Zoe Phin

What angular momentum? The one it has now? LOL, what an idiot. Yes, it did have thrusters. The thrusters were used to slow it down. Great observation, but ... You see, genius, we like to send probes fast then slow it down. We could've also sent it the slow way for the whole trip. Bottom line: You don't know what Venus was doing before capture, and you have ZERO basis for disqualifying this hypothesis. Now go desperately seek another "gotcha" to embarass yourself and never grow any wiser. :-) -Zoe Warning: Abusive behavior. You may not call other posters an idiot.

I've looked ahead, it doesn't. That's why you won't elaborate. Laws of Thermodynamics deniers are a funny bunch. Sounds so neat and perfect, right? Just like the theory of spontaneous gravitational collapse forming stars and planets? Why didn't it happen 1 minute earlier? or 10 years earlier? Our scientists can send a probe near Saturn and then it will orbit on its own from then on. But I guess a planet can't pass by a star and do the same. There's only a trillion? planets in our galaxy, so I guess it can't happen. But you believe in evolution though, RIGHT? Scientific process starts with hypotheses. Greenhouse Venus hypothesis is already debunked.

Good question. Could be a stray picked up on our journey around the galaxy. We can also turn Earth into a Venus like planet by just removing the top 70km of our crust. Perhaps Venus did originate here and lost its cap. I doubt it, but that's just my opinion. Science is easy when you're not wedded to a stupid theory with zero experimental evidence. We know there's no runaway greenhouse gas effect because that can't explain Venus' geothermal gradient.

brent, Climate nutters really hate science. You can show them a 70-year running experiment: https://psl.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries.pl?ntype=1&var=OLR&level=2000&lat1=-90&lat2=90&lon1=0&lon2=360&iseas=0&mon1=0&mon2=1&iarea=1&typeout=2&Submit=Create+Timeseries And they will still think it gets warmer because OLR is reduced. Normal science: hotter objects emit more. colder objects emit less. Climate psyence: emitting less is proof something is getting warm. Evidence: OLR increased. Occam's razor: NOT GHGs caused warming and an increase in OLR. Psyence enthusiasts: Facts don't matter. The conclusion is the same. Stop talking. We won. Yeay! We're ignorant and proud! The first thing we're taught is always true. Anyone who comes along and says otherwise is "obviously" wrong. The thousands of ways our stupid theories can be debunked proves they're making it up, or trying hard, and so must be wrong. They must be smeared. We're really nice conscientious people, btw.

I don't believe Velikovsky's origin theory. I believe that Venus didn't originate in the solar system at all. I don't know when it came here. In Velikovsky's time, Venus was thought to be ~20C. He was the closest to the real deal. You would've guessed wrong too, because the guess was based on size and mass (and solar proximity).

olof, What principle are you trying to demonstrate with your laser cooler?

olof, Do you think a laser cooler works by cold heating warm?

No, they never will. Global greening used to be free. These people convinced themselves that they should pay money to oligarchs via oil/gas/gasoline bills for the privilege. Then they want subsidies for "green" energy that makes nothing green.

The moon has also warmed by 1-3 degrees in the last decades. Climate cultists explained it away too. http://phzoe.com/2020/04/12/lunar-warming/ It's called: astronauts kicking up moon dust warming.

Thanks BIGUN, but I perfectly understand the type of people that switch to discussing lasers when their crackpot greenhouse gas physics fails. I also know the type to chime in and claim "my tribe won", regardless if they lost ... lost so badly they need to talk about exotic laser concepts. Olof, the guy that can't convert fluxes to temperature, but is sure 200C "must" be the result. How ignorant can you be to not know that Outgoing Longwave Radiation has been increasing for 70 years and therefore the GH effect theory is trash.

olof, By your logic, we can't tell the temperature of the solar photosphere from what we receive on Earth. Maybe the sun is colder than the target? lmao Nay, what the lasered target receives is what was sent. The laser is the beam. The mystery you can try solving is "what is operating temperature"?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.148.8430%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ved=2ahUKEwiZs6eAi4vvAhUP2FkKHaTKDOwQFjAMegQIIBAC&usg=AOvVaw07u252wQztYa7n57MqDWz0&cshid=1614464035653 This paper shows a 319W laser getting to 2000C. Table 1. Figure 7 and 8. Why would your first instinct be a denial of thermodynamics?

