As Goes Venus, So Goes the Earth?
Ronald Bailey | July 3, 2007, 11:01am
In his latest New York Times op/ed, climate warrior Al Gore ominously wonders if humanity is transforming Earth's atmosphere into that of Venus. He warns:
Consider this tale of two planets. Earth and Venus are almost exactly the same size, and have almost exactly the same amount of carbon. The difference is that most of the carbon on Earth is in the ground — having been deposited there by various forms of life over the last 600 million years — and most of the carbon on Venus is in the atmosphere.
As a result, while the average temperature on Earth is a pleasant 59 degrees, the average temperature on Venus is 867 degrees. True, Venus is closer to the Sun than we are, but the fault is not in our star; Venus is three times hotter on average than Mercury, which is right next to the Sun. It’s the carbon dioxide.
Scientific critic-at-large, Russell Seitz suggests that the former Vice-President is exaggerating. To wit:
Sounds scary. But is the prospect of Earth falling prey to a Venereal meltdown "cosmic in scale " atmospheric science, or popcorn movie hype ? His last performance left millions in terror of a 20 foot sea level rise within decades, unless Al's allowed to scare his way back into the White House.
The data suggest he's at it again. Having no kind of atmosphere, Mercury has no legitimate place in his analogy--It literally exists in a vacuum. Not Venus-- its massive gas mantle exerts pressure enough to crush a submarine hull.
It's equal to 3000 feet of sea water, and presents a concentration of CO2 over two thousand times higher than the Earth's atmosphere contains. Little wonder the bottom of that alien abyss simmers above the melting point of lead. Yet even beneath the mother of all Greenhouse blankets, the temperature of Venus' clouds falls below human body temperature as the pressure approaches that on the surface of the Earth. ...
If fuel reserves wereinfinite, it would take two million years of todays conspicuous coal and oil consumption to realize Al's fears.
Whole Al Gore op/ed here. Seitz' complete acid critique of the Gore op/ed here. Seitz' review of An Inconvenient Truth here (subcription required, alas). My review of the movie here.
Disclosure: The folks at Greenpeace's Exxonsecrets website have this to say about me. My views on man-made climate change have changed. It's been three years--perhaps Greenpeace could update it.
SugarFree | July 3, 2007, 1:08pm | #
It's been awhile, and there seems to be so many new faces... (And remember kids, I don't care if Al is right or wrong, I'm offend by the constant proclamations of his infallibility.)
The Gorean Creed
We believe in Global Warming
the Sea-Raiser, the All-Powerful,
maker of tsunami and hurricane,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Cause, The Activities of Man,
the lowest of all creatures,
except the ones that are brown,
Gasses from Coal, Recycling from Blight,
true Cause from true Gasoline,
made, not begotten,
of Driving when One Could Walk;
through Man all pollutions were made.
For us and for our salvation
Gore came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Nader
and the Virgin Chomsky
and became truly political.
For our sake he was un-elected
under Pontius Harris;
he suffered defeat and was retired.
On the third year he rose again
in accordance with the Documentatrians;
he ascended into Hollywood
and is seated at the right hand
of the Film Executives.
He will come again in glory
to judge the polluting and the recycling,
and his kingdom will have a biodegradable end.
We believe in Global Warming, the Destroyer,
and the taker of life,
who proceeds from the Car and the Industry,
who with the Suburbs and the Factory Farm
is worshiped and glorified,
by the prophets of GREED.
We believe in the scientists who agree with us and our beliefs.
We accept the starvation of Billions,
for the forgiveness of environmental sins.
We look for the return to subsistence farming,
and the whole grain life of the world to come.
Amen.
Mark Bahner | July 8, 2007, 12:23am | #
"Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."
Here is a comment I made on Nature magazine's "Climate Feedback" blog:
Eduardo Zorita writes, "This is in my opinion a very interesting, and at the same time somewhat troubling, comment by one of the leading climate scientist."
I think Dr. Trenberth's opinion, while being unquestionably correct ("There are no predictions by the IPCC at all") is far more than "somewhat troubling."
In my opinion, the fact that "there are no predictions by the IPCC at all" constitutes scientific fraud. Specifically, as I have written on my blog:
"The IPCC Third Assessment Report's (TAR's) projections for methane atmospheric concentrations, carbon dioxide emissions and atmospheric concentrations, and resultant temperature increases constitute the greatest fraud in the history of environmental science."
Further, I would be happy to engage in a scientific debate with anyone who thinks otherwise.
I would be happy to debate this matter here on Nature's Climate Feedback blog (where presumably the writers and editors of Nature think otherwise), on Scientific American's blog (where the writers and editors clearly think otherwise), at the Real Climate blog (where the authors presumably think otherwise), at the Prometheus blog (if they're interested, and are not afraid of the consequences of the public seeing that the scientific emperor has no clothes), at my blog, or anywhere else.
So far, I am shocked--shocked!--to find no takers. :-)
