tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post1403265501214185971..comments2024-01-04T00:51:23.625-08:00Comments on The Earth and Man: Setting the Stage: Venus: No Greenhouse EffectHarry Dale Huffmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03210275295826050501noreply@blogger.comBlogger212125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post-49571737117372295052021-06-22T16:14:16.312-07:002021-06-22T16:14:16.312-07:00just... thank you :) have you gotten anywhere with...just... thank you :) have you gotten anywhere with this ? <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00107690479187149984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post-42978837771954948612015-05-15T06:08:40.200-07:002015-05-15T06:08:40.200-07:00Bob Armstrong,
I thought of writing a separate po...Bob Armstrong,<br /><br />I thought of writing a separate post around your comment, which completely misses the point that should be obvious from the Venus/Earth comparison I have made here. But as no one seems to have learned anything from the continuing vain debates, and the Venus/Earth comparison is ignored by those on both sides, I will only respond here, very shortly, which is all your comment deserves:<br /><br />By introducing the hypothesis of internal heat, you only add to the list of differences between Earth and Venus that "should" affect the temperature--but in fact do not. The Venus/Earth temperature ratio is wholly and precisely explained by the difference in solar distance alone. When will all of those with "climate theories" get that into their heads? Of course, I can't expect you to get this, since you think that result is just a "coincidence"--but all you've done is greatly exacerbate that "coincidence", made it all that much more ridiculously improbable. (And I don't know how you define your "gray body", but by saying its temperature at Earth's orbit is 279K, it looks suspiciously like a blackbody to me--do the math, on a blackbody subject, as Earth is, to a mean 342 W/m^2.) Your comment exemplifies why I don't engage in the running debate, I merely have tried to inform of the undeniable, definitive evidence that disproves the tyrannical consensus.Harry Dale Huffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03210275295826050501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post-43276976347148918562015-05-13T18:25:39.650-07:002015-05-13T18:25:39.650-07:00Good Evening, Bob,
I cannot get new comments here...Good Evening, Bob,<br /><br />I cannot get new comments here to appear on my own computer, and I have not wanted to remake this blog in hopes of regaining that power. So if you want me to respond to your comment, submit it to another Venus/Earth-related post on my blog.Harry Dale Huffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03210275295826050501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post-88889210597595293582015-05-13T16:59:48.749-07:002015-05-13T16:59:48.749-07:00Harry , you definitely have found an interesting c...Harry , you definitely have found an interesting coincidence and present interesting data .<br /><br />But your presentation of a physical mechanism is incomplete to say the least . It does not provide a quantitative "audit trail" to the energy Venus absorbs from the Sun .<br /><br />The most fundamental value determining the temperature of a planet is simply the temperature corresponding to the energy the Sun supplies to their orbits . This is the equilibrium temperature for any gray , flat spectrum , ball in the orbit . It works out to ~ 279K for earth , and as you calculate , 1.176 that , or about 328K for Venus .<br /><br />By the most basic computations of radiative balance , any difference from that must be matched by a difference between the absorptivity of the planet's spectrum as seen from the outside , and its emission over the whole spectrum , in particular over the IR . See http://cosy.com/Science/HeartlandBasicBasics.html for a more detailed presentation of the computations . The divergence theorem implies that interior cannot have a mean temperature different than that computed for the surface .<br /><br />The Earth's estimated surface temperature , ~ 288K is about 1.03 time our orbital gray body temperature . Mercury and Mars are also within a few percent of the gray body temperatures in their orbits .<br /><br />Venus on the other hand has a surface temperature about 2.25 time the temperature of a gray ball next to it in orbit . And this is with by far the highest reflectivity wrt the Sun's spectrum of any inner planet .<br /><br />There is NO material spectrum which can produce such an enormous solar heat gain . <br /><br />It sounds like you claim that pressure , per se , can explain the increasing temperature with depth despite the fact that Venus's atmosphere is almost opaque at a rather high altitude . If pressure per se changed equilibrium temperature , we could just pump up scuba tanks and use them as permanent heat sources . <br /><br />As has been commented , despite its almost year long night , it dark side surface temperature is said to be about the same at its Sun side . I think in addition to even the preceding , this is strong evidence that Venus's surface temperature can only be explained in terms of an internal , ie , geothermal , heat source well insulated by its thick atmosphere .Bob Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12517889718518675999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post-50389515274905419002015-01-12T16:35:39.116-08:002015-01-12T16:35:39.116-08:00G'day again Harry
