GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


archive:science:venus.sur

From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news) Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Ginenthal on Venus' Surface Phenomena Message-ID: 200@fedfil.UUCP Date: 12 Jan 93 05:30:44 GMT Organization: HTE Lines: 788

The following is from Charles Ginenthal's article, "THE SURFACE OF VENUS", AEON III/I, winter 92/93. Ginenthal appears to not be hung up over copyrights, as some catastrophist authors have been, and if this article (of mine) begins to look like large-scale plagiarism, you can relax; Mr. G. himself told me it was cool. He, like myself, is primarily concerned that this information simply gets out. I have removed all footnotes from the following material… anybody that serious can subscribe to AEON. Comments of mine will begin all the way to the left.

  "In 1950, Immanuel Velikovsky claimed that the testimony of
  ancient peoples from all parts of the globe described
  Venus as a giant, brilliant comet.  Based on Velikovsky's
  analysis of this data he drew the conclusion that Venus was
  a newborn planet in the early cool-down stage of its
  development.  Therefore, if his understanding of the
  evidence was correct then Venus' surface should exhibit
  all the conditions of a world that was very recently molten
  and is most likely still volcanic and geologically active.

Thus we have Velikovsky on record with a correct prediction of what we would actually find on Venus as early as 1950. Ginenthal notes that ten years later, establishment science was still in the woods:

  "In 1985, Dr.  Lawrence Colin, Chief of the Space
  Science Division at NASA's Ames Research Center and
  coeditor of Venus, wrote:
      'Our knowledge of Venus was still seriously limited in the
      early 1960s prior to mankind's first rendezvous by spacecraft.
      In 1961 competing views of Venus could be classified in seven
      broad categories:
       1.  moist, swampy, teeming with life.
       2.  warm, enveloped by a global carbonic-acid ocean.
       3.  cool, Earth-like, with surface water and a dense ionosphere.
       4.  water, massive precipitating clouds of water droplets with
           intense lightning.
       5.  cold, polar regions with ice caps 10 kilometers thick
           and a hot equatorial region far above the boiling point
           of water.
       6.  hot, dusty, dry, windy global desert.  extremely hot
           and cloudy, with molten lead and zinc puddles at the
           equator, seas of bromine, butyric acid and phenols at the
           poles.
      'From this list it is not obvious that scientists were all
      describing the same planet.  For those who are impatient
      about the outcome, speculation 6 appears to represent
      most closely what we now think Venus is like.

The source from Colin and others are cited as to the state of establishment knowledge of Venus as of 1960/61.

  "Nowhere was it ever suggested by establishment
  scientists that Venus would be found to be a
  volcanic cauldron covered by immense lava flows.  In
  fact, as recent as 1989, Isaac Asimov, the late
  popular science writer, remarked:
      'For years astronomers had believed that Venus was a
      geologically dead place.  Although quakes, volcanoes and
      other activity surely wracked the planet at one time,
      it seemed certain that Venus was quiet today.

Due to the 5+ billion year age of the system no doubt. If earth in no way resembles a solid sea of lava, there would be no reason to suspect that an entirely similar sister planet the same age would.

  "Therefore, if Velikovsky's analysis of the ancient
  testimony is correct the observations by the Magellan
  spacecraft should not only contradict the previous models
  of the Venusian surface but should also show
  overwhelming evidence of recent stupendous volcanism on a
  surface that appears to be pristine.
  "One of the first indications of this excessive volcanism was
  presented in May 1990 in the Journal of Geophysical Research which
  analyzed the sulfur content of the Venusian clouds.
  There Na Y. Chan et al. state:
      'Results of recent International Ultraviolet Explorer
      (IUE) observations of Venus made on January 20, 1987,
      and April 2 and 3, 1988, along with a re-analysis of
      the 1979 observations ...  are presented.  The observations
      indicate that the amount of sulfur dioxide at the cloud
      tops of Venus declined by a factor of 8 +- 4 from
      380 +- 70 ppb [parts per billion] to 50 +- 20 ppb in 1987 and
      1988.
  "One of the researchers of this phenomenon, Larry
  Esposito from the University of Boulder Colorado,
  elaborated on this decrease of S02 and SO two months later in
  "Astronomy":
      'Pioneer Venus has continued to monitor these
      constituents above the clouds.  Over the years a
      remarkable discovery has emerged: both sulfur dioxide and
      the haze have been gradually disappearing.   By now
      only about 10 percent of the 1978 amount remains.
      This disappearance has also been confirmed by the
      Earth-orbiting International Ultraviolet Explorer
      between 1979 and 1987 and other Earth-based
      observations.  The haze and the sulfur dioxide are
      now approaching their pre-1978 values.
      'Analysis of recent Earth-based radio
      observations by Paul Steffes and his colleagues show less
      sulfur dioxide below the clouds than was measured by
      Pioneer Venus and the Venera landers, which is also
      consistent with the decrease of sulfur dioxide.  Inclusive
      Earth-based data show that a similar phenomenon may also have
      occurred in the late 1950s.
  "The best explanation right now for the decrease is that
  from time to time major volcanic eruptions inject sulfur
  dioxide gas to high altitudes.  The haze comes from
  particles of sulfuric acid, which is created by the action of
  sunlight on sulfur dioxide ...  Being heavy the particles
  gradually fall out of the upper atmosphere, letting
  conditions up there return to normal between eruptions.
  "My calculations show that this eruption of the late 1970s was
  at least as large as the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa.
  The explosion, equal to a 500-megaton H-bomb, was
  the most violent of the last century or so shooting
  vast quantities of gas into the Earth's stratosphere.

