AGW: atmospheric physics

[SSDD]

Oh, yeah, sure -- like the surface of the planet Venus!!! · ·

You know, your use of the Stephen Hawking avatar is an insult to the man considering your stunning lack of knowledge on the topic.

The atmosphere of venus is 90 times greater than the atmosphere of earth. The temperature of venus is due to that pressure, not its composition. This is proven by a couple of facts...number one, very little solar energy reaches the surface of venus to be absorbed and re-emitted and thus power a so called greenhouse effect....number two, if you travel down into the atmosphere of venus to a depth where the atmospheric pressure is equal to that of earth, and compensate for the difference in incoming solar radiation between venus and earth, the temperature there is the same as the temperature here even though the atmosphere is almost entirely CO2.

Then you might look at mars which also has an atmosphere composed almost entirely of CO2...and yet, in the middle of summer, on the equator, at noon, the temperature barely reaches 80F while at the poles it is routinely -200F. Cold enough to precipitate CO2 out of the air like CO2 snowfall.

Of course the atmospheric pressure of mars is considerably less than on venus or on earth. The temperatures of both planets can be predicted using only the ideal gas laws and the amount of incoming solar radiation.

Whoo, boy---in my wildest and most malevolent dreams I could not imagine scientific dodos like the ones raving on this thread

I am afraid that you have identified yourself as one of the major dodo's with that comment about venus...believing that it is so hot because of some runaway greenhouse effect. Only those with the least grasp of the science refer to venus in any discussion of the greenhouse effect.

 

[SSDD]

who is claiming that a heat is moving from a cooler body to a warmer one? no one is but you keep trotting that strawman out.

you look at a diagram that shows radiation flowing in both directions and then proceed to ignore one side of the equation. not that I agree with Trenberth's diagram but it does show that the net flow of IR energy from the surface is outward. if the surface is warming up because of decreased IR flow outwards, the actual energy being used to heat the surface is from the Sun, not the backradiation that just cancels out a portion of the heat loss to space by IR.

The fact that the diagram has radiation flowing in two directions makes it, and all conclusions drawn from it incorrect. There is no two way flow of radiation.

 

[numan]

We could burn EVERY CARBON BEARING ROCK ON THIS PLANET AND CO2 WOULD STILL BE A TRACE GAS.

Do you have a clue what that means?

Indeed, I do, but you obviously don't have a clue about what any high school student with any brains knows well.

On Earth, there is at least 50 times as much carbon locked up in carbonate rocks as exists in the atmosphere. There is just as much carbon on Earth as there is on Venus, and if it were released from the rocks by heating, Earth would be just as much a hell hole as Venus is -- which seems to be the goal which insensate global heating deniers are pursuing.

Earth-Venus-Mars

QUOTE:
Why does Venus have such a thick atmosphere and why is it so hot on its surface? Venus is so hot because of a huge greenhouse effect that prevents heat from escaping to space. On Venus, the super-abundance of CO2 in its atmosphere is responsible for the huge greenhouse effect. Why is Venus' CO2 all in its atmosphere while most of the Earth's CO2 is locked up in its sediments? Earth has some 35 to 50 entire Earth atmospheres worth of carbon dioxide in the form of carbonates. Venus' greenhouse effect probably started from the presence of a lot of water vapor, but Venus is now a very dry place.

Runaway Greenhouse

Venus was originally cooler than what it is now and it had a greater abundance of water several billion years ago. Also, most of its carbon dioxide was locked up in the rocks. Through a process called a runaway greenhouse, Venus heated up to its present blistering hot level. Because Venus was slightly closer to the Sun than the Earth, its water never liquified and remained in the atmosphere to start the greenhouse heating. As Venus heated up, some of the carbon dioxide in the rocks was "baked out." The increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide enhanced the greenhouse heating. That baked more carbon dioxide out of the rocks (as well as any water) and a runaway positive feedback loop process occurred. This positive feedback loop occurred several hundred million to a few billion years ago so Venus has been very hot for that length of time.