The ESA reports that the Ve...G'day again Harry<br /><br />The ESA reports that the Venus Express has found the cloud layer is between 40km and 60km above the surface of Venus.<br /><br />http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Venus_Express/Acid_clouds_and_lightning<br /><br />This means all of the Earth's tropospheric pressures occur within the Venus clouds. Therefore, provided you agree, you should correct some of the statements you have made (eg I found the RATIO OF TEMPERATURES, Venus/Earth, to be 1.176 (outside the cloud layer) ...). The good implication is that the 1.176 ratio applies within the clouds and at the top just beyond the clouds. The 600 to 300mb region showing a slight divergence from the ratio, remains speculative. Could this region have been in a temporary unbalanced thermal state at the time of the measurements? Is this divergence seen in the measurements taken at other dates, especially by the Venus Express some 20 years later?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post-26485446238798368802015-01-11T00:26:09.402-08:002015-01-11T00:26:09.402-08:00G'day Harry
Many thanks for your analysis and...G'day Harry<br /><br />Many thanks for your analysis and responses to those above. It has been very enlightening. My question: The pressure/temp data for Venus presented was a snapshot in time and place. Do you have further data which confirms the pressure/temp profiles as average values? Or is it your assumption that this snapshot of data is representative of a steady-state?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post-35440055142036019752014-08-21T12:55:53.368-07:002014-08-21T12:55:53.368-07:00Good Afternoon, Geoff,
First: I am unable to see...Good Afternoon, Geoff,<br /><br />First: I am unable to see the last few comments that have been posted here, including your question after I okayed its publication. If you don't see it and my response here, please e-mail me at newhdh@netzero.com; if I don't hear from you in a day or two, I will put your question up as a separate post, and ask people to comment on "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect" there from now on.<br /><br /><br />Your linked site gives Venus T(1 bar) as 360K, 21 K higher than the 339K +/- 1.4K indicated in the 1991 data I used. That seems like a large discrepancy. However, I received an article from another reader a few months ago (John Johnson) that displayed Venus profiles, taken in 1978-79, across a wide range of latitudes. The 1991 data I used was taken at 67N latitude, and I compared it with the Standard Atmosphere of Earth, which is explained as being appropriate for mid-latitudes (so apparently, 67N well qualifies as mid-latitude, since that Venus data agrees so precisely with the Standard Atmosphere). The 1978-9 data I have is also in the form of graphs--of altitude vs. temperature, not pressure vs. temperature as I would like to see. However, those graphs indicate the tropopause on each profile, and if that indication is precise and if the tropopause is at the same pressure for every latitude shown, then one can gauge the difference in temperature due to latitude. I calculated an average T(tropopause) from that older data, of about 257K (the site you referenced gives 250K for T at tropopause, by the way)--but the main point is that T(tropopause) for 67N latitude in that 1978-9 data is about 220K, fully 37K lower than the average across latitudes. Compare that with the 21K difference between the T(1 bar) value of 360K given at your linked site, and the 339K I found from the 67N 1991 data, and I think we can conclude that they must be reporting a "global average", over all latitudes, that is consistently 20-40K higher (at both 1 bar and at tropopause) than that at 67N, or "mid-latitudes". That is assuming that they used actual measurements, and not some model based upon the incompetent consensus theory. And frankly, I don't think that is a good assumption to make, since today's climate scientists seem religiously devoted to their failed models over real, measured data.Harry Dale Huffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03210275295826050501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post-47538644811267626522014-08-21T09:57:55.050-07:002014-08-21T09:57:55.050-07:00Hi Harry. Big fan of your easily explained compari...Hi Harry. Big fan of your easily explained comparison. I noticed the graphing is credited to Jon M. Jenkins, who I believe was responsible for the instrumentation that provided the soundings of the Magellan mission. Good solid data.<br /><br />However, irritatingly NASA have a page of planetary atmospheric parameters where a different value for Venus at T(1bar) is shown. The link is here. Would value your comments.<br /><br />http://pds-atmospheres.nmsu.edu/education_and_outreach/encyclopedia/atmospheric_parameters.htmGeoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18269671491587639699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post-16978587216810395862014-08-19T08:41:32.504-07:002014-08-19T08:41:32.504-07:00Jagataband,
