How the GW myth is perpetuated

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
Like Petros has said there's very little M so there's very little E field. The moon is also a recent arrival on our shores. Weak E-field thin atmosphere.

I don't think I understand. What particular electromagnetic reaction is taking place that results in heating of the earth due to its stronger magnetosphere?

How do explain that Venus nights are virtually as warm as its days, given that Venus has a weak magnetosphere compared to Earth?
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,570
12,905
113
Low Earth Orbit
I don't think I understand. What particular electromagnetic reaction is taking place that results in heating of the earth due to its stronger magnetosphere?

How do explain that Venus nights are virtually as warm as its days, given that Venus has a weak magnetosphere compared to Earth?

You should be thinking of Mars. No magnetosphere means no atmosphere.

Then there is this: Heat transfer coefficient - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
You should be thinking of Mars. No magnetosphere means no atmosphere.

Then there is this: Heat transfer coefficient - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, I'm thinking of Venus. It's magnetosphere is about 1/1000th that of earth. I'm wondering how to reconcile that with this notion that the magentosphere, not the atmosphere, is responsible for retaining heat on earth. Venus, with a much weaker magnetosphere, seems to retain heat.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Let me help you a bit. You are over using your crutch (denier). This does not compliment your already weak performance. You are beginning to remind me of Avro and if that is in fact the case you will in time froth and spew uncontrollably just like Avro did.
As a poster who had quite a few "back & forths" with Avro (a f**King idiot), I can pretty well assure you 99.9% that Waldo is NOT Avro. I reserve 0.1% in the event Avro had a brain transplant!
 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver

That doesn't really explain it. Are you talking the radiation heat transfer coefficient, phase change heat transfer coefficient or the convective heat transfer coefficient?

You've state dthat the reason that the night-time earth doesn't cool to the same degree as the moon does is due not to the atmosphere, but due to the magentosphere. That works for teh example of teh Earth and the moon, as the moon has virtually no magentosphere. However, the argument doesn't hold up for Venus. Venus, like Earth retains heat, but has a magentosphere 1/100th that of Earth.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
I don't think I understand. What particular electromagnetic reaction is taking place that results in heating of the earth due to its stronger magnetosphere?

How do explain that Venus nights are virtually as warm as its days, given that Venus has a weak magnetosphere compared to Earth?
1/better conductor
2/ Venus is a very new planet whose birth is recorded in history.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,570
12,905
113
Low Earth Orbit
Why doesn't the moon have an atmosphere? Bad luck? Nobody said magnetosphere had any thing to with holding heat other than you SL quit confusing yourself and take things one step at a time and yes Venus has an induced rather than internally driven magnetosphere but we are talking earth and moon not Venus so keep on track and coefficient says there isn't enough time to dissipate acquired daytime heating before seeing light again.
 
Last edited:

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,570
12,905
113
Low Earth Orbit
You did. About two posts ago. And so beginneth the Petros Dance.

Read again.

Quote: Originally Posted by Zipperfish
If climate is only from the sun, why isn't earth's climate like that of the moon? They are both the same distance from the sun, more or less.

The moon doesn't have a magnetosphere

This is where you ****ed yourself up.

I don't think I understand. What particular electromagnetic reaction is taking place that results in heating of the earth due to its stronger magnetosphere?

How do explain that Venus nights are virtually as warm as its days, given that Venus has a weak magnetosphere compared to Earth?

Moon has no magnetosphere to keep an atmosphere from being blown off into space. If it did have a magnetosphere and atmosphere it would be better at holding heat than without correct?
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
No, I'm thinking of Venus. It's magnetosphere is about 1/1000th that of earth. I'm wondering how to reconcile that with this notion that the magentosphere, not the atmosphere, is responsible for retaining heat on earth. Venus, with a much weaker magnetosphere, seems to retain heat.

That's a good question, and the stuff I read says Venus is still hot from it's molten formation, the material goes on to say that formation was about 10,000 years ago, if I'm not mistaken. I'll dig around for the papers if you'd like. That planet is probably radiating heat rather than retaining it.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,570
12,905
113
Low Earth Orbit
No magnetosphere on earth means no atmosphere we arent close enough to the sun for an induced magnetosphere. It is why Venus has a magnetic tail.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
No magnetosphere on earth means no atmosphere we arent close enough to the sun for an induced magnetosphere. It is why Venus has a magnetic tail.

Earth has a similar tail they say. Not as big as Venus but really big all the same. moon passes through it in the full phase makes the moon dust crawl around the surface.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
The Electric Universe model provides a simple way of understanding the differences in atmospheric composition between Earth and Venus. But it applies to Titan as well, where more atmosphere puzzles were recently uncovered. Both Venus and Titan are young planets, related by birth. Their atmospheres are not yet in equilibrium – as shown by the destruction of water near the Venusian surface and by the remnant of methane in Titan’s atmosphere. The abundance of water on Earth and water ice on many moons in the outer solar system signals those bodies' earlier birth under electrical conditions that were different from those of Venus and Titan.
At first sight, the atmospheric compositions of Titan and Venus appear too dissimilar for them to be related: Titan's atmosphere is predominantly nitrogen, but Venus's atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide. In the electrical model the difference is superficial: Ancient records describe Venus going through a prolonged and spectacular discharge phase following her birth. And the nuclear energy difference between the nitrogen molecule and the carbon monoxide molecule is quite small. In the presence of the hot, iron-bearing surface of Venus, acting as a catalyst, that planet’s nitrogen was converted to carbon monoxide. The carbon monoxide reacted with water vapor at the hot surface, in a well-known industrial process, to form carbon dioxide and hydrogen. The hydrogen is found to be escaping in a steady stream from the upper atmosphere. These steps are a very effective means to remove hydrogen from water and to leave behind deuterium to give the observed phenomenally high deuterium/hydrogen ratio.
It seems the process is still active today, giving rise to the destruction of water vapor at the surface of Venus. The electrical energy required is available in the more subdued form of a glow discharge from high elevations. The glow discharge forms a dense, conductive plasma coating, like a sheet of metal over the highlands of Venus. It has given rise to claims that Venusian mountains are topped with “fool’s gold!”

EXECUTIVE EDITORS:
David Talbott, Wallace Thornhill
 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
Read again.

Quote: Originally Posted by Zipperfish
If climate is only from the sun, why isn't earth's climate like that of the moon? They are both the same distance from the sun, more or less.

The moon doesn't have a magnetosphere

This is where you ****ed yourself up.



Moon has no magnetosphere to keep an atmosphere from being blown off into space. If it did have a magnetosphere and atmosphere it would be better at holding heat than without correct?

You're simply not making any sense whatsoever. I don't know if you are genuinely confused or just playing silly bugger.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
First Star I See Tonight
Other measurements taken from orbit show that only 2% of sunlight reaches the surface, although landers on the surface saw a landscape lit up as if the sky were glowing. Furthermore, Venus radiates twice the energy it receives from the sun. The atmospheric layers are also uniform in temperature from dayside to nightside, despite the planet's slow rotation.

