http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d17-Controversial-NOAA-climate-change-page-returns–missing-original-text

They removed five inconvenient paragraphs in the discussion portion. But the last modified date is still shows September 1, 2009.

They must have read Orwell. “He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.”

I don’t have any two liter bottles or clay to work with, but I can hypothesize (based on the molecular weight of CO2) that this experiment does, in fact, do a pretty good job of simulating the atmosphere of Venus.
I won’t include all of my math, but each seltzer tablet has the potential to liberate about 0.8g of CO2 (1.6g for two tabs). A liter of air weighs about 1.2g. I doubt that the molding clay is air tight, so I am guessing the CO2 probably replaces most of the air in the bottles. Even if it didn’t, the concentration of CO2 would be greater than 50%. It would be nice if the experiment explained to the poor kids the difference between the amount of CO2 in the bottle and the amount in our atmosphere.

[ Richhard111 (12:23:04) : No mention that Earth’s atmosphere was once 95% carbon dioxide or how and why it is now only 0.0385%.]
Plant life ‘occured’ and ‘decided’ that CO2 was lunch. Considering the discovery of extremofile lifeforms here on earth, can we totally discount the possibility of, say, some acidohyperhyperthermophile lurking on Venus ?

Nobody noticed the obvious spelling error in the title of the page yet?

“Its” in “Its a gas, Man”? No, didn’t notice.

, so why again is Venus so hot?”

Coz there’s no humans to fix the air-con?

H◦298K = 171.5 kJ

Yes the assertion that Venus receives less solar radiation than the earth is true.

Data from wikepedia, but if you want a better source then go for it.

The earth is 1 au from the sun and venus is 0.7, so by “I squared R” the radiation at the top of the atmosphere for Venus is about twice that of the earth’s.

But Earth’s albedo is 0.29 for bond albedo and 0.367 for geometric, while Venus’s is 0.75 for bond and 0.84 for geometric.

Albedo being the amount of light reflected from the top of the atmosphere.

So the amount of light not reflected is 0.71 or 0.633 for the earth and 0.25 or 0.16 for Venus.

So 0.25 times 2 or 0.16 times 2 is less than 1 times 0.71 or 1 times 0.633.

The albedo of Venus is more than twice that of earths so it gets less sunlight than earth.

I was trying to say that using the Ideal Gas law to explain the temperature of Venus is wrong. Try using it to explain the temperature of any of the gas giants for example.

Or the high pressure gas bottles in the lab where I work. They are at high pressure, yet at room temperature.

In referring to a closed system, I also had in mind but didn’t mention, a pistion and cylinder arrangement where the volume could change in response to either a temperature or pressure change.

But that still does not apply to planetary atmospheres where the gas can expand almost indefinately.

thanks

If venus receives less radiation than earth then it can’t be a greenhouse effect. It could only be internal heat that reaches the surface of the planet. The atmospheric density prevents this heat from escaping.

Just a few guesses.. Are the assertion that venus receives less solar energy than earth a true one?

Whether its Charles law or Boyles or the ideal Gas LAw, during a closed chamber experiment, gases can’t expand so the pressure increases with heat. In the atmosphere, gases can expand so as not to affect their pressure. Supposedly, for a constant volume of gas in a sealed container the temperature of the gas is directly proportional to its pressure.

Not sure if you’re referring to closed experiments or the comparative pressure of the atmospheres of earth and venus – not that there is a comparison

http://www.pasco.com/chemistry/experiments/online/classic-endothermic-reaction-alka-seltzer-and-water.cfm

http://ccgi.dcpmicro.plus.com/DCPMICRO/files/pdf/teacherresources/s/endothermic%20reaction.pdf