Could Earth's 'evil twin' Venus carry a dire warning about climate change?

At least this article does say that Earth is unlikely to be turned into Venus by humans.

But, it seems to really short-shrift the discussion about why Venus' atmosphere is so different from Earth's, mentioning only that the various theories range from millions to billions of years ago when the greenhouse gas effect "ran away" to create the high temperatures we measure there now.

I would like to see more about those theories, mainly to know what to think about various exoplanet discoveries.

The article talks about Venus "only" being at about 70% of Earth's distance from the Sun. But, that results in Venus getting about twice as much solar energy hitting its atmosphere. That is a big difference to begin with.

And, speaking of the beginning of both planets as they condensed from the gas and dust cloud surrounding the Sun, why would we expect the initial atmospheric compositions to be much different? The article even says something about nitrous oxide and CO2 "which are released by the burning of fossil fuels". But, that is really irrelevant, because there may never have been any "fossil" fuels on Venus, much less a technological civilization to burn them.

The differences seem to be that Venus lost its water to space, or at least into its atmosphere, but did not lose its CO2. In contrast, Earth seems to have had its CO2 removed from its atmosphere and stored in the solid parts of the planet, by life forms. that also oxygenated the atmosphere, largely by removing the carbon into the ground.

So, it seems unlikely that this all happened by some process where Venus was much like Earth, with abundant life that created an atmosphere like Earth's, only to have had massive volcanic eruptions on Venus release CO2 from under ground in sufficient quantity to kick of the greenhouse effect only "millions" of years ago.

It would not surprise me if Venus simply had an initially dense atmosphere that promptly created sufficient greenhouse effect to have always made the planet too hot for liquid water or the hydrocarbon chemicals that are the basis for life on Earth. With twice the solar energy input, Venus would have an "advantage" to go in that direction, compared to Earth.

So, at least for me, what I think is important to learn from Venus about Earth is more about how Earth could have gone from a dense, heavy atmosphere to what we have today, instead of turning out like Venus. Is the 50% less solar energy input the only determinant?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Helio
Oct 7, 2024
4
1
15
At least this article does say that Earth is unlikely to be turned into Venus by humans.

But, it seems to really short-shrift the discussion about why Venus' atmosphere is so different from Earth's, mentioning only that the various theories range from millions to billions of years ago when the greenhouse gas effect "ran away" to create the high temperatures we measure there not.

I would like to see more about those theories, mainly to know what to think about various exoplanet discoveries.

The article talks about Venus "only" being at about 70% if Earth's distance from the Sun. But, that results in Venus getting about twice as much solar energy hitting its atmosphere. That is a big difference to begin with.

And, speaking of the beginning of both planets as they condensed from the gas and dust cloud surrounding the Sun, why would we expect the initial atmospheric compositions to be much different? The article even says something about nitrous oxide and CO2 "which are released by the burning of fossil fuels". But, that is really irrelevant, because there may never have been any "fossil" fuels on Venus, much less a technological civilization to burn them.

The differences seem to be that Venus lost its water to space, or at least into its atmosphere, but did not lose its CO2. In contrast, Earth seems to have had its CO2 removed from its atmosphere and stored in the solid parts of the planet, by life forms. that also oxygenated the atmosphere, largely by removing the carbon into the ground.

So, it seems unlikely that this all happened by some process where Venus was much like Earth, with abundant life that created an atmosphere like Earth's, only to have had massive volcanic eruptions on Venus release CO2 from under ground in sufficient quantity to kick of the greenhouse effect only "millions" of years ago.

It would not surprise me if Venus simply had an initially dense atmosphere that promptly created sufficient greenhouse effect to have always made the planet too hot for liquid water or the hydrocarbon chemicals that are the basis for life on Earth. With twice the solar energy input, Venus would have an "advantage" to go in that direction, compared to Earth.

