sabotage2016 wrote:
Russia measured surface temperatures (but apparently not atmospheric drag, since we know the established density of the atmosphere was off).
Two hours ago you hadn't even heard of this mission, and now you're an expert on it?
Scientists then took the temperature readings and our "best understanding" of CO2 in the atmosphere and calculated that the atmosphere would be 70C warmer.
You use language that betrays your complete lack of understanding of the relevant material. It doesn't mean anything to say "calculated the atmosphere would be 70C warmer." The job of atmospheric scientists here is to develop a model of the temperature for every latitude and height in the atmosphere as a function of time. If you want to talk about discrepancies in predicted temperature, you need to specify where and when the temperature is being measured; or, if you're referring to an average temperature, you would say that. In this case, the temperature at the poles inferred from equatorial measurements ended up being incorrect due to our incomplete knowledge of polar winds on Venus. This is how science works: you make a hypothesis and then you test it. If we had known about the winds, we would have made a better model.
When you can't beat em, silence em.
1) I am beating you, and 2) your very presence on this forum substantially lowers the collective IQ, so I figure I'm doing everyone a favor.
sabotage2016 wrote:
Russia measured surface temperatures (but apparently not atmospheric drag, since we know the established density of the atmosphere was off).
Two hours ago you hadn't even heard of this mission, and now you're an expert on it?
Scientists then took the temperature readings and our "best understanding" of CO2 in the atmosphere and calculated that the atmosphere would be 70C warmer.
You use language that betrays your complete lack of understanding of the relevant material. It doesn't mean anything to say "calculated the atmosphere would be 70C warmer." The job of atmospheric scientists here is to develop a model of the temperature for every latitude and height in the atmosphere as a function of time. If you want to talk about discrepancies in predicted temperature, you need to specify where and when the temperature is being measured; or, if you're referring to an average temperature, you would say that. In this case, the temperature at the poles inferred from equatorial measurements ended up being incorrect due to our incomplete knowledge of polar winds on Venus. This is how science works: you make a hypothesis and then you test it. If we had known about the winds, we would have made a better model.
When you can't beat em, silence em.
1) I am beating you, and 2) your very presence on this forum substantially lowers the collective IQ, so I figure I'm doing everyone a favor.
Dude, it's sabotage.
-TG
I guess his wife agreed to buy him Internet again.
“Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.”
― Voltaire
CC needs a flat earth map, pronto. then, maybe all them crazies will hear about it and flock to CC, bringing their flat earth coin and retarded ideas with them.
riskllama wrote:CC needs a flat earth map, pronto. then, maybe all them crazies will hear about it and flock to CC, bringing their flat earth coin and retarded ideas with them.
