Venus, A climate Scientist and public policy...

On 05/21/2011 04:29 PM, Trawley Trash wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2011 13:44:21 -0500
Sam wrote:

Preface from James Hansen's "Storms of My Grandchildren"
http://www.stormsofmygrandchildren.com/Preface.pdf

The book
http://www.stormsofmygrandchildren.c...dchildren.html

So did Hansen originate this weird theory that Venus was once
earth-like?

The conventional view, the one I think of as scientific, is that
Earth was once Venus-like.

More accurate to say that both Earth and Venus were originally similar
but evolved in different directions.
On Venus, the water was lost as a result of the runaway greenhouse
effect, first formulated by Kombayashi and Ingersoll. This causes any
liquid water to boil, and the vapour in the upper atmosphere is broken
down into oxygen and hydrogen which escapes into space. Without water,
the CO2 outgassing from the planet's core accumulates in the atmosphere.
On Earth, the CO2 is bound up in carbonate rocks, which can only form in
the presence of water.

The atmospheric composition of all the planets is remarkably similar:
hydrogen, helium, methane, ammonia, carbon dioxide. On warmer
planets like Earth and Venus the lighter gasses escape. It is the
evolution of life that converts ammonia, methane, and carbon
dioxide into water, oxygen, and hydrocarbons. Earth is the only
planet with free oxygen.

Venus never had an earth-like atmosphere. I have looked at the
models. The high level of CO2 does not really explain the high
temperature. That Venus is closer to the sun does not do it
either. The biggest reason why Venus is so hot is the
surprisingly high density of the atmosphere. The atmospheric
pressure at the surface is 93 times that of the earth.

That is correct, but high density alone cannot account for the high
surface temperature. The essential point is that CO2 is a greenhouse
gas, meaning that the LWR escapes from the planet at an altitude of
around 60km, This together with the lapse rate largely accounts for the
high surface temperature. There are other effects resulting from the
presence of sulphur dioxide, but the CO2 greenhouse effect is the main
factor. You can check this in any textbook on planetary physics.


Venus was
never cool enough to develop life: never cool enough to evolve
water and free oxygen.

That a respected scientist could be so wrong is not surprising
considering his background. Proximity fuses? Navy? The military
is dominated by creationists, and they heap honors on the few
scientists who agree with them.

You haven't explained why you think he is wrong.

On Fri, 20 May 2011 18:56:17 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
wrote:

On May 20, 11:44*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
Preface from James Hansen's "Storms of My Grandchildren"
* *http://www.stormsofmygrandchildren.com/Preface.pdf

The book
* *http://www.stormsofmygrandchildren.c...dchildren.html

Obviously Hansen cares deeply about the world and its complex
biodiversity that includes us humans that amount to perhaps 1 ppm in
terms of our biomass.

You silly.

I've estimated that the all-inclusive impact of humans amounts to
roughly one active volcano per billion of us.

Golly, your estimate is off by three orders of magnitude. Humanity
produces 105 times the CO2 all of Earth's volcanoes produce.

http://www.cabnr.unr.edu/gustin/ERS7...articleJMB.pdf
http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2001/2001RG000105.shtml
http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/txt/ptb1119.html
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/...the-volcanoes/
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/

On Fri, 20 May 2011 21:11:15 -0500, Sam Wormley
wrote:

On 5/20/11 8:56 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
On May 20, 11:44 am, Sam wrote:
Preface from James Hansen's "Storms of My Grandchildren"
http://www.stormsofmygrandchildren.com/Preface.pdf

The book
http://www.stormsofmygrandchildren.c...dchildren.html
Obviously Hansen cares deeply about the world and its complex
biodiversity that includes us humans that amount to perhaps 1 ppm in
terms of our biomass.

I've estimated that the all-inclusive impact of humans amounts to
roughly one active volcano per billion of us. Fortunately Earth
usually has a coupe dozen active volcanoes (especially when accounting
for those underwater). So perhaps our 7 volcanoes worth of
contributions to global dimming and warming is worth less than 10% of
what's happening naturally.

‘Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans’—Not even close ...
http://www.grist.org/article/volcano...o2-than-humans

"Not only is this false, it couldn't possibly be true given the CO2
record from any of the dozens of sampling stations around the globe. If
it were true that individual volcanic eruptions dominated human
emissions and were causing the rise in CO2 concentrations, then these
CO2 records would be full of spikes -- one for each eruption. Instead,
such records show a smooth and regular trend".

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com...ling_curve.jpg

Climate sceptic arguments and their scientific background
Summary for Policy Makers
http://proclimweb.scnat.ch/portal/ressources/1183.pdf

More to the point, if volcanoes were responsible for the current
global temperature increase, why did they start at the same time
humans started to burn coal and oil?

On Sun, 22 May 2011 00:43:43 +0200, Tom P wrote:

On 05/21/2011 04:29 PM, Trawley Trash wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2011 13:44:21 -0500
Sam wrote:

Preface from James Hansen's "Storms of My Grandchildren"
http://www.stormsofmygrandchildren.com/Preface.pdf

The book
http://www.stormsofmygrandchildren.com/
storms_of_my_grandchildren.html

So did Hansen originate this weird theory that Venus was once
earth-like?

The conventional view, the one I think of as scientific, is that
Earth was once Venus-like.

More accurate to say that both Earth and Venus were originally similar
but evolved in different directions.
On Venus, the water was lost as a result of the runaway greenhouse
effect, first formulated by Kombayashi and Ingersoll. This causes any
liquid water to boil, and the vapour in the upper atmosphere is broken
down into oxygen and hydrogen which escapes into space.

If that's true, how do you explain water surviving the Hadean era? Did
Hell freeze over?

Without water,
the CO2 outgassing from the planet's core accumulates in the atmosphere.
On Earth, the CO2 is bound up in carbonate rocks, which can only form in
the presence of water.

The atmospheric composition of all the planets is remarkably
similar: hydrogen, helium, methane, ammonia, carbon dioxide. On
warmer planets like Earth and Venus the lighter gasses escape. It
is the evolution of life that converts ammonia, methane, and carbon
dioxide into water, oxygen, and hydrocarbons. Earth is the only
planet with free oxygen.

Venus never had an earth-like atmosphere. I have looked at the
models. The high level of CO2 does not really explain the high
temperature. That Venus is closer to the sun does not do it either.
The biggest reason why Venus is so hot is the surprisingly high
density of the atmosphere. The atmospheric pressure at the surface
is 93 times that of the earth.

That is correct, but high density alone cannot account for the high
surface temperature. The essential point is that CO2 is a greenhouse
gas, meaning that the LWR escapes from the planet at an altitude of
around 60km, This together with the lapse rate largely accounts for the
high surface temperature. There are other effects resulting from the
presence of sulphur dioxide, but the CO2 greenhouse effect is the main
factor. You can check this in any textbook on planetary physics.


Venus was
never cool enough to develop life: never cool enough to evolve
water and free oxygen.

That a respected scientist could be so wrong is not surprising
considering his background. Proximity fuses? Navy? The military
is dominated by creationists, and they heap honors on the few
scientists who agree with them.

You haven't explained why you think he is wrong.

In article ,
AGW Facts wrote:

On Fri, 20 May 2011 21:11:15 -0500, Sam Wormley
wrote:

On 5/20/11 8:56 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
On May 20, 11:44 am, Sam wrote:
Preface from James Hansen's "Storms of My Grandchildren"
http://www.stormsofmygrandchildren.com/Preface.pdf

The book
http://www.stormsofmygrandchildren.c..._grandchildren.
html
Obviously Hansen cares deeply about the world and its complex
biodiversity that includes us humans that amount to perhaps 1 ppm in
terms of our biomass.

I've estimated that the all-inclusive impact of humans amounts to
roughly one active volcano per billion of us. Fortunately Earth
usually has a coupe dozen active volcanoes (especially when accounting
for those underwater). So perhaps our 7 volcanoes worth of
contributions to global dimming and warming is worth less than 10% of
what's happening naturally.

‘Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans’—Not even close ...
http://www.grist.org/article/volcano...o2-than-humans

"Not only is this false, it couldn't possibly be true given the CO2
record from any of the dozens of sampling stations around the globe. If
it were true that individual volcanic eruptions dominated human
emissions and were causing the rise in CO2 concentrations, then these
CO2 records would be full of spikes -- one for each eruption. Instead,
such records show a smooth and regular trend".

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com...ling_curve.jpg

Climate sceptic arguments and their scientific background
Summary for Policy Makers
http://proclimweb.scnat.ch/portal/ressources/1183.pdf

More to the point, if volcanoes were responsible for the current
global temperature increase, why did they start at the same time
humans started to burn coal and oil?

.... because accurate temperature measurement coincided with
industrialization and accelerated use of coal and oil?

Please explain the Medieval Warm Period, where fine wines were produced
in Britain that rivaled French wines.

On Sun, 22 May 2011 00:43:43 +0200
Tom P wrote:

On 05/21/2011 04:29 PM, Trawley Trash wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2011 13:44:21 -0500
Sam wrote:

Preface from James Hansen's "Storms of My Grandchildren"
http://www.stormsofmygrandchildren.com/Preface.pdf

The book
http://www.stormsofmygrandchildren.c...dchildren.html

So did Hansen originate this weird theory that Venus was once
earth-like?

The conventional view, the one I think of as scientific, is that
Earth was once Venus-like.

More accurate to say that both Earth and Venus were originally
similar but evolved in different directions.

Agreed.

On Venus, the water was lost as a result of the runaway greenhouse
effect,

Not clear there ever was much water there.

first formulated by Kombayashi and Ingersoll. This causes any
liquid water to boil, and the vapour in the upper atmosphere is
broken down into oxygen and hydrogen which escapes into space.
Without water, the CO2 outgassing from the planet's core accumulates
in the atmosphere. On Earth, the CO2 is bound up in carbonate rocks,
which can only form in the presence of water.

Water is not *required* to form carbonate rock.

Carbonates would never form on Venus, because they decompose at the
temperatures found there.

...

That is correct, but high density alone cannot account for the high
surface temperature. The essential point is that CO2 is a greenhouse
gas, meaning that the LWR escapes from the planet at an altitude of
around 60km, This together with the lapse rate largely accounts for
the high surface temperature. There are other effects resulting from
the presence of sulphur dioxide, but the CO2 greenhouse effect is the
main factor. You can check this in any textbook on planetary physics.

The higher temperature on Venus compared to Earth is caused
by three factors: Venus is closer to the sun, the atmosphere is
more than 90 percent CO2, and the atmospheric pressure is
93 times the pressure on Earth. Of these three, the pressure is
the most significant.

Venus was
never cool enough to develop life: never cool enough to evolve
water and free oxygen.

That a respected scientist could be so wrong is not surprising
considering his background. Proximity fuses? Navy? The
military is dominated by creationists, and they heap honors on the
few scientists who agree with them.

You haven't explained why you think he is wrong.

He is a creationist.

His theories about Venus imply a rejection of evolution. You cannot
have an earth-like atmosphere without life. The two nearest planets
(Mars and Venus) both have atmospheres that are mostly CO2. Earth
was once similar. It was the evolution of life that
created earth-like conditions. He seems to think that earth-like
planets are created just the way they are.

On 05/22/2011 01:35 AM, Bill Ward wrote:
On Sun, 22 May 2011 00:43:43 +0200, Tom P wrote:

On 05/21/2011 04:29 PM, Trawley Trash wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2011 13:44:21 -0500
Sam wrote:

Preface from James Hansen's "Storms of My Grandchildren"
http://www.stormsofmygrandchildren.com/Preface.pdf

The book
http://www.stormsofmygrandchildren.com/
storms_of_my_grandchildren.html

So did Hansen originate this weird theory that Venus was once
earth-like?

The conventional view, the one I think of as scientific, is that
Earth was once Venus-like.

More accurate to say that both Earth and Venus were originally similar
but evolved in different directions.
On Venus, the water was lost as a result of the runaway greenhouse
effect, first formulated by Kombayashi and Ingersoll. This causes any
liquid water to boil, and the vapour in the upper atmosphere is broken
down into oxygen and hydrogen which escapes into space.

If that's true, how do you explain water surviving the Hadean era? Did
Hell freeze over?


The dissociation of water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen is caused
by ionizing radiation in the upper atmosphere under conditions of very
low density such that the atoms do not recombine and the hydrogen atoms
achieve escape velocity. High surface temperatures are not relevant.
The same process still takes place on planet earth, albeit at a much
slower rate. The earth's magnetic field largely shields the planet from
the sun's ionizing radiation.

Without water,
the CO2 outgassing from the planet's core accumulates in the atmosphere.
On Earth, the CO2 is bound up in carbonate rocks, which can only form in
the presence of water.

The atmospheric composition of all the planets is remarkably
similar: hydrogen, helium, methane, ammonia, carbon dioxide. On
warmer planets like Earth and Venus the lighter gasses escape. It
is the evolution of life that converts ammonia, methane, and carbon
dioxide into water, oxygen, and hydrocarbons. Earth is the only
planet with free oxygen.

Venus never had an earth-like atmosphere. I have looked at the
models. The high level of CO2 does not really explain the high
temperature. That Venus is closer to the sun does not do it either.
The biggest reason why Venus is so hot is the surprisingly high
density of the atmosphere. The atmospheric pressure at the surface
is 93 times that of the earth.

That is correct, but high density alone cannot account for the high
surface temperature. The essential point is that CO2 is a greenhouse
gas, meaning that the LWR escapes from the planet at an altitude of
around 60km, This together with the lapse rate largely accounts for the
high surface temperature. There are other effects resulting from the
presence of sulphur dioxide, but the CO2 greenhouse effect is the main
factor. You can check this in any textbook on planetary physics.


Venus was
never cool enough to develop life: never cool enough to evolve
water and free oxygen.

That a respected scientist could be so wrong is not surprising
considering his background. Proximity fuses? Navy? The military
is dominated by creationists, and they heap honors on the few
scientists who agree with them.

You haven't explained why you think he is wrong.

On May 20, 2:43*pm, wrote:

Who he is and what he has done before is irrelevant to whether or not his
latest book is relevant to physics.

That's what you say.

But do you have any reasons for that besides your own personal
political beliefs?

John Savard

On May 21, 1:24*am, "Chris.B" wrote:

False prophet falls of soapbox but mouthpiece keeps moving.

Today is May 22, 2011, isn't it? And no rapture yesterday.

But that isn't Oriel's fault. _He_ didn't calculate the wrong year for
the Flood; that was that Camping fellow.

John Savard

On Sun, 22 May 2011 13:30:44 +0200, Tom P wrote:

On 05/22/2011 01:35 AM, Bill Ward wrote:
On Sun, 22 May 2011 00:43:43 +0200, Tom P wrote:

On 05/21/2011 04:29 PM, Trawley Trash wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2011 13:44:21 -0500
Sam wrote:

Preface from James Hansen's "Storms of My Grandchildren"
http://www.stormsofmygrandchildren.com/Preface.pdf

The book
http://www.stormsofmygrandchildren.com/
storms_of_my_grandchildren.html

So did Hansen originate this weird theory that Venus was once
earth-like?

The conventional view, the one I think of as scientific, is that
Earth was once Venus-like.

More accurate to say that both Earth and Venus were originally similar
but evolved in different directions.
On Venus, the water was lost as a result of the runaway greenhouse
effect, first formulated by Kombayashi and Ingersoll. This causes any
liquid water to boil, and the vapour in the upper atmosphere is broken
down into oxygen and hydrogen which escapes into space.

If that's true, how do you explain water surviving the Hadean era? Did
Hell freeze over?


The dissociation of water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen is caused
by ionizing radiation in the upper atmosphere under conditions of very
low density such that the atoms do not recombine and the hydrogen atoms
achieve escape velocity. High surface temperatures are not relevant.
The same process still takes place on planet earth, albeit at a much
slower rate. The earth's magnetic field largely shields the planet from
the sun's ionizing radiation.

Sorry, but I don't think so. Your explanation above involves liquid water
boiling due to the GHE, presumably at the surface. The water would (does
now) condense long before it reaches the altitude/temperature required
for permanent dissociation, forming low clouds, which block the sun and
cool the surface. Do you have any actual evidence to support your
hypothesis, or is it just speculation?

Without water,
the CO2 outgassing from the planet's core accumulates in the
atmosphere. On Earth, the CO2 is bound up in carbonate rocks, which
can only form in the presence of water.

The atmospheric composition of all the planets is remarkably
similar: hydrogen, helium, methane, ammonia, carbon dioxide. On
warmer planets like Earth and Venus the lighter gasses escape.
It is the evolution of life that converts ammonia, methane, and
carbon dioxide into water, oxygen, and hydrocarbons. Earth is
the only planet with free oxygen.

Venus never had an earth-like atmosphere. I have looked at the
models. The high level of CO2 does not really explain the high
temperature. That Venus is closer to the sun does not do it
either.
The biggest reason why Venus is so hot is the surprisingly high
density of the atmosphere. The atmospheric pressure at the
surface is 93 times that of the earth.

That is correct, but high density alone cannot account for the high
surface temperature. The essential point is that CO2 is a greenhouse
gas, meaning that the LWR escapes from the planet at an altitude of
around 60km, This together with the lapse rate largely accounts for
the high surface temperature. There are other effects resulting from
the presence of sulphur dioxide, but the CO2 greenhouse effect is the
main factor. You can check this in any textbook on planetary physics.


Venus was
never cool enough to develop life: never cool enough to evolve
water and free oxygen.

That a respected scientist could be so wrong is not surprising
considering his background. Proximity fuses? Navy? The
military is dominated by creationists, and they heap honors on
the few scientists who agree with them.

You haven't explained why you think he is wrong.