The loonies who use Venus as an example
of a runaway greenhouse effect are even more mistaken however.
But, like the theory
of the runaway greenhouse, it is a fallacy.
In other words, if Dr. Goldblatt's figures are correct, the possibility
of a runaway greenhouse is extremely unlikely, the chances
of a runaway greenhouse due to human carbon emissions are non-existent, and the UVic website's main headline is seriously misleading and unnecessarily alarmist.
I tried to follow his reasoning for the possibility
of runaway greenhouse.
Some discussion about the condition
of runaway greenhouse (Komabayashi - Ingersoll limit) is found in Section 4.6 (p. 284).
In this paper, we begin by reviewing the physical basis
of the runaway greenhouse in order to directly address this issue.
Following this theory, we are not near the threshold
of a runaway greenhouse.
Any talk
of a runaway greenhouse effect is absolute rubbish, because we know it didn't happen even with CO2 levels 5 times higher than today.
This is the onset
of the runaway greenhouse instability.
«A Nongrey Calculation
of the Runaway Greenhouse: Implications for Venus» Past and Present.»
Perhaps further discussion
of runaway greenhouse stuff should be moved to the Venus discussion — raypierre]
John Davies concludes: «The world is probably at the start
of a runaway Greenhouse Event which will end most human life on Earth before 2040.»
[Response: What happened in the Eocene wouldn't count as a runaway in the sense
of the runaway greenhouse that brought Venus to its present toasty state.
Note that there is no inherent warning
of a runaway greenhouse in climate patterns.
That way they could look at the planet's molecular makeup for signs
of runaway greenhouse gases that could indicate an inhospitable Venus - like planet.
It may seem surprising to people, but you can look at something like Mars, which has a very thin atmosphere, and you can look at something like Venus which we tend to think of as sort of having this rather heavy, clouded atmosphere, which [is] hellishly warm because
of runaway greenhouse effect, and on both of those planets you are seeing this phenomenon of the atmosphere leaking away, is actually what directly has led to those very different outcomes for those planets; the specifics of what happened as the atmosphere started to go in each case [made] all the difference.
If the planet is only one Earth mass, Jenkins says, any life there might be near its end; the world would be on the verge
of a runaway greenhouse effect, with gravity too weak to prevent its life - giving water from boiling off into space due to rising surface temperatures.
Not exact matches
Climate scientists tell us that to keep the rise
of global temperature above the pre-industrial level at below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) in order to avoid
runaway global warming, the world must cut
greenhouse gas emissions by 15 percent per year starting in 2020.
That could cause a
runaway greenhouse effect in the later part
of the century.
«Significant» reductions needed The U.N. Environment Programme's «Emissions Gap 2012» report cautions that even if nations meet their strictest pledges, the world will not be able to cut its output
of greenhouse gases in time to prevent
runaway global warming (ClimateWire, Nov. 21).
Release
of methane hydrates has previously been suggested as a mechanism to drive
runaway greenhouse events, as warming oceans releases trapped methane that causes further warming and releases more methane.
At higher temperatures, less
of the gas is absorbed, and the ocean releases more carbon dioxide into the air, contributing to a
runaway greenhouse effect.
«If we find all
of these planets in the Venus Zone have a
runaway greenhouse - gas effect, then we know that the distance a planet is from its star is a major determining factor,» Kane added.
Water evaporating from the oceans may set off a
runaway greenhouse effect that turns Earth into a damp version
of Venus, wrapped permanently in a thick, white blanket
of cloud.
Another process knows as a «
runaway greenhouse» occurs due to the increased
greenhouse effect
of water vapor in the lower atmosphere, which further drives evaporation and more warming.
Some
of these planets orbiting low - mass stars could experience very slow water loss that could last up to the lifetime
of the star, which could allow habitable conditions to persist even during a moist or
runaway greenhouse.
We show that planets near the inner edge
of the habitable zone should generally first enter a moist
greenhouse state, although planets around the coolest stars we analyzed should directly transition into a
runaway greenhouse state instead.
Yang, J., F. Ding, R.M. Ramirez, W.R. Peltier, Y. Hu & Y. Liu, Abrupt climate transition
of icy worlds from snowball to moist or
runaway greenhouse, Nature Geoscience, doi: 10.1038 / ngeo2994, 2017
To get a
runaway of that sort, you need a reservoir
of greenhouse gas that goes into the atmosphere to ever greater extents as temperature increases.
Had comets, asteroids, or meteorites delivered Earth's water, the energy
of such impacting bodies would have vaporized the transported water, leading to a
runaway greenhouse on Earth, that would have made life on Earth permanently impossible.
C. Carreau, ASPERA - 4 & MAG teams, Venus Express, ESA Annotated image illustrating loss
of hydrogen through plasma wake Venus may have lost oceans
of water due to a
runaway greenhouse effect which evaporated water into the upper atmosphere, where ultraviolet light dissociated water into ionized atomic hydrogen and oxygen (some later incorporated into carbon dioxide) that were blown away by the Solar wind due to the lack
of a strong magnetic field like the Earth's (more).
Toward colder extremes, as the area
of sea ice grows, the planet approaches
runaway snowball - Earth conditions, and at high temperatures it can approach a
runaway greenhouse effect (8).
«The world has just ten years to reverse surging
greenhouse gas emissions or risk
runaway climate change that could make many parts
of the planet uninhabitable.»
Four and a half billion years after its birth, the shrouded planet is much too hot to support the presence
of liquid water on its surface because
of its dense carbon dioxide atmosphere and sulfuric acid clouds, which retain too much radiative heat from the Sun through a
runaway greenhouse effect.
The United Nations scientific community is pointing to the overwhelming evidence that global warming, from increased
greenhouse gas emissions, is propelling us towards an irreversible
runaway melting
of the ice caps and northern permafrost while rising temperature cause massive forest fires.
then @ 191 accuse UN IPCC / climatology
of «unconscionable and a dereliction
of responsibility» How this accusation links with your comment @ 192 where climatology harnesses the expletive & Hansen's pronouncement that a human - fueled «low - end
runaway greenhouse» is «conceivable» — how this links in is not made plain.
The idea is that
runaway greenhouse effects derived from the (end - Permian) eruption
of the Siberian Traps and the (end - Cretaceous) asteroid impact and / or eruption
of the Deccan Traps contributed to these extinctions which evidently did remove > 50 %
of species.
James E. Hansen, the prominent NASA climatologist who has become an outspoken advocate for sharp cuts in
greenhouse gases, complained last year about the «reticence»
of many
of his peers when considering the risk
of runaway ice loss within the lives
of today's children.
The IPCC predictions are serious enough without some
of the alarmist tendencies to overstate things about
runaway greenhouse effect or oceans rising multiple feet.
Rasmus, I think there's a good number
of people in the research community interested in the
runaway greenhouse effect, although maybe not so many traditional atmospheric scientists.
There's also a number
of interesting applications in the evolution
of Earth's atmosphere that branch off from the
runaway greenhouse physics, for example how fast a magma - ocean covered early Earth ends up cooling — you can't lose heat to space
of more than about 310 W / m2 or so for an Earth - sized planet with an efficient water vapor feedback, so it takes much longer for an atmosphere - cloaked Earth to cool off from impact events than a body just radiating at sigmaT ^ 4.
I've also criticized Jim Hansen's version
of the «
runaway greenhouse» that he has outlined in his book.
It would seem to be required that very drastic warming
of the deep ocean is the only way that this source
of Methane would be released and trigger a «
runaway»
greenhouse warming.
There is good evidence
of past
runaway greenhouse events.
It is therefore a mistake to imply that the four
of us collectively wrote, or agreed with, the one answer you printed in the piece.Ray Pierrehumbert has responded well in the comments to the issue
of the possibility
of a true
runaway greenhouse effect — that phrase is not appropriate for the likely range
of future [
greenhouse gas] concentrations in the next century.
What I meant (what I thought you meant) by Chuvian
runaway was a
runaway of an extent more limited (covering a smaller range
of temperatures that can't be at equilibrium) than the big ice - albedo and H2O - vapor
greenhouse runaway feedbacks
of snowball and «steamball» conditions.
The most extreme risk envisioned in all climate studies is surely a
runaway greenhouse effect, in which human activities cause a buildup
of CO2 to a level (ca. 1400 ppm).
Even CO2 which is a better
greenhouse gas than methane (when comparing them side - by - side in equal concentrations) does not trigger a
runaway greenhouse, even in studies where it becomes the substantial part
of the atmosphere.
Because if it dose we might be stuck down the rabit whole for good because
of runaway global warming caused by more bushfires and more melting
of the permafrost releasing
greenhouse gases and establishing a positive feedback loop.
In any case, any real physical process can not sum to infinity, else Venus may be outshining the rest
of the galaxy from its infinite
runaway greenhouse effect giving it infinite temperature.