What Would The Temperature Be In Death Valley – If …..

Suppose Death Valley was 5 km below sea level. What would summer temperatures be like there?

The dry adiabatic lapse rate is 1C / 100 meters, so Death Valley would be 50C warmer than it is now. Summer air temperatures would reach over 100C.

Carl Sagan might say that this is due to a runaway greenhouse effect caused by excess CO2.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

104 Responses to What Would The Temperature Be In Death Valley – If …..

  1. omnologos says:

    There is nothing controversial in your statement. Consensus about it has to be 100%. Likewise, were the planet to experience massive volcanism with outgassing on a scale such as to increase the sea level pressure 90 times, the sea level temperatures would increase to (exercise left to the reader).

    Then one reads this about Venus. And one thinks. Well, most people do think after reading that, but AGWers can’t. Too bad.

  2. chriscolose says:

    omnologos,

    Your link has nothing to do with why Venus is so hot, which btw is not technically because it is in a runaway greenhouse state. It’s because it has a very dense CO2 atmosphere and generates a massive greenhouse effect, which can be confirmed from space by looking at radiant spectra…it’s the same fundamental physics used for satellite retrieval. The runaway greenhouse is different. That is a process whereby some gas in equilibrium with a surface reservoir generates a positive feedback loop so that the OLR asymptotes to a specific value, independent of the surface temperature. My SkS piece explains this in more detail

    What Steve Goddard doesn’t understand is that you cannot arbitrarily select your profiles of temperature, pressure, density, and chemical composition independently. His argument makes no room for energy balance, so a high albedo surface vs. low albedo surface or a planet close/far to the sun, or what have you, should all just be the same temperature if you keep the pressure constant. But past climate changes are not causes by pressure variations, they are caused (to first order) by changes in the radiative budget at the TOA, and it’s impossible to adiabatically heat Venus (or any other planet above its effective radiating temperature) to the observed values. If you were to magically compress the whole Venusian atmosphere, it could heat up, but eventually your emission temperature must equilibriate with the absorbed incoming flux of energy, and the greenhouse effect can enhance the temperature at any pressure (or height)(i.e., it sets the intercept in p vs. T space), but the “lapse rate” itself just tells you the temperature difference between two points. You cannot determine the temperature at a point by knowing the pressure, or the lapse rate value.

    That said, I don’t see much point in responding to this anymore. Any planetary or atmospheric scientist, as well as any competent physicist could see the problems with Goddards reasoning, and it lends no explanatory or predictive ability of any sort. If he was on to something he’d publish his results, and he’d have an even bigger laugh if his results actually stood up to scrutiny because it would mean the scientific community missed something so elementary that it would surely be an embarrassment. But he’s not on to anything, and he knows it. If more effort was made to check the quality of posts, rather than just making an assembly line of dozen+ posts per day, then maybe he could actually contribute to the field and publish something. It’s a shame

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Chris,

      I have been telling Steve to publish his results for MONTHS now. he has proven repeatedly that EVERY single piece of the warmist theory is wrong. I always just assumed he was too humble. Are you saying there is might be another reason?

      • Ed Darrell says:

        Suppose a coal mine in England were 5km deep. Temperatures measured in the mine were higher than the temperatures measured at the surface.

        Temperatures are even higher in a mine that goes 10 km deep.

        Steve Goddard might say that it was due to increased air pressure, and so Lord Kelvin’s calculations on the age of the Earth were folly. Plus, everyone knows, Goddard might say, that the pressure on the Sun is high enough to produce much higher temperatures.

        Or, Goddard might spend some time pondering proximate causation, and not proceed on this line of reasoning to also call Rutherford a quack.

      • Scott says:

        Ed Darrell says:
        April 17, 2011 at 6:13 pm

        …What I see instead is you attempting to put words into Sagan’s mouth, without justification. Just like the creationists who claim falsely that Darwin was racist…

        So did the publisher add this text with Darwin’s permission into Descent of Man?

        At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

        Instead of trying to nail Steve on guilt by association (though I think your associations are poor), maybe you should point out where his statements are wrong (which happens fairly often if you’ll look around on this site). And regarding:

        Ed Darrell says:
        April 17, 2011 at 6:14 pm

        SUYTS, we have a case of malaria spreading due to changing climate in Tanzania. Fact.

        You’re free to have an opinion that it won’t be a major problem. But you’re not free to ignore the fact.

        I believe you need to look up the definition of a fact. The only fact here is that there is a spread of malaria in Tanzania. No, it’s not a fact that it’s due to climate change…it could be due to other factors. That it’s due to climate change is a conclusion…know the difference. Even if you COULD show it to be a fact, it’s certainly not provable that it’s due to anthropogenic climate change. You can’t run an experiment, one without anthropogenic emissions and one without and see what happens. The only facts are measurements…i.e. “I read the thermometer this morning at 44 F”. That is a fact. It’s NOT a fact that it even was 44 F this morning, much less that the temperature is higher than it should be due to CAGW. And if it was 46 F at the same time on the same day one year ago, then global cooling is not a fact, it’d be the conclusion of some off-the-wall person exhibiting anti-concensus behavior (as one example).

        So while I’m of the opinion that we should reduce fossil fuel consumption, I sure don’t think it’s a fact that consuming fossil fuels is going to melt the Arctic sea ice by 2013…huge difference.

        -Scott

      • Ed Darrell says:

        Scott said:

        So did the publisher add this text with Darwin’s permission into Descent of Man?

        At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

        No, Darwin wrote it. You’re in error, or you fail to understand the context or the English, if your claim is that that paragraph makes Darwin a racist.

        Darwin’s point was that at some point humans probably wouldn’t be living in primitive conditions any longer, not in jungles, not like the natives he found at Tierra del Fuego, not like the Tasmanians before the massacre of that group by colonists, not like the Paiutes, not like the few tribes we have left in the Philippines and Amazon today — and at that point, without the clear example of humans in primitive conditions, yahoos would claim it impossible for humans to have evolved.

        How is that a racist argument? How is it racist in any regard? Have you read the chapter, or are you just strip quoting like the creationists?

        See longer explanations here: “Wrong on purpose,” and ” . . . Darwin was not racist.”

        Your repeating the error does not mean it is not an error, nor does it change the malificence with which the creationists intentionally get things wrong, in order to claim error against a scientist whose arguments they cannot rebut in any way with science.

        Scott said:

        Instead of trying to nail Steve on guilt by association (though I think your associations are poor), maybe you should point out where his statements are wrong (which happens fairly often if you’ll look around on this site).

        It’s difficult to correct him if he won’t make a defense that allows serious correction. I noted that he assumes something that did not happen in his imagining how Sagan might have responded, and that he errs ins misattributing proximate cause — or failing to consider proximate cause — in warming in a land lower than Death Valley even more than Jericho is lower than Death Valley.

        You might read what I said, and not repeat his error of assuming words and arguments that were not uttered.

        And regarding:

        Ed Darrell says:
        April 17, 2011 at 6:14 pm

        SUYTS, we have a case of malaria spreading due to changing climate in Tanzania. Fact.

        You’re free to have an opinion that it won’t be a major problem. But you’re not free to ignore the fact.

        I believe you need to look up the definition of a fact. The only fact here is that there is a spread of malaria in Tanzania. No, it’s not a fact that it’s due to climate change…it could be due to other factors. That it’s due to climate change is a conclusion…know the difference. Even if you COULD show it to be a fact, it’s certainly not provable that it’s due to anthropogenic climate change.

        I won’t gainsay the conclusions of the Tanzanians who make the claim, after having analyzed the warming in the Tanzanian highlands and the migration of malaria-carrying mosquitoes into those highlands, and the change in the climate that favors the spread of the disease.

