To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid

[SSDD]

I have a far better understanding of the gas laws then you are likely to ever attain, Frank, so don't waste your time with the copied lecture. As to your last comment, were we to rapidly CHANGE the atmospheric pressure of a planet, it would alter its temperature. But it would not, as SSDD claims, MAINTAIN it at an elevated temperature.

Hell crick..you can't even read and understand a simple graph....the gas laws are way out of your league.

So says the stupe that believes in intelligent photons. LOL

I never cease to find it interesting that you believe that intelligence is required in order for the laws of nature to be obeyed...

 

[Crick]

Here is a discussion from a climate change skeptic on the greenhouse effect on Venus

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/there-is-a-greenhouse-effect-on-venus/

 

[Crick]

I have a far better understanding of the gas laws then you are likely to ever attain, Frank, so don't waste your time with the copied lecture. As to your last comment, were we to rapidly CHANGE the atmospheric pressure of a planet, it would alter its temperature. But it would not, as SSDD claims, MAINTAIN it at an elevated temperature.

Hell crick..you can't even read and understand a simple graph....the gas laws are way out of your league.

So says the stupe that believes in intelligent photons. LOL

I never cease to find it interesting that you believe that intelligence is required in order for the laws of nature to be obeyed...

That you think anyone doesn't understand the laws of nature is good evidence that they know it well.

 

[Crick]

From that same JoNova article I get the following graphic and caption

The horizontal axis shows wavenumbers, which are the reciprocals of wavelengths. The vertical axis shows the energy density of the radiation from the Earth observed by Nimbus. The dotted overlaid traces represent the emission spectrum from black bodies at various temperatures (calculated from Plank’s law which is known with a very high degree of surety). Without any atmosphere, Earth’s emission pattern as seen from space would look like one of these dotted lines.

Note the big bite out of the spectrum at around 660 wavenumbers and the smaller bite at around 1000 wavenumbers. The former is at the CO2 absorption line and the latter at the Ozone (O3) absorption line. Those two bites represent energy that is not being radiated to space that would be if there was no atmosphere. In short it is the signature of a green house gas reducing Earth’s radiation to space at the green house wavelengths. I invite those who disagree to give an alternate explanation for what is causing these notches.

So, SSDD, let's hear your alternate explanation for those notches. Othewise, this is a direct observation of the greenhouse effect.

 

[SSDD]

One more time, SSDD, what do you believe is causing Venus' elevated temperatures?

I told you....pressure is the reason venus is so hot...if you replaced our entire atmosphere with nitrogen and made it 90 times as dense as the current atmosphere, you would have similar temperatures here....hell, if you replaced the atmosphere on venus with nitrogen you would not change the temperature appreciably...it is not a greenhouse effect at work on venus....a greenhouse effect requires incoming short wave from the sun to be absorbed and emitted as LW....that isn't happening on venus....virtually no sunlight gets to the surface to be absorbed and emitted as LW...there are no gasses in the atmosphere that absorb SW and emit LW....and the temperature on the night time side of the planet is the same as on the day time side even though the night last 1400 hours....it simply is not a greenhouse effect, but the ideal gas laws predict the temperature on venus pretty accurately...there are observed repeatable experiment in the laboratory that prove that heat is generated by columns of air. When one considers what is required for a a greenhouse effect as described by climate science....and when those things are not available on venus..then one must look for something else and the thing that actually predicts, to a high degree of accuracy is my bet. Considering that the only element necessary for a greenhouse effect as described by climate science on venus is CO2....how do you think it happens...you said the atmosphere does it but the atmosphere is either invisible to CO2, or in the case of sulfur dioxide....reflective and actually causes an increase in the albedo.

 

[Billy_Bob]

One more time, SSDD, what do you believe is causing Venus' elevated temperatures?

Dam! Obviously you dont have a dam clue about the density or the pressures of Venus's atmosphere..

