http://news.google.com/newspapers
This is a very tough pattern matching problem :
planet atmospheric pressure % CO2 Temperature ------ -------------------- ----- ----------- Mars very low 95% very low Earth medium <1% medium Venus very high 95% very high
Is the temperature determined by the atmospheric composition, or the atmospheric pressure? It doesn’t take billions and billions of brain cells to figure it out.
SAN FRANCISCO ( AP ) – The late astronomer and author Carl Sagan was a secret but avid marijuana smoker, crediting it with inspiring essays and scientific insight, according to Sagan’s biographer.
“I find that today a single joint is enough to get me high … in one movie theater recently I found I could get high just by inhaling the cannabis smoke which permeated the theater,” wrote Sagan, who authored popular science books such as “Cosmos,” “Contact,” and “The Dragons of Eden.”
In the essay, Sagan said marijuana inspired some of his intellectual work.
“I can remember one occasion, taking a shower with my wife while high, in which I had an idea on the origins and invalidities of racism in terms of gaussian distribution curves,” wrote the former Cornell University professor. “I wrote the curves in soap on the shower wall, and went to write the idea down.
The distance from the Sun may have something to do with the temperature as well.
Venus is closer to the sun but is very cloudy. The amount of solar radiation below the clouds is about the same as Earth. Night on Venus lasts for months, but temperatures never go down.
Hmm, Steve you might have been onto something with the beer cans!!!
See, that’s pressurized CO2!!! Freaking Venusians drank themselves to hot themselves to death!!!
89 was well after Sagan had hit the herb one too many times.
Any word on Sagan dropping tabs of ocean acidification? Just a thought…
Also, when showering with my wife, gaussian are not the curves I’m thinking about. Just a second thought.
All the best…. Jeff
lol, no doubt, I’m guessing were I to do something of that nature, it would probably be a very long time before “showering” with the Mrs. again.
I’m thinking he first had to extracate the soap out of his ar$e where his mrs had jammed it in exhasperation LMFAO
So if Venus was the same distance from the sun as Earth, it would still be almost as hot?
That is a very difficult question. It is about the same size as Earth and might have evolved the same way.
If you took Venus as is, and moved it to 1AU from the Sun – it would remain extremely hot.
I’m confused as to how those two clips constitute a fail. Based on the comments, its clear that all of you deny the correlation between a CO2 rich atmosphere and increasing temperature. Further, you are implying causation because of a correlation. A logical fallacy. You’ll need to try harder than lazy reasoning and snark if you want to overturn theories that are scientifically verified, both in theory and observation.
Second, marijuana is a leaf. Big deal.
I guess its your website, and you are certainly free to say whatever you like.
Just remember that someday your great grand kids are going to read this blog and shake their heads.
Bill,
I’ll go slow and use small words since you’re obviously as high as Sagan.’
Clip #1 Fail: You see Sagan in effect said: Earth: Moderate CO2 = nice to live on. Mars: Thin atmosphere = Brrrrr. Venus: High CO2= hot, hot, hot.
Since Mars (remember brrrrr) and Venus (remember hot, hot, hot) have the SAME high levels of CO2, his analogy is a FAIL.
Clip #2: A popular Sagan quote is “…billions & billions of stars…” Steve made a funny about the amount of brain cells he must have killed smoking pot to make the foolish statement referenced in Clip #1.
Less confused now?
Just remember that someday your great grand kids will not even know who you are due to the shame your offspring must feel.
Mars has more CO2 molecules in their atmosphere than Earth. Earth is much warmer.
Holy crap!! Bill!!!! You’ve probably posted to
funniestdumbest comment I’ve ever seen here! I can’t believe you ran these sentences in succession. Did you re-read before you pushed the “post comment” button?“Based on the comments, its clear that all of you deny the correlation between a CO2 rich atmosphere and increasing temperature. Further, you are implying causation because of a correlation. A logical fallacy.”
So……….. let me get this straight, because, although the causation/correlation thingy rings familiar… I just can’t place it right now. So, you think CO2 is correlated with increase temperature, and assign a causation to it. And, you believe this is correct. But you take people to task for seeing an obvious correlation (CO2 and temps are not obvious) and assigning a causation to it. And you even identify such thinking as a logical fallacy.
Apparently, you’re lending more validity to your logical fallacy then some one else’.
Oh, the correlation of CO2 and temps…..
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/scale:50/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend/scale:50/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001/offset:-348/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001/trend/offset:-348
There is your decadal correlation of CO2 and temp anomaly.
You see a correlation there? Me either sis, me either.
(Note: because of the comparison of CO2(values of 350+) and degrees Celsius anomaly(values < 1) it was necessary to scale the temps and offset the starting point of the CO2. But, neither function effects the linear trends of either. )
Wow! Sagan could have had a part in a Cheech and Chong’s “Up In Smoke” movie.
