Brought to the front again for a major overdue correction. It is now proven beyond any reasonable doubt that Venus is heated FROM THE INSIDE OUT. Its a hot planet because it is a young planet. It has recently been converted from a massive comet, into a planet. Its heat profile proves the inside-out nature of its heating, and its pristine craters (and other evidence) shows us that Velikovsky was on the right track.
Brought to the front because of a debate in the comments section of this forum. I want to emphasize that the idea of a runaway air-pressure/warming cycle is no myth. And that it will surely be happening somewhere in the galaxy as we speak. CO2 of course could be part of that runaway heating event for two reasons:
1. If you got to a level of heat where most carbon near the planets surface was combusted you would get rising levels of CO2 in that planets atmosphere.
2. CO2 is heavier than earths air. And would be likely to be heavier than the air in most planets. So that it could then add to air pressure, which would tend to add to average temperature, which may then exacerbate conditions to the extent of further increasing pressures, if it meant the further combustion or gasification of materials at that planets surface.
Hence the potential on some planets, somewhere in the galaxy, for CO2 being involved in runaway warming.
But the alleged greenhouse-effect, aka back-radiation …… this effect appears almost irrelevant to this potential scenario. Maybe not totally irrelevant. But more or less a marginal consideration. You may think that this is almost a semantic distinction but its not. So long as we are a high-tech society, on this planet earth, we can easily deal with any long-term warming problem on this planet earth, while we have our oceans. The sun can give us massive short-run problems with catastrophic coronal mass-ejections. But fundamentally, the problem on this planet, is cooling, and will be cooling for many tens of millions of years to come. Long-run-heating is no problem for us while we are high-tech, and while we have oceans. Once the oceans or our technical proficiency goes then thats another matter.
Now here is the original post:
The key to terraforming Venus would be to find a way to get rid of its banks of atmospheric clouds so as to let a lot of the heat out. This is the opposite of what you would have been lead to believe elsewhere.
Clearly we would have to design a fast replicating species of critter who could use the suns energy, to be able to eat sulphuric acid and crap useful compounds that would then fall to the surface in heat-resistant poo-packets.
Now this sounds overly optimistic even for the most utopian of genetic engineering and nano-technology boosters. Kind of like hoping for an insect who ate Islamic extremists and pissed premium petrol.
Actually I hadn’t put a lot of thought into the nuts and bolts of terraforming Venus. This is just the title I settled on.
VARIOUS ALTERNATIVE TITLES TO THIS THREAD.
1. Mommy I cannot sleep I’m scared. Please just give me a carbon tax.
2. Why is Venus so much hotter than Mercury even though Mercury is so much closer to the sun?
3. Why Earth Can Never Get As Hot As Venus.
The key thing to understand, is that to cool down Venus some we need to have clear skys. Exactly the opposite of what we have been taught.
You see Venus scares everyone a little bit when they think of carbon emissions. This fear adds up when a billion people have it just a little bit. And so this distributed fear, lodged deep in the collective Id, haunts the current global warming racket discussions. Since folks imagine that we too can become like Venus. Or at least they retain a tiny fear that we might just be able to.
Links to do with terraforming Venus seem to want to concentrate on sequestering carbon. They want to get rid of the CO2 as if it is the CO2 alone that is doing all the heating. These sites appear to assume that terraforming can be done at great start-up cost or at an ongoing loss. But any science fiction projection based on socialism is unrealistic. Since if the parasitical section of society had grown that large then civilisation and technology would retrogress. That is to say we would keep on having one collapse after another. Like we will have soon if we cannot bring to heel the massed effect of international taxeating parasites.
In wiki they talk about balloons to reflect the light to cool Venus down. But the clouds already reflect most of the light so this is just silly.
Some sort of self-replicating insects and microbes would actually have a lot to work with at the upper cloud tops. Maybe 70 or so kilometres high.
“Venus has an extremely thick atmosphere, which consists mainly of carbon dioxide and a small amount of nitrogen.”
Right there you have sunlight, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and with the sulfuric acid you have H2SO4. So you have hydrogen as well. But the thing is these critters must be able to process the hydrogen in such a way that it is never seperated and allowed to escape from the Venusian atmosphere. Hydrogen being the vital element in short supply.
If you had these “floating cities” that the terraforming sites are talking about it would only be a series of balloon way-stations, for the purpose of giving your fast reproducing insects and microbes whatever they needed that couldn’t be taken straight from the atmosphere.
“The permanent cloud cover means that although Venus is closer than Earth to the Sun, the Venusian surface is not as well lit. In the absence of the greenhouse effect caused by the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the temperature at the surface of Venus would be quite similar to that on Earth.”
So says wiki. But realclimate reckons that Venus would be freezing cold with the cloud cover and without greenhouse maybe -30 degrees centigrade. That was their initial thinking. Now they have gotten back information from the satellites and have become far more sophisticated in their interpretation. Raypierre has been to some conference and has the good oil. Prior to that they were saying the most idiotic things:
“Radiation model calculations demonstrate that the clouds have a pronounced net cooling effect on the planet, when both factors are taken into account.”
This is a totally wrong conclusion by the way. They won’t see it but they have come to this wrong conclusion simply because of the crudeness of their “colour and light-show only” paradigm.
“Although the surface of Venus rotates only slowly, the upper atmosphere has taken on a rotation rate of its own, and air around the 50km level circles the planet with a period of roughly 5 days.”
“Though the deep atmosphere of Venus is sluggish, its dynamics is nonetheless crucial since it is this circulation which brings angular momentum from the surface to the upper atmosphere..
This is actually the sort of thing I was saying must be happening in earlier posts. Realclimate seemed to be particularly dense about this matter. Now they’ve got all this satelite information back so suddenly they are making a lot of sense. The surface produces a circulation which brings angular momentum to the upper atmosphere, which is one-half of the cause of this super-rotation of the banks of clouds. This implies and endless tunnelling under of the hot carbon-dioxide. Like the water as it heats up in your kettle. Or the hot air coming off the vinyl in your car and tunnelling back before after hitting your windshield. This is what is responsible, as much as anything else, for the incredible heat of the Venus surface.
“Higher in the atmosphere, the extreme temperature difference between the dayside and the nightside, due to solar absorption in the atmosphere on the dayside, drives a circulation flowing from the hot dayside to the cold nightside.”
This is the other half of the story that I didn’t think of earlier. Because I didn’t have it in my mind that Venus was rotating in the opposite direction of its direction of motion around the sun. Since this super-rotation is being driven from both up high and down low this will be forcing a constant recycling of hot CO2 allowing for the heat budgets to build.
My point it that these matters are not just an air and light-show. Its not just about watts-per-square metre and Albedo as the naieve models would have it. We just have to break out of this paradigm of watts per square metre. Which though it contains elements of truth is a highly simplistic and naieve model.
Heat budgets build when the general rule of “heat rising” is reversed by the existence of strata.
Realclimate see things in terms of watts-per-square-metre. I see things in terms of Strata and heat budgets.
So why is Venus so much hotter then Mercury? Mercury is basically just rock. No strata. No opportunity for the reversal of the “heat rises” general rule.
I know people make a big deal about 14 year old kids not shortening their explanation of things down to the phrase “heat rises”. But (fatfingers you scoundrel) you are grown up now. And you are supposed to leave the childish things behind. “Heat rises” is a perfectly good condensation of what we are talking about here and only an idiot would say otherwise. This list of idiots of course include fatfingers, spiv, Tillman,JohnZ and Edney. None of whom need the “heat rises” filibuster to prove their idiocy. These are morons who put up an entire filibuster involved with my use of the English language to do with saying that “heat rises”. As if they and I didn’t know the circumstances under which this is true. These people are locked in intellectual childhood.
With that disclaimer aside we find that:
HEAT BUDGETS WILL BUILD WHEN THE GENERAL RULE THAT “HEAT RISES” IS REVERSED DUE TO THE EXISTENCE OF STRATA.
