From The Reference Frame by Luboš Motl
Five days ago, Stephen Hawking – or someone who has hacked his computerized speech generator – has told us that Donald Trump is a supervillain who will transform the Earth to another Venus with temperatures at 250 °C and sulfuric acid rains.
Wow. Now, every intelligent 10-year-old kid must know why this possibility is non-existent, why the statement is nonsense. Some scientists including Roy Spencer have pointed out how absurd these Hawking’s statements were from a scientific viewpoint.
But lots of the scientists who have paid lip service to the lies about the so-called global warming or climate change in the past have remained silent and confirmed that their scientific dishonesty has no limits. I despise all the climate alarmists who know that statements like that are absurd but who hide this fact because a lie like that could be helpful for their profits or political causes. You know, what these jerks and the people who tolerate these jerks’ existence haven’t quite appreciated is that it is only lies that may be helpful for them.
Now, there are exceptions. Zeke Hausfather, a US Berkeley climatologist, has been an alarmist but he has pointed out that he realizes that Hawking’s statement is just junk:
A good example that even brilliant scientists sometimes say silly things when it’s outside their field of expertise (see Nobel disease) https://t.co/QPsmB1bsv0
— Zeke Hausfather (@hausfath) July 2, 2017
However, I disagree with Hausfather’s assertion that this statement by Hawking’s is outside Hawking’s field of expertise. It is some rather basic physics combined with the basic knowledge of the outer space that should be known to 10-year-old boys who attend physics lectures at the elementary school. It isn’t or shouldn’t be outside Stephen Hawking’s expertise because Hawking is a physicist and one who has studied the outer space. I think it’s right to say that Stephen Hawking has shown a rudimentary ignorance about his field, physics.
A reader has asked me “why Venus is special”. But Venus isn’t special in any general sense. Or if we said that Venus is special, almost every planet would be special. A more sensible assertion is that every planet is completely different. It has a completely different chemistry than others. It has a completely different temperature than others, mostly due to the completely different distance from the Sun.
I really think that it’s a shame that kids and even adults don’t reliably know these basic things.
First, look at the distances of the planets from the Sun, e.g. in this table. Mercury, Venus, and Mars have 38%, 73%, and 152% of the Earth’s distance while Neptune, the most distant planet from the Sun, has 3,000% of the Earth’s distance.
Planets are just rocks that ended up there. But the positions have consequences. The greater the distance is, the cooler the planet will be, at least approximately. Why? Because the amount of solar radiation per unit area goes down as 1/R2<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = “[default] http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML” NS = “http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML” />1/R2 . This incoming radiation has to be equal to the outgoing one which scales like σT4σT4 where TT is the absolute temperature of the planetary surface (i.e. temperature in kelvins). I am neglecting albedo and greenhouse effects and other details. You may see that T∼1/R−−√T∼1/R .
So Venus whose distance from the Sun is 0.73 times greater than the Earth’s (“kk times greater” means “smaller” for k<1k<1 ) should have the temperature that is 1/0.73−−−−√∼1.171/0.73∼1.17 times the Earth’s. If the albedo and greenhouse effect were the same, that would be 1.17×288=3361.17×288=336 kelvins or so. That would be 63 °C or so on the surface and Venus could be a bit warmer but habitable. But the composition of the atmosphere and the albedo etc. are different so Venus ends up much higher than that, well above the boiling point of water. Due to the chemistry and the greenhouse effects etc. that result from it, it’s largely unavoidable.
That’s why we say Venus is barely out of the habitable zone. People usually conclude that Mars is barely inside the habitable zone. The habitable zone is the region of the parameter space, mostly but not necessarily only as a function of the distance from the Sun or another star, where liquid water survives on the surface. Water is good for life.
While Earth and Venus may look like siblings (the radii and distances from the Sun are comparable) and they’re sometimes described in this way, they differ in all the details – especially chemistry – dramatically. In particular, the atmosphere of Venus is almost 100 times denser. Around 95% of it is carbon dioxide so the total mass of Venus’ carbon dioxide is almost 200,000 times greater than the mass of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere. There’s just no way to pump this much CO2 into the Earth’s atmosphere because there’s not enough burnable carbon we could access in any imaginable way. At most, if we tried really hard, we could perhaps quintuple the CO2 concentration in the air – which would be a good thing for life on Earth and our economies – but it would be extremely difficult.