Bright hills
Frequently seen as a brilliant point of light in the evening or morning sky, Venus has been identified with beauty by many cultures. But the truth is somewhat different. Although it is about the same size as the Earth, its closer proximity to the Sun means that it is a very different planet. Its thick atmosphere – composed chiefly of carbon dioxide – gives it an intense greenhouse effect, whereby trapped solar radiation heats the surface of the planet to an average temperature of 467 Celsius. Also, its pressure is 90 times greater than that at the Earth’s surface.
Comment:
I cannot let this glib reference to the supposed Venusian ‘greenhouse effect’ pass without comment. The very high surface temperature of Venus of 750°K or 900°F is usually explained by the ‘greenhouse effect’ of a thick atmosphere of carbon dioxide, or even the ‘runaway greenhouse effect,’ first suggested by Fred Hoyle in 1955 and worked out in detail in the late 1960s by Ingersoll and Pollack of Caltech. Such explanations assume that both Venus and Earth have had largely parallel development (so-called twins) and that therefore something went seriously wrong with the atmospheric evolution on Venus. However, there is not a shred of evidence for the ‘twin planets’ theory.
As for the greenhouse effect, it is a desperate model clutched at by theorists who have no alternative ideas. Yet the astronomer Firsoff noted: “Earth’s seas are not boiling hot, despite the total greenhouse effect of water and average sunlight stronger than at the ground level of Venus. Nor is it at all clear how such a condition could have become established.”
Venus receives 1.9 times more solar radiation than Earth but its clouds reflect about 80% of that sunlight, so that Venus actually absorbs less solar energy than the Earth. Solar radiation measured at the surface is 10-20W/m2 (compare this with 340W/m2 at the Earth’s surface in the tropics). Even with the maximum greenhouse effect, the effective surface temperature of Venus should be low enough to freeze water. What is being asked of the ‘runaway greenhouse effect’ is equivalent to expecting a well-insulated oven to reach a temperature sufficient to melt lead by having only the pilot light switched on!
The humorous but sadly apt inversion, ‘I’ll see it when I believe it,’ seems to apply to the interpretation of results relayed to Earth from all four Pioneer lander probes as their radiometers began to give anomalous results as they descended through the atmosphere.
“Taken at face value, the anomalies suggest that parts of the atmosphere are transmitting about twice the energy upwards that is available from solar radiation at the same level.”
[Pioneer Venus, NASA Report SP-461, p. 127].
Despite the obvious interpretation that the laws of thermodynamics are not being violated and that, put simply, Venus is intrinsically damned hot and still cooling, the investigators are able to blandly state in the same paragraph:
“In spite of these difficulties in interpreting some of the observations, the greenhouse effect, coupled with global dynamics, is now well established as the basic explanation of the high surface temperature.”
The Shiny Mountains of Venus | holoscience.com | The Electric Universe
This is merely consensus ignorance, not science.
The BBC report continues:
The only way to glimpse what lies beneath its opaque clouds is by radar, and several missions have carried our radar surveys from orbit, principally the Magellan probe which operated from 1990 to 1994.
Magellan’s images astounded astronomers who were able to see the surface of Venus in detail for the first time. They showed the planet was covered in volcanic features, such as vast lava plains, fields of small lava domes, and large shield volcanoes. But the images were puzzling as well. It appeared that parts of the highlands were abnormally bright, reflecting radar beams much better than lower elevations. Several explanations were put forward ranging from the presence of a loose soil to a coating of metal – specifically, tellurium.
Lined with lead
The theory suggests at Venus’s hot lower layers any metal would be vaporised and exist as a metallic mist. Only at higher elevations, where it is a little cooler, would that metal condense to form a thin, highly reflective layer on the ground. Using detailed chemical calculations involving 660 metal compounds, Laura Schaefer and Bruce Fegley, of the Washington University in St Louis, conclude that tellurium is not responsible, but that c
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
That's my point, I can point at the searing blinding climate regulator with my finger, and you're claim is supported by invisable benevolent harmless gas. I am dim but you're blind.

Regulator or source of energy? There's a huge difference. Try welding without a regulator of pressure or flow. You solar worshipers are funny.

Speaking of differences, one difference between you and I is that I don't dismiss the effects or impact of the other factors. I dismiss the magnitude of the effect solar cycles are having right now, that's for sure, and I'm dismissive of alternative explanations that are't backed by hypothesis testing...like I said, show me something (data), don't just point like a Bronze age Pagan. Maybe you prefer the myopic view of things, but it's not for me. If I appear blind to you, maybe it's because I see the things you can't?

So CO2 is a climate regulator----given-----at .008 or so leaving the bulk of the regulating to the sun at 99.9 and a bit. Furthermore if the sun is blotted out entirely thee planet frezzes if the CO2 gets adjusted as recommend, fok all happens, I bet in the next feww yeaars global warming freaks will disappear almost entirely, most of them having been frozen

So what if it's .008? That doesn't mean anything. Insulin regulates lots of things, not just blood sugar, and a standard dose is 0.000002 of your blood volume. There are lots of examples in this universe where potent regulators are very small constituents of the whole.

As for the effects of gases, I have yet to see an alternative explanation of our climate compared to other planets that can be adequately explained without the gases in our atmosphere, including CO2.

Tbone has said he will watch the video I posted by Richard Alley. I have no idea if he will or not, but you should watch it too.

You're paddling against the current bra

In here? How do you measure the current, by the most vocal and frequent contributors in these threads? Maybe I am going against the current here. I guess if you measure it by the dim rodents fuzzy banker logic, then very likely! Whatever the case, doesn't make one iota of difference.