeed a weak atmosphere on Mercury if nothing is what you call weak. The solar wind blew all of it away millions of years ago.

Venus is very warm. The atmosphere is very high in CO2 and is about half the distance from the Sun that we are. A three percent change in the shape of our orbit initiates ice Ages. It's little wonder what a 50% reduction in the distance to the Sun would do.

Lacking a relatively friendly environment, our planet would still have a CO2 rich atmosphere. Since life has formed here, the little plants ate the CO2 and exhaled the O. That is what reduced the CO2 around here.

That was a decent attempt to misdirect and you explained what is happening on other planets, but not this planet.

Care to try again?

 

[meatheadmike]

There are various reasons to doubts that AGW is a valid conclusion.

Is there a proof that you would care to present that CO2 is prime driver of climate?

Ok as I alluded to earlier, let’s make some observations about planets Mercury and Venus and then draw some conclusions.
- Venus is nearly twice the distance from the sun than Mercury is.
- Venus is completely covered in clouds which reflect 90% of the sun’s light into outer space, preventing most of the sun’s energy from reaching the surface.

Both of these things would lead one to assume that the surface temperature on Venus should be much cooler than that of Mercury. Yet somehow Venus’s average surface temperature is hotter...

Now let’s look at their CO2. Venus has a very thick atmosphere that consists of 96.5% CO2 while Mercury’s atmosphere is very weak and CO2 is only found in tiny trace amounts.

Based on these simple observations it should be obvious that the CO2 in the atmosphere of Venus is acting as a greenhouse gas and trapping heat on the surface of the planet. This explains why the surface of Venus is hotter than Mercury, and illustrates how CO2 can be a driving force in climate.

You accused me of not being a thinker, but I’d like you to think about what I stated objectively, crosscheck my facts if you don’t believe me, and draw your own unbiased conclusions.

Then if you’d like to offer another explanation for why the surface temperature of Venus is hotter than that of Mercury I am willing to hear it.

Well, half a truth is better than none, I suppose.

What lowers the average temperature of Mercury is the very cold side that is away from the Sun. There is indeed a weak atmosphere on Mercury if nothing is what you call weak. The solar wind blew all of it away millions of years ago.

Venus is very warm. The atmosphere is very high in CO2 and is about half the distance from the Sun that we are. A three percent change in the shape of our orbit initiates ice Ages. It's little wonder what a 50% reduction in the distance to the Sun would do.

Lacking a relatively friendly environment, our planet would still have a CO2 rich atmosphere. Since life has formed here, the little plants ate the CO2 and exhaled the O. That is what reduced the CO2 around here.

That was a decent attempt to misdirect and you explained what is happening on other planets, but not this planet.

Care to try again?

Sure... my intent was not to misdirect. Plant life on Earth is indeed the reason that our planet does not have the large CO2 amounts of Venus and the reason that we have O2 in the atmosphere. But I am not trying to compare Earth to Venus, I am comparing Venus to Mercury.

You are correct that the temperature drops drastically on the night side of Mercury. However you failed to realize that even during the day time, the surface temperature on Mercury only reaches about 670K with maybe a maximum of 700K at the equator.... which is still considerably lower than the temperature on Venus which about 750K.

Furthermore Venus's surface temperature remains the same even on the night side of the planet despite the fact that one day (full rotation of the planet on its axis) takes 243 earth days. Such a slow rotation would normally freeze the night side of the planet... the fact that such a uniform temperature is still maintained across the entire planet demonstrates the extremely strong greenhouse effect on Venus.

I'm not going to try and insult you with a "care to try again response", instead I encourage you to think about this objectively, put any biases aside, and draw conclusions scientifically.

 

[westwall]

Ok as I alluded to earlier, let’s make some observations about planets Mercury and Venus and then draw some conclusions.
- Venus is nearly twice the distance from the sun than Mercury is.
- Venus is completely covered in clouds which reflect 90% of the sun’s light into outer space, preventing most of the sun’s energy from reaching the surface.

Both of these things would lead one to assume that the surface temperature on Venus should be much cooler than that of Mercury. Yet somehow Venus’s average surface temperature is hotter...

Now let’s look at their CO2. Venus has a very thick atmosphere that consists of 96.5% CO2 while Mercury’s atmosphere is very weak and CO2 is only found in tiny trace amounts.

Based on these simple observations it should be obvious that the CO2 in the atmosphere of Venus is acting as a greenhouse gas and trapping heat on the surface of the planet. This explains why the surface of Venus is hotter than Mercury, and illustrates how CO2 can be a driving force in climate.

You accused me of not being a thinker, but I’d like you to think about what I stated objectively, crosscheck my facts if you don’t believe me, and draw your own unbiased conclusions.

Then if you’d like to offer another explanation for why the surface temperature of Venus is hotter than that of Mercury I am willing to hear it.