Ginenthal cites other authors claiming massive and very recent (last hundred years or so) volcanic activity on Venus:

  "David Morrison and Tobias Owen put the case even more strongly:
      "Observations over the past twenty years have indicated that
      large fluctuations occur in the concentration of sulfur
      dioxide (SO2) in the atmosphere of Venus above the
      clouds.  When these observations are combined with
      indications of volcanic topography and lightning
      discharges for possible volcanism, the case for erupting
      volcanoes on Venus becomes rather strong.
  "This appears to be indirect evidence that at least twice
  in the 1950s and 1970s there were major volcanic
  eruptions on Venus' surface.  There are, of course,
  questions and objections related to this analysis;
  nevertheless, the Magellan spacecraft may have already
  observed explosive volcanism.  In the December 1990
  issue of Scientific American appears a photograph made
  by Magellan which appears to exhibit exploded material
  from one of its craters.  The caption accompanying the
  picture states:
      'Explosive volcanism may be responsible for the
      radar-bright deposit that extends roughly 10 kilometers
      from the kilometer-wide volcanic crater at the center of
      the image.  The etched pattern of the surrounding plains
      becomes more obscure closer to the crater, which
      indicates that the deposit is thickest near the crater.  The
      shape of the deposit suggests that local winds either
      carried the plume southward or else gradually eroded
      away the plume material except for that part located in the
      volcano's wind shadow.

Ginenthal is essentially saying that that major volcanic activity (Krakatoa-like) appears to be a regular feature of Venus. He goes on to compare lava-flow features of Venus with those of Jupiter's moon, IO, for reasons which shall shortly become apparent.

  "As lo orbits around Jupiter it is constantly being distorted
  in shape by its tidal interactions with the very massive
  Jupiter and its three outer Galilean satellites.  As lo
  is distorted and flexed, like the action produced by
  bending a spoon, enormous heat is generated producing
  volcanism.  therefore, lo is molten at a relatively low depth
  of its surface and its thin crust is floating on an
  ocean of molten magma.
  "Io is the most volcanic body in the solar system.  According
  to Billy Glass:
      'The volcanic eruptions [on lo] appear to
      be comparable in intensity to the greatest terrestrial
      eruptions which are rare on the Earth ...  lo appears to be
      volcanically more active than the Earth.  This has made
      mapping lo difficult because the active regions undergo
      radical changes in short periods of time.

Ginenthal see in IO a body very roughly comparable with Venus, assuming Velikovsky's version of Venus' recent history.

  "Hence, if Venus was an incandescent body 3500 years
  ago and then cooled to the point where it became
  molten before it arrived at its present state, it should
  exhibit a topography quite similar to that of lo.  In
  essence the volcanic forms observed on lo should
  generally be representative of the surface features
  seen on Venus.  There should, of course be differences
  between the bodies because Io's temperature is not
  decreasing whereas we presume that Venus' temperature
  is.  Furthermore, there will be differences in the
  materials each body contains which will also affect the
  appearance of their surfaces.

Ginenthal points out that some of what we see on Io resembles features of more familiar bodies such as Earth or Mars. However:

  "David Morrison describes Io's volcanic features as follows:
      'Some of lo's volcanic features look a great deal like their
      terrestrial counterparts: low shield-shaped constructs with
      calderas at their peaks and flows of erupted materials
      on their sides.  However, most of lo's calderas are not at
      the tops of mountains but instead appear to be scattered
      amid the plains."

That is in fact a feature we would expect of either a totally new planet or of some body which was for other reasons, as is the case with Io, being kept in a nearly totally molten state. Ginenthal notes:

  "Io exudes its magma in this manner
  because it is tremendously hot internally and has an
  extremely thin crust.  Therefore if Velikovsky was right
  that Venus was hot internally just below its thin
  crust it too should pour forth its magma after the
  fashion of Io.  Observations
  should show evidence that lava is either presently or
  has very recently been exuded from circular vents on the
  plains of the Venusian surface.  In New Scientist we learn that
  radar shows lava flows on Venus are indeed very much
  like those on Io:
      'The flat plains of Venus consist of lava
      that has flowed from the planet comparatively recently,
      according to latest radar results.  And an appreciable amount of
      the planet's heat may escape through these lava flows, rather
      than through large volcanoes and rift valleys that
      geologists have known for some years.
      In the plains the
      researchers found dozens of small vents, which oozed
      lava without forming volcanic cones.  The researchers say,
      "The large number and wide distribution of vents in the
      lowlands strongly suggest that plains volcanism is an important
      aspect of surface evolution and contributed to heat loss on
      Venus".
  "Thus, there is a basic similarity that strongly
  suggests that Venus is venting its internal heat through
  plains volcanism.  This implies that Venus, like lo, has a
  thin crust and is extremely hot not far beneath that crust.

This, then is the reality; Super Greenhouse is a fiction. Ginenthal goes on to point out a number of interesting similarities between craters on Io and on Venus… for one, that they are often irregular and misshapen due to the movement of liquid material close under them.

  "Thus an article in Discover
  states, "Even Venus' meteorite craters are intriguing.  Some
  have strange and irregular shapes, in puzzling contrast
  to the round outline typical of most impact craters in the solar
  System."

Extreme depth of cratering appears to be a common feature of Io and of Venus. Other evidence of massive surface re-arrangement is presented.

  "One of the most bizarre features yet identified on Venus is
  a remarkably long and narrow channel that MageHan
  scientists have nicknamed the river Styx.  Although it is
  only half a mile wide, Styx is 4,800 miles long.  What
  could have caused such a channel is unclear.  Water, of
  course, is out of the question.  Flowing lava is a possibility
  but it would have to have been extremely hot, thin and
  fluid.
  "On Venus it is assumed that
  any crater larger than 300 km would settle by
  rheological flow in about one billion years.  Sulfur is the
  fluid suggested as being responsible for river structures
  on Io.
  "However, the River Styx runs up as well as
  downhill.  What is clearly implied, if this feature is a
  flow, is that the surface topography has shifted greatly since
  the flow ceased.

Ginenthal notes other oddities common to Venus and Io, but to nothing else in our system.

  "PANCAKE-SHAPED DOMES AND OTHER ANOMALIES
  "Among the strangest features found on Venus is a
  series of pancake-shaped domes.  This surprising discovery
  was recounted in the New York Times as follows:
      'At the news conference yesterday, Dr.  R.  Stephen Saunders, the
      [MageHan] project's chief scientist, showed pictures of ...
      pancake-shaped domes which he said were "features never
      seen before" on any planet.  In one region, seven domes
      remarkably similar in size stretch out in a line remarkably
      straight for nature ...  They were presumably formed by
      extreme viscous lava pouring out of volcanic vents.  The
      pattern "is telling us something about the eruption
      mechanism, the viscosity and the eruption rate.'  But that was as
      far as geologists ventured in the interpretation.
  "The unusual shape of these features should have struck
  a chord somewhere among the planetary geologists
  because pancake-shaped domes have also been observed on
  lo.  Thus Carr et al., inform us:
      'While most calderas [on Io] do not seem to be within sharply
      defined edifices, a variety of positive relief features are
      recognizable.  Most are puzzling and difficult to relate
      to terrestrial landforrns.  Among the more comprehensible
      because of their resemblance to low volcanic cones, are
      two pancake-like constructions ...  They are nearly circular,
      and surrounded by low escarpments.  Each has a bright-floored
      small crater in the middle.