Andy: It would be hot due to Boyle’s law at surface, but at 1 bar pressure altitude, it would be just a few degrees warmer than earth at 1 bar (surface), according to some sources, which I have lost.
While Venus is quite warm today at 1 bar pressure, it also receives almost twice as much radiation, being 40% closer to the source. Factor this out, it is just a few degrees warmer. Less than 5 warmer, if I recall.
However, these JPL charts show a negative temperature (Degrees C), at 1 bar.
http://www-star.stanford.edu/projects/mgs/profile.html
ESA shows different altitudes and temperatures at 1 bar, but still cold.
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEM5A373R8F_index_1.html#subhead1
I know Steve disagrees with this, but some research points to high altitude sulfur as being warming agents.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130122035.htm
Suyt, good point. Bill’s rhetoric could sure use some polishing.
However, he is right in pointing out that that Steve’s and Robb’s logic is flawed.
There are a number of factors that effect the temperature of the planet. The commenters on this blog have named a few.
Though it is true that Mars has a higher percentage of C02 in their atmosphere than Earth, Mars’ atmosphere is also significantly less dense than Earths. As a result Steve’s statement, “Mars has more CO2 molecules in their atmosphere than Earth. Earth is much warmer,” is inaccurate. Earth having a denser atmosphere means that even with a small percentage of C02, Earth’s atmosphere contains more carbon dioxide than Mars.
The commentors are ecstatic to point out that Venus’s proximity to the Sun results in that planet’s high temperature, while failing to observe that the inverse is true of Mars. However, even closeness to the sun isn’t a great indicator of a planet’s temperature. For example, the side of Mercury that faces the Sun is predictable hot, 800 degrees. At the same time, the other side of the planet is at chilling -280 degrees. Temperature on planets like Mercury or Mars or the Moon fluctuates so greatly, because the lack of an atmosphere means these planets cannot retain heat throughout their rotation.
So yes, again it seems that this Bill used poor rhetoric. However, his assertion that in writing this post Steven Goddard used one correlation–the percentage of C02 in a planet’s atmosphere compared to its relative temperature–and inferred that there was no causation between the changing amount of C02 in an atmosphere the ability of a planet to maintain a constant temperature. Logical traps like this are fun with the boys when you’re hanging out at Hooters or the American Legion, but they don’t prove anything.
Puff up your chest as much as you want boys, and be glad that for all your kicking and screaming you are only pumping more C02 into the atmosphere.
As for Robb’s second point, Johnny Carson was the first person to say, “billions and billions,” of anything. Carson, a friend of Sagan, often parodied the scientist on the show. As a tribute to this friendship, Sagan later wrote a book titled Billions and Billions.
So while, yeah, my mother agrees that marijuana can ‘kill brain cells,’ science hasn’t been able to determine whether or not this is the case. Either way, I’d hold off on making judgement till some thorough control group testing can be completed and analyzed.
Also, I hadn’t been to this site before a buddy sent it to me. I’m impressed by the collection of misinformation, under formed ideas, and as I mentioned before, hot air. That said, you make some good points. I agree that all too often scientists appear to proclaim a need to ignorantly follow, as Feynman said, the experts. At the same time, human fallibility is a challenge with any institution. The scientific method, when applied patiently and intentionally doesn’t yield ignorance.
I’m amazed that your culture uses pseudo-science to combat real science all the while decrying science at all. If you don’t believe in the tenants, why bother?
Complete nonsense straw man argument. Why is it 100 degrees warmer in Saudi Arabia than on Mt. Everest? The atmospheric CO2 percentage and distance from the Sun is identical.
Well, I’m disappointed by the response. The last time you mentioned CO2/temps/ and Venus, there was a much more rigorous debate and Mars and bars(but not so much vars) were thoroughly discussed.
But instead, this time, you get a couple of drive bys basically saying “you’re wrong and you suck!” Boy, you gotta hand it to those warmistas, they really know their stuff!
What is there to debate? Venus atmosphere at an altitude of 1 bar has about the same temperature as Earth. Sagan’s claim was one of the dumbest of his generation.
@ Steve Willey,
Thanks for the acknowledgment, but you can keep it. You’re twisting the argument. It isn’t Steve Goddard that makes the “one correlation”(CO2 percentage) when comparing relative temps. It is your institutionalized science that makes such comparisons, and you know it.