Again, the extra greenhouse effect on Venus that adds over 100 °C to the planetary temperature results from the amount of CO2 that is almost 200,000 times greater than that on Earth. Even if we double the CO2 in the atmosphere relatively to now, the ratio would still be almost 100,000. Note that the greenhouse effect due to CO2 on Earth contributes of order several °C so it is significantly greater than the 1/200,000 times the greenhouse effect from CO2 on Venus. It’s because the dependence isn’t linear. It’s sublinear, approximately logarithmic. The more greenhouse gas you have, the less another molecule matters.
If you have never studied the diverse temperatures of the Sun’s eight planets, you are encouraged to spend at least minutes by looking at the Wikipedia pages about these atmospheres:
Mercury: hydrogen, helium, oxygen, sodium, …
Venus: carbon dioxide, nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, argon …
Earth: nitrogen, oxygen, argon, water vapor, …
Mars: carbon dioxide, argon, nitrogen, …
Jupiter: hydrogen, helium, methane, ammonia, …
Saturn: hydrogen, helium, traces of volatiles, …
Uranus: hydrogen, helium, water, ammonia, methane, …
Neptune: hydrogen, helium, methane, …
You see that there are numerous planets – both the distant ones as well as Mercury, the closest one to the Sun (it may be surprising to get it at both extremes) – whose atmospheres are dominated by hydrogen followed by helium – it’s like the early elements in the Cosmos. But the precise compositions are totally different, the following trace elements are different, and the overall pressures of the atmospheres differ by many orders of magnitude.
Read the complete article here.
Come on guys, when comparing earth to venus.
If earth did not have a moon it would be in some sort of sun tide locked orbit like Venus.
Water would be either steam on the sun lite side or ice on the dark side
Oceans would never have formed…
No oceans, no way to pull co2 out of atmosphere
Thus earth would most likely look like Venus if no moon
Period…..
Back to school, Terry!
Probably where he got the stuff !!
Actually, the earth’s rotation would be faster than it is now without the moon. Thanks to tidal friction, the earth’s rotation has been slowing down. A year was about the same length as it is now during the mid Jurassic, but was about 389 days long- days are getting longer.
The planets aren’t “completely different”. They have some similarities, in fact. For example: The atmospheres of Mars and Venus have very high concentrations of CO2.
So yeah, intelligent people do say silly things sometimes.
Physics lectures in elementary school??
So you’re saying Mars and Venus are similar? I’m going to play baseball with golf balls and clubs next week! What? They’re similar!
Read a little more carefully. Motl says they’re “completely different”, which means they have no similarities. I showed one similarity, I’m sure there are more. Like, y’know, they’re both spherical. I did NOT say they are similar, I said they have similarities.
A relevant way in which they are similar is in both having atmospheres of 95-96% CO2.
They are also both not magnetized and appear to lack plate tectonics.
Quite a few important similarities, actually.
When you find a collection or set of things with some similarities and some differences it is interesting to speculate whether there is some logical explanation (law, equation) which may explain the differences. Similar things like planets with an atmosphere but with different amounts of atmosphere and different temperature profiles look worthy of investigation. Might there possibly be some simple formulae which describe the different temperatures for example? You could guess (Feynman like), you could try and work it out (from the well known quantitive equations recently discovered about CO2 Greenhouse Gas Effect). You might succeed but the chances of coming up with the correct formulae which satisfies BOTH the known data (with error bars) AND the trigger sensitivity of the blog mod (with or without mathematical error) seem slim.
Here they are /s /s /s . Insert as appropriate for your own religion.
May your God go with you.
No rotation !
The Earth is habitual because the Moon causes it to rotate once per day.
Venus has no moon, so it is locked with an extremely long, long day – over 300 days.
The moon is slowing the rotation of the Earth.
Terry clausen July 9, 2017 at 8:41 pm said:
“If earth did not have a moon it would be in some sort of sun tide locked orbit like Venus.”
But according to NASA’s Venus Planet profile, the rotation period of Venus is 243.02 earth days (retrograde). Its revolution period around the Sun is 224.7 earth days. Hence Venus is not tide locked. And if we did not have a moon the Earth would not be tide locked either.
As the rotation of Venus is retrograde, it is going the wrong way to be tide locked, anyway.
I had high hopes when I saw the title of this blog: “Venus [Williams] and Hawking’s Scientific Illiteracy”. Was she putting him right? Hopes dashed. Oh, well, there is always next time.
She might have to collide with his wheelchair in traffic before sense returns to the educated idiot’s head.