I had to take time out to head off the bonehead leftists. But now we can go again:
“So why is Venus so much hotter then Mercury? Mercury is basically just rock. No strata. No opportunity for the reversal of the “heat rises” general rule.”
So while the greenhouse business may be more a factor on Venus than anywhere else the stratification leading to building heat budgets is also far more extreme than what we see here on earth.
We have three banks of clouds on Venus. We probably have other strata just to do with a sudden change in air pressure. And then we would have strata as well within Venus. The hot magma would be pushed towards the crust and then forced to tunnel back under reversing the general rule of “heat rising”. Mercury isn’t going to have any of that.
Why can Earth never have this runaway warming?
Because our planet rotates far faster. You could never have these thick banks of clouds like you have in Venus. Venus is only rotating at jogging speed at its equator. Earth is really moving it. So there is no prospect for these thick banks of clouds forming such powerful strata. Excessive heat will be easily released out into space in accordance with Stefan-Boltzmanns law. Where dispproportionate heat is radiated with extra temperature.
SUMMARY OF FACTORS MAKING VENUS HOT BY ANALOGY WITH YOUR KETTLE.
There is only so many joules you can stuff into your kettle implying a temperature of about 100 degrees centigrade and the correponding joules will be as many as this temperature implies for that amount of water. The heat will more quickly escape if the energy is enough for the strata to be breached. Here the strata is the point at which the air meets the water. We are talking about a kettle with no lid.
So how can we stuff extra joules into that kettle and allow for the heat of the water to be 200 degrees Celsius or 300 degrees Celsius.
Well we can have a special chamber where the air is compressed. That will strengthen the strata. We can also have stronger gravity. That will magnify both the principle of the “heat rising” along with the strength of its reversal due to the strata.
You see all this is going on with Venus in comparison to Mercury. Higher gravity, massive air pressure, the existence of multiple strata. And along with the other things that the alarmist crowd would recognise. There is the greenhouse effect. Emphasised by downward reflection from the cloud banks. And made stronger on Venus than it is on earth. Since on earth only one of the three CO2 absorption regions of the spectrum would seem to be powerfully relevant to outgoing radiation. Whereas Venus is of a temperature where all three of these regions would appear to be highly relevant.
Do not trouble your minds about runaway greenhouse. Since thats not the take home story to what has happened on Venus. And nothing like whats happened on Venus could possibly happen here. A carbon tax will only stop coal-liquids and oil-shale-liquids getting off the ground. It will lead to massive malinvestment in gas-to-electricity.
Contrary to popular belief its not just about losing the water. Its not just about the oceans boiling off.
The change to a different paradigm might seem subtle but the difference in conclusions that this leads to is astonishing. Everything I’ve heard heretofore would assume that without the cloud banks Venus would be immensely more hot even than it is now. No wonder people are powerfully frightened of CO2. They must think its some magic heat producing gas. This conclusion comes from these guys working with their naieve watts-per-square-metres model.
But you might say that since I recognise the greenhouse effect as part of the story whats the difference? Cannot both paradigms work? Can you not work with Newtons system and Einsteins system both (for example) and get much the same conclusions most of the time?
Well yes in retrospect, when you already know the answer you can.
But look how radically different is the conclusion I come to when compared to the others. And only because I’m working under a different paradigm.
They all say that the first step to terraforming Venus is to get rid of the carbon in the atmosphere to bring the pressure and heat down. I say that the first step is to get rid of the banks of sulfuric acid clouds to let a lot of the heat out. They would say that if we went with my strategy Venus would heat up. I say that if we went with my strategy Venus would cool down.
Thats a pretty big difference between the two paradigms don’t you think?
We might expect that after terraforming in this way the temperature of Venus would drop drastically. But still leaving it too hot for human habitation. The next step would be somehow harnessing all the ambient heat energy to build up the infrastructure there. The first step would be getting rid of the clouds and NOT getting rid of the CO2. Thats an extremely radically different conclusion to come to and all because of a different paradigm.