So, at least for me, what I think is important to learn from Venus about Earth is more about how Earth could have gone from a dense, heavy atmosphere to what we have today, instead of turning out like Venus. Is the 50% less solar energy input the only determinant?
As stated in the article, we as yet have no way of knowing exactly what led to the runaway greenhouse effect that is believed to have occurred on Venus.

"...something seems to have gone drastically wrong in the development of Venus... There is a good chance that "something" is an extreme runaway greenhouse effect, the consequence of an overabundance of atmospheric greenhouse gases."

The article also does not go into detail about why "we" "believe" that a runaway greenhouse effect occurred on Venus, focusing instead on the approximate timeframe and hypothetical causes of this theoretical process.

"The causes of this greenhouse effect on Venus and Earth are different, to be clear. On Venus, the effect was natural and likely the result of excessive volcanism millions or billions of years ago — on Earth, it is the result of humankind's burning of fossil fuels."

Why should we suppose that it is impossible for advanced life, even technologically "advanced" (as we see it) life to have existed on Venus at some point in its past?


For the author to claim outright as a "fact" that the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus is a result of natural causes is unscientific. To be clear, I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that there was advanced life on Venus at any point in its past, but I have also not seen any evidence to the contrary. How would I have?

It is often forgotten (particularly in the modern media landscape) that the true function of science is to help us make the most informed possible speculations (whenever it is necessary) from a practical perspective.

Science also exists as the best known human framework for engaging in the  perpetual practice of raising new questions about the phenomena we encounter in our so-called "observable universe", and their relationship to each other.

In other words, in this brief article, the author was not able to explore the reasons why many in the scientific community presumably speculate that our neighboring planet experienced a runaway greenhouse effect at some point in its history. I would assume that, based on empirical evidence gathered over time, there have been theoretical (e.g. speculative) discussions, simulations, and research papers on the subject which have led many in the scientific community to reach the conclusion that this speculation is the "most likely" (in light of the fact of uncertainty, which is a permanent condition of human existence) to be "true" (although I have not extensively researched this subject).

The author also did not have the space to go at length into detail about the theoretical causes of the theoretical runaway greenhouse effect on Venus, but again, I would assume that scientists have their reasons for speculating as they do.

Now, to quote a portion of your own response:
"The differences seem to be that Venus lost its water to space, or at least into its atmosphere, but did not lose its CO2. In contrast, Earth seems to have had its CO2 removed from its atmosphere and stored in the solid parts of the planet, by life forms. that also oxygenated the atmosphere, largely by removing the carbon into the ground."

This is a very valid point, and it speaks to the heart of the issue at hand. According to theory (which, not to belabor the point, is nothing more and nothing less than scientific speculation aiming, hopefully, in the direction of the truth) extraordinary amounts of the carbon you speak of that was once stored in plants, was eventually turned through the processes of nature into what we call "fossil fuels".

When we recover those fossil fuels from the Earth and burn them for fuel, all that carbon that has been locked away in the Earth for countless generations is released back into our atmosphere in the form of gaseous carbon dioxide.

It would be reductive to say that this alone is the cause of anthropogenic climate change, however, it is an extremely important part of the picture.

Much like the theoretical runaway greenhouse effect on Venus, the greenhouse effect on Earth has a way of compounding itself.

For example, as the Earth continues to warm in part due to the CO2 released by our primitive form of energy generation, one consequence is the melting of permafrost across the arctic regions. As permafrost melts, methane (another greenhouse gas) that has also been trapped in the soil is released into the atmosphere in massive amounts, adding a correlated layer of cause into the constellation of problems that we reduce to the phrase "anthropogenic climate change".

For human beings, what we call a "problem" is essentially a result (specifically a negative consequence) of causes (plural, because nothing is ever the result of one cause) that we don't understand or are simply unable to rectify.

The lesson that we should learn, when it comes to the theoretical runaway greenhouse effect of Venus, is that sometimes problems have a way of creating new causes that lead to worse problems.

