You might have noticed that I'm not doing so many posts on the Greenhouse Effect anymore, that's because I have finally worked it out and there are few questions left unanswered.
I stumbled across a good article by Clive Best in which he arrives at the same conclusion as I have:
... the radiating level on Venus is set at 260 [degrees K at] 50 km up in the atmosphere because [the clouds at that altitude are] directly heated by the sun. So Venus' surface is heated through convection from above and not directly by CO2 greenhouse effects.
Just remove the word "directly" from "and not directly by" and we're good. Note: Clive still believes in the GHG myth despite all the evidence to the contrary which he presents so eloquently. And I'm not sure it really is 'convection', it is something slightly different which I refer to as the 'gravito-thermal effect', but hey.
So the bottom line question is that if you were to replace 90% of the CO2 molecules on Venus with an equal mass of N2 molecules would the surface temperature change ? I don’t think so – the surface temperature would remain exactly the same.
---------------------------------------------------
On a related note, I had a spat in the comments (on YouTube, no less) with a devout Believer who came up with crap like "heat rises" (he doesn't know what 'heat' is) and thought he could score a point by saying "although the sun warms the clouds, they are still below freezing" - I had clearly stated that the cloud cover on Earth is, very approximately, 255K, which as any fule kno is -18 C. FFS.
Friday, 1 October 2021
"Venus calling"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Nice.
Just asking, but do you know of a good explainer as to why CH4 is a greenhouse gas?
It's lighter than air so possibly isn't, but I've never seen anyone do the old CH4 in a pop bottle experiment where they put an air bottle with 0.1% CH4 in sunlight and compare it to one with no CH4 in it. And take similar measurements after leaving them both in the shade.
Obvs, I could do my own research and don't be afraid to say so, but I'm lazy.
The poeple most likely to be vaccinated duting that timeframe were oldies and vulnerables who are mmore likely to die than the average of the rest of the population.
L, ta.
AC, it isn't, there's no such thing.
Putting bottles of gas under bright lights proves nothing - they claim that GHG can trap IR coming up from Earth's surface. So the correct experiment is putting bottles of gas on the ground, out of the sun and seeing if the gas is warmer than plain air. Which it clearly wouldn;t be, which is why they don't do it.
MiM, you're on the wrong thread!
MiM, the authors of the paper specifically adjusted the data to rule out that explanation.
Post a Comment