... You made the (quite incorrect) claim that Latour wasn't accounting for the fact that the subject at hand is net heat transfer. But that claim is simply incorrect. ... [Jane Q. Public]
Once again, if Dr. Latour understood the second law refers to net heat, he'd agree that adding a cold plate makes the heated plate lose heat slower. That's okay because net heat still flows from hot to cold, i.e. more heat moves from hot to cold than vice versa.
... You took a badly-worded sentence or two and jumped on them as though Latour made a mistake. But his only mistake was wording a couple of sentences badly. He does in fact NOT suggest that warmer objects absorb no radiation, and he has written as much many times. ... You have refuted NOTHING but a couple of unfortunately-worded sentences, which Latour himself publicly corrected shortly after that post appeared. ... [Jane Q. Public]
He must have forgotten this nebulous unlinked correction because his blog post is still live and still contains all these badly worded sentences:
"... the absorption rate of real bodies depends on whether the absorber T (radiating or not), is less than the intercepted radiation T, or not. If the receiver T > intercepted T, no absorption occurs; if the receiver T < intercepted T the absorption rate may be as great as proportional to (T intercepted – T absorber), depending on the amounts reflected, transmitted or scattered. What actually happens is the chiller radiates to the hot plate, but the plate cannot absorb any of it because it is too cold. The hot plate reflects, transmits or scatters colder radiation, just like my roof does for cold radio waves. ... Energy from colder cannot heat hotter further because the second law of thermodynamics says so, because nature says so; always and everywhere. ... Conclusion, the hot plate remains at 150. All physics I know supports it; no physics offered refutes it. Spencer mistakenly assumed the 150 plate absorbs incident 100 radiation ... The generalized claim that a cooler object placed near a warmer object cannot result in a rise in temperature of the warmer object stands. ..."
In fact, he did more than suggest that warmer objects absorb no radiation: "k is the fraction of re-radiation from the second bar absorbed by the first hotter bar... k must be identically zero, so no cold back-radiation is absorbed and T remains 150. Quod Erat Demonstrandum, QED."
That's why I refuted Dr. Latour by showing that a completely enclosed heated plate reaches an equilibrium temperature of 235F (386K), which is less than infinity.
Explain to us what Venus vs. Mercury have to do with Pierre Latour's thermodynamic argument in regard to greenhouse warming? [Jane Q. Public]
Again, if Dr. Latour and the Slayers are right, why is Venus hotter than Mercury? Hint: the Slayers are wrong. Venus is hotter than Mercury because of the greenhouse effect.
... I have no desire (or any motivation, for that matter) to engage you in some ridiculous argument about whether Venus is proof of "greenhouse warming", as compared to Mercury or the Earth. There are many reasons why even if it were true, it is hardly relevant: Mercury has an extremely long day, almost no atmosphere, and a very eccentric orbit. Venus has a surface atmospheric pressure 92 times (give or take) Earth's, it's atmosphere is MOSTLY CO2 (around 96% or so), versus Earth's 0.04% or less, again give or take a bit. Not to mention the vast clouds of sulfuric acid. You seem to want to ignore all these other variables and argue about just CO2, when the degree to which CO2 in particular affects Venus' surface temperature is speculative, to say the least. ... [Jane Q. Public]
No, I didn't ignore those variables. In fact, I pointed out differences that should make Venus cooler than Mercury in the absence of Venus's greenhouse effect. For instance:
- I compared Mercury's daytime surface temperature to Venus's nighttime surface temperature because Venus's long night should be cooler than Mercury's long day.
- I mentioned Venus's high albedo which is due to its vast clouds of sulfuric acid, and mentioned that this should keep Venus cooler than dark Mercury by reflecting more sunlight.
- I mentioned that Venus is farther from the Sun than Mercury even when Mercury is at aphelion, which should make Venus cooler than Mercury.
- I pointed out that long-term equilibrium surface temperature is determined by conservation of energy, not the ideal gas law. So pressure only affects surface temperature by enhancing the greenhouse effect if and only if GHG's are present.
I've also explained that a planet with no atmosphere is a simple case where the effective radiating level is at the surface, so the equilibrium surface temperature can be determined using the planet’s albedo and distance from the Sun. The greenhouse effect modifies this simple case, which is why Venus is hotter than Mercury.
After I explained that Venus is hot because of its greenhouse effect, you replied by quoting a paper saying "Such an amount of CO2 causes greenhouse warming by 500 K there. On the other hand, the mere 0.006 bars of CO2 on Mars cause warming by 5.5K."
How do Slayers explain 500K of greenhouse warming on Venus, other than basketball player gloves and gray Oreos?
You also linked a crackpot website claiming that on Venus "the solar energy simply does not reach the surface."
I've explained that Venera 9 landed on the surface of Venus and found "surface light levels comparable to those at Earth mid-latitudes on a cloudy summer day." Check out the panorama.
Again, if the Slayers are right, why is Venus hotter than Mercury? Instead of regurgitating bad arguments you find in 30 seconds and which you don't even read carefully, please read carefully before regurgitating even more misinformation for me to debunk.