Well, half a truth is better than none, I suppose.

What lowers the average temperature of Mercury is the very cold side that is away from the Sun. There is indeed a weak atmosphere on Mercury if nothing is what you call weak. The solar wind blew all of it away millions of years ago.

Venus is very warm. The atmosphere is very high in CO2 and is about half the distance from the Sun that we are. A three percent change in the shape of our orbit initiates ice Ages. It's little wonder what a 50% reduction in the distance to the Sun would do.

Lacking a relatively friendly environment, our planet would still have a CO2 rich atmosphere. Since life has formed here, the little plants ate the CO2 and exhaled the O. That is what reduced the CO2 around here.

That was a decent attempt to misdirect and you explained what is happening on other planets, but not this planet.

Care to try again?

Sure... my intent was not to misdirect. Plant life on Earth is indeed the reason that our planet does not have the large CO2 amounts of Venus and the reason that we have O2 in the atmosphere. But I am not trying to compare Earth to Venus, I am comparing Venus to Mercury.

You are correct that the temperature drops drastically on the night side of Mercury. However you failed to realize that even during the day time, the surface temperature on Mercury only reaches about 670K with maybe a maximum of 700K at the equator.... which is still considerably lower than the temperature on Venus which about 750K.

Furthermore Venus's surface temperature remains the same even on the night side of the planet despite the fact that one day (full rotation of the planet on its axis) takes 243 earth days. Such a slow rotation would normally freeze the night side of the planet... the fact that such a uniform temperature is still maintained across the entire planet demonstrates the extremely strong greenhouse effect on Venus.

I'm not going to try and insult you with a "care to try again response", instead I encourage you to think about this objectively, put any biases aside, and draw conclusions scientifically.

The problem is you are attributing the temperature to the greenhose effect when it is actually attributable to the Ideal Gas Laws. The atmospheric density of venus is 90+ times that of Earth and in addition to the CO2 is constituted with a great deal of sulfuric acid (I don't remember the exact percentage) and you are attempting to compare Venus with Earth?

 

[Old Rocks]

Except that the ipcc is the political head and poster child for climate change. To even suggest that climate pseudoscience doesn't revolve around the IPCC and its reports is absolutely laughable.

Your entire argument is an attack on the science behind global warming (you called it pseudoscience many times). Therefore attacking an organization that does not carry out its own original research or monitor climate change is a straw man fallacy and “laughable”.

As for your other post, you clearly are regurgitating talking points from the conservative media and are showing that it is indeed you do not have much “intellectual wattage” invested in your position. The greenhouse effect does NOT violate the Second Law of thermo dynamics because planet earth is not in a closed energy system and the heat source is a constant influx of energy from the sun. If the sun was somehow turned off then there would be no greenhouse effect, but the sun is always on.

To discuss the causes of global warming is one thing, but to imply that a greenhouse effect does not exist is beyond ignorant. How is it possible that the average surface temperature on Venus is hotter than Mercury when Mercury is much closer to the sun? Which of those two planets has a CO2 rich atmosphere and which one doesn’t?

I cannot post any links because I am a new member, but if you want a sources, a simple Google search on these topics should give you a sufficient starting point. Based on your responses I doubt that you possess an open mind to look at any information from an unbiased point of view, or that you would even read anything for that matter. I think you are just here to post insults to those who you don’t agree with, and make yourself feel like an internet tough guy rather than have an intelligent open-minded discussion on this topic.

There are various reasons to doubts that AGW is a valid conclusion.

Is there a proof that you would care to present that CO2 is prime driver of climate?

A23A

 

[Old Rocks]

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[meatheadmike]

Well, half a truth is better than none, I suppose.

What lowers the average temperature of Mercury is the very cold side that is away from the Sun. There is indeed a weak atmosphere on Mercury if nothing is what you call weak. The solar wind blew all of it away millions of years ago.

Venus is very warm. The atmosphere is very high in CO2 and is about half the distance from the Sun that we are. A three percent change in the shape of our orbit initiates ice Ages. It's little wonder what a 50% reduction in the distance to the Sun would do.

Lacking a relatively friendly environment, our planet would still have a CO2 rich atmosphere. Since life has formed here, the little plants ate the CO2 and exhaled the O. That is what reduced the CO2 around here.

That was a decent attempt to misdirect and you explained what is happening on other planets, but not this planet.

Care to try again?

Sure... my intent was not to misdirect. Plant life on Earth is indeed the reason that our planet does not have the large CO2 amounts of Venus and the reason that we have O2 in the atmosphere. But I am not trying to compare Earth to Venus, I am comparing Venus to Mercury.

You are correct that the temperature drops drastically on the night side of Mercury. However you failed to realize that even during the day time, the surface temperature on Mercury only reaches about 670K with maybe a maximum of 700K at the equator.... which is still considerably lower than the temperature on Venus which about 750K.

