Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
quote: Originally posted by BingoBongo: James Randi - the USA's greatest 'sceptic' that has exposed frauds of all kinds such as Uri Geller lines up with all of us who think that Martin Durkin and Channel 4 are the ones guilty of a 'Swindle': http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-04/040607mi.html#i8
As much as I respect James Randi, I believe he is the victim of a little hocus-pocus, this time. He refers us to Phil Plait's website, BanAstronomy. http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/seasons.htmlPhil says "Should you worry about runaway greenhouse effect? Take a look at our closest neighbor(Venus). You tell me." He seems to be comparing apples with oranges. Venus is almost 100% CO2 at 90 atmospheres! 100%Should we worry? You tell me. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by phlipper: quote: Originally posted by BingoBongo: James Randi - the USA's greatest 'sceptic' that has exposed frauds of all kinds such as Uri Geller lines up with all of us who think that Martin Durkin and Channel 4 are the ones guilty of a 'Swindle': http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-04/040607mi.html#i8
As much as I respect James Randi, I believe he is the victim of a little hocus-pocus, this time. He refers us to Phil Plait's website, Bad Astronomy. http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/seasons.htmlPhil says "Should you worry about runaway greenhouse effect? Take a look at our closest neighbor(Venus). You tell me." He seems to be comparing apples with oranges. Venus is almost 100% CO2 at 90 atmospheres! 100%Should we worry? You tell me.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by phlipper: quote: Originally posted by phlipper: quote: Originally posted by BingoBongo: James Randi - the USA's greatest 'sceptic' that has exposed frauds of all kinds such as Uri Geller lines up with all of us who think that Martin Durkin and Channel 4 are the ones guilty of a 'Swindle': http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-04/040607mi.html#i8
As much as I respect James Randi, I believe he is the victim of a little hocus-pocus, this time. He refers us to Phil Plait's website, Bad Astronomy. http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/seasons.htmlPhil says "Should you worry about runaway greenhouse effect? Take a look at our closest neighbor(Venus). You tell me." He seems to be comparing apples with oranges. Venus is almost 100% CO2 at 90 atmospheres! Should we worry? You tell me.
|
| |
|
|
Please excuse the duplicate posts. In attempting to edit my post, I quoted it. I guess I do not have permission to edit my posts(which I find a little odd since there appears to be no preview function).
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by phlipper:
Phil says "Should you worry about runaway greenhouse effect? Take a look at our closest neighbor(Venus). You tell me." He seems to be comparing apples with oranges. Venus is almost 100% CO2 at 90 atmospheres! Should we worry? You tell me.
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE] Perhaps you haven’t heard of the Goldilocks effect or of a runaway greenhouse effect? http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/interior/Goldilocks.htmlThere’s a more detailed comparison of how the atmosphere’s of Earth, Venus and Mars here: http://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/oconnell/astr121/guide19-s04.htmlThe central point is Venus’ atmosphere hasn’t always been the way it is today. It’s known there was water (oceans) on Venus; the water boiled away (it took millions of years to do this) and the heat released more CO2 from both the oceans and surface, producing two additional greenhouse effects. A) More CO2 in the atmosphere but also the loss of one major sink that reabsorbs CO2. B) No precipitation, which is a mechanism for returning CO2 to the surface. There’s a description of how it’s thought to have happened here: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/venus/greenhouse.htmlThe cause of the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus wasn’t SUV’s etc. but because it is closer to the Sun than Earth is, Venus had a warmer atmosphere to start with. http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/EVMcomp.htmIs there a point to this? Yes ~ there’s two. 1) In demonstrates that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that increasing the quantity increases temperature. Something denied in the GGW Swindle viz: “there is no no-link between CO2 and temperature…” 2) Is earth likely to suffer a runaway greenhouse effect? It’s thought the average surface temperature of the oceans worldwide would have to reach above 80 degrees F. (26.6 degrees C). At this point it’s thought the oceans would evaporate more water than they received back through precipitation. And the additional water vapour would increase the greenhouse effect. It causes an upward spiral of temperatures. Hence - runaway greenhouse effect. The good news? At present the oceans are between 50 – 60 degrees F. But it’s thought that if they did rise above 80 degrees F then runaway greenhouse could start. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Shefftim: quote: Originally posted by phlipper:
Phil says "Should you worry about runaway greenhouse effect? Take a look at our closest neighbor(Venus). You tell me." He seems to be comparing apples with oranges. Venus is almost 100% CO2 at 90 atmospheres! Should we worry? You tell me.
[/QUOTE] Perhaps you haven’t heard of the Goldilocks effect or of a runaway greenhouse effect? http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/interior/Goldilocks.htmlThere’s a more detailed comparison of how the atmosphere’s of Earth, Venus and Mars here: http://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/oconnell/astr121/guide19-s04.htmlThe central point is Venus’ atmosphere hasn’t always been the way it is today. It’s known there was water (oceans) on Venus; the water boiled away (it took millions of years to do this) and the heat released more CO2 from both the oceans and surface, producing two additional greenhouse effects. A) More CO2 in the atmosphere but also the loss of one major sink that reabsorbs CO2. B) No precipitation, which is a mechanism for returning CO2 to the surface. There’s a description of how it’s thought to have happened here: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/venus/greenhouse.htmlThe cause of the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus wasn’t SUV’s etc. but because it is closer to the Sun than Earth is, Venus had a warmer atmosphere to start with. http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/EVMcomp.htmIs there a point to this? Yes ~ there’s two. 1) In demonstrates that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that increasing the quantity increases temperature. Something denied in the GGW Swindle viz: “there is no no-link between CO2 and temperature…” 2) Is earth likely to suffer a runaway greenhouse effect? It’s thought the average surface temperature of the oceans worldwide would have to reach above 80 degrees F. (26.6 degrees C). At this point it’s thought the oceans would evaporate more water than they received back through precipitation. And the additional water vapour would increase the greenhouse effect. It causes an upward spiral of temperatures. Hence - runaway greenhouse effect. The good news? At present the oceans are between 50 – 60 degrees F. But it’s thought that if they did rise above 80 degrees F then runaway greenhouse could start.[/QUOTE] Haven't read the links but was there ever evidence of an "Entropy Reduction" on Venus? Such as might be provided by life itself? |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by BingoBongo: James Randi - the USA's greatest 'sceptic' that has exposed frauds of all kinds such as Uri Geller lines up with all of us who think that Martin Durkin and Channel 4 are the ones guilty of a 'Swindle': http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-04/040607mi.html#i8
As usual, Randi is right on the money. He is, of course a True Sceptic  I recommend his articles and the JREF forums to anyone. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by phlipper:
Please excuse the duplicate posts. In attempting to edit my post, I quoted it. I guess I do not have permission to edit my posts(which I find a little odd since there appears to be no preview function).
The lack of a preview function is a pain, I agree. Every other forum I'm on that allows formating like quotes, bold, italic, etc., has preview. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by TrueSceptic: quote: Originally posted by BingoBongo: James Randi - the USA's greatest 'sceptic' that has exposed frauds of all kinds such as Uri Geller lines up with all of us who think that Martin Durkin and Channel 4 are the ones guilty of a 'Swindle': http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-04/040607mi.html#i8
As usual, Randi is right on the money. He is, of course a True Sceptic I recommend his articles and the JREF forums to anyone.
Is Prof Bjorn Lomborg (The Sceptical Environmentalist) to be similarly discredited? Any thoughts on the "Entropy Reduction" question in relation to Venus? |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay:
Another shock horror scenario debunked?
In your mind quite possibly. But the explanation doesn’t rely on the absence – or presence – of life. It simply attempts to account for the differences in atmosphere and how that of Venus arrived at its current state. As such it’s still a valid explanation. Your alternative explanation for how Venus arrived at its present atmosphere (and temperature) would be…? |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Shefftim:
Your alternative explanation for how Venus arrived at its present atmosphere (and temperature) would be…?
They had too many climate scientists, who spent all their time on jets flying to conferences to discuss how bad flying was..... |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Shefftim: quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay:
Another shock horror scenario debunked?
In your mind quite possibly. But the explanation doesn’t rely on the absence – or presence – of life. It simply attempts to account for the differences in atmosphere and how that of Venus arrived at its current state. As such it’s still a valid explanation. Your alternative explanation for how Venus arrived at its present atmosphere (and temperature) would be…?
My mind is open, but I'm not getting too any compelling arguments to make me change it totally. I have changed my view of Durkin however! Re Venus - lack of an entropy reduction agent such as life! As a failed chemist (many years ago) I still retain just enough to be impressed by this argument (from Lovelock) so much so I can't get too concerned about AGW. Is it not true that the current composition of our atmosphere is chemically impossible without some other agent at work? I also believe scientific method to be approximate - so any theory of AGW, while in its infancy (relatively) should be treated sceptically. The harder you look the more you see. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay:
Is Prof Bjorn Lomborg (The Sceptical Environmentalist) to be similarly discredited?
I'm not sure what you mean. Similarly to who? Lomborg is a self-proclaimed "sceptic". He is not a true sceptic (by any reasonable definition). quote:
Any thoughts on the "Entropy Reduction" question in relation to Venus?
No, sorry. I can only refer you to established sources, which are easy enough to find. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by TrueSceptic: quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay:
Is Prof Bjorn Lomborg (The Sceptical Environmentalist) to be similarly discredited?
I'm not sure what you mean. Similarly to who? Lomborg is a self-proclaimed "sceptic". He is not a true sceptic (by any reasonable definition). quote:
Any thoughts on the "Entropy Reduction" question in relation to Venus?
No, sorry. I can only refer you to established sources, which are easy enough to find.
Re Lomborg - Durkin. It seemed to me that he came in for nothing more than a good dose of discreditation (probably deserved as it happens!). I have just become aware of Lomborg and have his book on order. Was wondering whether he was going to get the treatment or whether he has something valid to say (about the cost of the AGW solution being more than the problem). |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay: quote: Originally posted by TrueSceptic: quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay:
Is Prof Bjorn Lomborg (The Sceptical Environmentalist) to be similarly discredited?
I'm not sure what you mean. Similarly to who? Lomborg is a self-proclaimed "sceptic". He is not a true sceptic (by any reasonable definition). quote:
Any thoughts on the "Entropy Reduction" question in relation to Venus?
No, sorry. I can only refer you to established sources, which are easy enough to find.
Re Lomborg - Durkin. It seemed to me that he came in for nothing more than a good dose of discreditation (probably deserved as it happens!). I have just become aware of Lomborg and have his book on order. Was wondering whether he was going to get the treatment or whether he has something valid to say (about the cost of the AGW solution being more than the problem).
Re Entropy Reduction, I was not asking for an explanation of this phenonenon but an acknowledgement or otherwise that we should not be too swayed by comparisions between the Earth and Venus as to GW effect. |
| |
|
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Seskinreay:
But the argument as to how a planet with an atmosphere similar to a young earth could change its atmosphere to the one Venus has is still valid. It’s treated seriously by many space scientists and a rival hypothesis isn’t immediately apparent.
“Re Venus - lack of an entropy reduction agent such as life!”
Your alternative explanation for how Venus arrived at its present atmosphere (and temperature) would be…?
The argument that the present atmospheric temperature of Venus is due to the high concentration of CO2 (approx 97%) in its atmosphere is still valid.
It’s an (extreme) example demonstrating that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that increasing the quantity increases temperature and also maintains Venus at its present temperature.
So it is also a valid hypothesis to consider that the same could happen to earth, the mechanisms involve rising temperatures and the presence of HO2 and CO2.
It’s the kind of discussion people have to find out what may have happened and explore other scenarios.
So as you’re thinking out of the box, your argument as to why the same couldn’t happen to Earth’s atmosphere is…?
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Shefftim:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Seskinreay:
But the argument as to how a planet with an atmosphere similar to a young earth could change its atmosphere to the one Venus has is still valid. It’s treated seriously by many space scientists and a rival hypothesis isn’t immediately apparent.
“Re Venus - lack of an entropy reduction agent such as life!”
Your alternative explanation for how Venus arrived at its present atmosphere (and temperature) would be…?
The argument that the present atmospheric temperature of Venus is due to the high concentration of CO2 (approx 97%) in its atmosphere is still valid.
It’s an (extreme) example demonstrating that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that increasing the quantity increases temperature and also maintains Venus at its present temperature.
So it is also a valid hypothesis to consider that the same could happen to earth, the mechanisms involve rising temperatures and the presence of HO2 and CO2.
It’s the kind of discussion people have to find out what may have happened and explore other scenarios.
So as you’re thinking out of the box, your argument as to why the same couldn’t happen to Earth’s atmosphere is…?
Life, the entropy reduction agent, will provide the counter balance to runaway warming - as (presumably) it has done many times in the past otherwise we would have arrived at atmospheric homeostasis aeons ago. If life has never existed on Venus (as you previous suggested it probably hasn't) does this not explain its static atmosphere? |
| |
|
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Seskinreay:
Life, the entropy reduction agent, will provide the counter balance to runaway warming.
[Quote]
How?
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Shefftim:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Seskinreay:
Life, the entropy reduction agent, will provide the counter balance to runaway warming.
[Quote]
How?
Blimey - read Lovelock ! |
| |
|
|
