Winseer:
The 90 bar atmosphere is about CO2 heated to pour on even more pressure… The sulphuric acid in the clouds is about the atmopshere also being anhydrous.
The “closer to the sun” on it’s own doesn’t work, hence why the surface of Venus is hot enough to melt lead - but the surface of Mercury isn’t, and the darkside is some way below zero to boot in the case of Mercury.
We know that Mercury has daytime temperatures of 400 C + with no atmosphere and the Sahara desert is supposedly the result of a slight shift on pole angle and orbital changes.In which case move Earth to where Venus is and increase atmospheric mass and pressure to 90 bar and it’s a fair bet the place would get just as hot as Venus regardless of CO2 atmospheric content.
As I said, you cannot increase the atmosphere here to 90 bar without a similar atmosphere to Venus. Oxygen/Nitrogen under heat might increase the pressure to 1.5bar if you’re lucky.
When was the last time you saw 1500mb on a weather chart… I don’t think I’ve ever seen it, and we’ve supposedly heated up a few degrees over the past few decades already enough to precipitate abnormal weather patterns - just not significantly higher atmospheric pressure.
The mean temperature on the surface of mercury isn’t hot enough to boil water (let alone lead!) at 1bar but easily enough to boil ALL water away at the <1mb pressure that it actually has there.
Compare this to Venus, where it’s hot enough to melt lead (the 400c+ you speak of) all the time.
The fact remains the Sun’s energy input intensity is directly proportional to distance from the Sun all else being equal.In which case you obviously can’t equate the atmosphere less temperature lows of Mercury with those of Earth or Venus.While there’s no reason to think that we couldn’t recreate a Venus type atmospheric pressure on Earth given enough of it although it would obviously mean it being ‘a bit’ thicker in terms of altitude than it is now.
So as I said move Earth to around 30 million miles closer to the Sun ( around 1.5 x the level of sun energy input intensity than at present ? ) and increase atmospheric pressure to that of the level of Venus by increasing the thickness of the atmospheric blanket as required with no change in the ‘composition’ of the atmosphere and see what temperature we get.It’s my guess that our lower CO2 level composition would make no real difference let alone the type of negligable difference involved in fossil fuel use.
The only way you could get CO2 content of Earth’s atmosphere upto dangerous runaway greenhouse gas levels - is to cook it out of carbonate rocks.
If you roast chalk for example, you end up with CO2 going into the air, and Quicklime left behind.
Because you CANNOT arbitrarily “move the Earth 30m miles closer to the sun” - I suggest that the likelyhood of Earth ever acquiring a 90 bar atmosphere of CO2 - is as close to “impossible” as probabilities will allow.
More than two centuries of smoke stacks, expanding CO2 exhaling population, fires, deforestation, sea warming, and decomposition - have failed to bring atmospheric CO2 levels to even 1% where it would nudge into third place over Argon.
I’m confident the entire “Gweenhouth gathes” argument is a load of crap therefore - and we should be concentrating on what the world does TO us rather than what WE do to IT.
Build flood defences. Stop trying to prevent the floods by cutting down CO2 emissions.
Build Volkswagen cars. Stop trying to get them through the MOT.
Winseer:
Because you CANNOT arbitrarily “move the Earth 30m miles closer to the sun” - I suggest that the likelyhood of Earth ever acquiring a 90 bar atmosphere of CO2 - is as close to “impossible” as probabilities will allow.
I’m confident the entire “Gweenhouth gathes” argument is a load of crap
What I was actually saying was hypothetically ( mathematically ) increase Earth’s ‘present’ atmospheric ‘pressure’ ‘not’ its ‘composition’ to around 90 bar,bearing in mind the usually stated temperature/altitude/pressure gradients and relationship on Earth,and then apply the equivalent Sun energy intensity increase at 30 million miles closer and see what temperature we get.It’s my guess that will bust the myth of CO2 being a so called ‘Greenhouse Gas’ anymore than air is even at its present composition figures.On that note we’re obviously talking about a ‘hypothetical’ Earth atmosphere measured in 1,000’s of miles in altitude not 100’s in addition to the 30 million miles closer to the sun.
Yeh. I suppose when one thinks about it - there’s a chance that Venus might have had it’s atmosphere displaced out of carbonate rocks by the action of the acid as well…
Even Vinegar on Marble/Sea Shells/Limestone/Chalk - produces copious amounts of CO2.
