Posted by: graemebird | July 11, 2008

Terraforming Venus And The Myth Of Runaway Greenhouse

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:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/venus-unveiled/

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.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. And why exactly do you wanna terra form Venus, Bird. You think the chicks are better looking up there?

    You have this idea about these planets that keeps swirling around your head like a bee that’s about to bite. Stop it with this carp. We can barely make it past the top of the atmosphere.

  2. I wouldn’t want to. The Moon and Mercury is where its at. But thats only if Mercury has Helium-3 on it. The Moon has .01 parts per million He-3 on it. Its unlikely to be terraformed so much as mined for the He-3.

    Mercury is one of the hardest planet in the solar system to get to though it is relatively close. And there is some controversy as to whether it has He-3. It would be the easiest to colonise in many ways. But you need the export industry. And the export industry is Helium-3.

    There is some controversy as to whether Mercury will have this Helium-3 on it because it has a magnetic field. Everything would hinge on the answer to that question. But setting up in Mercury would be dead easy in a way. Not in this 100 years perhaps. But in the next if we don’t have a civilisational failure which is on the cards.

    Setting up in Mercury would be pretty easy because of the abundant solar power and the access to water. Its actually got some ice on it.

    But first thing we ought to be colonising Antarctica. Mark Hill idea of harnessing that wind power looks good but you wouldn’t go there initially for that. You’d need other industry to have a cash flow. But you would do it in mind that you could harness all this wind power and eventually become a bigtime energy exporter.

    The Moon and Mercury are different. In these cases it would be the energy you were going for in the first place. Its inevitable we will do it. The Americans, Russians and Chinese are going after it bigtime.

  3. We have such a confederacy of dunces here don’t we? Yes we do. The endless unreason and CO2-bedwetting of Humphreys continues:

    “Petrol makes up a minority of carbon emmissions.”

    Thats bullshit right there.

    “The ETS will still increase the price of carbon-energy compared with non-carbon energy, consequently increasing the incentive to invest in alternative energies, and consequently speeding up the time at which we shift to alternative energies.”

    Yeah well where is the energy coming from to invest in the non-carbon energies. The fucking moron doesn’t have a clue about is chosen subject. The crisis is that we are dependent on petrol wich is the resource specifically under price pressure. Hence it is PETROL that we have to substitute away from. We have tonnes of cheap LPG. Tons of coal and oil-shales to turn into diesel equivalent. Many other things as niche products to turn into niche equivalents. And the dumb fuck doesn’t even have the actual problem sorted.

    The net result is that Humphreys policies are pure idiocy and a disaster. The excise coming off the one thing we were supposed to substitute away from and taxes going on the very thing that we ought to be substituting towards.

    “Petrol is a side issue on the AGW debate. Very big politically. But when it comes to actual emmissions, it’s all about “dirty” coal and land clering.”

    So he’s calling CO2 dirty again. Like its a black thing. And yet its coal we can most readily substitute towards to reduce the price pressures on petrol.

    We are talking about a world of endless stupid.

  4. “The ETS in effect covers a broader base of possible CO2 emissions so the cut in excise is more than compensated for by this base broadening. And surely if we want to reduce CO2 emissions this way it’s better to spread the burden over more sources rather than just tax petrol.

    “The ETS in effect covers a broader base of possible CO2 emissions so the cut in excise is more than compensated for by this base broadening. And surely if we want to reduce CO2 emissions this way it’s better to spread the burden over more sources rather than just tax petrol.”

    You moron Jason. Its precisely reliance on petrol that is the problem. And you want to reduce the tax on petrol but increase the tax on liquified-coal.

    Wind power is getting good because of materials improvements. And yet the energy to produce the materials for the wind power has to come from coal. It isn’t coming from petrol.

    This is what I find really offensive about the Catallaxy people. They come to a new subject ignorant and stupid. And the more the topic drags on the more they solidify their initial ignorant position. These are people incapable of every learning anything.

    The Catallaxy crowd cannot even learn anything IN HINDSIGHT. The first people I’ve met that are still stupid after-the-fact.

  5. No I didn’t delete anything. I didn’t say anything about TERRAFORMING Mercury and the Moon.

    I said that they would be the first large bodies to be COLONIZED subject to Mercury having Helium 3 on it.

    If you want to find some excuse for fucking it up make enquiries on that basis. Now I am going to scroll up the page to see if the comment is somehow missing as you now allege. And I shall get back to you. For your fucking information I have not been able to delete comments. Since the APPLE CORPORATION has changed one of its services from “.MAC” to “MOBILEME” and I haven’t gotten around to figuring out how to have access to my blog by retrieving my email with my secret code on it.

