Your mistaking an aspect here, Venus's slow rotation is in all probability the cause for it's circumstances, not an irrelevant side factor, as is it's immense atmosphere. The surface temperature of venus is effectivelly isothermal, all well and good, dig 20 feet into the ground on most parts of Earth and you'll find it 58 deg Fahrenheit, regardless of time of year or day, effectively Isothermal, pretty much all celestial object in orbit around a star receiving most of their juice from that star have a given depth they become Isothermal or nearly so. In terms of mere day time flux, typically on Earth you only need to dig a foot or two down to get to a depth where temperature varies only with time of year and not with day. Venus has weather, it just doesn't have any variance of tmep at the surface, the atmosphere is massively thick.



Temperature on the surface, don't get to "Earthbound" in your thinking. You are trying to use Venus as an example of greenhouse effect analogous to Earth, to understand why it is not you have to understand the massive differences between them. Forget about Venus current status, it has virtually no axial tipping, it has a daytime that hast two months and receives twice the light, more than a hundred times as much energy hits it during a day. It's circumstances are viewed as a result of these factors, not disconnected.



When they're that large and in regards to blackbody radiation? Yes, but the example was merely for ease of mental absorption. Blackbody radiation is strictly a matter of temperature, were we to redo those instead with only two globes, one of constant temp and one that was +/- the same tmep from that we'd have gotten the same values, cut in half in terms of output from the lower total surface area but same in ratio.



The total effect of magnetic fields on weather are not known, evidence a this time is inconclusive as to weather magnetic pole switches or movement cause climate change, though last I checked it was felt that it probably did not significantly. But that was in regards change pole location. As stated, it keeps various particles out, those particles not only would bring in heat but also would tend to have chemical effects when they struck, a parallel being the effect of sunlight on oxygen/ozone.



I believe it has been shown that a 100% CO2 atmosphere on Earth would not cause water to boil, but I can't recall where I saw that to link an analysis, regardless, keep in mind that a rise in CO2 will not cause it to become 100% Co2. The Earth's Atmosphere weighs about 5 Billion Megatons. Last I checked world annual CO2 output is around 30,000 megatons, we do leak some air into the void but as pressure rises boiling point of water does too, and of course it take a lot more energy to boil water than it does to get it up there from ice. Not that 90C water would be particularly fun either.



The difficulty here is that where 'carbon' is concerned these days people's scientific opinion seems governed by their politics, more than the other way around, and neither is strictly appropriate but the latter is a bit more acceptable. You assuming something 'must be done' but the flip side of the coin is that there are a lot of us who think that 'something' should be figuring out what is being done, and then figuring out the the actual problem that needs a solution. I frankly consider the long-range threat minimal, because it seems to have some fairly nice silver linings and the actual thunderbolt seems addressable, and I really am not convinced any truly extreme effect will occur.

Your take on the Climategate issue I will have to bypass, I do not believe the accused were innocent or slandered. Nor do I now wish to hear the moans from those who for years have slandered every skeptic on the various Green fads as fools, religious fanatics, or greedy corporate hacks. After decades of that crap over nuclear matters we are only now get a few vague half-ass apologies for all the shit we took for years of telling people to relax.



Skepticism means proceeding in the most rationale fashion base don available evidence. In my opinion there is no need to 'hedge our bets', fossils fuels are limited resource and unable to indefinitely meet our growing energy concerns alone, that is sufficient reason for me to support research and development of more efficient devices and alternate energy sources, I of course need no reason to support the former, efficiency is always good, and industry tends to strive for it rather enthusiastically.

You are right that 'hedging ones bets' is wise, but only in total context, were we to adopt all the policies the greens want, we'd lay more misery down on the world then both World Wars combined.



I advise you too look up how much tundra there is, and remember that Antartica is actually a whole continent. Second, why would those places become desert? Hotter temps mean more rain, it will doubtless not be evenly spread, but on average it should be, and these effects would not happen overnight, we are talking decades, further, you seem to ignore that we have become very advanced at techniques to protect areas from becoming desert, we've made massive advances in arid agriculture as well and even developed some nifty ways to turns coastal deserts into high producing land, renewable passive solar desalinization and agriculture facilities. We will doubtless continue to improve those techniques. But again, do a logic check, the total rainfall will increase if temperature rises, there is no particular reason to assume places will get less rainfall, most places will get more, if weather patterns begin to shift, well they do do that from time to time, it is not particularly labor intensive to adjust ecology over a few decades to match the new local norm. In terms of deserts, well, frankly polycarbonate is not that expensive, as greenhouses they tend to represent a better long-term capital investment then switching to, say, solar panels, and for that matter more volatile weather would probably make windmills more cost effective. Green-tinted polycarbonate runs about $50,000 an acre for the material itself, and would reflect green light, useless to plants, right back up into the atmosphere in desert regions, and they have no meaningful water loss which can be resupplied with saltwater anyway instead of fresh water. Greenhouses produce far more calories per square foot than any other method anyway. It's entirely possible agriculture will switch entirely away from open air just because there are a lot of emerging economic advantages to having your whole 'field' contained inside a place where irrigation is unnecessary, there is no soil erosion and loss, and you can pump tons of CO2 into it. I think you'd feel a lot better about this whole thing if you spent some time researching greenhouses and emerging aquaponics technology.



Covered some of that above, but one points out that when land sink below sea level it does not actually become 'sea', dikes can be constructed. Those areas get hit so hard not simply because their weather suck but because they are simply under-developed and horribly ruled. And Coastal populations shift all the time, the shoreline is not and never has been static, houses are typically only built to last 20-50 years before maintenance cost exceeds construction cost. Cities are not even fixed locations, they tend to migrate, and we already know how to preserve shoreline when necessary.



I am aware of the basic thermodynamics of water Joel While I personally dislike the heat, plants don't. I don't really care what happens to people's living space so long as the net amount of arable land does not diminish, we (developed countries) only use about 2% of the pop to grow food, our big-ass cities can easily be diked or moved. We don't build buildings to last for centuries, but for decades. If you look at population density charts moving over decade span the whole of humanity ebbs and wanders around the map like crazy.



That's the politics overriding the reason. You view 'the powers that be' as an enemy with selfish motives and ill-intent, I do not. I have noticed that that tends to be the driving force in most people's views on the matter. I consider a robust, industrialized economy as better equipped to handles this problem or any others which may pop up, and most of the solutions proposed by the greens that are not already things industry required little encouragement to adopt as threats to that. I think most greens view us as ripping down our house to keep the fire going so we don't freeze to death while ignoring the gaping whole we're putting in the walls and roof, from my perspective, adopting things which damage the economy is the same thing. Some people wish to meet this 'crisis' with a singular solution they feel addresses all the problems of society that they see, typically massive economic redistribution and a lot of times some return to an idolized past. Reasonable, sane measures are better, I tend to think our 'greedy leaders' are actually pretty good about doing this, whereas I tend to feel most of the enviro-types are bound and determined to take us down a road paved with little carbon friendly bricks scribed with the words 'good intentions'



Yeah, see above.