Home > Climate Change, CO2 Emissions, Data, GHG, Global Warming, greenhouse effect, Omniclimate > Another Good Argument About The Greenhouse Venus Hypothesis

Another Good Argument About The Greenhouse Venus Hypothesis

From JoNova’s “DeSmog accidentally vindicates The Skeptics Handbook

The next time a warmist yells Venus. Just yell back Mars. Its’ atmosphere is 95% carbon dioxide and yet, oops – it’s not 400 degrees, instead, it’s minus 40. The warmists with half a brain might come back at you with the explanation that Mars’s atmosphere is thin, but that’s just fine. That IS the point really isn’t it? Mars is cold because it’s atmosphere is so thin, and for exactly the opposite reason, that’s why Venus is Hot.

ps Hugs&kisses for linking to Omniclimate, of course! A list of my Venus-related blogs is available at this link.

Advertisements
  1. papertiger
    2009/04/18 at 21:23

    Fits in well with Miskolczi’s semi transparent atmosphere theory.
    In fact my little example with the garden sprayer is the exact same theory explained in more approachable terms.

  2. papertiger
    2009/04/17 at 02:56

    Tell you something else.

    There’s a reason that I posted this in a down stream thread. I worry what the headline would be if this turned up in a mainstream press.

    I’m sure it would go like ” GLOBAL WARMING CAUSES WORLD WIDE DROUGHT FEAR study says.”
    Never mentioning that it would be a slight, barely perceptible by technical experiment, change in average humidity, which also makes a raise in temperature mechanically impossible.
    Puts the lie to increased stormyness too.

    I wouldn’t want to give them the ammo.

  3. papertiger
    2009/04/16 at 20:41

    No pressure buddy.

    I really do have to get at those dandylions! They’re taking over the yard.
    Besides, pan evaporation is a new angle of support I wouldn’t have considered without your comment.

  4. papertiger
    2009/04/16 at 07:58

    No comment means I need to get to spraying those dandilions. Ugh.

    I read Rodger Peilke saying there has been observational evidence that instead of gaining, there has been no increase in atmospheric water vapor due to global warming – even back in the warming years.
    Don’t they need water vapor enhancement to get the dreaded feedback tipping point?
    I think the IPCC was counting on it in order to reach 3, 4, or 5 degrees of climate sensitivity.

    Ah here’s the Pielke (pdf) : Towards a robust test on North America warming trend and
    precipitable water content increase.

    • 2009/04/16 at 08:07

      papertiger…I will reply when I can say something meaningful.

      As for water content, I understand that pan evaporation has shown no positive trend the world over, but those measurements have been dismissed rather than explained

  5. papertiger
    2009/04/15 at 11:14

    How appropriate that we should meet again over a Venus blog.
    I have a thought that has been rolling in my noggin, in need of a sounding board, and it sort of touches on the subject of thin vs thick atmosphere.

    The otherday I bought a garden sprayer which uses air pressure to squirt herbicide on the weeds. Most of the content is water, but some of it is air. This got me thinking about the water vapor content of the air in my sprayer bottle. The air pocket at normal pressure must have some water vapor content regulated by temperature of the liquid.
    Suppose that instead of pumping up the air pressure a person where to pump out the air, leaving a vacuum.
    Wouldn’t the lower air pressure cause the water vapor content of the air cavity to rise until it found some new equalibrium of humidity at a percentage higher then the original normal air pressure example?
    I would guess the answer is yes.
    Now turn it around and instead of pumping air out of the bottle, pump air in, jumping the air pressure a couple atmospheres. Doesn’t the weight of the air force some of the water vapor to condense, lowering the humidity at the same time as it prevents the escape of new water molecules from the liquid?
    I am thinking this would be similar to what happens when the percentage of co2 increases in the atmosphere. The pressure wouldn’t change but maybe when the co2 is added it takes up room which was formerly habitated by water vapor.
    What do you think, Omni? Am I on to something, or just putting off yard work?

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: