You are the one who used an appeal to authority to a relative as if competence was inherited. Deal with it.
That chalkboard is all yours, bobby. Show the class.
Class pay attention. By the way the son of an astronomer was meant as a joke and a reference to a not so popular rock and roll song, so sorry it went over your head.
You are again confabulating what I wrote. I said nothing about the Earth. Your claim is that the temperature of a given planet determines the composition of its atmosphere. Show us. Please post a scale of planet temperature vs atmospheric composition. Orgel, were he alive, would really have enjoyed your wisdom.
My only claim was that a planet at 8k and 1 ATM would have an atmosphere of only Helium.
If you don't get that you flunk chem 101, unless you can name anything that would be gaseous at that temperature and pressure. can you?
So have I, dude. So, show us your stuff. How much does 90 atm contribute to Venus' surface temp? Please don't let me detain you from showing off your prowess with physical chemistry, Teach.
90 atm on venus contributes nothing to Venus's current temperature as any compressive heating from the rise to that pressure dissipated long ago.
It was back-of-the-envelope stuff. I could look up the correction factors for 90 atm, compressibiity, deviations from ideal parameter but, for what? You guys? Gimme a break.
Well, lets see some support for your argument
You opened the door, counselor. Take your lumps. I may be a heel but I didn't mention any of my accomplished forebears, of which I have many. I stand on my own feet. Try it.
It was meant as a joke dude.
You didn't quote the earlier part of the Wiki article that stated that melting was due to pressure, heat and expansive melting. Why is that? Maybe because you want to continue pulling "facts" out of your butt?
Right, the melting is due to the heat, gee where does the heat come from?
Here is the latest research
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18725103.700
Bill McDonough of the University of Maryland in College Park said:
With time, as more antineutrinos are detected, KamLAND may be able to determine once and for all whether radioactivity is entirely responsible for heating Earth or whether other sources, such as the crystallisation of liquid iron and nickel in the outer core, also play a significant role. "[Detecting anti-neutrinos] is the way of the future in terms of hard numbers about the system," says McDonough.
2-4 ppm is 0.0002 to 0.0004%. Most of the U is U-238 with a half-life of 4.5 x 10^9 years so its relatively stable. And here you are whining about my estimates. I have been up front about my calculations. You, on the other hand have dodged any type of truthfulness concerning your claims and expertise.
I haven't dodged anything, and freely admitted my error.
And it's not your estimates that I am not whining about, it's the flaw in your PV/T thinking.
BTW, anyone who knows anything about radioactivity would know that the radioactivity in all the planet's radioactive nuclides is NOT enough to account for the molten core of the Earth. I find it sad that the AGW proponents on this thread were more than happy to jump at your moronic statements to bolster their biases. Another major vendor for a fool's paradise.
Like I posted above, someone elses research says different. 24 out of 30 to 44 terawatts is produced by radioactive decay.
Nice to see you can look up a nuclide's half-life.
Moronic statement, now backed up by published research in what peer reviewed journal?
Oh, Nature.
And again, thanks for the civil discourse and unneccessary ad homs.
And another appeal to self authority, 23 rem lifetime dose, I had better know a little about radioactivity.
. Set 'em up, knock 'em down.
That's a real diamond of a thought. You must have missed that class.