    I fight off snoop software minute in minute out. So I will get very suspicious if there is anything missing.

    Now if Jason was an honest man and JC was still and honest man they would already be thinking that my story is straight. On the basis that they would have expected to have some of their comments wiped by now and must be wondering at my leniency with some of their transgressions.

    We know you are a liar. I know you are lying now. But just to tie it all up and remove any doubt in my own mind I shall scroll up this thread to see if anything is missing. To see if I’ve been hacked. Such hacking would throw suspicion on you of course. But it would also give you the potential of a loophole for your current lying.

  6. “Lies and bullshit from a deranged cokehead.”

    You are responding to a comment which is not accurate I’ll grant you that. And the reason it isn’t accurate is that it was A JOKE.

    Yes indeed. Does anyone remember jokes?

    This is what you get for trying to bring a little laughter into this world.

  7. Nothings been altered. I haven’t been able to alter anything since well before Adrien made his comment. No-one else has altered anything.

    Adrien has been caught lying. Thats nothing new of course. He’s just an asshole.

    From time to time I’ve been witness to people setting their word against mine head to head and though a survey of their many stories might reveal a variety of differing reasons for this challenge in accordance with time and place there has only ever been but one reason.

    And that reason is that their word was no good.

  8. Graeme – I said that they would be the first large bodies to be COLONIZED subject to Mercury having Helium 3 on it.

    How do you colonize Mercury exactly Graeme? Colonizing the moon sure. But Mercury. Let’s have some blueprints here.

    Its a mystery to me how fractional reserve plays on small minds.

    Ummmm (tongue in cheek, eyes to heaven) 🙂

    Is it a gook thing?

    Jason’s Chinese not Korean or Vietnamese. If you’re going to use crass slurs, get it right. He’s a Chink. And you’re the least attractive end of a water buffalo. 🙂

  9. Right. Now lets get this sorted. Did you make a stupid mistake and then cover it up with blatant lying or what?

    What was your motive. Admit you were lying.

  10. So you come here. Accuse me of saying that the Moon and Mercury could be terraformed. Which was a lie. Then when picked up on it instead of saying “oh yes I’ve made a mistake” you then lie and say that I said TERRAFORMING at some earlier date. Then you went to Catallaxy and made that same lie.

    And then after that SOON, a fellow who always backs compulsive liars as a sort of 24 hour obsession….. backed you up in your lying.

  11. Okay Graeme I lied. It’s my mental health, I’m insane I need O’Brien to help me see five fingers okay.
    .
    Now pretty please, with sugar on top how do we colonize Mercury exactly?

  12. Right. Now thank you. Now go and abuse Jason for attempting to back you up in your lying when he knew better. Get going now. Be off with you. First stop abuse Jason. Tell him if he wants to do that sort of thing he ought to GO HOME.

  13. Goodness gracious me. We now have the understanding that Adrien would never have admitted he was lying, having never done so before, and only doing it this time for two reasons:

    1. He’s hungover and therefore naturally remorseful.

    2. He has been in close contact with decency. In fact getting drunk with a man of the cloth.

    He’ll lose standing in his Marxist circles. You are a hero if you lie in these circles. If you lie blatantly and with as much force and anger as you can muster.

    But in leftist circles you are worse than slime if you ever own up to it. Thats the only real sin in leftist circles other than not being leftist. Lying is good. Admitting you’ve lied is bad.

  14. Gee Graeme I ever thought of the advertising industry as a Marxist circle but maybe you’re right. You are a hero if you lie in those circles, most definitely. Can my clients be imbedding Gramscian sedition in their promotions? Am I helping?

    I’m almost never remorseful about getting drunk. Only remorseful about the wicked stuff I do when I get drunk. If I remember it.

    And also how do we colonize Mercury again?

  15. Your clients? There you go again. You are too stupid to have your own business.

  16. You go to Antarctica first. Then the Moon. Then perhaps the asteroid belt if it had Helium-3. Then Mercury. You are talking a few of centuries into the future. What makes you think that Mercury is impossible? There is apparently ice on Mercury. Did you know that?

    You are going for the Helium-3. If Mercury has it in spades then its a great place to go for it.

  17. Oh back to wiping comments bad form old bean. Bad form. And why am I a Fransciscan and not an Augustinian again?

  18. Did someone mention Augustinians?

  19. Saint Francis was a commie. But Saint Augustine was a realist and a grounded fellow. He wrote of the City-of-God AND the City of Man. He knew the difference. He kicked off just-war-theory.

