zorro

This is false, Venus has an atmosphere nearly 100 times as dense as Earth's and yet Venus has no magnetosphere.

sure it does: and with its 96.5% Carbon Dioxide atmosphere it can sustain itself from solar radiation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus

" Magnetic field and core

Size comparison of terrestrial planets (left to right): Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars in true-color.

In 1967, Venera-4 found the Venusian magnetic field is much weaker than that of Earth. This magnetic field is induced by an interaction between the ionosphere and the solar wind,^[60][61] rather than by an internal dynamo in the core like the one inside the Earth. Venus's small induced magnetosphere provides negligible protection to the atmosphere against cosmic radiation. This radiation may result in cloud-to-cloud lightning discharges.^[62]

The lack of an intrinsic magnetic field at Venus was surprising given it is similar to Earth in size, and was expected also to contain a dynamo at its core. A dynamo requires three things: A conducting liquid, rotation, and convection. The core is thought to be electrically conductive and, while its rotation is often thought to be too slow, simulations show it is adequate to produce a dynamo.^[63][64] This implies the dynamo is missing because of a lack of convection in the Venusian core. On Earth, convection occurs in the liquid outer layer of the core because the bottom of the liquid layer is much hotter than the top. On Venus, a global resurfacing event may have shut down plate tectonics and led to a reduced heat flux through the crust. This caused the mantle temperature to increase, thereby reducing the heat flux out of the core. As a result, no internal geodynamo is available to drive a magnetic field. Instead, the heat energy from the core is being used to reheat the crust.^[65]

One possibility is Venus has no solid inner core,^[66] or its core is not currently cooling, so the entire liquid part of the core is at approximately the same temperature. Another possibility is its core has already completely solidified. The state of the core is highly dependent on the concentration of sulfur, which is unknown at present.^[65]

The weak magnetosphere around Venus means the solar wind is interacting directly with the outer atmosphere of the planet. Here, ions of hydrogen and oxygen are being created by the dissociation of neutral molecules from ultraviolet radiation. The solar wind then supplies energy that gives some of these ions sufficient velocity to escape the planet's gravity field. This erosion process results in a steady loss of low-mass hydrogen, helium, and oxygen ions, while higher-mass molecules, such as carbon dioxide, are more likely to be retained. Atmospheric erosion by the solar wind most probably led to the loss of most of the planet's water during the first billion years after it formed. The erosion has increased the ratio of higher-mass deuterium to lower-mass hydrogen in the upper atmosphere by a multiple of 150 times the ratio in the lower atmosphere.^{[67] "}

How about some support for that assertion, if it is true why does Venus have such a high greenhouse effect? Venus has no plants, no ozone and no water vapor....

because of the carbon dioxide.

yet again your link has nothing to say about what we are talking about...

sure does, read it again, put on your glasses this time: solar input controls greenhouse. magnetosphere controls sun's input.

I don't understand your argument, the greenhouse effect is established science, without the greenhouse effect the temperature on the earth would vary by a couple hundred C from day to night.

You confuse greenhouse with atmospheric heating absorption and releases and photosynthesis and earth surface reflections and absorption. Greenhouse is a reflection off atmospheric gases is well known. Ignoring the magnetosphere and solar winds is not science.

You seem to be fixated on the idea that global warming is not caused by the effects of humans. this thread is not about that, the greenhouse effect is real, where or not the greenhouse effect is affected by human activities is not part of this thread.

I haven't said this here, You just now introduced it. ???

zorro bye

BTW: IMHO, Global warming is cyclic depending on the Magnetosphere and is only slightly effected by human activities, cow, sheep, and Termite methane flatulence

That doesn't even attempt to answer swansont's question. He didn't ask about the cause of solar maxima. Read it again, try again.

swan ask's:

If it's the sun, how come it wasn't insanely hot in ~1958 and thereabouts? Why wasn't 2009 as cool as other years with no sunspots? Why was 1998 so hot when the sunspot activity was low?

I most certainly did. Swan questions a distortion from temp with Sun activity, He neglects to present the avg. temp of the earth charts from NASA on those years nor the NASA distribution charts of solar activity for 20 years before his periods and 20 years after.

Obviously he is not serious here, which is ok, and i came back with a snippet if he were in a sauna. I note that he has yet to let us know if his sauna is still working.

zorro .....

It's not about what anyone prefers, it's just difficult to read with all that stuff between the letters.

 

I still see no reason to expect a magnetic field to affect the greenhouse effect of an atmosphere, a magnetic field does not affect Electromagnetic radiation.

 

The main thing i wanted to do was try and predict the greenhouse effect of a particular atmosphere, I figured out that i could affect the specific heat capacity of the atmosphere by varying the gasses in that atmosphere but I can't figure out how that relates specifically to greenhouse effect in a way that would allow me to predict the actual temperature increase caused by that atmosphere...

moon:

The magnetosphere deflect the solar rays as well as Electromagnetic waves away from the Planets. Planets without a Magnetosphere have no atmosphere and thus no greenhouse. The more rays deflected the less the so called greenhouse effect.

http://srag-nt.jsc.nasa.gov/SpaceRadiation/What/What.cfm

I don't think that specific heat has much effect. The reflective parameters of Ozone, water vapor, green plants .... seem to me are more of a factor.

zorro ...

If it's the sun, how come it wasn't insanely hot in ~1958 and thereabouts? Why wasn't 2009 as cool as other years with no sunspots? Why was 1998 so hot when the sunspot activity was low?

swan: (you must live in a sauna, just kiddin):

as you see in my post above, these cycles are not exact peak to peak. no one knows for sure but it is postulated that the inner Son's iron dynamo goes unstable and generates distortions in it's magnetic field. I happen to think it is due to the positioning of Jupiter's magnetosphere in respect to the Suns's and the Earth's. Please note that Jupiter's orbital period is around 11years in SYNC with the Sun's storm's cycle.

zorro ...

It's still appearing in red and in large size on my browser (latest Firefox). Are you copy-pasting from a word processor? A lot of code gibberish is also getting rendered with your post as you may be able to see in the quote above.

miss:

i use 6 browsers off and on. this includes my iPhone. now I am replying direct with Safari. i do change the color to deep red which makes it easier to see and find my replies. now I am using Verdana font with a size 3.

My computer is an iMac 27in w/bootcamp so I go back and forth from OS-8 Mountain Lion to Win 7. When I am OP I put my posts on Word for Mac or Word for Win depending how wordy I need to get.

I will be happy to get inline with what you, moon and the Admin prefers.

zorro ...

Can you support your assertion that a magnetosphere is necessary for a greenhouse effect to take place? How about losing all the odd fonts and such, makes it difficult to read.

 

The purpose of this thread is to find out if the greenhouse effect can be predicted by the atmosphere of a planet. It has nothing to do with global warming on the Earth or the validity of global warming on the earth.

moon: (how is this font ?? it seems more difficult for me but whatever}

The greenhouse effect is a bounce of the Sun's rays we get which are controlled by the Magnetosphere. (period) In this Solar system all planets with an atmosphere exhibit greenhouse effects. {look it up}

http://helios.gsfc.n...gov/magnet.html

The Earth's Magnetosphere

In spite of its low density, the

solar wind, and its accompanying magnet field, is strong enough to interact with the planets and their magnetic fields to shape magnetospheres. A magnetosphere is the region surrounding a planet where the planet's magnetic field dominates. Because the ions in the solar plasma are charged, they interact with these magnetic fields, and solar wind particles are swept around planetary magnetospheres. Life on Earth has developed under the protection of this magnetosphere.The shape of the Earth's magnetosphere is the direct result of being blasted by solar wind. Solar wind compresses its sunward side to a distance of only 6 to 10 times the radius of the Earth. A supersonic shock wave is created sunward of Earth somewhat like a sonic boom. This shock wave is called the bow shock. Most of the solar wind particles are heated and slowed at the bow shock and detour around the Earth. Solar wind drags out the night-side magnetosphere to possibly 1000 times Earth's radius; its exact length is not known. This extension of the magnetosphere is known as the magnetotail. Many other planets in our solar system have magnetospheres of similar, solar wind-influenced shapes.