Furthermore Venus's surface temperature remains the same even on the night side of the planet despite the fact that one day (full rotation of the planet on its axis) takes 243 earth days. Such a slow rotation would normally freeze the night side of the planet... the fact that such a uniform temperature is still maintained across the entire planet demonstrates the extremely strong greenhouse effect on Venus.

I'm not going to try and insult you with a "care to try again response", instead I encourage you to think about this objectively, put any biases aside, and draw conclusions scientifically.

The problem is you are attributing the temperature to the greenhose effect when it is actually attributable to the Ideal Gas Laws. The atmospheric density of venus is 90+ times that of Earth and in addition to the CO2 is constituted with a great deal of sulfuric acid (I don't remember the exact percentage) and you are attempting to compare Venus with Earth?

If you are attributing the surface temperature of Venus to the Ideal Gas laws, then how is it possible that the night side of Venus remains the same temperature as the side facing the sun despite the fact that one night on Venus lasts 243 earth days?
Clearly the greenhouse effect is responsible for trapping heat on the surface of the planet, otherwise the night side would freeze given the very long duration that it faces away from the sun.

Also, I'll remind you of the percentages... Venus's atmosphere consists of 96.5% CO2 while Sulfur dioxide makes up only about 0.015% of the Atmosphere. It is obvious that CO2 is the dominant driving force behind the greenhouse effect on Venus.

Instead of ignorantly throwing stuff at the wall to see if it will stick, perhaps you should re-evaluate and abandon your previous position. I am not trying to make you feel stupid... on the contrary, accepting that you were previously misinformed and that you have now learned something new, by definition will make you smarter.

 

[westwall]

Sure... my intent was not to misdirect. Plant life on Earth is indeed the reason that our planet does not have the large CO2 amounts of Venus and the reason that we have O2 in the atmosphere. But I am not trying to compare Earth to Venus, I am comparing Venus to Mercury.

You are correct that the temperature drops drastically on the night side of Mercury. However you failed to realize that even during the day time, the surface temperature on Mercury only reaches about 670K with maybe a maximum of 700K at the equator.... which is still considerably lower than the temperature on Venus which about 750K.

Furthermore Venus's surface temperature remains the same even on the night side of the planet despite the fact that one day (full rotation of the planet on its axis) takes 243 earth days. Such a slow rotation would normally freeze the night side of the planet... the fact that such a uniform temperature is still maintained across the entire planet demonstrates the extremely strong greenhouse effect on Venus.

I'm not going to try and insult you with a "care to try again response", instead I encourage you to think about this objectively, put any biases aside, and draw conclusions scientifically.

The problem is you are attributing the temperature to the greenhose effect when it is actually attributable to the Ideal Gas Laws. The atmospheric density of venus is 90+ times that of Earth and in addition to the CO2 is constituted with a great deal of sulfuric acid (I don't remember the exact percentage) and you are attempting to compare Venus with Earth?

If you are attributing the surface temperature of Venus to the Ideal Gas laws, then how is it possible that the night side of Venus remains the same temperature as the side facing the sun despite the fact that one night on Venus lasts 243 earth days?
Clearly the greenhouse effect is responsible for trapping heat on the surface of the planet, otherwise the night side would freeze given the very long duration that it faces away from the sun.

Also, I'll remind you of the percentages... Venus's atmosphere consists of 96.5% CO2 while Sulfur dioxide makes up only about 0.015% of the Atmosphere. It is obvious that CO2 is the dominant driving force behind the greenhouse effect on Venus.

Instead of ignorantly throwing stuff at the wall to see if it will stick, perhaps you should re-evaluate and abandon your previous position. I am not trying to make you feel stupid... on the contrary, accepting that you were previously misinformed and that you have now learned something new, by definition will make you smarter.

No, I'm attributing the temperature of Venus to a combination of the Ideal Gas Laws and the overall density of the atmosphere. Really, you don't think an atmospheric density of 93 bar has ANY bearing on the temperature? Really?

 

[meatheadmike]

The problem is you are attributing the temperature to the greenhose effect when it is actually attributable to the Ideal Gas Laws. The atmospheric density of venus is 90+ times that of Earth and in addition to the CO2 is constituted with a great deal of sulfuric acid (I don't remember the exact percentage) and you are attempting to compare Venus with Earth?

If you are attributing the surface temperature of Venus to the Ideal Gas laws, then how is it possible that the night side of Venus remains the same temperature as the side facing the sun despite the fact that one night on Venus lasts 243 earth days?
Clearly the greenhouse effect is responsible for trapping heat on the surface of the planet, otherwise the night side would freeze given the very long duration that it faces away from the sun.

