Cosmos TV show: Terrifying viewers about the Earth turning into Venus

by philg

I decided to try to entertain a child with an episode (12) of the new Cosmos TV show about the planet Venus, my personal favorite planet (other than Earth) due to the fact that my first job was writing software to manage data received from the Pioneer Venus orbiter.

The show tossed up some good history on scientific papers positing a link between the burning of fossil fuels and increasing global temperatures (we’ve know about this issue for more than 100 years). It also has some interesting stuff about early solar-thermal energy projects. What was most interesting to me, however, was how the show terrifies viewers by selectively presenting climate science. The positive feedback mechanism of polar ice melting and therefore the Earth reflecting less solar energy back into space (water is darker than ice) was presented, for example, but not the negative feedback mechanism of CO2 mixing with rain as the Earth gets warmer. It isn’t hard to present this succinctly yet completely. See these notes for Ohio State Astronomy students, for example.

Readers: is this typical of how the media presents Climate and CO2 cycle 101? Highlight the stuff that could take us straight into a Venusian situation but downplay or omit the negative feedback mechanisms?

6 thoughts on “Cosmos TV show: Terrifying viewers about the Earth turning into Venus”

  1. There was a PBS show on global dimming, 10 years ago. Sulfur & contrails reduce the amount of energy reaching the Earth, reducing the amount of evaporation & rain. The money is in global warming rather than global dimming, but not many people are constantly affected by the increasing temperature, while the lack of freshwater is a constant problem for all of us west of the Mississippi. We can’t wash our cars, which reduces resale value. We can’t grow landscaping, which reduces home valuations. Food prices are rising very fast. The government has compensated with interest free credit, but it can’t afford the necessary infrastructure to bring in water from more northern latitudes. There are only calls to tax CO2, which actually worsens the drought.

  3. “…but not the negative feedback mechanism of CO2 mixing with rain as the Earth gets warmer.”
    Gas solubility goes inverse with temperature. Warmer water, less absorption. No clue which is the dominant affect, more rain > more absorption; or warmer rain > less absorption. I do know most CO2 is dissolved in the oceans. Warmer ocean > less gas in solution > more gas in atmosphere. The warm Coke effect (i.e., goes flat fast).

  4. Climate change is happening. And will continue, forever. It’s a natural process in the life cycle of a planet. Current science tells us human activity (burning fossil fuels, farming, etc.) has become a significant factor influencing the direction and rate of global climate change. How significant is an open question. What is rate of change? Is there a tipping point (like putting offsetting coins on a scale)? Modeling global climate for a planet like Earth is probably the most complex task ever attempted by Home sapiens. Far more complex than star evolution. Global climate has more variables and more unknowns. Current models have long error bars. Ask an honest climatologist.

  5. Linking the western drought to CO2 would require detailed arguments. From what I’ve read the 19th century was just oddly rainy in the American west and all that’s happened is a return to more historically normal precipitation.

Comments are closed.