Found an energy budget for Venus.

There is an interesting quote today at the Space Weather webpage about the recent development of a new sunspot theory claiming that a new minimum in solar sunspot activity will occur in 2030.

" In fact, the model has never successfully predicted any future solar activity. So far it has only been used to "predict" solar cycles from 1976 to 2008. Almost any model can be fine-tuned to match the past. As forecasting tools, previous dynamo models have failed spectacularly. The double-dynamo model of Zharkova et al may yet prove to be correct, but until it passes the test of correctly predicting future solar activity, there is no reason to worry about an historic decline in sunspots, much less an Ice Age. Indeed, it is more likely that the reverse is true.

http://spaceweather.com/

"I suspect that "we used a model" is modern scientist,-speak for "we calculated it"."

I suspect that "we used a model" is scientist speak for "we used a series of different data scenarios to come up with what we considered to be a reasonable guess".

Martin A, Radical Rodent

As Science of Doom points out, the biggest problem with the ideas of Huffman, Cotton and co. Is the amount of energy returning from the atmospheres of Earth and Venus to the surface.

For Earth the flux is 350Wm-2, comparable to a light bulb.

For Venus the flux exceeds 16,500Wm-2, more like the output of an electric fire.

This is an enormous amount of energy. An unknown effect of this magnitude would be obvious in many processes and would have won its discoverer a Nobel Prize years ago.

Huffman appears to be presenting EM with a real problem. I read his article once and my recollection is that he looked at the Venusian atmosphere at a pressure of 1bar and found that taking into account the different distances from the Sun Venus and the Earth were the same temperature at 1 bar. From that he drew the conclusion that there was no feedback effect. At first blush that seems to be a jump in logic, but those of us of a certain age can remember reading that the high temperatures on Venus were a result of the GHG effect of all that CO2 in the atmosphere. Carl Sagan also propagated this theory if my recollection is correct, while some Russian Velikowsky proposed that Venus came into existence as a result of it being a comet of Jupiter. he pointed out that Venus revolves on it's access in the opposite direction to all of the other planets around the Sun and was different in many ways. And wasn't shown in any drawings of the night sky in ancient drawings. He was poo hooed by the scientific establishment, in particular Sagan who "proved" there wasn't enough energy to cause Jupiter to draw in and throw out a comet (if my memory serves me, which it usually doesn't).

Anyway, my point is that EM's making an awful lot of effort to prove Huffman wrong, without much success, you've probably reached your last line of defence when you quote the Science of Doom.

"revolves on its access"???

Revolves on it's axis.

its

.

Geronimo

I was having a pleasant chat with Martin A until the deniers came along.

Perhaps you can explain. 17Wm-2 reaches the surface of Venus. The surface temperature is 733C. The surface radiates 16,600W upwards, and the atmospheric greenhouse effect reradiates 16583 Wm-2 back down. The surface is in equilibrium.

Without the greenhouse effect the surface would lose heat to space at 16583 Wm-2.

Why does it not cool?

EM: Ohms Law is a law.

It ties amps volts and ohms together and always works, that why it has been called a law for many years.

If you wanted to calculate the resistance of a conductor, then you would use an appropriate formula:

R = Rho * L /A where Rho is the 'specific resistance' of a material in ohm-metre,

L is the length of the material in metres and A is the cross sectional area in metres^2

Rho is determined by measurement for each material in question and is very temperature dependant.

Look up Rho for copper here: http://www.nist.gov/data/PDFfiles/jpcrd155.pdf page 1161 for table of values.

However, whatever the temperature, ohms law always applies, thats why it is called a law.

Even in AC circuits ohms law applies to the purely resistive element, with reactance looking after the L and C effects.

Steve Richards

It is all right. I accept Ohm's Law.

I was using it to illustrate a debating point about the artificial nature of " laws of nature."

"I was using it to illustrate a debating point about the artificial nature of " laws of nature.""

Oh no you weren't you were trying to be clever with a bunch of engineers and imply that life was more complicated than we thought - without the slightest knowledge of how complicated we think life is. We have all now said the same thing to you Ohm's law is a law because I =E/R is correct in all circumstances. With future measuring systems we may find that's not quite true, but it's true enough to get a spacecraft to Pluto.

'I was having pleasant chat with Martin A until the deniers came along."

If you're referring to me as a "denier" could you please explain how? All I did was point out that Huffman had found that the temperature of Venus at 1 bar was exactly the same temperature as the Earth, taking into account the difference in distance from the Sun. I made no comment on his then saying that this disproves the GHG effect because I don't know why it should.

We've had BBD before you and he got irrationally bad tempered because I identified his sources of knowledge as SkS and SoD when he wanted to come over as a scientist who'd immersed himself in the literature. Perhaps you could try thinking for yourself and occasionally admitting you're wrong. It's good for the soul.

Martin A

"If such an effect were shown to exist, it would be the CAGW Believer's worst nightmare - that changing GHG concentrations would have no significant effect."

Indeed it would.

Unfortunately for Huffman, Radical Rodent and geronimo no such effect has been demonstrated.As long as existing physics can explain the observed reality I see no reason to invoke extra effects.

Geronimo

Let us test your status. Do you accept the existance of the CO2 greenhouse effect?

A simple Yes or No would give maximum clarity, but feel free to give a more complex answer.

"Let us test your status. Do you accept the existance of the CO2 greenhouse effect?

A simple Yes or No would give maximum clarity, but feel free to give a more complex answer."

Why would I need my "status" testing by you? I think you should check with Mrs. EM, wives are always a good source of honest opinions, you may be suffering delusions of grandeur.

Geronimo

I'!ll take that as a No and think of you as a denier henceforth.

Martin A

Basic theory, observations and climate model results all show that the increase in water vapor is roughly 6 percent to 7.5 percent per degree Celsius warming of the lower atmosphere.

If there was a strong negative forcing from water vapour it would probably be obvious by now.

Geronimo

The greenhouse effect and electricity have roots in the same physics of atomic structure and electron orbitals. Denying the existance of the greenhouse effect would be as silly as denying electricity.

Getting back on thread,

"Does Climate Science Exist?"

No, not really. And yes.

Before there was "nano-technology" there were physicists, chemists, metallurgists, material scientists, polymer scientists, bio-mechanical engineers, and many, many others.

Some of them chose to label themselves as nano-technologists for funding purposes.

Ditto for Cli-Sci.

Michael Hart. It doesn't exist as a science, it's physics, chemistry and biology in a toxic mix of activism. Thanks for bringing us back to the point.

"Geronimo

I'!ll take that as a No and think of you as a denier henceforth."

Well there you are then, the Oracle has spoken.

"The greenhouse effect and electricity have roots in the same physics of atomic structure and electron orbitals. Denying the existance of the greenhouse effect would be as silly as denying electricity."

More from the Oracle. V. profound, but a little confusing for those of us unacquainted with the meaning of the word "existance".