Please see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu1PicT0TMU

Below are lecture notes from a college course:

The greenhouse effect of Venus
From geometry, we can calculate the average solar flux over the
surface of Venus. It is approximately 661 W/m2.
Venus is very reflective of sunshine. In fact, it has a reflectivity
(or albedo) of 0.8, so the planet absorbs approximately 661 X 0.2 =
132 W/m2.
By assuming that the incoming radiation equals the outgoing radiation
(energy balance), we can convert this into an effective radiating
temperature by invoking the Stefan-Boltzmann law (total energy = _
T4). We find that T=220K.
But Venus’ surface has a temperature of 730K!!!
The explanation for this huge discrepancy is the planet’s greenhouse
effect.

The greenhouse effect of Earth
From geometry, we can calculate the average solar flux over the
surface of Earth. It is approximately 343 W/m2.
The earth has a much lower albedo than Venus (0.3), so the planet
absorbs approximately 343 X 0.7 = 240 W/m2.
By assuming that the incoming radiation equals the outgoing radiation,
we can convert this into an effective radiating temperature by
invoking the Stefan-Boltzmann law (total energy = _ T4). We find that
T=255K.
Earth’s surface has a temperature of 288K
While much smaller than Venus’ greenhouse effect, earth’s is crucial
for the planet’s habitability. Without the greenhouse effect, the
temperature today in Los Angeles would be about 0 degrees Fahrenheit.

On Aug 11, 8:17*pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
Please see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu1PicT0TMU

Below are lecture notes from a college course:

The greenhouse effect of Venus

--- Venus' perpendicular solar flux is ~2600 W/m2

From geometry, we can calculate the average solar flux over the
surface of Venus. It is approximately 661 W/m2.
Venus is very reflective of sunshine. In fact, it has a reflectivity
(or albedo) of 0.8, so the planet absorbs approximately 661 X 0.2 =
132 W/m2.
By assuming that the incoming radiation equals the outgoing radiation
(energy balance), we can convert this into an effective radiating
temperature by invoking the Stefan-Boltzmann law (total energy = _
T4). We find that T=220K.
But Venus’ surface has a temperature of 730K!!!
The explanation for this huge discrepancy is the planet’s greenhouse
effect.

The greenhouse effect of Earth

--- Earth's perpendicular solar flux is ~1350 W/m2

From geometry, we can calculate the average solar flux over the
surface of Earth. It is approximately 343 W/m2.
The earth has a much lower albedo than Venus (0.3), so the planet
absorbs approximately 343 X 0.7 = 240 W/m2.
By assuming that the incoming radiation equals the outgoing radiation,
we can convert this into an effective radiating temperature by
invoking the Stefan-Boltzmann law (total energy = _ T4). We find that
T=255K.
Earth’s surface has a temperature of 288K
While much smaller than Venus’ greenhouse effect, earth’s is crucial
for the planet’s habitability. Without the greenhouse effect, the
temperature today in Los Angeles would be about 0 degrees Fahrenheit.

Sagan basically went mad. Some attributed it to his sickness. He was a
regular guest on Johnny Carson until he climbed on the anti-nuke bandwagon
and basically flipped out. He was a productive Cornell astronomer until he
went mad.

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
Please see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu1PicT0TMU

Below are lecture notes from a college course:

The greenhouse effect of Venus
From geometry, we can calculate the average solar flux over the
surface of Venus. It is approximately 661 W/m2.
Venus is very reflective of sunshine. In fact, it has a reflectivity
(or albedo) of 0.8, so the planet absorbs approximately 661 X 0.2 =
132 W/m2.
By assuming that the incoming radiation equals the outgoing radiation
(energy balance), we can convert this into an effective radiating
temperature by invoking the Stefan-Boltzmann law (total energy = _
T4). We find that T=220K.
But Venus’ surface has a temperature of 730K!!!
The explanation for this huge discrepancy is the planet’s greenhouse
effect.