Everything is connected, and when we burn fossil fuels for energy, we are not merely releasing excess carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to no affect. We are creating a feedback loop of problems leading to causes leading to problems, and this process has the potential to spiral completely out of our control if it hasn't already.

If Earth ends up like Venus, it will take a long time relative to the individual human lifespan. That doesn't mean we can't or won't see catastrophic impacts resulting from climate change in our lifetimes, especially when you start factoring in related problems like mass migration, economic and geopolitical instability, and the human propensity for war.

Famines, droughts, monster storms, plagues... all of these things lead to a dearth of resources and massive increases to collective stress and tension, which are primary causes of war.

It would take extraordinary leadership to force us to face the most significant problems that challenge us as a society, all of which are connected and just one of which is climate change.

If we don't face these challenges head on, and soon, it will take even more extraordinary leadership to keep humanity from destroying itself entirely. The problems of our time, like the dynamics of the climate of Venus that lead theoretically to the runaway greenhouse effect, have a chance to feed off of each other and run away from us.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ken Fabian
Dec 29, 2019
333
198
10,860
I'm not convinced studying Venus will tell us anything about Earth's climate that we couldn't deduce by other means, but I am not certain of that and other planets to compare to will have some value, if only in showing the uniqueness of Earth. Earth has it's own potential for significant climate changes as well as humans to be a source of climate change and be vulnerable to it.
 
Oct 7, 2024
4
1
15
I'm not convinced studying Venus will tell us anything about Earth's climate that we couldn't deduce by other means, but I am not certain of that and other planets to compare to will have some value, if only in showing the uniqueness of Earth. Earth has it's own potential for significant climate changes as well as humans to be a source of climate change and be vulnerable to it.
"I'm not convinced studying Venus will tell us anything about Earth's climate that we couldn't deduce by other means... other planets to compare to will have some value, if only in showing the uniqueness of Earth."

Copernicus authored a similarly anthropocentric (e.g. egotistical) point of view (so to speak).

Copernicus broke the mould. How could a man, after all these centuries of "brand new insight" dare to suggest that the Sun, and not the Earth, is the center of the Universe?
 
The article talks about Venus "only" being at about 70% of Earth's distance from the Sun. But, that results in Venus getting about twice as much solar energy hitting its atmosphere. That is a big difference to begin with.
Yes, though a = 0.723AU for Venus, so it receives 90% more solar radiation. No small matter.

In contrast, Earth seems to have had its CO2 removed from its atmosphere and stored in the solid parts of the planet, by life forms. that also oxygenated the atmosphere, largely by removing the carbon into the ground.
Right. Did I miss plate tectonics mentioned in the article? Venus may have had some tectonics, according to a 2023 article, but this seems to have ended perhaps 4 billion years ago. If so, advanced life would seem very unlikely to have had time to come along.

Perhaps, though, both the biological and non-biological processes worked to make limestone, and other carbonates, during that period, but then failed with the lack of tectonic activity.

So, at least for me, what I think is important to learn from Venus about Earth is more about how Earth could have gone from a dense, heavy atmosphere to what we have today, instead of turning out like Venus. Is the 50% less solar energy input the only determinant?
No doubt there is a lot more to learn about Venus. How did it lose it’s rotational ang. momentum? An impact? Or was it tidally locked in a closer orbit then moved out when Saturn and Jupiter went into resonance? There is also, apparently, a lack of temperature gradient at the cloud tops as the poles are about the same temperature as the equatorial region. Lots of questions but the phosphine story, though diminished, may be helping to get a probe over there.
 
Oct 7, 2024
4
1
15
Yes, though a = 0.723AU for Venus, so it receives 90% more solar radiation. No small matter.


Right. Did I miss plate tectonics mentioned in the article? Venus may have had some tectonics, according to a 2023 article, but this seems to have ended perhaps 4 billion years ago. If so, advanced life would seem very unlikely to have had time to come along.

Perhaps, though, both the biological and non-biological processes worked to make limestone, and other carbonates, during that period, but then failed with the lack of tectonic activity.