First, to everyone: Blogger is not a...Jagataband,<br /><br />First, to everyone: Blogger is not allowing new comments to be displayed, even though it is allowing them to be submitted, and accepted by me. I do not yet know how I am going to deal with this situation, which I regard as unacceptable.<br /><br /><br />Jagataband, your comment of course does not pertain to what I have written, which is that the atmosphere is warmed by direct absorption of incident solar radiation (and the effect of the atmosphere, in the hydrostatic condition assumed in the Standard Atmosphere model--which the Venus/Earth comparison here precisely confirms--is merely to DISTRIBUTE the heat gained from the Sun in accordance with that condition, thus establishing the stable vertical temperature lapse rate structure). I know those who have set themselves in denial of the Venus/Earth comparison here have habitually used the inane position you have laid out; I have been waiting for some sign of intelligence among those on both sides of the climate debate, to forsake that inane (and, I think, insane) position.<br /><br />Your second point, I take it, refers to the fact that, inside the thick planetary cloud layer on Venus, the Venus temperature is about 5K LOWER than expected from the difference in solar distance alone; it is the difference from that expected temperature that goes negative inside the cloud, not the temperature itself. And as I have written many times over the last 3 and 1/2 years, the most likely reason for this localized cloud effect (it does not affect the temperatures above and below the clouds) is that the effective specific heat is increased within the clouds, due to the presence of liquid drops (of dilute sulfuric acid, reportedly) suspended in the atmosphere.Harry Dale Huffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03210275295826050501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post-71539127595885910112014-08-18T23:12:35.500-07:002014-08-18T23:12:35.500-07:00If you take a scuba tank that is empty (at ambient...If you take a scuba tank that is empty (at ambient pressure), and begin to pump air into it, thus increasing the pressure within, the air will heat up. But, when that pressurized tank is left to sit for a time, its temperature will equalize with its surroundings. Pressurized atmospheres don't just stay heated because they are pressurized. The idea that Venus is heated by its high atmospheric pressure delivering kinetic energy to the ground is equivalent to saying that Venus is heated by its own gravity...which is just crazy pants.<br /><br />Good stuff Mr Huffman. Something came to mind while I was reading~ regarding albedo at the cloud layers where your temps go slightly negative, but as I think about it more, its too much to go into here.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17250929829530583095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post-36926375306955703172014-08-18T13:46:45.323-07:002014-08-18T13:46:45.323-07:00Iceman,
Yes, all of that needs to be explained, ...Iceman, <br /><br />Yes, all of that needs to be explained, eventually. I am merely telling you that the entire surface of the Earth was deliberately re-formed, ten to twenty thousand years ago--how it was done, which is what you are concerned with, is mere detail at this point in human discovery, compared to the bare fact that it WAS done. The frontier of scientific knowledge has become wild and woolly again, and it is NOT safe to assume the validity of Milankovitch theory, or any other so-far recognized theory.Harry Dale Huffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03210275295826050501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post-85177647068759640652014-08-17T16:46:23.091-07:002014-08-17T16:46:23.091-07:00OK, but all that ice is there and it seems to have...OK, but all that ice is there and it seems to have built up in cycles. Something has to explain why it looks the way it does. There is evidence all over the earth of vastly different sea levels. At time it was high enough to strand whales in what is now desert and leave shark teeth to be found hundreds of feet above sea level. And Woolly Mammoths are still being pulled out of the permafrost. This is all evidence that has to be explained somehow, isn't it?Icemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12131418397828142829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post-6083602746227263172014-08-17T12:17:19.169-07:002014-08-17T12:17:19.169-07:00Good Afternoon, Iceman,