Also, I'll remind you of the percentages... Venus's atmosphere consists of 96.5% CO2 while Sulfur dioxide makes up only about 0.015% of the Atmosphere. It is obvious that CO2 is the dominant driving force behind the greenhouse effect on Venus.

Instead of ignorantly throwing stuff at the wall to see if it will stick, perhaps you should re-evaluate and abandon your previous position. I am not trying to make you feel stupid... on the contrary, accepting that you were previously misinformed and that you have now learned something new, by definition will make you smarter.

No, I'm attributing the temperature of Venus to a combination of the Ideal Gas Laws and the overall density of the atmosphere. Really, you don't think an atmospheric density of 93 bar has ANY bearing on the temperature? Really?

You are making a straw man argument...I never said the atmospheric pressure has NO bearing on temperature. I am saying that it alone fails to explain why the night side of Venus does not freeze during the long 243 days that Venus takes to rotate on its axis.

As was mentioned earlier, the temperature on Mercury drops from around 680K during the day to 100K at night, and one day (full rotation of the planet) on Mercury is much shorter than a day on Venus.
We do not see this temperature drop on Venus because of the greenhouse effect trapping heat on the surface of the planet. Why continue to embarrass yourself when your position is clearly wrong?

 

[wirebender]

Last time I checked Big Oil was investing less than 1 percent of their profits in renewable energy, therefore I hardly think you can conclude Big Oil being “heavily invested in renewable energy”. I think we both know where their profits are coming from and where their priorities lie.

You just keep showing everyone that thinking isn't your big thing. We all know, at least those of us who are rational thinkers, that renewables are at least 100 years from providing anything like the majority of our energy if ever. If greens have thier way, CO2 will be reduced through outrageous taxes on fossil fuels. Oil companies will simply raise thier prices by the amount of the taxes plus a few percent for good measure and continue on in a business as usual fashion. They make money whether the coin lands heads or tails.

One of the primary problems with you liberals is that you just aren't very good at thinking. You imagine renewables actually providing an appreciable amount of energy in your lifetime which is a fantasy, and you imagine that energy companies will pay the taxes imposed upon them. Again, pure fantasy. The one who gets hurt most in the green's plan is the smoe with a poor paying job who is just barely able to meet his expenses and pay for gas to get back and forth to work. Raise the cost of gas by much more and he can no longer afford to get to work. In usual fashion, the people greens hurt the most with their good intentions is the very people who can least afford to be hurt. There is a very good reason that liberals are known as the kings of unintended consequences.

Again, I think it should come as no surprise that the scientific academies whose sole purpose is researching Global warming have spent more money in Global Warming research than Oil companies, who shouldn’t have any business spending money on this topic at all. The fact that Oil companies are spending any money on this matter at all should be your red flag.

More evidence that you don't have a clue. Those scientific academies you seem to respect so much are not in the business of researching anything. What? Do you believe that they are actual schools or research institutions? How quaint and naive. Those academies are nothing more than clubs that scientists belong to. The American Academy of Science for example has no actual campus. They have a suite of offices that the political head works out of and scientists pay dues to be members so that they can put membership on thier resume. There is no research going on in the American Academy of Science.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Your entire argument is an attack on the science behind global warming (you called it pseudoscience many times). Therefore attacking an organization that does not carry out its own original research or monitor climate change is a straw man fallacy and “laughable”.

As for your other post, you clearly are regurgitating talking points from the conservative media and are showing that it is indeed you do not have much “intellectual wattage” invested in your position. The greenhouse effect does NOT violate the Second Law of thermo dynamics because planet earth is not in a closed energy system and the heat source is a constant influx of energy from the sun. If the sun was somehow turned off then there would be no greenhouse effect, but the sun is always on.

To discuss the causes of global warming is one thing, but to imply that a greenhouse effect does not exist is beyond ignorant. How is it possible that the average surface temperature on Venus is hotter than Mercury when Mercury is much closer to the sun? Which of those two planets has a CO2 rich atmosphere and which one doesn’t?

I cannot post any links because I am a new member, but if you want a sources, a simple Google search on these topics should give you a sufficient starting point. Based on your responses I doubt that you possess an open mind to look at any information from an unbiased point of view, or that you would even read anything for that matter. I think you are just here to post insults to those who you don’t agree with, and make yourself feel like an internet tough guy rather than have an intelligent open-minded discussion on this topic.

There are various reasons to doubts that AGW is a valid conclusion.

Is there a proof that you would care to present that CO2 is prime driver of climate?

A23A

Do you have the text of this speech available?

 

[wirebender]

Ok as I alluded to earlier, let’s make some observations about planets Mercury and Venus and then draw some conclusions.
- Venus is nearly twice the distance from the sun than Mercury is.
- Venus is completely covered in clouds which reflect 90% of the sun’s light into outer space, preventing most of the sun’s energy from reaching the surface.