All Steve is doing, is pointing out the silliness of such a comparison. I guess, for people junior to this site, before coming out with sweeping statements and wild assumptions, you should re-read what was stated and the context it was stated in. Did Sagan state anything about atmospheric pressure when referencing Venus? Not in the quote Steve G showed us. Let’s review, Sagan states, “… while an atmosphere, rich in carbon dioxide, keeps Venus roasting.” And then he goes on to compare Eath’s temps and only CO2 concentrations. Where’s Sagan’s mention of dense atmosphere for Venus?
I’d suggest you do a bit of refining also. Your ad hominem, strawman, and appeal to authority doesn’t go without notice either.
I’d address the rest of what you stated, but I think if you stayed around, you’d see your incorrect assessment of what is done here.
“I’m amazed that your culture uses pseudo-science to combat real science all the while decrying science at all. If you don’t believe in the tenants, why bother?”
Again, twisted and backwards. There wouldn’t be sites as this if scientists had actually bothered to do real science instead of embracing politics and economics. They are woefully out of their depth.
Steve: your
Though it is true that Mars has a higher percentage of C02 in their atmosphere than Earth, Mars’ atmosphere is also significantly less dense than Earths. As a result Steve’s statement, “Mars has more CO2 molecules in their atmosphere than Earth. Earth is much warmer,” is inaccurate. Earth having a denser atmosphere means that even with a small percentage of C02, Earth’s atmosphere contains more carbon dioxide than Mars.
Nope. Per unit volume, Mars has about 17 times more CO2.
950,000 ppm Mars / 381 ppm earth = 2493 times more at same pressure (lets ignore the Z factor for gas at pressures)
2493 * 0.007 (0.7% Mars pressure compared to earth) = 17.5 times more CO2 per unit volume.
Steve,
First off you’re flat out wrong when you say”Earth having a denser atmosphere means that even with a small percentage of C02, Earth’s atmosphere contains more carbon dioxide than Mars”
95% concentration is 2,500 x more than .39%
Mars avg atmospheric pressure = 6.36 mb
(It ranges between 4.0 mb and 8.7 mb depending on the season. You see it get soo cold on Mars i nthe winter that up to 25% of the CO2 condenses at the poles into dry ice, and sublimates back into the atmosphere in summer)
Earth avg atmospheric pressure = 1014 mb
Mars’ atmospheric pressure is .63% of Earth’s
2500*0.0063 = 15.75
Mars’ atmosphere has 15.75X more CO2 than earth.
The reason it’s cooler is it’s distance from the sun (go figure) and the fact that it has virtually no water vapor.
Now on your second comment about Sagan’s “Billions & Billions”, you almost have a point. Sagan actually used the phrase “Billions upon billions of stars…” in his book Cosmos published in 1980 (he didn’t write Billions and Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the Millennium until 1997)
The Carson sketches pulled “Billions and billions from there and his emphasis he put on the “B” when pronouncing “billions” in his Cosmos TV show. (Thanks Wikipedia and other sources)
So please, drop the talk about how my “culture uses pseudo-science to combat real science all the while decrying science“.
We’re the ones actually learning, checking and doing the science.
You & Bill may want to start actually researching these things for yourself and forming your own conclusions.
Though i fear that “your culture” will just keep regurgitating what its told.
You are arguing with someone else. I didn’t say that stuff.
Not you Steve…The Steve that Did argue that stuff (Steve Willey)
I agree with you!
OK – sorry.
Steve, he’s talking to the dipshit Steve.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/1989-major-sagan-fail/#comment-42795
James,
Is that how we have to refer to other Steve’s now? 🙂
I’ll start my next response with:
Steve (not the real Steve, but the dipshit Steve) to avoid further confusion!
Steven:
It was referring to Steve Wiley. At least that is what I picked up as it appears that Steve Wiley was Reefering before making his comments. One does not argue with Reefer Madness! 😉
Robb:
The condition they caught appears to be Mental Bulimia. Being a member of the Chicken Little Brigade seems to produce that condition.
Robb:
You could use CMC Steve because they display the characteristics of Charley McCarthy or even PINY Steve in recognition of their Pinocchio persona.
Mike,
I think I’ll go with FOS Steve…any explanation needed? 🙂
With Mental Bulimia there is no S left as it all comes out without being digested. Therefore they can not be FOS! 🙂
FOS is appropriate!
GIGO may be a closer fit!!!!
It is only Semantics as most of us would know what was meant!
“James,
Is that how we have to refer to other Steve’s now? 🙂 ”
lol, well, not all Steve’s, but only the Steve’s that swing by and blather bs and degenerate all that provide commentary here. And the ones that provide psuedo-intellectual verbosity while projecting their own short comings upon the people here.
If they want to play nice, that’s fine, and we can all have a great discussion, if they want to come with that garbage, well….. we can hand out the butthurt as well. Which, I think was aptly demonstrated by the comments, including yours. 🙂