But I'll try.
There is heat radiating away from Venus, all the time. There is also heat coming in from the sun, all the time.
If the atmosphere of Venus wasn't very good at holding in heat, it would quickly cool to perhaps a little warmer than the Earth. It would, at least, be cooler than the average temperature of Mercury (around 127C/260F, Venus is around 462C/863F).
If the heat of Venus was just from some long-ago cosmic event, then it would be gone by now. Venus only remains as hot as it does because it only emits as much energy as it absorbs. The reason it doesn't emit much energy is because it's all being bounced around by the thick CO2 atmosphere. That's the "thermos bottle" that your "skeptic" is talking about. In other words, he's just talking about the greenhouse effect using different words.
I wonder what that poster thinks the "Thermus flask effect" could be. I would think that it would be an insulation effect. In other words, the poster has coined a term which is synonymous with the greenhouse effect.
And of course, his idea of the temperature of Venus being independent of the Sun is complete nonsense. If you put liquid nitrogen in a Dewar flask, which is very much like a Thermos bottle, you have to let vapor escape. If you don't, because a Dewar flask is not a perfect insulator, the nitrogen will warm and evaporate. If the vapor is not allowed to escape, the Dewar flask will eventually explode.
Also nonsense from denialists is the idea that Venus is hot just because the pressure is high.
Kano
The greenhouse effect is insulation.
The average denier here seems to have no real understanding of even basic science principles.
i.e. see kanos' answers (any of them)
Earth has an atmosphere measured at 1 bar (our atmosphere is the unit of measure) of which just 1% is greenhouse gases which contributes about 30c to our temperature, the atmosphere holds onto the heat we have even at the poles although they may be cold (very cold) with out sunlight they are still far warmer than the night side of the Moon. Then you have the Earth albedo, 0.367, the measure of how much of the Sun's energy we reflect away to space before it even reaches the surface.
Venus by comparison is 92 bar over 90 times higher, and 96% is Co2, add to that cyclonic winds within the atmosphere. it has almost no axial tilt (that cause seasons on Earth) and it's orbit is more circular than Earths also help to keep it at more stable temperature.
We know that a little of the Suns energy reaches the surfaces as we have sent probes there (once we built them well enough to survive the crushing atmosphere)
By it nature the much thicker atmosphere most made of greenhouse gases is going to hold onto the Suns energy far longer and more efficient than ours does, and the high velocity winds in that atmosphere will spread that energy around the planet.
Also the added energy from volcanoes would also play a part, on Earth such energy is quickly lost to space, but on Venus it would also be retained far longer. As for the energy of "formation" still being trapped Venus is thought to have been far more like Earth in it earlier history, probably with liquid oceans, for water to have existed it would have had to be far cooler than it is now.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12...
A thermos (or Venus) still loses heat (energy) but it's atmosphere drastically slows the process of loss, for Venus that loss is countered by the Sun adding energy back and the even temperature is caused by those drastic atmospheric winds moving that energy around the planet. The Sun would add much much less energy to the atmosphere of Venus (near the surface) than it does on Earth but here again the much higher Co2 content and pressure mean far less energy is needed to maintain the high temperature. The surface brightness of Venus is described as similar to Earth on a very cloudy day, so quite clearly some energy is reaching the surface.
Watching deniers try to explain away the greenhouse effect is always sad to watch, but when they try to use Venus it becomes quite obvious just how far out of their depth they really are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus#Atmos...
He appears to be unteachable on this subject. He thinks that nearly constant day and night temperatures--clear evidence for a strong greenhouse effect--is evidence against it. He thinks Venus is like a Thermos bottle, but I don't think he has any idea how Thermos bottles insulate.
A characteristic of true deniers (rather than skeptics) is that they don't let facts interfere with their mistaken beliefs.
He named his "effect" for an insulation property that depends on vacuum, not notably present in Venus' atmosphere.
He can't explain how it might work.
It goes along with his belief that CO2's effects can be logarithmic yet only made a significant difference on Earth when the concentration was smaller than it is now.
In short - if either physics or mathematics interferes with his beliefs, it's the math and physics that has to be wrong.
Venus sidereal day is 243 earth days, because it rotates so slowly, so you would expect a big rise in daytime temperatures if there was solar warming.
Also the polar regions would be cooler the same as on Earth and Mars but they are not.
Doesn't look like the sun has much influence on Venus's surface.
Edit
Climate Realist. Insulation and greenhouse effect are totally different as you know solar rays heat earths surface and long wave infrared from the surface is absorbed and redirected by CO2
Edit
Clearly there is heat in, into the upper atmosphere, but that is not greenhouse effect, solar energy must heat Venus surface for greenhouse effect, and it doesn't
IN 2008 I proved to 350 million and the 43,000 scientists that ex-President Bush hired to find the cause and solution that all non solids that rise up into the upper atmosphere separate into nothingness, therefor if gases rise, then Nature's chemical separate all non solids and keep the upper atmosphere clear so the suns rays continue to grow almost all life on earth. The 43,000 scientists had a survey in Oregon and all agreed that man was'nt responsible for the cause of Global Warming and told BUSH, but Bush purposely lied to everyone for voting in a muslim, So he tried to tell all the leaders at a whitehouse summit, but my secret clearance and secret web site told almost all the Leaders the real truth and they confronted Bush on that. So Bush purposely lied by telling everyone that the environment was to blame= mainly humans caused it, when he knew they did'nt. A few years later a Television Station from Ohio hired specialists to examine Natures chemicals in the upper atmosphere and found my facts to be absolutely TRUE. /Civilian Global Command of all Global Teams from all walks of life. Mike
A number of times, a prolific poster claimed that "Venus is not demonstrating the greenhouse effect because it's daytime and nighttime temps are the identical (737K) it's what I call the Thermus flask effect, no heat in no heat out"
In effect that the heat is from the formation of the planet or unknown heat generated inside the planet and is retained like in a Thermos insulating bottle and is independent of the sun.
what possible simple explanation would convince this 'skeptic' that this cannot happen?
