New Video : The Difference Between Earth And Venus”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to New Video : The Difference Between Earth And Venus”

  1. GCSquared says:

    Tony’s often mentions that higher pressure makes the bottom of the Grand Canyon warmer than at the top. But this explanation nagged at me, since no one seems to be operating a bike pump in the park. But actually, they are. Maybe others might be interested in hearing one way to resolve this issue.

    During heating or cooling, the internal temperature of a soup varies because the container sides or bottom are transferring heat to only part of the liquid. When we want to keep the entire soup at the same temperature, while heating up or cooling down, we just stir it.

    The atmosphere reacts differently to stirring because it’s compressible.
    If you could build a huge thermally-insulated tube from the ground to outer space, gas diffusion would eventually bring all the air in the column to equilibrium. Thermodynamics says that at this point, all the gas will be at a single temperature, even though the ground level pressure is much higher than the pressure further up the column, because of gravity.

    It may sound like this gedankenexperiment contradicts Tony but not so. Suppose we’ve waited long enough so that the column temperature is almost uniform, and we’re getting impatient. We decide to help the process along like we did the soup, and give the gas in the column a stir, maybe with a huge fan. Ooops! We’ll find that the bottom just got hot and the top got cold. Active circulatory mixing produces an entirely different outcome from passive diffusive mixing.

    Maybe I’m just easily amused, but I find this amazing.

    So the bottom of the Grand Canyon is kept from cooling off by that big bicycle pump in the sky, the wind. The vertical atmospheric temperature gradient arises cooperatively, both from vertical pressure variation and from wind action. The phenomenon is called the “adiabatic lapse effect”, and is central to explaining the “greenhouse effect”. In real atmospheres, like on Earth and Venus, the temperature gradient you find is about 5.4 F per 1000 ft. for most gases, but it can vary especially when there’s condensible water vapor.

    • Mark Frank says:

      GCSquared

      I think you have explained why there is temperature gradient. Another way of putting it is that because of convection, some air is continually rising and then cooling as the pressure drops while other air is sinking to replace it and heating as the pressure increases.

      This explains the gradient. It doesn’t explain the absolute temperatures. The temperature of the atmosphere may drop 5.4F per 1000 ft but what determines the temperature at the surface from which it is dropping? That is a matter of the energy budget – primarily at the surface of the earth where incoming radiation is absorbed and heat is lost through outgoing radiation and conduction. This has to be so by elementary physics.

      The reason the top of the Grand Canyon is so much cooler than the bottom is because warm air at the bottom is rising and expanding which causes it to cool. It is not because the weight of the atmosphere is somehow magically heating it.

  2. Luchezar Jackov says:

    There’s one more thing that makes Venus uncomparable to Earth, and it’s the TSI, which is approx. twice that of Earth.

    • GCSquared says:

      True enough, but there are a couple of mitigating factors.

      Venus reflects about twice as much solar radiation as the Earth: albedos are approximately 0.7 vs 0.35, so that nearly equalizes things right there.

      Also, since both planets rid themselves of (unreflected) radiation by black-body radiation from the upper reaches of their atmospheres, a small difference in temperature can compensate for a big difference in emissions. For example, even if there were a factor of 2 difference between absorbed energy, only a 20% difference in Kelvin temperatures would be necessary (assuming a T^4 law), and we know from the preceding paragraph that actually absorbed energies are much closer. So effective radiating temperatures from the upper atmosphere are not so different.

      You find statements like “Being closer to the sun, Venus is a lot hotter than the Earth. While the average temperature on the earth is about 14 °C, that on Venus is over 460 °C. ” This is totally misleading: the reason Venus’ surface is so hot is that you have to go downward through 90x more gas on Venus to reach its surface compared to earth, which is like continuing to plunge beyond the Grand Canyon’s Colorado River straight down to hell.

  3. mcgatlin says:

    A dazzled layman’s eye-view of my first lesson in geology:

    H2O…

    Gorgeous, profound, dense, dazzling, informative, inspiring…

    selfish shellfish and amoral coral sucking the CO2 out of the atmosphere just enough to make

    the birth of Venus

    human desire and cosmic worship, possible.

    Voluptuous.

    Ready for Geology lesson number 2!

  4. Gator says:

    OT – But I have a feeling that Jerry now wishes he had majored in climatology…

    Disgraced former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky was resentenced Friday to 30 to 60 years in prison — the same penalty as before — for sexually abusing children.

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/jerry-sandusky-resentenced-sex-abuse-case

  5. G W Smith says:

    That was another great one, Tony! Also, love your dry sense of humor. Keep it up!

    • Gator says:

      Readers here have already checked out Dr Spencer’s site, many many times. Skeptics are in general much more familiar with the science of climate change than the gullibles. MF gullible trolls might want to realize that they are in over their heads, and therefore they should do less posting and do more reading.

      The great thing about skeptics, is that we have no sacred cows, and no infallible experts. Gullibles are just pathetic.

        • mcgatlin says:

          No need for parachutes when descending through an “ocean” of super-critical fluid!?

          You’ll probably never see this comment as it takes a while for comments to get posted, but
          I wanted to thank you for this video. Though as a layman I do not master even the basic principles of physics or astronomy or geology or atmospheric sciences and so forth

          I can still formulate, visualize a slightly better understanding of why there is virtually no greenhouse effect on Earth (nor on Venus).

          I’d be curious to know, however, what this good professor thinks of the Connolly’s hypothesis of “Pervection”? It doesn’t seem (from my clouded perspective) to be antithetical with his demonstration.

          At any rate, thanks for this video!

      • rah says:

        “MF gullible trolls might want to realize that they are in over their heads, and therefore they should do less posting and do more reading.”
        There is about as much chance of that as Adam Schiff coming out and admitting that there are no grounds for impeachment.

        • Mark Frank says:

          rah

          If the community here want this to be a mutual love-in with no opposing views taken seriously, and all opponents to be attacked personally, then that is their choice and I will drop out. If you are interested in exposing your ideas to criticism (no doubt some of it faulty) then that is something that interests me.

          • rah says:

            One thing “the community here” wants is people with enough integrity and stones to admit when their wrong when it’s been proven that they were.

  6. Climate Skeptic says:

    Hi Tony. I have discovered a myth about the global oceans that you should take a look at. Apparently. people subscribing to Anthropogenic Global Warming believe that the science data shows patches and spots on the earth where the oceans do not lie flat but are bulging/staking water. I know. This is dumb. But it is a widespread delusion and needs to be called out. And it is even fooling some of the people who are writing on ocean sea level rise.
    https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/globalsl.html
    https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/sea-level/
    https://www.earthobservatory.sg/faq-on-earth-sciences/why-will-sea-level-rise-not-be-same-everywhere
    https://ocean.si.edu/through-time/ancient-seas/sea-level-rise
    https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/explainer-why-sea-level-rise-rate-varies-globally

    From those references you do get what appears to be a claim that there are patches of water that stick up above other adjacent patches.

    “Because the ocean is one continuous body of water, its surface tends to seek the same level throughout the world. However, winds, currents, river discharges, and variations in gravity and temperature prevent the sea surface from being truly level.”

    That last sentence has convinced people that there are areas that are not level to other areas of the adjacent ocean. “Variations in gravity” is a warning sign that people don’t understand what is actually being measured and what these measurements mean to real scientists.

  7. Logic n reason says:

    Saw this debate recently ‘Is CO2 endangering the planet’ between Craig Idso and an astrophysicist called Jeffrey Bennett who I believe lives in Tony’s city. In the debate Bennett was trying to compare Venus and Earth. Would be interested in Tony’s views on this.

    https://youtu.be/6wBDR-5ltVI

  8. Planet’s Mars Te misfortunate coincidence

    Comparison of results for planet Te:

    Planet or…….. Te.satellites……… Te.incomplete…….Te.complete
    moon …………..measured …………..formula ……………formula
    Mercury ………….340 K ……………..437,30 K …………346,11 K
    Earth ……………..288 K ……………..255 K …………….288,36 K
    Moon ……………..220 Κ ……………..271 Κ …………….221,74 Κ
    Mars ………………210 K …………211,52 K …………215,23 K

    Let’s focus our attention on the Planet’s Mars the measured by satellites
    Te.mars.sat = 210 K

    and the calculated by the incomplete:
    Te = [ (1-a) S /4 σ ]¹∕ ⁴ = 211,52 K

    and the complete effective temperature formula:
    Te = [Φ (1-a) S (β* N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ]¹∕ ⁴ = 215,23 K

    The difference between the incomplete and the complete Planet Effective Temperature Formula is:
    *[Φ (β* N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴

    For Planet Mars we have:
    (β* N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ = (150*1*0,19)¹∕ ⁴ =
    =(28,5) ¹∕ ⁴ = 2,31052
    Φ = 0,47
    [Φ (β* N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
    =( 0,47* 2,31052 )¹∕ ⁴ =
    =( 1,08594 )¹∕ ⁴ = 1,02082

    So the difference between these two formula for Planet Mars is only 2,08 % !
    And this is a coincident.

    It is a coincident, but with very important consequences:

    Te.mars.sat = 210 K measured by satellites
    (it is still considered as Tmean.sat = 210 K, but it is not).

    There is only by 2,08 % difference by coincidence , it is almost equal with
    Te.mars.incomplete = 211,52 K and
    Te.mars.compl = 215,23 K

    When measuring by satellites the
    Tmean.mars = 210 K

    and calculating with the incomplete effective temperature formula
    Te.mars.incomplete = 211,52

    the scientist were led to a mistaken conclusions. (They didn’t know about the Planet Effective Temperature Complete Formula yet).

    First they concluded that the planet effective and mean temperatures should normally be equal.
    Secondly they concluded that Earth without atmosphere should have effective temperature, according to the incomplete formula calculation,

    Te.earth.incomplete = 255 K.

    The measured by satellites Tmean = 288 K.

    The difference of Δ 33 oC
    was, according to scientists, due to the Earth’s atmosphere greenhouse warming effect.

    Now we have the effective temperature complete formula that gives
    Te.mars.compl = 215,23 K

    This result is very close to the measured by satellites
    Te.mars.mean = 210 K.

    And the Complete Formula gives very reasonable results for all the other planets without-atmosphere in the solar system.

    We know now the Δ 33 oC does not exist.

    The Te.earth = 288,36 K = Tsat.earth = 288 K.
    Te.earth = 255 K does not exist.

    And I dare to assume now that this Complete Formula may be applied to all the planets without atmosphere in the whole Universe.

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

  9. Jerry says:

    Would Venus’ atmosphere be even warmer with less cloud cover?

  10. Jerry says:

    Would the temperature of Venus be higher if there was less cloud cover?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.