The world goes Green

[Zoe Phin 0]

olof,

But you said not to accuse you of suggesting that greenhouse effect delivers exactly what internal heat does. Yet here you are.

Is it also really hot 100 meters below the surface due to the greenhouse effect?

Does the greenhouse effect create 92 bars of pressure?

You'd have to be a moron to accept their explanation.

Boil some water. See the steam (water vapor)? Sunlight and backradiation from the steam caused the water to boil! You must NEVER mention the stove.

At the same pressure, and accounting for sun distance, the temperature of Venus and Earth is the SAME, despite the fact that Venus has 96% CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert-Holmes-6/publication/335927448_On_the_Apparent_Relationship_Between_Total_Solar_Irradiance_and_the_Atmospheric_Temperature_at_1_Bar_on_Three_Terrestrial-type_Bodies/links/5e11baa1299bf10bc390d6e0/On-the-Apparent-Relationship-Between-Total-Solar-Irradiance-and-the-Atmospheric-Temperature-at-1-Bar-on-Three-Terrestrial-type-Bodies.pdf

"The relationship between a resultant atmospheric
temperature at 1 bar and the atmospheric pressure / relative
TSI combination means that Earth’s average surface
temperature can be easily and accurately calculated by
measuring just two input factors; the temperature of the Venus
atmosphere at 1 bar, and the relative distances of these planets
from the Sun (i.e. the relative TSI of Earth and Venus)."

[olofscience 421]

7 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

There's Velikovsky's theory - Venus joined us later.

I actually looked this up (yes, I'm bored) and boy it is crazy

His theory is:

• around the 15th century BCE, Venus was ejected from Jupiter as a comet or comet-like object
• Venus must be rich in petroleum and hydrocarbon gases (it's not)
• "Velikovsky arrived at these proposals using a methodology which would today be called comparative mythology – he looked for concordances in the myths and written histories of unconnected cultures across the world" - i.e he used fiction, no hard evidence

You do know that before 15th century BCE, Venus was already known by ancient people in its current position right? Ancient Egypt was around way before that.

[olofscience 421]

5 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

and accounting for sun distance

If Venus' heat was mostly from internal heat, then you don't have to account for sun distance, right? So why?

You say one thing, then do something completely different, probably because it's bullshit.

Edited February 27, 2021 by olofscience

[billvon 2,400]

42 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

Bilvon,

I don't know where you got a temperature for your laser. How much power does it consume and what it the diameter of the beam?

Let's call it a 1 kilowatt laser, 1.5mm diameter beam.

Can you answer the question now?  Is it possible for a laser operating at 200C to heat a piece of metal to 5000C in order to cut it?  Can energy be transferred from the cooler laser to the hotter workpiece?

[Zoe Phin 0]

olof,

17 W/m^2 of sunshine still reaches Venus' surface.

At Pluto distance the surface would be 1 degree cooler.

Venus emits ~16,700 W/m^2 at the surface. This is gradually reduced as you move up the atmosphere (as it takes energy to create atmo pressure). Eventually it joins with the 2304 W/m^2 Peak Solar, or 576 W/m^2 24-hour averaged solar. Above that, solar dominates.

[Zoe Phin 0]

2 minutes ago, billvon said:

Let's call it a 1 kilowatt laser, 1.5mm diameter beam.

I don't know it's conversion efficiency. Let's say it's 50%, OK?

500 W / ( Pi * 0.00075 ^ 2) =

282,942,126 W/m^2

That's equivalent to 8400 K. That's quite hot.

What is your "operating temperature" actually describing? It's not describing the beam, that's for sure.

[olofscience 421]

7 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

olof,

17 W/m^2 of sunshine still reaches Venus' surface.

At Pluto distance the surface would be 1 degree cooler.

Venus emits ~16,700 W/m^2 at the surface. This is gradually reduced as you move up the atmosphere (as it takes energy to create atmo pressure). Eventually it joins with the 2304 W/m^2 Peak Solar, or 576 W/m^2 24-hour averaged solar. Above that, solar dominates.

So it's mostly solar then, you just contradicted yourself.

Thanks for admitting that you're wrong.

[billvon 2,400]

7 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

(as it takes energy to create atmo pressure). 

So you claim that if you have a lot of gas that you add to a rocky world, you have to add energy to the system to create pressure?  Without that energy, there will be no atmospheric pressure increase?  The gas will just - float above the atmosphere or something?

Again, take a science course.

[olofscience 421]

1 minute ago, olofscience said:

At Pluto distance the surface would be 1 degree cooler.

Then why did you have to account for sun distance? According to you it makes a difference of 1 degree.

Edited February 27, 2021 by olofscience

[billvon 2,400]

1 minute ago, Zoe Phin said:

I don't know it's conversion efficiency. Let's say it's 50%, OK?

500 W / ( Pi * 0.00075 ^ 2) =

282,942,126 W/m^2

That's equivalent to 8400 K. That's quite hot.

Nope.  The fiber will melt at those temperatures.  So it's guaranteed not to be 8400K.  Try again!

[olofscience 421]

8 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

282,942,126 W/m^2

That's equivalent to 8400 K. That's quite hot.

 

Absolute bullshit calculation. You can't convert W/m^2 to temperature. Those are completely different quantities.

Converting the weight of a car to watt hours makes more sense than that.

Edited February 27, 2021 by olofscience

[Zoe Phin 0]

1 minute ago, olofscience said:

So it's mostly solar then, you just contradicted yourself.

Thanks for admitting that you're wrong.

At 1 bar - mostly solar

At 92 bar - 99.9% Venus

2 minutes ago, billvon said:

So you claim that if you have a lot of gas that you add to a rocky world, you have to add energy to the system to create pressure?  Without that energy, there will be no atmospheric pressure increase?  The gas will just - float above the atmosphere or something?

Again, take a science course.

If the surface was 5 Kelvin, the 99.99% of the gas would fall down and be solid.

You do understand that atmo pressure runs in the opposite direction of gravitational pressure, right?

Want more atmosphere? Boil the oceans.

Randomly throw water vapor up, it will come down.

[billvon 2,400]

3 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

If the surface was 5 Kelvin, the 99.99% of the gas would fall down and be solid.

Nope, we are talking about Earth and Venus.  The temperature is not 5 Kelvin.  Try again!'

[Zoe Phin 0]

"You can't convert W/m^2 to temperature."

Wow. You don't qualify to sit at the adult table.

"Nope.  The fiber will melt at those temperatures."

Yeah ... how do you think the cut is created? lol

[Zoe Phin 0]

2 minutes ago, billvon said:

Nope, we are talking about Earth and Venus.  The temperature is not 5 Kelvin.  Try again!'

OK. Ask geothermal for ~16700 W/m^2, and you can get Earth to Venus. The ocean/land will emit all their gas.

But if you just throw up the gas without thermal support, they'll just fall down.

[olofscience 421]

8 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

"You can't convert W/m^2 to temperature."

Wow. You don't qualify to sit at the adult table.

"Nope.  The fiber will melt at those temperatures."

Yeah ... how do you think the cut is created? lol

Great, then show your calculation, please.

Bill, she just claimed to calculate the temperature of an electromagnetic wave.

Photon energy is measured in eV - electronvolts. Ever heard of this guy called Einstein?

Edited February 27, 2021 by olofscience

[olofscience 421]

12 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

At 1 bar - mostly solar

At 92 bar - 99.9% Venus

I meant out of the total heat flux. Why are there 2 answers? It's because you're completely making it up.

[murps2000 86]

5 hours ago, Zoe Phin said:

"For some reason, Venus’ surface temperature seems to be relatively uniform all around. It’s gotta be the retrograde rotation, right?"

It's internal.

http://phzoe.com/2019/12/25/why-is-venus-so-hot/

That's why it's so uniform.

What’s the story with Mercury? What is the source of its heat?

[Zoe Phin 0]

olof,

What's your next question?

Why does Mt Everest emit less than the Dead Sea? 

Why is there a lapse rate? Why does colder emit less? 

It just never stops.

Here's a handy calculator for your confusion:

http://mc-computing.com/Science_Facts/Temperature_Conversions.html

[Zoe Phin 0]

1 minute ago, murps2000 said:

What’s the story with Mercury? What is the source of its heat?

It's a dead rock solely dependent on solar for its surface temperature.

[olofscience 421]

15 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

Here's a handy calculator for your confusion:

A laser is not a blackbody radiator. Do you even know the formula that website uses?

And by the way, I'm not asking questions because I don't know this stuff, I'm asking questions because it shows how inconsistent and contradictory your logic is, and you're cooperating nicely. (Except for the brief period you ran away from answering)

 

(by the way, you still haven't answered why you had to account for sun distance, if sun distance doesn't matter for venus' temperature)

Edited February 27, 2021 by olofscience

[brenthutch 383]

Wow, settle down guys.  How about something with which we can all agree?
 Because of the fertilization effect of CO2 we live in a greener and more verdant planet.  

Edited February 27, 2021 by brenthutch

[Zoe Phin 0]

9 minutes ago, olofscience said:

A laser is not a blackbody radiator

That's irrelevant. The sun, at earth distance, is also not blackbody radiation. Same goes for a lightbulb at a DISTANCE.

The fiber will absorb the radiation and emit like a blackbody, not unlike Earth from the sun.

There is only ONE formula for converting between fluxes and temperature.

So how did they get 200C? What is that 200C actually describing? It's not the beam.

[olofscience 421]

2 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

That's irrelevant.

If it's irrelevant, then your entire point is irrelevant because IT'S THE BASIS OF YOUR ENTIRE CALCULATION. Thanks for admitting how irrelevant your point was.

So, still no answer why you had to account for sun distance huh? It must have a bigger effect than you're willing to admit.

[Zoe Phin 0]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.148.8430%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ved=2ahUKEwiZs6eAi4vvAhUP2FkKHaTKDOwQFjAMegQIIBAC&usg=AOvVaw07u252wQztYa7n57MqDWz0&cshid=1614464035653

This paper shows a 319W laser getting to 2000C.

Table 1. Figure 7 and 8.

Why would your first instinct be a denial of thermodynamics?