By Garth Paltridge
Global temperatures have not risen for 17 years. The pause now threatens to expose how much scientists sold their souls for cash and fame, warns emeritus professor Garth Paltridge, former chief research scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research.
Climate Change’s Inherent Uncertainties
…there has been no significant warming over the most recent fifteen or so years…
In the light of all this, we have at least to consider the possibility that the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously overstating the climate problem … in its effort to promote the cause. It is a particularly nasty trap in the context of science, because it risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis of society’s respect for scientific endeavour…
The trap was set in the late 1970s or thereabouts when the environmental movement first realised that doing something about global warming would play to quite a number of its social agendas. At much the same time, it became accepted wisdom around the corridors of power that government-funded scientists (that is, most scientists) should be required to obtain a goodly fraction of their funds and salaries from external sources—external anyway to their own particular organisation.
The scientists in environmental research laboratories, since they are not normally linked to any particular private industry, were forced to seek funds from other government departments. In turn this forced them to accept the need for advocacy and for the manipulation of public opinion. For that sort of activity, an arm’s-length association with the environmental movement would be a union made in heaven…
The trap was partially sprung in climate research when a number of the relevant scientists began to enjoy the advocacy business. The enjoyment was based on a considerable increase in funding and employment opportunity. The increase was not so much on the hard-science side of things but rather in the emerging fringe institutes and organisations devoted, at least in part, to selling the message of climatic doom. A new and rewarding research lifestyle emerged which involved the giving of advice to all types and levels of government, the broadcasting of unchallengeable opinion to the general public, and easy justification for attendance at international conferences—this last in some luxury by normal scientific experience, and at a frequency previously unheard of…
The trap was fully sprung when many of the world’s major national academies of science (such as the … Australian Academy of Science) persuaded themselves to issue reports giving support to the conclusions of the IPCC. The reports were touted as national assessments that were supposedly independent of the IPCC and of each other, but of necessity were compiled with the assistance of, and in some cases at the behest of, many of the scientists involved in the IPCC international machinations. In effect, the academies, which are the most prestigious of the institutions of science, formally nailed their colours to the mast of the politically correct.
Since that time three or four years ago, there has been no comfortable way for the scientific community to raise the spectre of serious uncertainty about the forecasts of climatic disaster… It can no longer escape prime responsibility if it should turn out in the end that doing something in the name of mitigation of global warming is the costliest scientific mistake ever visited on humanity.
Full story here at: Quadrant Online
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Pippen Kool says:
January 27, 2014 at 2:25 pm
“…which kills in the 600 ppm level …”
A tiny sliver of metal through your heart can kill you, too. By your logic, we need to get rid of all exposed metal on the Earth, as it might kill it.
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is fatal above 300 ppm. What’s your point, Trippen?
Mark
@BruceC
I can tell you that Hospital oxygen pure oxygen for breathing, contains 5% CO2 to stimulate the breathing reflex even when the patients are unconscious. It is probably the Bicarbonate buffer and pH of blood that regulates subconsciously to very accurate levels.
People faint and die in man- holes in the street if they go down without having checked CO2 first.
The same is a danger in potatoe- cellars. And there was an accident on a ship, where the CO2 fire extinction went off in the engine- room with people down there.
I have worked with flies. Drosophilæ and others in the agricultural highscool. You simply “gas” them from a bottle of CO2, They fall down and lie on their back and you can count them with a soft brush in a small box, CO2 being heavier than air and cowering them. On taking away the CO2 they wake up and fly on in 10- 15 seconds as if nothing has happened.
Then you can have them under Eter, that narcosis works like for other animals, it takes time for them to wake up.
And for killing them we used etylacetate. Then they fall down and don`t wake up again.
The drosophilae are living on fermenting sweet fruits. and you can have them in glasses on meshed, sweet pears for instance. They seem attracked by the smellings, and swarm around the fruit dishes and wine bottles and barrels in the autumn. They definitely live well in the larvae- stadium in a substrate of 30 promille at least, beat that. And what they can take of CO2 before going to sleep, I don`t know.
