The run-away greenhouse is impossible...

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Chemistry Forum » The run-away greenhouse is impossible...

Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next

Author

Message

Andrew Usher...

Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 1:00 pm

Guest

The conventional explanation of the run-away greenhouse effect,
which produced the conditions we see on Venus today, is that
the evaporation of water vapor caused the temperature to rise so
high that the atmosphere became unbound.

I have seen a journal article that says the temperature would reach
'several thousand degrees' until the surface could 'radiate in the
visible'.
This is absurd and impossible. In fact I am sure the temperature on
Venus has never been significantly hotter than today.

First of all, even if the surface did reach such temperatures, it
could
not 'radiate in the visible' to space, as the H2O atmosphere would
be completely opaque at all wavelengths. Even if there were no clouds,
it would be nearly opaque in the visible due to Rayleigh scattering.

Second, where does the heat come from? No sunlight will reach the
surface, so the only source of surface heating is internal heat. On
Earth today internal heating of the surface is roughly 1/5,000 of
solar
heating; on Venus it must be much closer. But regardless of the heat
source, convection limits the surface temperature to a value that
increases only logarithmically with pressure, and is proportional to
the adiabatic lapse rate. In an atmosphere saturated with H2O at
high temperatures (> 100 C), the lapse rate is very small; therefore,
even though the atmosphere is think, the temperature will surely
remain below the critical point of water as long as the atmosphere
is mostly water.

When, however, the planet has lost most of its water to
photo-dissociation, the base of the cloud layer will lift off the
ground and the surface temperature rise because of the increase
in the lapse rate (the amount of sunlight getting through is
irrelevant
as long as the atmosphere is in convective equilibrium). This
results in the conditions observed on Venus. What happens when
the last of the water is lost? The cloud layer then disappears, but
the surface temperature won't decrease unless the amount it can
now radiate to space exceeds solar input, which seems unlikely
unless the CO2 atmosphere is so thick as to be opaque in the
visible from Rayleigh scattering (several times Venus).

Andrew Usher

Andrew Usher...

Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 1:06 pm

Guest

This wasn't supposed to go to soc.men actually.

My point (I didn't quite finish) was that there can be no such
thing as a true 'run-away greenhouse', that there can be no
abrupt tipping point but only a gradual change. It is
nonetheless irreversible, though.

Also, this has no effect on projections of man-made global
warming, as it can't occur unless solar input is considerably
higher than today.

Andrew Usher

Benj...

Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 4:53 pm

Guest

On Jun 22, 9:42 pm, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkol... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

Quote:

And according to the Gaia Hypothesis, life on Earth itself will evolve
to absorb and subsume any climate conditions that will lead to runaway
greenhouse effects.

The planet is not a living organism. Organism live on the planet.

And the way you know this for such a certainty is? Oh that's right.
FAITH!

I love faith-based science, don't you?

I especially love those who have such unquestioned authority that they
can simply answer all questions with unshakable assertion that is
obviously so authoritative that none dare question it! Love, ya,
Bob!

Yousuf Khan...

Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 7:18 pm

Guest

Andrew Usher wrote:

Quote:

And according to the Gaia Hypothesis, life on Earth itself will evolve
to absorb and subsume any climate conditions that will lead to runaway
greenhouse effects.

Yousuf Khan

Robert J. Kolker...

Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 8:42 pm

Guest

Yousuf Khan wrote:

Quote:

And according to the Gaia Hypothesis, life on Earth itself will evolve
to absorb and subsume any climate conditions that will lead to runaway
greenhouse effects.

The planet is not a living organism. Organism live on the planet.

Bob Kolker

hhc314 at (no spam) yahoo.com...

Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:00 am

Guest

On Jun 22, 10:53 pm, Benj <bjac... at (no spam) iwaynet.net> wrote:

Quote:

On Jun 22, 9:42 pm, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkol... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

And according to the Gaia Hypothesis, life on Earth itself will evolve
to absorb and subsume any climate conditions that will lead to runaway
greenhouse effects.

The planet is not a living organism. Organism live on the planet.

And the way you know this for such a certainty is? Oh that's right.
FAITH!

I love faith-based science, don't you?

I especially love those who have such unquestioned authority that they
can simply answer all questions with unshakable assertion that is
obviously so authoritative that none dare question it! Love, ya,
Bob!

Well, faith based science has its merits by avoiding the brain strain
that comes as a reult of serious thinking!
Hence, without the brain strain, empty headed believers in faith based
science tend live longer than those that actually contribute to the
physical sciences, but fortunatly for the human race, don't reproduce
very often.

This is why we see so many 80 year old Bible thumpers, but not very
many historically productive sceintist over the age of roughly 70.

Harry C.

p.s., On a more serious note, during their college years, most
physical science majors burn the midnight oil studying, sometimes
pulling all-nighters simply to stay ahead, and in other cases, to pay
for their education. I've noticed that this takes years off of one's
lifespan. I'm 70, and a vast majority of my physics classmates are
already dead. Still, the business and theology majors are still going
strong! I have to tell you this: Classical and Theoretical Mechanics
courses are the real killers, having seen several physics majors taken
away the those nice men in the white lab coats, while still muttering
bable about Euler's equations and the nunation and precession of a
gyroscope. (I only use Euler as as example, because an equal level of
brain strain can result when one thinks about the physical
implications of any transform, and it is clearly better for your
health to simply accept that these devices work on face value alone.
Not ponder them. and why they work. This is how faith simplies life.)

Harry C.

Puppet_Sock...

Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 9:12 am

Guest

On Jun 22, 10:53 pm, Benj <bjac... at (no spam) iwaynet.net> wrote:

Quote:

Science does not deal in "know this for such a certainty." Science
deals in valid theories that make predictions and can be falsified.

The "Gaia hypothesis" isn't such a thing. The "Gaia hypothesis"
is bad poetry.

We know that the planet isn't alive because we go out and observe it
and it does not have any of the properties of a living thing.

Quote:

I love faith-based science, don't you?

No, I don't. And the "Gaia hypothesis" is one such chunk of trash
that we really would be better off putting in the dustbin. It can keep
company with alchemy and phlogisten.

Quote:

I especially love those who have such unquestioned authority that they
can simply answer all questions with unshakable assertion that is
obviously so authoritative that none dare question it! Love, ya,
Bob!

Um. Where do you see these unshakable assertions? Other than
in the pronouncements of the Gaia enthusiasts that is.
Socks

tadchem...

Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:22 am

Guest

On Jun 22, 9:42 pm, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkol... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

Quote:

Yousuf Khan wrote:

And according to the Gaia Hypothesis, life on Earth itself will evolve
to absorb and subsume any climate conditions that will lead to runaway
greenhouse effects.

The planet is not a living organism. Organism live on the planet.

Not that he said that...

I read Yousef's comment as discussing the effect of "life on Earth"
collectively. not that the earth itself is alive, nor that he
personally endorses the Gaia 'Hypothesis' (really a New-Age neo-
religion).

The consequence of non-equilibrium thermodynamics (see Prigogene, for
example) is that 'dissipative systems' (such as 'organic life') that
absorb absorb energy and reduce entropy are almost inevitable wherever
a system has a net energy influx, a solvent which can affect the
constituents of the system, and a potential for a phase transition in
the solvent. The temperature and phase changes will differentiate and
segregate the constituents,
producing 'organized' structures and reducing entropy locally.

Quote:

Bob Kolker

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

Uncle Al...

Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 12:35 pm

Guest

Andrew Usher wrote:

Quote:

The following sends the wrong message, doesn't it? It's factual.

<http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/21/a-window-on-water-vapor-and-planetary-temperature-part-2/>

Sunspots and such,

Graphics
========
<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Sunspot_Numbers.png>
The most recent minimum, to the right, has averaged about 10
sunspots/month.
<http://www.dxlc.com/solar/images/solar.gif>
local solar flux is dropping
<http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/tsi_composite.gif>
local solar flux is dropping
<http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/Ap.gif>
local solar flux is dropping to 10-year lows
<http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/sunspot.gif>
projected sunspot number. All we need do is wait and see. The
third unmentioned red curve would be more interesting - stays flat.

COMMENTARY
==========
Global Cooling is nothing new. Click on graphics to enlarge.
<http://smarteconomy.typepad.com/smart_economy/2006/09/global_warming_.html>

<http://www.newrivervalleynews.com/content/view/12742/261/>
<http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=1>
<http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060920/20060920_13.html>
layman reference
<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/06/040602061025.htm>
slightly better
<http://www.grisda.org/origins/10051.htm>
data

Weather is always extreme compared to climate. One can play the
GLOBAL WARNING game with anything, earthquakes to

<http://thepoorman.net/2008/06/18/gregg-easterbrook-is-wait-for-it-an-idiot/>

Proximity is not causality. More hurricanes than any other time in
history were predicted post-Katrina! What does the highly anomalous
*absence* of Caribbean hurricanes portend? Extreme hurricane
disasters! Eventually a pulse will appear. So?

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

z...

Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 6:03 am

Guest

On Jun 24, 11:14 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:

tadchem wrote:
On Jun 22, 9:42 pm, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkol... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
The planet is not a living organism. Organism live on the planet.

Not that he said that...

I read Yousef's comment as discussing the effect of "life on Earth"
collectively. not that the earth itself is alive, nor that he
personally endorses the Gaia 'Hypothesis' (really a New-Age neo-
religion).

Thanks, that's exactly what I meant. I was talking about life on Earth,
not the Earth itself as a living thing.

Anyways, the Gaia Hypothesis segments into "Weak" and "Strong" versions.
The Weak Gaia Theories are completely provable and actually undeniable,
as models they fit the planet Earth like nylon. But the Weak Theories
are only advocating that which is blatantly obvious: the advent of life
on Earth has affected its environment. The Strong Gaia Theories go
further and model the Earth like an organism itself. The Strong Gaia
Theory may not be provable for a very long time, and it may only be
provable through hindsight through history.

Regarding the theory as a neo-religion, it was proposed by Dr. James
Lovelock, a NASA consultant, with a background in chemistry and
medicine. He was studying tests for finding life on Mars at the time.
The poetic nature of the theory's name, Gaia, was proposed by Lovelock's
friend, novelist William Golding. Although the theory has been taken up
by environmentalists, it hasn't taken on religious proportions. It's
unfortunate the name turns off so many people, many who haven't even
read it, automatically assume things just based on the name alone.

Yousuf Khan

well, if you look at it objectively, the climate on earth has for most
of its existence been hotter, moister, and much more carbon dioxidey;
life, in the form of plants, has altered this by sucking up a lot of
CO2 during the carboniferous era and burying the carbon, creating an
anomalous situation of higher potential energy; humanity and/or human
civiliation is just the particular manifestation of the inevitable
result of a high potential energy situation, which is that some
mechanism eventually emerges to restore the lower energy state. the
rock eventually rolls down the hill. unfortunately, for us, once that
potential energy is gone, the mechanism which it drove generally dies
off. so, once the earth is restored to 1500 ppm of co2 in the air,
high humidity, and temps 10 degrees higher than today, we will be
redundant and obsolete.

but the good news is that there's no real reason to expect that the
"runaway greenhouse" will continue to make the earth a lake of melted
solder, given that the closest thing to a stable state the climate
has shown is that 10 degrees warmer. might be some overshoot, of
course, for a few million years or so.

Yousuf Khan...

Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 9:49 am

Guest

Robert J. Kolker wrote:

Quote:

Okay, and so what's this got to do with whether or not "life on Earth"
will evolve to rectify the climate?

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan...

Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:14 am

Guest

tadchem wrote:

Quote:

On Jun 22, 9:42 pm, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkol... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
The planet is not a living organism. Organism live on the planet.

Not that he said that...

I read Yousef's comment as discussing the effect of "life on Earth"
collectively. not that the earth itself is alive, nor that he
personally endorses the Gaia 'Hypothesis' (really a New-Age neo-
religion).

Thanks, that's exactly what I meant. I was talking about life on Earth,
not the Earth itself as a living thing.

Anyways, the Gaia Hypothesis segments into "Weak" and "Strong" versions.
The Weak Gaia Theories are completely provable and actually undeniable,
as models they fit the planet Earth like nylon. But the Weak Theories
are only advocating that which is blatantly obvious: the advent of life
on Earth has affected its environment. The Strong Gaia Theories go
further and model the Earth like an organism itself. The Strong Gaia
Theory may not be provable for a very long time, and it may only be
provable through hindsight through history.