Yes, RUNAWAY GREENHOUSE HEATING, which is happening right now on Earth, due to release of greenhouse gases from the Northern tundra (though, thank goodness! on a much smalller scale than on Venus).

However, what happened on Venus eventually will surely happen on Earth, as the Sun heats up in its stellar evolution -- though probably not for another billion years.
.

 

[SSDD]

[
Indeed, I do, but you obviously don't have a clue about what any high school student with any brains knows well.

Obviously you don't. The temperature on venus is due to pressure, not CO2. Look at the gas giants...deep in the atmosphere they are even hotter than venus and their atmospheres are nearly all hydrogen...not a so called greenhouse gas...pressure numan...not the composition of the atmosphere...

Again, your use of Stephen Hawking as an avatar is an insult to the man.

 

[SSDD]

Do you have a clue what that means?

As a start I suggest you take a look at the Ideal Gas Laws.

He doesn't have a clue as to what the ideal gas laws mean or what the ramifications of an atmosphere 92 times more dense than earth would be regardless of what gasses the atmosphere is composed of.

 

[mamooth]

Name one "you used to run".

Spent the most time with D2G's.

Then tell me which type of fuel rods you "used to use"

If they had a serial number, that would be something OPNAV worried about, not the operators. Since Navy ships rarely refuel, I never took part in a refueling.

However ... Uranium dioxide fuel, boron doped, zirconium cladding. Hafnium control rods that were pulled up from the top, and fell by gravity in case of SCRAM.

and who your fuel rod supplier "used to be"?

Fuel rod supplier would be ... the Navy. I assume the Navy got the fuel rods from General Electric, being it was a GE reactor.

What was the coating and the unit weight?

Zirconium. Unit weight, irrelevant to the operators. It was never mentioned, ever, anywhere. There's a very long list of things you have to memorize, and that's not one of them. If you never remove them, you don't care about the weight.

What`s the name of the systems control software that you "used to use"?

That's hilarious. You actually think Navy reactors have software.

In all of the engine room and reactor spaces, there was _one_ integrated circuit chip, and that was in a non-critical piece of test gear. There were darn few transistors as well, maybe a few on the TG regulators. What we had was endless glorious magamps, and it's difficult to run software on a coil of wire wrapped around a magnetic slug.

Do the math for a 10" diameter solid copper slug 10" thick at 90 C
which comes in contact with another slug, same dimensions but is at 0 C

Why? What's the point of bringing it up, other than for you to brag that you've previously done the calculation?

I bet you don`t have the foggiest idea unless you manage to find a FAQ + online calculator.

True, but it's dumb of you to think that's a problem. No one has instant technical knowledge of everything. Yep, I'd have to look it up to find out how many joules/second were moving. Who cares?

You would be one of Roy Spencer`s idiots who cut off the cooling fins on a heat sink, because they "back-radiate" at each other and cause transistors to overheat.

Why you babbling about back-radiation now, being that I've never mentioned the term?

You haven`t got a clue what`s going on in a cooling tower else you would know what the rate of cooling is at the reactor`s SOP for max-recommended power output.

Easy enough to figure. So let's call your bluff and see if you can do it. Given your displayed knowledge, I highly doubt you could even tell us the purpose of a cooling tower. Can you? Go on, tell us. What does the cooling tower at a nuclear reactor do?

No SOP manual ever calls it "heat flow" and there is no instrument on any control panel with that label.

That's nice. I wasn't writing a manual. I was explaining the theory.

Are you in agreement with SSDD that Fourier's law of heat flow is incorrect? I'm trying to figure out just what you're jabbering about. I know you're unhinged at me, but is there some other point to the jabbering?

You were at best a swab if you were ever on an aircraft carrier or inside a nuclear power plant.

Reactor Watch Officer. That's would be the guy in charge of the plant for the shift.

I worked for a while at the Whiteshell Nuclear Reactor...Its a nuclear research facility & power plant...but I`ve also been inside others and know what`s what.

