Not exact matches
About 1980ish, some old ideas like the
greenhouse effect were brought out of mothballs and re-examined with new tools and techniques; simultaneously several researchers and theoreticians released their notes, published, or otherwise
got together and there was a surprising consilience and not a small amount of mixing with old school hippy ecologism on some of the topics that became the roots of Climate Change science (before it was called Global Warming); innovations in mathematics were also applied to climate thought; supercomputers (though «disappointing» on weather forecasting) allowed demonstration of plausibility of
runaway climate
effects, comparison of scales of
effects, and the possibility of climate models combined with a good understanding of the limits of predictive power of weather models.
The temperature at the poles of Venus (over 720K) can not be explained by any «
runaway greenhouse effect» because there is less than 1W / m ^ 2 from the Sun that
gets through the Venus atmosphere to the surface at the poles.
Though, ya
got ta love the silly claim that Earth would have hit a
runaway greenhouse effect like Venus, had it not been for some mountains forming, sucking up all the CO2.
kbray asks: How much atmosphere on Mars do you need to produce the «
runaway greenhouse effect» (think Hansen) to
get Venus - like temperatures?
Without convection you could
get a «
runaway»
greenhouse effect, but since the atmosphere isn't a closed system with physical barriers, convection is negative feedback to warming.