Regarding the theory as a neo-religion, it was proposed by Dr. James
Lovelock, a NASA consultant, with a background in chemistry and
medicine. He was studying tests for finding life on Mars at the time.
The poetic nature of the theory's name, Gaia, was proposed by Lovelock's
friend, novelist William Golding. Although the theory has been taken up
by environmentalists, it hasn't taken on religious proportions. It's
unfortunate the name turns off so many people, many who haven't even
read it, automatically assume things just based on the name alone.

Yousuf Khan

Darwin123...

Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 1:53 pm

Guest

On Jun 22, 8:18 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:

Andrew Usher wrote:

And according to the Gaia Hypothesis, life on Earth itself will evolve
to absorb and subsume any climate conditions that will lead to runaway
greenhouse effects.

Yousuf Khan

Yes, and it won't include human beings. The extremophile bacteria
will have the run of the place.
I mean, you as an individual have white blood cells. Do you care
it they all die? As long as you don't get an infection, you are happy.
You have no concern over the life and well being of individual cells
in your body. They could be suffering the agonies of hell, but as long
as your brain is happy you will not be concerned.
The same for this supposed Gaia (which I don't really believe
exists). An organism doesn't pay attention to its own components. If
Gaia can remain healthy with just a few unintelligent, extremophile
bacteria, she will be happy. Without human beings, she may be even
happier.
I don't think Gaia is a useful hypothesis for anything. In
effect, it merely says that some organisms will survive no matter
what. And that they will probably affect the geology of the earth
somewhere down the line. Most of us are concerned with only with human
beings, or maybe with the inclusion of a few animal relatives. I
definitely would like to see dolphins and chimpanzees survive with us.
But most cultures can't even see other human beings as worth the skin.
I will not trust any deity, least of all Gaia, to protect our
interests.
All and all, I think it would be best if we reduce our carbon
footprint. Let the deities take care of themselves. If we can't
control ourselves, then maybe human beings would be better off extinct.

Fred Kasner...

Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 6:41 pm

Guest

Yousuf Khan wrote:

Quote:

Andrew Usher wrote:
This wasn't supposed to go to soc.men actually.

My point (I didn't quite finish) was that there can be no such
thing as a true 'run-away greenhouse', that there can be no
abrupt tipping point but only a gradual change. It is
nonetheless irreversible, though.

Also, this has no effect on projections of man-made global
warming, as it can't occur unless solar input is considerably
higher than today.

Andrew Usher

And according to the Gaia Hypothesis, life on Earth itself will evolve
to absorb and subsume any climate conditions that will lead to runaway
greenhouse effects.

Yousuf Khan

It would have to have life develop into a very different set of species
than we now have. Most or intolerant of high temperatures as this tends
to cause proteins to degenerate. And protein specificity and moderate
temperatures allows this. With very high temperatures there might
continue to be unicellular life forms that can tolerate such but not
multicellular and highly specialized life forms. Besides such radical
evolutionary changes would take tens if not hundreds of millions of
years. By then higher life forms might very well have succumbed to more
quickly destructive catastrophes.
FK

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax...

Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 6:52 pm

Guest

Fred Kasner wrote:

Quote:

Yousuf Khan wrote:
Andrew Usher wrote:
This wasn't supposed to go to soc.men actually.

My point (I didn't quite finish) was that there can be no such
thing as a true 'run-away greenhouse', that there can be no
abrupt tipping point but only a gradual change. It is
nonetheless irreversible, though.

Also, this has no effect on projections of man-made global
warming, as it can't occur unless solar input is considerably
higher than today.

Andrew Usher

And according to the Gaia Hypothesis, life on Earth itself will evolve
to absorb and subsume any climate conditions that will lead to runaway
greenhouse effects.

Yousuf Khan

It would have to have life develop into a very different set of species
than we now have. Most or intolerant of high temperatures as this tends
to cause proteins to degenerate. And protein specificity and moderate
temperatures allows this. With very high temperatures there might
continue to be unicellular life forms that can tolerate such but not
multicellular and highly specialized life forms. Besides such radical
evolutionary changes would take tens if not hundreds of millions of
years. By then higher life forms might very well have succumbed to more
quickly destructive catastrophes.
FK

Look, we're only talking about an average temp increase of 10 degC.
There's more than that between equatorial and mid lattitudes.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London

Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Fri Dec 05, 2008 9:58 am Science Forum Index