On the basis of the world...Good Afternoon, Iceman,<br /><br />On the basis of the world-encompassing (in fact, solar system-encompassing) design I found behind all of the exoteric "ancient mysteries" of man on Earth, I give no credence at all to any of the current consensus theories of any of the earth and life sciences, founded as they are on uniformitarianism (i.e., supposing that the only forces that have acted on our world in the past are just those observable today) and long-unquestioned scientific dogma (primarily in the theory of undirected evolution, for the past century and a half, and in plate tectonics for about the past 40 years). I am convinced there is not only no greenhouse effect, but much wider afield, there are no such changes in the Earth's orbit or axial tilt as imagined in the Milankovitch theory, and there have been no global "ice ages" in the past. (And most fundamentally, there has been no substantial undirected evolution, and no substantial undirected continental movements due to "plate tectonics".) The global mean surface temperature has been quite stable for the last 10,000 years, and that is just the length of time since the great design was finished. So I don't deal in theories, and I have merely entered the climate science mess because I was easily able to get to the bottom of the mass incompetence involved in it, and felt that should be forcefully pointed out to everyone.Harry Dale Huffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03210275295826050501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post-42052944959366253902014-08-16T15:44:23.997-07:002014-08-16T15:44:23.997-07:00Harry, I believe your proof is correct, but I woul...Harry, I believe your proof is correct, but I would like to direct you to another issue on which I think the consensus is also completely wrong. That is the 100k year cycle of ice ages derived from ice core records. It is my belief that the ice core records have been misinterpreted as continuous records of past climate when they are not. <br /><br />From my calculations they reveal a 327,000 year cycle during which time ice grows and melts leaving behind about 100k years worth of ice. As we are currently in the middle of this cycle, the most recent peak would have been one quarter of the cycle, or about 82,000 years ago, and the earth has been cooling ever since. The temperature swing of this cycle is about +9C to -9C, leaving what are now called "interglacial" tips at about +3C.<br /><br />So what makes the ice core temperature record looked so jagged and weird is that it is made up of three factors: 1) Milankovitch cycles 2) A 327k year cycle swinging a full 18 degrees C, and 3) the periods of melt and grow leaving behind only a third of the full circle. The sections of the ice core record that depict the earth shooting out of ice ages are currently explained by mythical triggers, tipping points and feedback loops as relates to the "greenhouse effect", which we know isn't real. You can find my blog at:<br /><br />www.theiceageishere.blogspot.com<br /><br />Enjoyed reading your blog, and I would appreciate your thoughts.Icemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12131418397828142829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post-26236285750248417882014-06-16T11:58:31.245-07:002014-06-16T11:58:31.245-07:00Good Afternoon, Andyj,
If you read my other posts...Good Afternoon, Andyj,<br /><br />If you read my other posts, on the subject of climate science, you will find I have been aware of the points you raise, even before I performed the Venus/Earth comparison here, 3 and 1/2 years ago--the consensus scientists' dismissal of any criticism of their work on theoretical grounds, and their disdain even for such hard facts as the then-10-year long period of no recent global warming, is in fact what drew me to perform the Venus/Earth comparison, of the measured temperature and pressure profiles of Venus against the Standard Atmosphere of the Earth, with such precise and definitive results against the consensus theory.<br /><br />With regard to "previous life turning water and CO2 into rock", I will merely say here that this blog is meant to inform the world of my discovery, and thorough verification, of a deliberate re-formation of the surface of the Earth, and the entire solar system, by those known now only as the "gods" of ancient worldwide myth--so they, I know, were responsible for much of the rock that current science thinks the result of known geological processes, and not over millions of years but thousands at most (the Earth re-formation was done between roughly 20,000 and 10,000 years ago).<br /><br />As for comparing the Standard Atmosphere with other planetary atmospheres--which I encourage others to do, anyway, whether I do it or not--as I have mentioned in earlier comments here, the results are not as precisely in tune with the Standard Atmosphere and the solar distances involved as is Venus, and so they are not as definitive as Venus/Earth is--I don't want to give anything away on that score to consensus scientists, unless or until they properly confront and accept the Venus/Earth results as I have given them.Harry Dale Huffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03210275295826050501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post-68478772700954755952014-06-16T05:50:58.553-07:002014-06-16T05:50:58.553-07:00Hello Mr. Huffman.