Well golly, you worked _at_ a plant. So you're not trained in nuclear power, and you know jack about how a reactor operates, other than what you got from stories over a beer.

 

[SSDD]

For those who believe venus is the victim of a runaway greenhouse effect (and you know who you are) here is some actual science for you provided by Harry Huffman.

Surprisingly to most, there is no greenhouse effect at all, and you can prove it for yourself. You can find the temperature and pressure profiles for the Venusian atmosphere at

Venus Atmosphere Temperature and Pressure Profiles

With those graphs, you can confirm that, at the altitude where the pressure = 1000 millibars, which is the sea level pressure of Earth, the temperature of the Venusian atmosphere is 66ºC = 339K.

This is much warmer than the temperature at the surface of the Earth, at pressure = 1000 millibars, which is about 15ºC = 288K. HOWEVER

Venus is closer to the Sun, and gets proportionally more power from it. Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun, on average, while Venus is only 67.25 million (on average) from the Sun. Since the intensity of the Sun's radiation decreases with distance from it as 1 over r-squared, Venus receives (93/67.25) squared, or 1.91 times the power per unit area that Earth receives, on average.

Since the radiating temperature of an isolated body in space varies as the fourth-root of the power incident upon it, by the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the radiating temperature of Venus should be the fourth-root of 1.91 = 1.18 times that of the Earth. Furthermore, since the atmospheric pressure varies as the temperature, the temperature at any given pressure level in the Venusian atmosphere should be 1.18 times the temperature at that same pressure level in the Earth atmosphere, INDEPENDENT OF ANY INFRARED ABSORPTION in the atmosphere. In particular, the averaged temperature at 1000 millibars on Earth is about 15ºC = 288K, so the corresponding temperature on Venus, WITHOUT ANY GREENHOUSE EFFECT, should be 1.18 times that, or 339K. But this is just 66ºC, the temperature we actually find there from the temperature and pressure profiles for Venus.

So there is no greenhouse effect. You have just proved that climate science is utterly wrong to think otherwise. This is the scandal that so many "experts" in climate science, and all the scientific authorities, will not face. Listen to the physicists that tell you there is no greenhouse effect; they know without having to go to the Venus data -- and I am one of them. The continuing incompetence on this vital point among so many scientists, for more than a century, is amazing, and tragic..

Source(s):

Venus Atmosphere Temperature and Pressure Profiles

Feel free to point out any errors on his part.

 

[numan]

'
Why is Venus so HOT?

QUOTE:
Even though the cloud tops of Venus, are highly reflective, sunlight ultimately reaches and warms the surface. The surface then radiates heat back in the infrared.

Sunlight that penetrates to the lower atmosphere and the surface re-radiates back in the infrared wavelength. The atmosphere has a high capacity of holding in this heat. This results in a much higher surface temperature than would be present without the blanketing effect of the atmosphere. However, carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is opaque to infrared and traps this heat from escaping and temperature increases. Note that both oxygen and nitrogen are transparent to infrared radiation. Nevertheless, both carbon dioxide and water vapor, as well as methane, CH4, are good absorbers of infrared radiation.

If Venus had an atmosphere composed of nitrogen or oxygen, 90 times more dense than the atmosphere of Earth, then Venus would be much cooler than it is at present.
.

 

[SSDD]

'
Why is Venus so HOT?

Venus has no greenhouse effect...See above. Feel free to point out any errors.

 

[numan]

We could burn EVERY CARBON BEARING ROCK ON THIS PLANET AND CO2 WOULD STILL BE A TRACE GAS.

Would you dare to make that howler your signature line? · ·

Earth-Venus-Mars

QUOTE:
The loss of water from the rocks means that Venus' rocks are harder than the rocks of Earth and its lithosphere is now probably too thick and hard and its aesthenosphere is too poorly lubricated for plate tectonics to occur. The water Venus originally had is now gone because of a process called dissociation.