 

 

The Earth is a Planet if you haven't noticed. I contributed to your theme by telling you are falling off track with the "Planet Designer" . This would apply to all planets.

zorro ....

OP theme:

Is it possible to calculate the greenhouse effect of an atmosphere? Consider the Earth except with 10 times the air pressure, would the greenhouse effect be 10 times as much? Is there a way to figure out a good approximation of the greenhouse effect?

 

The greenhouse effect of the Earths atmosphere raises the temp 36C

 

I am trying to use this site Planet Designer to calculate a planet 3 AU from the Earths sun that would be inhabitable. I am looking at an atmosphere of about 150 psi at the surface. I need close to 300C in greenhouse effect to do this.

 

So far I have found out that adding helium to the planets atmosphere lowers it's specific heat capacity, i would assume that this would lower the greenhouse effect?

 

I have figured out how to change the value of specific heat capacity and assuming a greenhouse effect of 150C I get a typical surface temp of 22.9C but the 150C number is just an assumption. I can't figure out how to predict the greenhouse effect of the planets atmosphere.

Correct. Global Warming is Politics not science.

The maxes we see are because the Sun is approachintg max (2013) and its magnetic field is reversing. Climate heating was predictable some 50 years ago. The same conditions will happen in 10 to 20 years. So don't worry.

zorro

http://forum.chaosco...p?topic=6719.90

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/

I suggest you read the OP one more time and then you can be embarrased...

moon:

I don't mind being embarrassed as long as I learn something or helping a friend get out of a bind.

That is how I maintain a negative track record.

zorro

BTW: According to my spwell checker, you misspelled embarrassed. .....

I did accommodate the OP. The greenhouse effect major factor is the magnetosphere and cycles 10 to 11 years dependent on Jupiter's Magnetosphere's cycles and strengts. Planet Designer is silent on these effects and thus worthless.

OP theme:

" Is it possible to calculate the greenhouse effect of an atmosphere? Consider the Earth except with 10 times the air pressure, would the greenhouse effect be 10 times as much? Is there a way to figure out a good approximation of the greenhouse effect? <br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); "><br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">The greenhouse effect of the Earths atmosphere raises the temp 36C<br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); "><br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">I am trying to use this site Planet Designer to calculate a planet 3 AU from the Earths sun that would be inhabitable. I am looking at an atmosphere of about 150 psi at the surface. I need close to 300C in greenhouse effect to do this.<br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); "><br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">So far I have found out that adding helium to the planets atmosphere lowers it's specific heat capacity, i would assume that this would lower the greenhouse effect?<br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); "><br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">I have figured out how to change the value of specific heat capacity and assuming a greenhouse effect of 150C I get a typical surface temp of 22.9C but the 150C number is just an assumption. I can't figure out how to predict the greenhouse effect of the planets atmosphere. "

back to you .....

You know about Everything from nothing theory,

 

given that we have a quantum creation operator and annihilation operator:

 

1. when a matter crash into its anti-matter, they annihilate .. resulting in energy

 

2. when a creation operator is activated, energy is consumed to create matter and anti-matter

 

When all matter sums up, we get Zero, because for every matter there is anti-matter .. this is symmetry

hello khaled:

the quantum theory you speak to states: assumes that both matter and anti matter and all the rules are in place. At first cause set at nothing, there is no matter, no energy, no rules, no anti-matter, no ignition, no spark, no fields, no creation activator...nothing. Nothing cannot annihilate into something nor nothing.

zorro ......