Both of these things would lead one to assume that the surface temperature on Venus should be much cooler than that of Mercury. Yet somehow Venus’s average surface temperature is hotter...

And there my friend is the cherry on top of the sundae. You prove beyond even the smallest possible doubt that you literally don't know jack with regard to the science. You have proven yourself to be nothing more than a sheep, bleating whate you believe you have been told to say.

If you had the slightest clue, you most certainly would not intuit that the surface temperature of venus would be cooler than that of the earth. If you had the slightest inkling of the ideal gas laws, you would be able to predict that the surface temperature of venus would be quite hot.

The atmospheric pressure at the surface of venus is more than 90 times that of earth. I suppose the term PV=nRT flies right past you, but if you had more than the most rudimentary knowledge of science, you would recognize those letters, in combination with the reality of the atmosphere of venus to be a recipe for a very hot place.

Of course, if you travel up in the atmosphere of venus to an altitude where the atmospheric pressure is equal to that on the surface of the earth, and make a minor adjustment calculation to compensate for the difference in the amount of incoming solar energy between venus and the earth, you will find that the two temperatures are nearly identical even though the atmosphere of venus is almost entirely composed of so called greenhouse gasses.

Now, if you were a thinking person, you would derive from that bit of scientific fact that atmospheric composition has little to nothing to do with surface temperature which should tell you that CO2 is not a culprit.

Based on these simple observations .....

Simple is right. Simple, as in Simple Simon. Your observations have absolutely nothing to do with the reality of venus because you have completely ignored the fact that the atmospheric pressure is more than 90 times that of earth and the equation PV=nRT tells us that it will be a very hot place no matter what the atmosphere is composed of.

You accused me of not being a thinker, but I’d like you to think about what I stated objectively, crosscheck my facts if you don’t believe me, and draw your own unbiased conclusions.

]

Not only are you not a thinker, but you aren't very bright either. You obviously crosschecked nothing because you neglected the precise reason the surface temperature of venus is so high.

Then if you’d like to offer another explanation for why the surface temperature of Venus is hotter than that of Mercury I am willing to hear it.

Pressure is the reason. The phenomenon is called the heat of compression. The atmospheric pressure on mercury is one nanopascal or ten to the negative fourteenth bar. Or about one one trillionth that of earth.

Congratulations, you have proven yourself to be truely clueless. Don't pretend scientific knowledge that you don't have. The pretense can't hold up very long.

 

[wirebender]

Furthermore Venus's surface temperature remains the same even on the night side of the planet despite the fact that one day (full rotation of the planet on its axis) takes 243 earth days. Such a slow rotation would normally freeze the night side of the planet... the fact that such a uniform temperature is still maintained across the entire planet demonstrates the extremely strong greenhouse effect on Venus.

You know so little that you didn't even realize that you gave the correct answer and certainly couldn't recognize the why several posts back. As you said, most of the light incoming from the sun is, in fact, reflected back away from venus. Atmospheric pressure is the reason it is so hot and atmospheric pressure doesn't care whether it is day or night. You can apply the ideal gas laws in light or dark and that is precisely why there is so little difference between daytime temps and night time temps on venus. The sun really isn't much of a factor.

I'm not going to try and insult you with a "care to try again response", instead I encourage you to think

The fact is that you don't know enough to insult anyone but yourself and with this little venus exchange you have done your intellect a grave disservice. That you have shown your self to be so wrong in public is sad to watch.

And I encourage you to actually learn something. Your knowledge base is so small that I can only suggest that perhaps you begin with some elementary school science texts. You don't know enough at this point to even consider thinking about the topic.

 

[wirebender]

You are making a straw man argument...I never said the atmospheric pressure has NO bearing on temperature. I am saying that it alone fails to explain why the night side of Venus does not freeze during the long 243 days that Venus takes to rotate on its axis.

He is making the only rational argument to make since it is the only factual argument supported and predicted by the laws of physics. As you stated, most of the sun's energy is reflected away from venus before it gets into the atmosphere therfore something else must be causing the temperature of venus to be so high.

A fictitious greenouse effect as described by cliamte science requires that sunlight reach the surface, be absorbed, and then be emitted as infrared radiation which is where CO2 is able to absorb. CO2 hardly absorbs any incoming energy because its absorption band is so small. In order for the fictitious greenhouse effect to work on venus, sunlight would have to reach the surface, be absorbed and then emitted again as IR. You, yourself have stated that precious little, if any sunlight reaches the surface.

Atmospheric pressure is the sole reason it is hot on venus and the reason it is hot on both the daytime and night time sides of the planet.

 

[code1211]

Ok as I alluded to earlier, let’s make some observations about planets Mercury and Venus and then draw some conclusions.
- Venus is nearly twice the distance from the sun than Mercury is.
- Venus is completely covered in clouds which reflect 90% of the sun’s light into outer space, preventing most of the sun’s energy from reaching the surface.

Both of these things would lead one to assume that the surface temperature on Venus should be much cooler than that of Mercury. Yet somehow Venus’s average surface temperature is hotter...

Now let’s look at their CO2. Venus has a very thick atmosphere that consists of 96.5% CO2 while Mercury’s atmosphere is very weak and CO2 is only found in tiny trace amounts.

Based on these simple observations it should be obvious that the CO2 in the atmosphere of Venus is acting as a greenhouse gas and trapping heat on the surface of the planet. This explains why the surface of Venus is hotter than Mercury, and illustrates how CO2 can be a driving force in climate.

You accused me of not being a thinker, but I’d like you to think about what I stated objectively, crosscheck my facts if you don’t believe me, and draw your own unbiased conclusions.

Then if you’d like to offer another explanation for why the surface temperature of Venus is hotter than that of Mercury I am willing to hear it.

Well, half a truth is better than none, I suppose.

What lowers the average temperature of Mercury is the very cold side that is away from the Sun. There is indeed a weak atmosphere on Mercury if nothing is what you call weak. The solar wind blew all of it away millions of years ago.

Venus is very warm. The atmosphere is very high in CO2 and is about half the distance from the Sun that we are. A three percent change in the shape of our orbit initiates ice Ages. It's little wonder what a 50% reduction in the distance to the Sun would do.

Lacking a relatively friendly environment, our planet would still have a CO2 rich atmosphere. Since life has formed here, the little plants ate the CO2 and exhaled the O. That is what reduced the CO2 around here.

That was a decent attempt to misdirect and you explained what is happening on other planets, but not this planet.

Care to try again?

Sure... my intent was not to misdirect. Plant life on Earth is indeed the reason that our planet does not have the large CO2 amounts of Venus and the reason that we have O2 in the atmosphere. But I am not trying to compare Earth to Venus, I am comparing Venus to Mercury.

You are correct that the temperature drops drastically on the night side of Mercury. However you failed to realize that even during the day time, the surface temperature on Mercury only reaches about 670K with maybe a maximum of 700K at the equator.... which is still considerably lower than the temperature on Venus which about 750K.

Furthermore Venus's surface temperature remains the same even on the night side of the planet despite the fact that one day (full rotation of the planet on its axis) takes 243 earth days. Such a slow rotation would normally freeze the night side of the planet... the fact that such a uniform temperature is still maintained across the entire planet demonstrates the extremely strong greenhouse effect on Venus.

I'm not going to try and insult you with a "care to try again response", instead I encourage you to think about this objectively, put any biases aside, and draw conclusions scientifically.

The density of the atmosphere on venus is a little less than 100 tines that of Earth which is about right for us. We'd be crushed on venus.

At that density, and at its distance from the sun, it stands to reason that it would be very warm there and that the variation in temperature from day to night would be negligible.

The high content of CO2 is the basic ingredient of a witch's brew of toxic gases boiling on the surface.

We are talking about Global Warming on Earth and you are bringing up planets that are so unlike Earth they have no useful correlations.

What is your purpose?

 

[code1211]

Your entire argument is an attack on the science behind global warming (you called it pseudoscience many times). Therefore attacking an organization that does not carry out its own original research or monitor climate change is a straw man fallacy and “laughable”.

As for your other post, you clearly are regurgitating talking points from the conservative media and are showing that it is indeed you do not have much “intellectual wattage” invested in your position. The greenhouse effect does NOT violate the Second Law of thermo dynamics because planet earth is not in a closed energy system and the heat source is a constant influx of energy from the sun. If the sun was somehow turned off then there would be no greenhouse effect, but the sun is always on.

To discuss the causes of global warming is one thing, but to imply that a greenhouse effect does not exist is beyond ignorant. How is it possible that the average surface temperature on Venus is hotter than Mercury when Mercury is much closer to the sun? Which of those two planets has a CO2 rich atmosphere and which one doesn’t?

I cannot post any links because I am a new member, but if you want a sources, a simple Google search on these topics should give you a sufficient starting point. Based on your responses I doubt that you possess an open mind to look at any information from an unbiased point of view, or that you would even read anything for that matter. I think you are just here to post insults to those who you don’t agree with, and make yourself feel like an internet tough guy rather than have an intelligent open-minded discussion on this topic.

There are various reasons to doubts that AGW is a valid conclusion.

Is there a proof that you would care to present that CO2 is prime driver of climate?

A23A

And you will kindly explain how the climate is driven by this prime driver and show the exact correlation between the rises and falls of temperature to rises and , well the rises of CO2?

 

[meatheadmike]

You are making a straw man argument...I never said the atmospheric pressure has NO bearing on temperature. I am saying that it alone fails to explain why the night side of Venus does not freeze during the long 243 days that Venus takes to rotate on its axis.

