Venus & RGHE & UAΔT

Mark Twain observed, “The trouble with most of us is that we know too much that ain't so.”


Adding to the “Δ33C without an atmosphere” (see other article) that completely ain’t so is the example of Venus.


Venus, we are told, has an atmosphere that is almost pure carbon dioxide and an extremely high surface temperature, 750 K, and this is allegedly due to the radiative greenhouse effect, RGHE. But the only apparent defense is, “Well, WHAT else could it BE?!”


Well, what follows is the else it could be. (Q = U * A * ΔT)


Venus is half the distance to the sun so its average solar constant/irradiance is twice as intense as that of earth, 2,615 W/m^2 as opposed to 1,368 W/m^2.


But the albedo of Venus is 0.77 compared to 0.31 for the Earth - or - Venus 601.5 W/m^2 net ASR (absorbed solar radiation) compared to Earth 943.9 W/m^2 net ASR.


The Venusian atmosphere is 250 km thick as opposed to Earth’s at 100 km. Picture how hot you would get stacking 2.5 more blankets on your bed. RGHE’s got jack to do with it, it’s all Q = U * A * ΔT.
The thermal conductivity of carbon dioxide is about half that of air, 0.0146 W/m-K as opposed to 0.0240 W/m-K so it takes twice the ΔT/m to move the same kJ from surface to ToA.


Put the higher irradiance & albedo (lower Q = lower ΔT), thickness (greater thickness increases ΔT) and conductivity (lower conductivity raises ΔT) all together: 601.5/943.9 * 250/100 * 0.0240/0.0146 = 2.61.


So, Q = U * A * ΔT suggests that the Venusian ΔT would be 2.61 times greater than that of Earth. If the surface of the Earth is 15C/288K and ToA is effectively 0K then Earth ΔT = 288K. Venus ΔT would be 2.61 * 288 K = 748.8 K surface temperature. All explained, no need for any S-B BB RGHE hocus pocus.


Simplest explanation for the observation.

Comments

Jenifer Frost Added Mar 19, 2017 - 3:13pm
I've made this same argument many times, goes right over the heads of "deniers" because, apparently, they believe aliens control the Venuian atmosphere not physics or climate science. 
The Other Side Added Mar 19, 2017 - 3:24pm
C02 effects don't take effect for 40 years.
Nicholas Schroeder Added Mar 19, 2017 - 4:31pm
Well, it's a "deniers" proof that RGHE is fake so it must be going over your head.
Jenifer Frost Added Mar 19, 2017 - 4:34pm
So far the only one who has presented any proof of anything is the author of this article Nicholas. Why don't you either put up some proof of your ridiculous horseshit conspiracy theories or keep embarrassing yourself. 
Jenifer Frost Added Mar 19, 2017 - 4:35pm
By the way it's been well over 40 years so that just mean we all die in another 40 years. Sweet! That is the goal, right you psychopaths? 
Leroy Added Mar 19, 2017 - 4:43pm
There you go again with those ad hominems.
 
Nicholas knows what he is talking about.  You are out of your league.
 
Jenifer Frost Added Mar 19, 2017 - 4:51pm
Because you say so, right Leroy? Still waiting for some proof of ridiculous climate change conspiracy theories.... And BTW you already proved before that you have no clue what a Ad Hominem is, you don't need to prove it again Leroy. 
Leroy Added Mar 19, 2017 - 6:21pm
I apologize for the diversion.
 
Merriam-Webster:
"2. marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made"
 
Now, take your statements, "That is the goal, right you psychopaths?" and "I've made this same argument many times, goes right over the heads of "deniers" because, apparently, they believe aliens control the Venuian atmosphere not physics or climate science. "
 
Rather than address the argument, you declare "deniers" are "psychopaths".  Both terms are used to invalidate those with which you disagree.  In other words, you attacked the character.   In no case did you discredit the claims.  You couldn't, so you attempted to discredit the poster.  Now, it is up to you to prove that I am dumb as a rock and that your attack was not an ad hominem and addressed the assertions made.
Jenifer Frost Added Mar 19, 2017 - 6:36pm
If it's true it's not a, "ad hominem". You are a Climate Change denier, thus true. Plotting to kill everyone on the planet is psychopathic, thus also true. What's not true is you presenting evidence for a global climate change conspiracy. Still waiting on that one.... 
Leroy Added Mar 19, 2017 - 6:36pm
Here's another definition for the Urban Dictionary.  It seems to fit perfectly:
 
Ad hominem
An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their arguement or opinion. Ad hominems are used by immature and/or unintelligent people because they are unable to counter their opponent using logic and intelligence.
Person A: I think we should spend more money on environmental protection.
Person B: You just think that because you’re a stupid tree-hugger.

Person A: It is crucial that we facilitate adequate means to prevent degradation that would jeopardize the project.
Person B: You think that just because you use big words makes you sound smart? Shut up you loser; you don't know what you're talking about.
Jenifer Frost Added Mar 19, 2017 - 6:39pm
And you and I both know proof of said global climate change conspiracy does not exist Leroy. Yet that is the crux of "denier" philosophy. All based on a ridiculous conspiracy theory that no proof exists to support. Zero evidence irrational illogical nonsense vs. science. Gee, I wonder which holds more weight? 
Leroy Added Mar 19, 2017 - 7:01pm
The irrational part, Priestess, is the idea that the science is settled.  No science is ever settled.  If you are promoting this idea of catastrophic man-made climate change, it is up to you to provide the convincing arguments in its favor.  I suggest reading the opening quote once again. 
 
I admire your creativity for inventing reasons why you are always correct.  However, it is not a sign of genius.  My mother would have called it "arguing with a sign post".
Jenifer Frost Added Mar 19, 2017 - 7:07pm
Not always correct, but neither are you. Again, the entire basis of the "denier" philosophy is based on a belief in a global climate change conspiracy. I'm still waiting for a shred of evidence to support this nonsense.... 
Leroy Added Mar 19, 2017 - 7:13pm
You're pretty good with the hellfire and brimstone, Priestess.  I bet you can really fire up your congregation.  But, if you are looking for conspiracies, you will have to talk to Stoney.  He's the best.  If you want to convince me, "show me the beef".  I am not interested in conspiracies.
Nicholas Schroeder Added Mar 20, 2017 - 9:35am
“Again, the entire basis of the "denier" philosophy is based on a belief in a global climate change conspiracy.”
 
You have some serious nerve defining for “deniers” what they think or not.
 
This “denier” aka skeptic doesn’t believe mankind’s trivial fossil fuel contribution to atmospheric CO2, 0.34% of the total biosphere, or CO2’s trivial contribution to heating, 2 W/m^2 compared to 92 W/m^2 annual swing from the orbit and several hundred per years from the seasons, makes a spits worth of difference in the behavior of the climate and there is no solid theory with demonstrated evidence to show that they do.
 
Your “denier = conspiracy” is a self-induced hallucination to justify that knot in your undies.
 
The response to this latest of my postings is somewhat surprising. I’m looking forward to someone with serious technical, i.e. science, chops to comment.
 
Mike Haluska Added Mar 20, 2017 - 10:05am
Your "theory" is so full of bad math and even worse assumptions, it looks like you started with a conclusion and then made up crap to support it.  (which is exactly what the "climate change" pseudo-scientists do)
 
If Venus and Earth switched orbital positions, Earth would get fried - period.  I don't care what the atmospheric composition is, it is too close to the Sun.
Nicholas Schroeder Added Mar 20, 2017 - 1:38pm
Mike,
 
Q = U * A *dT is about the most fundamental heat transfer equation there is applied from industrial heat exchangers to the walls of a house and the balanced relationship between the variables follows basic mathematical principles.

If Q goes up or down, dT goes up or down. If U goes up or down dT goes down or up.

The atmospheric blanket is no different from the walls of a house. If the walls/insulation get thicker, the inside temperature goes up. Of course, that’s with a fixed heat output from the furnace. To keep the same temperature the thermostat reduces Q and we save money.

If we replace the air in the double pane windows with lower conductivity CO2 (or argon or krypton) the inside temperature goes up.

The comparison of Q, U, dT behavior between Earth and Venus are simply straight ratios.

So perhaps you be a little more specific with your critique instead of a broad brushed generality and an unrelated example. Earth would be hotter at the orbital radius of Venus. So what? If it were all different it all would be different.

BTW this is also on my LinkedIn page and sent to numerous collegiate engineering departments where there are real experts and so far no negative response.
 
Leroy Added Mar 20, 2017 - 7:24pm
The only bad math I might question is:
 
Venus is half the distance to the sun so its average solar constant/irradiance is twice as intense as that of earth, 2,615 W/m^2 as opposed to 1,368 W/m^2.
 
If Venus were half the distance, the irradiance would be 4 times, not doubled.  In fact, Venus is 72% of the distance to the sun than the Earth, not half.  Fortunately, the two errors pretty much cancel out and the net result is more or less correct.  The irradiance is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the sun.  (1/0.72)^2=1.93.  It's like grenades, close enough.
Nicholas Schroeder Added Mar 20, 2017 - 7:43pm
Just careless wording, excessive rounding. Ran off in high spirits.
Yes, V = 72.3% of E.
Orbital radii:
1.0821E+08 km Venus
1.4960E+08 km Earth
 
Average Constant/Irradiance, W/m^2, is solar luminosity, 3.847E+26 W, spread over surface area, 4*pi*r^2 m^2, at average orbital r.
beware: km^2 = E6 m^2
 
 
Leroy Added Mar 20, 2017 - 7:59pm
Just one other small detail: shouldn't it be divided by 4?
Nicholas Schroeder Added Mar 20, 2017 - 10:09pm
Not certain what you mean.
 
Luminosity: 3.847E+26 W
Area of orbital sphere: 4 * pi * r^2, m^2
Power Flux: W / m^2

               Orbit, km        Area, m^2       W/m^2
Venus     1.0821E+08    1.4713E+23     2,614.6
Earth       1.4960E+08    2.8124E+23    1,367.9
 
Now what you might be thinking of is the 342 W/m^2 ISR, incoming solar radiation, you hear about and see on so many power flux diagrams. I think this is covered in one of my other postings.
 
Basically the earth gets modelled as a ball suspended in a bucket of warm fluid where ISR is spread evenly all over the ToA.
A sphere of r radius has 4  times the area as a disc of r radius. The ISR hits the earth's discular cross sectional area as a parallel beam. Take this discular wattage and spread it evenly over the sphericular ToA and Presto, 342. (made up technical words for people with sense of humor)
 
1,368 / 4 = 342        This might be the "divide by 4" you mean.
 
From "No Stinkin' Geenhouse"
 
"This popular balance graphic and assorted variations are based on a power flux, W/m^2. A W is not energy, but energy over time, i.e. 3.4 Btu/eng h or 3.6 kJ/SI h. The 342 W/m^2 ISR is determined by spreading the average 1,368 W/m^2 solar irradiance/constant over the spherical ToA surface area. (1,368/4 =342) There is no consideration of the elliptical orbit (perihelion = 1,416 W/m^2 to aphelion = 1,323 W/m^2) or day or night or seasons or tropospheric thickness or energy diffusion due to oblique incidence, etc. This popular balance models the earth as a ball suspended in a hot fluid with heat/energy/power entering evenly over the entire ToA spherical surface. This is not even close to how the real earth energy balance works. Everybody uses it. Everybody should know better.

An example of a real heat balance based on Btu/h follows. Basically (Incoming Solar Radiation spread over the earth’s cross sectional area) = (U*A*dT et. al. leaving the lit side perpendicular to the spherical surface ToA) + (U*A*dT et. al. leaving the dark side perpendicular to spherical surface area ToA) The atmosphere is just a simple HVAC/heat flow/balance/insulation problem."
 
Thanks for the questions. Happy to clarify.
 
 
Mike Haluska Added Mar 21, 2017 - 9:23am
Nicholas - I AM one of those engineers you should have checked with, as subsequent posters revealed quite convincingly.  Using a static linear equation intended for closed systems isn't quite the same as dynamic bodies in space affected by orbital mechanics, variable radiation output, varying atmospheric densities, etc.
 
Planets are not pots of water boiling on a stove under controlled laboratory conditions.
Nicholas Schroeder Added Mar 21, 2017 - 12:01pm
“Your work is crap.” is not science.

“Look, the fourth term in your third equation is squared and should be cubed.”
“You forgot to consider the quantum differentiation of the Lorax paradigm.”
“You confused the equations of a flux capacitor for those of an over thruster.”
See, that’s science.

Arrhenius proposed the RGHE theory in papers published in 1896 and 1906. Several of his contemporaries stood up and said, “Your work is crap.” Well, actually they said that in scientific terms. See Spencer Weart’s “Discovery of Global Warming” book and http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/06/agw-myth-of-back-radiation.html

A CAGW example:

Trenberth et al 2011jcli24 Figure 10

“Applying the S-B BB equation to an average surface temperature of 16 C/289 K yields a power flux of 396 W/m^2 upwelling from the surface. This is 54 W/m^2 more than the total 342 W/m^2 arriving from the sun at ToA (1,368/4) and appears to create energy out of nowhere violating well established laws of thermodynamics. Furthermore, it’s 156 W/m^2 more than the 240 W/m^2 net entering the atmosphere, 333 W/m^2 more than the 160 W/m^2 that arrives at and leaves from the surface.”

“The RGHE theory allegedly warms both the atmosphere and the earth, but the 333 W/m^2 GHG/GHE 100% efficient perpetual energy loop in this diagram leaves no net heat to warm the atmosphere nor net heat to warm the surface. How does zero net energy warm either location?”

“Can you explain how these clearly suspicious violations of thermodynamics actually work”

Got answers?
Doug Plumb Added Mar 23, 2017 - 7:28am
Re "I've made this same argument many times, goes right over the heads of "deniers"
 
lol. Real science works the same way it does in a grade nine science class.
  The atmosphere is a non linear distributed system. The heat formula you use assumes the atmosphere is stationary and linear.
  But there is the political side of things. Bodies such as the UN IPCC say that scientists say this or that and then the actual scientists get on youtube and say we didn't say this or that and the UN is just unbelievably corrupt. Too many scientists have stepped out of the arena to tell us its a fraud for us to not at very least be suspicious.
  The UN was even put into place by the same folks that gave us the Bolshevik Revolution. They have overthrown many countries since ww2 so that their banks can print the money of the country. Nice people, only out for the good of humanity. Their philosophy is 2000 years old, it is worldwide domination and the enslavement of humanity. You can look up Talmudic quotes yourself. Same folks as the ones behind all the wars, multiculturalism and there is enough evidence to say they are the ones behind PizzaGate too. Its called satanism.
  The reasoning behind the environmental scam is explained in the Report From Iron Mountain and The First Global Revolution - stuff we were not supposed to see and/or not expected to read.
  Its a worldwide communist takeover for a one world government. Its been written about by the people who are doing it and others for 2000 years. You can find a thousand completely independent sets of evidence to prove it.
Doug Plumb Added Mar 23, 2017 - 7:33am
If the UN predictions are correct, why are they always wrong?
 
Isn't the hypothesis that a bunch of super rich commies (the kind that make Trump look like a bum and have never earned a cent in their lives) are just trying to tax the air we breath because their money system and their source of revenue will collapse a reasonable one?
Nicholas Schroeder Added Mar 23, 2017 - 10:08am
Tin foil hats don't produce good science.
Doug Plumb Added Mar 23, 2017 - 9:15pm
Its up to the UN satanists to produce the good science to back up their claims.