Hansen Explains How Aerosols Have Reversed Their Properties

ScreenHunter_523 May. 25 05.40

Hansen’s doctoral thesis hypothesized that Venus was hot because of aerosols.

I decided to say that Venus was so hot because a dusty atmosphere was trapping internal heat”

He’s Not Full Of Hot Air – Newsweek and The Daily Beast

Now he says Earth is cold because of aerosols

Aerosols have a cooling effect (by reducing solar heating of the ground)

Dr. James Hansen: Doubling Down on Our Faustian Bargain

Doh – Homer. Venus is hot because of the high atmospheric pressure (92 bars.) At 1 bar in the Venusian atmosphere, temperatures are similar to earth.


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Hansen Explains How Aerosols Have Reversed Their Properties

  1. gator69 says:

    Don Wuebbles told me it was the CO2 that made Venus hot. Then I explained to the recipient of the Harry E. Preble Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Illinois, professor in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences as well as affiliate professor in the Departments of Civil and Environmental Engineering and in Electrical and Computer Engineering, first Director of the School of Earth, Society, and Environment at Illinois, first Director of the Environmental Council at the University, former Head of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences for many years, expert in numerical modeling of atmospheric physics and chemistry, author of over 400 scientific articles relating mostly to atmospheric chemistry and climate issues, a lead author on a number of national and international assessments related to concerns about climate change, lead author on national and international assessments relating to atmospheric chemistry and the effects of human activities on stratospheric and tropospheric ozone, recipient of the 2005 Stratospheric Ozone Protection Award from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fellow of three major professional science societies, Chair of the Global Environmental Change Focus Group for the American Geophysical Union, Nobel Peace Prize winner for his work with the international Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, member of a federal advisory committee that assessed and in 2009 published a report on the potential impacts of climate change on the United States, Coordinating Lead Author for the next major international IPCC assessment of climate change that will be published in 2013, leader in the next U.S. National Climate Assessment, member of the Executive Secretariat and the Federal Advisory Committee, recipient of two degrees in Electrical Engineering from the University of Illinois, holder of PhD in Atmospheric Sciences from the University of California, that Venus is no Earth. To his credit he conceded that argument.

    What a putz.

  2. “At 1 bar [1,000 mb] in the Venusian atmosphere, temperatures are similar to Earth.”

    The Venus atmospheric temperature at the 1 bar level is NOT “similar to Earth”–it is in fact EXACTLY what the surface (1 bar in pressure) temperature of Earth would be if our world were the same distance from the Sun as Venus. This tells us that there is NO CO2 “greenhouse effect” at all (Venus has over 2400 times the atmospheric concentration of CO2 as does Earth, but that clearly has no effect upon the temperature, only the solar distance does, in comparing these two real atmospheres). As I wrote over 2 1/2 years ago, in “Venus: No Greenhouse Effect”:

    “From the temperature and pressure profiles for the Venusian atmosphere [link provided to the data at this point], you can confirm that, at the altitude where the pressure = 1000 millibars, which is the sea level pressure of Earth, the temperature of the Venusian atmosphere is 66ºC = 339K. This is much warmer than the temperature at the surface of the Earth (at pressure = 1000 millibars), which is about 15ºC = 288K. HOWEVER Venus is closer to the Sun, and gets proportionally more power from it. Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun, on average, while Venus is only 67.25 million. Since the intensity of the Sun’s radiation decreases with distance from it as 1 over r-squared, Venus receives (93/67.25) squared, or 1.91 times the power per unit area that Earth receives, on average. Since the radiating temperature of an isolated body in space varies as the fourth-root of the power incident upon it, by the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the radiating temperature of Venus should be the fourth-root of 1.91 (or the square-root of 93/67.25) = 1.176 times that of the Earth. Furthermore, since the atmospheric pressure varies as the temperature, the temperature at any given pressure level in the Venusian atmosphere should be 1.176 times the temperature at that same pressure level in the Earth atmosphere, INDEPENDENT OF THE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF INFRARED ABSORPTION in the two atmospheres. In particular, the averaged temperature at 1000 millibars on Earth is about 15ºC = 288K, so the corresponding temperature on Venus, WITHOUT ANY GREENHOUSE EFFECT, should be 1.176 times that, or 339K. But this is just 66ºC, the temperature we actually find there from the temperature and pressure profiles for Venus. … So there is no greenhouse effect. This is the scandal that so many “experts” in climate science, and all the scientific authorities, will not face. Listen to the physicists that tell you there is no greenhouse effect; they know without having to go to the Venus data — and I am one of them. The continuing incompetence on this vital point among so many scientists, for more than a century, is amazing, and tragic.”

    My analysis has been almost universally ignored (some of the “Slayers” have written to agree with me, and Hans Schreuder mentioned it on the Slayer site some time ago). But it is THE DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE against the academic consensus greenhouse theory, and should have become front-page news worldwide long ago.

    My definitive analysis has been dismissed on the grounds that I “neglected” to account for the great difference in planetary albedo between Earth and Venus, but as I wrote in that original analysis,

    –This result also flies in the face of those who would say the clouds of Venus reflect much of the incident solar energy, and that therefore it cannot get 1.91 times the power per unit area received by the Earth — the direct evidence presented here is that its atmosphere does, in fact, get that amount of power, remarkably closely. This in fact indicates that the Venusian atmosphere is heated mainly by incident infrared radiation from the Sun, which is not reflected but absorbed by Venus’s clouds, rather than by warming first of the planetary surface. (It also indicates that the Earth atmosphere is substantially warmed the same way, during daylight hours, by direct solar infrared irradiation, and that the temperature profile, or lapse rate, for any planetary atmosphere is relatively oblivious to how the atmosphere is heated, whether from above or below.) [note: I updated the article in March 2012, giving the governing equations that demonstrate the validity of this interpretation, that in fact both atmospheres must directly absorb the SAME PHYSICAL FRACTION of the incident solar radiation, and be solely warmed thereby]. —

  3. T.O.O. says:

    Mercury is the closest planet to the Sun, and yet it’s not actually the hottest planet; that title goes to Venus. If you were standing on the equator of Mercury at noon, the temperature rises to 700 kelvin (427° C or 800° F). Even at the poles, the temperature is 380 kelvin. But the moment you enter night on Mercury, the temperatures drop down to just 100 kelvin or -173° C. The reason Mercury can get so hot in the day and then so cold at night is because it doesn’t have an atmosphere to trap the heat from the Sun.

    The average temperature on Venus is 735 kelvin (461° C, or 863° F). Venus has the thickest atmosphere in the Solar System which is almost entirely carbon dioxide. Furthermore, it’s the same temperature everywhere across the planet, whether it’s day or night. The CO2 traps the heat from the Sun, and the weather distributes this temperature around the entire planet. No matter where you went, you’d always experience that same 735 kelvin temperature.

    And that’s why Venus is hotter than Mercury and why the Earth does not freeze every night. It is plainly obvious that green house gasses exist and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

    • Venus is hot because its atmosphere is at 92 bars. At 1 bar, Venus atmospheric temperature is about the same as Earth.

      Composition has almost nothing to do with it, Homer. Do you enjoy spreading bullshit?

      • T.O.O. says:

        Composition of the atmosphere has no bearing on its greenhouse properties? That is a truly amazing concept.

        Why don’t you publish a paper on that? I would love to read the reviews.

      • If you continue to misrepresent what I said you will be spam.

        You really can’t be as dense as you pretend to be

    • I put people who deny the greenhouse effect in a box I label “cranks”. However, “Too” doesn’t appear to be very bright either, as his conclusion does not follow from his explanation. E.g., is nitrogen a greenhouse gas? Would a planet with a thick nitrogen atmosphere be warmer at night than a planet without an atmosphere?

      It’s kind of dumb to be “educating” people if you’re an idiot yourself…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s