He is making the only rational argument to make since it is the only factual argument supported and predicted by the laws of physics. As you stated, most of the sun's energy is reflected away from venus before it gets into the atmosphere therfore something else must be causing the temperature of venus to be so high.

A fictitious greenouse effect as described by cliamte science requires that sunlight reach the surface, be absorbed, and then be emitted as infrared radiation which is where CO2 is able to absorb. CO2 hardly absorbs any incoming energy because its absorption band is so small. In order for the fictitious greenhouse effect to work on venus, sunlight would have to reach the surface, be absorbed and then emitted again as IR. You, yourself have stated that precious little, if any sunlight reaches the surface.

Atmospheric pressure is the sole reason it is hot on venus and the reason it is hot on both the daytime and night time sides of the planet.

My god, I cannot believe how flawed your logic is... so now your argument has regressed to the point where you are saying sunlight has no effect on temperature. Let me break it down even further so your feeble brain can understand:

I think that we can agree that atmospheric pressure remains the same everywhere on the planet. Therefore when we introduce another variable... the sun, which bombards one side of the planet with radiation for about 121 days, one would expect that the temperature on that side should increase.....

Yes Venus's atmosphere scatters about 90% of sunlight... but this still MEANS 10% IS GETTING THROUGH. You are failing to realize that even if a fraction of a percent of sunlight made it through, this should elevate surface temperatures significantly given the amount of time one side is exposed... while the temperatures on the side receiving no light would be significantly lower.

And yet the temperature on Venus is the same on both sides... the reason is Venus has extremely strong winds that blow at 60 times the planet's rotational speed, evenly distributing the hot air from the side that is being heated by the sun to the night side.
And of course the heat on night side of the planet is trapped by......
The greenhouse effect!

 

[wirebender]

My god, I cannot believe how flawed your logic is... so now your argument has regressed to the point where you are saying sunlight has no effect on temperature. Let me break it down even further so your feeble brain can understand:

You are full of it and you have demonstrated it beyond any reasonable doubt. In order to have a greenhouse effect as claimed by warmers you must have IR from the sun reaching the surface, being absorbed, and then being emitted as IR which CO2 can then absorb and re eimit. How much energy from the sun, in watts per square meter reaches the surface of venus? Answer? About 2% of the solar energy that reaches venus actually reaches the surface. Sorry but the numbers don't add up to a greenhouse effect.

I think that we can agree that atmospheric pressure remains the same everywhere on the planet. Therefore when we introduce another variable... the sun, which bombards one side of the planet with radiation for about 121 days, one would expect that the temperature on that side should increase.....

Again, 2% of the energy from the sun actually reaches the surface. Not enough energy to explain the temperature in terms of a fictitious greenhouse effect. It is atmospheric pressure, simple as that. Nikolov and Zeller (a couple of PhD physicists) recently produced a body of work using nothing more than the atmospheric pressure, and distance from the sun to accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere, and demonstrated via the DIVINER data from the moon that the SB equations being used by climate sciecne are so flawed that they are essentialy useless.

Yes Venus's atmosphere scatters about 90% of sunlight... but this still MEANS 10% IS GETTING THROUGH. You are failing to realize that even if a fraction of a percent of sunlight made it through, this should elevate surface temperatures significantly given the amount of time one side is exposed... while the temperatures on the side receiving no light would be significantly lower.

Sorry, but only 2% reaches the surface. Not enough energy to produce the temperatures on venus even if you multiplied the claimed greenhouse effect by 10 orders of magnitude. But feel free to do the math if you care to try and prove your point,

And yet the temperature on Venus is the same on both sides... the reason is Venus has extremely strong winds that blow at 60 times the planet's rotational speed, evenly distributing the hot air from the side that is being heated by the sun to the night side. And of course the heat on night side of the planet is trapped by......
The greenhouse effect!

{/quote]

Atmospheric pressure, and that is it. N&Z accurately predicted the temperature of venus using only its atmospheric pressure and distance from the sun. Atmospheric composition is irrelavent as far as anything like a greenhouse effect goes. They have proven that CO2 and the other so called greenhouse gasses are not the reason for the temperature anywhere.

 

[westwall]

If you are attributing the surface temperature of Venus to the Ideal Gas laws, then how is it possible that the night side of Venus remains the same temperature as the side facing the sun despite the fact that one night on Venus lasts 243 earth days?
Clearly the greenhouse effect is responsible for trapping heat on the surface of the planet, otherwise the night side would freeze given the very long duration that it faces away from the sun.

Also, I'll remind you of the percentages... Venus's atmosphere consists of 96.5% CO2 while Sulfur dioxide makes up only about 0.015% of the Atmosphere. It is obvious that CO2 is the dominant driving force behind the greenhouse effect on Venus.