The greenhouse effect of Earth
From geometry, we can calculate the average solar flux over the
surface of Earth. It is approximately 343 W/m2.
The earth has a much lower albedo than Venus (0.3), so the planet
absorbs approximately 343 X 0.7 = 240 W/m2.
By assuming that the incoming radiation equals the outgoing radiation,
we can convert this into an effective radiating temperature by
invoking the Stefan-Boltzmann law (total energy = _ T4). We find that
T=255K.
Earth’s surface has a temperature of 288K
While much smaller than Venus’ greenhouse effect, earth’s is crucial
for the planet’s habitability. Without the greenhouse effect, the
temperature today in Los Angeles would be about 0 degrees Fahrenheit.



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Did someone mention Carl Sagan? ... hee, hee, hee ...



By some startling coincidence, politically active scientists often produce
computer models that generate results amazingly concurrent with the
scientists' political agenda.



Dr. Carl Sagan did it.



In the early 80s, Sagan (who was deeply involved in the peace movement)
produced the (Turco-Toon-Ackerman-Pollack-Sagan (TTAPS) model that predicted
a nuclear war would raise enough dust to blot out the sun and bring on a
"nuclear winter".



Nuclear Winter!

Wow!



The media ran with it, and you still hear the phrase used today. However,
the media somehow failed to report on critics of the TTAPS model, of which
there were many.



For example, Russell Seitz, Harvard Center for International Affairs, viewed
the TTAPS model as worthless, revealing that, to achieve the results Sagan
wanted, TTAPS had ignored factors such as the effects of day and night,
clouds, rain, the continents, and the oceans.



And George Rathjens of MIT dismissed TTAPS as, "... the worst example of the
misrepresentation of science in my memory."



Later, when the Soviet Union collapsed, looking for a new home, Sagan - as
did many others of his ilk - threw in with the eco-gang, where, during
Desert Storm, he raced from TV network to network, predicting that smoke
from the oil well fires would alter the climate enough to cause famine in
India.



Gee! I wonder how that prophesy panned out.



Besides Sagan, we have other eco-quack scientists, fellows like the
oft-quoted Dr. Steven Schneider, who has thumped the doomsday drum for
decades, and who has this novel approach to scientific integrity:



"... scientists should consider stretching the truth to get some
broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course,
entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary
scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of
any doubts we might have. ... Each of us has to decide what the right
balance is between being effective and being honest."



Or one might cite Dr. Paul Ehrlich, the Grand Old Man of Eco-quackery, for
forty years a most prominent doomsday campaigner, who has battled
ferociously to promote global warming, making an alarming case for the
immanent incineration of planet Earth. However, since the early Sixties,
with equal conviction, Ehrlich has also prophesied:



1.. The start of World War III on October 13, 1979.



2.. A new ice age. (More on the "ice age", later.)



3.. Massive starvation in India by the early 70s.



4.. Massive worldwide starvation by the 80s.



5.. Massive shortages of fuel and industrial raw materials by the 90s.



6.. The reduction of the population of the United States to 22.5 million
by 1999 because of famine and global warming.



Which prompts one to request from his disciples: please point out the
difference between your Dr. Ehrlich and The Man From Planet Crackpot.









Warmest Regards



Bonz0



"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."

Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville



"It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you
have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your
side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is
wrong. Period."

Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics



"A core problem is that science has given way to ideology. The scientific
method has been dispensed with, or abused, to serve the myth of man-made
global warming."

"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips



"Computer models are built in an almost backwards fashion: The goal is to
show evidence of AGW, and the "scientists" go to work to produce such a
result. When even these models fail to show what advocates want, the data
and interpretations are "fudged" to bring about the desired result"

"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips



"Ocean acidification looks suspiciously like a back-up plan by the
environmental pressure groups in case the climate fails to warm: another try
at condemning fossil fuels!"

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog...ly-exaggerated



Before attacking hypothetical problems, let us first solve the real problems
that threaten humanity. One single water pump at an equivalent cost of a
couple of solar panels can indeed spare hundreds of Sahel women the daily
journey to the spring and spare many infections and lives.

Martin De Vlieghere, philosopher

"... .- - .- -." wrote in message
...
Sagan basically went mad. Some attributed it to his sickness. He was a
regular guest on Johnny Carson until he climbed on the anti-nuke bandwagon
and basically flipped out. He was a productive Cornell astronomer until
he went mad.