 

[SSDD]

From that same JoNova article I get the following graphic and caption

The horizontal axis shows wavenumbers, which are the reciprocals of wavelengths. The vertical axis shows the energy density of the radiation from the Earth observed by Nimbus. The dotted overlaid traces represent the emission spectrum from black bodies at various temperatures (calculated from Plank’s law which is known with a very high degree of surety). Without any atmosphere, Earth’s emission pattern as seen from space would look like one of these dotted lines.

Note the big bite out of the spectrum at around 660 wavenumbers and the smaller bite at around 1000 wavenumbers. The former is at the CO2 absorption line and the latter at the Ozone (O3) absorption line. Those two bites represent energy that is not being radiated to space that would be if there was no atmosphere. In short it is the signature of a green house gas reducing Earth’s radiation to space at the green house wavelengths. I invite those who disagree to give an alternate explanation for what is causing these notches.

So, SSDD, let's hear your alternate explanation for those notches. Othewise, this is a direct observation of the greenhouse effect.

First, those wave numbers are LW...we have already been through that...little to no sunlight reaches the surface of venus to be absorbed and emitted as LW....no gas in the atmosphere absorbs SW and emits LW.....

Second, Venus is not a blackbody....

And those two notches represent energy being absorbed, and immediately emitted by CO2....the energy is leaving the atmosphere as evidenced by the ever increasing outgoing LW measured at the TOA...and if that energy were being absorbed and kept in the atmosphere, there would inevitably be a hot spot...which isn't there as observed by a million radiosondes, satellites, aircraft, etc...it is only present in failing computer models.

 

[SSDD]

One more time, SSDD, what do you believe is causing Venus' elevated temperatures?

Dam! Obviously you dont have a dam clue about the density or the pressures of Venus's atmosphere..

It's like he can't think at all...you ever heard the old expression...if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail....he only has a greenhouse so everything looks like.......

 

[Billy_Bob]

From that same JoNova article I get the following graphic and caption

The horizontal axis shows wavenumbers, which are the reciprocals of wavelengths. The vertical axis shows the energy density of the radiation from the Earth observed by Nimbus. The dotted overlaid traces represent the emission spectrum from black bodies at various temperatures (calculated from Plank’s law which is known with a very high degree of surety). Without any atmosphere, Earth’s emission pattern as seen from space would look like one of these dotted lines.

Note the big bite out of the spectrum at around 660 wavenumbers and the smaller bite at around 1000 wavenumbers. The former is at the CO2 absorption line and the latter at the Ozone (O3) absorption line. Those two bites represent energy that is not being radiated to space that would be if there was no atmosphere. In short it is the signature of a green house gas reducing Earth’s radiation to space at the green house wavelengths. I invite those who disagree to give an alternate explanation for what is causing these notches.

So, SSDD, let's hear your alternate explanation for those notches. Othewise, this is a direct observation of the greenhouse effect.

IN a word, NO, Crick... You misunderstand Jonova's graph and what it represents. Those dips are power in bandwidth. They do not represent greenhouse effect, they represent reflection at the TOA. (Top of Atmosphere)

 

[Crick]

One more time, SSDD, what do you believe is causing Venus' elevated temperatures?

I told you....pressure is the reason venus is so hot...if you replaced our entire atmosphere with nitrogen and made it 90 times as dense as the current atmosphere, you would have similar temperatures here....hell, if you replaced the atmosphere on venus with nitrogen you would not change the temperature appreciably...it is not a greenhouse effect at work on venus....a greenhouse effect requires incoming short wave from the sun to be absorbed and emitted as LW....that isn't happening on venus....virtually no sunlight gets to the surface to be absorbed and emitted as LW...there are no gasses in the atmosphere that absorb SW and emit LW....and the temperature on the night time side of the planet is the same as on the day time side even though the night last 1400 hours....it simply is not a greenhouse effect, but the ideal gas laws predict the temperature on venus pretty accurately...there are observed repeatable experiment in the laboratory that prove that heat is generated by columns of air. When one considers what is required for a a greenhouse effect as described by climate science....and when those things are not available on venus..then one must look for something else and the thing that actually predicts, to a high degree of accuracy is my bet. Considering that the only element necessary for a greenhouse effect as described by climate science on venus is CO2....how do you think it happens...you said the atmosphere does it but the atmosphere is either invisible to CO2, or in the case of sulfur dioxide....reflective and actually causes an increase in the albedo.

I scuba dive. When I get a tank filled, despite having been immersed in a tank of water while its filled, the tank comes out hot. Now, if I believed what you're telling me, I would expect that tank to STAY hot. But, as I'm sure you and EVERYONE else here knows, it doesn't. But you think Venus will. How do you explain that?

The atmosphere of Venus is not, as you stated (perhaps mistakenly) transparent to shortwave radiation. Venus' atmosphere is neither opaque nor reflective to all the sun's emissions. Venus has an albedo of 0.84 compared to the Earth's 0.367; high, but not 1.0. Your statement that the Venusian atmosphere will absorb no SW is therefore false. Sixteen percent of the sun's radiation is absorbed by the planet's surface and it's atmosphere. That energy is very effectively trapped by the 96% CO2 atmosphere and, over time, has raised the temperature at the surface above the melting point of lead. The pressure has nothing to do with it. The density of the atmosphere makes a difference as it simply has a shitload more CO2 for any outgoing LW to get past. The heat actually generated by the creation of the Venusian atmosphere radiated away billions of years ago. That is the idiotic mistake you make (like many other idiotic mistakes you make) when you claim that pressure will maintain elevated temperature. The temperature only changes when you change the pressure and, if it ends up warmer than its surroundings, it will cool itself by radiation, conduction and convection to whatever equilibrium temperature its radiative conditions will actually maintain.

 

[Crick]

IN a word, NO, Crick... You misunderstand Jonova's graph and what it represents. Those dips are power in bandwidth. They do not represent greenhouse effect, they represent reflection at the TOA. (Top of Atmosphere)

You apparently did NOT read the caption. Those notches do NOT represent reflection - the Earth's atmosphere does not reflect radiation at those frequencies. There it says, quite clearly, "The vertical axis shows the energy density of the radiation from the Earth observed by Nimbus" and then "Those two bites represent energy that is not being radiated to space that would be if there was no atmosphere. In short it is the signature of a green house gas reducing Earth’s radiation to space at the green house wavelengths.

PS, the vertical axis is not "power in bandwidth" whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean. It's simply energy density, just as the caption states.

PPS if anyone here was thinking of accepting your claim to have a degree in atmospheric physics, THIS certainly put that nonsense to rest.

 

[Crick]

It's like he can't think at all...you ever heard the old expression...if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail....he only has a greenhouse so everything looks like.......

I have all the "clues" as to the density and pressure of Venus' atmosphere required for this issue. What I want to know is what YOU believe to be causing it to have the temperature it has. State it. Explain it to us as if it were a question on a school exam. Stop trying to dodge the question by insulting me.

 

[SSDD]

I scuba dive. When I get a tank filled, despite having been immersed in a tank of water while its filled, the tank comes out hot. Now, if I believed what you're telling me, I would expect that tank to STAY hot. But, as I'm sure you and EVERYONE else here knows, it doesn't. But you think Venus will. How do you explain that?

Suppose you could maintain that pressure while constantly circulating the air. If the atmosphere were static, it would be a different story...but atmospheres aren't static...they are constantly moving. The pressure keeps warming the lower atmosphere but it doesn't stay low...the heat convects upward. This has all been proven experimentally in the lab crick...it isn't theory.

The atmosphere of Venus is not, as you stated (perhaps mistakenly) transparent to shortwave radiation.

Of course it is...CO2 doesn't absorb short wave...nitrogen doesn't absorb short wave...that accounts for about 99% of the atmosphere. Sulfur dioxide doesn't absorb shortwave...it reflects it which makes it a large contributor to the high albedo on venus. Nearly 70% of all sunlight hitting venus is reflected away back into space. The elements for a greenhouse effect as described by climate science are simply not there....but the ideal gas laws damned near exactly predict the temperature on venus...which is more likely?