Another phenomenon which is inexplicable given the Sagan Super-Greenhouse explaination for Venus' surface heat is hot spots.

  "For some time now it has been known that certain areas on
  lo are far hotter than the surrounding surface terrain.
  Such areas are described as "hot spots." Here Morrison tells
  us, "In lo's case nature has aided us by channeling much of
  the heat flow into a few small areas resulting in
  hot-spots with temperatures far higher than the ambient
  background.  Alfred McEwen et al., suggest that,
  "Observations ...  show that most of the hot spots [on lo]
  have remained relatively stable in temperature, location and
  total power output at least since the Voyager encounters
  and possibly for the last decade.
  "Hotspots have been associated with surface features on Venus
  for a very long time; they were originally found by
  Earth-bound radar and confirmed by Venera spacecraft.
  James Head asks:
      "The question with arguably the broadest implications is simply
      how has Venus chosen to get rid of its internal heat
      (emphasis in original) ...  Does Venus cool itself by sending
      magma directly from the interior to the surface? Then we would
      expect to see widespread volcanic deposits and numerous
      "hot spots," like those on Jupiter's satellite Io.
  "Thus the presence of hot-spots suggests that Venus-like Io-is
  venting its heat via hot-spot volcanism.  This, in turn,
  suggests that Venus - similar to lo - is molten at a
  shallow depth.  One of the great enigmas of the
  <runaway greenhouse effect> is the problem of
  explaining the source of Venus' high surface temperature.
  Based on this analysis it now seems highly probable that
  the high surface temperature has little if anything to do
  with a greenhouse effect.  Velikovsky's conclusion that
  Venus' surface heat is derived from its molten core
  appears to be correct.

THE AGE OF VENUS' SURFACE

  "In Worlds in Collision Velikovsky suggested that Venus'
  age was to be measured in thousands of years rather
  than billions.  In a recent article in Science a leading
  astronomer offered the following observation regarding the
  age of Venus' surface:
      'The planetary geologists who are studying the radar
      images streaming back from Magellan find that they have
      an enigma on their hands.  When they read the geologic
      clock that tells them how old the Venusian surface is they find
      a planet on the brink of adolescence.   But when
      they look at the surface itself, they see a
      newborn babe ...  (emphasis added) Magellan scientists
      have been struck by the newly minted appearances of the
      craters formed ...  Only one of the 75 craters identified on the
      5% of the planet mapped shows any of the typical signs of
      aging, such as filling in with lava of volcanic
      eruptions or being torn by the faulting of tectonic disruption.
      But by geologists usual measure these fresh-looking craters
      had plenty of time to fall prey to the ravages of
      geologic change.36
  "Based on the assumption that Venus is an ancient body the
  scientists estimate the surface of Venus to be on the order
  of 100 million to I billion years old.  In short, even though
  they are confronted with a surface that is pristine scientists
  nevertheless interpret the evidence according to the theory that
  Venus is 4.5 billion years old.

I refer to this sort of phenomenon as "learning to skate away from the railing", essentially, the quandry which every beginning ice-skater faces. The astronomers haven't fotten this far yet, the multi-billion year thing (a "Bushism") being their version of Linus' security blanket.

Ginenthal goes on to note that, given the standard multi-billion year age estimates for Venus, there should be lots and lots of dust, debris, loose soil etc. lying around all over the place, the surface heat not being great enough to melt and fuse everything altogether. There isn't.

This is somewhat strange. The surface winds, despite being slow, would bowl a man over due to the very thickness of the atmosphere. The atmosphere itself is highly corrosive. The two should have caused lots and lots of weathering. But there is no evidence of this.

      "THE MISSING VENUSIAN REGOLITH
  "Geophysicists, in order to explain the physical nature of
  the Venusian surface, offer the supposition that between
  100 million and a billion years ago the entire planet turned
  itself inside out.  If one were to accept this assumption
  it would require that over that period of time
  between the covering of the surface with lava flows and
  the present, erosional forces would break down the
  surface rock into detritus to form a regolith.
  "Venus' atmosphere is known to contain hydrochloric and
  hydrofluoric acid, both of which
  are very corrosive.  Paolo Maffei explains further that,
  "the atmosphere of Venus also contains - although
  in small amounts-hydrogen chloride and hydrogen
  fluoride, which reacting with sulfuric acid [known to exist
  in Venus' atmosphere] could form fluosulfuric acid, a
  very strong acid capable of attacking and dissolving
  almost all common materials including most rocks."
  "According to the scientists, Venus has been subjected to
  this intense weathering of its surface for at least 100
  million years.  Over this period of time the planet
  shouict have developed a covering of weathered material.
  Nevertheless, George McGill et al., inform us that:
      'Radar and Venera lander observations imply that most of the
      surface of Venus cannot be covered by unconsolidated
      wind blown deposits; bulk densities on near surface
      materials are not consistent with aeolian sediments ...  Thus
      present-day wind-blown sediments cannot form a continuous
      layer over the entire planct.

And from Bruce Murray (JOURNEY INTO SPACE):

    
      'Russian close-ups of Venus were surprising.  I had presumed
      that its surface was buried under a uniform blanket of
      soil and dust.  Chemical weathering should be intense in
      such a hot and acid environment,...Unknown processes
      of topographic renewal evidently manage to outstrip
      degradation and burial.
  "In order to explain the lack of a Venusian regolith the
  scientists imagine a process that has no scientific basis
  for its action to reconsolidate the detritus on Venus.
  Nevertheless, let us assume that Venus' erosion rate is
  extremely weak and that it is not tumed back into rock at the
  surface by unknown processes.  What do we find? If we
  allow a tiny erosion rate of one millimeter per hundred
  years, then in 100 thousand years we produce one meter
  of loose material on the surface of Venus, which is equal to
  about 40 inches.  However, in 100 million years we
  generate a kilometer of detritus, which is over 3000 feet of
  this loose material.  Under no known condition can this much
  matter at the surface be turned to solid rock..."
  "What we find at the surface of Venus is  the  detritus  of  an  erosion
  rate that is only a few  thousand  years  old.  Only  by  ignoring  this
  clear  evidence  can  the astronomers support the view that Venus'
  surface reflects events  tracing  to  processes  occurring between
  100 million and one billion years ago.

Ginenthal mentions the curious anomoly of the pristine condition of Venus' craters:

  "Although Magellan has cast  doubt  upon  most  of  the  scientific
  establishment's  predictions   regarding the nature of Venus'
  surface, a belief in a 4.5 billion year old age of the planet
  Venus is still enshrined as dogma.  In accordance with this
  theory, it is believed by the space scientists that the degradation
  of craters on Venus' surface must have  occurred over hundreds
  of millions of years.
  As the  situation  on  lo  proves,
  however,  degradation  does  not  require  long  time   periods.
  Io's  craters  decay  over  extraordinarily  short  time  periods
  measured in weeks or months.  On Venus this period might
  take  years.  Based  on  the  indications  (cited  above)  that
  both Venus and Io are molten at shallow  depth  and  are  highly
  volcanic,  Venus'  craters  would   by no stretch of the imagination
  require millions of years to degrade.   How then do scientists
  explain the fact  that,  Venus'  craters  look  so  pristine?
  Here  Kerr   observes:
                       
     'MageUan scientists strove to explain the paradox of young
     looking craters  on  a  relatively  old surface.  They  raised
     the  possibility  that  several  hundred  million  years  ago,
     a planet-wide outpouring wiped the slate clean, drowning any
     existing craters in  a  flood  of  lava.  Then the flood would
     have had to turn off fairly abruptly  so  the  craters  formed  by
     subsequent impacts would remain pristine.
  "No doubt there will be other, equally imaginative, scenarios
  advanced in order to explain away this dilemma of so few
  craters showing signs of decay.  To retum to Kerr:
      'But surface remodeling is going on after afl, Magellan scientists
      told a large  crowd  at  the AGU  [American  Geological
      Union]  meeting.  More  recent  images   show   the   ravages
      of time, but in a fashion that leavesfew aged craters."

That's like saying that your 90-year-old grandma shows her age, but in a manner which draws wolf-whistles in a bikini. Not too likely, is it?

Another problem with the standard view is the vast areas of Venus' surface which show no signs of cratering at all.