Instead of ignorantly throwing stuff at the wall to see if it will stick, perhaps you should re-evaluate and abandon your previous position. I am not trying to make you feel stupid... on the contrary, accepting that you were previously misinformed and that you have now learned something new, by definition will make you smarter.

No, I'm attributing the temperature of Venus to a combination of the Ideal Gas Laws and the overall density of the atmosphere. Really, you don't think an atmospheric density of 93 bar has ANY bearing on the temperature? Really?

You are making a straw man argument...I never said the atmospheric pressure has NO bearing on temperature. I am saying that it alone fails to explain why the night side of Venus does not freeze during the long 243 days that Venus takes to rotate on its axis.

As was mentioned earlier, the temperature on Mercury drops from around 680K during the day to 100K at night, and one day (full rotation of the planet) on Mercury is much shorter than a day on Venus.
We do not see this temperature drop on Venus because of the greenhouse effect trapping heat on the surface of the planet. Why continue to embarrass yourself when your position is clearly wrong?

I am not an atmospheric physicist but i would be happy to wager a rather large sum, that the density is the vastly dominant variable in the temperature of Venus.

 

[meatheadmike]

My god, I cannot believe how flawed your logic is... so now your argument has regressed to the point where you are saying sunlight has no effect on temperature. Let me break it down even further so your feeble brain can understand:

You are full of it and you have demonstrated it beyond any reasonable doubt. In order to have a greenhouse effect as claimed by warmers you must have IR from the sun reaching the surface, being absorbed, and then being emitted as IR which CO2 can then absorb and re eimit. How much energy from the sun, in watts per square meter reaches the surface of venus? Answer? About 2% of the solar energy that reaches venus actually reaches the surface. Sorry but the numbers don't add up to a greenhouse effect.

I think that we can agree that atmospheric pressure remains the same everywhere on the planet. Therefore when we introduce another variable... the sun, which bombards one side of the planet with radiation for about 121 days, one would expect that the temperature on that side should increase.....

Again, 2% of the energy from the sun actually reaches the surface. Not enough energy to explain the temperature in terms of a fictitious greenhouse effect. It is atmospheric pressure, simple as that. Nikolov and Zeller (a couple of PhD physicists) recently produced a body of work using nothing more than the atmospheric pressure, and distance from the sun to accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere, and demonstrated via the DIVINER data from the moon that the SB equations being used by climate sciecne are so flawed that they are essentialy useless.

Yes Venus's atmosphere scatters about 90% of sunlight... but this still MEANS 10% IS GETTING THROUGH. You are failing to realize that even if a fraction of a percent of sunlight made it through, this should elevate surface temperatures significantly given the amount of time one side is exposed... while the temperatures on the side receiving no light would be significantly lower.

Sorry, but only 2% reaches the surface. Not enough energy to produce the temperatures on venus even if you multiplied the claimed greenhouse effect by 10 orders of magnitude. But feel free to do the math if you care to try and prove your point,

And yet the temperature on Venus is the same on both sides... the reason is Venus has extremely strong winds that blow at 60 times the planet's rotational speed, evenly distributing the hot air from the side that is being heated by the sun to the night side. And of course the heat on night side of the planet is trapped by......
The greenhouse effect!

{/quote]

Atmospheric pressure, and that is it. N&Z accurately predicted the temperature of venus using only its atmospheric pressure and distance from the sun. Atmospheric composition is irrelavent as far as anything like a greenhouse effect goes. They have proven that CO2 and the other so called greenhouse gasses are not the reason for the temperature anywhere.

Not sure where you got 2% seeing as all sources I see say Venus has an albedo of .75. But this doesn't matter much anyway because a great portion of the sun's heating power is on the infared specturm.... which does not get reflected.

Also to entirley base the surface temperature on preasure leaves some question marks... as you must know when you posted the ideal gas law equation "rudimentary knowledge of science" tells us that that temperature and pressure are directly proportional therefor pressure can increase temperature, BUT also temperature can increase pressure. So we observe high temperature and high pressure on Venus, but where is the causality and to what degree?

As for Nikolov and Zeller, as you mentioned their paper came out recently sometime this year.. so the jury is still out on them. Doing a simple internet search reveals there are many other "PHD Physisits" who disagree with them. I'm not going to condone or condemn their theory as I don't know what methods and equations they used (and I'm sure you don't either)... but I'd like to point out how ironic it is that one who claims to be a skeptic is quick to whole hartedly embrase something so fast. You probably are not even aware that their model apperently predicts the mean surface temperature of Mercury to be 40K lower than the earth's.... something that most "skeptics" might quesiton.

You just seem to take pick and choose whatever laws of science you want and there is no point in trying to have a rational discussion with you seeing as you are only concerned with flaming.

Don't bother wasting your time respoing with more insults, they will only make you look like you are trying hard to look superior on the internet because I'm telling you right now that not going back in this thread to check for responses.