Carl Sagan said “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” But unfortunately he didn’t listen to his own advice when talking about climate.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Woke Grok
- Grok Explains Gender
- Humans Like Warmer Climates
- Homophobic Greenhouse Gases
- Grok Explains The Effects Of CO2
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Red Hot Australia
- EPA : 17.5 Degrees Warming By 2050
- “Winter temperatures colder than last ice age
- Big Oil Saved The Whales
- Guardian 100% Inheritance Tax
- Kerry, Blinken, Hillary And Jefferson
- “Climate Change Indicators: Heat Waves”
- Combating Bad Weather With Green Energy
- Flooding Mar-a-Lago
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2020
- Colorless, Odorless CO2
- EPA Climate Change Arrest
- Nothing Nuclear Winter Can’t Fix
- “We Are From The Government And We Are Here To Help”
- Blinken Not Happy Yet
- Chief Executive Kamala
- “Investigated And Discredited”
- Ice-Free Arctic Warning
Recent Comments
- Francis Barnett on Woke Grok
- Gordon Vigurs on Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Gordon Vigurs on Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Ivan G Wainwright on Maldives Underwater By 2050
- conrad ziefle on Grok Explains Gender
- Disillusioned on Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Disillusioned on Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Gordon Vigurs on Grok Explains Gender
- Gordon Vigurs on Woke Grok
- Peter Carroll on Woke Grok
It’s basic thermodynamics.
Spot on!
Sagan inspired many young people to become scientists, but unfortunately infected them with the belief in the ‘greenhouse effect’ . This is a particularly virulent mental illness rendering the sufferer impervious to rational argument and inducing a fanatical zeal, which is religious in intensity.
Actually, the lapse rate depends on the enthalpy which is only Cp T for an ideal gas, On the Earth the enthalpy includes latent heat of vaporisation of the moisture evaporated from the oceans, and the lapse rate is lower than it would be for a dry gas. However, it is probably reasonable to treat the Grand Canyon as an arid region where the effect of water vapour may be neglected, and will have a lapse rate close to that of Venus. Sorry to be pedantic.
It would appear from the evidence in the chart you present, that the high concentration of CO2 in Venus’ atmosphere is actually acting to cool the planet far below the expected lapse rate surface temperature! The ideal Lapse Rate temp is 887 degrees and the actual measured temperature is only 740 degrees!
Thus the atmosphere of Venus is acting as a cooling agent, releasing heat to space at a very high rate… especially during it’s long night. Which several plausible scenarios for CO2 here on earth actually point towards. Some conditions and CO2 warms and others it cools. (warming and cooling are not the correct terms, it’s simply a matter of how fast or slow the atmosphere in general looses heat to space, slightly moderated by CO2 and at least 100x more so by water vapor in our atmo)
Cp for carbon dioxide is temperature dependent; increasing from 850 J/kg K at the tropopause to about 1000 J/kg K at the surface. Also it is not clear whether the temperatures given are static or stagnation values measured by a probe which is being swept through the upper atmosphere at wind speeds approaching Mach 1.
If you look at the basic data researchers have developed regarding the ? and the ? of various gases, you see that H2O is greater and over a larger range of ?s, so you would immediately expect that H2O dominates the atmospheric radiative heat transfer.
The presence of water vapour is the reason the lapse rate for the ICAN standard atmosphere is 6.5 K/km, while for an arid atmosphere (using the Cp T formula) it would be 9.8 K/km, and the surface temperature would be a catastrophic 59 degrees Celsius. The difference in lapse rate is a consequence of the huge amount of enthalpy from the latent heat of vaporisation of the water vapour. The radiative properties of gases is all but irrelevant to troposphere temperature distribution.
Great video!!
You might add a part two to this or edit some to drive the point home.
In the Venusian atmosphere at a pressure altitude of 1 bar, the temperature is the same as that of Earth, when adjusted for solar distance. This relationship holds true more or less at every pressure altitude where the temperature of Venus is 1.176 x greater than that of Earth. The concentration of GHGs is of no consequence.
Earth vs Venus
93/67.5 = 1.38 (solar distance)
1.38^2 = 1.91 (intensity varies as 1/r2)
1.91 ^.25 = 1.176 (per S-B law)
Same for Mars or any planet.
Earth distance 93
Mars distance 141.6
.65677^2= .431
.43135^. 25= .8104
Mars surface P .685kPa
Temp at .685 kPa Earth atmosphere is 234k
Calculated Mars Surface temperature
234k*.8104=189.6
Actual 190.6k ! pretty close
Temperatures on Mercury drop to close to absolute zero at night. Temperatures on Venus don’t drop at all.
Mars and the Moon clearly show that lack of atmosphere results in the surface radiating at near black body efficiency into a black sky.
The only thing I can think about Venus is that the atmospheric mass is so great, like being 1/2 mile down in the ocean, that night and day have little effect on the planet’s surface, the same as
night and day have very little effect 1/2 mile down in our oceans.
It would be nice to read a detailed explanation of this.
If there are differences in temperature over a planet having a substantial atmosphere, there will be corresponding differences in pressure, causing the gas to flow to cancel the temperature difference. That is why claims that the mythical greenhouse effect will increase the temperature gradient between the Equator and Poles, causing more extreme weather, is arrant nonsense.
1) Extraordinary claim: There exists a lower energy state of Hydrogen called Hydrino that forms the basis for a new primary energy source delivering, by volume, 200 times that of gasoline (as one measure of energy density).
2) The extraordinary evidence: Electron Paramagnetic Resonance (EPR)
The paper: https://pure.tudelft.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/126823930/1_s2.0_S0360319922022406_main.pdf
As usual, the important part is not that liquid H2 could be a highly concentrated energy source, but that it takes a lot of energy to liquify H2. The only advantage it would have over CH4 would be that energy released in the formation of H2O would be greater than energy released in the formation of CO2. In either case, you have to let it boil before you can use it effectively, at least for all devices that I know of.
The advantage of using H2 would be if you had an infinite, or nearly so, supply of energy, then you could break down H2O, liquefy the H2 and have a portable source of energy.
That’s my opinion, any way.
True, but incomplete. You did not mention that the lapse rate is coupled with gravitational potential energy in the static standard atmosphere. You were using an example of a dynamic phenomena, descending air. The total amount of sensible heat in the atmosphere is determined by the amount of solar flux. (assuming all other factors to be constant.) Here is a simple gedanken (thought experiment). Take away the sun so that solar flux is zero. Ignore geothermal heat which is about 1 watt per square meter. Heat will radiate to space, the atmosphere will contract until it freezes at near absolute zero (2.7 degrees K) . There will be no atmosphere, all the nitrogen and oxygen will be a frozen crust on the surface of the earth.
Tony you have addressed this issue before when you were citing a false claim that compression heating was free energy and that the only factor that determined planetary temperature was the atmospheric pressure at the surface.
The other thing that bothers me is that lapse rate and the standard atmosphere are taught in basic meterology. The climate activists that don’t understand this are either lying or very stupid. To be honest, a lot of them that have science degrees are very stupid. The scientists that understand basic physics but lie deliberately are corrupt. Follow the money.
Do not be tempted to lie with fraudulent science to oppose the climate crisis advocates. Everything that they say is a lie. It is easy to debunk their claims, but these people control the narrative and have the full support of the media and political class.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. Our science must be correct.