On Earth the ratio of ordinary hydrogen to deuterium (H/D) is 1000 to 1, while on Venus the proportion of deuterium is about ten times greater---the H/D ratio is 100 to 1. The H/D ratio on Venus and Earth are assumed to have been originally the same, so something caused the very light hydrogen isotopes on Venus to preferentially disappear. An easy explanation for it is the ultraviolet dissociation of water.
.

 

[SSDD]

Would you dare to make that howler your signature line? · ·

Feel free to point out any error in the mathematical proof above that there is no greenhouse effect on venus.

 

[westwall]

We could burn EVERY CARBON BEARING ROCK ON THIS PLANET AND CO2 WOULD STILL BE A TRACE GAS.

Do you have a clue what that means?

Indeed, I do, but you obviously don't have a clue about what any high school student with any brains knows well.

On Earth, there is at least 50 times as much carbon locked up in carbonate rocks as exists in the atmosphere. There is just as much carbon on Earth as there is on Venus, and if it were released from the rocks by heating, Earth would be just as much a hell hole as Venus is -- which seems to be the goal which insensate global heating deniers are pursuing.

Earth-Venus-Mars

QUOTE:
Why does Venus have such a thick atmosphere and why is it so hot on its surface? Venus is so hot because of a huge greenhouse effect that prevents heat from escaping to space. On Venus, the super-abundance of CO2 in its atmosphere is responsible for the huge greenhouse effect. Why is Venus' CO2 all in its atmosphere while most of the Earth's CO2 is locked up in its sediments? Earth has some 35 to 50 entire Earth atmospheres worth of carbon dioxide in the form of carbonates. Venus' greenhouse effect probably started from the presence of a lot of water vapor, but Venus is now a very dry place.

Runaway Greenhouse

Venus was originally cooler than what it is now and it had a greater abundance of water several billion years ago. Also, most of its carbon dioxide was locked up in the rocks. Through a process called a runaway greenhouse, Venus heated up to its present blistering hot level. Because Venus was slightly closer to the Sun than the Earth, its water never liquified and remained in the atmosphere to start the greenhouse heating. As Venus heated up, some of the carbon dioxide in the rocks was "baked out." The increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide enhanced the greenhouse heating. That baked more carbon dioxide out of the rocks (as well as any water) and a runaway positive feedback loop process occurred. This positive feedback loop occurred several hundred million to a few billion years ago so Venus has been very hot for that length of time.

Yes, RUNAWAY GREENHOUSE HEATING, which is happening right now on Earth, due to release of greenhouse gases from the Northern tundra (though, thank goodness! on a much smalller scale than on Venus).

However, what happened on Venus eventually will surely happen on Earth, as the Sun heats up in its stellar evolution -- though probably not for another billion years.
.

You are wrong. Completely and hopelessly wrong. I'm a geologist and know more about rocks than you ever will and as I stated QUITE CLEARLY, we could BURN EVERY CARBON BEARING ROCK ON THIS PLANET AND CO2 WOULD STILL BE A TRACE GAS.

It is physically IMPOSSIBLE for what you state to occur. Any GOOD highschool science student could tell you that.

Clearly you were a drop out smoking cigs by the tree accross the street.

 

[westwall]

Do you have a clue what that means?

As a start I suggest you take a look at the Ideal Gas Laws.

He doesn't have a clue as to what the ideal gas laws mean or what the ramifications of an atmosphere 92 times more dense than earth would be regardless of what gasses the atmosphere is composed of.

Clearly. This guy is probably trolling blunders sock.

 

[westwall]

Name one "you used to run".

Spent the most time with D2G's.

Then tell me which type of fuel rods you "used to use"

If they had a serial number, that would be something OPNAV worried about, not the operators. Since Navy ships rarely refuel, I never took part in a refueling.

However ... Uranium dioxide fuel, boron doped, zirconium cladding. Hafnium control rods that were pulled up from the top, and fell by gravity in case of SCRAM.



Fuel rod supplier would be ... the Navy. I assume the Navy got the fuel rods from General Electric, being it was a GE reactor.



