> > I need to sign of this discussion for a week or two; too much going
> > on. Perhaps someone else will take it up.
> I would like to but I am busy too.
Besides, what would be the point? It would be nice to refresh my
math skillz, but it would in no way be representative of an atmospheric
model.
> >> Do you have any evidence that the temperature on the Venus surface
> >> would be lower if it were 5% co2 instead of 95%?
> > Obviously, not observational. But the science is much more advanced
> > than you give it credit for. The greenhouse effect is understood.
>
> Not on Venus it is not! For instance se:
>
> "These motivate us to carry out missions like Venus Express, which, if they
> are to be most effective, focus on the major unknowns and on the observed
> properties of Venus that are known but difficult to explain, like the high
> surface temperature."
>
> Taken from Fredric W. Taylor (2006) "Venus before Venus Express" 2006
> Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.pss.2006.04.031
Is there something about being a scientist that forbids the
practicing of common sense?
the high surface temp of venus isn't really that mysterious.
Related question, what's the surface temp on Uranus, saturn,
jupiter, mars, pluto? Check it out and you'll find that there really
is a very strong correlation between the thickness of the atmosphere
and the surface temp (yes, I DO know that jupiter and saturn have
"missing sources of heat"). A stronger correlation than that between
orbital distance and temperature
> > A quick googling turns up this:
> > http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/ATOC5560_2002/Lec26.pdf
> > You may wish to work through it, and play with the parameters to see
> > if you can get it to saturate.
>
> He won't get it to saturate because it uses a grey atmosphere with bands
> which do not saturate. The correct model is not grey but striped, with
> lines that saturate and gaps between them with no absorption. You
> can't average between infinity and zero, but that's what the current models
> do.
Nice isn't it? I caught that too. Make it a little difficult to
trust those aforementioned models upon which so VERY much is being
wagered.
> > As for basing your entire conclusion about the future governance of
> > the planet's atmosphere on a crude hand-drawn non-reviewed graph of
> > paleotemperature on the 500 Ma time scale, all the while ignoring
> > IPCC, perhaps it might be worth reconsidering what you take seriously
> > and what you dismiss.
> At least one of the two graphs which make up the diagram to which you refer
> were peer reviewed. The other comes from a respected scientist - Scocese.
> BTW have your lecture notes been peer reviewed?
>
> The simple answer is that global temperature is limited to about 22 C by the
> formation of clouds. But that is the global temperature and when it reaches
> a maximum it is global. In other words the polar temperatures rise to that
> level too, and all latitudes from there to the equator. Not nice and only
> suitable for cold blooded reptiles such as dinosaurs. True the planet will
> not turn into another raging Venus, but it could get hot enough for mammals
> to drown in the dew forming in their lungs as they try to cool the air below
> their blood temperature. It only has to happen on one day and all mammals
> are extinct. Of course those with air conditioning will survive, but where
> will they get their meat to eat?
umm.... 22c is 71 degrees F, 27 degrees F below human body temp,
and quite comfortable really! Additionally, humans and mammals
regularly survive in places where the average daily temperature is
quite a bit higher than that, and at 100% relative humidity (without
a/c). and I never said it'd be fun. Quite the oposite in fact, I
said we'd need ALL the resources at our disposal to cope with it.
One thing about this is that even according to the rosy 25%
emissions scenario, that's where we're going, it's only 1 degree off,
that's less than the model uncertainties.
Anyway, rather than bang my head against lecture notes which have
little to do with the actual climate, I downloaded and banged my head
against a GCM which has very slightly more to do with the climate :).
the results were interesting. Obviously it neglects some important
stuff like the absorbtion bands and cloud formation and like that,
however, it's a useful guide. I started with the a1ima scenario and
carried it out to the year 2400 at current emission rates (taking into
account peak oil at 2100). Note that this is not a carbon
stabilization scenario, so the concentration was still going up at the
end of the graph. But what was interesting was that the temperature
graph was flattening out for stabilization. Oddly enough, at only plus
4. personally I attribute that to model innacuracy, although lower
current concentrations of ghgs other than co2 might account for the
discrepancy.
Another interesting thing to note about it was that at 300 years
after the original scenario ends, the temperature increase due to doing
NOTHING was only an extra 1 degree c. over 400 years! and that's the
same as the temperature change by doing anything other than a 550 ppm
stabilization.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