Stumbled upon this blog page ro...Hello Mr. Huffman.<br />Stumbled upon this blog page routing around over unifying planetary atmospheric temperatures to pressure.<br />A most interesting subject.<br /><br />It matters not how well you blow the deniers of no global warming down with real numbers. They pop up a minute later with the same old misconceptions and assumptions to argue it all over again.<br /><br />Sure adding gas mass to the Earth will warm us up but our efforts barely register against previous life turning water and CO2 into rock.<br /><br />Considered extending this page to include other planets?Andyjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11910687437796998340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post-22122334927149853022014-03-18T17:56:25.185-07:002014-03-18T17:56:25.185-07:00Some interesting conversation going on at TallBlok...Some interesting conversation going on at TallBlokes site here. http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/03/11/effective-emission-height/ <br />Hope you are doing well. ewodarzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09173960672789012866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post-48570236536450817772014-03-09T20:06:24.988-07:002014-03-09T20:06:24.988-07:00John Johnson has pointed out there is another typo...John Johnson has pointed out there is another typo in my response to him above. The Standard Atmosphere equation for the pressure as a function of temperature in the troposphere region is<br /><br />ln (P/Po) = 5.2559 ln (T/To).<br /><br />John, I received your further comments, but they do not change my initial response to you. The Venus/Earth comparison here is a simple comparison of Earth's Standard Atmosphere troposphere with the equivalent pressure range of MEASURED Venus atmospheric temperatures. There is no need to hypothesize or assume a model of any kind for the Venus atmosphere, and to do so only complicates the simple comparison. As I have done it, the comparison confirms Earth's Standard Atmosphere model, using the Venus observed data, very nicely; your way only introduces further assumptions and more variables, and thus improperly weakens appreciation for the measured Venus data as confirming of the Earth Standard Atmosphere.Harry Dale Huffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03210275295826050501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post-31566098465589421382014-02-26T16:56:29.271-08:002014-02-26T16:56:29.271-08:00Good Evening, Robert,
All of your arguments again...Good Evening, Robert,<br /><br />All of your arguments against the consensus theory were made long before I performed the Venus/Earth comparison given above, and they all had no effect at all upon the belief in that consensus--they were rejected, dismissed. I did the Venus/Earth comparison BECAUSE of that fact. So you are behind the times bringing them up here. The Venus/Earth comparison here demonstrates, as a fact--not theory--that there is no "greenhouse effect" at all, as theorized by the consensus. That is the fact, and all theory--all theoretical arguments--must bow to it. It is NOT just an "interesting idea"; to any competent physicist, it is a definitive fact, negating the consensus utterly.Harry Dale Huffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03210275295826050501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post-82400818188915098402014-02-26T14:20:21.580-08:002014-02-26T14:20:21.580-08:00You have an interesting idea.
I have long pondered...You have an interesting idea.<br />I have long pondered why proponents of the GHG idea claim that its outgoing IR radiation which is absorbed by CO2, when incoming IR in the 1,4 and 1.9 micron range is much more powerful, and should already have saturated CO2.<br /><br />There are also problems with the physics, as IR from Earth, absorbed and then back-radiated to the ground cannot possibly heat the ground. A heat source cannot warm further a sink at the same temperature as the heat source; thermodynamics forbids this.<br />Dr Robert Ian Holmes (aka 1000Frolly)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17896869426219278823noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post-60258893067263473842014-02-21T21:50:54.776-08:002014-02-21T21:50:54.776-08:00Second part,
(First, a correction of a typographi...Second part,<br /><br />(First, a correction of a typographical error in the above: I chose pressure values between 1,000 and 200 mb, in 100 mb steps.)<br /><br />Finally, I should correct you on your casual use of the term "coincidence", which is scientifically unsupportable and misleading. The precision with which the Venus/Earth temperature ratio agrees with what would be predicted from the solar distances alone (particularly above and below the Venus cloud layer) should tell anyone that it is very unlikely to be due to mere coincidence. Two further considerations should be enough to convince any reasonable person that it indeed cannot be mere coincidence: 1) Venus and Earth differ greatly in several major ways that would ordinarily be assumed (and in fact are assumed, by most) to have an effect upon the temperature, but which do not, at least in the case of Venus and Earth, according to my comparison. I have listed these many times, over and over; they vary tremendously in the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide, in the cloud cover and albedo, and in the nature of the planetary surface (they differ also in the total amount, or mass,of the atmosphere, but my comparison negates that by comparing temperatures at points of equal pressure in the two atmospheres). And 2), I knew before I