Zirconium. Unit weight, irrelevant to the operators. It was never mentioned, ever, anywhere. There's a very long list of things you have to memorize, and that's not one of them. If you never remove them, you don't care about the weight.



That's hilarious. You actually think Navy reactors have software.

In all of the engine room and reactor spaces, there was _one_ integrated circuit chip, and that was in a non-critical piece of test gear. There were darn few transistors as well, maybe a few on the TG regulators. What we had was endless glorious magamps, and it's difficult to run software on a coil of wire wrapped around a magnetic slug.



Why? What's the point of bringing it up, other than for you to brag that you've previously done the calculation?



True, but it's dumb of you to think that's a problem. No one has instant technical knowledge of everything. Yep, I'd have to look it up to find out how many joules/second were moving. Who cares?



Why you babbling about back-radiation now, being that I've never mentioned the term?



Easy enough to figure. So let's call your bluff and see if you can do it. Given your displayed knowledge, I highly doubt you could even tell us the purpose of a cooling tower. Can you? Go on, tell us. What does the cooling tower at a nuclear reactor do?



That's nice. I wasn't writing a manual. I was explaining the theory.

Are you in agreement with SSDD that Fourier's law of heat flow is incorrect? I'm trying to figure out just what you're jabbering about. I know you're unhinged at me, but is there some other point to the jabbering?

You were at best a swab if you were ever on an aircraft carrier or inside a nuclear power plant.

Reactor Watch Officer. That's would be the guy in charge of the plant for the shift.

I worked for a while at the Whiteshell Nuclear Reactor...Its a nuclear research facility & power plant...but I`ve also been inside others and know what`s what.

Well golly, you worked _at_ a plant. So you're not trained in nuclear power, and you know jack about how a reactor operates, other than what you got from stories over a beer.

Neither are you clownboy. Amazingly enough (well not really, considering it's you) there is no such rank, specialty, or distinguishing group in the US Navy. None.

Lying again, and you got caught yet again. Sad....just sad.

 

[Oddball]

We could burn EVERY CARBON BEARING ROCK ON THIS PLANET AND CO2 WOULD STILL BE A TRACE GAS.

Do you have a clue what that means?

Indeed, I do, but you obviously don't have a clue about what any high school student with any brains knows well.

On Earth, there is at least 50 times as much carbon locked up in carbonate rocks as exists in the atmosphere. There is just as much carbon on Earth as there is on Venus, and if it were released from the rocks by heating, Earth would be just as much a hell hole as Venus is -- which seems to be the goal which insensate global heating deniers are pursuing.

Earth-Venus-Mars

QUOTE:
Why does Venus have such a thick atmosphere and why is it so hot on its surface? Venus is so hot because of a huge greenhouse effect that prevents heat from escaping to space. On Venus, the super-abundance of CO2 in its atmosphere is responsible for the huge greenhouse effect. Why is Venus' CO2 all in its atmosphere while most of the Earth's CO2 is locked up in its sediments? Earth has some 35 to 50 entire Earth atmospheres worth of carbon dioxide in the form of carbonates. Venus' greenhouse effect probably started from the presence of a lot of water vapor, but Venus is now a very dry place. .

Of course, it couldn't possibly be on account of Venus being 26 million miles closer to the sun!

 

[mamooth]

Neither are you clownboy. Amazingly enough (well not really, considering it's you) there is no such rank, specialty, or distinguishing group in the US Navy. None.

Groan. Civilians.

"Officer of the Deck" is not a rank, but there is a position called "Officer of the Deck", and you have to pass the OOD certification to hold it.

"Engineering Officer of the Watch" (ee-ow) is not a rank, but there is watch position called "Engineering Officer of the Watch", and you have to pass the Reactor Watch Officer certification to hold it.

Lying again, and you got caught yet again. Sad....just sad.

This should be where you apologize for accusing me of lying just because you were such a dumbfuck.

Then, you might want to look back at the results of all your other idiot vendettas. Is the endless humiliation that it gets you worth it?

