The movie started out with James Hansen claiming that Venus was 600 degrees because of 97% CO2 which was trapping heat.
Apparently Hansen can’t do his own basic math.
Hansen says that each doubling of CO2 causes a 3C temperature increase. Venus has 97% (0.97 mole fraction) CO2. In order to get to 97% on Earth, we would require less than 13 doublings. That would raise temperatures by about 35 degrees, using Hansen’s own exaggerated theory. Nowhere near 600 degrees.
h/t Morgan Wright.
Mole Fraction Temperature Increase (C) 1 0.0004 2 0.0008 3 3 0.0016 6 4 0.0032 9 5 0.0064 12 6 0.0128 15 7 0.0256 18 8 0.0512 21 9 0.1024 24 10 0.2048 27 11 0.4096 30 12 0.8192 33 13 1.6384 36
Hansen’s own theory can’t explain the high temperatures on Venus, yet he continues to parrot the same mindless nonsense decade after decade.
Like shooting fish in a barrel!
Someone should tell Hansen to buy a condom,fill it with 300%(compressed) co2(300% co2=30.000x more co2 than man made co2 is in the air right noe) and put a thermometer and fix it on the ground
and compare the temperature with a condom filled with air.
he’ll see no difference.
How much CO2 in the air now is man made, 120 ppm?
i guess 1/10000 should be ca 100 ppm./120ppm should be 1/8500
Therefore a balloon/condom with 3x compressed pure co2 should have 30.000(25.500at120ppm) x higher co2 concentration.
Considering that a trace element like co2 is blamed for increasing earth temperature,pure co2 inside a box/balloon should absorb and store amazing numbers of infrared energy -but it fails,indeed it does nothing.
(even if you use 2 condoms to simulate stratosphere/troposhpere(one condom inside the other,both filled with co2 nothing happens,co2 simply fails)
In principle I follow what you say, but a condom is not going to contain much pressure, i.e. it will expand until the pressure inside it is only slightly greater than atmospheric pressure. For the sake of argument, just assume 1 atm and 100% CO2, i.e. 1,000,000 ppm. That is a ratio of 2500 x today’s CO2 concentration (400 ppm) or 10,000 x the amount due mm emissions, assuming that that is the right number.
Anyway, I can’t say I ever filled a condom, with CO2.
Your math and knowledge about pressure(&english)
is better than mine,
but i’m not really talking about wether it is 1 million,10000 or only thousand.
I ‘m just talking about the fact that even a several hundred times higher co2 concentration inside a self made cheap green house(condom/balloon) won’t increase the temperature inside the balloon/condom.
(the reason why i chose a condom was because the thin skin of an colorless won’t absorb sunlight(only a tiny fraction) and therefore won’t falsify the test.
(As i neither have the money nor the skill to built two small airproof glas-green houses is preferred using condoms)
About 3% of the current level (400 ppmv) so about. 16 ppmv or 0.0016% of the atmosphere. Yup, more energy than plutonium in those Mann made CO2 molecules. We should halt all research on fusion and solar and wind and concentrate on the massive energy potential off those little guys.
“… yet he continues to parrot the same mindless nonsense decade after decade.”
Hansen is truly one of the stupidest men on the national stage. Nothing he has ever said or predicted is true. Possibly the worst error he ever made is the entire CO2 drives climate on earth fallacy. Fracking stupid.
Lies from a propaganda flick? How long has this been going on?
It would be interesting to fill a greenhouse with 97% CO2 and see what happens. The plants will love it and all the meal worms will die. It might be a couple degrees warmer too, maybe.
Interesting experiment. I’d guess at least initially it would kill both good and bad bacteria as well, besides worms, but it would also drop the pH of the soil and any water inside the greenhouse. If the plants lived, they would eat up the CO2 and produce O2 but plants also need nitrogen.
Nitrogen in the air isn’t bioavailable to plants though.
More lightning?
Yeah, that’s why bacteria are important.
I believe there’s an upper limit on the partial pressure for plants. I believe the greenhouse guys have a target in the 1500 to 1800 ppm range and 4% “fatal” is what’s stuck in my head, but that sounds too high. Paging a biologist.
Mars has an atmosphere that is 95% CO2 and it’s so cold there it snows dry ice.
Thanks for pointing that out. When alarmists use Venus as an example of a runaway greenhouse effect, I like to ask them about Mars. “Well, Venus is closer to the sun” is the usual response. Then I point out that, on average, Venus is hotter than Mercury and farther away from the sun than Mercury. That’s about when the name calling starts 🙂
Being a CAGW enthusiast means that the kids who did poorly in science class can feel both smart and morally superior. When you point out their errors you are taking both those bits of self flattery away from them. They get angry, very angry.
If you really want to confuse them start in about Titan’s 1.4% methane ’cause their rants include methane being 4x worse than CO2 and the only reason that Titan is 94°K is due to the “greenhouse” effect. Never mind that surface pressure is 1.5 bar and due to the really low gravity, about 1.35m/s², density’s over 5kg/m³ and I think the methane jumps phases in those ranges so there’s latent heat moving in and out as well. They really don’t grasp the concept of gas molecules having more kinetic energy (expressed as heat) when pressure or density goes up. When their numbers for the “greenhouse” bs don’t work (Titan gets about 1% of the solar energy Earth does) they blame atmospheric haze for creating an “anti greenhouse” effect. The fun part is I believe most of the upper atmospheric haze IS condensed or frozen methane, but I could be wrong about that.
They just can’t wrap their little warmist brains around pressure or density or gravity or lapse rate… there just HAS to be a greenhouse somewhere on a planetary body.
As it is claimed that f = 5.35 ln (C/Co). If ppm is 100% tha is only 74 W/m^2. Depending on delta T that could be a very small change in temperature.
The Sun’s power is 0.49 as strong on Earth as it is on Venus due to distance from the Sun.
CO2 is 1/2412 on Earth compared to Venus.
The temperature relationship between Earth and Venus should be calculated in Watts per square metre not degrees of temperature.
It would take about 5 Watts per square metre to raise the worlds temperature from 15°C to16°C. Considering a square metre, less than 200ppm has to heat the whole 1,000,000 parts by 5 Watts. That will take 5000 times 5 Watts, 25,000 Watts. Where is all this energy coming from?
Thanks Kevin. 1 / 2412 is wrong. Venus has 87.000,000 ppm for our 400 ppm.
400 / 87,000,000 = 1 / 217,500 not 1 / 2412.
So, CO2 is 1 / 217,500 on Earth compared to Venus.
I got that by the fact that venus is 97% CO2 which is 970,000 ppm and is 90 times denser than our atmosphere so 970,000 x 90 is 87,000,000 for our 400.
7th grade math much?
They can probably add this slide to their presentation: http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2015/03/boston_breaks_seasonal_snowfall_record_with_1086_inches
Really goes well with
Warmest Winter in History: More than 20 Cities Break or Tie All-Time Records
http://www.weather.com/news/climate/news/warmest-winter-on-record-2014-2015
Earth gets about half (52%) the solar radiation that Venus gets. (Inverse square law)
The winds of Venus are accelerating.
“The astronomers studying the atmosphere of Venus are facing a new mystery. The Venusian winds have been steadily accelerating for the last 6 years. Scientists monitoring the Venus Express orbiter since 2006 noted the stunning increase in the already super fast winds, from 186 mph to 249 mph.”
Accelerating Winds of Venus: https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2013/07/07/the-accelerating-winds-of-venus-space-news/
Venus isn’t Earth’s twin: http://www.holoscience.com/wp/venus-isnt-our-twin/?article=9aqt6cz5
The Electric Universe theory discounts the Big Bang. It also discounts man-made climate change. The sun is an anode in the solar system. Planets act as cathodes. Birkeland currents excite the auroras and power the sun. Venus is a younger planet and still has cometary tail. In the past within human history, Venus had a more visible tail and led to superstitions about the gods. The surface of Venus is covered in obvious Lichtenberg signatures. Valles Marinaris on Mars was electrically excavated. Many geological features on Earth were also created with this process. Some features that are considered billions of years old can appear very old even if they were formed yesterday due to electrical forces. Electricity is 10×39 times more powerful than gravity.
Neptune has the highest winds of all planets at 1500 mph. The sun is a small speck at that distance. Something is powering the wind.
Electrical forces are completely ignored in mainstream science and in any discussion of climate on Earth. Solar/space weather is constantly changing. The sun is not the thermonuclear candle-model as imagined. It is powered by galactic electric currents, which powers the entire galaxy. Streams of charged particles flow from the sun and our magnetosphere (which is weakening) protects us from them. These scientists are having much the same problem in getting out their information as scientists that disagree with man-made global warming. Academics is obviously very controlled. It takes real pioneers to step outside the box.