Earth, Mercury, Venus and Global Warming Climate Change.

[Uncle Joe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus

"Venus is the second-closest planet to the Sun, orbiting it every 224.7 Earth days. The planet is named after Venus, the Roman goddess of love and beauty. After the Moon, it is the brightest natural object in the night sky, reaching an apparent magnitude of −4.6. Because Venus is an inferior planet from Earth, it never appears to venture far from the Sun: its elongation reaches a maximum of 47.8°. Venus reaches its maximum brightness shortly before sunrise or shortly after sunset, for which reason it is often called the Morning Star or the Evening Star.

Venus has an extremely dense atmosphere, which consists mainly of carbon dioxide and a small amount of nitrogen. The atmospheric mass is 93 times that of Earth's atmosphere while the pressure at the planet's surface is about 92 times that at Earth's surface—a pressure equivalent to that at a depth of nearly 1 kilometer under Earth's oceans. The density at the surface is 65 kg/m³ (6.5% that of water). The CO2-rich atmosphere, along with thick clouds of sulfur dioxide, generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System, creating surface temperatures of over 460 °C (860 °F).<32> This makes Venus's surface hotter than Mercury's which has a minimum surface temperature of -220 °C and maximum surface temperature of 420 °C,<33> even though Venus is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury's solar irradiance.

Studies have suggested that several billion years ago Venus's atmosphere was much more like Earth's than it is now, and that there were probably substantial quantities of liquid water on the surface, but a runaway greenhouse effect was caused by the evaporation of that original water, which generated a critical level of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere.<34>"

<snip>

This is for those people that believe carbon dioxide isn't a greenhouse gas or that sun activity is the primary source of global warming climate change.

[Oregone]

1. Couldn't come at a better time

Man is on the cusp of colonizing other planets and transforming into the scourge of the universe.

[BlueJazz]

2. I suspect that 100 years from now people will be spitting on our Graves because...

..we were so short-sighted.

Maybe I'll adorn my Tombstone with: "Some of us tried to tell the ignorant Republican Bastards"

[imdjh]

34. mine will say "So sue me."

[Indy Lurker]

3. I'm a skeptic.

I believe the earth is warming.

I believe CO2 is a green house gas.

I do not see conclusive evidence that man made green house gasses are responsible for global warming.

I have looked for some valid science that would provide such evidence, but I can't find any.

Please point me to some valid science if you know of any.

[TrogL]

4. Have a listen to Quirks and Quarks on CBC

If you can find last week's show, they talk about it. Scientists recently found an excellent climatory record in a lake half-ways up Baffin Island. There are sub-strata going back 200000 years. They were able to put together a climatological record dating back through several ice ages and "mini ice-ages". They found one place in the data where the pattern was different than the various normal influences (solar cycle, earth wobble etc.) could account for.

The last 60 years.

http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/quirks_20091024_22000.mp3

[Johonny]

5. try downloading the IPCC report

or just pop by http://www.realclimate.org/

For some no evidence will be conclusive enough, but science moves on without them.

[Gabi Hayes]

6. knock yourself out:

http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

[Uncle Joe]

7. If you believe these two?

"I believe the earth is warming."

"I believe CO2 is a green house gas."

How could you not believe this one?

"I do not see conclusive evidence that man made green house gasses are responsible for global warming."

The Industrial Revolution; burning tens-hundreds of millions year old carbon long buried in the ground and exhausting it in to the atmosphere without regard has only been going for a geological blink of an eye.

[Indy Lurker]

10. Thanks for the links

I will read them thoroughly.


To reiterate.

Science / data supports the fact that the earth is warming.

Science / data supports the fact that green house gases contribute to global warming.

Science / data supports the fact that humans produce green house gases.

Science / data supports the fact that humans contribute to global warming.



What I don't know is if human activity contributes 95% to the global warming we've seen over the last 100 years or 5% to the global warming we've seen over the last 100 years. If we're at the 5% end of the scale, it won't matter what we do.


I will look through the links provided to see if I can find some solid science.

[Uncle Joe]

15. When considering your percentage affects here is some additional information to think about.

"What I don't know is if human activity contributes 95% to the global warming we've seen over the last 100 years or 5% to the global warming we've seen over the last 100 years. If we're at the 5% end of the scale, it won't matter what we do."

The first one is from my O.P. link above, the way I understand it Earth and Venus have approximately the same amount of carbon with the critical difference being Earth's is or has been mostly in the ground while Venus' carbon is virtually all in the atmosphere.

"Venus is one of the four solar terrestrial planets, meaning that, like the Earth, it is a rocky body. In size and mass, it is very similar to the Earth, and is often described as its 'sister', or Earth's twin.<13> The diameter of Venus is only 650 km less than the Earth's, and its mass is 81.5% of the Earth's. However, conditions on the Venusian surface differ radically from those on Earth, due to its dense carbon dioxide atmosphere. The mass of the atmosphere of Venus is 96.5% carbon dioxide, with most of the remaining 3.5% composed of nitrogen.<14>"

I don't know how much coal is left buried in Earth's ground, but apparently oil won't be there much longer and I believe those percentage affects must be much greater than 5% considering the coincidental timing of current global warming climate change and the Industrial Revolution.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil



One other point coal will not be the only greenhouse producing culprit left to be concerned about, we're also approaching critical temperatures that will allow massive methane gas; releases, long buried either in frozen tundra or at the bottom of cold shallow seas. Of course Methane has far greater heat trapping characteristics than carbon dioxide.

Taking all this in to account, I believe if you must wait for absolute conclusive evidence, it will be too late.

Peace to you.

[scarletwoman]

17. Here's a question for you.

(1)Science / data supports the fact that the earth is warming.

(2)Science / data supports the fact that green house gases contribute to global warming.

(3)Science / data supports the fact that humans produce green house gases.

(4)Science / data supports the fact that humans contribute to global warming.

(I've numbered your statements to make it easier to reference them.)

My question is this: Given that you accept that (1), (2), & (3) are true, doesn't it make sense to attempt to mitigate the human contribution of greenhouse gases, regardless of what percentage of global warming it may be responsible for? Human production of greenhouse gases is the one factor over which we have some control -- why not make an effort to reduce them?

Should we just sit back and accept that we're doomed anyway and do nothing? What if we could buy a bit more time to marshall the resources necessary to make life-saving adjustments before the full catastrophe of rising sea levels, loss of fresh water, devastated ecosystems hits?