  20. Don’t you think that it’s going a little far to say St Francis was a commie? I suppose he was a communalist or lived that way. But he was hardly a kill-the-rich type now was he?

    Saint Augustine was a realist and a grounded fellow.

    I know who Augustine was Graeme. “A realist and a grounded fellow”. So why is that you like him so much? Anyway I’m hardly the type to go round preaching love and wearing sackcloth. If you want a comparable personagge from the annals of Catholic lore I’d suggest you look at dudes like this.

  21. “But he was hardly a kill-the-rich type now was he?”

    Over at unleashed on the second Israeli thread we occasionally have these evasive mystics who are talking like Gandhi (stupid irresponsible narcissistic death-carrier that he was) but its all smiles and lovey-dovey death wishes. You can see it if you go there.

    The very sick statement of Quadri or whatever the fucks name he is. That even the Palestinians eating or making it to school is part of the resistance. So he’s claiming that just living is part of a meaningful resistance AGAINST Israel. There are a few implications here:

    1. That Israel is fucking them up for no reason.

    2. That passive resistance works. It doesn’t. And it can get a lot of people killed as Gandhi proved.

    3. That terrorism is legitimate “resistance”.

    4. That getting by on a day to day basis is “resistance”…it isn’t. Its just getting by.

    5. That the Israelis don’t want the Palestinian kids to get by on a day to day basis.

    So its a two-faced presentation. Its the alleged pacifist with a nod and a wink to the mad killer with the sword. The pacifist having cover by emphasising pacifism. He tries to get everyone murdered whilst finding a way to license himself. He talks about Love and smelling the roses and all that. So the authorities don’t have an excuse to assasinate him. Or to see to it that he dies in prison.

    But he goes on time after time doing things in a way to get other people killed.

    Now was Saint Francis like that? Beyond all the Dr Doolittle crapola did he have malign intent?

    Actually I have no fucking idea whatsoever. But you’ve got to suspect the fucker before he gets to first base.

    Whereas Augustine is right out there. “Lord give me chastity but not yet.” or something close to that.

  22. I looked at your link and the gentleman I’m unfamiliar with.

    I rather like another fellow. Brought down somewhat by fractional reserve banking which kept on causing mysterious bouts of unemployment in Florence. Perhaps if we could go back in time we could teach LORENZO THE MAGNIFICENT to use this racket in such a way as to build his own wealth and without screwing things up too badly.

    Well in any case I go on the working hypothesis that Mario Puzo fundamentally created his magic by having Machiavelli and the Medicis in mind when he invested all this cache in Italian mobsters.

    Lorenzo held no hereditary title. Nor did he hold elected office. And just as there were the Corleones and the Tatalias there were the Medici and the Pazzi.

    The Pope in this situation was like the Turk in the Godfather. The Pope goes to the Pazzi and whispers in their ear. Or it may have been the Popes bankers. Basically it was a three-way-war between fractional reserve practitioners.

    In any case whats notable about the Pazzi conspiracy is:

    1. They tried to kill Lorenzo in the church. An official place of sanctuary. And a Priest involved. Very much like Macbeth killing Duncan in his own house. The breaking of a sacred Taboo.

    2. They killed Lorenzo’s brother but Lorenzo did some damage and breifly got away.

    3. He got away because of a number of matters of conscience and small mercies from good Christians who would go so far but they wouldn’t go THAT far. They’d kill a man but not break other taboos.

    4. The massive effectiveness of the counterattack. Lorenzo immediately lit out and murdered scores of people.

    5. The Justice of it all. Out of all the people he killed perhaps only two or three were innocent or marginally culpable. Like we are talking collatoral damage well under 5%.

    So it was the ultimate in “settling all family business in one day”.

    Now we have lesser grievances and we wind up with these horrid occupations that can kill millions and ruin a whole generation of people. Bleed hundreds of billions from the treasury.

    But Lorenzo never asked the peasants to die for them. He didn’t tax them for the reprisal. And while only one or two people died who ought not have only one motherfucker did he suffer to live and that was the Pope himself.

  23. I read the Russians many years ago put bluegreen algae into a synthesized venusian atmosphere. Equivalent in altitude to the upper levels 6o miles I think. The algae thrived and multiplied, cooling the environment and causing rain at lower altitudes. It would therefore only be necessary to seed the high altitude clouds of venus with various strains of alga in order to begin a gradual cooling. The algae would multiply exponentially creating 02 and rain a couple of miles down. The process would continue Increasing the O2 in the atmosphere and gradually causing rain at lower altitudes until so much cooling had happened it began to rain on the surface and create oceans.

    • Interesting. But I don’t think there is all that much water. Thats the thing you would need to be always capturing and using to maximum effect.

    • Actually what am I saying. There is mountains of H2SO4 there. So of course the water can be synthesised out of that. Yeah thanks for that information. The deal would be however that you would want to be very careful that once you’d captured that water that you could in no way let it find its way into the upper atmosphere, be separated to Hydrogen and Oxygen, and to have the oxygen escape. But sure thats pretty hopeful.

      In the end however, it is unlikely to be Venus we work with. The gravity is probably too strong for the energy investment.

  24. You know I really like the idea of Terraforming Venus. But the discussion of it needs to be more civil. Perhaps I’ve missed something here, but name-calling doesn’t get us anywhere.

    The problem with terraforming Venus is we don’t have a planet to practice with, or any control subject. So, it will be computer models which will attempt to show planetary dynamics across the board – across the solar system. Once gathered data and theory applied to a computer model explain planetary dynamics to the extent it explains what we see happening around us (hey, it might be like predicting weather!) then we can start to have some confidence in the theories we propose, and assemble plans of action to terraform. This will also encompass climatic studies of Earth, which is a big deal lately.

    I don’t pretend to be an expert on this, but I have done some reading thinking and by my understanding of the situation Graeme is correct, that sulfur needs to be removed from Venus’ atmosphere. How about some sulfur moons?

  25. Thats how it goes on my blog. Constant abuse. Its hard to think how many thousands of years it would have to take for terraforming Venus to be economic beyond some sort of set and forget approach. Because to exploit Venus commercially would take a lot of energy on account of Venus having substantial gravity. So one rather thinks that we would have some activity on the moon, the asteroid belt and Mars, millenia prior to attempting to pull any profit from Venus. I brought this up more because of what I thought of as being unrealistic notions to do with global warming.

    I think you’d have to learn to live with the sulphur. Or find and engineer bacteria that liked it. Because to take anything off Venus and set it up as a satelite would be powerfully expensive. You’ve got to understand the order or how you’d go about it. The first thing is you need critters that can live in the clouds. Because anything that has to get about on the ground is going to be destroyed. And those critters have to take sunlight, H2S04 and S02 and be able to excrete various products that will fall to the ground and perhaps stay there. That is to say not be recycled into more clouds. Because I think one of the keys to cooling the place down is reducing the overturning which the clouds would seem to be assisting in as evidenced by their so-called super-rotation.

  26. It wasn’t me Lambert so don’t be wiping him. As a history teacher Ed Darrell tried to bullshit his way through on the authority of his profession by lying to people about what defeated Malaria in the US. I copied what he said above. Now someone calling himself “Anonymous” has brought a quote to the contrary:

    “RE #29.
    The US Center for Disease Control (CDC) says: The National Malaria Eradication Program, a cooperative undertaking by State and local health agencies of 13 Southeastern States and the Communicable Disease Center of the U. S. Public Health Service, originally proposed by Dr. L. L. Williams, commenced operations on July 1, 1947. The program consisted primarily of DDT application to the interior surfaces of rural homes or entire premises in counties where malaria was reported to have been prevalent in recent years.

    By the end of 1949, over 4,650,000 house spray applications had been made. Total elimination of transmission was slowly achieved. By 1951, CDC gradually withdrew from active participation in the operational phases of the program and shifted to its interest to surveillance, and in 1952, CDC participation in operations ceased altogether.
    See http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/history/eradication_us.htm
    Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2009 7:36 AM”

    So they sprayed millions of houses with DDT. Now there is no mention in this quote of more widespread outside spraying. But the quote comes from a government institution. So not mentioning something aught not be seen as proof that it didn’t happen. There is just no reason to believe that they didn’t use more widespread spraying given what was the norm in those days.

  27. “Finrod said

    16 August 2009 at 18.07
    The clouds have a cooling effect on Venus’ surface temperature. If Venus did not have its massive CO2 atmosphere, but still had its current cloud cover, the surface temperature would not be much higher than that of Mars.”

    This is someone calling himself Finrod over at Barry Brooks site. But Finrod is full of shit even though its possible he could be literally right. Without the clouds you would not have the same level of overturning. Hence you would have cooling. The clouds block the sun sure. But we need strata for overturning.

    Now about the CO2. If you didn’t have the CO2 then you would not have the same air pressure. But if you still had the same air pressure, with the same strata and overturning you would have a hot planet despite Finrod being totally full of shit on this matter.

    The whole planet acts like this giant convection pressure cooker. Its the pressure that counts and not the alleged greenhouse effect. The pressure effect of CO2 is important. The colour-of-CO2 is not.

    We can see this when we visit somewhere like the Atherton tableland or Chiang Mai. These places are hot and high up. But it cools quickly in the evening? Why would it still do this now with the CO2 levels a lot higher than they were only two or three decades ago?

    Why would the Atherton tablelands climate therefore not have somewhat equalised with Cairns? The answer is that its the air pressure that really counts here and on Venus. Air pressure and overturning. The Atherton tablelands/Cairns comparison tells us that the Greenhouse backradiation effect doesn’t amount to much at all. If it did then the heat would be retained into the night. But they use dooners up in the tablelands whereas they use airconditioners down in Cairns.

  28. Anonymous said…
    Bear in mind what we have gotten so far from this particular group of self-selected analytical incompetents.

    I asked for evidence. One of them countered by saying I didn’t want evidence. I assure you that evidence was what I was after. So the request for evidence was responded to with a lie. If this wasn’t a gyp it would have been responded to with EVIDENCE.

    Then the second fellow, after desperately trying to get some sort of censorship going, claimed that the thought that warming wasn’t happening (like that would be a bad thing) was “naieve” “scientifically illiterate” but if that was the case why did he not come up with any evidence?

    Rather he substituted for evidence a link that others have no access to, and that wasn’t evidence at all. Rather a forecast based on the idea that CO2 warms things up.

    But we were after THE EVIDENCE THAT CO2 warms things up. Not the MERE PRESUMPTION that it does.

    So it turns out that YOU GUYS were the stooges. You guys were the scientific illiterates. And you guys were the ones not interested in evidence.

    Now Finrod. It appears that it is you that is not interested in evidence.

    Wipe that egg off your face and lets have that evidence.

    GO!!!

    August 17, 2009 10:24 AM

    Anonymous said…
    “Have you bothered looking at Prof. Brook’s presentations yet?”

    So now a question. First a lie that I wasn’t interested in evidence. And now a question.

    We see here that you scientific illiterates are only interested in a filibuster.

    Lets have that evidence.

    GO!!!!!

    August 17, 2009 10:26 AM

    Anonymous said…
    Guys if you don’t have any evidence and this is merely a religion…. WELL ADMIT IT.

    You see I say its you that are the naieve ones. I say that you are the analytical incompetents. The scientific illiterates.

    But so far I haven’t got your admission that this is a religion.

    So I’m asking for evidence.

    Lets have that evidence.

    August 17, 2009 10:28 AM

  29. Anonymous said…
    Look I asked you for evidence. Not for you to hide behind anybody.

    Will you come up with the evidence or will you admit that you don’t have any.

    I ASKED YOU FOR EVIDENCE.

    So far nothing.

    I didn’t ask you for anything else.

    Just evidence.

    GO!!!!!!

    August 17, 2009 12:59 PM

    Anonymous said…
    Look all you have been requested is EVIDENCE.

    So lets have that evidence. If you were relying mindlessly on Barry Brook perhaps you could admit that.

    EVIDENCE.

    Have you got any or will you admit you are wrong?

    GO!!!!!

    So far you have refused point blank to come up with evidence.

    August 17, 2009 1:01 PM

    Anonymous said…
    “ALL climate predication is by its nature probabilistic and based on statistical evidence”

    WELL LETS HAVE SOME. You and your co-religionist have both refused point blank to come up with any evidence.

    I forecast which merely accepts that you are right is not evidence. A forecast based on the idea that CO2 WILL INDEED cause serious warming is not evidence that the CO2 will cause serious warming. Rather they simply assume that it will.

    Now Finrod cannot come up with evidence CAN YOU.

    If so let us have it.

    August 17, 2009 1:05 PM

  30. Well come to think of it, if we did seed the atmosphere of Venus with bacteria/bugs/whatever, then if they broke down CO2 into O2 and C, then what happens to the C? Will it fall through the clouds, and form a sheet of carbon on the ground, or will it recombine with the O2? That’s a major problem with using bacteria.

  31. What about seed the planet with cyanobacteria and algy genetically modified to live in Venus’ atmosphere eating out the carbon dioxyde, a they do on earth. They live in extreme heat conditions in some areas like Yellowstone. Maybe in 1000 yers it would produce a significant temperture reduction and enough oxygen to cool hte planet for water to exist in liquid form


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: