<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="http://www.blogger.com/styles/atom.css" type="text/css"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <id>http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange</id>
  <title type="text">globalchange Google Group</title>
  <subtitle type="text">
  Moderated discussion of environmental science, economics, policy and politics, especially as related to global change issues such as climate change, biodiversity, and sustainability.
  </subtitle>
  <link href="/group/globalchange/feed/atom_v1_0_msgs.xml" rel="self" title="globalchange feed"/>
  <updated>2010-01-05T13:06:27Z</updated>
  <generator uri="http://groups.google.com" version="1.99">Google Groups</generator>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Tom Adams</name>
  <email>tadams...@yahoo.com</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2010-01-05T13:06:27Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange/browse_frm/thread/5ef0208131d348bf/46b1b75b942188e1?show_docid=46b1b75b942188e1</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange/browse_frm/thread/5ef0208131d348bf/46b1b75b942188e1?show_docid=46b1b75b942188e1"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Hansen on runaway warming</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  Can you cite something, anything, that claims that Earth protected &lt;br&gt; Venus from icy asteroids? &lt;br&gt; You can find discussions and explanations of the number of craters on &lt;br&gt; Venus, but I can&#39;t find any that mention the protective effect of the &lt;br&gt; Earth. Seems an odd omission if there is a protective effect.
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Alastair</name>
  <email>a...@abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2010-01-04T18:06:18Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange/browse_frm/thread/5ef0208131d348bf/28512d29a02ee0f4?show_docid=28512d29a02ee0f4</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange/browse_frm/thread/5ef0208131d348bf/28512d29a02ee0f4?show_docid=28512d29a02ee0f4"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Hansen on runaway warming</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  Well, I can&#39;t prove that it happened. Nor AFAIK can anyone. &lt;br&gt; But I saw an estimate of 5000 times the amount of water on Earth, &lt;br&gt; formed in the asteroid belt. So we ca let a few of the passing MLB &lt;br&gt; comets crash into Mars, the Sun, Jupiter, and off to space and still &lt;br&gt; have enough left over to fill the Earth. Mars is smaller than Earth,
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Alastair</name>
  <email>a...@abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2010-01-04T17:49:42Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange/browse_frm/thread/5ef0208131d348bf/50a90ead53a61408?show_docid=50a90ead53a61408</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange/browse_frm/thread/5ef0208131d348bf/50a90ead53a61408?show_docid=50a90ead53a61408"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Hansen on runaway warming</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  Well, he would say that wouldn&#39;t he? :-) &lt;br&gt; &lt;a target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=nofollow href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandy_Rice_Davies#.22Well_he_would.2C_wouldn.27t_he.3F.22&quot;&gt;[link]&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br&gt; I presume you are referring to this: &lt;br&gt; ============================== ========= &lt;br&gt; Absence of Water Vapor &lt;br&gt; The clouds contain little water vapor, and there is little evidence &lt;br&gt; for water in any form on Venus. It is speculated that the absence of
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Phil Hays</name>
  <email>phil_h...@ieee.org</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2010-01-04T16:23:43Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange/browse_frm/thread/5ef0208131d348bf/9cd831f3549cac19?show_docid=9cd831f3549cac19</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange/browse_frm/thread/5ef0208131d348bf/9cd831f3549cac19?show_docid=9cd831f3549cac19"/>
  <title type="text">Re: [Global Change: 3411] Re: Hansen on runaway warming</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  The Earth has a much bigger &amp;quot;gravity well&amp;quot; than surface area. If a comet &lt;br&gt; or other body comes close, then the Earth&#39;s gravity will much more &lt;br&gt; likely deflect it into a different orbit than there be an impact. This &lt;br&gt; different orbit might be an Earth impacting one, or also might be a &lt;br&gt; Venus impacting one, but is more likely going to have multiple close
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Tom Adams</name>