At what point does counting the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin become irrelevant?

sw

[Indy Lurker]

18. An answer.

It only makes sense to attempt to mitigate the human contribution of greenhouse gases if there is a strong likely hood of it having a positive effect.

If we manage to reduce our GHG output by 50% (a huge amount by anyone's estimate), only to find out that human GHG only contribute 10% to global warming, we will have spent a great deal of time and resources to gain very little.

In such a case we would be much better off using our resources to mitigate the effects of global warming, such as developing heat resistant crops, and encouraging potential coastal flood victims to move inland.

[scarletwoman]

19. I understand what you're saying. But isn't buying even just 5 years more time worth doing?

Why can't we work toward mitigating CO2 AND developing survival technologies at the same time? At least if people are focused on reducing carbon emissions it keeps the problem of global warming on the forefront of peoples' consciousness. Why not do everything possible to stop making it worse, to slow it down however much it can be slowed down?

Potable water is going become THE major issue -- isn't buying even just a little more time for developing better desalination technology worth it? Developing heat resistant crops won't help if there's no water, nor will moving humans away from low-lying coastlines.

Millions of people are going die. Hundreds, if not thousands, of plant and animal species are going to go extinct. Wouldn't we be better off working toward new models of sustainability -- which would include learning to live in ways that produce less CO2 -- NOW?

sw

[Indy Lurker]

24. depends

If as you say, "Potable water is going become THE major issue" wouldn't we be better off focusing on that.

Everything is a trade-off. We could save lives by putting seat belts on school buses, but the consensus is that we are better off with other measures, such as having buses stop at RR crossings.

My point is that we need some good science to go along with the theories.

We should certainly pursue things like electric cars and wind farms, but when it comes to things like cap and trade, which will certainly hurt industry, we should be sure of our facts and science.

[scarletwoman]

26. "but when it comes to things like cap and trade, which will certainly hurt industry..." Okay, I see

your agenda now.

Yeah, let's protect a way of life that's killing the planet, so we don't have to be inconvenienced in the short term.

I'm done with you.

sw

[Indy Lurker]

28. Is it killing the planet?

That's my question.

I know that cap and trade would wipe out many domestic companies, locally, we would lose about 120 jobs.

I don't know that cap and trade will decrease global warming.

What I'm asking for is some good science that indicates we can have a measurable impact on global warming, whether it's through cap and trade, or some other form of rationing.

Is that too much to ask?

[Indy Lurker]

12. Yes

"The Industrial Revolution; burning tens-hundreds of millions year old carbon long buried in the ground and exhausting it in to the atmosphere without regard has only been going for a geological blink of an eye."

So how does this(scientifically)account for global warming?

[The Straight Story]

45. Well, what caused the previous earth warming?

We had an ice age before, then it got hot and melted. No human intervention there.

[Uncle Joe]

49. There is no denying the Earth has run in cycles of heating and cooling in the past it may have been

related to excessive volcanic activity or a major catastrophic meteor strike, but it must also be noted the past didn't have millions of cars and industries continuously adding green house gases to the cycle.

The poster I was referring to even acknowledged that Co2 was a greenhouse gas, I bolded his quotes.

"I believe the earth is warming."

"I believe CO2 is a green house gas."

How could you not believe this one?

"I do not see conclusive evidence that man made green house gasses are responsible for global warming."

"The Industrial Revolution; burning tens-hundreds of millions year old carbon long buried in the ground and exhausting it in to the atmosphere without regard has only been going for a geological blink of an eye."

Do you believe Co2 and Methane are greenhouse gases?

[The Straight Story]

51. Does not matter if I believe

What matters is the measurement of their impact on the climate - AND taking into account normal climate change.

The climate changes for many reasons outside of us, measuring the true impact of human behavior on it is not easy.

For a planet that has been around for millions of years, with many fluctuations in it's temperature for many reasons I don't think one should rush to the conclusion that we are the main (let alone sole) contributor to such changes.

Does mean I don't think we should reduce emissions? No. I do think we should be careful though in going with the belief that if we suddenly cut emissions that change will be reversed. Change is going to happen either way - so we should plan on how to work with such change while at the same time looking at how we can better limit the impact of our behavior on said change.

Just blaming humans and Co2 (from humans) seems a tad short sighted IMHO. IF (and there has been over the life of the planet) other causes then we should work to better understand them and how to work around them.

[Uncle Joe]

52. It does matter what you believe, but here is a more detailed synopsis

as to cause of Earth's cyclic changes and humanity; a relative newcomer's impact.

http://globalwarming.sdsu.edu/

THE 33 FACTS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
By Victor Miguel Ponce

Documented Version

1. The Earth was formed about 4,540,000,000 years ago.

2. In the beginning, the Earth's atmosphere contained very little oxygen (less than 1% oxygen pressure).

3. Early plants started to develop more than 2 billion years ago, probably about 2,700,000,000.

4. Through photosynthesis, plants uptake carbon dioxide into the biosphere as organic matter, and release oxygen as a byproduct.

5. Through geologic time, oxygen accumulated gradually in the atmosphere, reaching a value of about 21% of atmospheric gases at the present time.

6. Through geologic time, surplus organic matter has been sequestered in the lithosphere as fossil organic materials (coal, petroleum, and natural gas).

7. Early animals (the first organisms with external shells) started to develop around 600,000,000 years ago.

8. Animals operate in the opposite way than plants: they take up oxygen, burn organic matter (food), and release carbon dioxide as a byproduct.

9. Early humans (Australopithecus anamensis) began to develop about 4,100,000 years ago.

10. Cool climatic conditions have prevailed during the past 1,000,000 years. The species Homo sapiens evolved under these climatic conditions.

11. Homo sapiens dates back to more than 400,000 years.

12. Estimates for the variety Homo sapiens sapiens, to which all humans belong, range from 130,000 to 195,000 years old.

13. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was as low as 190 ppm during the last Ice Age, about 21,000 years ago.

14. The last Ice Age began to recede about 20,000 years ago.

15. The agricultural revolution, where humans converted forests and rangelands into farms, began to develop about 10,000 years ago.

16. The agricultural revolution caused a reduction in standing biomass in the biosphere and reduced the uptake of carbon dioxide in midlatitudinal regions, indirectly contributing, however so slightly, to global warming.

17. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased gradually from a low of 190 ppm 21,000 year ago, to about 290 ppm in the year 1900, i.e., at an average rate of 0.00478 ppm per year.

18. The industrial revolution, where humans developed machines (artificial animals, since they consume fuels, which are mostly organic matter), began in England about 240 years ago (1767).


