It's Hot! But Fox Only Talks About Global Warming When It's Snowing

[Defiant47]

So the climate might level off... in the long run.

In the meantime, the greenhouse gas effect will run havok through our climate as ocean currents get disrupted, polar caps are melted (rising sea levels) and other fun stuff. As I believe another poster has mentioned, this will have the effect of displacing people in the near future. Which is what is relevant to the problem of climate change.

 

[North King]

In response to the Venus comparison:

The planets are radically different.

For one thing, Earth invented pizza. For another, Venus looks like pizza. For a third, comparing the most extreme planet in the solar system greenhouse gas wise is about as relevant to the question of short-term climatic instability as saying "samoyeds don't do well in deserts" to the question, "do you think my german shepherd will suffer if I move to Arizona?"

 

[BasketCase]

So the climate might level off... in the long run.

Still wrong.

It won't "level off". We will never know what the level-off point is until the planet actually gets there, and then we won't know the planet has actually gotten there. Greenhouse gases do change climate--but at the same time they buffer and slow down the very changes they're causing. Por ejemplo: if 20 megatons of CO2 would heat up the Earth by 2 degrees in one century, 40 megatons of CO2 would heat up the Earth by more than 2 degrees--but it would take more than two centuries to happen.

And the buffering effect will not happen "in the long run". It's already happening right now, because the higher levels of greenhouse gases are already present and being added in growing amounts.

In the meantime, the greenhouse gas effect will run havok through our climate

No it won't. The changes will be so gradual nobody on the planet will even notice.

The planets are radically different.

Exactly. They are different, how? (w00t boldf4c3!) And what causes those differences?

 

[Defiant47]

People are noticing... why do you think scientists are so worried about global warming, and urging governments to take action to start addressing the consequences of the climate changing?

 

[BasketCase]

No idea. Could be peer pressure. Could be desire to keep the government funds coming. Could be legitimate concern. Could be the same desire for shocking headlines that newspapers use to generate subscriptions. There's lots of possible reasons. Be that as it may: science and the general public are worrying about what might happen. The miniscule amount of sea level rise we've seen so far took a century to happen. There were no wars that had a provable link to global warming, and very few dislocations (some people lost their houses as the coastline collapsed under the foundations--but those people were dislocated over the course of decades) The actual climate change effects we've already seen are miniscule--and in many cases, impossible to prove. The scientific community (all the way up to the IPCC) has itself admitted that it's almost impossible to prove stronger hurricanes are actually the result of global warming.


Moving on: cred where cred is due.

I was gonna point to Venus, but BasketCase beat me to it. In the extreme, greenhouse gases can indeed smooth out temperature gradients.

But there are a lot of other variables on Earth that could get in the way of this hypothetical broad-brush pattern. And even in a Business As Usual scenario, the amount of CO2 we'll add in a few centuries is tiny compared to Venus.

Agreed. There are lots of competing effects. And yes, the effects of greenhouse gases on Earth are small compared to Venus--but they're still there. The buffering effect of CO2 is small (because there's less of it)--and the warming effect of CO2 is small (because there's less of it). Note how the actual results are a hodgepodge of good and bad effects......gee, there's the H-word again.......

 

[North King]

Exactly. They are different, how? (w00t boldf4c3!) And what causes those differences?

Venus is not a valid point of comparison because it is not undergoing rapid anthropogenic climate change. The point that it is thermally more uniform is pretty much irrelevant, because we're not talking about what Earth will look like post climate alterations. We're looking at what will happen DURING the changes. And if you can't see how melting large glaciers, flooding vast portions of the world's land, and utterly shifting various climate bands world-wide will have destabilizing effects on climate, weather, and human geography in the short term...

Well I dunno. Then I suppose you're just harping on a single point over and over with nothing but a political agenda.

Blah blah blah, the moderate position isn't always the correct one, and we should not lionize ourselves for finding a middle-of-the road idea if it's between the correct position and the incorrect one. Blah blah blah.

 

[BasketCase]

Venus <snip> is not undergoing rapid <snip> climate change.

Exactly. Venus should be undergoing rapid climate change--because the Sun disappears from its sky for eight months at a stretch, and because it has virtually no axial tilt. Venus' night side and poles should be freezing cold--but they're not. Why?

 

[North King]

...did you seriously just snip out the majority of that post so you didn't have to reply to it?

Bravo, sir. I've seen a lot of sidestepping in my days, but never that blatant. You, sir, win that prize at least.