I think the boot was on the other foot collisionwise.
As the rotation of Venus is retrograde, it is going the wrong way to be tide locked, anyway.
=================
The rotation of Venus is locked to the earth. At closest approach Venus presents the same face to Earth.
Good post and thanks for sharing it Charles the Moderator.
I note that I made many of the exact same points a few days ago right here in the article on what Hawking had stated.
I even used similar language regarding a teen knowing his statements were BS, that he should have more than enough knowledge to know plenty about the subject matter. I mean, he must have done undergraduate work, no?
Did he get a degree in astrophysics without studying astronomy? Usually you start out in basic courses and work your way up as you progress from freshman to senior. And any science degree means general distribution requirements that require study of lots of areas of natural science.
So I looked it up…his undergraduate degree is in natural science…an honors degree, BA.
Now, I myself had started out not really being a degree seeking student, just taking classes in subjects I wanted to know more about…which was every area of natural science. So there was a degree called Interdisciplinary Natural Science, which is what I had decided first. Then I decided I wanted to be a weatherman, and studied physical geography and it’s component subjects for a couple of years. Then i found out that this was not a science degree at all, and I had the wrong general distribution of classes…i would have to take a whole bunch of behavioral science classes (social studies!) and would not have an actual science degree…bad for grad school I had in mind.
So I switched to chemistry, since everything is really chemistry at the basic level…chemistry and physical chemistry ( I know I am asking for it with that statement…bring it y’all!).
Anywho…not Stephen…I do not know how, or why he could get away with it, but it seems:
“Hawking has estimated that he studied about a thousand hours during his three years at Oxford. These unimpressive study habits made sitting his finals a challenge, and he decided to answer only theoretical physics questions rather than those requiring factual knowledge”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking
As an undergrad? Seriously?
No questions when he “sat for exams” on anything requiring factual knowledge?
Impossible where I went to school…you need to know a lot about a lot to get a science degree, including taking a whole lot of classes with labs in which you did actual hands on lab work…and you had to pass every class with at least decent grades. Although, to me getting a C in college was truly shameful…so I did not get any. Really, unless you were a “A” student, you did not really learn the material, did you?
He has, apparently, no “factual knowledge”!
Smart my ass.
Educated?
You decide.
I do not know why anyone would want to let him off the hook, or let him off easy at all, or give him some benefit of a doubt…or say he was just joking with us!
No…he has real stature…he sits in the seat held by Isaac Newton forchrisake!
Someone said we should go easy on him because Dyson was also singled out…but Dyson did not spew unscientific crap.
Hopper, as well, is scorned…but he is scorned for being right, like the warmistas scorn anyone who speaks against the climate liars! He is now Presidential science advisor. Day and night from the last one, huh?
The only excuse is if he (Hawking) did not say these things…or if it aint even him…he has outlived any one else who has ever had ALS by many decades…few live even five years, and he was diagnosed in the early 1960s.
But without hard proof, that just sounds tin-foil hattish, even if true.
He gets no pass from me.
He gets extra scorn and I would single him out for extra opprobrium, due to his stature and credentials alone.
Hopper should, of course, be Happer.
As in William Happer, the atomic physicist from Princeton.
There was a lot of speculation a few months ago that Prof. Happer might become Presidential Science Advisor, but I don’t think it actually happened… did it?
I haven’t seen any official announcement about Happer becoming Science Advisor.
Menicholas July 9, 2017 at 11:19 pm
Did he get a degree in astrophysics without studying astronomy? Usually you start out in basic courses and work your way up as you progress from freshman to senior. And any science degree means general distribution requirements that require study of lots of areas of natural science.
So I looked it up…his undergraduate degree is in natural science…an honors degree, BA.
Natural Sciences at Oxford would be about 50:50 Physics and Maths.
The question is…does he have any basic scientific education, or not?
I mean, in addition to bone-shatteringly basic atmospheric physics, isn’t Venus the most volcanically-active body in the solar system?
I’ve never tried to calculate what the effect of that is, and I’m not sure I’d want or need to, but I’d bet it’s not zero.
I don’t think this is the first odd Hawking utterance, but it’s disheartening. On the other hand, it’s not surprising – the tribe is usually more important than the facts.
No.
Venus is no longer volcanically active.
My understanding is that Jupiter’s Galilean Moon Io is the most volcanically active body in the Solar System, This is because it is torn between the gravity of Jupiter and the other three Galilean Moons which subject Io to severe tidal forces therebyheating the interior.
