olofscience
-
Content
2,543 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11 -
Feedback
N/A
Everything posted by olofscience
-
That's not a reason. Why would they have different internal heat? They're both rocky planets with similar silicate composition. They're also very close in size and mass.
-
Wow, this is really the stupidest thing I've heard so far. You must have gotten brain damage after the module on entropy.
-
Hey ZP you've conveniently forgotten my question, all you needed was a number between 0 and 50. Anyway, you're now on record, TWICE: So if it's mostly sun, why does Venus suddenly become hot "mostly because of internal heat"? So earth is hot because of "mostly sun" but venus is hot because of "mostly internal heat"? What makes Venus's internal heat so much hotter than earth? Why the inconsistency?
-
How much? Give percentages, even rough estimates. 80/20? 70/30?
-
Either it's mostly sun or mostly internal heat. It can't be both. "Mostly" being at least 50%, which is it?
-
Is the earth's temperature due to internal heat too?
-
Well, it's newer material than what brenthutch offers, which is really just going in circles. At least to me. Maybe brenthutch just lowered my standards a lot. ZP is clearly used to speaking to non-scientists, judging by the amount of chaotic, nonsensical bullshit she came up with, using bad computer code, name-dropping random 200 year old scientists, jumping around various arguments chaotically - she's a con artist crackpot. She intentionally uses jargon to try to intimidate and try to impress, it might work with laypersons but when faced with people who actually know stuff it kind of collapses pretty quickly. And don't lose hope - a glimpse of her page seems to indicate some election deniership as well (particularly in Georgia) so there's still a chance she'll turn full RonD.
-
It's so funny though I know I shouldn't keep feeding the troll, but so far this thread is GOLD for crazy
-
But I thought you were insisting Uranus had "hardly any" methane? Which is it?
-
Good to see you concede that your initial point was bullshit. Goodnight!
-
2.3% is actually a lot - earth has 0.04% CO2, and since methane has stronger IR absorption bands it's the equivalent of around 5000 times the greenhouse effect. But you said "hardly any", and that 2.3% weighs almost as much as the earth, and enough to colour the entire planet blue/green. And by the way, you're also wrong about what self-respecting scientists claim, but that's so far over your head I'll leave it. You sure you want to keep getting owned?
-
Wow, you're insecure. Don't dislocate your shoulder trying to pat yourself on the back alright?
-
I can, but you're mistaking me for someone who cares. To be fair, I also mistook you for someone who actually knew how to calculate things.
-
Maybe it's how I just shut you up about your idiotic claim that Neptune and Uranus have hardly any greenhouse gases? Evidence enough for me. Glad you're used to it.
-
Well she's now asking about patty cooking advice, but I really do have better things to do than teach people who have slept through science class.
-
Good thing I run very strong adblockers, but yes it's a waste of time engaging. @billvon there's really no reason to continue with this crackpot.
-
You're simplifying this analogy for yourself, not for me, because you can't really do any heat transfer calculations. How big is the stove? How big is the patty? What's the power output of the stove? What's the mass and specific heat capacity of the patty? What's the emissivity of the patty? Look, it's been fun but you're really way out of your depth here. I suggest you stick to other things, and if I want to discuss this, I really prefer someone who at least knows the basics.
-
You mean Newton's equations of motion? You must be running out of scientist names now to try to impress us.
-
The sun doesn't "allow" anything. And yes, you're making this up because it's not what I believe. Because I've got better things to do than argue against someone who needs to put words in my mouth because they don't know basic heat transfer.
-
Again, making up stuff in a desperate attempt to win the argument. It's not going to work, stop making things up. You do know things take a long time in astronomy, right? (and by the way it's not going to remove Jupiter's atmosphere - it will just stop generating heat when it stops, and start cooling down) And yes, the full equation is P*V = n*R*T for an ideal gas, you might think knowing that is impressive but it's really not. It's taught to high school students - you haven't shown any knowledge beyond that. What I'm saying is what I'm saying. Stop making things up because you can't argue against my actual points.
-
No, you haven't shown. Neither have you shown any knowledge of the basics of heat transfer. Of course, scientists only go into science for political gain. Instead of going into something like, POLITICS. </sarcasm>
-
I didn't make those arguments, stop making them up. You're making them up because you're losing badly. No I don't. Again, stop making things up. This is really sad, you're arguing against an imaginary argument.
-
They have enough to make them BLUE. Neptune is 17 times as massive as the earth so that's actually a lot of methane. But they're also too far from the sun. Jupiter was indeed a lot bigger in the past, and is currently shrinking.
-
Her "manages over $100 million dollars " is also pretty similar to how bus drivers "drive a $300,000 vehicle". Her "analysis" of why Venus is hot is mainly about counting pixels on a photo rather than actual calculations.
-
Um, what?? Uranus and Neptune are blue/green mainly because of methane, a potent GHG. 84 times more potent than CO2 actually. They're frickin BLUE and you say they barely have GHGs? Their internal heat source is still a matter of debate, but it's probably gravitational compression, friction or both: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin–Helmholtz_mechanism