But down in those man- holes there is a lot of life and whole Økosystems of insects and spiders, so one can really wonder.
Drosophil’æ are quite easily captured and kept in glasses under Gaz- textile cower for ventilation. In order to disturb / interfere with …… meetings and / or seminars, you have a glass full of drosophilæ and discretely let them out in the room.
It seems that many insects have a direct sense for CO2. Mosquitoes for instance do not go after “sweet blood” but after CO2. It is a signal substance for rot and for biological combustion, and that of course does interest many insects.
Carbomontanus says:
January 26, 2014 at 1:28 pm
You claim that heat and temperature are confused on this site, but you fail to tell us where and by whom.
Evidently you don’t discern the difference between back-radiation and simple reflection. But you presume to lecture us concerning our understanding of heat and temperature. Are there not enough posts here that use the terms “latent heat” and “sensible heat”?
Likewise, your reference to “blacksmith’s fingers” takes no account of the time function involved in the conduction of heat to your finger as you toss the hot coal back into the fire. Your assumption that it’s just about heat vs temp is wrong because you omit skin-insulation/time. And when walking on coals you omit also the cooling time between steps.
It appears you’re trying to tear down the skeptical side, but if you can’t grasp the science then you’re grasping at straws. In fact, it’s difficult to even count the things you got wrong in that post.
Pressure isn’t energy? Vacuum isn’t energy? Voltage isn’t energy?
Voltage is electron pressure, which is potential energy which can be released to do work. So pressure and vacuum must be energy too, since they can be released to do work.
But your misunderstandings go much deeper than that. What’s this about buying electricity at 240/110V and transforming it to 5000V to sell back to the power company at a profit?
Did you forget about the current? Current x voltage = power.
Power in, minus losses = power out = no profit there for you my friend.
So please, stick around on this site and you’ll be sure to learn more good science than bad.
Well said!
Paula
To all and everyone
On Genosse Slacko
Here we have the Party teaching us science again.
“rgbatduke says:
January 27, 2014 at 7:13 am”
I was simply pointing out that an extract from coal (Coal gas/tar products was big business once) was discovered to contain the same ingerdients as “willow bark” and was sold, once isolated and refined, as “Aspirin”, now synthesised and better for the user. Unless of course the information I have read about the “history of aspirin” is wrong (NOT wikipedia). It stands to reason that trees of the distant past also contained the same compound and were eventually fossilised in to coal. Coal formed ~400million years ago. Was there a “willow” tree back ~400yag?
Mining is dirty, so too is farming. But it has to be done!
Carbomontanus:
At January 28, 2014 at 2:53 am you write in total
No, Slacko attempted to help you by removing some of your great ignorance.
I decided not to make that attempt because I thought the task was too great for me to accomplish. Your reply to Slacko indicates my decision was right.
Richard
another KADREgenosse from the party, a certain “richard” is hurrying to his help.
KADREgenosse Richard, also from the Party, is hurrying to his help.
Sterile seeds from a Seed company is simply to prevent the grower from saving the seeds from the new growth plants and planting them for the next year’s crop.
If one removed all of the “engineered” produce, etc., out of the Supermarket shelves, coolers and freezers ……. those Supermarket shelves, etc., would be pretty much bare of edibles.
And remember, don’t plant your onions too close to your potatoes, they will cry their eyes out. 🙂
And ps, …. I believe that Pippen Kool was actually saying that …. if the carbon monoxide (CO) was at the present levels of CO2, … then it (CO) would gives you a hell of headache.
And whether it would or not I have no urge to find out.
Garth Paltridge
Global temperatures have not risen for 17 years. The pause now threatens to expose how much scientists sold their souls for cash and fame, warns emeritus professor Garth Paltridge, former chief research scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research.
