"Settled Science"??

That's because the compositon of the atmosphere is irrelevant to the temperature of a planet beyond what the various gasses contribute to the weight of the atmosphere.

I am going to ask you again...using the greenhouse effect, as described by climate science, explain why the bottom of the troposphere on Uranus is 33K warmer than the bottom of the troposphere on earth in spite of the fact that Uranus is 30X further away from the sun than the earth and Uranus has an atmosphere composed almost entirely of hydrogen and helium....and while you are at it, using that same greenhouse effect that you believe in, explain why the temperature on the night time side of Venus doesn't drop even though the nights are 2000 hours long?

Why is Venus so hot, and why doesn't it cool off at night? Here's a site for you to dismiss:

Atmospheric makeup

The atmosphere of Venus is made up almost completely of carbon dioxide. Nitrogen exists in small doses, as do clouds of sulfuric acid. The air of Venus is so dense that the small traces of nitrogen are four times the amount found on Earth, although nitrogen makes up more than three-fourths of the terrestrial atmosphere. This composition causes a runaway greenhouse effect that heats the planet even hotter than the surface of Mercury, although Venus lies farther from the sun. When the rocky core of Venus formed, it captured much of the gas gravitationally.


and here's a bit more for you do dub "scripture" since it counters your ideas:



A computer model shows that without carbon dioxide the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse and plunge Earth into an icebound state, according to a paper by NASA scientists published in US journal Science on 15 October. Within 50 years the global average temperature would plunge by 35C to -21C without the thermostatic warming provided by atmospheric carbon dioxide. Despite the fact that water vapour and clouds account for around three quarters of the Earth's greenhouse effect, it is carbon dioxide that is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in the Earth's atmosphere, according to the paper. This is because water vapour can condense and precipitate out of the Earth's atmosphere whereas other greenhouse gases do not.
 
Werbung:
Will emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere cause tornadoes in Los Angeles and massive floods in the Himalayas? A growing body of research suggests it may just spur plant growth and green planet Earth.

For the past few years, scientific studies have found links between increasing carbon emissions and increased foliage and plant growth — called the CO2 fertilization. The idea is that since plants thrive on CO2 absorbed through photosynthesis, increasing atmospheric CO2 levels will actually green the planet and expand foliage. Scientists have been hard pressed to find evidence of such a phenomenon until recently.

“Well documented evidence shows that concurrently with the increased CO2 levels, extensive, large, and continuing increase in biomass is taking place globally — reducing deserts, turning grasslands to savannas, savannas to forests, and expanding existing forests,” according to a study by the libertarian Cato Institute from earlier this year.

This greening trend goes against what many climate scientists expected, in particularly the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In fact, many climate scientists have been warning about atmospheric carbon levels passing 400 parts per million — which happened last year.

“Nevertheless, in nearly all regions and globally, the overall effect in recent decades is decidedly toward greening,” Cato notes. “This result is also the opposite of what the IPCC expected.”

Cato is not the only place to report that CO2 fertilization is making the world a greener place. Last year, Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) released findings that “CO2 fertilisation correlated with an 11 per cent increase in foliage cover from 1982-2010 across parts of the arid areas studied in Australia, North America, the Middle East and Africa.” This means that arid regions across the world would have not greened if CO2 levels had not increased.

According to CSIRO, some areas of the world did see some browning instead of greening, but many of the regions studied saw huge gains in greenery. This is because plants in arid regions already use water more judiciously than in other areas, but increasing CO2 levels also drives them to use scarce water resources more efficiently as well.

“In Australia, our native vegetation is superbly adapted to surviving in arid environments and it consequently uses water very efficiently,” said Dr. Randall Donohue, a CSIRO research scientist. “Australian vegetation seems quite sensitive to CO2 fertilisation.”

Another study by U.S. scientists published in the journal Nature last year found a “substantial increase in water-use efficiency in temperate and boreal forests of the Northern Hemisphere over the past two decades.” the increase in water efficiency, the study said, is consistent with a CO2 fertilization effect.

“The observed increase in forest water-use efficiency is larger than that predicted by existing theory and 13 terrestrial biosphere models,” the study added. “The increase is associated with trends of increasing ecosystem-level photosynthesis and net carbon uptake, and decreasing evapotranspiration.”

While CO2 fertilization is boosting foliage expansion, however, scientists warn that the other effects of global warming like higher temperatures, water scarcity and severe weather could offset the gains in greenery.

“On the face of it, elevated CO2 boosting the foliage in dry country is good news and could assist forestry and agriculture in such areas; however there will be secondary effects that are likely to influence water availability, the carbon cycle, fire regimes and biodiversity, for example,” Donahue cautioned.
 
Of course comparing the greening of the earth in situ is closest to actual conditions, but the conditions in any one area can vary from one year or decade to the next, so it is hard to measure the causes and effects.

But there has been research in artificially created conditions where the CO2 had been increased to the projected level a few decades from now. In those very controlled experiments it was also shown that there was a very significant increase in growth.
 
I just love the arrogance of humans who think that anything they do will have power over mother nature.
 
I just love the arrogance of humans who think that anything they do will have power over mother nature.
Amazing, isn't it, how they think they can stop rivers by building dams, bring water to deserts, have climate controlled indoor areas, even cure diseases! How arrogant!
 
Amazing, isn't it, how they think they can stop rivers by building dams, bring water to deserts, have climate controlled indoor areas, even cure diseases! How arrogant!

Nice try. But I won't be impressed until humans can stop sun spots, volcanoes from going off and ocean currents.
 

OK...I read your links...and by the way, I don't material because they run contrary to my ideas.

So I read your links....the second we won't worry about because it is nothing more than the result of a computer model which entirely ignores the adiabatic lapse rate of the atmosphere. We can discuss that later. Right now lets talk about Venus and its "runaway greenhouse effect".

In your own words, or someone elses...I don't care....briefly describe the mechanics of the greenhouse effect as you understand it.
 
You think atomic clocks, lasers, tunnel diodes, superconducting magnets etc. could be invented without knowledge of QM?

Yes I do... Care to explain why you have so much faith in a theory that breaks down trying to explain the electron cloud of a hydrogen atom?


directly contradicts what you say above. You can't seem to get your mind together on this. Since you don't understand modern physics at all, let alone radiation thermodynamics you should at least try for consistency of thought. But of course that would be difficult for you because you don't understand quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is your friend. Don't be afraid of it.

Shuck and jive, bob and weave, duck and cover....and play semantics till your heart's content. The fact remains that you have not, nor will you ever provide an observed measured example of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object...and yet you still believe. That is called faith...not science....or physics.

, it is not me that thought it up. I'm just the messenger. Max Plank and Einstein and others are are the ones who discovered quantum physics long before me.

And they weren't happy at all with many of the things you seem to believe are proven and engraved in stone...like photons for example.

One form of thermal equilibrium is radiative exchange equilibrium. Two bodies, each with its own uniform temperature, in solely radiative connection, no matter how far apart, or what partially obstructive, reflective, or refractive, obstacles lie in their path of radiative exchange, not moving relative to one another, will exchange thermal radiation, in net the hotter transferring energy to the cooler, and will exchange equal and opposite amounts just when they are at the same temperature.”

OK...so show me an observed, measured example of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object.

Planck's original paper, page 40 concerning radiation thermodynamics:
"...it is evident that, when thermodynamic equilibrium exists, any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random exchange by radiation equal amounts of heat with each other..."

OK....so show me an observed, measured example of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object..

Pale, that won't fly. It was the great physicists of the past century who did all that thinking, and I only learned from them. {/quote]

What you didn't seem to learn was that they weren't happy with QM either...they held serious reservations which post modern science seems to have completely fogotten.

So we can dance around all day...week...month...year...or for the rest of our lives with you telling me how great QM is. The discussion, however is about climate change and the greenhouse effect...are you or are you not going to provide an observed, measured example of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object?


about them. You are looking at them right now as you read this. The photons are hitting the rods and cones in your retina and causing an electrochemical reaction. However since you don't believe in modern physics, it must be magic to you.

So you say...and yet, neither you, nor QM can prove their existence. Suppose I told you that there are angels sitting around in your computer room right now protecting you from the demons who are also in your computer room. Would you believe that? I certainly can't prove it. There are no experiments that can prove the existence of angels or demons. There are volumes written on their existence and what they do, and where they come from, etc....but no actual evidence that proves their existence. Do you believe or not? It is up to you but either way, it is an article of faith on your part...not actual knowledge. Same for photons. No evidence of their existence. Photons are an ad hoc construct....a best guess for why light behaves as it does. Nothing more...nothing less and yet, you speak of them as if you know for a fact that they exist. You have faith...not knowledge.

Right now, wave particle duality is where science stands but in reality, it really doesn't know....just another guess. What is sad is that there are those who actually believe that science understands what light is and then bases their own beliefs on their misunderstanding of what science does and doesn't know.