 

[westwall]

Neither are you clownboy. Amazingly enough (well not really, considering it's you) there is no such rank, specialty, or distinguishing group in the US Navy. None.

Groan. Civilians.

"Officer of the Deck" is not a rank, but there is a position called "Officer of the Deck", and you have to pass the OOD certification to hold it.

"Engineering Officer of the Watch" (ee-ow) is not a rank, but there is watch position called "Engineering Officer of the Watch", and you have to pass the Reactor Watch Officer certification to hold it.

Lying again, and you got caught yet again. Sad....just sad.

This should be where you apologize for accusing me of lying just because you were such a dumbfuck.

Then, you might want to look back at the results of all your other idiot vendettas. Is the endless humiliation that it gets you worth it?

Officer of the Deck is a well known temporary job description for LINE OFFICERS, and there are even optical devices created for them bearing that name. What you described is an enlisted position (as verified by a check to the list of jobs on the US Navy's website) where you watch gauges and other powerplant management systems. The person in charge of that engineering section would of course be an engineering officer.

So, what was your rating?

And for the record it would be you getting humiliated...but you have no consience or shame, so humiliating you is just fun.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Can you explain what happens when rain falls on, for instance, a glacier?

You might want to think about this for a while before answering, or read the excellent article I linked earlier, which explains your error in some detail.

 

[Saigon]

Here is an article on The Second Law of Thermodynamics in relation to climate, which also makes it fairly clear exactly where SSDD is going wrong.

The simplest direct observation of the greenhouse effect at work is atmospheric backradiation. Any substance that absorbs thermal radiation will also emit thermal radiation; this is a consequence of Kirchoff's law. The atmosphere absorbs thermal radiation because of the trace greenhouse gases, and also emits thermal radiation, in all directions. This thermal emission can be measured from the surface and also from space. The surface of the Earth actually receives in total more radiation from the atmosphere than it does from the Sun.

The net flow of radiant heat is still upwards from the surface to the atmosphere, because the upwards thermal emission is greater than the downwards atmospheric backradiation. This is a simple consequence of the second law of thermodynamics. The magnitude of the net flow of heat is the difference between the radiant energy flowing in each direction. Because of the backradiation, the surface temperature and the upwards thermal radiation is much larger than if there was no greenhouse effect.

Atmospheric backradiation has been directly measured for over fifty years. The effects of greenhouse gases stand out clearly in modern measurements, which are able to show a complete spectrum.

The greenhouse effect and the 2nd law of thermodynamics

 

[jon_berzerk]

Oh, yeah, sure -- like the surface of the planet Venus!!! · ·

You know, your use of the Stephen Hawking avatar is an insult to the man considering your stunning lack of knowledge on the topic.

The atmosphere of venus is 90 times greater than the atmosphere of earth. The temperature of venus is due to that pressure, not its composition. This is proven by a couple of facts...number one, very little solar energy reaches the surface of venus to be absorbed and re-emitted and thus power a so called greenhouse effect....number two, if you travel down into the atmosphere of venus to a depth where the atmospheric pressure is equal to that of earth, and compensate for the difference in incoming solar radiation between venus and earth, the temperature there is the same as the temperature here even though the atmosphere is almost entirely CO2.

Then you might look at mars which also has an atmosphere composed almost entirely of CO2...and yet, in the middle of summer, on the equator, at noon, the temperature barely reaches 80F while at the poles it is routinely -200F. Cold enough to precipitate CO2 out of the air like CO2 snowfall.

Of course the atmospheric pressure of mars is considerably less than on venus or on earth. The temperatures of both planets can be predicted using only the ideal gas laws and the amount of incoming solar radiation.

Whoo, boy---in my wildest and most malevolent dreams I could not imagine scientific dodos like the ones raving on this thread

I am afraid that you have identified yourself as one of the major dodo's with that comment about venus...believing that it is so hot because of some runaway greenhouse effect. Only those with the least grasp of the science refer to venus in any discussion of the greenhouse effect.