Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Venus' Stop/Start History Highlighted By Probe

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the you've-got-a-little-acidic-atmosphere-on-you dept.

Space 69

An anonymous reader writes "Science Daily reports on scientific findings from the ESA's Venus Express probe. The device, which is even now orbiting Earth's sister planet, is feeding back data hinting at Venus' origins. Initially, the probe has found, the planet evolved far too quickly. As a result Venus' liquid oceans were boiled away. With those gone, the planet's development stalled and ceased. 'They may have started out looking very much the same,' said Professor Taylor, 'but increasingly we have evidence that Venus lost most of its water and Earth lost most of its atmospheric carbon dioxide ... The interesting thing is that the physics is the same in both cases. The great achievement of Venus Express is that it is putting the climatic behaviour of both planets into a common framework of understanding.'"

cancel ×

69 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

global warming comparison in 3,2,1.... (0, Offtopic)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#22978382)

you know you want to.

Re:global warming comparison in 3,2,1.... (0, Troll)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#22978712)

Haven't you heard, global warming stopped. Now it is called climate change to keep the funding going.

But temps haven't risen in the last 10 years or so from what what I have been told. They fixed it by signing the Kyoto treaty in 1998 even though no one has implemented it yet. Signing the thing was enough. They expect 2008 to be cooler and I have read in some slanted places that it will continue to drop all the temperature gains we seen by the increased Co2 without loosing or removing the Co2. It is amazing what we can do with ink.

Re:global warming comparison in 3,2,1.... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22978768)

What does diatomic Cobalt have to do with anything?

Re:global warming comparison in 3,2,1.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22978984)

I wish I had mod points for that. Beautiful.

Re:global warming comparison in 3,2,1.... (1)

servognome (738846) | more than 6 years ago | (#22979060)

it will continue to drop all the temperature gains we seen by the increased Co2 without loosing or removing the Co2.
What are you talking about, I'm doing my part loosing CO2 *revs the car engine*

Re:global warming comparison in 3,2,1.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22979074)

My parent is a flamebait, or just really ignorant.

Re:global warming comparison in 3,2,1.... (5, Insightful)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 6 years ago | (#22979484)

I don't understand why people seem to use the label "climate change" against the people who warn against it. Perhaps, indeed, the "global warming" movement of yesteryear has changed its terminology to "climate change", but why would that discredit them? To me, it seems that "climate change" is simply a better term. After all, if we manage to wipe ourselves out by causing climate change, it won't matter if it was because we made it too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry, or too radcliffy.

The real question isn't wether you like the "climate change" doomsayers or the words they use. The real question is if our activities are harming the environment to the extent that we should be worried about it, and, if so, what we can do to improve things. Launching ad hominems at the people who are pointing out a potential threat doesn't do anything to make the world a better place. What we need is more awareness and less bias. In the meantime, I will work on reducing the emissions I cause, not just to be on the safe side, but also because I think it is a fun challenge. I don't _know_ the truth, so I won't condemn you for driving an SUV or using incandescent light bulbs if you are so inclined, but I will be angry with you for insulting the people who are trying to warn you, especially if it turns out they were right.

Incidentally, I think that the effects of global warming are much more obvious in other aspects of the climate than in average temperature; for example, a barely noticeable increase of a few degrees in average temperature could bring about a much stronger increase in rain and storms. But that's just what I think, based on things I heard, so don't take my word for it. Do your own research...and not just to find publications that agree with you, but to actually find out the truth. I think you will find that the issue is much more complex than "only idiots believe in climate change" or "only idiots deny climate change".

Names are important (0, Troll)

Quila (201335) | more than 6 years ago | (#22980376)

When they nail you to a position. In the 70s it was Global Cooling, then they switched to Global Warming when that didn't pan out, and now they're going with Climate Change so they're right no matter what, and the funding keeps coming in and the politicians keep gaining power.

Funding? What? People like to use oil company funding as a derogatory. They forget that politicians vested in Climate Change also provide pro-CC funding from their vast financial resources (us).

For me, the final blow to credibility is that the solutions often seem to involve massive amounts of money going from rich countries to poor ones, one big welfare scheme. It reminds me of the old Bloom County missile defense system, wrap a trillion dollar bills around the planet.

Re:Names are important (4, Insightful)

Teancum (67324) | more than 6 years ago | (#22980860)

The problem with the global cooling argument is that there was not organized and deliberate government policy (at least anything that had teeth) that was established to deal with global cooling. It was people on the periphery of science that were complaining about that issue at the time, and generally not taken seriously in terms of anything people had to do. It was more a general worry that since ice ages (periods of massive glaciation in the northern hemisphere) were very common in the past, that they may be common in the future and perhaps in the near future.

That concern still should be there, and frankly we are at a near peak in terms of how warm the Earth's environment is at the moment for a variety of reasons. A 10 degree rise in temperatures might even be healthier economically speaking than a 10 degree drop in temperatures across the globe. Certainly a return of mile deep glaciers in the middle of North America would not only damage productive farmland but also force mass migration of millions of people... and that would only be the beginning.

The climate does change, and changes have been noted in even historical times. Northern Africa was considered the breadbasket of the Roman Empire, yet today its productivity in terms of crop production barely feeds itself. Greenland was a major Viking colony with enough people to support a full Catholic dioceses (not just an ordinary parish), but everybody moved out due to crops dying and the local climate being too cold to support a European model of agriculture and community building. Some people of European decent have return to Greenland, but even today it doesn't support nearly so large of a population as it did in the 1200's. I could use other historical examples, but the point is that change happens, so deal with it. Survival of species depends on their ability to cope with changes to their environment, and some succeed and others fail. That is called evolution.