You believe what you wan't crick...the data gathered from the planet itself say that you are wrong but that never stopped you from believing did it?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

One more time, SSDD, what do you believe is causing Venus' elevated temperatures?

I told you....pressure is the reason venus is so hot...if you replaced our entire atmosphere with nitrogen and made it 90 times as dense as the current atmosphere, you would have similar temperatures here....hell, if you replaced the atmosphere on venus with nitrogen you would not change the temperature appreciably...it is not a greenhouse effect at work on venus....a greenhouse effect requires incoming short wave from the sun to be absorbed and emitted as LW....that isn't happening on venus....virtually no sunlight gets to the surface to be absorbed and emitted as LW...there are no gasses in the atmosphere that absorb SW and emit LW....and the temperature on the night time side of the planet is the same as on the day time side even though the night last 1400 hours....it simply is not a greenhouse effect, but the ideal gas laws predict the temperature on venus pretty accurately...there are observed repeatable experiment in the laboratory that prove that heat is generated by columns of air. When one considers what is required for a a greenhouse effect as described by climate science....and when those things are not available on venus..then one must look for something else and the thing that actually predicts, to a high degree of accuracy is my bet. Considering that the only element necessary for a greenhouse effect as described by climate science on venus is CO2....how do you think it happens...you said the atmosphere does it but the atmosphere is either invisible to CO2, or in the case of sulfur dioxide....reflective and actually causes an increase in the albedo.

I scuba dive. When I get a tank filled, despite having been immersed in a tank of water while its filled, the tank comes out hot. Now, if I believed what you're telling me, I would expect that tank to STAY hot. But, as I'm sure you and EVERYONE else here knows, it doesn't. But you think Venus will. How do you explain that?

The atmosphere of Venus is not, as you stated (perhaps mistakenly) transparent to shortwave radiation. Venus' atmosphere is neither opaque nor reflective to all the sun's emissions. Venus has an albedo of 0.84 compared to the Earth's 0.367; high, but not 1.0. Your statement that the Venusian atmosphere will absorb no SW is therefore false. Sixteen percent of the sun's radiation is absorbed by the planet's surface and it's atmosphere. That energy is very effectively trapped by the 96% CO2 atmosphere and, over time, has raised the temperature at the surface above the melting point of lead. The pressure has nothing to do with it. The density of the atmosphere makes a difference as it simply has a shitload more CO2 for any outgoing LW to get past. The heat actually generated by the creation of the Venusian atmosphere radiated away billions of years ago. That is the idiotic mistake you make (like many other idiotic mistakes you make) when you claim that pressure will maintain elevated temperature. The temperature only changes when you change the pressure and, if it ends up warmer than its surroundings, it will cool itself by radiation, conduction and convection to whatever equilibrium temperature its radiative conditions will actually maintain.

Crick is denying that Atmospheric pressure on Venus is the cause of its high temperatures.

Crick # 1 Denier

 

[Dot Com]

From that same JoNova article I get the following graphic and caption



The horizontal axis shows wavenumbers, which are the reciprocals of wavelengths. The vertical axis shows the energy density of the radiation from the Earth observed by Nimbus. The dotted overlaid traces represent the emission spectrum from black bodies at various temperatures (calculated from Plank’s law which is known with a very high degree of surety). Without any atmosphere, Earth’s emission pattern as seen from space would look like one of these dotted lines.

Note the big bite out of the spectrum at around 660 wavenumbers and the smaller bite at around 1000 wavenumbers. The former is at the CO2 absorption line and the latter at the Ozone (O3) absorption line. Those two bites represent energy that is not being radiated to space that would be if there was no atmosphere. In short it is the signature of a green house gas reducing Earth’s radiation to space at the green house wavelengths. I invite those who disagree to give an alternate explanation for what is causing these notches.

So, SSDD, let's hear your alternate explanation for those notches. Othewise, this is a direct observation of the greenhouse effect.

First, those wave numbers are LW...we have already been through that...little to no sunlight reaches the surface of venus to be absorbed and emitted as LW....no gas in the atmosphere absorbs SW and emits LW.....

Second, Venus is not a blackbody....

And those two notches represent energy being absorbed, and immediately emitted by CO2....the energy is leaving the atmosphere as evidenced by the ever increasing outgoing LW measured at the TOA...and if that energy were being absorbed and kept in the atmosphere, there would inevitably be a hot spot...which isn't there as observed by a million radiosondes, satellites, aircraft, etc...it is only present in failing computer models.

So, "little to no" equates to 40% these days?

There is a Greenhouse Effect on Venus « JoNova

These clouds give Venus an albedo of 0.6 which means 60%of the suns energy is reflected back out to space, 40%is absorbed. Earth by comparison has an albedo of 0.3 which means 70% is absorbed

 

[mamooth]

Crick is denying that Atmospheric pressure on Venus is the cause of its high temperatures.

Crick # 1 Denier

I imagine he also denies that the pressure in my fire extinguisher constantly generates heat, which is why it's glowing red hot all the time. As does the pressure in my my car tires. That's why everyone's car tires are always spontaneously igniting.

Oh wait. That doesn't happen. Only the the most brain-damaged droolers on the planet claim that pressure generates heat. Because it doesn't. _Increasing_ the pressure generates heat, but that's not happening on Venus or any planet. At any given spot in the atmosphere, the pressure on one day is going to be the same as the pressure on any other, meaning no heat is generated.

SSDD is essentially postulating free energy, which how you know he's babbling pseudoscience crap. The magical air moves because of heat, which changes the pressure, which creates more heat, which moves the air ... an endless cycle of work and motion with no energy input. Perpetual motion, hence it's obvious crap.

 

[SSDD]

I imagine he also denies that the pressure in my fire extinguisher constantly generates heat, which is why it's glowing red hot all the time. As does the pressure in my my car tires. That's why everyone's car tires are always spontaneously igniting.

Even crick admits that pressure causes heat.....that's why they put tanks in a vat of water when they are pressurizing them....tanks are static though and the temperature equalizes because they are static....pressure on a constantly moving and circulating column of air is an entirely different story. Not theory hairball...observed, repeatable experiment done in the lab.

SSDD is essentially postulating free energy, which how you know he's babbling pseudoscience crap. The magical air moves because of heat, which changes the pressure, which creates more heat, which moves the air ... an endless cycle of work and motion with no energy input. Perpetual motion, hence it's obvious crap.

Pressure isn't free hairball....and there is plenty of energy input...sorry this is all so far over your head...your denial is pitiful...

Imagine, denying the ideal gas laws....in favor of a flawed greenhouse hypothesis.

 

[SSDD]

These clouds give Venus an albedo of 0.6 which means 60%of the suns energy is reflected back out to space, 40%is absorbed. Earth by comparison has an albedo of 0.3 which means 70% is absorbed

Absorbed by what? The gases in the atmosphere that are invisible to shortwave?....the ground which receives almost no sunlight at all? Absorbed by what....Describe the mechanism by which a greenhouse effect as described by climate science might operate on venus...

 

[SSDD]

There is a Greenhouse Effect on Venus « JoNova

These clouds give Venus an albedo of 0.6 which means 60%of the suns energy is reflected back out to space, 40%is absorbed. Earth by comparison has an albedo of 0.3 which means 70% is absorbed

Good to see that you accept JoNova as a credible source..here are some other articles you might like...

Man Made Global Warming Disproved
David Evans in the Fairfax press: Climate change science is a load of hot air and warmists are wrong
Idso 1998 – eight different ways to show CO2 will have little effect

 

[Crick]

The point that has now been made to you repeatedly SID, is that Venus' albedo is not 1.00. Some of the infalling solar radiation is absorbed. Deal with it. Your ideas on how the planet warms are completely wrong.