Incomprehensible Venus/Babbling About Insurance And Risk.

From elsewhere:

This doctrine is so very silly. It never gets off the ground. Take the idea of a black body. Twice as far from the sun as earth is and always noon. Now it ought to be very clear from that starting point that any atmosphere is going to take the edge off the temperature of the black body. It will cool the black body temperature. There is really no doubt about this. So even the core of the model has no apriori basis.

No part of this story isn’t a jumble of contradictory ideas. So why do skeptics always say that “a doubling of CO2 will lead to a 1 degree increase in temperature in the first instance. This is standard radiative physics”

No it isn’t its just nonsense. Or take the idea of a laser at the back wall, shining on the front wall. Then have a glass tube of CO2 in the middle. And the laser light is one of the three narrow wave-length bands that CO2 scatters/absorbs.

Well the test-tube will get hot. And so what? It will do so at the expense of the back wall. And that it will do so is as much to do with the insulative properties of glass as anything else. In this story the back wall is the earths surface. So the CO2 will cool the back wall. But the greenhouse story expects the back wall to heat up the CO2 in the tube which will then further heat the back wall. Its all so very very stupid .

Apart from the globalist propagandizing what makes this plausible to some people is just the confusion that the failure to understand Venus as being hot from the inside out ….. the confusion that this has caused.

If the heat on Venus comes from the outside in, then the Venus situation is simply incomprehensible. Its this incomprehensibility that the believer has tried to re-tune his mind too. He cannot really “get it” but he’s so confused he starts babbling about risk and insurance.

Imagine Venus was heated from the outside in and its sunward side had something like the temperature profile it has now? What would its night-time side be like?

The answer is that it would be very cold. Because the night lasts a very long time on Venus and CO2 doesn’t have great heat retention capacity. So the ground would cool down very quickly. But you’d get overhead temperature reversals like you sometimes get at the South Pole. Hot air blowing in from above but it would be very cold on the ground.

Greenhouse cannot explain Venus. But Venus haunts this greenhouse story by making matters impossible to comprehend. And this is simply because NASA, Carl Sagan and a bunch of dopey astronomers took a tendentious, tribal, and anti-scientific view, towards what was going on on Venus.

If we get back to reality, and to standard science that can be repeated in the lab. If we accept that Venus is hot from the inside out, then it all makes perfect sense. The science of it all becomes perfectly comprehensible again. And the second law of thermodynamics works just fine again like it always did.