On 16/03/2017 19:42, newshound wrote:
On 3/16/2017 5:22 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...-a7407881.html

Definitely one here for TurNiP to read Heh! Heh!

"Could".

Does it seem likely?

No.

Even as someone who accepts that anthropogenic global warming from CO2
is real there is a fair amount of headroom before we fry the planet to a
crisp. I actually got a chance to test that with one of the earlier
climate models with an injection of 31x present value of 400ppm CO2 and
watched what happened. That is 5 doublings or on the standard heuristic
5x3K = 15K global temperature rise. I was hoping to boil equatorial
oceans but it was somewhat disappointing with sea levels rising and
stronger winds driven by the increased energy in the atmosphere.

It is entirely likely that I pushed the model outside its valid limits
but it was interesting to watch the atmospheric CO2 concentration relax
down to a new equilibrium with the oceans as temperatures adjusted.

To be almost certain of boiling the equatorial oceans I reckon you would
need to increase CO2 levels to around 6% at which point the planet
becomes hostile to human life for other reasons.
(breathing becomes difficult - insufficient partial pressure O2)

Insolation of Venus is 93% higher.

Which means if you put Venus exactly where the Earth is now its surface
temperature would be only 613K or 340C - still enough to melt lead.

What really matters is that the surface atmospheric pressure of Venus is
around 93 atm because most of its CO2 is still in the atmosphere.

If you were to move the Earth with average surface temperature ~290K to
where Venus is now then the higher insolation would give it 345K ~ 72C
mean surface temperature which might well evaporate all the oceans.

Supported by Michael Mann, enough said.

He is a perfectly good scientist whose climate data you don't like, and
has been most unfairly vilified by paranoid right whingers.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown