In the Press: Joe Bastardi: Obama Prostituting Climate Science

[Msalgado]

Venus is kept hot due to a combination of its 96% (approximately) Co2 concentration, extreme pressure (92X Earth), and thick atmosphere / cloudiness. Point being, very little insolation reaches the surface and little longwave radiation escapes out into space. So the comparison to Earth's greenhouse effect would really be apples to oranges, due to the fact that the former involves the necessity for significant incoming radiation first. On Venus, the atmosphere is significantly less "permeable" than Earth's atmosphere when it comes to allowing solar radiation to reach the surface. One can debate the original causes of this climate, but the fact remains, Venus's climate, which I guess you can call greenhouse effect in the sense that it retains heat extremely efficiently (more accurate than a greenhouse effect: a thick blanket), but it's not a greenhouse effect in anywhere near the same way that Earth's atmosphere operates.

 

You're simply wrong here.  Its exactly the greenhouse effect as Earth's operates.  Yes, a lower percentage of insolation reaches the surface, but that doesn't matter.  Its a simple arithmetic problem involving incoming radiation and outgoing radiation.  The result requires a higher temperature for their to be equilibrium.

 

You keep brining up pressure but I don't think you understand it.  Pressure is related to temperature so an increase in pressure will increase the temperature all other things being equal as governed by the ideal gas law:

 

PV = mRT 

 

So given two identical planets, the one with higher pressure will have a higher temperature.  However, planets with an increased temperature also radiate more IR out into space.  The only way to KEEP the planet at a higher temperature is to prevent that radiation from leaving otherwise the planet will cool.

[Isotherm]

Actually, you're very wrong here.

 

There is a high albedo on Venus, which should show you even more how the GHG are responsible for the higher temperatures.  You compare it to a pressure cooker but I'm not sure you know how a pressure cooker works.  It works by fundamentally raising the boiling point of water in a closed vessel.  If you can tell me how that is raising the temperature on venus then I would be very interested as the atmosphere of Venus is neither a closed volume nor does it have any water present.

 

Furthermore, Venus has an energy budget just like the Earth or any other planet.  The only energy coming in must come from the sun.  All temperature dependence on the surface ultimately comes down to the incoming solar radiation.  If the heat was somehow the function some sort of atmospheric conditions, temperature would not rise as the heat would just radiate out into space.

 

 

My initial post was mostly responding to the notion that Venus' climate can be utilized as an argument for a runaway type greenhouse effect here on Earth. The comparison is apples to oranges. I agree that the 96.5% Co2 concentration plays a significant role in maintaining Venus' surface heat, in conjunction with the extreme pressure and thick, gaseous atmosphere. Of course Venus has an energy budget, but it operates in a way that will never be seen on Earth. 96.5% Co2 concentration cannot be compared to a 0.04% Co2 concentration. The former of which is certainly an example of the conditions created from an extreme amount of Co2, but we will never approach those values on Earth, and our atmosphere is vastly more efficient in radiating energy back out into space. Venus' atmosphere prevents most of that energy from escaping.

 

My main point here is that utilizing Venus' climate to bolster the notion of extreme anthropogenic warming would be a weak argument.

[valkhorn]

My initial post was mostly responding to the notion that Venus' climate can be utilized as an argument for a runaway type greenhouse effect here on Earth. The comparison is apples to oranges. I agree that the 96.5% Co2 concentration plays a significant role in maintaining Venus' surface heat, in conjunction with the extreme pressure and thick, gaseous atmosphere. Of course Venus has an energy budget, but it operates in a way that will never be seen on Earth. 96.5% Co2 concentration cannot be compared to a 0.04% Co2 concentration. The former of which is certainly an example of the conditions created from an extreme amount of Co2, but we will never approach those values on Earth, and our atmosphere is vastly more efficient in radiating energy back out into space. Venus' atmosphere prevents most of that energy from escaping.

 

My main point here is that utilizing Venus' climate to bolster the notion of extreme anthropogenic warming would be a weak argument.

