Venus is not an example of runaway greenhouse (was Designing SPS to accomod)

On 06/24/2013 01:37 PM, hitssquad wrote:
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Joel 'Twisty' Nye wrote:
>> On 06/24/2013 11:14 AM, hitssquad wrote:
>>>> CO2 [...] is heating our planet's surface
>>> That would be a net benefit for people.
>> "Net benefit," no. It would only be a gross benefit to some people, but
>> Comparatively few people die of hypothermia
> It isn't just hypothermia. Sea ice kills people both directly and indirectly. Because sea ice interferes with transportation, people would be better off without it (e.g. they would live longer and healthier, etc.). A warmer world would therefore be a better world for people at least as far as it would have less sea ice.
The argument parallels old alt.pave.the.earth mentality, but has no
scientific merit. You're not talking about sea ice creeping into
neighborhoods to kill citizens in their sleep; you're talking about
miscalculated engineering risks of aspirations in transport. Natural ice
reserves play an important role in regulating climate, since the larger
volumes of ice act as "nature's thermostat" to exothermically freeze and
endothermically melt at the transitional temperature of water's freezing
point.

>> compared to heat related deaths like heat stroke and dehydration.
> Heat stroke and dehydration aren't environmental-heat related. See:
> http://www.amazon.com/Waterlogged-Serious-Problem-Overhydration-Endurance/dp/145042497X

While "water poisoning" is a real phenomenon, this substance abuse
usually associated with extreme sports is much farther from the topic of
environment. It would be pseudoscience to suggest deaths by dehydration
and heat stroke -- whether in deserts or in crowded cities of
undercooled buildings -- "aren't environmental-heat related." Have you
ever *met* a coroner?
>> we're already slicing up the countryside with roadways
> That isn't CO2 and isn't related to nuclear power.

Mankind's contribution to the planetary increase in CO2 can be measured
in large part by doing simple math regarding the millions of tons we
consume of fossil fuels.
For instance: Just the gasoline consumed/burned by just the United
States is about 367 million gallons *per day*. That's roughly 8.5
pounds per gallon of gas. Over 6 pounds of that is carbon, and we'll
ignore for now the portion that is hydrogen. So since molecular O2 from
the atmosphere is roughly 32 atomic units, and one carbon for CO2 adds
roughly 12 atomic units, then every atom of carbon burned yeilds 8/3 its
weight in resulting carbon dioxide. ie A 6+ pound gallon of gas expells
over 16 pounds of CO2 exhaust when burned with atmospheric O2. (Googled
math check: the actual measured weight for gos with 10% ethanol comes in
at 17.68 pounds CO2 per gallon.) So just the daily consumption of
*just* gasoline in *just* the USA alone yeilds 6.488 Billion pounds, or
call it 3.244 Million Tons, of CO2 added *every day*. (Diesel yeilds
even more.) To say the very least, for clear evidences like these,
Mankind makes a measurable and statistically very significant
contribution to the CO2 buildup in our atmosphere.
>> that isolate or endanger the migration paths
> Install migration tunnels.

A nice suggestion to state in the imperative... but that's a lot of
engineering that few would see as practical expense, particularly in
legal/safety accountability. One could also wish we made better use of
piping the CO2 wastes into the agricultural localities that could
benefit from them, rather than hosing our own air supply.
>> The life web of Earth is imperiled
> People don't depend on the life web of Earth.

I'm glad to hear you've perfected living solely off auto-transformative
photosynthesis so you no longer ingest DNA. But people do inescapibly
nurish themselves off of life... thank you for playing. Bye bye.
>> Frogs, as an entire phylogenetic ORDER (Anura) are facing extinctions in record number.
> People don't depend on Anura, and Anura doesn't seem to be going extinct, regardless.
You should at least *try* to start to fact-check your statement, like
wikipedia Frog. The exinctions they *have been* experiencing these past
50 years are alarming. Instead, your response is imaginary conjecture
with no offered evidence nor real facts.
>> Warming oceans are intensifying heavy/damaging weather.
> Human deaths from extreme weather are on the decline, and have been since 1900:
>
> "Wealth and Safety: The Amazing Decline in Deaths from Extreme Weather in an Era of Global Warming, 19002010, Reason Foundation, Policy Study No. 393, September 2011."
>
> +++++---+++++
> Aggregate mortality attributed to all extreme weather events globally has declined by more than 90% since the 1920s, in spite of a four-fold rise in population and much more complete reporting of such events. The aggregate mortality rate declined by 98%, largely due to decreased mortality in three main areas:
>
> Deaths and death rates from droughts, which were responsible for approximately 60% of cumulative deaths due to extreme weather events from 19002010, are more than 99.9% lower than in the 1920s.
>
> Deaths and death rates for floods, responsible for over 30% of cumulative extreme weather deaths, have declined by over 98% since the 1930s.
>
> Deaths and death rates for storms (i.e. hurricanes, cyclones, tornados, typhoons), responsible for around 7% of extreme weather deaths from 19002008, declined by more than 55% since the 1970s.
> +++++---+++++
>
> This is good news for people. Again, whatever changes are taking place seem to be benefitting people, on net.

Fatalities are a subset of types of damage. And I'll concede that we
continue to live longer safer lives as a society. (From personal
experience, I often compare the violent/expensive Cincinnati riots of
2001 to the deadlier/senseless Cincinnati riots of 1884.) But the NOAA
government statistics are more varied than your article suggests, and
refute your conclusion.
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/hazstats/resources/weather_fatalities.pdf
Comparing 30 years past to ten years: Lightening safety has consistently
improved in the last century. Flood fatalities show a small decline (76
avg v 89 avg), but both Hurricane and Tornado fatalities show *much
larger increases* (109 avg v 74 avg, and 109 avg v 47 avg respectively).
>> killing off aquatic life
> People don't depend on wild aquatic life.

It's all farmed these days, is it? Or do you just aspire to make overt
falsehoods about the well-documented livelihoods of people? There are
villages and cities who depend upon sea fishing, and people need aquatic
life both directly and indirectly.

>> you still drink sodas, don't you?
> No.

Why not? Is there something wrong with carbonated, acidified soft drinks?
>> Venus is a *splendid* example of GHG
> The question was whether Venus is an example of a RUNAWAY greenhouse effect.

Well we may both be right there: For you to back just your subject
header, "runaway GHG" likely has too little data for a case one way or
another. Yet my statement was rather about the veracity of the article
you cited and your summary, as I quoted the contents of that post rather
than its header. There is good reason the blog author failed in his
attempts to get published; the evidence clearly shows him wrong. CO2
heats Venus hotter than Mercury, plain and simple.

~ Twisty