Planetary 'runaway greenhouse' more easily triggered, research shows

Jul 30, 2013 by Peter Kelley

(Phys.org) —It might be easier than previously thought for a planet to overheat into the scorchingly uninhabitable "runaway greenhouse" stage, according to new research by astronomers at the University of Washington and the University of Victoria published July 28 in the journal Nature Geoscience.

In the runaway greenhouse stage, a planet absorbs more than it can give off to retain equilibrium. As a result, the world overheats, boiling its oceans and filling its atmosphere with steam, which leaves the planet glowing-hot and forever uninhabitable, as Venus is now.

One estimate of the inner edge of a star's "" is where the runaway greenhouse process begins. The habitable zone is that ring of space around a star that's just right for water to remain in liquid form on an orbiting 's surface, thus giving life a chance.

Revisiting this classic scenario with new computer modeling, the found a lower threshold for the runaway greenhouse process, meaning that stage may be easier to initiate than had been previously thought.

"The habitable zone becomes much narrower, in the sense that you can no longer get as close to the star as we thought before going into a runaway greenhouse," said Tyler Robinson, a UW astronomy postdoctoral researcher and second author on the paper. The lead author is Colin Goldblatt of the University of Victoria.

Though further research is called for, the findings could lead to a recalibration of where the habitable zone begins and ends, with some planets having their candidacy as possible habitable worlds revoked.

"These worlds on the very edge got 'pushed in,' from our perspective—they are now beyond the runaway greenhouse threshold," Robinson said.

Subsequent research, the astronomers say, is needed in part because their computer modeling was done in a "single-column, clear-sky model," or a one-dimensional measure averaged around a planetary sphere that does not account for the atmospheric effect of clouds.

The findings apply to planet Earth as well. As the sun increases in brightness over time, Earth, too, will move into the runaway greenhouse stage—but not for a billion and a half years or so. Still, it inspired the astronomers to write, "As the solar constant increases with time, Earth's future is analogous to Venus's past."

Explore further: What does the next generation telescope need to detect life?

More information: www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/va… t/full/ngeo1892.html

Related Stories

Can life emerge on planets around cooling stars?

Nov 20, 2012

(Phys.org)—Astronomers find planets in strange places and wonder if they might support life. One such place would be in orbit around a white or brown dwarf. While neither is a star like the sun, both glow and so could be ...

Habitable zones

Aug 22, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- The "habitable zone" is the region around a star where a suitable planet could sustain the conditions necessary for life. Most astronomers take it to be the region where the balance between ...

Astrobiology research: Life possible on extrasolar moons

Jan 10, 2013

(Phys.org)—In their search for habitable worlds, astronomers have started to consider exomoons, or those likely orbiting planets outside the solar system. In a new study, a pair of researchers has found ...

Recommended for you

New window on the early Universe

Oct 22, 2014

Scientists at the Universities of Bonn and Cardiff see good times approaching for astrophysicists after hatching a new observational strategy to distill detailed information from galaxies at the edge of ...

Chandra's archives come to life

Oct 22, 2014

Every year, NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory looks at hundreds of objects throughout space to help expand our understanding of the Universe. Ultimately, these data are stored in the Chandra Data Archive, ...

User comments : 50

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Moebius
2.6 / 5 (20) Jul 30, 2013
And that's without the activity 6 billion stupid monkey's who think they don't affect anything.
VendicarE
3.1 / 5 (7) Jul 30, 2013
7 billion - 1
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (11) Jul 30, 2013
"Planetary 'runaway greenhouse' more easily triggered"

-So apparently is glaciation. We ought to store carbon in easily-recoverable form for the future.
GSwift7
1.9 / 5 (14) Jul 30, 2013
We ought to store carbon in easily-recoverable form for the future.


I vote to store it in beer. Lots and lots of beer. That makes it fun when it comes time to release it all again, and who wants to be sober for the ice age anyway. :)

All kidding aside, the work above isn't definitive by any measure. This has been worked out with more complex models by other teams. I'm not sure why these guys think their simple model is suficient to overturn the existing works on the subject. They even said that their model was only a partial one; not including clouds is a big deal.

Moebius: Take your climate change politics back to the environment section. Astronomy is a science subject. We work with numbers around here, not feelings, fears and emotions.
NikFromNYC
2 / 5 (21) Jul 30, 2013
At the table in the kitchen, there were three bowls of porridge. Goldilocks was hungry. She tasted the porridge from the first bowl.