        I’m not convinced you read the article from Tanzania; I think it would have been clear to you had you done so. If you have a claim to make against their conclusions, make it — but don’t assume an rebuttal made against your assumed non-existence of a case, and then claim victory in the debate.

        You can’t run an experiment, one without anthropogenic emissions and one without and see what happens. The only facts are measurements…i.e. “I read the thermometer this morning at 44 F”. That is a fact. It’s NOT a fact that it even was 44 F this morning, much less that the temperature is higher than it should be due to CAGW.

        Legally, and scientifically, the old Sherlock Holmes saw works well: Eliminate all the things that are impossible, and whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is the truth of the matter.

        It may be possible that the Tanzanians don’t know what they’re talking about — but I doubt it, and in any case, you offer no refutation of any part of their case. Had you bothered to poke around my blog, you could have found other discussion of the issue of global warming contributing to the spread of diseases, especially malaria. Looking for the facts of the case was not your concern, I gather.

        And if it was 46 F at the same time on the same day one year ago, then global cooling is not a fact, it’d be the conclusion of some off-the-wall person exhibiting anti-concensus behavior (as one example).

        But again, you’ve not touched the underlying case for the conclusion. You’re right: A badly reasoned conclusion may be wrong; you’ve not shown the error of the case, nor that it’s badly reasoned.

        So while I’m of the opinion that we should reduce fossil fuel consumption, I sure don’t think it’s a fact that consuming fossil fuels is going to melt the Arctic sea ice by 2013…huge difference.

        Nor did I make such a claim. You’re making fantastic leaps to fantastic conclusions.

        My point here is that proximate causes matter. The late Carl Sagan’s having said something about Venus’s atmosphere, 20 years ago or more, even if wrong, cannot indicate that he would make an incorrect statement about a hypothetical Death Valley, today.

      • Ed Darrell says:

        Or, Sagan might simply describe the situation, and note where study needs to be done.

        One of the signs of the crank scientist is to put inaccurate, assumptions of words into the mouth of another scientist — usually a dead scientist who can’t respond for himself or herself. This is one of the chief ways creationist religionists attack the work of Charles Darwin.

        Odd, disappointing, and alarming to see it here, in the post at the top of the thread.

      • suyts says:

        A conspiracy by creationists, no doubt.

        What’s disappointing and alarming is to see people try to revision history. Sagan’s articulation of the “runaway” greenhouse effect, especially in relation to Venus, is well known and well documented.

        But you’d expect that from someone still trying to tie malaria to climate change after its been debunked several times over. Rotflmao!!! Its spreading in Tanzinia!!!!

      • Ed Darrell says:

        Steve, you make a leap that because Sagan spoke about a runaway greenhouse effect on Venus, he would make statement x about temperatures in a hypothetical Death Valley that doesn’t exist on Earth.

        Did Sagan speak about runaway greenhouse effects on Venus? Quote him, and tell us how you make the connection that he would then make any statement about greenhouse effect in any Death Valley, the real one, or the wildly fictional one you propose.

        There may be a logical, and accurate, way to link what you claim happened with what you claim would happen. But I don’t see it. What I see instead is you attempting to put words into Sagan’s mouth, without justification. Just like the creationists who claim falsely that Darwin was racist, or claim falsely that Darwin was a fan of Herbert Spencer, or claim falsely that Darwin endorsed Justice Holmes’ obiter dicta in the Virginia forced sterilization case. You have made extraordinary claims based on no fact of history or science that I can see.

        Got extraordinary evidence to support your extraordinary claim? We’re all in Missouri today. Show us, please.

      • Ed Darrell says:

        SUYTS, we have a case of malaria spreading due to changing climate in Tanzania. Fact.

        You’re free to have an opinion that it won’t be a major problem. But you’re not free to ignore the fact.

      • suyts says:

        Ed, has the climate changed in Tanzania more than anywhere else? Or, what specifically changed that you believe caused the outbreak of Malaria?

        Typically, when someone reference “climate change” they’re referring to the climate of the globe, but no matter. What changed?

        Do you think it could possibly be living conditions? Lack of proper medicines? How about improper preventive techniques? You do realize malaria was big in Europe back in the 1700s, right? Is there a climatic parallel between 1700 LIA England and Tanzania? Darrell, do you ever consider that you’re doing harm by repeating falsehoods?

        Ed, it isn’t a fact that malaria is caused by a changing climate. I’m sick you people making stuff up.

        Click to access 221.pdf

        http://www.bioclimate.org/images/resources/resources/attachments/2934/original_gething.pdf?1277907639

        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7296/full/nature09098.html

        A warming world and a decline of malaria. There are the facts. Don’t try to tell me I’m ignoring the facts, this is the second time you seen these links. Ignorance is forgivable. Willful ignorance isn’t.

      • Ed Darrell says:

        What old videos of Sagan, Steve? Can you point me to one where he makes the statement you claim?

      • Ed Darrell says:

        suyts said:

        Don’t try to tell me I’m ignoring the facts, this is the second time you seen these links. Ignorance is forgivable. Willful ignorance isn’t.

        Okay, I won’t tell you. You’ll have to discover that on your own.

        I acknowledge your general data that not all spreading of malaria is due to global warming. Nothing in any of those articles, nor in my own warnings about making that error which you refuse to acknowledge, says anything to refute the claims made by the Tanzanian health authorities that global warming is partly to blame for their particular spread of malaria in the highlands.

        You’re right: Willful ignorance is not excusable.

    • Ed Darrell says:

      And exactly the same principle Steve Goddard got wrong on Earth. Odd that he can see so clearly the errors of others on other planets, but not his own in front of his own nose.

  3. chriscolose says:

    Tony,

    I’m not going to completely blast Steve on his own site. In brief, I don’t think he understands atmospheric physics or has “proven” a single thing that experts don’t already know. He’s one of many bloggers on the internet, and with all due respect, draws a crowd which doesn’t seem to me to be in a position to really judge whether what he is saying is complete hogwash or a paradigm shift on the horizon…for whatever reason. Everyone thinks it is paradigm-shift worthy, which itself should make you skeptical at first glance. There is a fair degree of arrogance IMO in looking at an equation that is taught in high school and suddenly declaring that the whole field of planetary climate is backwards, and if you find yourself believing it, it should at least be a good sign that you should spend some hours surfing through the web or textbooks to get an idea of where the logic might be fuzzy.

    As for publishing, scientific progress is not made by blogging about your quick interpretations of decades of professional work. Anyone can do that, and thousands of people do this everyday. Publishing or not has nothing to do with being ‘humble,’ it has to do with sharing your ideas to the wider community. If you have an idea and you don’t tell anyone it doesn’t actually do any good for the field, and it’s far less humble to not publish and still insist that people who do this for a living and have been schooled in the fine nuances of the material for many years don’t have a clue.

    • Squidly says:

      … insist that people who do this for a living and have been schooled in the fine nuances of the material for many years don’t have a clue.

      Ah, the crux of it all. This is precisely the reason for my reply to your original comment (below this one). I have read volumes on Venus that precisely dispute what you have written here, and precisely from, as you call them “people who do this for a living and have been schooled in the fine nuances of the material”

      I am a simpleton on this particular subject, and thusly rely upon those in the know. As with many subjects however (this certainly being on of them), there are contradictory views and evidence. This leaves one in a position where one must think for themselves, weigh and judge the evidence. Thus far, the only supporting evidence I have seen, that Venus is hot because of Co2, stems from an offhand quote originating from Carl Sagan many years ago, which was actually borrowed from Albert Einstein many years prior to that (which he later self rebutted, but you don’t hear much about that, now do you?). Since then, politicians have latched on to it, rent seekers (such as Al Gore) have latched on, even many so-called “climate scientists” have further tried to hitch a ride on this very wimpy and unsubstantiated claim.

      I’m still waiting for the empirical evidence in this case. Have not seen anything coming close….

    • You demonstrate the typical confused thinking of alarmists. Nothing I said was in any way controversial, so you ignore it and obfuscate with appeals to authority.

  4. Squidly says:

    @ chriscolose,

    … It’s because it has a very dense CO2 atmosphere and generates a massive greenhouse effect…

    Ah, the Venus thing again. Forgive me as I am just a simpleton, however, as I understand it, the Venusian atmosphere is something like 95% (or more) Co2 concentration, is 300x thicker than the Earth atmosphere, 300,000x the volume of the Earth atmosphere, 99bar at the surface (100x Earth pressure), and sunlight does not directly hit the surface. I believe this is all pretty close anyway. Some of my questions then would be, how can the so-called “greenhouse effect” operate on Venus when direct sunlight does not reach the surface? And as such, why is it so much hotter at the surface than anywhere in the atmosphere? If there were a “greenhouse effect”, should not the atmosphere be warmer than the surface in this case? Also, why is the temperature on Venus uniform? That is, the north and south polls are same temperature as the equator. Similarly, the dark side is also the same temperature as the light side. One might wonder, where is the heat coming from to keep the dark side so warm? (I have some theories, but I will give you a chance to answer).

    I just love this Venus stuff. Every time I hear a warmist talk about it, I find a plethora of holes in their explanations. They present contradicting arguments and a vast array of unfounded speculation, desperately trying to use Venus as a demonstration of the so-called “greenhouse effect”, when in FACT, their examples (all that I have seen to date) fail miserably when one begins to examine the factual details.

    I anxiously await your clarification to these things in hopes that you will enlighten me, and indeed, us all. Until then, I contend that there is no such thing as a “greenhouse effect”, and until someone can empirically demonstrate one, this is where I stand. The “greenhouse effect”, after all, is simply an unproven theory.

  5. Squidly says:

    Chris,

    Here is a nice little paper on your “runaway greenhouse effect” that you may find interesting (just one of several).

    Click to access Miskolczi-GH%20effect%20in%20semi-transp.atm.pdf

  6. omnologos says:

    chriscolose: Your link has nothing to do with why Venus is so hot

    It’s always nice to find people that are so sure of their beliefs. Well, I have another link at the ready, explaining what other people (just as sure about their beliefs) did to paleontology.

    (hint: the experts in the field made it languish for 80 years)

    (hint: the “scientific community” did miss “something so elementary that it would surely be an embarrassment”)

    (hint: “people who” did publish scientific papers “for a living and” had “been schooled in the fine nuances of the material for many years” did not “have a clue”)

    I shall refrain from posting any link about phlogiston (another century lost for physics). Or the perfection of the heavens (a millennium or so lost for astronomy, including all known galactic supernovae). Yawn.

  7. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    What if Mammoth Lakes broke open from an earthquake and the water flowed down and filled Death Valley?

  8. chriscolose says:

    Guys,

    If you want a tutorial on the greenhouse effect, why not pick up a textbook on the subject? The greenhouse effect is something you can see from space! Look at satellite data surveying the planet in the 8 micron band, or the 15 micron band, or the 9.6 micron band where ozone is, and see the differences. Look at Venus in the IR. It looks as cold as Mars. The appeal to scientific disagreement about details, people being wrong in the past, or the scientific reasoning people invoked centuries ago is not convincing; this is extremely basic stuff, and if you can’t find explanations, predictions, and the wide variety of applications used because of this physics aside from a Carl Sagan quote, it is only because you aren’t looking.

    Squidly– there’s no contradiction in the explanation of the “greenhouse effect,” and I’m interested in what resources you consulted to learn from and then found holes in the argument, other than the vague resource called “warmists.” I think you guys need to actually critically examine your own research techniques (pretend you’re doing a paper for a college assignment).

    • Squidly says:

      there’s no contradiction in the explanation of the “greenhouse effect,”

      hehehe .. really?

    • Squidly says:

      firstly, I didn’t actually say there was contradictory information about the so-called “greenhouse effect” (even through there is), what I DID say is that there is contradictory information given, many times, by people trying to explain Venus and attempting to use this as a demonstration of the so-called “greenhouse effect”, but much of their arguments break down once you ACTUALLY research the issue.

    • Squidly says:

      Look at Venus in the IR. It looks as cold as Mars.

      Really? .. not according to the European Space Administration. They tell me that Venus glows in the dark!

      the mission is making the first ever use of the so called ‘infrared windows’ present in Venus’ atmosphere;

      Venus’s atmosphere was obtained by the Visible and Infrared Thermal Imaging Spectrometer (VIRTIS) on board ESA’s Venus Express

      In red is the thermal emission of Venus at 1.74 microns; one of the atmospheric windows of Venus exploited by VIRTIS.

      Here is a good source for viewing Venus in the infrared. Venus Express’ infrared camera goes filming

      Cold? … really? … might want to rethink that.

    • Squidly says:

      There is a plethora of information out there about Venus. What I find interesting is, the more you peruse through that information, the more apparent it becomes that Venus is NOT hot because of Co2 (just as many real physicists suggest).

      Here is another pretty fun place to look at Venus stuff :
      Science Daily

    • Squidly says:

      I find this article quite interesting. Perhaps someone will pay attention the next time the begin talking about Geo-Engineering our planet because of the deadly AGW. I would say, think again.

      ScienceDaily (Nov. 30, 2010) — A mysterious high-altitude layer of sulphur dioxide discovered by ESA’s Venus Express has been explained. As well as telling us more about Venus, it could be a warning against injecting our atmosphere with sulphur droplets to mitigate climate change.

      Science Daily

      As I have said, study a little about Venus, there is a lot one can learn.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Squidly,

        You are a Maroon.

        that article is based on CLIMATE models, and Steve has proven worthless repeatedly, and Dyson has officially scoffed at climate models.
        “Now, computer simulations by Xi Zhang, California Institute of Technology, USA, and colleagues from America, France and Taiwan”.
        Now would you please link to an article that has a real authority, like a tourist reporter, who has common sense, someone has looked at the clouds of Venus with their own two eyes. who can tell us what is REALLY going on their instead of those cowardly scientists, who are willing to lie in order to keep getting those million dollar grants.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Squidly,

        Did you miss this part of the text,

        ” The temperature reaches a minimum at the cloud tops suppressing vertical mixing. This annulus of cold air, nicknamed the ‘cold collar’, appears as a bright band in the ultraviolet images.” Again I don’t know what it means, but it sounds intriguing.

      • Squidly says:

        Yes Tony, my point was merely that, perhaps Geo-Engineering may not be such a good idea, as it is difficult to assess the unintended consequences, which you also so aptly point out. I was actually rather surprised that the conclusion of the article was suggesting this, and based on (as you so aptly pointed out), ugh, Climate Models.

        I think you are mis-understanding what I have been trying to get at here.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Quite a few people have expressed concern over geo engineering. In fact until recently it was a topic of discussion quite frowned upon at Greenpeace.

      • Squidly says:

        BTW, with all due respect, I don’t recall calling YOU any names, nor making any assumptions of your level of intelligence. I would appreciate the same respect.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Squidly,

        I wasn’t calling you names. “Maroon”, is a term of affection on this blog. I thought you knew. Sorry it won’t happen again.

      • Squidly says:

        Oh, sorry, miscommunication on my part then … Maroon away … my bad…

    • suyts says:

      Chris,

      I don’t want to appear to be group bashing or anything, I welcome your presence here. Hopefully, you’ll share some very useful information. I don’t think you have the right impression about most of the people here, and the skeptical community in general. Many, are indeed, “scientists” and are very familiar with the current literature. (There are many other types, also.) When you stated, “Look at Venus in the IR. It looks as cold as Mars.” You stated much. Chris, can there be no other explanation for this other than IR is trapped on Venus? Or are you simply accepting someone else’ preconceived notion?

      At any rate, Squidly made a point that is hard to ignore, in reference to Venus’ heat. From what I’ve read, sunlight doesn’t reach the surface. How then, can we have a greenhouse effect? If our light(energy source) doesn’t make it to the surface, then no IR is reflected off of the surface.

      Lastly, Chris, I know this can be awful disquieting for professionals to witness the unwashed masses engage in science. To be perfectly honest, there’s probably a few thousand other things I’d rather do. You should ask yourself why there are some many people who feel compelled to do so. I don’t know you Chris, neither am I familiar with your work, so please don’t take this personal. Climate science has failed society. You say we shouldn’t appeal to science being wrong in the past? How far back or how close to the present to you want to go? And how often can they be wrong before one can state even in a general sense that there is more that we don’t know than what we do know. I find it ironic and mildly humorous that some people insist we know much about our climate, much less Venus’. The fact of the matter is, climate science hasn’t, nor can it at the moment, offer society one practical meaningful use. I’ve been watching and listening to climate scientists since I was old enough to remember. I’ll be entering my fifth decade in a short time. One thing climate science has taught me, is that they are consistently wrong. Now that in itself isn’t a big deal. Science mandates people being wrong. That’s the way it works. We think we understand something and then later, we discover that we didn’t. I’m good with that. Until laws get passed based on the faux certitude of the experts. Laws and policies get enacted. Lives get ruined. Lives get lost. Entire economies suffer. Do you know what causes the most strife world wide? Poverty. Did you know people froze to death this winter because someone convinced our decision makers that planting whirlygigs and pinwheels to use for energy was a good idea.

      Chris, I’ll make you a deal. I’ll stay out of climate science just as soon as climate science gets out of the utility business or anything else that adversely effects the general population of the earth.

      • chriscolose says:

        suyts,

        Unfortunately I have no say in what the community does, and especially in how atmospheric physics manifests itself into everyone’s daily lives. You don’t need to “stay out of the science,” but it’s always nice to see people spend a few years digging into at least advanced undergraduate level material before they declare with such confidence that the experts are all wrong. I don’t go around correcting astrophysicists on the subject of black holes because I watched a youtube video and read a blog post… especially those who have published about black holes for decades, have worked through detailed mathematical treatment of the subject through many years of grad school, have attended conferences, and collaborated with hundreds of other black hole experts. That’s just showing some humility…instead, I might try to email those experts with questions, consult some resources, take some classes, etc. This really shouldn’t be that tough of a principle to grasp.

        As for your question, first of all some sunlight does actually reach the surface of Venus. The ratio of surface solar radiation to that absorbed or reflected in the atmosphere is much different than on Earth, and this difference is exciting because it challenges us to understand new dynamical regimes, but Venus is still in a case where it has a convective troposphere that establishes an adiabat.

        Secondly, there is no pre-requisite to have a distinct surface to generate a greenhouse effect. The problem is relevant for the gaseous planets like Jupiter, where adding GHG can still effect the temperature at some pressure level, T(p), by reducing the mean pressure where the atmosphere becomes optically thin enough to lose its radiation to space (call it p(r)). In this case the temperature at p(r) is still held fixed but since it is located higher the atmosphere, the temperature at some pressure higher than p(r) [deeper in the troposphere] can be hotter.

      • suyts says:

        Thanks for the explanation Chris.

        Again Chris, you’re inferring to misconceptions about some of the people here. For instance, I’ve been actively studying many facets of cli-sci for well over 15 years. I’ve well over 1000 peer-reviewed studies on my various computers. I do indeed e-mail some. I’ve taken questions to both acedemics and professions. I assume, so too, have many others.

        lol, about the youtube……. As I recollect, some alarmists have made some big hay using youtube. As for declaring them wrong, “By their works, you shall know them.”

        While I understand, on this particular issue you disagree with Steve. Steve does some wonderful things here. He helps with the collective memory. And, he puts in perspective many things people see alarm in. Arctic sea-ice, for instance, is just one of many.

        “Unfortunately I have no say in what the community does, and especially in how atmospheric physics manifests itself into everyone’s daily lives.”

        So, who do I go to for the responsible party? (One of my greater angst about this whole CAGW/CC/disruption…whatever debacle.)

        At any rate, Chris, it’s late, and re-reading my posts, I see where it could be interpreted as a bit abrasive. It wasn’t my intent. Thanks for swinging by. I hope to read some more of what you have to say, here.

        James

      • Bernard J. says:

        Lastly, Chris, I know this can be awful disquieting for professionals to witness the unwashed masses engage in science.

        It can be, when it is obvious to the professionals that the “unwashed masses” have muddled their huerisitic journey such that they have wandered down a dead-end path to Dunning-Kruger fallacy.

        The trouble is that such a trajectory is much like reading a map. The lay map reader, ignoring all advice from the professional cartographer that the lay reader is not sufficiently proficient in the task to actually navigate, nevertheless attempts to find the destination that he desires to reach, and takes twists and turns that he believes will deliver him to his destination.

        All the time that he is wandering about, moving further away from the real path, the lay map reader thinks that he is making his way quite nicely, thank you very much. The problem in this case is that the lay reader is dragging the future of the planet with him, and by the time this lay map reader finally figures out that he had no clue at all in the first place, he and the planet he’s dragging around will be well and truly lost.

        And like any other recalcitrant and incompetent map-reader, he refuses to stop and ask for directions from someone who might actually know.

        Climate science has failed society.

        No, society has failed society, if it hasn’t been able to make people understand that they don’t understand what they don’t understand, even if they think that they di understand. To an extent this is a failure of basic education, and to a greater extent a failure of societal attitudes/philosophy/mores.

        Just as it took about a hundred years to convince most sensible, thinking people that evolution explains the origin of humans far better than a mythical genesis story that spans a week, and that invokes supernatural forces, so will climate science eventually become evident to a majority of even the most ideologically-resistant people. The trouble is, time is a factor in this instance, and ideology and a hugely pervasive case of group Dunning-Kruger Effect have probably already stuffed up any chance that the problem might be dealt with propitiously.

        • Amazing how people can talk endlessly and say nothing.

          If Death Valley was 5km below sea level, temperatures would be about 50C warmer. Does anyone here doubt this? A simple yes or no will do.

      • suyts says:

        Bernard, have you looked at a thermometer lately?

        Don’t come blathering to me about being equipped. At least I have the intellectual honesty to look for the truth without accepting party dogma. The “CO2 is hotting the world up” fantasy is falsified. The earth hasn’t gotten appreciatively warmer since 1998. In fact, it can be stated that its gotten cooler. Storms and weather events have not increased. ACE values were near an all-time low last year. The arctic didn’t death spiral after 2007. All the while CO2 marches onward and upward.

        What is it that scares you about 1/2 degree increase in global temps? What is it that you believe is so eminent?
        Time sensitive…….. that’s a hoot. Look, you want to live in fear of the big CO2 bogeyman. Go right ahead. Quit trying to take the rest of civilization down with your misanthropy.

        “Excess CO2 will be in the air thousands of years!!” and “We must act now!!!”

        Have you bothered to look around and see what your advocacy has wrought? Do you realize the policies enacted, prompted by your advocacy is killing people? Its sentencing people to poverty and hunger. Must we destroy humanity to save Gaia? Have you bothered to think that far?

        And then your going to act condescending towards me with your doltish analogy?

        Bernard, I was trying to be nice, but here’s the reason for your angst…………………………….

        The grown-ups left the adolescents in charge while we went out and did grown-up things. We didn’t realize what a big mess they’d make out of things with their sophomoric reasoning. We’re taking your toys away. Now go on and do something productive. Us grown-ups have to clean up this mess you all have made.

      • Bernard J. says:

        Again Chris, you’re inferring to misconceptions about some of the people here. For instance, I’ve been actively studying many facets of cli-sci for well over 15 years. I’ve well over 1000 peer-reviewed studies on my various computers. I do indeed e-mail some. I’ve taken questions to both acedemics and professions.

        And herein lies an indication of a fundament problem.

        I’m all for self-directed education, and I try hard to make my own students responsible for their own learning. However, Suyts’ case is also a classic demonstration of the benefit of formal assessment of the learning process… if the student is not constructing an accurate integrated understanding of the area in which s/he is reading, then the reading is largely for naught.

        One of the benefits of a guided education such as is provided at school, college, or university is that there is a responsible professional who can pick mistakes of comprehension. Blog science suffers from not having this oversight. This is not to say that peoplecan’t teach themselves, but the chance for going awry is orders of magnitude greater.

        The fact that a whole lot of lay people think that they know better than tens of thousands of professional scientists should be ringing alarm bells about the way that these lay people are acquiring their ‘knowledge’… All the more so because they are free from the contraint of any testing at all of their knowledge to determine that it is actually correct.

      • Bernard J. says:

        It’s hard to argue with that.

      • suyts says:

        Bernard, if you are indeed an instructor, I hope to God you don’t teach in this manner. You wrote volumes, and said much about your smallish self, but said nothing to refute any assertions I’ve made, yet, you insist I’m wrong. About what, well, we don’t know, because you’ve didn’t state it. The word sophomoric comes to mind.

        You’re probably part of the reason why we have so many graduates who don’t know anything and have know way of finding out how to know things. If you consider a student only capable of parroting your thoughts as sufficient, then you’re in the wrong profession. Please move on to something more useful. You are harming our future. Stop it.

        Ad hom attacks lend you no credence nor credibility. But it does transparently show that you’ve nothing to add to the conversation.

  9. Squidly says:

    Look, Chris, one of the biggest problems I have with this subject, and you demonstrated it well, is that too many people take things like “well, Venus has a lot of Co2 and its really hot, so, oh my god, a little more Co2 on Earth and we’re all gonna die”. Which is utter rubbish, both the method and the conclusion. Enough said….

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Squidly,

      Umm. I don’t see that Chris said anything like that actually. Of course I could be wrong, as i am looking at the words he actually wrote. You probably have a much better source than that.
      Also he specifically mentioned 8, 9 and 15 micron band and your link was to 1.7 and 3.8 microns. Not sure what those differences mean, would you mind telling me?

      • One might expect a gas to emit at wavelengths in its emissions spectra.

      • Squidly says:

        Tony, I didn’t infer that HE did … I said “too many people” do .. that is how that all got started in the first place.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Squidly,
        you shouldn’t have added, the “you demonstrated it well” if you didn’t want me to think you were talking about him.
        Misunderstanding noted.

      • Squidly says:

        Sorry, conversing with humans is not my forte (as is probably evident). Too many years talking to computers (a good reason for my skepticism of computer models (GCM or otherwise), have studied them for years, not impressed).

        Something you may want to take note. I would be careful making assumptions about the levels of academia around here. There are many that browse by here (and occasionally comment) who posses ample academic credentials and expertise in their respective fields. Making bold statements to these affects, as you have, I believe to be rather risky business.

        While physics, astrophysics and the like are not my forte, I have gained a pretty good understanding of those who are well versed in these areas and have developed a level of trust in them over the years, as I have observed their behavior, presentations and details of their work. I need not be an expert in a subject matter in order to assess those that are. Over time, it becomes more and more clear who is the expert and who is not. I try to learn from those. I have no desire to become the next great physicist, I just want a general understanding of what it is they are presently doing. For example, you wouldn’t have to be a world renowned computer scientist to understand the things that I could discuss with you (that IS my forte).

      • Squidly says:

        Oops, sorry Tony, I think it was Chris making the academia comments. Getting late…. Still things to consider however. I have run into the most fascinating people on some of these blogs this past decade. Many very accomplished scientists in their own right (and some not so much 😉 ). I just don’t like going down that street, as you never know who it is typing on the other side.

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        One might expect a gas to emit at wavelengths in its emissions spectra.

        I think that shot straight over his head.

  10. chriscolose says:

    Squidly,

    you’re using a great tactic of posting a lot of information without actually saying anything, or understanding any of the implications. Why don’t you slow down and take this step by step, and drop the hostility and “alarmist/warmist” talk. I also take no responsibility for what you hear on the internet from whatever group of the “debate” you decide to listen to, but I think if you pick up some credible resources you will find you can learn something.

    If you look in an IR window you will obviously see temperatures that more closely resemble the surface than in the very high atmosphere. There is a limited feature on Venus near 1 micron that lets you do this in the near-IR, but most of the spectrum is incredibly optically thick, as seen in figure 1 here, so in most places you do indeed visually see very cold temperatures. This is why microwave wavelengths were originally used to get a handle on the very hot Venusian temperatures. Ray Pierrehumbert also has a figure (#3) in his Physics Today article on Infrared radiation and planetary temperature, which I suggest as a read for you. It is here.

    There is another excellent survey of the Venusian atmosphere in Bullock and Grinspoon, 2001, which describes some of the radiative transfer in detail on Venus. Do a search for “David Crisp” as well for more details than you probably ever want on radiation transfer on Venus.

    Those two articles are a great first resource to start off from in order to discuss where you are seeing problems with the theory. I also think that an objective read of them and your own ability to understand what they are saying or how you present follow-up questions will serve as a gauge for your physical understanding, or at least how willing you are to learn.

    Lastly, I don’t make things up, so I’d appreciate the same courtesy when saying things like how all these physicists now think it isn’t CO2 that causes Venus to be hot. At least present real references in the literature.

    • Squidly says:

      Thanks for the sources….

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Chris,

      you apparently are unaware of the central rule of this blog. Steve cannot be wrong. And there are quite a few people happy to enforce that rule.
      Fortunately most commenters who challenge this immutable law, give up after 15 comments or so. I doubt you will last that long.
      I on the other hand am too ignorant to understand that I should ONLY be skeptical of AGW, and not of anything that opposes AGW. I keep pointing out and arguing way after any sane person would waste their time doing so.
      If you would just reframe everything you are saying so that it opposes AGW, then you will find lots of supportive comments, no matter what you write! Much easier that way, wouldn’t you agree?
      You may not know this but Steve recently opened up a HUGE scandal about Hansen. Apparently Hansen and a reporter in 1988 hatched a diabolical plan that would only reach fruition in 2011. They planted a ridiculous story in a book published in 2001 that was consistent with all of Hansen’s public statements and papers. THEN, (this is the genius part), the reporter gave an interview over the phone to Salon magazine, explaining what Hansen actually said to him in a private conversation that was ridiculous and completely inconsistent with everything Hansen has ever said. THEN they waited for the right wing blogosphere to paste it all over the internet, how crazy Hansen was, and then Sprung their trap by contending the book had the accurate quote. That made it LOOK like Steve was wrong about Hansen. But since we all know (mostly Steve) that Steve can’t be wrong, he looked into it and has uncovered top secret evidence, he is not at liberty to divulges, showing this was all a scam by the evil Warmist Hansen. All of whose predictions have been completely wrong btw.

      There. Hope this clears up the situation for you

      • This article is five short sentences long. Tell us which ones are incorrect.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve,

        I am going to take a stab at this. Since it might be a trick question.

        Hmmm. Sentence one. it starts with “what if” kind of hard for THAT to be wrong. Will come back to this if I absolutely have to.

        #2 is a question” I don;t think a question can be wrong. Unless… no it ISN’t “when did you stop beating your wife?

        #3 and 4 we will do tighter. BOTH statements of fact. I admit I am sweating now. There is a note of fear in my typing, UNTIL I remember that Steve is never wrong. PHEW. Ok

        That only leaves # 5.
        “Carl Sagan MIGHT” it is NOT a question, Not an IF, Not a statement of fact.
        Final answer STATEMENT FIVE!!! I just communed with his spirit and he told me that unlike the idiot climate scientists of today He always knew that pressure affects temperature.

        OOOOOHHHHH. What do I win?!?!?!?

        • What would the temperature be if Death Valley was 5km below sea level? This is the most basic atmospheric physics, which your heroes choose to ignore and obfuscate.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve,

        Didn’t you read what I wrote. that is EXACTLY what Sagan just told me!
        Sagan may be incorporeal, but he WILL sue your ass for plagiarism!

      • Bernard J. says:

        The dry adiabatic lapse rate is 1C / 100 meters, so Death Valley would be 50C warmer than it is now. Summer air temperatures would reach over 100C.

        and

        What would the temperature be if Death Valley was 5km below sea level? This is the most basic atmospheric physics, which your heroes choose to ignore and obfuscate.

        Why stop at 5 km Steve?

        The Earth has a radius of 6 378.1 km. Why not drop Death Valley to the centre of the planet? Using your arithmetic this would lead to a temperature increase to 63 781 degrees celcius.

        Are you telling us that if the Earth was atmosphere all the way to the middle, it would be this temperature at the centre?

      • Bernard J. says:

        Neither.

        I was hoping that you might do a serious compare and contrast, sorting the wheat from the chaff and the sheep from the goats, so that we might unpick the various physical phemonena involved from those that are not.

        Getting a direct answer from you is indeed challenging.

    • Squidly says:

      BTW, I don’t recall accusing you of making anything up, or even suggesting that you did, nor did I say “all of these physicists now think it isn’t Co2…….” .. what I believe I said was “many real physicists suggest” … that is not saying “all of these” … I said “many” (and there are) are “suggesting” with further studies, research, arguments and observation. There are many details yet unknown (obviously). I don’t know who is right or wrong, but from what I have ready in various papers, from here, from WUWT and other places, I am placing my money that Co2 is not doing what “many other” physicists are suggesting, and that is a runaway (or even sustained) “greenhouse effect”. But hey, the case isn’t closed yet.

      I have quickly read through you resources. I will re-read again and digest. Can’t say that my first knee jerk reaction is one of being impressed, especially the Bullock and Grinspoon, 2001 paper, which is just more models (you won’t get very far with models with me).

  11. omnologos says:

    Plenty of communications but little communication. Let’s recap. Steven’s original statement (Death Valley etc) remains unchallenged. My original statement (about outgassing) remains unchallenged too. Challenges have surfaced on the interpretation of how the greenhouse effect works. Perhaps it’s the wrong blog post.

    Anyway: I do have a few published papers myself, thank you very much, mostly from the time when I was paid to do that. My one and only experience in the global warming arena has been a (peer-reviewed) comment sent to Nature, approved by BOTH reviewers, then prevented from publication by the Editors. A-ha. Then I tried to send a non-peer-reviewed comment (to Nature again, as it happens), got approved by one Editor, then another one intervened at the last minute to…prevent it from publication.

    There we go then, I have learned my lesson(s), I am not paid to publish scientific articles, so the world will have to do without my peer-reviewed contributions. Still, there are so many peculiarities about Venus (young surface, slow rotation and going the wrong way, no plate tectonics, volcanic features everywhere and of all kinds, an atmosphere that is an ocean, hotter than an oven at the surface, etc etc) that I find small-minded in the extreme to state that one of these peculiarities has nothing to do with any other. It can’t be right. Look also at the history of science. It can’t be right.

    • suyts says:

      My favorite was the fallacy arguments.

      “The appeal to scientific disagreement about details, people being wrong in the past, or the scientific reasoning people invoked centuries ago is not convincing;..” But an appeal to authority is perfectly reasonable.

      Rejecting historical performance and history in general is a flawed notion. Rejecting new ideas with the response, “it doesn’t work that way” is flawed.

      “Nothing is so firmly believed as what we least know.”—- Michel Eyquem de Montaigne

      “In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”——– Galileo Galilei

      “New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common.”—— John Locke

      History is necessary for progress.

      pV=nRT That’s not a new concept. It’s a gas law expressed mathematically. If the math fails, so too, does the law.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        I am STILL reading “structure of evolutionary theory” and I think Gould is excellent at showing the importance of historical understanding in assessing the validity of scientific currents. he posits a dynamic polarity between what he calls “formalism” and “functionalism” and the way that Scientists codified them in ways that they were sure either totally proved or disproved the principle. usually they were wrong in their specifics, and as we have found out in the last 20 years, it is not an either or situation. Adaptive selection
        The most extreme scientists created a false dichotomy on both sides of the equation, and ignored evidence that they could not reconcile. While I disagree with some of his vehemence against the Modern Synthesis, he lays out the evolution of the debates beautifully and shows how scientific ideology limited peoples ability to look at reality.

      • suyts says:

        A daunting task which I haven’t risen to, yet. One day, when I’ve the time.

        “The most extreme scientists created a false dichotomy on both sides of the equation, and ignored evidence that they could not reconcile.”

        This is a trap we all fall into. The problem is, the expectation that scientists would not, and therefore, no safeguards against this eventuality have been placed for cli-sci.

        For those that don’t believe this is a wide spread problem in cli-sci, go ask Dr. Curry. She’s been there.

  12. Tony Duncan says:

    Whoops. I meant to write “adaptive selection utilizes the constraints of the complexities of genetic biochemistry, so that there are certainly favored genetic frequencies of mutation. The interaction of regulatory genes and environmental impacts on development allow for the variation necessary for the evolution we have had on earth

  13. suyts says:

    Comment stuck in moderation hell!!!

  14. Ed Darrell says:

    Have you bothered to look around and see what your advocacy has wrought? Do you realize the policies enacted, prompted by your advocacy is killing people?

    Bullfeathers. Got an example?

    Its sentencing people to poverty and hunger. Must we destroy humanity to save Gaia? Have you bothered to think that far?

    Double bullfeathers. Got a case?

    • suyts says:

      Sure, the easiest one is bio-fuels. These weren’t anything new, but the adoption was in direct regard for a “cleaner” burning fuel, in that it releases less CO2 when burned. Food prices have dramatically risen since……….globally. People this winter were confronted with power outages during the time of greatest need because we’ve decided to plant whirlygigs and pinwheels as our energy source. Some didn’t make it. We’re also confronted not only with a U.S. economic downturn, but a global one. Jobs and energy would be abundant and cheap were it not for this madness. Care to venture why there’s so much unrest death and mayhem across the mid-east? Problems in Africa? THEY CAN’T AFFORD TO EAT.