Climate Change’s Inherent Uncertainties
…there has been no significant warming over the most recent fifteen or so years…
From the beginning of that the hype was wracked up even more, the warnings of doom and gloom ever more shrill as those with responsibilities for producing temperature measurements began a full scale assault to hide that warming was not happening – if not for the sterling work still being produced by so many showing the fraudulent science of the hockey stick, the site and record manipulations and such we would still be in the dark. Those at the once great science institutions continue to lie that global warming is happening to support those actually producing the faked data – charlatans all.
But worse than this, is the destruction of the once emipirically well known basic science on the properties and processes of heat and light and gases which was introduced into the general education system to promote this AGW science fraud of “backradiation from greenhouse gases in the atmosphere”. This will have severe repercussions as a whole generation already believes that a trace gas has magic powers..
This is a science fraud being perpetuated at the highest levels of science and it begins with the AGW/Trenberth/CERES et al energy budget. The missing heat Trenberth should be looking for is that longwave infared radiant heat we actually feel direct from the Sun which he has excised from this energy budget in order to give it to “backradiation from the atmosphere by greenhouse gases”. That is why we call it thermal infrared, to distinguish it from shortwave infrared which is not thermal; thermal from the Greek meaning “of heat”. In its place they make the ludicrous claim that shortwave from the Sun is heat energy and heats matter of land and water at the surface.
These charlatans are well on the way to educating the next generation into being unfit to understand optics and thermodynamics and more because they have produced teachers at university level now who think our atmosphere is empty space, and who wouldn’t get the joke that this means they have no sound in their AGW world, they wouldn’t hear it..
The AGW/Trenberth/CERES et al’s energy budget is a fraud because they have taken out the direct longwave infrared we feel as heat from the Sun in order to give it to their “backradiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere” claim, ergo, the backradiation by greenhouse gases is a fraud.
It doesn’t get simpler than that to show this is a science fraud and was created by someone who knew real physics.
They have corrupted empirically very well known science on the difference between heat and light from the Sun as still taught traditionally.
And the traditional teaching direct from NASA page given below contradicting them is proof of their science fraud.
This direct from NASA page is proof that “backradiation by greenhouse gases” is not possible in traditional well known by years of empirical testing and application real physics, because, it shows up the AGW trick of taking real world measurements of longwave infrared heat downwelling direct beam from the Sun and pretending that this comes from backradiation from the atmosphere, with the deliberate lie that visible from the Sun is heat and doing the work of heat.
No one who knows that all the heat we feel direct from the Sun is the invisible longwave infrared and knows that visible light is not heat can be conned by this.
Here it also shows that the AGW/Trenberth/CERES measurements are selectively excising the real world measurements of longwave infrared radiant heat from the Sun:
“Wikipedia:
“…The total amount of energy received at ground level from the sun at the zenith is 1004 watts per square meter, which is composed of 527 watts of infrared radiation, 445 watts of visible light, and 32 watts of ultraviolet radiation.”
Since AGW claims only “shortwave in” and says of that its shortwave infrared is only an insignificant 1% – what has it, AGW/CERES/Trenberth done with the rest of the infrared from the Sun measured at ground level?
It pretends it comes from “backradiation from the atmosphere” …
The AGW Trenberth CERES energy budget claiming real world direct beam measurements of longwave infrared from the sun is “backradiation by greenhouse gases” is a deliberate science fraud just like all the manipulations of temperature data. That is a fact.
The direct from NASA page giving traditional empirically well known science teaching shows us this was done.
You, generic, cannot ignore this if you consider yourselves scientists.
http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/infrared.html
Carbomontanus:
At January 28, 2014 at 9:30 am your post says
No, I don’t know where the party is being held. Are you supplying the beer?
You should provide me with at least one drink because it was YOU I was trying to help.
Richard
Samuel C CFogar says:
“And ps, …. I believe that Pippen Kool was actually saying that …. if the carbon monoxide (CO) was at the present levels of CO2, … then it (CO) would gives you a hell of headache.”
If you had been following Pippen Kool’s comments over the past few months, you would know that he simply does not understand… much of anything about science.
