From NASA Goddard and the “runaway greenhouse” department:
Venus may have had a shallow liquid-water ocean and habitable surface temperatures for up to 2 billion years of its early history, according to computer modeling of the planet’s ancient climate by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.
The findings, published this week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, were obtained with a model similar to the type used to predict future climate change on Earth.
“Many of the same tools we use to model climate change on Earth can be adapted to study climates on other planets, both past and present,” said Michael Way, a researcher at GISS and the paper’s lead author. “These results show ancient Venus may have been a very different place than it is today.”
Venus today is a hellish world. It has a crushing carbon dioxide atmosphere 90 times as thick as Earth’s. There is almost no water vapor. Temperatures reach 864 degrees Fahrenheit (462 degrees Celsius) at its surface.
Scientists long have theorized that Venus formed out of ingredients similar to Earth’s, but followed a different evolutionary path. Measurements by NASA’s Pioneer mission to Venus in the 1980s first suggested Venus originally may have had an ocean. However, Venus is closer to the sun than Earth and receives far more sunlight. As a result, the planet’s early ocean evaporated, water-vapor molecules were broken apart by ultraviolet radiation, and hydrogen escaped to space. With no water left on the surface, carbon dioxide built up in the atmosphere, leading to a so-called runaway greenhouse effect that created present conditions.
Previous studies have shown that how fast a planet spins on its axis affects whether it has a habitable climate. A day on Venus is 117 Earth days. Until recently, it was assumed that a thick atmosphere like that of modern Venus was required for the planet to have today’s slow rotation rate. However, newer research has shown that a thin atmosphere like that of modern Earth could have produced the same result. That means an ancient Venus with an Earth-like atmosphere could have had the same rotation rate it has today.
Another factor that impacts a planet’s climate is topography. The GISS team postulated ancient Venus had more dry land overall than Earth, especially in the tropics. That limits the amount of water evaporated from the oceans and, as a result, the greenhouse effect by water vapor. This type of surface appears ideal for making a planet habitable; there seems to have been enough water to support abundant life, with sufficient land to reduce the planet’s sensitivity to changes from incoming sunlight.
Way and his GISS colleagues simulated conditions of a hypothetical early Venus with an atmosphere similar to Earth’s, a day as long as Venus’ current day, and a shallow ocean consistent with early data from the Pioneer spacecraft. The researchers added information about Venus’ topography from radar measurements taken by NASA’s Magellan mission in the 1990s, and filled the lowlands with water, leaving the highlands exposed as Venusian continents. The study also factored in an ancient sun that was up to 30 percent dimmer. Even so, ancient Venus still received about 40 percent more sunlight than Earth does today.
“In the GISS model’s simulation, Venus’ slow spin exposes its dayside to the sun for almost two months at a time,” co-author and fellow GISS scientist Anthony Del Genio said. “This warms the surface and produces rain that creates a thick layer of clouds, which acts like an umbrella to shield the surface from much of the solar heating. The result is mean climate temperatures that are actually a few degrees cooler than Earth’s today.”
The research was done as part of NASA’s Planetary Science Astrobiology program through the Nexus for Exoplanet System Science (NExSS) program, which seeks to accelerate the search for life on planets orbiting other stars, or exoplanets, by combining insights from the fields of astrophysics, planetary science, heliophysics, and Earth science. The findings have direct implications for future NASA missions, such as the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite and James Webb Space Telescope, which will try to detect possible habitable planets and characterize their atmospheres.
###
Irrespective of whether it is good or bad sci-fi, it is irrelevant speculation based on models tuned to give a specific result…this is just speculation about what might have been when the sun was new based on numerical methods chosen by humans (ugly bags of mostly water)
“Many of the same tools we use to model climate change on Earth can be adapted to” ….
prove Elvis still lives, that Al Gore is really the tooth fairy and that windmills can be used to move Earth to a safer orbit when CO2 rises to levels at which eggs can be fried on Greenland ice pack at midday.
My models show that Elvis is in fact, ManBearPig.
How well do we know surface temperatures of Venus? How many measurements have been made? What is an average day temperature, and an average night temperature? At equator, and near poles?
We know because there were landing probes that landed and got fried/melted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venera
How many measurements would it be? Less than five? Over five? Day or night?
All within 1 °C. I postulate rapid CO2 radiant sharing!
Earth will experience an opposite path. We will end up like Mars and long before the sun evolves to be too hot. As volcanism slows and then stops on Earth, CO2 in the atmosphere will decline. Plants will eventually decline, and finally fail as will the animals that depend on the plants. Over time Earth will also lose its water vapor. As subduction slows and then stops, the water cycle in the mantle will stop. The magnetic field will weaken and water vapor will be stripped by the solar wind. At some point we end up looking much more like Mars than like Venus. Maybe at some point it gets cold enough for large bodies of water to freeze over completely and these will get covered by dust and sand locking even more water out of the atmospheric cycle. Ways to extend the life of our atmosphere? Maybe bury nuclear waste in subduction zones, maybe unlocking the CO2 in limestone, I don’t know. There’s probably much less than 1 billion years left of a habitable atmosphere, I figure closer to about 300 million years.
So we’re getting close to peak atmosphere? Frightening.
prepared ‘worsening’ ain’t challenging.
Life will adapt to ever worsening conditions, nicotin or Schierlingsbecher effect. Dying emotions won’t suspend depressions.
Hansen told us some years ago that, according to his model, if our planet contiued the way it is going, the oceans would boil and we would arrive at Venus-like conditions. Thus it seems reasonable that if we start with Venus and run the same model backwards, we should eventually arrive at Earth-like conditions.
My God! It is just the pressure as explained by Mr Cotton.
And how are those models of Earth’s climate working out for us? (H.R. recalls recent posts by Mr. Tisdale and Christopher Monckton of Brenchley). Why oh why would anyone believe the CHIMP models are suitable for modeling the climate of Venus?
Who in their right mind thinks they know enough about the variables of Venus to model anything even closely resembling how things work on Venus. Waste of time money and irrelevant, pointless.
The only possible use this would have is trying to reanimate the “earth could end up like Venus because of CO2” claims, each of which has been thoroughly invalidated.
Is this meant to be a joke?
How could they possible model the configuration of continents and ocean?
What about the composition and pressure of the atmosphere?
Even if by some fluke they guessed these correctly, because GCMs are hopelessly bad are predicting the climate here on earth, why would they be any better on venus?
It is hard to believe that taxpayers money is used to finance this utter nonsense.
Comments are overly sensitive. The story is thought provoking.
In light of Peter Franks presentation on modeling uncertainties over at Heartland I’d say their projections don’t even qualify as unreliable speculation. More in the realm of “maybe possible”.
DMA,
More like,
“IF gravity becomes a repellent force, then it may be possible their modeling exercise of Venus is correct.”Upon further thought, it occurred to me that the IPCC problem is that they are using models suitable to Venus’ climate to model Earth’s climate. Maybe those 100+ models are correct… for Venus.
Says it all. In 1 sentence!
Men are from Mars, except for James Hansen. He is a closet Venusian who boils salted water with which to cook.
It is clear this is a scenario to boost a sagging GHG armageddon theory here on earth. They reach into every nook and cranny as the truth on CAGW theory looms. I remember on geological parties over 50yrs ago in northern Canada, when you scooped a tea pail of bog water to make tea at lunch, the aquatic bugs would seek out the coolest parts of the heating tea water and you could see them outlining the convection cells until they expired. I like this analogy.
Interesting how truth can slip out when they get away from earth:
“This warms the surface and produces rain that creates a thick layer of clouds, which acts like an umbrella to shield the surface from much of the solar heating. The result is mean climate temperatures that are actually a few degrees cooler than Earth’s today.”
So they know that clouds from evaporation of ocean water is a negative feedback and they have been lying about it in the case of the earth’s climate. I’m placing a pauper’s bet that when the paper comes out, they will have nixed this theory damning (although obvious) statement.
IPCC AR5 says clouds have a -20 W/m^2 RF. Compare that to CO2’s +2!
IF my aunt had balls, she could have been my uncle.
Since Venus is half the distance from the sun as compared to earth itsTSI will be twice as intense, about 2,400 W/m^2 as compared to 1,368 W/m^2. If the earth were transported to Venus’ orbit, all else being equal, the average surface temperature would increase from about 60 F to about 120 F. That would not be habitable for earth’s current bio forms.
It’s more like 2/3ths the distance (67m vs 93m).
My back of the envelope calculations puts the Sun’s forcing 2.6 times that of Earth (if you consider Venus’ profile to the Earth’s profile).
Numbers, numbers, number.!?
Sun Radius…………….696,000…………km
Sun Spherical Area…6.087E+12…….km^2
Luminosity…………….3.847E+26……..W
Power flux…………….6.320E+07……W/m^2
S-B σ……………………..5.670E-08……W/m^2 – K^4
Surface Temp……………5,778.0………..K
Earth
Orbital radius……….1.496E+08……….km
Area at Orbit………..2.812E+17……….km^2
Power Flux……………….1,368.0……..W/m^2
Venus
Orbital radius………1.082E+08………..km….……72.3% of earth
Orbital Area………..1.471E+17………..km^2
Power Flux……………..2,614.6……….W/m^2….191.1% of earth
Move earth to Venus’ orbit w/ 191% power flux: Q = U * A * dT
Earth OLR power flux……240.0……W/m^2
Surface temperature…….288.0 K
Top of Troposphere…………15……km
Lapse rate……………………….9.8….C/km
Top of Troposphere T….141.0……K
dT 288 – 141..…………..147.0…..C
OLR / A = U * dT
240/147 = U………………..1.633 W/m^2 * m^2 * dK
At Venus TMI….240*191%………….458.7…..W/m^2
dT at 1.633 U..…………….280.98…..C
288 + dT = predicted surface temperature…..568.98…..K
No habitation there, no water, either.
Questions?
Nicholas the power flux at earth is between 1360 to 1362 w/m^2. That’s been since at least 2001. Overestamiting numbers doesn’t lend to scientific certainty.
rishrac
“Nicholas the power flux at earth is between 1360 to 1362 w/m^2. That’s been since at least 2001. Overestamiting numbers doesn’t lend to scientific certainty.”
What I presented is a rock solid math calculation using numbers subject to significant uncertainties.
We’re talking about 0.6%. Nothing in the real world is measured to four significant figures with any solid confidence. Posted solar temps range from 5,750 K to 6,000 K. What do you suppose the uncertainties are on diameters? luminosity?
Plus 1,368 W/m^2 is the power flux on a spherical surface at the diameter of the orbit which for all intents is a flat surface, radiation arrives perpendicular to the earth’s cross sectional area. A sphere of r has four times the area as a disc of r. Divide 1,368 by 4 = 342 W/m^2 which is the ISR shown on Trenberth et al. power flux balance diagrams. 340 is sometimes shown – 340 * 4 = 1,340.
Trenberth et al 2011jcli24 Figure 10 shows data for 8 balances, 7 of them show atmospheric cooling. All of them have significant uncertainties.
One popular GHE theory power flux balance (“Atmospheric Moisture…. Trenberth et. al. 2011 Figure 10) has a spontaneous perpetual loop (333 W/m^2) flowing from cold to hot violating three fundamental thermodynamic laws. (1. Spontaneous energy out of nowhere, 2. perpetual loop w/o work, 3. cold to hot w/o work, 4. doesn’t matter because what’s in the system stays in the system) Physics must be optional for “climate” science. What really counts is the net W/m^2 balance at ToA which 7 out of 8 re-analyses included in the above cited paper concluded the atmosphere was cooling, not warming (+/- 12.3 W/m^2). Of course Dr. Trenberth says they are wrong because their cooling results are not confirmed by his predicted warming, which hasn’t happened for twenty years. (“All of the net TOA imbalances are not tenable and all except CFSR imply a cooling of the planet that clearly has not occurred.”)
Refer to Trenberth’s Figure 10 (Trenberth et al 2011jcli24).
342 W/m^2 enters the ToA (100 km). About 100 W/m^2 are reflected by the albedo leaving about 242 to be absorbed by the atmosphere, 80, and surface, 160. Leaving the surface are 17 – convection, 80 – evapo, 63 LWIR.
All of the numbers are now accounted for, there is no source for the net, circulating 333. The net 333 is the result of counting the same energy two different ways, a basic bookkeeping error. Entering 288 K in S-B to get 390 W/m^2 is double counting the same energy.
Downwelling
The bulk of the atmosphere’s mass is contained in the troposphere (topping out at 15 km). The lapse rate of 9.8 C/km means that the tropospheric temperature ranges from 288 K to 126 K. The temperature at 30,000 feet or 9 km is about -40 C or 233 K. Because of their low density the emissivity of gases is low, for CO2 0.10 at 1 atm to .01 at .001 atm (Lallemant et.al. 1996, Fig 3), “back” radiating in ALL directions, say 25% back to surface.
For example: -40 C / 233 K and average ε = .05 = S-B W/m^2 of 8.36 * .25 “back” wash = 2.09 W/m^2. NOT 333. Wow, same number that IPCC gets!
So the upwelling/downwelling/”back” radiation numbers simply don’t work.
Someday climate modeling will tell us that climate change will threaten all the Pokemon.
Pulled that assumption out of their butt they did. Probably other scenarios of land configurations didn’t yield them their preconceived results.
We have no idea of Venus’ geological history, none, nada, nil. Such musings are pointless.
Venus has much in common with a comet and a planet.
‘Venus has much in common with a comet and a planet’. That’s interesting, Mark – Helsinki. Could you tell us more?
If I may, by inverse square law that is entirely twaddle and bullshit. 90% of venus’s surface temperature is from direct heat input, not some kind of insulative re-radiation. It is a saturated environment.
I’m surprised the models don’t show that Venus is habitable today, but won’t be once human settlers start using air conditioning.
/snark
A little bit off topic but relates to increasing CO2, models and weather/climate on earth.
For the past decade+, we’ve been bombarded with studies telling us that increasing CO2 and the resulting climate change will have an increasing negative effect on crop yields…..based on assumptions and models.
The USDA just released it’s August crop report 20 minutes ago. Yes, I know that it was the weather this year which made the biggest contribution to the 2016 record crops. Last years record crops were also caused by excellent growing season weather. However, it has been the IMPROVING weather over the past 4 decades…… that has been the most favorable since records have been kept that has been a massive positive. So despite this being just one year, these observations in the real world continue to follow the trend………which is in the complete opposite direction of models and projections from scientists who do studies that show negative consequences.
The only reason this sort of junk agronomy/plant science can continue is that they never have to be accountable in the real world marketplace, where crops are grown, brought/sold and priced.
Were they to apply their projections in the real world, they would have gone broke/lost their consulting jobs in the first year.
http://www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYRPT/crop0816.txt
Released August 12, 2016, by the National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS), Agricultural Statistics Board, United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA).
Corn Production Up 11 Percent from 2015(which was a record year)
Soybean Production Up 3 Percent from 2015(a record year)
Cotton Production Up 23 Percent from 2015
Winter Wheat Production Up 2 Percent from July Forecast
“Corn production is forecast at 15.2 billion bushels, up 11 percent from last
year. Based on conditions as of August 1, yields are expected to average
175.1 bushels per acre, up 6.7 bushels from 2015. If realized, this will be
the highest yield and production on record for the United States. Area
harvested for grain is forecast at 86.6 million acres, unchanged from the
June forecast, but up 7 percent from 2015.
Soybean production is forecast at a record 4.06 billion bushels, up 3 percent
from last year. Based on August 1 conditions, yields are expected to average
a record 48.9 bushels per acre, up 0.9 bushel from last year. Area for
harvest in the United States is forecast at a record 83.0 million acres,
unchanged from the June forecast but up 1 percent from 2015. Planted area for
the Nation is estimated at a record 83.7 million acres, also unchanged from
June.
All cotton production is forecast at 15.9 million 480-pound bales, up
23 percent from last year. Yield is expected to average 800 pounds per
harvested acre, up 34 pounds from last year. Upland cotton production is
forecast at 15.3 million 480-pound bales, up 23 percent from 2015. Pima
cotton production is forecast at 565,000 bales, up 30 percent from last year.
All wheat production, at 2.32 billion bushels, is up 3 percent from the
July forecast and up 13 percent from 2015. Based on August 1 conditions, the
United States yield is forecast at 52.6 bushels per acre, up 1.3 bushels from
last month and up 9 bushels from last year.”
All this hoopla about 2015 and 2016 being the hottest years eva. How about some relevant information like this(some people might consider food production important) about the realities of how its actually effecting life on this greening up planet.
Pigs might have flown on Venus, if Venus ever had pigs (which they might have), and if pigs could fly (which they could, if they had wings, which they could).
Further study is required of course.
Yumm, nom nom !! I love BBQ
BioBob,
It is a well known fact that applying a low, slow heat, usually provided by hickory or perhaps apple wood charcoal, and suitable application of various natural
seasoningsground plant products makes dissecting a pig (in the scientific search for pig wings) a much less onerous task.In the American South, this is a topic of extensive research by scientists, citizen scientists, and laymen alike.
Co-author and fellow GISS scientist Anthony Del Genio said. “This warms the surface and produces rain that creates a thick layer of clouds, which acts like an umbrella to shield the surface from much of the solar heating. The result is mean climate temperatures that are actually a few degrees cooler than Earth’s today.”
Is this the final proof that climate models get it wrong? Physics of clouds. extreme strong negative water vapor, rain and cloud feedback.
“Venus may have had a shallow liquid-water ocean and habitable surface temperatures for up to 2 billion years of its early history”
It MAY have had any number of things. Virtually any scenario that does not violate basic physics laws. I suppose if you throw in multiversus, then anything is possible. We don’t care about POSSIBLE, we care about PROBABLE and how that conclusion was arrived at. If you used computer models, your conclusion will subjected to intense scrutiny, since computer models are not real life. (Yes, I know you scientists are shocked, but computer models are not reality. Deal with it.)
Do you ever wonder if all this social networking and constant use of cell phones, computer games, etc is designed to create a population that does believe reality is what is on a computer screen?
Anyone here who doesn’t want to talk out of their ass about how this is “science fiction” or somehow ridiculous, here is a link to the preprint on Arxiv: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.00706v1.pdf .
A lot of comments are asking snarky questions, most of which would easily be addressed by reading the paper. Skepticism is one thing, but the comments here have fallen over the edge to wilful ignorance.
Marcus Holm,
I followed your link and and it included 9 ‘ifs’ as well as 6 ‘may have’ and 1 ‘may’, along with 5 ‘estimate(s, ed).’
It is a simulation entirely based on assumptions of conditions a few billion years ago albeit informed by limited data which has only been recently acquired.
Extreme skepticism of the results of the simulation is warranted.
Thank you very much for the link. (Please note: that was a sincere thanks and not snark or sarcasm, Marcus.)
Where did they calculate what the daytime surface temperature gets to (even with the 80% Albedo assumption).
Answer is: they DIDN’T.
Its all global mean climate model simulations.
By Noon, on the very first day of a 117 day long solar day, the surface tempeature at the equator rises to 601K (even with 80% Albedo). At 601K, there is no water and everything in the top 5 metres of the surface that can be baked into a gas is baked into gas and hellish Venus has begun. By Noon, on the very first day.
I remember when NASA was all about space exploration. What the heck happened to this once proud and inspirational organization? Mewling progressivism. That’s what.