> Nolondil wrote:
> > "Unsupported assertion. Provide evidence that Venus radiates
> more heat than it receives. What astronomical measurements have
> been done that show this? What probes have visited the planet
> and measured its total heat output?>
> In simplicity:
> Hot air rises!
> Evidenced by changes to this effect in albedo measurements of
> the cloud tops of Venus covering many years.
How many years? Who took the measurements? Where is the data?
And even if it's available, you'd have to have other data to make the case that it 'proves' large scale convection in the atmosphere.
> Bolometric measurements are a different matter and as far as I
> know have not been engaged, no doubt I think for fear of
> embarrasment, in that Venus is indeed a youthful planet.
Translation: There is no known evidence for this claim, therefore it must be true because they haven't checked it.
> > "Then the earth's atmosphere also violates the Second Law of
> Thermodynamics. For that matter, life violates the Second Law
> of Thermodynamics.
> Not really.
> In short, most of the visible radiaton is absorbed in the upper
> atmosphere of Venus so that the heat source (the extensive
> cloud cover) is at a low temperature, while the sink (ie the
> surface) is at a high temperature.
> This is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Convection due to heat differences is not unconditional. Unmixing layers of water and air are known in Earth's climate. Slight differences in composition can prevent convection. (e.g. salty and fresh water.) Certain chemical processes could cause convection to run in reverse.
Does every planet with a core hotter than its surface violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
> Having said this very briefly, are you actually a proponent of
> the "greenhouse theory" or not?
I don't know that I could be called a 'proponent' of the greenhouse theory. It is a reasonable guess, and all science has to start with a reasonable guess. There is light reaching the surface, as a few probes have shown by returning photographs in the visible spectrum. Actual measurements may show something different about total energy transfer. As thick as the atmosphere is, it seems quite possible that the native heat of the planet is held back at the surface in a way that it is not on Earth. Earth's core is still very hot as well, and if we had a several times more insulating atmosphere the surface temperature here might be similar to that on Venus despite our 28 percent greater distance from the sun.
> > "Since neither Earth nor Venus are isolated systems but are
> receiving input from the sun, it is quit possible for their
> behavior to be 'against the grain' of the general trend towards
> entropy. Maybe you were meaning to refer to the idea of "heat
> Not really.
> Never mind Venus or the Earth, ALL planets emit more heat
> (radiation) than they receive from the Sun.
> However, Venus in this respect, is around 10-15% as much.
Oh? When was Mercury measured? Or Pluto? Where is the data? How do you make this assertion if the 'bolometric measurements' haven't been done for Venus, as you said yourself just above?
You continue to make unsupported and unsupportable assertions. This is the problem with the Velikovsky method. Science isn't done by by Jedi Mind Trick.
Like ancient Rome, we today are once more importing every form of exotic superstition in the hope of finding the right remedy for our sickness.
-- C. G. Jung
Richard Wilhelm: In Memoriam (1930), CW 15: pg. 60