Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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...
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.
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.
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.
You're claiming that 32psi is comparable to Venus
So according to mammoth Crick theory of Venus, the dense atmosphere generates heat only once and that heat is convected off into space, any subsequent warming is because man-made global warming.
Even crick admits that pressure causes heat.....
...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.
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.
You're claiming that 32psi is comparable to Venus
No, I'm claiming you're laughably stupid for saying that constant pressure generates heat. I have no idea why you babbled out that stupidity.
Do you need me to explain that in smaller words? I only ask because your grasp of English seems even shakier than your grasp of physics.
So according to mammoth Crick theory of Venus, the dense atmosphere generates heat only once and that heat is convected off into space, any subsequent warming is because man-made global warming.
When you get humiliated for being so ignorant, the proper response is not to lie about those who corrected you. The proper response would be to apologize for being so ignorant, and then thank those who educated you.
So, I'll give you another chance to do the right thing now. Our tough love may sting, but in the long run it will make you a better person.
You're claiming that 32psi is comparable to Venus
No, I'm claiming you're laughably stupid for saying that constant pressure generates heat. I have no idea why you babbled out that stupidity.
Do you need me to explain that in smaller words? I only ask because your grasp of English seems even shakier than your grasp of physics.
So according to mammoth Crick theory of Venus, the dense atmosphere generates heat only once and that heat is convected off into space, any subsequent warming is because man-made global warming.
When you get humiliated for being so ignorant, the proper response is not to lie about those who corrected you. The proper response would be to apologize for being so ignorant, and then thank those who educated you.
So, I'll give you another chance to do the right thing now. Our tough love may sting, but in the long run it will make you a better person.
Explain why Venus atmosphere, 90 times as dense a Earth's, at 1,300, psi does not generate any heat.
Since Venus is under constant, and not increasing pressure, it should be close to absolute zero, right
then where is your empirical evidence at? you have all of this knowledge yet you never use it. You act for the most part a dumb fk in here. Just post up there that empirical evidence you claim to have. no one has seen it yet.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.
I have no idea why you babbled out that stupidity.
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.
Crick you idiot...would you agree that the temperature is lower at the top of everest? Would you agree that if you go higher than everest the temperature would decrease? Would you agree that the air pressure is lower at the top of everest? Would you agree that if you went higher than everest the pressure would be lower? Would you agree that as you increase your altitude both pressure and temperature decrease? Do you think that is coincidence? If you lived on a planet where you could keep on driving downhill to a point where the pressure was 2 atmospheres that the temperature would be warmer than it was at 1 atmosphere...how about you drive on down to 3 atmospheres...think it would be warmer? The atmospheric composition is the same, the only thing you are changing is the atmospheric pressure...drive on down to 50 atmospheres...what do you think the temperature would be like down there?
You seem incapable of using your brain crick...are you really that invested in the hoax?
So idiot child...are you saying that the turbulent atmosphere on venus is static? Are you saying it is anything like static?Absolutely wrong. Static pressure absolutely positively does not create heat. _Increasing_ pressure creates heat, because work is being done on the gas to compress it. That is, energy is being put into the gas, so it heats up.
That's laughable bullshit.
If it's not, point us to a lab demonstration of this perpetual-motion free-energy atmospheric system you say exists. I seem to remember one kook blogger saying he did it. Why don't you reference him? After all, everyone understands that one kook blogger automatically overturns centuries of physics.
Crick you idiot...would you agree that the temperature is lower at the top of everest? Would you agree that if you go higher than everest the temperature would decrease? Would you agree that the air pressure is lower at the top of everest? Would you agree that if you went higher than everest the pressure would be lower? Would you agree that as you increase your altitude both pressure and temperature decrease? Do you think that is coincidence? If you lived on a planet where you could keep on driving downhill to a point where the pressure was 2 atmospheres that the temperature would be warmer than it was at 1 atmosphere...how about you drive on down to 3 atmospheres...think it would be warmer? The atmospheric composition is the same, the only thing you are changing is the atmospheric pressure...drive on down to 50 atmospheres...what do you think the temperature would be like down there?
You seem incapable of using your brain crick...are you really that invested in the hoax?
What sort of mental distortions does it take to spout such obvious NONSENSE with such blind confidence?
I have no idea why you babbled out that stupidity.
Oh, yes we do. He babbled out that stupidity because his hero SSDD told us that was the case.
Explain why Venus atmosphere, 90 times as dense a Earth's, at 1,300, psi does not generate any heat.
Because static pressure doesn't generate heat. Period. End of story. That's basic physics.
If you disagree, please point us to your source which says that static pressure generates heat. And explain why my fire extinguisher isn't now generating heat.
If 1300 psi did generate heat, as you say it does, we could charge a cylinder to 1300 psi, hook it up to a Sterling heat engine, and get infinite free work out of it. The world could run on such perpetual motion machines. But that doesn't happen, because static pressure does not generate heat.
Since Venus is under constant, and not increasing pressure, it should be close to absolute zero, right
Of course not. I have no idea of how you came up with such nonsense. You'll have to explain the details of your new groundbreaking theory there.
I have no idea why you babbled out that stupidity.
Oh, yes we do. He babbled out that stupidity because his hero SSDD told us that was the case.
It's a teaching moment for you Cricky. Explain to me how the atmospheric pressure on Venus has absolutely no effect on temperature.
Can you do that or will you once again go to the squid ink defense, spew an insult and flee behind the cloud of obfuscation?
SSDD is not totally wrong about how pressure affects temperature. there is a balance between stored potential energy (gravity) and kinetic energy (temperature) which is dependent on the available incoming and outgoing energy.
on Earth, the atmosphere at any particular longitude will both warm up AND puff up as it rotates through the Sun's radiance. some of the energy goes into warming, some into potential energy. as that longitude passes out of radiance it will both cool and contract, losing both kinetic (temperature) energy and potential energy. the next day the cycle repeats.
there is a general pattern to atmospheres which allows us to make general estimates if we know the depth, density and energy flux. this general estimate is worthless for Earth where we are looking for changes of tenths of a degree not tens.
