http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
The total CO2 on Venus, which is often blamed on its super-high temperatures via back-radiation, is only enough to increase the surface temperature of Venus by 10% according to the IPCC’s equations: http://chipstero7.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10...
The simple equations in that article are missing some things. The author balances energy radiated by a layer in the atmosphere with ONLY the absorbed solar radiation, which is wrong. Atmospheres are warmed from the top and the bottom. They can absorb infrared emitted from the Earth or they can be heated by convection, conduction and condensation of vapours brought from below. These must be added into the equations and they completely change the result. If that blogger is right, then clouds don't exist.
Venus' incredible temperatures are astonishing: much hotter than Earth, despite absorbing much less sunlight because even though it's closer to the Sun, about 90% is reflected. It has an incredible greenhouse effect.
Some of the strongest evidence for the physics of the greenhouse effect is from spectroscopy. This is where you split up the light into its different colours and measure how bright each colour is. Normal physics does an amazing job: satellites and aircraft scan the infrared light going through the air and find that for every colour, physics makes a great prediction (much better than 1% across much of the range).
No-one who denies the greenhouse effect has ever been able to explain the spectrum of light we measure at every level in the atmosphere. They just refuse to talk about it. When normal physics explains the observations near perfectly, and blog physics can't explain these observations at all, it seems more likely that normal physics is doing a better job than blog physics.
Here are some studies showing the spectra measured on Earth versus calculations from normal physics:
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/el...
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.10...
http://smsc.cnes.fr/documentation/IASI/P...
I don't think Venus is the poster child for Global warming. One of the big differences between Venus and Earth is the magnetosphere. The key is the magnetic field is much weaker allowing the suns radiation to interact with the atmosphere. Also, the symptom of lack magnetic field may indicate the crust of venus is no longer active and the core is interacting with the surface. I'm not expert but, I can direct you to all sort of authoritative sounding articles that are sure to impress.
I am not sure I buy this explanation entirely, BUT I certainly do not buy the explanation of the warmers here. Some seem of the opinion that the pressure does not change the temp at all. If our atmosphere was entirely nitrogen it would make no difference if the pressure here were 1 atm. or 50 atm. That is absolutely absurd.
Can the same technique be used to determine the temperature of Mars?
This is only true if you assume that the only influence on climates (temperatures) on Earth or Venus is the sun.
Anyone with a basic understanding of climate (such as my ten year old daughter) however can tell you that that assumption would be wrong.
So NO temperatures on Venus do not have a direct correlation to Earth's climate.
You still haven't explained by your "non-greenhouse" ideas why the temperature of the Earth is not millions of degrees. That's what I get by your logic if I extrapolate the temperatures of the thermosphere downward.
No. But it seems that you are consistent. And, it seems that the anti-AGW crowd has latched onto a new excuse to deflect attention from global warming. That is the same excuse you used a couple days ago. It hasn't suddenly become any more rational.
The person to whom you linked claims that there is no greenhouse effect. That claim is contradictory to the laws of thermodynamics. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases absorb infrared. Doing so causes heating.
Great article
no ice core data does try dome C or D.
Hmm I found someone else who thinks the same way I do.
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
two wrongs don't make it right.