  "This is not the only problem, however.  Again we cite Kerr:
      'The expanded view reveals four nearly continent-sized
      areas,  ranging  from  a  few  million  to 5 million square
      kilometers, that have no impact craters  at  all.  According
      to  Magellan team member Roger  Phillips  of  Southem  Methodist
      University in  Dallas,  the  absence  of impact  craters-
      despite  a  steady rain  of  asteroids   and   comets
      onto   the   Venusian surface-means that in the recent geologic
      past the craters     were  wiped  out  either  by  lava
      flooding across these areas or by tectonic faulting,
      stretching and compression.
      The volcanic activity required to resurface the crater-
      free regions  would  be  impressive  by any standards,
      Phillips says.  For example, it took at least  a  million
      cubic  kilometers  of lava  over  a  few  million  years
      to  produce  the  66-million-year-old  Deccan   Traps   of
      India...  But  the  lava-covered  areas  already  uncovered
      on  a  small  part  of  Venus  by Magellan must have all
      formed  within  the  past  few  tens  of  millions  of
      years  to  have escaped being marked by impact craters.
  "So Magellan scientists are still left with an enigma.  What
  is clearly implied by  the  radar  and  photographic evidence
  is  that  immense  outpourings  of  lava  have  occurred  over
  huge  areas  of Venus' surface, covering over everything  including
  craters.  The  scientists  still  cannot  explain why there
  are so few  craters  that  are  degraded  or  flooded  or  why
  Venus  suddenly  poured  out its lava in oceanic amounts.  But
  all of this is clearly  what  one  would  expect  to  find
  from  the theory  that  Velikovsky  advanced  in  Worlds  in
  Collision  whereby   Venus   was   only   recently
  subjected to tremendous stresses and participated in numerous
  clashes with other planets.

Ginenthal cites further evidence, as if any were needed from one of the favorite realms of several of the t.o regular crew, i.e. Chemistry. Given standard theory, you'd not expect a lot of iron compounds lying around on Venus' surface:

   "As a newbom planet, Venus would  not  have  fully  differentiated
   so  it  remains  possible  that all its iron has yet to sink
   to its core.  Accordingly, it was reported in Astronomy that:
       Maxwell Montes ... poses a big problem in interpretation.
       Parts  have  electrical  properties that indicate the surface
       contains "flakes"  of  -some  unknown  mineral,  most  likcly  iron
       sulfides, iron oxides, or magnetite.  Iron sulfides ("fool'
       s gold") fit the observations best,  but studies havc shown
       that they  would  be  quickly  destroyed  by  the  corrosive
       Venusian  atmosphere.  Iron oxides  (such  as  hematite)
       and  magnetite  are  also  possible,  but  the  a
       presence of either is not easy to account for.
   "If indeed iron is to be found upon the surface of Venus
   it would support  the  claim  that  it  is a youthful planet
   in the early stages of cooling. A planet that had  differentiated
   its  iron  into its central core would not be expected
   to  pour  iron  onto  the  surface  with  volcanic  materials.
   The  reason  that  the  iron  compounds   have   not
   completely   corroded   in   Venus'   corrosive  atmosphere,
   most  probably,  is  that  these  outpourings  of  iron
   are  extremely  recent   surface coverings  measured  in
   perhaps  a  few  years.  Iron  on  Venus'  surface  is
   clear  evidence  that  supports Velikovsky.

Thre is further evidence involving Argon and involving oxygen:

   "Ultraviolet radiation photodissociates C02, S02 and H20;
   over millions of years oxygen should have become
   plentiful in Venus' atmosphere, but it remains a minute
   constituent.  Venus' water vapor cannot have escaped in
   less than 20 billion years.  Where then is Venus'
   water? To argue Venus had no water but retains other
   volatiles is a basic contradiction....

This lack of water vapor becomes critical for proponents of the so-called <super-greenhouse> theory, the standard theory of establishment astronomy for explaining the great surface heat of Venus. As I've noted before, the CO2 atmosphere certainly acts as a blanket in keeping heat close to the surface far longer than it might otherwise stay there left to its own devices. This isn't what astronomers are claiming, however.

They ARE claiming that ALL of the huge surface energy of Venus is CAUSED by the tiny to non-existent modicum of solar energy which finally gets to the surface through all that CO2 via uv radiation and then cannot escape as re-radiated ir radiation.

  "For years the scientific community has maintained that the
  great heat of Venus is derived from an atmospheric
  geenhouse effect.  Gary Hunt and Patrick Moore outline
  the ingredients necessary to generate a large and powerful
  geenhouse on Venus:
      'C02 is responsible for about 55% of the
      trapped heat.  A further 25% is due to the presence of water
      vapor, while S02 which constitutes only 0.02% [2/100 of a per
      cent] of the atmosphere, traps 5% of remaining infrared
      radiation.  The remaining 15% of the greenhouse is due to the
      clouds and hazes which surround the planet.

The problem becomes, WHAT WATER?

  "While carbon dioxide is certainly present on Venus, it can account
  for only 55% of the greenhouse effect.  As Barrie Jones
  explains, other factors are also necessary to make the
  greenhouse work:
      "Efficient trapping [of heat] cannot be produced by C02 alone,
      in spite of the enormous mass Of C02 in the atmosphere.
      This is because C02 is fairly transparent over certain
      wavelength ranges to planetary wavelengths.  Radiation
      could escape through these "windows" in sufficient
      quantities to greatly reduce the greenhouse effect below
      that which exists.  It is by blocking of these windows by
      S02, by H20 and by the clouds that greatly increases
      the greenhouse effect.
  "In short, it is crucial to the runaway greenhouse effect that
  there be sufficient water, sulfur dioxide, and haze to
  maintain the heat holding capacity of the planet.
  Respecting water, especially in the lower atmosphere, the
  scientists have been looking for this vapor for a very
  long time.  As late as September 1991, water vapor has
  not been found in anything like that amount needed to
  support the contention that the greenhouse is a
  foregone conclusion.  According to R.  Cowan:
      'A research team has focused on the greenhouse puzzle ...
      The absence of water vapor above Venus' cloud banks
      mystifies scientists because models of the planet's
      strong greenhouse effect suggest that [water] vapor plays a
      key role in maintaining the warming.  Researchers have
      now looked for water below the cloud bank and
      down to the surface-and their search has come up dry...
      'Evidence of a dry Venus may force researchers to
      consider whether other chemicals could create and
      sustain the planet's greenhouse effect, says David Crisp
      of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory ...  who coauthored the new
      report.
  "Now when a vapor responsible for 25% of the efficiency
  of the greenhouse-effect has been sought in vain for some
  20 years it implies that a major problem exists with
  the model in question.   Furthermore, in our earlier
  discussion of the S02 and haze in the Venusian
  atmosphere we have shown that measurements indicate
  that these materials are transient products and do
  not sustain themselves for long periods of time.  With
  this additional undermining of the greenhouse effect the
  process becomes more and more difficult to imagine.
  "One of the major theoretical supports of the greenhouse model
  is the belief that Venus is in thermal balance.  Over
  and over we are told that measurements of the cloud
  tops for infrared emissions show conclusively that the
  amount of sunlight incident on the planet is equal to
  the infrared radiation emitted by Venus.  However, this
  must also be supported by in situ measurements
  throughout the atmosphere:
  "Radiative balance occurs [on a planet] at every level
  when the amount of downward- directed solar radiation that
  is absorbed is equal to the amount of infrared radiation that
  is emitted upward.   When local temperatures
  satisfy this balance the atmospheric temperature is
  maintained.  (emphasis added)50 Not only must there be
  thermal balance at one level of the atmosphere, this
  thermal balance must exist at all levels throughout the
  atmosphere to confirm thermal balance.

As I have noted a number of times, a LACK of balance is indicated by actual data at every level.

  "That this is not the case upon Venus has been known for some time.
  As long ago as 1980 Richard Kerr reported in Science that:
      'When Pioneer Venus probes looked at the
      temperature, each one found more energy being radiated up
      from the lower atmosphere than enters it as sunlight ...
      To further complicate the situation, the size of the
      apparent upward flow of energy varies from place to place
      by a factor of 2 which was a disturbing discovery.

Again, a number of probes of different types and manufacture all said the same thing; they are not all likely to be in similar error.

Ginenthal concludes:

  "A fair reading of history will show that conventional astronomers
  have a very poor record when it comes to predicting the surface
  conditions of Venus.  Such is not the case with regards to the
  thesis outlines by Immanuel Velikovsky in 1950.  As this essay has
  sought to show, the evidence from Venus is fully consistent with the
  thesis of its anomalous origin and tumultuous recent history as set
  forth in WORLDS IN COLLISION.  Indeed, it is this author's sincere
  hope that the day will come when members of the scientific community
  will find the courage and integrity to call for a full and proper
  investigation of Velikovsky's hypothesis."

– Ted Holden HTE

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/archive/science/venus.sur.txt · Last modified: 2001/11/04 05:40 by 127.0.0.1

Was this page helpful?-10+1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki