Are going to come up with some crazy theory where the atmosphere of Venus is other that Carbon Dioxide? I was on the design team for the Magellan spacecraft, so I do know a thing or two about Venus.
I think what he means is the 'original' atmosphere, how it started out, which is only speculation, not fact. A new paper out suggests that our oxygen rich atmosphere started with a snowball earth when ice extended to the tropics which happened a couple of times millions of years ago. I doubt Venus ever had a snowball condition.
An attack by The Mail on Sunday on the accuracy and integrity of a recent paper on global warming is based on inaccurate and misleading claims, including a fake graph. http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/more-fake-news-in-the-mail-on-sunday/
They got the graph wrong but the story comes from a whistleblower. A scientist with intimate knowledge of the issue. Hardly fake news.
In the summer of 2015, NOAA scientists published the Karl study, which retroactively altered historical climate change data and resulted in the elimination of a well-known climate phenomenon known as the climate change hiatus.(*) The hiatus was a period between 1998 and 2013 during which the rate of global temperature growth slowed.(*) This fact has always been a thorn in the side of climate change alarmists, as it became difficult to disprove the slowdown in warming.(*) The Karl study refuted the hiatus and rewrote climate change history to claim that warming had in fact been occurring.(*) The committee heard from scientists who raised concerns about the studys methodologies, readiness, and politicization.(*) In response, the committee conducted oversight and sent NOAA inquiries to investigate the circumstances surrounding the Karl study.(*)(*) Over the course of the committees oversight, NOAA refused to comply with the inquiries, baselessly arguing that Congress is not authorized to request communications from federal scientists.(*) This culminated in the issuance of a congressional subpoena, with which NOAA also failed to comply.(*) During the course of the investigation, the committee heard from whistleblowers who confirmed that, among other flaws in the study, it was rushed for publication to support President Obamas climate change agenda. https://science.house.gov/news/pres...nfirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records
No, my point is that like Earth, the original atmosphere was CO2, so the theory of Runaway Greenhouse Gas Effect is suspect, since it never took place on Venus.
You've conveniently left out the period of time before human CO2 emissions began to increase the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. What is you take on the science of global warming and global cooling before ~ 1950 ?? BTW, photons do not float. And the entire heat balance of the globe is the result of radiation heat transfer. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
Du. Of course photons don't float. Where did you get that that? Photons have only two options. Traveling at the speed of light in a single direction or absorption into whatever they crash into. The fact of the matter is that the Earth is as warm as it is precisely because of the photon/surface/photon/CO[SUB]2[/SUB] action. It is why Venus is so hot. It is why the Earth does not get down to -273 degrees at night like it does on the moon and mars. And yes the warmth of the Earth is the difference between what is absorbed and what is emitted. Fact of the matter the long history of the Earth matters not one little bit whether global warming is happening or not. The mechanism at play, where increases in the concentrations of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] cause more heat to be absorbed into the oceans and more of the infrared photons to be absorbed and re-radiated back to earth rather than radiate into space will cause the earth to warm. To go to these what happened a thousand or a hundred thousand or a million or a billion years ago arguments are just bullsh!T absolutely garbage science. All of physics is local. All that matters is what happens between one's neighbors and the only time that matters is now and the infinitesimal moments before and after. That is what makes the mathematics of physics so difficult, Repeated equations over and over from point to point to point. The fact that more CO[SUB]2[/SUB] is continually entering the atmosphere and the concentration in the atmosphere and oceans are easily shown to be true. (Well except for those science deniers of course, but then it is rather idiotic to try to have a rational conversation with those types in the first place.) That the earth has been warming over the past century in conjunction with increases in the concentration of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] in the oceans and in the atmosphere is also easily shown. Thus any credible argument against global warming requires one to show how increases in concentrations of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] does not cause the atmosphere and oceans to retain more heat.
The temperature on Venus is something like 860 degrees Fahrenheit. The thing about thermal runaway is that is requires an infinite energy source - or at least one greater than the bonding strength of whatever is warming. So even though Venus has a nearly 100% Carbon Dioxide atmosphere the amount of energy reaching Venus from the sun is finite. The energy form the sun is also finite on Earth. By using Venus as an example, it is clear that the earth could easily get a whole lot warmer if the concentration of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] in the atmosphere keeps rising.
From your post. How do you explain the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval warm periods and intervening cold periods which occurred at constant CO2 atmospheric concentration ?? And during the recent period (~ 100 years) the globe has cooled, warmed, and stayed at constant temperature with ever increasing CO2 concentration. How do you explain that ?? Are there benefits to global warming ?? History indicates that there is and economic analyses also indicates that global warming is net beneficial for an increase of ~ 3 deg C over today's temperature. With a climate sensitivity to CO2 of ~ 1 deg C (which is calculated from the real world data) that gives us ~ 300 years of net benefits.
Oh no there can't be any warning because there are variations argument? While still ignoring the actual warming mechanism. I wear a size ten shoe, my son a size 10-1/2, my friend a size 12, my son's friend a size 9 and my grandson a size 5, in little kid size. Does that mean that our feet don't swell when we run?
Venus is a poor example for any number of reasons, most significantly, the rate of insolation and atmospheric density.
The "open minded" scientists of ancient Greece believed the earth was a sphere. The "open minded" scientists like Galileo and Copernicus showed the planets revolved around the sun. For many years close-minded people refused to believe these scientists. Accepting science requires an open mind. I'm guessing you don't believe TOE either.
Climate science has become the most close minded science on the planet. If you don't play along you lose your job or you cannot get a job in the field.
Indeed they are - the salient difference being that when the weather guy gets the forecast wrong you find out tomorrow, whereas when the climatologist gets it wrong you find out 20 years and 20,000 new EPA regulations later.
Then you are a science denier. The number one thing needed to be a good scientist is a healthy sense of skepticism - - - Updated - - - Yes because upon peer review(the catholic church) they didnt fit the bill
Is anyone else following the Larsen C ice shelf? It's set to calf soon http://www.iflscience.com/environment/worlds-largest-icebergs-break-antarctica/
Looks like GW scientists twisted ocean warming data. "It turns out that when NOAA compiled what is known as the version 4 dataset, it took reliable readings from buoys but then adjusted them upwards using readings from seawater intakes on ships that act as weather stations." and... "No one, to be clear, has tampered with the figures. But according to Bates, the way those figures were chosen exaggerated global warming. And without this new dataset there would have been no Pausebuster paper. If, as previous sea water evidence has shown, there really has been a pause in global warming, then it calls into question the received wisdom about its true scale." I have always thought that bad and manipulated data was at the heart of this "catastrophic" GW ruse. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...scientists-asks-David-Rose.html#ixzz4YW23v3eH Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
No, this idea can't be supported. Climatology is comprised of numerous fields of science, each of which has significant questions that are under investigation. The error bars on many of these aspects need to be reduced in the constant push for more understanding of climate. But, it's not "close minded" to recognize that there is little scientific argument against our current warming trend or its source. We've progressed far enough to know the significance of human contribution.
The amount of warming that is natural is unknown. You cannot know how much is man made without knowing that. This is all based on computer models that don't even agree with themselves. The uncertainty is so large as to make them useless for determining policy.
