Venus Awakening

Steve Goddard in WUWT, May 7, 2010? Luboš Motl in the reference frame, same date?

Sure, but what about Omniclimate’s 4-part series starting Feb 27, 2008? (Here parts 2, 3 and 4)

Or Omnologos’ now ancient Aug 17, 2007 post?

Alas, there was some mention of it in a July 2007 Elsevier book. But who cares? What is important is that the stale orthodoxy about Venus’ “runaway greenhouse effect” is starting to dissipate.

As forecasted in “Venus Forecast” 35 months ago: “In a few years, the old ideas of Fred Singer will come back into fashion.

Venus’ retrograde rotation, incredibly massive atmosphere and relatively young (<500 million years) surface will be elegantly explained by the crash of a massive satellite half a billion years ago (with subsequent melting of much if not the whole crust, and humongous outgassing).

Current lead-melting surface temperatures will be just as beautifully explained by simple adiabatic processes.

The role of CO2 in the heating of the atmosphere via some “greenhouse effect” will be seriously reconsidered and almost completely dismissed.

UPDATE May 10: WUWT has a new post on Venus. Among the comments, a link to another blog making a similar point (Oct 7, 2009) and to a brief communication by Carl Sagan in the pages of the Astrophysical Journal (1967) estimating the surface temperature without a single mention of the “runaway greenhouse effect”.

  1. gallopingcamel
    2010/05/12 at 16:40

    I used to think that James Hansen was onto something when he was modeling the climate on Venus and writing about the “Runaway Greenhouse Effect”.

    Once again it turns out that Hansen is a great writer in the Hans Christian Andersen tradition? Why do so many people take his fairy stories seriously?

    I tried to post this comment on Tamino’s “Open Mind” but as you might guess it was closed to contrary opinions.

  2. papertiger
    2010/05/10 at 09:11

    The Hockey Schtick has a post up showing Martian temperature has risen 2 degrees over the last 20 years. Seems like a comparison between Venus and Mars would give an absolute top end for climate sensitivity to co2 with a back of the envelope calculation. “Whoops Mars has warmed 4 times more than…”

    Well, for somebody.

    It would be nice to be able to say we know this much is co2 warming, so the rest of it is natural variability.

  3. 2010/05/08 at 10:12

    I have linked to your 4 parts about Venus in my text about hyperventilation. Sorry for not having seen your texts earlier. Cheers, LM

    • 2010/05/08 at 22:38

      thank you LM. Of course there’s millions of blogs out there…the important bit is to see the same idea come back over and over again, even independently, as it means there could be something solid behind it…

      • suyts
        2011/04/19 at 16:27

        Indeed, as I stated at Goddard’s blog, I didn’t have an opinion about it until those alleged “atmospheric scientists” came by to attempt to refute it. Its been several days now and they haven’t. Now they’re reduced to ad hom, insults, and hand waving. I’m thinking there must be something to this.

      • suyts
        2011/04/19 at 16:33

        I don’t know if you’ve seen this, I found it the other day.

        Here is the page’s history.

        02-16-07 – Started file
        04-04-07, 04-09-07 – General mods
        04-13-07 – fixed the dry lapse rate for venus
        04-19-07 – minor changes
        05-10-07 – minor changes
        06-26-07 – Added a reference
        08-15-08 – fix grammar problems
        Specifically – Venus temperature *range* 0
        Added – Atmosphere mean molecular weight

  4. papertiger
    2010/05/08 at 03:16

    Looking through your series (which I skipped out on back in the day – sorry)
    I’m struck by how you dismantled the need for a ghg theory.

    Here, If the atmosphere of Earth were 100 times more massive

    Let’s imagine Earth had a 10-km deep, reasonably large crater in the middle of a continent, with no liquid water on its bottom at all. What would be the temperature at the bottom of the crater? With a lapse rate for saturated air of 5.46K/km, 288+5.46*10=342K or 70C. Right? Wrong?

    And here, For another simplification, let’s also imagine the new atmosphere to be just as our current one but without any water.

    The lapse rate for dry Earth atmosphere is known and is 9.760 K/km.

    How higher would the surface temperature be, with a dry atmosphere and a 60-km-thick troposphere?

    9.760 * (60-12) = 468K higher than at present (288K)

    The total for Earth is then 756K. Compare that to Venus’ surface temperature of 735K.

    For an amazing coincidence, that’s 97% of the above, whilst the ratio of absorbed Solar radiation at Venus compared to Earth is… 96%.


    Note how the increase in temperature doesn’t depend on any greenhouse gas.

    And so do we really need to believe in greenhouse warming when mere mass can explain the observations?

    Lately you confess to belief in the ghg theory. Why did you go back to it?

    • 2010/05/08 at 22:14

      Lately you confess to belief in the ghg theory. Why did you go back to it?

      Because if we were discussing about light as waves or particles, I dream I would have gone for both. The greenhouse effect exists, and I believe it can be seen in the details that back-of-the-envelope calculations naturally hide.

  5. papertiger
    2010/05/08 at 00:46

    Yeah. Bunch of Venutian come latelys.

    They’re tramping on down Omni’s well blazed trail, is what I’m seeing.

    How about revisiting the several red spots of Jupiter, and how they relate to global warming.
    Then we can wait a couple years to see it at WUWT!

    Just kidding Anthony. My casa is your casa.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: