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.

Modern Science Has Gone Wrong

I have posted the following response to a comment on my November 2010 Venus: No Greenhouse Effect article:

Good Morning, Astrobiology,

The proper statement, of fact not theory, is that the Venus/Earth temperature ratio, at points of equal pressure in the two atmospheres and over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures, is determined only by the ratio of their distances from the Sun (in accordance with the fundamental physics that relates mean absorbed radiation intensity with attained temperature, at equilibrium), and nothing else. That fact has implications for the temperatures in the other planetary atmospheres, but of course it should not be expected to predict their temperatures; it is not a theory of planetary warming, it is a fact relating the Earth troposphere with an equivalent (in pressures) portion of the Venus atmosphere.

The easy, even lazy, answer to your first question is that when you say, "Venus is hotter than Mercury", you really mean the surface of Venus is hotter than the surface of Mercury, despite being much farther from the Sun--that ignores the atmosphere, of course (and that little detail of comparing at points of equal pressure in the atmosphere, which my comparison emphasized), and any hack will tell you the surface of Venus is hotter because it lies at the bottom of a deep, heavy, heat-retaining ocean of air, while the surface of Mercury is essentially bare to the near-absolute cold of space. (All of this is so obvious, I suspect your question is merely disengenuous--suspect so strongly, that I say so here for any interested reader to see. David Appell, a charlatan who pretends to be a competent PhD physicist, recently tried to comment on this site with the same incompetent point, that the Venus/Earth comparison does not work for the other planets. I wouldn't be at all surprised if your comment was an attempt to get by my denial of any further comments from him, as an unthinking, determinedly dismissive, disruptive influence. If you follow his lead, you won't get anywhere worthwhile--here, at least.)

I have always emphasized that I do not have a theory, only that definitive fact, which disproves the greenhouse effect of increasing atmospheric temperature (at any given pressure) with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (for Venus's atmosphere has over 2400 times the level of carbon dioxide as does Earth's atmosphere, yet it makes no difference in the temperature--and note, if there WERE such an effect, it would be ADDITIVE to Venus's temperatures, not multiplicative as the constant Venus/Earth temperature ratio implies).

To explain the temperatures in the atmospheres of the other planets would require a general theory of atmospheric warming. I do not feel the slightest need to bail out climate and atmospheric scientists from their responsibility to produce such a theory--which MUST EXPLAIN the Venus/Earth result quantitatively and precisely, note. I have done some comparisons of the troposphere of Earth with the equivalent parts of the other planetary atmospheres, as I have said in earlier responses to earlier comments here, but nothing as definitive as the Venus/Earth result emerged from that preliminary work, and I am interested only in communicating definitive results--facts, not theory.

All of the earth and life sciences are now working with fundamentally false theories, to a lesser or greater extent. That is the larger point, that has emerged from my own research, with my discovery of a great world-encompassing design at the very beginning of mankind's intellectual history, and motivating every aspect of its development. Random cosmic events and undirected geological and biological processes are not the truth about Earth's origin and development. The Earth and solar system were subjected to deliberate wholesale reformation, to impose an overall design--and modern science has, thus, gone wrong.

Incompetent Climate Science Defenders

The incompetent climate debate shows no sign of improving, with climate scientists and their defenders showing total disdain for "deniers" like me. The following is my response to David Whitehouse, whose latest article, on the climaterealists site, pretends to make short work of those who most disdain the "consensus":

"Let's get one thing over quickly. ..." You have just lost all credibility with that paragraph. It should have been absolutely clear, to any competent physical scientist, for two years now (ever since my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison, which is definitive), that there is no greenhouse effect, of increasing atmospheric temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide--that is a fact:

Venus: No Greenhouse Effect

Anyone who would dispute my Venus/Earth analysis, must show quantitatively, within the "consensus" theory (or their own pet theory, for that matter), why the Venus/Earth temperature ratio, at points of equal pressure over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures, is precisely--precisely--due to the ratio of the distances of the two planets from the Sun, and nothing else; no one has been able to do that, no one has even come close to doing it, so it remains wholly unexplained within consensus climate theory. Yet it has a simple, physically clear explanation, immediately obvious to a competent physicist: The two atmospheres are warmed by direct absorption of incident solar radiation, not from a warmed planetary surface--in fact, they are warmed by direct absorption of the same fraction of that incident solar radiation. No one wants to admit that, because it is clear they have all been incompetent in their thinking about how the atmosphere is warmed. My Venus/Earth analysis is seminal, but too hard a lesson for today's climate scientists and their defenders to face, honestly and humbly before the facts.

Carl Sagan championed the greenhouse effect--directly to James Hansen--and thus played a large part in getting it accepted into mainstream, "consensus" science. He does not deserve the respect of students of science, for misleading two generations and more of them. And you, David Whitehouse, are just one of the legion of braying voices that pretend to judge reasonably and expertly, but are in fact completely incompetent--just another false voice, exercising a false aura of expertise.

No, Virginia, There Is No CO2 Climate Sensitivity

The fools continue to anguish over the "carbon dioxide climate sensitivity", in a Wall Street Journal article, by one Matt Ridley, discussed on the bishop hill site. The following is my (by now harsh) response:

And so the incompetent debate goes on. You people are largely stuck in "la-la land" (as some have characterized it) with the alarmists, your thinking premised and conditioned upon the Insane Left's political abuse of the incompetent climate consensus. I refuse to accept or suborn such idiocy, and speak for those who know the science well enough to deny the consensus utterly. Mr. Montford (Bishop Hill) will probably want to refuse to air this comment, but it needs to be said: I have directed everyone, for 2 years now, to my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison, which proves that there is NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT, OF INCREASING ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE WITH INCREASING ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE, WHATSOEVER. Any of you who think you are competent to do it, can analyze the Venus/Earth temperature ratios I have presented at the above-linked site, and closely estimate the indicated CO2 climate sensitivity, given that Venus has 96.5% CO2 in its atmosphere, while Earth has only 0.04%. (To do it properly, you should restrict your analysis to the part of Venus's atmosphere, in the range of Earth tropospheric pressures of course, which is either above or below the Venus cloud layer -- 1,000 mb down to 700 mb, below the clouds, and 200 mb, above them; in that range, you will find there is no discernible CO2 effect at all, whether warming or cooling. Within the clouds, there is a non-CO2, constant cooling effect of about 5°C) The answer is -0.03°C +/- 0.1°C -- or essentially, ZERO temperature change -- per doubling of CO2. Are there ANY competent physical scientists out there who can verify that for themselves? Frankly I doubt it, after 2 years. Matt Ridley is a fool, Bishop Hill (Andrew Montford) is a fool, anyone (like Anthony Watts, Roy Spencer, Christopher Monckton, etc.) who thinks the "greenhouse effect" is a valid global-warming theory, is a fool. You are all playing with the insane, by their insane rules, simply because you refuse to confront and accept the observed Venus/Earth temperature ratio as clearly due only to the solar distances of the two planets. CO2 climate sensitivity is bunk -- period.