Slashdot Mirror

It isn't. It's about 30 K off. Plus due to [a] 1 atm being substantially below the cloud layer, and [b] most of the light being reflected, if this were correct it would make no sense.

Earth temp is 287-288 K, Venus is 336 K at 1 ATM and about .72 AU from the Sun. Do the math. Either Venus should be cooler, or Earth should be warmer, but either way the math doesn't work out. Plus, if you look at the temp/pressure profiles for Earth and Venus graphed on top of each other, they look nothing alike.

It's not coincidence. The relation that you're pointing out is flat-out false, and there's no way to support the general idea without throwing out a ton of empirical evidence. Like that most of the sunlight hitting Venus bounces off, which is why it looks so bright. If the only things in your delusion that affect planetary temperature are pressure and distance from the sun, you're going to have your work cut out for you because most of the Venusian atmosphere receives less energy from the Sun than the equivalent part of Earth's atmosphere.

Stay off the crack rocks and the denier websites.

It isn't. It's about 30 K off. Plus due to [a] 1 atm being substantially below the cloud layer, and [b] most of the light being reflected, if this were correct it would make no sense.

Earth temp is 287-288 K, Venus is 336 K at 1 ATM and about .72 AU from the Sun. Do the math. Either Venus should be cooler, or Earth should be warmer, but either way the math doesn't work out. Plus, if you look at the temp/pressure profiles for Earth and Venus graphed on top of each other, they look nothing alike.

It's not coincidence. The relation that you're pointing out is flat-out false, and there's no way to support the general idea without throwing out a ton of empirical evidence. Like that most of the sunlight hitting Venus bounces off, which is why it looks so bright. If the only things in your delusion that affect planetary temperature are pressure and distance from the sun, you're going to have your work cut out for you because most of the Venusian atmosphere receives less energy from the Sun than the equivalent part of Earth's atmosphere.

Stay off the crack rocks and the denier websites.

I said it had an earth like temperature at around 1 atmosphere.

The gray line on that graph is 1 atmosphere of pressure. The orange line is 98 degrees F.

Which is 22 K higher than the global average temperature of Earth. Bacteria might survive at those temperatures but humans won't. Keep on going up a few more kilometers. The difference between 1 atm on Venus and human-liveable temperatures is about the same as the height difference between Earth sea level and Mt Everest, not LA and Denver. It still doesn't support your argument either way.

The point I was making is that all these worlds including Mars enjoy temperatures NEAR earth's atmospheric norms at one atmosphere and the biggest contributor beyond that appears to be their proximity to the star.

It's nice to be able to hand-wave away any details, without producing an actual equation or taking into account any properties of any gases. Do note that we proved this theory to be at best incomplete in the last post. Also, including the words "Mars" and "one atmosphere" in that sentence is retarded. The only two planets whose atmospheres make sense to compare at 1 atm are Venus and Earth, and not only do they not have the relationship you're claiming, looking at the entirety of their atmospheric profiles makes it obvious that chemical composition makes a big difference, given that their profiles look nothing alike.

The CO2 doesn't appear to be doing anything to make Venus hotter then it would be if it had any other mix of gases.

Prove it. Show me the math. You admit that energy from the sun must be a factor, but everything else you say is ignoring that idea. If the atmospheric composition is irrelevant, why is Venus hotter than Mercury? How do you account for the difference in albedo for these two planets? What accounts for the wide differences in temperature at high altitudes? If chemical composition is irrelevant and pressure is responsible for the fact that neither Earth nor Venus are at their equilibrium temperatures, describe the results of the following experiment:

A box containing a transparent gas is exposed to a constant light source, and the temperature measured. It is then compressed, allowed to reach equilibrium temperature, and exposed to the same light again, and the temperature measured. What trend would you expect to see of the temperature measurements?

Your theory would suggest that we would see an increase in temperature. In the real world, where the chemical properties of gases matter, you observe no increase in temperature because the gas is transparent in the spectrum to which it is being exposed and the pressure is irrelevant. (To forestall an idiotic objection, heat generated from pressurizing a gas is ignored in the experiment because planetary atmospheres aren't being continually compressed.) If there is no greenhouse effect, why aren't Earth or Venus at the equilibrium temperature for objects of their size and albedo?

Really just stop. You're completely incoherent. Either find the source for this drivel, which has a hope of being stated in a non-contradictory way, give a mathematical description of your theory, or accept that science is not completely unable to describe the effects of atmospheric composition. Probably your best bet is to just look at this image until you figure out how stupid you are.

http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/...

You apparently don't know how to read that graph.

The gray line on that graph is 1 atmosphere of pressure. The orange line is 98 degrees F.

They're not 50km apart. They're 50km from the surface. I never said that Venus had an earth like environment at its surface. I said it had an earth like temperature at around 1 atmosphere.