Maybe you answer your own question that "greenhouse effect" and "global warming" are bogus speculations at best. It is more likely Atmospheric Cycles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere

zorro ....

Once you arrive at nothing, nothing is infinite and nothing is bounded. Therefor you have no options and you aren't there either to set one in motion.

zorro ....

You have entered the world of imaginary numbers. (imagine that).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_number

An imaginary number is a number whose square is less than or equal to zero.^[1] For example, is an imaginary number and its square is . An imaginary number can be written as a real number multiplied by the imaginary unit , which is defined by its property .^[2]

An imaginary number can be added to a real number to form a complex number of the form , where and are called, respectively, the real part and the imaginary part of the complex number. Imaginary numbers can therefore be thought of as complex numbers whose real part is zero. The name "imaginary number" was coined in the 17th century as a derogatory term, as such numbers were regarded by some as fictitious or useless, but today they have a variety of essential, concrete applications in science and engineering.

zorro

I'll be sure to give it a look.

 

Beyond the universe is nothing. but is nothing really their?

No one knows for sure. The Big Bang and Higgs takes us to an origin. Taking one step back , we address "Nothing". If those can then be broken down, then we continue back to nearly nothing and must stop because we cannot produce "Nothing". Matter cannot be produced or destroyed.

We still are stuck with "Everything from Nothing".

Zorro

I'll be sure to give it a look.

 

Beyond the universe is nothing. but is nothing really their?

No one knows for sure. The Big Bang and Higgs takes us to an origin. Taking one step back , we address "Nothing". If those can then be broken down, then we continue back to nearly nothing and must stop because we cannot produce "Nothing". Matter cannot be produced or destroyed.

We still are stuck with "Everything from Nothing".

Zorro

Beyond the Universes and all of their magnetic, gravitational ..... fields; is nothing...... No mass, no energy, no gravitational fields, no magnetic fieilds, no electrical fields, no curved, warped space, no light, no time. .... no hot dogs; NOTHING. Despite this, there is everything. How come??

zorro

http://vimeo.com/23526796

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdvWrI_oQjY

I vote for " CONTACT ". It is not only a place but a exciting presentation of a intelligent entity sending a message in a mathematical form set to the beat of a human heart.

zorro

.............................................

Contact Film (Wiki)

......... Contact often suggests that cultural conflicts between religion and science would be brought to the fore by the apparent contact with aliens that occurs in the film. A point of discussion is the existence of God, with several different positions being portrayed.^[8] A description of an emotionally intense experience by Palmer Joss, which he describes as seeing God, is met by Arroway's suggestion that "some part of [him] needed to have it"—that it was a significant personal experience but indicative of nothing greater. Joss compares his certainty that God exists to Arroway's certainty that she loved her deceased father, despite her being unable to prove it.^[8]

Contact depicts intense debate occurring as a result of the apparent contact with aliens. Many clips of well-known debate shows such as Crossfire and Larry King Live are shown, with participants discussing the implications of the message, asking whether it is proof of the existence of alien life or of God, and whether science is encroaching upon religious ground by, as one believer puts it, "talking to your god for you."^[24] The head of a religious organization casts doubt on the morality of building the machine, noting: "We don't even know whether [the aliens] believe in God." The first machine is ultimately destroyed by a religious extremist, in the belief that building it was detrimental to humankind.^[8]

I am a retired Engineer. I have been doing good things for the civilizations and have taken my expertise to many places worldwide. The Civil Engineering side includes the design of levees, dams and military infrastructures at the Corps of Engineers. Engineering is a very challenging career; offers a nice retirement and is generally layoff proof.

zorro

The "Big Bang" theory and the discovery of the "God Particle" have just confirmed creation (Everything from Nothing).

.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlf9qX1RP2Y

zorro

Young fellas, LMAO

 

 

All you are doing is cross referencing the Bible, I'll say it again, the bible cannot be evidence to prove it's self.

hello again moo:

The bible is an excellent ref for the Big Bang, Creation, Heaven, the Creator, salvation, Babylon War, Persian was, the Creators' plans, future events, .... Particularly for this thread, which do you use??? It is His word as Darwin - Species and Copernicus. ...Web of Life, The 10 commandments were even in stone. Which books in the bible do you agree with???

seriously, do you think that the Big Bang was the instrument describing how the Creator created everything and the rules???

zorro

Naw, it was me...

Thanx, you youngins will eventually glam on to a bit of class. despite the consternations.

That you don't have a clue as to what your own holy book says.

 

How about actually reading it, not the small palatable bits given out in Sunday school, read it from cover to cover, read what it says, don't let some juju man tell you what it means. Read it and see what a psychopath God really is. I am really tired of having to show people what the bible says, I can guide you to several youtube videos made by people who know what they are talking about give the scripture for things like murder, genocide, rape , pillage, child molestation, all demanded by god. And Moses never existed the Jews were never slaves in Egypt and wondering around for 40 years in a desert that can be walked in a couple weeks is just plain silly.

hello moo

very good idea and videos too. it getin me up. for you young fells to. here is a video to get you in the Moses mood. hope you like it.

.........

hello, moo: can't get enough huh??

Do you have any evidence of a virgin birth in humans? ..... None other than Christ and Mary. Google: Mary virgin birth.

Can you show any evidence of this? .....What year do you have. Google: Cross, risen from the dead, Messiah.

Do you have any evidence that heaven exists? .....Yes, Google: Quran, Talmud, Bible, heaven

Musical proselytizing is not allowed either........ Good point, but fun, entertainment, point illumination and sheer class are.

seriously, do you think that the Big Bang was the instrument describing how the Creator created everything and the rules???

zorro

 

Well, not a whole lot of evidence for that, and Jesus wasn't the only person claiming to be born from a virgin in that time period. His ideals caught on mostly because they appealed to a diverse population of the poor, which was and still is a majority of the people. Not that he didn't have any good messages, but I would prefer to not glorify him in the god-like way, which is similar with Siddhartha, most Buddhist don't worship Siddhartha as any sort of god even though he founded a religion and was a very kind person.

hello, que:

Surprisingly, I agree with what you are saying and, so to, do many others. Being human was his major trait. Being born of a human virgin is proof of that and His claim to be the Son of God. Many today even claim to be born of a virgin. So what. Was the calendar (a warpage of time) reset for them?? He was the sacrificial lamb for the redemption of Original sin, and is to be the real Messiah one day. IMHO

Science doesn't have these. Go ahead, put Hubble to the test they cant find heaven and won't let you know how to get there.

Someone to chicken to reveal themselves didn't like my Stattler music and gave me a zap. Do you know who it is??

zorro

zorro... The bible is not evidence of anything... It's a book written by bronze age people about the legends of gods that were believed at that time. Much of it can be shown not to be true, think about that, much of it is nothing but tall tails, most of it is just a rehash of other religions from that era. None of it can be shown to be true... none of it. Yes it does in some instances describe real places and maybe even some real people but the rest is fiction. It's no better than a novel written about aliens invading New York City and using real people places and events to make it look good, it cannot be supported by any evidence. If you have evidence that can be confirmed feel free to show it but to claim the bible as evidence of it's self is simply not going to fly...

hello: moo:

Thebible is not evidence of anything........... Jerusalem is still there, Romeand the Emperors are still found. Jesus' tomb is still there. Daniel's Tomb isstill there, The Mentioned Ejyptians are still shown, Darius's Tomb isstill there The remnants of the seven churches are still there. …..

