View Single Post
Old 4th July 2010, 07:00 PM   #58
Penultimate Amazing
CapelDodger's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 25,101
Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
Please, try to understand what I've written in my previous posts. I explain the high crust surface temperature of Venus by atmospheric insulation from a colder environment, and therefore the decisive parameter is a form of quantity (mass, thickness), and not pressure of the atmosphere.
I might understand what you write if it didn't include such gems as "a form of quantity (mass, thickness)", which is completely meaningless.

There would be no thermal insulation by the atmosphere if said atmosphere was transparent to the radiation - however thick it might be. (By "thick" do you mean "dense"? The terms are interchangeable in some contexts. This may be one of them.)

Albedo due to clouds may be irrelevant in your prejudiced, ideological thinking (see post #48).
Oh, I saw it. You are a gift which keeps on giving.

Reflection of incoming radiation due to clouds has nothing to do with the energy budget within the atmosphere, since it whips in and out at the speed of light.

An informative quote:
"The effect of clouds depends upon their type and the time of day. The more interesting and important type is the low thick clouds. At night the reflection effect is zero so the greenhouse effect and reflection of thermal radiation dominate and the low thick clouds have a warming effect. One can easily see that the reflection of thermal radiation is far more important than the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect could at most return 50 percent of the outgoing radiation back to the Earth. Reflection from the underside of clouds probably returns 90 percent of the radiation. The two effects are not in competition. Clouds could return 90 percent from reflection and half of the unreflected 10 percent. Thus it is easy to see why there is such a difference in temperature between a clear night and a cloudy night in the winter. Since the greenhouse effect from the atmospheric gases would be the same on a clear and a cloudy night one could say that the effect from greenhouse gases is negligible compared to the effect of low thick clouds."
This refers to "reflection of thermal radiation" by clouds, which is nonsense. Infra-red (long-wave, that is) radiation is not reflected by anything in Earth's atmosphere (nor Venus's, for that matter). What happens is that the liquid water in Earthly clouds absorb and re-emit infra-red, which is the same as the greenhouse effect. The difference is that liquids, unlike gases, absorb and re-emit over a continuous spectrum which is why the effect of clouds at night is so much more marked.

You quote from someone who lacks some very basic understanding. Thayer Watkins, Department of Economics, San Jose State University.

Department of Economics. Can't say I'm surprised, but does SJSU have no scientists to provide this kind of "information"?
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top