 

I think you miss the point. Using Venus is an example of not only the greenhouse effect, but how an atmosphere changes the climate of a planet, and what effect CO2 can have on a climate.

 

What happened on Venus may never happen on Earth. However we're talking about changing variables to create a feedback loop or pushing something out of balance to tip the scales towards accelerated warming - which is likely if CO2 changes faster than nature can absorb it.

 

Look at the warming periods compared to CO2 in the last 800,000 years. While CO2 wasn't the inital cause of the warming, once the CO2 was released, warming accelerated. Increasing CO2 is like throwing gasoline onto the fire if warming is already taking place, and if warming isn't taking place, then it's still going to cause a net warming effect.

 

The low percentage of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere is still enough to cause drastic effects. While 400C like we see on Venus is of course a stretch, we only really need to see a difference of 1 or 2C warmer to see massive changes in the environment. It's tipping the scale. 1 or 2C warmer would release more methane in the permafrost at high latitudes, and would release more fresh water into the oceans from melting ice. If that shut down a few global ocean currents (which is likely) then mass extinctions in the ocean would be imminent. Mass extinctions in the ocean lead to mass extinctions on land.

 

This is not a slippery slope argument because it has actually happened before. One thing that could seem minor like a peak in specific bacteria changes the atmosphere, which changes something else, etc. until you get a drastic change. A super continent forming was why we saw a snowball earth. Large volcanic activity in Siberia lead to the Great Dying.

 

With 7+ billion people in the world, we don't need large numbers of extinctions to cause problems. Just a rise in sea level of 10 feet over 100 years (highly plausible) would cause TRILLIONS in overall economic impact. If you throw in large extinctions of animals and disrupt the food chain, the costs go higher.

 

Yet we have geniuses like JB to thank to point out the real robbery is with the fight for grant money. Or that getting off of fossil fuels is what is going to kill our economy (when it won't).

JB's position is idealogical. His position doesn't care about evidence. If he did care about evidence, he wouldn't say the patently wrong things he keeps saying.

[Isotherm]

The following is interesting reading in articulating the reasons for the climate of Venus, and the misunderstandings that often arise in discussing the greenhouse effect.

 

Taken from the paper, "Understanding the Thermodynamic Atmospheric Effect":

 

The Case of Venus

There is much confusion over the comparison of Earth to that of Venus, in regards to the

theory of the greenhouse effect. Many people will make the point of the high surface temperature

on Venus as if it is some form of a confirmation of the atmospheric greenhouse idea. This is

incorrect. In considering the very high surface temperature of Venus, which is 4600C, we must

consider three very enlightening facts.

First, Venus is closer to the Sun, meaning that it obviously receives much stronger solar

radiation, and therefore more heat. However, Venus also has a sulphuric acid cloud layer which

reflects a very high percentage of the incoming solar radiation, so that it actually has a slightly cooler

radiative equilibrium temperature than that of the Earth‟s. Venus‟ albedo is equal to 0.67, and its

distance is equal to 72.3% of that of Earth, and so its global radiative equilibrium temperature is

calculated to be about -250C, which is just a little cooler than that of the Earth‟s. And also similar to

that of Earth, Venus experiences a maximum heating underneath the Solar zenith of about 800C,

even with its high albedo.

Second, Venus has an extremely long day, meaning that it rotates underneath the Sun very,

very slowly. Venus‟ “day” in fact lasts two hundred and forty three (243) Earth days! With such a

slow rotation, there is plenty of time for the Sun-facing hemisphere of Venus to collect an extremely

large amount of energy to distribute around as heat before it rotates out of view of the Sun, thus

sustaining its very thick atmosphere. The thick atmosphere very efficiently circulates the heat

collected on the day-side over to the night-side, so that the dark hemisphere of Venus doesn‟t

actually cool down very much as compared to when it is being heated directly by the Sun.

Third, and this is the very important point which ties it all together, Venus‟ atmosphere is

ninety-two times more dense at the surface, as compared to the Earth! This degree of pressure is

 

 

 

23

found only at around one-kilometre depth underneath the ocean surface on Earth, where even state-

of-the-art, modern nuclear powered attack submarines would be crushed. In fact, similar

temperatures and pressures as found on the Earth‟s surface are found in Venus‟ atmosphere at a

height of about fifty-kilometres, and below this the temperature and pressure increases due to

compression and adiabatic heating. And this serves as a rough zero-point for determining the

ground temperature on Venus via the same adiabatic equation as we used above for the Earth.

Venus‟ atmospheric composition is very different than Earth‟s, but it‟s average adiabatic lapse rate is

still very similar, at around 9K/km. So if the Venusian atmospheric temperature at 50km altitude is

around +150C, then at 50km in depth at the ground surface, the adiabatic equation derived above

would calculate out to around 4650C, which is really quite close to what Venus‟ ground temperature

actually is.

We can now understand what is meant by the expression “runaway greenhouse effect”,

when used to describe the situation on Venus. First of all, the temperature on Venus‟ surface is

exactly what it is supposed to be: calling it a “runaway” effect conjures something which isn‟t

supposed to be. Secondly, the ground temperature on Venus is higher than the maximum possible

heating as provided by sunlight, whereas on the Earth, the maximum measured ground temperature

is much less than the maximum possible, given the energy flux density of incoming sunlight. So on

Earth, we see that the atmosphere has a net cooling effect, because the average ground temperature

is less than the maximum temperature the Sun can provide underneath its zenith. But on Venus, the

atmosphere there makes the average surface temperature hotter than it could ever get from solar

heating, not because of any radiative trapping by the atmosphere, but simply because of its massive

adiabatic heating capability. The low density atmosphere of the Earth in fact behaves the opposite

way that Venus‟ very high density atmosphere behaves, in terms of regulating the planetary surface

temperature. And so the pseudo “runaway” aspect of Venus merely refers to its very high density

and very deep atmosphere, which makes the surface warmer than is possible given the amount of

absorbed solar radiation, and this has absolutely nothing to do with trapping unavailable radiation

near the surface. This implies that the only real way to increase the temperature on the surface of

the Earth via an atmospheric “greenhouse” effect is to increase our atmosphere‟s density. However,

we would be faced with the problem of finding more air, in order to do that! Of course, the amount

of change of CO2 in the atmosphere is negligible in concentration, and its effect on atmospheric

pressure is too small to even measure.

[valkhorn]

The following is interesting reading in articulating the reasons for the climate of Venus, and the misunderstandings that often arise in discussing the greenhouse effect.

 

Taken from the paper, "Understanding the Thermodynamic Atmospheric Effect":

 

The Case of Venus

There is much confusion over the comparison of Earth to that of Venus, in regards to the...

 

You didn't even bother to source it:

http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Understanding_the_Atmosphere_Effect.pdf

 

That's not exactly a peer-reviewed paper, or peer-reviewed science. Plus it's from this website:

 

http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/

 

That's not exactly a scientific or credible source/website.

 

Scanning through the source indicates the same lie that JB tried to trot out. It claims that the greenhouse effect violates the laws of thermodynamics.

 

Guess what, it doesn't:

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/09/greenhouse-violates-thermodynamics/

[Isotherm]

You didn't even bother to source it:

http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Understanding_the_Atmosphere_Effect.pdf

 

That's not exactly a peer-reviewed paper, or peer-reviewed science. Plus it's from this website:

 

http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/

 

That's not exactly a scientific or credible source/website.

 

Scanning through the source indicates the same lie that JB tried to trot out. It claims that the greenhouse effect violates the laws of thermodynamics.

 

Guess what, it doesn't:

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/09/greenhouse-violates-thermodynamics/

 

 

Ok - You're probably correct on that paper. Didn't realize it was off that website. Found through a quick search.

[valkhorn]

Ok - You're probably correct on that paper. Didn't realize it was off that website. Found through a quick search.

 

Always ALWAYS check  your sources.

[FloridaJohn]

Venus' atmosphere does not have a runaway greenhouse effect, it is the result of a runaway greenhouse effect.

Sometime in the past, there was liquid water on Venus, probably the same amount that exists on Earth. CO2 increased enough to increase the global temperature high enough to evaporate all the liquid water (this is the runaway greenhouse effect). Because the water could not condense and return to the surface, the water vapor molecular bonds were broken by the UV light, and the hydrogen escaped into space.

Once the hydrogen is gone, you can no longer create water. This is also why there is such a high concentration of CO2 in Venus' atmosphere. It is not because so much CO2 was released into the atmosphere, but because everything else escaped into space, leaving the CO2 behind.

A runaway greenhouse effect is unlikely on Earth due to the structure of the atmosphere, but Venus is a good example of the result of such an effect.

[valkhorn]

A runaway greenhouse effect is unlikely on Earth due to the structure of the atmosphere, but Venus is a good example of the result of such an effect.

 

I wouldn't say we even need a 'runaway' greenhouse effect to that extent to be disasterous. Just 1-2C warmer in only 100 years is enough to royally screw humanity over.

[FloridaJohn]

I wouldn't say we even need a 'runaway' greenhouse effect to that extent to be disasterous. Just 1-2C warmer in only 100 years is enough to royally screw humanity over.

Yes, I agree. The greenhouse effect doesn't have to "runaway" to have negative results. Although we are unlikely to experience a runaway effect, increasing temperatures will not be kind to our current way of life.

[valkhorn]

Yes, I agree. The greenhouse effect doesn't have to "runaway" to have negative results. Although we are unlikely to experience a runaway effect, increasing temperatures will not be kind to our current way of life.

 

This is what makes inaction and denial so frustrating. Do we want to spend billions now preventing this disaster, or trillions cleaning up after it?

 

Plus, I argue that getting off of fossil fuels and moving to nuclear power/renewables would boost the economy, not kill it. But of course all the scaremongering is from the scientists, and never from the oil companies who are afraid of us not using their oil anymore.

[winterymix]

I don't believein climate change. But I am a liberal Democrat, and a left-winger. Go figure.

 

 

Climate change has nothing to do with belief, in fact climate change is a discipline of science

that over-rides belief. 

 

Climate change is based upon scientific evidence.

 

Belief is some other thing that is of no use in understanding atmospheric science.

 

When NASA gives up the assertion that 97% of qualified experts agree

 

that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities

well...then...the experts will have spoken.

 

While on the subject, can anyone submit a reason that NASA would be "lying"?

[JBG]

I am not going to respond to this barrage of name-calling.

[valkhorn]

I am not going to respond to this barrage of name-calling.

 

Now I'm convinced you're trolling us.

[JBG]

Now I'm convinced you're trolling us.

No.

But I am not going to respond post by post to what amounts to name-calling and abuse. This is not a schoolyard.

[valkhorn]

No.

But I am not going to respond post by post to what amounts to name-calling and abuse. This is not a schoolyard.

 

A vast majority of the responses were correcting you on scientific points and backing them up with evidence - including my responses. That's not name-calling and abuse.

 

You can either admit you were wrong, or that you were trolling, or put up some kind of evidence to support your arguments.

 

Or you can leave. It's up to you.

[WeatherRusty]

Mine are not political. The theory seems to be more of a religion than a science, where non-believers are treated the way "non-conformists" were treated during the Inquisition.

I am against making policy decisions on what feels good. Again, I challenge anyone to prove that any contemplated actions would have any effect on the problem.

 

Why do you think the sciences which lead us to the conclusion that man's actions are causng a global warming to be akin to religion? That's name calling right there. You are slapping down very well founded physics and evidence which you don't thoughly understand. But guess what? No one understands everything known to science. We all have our specialties and general understandings in the world of science. So, yes we do take some things on faith, the most important being the integrity of modern science and it's ability to self correct.

 

You are welcome to learn every facet from the peer-reviewed literature in minute detail if you wish, which builds the case for AGW, Or you can have some faith that other scientists can do their job properly and that the methods of science weed out most of the unwarrented material.