The stumbling block is that there had to be life there at some point to have those particular rocks present in the first place.
What’s your version of the “Great Dying” then?
My money’s on “the sea heated up to 60 degrees” leading to an ELE somewhat worse than that other more famous ELE one that killed the dinosaurs off millions of years later…
if i was a fan of conspiracy theories , i might think this .
that the WTO/NWO/bilderburg/hedge fund type peoples are artificially fiddling the spot and forward price of oil on a downward trajectory to ensure …
chinas looming crash has a soft landing and not a very hard one .
i can think of no other reason that western governments are not continually ratcheting up their tax take on oil and reinvesting it in renewable technologies .
cheap oil leads to inefficient unsustainable industries and acts as a brake on innovation .
particularly in a country like britain that could so easily be entirely energy self sufficient in 20 years time . if we put our minds to it .
Winseer:
Yeh. I suppose when one thinks about it - there’s a chance that Venus might have had it’s atmosphere displaced out of carbonate rocks by the action of the acid as well…
Even Vinegar on Marble/Sea Shells/Limestone/Chalk - produces copious amounts of CO2.
The stumbling block is that there had to be life there at some point to have those particular rocks present in the first place.
What’s your version of the “Great Dying” then?
My money’s on “the sea heated up to 60 degrees” leading to an ELE somewhat worse than that other more famous ELE one that killed the dinosaurs off millions of years later…
The point is it doesn’t matter ‘how’ Venus ended up with an atmosphere made up of mostly CO2.The question is is there any reason to think the place would be much,if any,cooler ‘if’ its atmosphere was the same ‘composition’ as Earth’s ‘but’ at Venusian levels of atmospheric ‘pressure’ and sun input intensity.
boredwivdrivin:
if i was a fan of conspiracy theories , i might think this .
that the WTO/NWO/bilderburg/hedge fund type peoples are artificially fiddling the spot and forward price of oil on a downward trajectory to ensure …
chinas looming crash has a soft landing and not a very hard one .
i can think of no other reason that western governments are not continually ratcheting up their tax take on oil and reinvesting it in renewable technologies .
cheap oil leads to inefficient unsustainable industries and acts as a brake on innovation .
particularly in a country like britain that could so easily be entirely energy self sufficient in 20 years time . if we put our minds to it .
Which is fine so long as anyone only wants electricity when the wind blows or the tide moves and use all the oil we’re no longer using to make plastic to replace steel and chuck the rest all over the fields to marinate our food with oil based ‘fertilizer’.The only conspiracy in that case would be an alien invasion that’s trying to terra form the planet to how they want it.
Our overall atmospheric pressure is a result of gravity which is the result of the earth spinning at @1037mph (at the equator) centrifugal force add in the gravitational pull of the moon (tides) and sun and to a lesser extent the other planets volcanoes, tectonic movement and we have a constantly climate, to even begin to think that somehow humankind’s pathetic efforts can seriously affect all that is to take ourselves way too seriously we are merely lice on a very big dog.
As to the need for oil, not all oil based products need to be derived from mineral oil, an increasing amount is being derived from plants. What we need is to diversify our sources of power i.e. biofuels, wind, solar, tidal, nuclear and get better at recycling. The only thing we currently NEED oil for is transport.
Fertilizers, most potash (potassium) is mined (new one opened up in Yorkshire recently). Nitrogen can be fixed by leguminous plants rather than chucking neat ammonium nitrate on our fields. Lime which is used to regulate PH is still sitting around in the large sedimentary rock deposits though we have kind of buggered ourselves by destroying the cheap source of slag (mainly phosphate but includes a whole load of other useful elements) from the UK steel industry. New research is showing that rather than help fertility bag fertilizer is, over the long term, destroying the microbes that break down the nutrients in the soil and make them available to the plants, thus bag fertilizer is not only eye-wateringly expensive but destroys the soil over the long term. Note to my ex colleagues here, if you didn’t spend so much on bag fert and and agri-chems to produce much the price for grain, milk and meat would go up to a viable level (supply and demand).
Our overall atmospheric pressure is a result of gravity
And gravity acting on mass of the atmosphere the more atmosphere there is the higher the effect of gravity on it.In the case of Venus CO2 being heavier than air creating a higher atmospheric pressure by volume than air.The point being that as we know on Earth temperature increases/decreases proportionately with atmospheric pressure/altitude.