— richard verney
July 10, 2017 at 6:15 am
No.
Venus is no longer volcanically active. —
They detected volcanic plume on Venus, but no evidence of high present day volcanic activity- but has a lot countable volcanic landforms, or said to more than Earth.
Now see can find refs.
“Venus has more volcanoes than any other planet in the solar system. Over 1600 major volcanoes or volcanic features are known (see map),”
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/oldroot/volcanoes/planet_volcano/venus/intro.html
“Bright plume spotted on Venus, image taken by the ESA Venus Express.
Did a volcanic eruption recently occur on Venus? No one really knows, but a bright plume of unknown material was spotted by an amateur astronomer. One possible source for this plume might be a volcanic eruption.”
bigthink.com/eruptions/eruption-occuring-on-venus
Hmm
“However, arguments that the streak is a volcanic
deposit are not compelling, and it remains possible that
the streak represents merely ejecta from Bakisat ”
https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2017/pdf/1978.pdf
This is similar
http://sci.esa.int/venus-express/54063-2-recent-volcanism/
“In particular, around volcanoes in three of the hot spots (Imdr, Themis and Dione Regiones), VIRTIS data show anomalously high emissivity values. These are interpreted to indicate that the lava flows observed in these regions are relatively unweathered and therefore recent – perhaps a few thousands to a few tens of thousands of years in age.” And;
“The VMC has also detected some bright, transient features, including an apparent hot spot in the Ganiki Chasma region. The localised region of higher-than-expected temperature may have been a volcanic eruption or fresh lava flow, although this interpretation of the images is by no means certain.”
Perhaps the news story I recall seemed more certain. I would say Moon is quite dead, and Mars is more dead than Venus. But mostly don’t know is a better assessment.
“My understanding is that Jupiter’s Galilean Moon Io is the most volcanically active body ”
It certainly puts on a show, and lava is suppose to be very hot.
“On the other hand, it’s not surprising – the tribe is usually more important than the facts.”
Sad but true in too many cases.
Eocene Climate Optimum
At the beginning of the Eocene, the high temperatures and warm oceans created a moist, balmy environment, with forests spreading throughout the Earth from pole to pole. Apart from the driest deserts, Earth must have been entirely covered in forests.
Polar forests were quite extensive. Fossils and even preserved remains of trees such as swamp cypress and dawn redwood from the Eocene have been found on Ellesmere Island in the Arctic. Even at that time, Ellesmere Island was only a few degrees in latitude further south than it is today. Fossils of subtropical and even tropical trees and plants from the Eocene have also been found in Greenland and Alaska. Tropical rainforests grew as far north as northern North America and Europe.
Wikipedia
During this time there was an explosion in numbers and variety of mammalian and avian lifeforms. The Eocene oceans were warm and teeming with fish and other sea life.
Truly a Garden of Eden, and with Global Temperatures about 10’C greater than now. Yet The Great and The Good want to take us back into a glacial environment by reversing Climate Change.
Yes Sandy, I pointed out this same set of facts a few days ago here.
And all indications are that the tropics have never been much warmer than they are now…the temp there is limited by the thunderstorms that occur continuously at the ITCZ.
https://www.livescience.com/23374-fossil-forest-redwood-diamond-mine.html
HI Sandy, thought you would be interested in these remarkable chunks of redwood (actual wood with sugary seams of sap dated at 53million yrs) found at 300m depth in the Ekati diamond mine near the Arctic Circle in Canada’s north.
You might also be interested how it got there. Diamond pipes are volcanic of a special explosive type. Under thick cooler Archean age stable platforms, diamonds form at a depth of ~150km in the mantle below the crust (at a horizontal layer known as the Diamond Stability Field, DSF). The Kimberlite volcano source at about 180km depth has no diamonds but as the magma rises, it passes through the DSF it samples and entrains the diamonds into the lava. It starts out at a speed of ~20km/hr and accelerates reaching about 40km/hr where cracks into the base of the crust from where it continues to accelerate reaching 1200km/hr at the earth’s surface. I blasts the lava, blocks of rock and in this case trees of the redwood forest that it erupted in. Like a vertical cannon shot it carries the debris up above the clouds and then it all rains down dropping back into a giant gaping cylindrical crater over 300m deep. Trees around the periphery also topple in and the last gasps of the volcanism seals the whole mass back up. Geology can be a lot of fun!
Gary Pearce, thank you for that link. I’ve never heard of anything like that before.
It’s a bad day when you don’t learn something new, that made today particularly good.
What really annoys me is that the BBC, and Pallab Ghosh, who must by now know that this prediction was wrong, have done nothing to correct it, presumably because they are afraid to challenge the word of Professor Hawkins.
Meanwhile, gullible people, who believe the prediction, because after all, who would not believe the word of Stephen Hawkins, are living in fear of the imminent end of the world.
The BBC should issue a correction as soon as possible, but they won’t.
quaesoveritas
I agree. Of course they won’t.
The BBC has become a propaganda machine.
Anti Brexit.
A study in March found that just one in six contributors to the Radio 4 Today programme’s business news slots in the six months after referendum saw the result as positive for Britain.
source:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/05/cross-party-group-mps-accuse-bbc-brexit-bias/
Anti-May
Since the recent general election the BBC has led most news programs with items slanted against the conservatives and Mrs. May in particular, followed it is true with anti-Trump items. More than half of this morning’s eight o’clock news was devoted to such items.
Anti-Trump
No positive items about the President have been aired since his election (or even before). The BBC even managed to criticise him for “interfering” when he offered his help in the “Charlie Gard” case that is until the Pope came in with a similar offer a day or so later!
Anti-Israel
The Balen report (which the BBC went to the Supreme Court to prevent its publication) reputedly found that the BBC was institutionally anti-Semitic.
Pro-CAGW.
The BBC is so wedded to the idea of man induced global warming that it has dropped any scientist who dares to question the hypothesis (sorry with the BBC, I should have said religious belief).
Both anti-Corbyn and pro-Corbyn.
So long as it appeared that Labour could not win a a general election under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn the BBC devoted every opportunity to denigrating and ridiculing him. After he succeeded in reducing the Conservative lead by dramatically improving Labour’s share of the poll, he can now do no wrong in the eyes of the BBC.
No wonder their most cerebral and successful script writer, the late Sir Anthony Jay claimed that the letters BBC stood for “Bloated, Biased and Creepy.”
I believe the BBC is increasingly creating the news, rather than reporting it.
This Hawkins interview is the worst example for some time of “fake news” put out by the BBC, and as soon as I can muster the energy to face their laborious process, I intend to send them a formal complaint (not a comment) on the subject.
Following the investment advice of Gore, BBC has heavy pension investment in “green” funds.
BBC has recently signed a statement, with 200 other investors, encouraging Paris Accord because it is “essential for the safeguarding of our investments.”
“This letter is signed by 217 investors representing more than USD 15 trillion in assets. As long-term institutional investors, we believe that the mitigation of climate change is essential for the safeguarding of our investments.”
https://mppension.dk/globalassets/pdfer/global-investor-letter-to-g7g20-governments.pdf
Reply from the BBC regarding my complaint about the interview:
“I understand you believe Prof Stephen Hawking made factually incorrect statements about climate change.
Thanks for raising these concerns. Prof Hawking is well renowned figure and he shared many views about science and his life in light of audience interest. Views expressed by interviewees concerning any such matters are of course based on their own knowledge and experience and are not that of the BBC. The BBC can however provide a wider range of views over a more reasonable period.
That said, we do value your feedback about this issue in that you felt Prof Hawking should’ve been robustly challenged on his views concerning the environment and climate change. All complaints are sent to senior management and programme teams every morning and I included your points in this overnight report.
These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the BBC and ensures that your complaint has been seen by the right people quickly. This helps inform their decisions about current and future programmes.”
Gary Pearse July 9, 2017 at 8:45 pm
“…. Without Newton, Maxwell… Einstein may have remained a patent clerk.”
Don’t forget now forgotten and written out science history, Einstein’s ex-wife Mileva Maric, a brilliant mathematician/scientist in her own right, jointly worked on the theory of relativity, to whom he eventually had to surrender his Nobel Prize money, or prove that his work on photo electricity was his own alone. (google Mileva Maric)
“How happy and proud I will be, when both of us together will have brought our work on relative motion to a victorious end. When I look at other people, I can really appreciate what mettle you are made of.” (Albert to Mileva, March 27, 1901)
“You did make me laugh aloud when you threatened me with your memoirs; doesn’t it occur to you that no cat would give a damn about such scribblings if the man you’re dealing with had not achieved something special. If one is a zero it cannot be helped, but one should be nice and modest and keep one’s trap shut. That is my advice to you.” (Albert to Mileva, October 24, 1925)
Did he not also publish on Brownian motion that same year?
Did he come up with that on his own?
Those quotes reveal a lot about Einstein. He doesn’t d@ny Maric’s contribution, but asserts that he is the famous one, she is a nobody, no one would pay any attention to her version and therefore she should shut-up about it.
When Maric was eighteen in 1896 the only German-speaking country where women were admitted to the university was Switzerland. It is fact that she enrolled at same time and in the same department as Einstein, attended the same lectures, they read and worked together for four or five years, wrote their thesis in the same area: heat conduction, the topic that Marić was fascinated by.
In the early stage most likely it was ‘Marie and Pierre Curie’ type science team, with Albert possibly and most likely more dominant one. It should be remembered that at the end of 19th century and subsequent years, for a woman from a backward Austro-Hungarian colony, with three children, one illegitimate and chronically sick, would have not been that easy to establish academic and scientific credentials in her own right.
In his mid and late years, it seems to me, that Einstein was equally if not more successful in media self-publicity than in the real scientific breakthroughs.
He published 4 notable papers that year (1905):
Brownian Motion (led to the final acceptance of the existence of atoms)
Special Relativity
Mass-Energy equivalence
Photoelectric effect (for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1921)
1904: Albert and Mileva’s first son, Hans Albert Einstein
1910: Albert and Mileva’s second son, Eduard
1911 Einstein predicts bending of light.
1914 Albert and Mileva separate and live apart.
1915 Einstein completes the General Theory of Relativity, published 1916.
While Einstein worked on the most of his important works, Maric was at his side.
All these great scientific achievements of the very early years of 20th century are attached to A. Einstein’s name, they were created in the presence of his wife, mathematician and scientist that the science history ignored and forgotten about.
Since both are long gone, the science historians should take another systematic assessment into the Maric’s contributions if any.
Wouldn’t it be a great inspiration for many young schoolgirls if even only one of these grate scientific works as mentioned above, are known as the ‘Einstein-Maric theory’.
Stephen Hawking for the “Jackson Award”?
I must emphasize again what I am constantly saying and can prove if the interested meets it to enable me to present it at a scientific gathering, but not in a tycoon “scientific journals.”
All such discussions are the consequences of contaminated awareness, with many fatamorganisms of scientists who have established the foundations of defense against genuine claims, intent on destroying all those viruses that have nested in the present teachings.
Firstly, if we are talking about climate change and global warming, all claims that these are the consequences of a human factor are null and void. CO 2 can pollute the atmosphere, but locally. All theories and Einstein’s, Lorenz and the like do not have support in natural laws !!! WHY ? Because these misconceptions are the consequences of ignorance of the structure of the universe. All of you are “caught” in a network of your own efforts to rise above your Creator, and you are not aware that he really exists and that he has let you try out all the nonsense that your mind gives you with your logistics in see free will and desire To satisfy your sensual senses, not to raise the level of awareness, which is the power to create and understand the true causes of the phenomenon in us and in the universe.
You must, once and for all, understand and accept that the Spiritual Entity of the Universe (SEU) is the immense power of creation all in the observer entity-the material-energy entity of the universe (MEEU).
The universe is an infinite sphere filled with ether, from which the matter is formed and which returns to its “backyard” through black holes.
Gravity and magnetism are all the seven states created by “family relationships” with ether, which is filled with quarks and gluons that have contact with ether and they cause all these changes.
Likewise, climate change on the planets is the result of the mutual relationship of the planet with the sun, and the main challenger is a variable magnetism. I’ve just said, just look for details. Of course, if you are brave to “go down to a lower level of acquaintance”.
Nikola Tesla was the only one who knew how to study and understand the role of ether and he managed to start a car of any kind of fuel, even 150 km / h. And he hid it because he saw that on the planet there are many more “sprinklers” than normal people. This is still evident today because there is not a single institution on the planet that will allow something new to be brought out of science, but that it is not a matter of course. What does it look like?
ONLY IDIOTIC TYCOONIZM FROM POWER!
I suggest you contact Richard Hall of RichPlanet (UK based) and see if you can do a video presentation together on his website or even just an interview/discussion.
John T Houghton who was one of the original lead authors for the IPCC, wrote in his book: “The Physics of Atmospheres” CUP 1986:
“ Fig. 2.6 Illustrating the greenhouse effect for terrestrial planets. Their surface temperature is plotted against the vapour pressure of water vapour in the atmosphere. Also on the diagram (dashed) are the phase lines for water, the shaded area showing where the liquid water is in equilibrium.
For Mars and the Earth the greenhouse effect is HALTED when water vapour becomes saturated with respect to ice or water. ( My capitals).
For Venus the diagram illustrates the “runaway greenhouse effect”.
( After Rasool & De Bergh, 1970 and Goody & Walker, 1972).
Stephen Hawking might care to have a look at this. He could learn a thing or two
(Sadly I have not yet mastered the art of including images in my comments. Can anyone help here? Probably simple; but it never seems to work for me)
I have an A’Level in physics, I am not a professor of physics at one of the world’s most prestigious universities, but Prof Hawking, with all due respect is talking nonsense.
I am typing this in Marbella, Costa del Sol, Spain. This lovely region has a crescent shaped mountain range extending from Gibraltar in the West, to Nerja in the East. It is called the Costa del Sol (Coast of the Sun) because we have over 300 sunny days per year. The mountains block rain clouds from the north, west and east forcing the rain to fall on the mountain, half of which flows southwards, so we are rarely short of water. The mountains are mainly limestone which is a sedimentary rock created from compression of trillions of tons of the shells of dead sea creatures over billions of years. Limestone exists in huge quantities all over the world as does wood, coal, oil and vegetation, ALL the CO2 that these life forms metabolised was once in the atmosphere in concentrations 20x higher than we have today. Life on Earth survived and evolved. The Venus simile is nonsensical, the atmospheric pressure of the Venusian atmosphere with 96% CO2 is the same as the pressure would be in one of our oceans at a depth of 10 miles. Life never evolved there because the surface temperature of 450 Celsius (not 250 Celsius), is too high. The tipping point where limestone (CaCO3) would break down to quicklime (CaO) and CO2 would need a temperature of 750+ Celsius and would still only result in a concentration of CO2 20x higher than at present.
The idiocy of the concept of AGW is well demonstrated here. Renewable energy to “reduce” CO2 emissions in the Costa del Sol does not originate from solar panels as anyone with a brain would expect, but from wind turbines on top of the mountains that were created from atmospheric CO2,in the first place by organisms much more capable of reducing atmospheric CO2 than mankind can despite a 4.5 billion year evolutionary advantage.
We know your area well, ironically(?) the one day we went to visit El Torcal it was shrouded in thick fog !
Limestone is important stuff to study. I only have to walk 50m from my house in the UK to see 4 limestone kilns, or rather what is left of them. My garage is built on an ash pit, interesting stuff if you want to put footings in for a wall.
It isn’t sulfuric acid rain but virga. The vapor pressure properties of sulfuric acid contribute far more to the temperature than carbon dioxide. And mass properties. .consider molecular weight differences of water vapor and earth atmosphere where water vapor is highly buoyant while Venus sulfuric acid vapor is negatively buoyant in a mostly carbon dioxide atmosphere.
It doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to understand basic physics. Specialization often instills over confidence in obvious facts. A reverse Dunning Kruger effect. See Apollo 1.
Give CNN a break – they operate with a lack of any intelligent journalists to edit their BS. The other day they reported the History Channel’s stupid claim about a photo that supposedly shows Amelia Earhart and her navigator Fred Noonan on a dock in the Marshall Islands, a place that some of the more ignorant Earhart researchers have claimed she landed, to be “captured” by Japanese. The world’s number one Earhart research organization, TIGHAR had actually seen this “newly discovered piece of evidence” more than a year ago and very quickly discarded any claims about it showing Earhart or anyone else : everything about the photo was wrong (although the two in the photo were a man and a woman) . The person who found the photo then shopped it to the History Channel, where ancient aliens build pyramids for the backward Egyptians and Hitler’s supposed escape route to South America took five full hour episode to describe, and in the process provided not one shred of evidence of any escape, save some ridiculous 70 year old claims about some South Americans claiming to have seen Hitler, something that occurred on all points of the globe for years after the war. Let’s rename it the Fake (or False) History Channel. Any competent journalist would not have simply repeated the History Chanell’s absurdly stupid claim but would have contacted a real bunch of experts, not the Elgen Long moron that the History Channel used as their only”expert.” This CNN was incapable of doing. Perhaps CNN has some financial links to the History Channel. More likely, it’s just another case of CNN’s stupidity.
A & E Networks – jointly owned by the Hearst Corporation and Disney. No direct connection to CNN (owned by Ted Turner, still, essentially).
My first thought about this was to wonder if black holes actually evaporate, after all.
I honestly believe his disease has made it to his brain as his scientific ability has drastically dropped in recent years. I hope someone informs his doctors so what is left can be saved.
See my WriterBeat paper where Q = U A dT explains Venus a lot simpler and better than S-B.
I’ll say it again, 90+ atmospheres of pressure and significantly closer to the sun is all one needs to know to understand the temperatures on Venus irrespective of the atmospheric composition. Hawking’s famous stuff is mostly pure conjecture so why is everyone so surprised? And why do we need to see so many folks on this site picking at fly shit and beating mosquitos with sledgehammers? Evidently we need to show how smart we are? Let’s not sink into the mire of vanity or we’ll be standing right next to the leftists most of us so disdain. Their true motivations are so transparent that they virtually scream out to anyone listening. We on this site are, or should be, better than that.
“I’ll say it again, 90+ atmospheres of pressure and significantly closer to the sun is all one needs to know to understand the temperatures on Venus irrespective of the atmospheric composition.”
I’ll say it again ….
That classic piece of sky-dragon slaying “science” omits the albedo of Venus.
The bond albedo of Venus is 0.76, so the planet is absorbing just 24% of Solar radiation at TOA.
Redoing the calculation to take account of that then….
E received at TOA = 2,636 W/m2
E absorbed at TOA = (1-0.76) / 4 = 158 W/m²
Earth is absorbing 340 W/m2
Which equates to an “effective radiating temperature” of 230K (-43°C).
The same calculation for the earth gives 255K (-18°C)
Regarding Hawking radiation, see this wikipedia article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
To form a black hole, a star would have to have mass greater than that of the sun.
The radiating temperature of a hypothetical black hole would be
(6.169/ 10^8) K * (mass black hole/mass sun) so a sun mass black hole would supposedly radiate at a
temperature less than background space, with a temperature of 2.7 K. All black holes are currently GAINING net energ from that background radiation, and will continue to do so until the universe has expanded by a factor of 10*^10 or more, depending on the mass of the black hole, before radiation from the black hole is greater than background radiation.
Okay, back to Hawking again: Well, I’m starting to believe that those seemingly idiotic words DID originate from him — as unbelievable as it seems, … but I’ve started applying other perspectives gained in the comments.
And the media have gone even crazier with his words. For example, I found the following headline:
Earth DOOMED by climate change which could burn us alive, warns Stephen Hawking
… in association with the same interview where those words came from.
Exaggerate much, media ?
Hey, since it’s a contest to develop the most stupid headline based on his words in that “interview”, here, let me give it a shot:
The Greatest Scientific Mind In History Says Your Children Will Burn To Death In Dire Agony, As Earth Turns Into A Fiery Hell From Disastrous Carbon Dioxide Pollution Caused By Human Fossil Fuel Technology — Get Ready To Fry Sinners
Crap, I forgot to use all caps somewhere in my headline.
Notice, I’m also old school in how I format titles, … still adhering to the seemingly now antiquated rule of capitalizing the first letter of most words (I do all words, ’cause I just like the consistency).
Atheistic Dooms-dayers are so unoriginal. Their prognostications are all copied from Revelation. Except the predictions of global flooding (addressed in Gen 9).
There may be a reason for this.
The greatest scientific mind in history, Newton, predicted doom for the year AD 2060, based upon the Bible and history. Or possibly AD 2016, in which case he was wrong, as also about space, time and gravity.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140825100049.htm
Unlike Earth, the GHG effect has no DIRECT influence on any part of the solid surface temperature of Venus. The only DIRECT effect GHG’s has is on the temperature of the surface in equilibrium with the Sun which in the case of Venus is the top of a cloud layer high up in its atmosphere. Venus is a case of runaway clouds and not runaway GHG’s.
Even if Earth entered a state of runaway clouds, the solid surface temperature below would only be close to that of Venus if Earth also had 100 ATM of atmospheric pressure at the surface, regardless of what gases are involved.
The question that needs to be asked is why does the temperature of a gas giant increase as the atmospheric pressure increases? Hawking should have known this, after all, isn’t gravity in his wheelhouse?
The sad possibility that Prof. Hawking is basically a meatbot being operated for profit and political power seems to be more and more likely.
Weekend at Bernies
Or to say this a little differently. If we had as much Nitrogen on earth as there is CO2 on Venus, we would be burnt to a cinder also.