By the way, as to your idiot "black streak" belief....waves cancel each other out...it is a well known fact and you can see it in your own daily life if you look around or listen. Have you ever observed a black streak where two waves cancel each other out? My bet is that you haven't. Such an idiot knee jerk response is the result of very shallow thinking. Sad that you haven't added any depth to your thought process since we last spoke. Can you say for sure whether light is particle or wave?....or both....how does light work....tell us oh great swami...look into the bowl of animal entrails, or sheep's blood or whatever you use to speak of theory and hypothesis as if it were known fact and tell us of the true nature of light.
 
Last edited:
OK...I read your links...and by the way, I don't material because they run contrary to my ideas.

So I read your links....the second we won't worry about because it is nothing more than the result of a computer model which entirely ignores the adiabatic lapse rate of the atmosphere. We can discuss that later. Right now lets talk about Venus and its "runaway greenhouse effect".

In your own words, or someone elses...I don't care....briefly describe the mechanics of the greenhouse effect as you understand it.
We've been over this before. The last time, you left after claiming that carbon dioxide was not a greenhouse gas. Why keep bringing up the same stuff over and over, when you simply don't address it, or dismiss it as a "computer model"?

Why do you think it's warmer at lower elevations?
 
We've been over this before. The last time, you left after claiming that carbon dioxide was not a greenhouse gas. Why keep bringing up the same stuff over and over, when you simply don't address it, or dismiss it as a "computer model"?

Why do you think it's warmer at lower elevations?

If we have been over it before, then you should be able to just cut and paste your description of how you understand the greenhouse effect to operate.

It is warmer at lower elevations due to pressure. As I stated, the bottom of the troposphere of Uranus is 33K warmer than the bottom of the troposphere on earth even though Uranus is 30X further away from the sun and has an atmosphere composed almost entirely of hydrogen and helium. There is no greenhouse effect at work there and yet, the bottom of the troposphere is 33K warmer there than here....and if you travel down into the atmosphere of Venus to an altitude where the atmospheric pressure is equal to that of earth, and compensate for the different amount of incoming solar radiation due to the differences in distances from the sun, the temperature there is nearly the same as here even though the atmosphere is almost entirely CO2.

So again, describe the mechanics of the greenhouse effect as you understand it. Then we can move on.

We can address the computer model after you have described the mechanics of the greenhouse effect as you understand it.
 
If we have been over it before, then you should be able to just cut and paste your description of how you understand the greenhouse effect to operate.

It is warmer at lower elevations due to pressure. As I stated, the bottom of the troposphere of Uranus is 33K warmer than the bottom of the troposphere on earth even though Uranus is 30X further away from the sun and has an atmosphere composed almost entirely of hydrogen and helium. There is no greenhouse effect at work there and yet, the bottom of the troposphere is 33K warmer there than here....and if you travel down into the atmosphere of Venus to an altitude where the atmospheric pressure is equal to that of earth, and compensate for the different amount of incoming solar radiation due to the differences in distances from the sun, the temperature there is nearly the same as here even though the atmosphere is almost entirely CO2.

So again, describe the mechanics of the greenhouse effect as you understand it. Then we can move on.

We can address the computer model after you have described the mechanics of the greenhouse effect as you understand it.
I could possibly cut and past what I've already said, but there really is no point in repetition.

Yes, it is warmer at lower elevations due to "pressure", specifically, to a thicker atmosphere which more efficiently traps heat. It is basic science, of the sort that I linked to earlier and you totally ignored.

So, no, I'm not going to go around the internet looking for the temperature of Venus at the elevation at which it has the same atmospheric pressure as Earth. You would simply ignore or dismiss what I found anyway, so the onus is on you to prove your assertion.
 
Werbung:
I could possibly cut and past what I've already said, but there really is no point in repetition.

Yes, it is warmer at lower elevations due to "pressure", specifically, to a thicker atmosphere which more efficiently traps heat. It is basic science, of the sort that I linked to earlier and you totally ignored.

So, no, I'm not going to go around the internet looking for the temperature of Venus at the elevation at which it has the same atmospheric pressure as Earth. You would simply ignore or dismiss what I found anyway, so the onus is on you to prove your assertion.

Since you are unwilling to repeat your idea of how the greenhouse effect works, perhaps you could provide a link to where you gave the description you claim to have given...I can't find it in our past conversations.
 
Back
Top