The question then being what would Earth’s temperature be at Venus levels of atmospheric pressure let alone 30 million miles closer to the sun,without changing the ‘composition’ of its atmosphere at all.That should be easy enough for anyone who’s good at maths to work out.Assuming it’s the same or close as makes no difference that busts the myth of CO2 being a greenhouse gas and/or having cooked Venus.IE it was the ‘mass’ and ‘pressure’ of its atmosphere not the composition of it that did it.
As for bio fuels why bother when we need the capacity for agriculture and fossil fuel is cheaper than bio fuel and isn’t running out any time soon.
As most people are aware, we are in the ‘Goldilocks Zone’ and our moon helps us immensely ( and stops us wobbling about too much) - although our zone didn’t really help the sabre toothed tiger and the like. Also our lovely sun is half way through its life now, but that is of no immediate concern.
Meanwhile, Oil is down another $2 today and still falling. one dollar gasoline in the states is within sight.
The stock market isn’t having much of a swell time either. FTSE down over 200 pts today, and the dow jones already over 400 down as I write this…
The BOND market though is rallying strongly. THIS implies “very low interest rates for a long time to come” - not bad considering the US have already made a token hike…
Carryfast I agree with what you’re saying. It’s patently absurd to try to draw conclusions about the Earth from Venus, they are not, never were nor ever will be similar in any way, shape or form, the only similarity is they are two lumps of rock orbiting in the same fireball of gas.
Thing is we only have this planet which happens to suit us so we better look after it, fossil fuels are a finite resource and while we can recycle and create other resources (even diamonds) fossil fuels will run out one day, the only question is when. If we can manage those finite resources to put off the day when the final drop does come out of the ground so much the better.
The other valid reason for looking to alternatives is that most of the world’s oil is outwith our (as in UK) control and many of the oil producing countries aren’t politically stable or particularly favourable towards us so it makes sense that we start to develop alternative sources of power so that our economy can’t be held hostage at some point in the future.
Winseer:
We’ve gone a bit off topic here for long enough.
Meanwhile, Oil is down another $2 today and still falling. one dollar gasoline in the states is within sight.
The stock market isn’t having much of a swell time either. FTSE down over 200 pts today, and the dow jones already over 400 down as I write this…
The BOND market though is rallying strongly. THIS implies “very low interest rates for a long time to come” - not bad considering the US have already made a token hike…
Market says “That’s all folks!”
Can you explain why,according to these zbwit economists,low oil prices are a bad thing.IE here we have a product in unlimited supply that is only economically viable when used in large quantities.The combination of artificially reduced supply,resulting high prices and extortionate taxation resulting in a reduction in the viability of that product to the point where it damages demand for the product and the economic growth that relies on its economic viability.
IE what’s wrong with a situation in which it’s more economically beneficial to burn the stuff than save it.Which translates in this case as it ( should be ) unarguably more beneficial to increase the productivety of trucks by running freight over longer distances.
Than vice versa in the current economics of the mad house in it often being more beneficial to reduce productivety by running less distance and leave the stuff in the ground.In which case everyone loses from the haulier to the tax man and the oil supplier.On that note how many other industries would regard the answer to lower demand,caused by effective rationing of the product increasing prices beyond viable levels in addition to prohibitive levels of taxation,being to maintain that rationing and prohibitive taxation and the resulting higher prices.
chicane:
Carryfast I agree with what you’re saying. It’s patently absurd to try to draw conclusions about the Earth from Venus, they are not, never were nor ever will be similar in any way, shape or form, the only similarity is they are two lumps of rock orbiting in the same fireball of gas.
Thing is we only have this planet which happens to suit us so we better look after it, fossil fuels are a finite resource and while we can recycle and create other resources (even diamonds) fossil fuels will run out one day, the only question is when. If we can manage those finite resources to put off the day when the final drop does come out of the ground so much the better.
The other valid reason for looking to alternatives is that most of the world’s oil is outwith our (as in UK) control and many of the oil producing countries aren’t politically stable or particularly favourable towards us so it makes sense that we start to develop alternative sources of power so that our economy can’t be held hostage at some point in the future.