  <email>tadams...@yahoo.com</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2010-01-04T15:03:58Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange/browse_frm/thread/5ef0208131d348bf/d4c40d7780160d6f?show_docid=d4c40d7780160d6f</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange/browse_frm/thread/5ef0208131d348bf/d4c40d7780160d6f?show_docid=d4c40d7780160d6f"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Hansen on runaway warming</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  I guess that might make it plausible. &lt;br&gt; But the references you cite say nothing about Venus being protected. &lt;br&gt; Hansen cites hydrogen isotope evidence from the current atmosphere of &lt;br&gt; Venus that it once had lots of water: &lt;br&gt; &lt;a target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=nofollow href=&quot;http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~blackman/ast104/vatmosphere.html&quot;&gt;[link]&lt;/a&gt;
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Alastair</name>
  <email>a...@abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2010-01-04T12:36:19Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange/browse_frm/thread/5ef0208131d348bf/5b96e7eb1a3db428?show_docid=5b96e7eb1a3db428</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange/browse_frm/thread/5ef0208131d348bf/5b96e7eb1a3db428?show_docid=5b96e7eb1a3db428"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Hansen on runaway warming</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  Yes, as the major axis increases due to the gravitational pull of &lt;br&gt; Jupiter, the minor axis decreases until it reaches 1AU, then crash! &lt;br&gt; The major axis rather than the minor will increase because that is &lt;br&gt; when the asteroid is on the corresponding part of the ellipse that it &lt;br&gt; is nearest Jupiter, and so Jupiter has a greater gravitational
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Kooiti MASUDA</name>
  <email>mas...@jamstec.go.jp</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2010-01-04T11:00:23Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange/browse_frm/thread/5ef0208131d348bf/a8c858d429dd0b88?show_docid=a8c858d429dd0b88</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange/browse_frm/thread/5ef0208131d348bf/a8c858d429dd0b88?show_docid=a8c858d429dd0b88"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Hansen on runaway warming</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  ... &lt;br&gt; In the chapter 10 &#39;Venus syndrome&#39; of his book &#39;Storms of my &lt;br&gt; Grandchildren&#39;, &lt;br&gt; Hansen says similar thing. &lt;br&gt; But, as far as I understand, he does not properly formulate here &lt;br&gt; what is the condition for runaway greenhouse effect, or &#39;Venus &lt;br&gt; syndrome&#39;. &lt;br&gt; What he shows with good scientific support is that the climate system
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>hgerhauser@yahoo.co.uk</name>
  <email>hgerhau...@yahoo.co.uk</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2010-01-04T09:17:38Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange/browse_frm/thread/5ef0208131d348bf/06e695be4483e030?show_docid=06e695be4483e030</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange/browse_frm/thread/5ef0208131d348bf/06e695be4483e030?show_docid=06e695be4483e030"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Hansen on runaway warming</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  I think that we need to be careful when drawing conclusion from past &lt;br&gt; climate. At least for the last million years we&#39;ve got very reliable &lt;br&gt; measurements for CO2 concentrations, but before that we are dealing &lt;br&gt; with proxy evidence. In addition, the overall forcing presumably &lt;br&gt; matters, not just the CO2 related forcing, and with regards to
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>hgerhauser@yahoo.co.uk</name>
  <email>hgerhau...@yahoo.co.uk</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2010-01-04T09:01:24Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange/browse_frm/thread/5ef0208131d348bf/9b06d0559d474010?show_docid=9b06d0559d474010</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange/browse_frm/thread/5ef0208131d348bf/9b06d0559d474010?show_docid=9b06d0559d474010"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Hansen on runaway warming</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  I was looking at the forcing multiplier, as if it could happen without &lt;br&gt; the concurrent temperature increase. That&#39;s very unreasonable for a &lt;br&gt; smooth temperature forcing function, and not so unreasonable with a &lt;br&gt; tipping point, where suddenly cloud cover or relative moisture &lt;br&gt; changes. &lt;br&gt; Without tipping point like changes, I suppose a lot less than 4 W/m2
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>James Annan</name>
  <email>james.an...@gmail.com</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2010-01-04T04:11:22Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange/browse_frm/thread/5ef0208131d348bf/5b79cc830b394b6f?show_docid=5b79cc830b394b6f</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange/browse_frm/thread/5ef0208131d348bf/5b79cc830b394b6f?show_docid=5b79cc830b394b6f"/>
  <title type="text">Re: [Global Change: 3401] Re: Hansen on runaway warming</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  I don&#39;t know much about planetary evolution, but I&#39;ve read enough to &lt;br&gt; know that there are some pretty counterintuitive (to me) things going &lt;br&gt; on, mostly due to the amazingly long time scales involved. &lt;br&gt; In this case it doesn&#39;t seem too implausible that if the comets are &lt;br&gt; slowly nudged into increasingly elliptical orbits, they will almost
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Alastair</name>
  <email>a...@abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2010-01-03T23:47:16Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange/browse_frm/thread/5ef0208131d348bf/f855910eb7ae6f61?show_docid=f855910eb7ae6f61</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange/browse_frm/thread/5ef0208131d348bf/f855910eb7ae6f61?show_docid=f855910eb7ae6f61"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Hansen on runaway warming</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  Earth would not act as a backstop to regular comets coming from the &lt;br&gt; the Oort and Kuiper belts, but if the Main (asteroid) Belt Comets, &lt;br&gt; with circular orbit gradually became more elliptical they would crash &lt;br&gt; with Earth first, and not become elliptical enough to crash with &lt;br&gt; Venus. These are asteroids that formed beyond the snowline. Of course
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Alastair</name>
  <email>a...@abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2010-01-03T23:56:38Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange/browse_frm/thread/5ef0208131d348bf/d330153ed04f4642?show_docid=d330153ed04f4642</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange/browse_frm/thread/5ef0208131d348bf/d330153ed04f4642?show_docid=d330153ed04f4642"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Hansen on runaway warming</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  What is described by Jewitt is main-belt comets, but these are not the &lt;br&gt; main comets, and Jewitt estimates there may be only 150. They are in &lt;br&gt; the main asteroid belt. What is being proposed is that the water on &lt;br&gt; the Earth came from icy asteroids which formed further than the main &lt;br&gt; asteroid belt from the Sun and closer to Jupiter. They arn&#39;t there now
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>James Annan</name>
  <email>james.an...@gmail.com</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2010-01-04T01:07:31Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange/browse_frm/thread/5ef0208131d348bf/a61e009a761c7682?show_docid=a61e009a761c7682</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange/browse_frm/thread/5ef0208131d348bf/a61e009a761c7682?show_docid=a61e009a761c7682"/>
  <title type="text">Re: [Global Change: 3396] Re: Hansen on runaway warming</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  Thanks for the ref. I wondered if his name would come up, as he has said &lt;br&gt; similar things on RC. &lt;br&gt; GCMs can achieve runaway warming - in fact some informal conversations &lt;br&gt; suggest to me that this is rather more common than you might imagine &lt;br&gt; based on reading the literature - but this is generally attributed to
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>James Annan</name>
  <email>james.an...@gmail.com</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2010-01-04T00:58:39Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange/browse_frm/thread/5ef0208131d348bf/d1c3b9b1c57e66ca?show_docid=d1c3b9b1c57e66ca</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange/browse_frm/thread/5ef0208131d348bf/d1c3b9b1c57e66ca?show_docid=d1c3b9b1c57e66ca"/>
  <title type="text">Re: [Global Change: 3392] Re: Hansen on runaway warming</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  Perhaps my previous message was not as clear as it could have been. On &lt;br&gt; an initial doubling of CO2, the imbalance is 4W/m^2 before there are any &lt;br&gt; other changes. As the atmosphere warms, the water vapour increases but &lt;br&gt; the radiative imbalance *decreases* anyway, because the warmer &lt;br&gt; atmosphere is closer to radiative equilibrium (ie outgoing LW radiation
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Robert A. Rohde</name>
  <email>raro...@gmail.com</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2010-01-04T00:46:50Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange/browse_frm/thread/5ef0208131d348bf/8560aab2ca956085?show_docid=8560aab2ca956085</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange/browse_frm/thread/5ef0208131d348bf/8560aab2ca956085?show_docid=8560aab2ca956085"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Hansen on runaway warming</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  Go back 500 million years, and solar luminosity is only about 7% lower &lt;br&gt; than now but CO2 was 20 times higher. I have trouble believing that &lt;br&gt; the small increases in solar luminosity could have left us so &lt;br&gt; precariously balanced on the edge of a knife that we&#39;d just now be on &lt;br&gt; the brink of a Venus-like runaway. I&#39;d also add that many points in
  </summary>
  </entry>
</feed>