19. In October 1999, the world's population reached 6,000,000,000, which is double that of the year 1959 (the doubling occurred in 40 years).


20. The world's population is currently increasing at the rate of about 80,000,000 per year (about 1.2 %).

21. The current world population is 6,781,000,000 (September 1, 2009).

22. The global fleet of motor vehicles is estimated at 830,000,000 (2006).


23. The global fleet of motor vehicles has been recently growing at the rate of 16,000,000 per year.

24. Motor vehicles (cars, trucks, buses, and scooters) account for 80% of all transport-related energy use.

25. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which was at 290 ppm in the year 1900, rose to 316 ppm in 1959, or at an average 0.44 ppm per year.

26. Measurements of the concentration of carbon dioxide since 1959 (316 ppm) have revealed an increase to 387 ppm in 2009, or at an average 1.42 ppm per year.


27. The concentration of carbon dioxide has increased an average of about 1.8 ppm per year over the past two decades.

28. The concentration of carbon dioxide increased 2.87 ppm in 1997-98, more than in any other year of record.

29. The year 1998 was the warmest of record. The year 2002 was the second warmest (to that date). The year 2003 was the third warmest (to that date). The year 2004 was the fourth warmest (to that date). The year 2005 equaled 1998 as the warmest of record. The year 2007 equaled 1998 as the second warmest of record. The ten warmest years have occurred in the twelve-year period 1997-2008.

30. About 75% of the annual increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is due to the burning of fossil fuels.

31. The remaining 25% is attributed to anthropogenic changes in land use, which have the effect of reducing the net uptake of carbon dioxide.

32.Anthropogenic changes in land use occur when forests are converted to rangelands, rangelands to agriculture, and agriculture to urban areas.

33. Other patterns of land degradation--deforestation, overgrazing, overcultivation, desertification, and salinization--reduce the net uptake of carbon dioxide, indirectly contributing, however slightly, to global warming.









--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Miguel Ponce is professor of civil and environmental engineering at San Diego State University. His specialty is hydrology, environmental science, and sustainable development.
See also The global warming predicament.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://globalwarming.sdsu.edu
081219

[The Straight Story]

53. Question here

And thanks for all the info.

26. Measurements of the concentration of carbon dioxide since 1959 (316 ppm) have revealed an increase to 387 ppm in 2009, or at an average 1.42 ppm per year.


27. The concentration of carbon dioxide has increased an average of about 1.8 ppm per year over the past two decades.

28. The concentration of carbon dioxide increased 2.87 ppm in 1997-98, more than in any other year of record.

29. The year 1998 was the warmest of record. The year 2002 was the second warmest (to that date). The year 2003 was the third warmest (to that date). The year 2004 was the fourth warmest (to that date). The year 2005 equaled 1998 as the warmest of record. The year 2007 equaled 1998 as the second warmest of record. The ten warmest years have occurred in the twelve-year period 1997-2008.

Why haven't we had record breaking temps each year since 1998? 1999, 2000, 2001 were cooler than 1998 - but we were still spewing forth as much Co2 if not more. Not sure I get why it goes down when based on the logic of the scenarios it should go up each year.

What causes it not to?

I am all for limiting emissions, cutting back, and going green - just trying to better grasp and understand all of this.

Again, I appreciate you taking the time to educate me more and answer my questions without flaming. I have questions/doubts raised by some questions, and would rather get educated on it all then let such things linger.

Thanks!

[Uncle Joe]

54. I don't know all the intricate details, maybe there are errors in exact measurements, maybe the

global ecosystem is like a living organism trying to correct it self within the boundaries of it circumstances like a runner breathing hard to obtain oxygen and cool off and to some limited degree that would be successful, but I believe the overall trend is unmistakable.

I hate to use the phrase, but step back from the individual yearly fluctuation or tree and and keep your eye on the pattern, aka forest.

Peace to you.

[Jim Lane]

58. It's the difference between weather and climate

You write: "Why haven't we had record breaking temps each year since 1998? 1999, 2000, 2001 were cooler than 1998 - but we were still spewing forth as much Co2 if not more. Not sure I get why it goes down when based on the logic of the scenarios it should go up each year."

The answer is that year-to-year fluctuations persist and, in the short run, can outweigh the long-term trend.

Here's an analogy. A child asks you why we have seasons. You explain about the axial tilt of the Earth and how, during the summer months, the Sun's rays are striking us more directly, making the weather hotter. The child then rummages around in the National Weather Service records and says to you, "A few years ago, in our town, April 30 was warmer than July 28. The April day had a higher high temperature, a higher low, and a higher mean. Based on your logic, though, July 28 should have been warmer."

That's an example of short-term fluctuation. It's hypothetical, but of course if I weren't too lazy, I could check the records and find some actual instances of April temps higher than July temps. For a real example, I think that on some presidential inauguration day, maybe Carter's, it was warmer in Anchorage than in Washington, D.C. The fluctuation observed on one particular January 20, however, doesn't undercut the overall thesis that Anchorage is colder than Washington.

The data you cite show the same type of effect, only on a larger scale. In the absence of any global warming, yearly average temperatures would vary around an average -- that is, one year might be somewhat hotter or colder than its predecessor, just by chance. With global warming, the average keeps rising, but the variation doesn't go away. As a result, in any one year, variation in the weather can cause a drop in temperature that outweighs the climate-based increase.

Whenever there's an early snow somewhere, the Freepers love to cackle about it as if it were dispositive proof, but it's quite consistent with the hypothesis of global warming. The question is whether, looking at all the data, you can see a general trend. Check out for a discussion of that point. The AP sent climate data to several statisticians, without telling them what the numbers represented, and asked for an analysis. The statisticians concluded that the numbers showed an upward trend.

[immoderate]

8. Are you saying that man made CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?

How does the energy differentiate between natural CO₂ and man made CO₂ before it is trapped in the atmosphere?:shrug:

Does this also apply to the acidification of the oceans?

--imm

[Indy Lurker]

13. No

What I am asking, is if man made CO2 is a major factor in global warming.

I have yet to see any data.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. Did you know the earth is round and it goes around the sun?

Just checking.

[Indy Lurker]

11. Yes I did.

In fact it follows simple Newtonian physics. Scientific laws that can be proven and tested.

I was hoping to find something similar to support man made global warming.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. Did you know that a circle's circumference divided by its diameter is equal to pi?

[bigmonkey]

21. If reducing CO2 emissions will combat global warming, then we do it.

Even if the CO2 is not the exclusive cause. Yes?

[Indy Lurker]

27. No, not if the results are not measurable.

"If reducing CO2 emissions will combat global warming, then we do it."


What if it costs the world $3T to reduce it by 3% is it still worth it?

How much medicine,food and water could you get by spending the same $3T another way?

[bigmonkey]

60. I think the word "combat" would imply more than "influence insignificantly."

Yes?

[Gregorian]

25. I would ask where else the CO2 might be coming from.

Your answer lies in that facet of questioning. I suppose the scientists of the world may be overlooking some previously undiscovered source of CO2 emissions, but it's so highly unlikely as to not be a feasible answer.

[Indy Lurker]

31. How do you know?

How do you know that CO2 is even responsible for a majority of the global warming that is occurring?

How do you know that, of the CO2 that is contributing to global warming, a large percentage is man made?

This is the information I want.


I have found the newest report from IPCC, but I don't have time to review it all tonight.

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/

I want to see the data for myself.

There are many scientific "facts" that aren't true, that are later disproved, such as saccharin causing cancer.

Is asking to see the science such an unreasonable request?

[Canuckistanian]

32. How about a graph of historical CO2 and Temperature records?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/63/Co2-temperature-plot.svg

Do you see any point where temperature diverges radically from CO2 levels?

Now look where the current CO2 level is.

[Indy Lurker]

38. That's a start

But your only showing a correlation. There is no real cause and effect.

Also, this historical data is only valid for Antarctica.

We see a temperature swing of -10 to + 5 C in Antarctica

It also shows that for the last 800,000 years the CO2 level in Antarctica have varied between 150 and 300 ppm.

Now we're at 390 ppm.

The most you can truthfully say about this graph is that it shows a historically strong positive correlation between Antarctic CO2 Levels and Antarctic temperature.

How do we tie the rest of the plant to this data?

[krispos42]

39. Regardless of whether human-sources of greenhouse gasses are causing GCC...

...we need to get off fossil fuels.

One, it's a pollution issue. We don't need to be breathing soot. We don't need heavy metals like mercury poisoning our water and land. We don't need toxic and radioactive ash piles sitting in pools, leeching into the water table. And oil spills destroying our beaches.

Two, it's a national security issue. Being dependent, economically, on foreign oil means we are spending hundred of billions of dollars extra a year protecting (or invading and occupying) those foreign nations. It also means that we are vulnerable to attack. Without oil our economy, and thus our self-defense ability, is greatly diminished. Ships, planes, and tanks can't move. Crops aren't planted or harvested. Fields are not fertilized. Oceans are not fished. Transportation of critical supplies slows.

Three, it's an economic/political issue. By getting free from fossil fuels, the vast concentrations of wealth inherent in the system disappears, drastically reducing the corporate power influencing Washington. It would also create exportable, licensable alternative-energy products and reduce medical and envirmental costs.

[Winterblues]

43. Want valid science

Take a five gallon empty water jug. One of those that fit into a water cooler. Light a piece of paper on fire and drop it into the jug and put a cork in the jug. The jug accurately reflects the entirely closed environement we live in on the planet Earth. Tell me what happens to the smoke in the jug. Does it just disappear? Since the atmosphere we live in is so much larger than the five gallon jug it appears like any smoke we put into the air just disappears but it really does not. It has no place to go.... We just keep adding more and more. You truly believe man has no effect upon our environment???? Have you ever been to LA or Houston?

[yawnmaster]

46. "The jug accurately reflects the entirely closed environement" - not really...

air and smoke reflect the environment?
I don't see any systems in that jug that make up our real environment.
For instance, throw in the water cycle and you'll see that smoke disappear as it is pulled out of the atmosphere into the water, where other systems will change it.

Smoke doesn't just stay in the air. If it did we wouldn't have "fossil" evidence of volcanic eruptions, for instance.

[yawnmaster]

14. The ancient Venusians were not able to curb their CO2 emissions, leading to that

civilizations demise and the runaway greenhouse effect on their planet.
One would think we could learn from them.

[Uncle Joe]

16. Maybe we can never learn from the ancient Venusians if there ever were any but we could learn

from current global climatic/geological comparisons between these three planets by just using logic.

[WillieW]

23. LOL I didn't know that there had been Venusians

[Jim Lane]

56. Yes, there were, and even THEY had a better health-care system than we do (n/t)

[yawnmaster]

57. Yet even with good health care, the Venusians took their planet from an idyllic earth-like planet...

to a veritable hell.

[Jim Lane]

59. The cause of that catastrophe is readily explained

Because of an unfortunate genetic defect in most Venusians' DNA, they gave excessive reverence to the opinions of overweight, cigar-chomping, drug-addicted pedophiles. They blindly followed the advice of the Venusians who met this description. The inevitable result was the destruction of their entire civilization.

May we learn from their mistake.

[yawnmaster]

62. I really don't think we have that kind of detail regarding the ancient Venusians. All we know...

is that they took an idyllic Earth-like atmosphere and abused it to the point where it is now hell-like.
And that itself has some assumptions, but what else could have turned a beautiful planet into what it is now?

[DireStrike]

71. I would love to do some archeology on Venus.

I don't think that will ever be possible.

[roamer65]

22. Don't forget Mars and the one thing we may learn from global climate change...

is exactly how to terraform it. Too bad we couldn't ship our excess CO2 to Mars right now to start the process.

[Warren DeMontague]

29. Damn straight. I was thinking the same thing earlier this week.

If and when we get through this, however, we will know a great deal about how to warm up a planet. 500-1000 years from now, I bet Terraforming Mars will become a reality.

[roamer65]

30. I would like to see the largest public works program in human history.

1. The production, delivery and implementation of halocarbon (greenhouse effect) manufacturing plants to Mars.
2. The sequestration of Earth CO2 and shipment to Mars for release into its atmosphere.
3. The delivery of bacterial and plant life to Mars.

The goal will be to begin the melting of Martian frozen CO2 and water to begin the terraforming process. This process could be started well before we step foot on the planet, with us finally arriving on the planet in mid-terraform when life will be much more sustainable on the planet.

[Xithras]

33. Mars is not terraformable.

Great works of fiction aside, the reality is that Mars isn't terraformable. The low gravity well means that any introduced atmosphere will simply leak off. The lack of a magnetic field means that any plant life will be killed off by solar radiation long before it could become established. Finally, the greater distance from the Sun means that, even if you could overcome the first two issues, you'd still be dealing with nightime winter temperatures that hit about -200F. No amount of CO2 can overcome the fact that Mars only gets about a quarter of the solar energy that we do. Winter temps like that will kill off any surface life, and freeze any ocean.

[Warren DeMontague]

36. I don't think that's necessarily true. For one, Titan is smaller than Mars, and has a VERY

thick atmosphere. Mars's lack of Atmosphere isn't purely due to lack of gravity. A good portion of it may be frozen.

If we're at the point, technologically, where we're capable of terraforming Mars in the first place (obviously, we're not there yet, or even close.. I think we're talking a difference in technological orders of magnitude comparable to the difference between the year 1000 and the year 2000) I think problems like the lack of magnetic field could conceivably be overcome.

As for the temperature, and again, the atmosphere- there is ample evidence that the conditions on Mars are due to the atmosphere (and lack thereof) ... moreso than the other way around. There is evidence that Mars was considerably wetter, and warmer, at a time when the Earth is not believed to have been that much (x4) warmer- so solar radiation isn't going to account for how Mars is vs. how Mars was. It's not believed that the sun's output was that significantly different when Mars was wet & warm(er)... what was different? It had an atmosphere, and it had greenhouse gases keeping it warm.

Replace those, and Mars should warm up again.

[eppur_se_muova]

42. Titan is also much colder. Warm it up and much of the atmosphere would be lost.

The ability of a gas to escape is a function of molecular weight and temperature as well as gravity. Light, hot gases escape most easily. Bring Titan into orbit around Mars and most of that atmosphere would be lost. Titan is cold enough to hold onto lots of N2 (only ~20K above boiling point) and even CH4, but Mars' atmosphere is largely CO2 -- the only gas heavy enough to build up a substantial equilibrium pressure on such a light planet.

So, ironically, Mars is so cold (partly) because it it too hot. :evilgrin: BUT if it were more massive -- like Venus -- it could have held onto more CO2 and had a much warmer surface.

[Warren DeMontague]

47. The evidence seems to be that it took a long time for Mars's atmosphere to bleed away.

I mean, there was clearly a long time of stable, warm temperatures on the planet. If we're at the technological stage where we can terraform it in the first place (admittedly, a very advanced one) then I'd suspect we can deal with the slow atmospheric loss as it happens.

My point was only that "We CAN'T Terraform Mars" as a statement- well, no, we can't NOW, for lots of reasons-- but I think making bets against or blanket statements about what we CAN'T do 500, or 1000 years from now; is a fool's game. :shrug:

[eppur_se_muova]

55. Well, I certainly agree with that last statement.

As for the atmosphere, yes, it would appear that Mars is just on the wrong side of some critical limits ... a little heavier or farther from the Sun, it would have kept its atmosphere, stayed warm, maybe evolved life ... a little lighter or closer to the Sun, it would already look like Mercury. Sooooo close to being Earth's twin, yet so far.

[eppur_se_muova]

41. All this has been adressed in Kim Stanley Robinson's "Red/Green/Blue Mars" trilogy.

He posits deliberate introduction of potent GHG's like SF6 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulphur_hexafluoride#Greenhouse_gas) and use of a light-levitated ("statite" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statite) mirror to warm the planet. The atmosphere *would* leak away, very rapidly on a planetological time scale, but sufficiently slowly to be useful to humans. I believe the time scale he came up with was one in which the addition of extra atmosphere by volatilization of comets would lead to a usefully terraformed Mars for ca. 10,000 years or so -- longer than the history of civilization so far.

Not saying it's either a good idea or an economically practical one, just that the science/technology has been pretty well gone over. A big part of it is shifting the goal from "a second Earth" to "someplace where humans can function reasonably well".

[Warren DeMontague]

48. Yeah, that's what I was saying, too. I got about 1/2 way through the first book

haven't got around to finishing it, probably will at some point.

[GreenPartyVoter]

66. Hence the need for biodomes (or more like underground facilities.)

[Johonny]

69. we are unlikely to learn how to create a magnetic field

around Mars or restart plate tectonics. We may be able to warm Mars up, but there's a real limit to how Earth like Mars is ever going to be.

[Deja Q]

72. I thought CO2 was in heavy concentration on Mars; shipping plants and space heaters would be needed?

http://www.earthsci.unimelb.edu.au/mars/Carbon_Dioxide.html

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q2681.html
(looks like air conditioning might be needed in summertime too :D )

[Vidar]

35. K&R

[Art_from_Ark]

37. We are leaving out some very important information here

First, Venus is much closer to the sun than the Earth is, and receives an exponentially larger amount of solar radiation.
Second, Venus is the only planet in the solar system whose day is longer than its year. The planet is basically roasting over a very slow spit, in which one "day" is about 242 earth days long (about 18 earth days longer than its year). Extremely slow rotation, plus proximity to the sun, plus dense atmosphere, plus lack of surface water, all combine to make Venus a planetary oven.

Personally, I think that deforestation plus overurbanization play a major but mostly overlooked role in climate change.

[Uncle Joe]

40. I wonder if global warming climate change could have an adverse affect on Earth's rotation?

"The present rotation period of Venus represents an equilibrium state between gravitational tidal locking by the Sun that tends to slow the rotation rate, and an atmospheric tide created by the solar heating of Venus's thick atmosphere. When it formed from the solar nebula, Venus may have begun with a different rotation period and obliquity, then migrated to the current state because of chaotic spin changes caused by planetary perturbations and tidal effects on its dense atmosphere."

I'm not a scientist but I imagine the continuous addition of carbon dioxide, and then methane which in turn would warm the Earth could also serve to thicken the atmosphere increasing or creating a tide, not to the extreme of Venus, but nonetheless have an aggravating and self-perpetuating affect.

[yawnmaster]

44. I don't know that there is any evidence that the ancient Venusians deforested the planet...

or whether it was due to the climate change induced from their over-urbanization coupled with over use of their fossil fuels.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

50. This OP is disengenious AT BEST - (Warning: math and facts in here.)

#1) As mentioned earlier by AfA, extenuating diurnal circumstances make Venus an invalid comparison to Mercury or Earth.
The diurnal cycle is much different than that of Mercury's or Earth's so the effects needs to be investigated before making comparisons.
"... Venus is the only planet in the solar system whose day is longer than its year. The planet is basically roasting over a very slow spit, in which one "day" is about 242 earth days long (about 18 earth days longer than its year). Extremely slow rotation, plus proximity to the sun, plus dense atmosphere, plus lack of surface water, all combine to make Venus a planetary oven."

#2) Also, it receives exponentially more solar energy than earth thus amplifying the effects of the 96%+ CO2 atmosphere. NINETY-SIX FREAKING PERCENT!! In what realm is a planet like this receiving exponentially more energy even remotely comparable to a planet like earth with .038% CO2 atmospheric composition?!? Laughable comparison at best and hardly scientific. That's like feeding a child 10 pounds of pasta per day, noting his grand obesity, and then banning pasta as a food product because IT WILL (OMG, save the chilldddruuunnn!!!) make you fat. :eyes:

#3) Perhaps the reason Venus is slightly hotter than Mercury is because it receives ALOT more solar energy? OMFGBBQ WHAT!?!?! The fact that Venus is nearly 2X further from the sun as Mercury does not mean it receives 1/4 the solar irradiance. That means it receives 1/4 of solar energy intensity. The statement in the article (straight out wiki, by the way) is disingenuous to ignore the fact that Venus's mean radius is 2.4X larger than Mercury's mean radius. So it's twice as far but more than twice as large, hmmm...
Merc's solar projected area: 18703786 km^2
Venus' solar projected area: 115066184 km^2 (Nearly ONE f*cking order of magnitude larger!)
Venus' Solar Energy Equivalence: 28766546 (Venus gets 50%+ more solar energy than Mercury)

:banghead: :dunce:

[Uncle Joe]

61. You seem to be good with math and facts, do you know if Venus is increasing it's

atmospheric CO2% content or is it holding steady at 96%? As Venus is pretty much a dead planet, I imagine it's for the most part topped out.

On the other hand, is Earth holding steady at it's relatively minuscule amount or are we increasing our atmospheric CO2 and Methane% with the continuous burning of fossil fuels, industrial farms and such?

If we are increasing our atmospheric CO2 and Methane% would this have the effect of thickening our atmosphere, thereby increasing atmospheric pressure?

I'm not a scientist but the way I understand it, Venus' atmospheric pressure is approximately 92xs that of Earth and this pressure had some influence on Venus' diurnal cycle slowing down it's rotation to that "roasting on a a slow spit" speed.

So if we continually thicken our atmosphere with CO2 and Methane would that create the same dynamic gradually slowing down Earth's rotation, stretching our days out longer?

I don't imagine our diurnal cycle would become so extreme as that of Venus' but nonetheless if our days were longer, wouldn't this have an additional heating affect on Earth?

Thank you for your answers.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

63. Venus, is likely holding steady

#1) However if it's greenhouse effect has not reached it's peak equilibrium I would expect it drive off some more of the much lighter N2.
CO2 is a relatively heavy gas, so it's levels tend to raise over a long enough time-line on really any planet, given that it stays in gaseous form.

(interesting info) The earth's atmosphere is about 5 quadrillion tonnes in mass.
That is 5.14x10^15 tonnes or 5.14x10^18 kilograms.
That's a pretty massive number. Looking at the greenhouse trace gasses in question, there is:
8969300000 tonnes of CH4
1968620000000 tonnes of CO2

#2) I could not readily find CO2 or CH4 total output figures, but the above numbers should provide a good base to see just how much greenhouse gasses we are putting in to the atmosphere should you find some data. As you can see, man's best efforts at producing greenhouse gas are pretty paltry in comparison to the amount out there already. I don't think humans could EVER increase CO2 or CH4 levels considerably enough to 'thicken' the atmosphere. I'm pretty sure we would die from CO2 asphixiation LONG before we could reach a significantly thick atmosphere. Keep in mind, we use O2 to make CO2, so I believe that current O2 levels would be the limiting factor as to how much CO2 we could ever ultimately attain. That being said, I think it's extremely safe to assume humans won't be capable, even if we tried, to significantly increase CO2 levels.

#3) This is an easy question to answer: YES, more or less.
Methane is lighter than "air" so increasing methane % would lower pressure. CO2 is much heavier than "air" so increasing CO2 % would increase pressure. These are composition % changes... however, if you're considering % changes as a function of ADDING gasses to the existing atmosphere (and not just converting gasses), then overall atmospheric mass increases raising the atmospheric pressure.

#4) In conjunction with that, we are much further from the sun and experience less solar wind energy. Even with a similarly dense Venusian atmosphere, it's likely solar winds would have much less effect. So you have much less solar effect coupled with less opportunity to reach Venusian-like pressures... I don't think could ever become a concern. Be that as it may, the earth IS actually slowing in its rotation: about .002sec every 100 years (but this solely lunar related). ;)

#5) Longer diurnal cycles lead to higher day temps and lower night temps with much faster temperature swings. Conversely, a thick atmosphere is a blanket, not letting heat escape easily. This is why Venus has one of the most consistent diurnal temperatures despite the longest days and nights. It's also the reason why, on our airless moon, the days are sweltering and the nights are frigid. So if our atmosphere was thick enough to slow the earth and lengthen the day, I'd assume it's more than insulated enough to keep a steady temperature.

My thoughts on the global warming issue:
I cannot speculate as to whether the climate is heating or cooling the earth... history and science is what it is and studies shouldn't lie. However, I certainly don't feel humans can appreciably effect the rate which it happens or even have a deciding factor in the matter at all. Said otherwise, "While I do not denounce climate change, I am highly skeptic of man made climate change or Climate Change™©." I'm not going to be close minded, but will be critical especially when cost is brought into the picture. Imagine a million tonnes of CO2... it's a lot. Imagine the sum of money to sequester a million tons, again very large. Then realize that the money spent reduced atmospheric carbon dioxide .00005% (one-half of one ten-thousandth of one percent)... was that money well spent and is there even a measurable benefit?

[Uncle Joe]

64. I suppose that depends on the tipping point, the fine border

between near global climatic catastrophe and actual global climatic catastrophe, so how would you know without letting it occur?

Can that cost be calculated and would you play Russian Roulette with life as we know it? It seems to me the wise course would be err on the (no pun intended), conservative side.

As for me it seems illogical to believe that human kind can't wreck it's own eco system, virtually all species destroy their own environment when their population reaches a saturation point and with humankind our numbers are greatly magnified by our technological capabilities.

"My thoughts on the global warming issue:
I cannot speculate as to whether the climate is heating or cooling the earth... history and science is what it is and studies shouldn't lie. However, I certainly don't feel humans can appreciably effect the rate which it happens or even have a deciding factor in the matter at all. Said otherwise, "While I do not denounce climate change, I am highly skeptic of man made climate change or Climate Change™©." I'm not going to be close minded, but will be critical especially when cost is brought into the picture. Imagine a million tonnes of CO2... it's a lot. Imagine the sum of money to sequester a million tons, again very large. Then realize that the money spent reduced atmospheric carbon dioxide .00005% (one-half of one ten-thousandth of one percent)... was that money well spent and is there even a measurable benefit?"

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

65. "As for me it seems illogical to believe that human kind can't wreck it's own eco system"

I wholeheartedly agree that we may be wrecking the ecosystem, but not because of climate change.
The living ecosystem is extremely sensitive and we are poisoning or killing it off (directly) at almost every turn.

My position is that to fight global warming tooth and nail will be the most expensive human endeavor EVER and yet still return abysmal results. I believe that ANY money spent directly fighting global warming (CO2, CH4, oil...) is MUCH BETTER spent developing economically friendly technology and power solutions. How much advancement on nuclear fusion, fuel cells, wind farms, photovoltaic generation could that money buy us? How many people could that money feed or heal? IMO, we need to take that money and develop survival solutions in response to climate trends... because I do not think WE are causing the changes.

One major reason for my belief is that it's been said human's accounts for about 0.28% of the "greenhouse effect" if water vapor is taken into account and about 5.53% if H20 is ignored. The rest of the greenhouse effect is generated naturally as evidenced prior to the industrial revolution. This is because water is supposedly 10X more effective as a greenhouse gas versus co2 AND there's helluva lot more of it in the atmosphere than CO2. You can see, even if the human race DISAPPEARED off the face of the planet... over 99% of the greenhouse effect remains unscathed.

[Uncle Joe]

74. It seems to me 5% is a pretty big impact and this figure would be magnified

if 5% was the difference between natural natural carbon dioxide being released from the ocean or natural methane suddenly being released from the thawing frozen tundra and warming shallow seas or not, particulary as you state is the system is extremely sensitive.


"I wholeheartedly agree that we may be wrecking the ecosystem, but not because of climate change.
The living ecosystem is extremely sensitive and we are poisoning or killing it off (directly) at almost every turn."

[yawnmaster]

67. does your CO2 number include CO2 dissolved in the oceans? eom

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

68. Those figures are "atmospheric CO2"

Meaning areal only.
Also, the reduction figure of 1,000,000 tonnes does not include any other aspect of the CO2 cycle (plant or natural).
It's just saying X amount of money saved Y% (reduction or increase).

I was reading something once that says the nearly half of our emitted CO2 gets dissolved in the ocean.

[yawnmaster]

73. Yes, I'd like to have the total unfixed CO2 (non plant, animal, fossil fuel, etc).

the numbers are probably out there just don't remember seeing them.
The oceans are a huge buffer for CO2, and I wonder how fast we would see a change.
Its one of the things that makes cause and effect difficult. As you heat the oceans it releases massive amounts of CO2.

[Uncle Joe]

75. It seems this excessive CO2 being dissolved by the ocean is also turning it too acidic to support .

most of known sea life.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/science/earth/08obalga.html?_r=1&em&ex=1199941200&en=67bda5b5face8ceb&ei=5087%0A

"The gradual acidification of the oceans, a result of rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, is thought to be bad for coral reefs. The absorption of CO2 by seawater leads to lower saturation levels of carbonate ions, which reduces calcification, the process by which corals make their hard skeletons."

<snip>

[muriel_volestrangler]

78. Atmospheric CO2 has increased by about 35% from pre-industrial levels

From about 280 ppm to 385 ppm, so I can't see what your '3.225%' figure is supposed to mean. Where did you get those images from?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

79. It means of all the CO2 in the air, we are "directly" responsible for dumping X% there.

Remember that when the earth heats, for any reason, CO2 is released from quite a few sources naturally.
Chiefly, the oceans and glacial ice are the culprits. Any rise in carbon dioxide should not be taken to be 100% man made.
Numerous research papers show that CO2 levels fluctuated in the past in response to temperature changes before man existed.

Oct. 2000 - Carbon Dioxide composition source:
pre-ind. baseline: 288,000ppb
Natural additions: 68,520ppb
manmade additions: 11,880ppb
Oct 2000 baseline: 368,400ppb
Percent total of Greenhouse Gasses (not including H2O): 99.438%

If you you believe the EPA research (as of oct. 2000) only 11,880ppb in the air is attributable to us.
That's only 3.225% of the total 368,400ppb

---------------------

I'm using excerpts from EPA study (page 4):
GREENHOUSE GASES AND GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL VALUES
Excerpt from the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 - 2000,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Atmospheric Programs,
EPA 430-R-02-003, April 2002.
I do not have a direct link to that document I personally cited.

I did find this though...
This source of public review is not the study I'm citing, but does appear to contain similar data on page 3
I just googled to find the data online and some showed up here. I never studied this source, so I'm not sure what else is in it.
http://www.epa.gov/oppeoee1/climatechange/emissions/downloads/2008InventoryPublicReviewComments.pdf
The Inventory Public Review Cites: the global-change data and information analysis center of the US Dept. of Energy, Oct. 2000

[muriel_volestrangler]

84. OK, that public comment seems to be a copy of this guy's website

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

(note the "Global Warming || Table of Contents" at the top got copied too).

The CDIAC reference he claims, as ref (1) as the bottom of that page, now says nothing about 'natural additions': http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html , and never has, looking at it in the 'Internet Archive' - http://www.archive.org/web/web.php . He also gives as another part of the source for that table:
"Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change (data now available only to "members")
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme,
Stoke Orchard, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL52 7RZ, United Kingdom."

So we have to take Monte Hieb's word for it that "Natural additions: 68,520ppb ; manmade additions: 11,880ppb" has appeared somewhere in some reputable source that the IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme used, and that the source hasn't modified or withdrawn it since. It's been copied from him by various other websites (eg that commenter), without checking to see if it really existed or not. I'm not taking Monte Hieb's word for it; I suspect he made it up, or grossly misinterpreted something he found at some time.

Yes, I can give you a link for "Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 - 2000,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Atmospheric Programs,
EPA 430-R-02-003, April 2002" - http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads06/02CR.pdf . Page 4 says:

Carbon Dioxide (CO2). In nature, carbon is cycled between various atmospheric, oceanic, land biotic, marine biotic,
and mineral reservoirs. The largest fluxes occur between the atmosphere and terrestrial biota, and between the
atmosphere and surface water of the oceans. In the atmosphere, carbon predominantly exists in its oxidized form as
CO2. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is part of this global carbon cycle, and therefore its fate is a complex function of
geochemical and biological processes. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere increased from
approximately 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv) in pre-industrial times to 367 ppmv in 1999, a 31 percent
increase (IPCC 2001). The IPCC notes that “(t)his concentration has not been exceeded during the past 420,000
years, and likely not during the past 20 million years. The rate of increase over the past century is unprecedented, at
least during the past 20,000 years.” The IPCC definitively states that “the present atmospheric CO2 increase is
caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2” (IPCC 2001). Forest clearing, other biomass burning, and some nonenergy
production processes (e.g., cement production) also emit notable quantities of carbon dioxide.

In its second assessment, the IPCC also stated that “(t)he increased amount of carbon dioxide (in the atmosphere) is
leading to climate change and will produce, on average, a global warming of the Earth’s surface because of its
enhanced greenhouse effect - although the magnitude and significance of the effects are not fully resolved” (IPCC
1996).

So I think we're back to concluding that the increase in CO2 is entirely man-made, and nothing to do with Hieb's 'natural additions'.

[Uncle Joe]

85. You do good work, muriel.

Thanks for your contributions to this thread.:hi:

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

86. Well, without substantial proof to back the claims in that EPA Public Comment...

or if that geocraft website IS the reference (which it seems to substantiate those particular numbers out of thin air) then I also must agree that Monte Hieb should not be taken at face value. To summarize so we're all on the same page... we'll assume that humans are in fact the culprit of the 35% CO2 increase. I'll keep searching for something that substantiates the claim found the EPA Public Commentary, but I'm not hopeful.

Nevertheless, even if the argument that 35% percent of CO2 is entirely attributable to human actions, that is still barely a drop in the bucket of the greenhouse effect. If you account for water vapor as a greenhouse gas and normalize all greenhouse gasses using Global Warming Potential, the contribution of all natural and man-made CO2 is about 3.6%. In fact, the contribution to the greenhouse effect of all gasses besides water vapor sums up to only about 5% of the total greenhouse effect. Water vapor is responsible for the other 95% of the greenhouse effect.

Keep in mind that the data for this IS supported in the EPA's Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2000, the only thing done with the numbers was to normalize them using the global warming potential factor.

[fascisthunter]

87. awesome work! (nt)

[muriel_volestrangler]

77. Some more maths and facts:

#1: That the rotation of Venus is different from Earth does not necessarily mean it will make much difference to the average suface temperature. As the Wikipedia article notes, Venus's solar day, at 117 earth (solar) days is shorter than Mercury's (176 days). A lot longer than Earth's, but that means the side not facing the Sun would have a lot longer to cool down too. If we follow the link from Wikipedia that gave the Venus temperature, we find:

This green-house gas retains almost all of the heat Venus' surface gets from the sun, and its surface temperature of 480 °C (896 °F) is the same on both sides of the planet due to the insulating nature of the clouds.

http://filer.case.edu/sjr16/advanced/venus.html

So the comparison is valid - Venus has an average temperature higher than the maximum of either Mercury or Earth.

#2: I'm not sure what you mean by 'exponentially' - it's a very unmathematical term to use when comparing 2 scalar quantities. Perhaps you just mean 'more'.

#3: Venus, being larger than Mercury, will emit more infra-red radiation as well, in direct proportion to its surface area. So the surface area of a body will not make any difference to the temperature at which it finds equilibrium between the solar radiation it absorbs, and infrared radiation it emits. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body#Temperature_relation_between_a_planet_and_its_star for an explanation how the size of the planet doesn't come into it.

However, you have done one thing right in your post, and that's emphasise 96% CO2. Yes, that's the point of the OP - that 96% CO2 causes a huge greenhouse effect, raising the average surface temperature far above what it would be for a pure black body at that distance from the Sun. From the same page as just above:

                                    Mercury Venus Earth Mars
Black-Body Temperature (K)            442.5 231.7 254.3 210.1
Average Surface Temperature (Celsius) 167°  464°  15°   -65°
Difference (ie greenhouse effect)     2     505   43    2

(note that Venus's black body temperature would be less than Earth's, if neither had a greenhouse effect, because Venus's albedo is higher than Earth's.)

So the OP is not 'disingenuous'; it makes its point very well.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

81. Interesting. Thank you.

I had not considered some those variables. You learn something new everyday.

I had forgotten about blackbody radiation and yes, Venus would have ALOT more surface area to do so. Venus will try to emit quite a bit of infra-red, but the greenhouse gasses probably absorb most of that heat. Which, is of course the point of the OP and how greenhouse effect works. I just feel that earth could probably never attain a CO2 figure over about ~15% through human means unless a very significant portion of terrestrial captured oxygen is released. No way earth could ever approach something like Venus 96%, much less with humans being the culprit (we'd all suffocate long before). As a direct comparison, it seems sort of hyperbole.

The only thing the Venus OP topic seems to affirm is that greenhouse gasses in large concentration retain significant amounts of heat.
I say affirm because it is known scientific fact. Greenhouse gasses prevent terrestrial radiation from escaping.
I don't think anyone would contest that. My skepticism concerns are if our addition to earth's GGs cause appreciable climate change.

[ItNerd4life]

82. Wow! Someone I can agree with and not get blasted for it!

I agree with a later post of yours also the fact that clean technology will resolve the issue, not selling carbon credits and such.

Love the graph on how much CO2 is caused by humans. Very interesting.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

83. In all fairness, see post #77. I did overlook some things murial stated. n/t

[Deja Q]

70. Okay, so Venus had a civilization of little green goats that invented the automobile and cigars too.

That too is hyperbole based on extrapolation and inference from that article, which is hyperbole based on extrapolation and inference too.

Indeed, dinosaurs didn't have scales for skin - it was made of metal. (there's no proof either way; just guesswork. All this doesn't mean there might be no problem, but it's getting "out there", no pun intended, to start looking at Venus and claiming it was Earth-like too. There isn't a shred of tangible proof. Unlike "climate change" on Earth.)

[Uncle Joe]

76. I never said Venus was ever Earth-like in regards to it's climate, but

that Venus which has a heavy CO2 laden atmosphere traps far more of it's heat than Mercury.

Now this can also be attributed to it extremely long day, but it's heavy atmosphere played a part in that as well.

[toocoolforschool]

80. Venus just had a bunch a cows that gave off methane gas and it killed the whole planet!

DONT EAT MEAT!!!