To those moderating, remember the rules (1)

Quila (201335) | more than 6 years ago | (#22993216)

"Simply disagreeing with a comment is not a valid reason to mark it down."

Re:To those moderating, remember the rules (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22993396)

Sweeping paranoid allegations which are unsupported by fact, however, are reason to be marked Troll.

Allegations? (1)

Quila (201335) | more than 6 years ago | (#22994258)

You mean allegations that research funded by the energy industry is somehow biased, as opposed to research funded by politicians hoping to get elected on a wave of paranoia?

Truth that there was Global Cooling, then Global Warming, then Climate Change?

Truth that Climate Change is seen as a mechanism to funnel money from rich countries to poor ones? Didn't watch the Bali conference too closely, did you?

Yes, some people actually honestly disagree with the mantra and greed that fuels it.

Re:global warming comparison in 3,2,1.... (1)

Teancum (67324) | more than 6 years ago | (#22980772)

The largest problem that those who are trying to promote awareness of global warming need to start combating is to use the concept as the boogy man of every possible problem that is afflicting mankind.

Insect eating bat dying in mass number? Global Warming.
Hurricanes increasing in power and frequence? Global Warming.
Hot summers? Global Warming.
Powerful winter blizzards? Global Warming.
Missing girl? Global Warming.
Price of gasoline rising? Global Warming.
Earthquakes in strange places? Global Warming.
Republicans take control of congress? Global Warming.
Commander Taco didn't win a bet last night? Global Warming.

I could go on and on, but this is getting to the point that every "disaster" and nearly every minor problem is coached on the premise that global warming or climate change (take your choice here if you want to be politically correct) is the source of all of these ills.

Please, give it a break. If you can legitimately claim that climate change is responsible for certain changes, such as receding glaciers or measurable rises in ocean levels (I haven't seen that yet at all), I might put a little more authority on the study. But it is used far too often that it makes a mockery out of legitimate climatological studies that are trying to identify potential causes of concern.

For myself, I am convinced that there is a general global warming of the environment. I'm still undecided in terms of anthroprogenic causes, with a strong leaning to natural causes instead even though I will admit some impact by modern industrialize society on a local basis. It is a big world we live in after all.

One interesting term that I've heard that is neither climate change or global warming is "Venusforming" as a counter-point to "Terraforming". In other words, the process of making our world more Venus-like instead of trying to figure out how to make Venus more Earth-like. Frankly, I think turning the Earth into a geological/environmental twin of Venus would be just as difficult as turning Venus into something like the Earth, but then again either is a complicated process.

Re:global warming comparison in 3,2,1.... (0, Redundant)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#22981710)

I don't understand why people seem to use the label "climate change" against the people who warn against it. Perhaps, indeed, the "global warming" movement of yesteryear has changed its terminology to "climate change", but why would that discredit them? To me, it seems that "climate change" is simply a better term. After all, if we manage to wipe ourselves out by causing climate change, it won't matter if it was because we made it too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry, or too radcliffy.
Think about it. The climate changes all the time. However, the alarm was sounded over warming. When it stopped, they all the sudden changed it to change.

In comparison, if I am attempting to predict something and cause you to take a specific action by making the specific statement of if you watering your lawn will cause your well to go dry. Then when it doesn't happen change that statement to "if you water your lawn, someone's well somewhere will go dry, and attempt to claim I was still right in what I said when you and I both know that people's wells go dry for various reasons outside you watering your lawn; you would say I am crazy and attempting to scam you or something. It is perfectly reasonable to asume that I'm talking out my ass when something like that happens. On a similar side, when global warming stopped and they all the sudden claimed it was a global climate change which would or could happen for a number of reasons unrelated to Co2, you should be skeptical too. At least those of us not buying swamp land in Arizona and Florida are skeptical. I don't care what you waste your money on, just don't force me to feed your idiocies.

The real question isn't wether you like the "climate change" doomsayers or the words they use. The real question is if our activities are harming the environment to the extent that we should be worried about it, and, if so, what we can do to improve things. Launching ad hominems at the people who are pointing out a potential threat doesn't do anything to make the world a better place. What we need is more awareness and less bias. In the meantime, I will work on reducing the emissions I cause, not just to be on the safe side, but also because I think it is a fun challenge. I don't _know_ the truth, so I won't condemn you for driving an SUV or using incandescent light bulbs if you are so inclined, but I will be angry with you for insulting the people who are trying to warn you, especially if it turns out they were right.
Well, lets ask that question. When they say that Co2 emissions are causing global warming and the temperature hasn't risen since they sounded the alarm and got people to sign onto a treaty that was little more then a pyramid scheme for most developing nations, Are you harming the environment with Co2 related to your living and enjoying life? (and BTW, I can show some numbers that back up the assertion of a pyramid scam on the Kyoto accord if you need it.)

Lets, take this one step further. Do you think that forcing others to pay more because of your belief in Global warming or not, is an acceptable plan of action?
You have states attempting to sue utility companies servicing their own state in order to place a carbon emissions tax onto the utility bills when the legislation of that same states are too chicken to come right out and do it with legislation. These states aren't stupid, they know that any winnings or penalties will be added onto the electric bills that both the citizens pay to live and the states and municipalities pay to keep the government running. It will be no different then the cigarette lawsuits except instead of effect 25% of the population of the state, it will effect 100% of them.

The bias comes when government and international organizations hijack the cause in a mad attempt to push their own agenda into operation. The suing of utility companies is only a hidden tax without actually passing the legislation, Kyoto is more or less a redistribution of wealth program that is impossible to comply with because of population growth and will ultimately result in countries relocating manufacturing to their world countries or payments to them for "official" carbon credits that the third world countries aren't using. There is a reason that out of 157 some odd countries that signed onto the Kyoto accords, only 37 of them are capped in their production limits. That reason is because the carbon credits from non-limited countries become "official" credits that can be purchased and traded.