Keep in mind, Venus is also a good deal closer to the Sun. If it matched earth temperature at 1 atmosphere then it would mean contrary to warming the planet, your mix of gases would be cooling the planet.

The point I was making is that all these worlds including Mars enjoy temperatures NEAR earth's atmospheric norms at one atmosphere and the biggest contributor beyond that appears to be their proximity to the star.

The CO2 doesn't appear to be doing anything to make Venus hotter then it would be if it had any other mix of gases. A nitrogen oxygen atmosphere would probably be all but identical if were as dense as Venus' and were as close to the star.

That was my point. People on your side like to point at Venus and say "that is what the earth would be like with run away global warming"... and its bullshit. Venus has a much denser atmosphere. That is why it is why it is so much hotter. Not because of CO2 and methane.

I didn't claim they were identical. I claimed that what differences were left were due to the distance from the star.

You managed to repeat yourself about seven times without saying what you meant. You are clearly confused about the subject, but it's nice how you can turn that around and claim it as someone else's problem.

It's good we're talking about just Venus now, because mentioning any other planets would make absolutely no sense. Mars' atmospheric pressure is .6% of Earth's at their respective surfaces, and most of the gas giants emit more energy from internal heating than they receive from the Sun, so if they fit your theory's temperature curve you would have a good deal of trouble to explain why.

What is more, if you look at the temperature of Venus by altitude, you'll find that if you go up in Vensus' atmosphere by about a mile... call it the difference between Los Angeles and Denver... temperatures become tolerable for humans.

Before you say something like this you might want to verify it. Because if by "about a mile" you meant "about 50 kilometers" You would have been a lot closer to being right.

But wait, there's more! We are now saying that the temperature at the same pressure (1 atm was given) should only depend on the distance to the star. Clearly, given the graph in the previous post, this would be a coincidence; the temperature profiles look nothing alike. But let's just see if the math works out. Venus is 339 K at 1 atm pressure, Earth is 288 K. So never mind about any of this pesky atmospheric physics stuff, in order to work out the temperature of one, we just need to know the temperature of the other and the ratio of their distances from the source. Starting with Earth...oh dear. That doesn't work out at all. Well I am sure it will work the other way around. Oh no! I'm afraid it's not looking good for this theory.

Which is good, because chemical composition makes a huge difference. Venus reflects most of the light that hits it; less than 10% reaches the surface. It also wouldn't make sense to throw out everything we know about atmospheric physics based on one data point. Why don't you take a minute to read about the reality of Venus' atmosphere, rather than spitting out mis-remembered and false talking points?

And yet, your computation ignores more factors (albedo) than mine therefore yours is even more foolish. And that's exactly the point of my computation, to show you're ignoring too many factors. And the fact your computation gives something close to reality is just a coincidence since you're ignoring an albedo of 0.75. It doesn't bother you to ignore that 3/4 of the light Venus receives is reflected directly back to space without heating Venus, only a fourth is absorbed. Do you understand anything about radiative Besides, looking at PressureTemperature, this doesn't work below 0.25 atm either. You're just cherry picking two planets on which the relation appear to work on a 0.25 to 1 atm when Venus atmosphere goes from 0 atm to 93atm. This is just luck and a coincidence. Conclusion, there is nothing to explain, it is a coincidence and unless you come up with a model explaining your computation, all this discussion is a waste of time.

Why can I simply multiply the temperature of the earth at 1 atm pressure by 1.176 to get the temp on venus at the same pressure?

Using the numbers from Venus Atmosphere Temperature and Pressure Profile:
Average Earth temperature: 14 degrees x 1.176 = 16 degrees Celcius
Average Venus temperature at 1 atmosphere (49.5 km above the surface): 66 degrees Celcius

It appears that you shouldn't be able to do so, and that's ignoring the question of whether the surface temperature on Earth should even be directly comparable to the temperature 49.5 km above the surface of Venus.

If you look at wireless signal strength maps like this http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/cell-air.htm you will see there are gaps in vertical coverage - where there's no signal. So I don't see how even any special equipment in planes can work with such low signal levels. (The old airfones used a different communication connection)

Venus already has a really effective 'shade' - the bond albedo (percentage of light from the sun it reflects) is 0.9 (90%). Compared to ~0.3 for Earth

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html

Venus is so hot at the surface mostly because the atmosphere is incredibly dense at the surface (93 times earth). In geneneral, as pressure increases in a planets troposphere, so does temperature. If you go deep enough into the gas giants (even Neptune), you will find very hot temperatures, at high pressures.

On Venus at 1 bar pressure, the temperature is actually not that far off of Earth http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm - (about 50 C = 122 F), hot, but not unmanageable if we could somehow put a floating colony there. You would have to seal the habitation anyway because the atmosphere is about 95% CO2.

So - you do understand what a theory is, right?

And if they're teaching it right, then they're also teaching that if verifiable evidence arises that contradicts it, that the theory is modified or thrown away.

Let's keep in mind that the deniers don't even want mention of the possibility that we humans just might be making a real mess of the eco system that we rely upon to exist. That might cut into profits.

PS: No, not everyone agreed with Einstein all the time.

http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/cellair-a.gif

Cell tower antennas are designed to get as much signal going horizontally as possible, with an implicit reduction in power vertically. That big empty whitespace above the tower in that graphic means you are safer 200 feet below a tower than the people in the buildings around you.

But those people still get more from their personal phones than they do from the tower.

This (and in fact the rest of the pages) offers some very useful pointers to people advocating Linux. To quote:

• As a representative of the Linux community, participate in mailing list and newsgroup discussions in a professional manner. Refrain from name-calling and use of vulgar language. Consider yourself a member of a virtual corporation with Mr. Torvalds as your Chief Executive Officer. Your words will either enhance or degrade the image the reader has of the Linux community.
• Avoid hyperbole and unsubstantiated claims at all costs. It's unprofessional and will result in unproductive discussions.
• A thoughtful, well-reasoned response to a posting will not only provide insight for your readers, but will also increase their respect for your knowledge and abilities.
• Don't bite if offered flame-bait. Too many threads degenerate into a ``My O/S is better than your O/S'' argument. Let's accurately describe the capabilities of Linux and leave it at that.
• Always remember that if you insult or are disrespectful to someone, their negative experience may be shared with many others. If you do offend someone, please try to make amends.
• Focus on what Linux has to offer. There is no need to bash the competition. Linux is a good, solid product that stands on its own.
• Respect the use of other operating systems. While Linux is a wonderful platform, it does not meet everyone's needs.
• Refer to another product by its proper name. There's nothing to be gained by attempting to ridicule a company or its products by using ``creative spelling''. If we expect respect for Linux, we must respect other products.
• Give credit where credit is due. Linux is just the kernel. Without the efforts of people involved with the GNU project, MIT, Berkeley and others too numerous to mention, the Linux kernel would not be very useful to most people.
• Don't insist that Linux is the only answer for a particular application. Just as the Linux community cherishes the freedom that Linux provides them, Linux only solutions would deprive others of their freedom.
• There will be cases where Linux is not the answer. Be the first to recognize this and offer another solution.

A classic case of this would be Twitter, who in the rare moments when he does come out with something constructive and insightful, tends to ruin any credibility by creatively misspelling Microsoft and Windows.

Naturally that is his prerogative, but the decision to do that, which he (and others) take, do not particularly help the advocacy of Linux.

I call shenanigans all over that. It's not some vast conspiracy of SUV-loving, gas guzzling eco-terrorists that keeps things as they are

> free software is morally superior

Software is values-free. What makes free software "morally superior" is the _opinion_ of clueless advocates who need to read the Advocacy HOWTO instead of chanting FUD and BS to any criticism. These people (and I number the parent among them) never quite get that it is _they_ who contribute most to free software's "rebel image", not whether some OEM ships with systems running Linux.

And speaking of where free software fails to deliver: I have yet to see many free software projects pay much attention to attributes that the market has repeatedly wanted-- things like backward compatibility and ABI compatibility, integration and user experience (especially in UI). And fit-and-finish. When I raise these issues on message boards and IRC, I get waved away. But these are the things the market wants, and you can't wave the market away (oh you can try, and then wonder in puzzlement why people pay good money to run Windows).

I fail to see how this is new. I mean, there is a reason why someone thought it was necessary to write a Linux Advocacy HOWTO.

Of course, most of the people aren't developers or testers or document writers. Most of them seem to be people who don't contribute anything but lots of noise (I guess since they are incapable of contributing anything,they think they belong by threaten to harm anyone they perceive as a threat to the community')

And this isn't actually a new phenomenon specifically within the Linux community. Any community creates these kinds of people, whether it's OS/2, Amiga, Macintosh, Windows.

Still I'm not sure the community did anything wrong with O'Grady (having her removed from writing an inflammatory article on a Linux site seems reasonable), unless someone actually did threaten physical harm to her (for that person, she should report it to the police. We don't need those in the community in the first place).

...MS$ windoze..windoze...dumbasses...blokehead...
Sorry, my brain's built-in zealot-detector kicked in and censored your post. Did you actually have a point to make? Have you actually read the Linux advocacy mini-HOWTO?

They're similar in that they're both strategies. They're different in that Microsoft's strategy is just FUD. From the aforementioned link:

# Focus on what Linux has to offer. There is no need to bash the competition. Linux is a good, solid product that stands on its own.

This is very different from MS's objective. Also, they're spending money, we're not. On the other hand, enough Microsoft bashing... who gives two shits about what they're doing? Let's take it as a compliment that they see open source as a threat and quit our bitching.

They're similar in that they're both strategies. They're different in that Microsoft's strategy is just FUD. From the aforementioned link:

# Focus on what Linux has to offer. There is no need to bash the competition. Linux is a good, solid product that stands on its own.

This is very different from MS's objective. Also, they're spending money, we're not. On the other hand, enough Microsoft bashing... who gives two shits about what they're doing? Let's take it as a compliment that they see open source as a threat and quit our bitching.

Really, is the Microsoft memo so different from this and similar documents?

Organizations refine their marketing all the time. And incidentally, Linux and open source in general is the #1 threat to Microsoft... and also to Sun. I don't doubt there is a similar pro-Solaris, pro-SPARC, anti-Linux, anti-Intel memo within Sun's sales organization.

I managed to grab a copy!
--
Todd

Well, if you don't want to protest to the source, how do you want to approach the growing Microsoft problem?

If you want to promote Linux, read the Linux Advocacy mini-HOWTO.

Is there a site or a HOWTO that gives hints on how to start getting the upper management in a company thinking about alternatives like this?

Yup.

Linux Advocacy mini-HOWTO
Bad Linux Advocacy FAQ
Don Marti's "Linuxmanship"

I recommend "Linuxmanship" the most highly.

-Waldo Jaquith

My biggest personal gripe is how people spell Microsoft. Its M-i-c-r-o-s-o-f-t, not Micro$oft, MicroShaft, Micro~1 and the one-hundred and one other variations.

You wouldn't like it if people started calling Linux, GPOO/Linsux. It looks childish, immature, stupid and above all it drops your own personal credibility and the credibility of what you're trying to advocate below the ground.

Just don't do it.

--

Its "Windows", not "Windoze" or any other of the hundreds of creative offerings out there. Same as its "Microsoft" or "MS" and not "Microshaft", "Micro$oft" or "M$".

For gods sake, read this section in the Linux Advocacy HOWTO and apply what it says.

If we're going to advocate Linux, lets do it properly and not look like a bunch of 10 year old illiterate children. Stupid stuff like the above is more likely to do more harm than good.

--

Its "Windows", not "Windoze" or any other of the hundreds of creative offerings out there. Same as its "Microsoft" or "MS" and not "Microshaft", "Micro$oft" or "M$".

For gods sake, read this section in the Linux Advocacy HOWTO and apply what it says.

If we're going to advocate Linux, lets do it properly and not look like a bunch of 10 year old illiterate children. Stupid stuff like the above is more likely to do more harm than good.

--

Interesting question you pose about benefit, and motive. Who knows? Maybe they were just convenient scapegoats, or perhaps someone higher up had a vendetta thing going on. Hehehe, maybe it was retaliation by the govt for harboring Microsoft's World HQ ;)

(I wasn't in Seattle for the festivities, but a few close friends were...some of which are referenced by my .sig...)

__

Linux Marketing Project...hrm now there is a GREAT idea.I'd be game to work on that... provided that somehow the model could put a little food on the table though it would probably be an easy pitch to get funding from the Linux players you mentioned. Here's an article I found on Google abbout the Linux Advocacy Project and even a How-To.

A lot of people think that " Deja can do whatever it wants on its excellent service," but that's the result of a skewed outlook. The fact is that Deja is a very important and powerful business that controls the window through which its users look on the world, a power which they can easily abuse to trick users into making horrible mistakes. While adding a word or two to a post might seem to be a reasonable way to draw users towards companies that want to serve them, it also controls how those users comprehend the very fabric of the world wide web. I'm certainly glad that no such awful lies and manipulations are being visited on me by my MSN!

speaking of knowing anything about linux.

:)

--

Let's not forget Don McLean's seminal "American Pi" (often misspelt "Pie"). Lots of interesting info here .
Although it's a bit out of date, since it fails to mention the Linux revolution, even though that is clearly mentioned in the song ("do you have faith in God above, if the Bible tells you so" is a clear reference to Linus...)

It seems the real reason they only support the M$ and Mac OS's is the lack of financial software(Quicken or M$ Money) for other OS's .

Perhaps, after reviewing the Linux Advocacy HOWTO, a few friendly suggestions to INTUIT would help.

Something tells me M$ wouldn't be very interested.

You on the other hand should probably read the Linux advocacy mini-HOWTO. Then you should write a polite letter apologizing for your immature behavior. I suggest that the fellow Slashdot readers also write a short, carefully worded e-mail to to Microworkz and the misinformed news agencies.

Remember, it's easier to catch flies with honey than vinegar.