💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › science › venus.sur captured on 2023-01-29 at 11:51:02.
⬅️ Previous capture (2020-10-31)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
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