Incidentally, I think that the effects of global warming are much more obvious in other aspects of the climate than in average temperature; for example, a barely noticeable increase of a few degrees in average temperature could bring about a much stronger increase in rain and storms. But that's just what I think, based on things I heard, so don't take my word for it. Do your own research...and not just to find publications that agree with you, but to actually find out the truth. I think you will find that the issue is much more complex than "only idiots believe in climate change" or "only idiots deny climate change".
The thing is, the temperature hasn't risen since they complained about it and got the Kyoto accords signed into action. Not one country has met their pre1990 goals, China has surpassed the US in raw Co2 production which more then makes up for any remote saving from Europe. Germany is the closest to hitting the mark but that is mostly because of accounting irregularities leading into 1990 which over estimated the mark they have to shoot for and a near 0 population growth. If you look at the numbers, Germany has shown it's biggest drop the year after 1990 and has maintained a relative 1995 or so levels when the Kyoto accords wasn't signed into existence until 1998. They can account for that with nearly 0 population growth, sky high utility bills and severe unemployment rates.

This is something that even if it (global warming) was true at one time, seems to be broke now and the so called fixes seem to be more political scams then truly meaningful approaches. If you want to believe in it, or err on the safe side, or even take it as a personal challenge, fine. It you don't, fine too. But please don't expect everyone who possesses the wherewithal to see what is going on and how it is being usurped for ulterior reasons to jump on board too.

Re:global warming comparison in 3,2,1.... (5, Informative)

hattig (47930) | more than 6 years ago | (#22979898)

They'll be cooler this year from effects of La Nina. It won't reverse the general warming trend, globally.

It's called Global Climate Change because not everywhere will get warmer. Many places (Northern Europe) could get colder. Some places will get wetter, others dryer. The weather systems might get far more random in places as well.

However idiots who watched some oil funded programme on TV will now declare themselves experts on the subject and say it's bunkum. Right. Really. Your limited hours of funded popular science really make your opinion worth more than thousands of people who have spent years and decades working on this stuff?

Of course cleaning up emissions will do more than potentially slow down this global climate change (arguably man's effect is one of accelerating change, which may result in more momentum and thus higher highs ultimately), it will make the air nicer to breathe, day in, day out. This is a far better benefit. If it wasn't for this, I'd rather the money was spent on dealing with the inevitable, rather than delaying it.

Re:global warming comparison in 3,2,1.... (0, Redundant)

Teancum (67324) | more than 6 years ago | (#22980990)

However idiots who watched some oil funded programme on TV will now declare themselves experts on the subject and say it's bunkum. Right. Really. Your limited hours of funded popular science really make your opinion worth more than thousands of people who have spent years and decades working on this stuff?


So watching a two hour documentary produced by Al Gore is any better than somebody watching propaganda from some other source?

There are a number of problems with global warming/disastrous climate change in the arguments that are presented. Among them is deliberate manipulation of scientific data to promote more extreme recent climate data to promote their political agenda. Yes, falsification of scientific studies, and it doesn't take much. I've also seen a near religious tone from those who advocate the "awareness of global warming" with nearly all of the trappings of a religious society.

I'm not saying that there isn't bona fide concern about changes to our global and local environments that should be addressed, and from a conservative viewpoint the word is "stewardship". We need to be proper stewards of our environment and take reasonable steps to clean up our own messes. Certainly nobody like to breath polluted air; swim, fish, or go boating in polluted rivers or lakes; or walk across polluted ground that causes you to vomit even to see what is there.

There are some reasonable and legitimate steps that can be done, but the voices of moderation and those trying to make reasonable changes are being drowned out by lunatics on both sides of the argument: Those that want to bury their head in the sand and ignore the problem and those who want to eradicate human civilization taking us back to a hunter/gatherer lifestyle. Neither is a viable solution, so we need to find some way to work with what we have and allow our lifestyles to continue in a more environmentally friendly manner. That isn't easy to accomplish and will take decades if not centuries to achieve.

Problems to earlier pollution problems were found in previous eras, as street sewage and horse manure are no longer major problem in most industrialized communities. I have no doubt that solutions will be found for CO2, ground-level ozone, and other problems that current afflict modern societies. A regular theme in late 19th Century newspapers was concern about massive levels of pollution in cities... referring to all of the horse manure that wasn't being cleaned up and causing major health concerns. Indeed, all things considered, I think automobiles and trucks do far less harm to the environment than what they replaced.

Re:global warming comparison in 3,2,1.... (-1, Troll)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#22981906)

hey'll be cooler this year from effects of La Nina. It won't reverse the general warming trend, globally.
No, they are actually claiming that the entire world which hasn't gotten warmer in the last ten years despite all the increased Co2 emissions, will end up getting cooler and loose the warming because of La Nina. They are talking about global temps, not regional.

It's called Global Climate Change because not everywhere will get warmer. Many places (Northern Europe) could get colder. Some places will get wetter, others dryer. The weather systems might get far more random in places as well.
I'm sure they are.. However, this doesn't address the fact that temps having risen globally since 1998. This failure to perform has been pointed out before and it was strikingly close to when the change between "global warming" and "global climate change" happened. Forgive me if I'm still skeptical of their motivations.

However idiots who watched some oil funded programme on TV will now declare themselves experts on the subject and say it's bunkum. Right. Really. Your limited hours of funded popular science really make your opinion worth more than thousands of people who have spent years and decades working on this stuff?
These are the same idiots who where claiming global warming in the process. They are the ones who are releasing the global temperatures and making the statements. I would be surprised if they are oil funded, but alas it seems proper to discredit anyone who doesn't believe and having some connection to oil and so on. I mean why address their claims when we can just ignore them because someone might have known some one who's aunt's brother's dog's veterinarian had ties to big oil at some point in time of their life. Just last week my father was claiming to be worried about global warming and the effect it will have on future generation, but I happen to know that one of his mutual funds in his IRA is invested in big oil and coal companies so I told him we didn't have to listen to his concerns.

Of course cleaning up emissions will do more than potentially slow down this global climate change (arguably man's effect is one of accelerating change, which may result in more momentum and thus higher highs ultimately), it will make the air nicer to breathe, day in, day out. This is a far better benefit. If it wasn't for this, I'd rather the money was spent on dealing with the inevitable, rather than delaying it.
If you want to do it for specific reasons, then by all means do it. But please call a spade a spade and state your wanting cleaner emissions so you can breath easier and not because we are going to kill everyone and everything when for the last 10 years Co2 levels have gone up without the temperature moving with it.

I would say there is plenty of reasons to doubt if not question the effect Co2 has and it's importance as stated. Scientists have been pointing out for years that water vapor has a larger effect on the earth's temp and some have speculated the sun as the culprit. The interesting thing is that we know the oceanic (multi)decadal oscillations are largely controlled by solar activity in which La Nina is credited for. There is debate on how much solar activity influences the oscillations, the evidence I have seem shows a strong correlation to them but even a minor correlations seems to have the same or very similar effects as Co2 in comparison.

I'm not saying Co2 is meaningless, I'm saying there are other places we need to invest some time with.

Re:global warming comparison in 3,2,1.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22987862)

However idiots who watched some oil funded programme on TV will now declare themselves experts on the subject and say it's bunkum. Right. Really. Your limited hours of funded popular science really make your opinion worth more than thousands of people who have spent years and decades working on this stuff?


Unlike the idiots who watched some anti-oil funded movie on the silver screen who now declare themselves experts on the subject and say it's ordained truth? I've met just as many of these people as the other and they are just as uninformed.

Regardless of whether or not this climate change is caused by human activities, it's important not to jump the gun either way and say that YOU know. How did we all become such experts? Most everyone has an opinion on this issue to the point of having the ABSOLUTE TRUTH and refusing the hear the other side. However, i do agree we should pollute less if only to improve the quality of living, as pollution is unpleasant.

It's always surprising to me on a sight geared towards computer scientists how many are die-hard left. No side is absolutely right (talking about general partisan politics now, not necessarily climate change) and BOTH get funding from questionable sources. So who do we trust? WHO KNOWS?!? It's always easier to tell someone they're wrong then finding out if you are actually right.

Re:global warming comparison in 3,2,1.... (2, Interesting)

TerovThePyro (970487) | more than 6 years ago | (#22980508)

After reading the BBC article that postulated the same as you do above, a friend of mine got very fired up. He explained it in this way:

The year 1998 was a statistical anomaly based off the strong El Nino currents that year. When looking at the temperature trends surrounding 1998, there is a nice best fit line to go through them. 1998 is quite far above that best fit line for the rest of the years. Thus the statement 'temps haven't risen in the last 10 years' is numerically true (1998 was hotter than this year), it does not change the fact that there is an underlying trend of temperatures upwards over the last 20 years.

That being said - he strongly believes in GW/CC. I am unsure as to the cause of the data points, but think that we should examine them as an interesting trend in our environment.

Re:global warming comparison in 3,2,1.... (0)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#22989840)

Your friend might very well be correct.

But the problem I have with that explanation is that it was counted as proof of the problem in 1998 when the Kyoto accords was being signed into existance. It has also being used to validate global warming in the 2000's when the US was catching shit for not signing onto global warming. Al Gores nobel prize winning inconvenient truth uses it to show how bad we have screwed up our planet. Now, we are being told that it is meaningless because it lead to something that doesn't support the theory years after it was used to support it.

Can you see my point of contradiction there? 1998 was their champion when they needed it, now it is a freak of nature because it might be hurting them. And I don't think I am going to get into the solar variations effects on the oceanic oscillations (El Nino and La Nina). It is possible that their use of temps from this date and the freakish behavior of El Nino is the reason you believe in GW/CC in the first place.

That being said - he strongly believes in GW/CC. I am unsure as to the cause of the data points, but think that we should examine them as an interesting trend in our environment.
At the very least, this global warming stopped idea should cause us to rethink and verify what we think we know. Claiming it as a freak of nature just doesn't cut it from a scientific standpoint when the same freak was used to validate the original hypothesis and theory. There was a Russian scientist who a few years back bet another scientist that the world temperatures would be lower (cooler) in 20 years [guardian.co.uk] and attributed (solar?) cycles to it. Anyways, both El Nino and La Nina (oceanic oscillations) are strongly effected by solar cycles in which we just had one switch after a long overdue (about 3 years) cycle at the end of 2007.

Re:global warming comparison in 3,2,1.... (1)

KeensMustard (655606) | more than 6 years ago | (#22982664)

Haven't you heard, global warming stopped. Now it is called climate change to keep the funding going.
I notice that your whole argument is predicated on the notion that the temperature (meaning the global average, year on year) has not risen.

But temps haven't risen in the last 10 years or so from what what I have been told.
from what what I have been told. Have temperatures risen, or haven't they?


Seems like a fairly critical point - yet it also seems like you are being deliberately vague about your sources.
 

Re:global warming comparison in 3,2,1.... (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#22983476)

I notice that your whole argument is predicated on the notion that the temperature (meaning the global average, year on year) has not risen.
Actually, from my understanding, the entire decade, or past ten years, is where my point rests. This last ten years have not been as warm as the ten previous years and it is expected to be even less with the effects of LA Nina.

Have temperatures risen, or haven't they?

Seems like a fairly critical point - yet it also seems like you are being deliberately vague about your sources.
That would depent on your start stop point. If your talking about higher then a previous low, sure. But if your looking at it as a ten year ordeal, no, it has stopped going higher then the previous decade. That is why this is important. It either shows us that there are problems with previous measurements, something other then Co2 could be at fault for the rise in temp or there is something else that is able to country the effects of global warming to which we don't sufficiently understand.

There could be more points but the important thing is that we don't have this stuff completely figured out and something needs to be looked into, studied, adapted from the current model, explained in detail or otherwise accounted for beside a cooling anomaly that was sure to be present in previous years when the average is supposed to have been cooler.

Re:global warming comparison in 3,2,1.... (1)

KeensMustard (655606) | more than 6 years ago | (#22987900)

I notice that your whole argument is predicated on the notion that the temperature (meaning the global average, year on year) has not risen.
Actually, from my understanding, the entire decade, or past ten years, is where my point rests. This last ten years have not been as warm as the ten previous years and it is expected to be even less with the effects of LA Nina.
Well, no - because you are asserting that the observed global warming and the reasons given for it is actually a conspiracy. To do so, you will need to counter the evidence given for those reasons AND provide an alternate explanation for the warming trend, covering the period over which that trend has been observed. You cannot arbitrarily pick a period within that timeframe (eg a second, a month, a decade) on the basis that by ignoring the bulk of the data, a single data point matches whatever spurious conclusion you are trying to prove. That is deceptive, and transparently so.

Re:global warming comparison in 3,2,1.... (0)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#22989074)

Well, there is a political conspiracy surounding it. But when the hypothesis of observed facts starts to not react in the predicted ways, then it is time to rethink it. That's just sound science. This isn't on the order of the conspiracy or me claiming it isn't happening, it is on the order of we got something wrong or are missing some force and don't completely understand what is happening as much as we thought. Of course the importance of the evidence and predictions are being overstated by the political agendas which might bring us to a conclusion of facts that just don't exist, But on the evidence alone, we have these observed effects; temps seem to rise in correlation to Co2 levels; Something happened in the last ten years that seems to break that cycle; the explanations so far seem to be attributing something that would also effect the previous statements.

Throughout the years we have had other scientists making claims that the sun was part of the problem and to one point even cause some of the climate models to be reworked in order to account for new evidence. Then we have what should be a forcing with water vapor increases for atmospheric content which has been attributed to solar activity . There were a few other claims but the most recent one which seems to be supported by the Co2 global warming crowd is that (multi)decadal oscillations like El Nino and La Nina are the causes for the disparaging results.

Well, we have at least one notable effect of that in that the oceanic oscillations have been thought to be effected by the solar activity since the late 80's to mid 90's [john-daly.com] . That link is to a sort of on a biased site but it has been validated by further research published in the AGU JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH [agu.org] in 2000/2001

A problem I have with this is that we know the cooling effects and warming effect of these oscillation patterns aren't completely cyclical in that they don't cancel each other out. They can warm longer then cool and cool longer then warm producing a larger effect to one side over the other. Another issue is in how we changed the way of calculating surface water temperatures in the oceans which both El Nino and La Nina effect on a very large scale. This doesn't seem to be taken into account when averaging the global temperatures but they don't seem to have a problem invoking the same effect when attempting to discount the last decade of stale warming where the Co2 levels increased but the temperatures didn't. Now, this knowledge bucking the trends of heating the earth is relatively new specifically because when the bulk of the research was done to show the warming and form the models, the data sets where a few years old based on the shear complexity of gathering it, organizing it, and extracting it from the various sources to make it usable (read no conspiracy, just the nature of the game).

The data sets have finally caught up with the time and we are able to make comparisons without strong anomaly influences that have cause the 90's to be labeled as the warmest period on record before it was found that an error on adjustments for compiling US temps was made and the 30's held that title. The interesting thing here is that the 90's was caused by global warming, or at least that is what the political organizations like the UN's IPCC and advocate like Hansen and Realclimate.org. But now, it is not global warming because it is El Nino and La Nina. It like having their cake and eating it too. It just doesn't make sense that it is global warming when it suits your needs and something else when the pieces don't fit.

So we need to rethink this situation without the bias of political agendas and determine a proper cause and effect even if it invalidated the Co2 model and it is found that Co2 levels follow warming trends instead of causes them. That is also something floating around in recent times by the same scientist who once claimed [nature.com] global warming was real because of the Co2. I don't know how long that link is good for or if you have an account to access it. This concept has been explained away in recent years but in the light of a closer examination of temp records, it should be reexamined too.

Re:global warming comparison in 3,2,1.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22992152)

"Well, we have at least one notable effect of that in that the oceanic oscillations have been thought to be effected by the solar activity since the late 80's to mid 90's. That link is to a sort of on a biased site but it has been validated by further research published in the AGU JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH in 2000/2001"

The "further research" you link to has absolutely nothing to do with oceanic oscillations.

"The data sets have finally caught up with the time and we are able to make comparisons without strong anomaly influences that have cause the 90's to be labeled as the warmest period on record before it was found that an error on adjustments for compiling US temps was made and the 30's held that title."

The 1930s and the 1990s have switched places in the US GISTEMP record before; the difference has never been statistically significant either before or since, and the GISTEMP correction is irrelevant to global warming.

"But now, it is not global warming because it is El Nino and La Nina."

Global warming did not stop, even if you include El Nino and La Nina and artificially cherry pick your reference year to be 1998; the temperature trend is still positive. (Also, 1998-2008 is significantly warmer than 1988-1998.)

"That is also something floating around in recent times by the same scientist who once claimed global warming was real because of the Co2."

He still claims it, in the very article you link to.

Re:global warming comparison in 3,2,1.... (-1, Flamebait)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#22990242)

I was wondering how long it was going to take for some loyal GW fanboys to mod these posts down. Here is a hint for the delusional, just because you attempt to suppress something by moderating troll or over rated and redundant for no other reasons then you don't like something, it doesn't make it not right.

Proving something as not right requires a dialog, moding one down because it expresses views other then yours seems to state that you are afraid of those views more then you can answer them with solid or supported facts. In other words, it really shows how weak your side of something is, or at least how weak you believe your side is if you have to rely on downmodding someone just because you don't agree with them. Anyways, I'm not worried because meta moderation will fix it.

the tired old unfunny joke (1)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | more than 6 years ago | (#22978390)

The words "probe" and "uranius" have now been officially put together in one post, and the subject need not come up again.Please mod this post down.


I Am the Cheese: Taking one for the team since 2008.

Re:the tired old unfunny joke (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22978456)

Scientists renamed Uranus years ago to rid the earth of that stupid joke once and for all. Now it's called Urectum! Probes also work with Urectum.

Venus's is correct; Venus' is not (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22983010)


Johnsons' would be correct, as would other, plural-sounding nouns. If you sound the possessive Ess, you tick and add the Ess. If you SAY VenusES, then you spell it that way: Venus's.

By the way, don't get me started on its. Lots of very ignorant and not so ignorant people never get that one.

Spinning iron core (5, Interesting)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | more than 6 years ago | (#22978396)

relevent [groupsrv.com]

Re:Spinning iron core (1)

AP31R0N (723649) | more than 6 years ago | (#22988320)

If Venus doesn't have a spinning core, we could just drill down and set off some nukes to jump start it again!

Yeah, right. (5, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 6 years ago | (#22978420)

To say that this puts "the climatic behaviour of both planets into a common framework of understanding" is gross exaggeration to the point of being just so much hogwash.

First, we do not even understand Earth's climate very well yet. And we live there. Duh.

Second, the two planets are at vastly disparate distances from the sun. Extrapolation from one to the other -- even today -- could be dangerous to one's career.

Add the fact that we know that they are geologically and chemically different. And there are more points I could make if I wanted to take the time.

You end up with one hell of a lot less real "comparison" or "similarity" than this implies. Even if all the assumptions about Venus were correct (extremely unlikely), we haven't even figured out how our own planet works yet, so I don't see how anyone could pretend to be predicting how climates have / had changed over the last couple of thousand years on Venus. I will stop short of calling this complete bullshit, but to say that I am skeptical is an understatement.

Re:Yeah, right. (3, Funny)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 6 years ago | (#22978458)

Do you work for Big Oil by any chance? Look it's - simple CO2 causes global warming. Clearly the Venusians had a Republican government that allowed people to use air conditioners, private jets and cars and that caused the planet to die. This peer reviewed science shows everyone must be forced to either return to an Amist lifestyle or buy carbon credits and that will solve the problem.

My sig says it all (1)

giorgiofr (887762) | more than 6 years ago | (#22978544)

n/t

Re:Yeah, right. (5, Insightful)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 6 years ago | (#22978522)

To say that this puts "the climatic behaviour of both planets into a common framework of understanding" is gross exaggeration to the point of being just so much hogwash.

Actually, it is hogwash, but only because of the wildly silly implication that they ever weren't in a common framework of understanding. The laws of physics are the same there are they are here. The same chemicals in the same conditions don't magically behave differently because it's a different planet.

Re:Yeah, right. (4, Interesting)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 6 years ago | (#22979266)

``Actually, it is hogwash, but only because of the wildly silly implication that they ever weren't in a common framework of understanding.''

That was my first though, as well.

However, there is a qualification to make. Namely, it depends on the scope of the framework. If you make the scope large enough, _everything_ falls within it, but it will also make the framewore insanely complex and difficult to work with.

In practice, we use simplifications. And this is where the scope of the framework becomes important. Because the simplifications, while technically wrong, can still give useful results. For example, simply adding velocities works well, as long as the velocities are much smaller than the speed of light. Hydrogen is not always gaseous, but good results can be gotten under most circumstances by assuming that it is. Or even by assuming that it is an ideal gas. And so on. So, depending on the specific assumptions you make, your framework may be more or less widely applicable.

What is interesting about a common framework that correctly predicts events on both Earth and Venus is that it tests cases that may not have been tested before. Some conditions may be so common on Earth that the behavior they elicit is taken for granted by Earth-based scientists. On Venus, these circumstances may not be present. This will test our theories under circumstances we may never have thought of. This, in turn, may lead to better understanding.

Re:Yeah, right. (1)

Teancum (67324) | more than 6 years ago | (#22981074)

It is important to remember that when you start out on a scientific study, that you should be open to changing your mind and even world view based upon the results of that scientific experiment and study.

I have had that happen a number of times with several different things I've studied and the results didn't quite go with what I though was originally going to happen. Or when I've read papers and studies about topics that have brought new understanding... often deeper understanding... to a scientific discipline that shows additional variables in the equation that need to be worked with and understood.

My problem with most global warming advocates is that they take a single parameter, CO2 production by anthroprogenic sources and turn that into the dominating variable where there are a great many other things to describe that causes the effects. I'm afraid that this study of Venus is only going to be giving ammunition to those who advocate for this extreme viewpoint, and will oversimplify the interpretation of this study about Venus to the detriment of those who want to make positive contributions to helping fight environmental damage caused by modern industrial civilization.

I'm all for simplification, but in this case you need to understand the whole problem and not just a couple of factors that can be used for political purposes.

Re:Yeah, right. (1)

Socguy (933973) | more than 6 years ago | (#22981626)

My problem with most global warming advocates is that they take a single parameter, CO2 production by anthroprogenic sources and turn that into the dominating variable where there are a great many other things to describe that causes the effects.
And the problem I have with climate change skeptics is that they try to delay/deny/confuse and otherwise downplay the issue of man-made CO2, (and by extension: real action) by (correctly) pointing to the fact that there are other factors, both natural and anthropogenic, involved in climate change. Unfortunately, this observation is often used as a distraction technique designed to downplay and obfuscate our CO2 problem.

There are a great many uneducated people on both sides of climate change. When folks talk about CO2 as though it's the only factor involved: please remember that while CO2 may not be the biggest factor involved in climate, it's the key driving factor involved in our current anthropogenic climate shift.

Scientists have been studying climate change for decades now and so far no one has been able to discount the role CO2 is playing. If somebody has found a way to entirely displace the role CO2 appears to be playing in climate change then lets hear it! If not, it's high time we get to work so that we don't get left behind economically and technologically!

Re:Yeah, right. (2, Insightful)

IntelligenceLite (1193779) | more than 6 years ago | (#22984850)

The laws of physics are the same there are they are here. The same chemicals in the same conditions don't magically behave differently because it's a different planet.

Individual chemicals, no. But entire systems can be night and day from each other. As others have pointed out here, we don't even have the first clue as to how Earth's environment works, what with self-regulating feedback systems and all.

Re:Yeah, right. (1)

GordonCopestake (941689) | more than 6 years ago | (#22978586)

I concur; until someone can tell me with 100% certainty whether it's going to rain or not tomorrow I won't believe that we have any real idea of how our weather system works. If we don't know how OUR weather works, we certainly don't know about another planet!

Those weren't "scientific findings" anyway (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22978764)

If there were any scientific findings, the article didn't tell us what they were. The Venus probe certainly has no means of measuring that Venus "first evolved too fast and then too slow".

What's being reported is some whacko pseudo-scientist's interpretation of probe data. It's as far from Science as it could possibly get.

Re:Yeah, right. (2, Insightful)

billyj (908794) | more than 6 years ago | (#22978794)

How is the parent insighful? Theories are always approximations, full understanding simply does not exist. Newtonian physics could be said that it did not explain gravity very well. Yet, it was able to explain a vast number of phenomena. And saying that we cannot put the two planets on the same framework due to their distance from the Sun is like saying that we cannot understand weather in the Antarctic because of the temperature difference. Nuff said...

Re:Yeah, right. (1)

Vidar Leathershod (41663) | more than 6 years ago | (#22979456)

It's insightful because it provides insight into the fact that the statements regarding the history of Venus were pulled out of someone's nether regions.

Very little understanding of Venus exists; full understanding wasn't even on the table. Your assertion that we shouldn't deride the "findings" because the findings are just a "theory" show why there are so many people who subscribe to the religion of Scientism without understanding the underlying tenets of science.

The "theory" catchall is always trotted out whenever someone wants to explain something they have no actual knowledge of. The grandparent was a breath of fresh air in a room full of stale "scientific" hit and runs that is Slashdot's "science" section.

Re:Yeah, right. (1)

moxley (895517) | more than 6 years ago | (#22981102)

Great post. I wish I had some mod points left.

So many of the statements about Venus (and Mars for that matter as well) have been inaccurate; at times it seems deliberately or recklessly so.

SO much of what NASA has done has been awful and has led people away from science; things like colorizing shots of Mars to make the climate of planet look more red and hostle than it is for instance.

The American people were sold a bill of goods when it was "given" NASA....We did not get what we were supposed to get, and what we have gotten isn't even what all it claims to be.

Re:Yeah, right. (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 6 years ago | (#22981126)

I am on the side of Vidar Leathershod here, even if his name did come straight out of WOW. :o)

Theories should not try to predict more than their foundations would support. That is what this article is apparently trying to do, and I was just pointing it out.

Re:Yeah, right. (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 6 years ago | (#22981712)

There are two obstacles to a common framework. First, the near absence of any information both about Venus's day to day weather and of its geology. Second, I doubt we understand how the Moon, particularly its formulation could have influenced Earth's climate and history.

No lunar and weaker solar tides... (2, Insightful)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#22979286)

Another huge difference is the the Earth has a companion that puts significant stresses on the crust and atmosphere through tidal forces. Not only that, but Venus' slower rotational period means there's less stress from solar tides as well. Surely this would have some effect on the rigidity of the crust, yes no?

Inverse Square Law (1)

Alien54 (180860) | more than 6 years ago | (#22980292)

Venus is about 70% the distance of Earth to the Sun. This means that Venus is receiving proportionally more energy, as based on the inverse square law. This works out to be about twice as much energy as that of Earth. Then you account for things like albedo, etc.

This doubled energy input probably is a really huge factor to the whole problem.

Re:Inverse Square Law (1)

Teancum (67324) | more than 6 years ago | (#22981156)

The question here is by what impact the solar input had upon the development of the Venusian oceans, not to mention a lack of a stabilizing lunar influence and an odd planetary rotation rate.

Could the Earth have become just like Venus if it weren't for the development of life? What has been the impact of living systems upon this environment as well? Certainly epochs of high CO2 levels in the Earths past resulted in periods like the Carboniferous era when most of the coal deposits were laid down. Could living things in the distant past have made a similar impact upon Venus under the same conditions that now exist on Venus?

I would have to agree that the additional input of energy into the system, particularly on the impact of water vapor reaching dis-association energies in the upper atmosphere (causing the oxygen and hydrogen to be chemically independent) could have a substantial impact on the ability to have Venus keep its liquid oceans.

Re:Yeah, right. (2, Funny)

IntelligenceLite (1193779) | more than 6 years ago | (#22984790)

Extrapolation from one to the other -- even today -- could be dangerous to one's career. Quite the opposite. Coming up with ridiculous, unprovable claims about the weather is a resume enhancer nowadays. And if you can come up with inventive ways to cripple or destroy world economies as a result of those fantasy crises, well hell!, they'll give you a Nobel Peace Prize!

Mod Up, please! (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 6 years ago | (#22985926)

I bow to your superior sense of satire.

Women are from venus (5, Funny)

sleeponthemic (1253494) | more than 6 years ago | (#22978480)

Venus overspent its budget? Would explain one or two things.

Re:Women are from venus (1)

servognome (738846) | more than 6 years ago | (#22979094)

Venus overspent its budget? Would explain one or two things.
Yes, 3000 years ago instead of fixing the budget shortfall by cutting taxes and spending more on the military, they actually managed their spending - resulting in complete destruction of the planet's atmosphere
The lesson is once your budget is overspent the only fix is to borrow more, spend more, and get bigger nukes or our planet is doomed.... DOOOMED!!

Global Warming is dead, now it is Global Boiling? (2, Funny)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 6 years ago | (#22978484)

Does this mean Global Warming discussions will be replaced by Global Boiling? Even greater headlines!

Re:Global Warming is dead, now it is Global Boilin (4, Funny)

fr4nk (1077037) | more than 6 years ago | (#22978860)

Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me!

Re:Global Warming is dead, now it is Global Boilin (1)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 6 years ago | (#22979774)

Well, as apparently Venus ran further ahead in planetary evolution by boiling its oceans, obviously Earth is way behind and has a lot of catching up to do. Our planet will have to evolve further and get its oceans boiled away, rather than stagnating as it has.

Re:Global Warming is dead, now it is Global Boilin (1)

hcdejong (561314) | more than 6 years ago | (#22988592)

Global Boiling
Maybe someone's trying to fill up a ZFS pool.

evolve (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22980204)

Something can't evolve too quickly. "Too Quickly" is not compatible with the concept of evolution.

Re:evolve (1)

Lemmy Caution (8378) | more than 6 years ago | (#22980554)

There is an implicit "to develop an atmosphere that might have been conducive to creating life" after the "too quickly."

Besides, is geo-planetary change really "evolution?"

What went wrong. (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 6 years ago | (#22980866)

...increasingly we have evidence that Venus lost most of its water and Earth lost most of its atmospheric carbon dioxide...

I blame the Solar-System economy, Free-Trade agreements and open borders. If only the planets were farther apart or someone had built a fence... (Ya, I'm talking to you Mars.)

Too Quickly for Whom? (4, Funny)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#22981270)

the planet evolved far too quickly


Well, from a Venusian's perspective, the Earth evolved far too much. Leaving all those tepid sticky areas out beyond the Sun's cleansing rays has left the Earth to rot, infested with all kinds of vermin. Some of which just dirty the place up even more, and then get nosy, ogling the neighbors and insulting their tidy nearby neighborhoods.

That review of Venus was clearly written by an Earthling real estate agent.

Why does Venus rotate retrograde? (3, Informative)

theolein (316044) | more than 6 years ago | (#22981770)

One thing that has always bothered me is the question as to why Venus rotates in a retrograde manner (east to west) around its own axis. My personal idea, from the little amount of very inconclusive data available on this on the web, is that there must have been some cataclysmic collision early in Venus' history. One wonders if Venus had had a normal, and faster rotation, if it would have developed differently?

Most likely same reason Earth has a Moon (2, Informative)

localroger (258128) | more than 6 years ago | (#22983778)

The late stages of rocky planet formation are now known to be extremely violent, involving collisions of mars-sized bodies in the final accretion of a body the size of Earth or Venus. The exact collision vector can have a huge impact on the final body's rotational inertia, and can even heave a planet-sized hunk of debris like our own Moon into orbit.

hmm (1)

sir fer (1232128) | more than 6 years ago | (#22983956)

there seems to be a lack of understanding on /.

CO2 constitutes less than 1% of the atmosphere

anthropogenic sources constitute less than 1% of CO2 emissions

therefore the idea that humans are driving or even contributing to "global warming" or "climate change" (a redundant phrase, since climate is in a continual state of flux, more likely due to factors beyond our control) is sheer arrogance at worst and delusional at best...some of the posts here remind me of that Tom Cruise scientology video.

Venus is not the Earth nor is it even a close approximation

just awful (1)

sir fer (1232128) | more than 6 years ago | (#22984012)

"As a result of the loss of water, the geological evolution of the surface of Venus slowed right down because it was unable to develop plate tectonics like the Earth." this article has to be the worst and least scientific ever linked to on /. awful, just awful.

Stalled development (1)

Livius (318358) | more than 6 years ago | (#22984170)

Typical Earth-centric chauvanism. Venus isn't developmentally challenged, it *meant* to turn out that way.

Benefits of the space program (1)

ShadowMarth (870657) | more than 6 years ago | (#22987290)

Perfect example of the benefits of space exploration in understanding our own planet.

ESA very stingy with public data (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 6 years ago | (#22990034)

To its [rare] credit most NASA probes post their raw and processed data on the web almost immediately. There are over 200,000 Mars Rover pictures. ESA posts little of its data and mostly these are for press releases. "Out of sight, out of mind"
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?