So you’re saying if we bust the myth of Global Warming caused by CO2 on Venus,let alone the minute levels of CO2 resulting from fossil fuel use,then we’ve still got the next level of the luddites defence that the stuff is ‘running out’.Which is even more bs than the idea that burning it will cook the planet.On that note if/when the stuff does run out that’s a problem for future generations long in the future to deal with.Bearing in mind that the logical conclusion of your idea is that every successive generation leaves the stuff in the ground to save it for future ones long in the unforeseeable future.
The fact is its effectively a limitless resource that’s being viewed and coveted as a limited one and priced accordingly to a point where it isn’t worth burning the stuff.Which is why we are where we are now.In a standoff between the consumer v the zbwit economists who think that high oil prices are a good thing and their luddite green allies who want to leave the stuff in the ground.
Carryfast:
Can you explain why,according to these zbwit economists,low oil prices are a bad thing.IE here we have a product in unlimited supply that is only economically viable when used in large quantities.The combination of artificially reduced supply,resulting high prices and extortionate taxation resulting in a reduction in the viability of that product to the point where it damages demand for the product and the economic growth that relies on its economic viability.
IE what’s wrong with a situation in which it’s more economically beneficial to burn the stuff than save it.Which translates in this case as it ( should be ) unarguably more beneficial to increase the productivety of trucks by running freight over longer distances.
Than vice versa in the current economics of the mad house in it often being more beneficial to reduce productivety by running less distance and leave the stuff in the ground.In which case everyone loses from the haulier to the tax man and the oil supplier.On that note how many other industries would regard the answer to lower demand,caused by effective rationing of the product increasing prices beyond viable levels in addition to prohibitive levels of taxation,being to maintain that rationing and prohibitive taxation and the resulting higher prices.
Pointlessly transporting goods further than necessary would reduce productivity!
Carryfast:
So you’re saying if we bust the myth of Global Warming caused by CO2 on Venus,let alone the minute levels of CO2 resulting from fossil fuel use.
without any greenhouse gases our temperatures would fluctuate between -200 at night to +200 during the day. Yes the massive increase in CO2 in our atmosphere will only ever create a very small increase in the effectiveness of the greenhouse effect our atmosphere already gives us. But even a half percent increase could add two or three degrees to our overall global temperatures, climate will change and sea levels would rise. This small increase in average global temperatures is nothing the planet has not seen many times before, but it has never happened with 7 billion people on board. May be a billion people will need to relocate, it wil make the Syrian refugee crises look like a package holiday gone wrong.
Bluey Circles:
Pointlessly transporting goods further than necessary would reduce productivity!
I was actually referring to the scenario of actually turning down otherwise profitable productive long haul jobs in favour of short haul instead because of fuel costs.
Carryfast:
So you’re saying if we bust the myth of Global Warming caused by CO2 on Venus,let alone the minute levels of CO2 resulting from fossil fuel use.
without any greenhouse gases our temperatures would fluctuate between -200 at night to +200 during the day. Yes the massive increase in CO2 in our atmosphere will only ever create a very small increase in the effectiveness of the greenhouse effect our atmosphere already gives us. But even a half percent increase could add two or three degrees to our overall global temperatures, climate will change and sea levels would rise. This small increase in average global temperatures is nothing the planet has not seen many times before, but it has never happened with 7 billion people on board. May be a billion people will need to relocate, it wil make the Syrian refugee crises look like a package holiday gone wrong.
As we know CO2 isn’t the main or even anything like close to being a large factor in the Green House effect of our atmosphere.Which leaves the question of if any.While exactly where does the figure of a half per cent increase in the overall Green House effect of the atmosphere and a 3 degree increase in temperatures,from a minute increase in a minute composite part of the atmosphere,come from.
Bearing in mind the believers don’t seem keen on an answer to the question,what would be the temperature here at 90 bar atmospheric pressure and 1.5 x the intensity of sun input ?.The answer to which would probably bust the myth that CO2 is a supposed Greenhouse Gas at even almost 100% composition of Venus’ atmosphere let alone 0.04% on Earth.
Which leaves the question why are the economists saying that high oil prices are a good thing.Also why are the oil companies bothered about the unit price of oil.When they are sitting on an effectively unlimited supply of of the stuff and if they want to maintain incomes just supply the market at a level that creates a unit price the customer is prepared to pay.Bearing in mind the actual level of income to the producers will remain the same.
Which won’t work while we’ve got a government imposing prohibitive Green taxation on the product without a Green mandate.