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
Please see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu1PicT0TMU








Did someone mention Carl Sagan? ... hee, hee, hee ...



By some startling coincidence, politically active scientists often produce
computer models that generate results amazingly concurrent with the
scientists' political agenda.



Dr. Carl Sagan did it.



In the early 80s, Sagan (who was deeply involved in the peace movement)
produced the (Turco-Toon-Ackerman-Pollack-Sagan (TTAPS) model that predicted
a nuclear war would raise enough dust to blot out the sun and bring on a
"nuclear winter".



Nuclear Winter!

Wow!



The media ran with it, and you still hear the phrase used today. However,
the media somehow failed to report on critics of the TTAPS model, of which
there were many.



For example, Russell Seitz, Harvard Center for International Affairs, viewed
the TTAPS model as worthless, revealing that, to achieve the results Sagan
wanted, TTAPS had ignored factors such as the effects of day and night,
clouds, rain, the continents, and the oceans.



And George Rathjens of MIT dismissed TTAPS as, "... the worst example of the
misrepresentation of science in my memory."



Later, when the Soviet Union collapsed, looking for a new home, Sagan - as
did many others of his ilk - threw in with the eco-gang, where, during
Desert Storm, he raced from TV network to network, predicting that smoke
from the oil well fires would alter the climate enough to cause famine in
India.



Gee! I wonder how that prophesy panned out.



Besides Sagan, we have other eco-quack scientists, fellows like the
oft-quoted Dr. Steven Schneider, who has thumped the doomsday drum for
decades, and who has this novel approach to scientific integrity:



"... scientists should consider stretching the truth to get some
broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course,
entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary
scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of
any doubts we might have. ... Each of us has to decide what the right
balance is between being effective and being honest."



Or one might cite Dr. Paul Ehrlich, the Grand Old Man of Eco-quackery, for
forty years a most prominent doomsday campaigner, who has battled
ferociously to promote global warming, making an alarming case for the
immanent incineration of planet Earth. However, since the early Sixties,
with equal conviction, Ehrlich has also prophesied:



1.. The start of World War III on October 13, 1979.



2.. A new ice age. (More on the "ice age", later.)



3.. Massive starvation in India by the early 70s.



4.. Massive worldwide starvation by the 80s.



5.. Massive shortages of fuel and industrial raw materials by the 90s.



6.. The reduction of the population of the United States to 22.5 million
by 1999 because of famine and global warming.



Which prompts one to request from his disciples: please point out the
difference between your Dr. Ehrlich and The Man From Planet Crackpot.









Warmest Regards



Bonz0



"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."

Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville



"It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you
have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your
side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is
wrong. Period."

Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics



"A core problem is that science has given way to ideology. The scientific
method has been dispensed with, or abused, to serve the myth of man-made
global warming."

"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips



"Computer models are built in an almost backwards fashion: The goal is to
show evidence of AGW, and the "scientists" go to work to produce such a
result. When even these models fail to show what advocates want, the data
and interpretations are "fudged" to bring about the desired result"

"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips



"Ocean acidification looks suspiciously like a back-up plan by the
environmental pressure groups in case the climate fails to warm: another try
at condemning fossil fuels!"

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog...ly-exaggerated



Before attacking hypothetical problems, let us first solve the real problems
that threaten humanity. One single water pump at an equivalent cost of a
couple of solar panels can indeed spare hundreds of Sahel women the daily
journey to the spring and spare many infections and lives.

Martin De Vlieghere, philosopher

On 12 Aug, 04:17, Roger Coppock wrote:
Please see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu1PicT0TMU

Below are lecture notes from a college course:

The greenhouse effect of Venus
From geometry, we can calculate the average solar flux over the
surface of Venus. It is approximately 661 W/m2.
Venus is very reflective of sunshine. In fact, it has a reflectivity
(or albedo) of 0.8, so the planet absorbs approximately 661 X 0.2 =
132 W/m2.
By assuming that the incoming radiation equals the outgoing radiation
(energy balance), we can convert this into an effective radiating
temperature by invoking the Stefan-Boltzmann law (total energy = _
T4). We find that T=220K.
But Venus’ surface has a temperature of 730K!!!
The explanation for this huge discrepancy is the planet’s greenhouse
effect.

The greenhouse effect of Earth
From geometry, we can calculate the average solar flux over the
surface of Earth. It is approximately 343 W/m2.
The earth has a much lower albedo than Venus (0.3), so the planet
absorbs approximately 343 X 0.7 = 240 W/m2.
By assuming that the incoming radiation equals the outgoing radiation,
we can convert this into an effective radiating temperature by
invoking the Stefan-Boltzmann law (total energy = _ T4). We find that
T=255K.
Earth’s surface has a temperature of 288K
While much smaller than Venus’ greenhouse effect, earth’s is crucial
for the planet’s habitability. Without the greenhouse effect, the
temperature today in Los Angeles would be about 0 degrees Fahrenheit.

Isn't the atmospheric density on Venus about 90x that on Earth, and
much more co2 (nearly all). THis is not comparable to Earth.

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:17:01 -0700 (PDT), Roger Coppock
wrote:

Please see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu1PicT0TMU

Below are lecture notes from a college course:

The greenhouse effect of Venus
From geometry, we can calculate the average solar flux over the
surface of Venus. It is approximately 661 W/m2.
Venus is very reflective of sunshine. In fact, it has a reflectivity
(or albedo) of 0.8, so the planet absorbs approximately 661 X 0.2 =
132 W/m2.
By assuming that the incoming radiation equals the outgoing radiation
(energy balance), we can convert this into an effective radiating
temperature by invoking the Stefan-Boltzmann law (total energy = _
T4). We find that T=220K.
But Venus’ surface has a temperature of 730K!!!
The explanation for this huge discrepancy is the planet’s greenhouse
effect.

The greenhouse effect of Earth
From geometry, we can calculate the average solar flux over the
surface of Earth. It is approximately 343 W/m2.
The earth has a much lower albedo than Venus (0.3), so the planet
absorbs approximately 343 X 0.7 = 240 W/m2.
By assuming that the incoming radiation equals the outgoing radiation,
we can convert this into an effective radiating temperature by
invoking the Stefan-Boltzmann law (total energy = _ T4). We find that
T=255K.
Earth’s surface has a temperature of 288K
While much smaller than Venus’ greenhouse effect, earth’s is crucial
for the planet’s habitability. Without the greenhouse effect, the
temperature today in Los Angeles would be about 0 degrees Fahrenheit.

It I recall correctly, without CO2 Earth would be around 11f
degrees; without water vapor it would be vastly colder.


--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz

On 08/12/2010 11:42 AM, Giga2 wrote:
On 12 Aug, 04:17, Roger wrote:
Please see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu1PicT0TMU

Below are lecture notes from a college course:

The greenhouse effect of Venus
From geometry, we can calculate the average solar flux over the
surface of Venus. It is approximately 661 W/m2.
Venus is very reflective of sunshine. In fact, it has a reflectivity
(or albedo) of 0.8, so the planet absorbs approximately 661 X 0.2 =
132 W/m2.
By assuming that the incoming radiation equals the outgoing radiation
(energy balance), we can convert this into an effective radiating
temperature by invoking the Stefan-Boltzmann law (total energy = _
T4). We find that T=220K.
But Venus’ surface has a temperature of 730K!!!
The explanation for this huge discrepancy is the planet’s greenhouse
effect.

The greenhouse effect of Earth
From geometry, we can calculate the average solar flux over the
surface of Earth. It is approximately 343 W/m2.
The earth has a much lower albedo than Venus (0.3), so the planet
absorbs approximately 343 X 0.7 = 240 W/m2.
By assuming that the incoming radiation equals the outgoing radiation,
we can convert this into an effective radiating temperature by
invoking the Stefan-Boltzmann law (total energy = _ T4). We find that
T=255K.
Earth’s surface has a temperature of 288K
While much smaller than Venus’ greenhouse effect, earth’s is crucial
for the planet’s habitability. Without the greenhouse effect, the
temperature today in Los Angeles would be about 0 degrees Fahrenheit.

Isn't the atmospheric density on Venus about 90x that on Earth, and
much more co2 (nearly all). THis is not comparable to Earth.