It'sa book written by bronze age people about the legends of gods that werebelieved at that time. Much of it can be shown not to be true, thinkabout that, much of it is nothing but tall tails, most of it is just a rehashof other religions from that era. None of it can be shown to be true... none ofit. ……..… No things were transferreddown by ancestry in the Verbal Tradition back since around 6,000 BC. Much of itis stories and symbology so that it can be translated to us down through todaythrough many languages, and still understand the meaning. The Adam and Evestory tells of Man's original Sin. But their never was a rib, a snake, Apple,tree, or even a garden of Eden. This was done so the Original Sin concepts andconsequences could be understood by human primitives and even to some today. Alot is a rehash of the Tora, Quran, because the same God is at the hart of thetexts. The bible tells similar stories as the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyriansand later the Zarathustraism, …..and many more. Christ (or their equivalent)dying and raised in 3 days is told by many ancients. So What. I suppose that this was so because they all lived in a similar region.It is very much true if you are a new father with a wife and mother in pain and you need some realistic answers to where we go from here. Life is the resolution of reality by faith not Science.

Yes it does in some instances describe real places and maybe even some real peoplebut the rest is fiction. It's no better than a novel written about aliensinvading New York Cityand using real people places and events to make it look good, it cannot besupported by any evidence. ...... I prefer story telling of God's Word and faith truths where it is found in no other place. New York tales and most modern music is crap and leads to the abyss.

If you have evidence that can be confirmed feel free to show it but to claim thebible as evidence of it's self is simply not going to fly……….... The best evidence is that you are here and your eyes and love for mother wife and child and father…... The bible getsinto these and offers a resolution of death and a relationship with God. Astudy of the 10 commandments I all you need to get a start.

I don't think a lot of the bible's magical instances are true, but I don't think it all get's pulled out of thin air either. There was in fact recordings of a giant flood, but evidence shows it didn't engulf the world (unless your talking about right after the Hadean era over 3 billion years ago), nor was it necessarily dramatic. The black sea did not use to exist at least as large as it is now a few thousand years ago, so it's likely there was either a lot of rain over a short period and the constant rain accelerated the erosion, or someone noticed a dramatic increase in the water level from what was previously described by maybe local people or a map and made up a story to fit it. Jesus was probably also a real person to, especially considering he wasn't the only one around claiming to be born from a virgin.

hello, que

Agree, Many stories have been misinterpreted and need others to help Get them right. IMHO

Jesus was a real person (The Son of God) and not God or a God just look into Mary Magdalene.

None of it has any evidence that science would find valid. You ARE on a science forum, so maybe you should learn what science considers evidence. A desire to learn would also show the other members that you aren't here just to satisfy some religious agenda.

No,No,No, .....This is a religious thread so Biblical ref are OK. No religious addenda here. What is yours??

What concept bothers you the most??

How can I get a listing of which post and who gave us a + or - ??

You're wrong. You're stating your opinions as fact, which means you have to back it up with satisfactory evidence when asked. You never do. Which means that you aren't participation in an actual discussion, you're just talking and waving your hands. That's preaching.

 

It's never allowed here. This is a discussion forum. This section, like Philosophy and Politics, is meant for opinions. You can express your opinions anytime, but make a statement of fact and you should be prepared to back it up.

It is all backed and is simple High School Religion 101.

Science can't go from nothing to everything and the rules whereas creation is exactly that.

Bible presents, In the begining God created the Heavens and the earth.

Science can't take you to an after life the Creator can.

The passage to Heaven is all over the OT and NT.

Science can't find the God particle the Creator made it.

This is explained as the goal for the NHC. http://ngm.nationalg.../achenbach-text The vast majority of scientist down to the High School knows this.

Science can't create species and set in-place the engines of evolution, the Creator did.

Bible, God created the fish Land Animals and Adam. With them God Created the Genome and other engines of evolution.

The Creator can do anything that Science can even create Science itself.

Sciences sits oround stiring the Petri Dish vs the Creator makes it all happen. By definition.

The Creator can do anything that Science can even create Science itself. IMHO

You may want to dust off off your Bibles off before you make similary rash statements.

No preaching here! This thread asks for differences between Science vs Religion. I offered a few.

In any event, Biblical fact preaching is allowed in a Religious thread as is this one. ....