VENUS @ 0.72 ASTRONOMICAL UNITS FROM THE SUN: "This porridge is too hot!" she exclaimed.

So, she tasted the porridge from the second bowl.

MARS @ 1.50 AUs: "This porridge is too cold," she said

So, she tasted the last bowl of porridge.

EARTH @ 1.00 AUs: "Ahhh, this porridge is just right," she said happily and she ate it all up.
NikFromNYC
1.7 / 5 (22) Jul 30, 2013
"If Earth's lower atmosphere did warm enough to accelerate escape of hydrogen it would still take at least hundreds of millions of years for the ocean to be lost to space. Additional time would be needed for massive amounts of CO2 to accumulate in the atmosphere from volcanoes associated with plate tectonics and convection in Earth's mantle. So Venus-like conditions in the sense of 90 bar surface pressure and surface temperature of several hundred degrees are only plausible on billion-year time scales." / "The concept of a runaway greenhouse effect was introduced by considering a highly idealized situation with specified troposphere-stratosphere atmospheric structure, a simple approximation for atmospheric radiation, and no inclusion of how clouds might change as climate changes, as is appropriate for introduction of a concept. More recent studies relax some of the idealizations and are sufficient to show that Earth is not now near a runaway situation...." - James Hansen, 2013
Sinister1811
2.1 / 5 (18) Jul 30, 2013
Moebius: Take your climate change politics back to the environment section. Astronomy is a science subject. We work with numbers around here, not feelings, fears and emotions.


"Climate change politics"? No need to be so insulting in your response to Moebius. Whether or not you agree with him, he's actually got a very decent point. Maybe you should take your conspiracy theories somewhere else.
Sinister1811
2.1 / 5 (18) Jul 30, 2013
. So Venus-like conditions in the sense of 90 bar surface pressure and surface temperature of several hundred degrees are only plausible on billion-year time scales.


So you're saying that Venus's runaway greenhouse effect has nothing to do with its Carbon dioxide atmosphere? Wow, I'm sure NASA and the ESA are in 100% agreement with you.
NikFromNYC
1.8 / 5 (20) Jul 30, 2013
Mr. Sinister, James Hansen *is* NASA speaking, not me.

In 1967 NASA's James Hansen suggested that Venus is hot due to physical dust:

http://pubs.giss....00j.html

"A dust insulation model for the atmosphere of Venus is proposed in which the high surface temperature results primarily from a shielding of energy escaping from the planetary interior."

Four years later his theory was used to predict a possible ice age on Earth:

http://pubs.giss....00k.html

"It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. / If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age."

The history of science is quite stormy.
Sinister1811
2.1 / 5 (15) Jul 31, 2013
But science and our understanding has also come a long way since 1947.
Sinister1811
1.9 / 5 (13) Jul 31, 2013
Sorry 1967* (the edit button disappeared).
VendicarE
3 / 5 (8) Jul 31, 2013
"In 1967 NASA's James Hansen suggested that Venus is hot due to physical dust:" - NikkieTard

In 1967 James Hansen was computing with a pencil and paper.

You didn't exist.
meBigGuy
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 31, 2013
"But science and our understanding has also come a long way since 1967"

Those darn scientists, they keep proposing ideas that get rejected after years of research. Why waste the time. Just reject them out of hand, like Nik does. After all, they were wrong once.

NikFromNYC
1.8 / 5 (16) Jul 31, 2013
VendicarE assumes I'm a kid as he calls for execution of skeptics:
http://tinypic.co...&s=5

Consensus: An ether pervades space. Continents don't move! Dirty hands don't kill patients! Children are a blank slate, personality wise with no genetic influence! The best therapy is to treat people as if we were shocking pigeons and ringing bells for dogs. Non-coding DNA is"junk". Infections don't cause ulcers or certain cancers. Bacteria spontaneously generate. Cholesterol and fat intake control heart disease. Carbon dioxide controls the climate.

Years reading primary literature in climate "science" doesn't qualify as out of hand dismissal. Mann's hockey sticks ignore dozens of temperature reconstructions that shows hotter Roman and Medieval periods, Steig's red map of Antarctica was just bogus, and Rahmstorf's "corrections" to actual sea level were still labelled "sea level." Now Marcott!!!

http://s17.postim...tick.jpg
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (4) Jul 31, 2013
Those darn scientists, they keep proposing ideas that get rejected after years of research. Why waste the time. Just reject them out of hand, like Nik does. After all, they were wrong once.

To be fair: scientists are ALWAYS wrong. There is no such thing as a definitive, final theory/law. And since all laws are just models they must be ultimately wrong in some regard. The map is not the territory.

That said: 'Wrong' is a very relative term, here. Wrong may mean 'off by a few percent' - which is still good enough to act on (and certainly much better than acting on the 99% off counter-theory/theory of "not doing anything")
NikFromNYC
1.9 / 5 (17) Jul 31, 2013
VendicarE and Neinsense99 demonstrate that the true face of Al Gore's doomsday philosophy is fascism now transforming into psychosis:

http://oi42.tinyp...rbb5.jpg

Those who are heavily invested in the temperature and a Batman movie level illusion of skeptics as evil villains that define their activist positive self-image and especially self-esteem, well, they are not enjoying the American mild summer with record low wildfires and hurricanes.

Their defense mechanisms include the cult mythology that:

If we make a mistake and don't see the thread again, we are "liars."
If we point out data that falsifies AGW claims, we are "cherry picking."
If we point it out repeatedly, we are using mere "talking points."
If a newbie skeptic adopts flimsy arguments, he is a "denier" who taints seasoned skepticism.
If a "denier" gets a thousands of dollars from conservatives, one may ignore the millions given to alarmists by liberals or Arab nations.
If the biosphere is doomed, "no nukes!"
NikFromNYC
1.7 / 5 (17) Jul 31, 2013
antialias wrote: "...certainly much better than acting on the 99% off counter-theory/theory of "not doing anything")"

Serious economic analysis offers a third option to possible Anthropogenic Global Warming and that is adaptation, mitigation and eventual geoengineering, all fueled by decades of a cheap energy economic boom that supports basic science R&D also funded what is now being spent on green boondoggles such as:

Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel's subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Schneider Electric ($86 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)

*bankrupt
NikFromNYC
1.8 / 5 (16) Jul 31, 2013
"HotCock," the liberal icon journalist Alexander Cockburn, shortly before dying expressed a Murphy's Law view of nuclear energy along with a very strong personal critique of the dangerous level of Inquisition level panic by Anthropogenic Global Warming activists:

http://www.youtub...YenWfz0Y

Much of the recent hellfire wrath of "greenshirt" activists is not meant to antagonize skeptics as much as to issue gangster like warnings to those who might switch sides now that the pressure is on during our mundane warming pause.
meBigGuy
2.8 / 5 (9) Jul 31, 2013
Nik Says:
"Consensus: An ether pervades space. Continents don't move! Dirty hands don't kill patients! Children are a blank slate, personality wise with no genetic influence! The best therapy is to treat people as if we were shocking pigeons and ringing bells for dogs. Non-coding DNA is"junk". Infections don't cause ulcers or certain cancers. Bacteria spontaneously generate. Cholesterol and fat intake control heart disease. Carbon dioxide controls the climate."

As usual Nik, you forgot this one " "humans can't cause climate change, only natural cycles can".

meBigGuy
2.9 / 5 (12) Jul 31, 2013
Nik Says
"Years reading primary literature in climate "science" doesn't qualify as out of hand dismissal. Mann's hockey sticks ignore dozens of temperature reconstructions that shows hotter Roman and Medieval periods, Steig's red map of Antarctica was just bogus, and Rahmstorf's "corrections" to actual sea level were still labelled "sea level." Now Marcott!!!

I'm dissapointed that your posts are the best you could achieve after years reading the *PRIMARY* literature in climate science. I'd rather believe you are lying that believe you are so unable to absorb climate science and deny it in meaningfull way.
no fate
2.8 / 5 (6) Jul 31, 2013
Calculation of the energy imbalance mankind is creating in the atmosphere and oceans is constantly underway. What can be termed as natural cycles ceased existence when we started increasing the atmospheric energy level. As evidenced by recent events, how this will manifest is a roll of the dice and will continuously change.

But to say our activities have no effect is a childish statement born of wilful ignorance. I doubt the effects of the Milankovich cycles even exist anymore because of what we have done to the atmosphere thus far.
GSwift7
3.2 / 5 (11) Jul 31, 2013
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swimms like a duck, flies like a duck and talks about climate change in an astronomy thread, then it must be a climate change troll in a duck suit.