performed the comparison that there was a simple physical explanation for the temperature profile of the troposphere, and that was the independence of the temperature lapse rate structure from any consideration of absorption or emission of radiation within the atmoshere, which the consensus theory insists upon focusing upon. Indeed, I performed the Venus/Earth comparison because I was frustrated that the lapse rate explanation, of applying simple energy conservation between adjacent levels in a hydrostatic atmosphere (i.e., an atmosphere for which the pressure at any given level is due to the weight of the atmosphere above that level) was not being understood as itself definitive against the consensus "greenhouse effect". As I have said, in a much earlier comment here, my comparsion only made it an obvious fact that there was no such effect. In short, then, what keeps the Venus/Earth temperature ratio from being a coincidence is that it is counter to what consensus theory would predict, by taking account of all those huge differences I've mentioned, and that it is already expected on the basis of the well-known physics of the lapse rate, which motivates the definition of the Standard Atmosphere. As I have also said over and over, my comparison basically confirms the Standard Atmosphere model (which takes no heed of a "greenhouse effect" at all).<br /><br />So don't call it a coincidence, with well-known, simple physics behind it, and no way of explaining it within the (incompetent) consensus theory and its many variables of merely assumed importance.Harry Dale Huffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03210275295826050501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post-58826141954746027222014-02-21T21:42:05.836-08:002014-02-21T21:42:05.836-08:00Good Evening, John,
I will divide my response int...Good Evening, John,<br /><br />I will divide my response into 2 comments.<br /><br />I have been waiting for over 3 years to see if someone would ask me these questions. Not that they are critical ones, but they are proper (though elementary), unlike the many incompetent responses you have referred to.<br /><br />The main point to understand is that I presented this analysis as a very quick and basic one--a "student level" analysis, as I called it--which I claim should have been done more than 20 years ago by competent scientists, or even by competent undergraduate students of climate science. I have said many times that it divides the incompetent from the competent, and so I have not wanted to change it, to "improve" it, lest the incompetents would use such changes to argue that it was not good enough in its original form; that would be a lie, and would detract from the simple science and simple physics I wanted to shine forth. But since someone has finally asked these scientifically pertinent, though small, questions, I will answer them:<br /><br />First, your suggestion, that I should assemble the incompetent responses, runs counter to my determination not to change the above post, or blur its focus with extended arguments from others. It is focused upon informing, both the public and the scientific community, of definitive evidence against the consensus climate science, not upon engaging in debate with those committed to denying any such definitive correction exists.<br /><br />Most simply put, I wrote this post for the public, but with the assumptions, method and interpretation of what I consider a competent scientist (myself), that should be easily and quickly grasped by any other competent physical scientist. Adding what you suggested would weaken that sharp focus, especially in the very tattered, in fact insane, intellectual atmosphere surrounding the climate "debate".<br /><br />As to your specific questions: 1) As noted in the post, I compared the Standard Atmosphere-defined tropospheric profile of Earth with the measured temperature and pressure profiles of Venus. The former is mathematically defined as<br /><br />ln (P/Po) = 5.2995 ln (T/To) (in the 1976 Std. Atm. model)<br /><br />with Po = 1013.25 mb and To = 288.15K,<br /><br />so one can obviously calculate P vs T to the nearest 0.1 (mb or K), or indeed to any accuracy one chooses. I chose to use P values between 1,000 and 200 mb in 200 mb steps, and calculated the corresponding T values, originally to more places than just the nearest 0.1K. I chose to truncate them, and the corresponding Venus T values, to the nearest 0.1K in presenting the final comparison, because that is all that is needed to present the comparison accurately, considering that the Venus values are in fact not accurate to within 0.1K--as I noted by giving the uncertainty in those values (+/- 1.4K). Frankly, I would expect any competent physical scientist to be properly trained on how best to present data, to be fair to both the scientifically trained reader and to the data itself. And as to question 2), my choice of 200 mb was indeed a fudge, in any final analysis, as the troposphere mathematically ends with 226.3 mb, approximately, not 200. But I'm not interested in being "perfect" here, just in dividing the competent from the incompetent, so I decided to present the 200 mb case as if it were in the troposphere (i.e., subject to the above defining relation), rather than present the awkward value of 226 mb at the tail end of my table (and graph). And that last point is in fact of secondary importance; the primary point is just how precisely the Venus/Earth temperature ratio agrees with that predicted from the solar distances alone, for the 1,000 to 700 mb range. The 200 (or 226) mb point merely indicates that the Venus profile closes the modest 5K gap with the Earth profile above the Venus cloud layer, and so tells us more about the effect of that cloud layer, which I claim is responsible for that 5K gap.Harry Dale Huffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03210275295826050501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post-13914353376728294202014-02-21T19:45:16.755-08:002014-02-21T19:45:16.755-08:00I received the following comment by e-mail, from o...I received the following comment by e-mail, from one John Johnson:<br /><br />Hello Harry Huffman,<br /><br />This is some very interesting data. You have found a quite amazing "coincidence" that should not be easily dismissed. I spent the last day reading the rebuttals to your finding and did find ALL of them incompetent, as you have said. Those responding seem incapable of understanding that you are simply presenting them a new piece of data to be explained by their models and it seems extremely unlikely (to a non-expert in this field, me) that this datapoint can be consistent with a CO2 induced greenhouse effect. <br /><br />I expected to find at least one response providing predictions of what relationship should exist between venus and earth atmosphere temp/pressure profiles according to current theory, but did not. <br /><br />It may be helpful to others who come across this site if you gathered all the rebuttals existing and put them in one place so that new readers can more easily grasp the scope of who has attempted to respond to your new data point, along with the incompetence of those who have responded.<br /><br />The situation reminds me of the "redshift controversy" begun by Halton Arp. In that case there are a number of "coincidences" that result in apparently connected objects with vastly different redshift values which would seem to falsify the theory that redshift is only due to doppler effect. The big bang theory relies on these being coincidences. For example see:<br /><br /><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGC_4319" rel="nofollow">this wikipedia page</a><br /><br />It seems that your datapoint will be treated the same until someone has a model that can explain it along with many other observations. I suspect there are competent researchers who have read your work and are attempting to do this silently.<br /><br />Finally, I have attempted to validate the data on my own and got similar but not exactly the same results. I had a few questions:<br /><br />1) How exactly did you extract the data values from the source charts (to the nearest 0.1 does not seem possible to me), and are you aware if a source data table for the venus data is available anywhere?<br /><br />2) The sources I have seen for US standard atmosphere do not agree with your temperature value at 200 mbar. The lowest temp in the troposphere in this model appears to be 216.65 K by definition. See the graphs on <a href="http://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/graphs.htm" rel="nofollow">this page</a> for example.Harry Dale Huffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03210275295826050501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post-88394914433889154112014-01-11T09:48:04.393-08:002014-01-11T09:48:04.393-08:00"I won't address your CO2 experiment idea..."I won't address your CO2 experiment idea, because with the Venus/Earth temperature comparison it is unnecessary"<br /><br />Yes - point taken!!<br /><br />regards,<br /><br />William<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />many thanks for your reply.<br /><br />William.williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05960834231015865831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post-73275464631405855292014-01-11T09:23:34.053-08:002014-01-11T09:23:34.053-08:00Good Morning, William,
I expect you can find out ...Good Morning, William,<br /><br />I expect you can find out more about the surface of Venus by searching on the internet yourself, but I will tell you the little I know. The Russians got dim pictures of the surface when they sent a landing probe there, and it was solid and, as I recall, with small rocks visible. I also have seen radar images of the surface which, while they looked like molten gold (very beautiful), in fact showed a rolling-hill terrain, so quite solid. This would be expected, with the surface temperature only about 900 °F (463°C, about). I also have an image of Venus from space that shows a large scar across the surface--across most of the apparent diameter of the planet, and quite like a similar, well-known gigantic scar on Mars--which wouldn't be there if the surface were molten. It rather looks like both Mars and Venus were prominently, deliberately, slashed to show they were now dead, and implying they once supported life. (Remember, you heard it here first.)<br /><br />I won't address your CO2 experiment idea, because with the Venus/Earth temperature comparison it is unnecessary. When I say that comparison is definitive against the "global warming greenhouse effect" (as I have said continually for the last 3 years), I mean it--there is no need for further experiment, the consensus greenhouse effect is definitively disproven by it. I am amused that people still want to "simulate" the Venus atmosphere, when we have the data from the actual Venus atmosphere, and an "experiment" (comparison with Earth's Standard Atmosphere) involving two detailed, real atmospheres. It's a bit like someone saying, "yes, that's great steak, but try these soy cube substitutes." Definitive evidence from the real thing is not good enough for you?Harry Dale Huffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03210275295826050501noreply@blogger.com