To all and [everyone] including Anthony Watts
Honestly, I cannot see any “pause” of global warnings or heating for the last 17 years, as long as sea level is rising quite undisturbed and steadily, [and] the world’s ices both on land and at sea by volume nota bene is melting away even as undisturbed and steadily as the steady rise of the Mahuna Loa curve.
Both being major and quite huge global endotherm processes.
Rumors of the global warmings having made a pause rather seems to me to go together with [active], ignorant and / or crooky politicaly dishonest and arrogant confusion of temperature and heat, and of surface and volume. Thus quite more easily understood and described in terms of that formula or “model” understanding or theory.
@ur momisugly dbstealey says:
you would know that he simply does not understand… much of anything about science.
———————–
Even a broken clock gets it right twice per day.
And there is a couple posters hereon that says the same thing about me.
They don’t like to be proven wrong, ya know. It messes with their mind.
That’s why I would like to see Obama push the pendulum out even farther in his SOTU speech tonight.
Mencken said, “Liberals have many tails and they chase them all.”
Carbomontanus:
I am taking the ambitious action of attempting to remove some of your ignorance.
In your post at January 28, 2014 at 5:04 pm you write
Warming is an increase in temperature.
Cooling is a reduction in temperature.
Addition or subtraction of heat may or may not provide a change in temperature.
You can check this for yourself using a thermometer, a drinking glass, water, and ice cubes.
Put the thermometer, water, and ice cubes in the drinking glass then stir and wait a few minutes for it to stabilise. After that, monitor the temperature as the ice melts. Heat from the surroundings is added and it melts the ice but the temperature does NOT rise.
The ice and water gain heat but do NOT warm.
As the experiment I have suggested to you will inform you, amount of ice does NOT inform about temperature. And globally, ice is growing in amount (n.b. GROWING not shrinking) because of increased Antarctic ice.
The Mauna Loa curve is of atmospheric CO2 concentration and is not of heat and not of temperature.
Discernible global warming (detectable at 95% confidence) stopped at least 17 years ago according to each data set of global temperature. Live with it.
Richard
[snip – inappropriate video -mod]
To all and everyone
“Warming is an increase in themperature
Cooling is a reduction of themperature”
= a false statement, in other words a staing of false- ness.
Do I have to follow it further?
Politically correct “science” is NOT Science. Politically correct “leaders are NOT LEADERS.
Citizens who cannot or will not learn, read and UNDERSTAND may not be around too much longer. The Global Warming Scam is not the only deadly global scam going on currently. There is the “the war on terrorism”, bio-engineered pandemics, “vaccination”, depopulation and everyone’s favorite “health care”.
I live in Florida and I can tell you that the temperature where I live is neither hotter nor colder than it was when I was a kid 50 years ago. And non-biased data from the boondocks supports me in that conclusion. They show that global temperatures have stayed constant over the last 100 years.
http://www.trionfopublishing.com/images/ashton.gif
http://www.trionfopublishing.com/images/reboly.gif
http://www.trionfopublishing.com/images/vytegra.gif
The biased data which show a increase in global temperatures are from areas near cities which produce heat because people like to stay warm during the winter.
These miniscule areas where people live are hardly representative of the entire planet. The warming near the cities is not due to CO2. CO2 can not hold onto heat. As anyone who lives on Mars can tell you. CO2 global warming is unique to Venus where the conditions are entirely different from the conditions on Mars and the earth. It is not the CO2 which hangs on to the heat on Venus but the sulfuric acid clouds which shroud the planet. The sulfuric atmosphere on Venus is so dense that CO2 rises. On the earth it falls. Venus hardly rotates at all, so its atmosphere does not mix up the gases as on earth which has seasons. There is no CO2 greenhouse effect on the earth. None. Zip. There is none on Mars either even though the atmosphere is close to 100% CO2. This is because Mars rotates and has seasons like the earth so CO2 on Mars can not hold onto the heat due to the convection in the atmosphere.
http://www.trionfopublishing.com/news_page_25.htm
Pause? Yes there is a Pause because we are entering an interglacial period due to the position of the earth’s eans relative to the sun. But man and CO2 have nothing
to do with it.
Global temperatures have been constant for the last 100 years.
@Ernest
are you PERINDE ATQVE CADAVER to those instructions?
The ideas of CO2 rising on Venus and falling down on earth?
It is as naive and silly and scientifically illiterate as the idea of salt falling down to the bottom bif you have dissolved salt in a glass of water.
The CAGW hoax is rooted in the calculations of “yearly average surface temperatures” via use of the historical near-surface temperature Records dating back to 1870 when only 19 locations were recording temperatures, all of them on Army Bases and all of them east of the Mississippi River. Said locations increased during the next 50 years with the majority of them being per se, “staffed” with local citizenry using Mail Pouch, John Deere, etc., thermometers affixed to fronts of General Stores, etc., etc. Thus, said Temperature Record is highly questionable to its accuracy to within +- 5 degrees F.
Said temperature records were not much interest to anyone until post-1960’s/70’s when research was begun of/on climate. It was at this time that “yearly average surface temperatures” began being calculated via said temperature records. Said “averages” were easily calculated from the most recent records of the past 20-25 years. And as each previous year’s average temperatures were calculated there had to have been guesstimate, estimates, extrapolations, interpolations, smoothings and adjustments …… and thus Hansen et el could now probably tell you what the exact temperature was on the banks of the Little Bighorn River when General Custer met his maker or the temperature in the O.K. Corral just after all the gunsmoke cleared out.
References: http://www.nws.noaa.gov/pa/history/index.php
@Carbomontanus
The theory of CO2 global warming was developed to explain the very hot conditions on Venus. It is based on the assumption that there is a canopy of CO2 over the dense atmosphere of sulfuric acid gas which reflects infra-red radiation back into the atmosphere – much like the glass in a greenhouse. Such a canopy can form on Venus because there is virtually no convection – due to the very slow rotation of the planet. Venus rotates so slowly that a Venusian day is longer than a Venusian year. On Venus CO2 rises because it is lighter than H2SO4 (sulfuric acid) which constitutes the lower part of the Venusian atmosphere. It is thought that there is no water on Venus but the pressure in the atmosphere is so high that liquid water could exist even though the surface temperature is hotter than your oven on clean.
There is no greenhouse effect on Mars even though the Martian Atmosphere is almost 100% CO2 because the rotation of the planet causes enough convection in the atmosphere to allow heat from the sun to escape into space. A Martian day is about as long as a day on the earth.
All the water on mars is frozen and the poles are so cold that it freezes the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. By the way, CO2 does not form a liquid when it heats up. It goes directly from a solid to a gas – it sublimes – because it is incapable of storing heat energy like the H20 on earth and the H2SO4 on Venus.
There would be no CO2 greenhouse effect on the earth even if it rotated as slowly as Venus because CO2 falls in our atmosphere – hence it can form no green house canopy. When you blow up a balloon with your breath which contains CO2 the balloon falls because the air from your lungs has CO2 in it which makes it heavier than the atmosphere. If the earth did not rotate then all of the CO2 would fall (because it is heavier than nitrogen and oxygen) and it would all be absorbed by the oceans. The only reason why there is any CO2 in our atmosphere at all (and the only reason why plants can live on land) is because the convection in our atmosphere (wind) keeps some of the CO2 mixed with the other gases.
On Venus 96.5% of the atmosphere is CO2 3.5% is N2 and only .o15% is SO2. Upper atmospheric winds on Venus top 200 MPH but the average wind speed at the surface averages around 10 KPH, There is plenty of wind to enhance mixing by diffusion by convective mixing. A major reason why the surface of Venus is so much hotter than that of the earth is that the surface pressure on Venus is more than 90 times what it is on earth.
@trionfo
Thanks for your effort and your long and detailed essay.
That is full of quite basic errors and misconsceptions of physical chemistery however, so I would very much like to know rather exactly where you have it from.
The idea of convections macroscopic balloons of air going up and down causing the lapse- rate, and that CO2 “Climate gases” are a false understanding of it,………
…….. was found at “Dipl Ing “Heinz Thieme , former “Tecnical assesor” at the railroads in Leipzig, teaching us of the “gas laws” and “laws of nature” and all that.
I can say for sure and deefinite that the person hardly knows german examen artium of physics, thus can be no “Dipl Ing” . He could not even have entered that study in any legal way.
Thus rather obviously a STASI officer from the late DDR, planted in that technical judge position.With fraud diplomæ from Mittlere reife and highschool allready. Accusing the priest daughter Angela Merkel Dr. Ing on physical chemistery from the Planc Institute in the same old DDR Leipzig for being “perhaps religious” ( =a severe ban-word of anyone in the late DDR) on climate.
Those adiabatic balloon moovemens causing the lapse- rate and not Climate gases and IR and quoite especially not CO2 at all,…….
………..are quite elementary disqualified experimentally. by
§1,the worlds fleet of weather balloons for the last 80 years….
§2,by the stabiliyty of hot air balloons, and
§3, by the stability of airplanes with large wings.
I saw DATA of the Venus atmosphere and I am a physical chemist able to interprete it. The gases SO2, O2 and H2O show up on ppm- level on the ground, in proportions equal to H2SO4, which start to decay at about 380 celsius, and condense back into that material again at 50 Km heighth, where the temperature is low enough for it
Also remember and do respect the fameous lead chamber process of sulphuric acid production from your quite compulsory public school pensum of elementary chemistery, and you will understand it.
And do rather demonstrate personal respect first for that kind of compulsary learnings and enlightmenty, else you rather are to be listed alongsite with Joseph Postma and that Technical “Assessor” of old Leipzig as a red gardist engineer from the Party on the Railways and on the Cernobyl factories.
(if the railways go offt rack or the reactor blows up because the engineer from the Party was both unqualified and drunk, the engineer is holy and immune you see, and it takes a proper technical “assessor” and “Dipl Ing” with false papers from the same bloody party “academy” thinktank school to “Judge” why it went off tracks and blew up.)
Then on CO2 being a heavier gas that falls down in the air and in the atmosphere, ……
That very fameous teaching in the climate denial and spindoctor moovement is as false as telling us that a dissolved Salt such as the very heavy patrticles of Caesium iodide would sink and fall to the bottom if dissolved in a glass of water. Even the extreemly heavy gas xenon does not fall down in the atmosphere unless you get up into very thin air well above 60 Km. Furher up in the “Thermosphere” the atmospheric components do separate more according to moecular weight, and the lightest Hydrogen escapes into space because its thermal translation molecular speed exeedes that of satelites in orbit..
That heavy gas CO2 falling and sinking down is bullshit and does betray severely unrealistic and uncritical quacky learnings of the very field. It betrays the STASI Cerbobyl and Party Assessor style of learning and managing and of explaining things.. Just as for instance a Joseph Postma or Nicola Scafetta over there. The typical, progressive pupils of Mussolini and of Red Gardism.
Theese elements of gas- separation we discuss by the Ultracentrifuge that exposes heavy natural gases to 2-300 000 g, a fact that should also have been guessed and conscidered first..
natural gases mix by thermal diffusion making partial osmotic pressures very much stronger than Newton gravitational forces acting on the singular gas atoms or molecules .
Because a gas is not a classic solid state substancial powder or sandstorm or dry dust material that settles in air and in our gravitational field. Van der Waals forces of very much stronger kind is acting on atomic and molecular level, and can first be overwon in the Ultracentrifuge or by chemical bond forces.
On what rather flies and what sinks and settles:
What keeps a thing flying is its flywing area, and what keeps it sinking is its weight. The wing area is pi r^2 for a ball, and its weight is 3/2 pi r^3 times density. Thus, the Bumble bee flies indeed because it is small enough.
The possible aerodynamic lift comes out like r^2 / r^3, which gives 2density/ 3r.
That will fly indeed regardless of density if only r is small enough.
Thus even the stone will fly, dust is blown up. Even the lead ball will fly. even the osmium and even the Radon- atom Rn will fly and not fall down.
Those atoms and molecules simply are small enough all of them.
Thus correct your really very rotten and quacky basic root ideas of air and of gases and of matter, that rather do betray you,(May it be dia- lectic materialism again?) Do rather point out your very personal teacher Professor and schoolbook katechism where you have it from.
Because, The elephant does not fly because it is too large with a too high density, but small enough animals without wings can fall down from any height without getting hurt at all.
Pollen and bacteriæ as dense as any animal do fly worldwide with the winds and gas molecules of any kind is very much smaller than that.
Foggy drops 1 micron on an average do not fall down and settle from the air. Larger raindrops fall out of the clouds, Large hails fall rather fast. But snowflakes with very much larger wings fall quite softly and slowly. and do quite obviously blow with the winds.
Very fast winds in the USA can make roofs and even cars fly.
Gas molecules are 0.1- 0.2 nanometers by size from wich you can calculate the wing area and divide through molecular mass.
Try rather and look to nature and conscider reality.
@willhaas
I have heard that also twice at least from the denialists surrealists.
Pressure is not energy.
Another industrialized fraud for sale, of rather elementary and compulsary grasping of physics and of nature.
@willhaas
The pressure on Venus is 90 times that of earth because the mass of its atmosphere is 90 times the mass of earth‘s atmosphere.
Although pressure does cause heat I don’t think that it can account for the tremendous amount of heat on the surface of the planet. Neither can the greenhouse effect if there is convection in the atmosphere.
The fact that Venus is covered in a shroud of clouds which are 76% sulfuric acid suggests that the heat on Venus may be internally generated by volcanoes.
This could account for convection in the atmosphere and would predict that the convection would be mostly vertical rather than horizontal as it is on Mars and the Earth.
Carbomontanus says:
January 30, 2014 at 8:56 pm
“iThus, the Bumble bee flies indeed because it is small enough.”
—————-
Cheers, …… that was a “goodern”.
@all and everyone exept trionfo
Trionfo is getting desperate now,….
@Carbomontanus
For a physical chemist you don’t seem to know much about thermodynamics. Pressure is the manifestation of molecules bumping into things transferring their kinetic energy into what they bump into. Any high school chemistry student knows that much. If you don’t believe me try feeling the bottom of your bicycle pump next time you pump up your tricycle tires. It will be hot.
@willhaas
“New evidence from a satellite orbiting the planet suggests that its volcanoes may be active and could be the source of fluctuations in atmospheric sulphur dioxide. Most of the sulphur dioxide on Venus is hidden below the planet’s dense upper cloud deck, because the gas is readily destroyed by sunlight. That means any sulphur dioxide detected in Venus upper atmosphere above the cloud deck must have been recently supplied from below.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2242164/Could-volcanoes-Venus-spewing-sulphur-dioxide-atmosphere.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
“Taylor says that the high levels of sulphur dioxide in the venusian upper atmosphere are also almost certainly due to recent volcanic eruptions…‘This year there have been long discussions about how important volcanoes are for climate,” he says, ‘I conclude that they make a major contribution.‘ Over the next few billion years, Taylor says, Venus’s volcanism will subside, and the planet will begin to lose much of its heavy atmosphere, leading to a lower surface temperature more like that of Earth.”
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100830/full/news.2010.435.html
@Carbomontanus
Bumble bees have nothing to do with it. I remember my college Zoology teacher describing a bumble bee as the equivalent of a flying tank. Its muscles pull down its wings deforming its carapace which bounces back flipping the wings back up again. Ronald Regan described the helicopters that the Soviets used in Afghanistan as “flying tanks.” Both the bumble bee and the Soviet flying tank would drop like a rock if they were not kept aloft by internal combustion – known as respiration in the case of the bumble bee.