The point is that although the conditions are quite different to earth,
Venus demonstrates that-
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas
2. The greenhouse effect works as predicted, with the radiation balance
at the top of atmosphere, and
3. The lapse rate, i.e. the atmospheric temperature gradient, propagates
the temperature downwards from the TOA, the temperature increase at
ground level being proportional to the thickness of the atmosphere.

In other words, Venus provides all the experimental proof you need.

T.

On 12 Aug, 17:08, Tom P wrote:
On 08/12/2010 11:42 AM, Giga2 wrote:



On 12 Aug, 04:17, Roger *wrote:
Please see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu1PicT0TMU

Below are lecture notes from a college course:

The greenhouse effect of Venus
*From geometry, we can calculate the average solar flux over the
surface of Venus. It is approximately 661 W/m2.
Venus is very reflective of sunshine. In fact, it has a reflectivity
(or albedo) of 0.8, so the planet absorbs approximately 661 X 0.2 =
132 W/m2.
By assuming that the incoming radiation equals the outgoing radiation
(energy balance), we can convert this into an effective radiating
temperature by invoking the Stefan-Boltzmann law (total energy = _
T4). We find that T=220K.
But Venus’ surface has a temperature of 730K!!!
The explanation for this huge discrepancy is the planet’s greenhouse
effect.

The greenhouse effect of Earth
*From geometry, we can calculate the average solar flux over the
surface of Earth. It is approximately 343 W/m2.
The earth has a much lower albedo than Venus (0.3), so the planet
absorbs approximately 343 X 0.7 = 240 W/m2.
By assuming that the incoming radiation equals the outgoing radiation,
we can convert this into an effective radiating temperature by
invoking the Stefan-Boltzmann law (total energy = _ T4). We find that
T=255K.
Earth’s surface has a temperature of 288K
While much smaller than Venus’ greenhouse effect, earth’s is crucial
for the planet’s habitability. Without the greenhouse effect, the
temperature today in Los Angeles would be about 0 degrees Fahrenheit.

Isn't the atmospheric density on Venus about 90x that on Earth, and
much more co2 (nearly all). THis is not comparable to Earth.

The point is that although the conditions are quite different to earth,
Venus demonstrates that-
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas

We knew that because of the structure.

2. The greenhouse effect works as predicted, with the radiation balance
at the top of atmosphere, and

Is there any water vapour feedback : ). No cause there's no water, it
all boiled off into space ages ago. So how does it prove AGW theory
for the Earth, that relies on a large WVF to produce anything
alarming?

3. The lapse rate, i.e. the atmospheric temperature gradient, propagates
the temperature downwards from the TOA, the temperature increase at
ground level being proportional to the thickness of the atmosphere.

Again with WV affects how is there any comparison to Earth (and no WV
clouds either)


In other words, Venus provides all the experimental proof you need.

T.

Giga2 wrote

Is there any water vapour feedback : ). No cause there's no water, it
all boiled off into space ages ago. So how does it prove AGW theory
for the Earth, that relies on a large WVF to produce anything
alarming?



| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on myself because I never
| provide evidence, just my insane opinions based
| on my abject ignorance, senility and stupidity.
| So far the scientists of the world have failed
| to convince me, a senile old science illiterate
| with no education and nothing to do all day but
| spout incoherent gibberish to satisfy my attention
| starved inferiority complex. I've never studied
| science, I never graduated high school. I'm simply
| a mentally ill, mentally dificient know nothing and
| a kook who eats my own **** because I can't afford
| food because I'm on government pension.



-----

There are three types of people that you can not talk into behaving well. The
stupid, the rightist religious fanatic, and the evil rightist.

1-The right wing stupid aren't smart enough to follow the logic of what you
say. You have to tell them what is right in very simple terms. If they don't
agree, then you'll never be able to change their mind.

2- the right wing religious fanatic If what you say goes against their
religious belief, they will cling to that religious belief even if it means
their death."

3- There is no way to reform evil Not in a million years. There is no way to
convince the right wing terrorists, anti-science anthropogenic global warming
deniers, serial killers, right wing paedophiles, and predators to change
their evil ways. They knew what they were doing was wrong, but that knowledge
didn't stop them. It only made them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil acts.