By the way, when you're quoting this post, you should post it as:

Bravo, sir. <snip> You, sir, win <snip>

 

[BasketCase]

Venus is not undergoing rapid climate change of any kind, anthropogenic or otherwise. Do you agree or not?

 

[North King]

Nice ninjaedit.

But since I replied to it already: if you can't be bothered to "care" about the other person's argument, then 1) You really shouldn't claim to have considered both sides or occupy a middle ground, and 2) I really shouldn't be bothering to reply to someone who "doesn't care".

 

[Tee Kay]

Venus should be undergoing rapid climate change--because the Sun disappears from its sky for eight months at a stretch, and because it has virtually no axial tilt. Venus' night side and poles should be freezing cold--but they're not. Why?

Until you understand the difference between climate and weather you will not be taken seriously. But I guess I shouldn't bother.

 

[History_Buff]

Venus' night side and poles should be freezing cold--but they're not. Why?

Convection.


Really, trying to compare the Venusian atmosphere to the Terran one for proving or disproving anthropogenic climate change is a kind of a pointless exercise, especially since your argument appears to be 'Thanks to GHGs, Venus is face-meltingly hot all the time! Global warming must then be false somehow!'

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

I thought that the Earth unique position in the solar system, and a lot of other factors, allow it to have life, and to keep on sustaining it for a long time. The only way to make comparison to Venus, is to discover another solar system with a sun of the exact same size and a planet like venus having the same exact distance but bearing life in it that isn't much different than Earth.

 

[BasketCase]

But since I replied to it already: if you can't be bothered to "care" about the other person's argument

Only the relevant parts.

Convection.

That ain't it. Wind speeds vary widely on Venus--the really fast winds are only in the upper atmosphere. Wind speed goes down to near zero at the poles, and also near the planet's surface. Oh, and--big surprise coming--at the altitudes where Venus does experience high winds, the atmosphere is a hundred degrees below freezing. Hey, it's a surprise to me too. I thought the planet's entire atmosphere was one big Easy-Bake Oven.

Convection doesn't explain it.

@Thug: Yeah, you're right. I'm not actually comparing. I'm contrasting. X is very different from Y. Why?

 

[Berzerker]

I remember a while back in LA a JPL spokesman was on the radio explaining why we needed to send Magellan to Venus - to study the runaway greenhouse effect and its implications for us. While I thought at the time that was a BS excuse to justify spending $$$, the comparison between Earth and Venus for the purposes of this debate is valid - and no one has explained why it aint.

Sure, the Earth has variables Venus doesn't, so what? Which of those variables turn the stabilizing effects of ghgs into greater instability? If Venus is hot as hell all over because of convection, then thats a "current", like an ocean. And the atmosphere is so thick and hot, the pressures etc are like an ocean. Obviously Venus has a way to transport heat much like Earth's winds and oceans, thats the atmosphere. The point being ghgs distribute heat and that has a stabilizing effect, otherwise they misnamed these gases.

And the comparison was not to disprove "climate change", it was to provide an example of the stabilizing effects of ghgs.

Why does Venus need to be a replica of Earth? Are y'all actually arguing that ghgs on Earth do not distribute heat from the equator toward the poles? Thats what happened on Venus...

 

[North King]

It has already been explained how the comparison is not valid.

 

[Berzerker]

No it hasn't, all you guys did was point to some differences between Earth and Venus as if they were relevant while ignoring the point - ghgs stabilize atmospheres by distributing heat thereby reducing the contrasts between air masses.

Where did any of you cite a difference between Venus and Earth that turns the stabilizing effects of ghgs into a more unstable climate here?

 

[Arwon]

This thread, I just...

Venus? What? Venus has a stable climate therefore more global warming will lead to more stability? I um... What.

It's like words have lost all meaning.

The horror, the horror.

 

[North King]

Look, if I were to refute you, I would end up writing the same post as above. So I'll just quote it, wholesale, to save time.

I'll even bold the most relevant part:

"Venus is not a valid point of comparison because it is not undergoing rapid anthropogenic climate change. The point that it is thermally more uniform is pretty much irrelevant, because we're not talking about what Earth will look like post climate alterations. We're looking at what will happen DURING the changes. And if you can't see how melting large glaciers, flooding vast portions of the world's land, and utterly shifting various climate bands world-wide will have destabilizing effects on climate, weather, and human geography in the short term..."

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

This thread, I just...

Yeah I know.

It's great