As for the argument, it's silly to argue over 'climate change' science, as that label is far too broad to have an intelligent discussion. That's like asking if you believe biology is correct. Any rational person would immediately ask "what part of biology?", but with climate science people have no problem either supporting or condemning the whole thing at once. In reality, climate science, like biology, is composed of many different fields of study, with thousands of people doing work on different topics. It isn't rational to suppose that it could be either 100% wrong or right. If you get angry when someone points out a possible error, then you are a fanatic and should re-think the reason you get emotional about a scientific theory. Polarizing topics get people to take irrational stances.
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 31, 2013
Another nail in the coffin of the concept of mediocrity with respect to life bearing planets...
Benni
1 / 5 (8) Jul 31, 2013
(Phys.org) —It might be easier than previously thought for a planet to overheat into the scorchingly uninhabitable "runaway greenhouse" stage, according to new research by astronomers at the University of Washington and the University of Victoria published July 28 in the journal Nature Geoscience.


..........and they know this because they've been able to obtain spectroscopy data to observe this well known phenomenon presently occurring on at least several dozen planets outside our solar system.

Sinister1811
2.3 / 5 (12) Aug 01, 2013
I guess that open/toot troll is having a field day handing out 1/5s to people he doesn't like (regardless of their posts). What a juvenile.
Gmr
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 01, 2013
Venus was one of the subjects of early research by ol' Sagan himself - they'd detected extremely high temperatures, and they weren't sure if it was from the surface, or from a higher region in the atmosphere. The difference is limb-darkening and limb-brightening. If it's the surface, then at the edge you'd see less heat when you're looking through mostly atmosphere - the limb brightening means you're looking through a hot atmosphere at what might be a cooler surface.

"Dust" was tossed out as a factor, partly because the heat retention is so high, much higher than you'd expect for a basic gas blanket on a planet at that range from the sun. Venus' puzzling features are part of the reason the "greenhouse effect" term was coined.

Interesting thing was another article, might have been on here, that talked about refrigeration from transmitting EM frequencies in a "thermal window" range in the atmosphere, where it's transparent rather than reflective or absorbing.
Neinsense99
1.5 / 5 (11) Aug 01, 2013
Sorry 1967* (the edit button disappeared).

You encountered the cloaked Klingon edit button. Consider yourself lucky, human.
Neinsense99
1.3 / 5 (14) Aug 01, 2013
VendicarE and Neinsense99 demonstrate that the true face of Al Gore's doomsday philosophy is fascism now transforming into psychosis:

http://oi42.tinyp...rbb5.jpg

Those who are heavily invested in the temperature and a Batman movie level illusion of skeptics as evil villains that define their activist positive self-image and especially self-esteem, well, they are not enjoying the American mild summer with record low wildfires and hurricanes.



As the son of a war veteran who fought real Fascists, I would strongly suggest you not try to repeat that slanderous, hypocritical drivel to my face.
Kiwini
1.5 / 5 (15) Aug 01, 2013


As the son of a war veteran who fought real Fascists, I would strongly suggest you not try to repeat that slanderous, hypocritical drivel to my face.


So you still have an annoying problem with the First Amendment?... that it's OK for you, but not for anyone you may not agree with?...

http://en.wikiped...d_States
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (14) Aug 01, 2013

All kidding aside, the work above isn't definitive by any measure. This has been worked out with more complex models by other teams. I'm not sure why these guys think their simple model is suficient to overturn the existing works on the subject. They even said that their model was only a partial one; not including clouds is a big deal.

Why?
Try greed for the billions in research grants and the fact that they have created far more fallacies with their partial climate models and gotten away with it.
And, they have the audacity to boast that it's science.

GSwift7
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 01, 2013
I guess that open/toot troll is having a field day handing out 1/5s to people he doesn't like (regardless of their posts).


You still pay attention to the ratings? I don't even bother rating any more, unless I see something REALLY funny.
Sinister1811
2.1 / 5 (11) Aug 01, 2013
I guess that open/toot troll is having a field day handing out 1/5s to people he doesn't like (regardless of their posts).


You still pay attention to the ratings? I don't even bother rating any more, unless I see something REALLY funny.


That's a good point. I guess you're right Gswift. Although you don't see much humour here these days. Also, I agreed with your last post as well. Well said. :)
Neinsense99
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 01, 2013


As the son of a war veteran who fought real Fascists, I would strongly suggest you not try to repeat that slanderous, hypocritical drivel to my face.


So you still have an annoying problem with the First Amendment?... that it's OK for you, but not for anyone you may not agree with?...

http://en.wikiped...d_States

Not accurate. Not relevant. Not applicable. Kiwini the small-minded assumes so much. Somebody needs to explain v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y what the 'world' in World Wide Web stands for.
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (15) Aug 01, 2013
G-I-G-O, giggity, giggity, GIGO

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
― Christopher Hitchens
Fleetfoot
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 01, 2013
G-I-G-O, giggity, giggity, GIGO

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
― Christopher Hitchens


Exactly, "Birkeland currents" beyond the heliopause for example.
Fleetfoot
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2013
(Phys.org) —It might be easier than previously thought for a planet to overheat into the scorchingly uninhabitable "runaway greenhouse" stage, according to new research by astronomers at the University of Washington and the University of Victoria published July 28 in the journal Nature Geoscience.


..........and they know this because they've been able to obtain spectroscopy data to observe this well known phenomenon presently occurring on at least several dozen planets outside our solar system.


"Subsequent research, the astronomers say, is needed in part because their computer modeling was done in a 'single-column, clear-sky model,' or a one-dimensional measure averaged around a planetary sphere that does not account for the atmospheric effect of clouds."

This isn't even 2D yet, it's just a quick rough cut to see if there's any effect worth investigating. Until they have a 3D model with realistic cloud simulation, it is not really significant.
Neinsense99
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 01, 2013
(Phys.org) —It might be easier than previously thought for a planet to overheat into the scorchingly uninhabitable "runaway greenhouse" stage, according to new research by astronomers at the University of Washington and the University of Victoria published July 28 in the journal Nature Geoscience.


..........and they know this because they've been able to obtain spectroscopy data to observe this well known phenomenon presently occurring on at least several dozen planets outside our solar system.


"Subsequent research, the astronomers say, is needed in part because their computer modeling was done in a 'single-column, clear-sky model,' or a one-dimensional measure averaged around a planetary sphere that does not account for the atmospheric effect of clouds."

This isn't even 2D yet, it's just a quick rough cut to see if there's any effect worth investigating. Until they have a 3D model with realistic cloud simulation, it is not really significant.

On topic!
Gmr
2.3 / 5 (12) Aug 01, 2013
We know that Venus is hot because of its carbon dioxide atmosphere.

Are there still oil shills that want to cast doubt on why Venus is hot, due to its inconvenience as a, well, fairly definite fact?
GSwift7
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 02, 2013
We know that Venus is hot because of its carbon dioxide atmosphere.

Are there still oil shills that want to cast doubt on why Venus is hot, due to its inconvenience as a, well, fairly definite fact?


That's not actually the dominant theory.

The run-away greenhouse effect happened billions of years ago, at a time when Venus is thought to have had water on its surface, and probably did not have the abundance of carbon dioxide we see there today. The thoery is that water vapor, not carbon dioxide, caused the run-away effect. The carbon dioxide we see there today is a by-product of that run-away effect; the left-over wasteland after the apocalypse caused by water vapor. Venus may even be cooler today than it was at the peak of the run-away greenhouse period of its history (but we don't know). There's no way of knowing whether it is hotter now or not. It may have had several peaks of heating and cooling, just as we have had here on Earth. In fact, that's highly likely.
Gmr
2.6 / 5 (10) Aug 02, 2013
GSwift7 - it is why it remains hot. Regardless of whether carbon dioxide started it, carbon dioxide continues it in full force, well above what the amount of raw insolation would normally do. If it were only water vapor, it should have cooled off again long ago. If you rip the windows off a greenhouse it isn't a greenhouse anymore, regardless of how hot it might have been at any one point.

Shelgeyr
1.7 / 5 (18) Aug 02, 2013
VendicarE and Neinsense99 demonstrate that the true face of Al Gore's doomsday philosophy is fascism now transforming into psychosis:

http://oi42.tinyp...rbb5.jpg
(snip)
Their defense mechanisms include the cult mythology that:

If we make a mistake and don't see the thread again, we are "liars."
[snip]
If the biosphere is doomed, "no nukes!"


You called it man. Dead on. Except of course that those two are likely to call you a liar whether or not you've actually made a mistake.

They espouse evil, violence, and a worshipful kowtowing to tyranny, all while being really quite stupid. Ignore them or mock them. Either way, keep up the good fight. 5 Stars!
Shelgeyr
1.9 / 5 (18) Aug 02, 2013
(snip)"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." ― Christopher Hitchens

Exactly, "Birkeland currents" beyond the heliopause for example.


Seriously? You want to plant your flag/hang your hat on that? Are you saying that field-aligned helical rotating columns of energized plasma, obeying the laws of electromagnetism, only exist within the heliopause but nowhere else throughout the vast expanse of eternity we call the Universe?

Wow! Now THAT'S some harsh dogma you've got going there, if that's actually your position.
Shelgeyr
1.8 / 5 (20) Aug 02, 2013
I'm amused that two people so far, without comment, have rated my last post with single star. Seems like they may hate what I say, but can't rebut it. In the interest of acknowledging a lack of evidence, I have to admit that that's just my assumption.
Shelgeyr
1.5 / 5 (17) Aug 03, 2013
For Fleetfoot - some references to extra-solar-system field-aligned/Birkeland currents:

"Particle acceleration by magnetic field-aligned electric fields in active galactic nuclei" http://adsabs.har...24..461L

Also: From the Department of Plasma Physics, Royal Institue of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, "On the Significance of Magnetospheric Research for Progress in Astrophysics"
http://www.spp.ee...8-07.pdf
Quoting from page 4: "Already, spacecraft observations in the magnetosphere have identified a variety of plasma processes which were not predicted from the classical kinetic formalism, the MHD formalism, or even modern plasma theories."

Read the whole thing, making special note where they talk about galactic-scale phenomena (and "scale" in general).

Or: "Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasmas"
http://articles.a...000.html
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (13) Aug 03, 2013
Wow! Now THAT'S some harsh dogma you've got going there, if that's actually your position.

That is his position, dogma style.
Sinister1811
2.7 / 5 (10) Aug 03, 2013
I'm amused that two people so far, without comment, have rated my last post with single star. Seems like they may hate what I say, but can't rebut it. In the interest of acknowledging a lack of evidence, I have to admit that that's just my assumption.


Tell me about it. I complained about that open/toot troll earlier who has been ranking me 1/5 on every single post and I got attacked by three other users and 20 different sockpuppets. Phys.Org seriously needs to start moderating this sort of shit. I'm really getting tired of it.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Aug 03, 2013
I'm amused that two people so far, without comment, have rated my last post with single star. Seems like they may hate what I say, but can't rebut it. In the interest of acknowledging a lack of evidence, I have to admit that that's just my assumption.


I haven't rated you in this thread but I have done so for other people in the past. The reason has been that the conversation has descended into a flame war with nothing but ad hominem attacks and no relevant content. In that case, I'll 1-star both sides of the argument. This site isn't effectively moderated, like many others it's just a revenue generator based on reposting public material, so if the participants don't self-moderate, it ends up being worthless. There are plenty others I could use instead.

Of course I can't say what reasons the posters who marked you down had, I can only go on the specific posts.
Egleton
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2013
OK so I wasted my time reading this toilet wall grafiti.
Not one mention of Strange Attractors.
Not one mention of the self-regulating super-organism that is a thin skein on this rock.
An organism that supports every one of us. We are a part of it as a brain cell is part of your body.
Here is a further stretch of the analogy. Pruning, Apoptosis.
It is here.Not a conspiracy orchestrated by Gore or Hansen. Just an observable fact. Absolutely predictable in hindsight.
Our purpose will be to move our super-organism back into the Goldilocks zone. We wont be taking the rock with us. It is too massive.
The internet is not an accident. Neither is the distraction of the Main Steam Media.
wwqq
5 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2013
"Planetary 'runaway greenhouse' more easily triggered"

-So apparently is glaciation. We ought to store carbon in easily-recoverable form for the future.


How about we store it as hydrocarbons, in the ground?
wwqq
3 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2013
Not one mention of the self-regulating super-organism that is a thin skein on this rock.
An organism that supports every one of us.


Life is anti-gaian, it's medean.

Past suicide attempts include methane poisoning, the oxygen catastrophe, snowball earth and at least 5 hydrogen sulfide poisonings.

The permian-triassic extinction started with the siberian traps, but it really kicked into high gear with anoxic oceans and hydrogen sulfide; killing ~95% of marine species and ~70% of vertebrates. It's the only known mass-extinction of insects.