That's irrelevant. The sun, at earth distance, is also not blackbody radiation. Same goes for a lightbulb at a DISTANCE. The fiber will absorb the radiation and emit like a blackbody, not unlike Earth from the sun. There is only ONE formula for converting between fluxes and temperature. So how did they get 200C? What is that 200C actually describing? It's not the beam.

It's a dead rock solely dependent on solar for its surface temperature.

olof, What's your next question? Why does Mt Everest emit less than the Dead Sea? Why is there a lapse rate? Why does colder emit less? It just never stops. Here's a handy calculator for your confusion: http://mc-computing.com/Science_Facts/Temperature_Conversions.html

OK. Ask geothermal for ~16700 W/m^2, and you can get Earth to Venus. The ocean/land will emit all their gas. But if you just throw up the gas without thermal support, they'll just fall down.

"You can't convert W/m^2 to temperature." Wow. You don't qualify to sit at the adult table. "Nope. The fiber will melt at those temperatures." Yeah ... how do you think the cut is created? lol

At 1 bar - mostly solar At 92 bar - 99.9% Venus If the surface was 5 Kelvin, the 99.99% of the gas would fall down and be solid. You do understand that atmo pressure runs in the opposite direction of gravitational pressure, right? Want more atmosphere? Boil the oceans. Randomly throw water vapor up, it will come down.

I don't know it's conversion efficiency. Let's say it's 50%, OK? 500 W / ( Pi * 0.00075 ^ 2) = 282,942,126 W/m^2 That's equivalent to 8400 K. That's quite hot. What is your "operating temperature" actually describing? It's not describing the beam, that's for sure.

olof, 17 W/m^2 of sunshine still reaches Venus' surface. At Pluto distance the surface would be 1 degree cooler. Venus emits ~16,700 W/m^2 at the surface. This is gradually reduced as you move up the atmosphere (as it takes energy to create atmo pressure). Eventually it joins with the 2304 W/m^2 Peak Solar, or 576 W/m^2 24-hour averaged solar. Above that, solar dominates.

olof, But you said not to accuse you of suggesting that greenhouse effect delivers exactly what internal heat does. Yet here you are. Is it also really hot 100 meters below the surface due to the greenhouse effect? Does the greenhouse effect create 92 bars of pressure? You'd have to be a moron to accept their explanation. Boil some water. See the steam (water vapor)? Sunlight and backradiation from the steam caused the water to boil! You must NEVER mention the stove. At the same pressure, and accounting for sun distance, the temperature of Venus and Earth is the SAME, despite the fact that Venus has 96% CO2. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert-Holmes-6/publication/335927448_On_the_Apparent_Relationship_Between_Total_Solar_Irradiance_and_the_Atmospheric_Temperature_at_1_Bar_on_Three_Terrestrial-type_Bodies/links/5e11baa1299bf10bc390d6e0/On-the-Apparent-Relationship-Between-Total-Solar-Irradiance-and-the-Atmospheric-Temperature-at-1-Bar-on-Three-Terrestrial-type-Bodies.pdf "The relationship between a resultant atmospheric temperature at 1 bar and the atmospheric pressure / relative TSI combination means that Earth’s average surface temperature can be easily and accurately calculated by measuring just two input factors; the temperature of the Venus atmosphere at 1 bar, and the relative distances of these planets from the Sun (i.e. the relative TSI of Earth and Venus)."

There's Velikovsky's theory - Venus joined us later. And then there's NASA's explanation of your question: <crickets>

Bilvon, How does that laser feel on your skin?

I gave the link before. The chart is OLR. Outgoing Longwave Radiation.

Bilvon, I don't know where you got a temperature for your laser. How much power does it consume and what it the diameter of the beam?