Your specific question was about Venus, which I found the answer for (and nothing of interest to dispute it).
The answer you regurgitated made the bold claim that because Earth and Venus happen to share a ratio when you plug a single figure into the equation that proves it to all experts. If you want to use that answer you're going to have to defend it.
The original link was about Jupiter, which confirms the same basic physical equations. So that's 3.
I've checked the figures, your link claims a temperature of 400K at 11 atm, yet the Galileo Probe reported 426K at 23 atm, so something doesn't match up there if there's such a simple ratio. The original article is behind a paywall so who knows what stipulations the temperature data had, or if they're even repeated accurately.
But there are a limited number of planets we can get this kind of data on, only one sun, and everything you're arguing is based on a sample size of... let's see... 1.
So your answer is that, because we only have one planet to test on, we should try large scale experimental geo-engineering on it that 90+% of scientists think will be bad for it? Are you insane?
It's shown to be completely irrelevant to the calculation of temperature at specific pressure, which also has been measured, and fits the equations of Mr. Huffman.
Those calculations were based on the total power incident from the Sun, but by choosing to compare atmospheres at 1atm he's using an altitude on Venus of 50km. The cloud cover on Venus starts at 60-70km altitude, so the power incident reaching 50km will be affected by the cloud's albedo so you have to take it into account. Not to mention the obvious fact that if that radiation is measured being reflected away from Venus it means it can't physically be adding to the energy of the atmosphere.
But the correlation in recent times between CO2 concentration and temperature changes just doesn't track very well.
Source for the figures you're basing that on?
Any "expert", upon seeing this amazing result, should quickly have realized it means both atmospheres must absorb the same fraction of the incident solar radiation, and be warmed only by that fraction.
Yes, given a sample size of 2 we've found a case where we have found a simple ratio that happens to match. Now, how does that prove there is a strong correlation between the single variable it's based on? Given a sample size of 2?
Next up the original author of that paragraph may not feel the need to even "consider albedo", but albedo is not some theoretical atmospheric model, it is an actual, measurable value. The total amount of electromagnetic radiation being scattered away from Venus has been measured to be 75%. The total amount of electromagnetic radiation being scattered away from Earth has been measured to be 30%. The fact that this radiation has been scattered away into space means that it, by definition, cannot be being absorbed by the atmosphere.
Now I can't see any answer to that in the post you're sourcing from, so you might have to actually answer that one yourself
Well, I just read the bit in the link you posted that said "and once again demonstrates that [...] atmospheric temperatures are controlled by mass/gravity/pressure and are independent of greenhouse gas concentrations on any of these 9 planets with atmospheres, including Earth", so how am I supposed to interpret that? If the temperature on Earth is rising independently of solar insolation, and "atmospheric temperatures are controlled by mass/gravity/pressure", then that must mean that mass/gravity/pressure is increasing, no? Maybe you could re-interpret that for me?
Since the radiating temperature of an isolated body in space varies as the fourth-root of the power incident upon it, by the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the radiating temperature of Venus should be the fourth-root of 1.91 (or the square-root of 93/67.25) = 1.176 times that of the Earth. Furthermore, since the atmospheric pressure varies as the temperature, the temperature at any given pressure level in the Venusian atmosphere should be 1.176 times the temperature at that same pressure level in the Earth atmosphere, INDEPENDENT OF THE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF INFRARED ABSORPTION in the two atmospheres. In particular, the averaged temperature at 1000 millibars on Earth is about 15C = 288K, so the corresponding temperature on Venus, WITHOUT ANY GREENHOUSE EFFECT, should be 1.176 times that, or 339K. But this is just 66C, the temperature we actually find there from the temperature and pressure profiles for Venus. We have to compare atmospheric temperatures at equal pressures in the two atmospheres, and when we do that we find the Venus atmospheric temperature is always just 17% higher than the corresponding (same pressure level) temperature in Earth's atmosphere -- and that essentially constant factor is due solely to the two planets' relative distances from the Sun, nothing else
Oh dear oh dear, you've forgotten something important; The bond albedo of Venus is 0.75, Earth's is only 0.3. If Venus' atmospheric temperatures fit a simplified formula using just solar insolation based on the distance from the sun, then once you take its high albedo into account there must be additional heat absorption to compensate for the higher amount of reflected radiation.
Yes, but now it can be precisely measured.
And how has that challenged the claim of 90+% climate scientists that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is causing warming, given that we've actually measured changes to average temperatures?
So according to that link extra mass causes an atmosphere to heat up, so if the Earth is getting warmer then logically it must have taken on more mass very recently. Care to show us where that extra mass is hiding?
And if atmospheric composition doesn't matter, why is Venus 30x hotter than Earth when it only receives 2x the solar insolation and has slightly less mass?
Not to mention we've known about Jupiter's internal heat source since 1969.
Yes that entire site is starting to sound like one big straw man isn't it? Or straw planet, perhaps?
what control group are they using to show what would have happened had we not been here?
Ah yes, if only scientists had created a control planet before the industrial revolution so we could compare what the effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration by 33% is, oh well guess we can't do anything about it because we're only 90+ percent sure not 110% percent sure. Also fossil fuel exhaustion and pollution, well those don't matter either!
Think about cable companies and common carrier, yeah, that's regulation that corporations lobby for.
Except net neutrality regulation, which they are lobbying strongly against. It's almost as if they lobby for whatever is in their best interest, rather than simply lobbying for more regulation! Hmm, I wonder why oil companies are always lobbying against environmental and renewable energy regulation..?
Yes, those 90+ percent of scientists who believe in AGW are all part of a shadowy global elite hell-bent on controlling us through fear! Good thing there are still those plucky young multi-billion dollar oil companies fighting for the little guy, making sure we can carry on paying them 1.2 trillion dollars per year so our lights don't go out!
I got bored of waiting for stable Android L roms but didn't want to go back to stock so switched to CM12 nightlies. Didn't have a single issue for all the time it was on nightlies until they got to stable releases of 12 and 13. Depending on how long N takes I might switch to CM14 nightlies when they arrive.
Ideally, in my mind, it'd work just like a PC --- where I could make a backup image of the Factory Disk Image (just in case); and then install whatever I want on it; knowing that it wouldn't be hard to boot from an external device and restore the factory image. Anyone know of such a phone --- and that'll be the next one I'd buy.
Any Android Nexus phone. Just hold down a button combination while powering the phone up to enter the bootloader menu, plug the phone in to a PC's USB and you can wipe/flash any of the phone's partitions. It's very easy to re-flash the factory images (which Google provide), or flash custom recovery software and reinstall any custom rom you like.
Then they'll have a barely functioning PC. It's not like the generic Windows chipset / audio drivers, the generic VGA driver doesn't support the HW acceleration.
Or what happens when using the open-source Radeon driver in Linux?
Technically they do, otherwise synthetic fabrics would come out purple (see "Infrared / Ultraviolet pollution" half way down the page). They're just not 100% effective so a little IR gets through, and depends on the camera as some are worse than others.
The thing is the Rift does have some plus points over the Vive, especially for non-gaming use -
* Headset rigid strap / integrated headphones is easier to put on and the tracking camera takes up almost no room, which makes it good for use in galleries / exhibitions.
* It's a fair bit cheaper, again good if you'll be entrusting the thing to the general public in a gallery etc.
* The overall comfort and easy of putting on / taking off does make it nice for small-scale dev work.
* Obviously time will tell if this is the case, but I like the look of the Oculus Touch control layout better than the Vive's wands.
I've got an Appelbaum story too! I've met him a couple of times at gallery after parties and conferences in Berlin, had a bit of a chat about internet security issues, he told me I should go to the TOR developer conference, err, that's about it.
So, what, research teams aren't allowed to publish single scenario papers so they can be integrated into the wider body of research? Are you going to raise the funds required to run multiple scenarios for them?
They talk out of both sides of their mouths and are bullshitting for money, lots and lots of taxpayer money. Why do they need taxpayer money?
Bullshit: Fossil fuels recieve considerably more taxpayer money than renewables, and they only reason climate science needs funding is that fossil fuel interests insist on continuously pushing back on scientists recommendations.
You think there would need to be reports like this if, in the 70s, governments had simply agreed that yes, they do need to reduce and stabilise CO2 production? The only reason climate scientists continually need to prove themselves is because of big oil shills and IDIOTS LIKE YOU who are drinking their koolaid.
I mean hell you're not even honest enough to use your account.
Slashdot Mirror
Stop posting FUD, the F9¾ stealth project was a stunning success! Here's a whole squadron of them being proudly displayed.
You can laugh, but their space program is already testing advanced boosters.
Your specific question was about Venus, which I found the answer for (and nothing of interest to dispute it).
The answer you regurgitated made the bold claim that because Earth and Venus happen to share a ratio when you plug a single figure into the equation that proves it to all experts. If you want to use that answer you're going to have to defend it.
The original link was about Jupiter, which confirms the same basic physical equations. So that's 3.
I've checked the figures, your link claims a temperature of 400K at 11 atm, yet the Galileo Probe reported 426K at 23 atm, so something doesn't match up there if there's such a simple ratio. The original article is behind a paywall so who knows what stipulations the temperature data had, or if they're even repeated accurately.
But there are a limited number of planets we can get this kind of data on, only one sun, and everything you're arguing is based on a sample size of ... let's see... 1.
So your answer is that, because we only have one planet to test on, we should try large scale experimental geo-engineering on it that 90+% of scientists think will be bad for it? Are you insane?
It's shown to be completely irrelevant to the calculation of temperature at specific pressure, which also has been measured, and fits the equations of Mr. Huffman.
Those calculations were based on the total power incident from the Sun, but by choosing to compare atmospheres at 1atm he's using an altitude on Venus of 50km. The cloud cover on Venus starts at 60-70km altitude, so the power incident reaching 50km will be affected by the cloud's albedo so you have to take it into account. Not to mention the obvious fact that if that radiation is measured being reflected away from Venus it means it can't physically be adding to the energy of the atmosphere.
But the correlation in recent times between CO2 concentration and temperature changes just doesn't track very well.
Source for the figures you're basing that on?
Any "expert", upon seeing this amazing result, should quickly have realized it means both atmospheres must absorb the same fraction of the incident solar radiation, and be warmed only by that fraction.
Ah good, I see you're still pasting the same copypasta as before.
Now then, here's the thing...
Yes, given a sample size of 2 we've found a case where we have found a simple ratio that happens to match. Now, how does that prove there is a strong correlation between the single variable it's based on? Given a sample size of 2?
Next up the original author of that paragraph may not feel the need to even "consider albedo", but albedo is not some theoretical atmospheric model, it is an actual, measurable value. The total amount of electromagnetic radiation being scattered away from Venus has been measured to be 75%. The total amount of electromagnetic radiation being scattered away from Earth has been measured to be 30%. The fact that this radiation has been scattered away into space means that it, by definition, cannot be being absorbed by the atmosphere.
Now I can't see any answer to that in the post you're sourcing from, so you might have to actually answer that one yourself
That's a rather odd way to read the study.
Well, I just read the bit in the link you posted that said "and once again demonstrates that [...] atmospheric temperatures are controlled by mass/gravity/pressure and are independent of greenhouse gas concentrations on any of these 9 planets with atmospheres, including Earth", so how am I supposed to interpret that? If the temperature on Earth is rising independently of solar insolation, and "atmospheric temperatures are controlled by mass/gravity/pressure", then that must mean that mass/gravity/pressure is increasing, no? Maybe you could re-interpret that for me?
Since the radiating temperature of an isolated body in space varies as the fourth-root of the power incident upon it, by the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the radiating temperature of Venus should be the fourth-root of 1.91 (or the square-root of 93/67.25) = 1.176 times that of the Earth. Furthermore, since the atmospheric pressure varies as the temperature, the temperature at any given pressure level in the Venusian atmosphere should be 1.176 times the temperature at that same pressure level in the Earth atmosphere, INDEPENDENT OF THE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF INFRARED ABSORPTION in the two atmospheres. In particular, the averaged temperature at 1000 millibars on Earth is about 15C = 288K, so the corresponding temperature on Venus, WITHOUT ANY GREENHOUSE EFFECT, should be 1.176 times that, or 339K. But this is just 66C, the temperature we actually find there from the temperature and pressure profiles for Venus. We have to compare atmospheric temperatures at equal pressures in the two atmospheres, and when we do that we find the Venus atmospheric temperature is always just 17% higher than the corresponding (same pressure level) temperature in Earth's atmosphere -- and that essentially constant factor is due solely to the two planets' relative distances from the Sun, nothing else
Oh dear oh dear, you've forgotten something important; The bond albedo of Venus is 0.75, Earth's is only 0.3. If Venus' atmospheric temperatures fit a simplified formula using just solar insolation based on the distance from the sun, then once you take its high albedo into account there must be additional heat absorption to compensate for the higher amount of reflected radiation.
Yes, but now it can be precisely measured.
And how has that challenged the claim of 90+% climate scientists that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is causing warming, given that we've actually measured changes to average temperatures?
So according to that link extra mass causes an atmosphere to heat up, so if the Earth is getting warmer then logically it must have taken on more mass very recently. Care to show us where that extra mass is hiding?
And if atmospheric composition doesn't matter, why is Venus 30x hotter than Earth when it only receives 2x the solar insolation and has slightly less mass?
Not to mention we've known about Jupiter's internal heat source since 1969.
Yes that entire site is starting to sound like one big straw man isn't it? Or straw planet, perhaps?
what control group are they using to show what would have happened had we not been here?
Ah yes, if only scientists had created a control planet before the industrial revolution so we could compare what the effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration by 33% is, oh well guess we can't do anything about it because we're only 90+ percent sure not 110% percent sure. Also fossil fuel exhaustion and pollution, well those don't matter either!
Think about cable companies and common carrier, yeah, that's regulation that corporations lobby for.
Except net neutrality regulation, which they are lobbying strongly against. It's almost as if they lobby for whatever is in their best interest, rather than simply lobbying for more regulation! Hmm, I wonder why oil companies are always lobbying against environmental and renewable energy regulation..?
Yes, those 90+ percent of scientists who believe in AGW are all part of a shadowy global elite hell-bent on controlling us through fear! Good thing there are still those plucky young multi-billion dollar oil companies fighting for the little guy, making sure we can carry on paying them 1.2 trillion dollars per year so our lights don't go out!
I got bored of waiting for stable Android L roms but didn't want to go back to stock so switched to CM12 nightlies. Didn't have a single issue for all the time it was on nightlies until they got to stable releases of 12 and 13. Depending on how long N takes I might switch to CM14 nightlies when they arrive.
Ideally, in my mind, it'd work just like a PC --- where I could make a backup image of the Factory Disk Image (just in case); and then install whatever I want on it; knowing that it wouldn't be hard to boot from an external device and restore the factory image. Anyone know of such a phone --- and that'll be the next one I'd buy.
Any Android Nexus phone. Just hold down a button combination while powering the phone up to enter the bootloader menu, plug the phone in to a PC's USB and you can wipe/flash any of the phone's partitions. It's very easy to re-flash the factory images (which Google provide), or flash custom recovery software and reinstall any custom rom you like.
Nah, turns out it was Mothman this week
what happens using the generic Windows driver?
Then they'll have a barely functioning PC. It's not like the generic Windows chipset / audio drivers, the generic VGA driver doesn't support the HW acceleration.
Or what happens when using the open-source Radeon driver in Linux?
It'll get fixed too?
A forklift you say?
No, they don't.
Technically they do, otherwise synthetic fabrics would come out purple (see "Infrared / Ultraviolet pollution" half way down the page). They're just not 100% effective so a little IR gets through, and depends on the camera as some are worse than others.
Yeah the article got their title round the wrong way, even though they got it correct in the body. Well done lads!
Anyway yeah the DRM was to stop people playing Oculus games on Vive, the Rift headset has always supported Steam and other non-Oculus home content.
Well, it wouldn't be the first time there has been hardware lockout for a display device...
The thing is the Rift does have some plus points over the Vive, especially for non-gaming use -
* Headset rigid strap / integrated headphones is easier to put on and the tracking camera takes up almost no room, which makes it good for use in galleries / exhibitions.
* It's a fair bit cheaper, again good if you'll be entrusting the thing to the general public in a gallery etc.
* The overall comfort and easy of putting on / taking off does make it nice for small-scale dev work.
* Obviously time will tell if this is the case, but I like the look of the Oculus Touch control layout better than the Vive's wands.
I know necromancy, I have the best spells. I have the best, but there is no better spell than ph'nglui mglw'nafh trump r'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
I've got an Appelbaum story too! I've met him a couple of times at gallery after parties and conferences in Berlin, had a bit of a chat about internet security issues, he told me I should go to the TOR developer conference, err, that's about it.
Well you'd hope not, but papers like this might be necessary to make that actually happen.
So, what, research teams aren't allowed to publish single scenario papers so they can be integrated into the wider body of research? Are you going to raise the funds required to run multiple scenarios for them?
"If you don't stop eating all that junk food you're going to get fat and probably die of a heart attack"
"OK, the sky is falling... Got it."
So in other words
Step 1. Run out of oil
Step 2. Charge $infinity for last barrel of oil
Step 3. ????
Step 4. Profit!
Stop peddling your bullshit anon:
They can't explain the mechanism
Bullshit: http://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-d...
nor can they explain why Earth was so much colder during times when CO2 concentration was 10 times what it is today.
Bullshit: https://www.skepticalscience.c...
They talk out of both sides of their mouths and are bullshitting for money, lots and lots of taxpayer money. Why do they need taxpayer money?
Bullshit: Fossil fuels recieve considerably more taxpayer money than renewables, and they only reason climate science needs funding is that fossil fuel interests insist on continuously pushing back on scientists recommendations.
You think there would need to be reports like this if, in the 70s, governments had simply agreed that yes, they do need to reduce and stabilise CO2 production? The only reason climate scientists continually need to prove themselves is because of big oil shills and IDIOTS LIKE YOU who are drinking their koolaid.
I mean hell you're not even honest enough to use your account.