No doubt there is a lot more to learn about Venus. How did it lose it’s rotational ang. momentum? An impact? Or was it tidally locked in a closer orbit then moved out when Saturn and Jupiter went into resonance? There is also, apparently, a lack of temperature gradient at the cloud tops as the poles are about the same temperature as the equatorial region. Lots of questions but the phosphine story, though diminished, may be helping to get a probe over there.
Lots of questions, and all of them imaginary.

What is imaginary is real. What is imagined is really imagined.

What is experienced is real. What is experienced is really experienced.

What is real is real. What is real is real.

All these made up words, suggesting that we know this or know that...
We've forgotten the one thing we are bound to remember. The truth.
 
Copernicus broke the mould. How could a man, after all these centuries of "brand new insight" dare to suggest that the Sun, and not the Earth, is the center of the Universe?
Yes, that's an important question for science. I think there were a number of factors:

His approx. 12 years of college taught him not only law but Greek and astrology/astronomy. The latter required for medical work.

1) Ptolemy's model was required a lot of work to update the tables.
2) He read about Aristarchus and other early Greeks who postulated the large Sun was the center.
3) He recognized the elegance of the period-distance relationship for the planets.
4) His model easily explained planetary retrogrades.
5) The Sun was much, much bigger.
6) His model, he thought, was simpler. [It was about the same in number of epicycles since he too was stuck on circular orbits with planets moving at constant speeds.]
7) He was encouraged by others, including other clergy like himself, to publish, and he was about as far from Rome as one could be at the time. :)
9) The Almagest was mainly a math model. Ptolemy never argued his epicycles, equants, eccentrics and deferents were physical manifestations. He sought a method to determine the planet's location with time.
Copernicus, however, sought a physical model.

This latter point, 9, is important since we see many metaphysical works that lack a physical model. Friedmann is not credited with the BBT since his work was mathematical only, lacking objective arguments.
 
Lots of questions, and all of them imaginary.

What is imaginary is real. What is imagined is really imagined.

What is experienced is real. What is experienced is really experienced.

What is real is real. What is real is real.

All these made up words, suggesting that we know this or know that...
We've forgotten the one thing we are bound to remember. The truth.
This is why science plays an important and unique role. Objective-based hypotheses are as good as knowledge can get. This is where tests take place. Truth transcends it so it is a bit too illusive for science, IMO.
 
Dec 29, 2019
333
198
10,860
No intention of belittling the studying of Venus - and didn't James Hansen apply atmospheric modeling developed for Venus to better understand how changing GHG levels affect Earth's? But we do have a very good understanding of the fundamentals of how Earth's climate system works now, primarily without reference to other planets. We have a good idea of what happens when lots of CO2 and methane get added -; there are enough dire warnings coming out of that without the specter of Venus style runaway greenhouse effect.
 
In "The Secret Life of the Universe", Natalie Cabrol (Dir. of Car Sagan Inst. at SETI) has a chapter on Venus and habitability. She notes that it will take atmospheric probes to help determine the best scenario for the history of Venus.

She addresses three scenarios, but the favored, apparently, is one where Venus was habitable until the last few hundred million years. Since the Sun was 75% less luminous in the distant past, then she claims it would have been in the habitable zone. I disagree since the temperature method I use says otherwise even when I bump the HZ width to include the broader Equilibrium Temp. method, which allows only a 15% luminosity increase. As noted above, the current orbital distance for Venus would exceed this even when the Sun was cooler. Of course, who knows what orbit it had back then. [The small size of Mars is only one indication Jupiter created a pin-ball environment for the planets.]

The scenario suggests that volcanic activity was great pumping CO2 and other products in the atmosphere. Water vapor, too hot to condense, along with CO2, etc. would have disastrous effects. Tectonic plate movements would have ceased without the important lubrication effects of liquid water.

But, there is a chance that life may have been there prior to the catastrophe. The other scenarios seem very unfavorable for life given the planetary temperatures were hot from the start, more or less.
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts