Submitted by FutureSDguy on February 19, 2007 – 6:54pm.
No, it would be at a different pressure due to different densities, and as a consequence, a different temperature.
that should be a simple calculation given the known pressure of venus and the density of co2…
why sources like wikipedia and nasa state the greenhouse effect as the primary cause of the temp is beyond anyone’s guess (except the hyperintelligent agw naysayers?). nasa must have crappy maths.
“In general, I see how aghast some of you are that I dare challenge “scientific establishment.” ”
you’re not a hero for standing up to the “science facists”. beating down a bunch of nerds is easy; pelt them with slurpees as they ride their bikes to work.
“My point was that in the past 120 years, CO2 has risen monotonically, but temperature has not; most of the temperature rise occurred before the bulk of CO2 occurred. This greatly weakens AGW, and the best hand-wave that you can do about it is to say “well, it’s a delayed action.” This is not hard evidence. I find it funny how AGW supporters choose time frames that suit them. Give them 8000 years of cycical evidence (that what is happening today happened before), they reject it. Give them 30 years of cyclical evidence (it got cooler then), they reject it. But how about exactly since 1942, now they’re convinced that man is the culprit.”
how convenient; experimental (edit: empirical) science is simply handwaving while opinionated defense contractors with zero data are intellectual heros. is this Bizarro World?