      Ed, if you’re sincere about seeing the harm done by this “climate” advocacy, I’d be more that willing to show you in a more comprehensive and detailed manner.(with less vitriol as a bonus!) And we can discuss resource assignment, and things of that nature. And we can also discuss in detail of things like life expectancy and the factors that cause less or greater. Morbidity and mortality.

      But, its a very late hour here and time waits for no one. But just leave a response and I’ll oblige.

      James

      • Ed Darrell says:

        Biofuels policy wasn’t designed originally to combat global warming, but was instead intended to reduce U.S. dependencies on imported petroleum. Greenhouse emission reductions are a byproduct. Example 1 doesn’t work.

        There is no case I can find where any power grid was shorted electricity because of wind power — we had exactly the opposite here in Texas.

        Claiming that the current global economic downturn, and food shortages in Africa, are the result of biofuels production suggests a lack of seriousness. Neither case is strong. Biofuels might contribute to a general shortage of feeds, but maize is not a traditional food for Africa, nor is the production of maize in the U.S. the cause of shortages of food in Congo, Liberia, Ivory Coast, or a dozen other places where war blocks food production and distribution.

        James, I’m quite sincere about the harms of climate advocacy. Neither of your examples suggests you are. If you have some serious examples of harms from advocacy against harmful pollution, I am interested.

      • Paul H says:

        Ed,

        I don’t know about the US, but in the EU reducing greenhouse emissions is one of the 2 main reasons why a biofuels policy has been adopted.

        The two main reasons for research into renewable energy sources as an alternative to oil are:
        •the significant contribution of transport to emissions of greenhouse gases. Emissions resulting from transport account for 21% of the total emissions of greenhouse gases. As a result, it is necessary to use fuels that are less polluting than oil;
        •the need to guarantee the security of energy supplies by diversifying fuel sources. The limited quantity of available oil and the increase in prices of fossil fuels represent increasingly urgent challenges for the transport sector and for national economies.

        http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/internal_market/single_market_for_goods/motor_vehicles/interactions_industry_policies/l28175_en.htm

        Of course if the US was serious about reducing dependency on imported oil, Obama would be encouraging domestic oil production and exploration. The current logic does not really stack up does it?

      • Paul H says:

        Claiming that the……… and food shortages in Africa, are the result of biofuels production suggests a lack of seriousness. Neither case is strong.

        The IMF don’t seem to agree with you. They are clear that biofuel demand has been pushing up food prices.

        http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2007/RES1017A.htm

        The head of the World Bank does not pull his punches either –

        The head of the World Bank has said that soaring food prices are causing hardship and starvation for poor people worldwide, and implied that at least some of the blame lay with Western governments’ efforts to encourage biofuel use.

        “While many worry about filling their gas tanks, many others around the world are struggling to fill their stomachs,” said Bank supremo Robert Zoellick

        http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/11/world_bank_biofuel_kicking/

      • suyts says:

        Ed, I wasn’t specifically referring to the U.S. as far as grid, but Texas is a great predictor of the reliability of windmills.

        No, you’re not correct about the biofuels. Given the performance that has been well known for some time by all NASCAR fans, biofuels actually increase the dependence upon foreign fuel. In other words, you consume more actual gasoline than the mix. It was adopted because of the emissions.

        A lack of seriousness…….. 5 billion bushels of corn goes to biofuels from this country alone. You’re living in an enclosed world. First, global food prices are dependent upon each other. Maize isn’t the primary food source of the Congo? Ok, what is. I bet we can show where the staple has increased in price in response to the shortage globally. Further, land use is changing significantly. Other foods are not being farm in favor of the more lucrative food/fuel.

        I don’t know if you’re familiar or not, but food exports to other nations is one area where the U.S. is still number one. Our prices have tripled in many cases compared to just a few years ago. You can extrapolate from there.

        I will give the numbers tomorrow. Presently, I’m late for a study of spheres on planes. But I’ll leave you with this. My daughter is a young person with 5 children in her household. She and her husband work. Like many young people they’re struggling with bills and food costs. How much more would a family struggle that only makes $100/month or less?

        Look at the food prices. Look at energy prices. Look at availability. CAGW/CC/whatever advocacy constrains all of the above.

  15. Scott says:

    Bernard J. says:
    April 18, 2011 at 5:41 am

    The fact that a whole lot of lay people think that they know better than tens of thousands of professional scientists should be ringing alarm bells about the way that these lay people are acquiring their ‘knowledge’…

    LOL, tens of thousands…LOL.

    How many professional climate scientists are there?

    “It’s over 9000!”

    “Over 9000, that’s impossible! There’s no way that’s right!”

    Um, yeah. This time the scouter is wrong. No way there’s tens of thousands of professionals.

    As for the rest of your ranting, I’m a “professional scientist” in an area related to climate, and I can tell you that the “guiding” I’ve seen done causes as many problems as it solves. Anecdotal, yes, but at least some sort of support unlike your completely unsupported claims.

    -Scott

  16. Amazingly, when a planet is atmosphere all the way down (more or less), it really gets hotter the lower one goes.

    Either that, or Jupiter is chocked-full of CO2.

    • suyts says:

      lol, no way! That’s in “no-counts” territory! Mars is chocked full of CO2……. but that’s different. In that world different laws don’t apply.

      From this and the other conversations, what I can gather from the “sciency” guys, is that CO2 causes heat in Venus not pressure. But, Mars has the same percentage of CO2 as Venus and less pressure, but isn’t hotting up like Venus. And as a bonus, the same source of energy, albeit a little further apart, but I’m guessing that’s not enough to explain all of the temp divergence. I’m wishing we’d have these conversations earlier. I’m shutting down, but I think it should be simple enough to figure out the general energy received from solar input and compare Venus to Mars. watts/m2 then to kelvins.

  17. chriscolose says:

    The size of the atmosphere (or the “pressure”) does matter in that it exerts a lot of impact in how strong your greenhouse effect can be. Mars might have 90+% atmosphere of CO2, but its atmosphere is on the order of something like 10 millibars. You can’t get a lot of IR opacity in this regime, and pressure broadening is very weak. Less sunlight does matter too.

  18. Bernard J. says:

    Maurizio Morabito.

    Jupiter’s atmosphere is 5,000 km thick, compared with its mean radius of 70,000 km. So when you say “atmosphere all the way down (more or less)” the operative word is “less”.

    In addition, Jupiter consists of a rock/metal core that is 12-45 times the size of earth, and which probably includes the attendant heating phenomena that are present in the Earth’ s interior. Further, Jupiter is heated by gravitational contraction via the Kelvin–Helmholtz mechanism, a process the thermodynamics of which is very different to the essentially static pressures of the atmospheres of the inner, rocky planets.

    Suyts, with respect to Mars and its own carbon dioxide, do you actually know what effect gas tenuosity has on thermdynamic properties of atmospheres? I note that Chris Colose has already pointed out what seems to have escaped your attention, but if it needs to be made clearer, Wikipedia has this to say about Mars’ atmosphere:

    The surface pressure of Mars is equal to the pressure found 35 km[95] above the Earth’s surface. This is less than 1% of the Earth’s surface pressure (101.3 kPa).

    What might this, together with the distance from the sun, mean for the heat retention capacity of Mars?

    • Bernard J – you asked Are you telling us that if the Earth was atmosphere all the way to the middle, it would be this temperature at the centre?

      I simply pointed out that there is a place with an atmosphere going way, way down (it depends on the definition of “atmosphere” – but then, Venus’ should considered an ocean too). And in that place, yes, the “bottom” temperature follows from adiabatic phenomena just as on Earth (lapse rates being quite different, on Jupiter).

      next question, please…

      • Bernard J. says:

        I simply pointed out that there is a place with an atmosphere going way, way down…

        Except that you did so with significant inaccuracy. And in doing so you also diverted attention away from my original question, which was essentially trying to elicit from Steven Goddard (or indeed from any of the amateur Einsteins here) whether a valley scooped down to the centre of the earth would experience a temperature higher than any even on Jupiter.

        If it helps, perhaps you could consider it in the context of a mine as in Ed Darrell’s question.

        And as you are calling for questions, perhaps you might answer the one I posed here, paraphrasing Steven Goddard’s own thought experiments:

        Experiment # 5 – Suppose that we could instantly change the molecular composition of Venus atmosphere to 100% nitrogen.

        …what would the consequence be?

        Or we could just bring the question back home – what would happen if the earth’s atmosphere suddenly turned to 100% nitrogen? And what would happen if it suddenly turned to match the composition (but not the mass) of Venus’ atmosphere?

        Bonus points if you can include reference to ennumerated physical equations and to relevant physical properties such as absorption spectra.

      • omnologos says:

        Bernard J.

        Here’s a page showing adiabatic lapse rates in various planets of the Solar System.

        Note how the similarity between the values for Venus and Earth is striking.

        Lesser people will also note how there is no mention of the GH effect in a NASA-approved Planetary Atmospheres site. But let’s leave that aside.

        Now consider a planet where the adiabatic lapse rate is the only known value. Let’s also assume that the planet’s “troposphere” is the region where the temperature profile follows the adiabatic lapse rate.

        What do we need to estimate the temperature at the top and bottom (=the planet’s “surface”) of the troposphere? We could either (a) start from the surface or (b) start from the top.

        If (a) we start with the surface’s temperature and compute the tropospheric top temperature, we could find ourselves in the absurd situation of estimating the latter as lower than 0K.

        For example if somebody turned up claiming Venus had 200K at the surface, the “top” (the point where the adiabatic lapse rate won’t hold any longer, some 60km above) would have to be at 200-60*10.468= minus 428K.

        Now, that is a physical impossibility.

        Therefore (a) makes no sense. We can only compute (b) the surface temperature starting from the troposphere’s “top”.

        In other words the controlling variable is the temperature at the top of the troposphere, and then the adiabatic lapse rate and the tropospheric thickness will give the surface temperature.

        QED

        ps if Venus had a 100% nitrogen atmosphere of the same thickness as at present, the surface temperature would be very similar to what it’s got at the moment. We can be sure of that by looking at the values for the adiabatic lapse rate for Venus and Earth. It’s 10.468 vs 9.76. That’s 7.25% of difference. So 100% nitrogen could mean a slightly cooler or slightly warmer Venus, but once again there’s no escaping the effect of the tropospheric thickness.

        Why, even if the top of the troposphere on Venus were at 0K, its surface would have to be between 60*9.76=585.6K 60*10.468=628K, no matter if its composition were similar to the current ones respectively on Earth or Venus.

      • Bernard J. says:

        Omnologos.

        Perhaps I have no been careful in my emphases of concepts and in my use of the term “hot” in this discussion. Buzzing around like a blue-arsed fly with the muddled nesting format of this blog, and with several thread cooking simultaneously, I have probably been slack in my selection of words.

        As I have just posted on the other thread, I am not disputing that a planet with an atmosphere much thicker than Earth’s, and with a similar lapse rate and the TSI that is has, would be much hotter than the Earth. That’s a trivial point.

        What I am trying to get at is whether it is hotter than it otherwise would be without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and if so, by how much. As a side issue I was trying to get Steven Goddard to explicitly state that pressure does not in itself heat a planet, because many of his (and Watts’) readers have taken that mistaken message home. Read over some of the threads from the last year or so and you will find some eyebrow-raising examples of this.

        But ultimately I really want to know what the contribution of carbon dioxide to the temperature of a plant’s atmosphere is, according to Goddard, and to yourself if you care to put some numbers on the table, to compare with your little exercise in the effect of lapse rate on temperature.

    • suyts says:

      Good morning! What a wonderful way to wake up. Having such a lively discussion last night, I refreshed the page this morning just to see if the conversation continued.

      Chris says, “The size of the atmosphere (or the “pressure”) does matter in that it exerts a lot of impact in how strong your greenhouse effect can be. Mars might have 90+% atmosphere of CO2, but its atmosphere is on the order of something like 10 millibars.”

      Bernard says, “Wikipedia has this to say about Mars’ atmosphere:

      The surface pressure of Mars is equal to the pressure found 35 km[95] above the Earth’s surface. This is less than 1% of the Earth’s surface pressure (101.3 kPa).

      You guys are a hoot! Thanks for playing the semantics game. Both quotes directly invoke pressure as being the cause for heat retention rather than the gas itself. Can I get a copy of both of your credentials? I’d like to use them in my appeals to authority when presenting Steve’s argument.

      Bernard, you should really rephrase, because the distance from the energy source has nothing to do with retention capacity.

  19. Bernard J. says:

    Bernard, you should really rephrase, because the distance from the energy source has nothing to do with retention capacity.

    Cute, Suyts.

    As you seem to be unable to discern the concepts involved and intended, I’ll reparse it so that you might actually be able to understand:

    What might this mean for the heat retention capacity of Mars, and how is the resultant temperature affected by the distance to the sun?

    Now, go back to your original answer and untangle it, so that it makes a coherent argument to support Goddard’s claim that venus is hot because it has a hight atmospheric pressure, and not because much of its atmosphere is composed of carbon dioxide.

  20. Ed Darrell: says anything to refute the claims made by the Tanzanian health authorities that global warming is partly to blame for their particular spread of malaria in the highlands

    That’s interesting. What would refute those claims, then?

    • Ed Darrell says:

      Look at the evidence from Tanzania, tell us why that evidence is incorrect, or why the conclusion from that evidence is incorrect.

      No one has made a serious claim that warming, generally, spreads malaria. In Tanzania, as with Kenya, the specific claim is that warming has allowed the spread into the highlands of those species of mosquito which carry malaria — previously absent — and set a long season for the species which is conducive to spreading malaria. Now malaria has spread into those areas (which would require the presence of human hosts from whom the mosquitoes would get the disease).

      Which part of the claims of the Tanzanians is in error?

      The general case against warming posing a serious malaria problem is that we don’t have malaria in the U.S., for example, despite having plenty of mosquitoes that could carry it. Among other things, that emphasizes the importance of medical care and good housing as prophylaxis against the disease — but it also makes the point that warming alone is not generally the culprit.

      Do not ever avoid the obvious proximate cause of a problem.

  21. Ed Darrell says:

    So you deny the thermometers of Tanzania?

    As I said, one should not ignore proximate cause.

    Astonishing.

    • suyts says:

      Warm in Tanzania = global?

      Malaria doesn’t care what the temp is.

      Correlation isn’t causation.

    • Paul H says:

      The Tanzanians accept that much of the problem is caused by land use and not necessarily a global problem.

      Climatic changes brought on in part by local environmental degradation are contributing to the growing prevalence of malaria in the district, said Mr Gideon Ndawala, Rungwe district’s malaria coordinator.

      “People have cleared the forests, rain has decreased, temperatures have risen,” Mr Ndawala said in an interview. “(When) I first reported on the district in 1983, it was very cold and it rained throughout the year except from mid-September to early November. The weather was not favourable for mosquito breeding,” he said.

      http://allafrica.com/stories/201103070294.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s