Thursday, November 2, 2017

Venus, Once More: Is Anybody Out There Seeking the Truth?

Just a sentence or two to add to my 2010 Venus/Earth temperature vs. pressure comparison.

My Venus/Earth comparison, which strongly and I believe definitively disproves the consensus "global warming greenhouse effect" of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, is routinely dismissed, basically on the grounds that its precise agreement, between the unchanging Standard Atmosphere model of Earth's atmosphere and the atmosphere of Venus over the same range of tropospheric pressures as Earth's, is but a "coincidence". This criticism ignores the very great unlikelihood of such a "coincidence", over the full range of tropospheric pressures, and between two such different systems as Earth and Venus (which I have enumerated many times, and won't repeat all of the huge differences again here.)

The last such criticism I received in this line was that the Venus data I used in my comparison, while presented on the internet as representative of Venus's atmosphere, was in fact for latitude 67°N, not a mid-latitude (or putative global mean) 45°N, a full 22 degrees north of mid-latitude, and in fact within the arctic circle, on Earth.

What I waited for others to mention was this: Earth's spin axis is tilted about 23.5 degrees with respect to its orbital axis, which is why it has such a large arctic region (every point above 66.5°N). If Venus were similarly tilted with respect to its orbital axis, criticizing my comparison on this point would be proper. But Venus is NOT so tilted; it is only about 2.7° (usually stated as 177.3°, or "upside down" compared to Earth's spin). So there is no large, not even a substantial, arctic region on Venus at all, that does not receive sunlight for half the (Venus) year. In other words, rather than saying that 67N on Venus is 22° north of 45°, truth-seekers should say 67N is a full 20° south of any supposed arctic region on Venus (which, at 2.7°, would anyway be entirely overwhelmed by the heat surrounding that small area). On Earth, of course, 20° south of the arctic circle is 47°N...mid-latitude. It should be apparent that Venus just has a wider "mid-latitude" range of latitudes than Earth, because it has no arctic region to speak of. And I have yet to see any critic provide detailed temperature vs pressure Venus profile data for a broad range of latitudes on Venus (I have seen temperature vs altitude in the literature, but not versus pressure, for any other latitude than the 67N data I found and used in 2010.)

But there is no sign of real, independent thinking among my critics, most notably among the alarmists and especially among the politicians, who smell money and power in the water, as it were, and don't want it to get away from them. They are basing their new world order upon blatant lies and blatantly incompetent "climate science" -- and in the end, the world will go to ruinous war over this, if they do not cease and desist, any and all "climate policies".

You have all been warned. Stop now.


  1. G'day Harry

    Even though pressure data should be examined at other latitudes, it looks highly likely that "variable latitude" can be added to the list of "coincidences"! This gives even more weight to the conclusions from the evidence. Thanks for your insights.


    1. Good Evening, Chris,

      Yes, that has been my fundamental point throughout, and how I began this posting above (and note, I referred to "the last such criticism I received in this line", referring to the "coincidence" argument, above). Realizing that "coincidence" is an incompetent judgment on the part of the "experts" and their enthralled followers -- based only on the comparison as I originally presented it in November 2010, without any need to add to it with further arguments, such as I went on to present above with respect to the latitude of the Venus data -- is precisely why I continually say my Venus/Earth comparison separates the competent scientist from the incompetent in the "global warming" debates.

      I just thought it was time to point out the laziness of my critics, by not realizing Venus has no significant "arctic" region, and, I might add, it has been reported that even Venus's "nightside" temperature is the same as the "dayside" (rendering mere latitudinal effects -- and those just supposed, not cited with convincing data -- highly unlikely). But as I have also written many times since my original presentation, I find the intellectual atmosphere insane, as my critics absolutely refuse to think along any lines that would question their loyalty to the "consensus".

  2. Hi Harry,

    Just discovered you and your understanding of Venus. I have not thoroughly read all that you have written, but I have read enough that you understand and explain it quite well.

    What I don't know is if you have written about the atmospheric sulfuric acid system which creates the cloud deck by which the upwelling infrared radiation being emitted from its hot surface is scattered back toward the surface by the phenomenon of Tyndall Scattering. I don't know if you have considered the photochemical reactions by which the sulfur dioxide is converted to sulfur trioxide which than can naturally react with any water molecules present to begin to form droplets of sulfuric acid (the haze above the cloud deck). And compare the pressure of the Venus atmosphere at which these photochemical reaction occur with the atmosphere pressures of the earth's atmosphere where (stratosphere) the ozone molecules are photochemically recycled to remove UV photons, which cause sunburns on white skin, from the solar radiation which reaches the earth's surface.

    Much easier for me to ask you this, then to search for its possibility in what you have written. Plus, I would not mind a little conversation about your experiences.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    1. Good Evening, J.L.K.,

      My Venus/Earth temperature vs pressure comparison shows that only the different distance from the Sun is needed to explain the Venus/Earth temperature ratio, which is essentially a constant over the full range of Earth tropospheric pressures. No constituent of the atmospheres, whether carbon dioxide or sulfur dioxide, has any effect. That shows there is no "global warming greenhouse effect" due to increasing carbon dioxide, and that is really all I am interested in having the world understand; simply put, there is no valid "global climate" science, and no competent climate scientists.

      However, your mention of backscattering tells me you know that is part of the "greenhouse effect" consensus theory, and that you still want to believe in that theory. But that theory involves a gross violation of the conservation of energy, and that alone makes the theory ludicrous. As for backradiation, I have written about this repeatedly in the past, and utterly reject it, as in fact I do all so-called "radiation forcings" that are the ineradicable, worthless weeds that populate the consensus theory; in the specific case of "backradiation", see this post, for example, for my specific arguments against it.

  3. I'm definitely out here "seeking the truth".

    The truth is that consensus climatol... "climastrology" ... is a lie.

  4. Hi Harry,

    Sorry, I must admit I did not carefully that "My Venus/Earth temperature vs pressure comparison shows that only the different distance from the Sun is needed to explain the Venus/Earth temperature ratio, which is essentially a constant over the full range of Earth tropospheric pressures." But a truth I do read is that portion of the Venus atmosphere appears to be below the top of the cloud deck, so what value of the albedo of Venus did you use?

    Have a good day, Jerry

    1. J.L.K.,

      Asking what value of the albedo of Venus I used gives away the fact that you still don't understand what the words "only the different distance from the Sun is needed to explain the Venus/Earth temperature ratio" means. This is the mark of a troll, and one ignorant of my original "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect" post and of all my subsequent postings, over 8 years now, on the details.

      For example, in that original post, you will find the following clear statement:

      "I don't know why the comparison falters slightly between 600 and 300 mb, or why it improves suddenly at 200 mb (~60 km altitude), but the Venus cloud top is given as 58 km, between the 300 and 200 mb levels."

      So the analysis does go above the stated cloud top, and the comparison comes back to the close fit shown by the data below the cloud top. In the thick cloud layer, the comparison is still good, with the Venus temperatures only about 5K smaller than would be predicted from the Standard Atmosphere and the closer solar distance. Both above and below the cloud layer, the comparison is precise. Within the cloud layer, the specific heat is increased by the presence of non-gaseous cloud particles (sulfuric acid-laced water drops), so the temperature there is slightly depressed (it would take more heat to bring that region up to what it would be without liquid suspended particles).

      This is the last comment I will take from you. That albedo comment really shows you have not bothered to understand anything, after years of just this same tired "albedo" argument from the incompetent defenders of the consensus theory.