What’s really going on with Venus? Two Gas Planets Comparison

Written by Geraint Hughes on August 24, 2017. Posted in Current News

Venus is hot because it has many thousands of volcanoes – not because of any ‘greenhouse gas effect.’ Whomever tells you Venus ‘proves’ the greenhouse gas theory is either scientifically incompetent or a liar. Below we see the science properly explained.

Executive Summary

I will explain that the following three factors are the real reason for Venus high temperatures.

High atmospheric pressures, some 90 times greater than Earth.
Highly volcanic and actively eruptive environment. “Thousands of active volcanoes.”
Thin crust, enabling transference of heat from the magma below to the atmosphere above.

4.1 Venus (Little light reaches the surface)

Greenhouse gas Muppet’s, would have you believe that a runaway greenhouse gas effect has occurred on Venus and this is why it’s atmospheric and surface temperatures are so high. God, this is just silly beyond imagining.

Let’s remind ourselves of how the “Green Fantasists” think a greenhouse warms. They wrongly and quite stupidly think they work by radiation. Energy reaching the surface, being absorbed and converted into heat and this heat being reflected back by the glass.

Well, let’s look at this first point, energy “must first reach the surface” for it to then be reflected back right? On Venus this can’t possibly be the case. All those whom have studied Venus quite rightly state that only a minimum of light from the Sun reaches the surface of that planet. Examples I have provided below.

“Venus albedo is about 0.60 (the amount reflected light in {154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}), hence most of the light will never reach the surface.” (Nova Celestia, 2017)

Or “About 1{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of incident light reaches the surface” (Fundamental Astronomy, Hannu Karttunen, Fifth Edition, P159).

Or “The clouds we see on Venus are made up of sulfur dioxide and drops of sulfuric acid. They reflect about 75{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the sunlight that falls on them, and are completely opaque. It’s these clouds that block our view to the surface of Venus. Beneath these clouds, only a fraction of sunlight reaches the surface.” (Universe today, 2017)

There is no disputing this general consensus. So, if little to no light reaches the surface, how can the warming of the atmosphere and the surface, be as a result of “Reflected Heat Energy” if the energy isn’t even reaching the surface in the first instance? Far more likely it is as a result of “Direct absorption.” Except, we already know that CO² doesn’t absorb sunlight energy very well, so we also know that direct absorption by CO² can’t be the cause, especially because the clouds are so reflective.

So why is Venus so hot?

4.2 Venus (Has high atmospheric pressures)

“The high density of the atmosphere allows the pressure at the air surface to reach 90 times that of the earth. The surface temperature of Venus never reaches below 400 degrees Celsius.” (Nova Celestia, 2017)

It’s well recognised that high atmospheric pressures, especially in Summer can cause warmer conditions here on Earth, “High pressure in the summer often brings fine, warm weather. It can lead to long warm sunny days and prolonged dry periods. In severe situations this can cause a drought” (The Met Office. 2017)

The combined gas law, helps provide an explanation as to why high air pressures can result in higher temperatures. The equation P1 V1 / T1 = P2 V2 / T2. What this tells us is if the volume of air remains equal and we increase the air pressure, then the temperature must rise. Example. 1 atm x 1 / 270K = 2 atm x 1 / T2. T2 must equal 540K for the equation to balance. To learn more about this you can look at this website. http://study.com/academy/lesson/combined-gas-law-definition-formula-example.html

Now in the real world environment the equation isn’t as simple as this, because the air is free to expand and isn’t trapped within a solid container, so the volume varies also. But, the basic principle still holds. If you increase atmospheric pressure, then you can expect higher temperatures. Venus has high atmospheric pressure because there is just so much more molecules in its atmosphere when compared to Earth’s atmosphere.

However, we have many examples on Earth where higher air pressure cause higher temperatures. Death valley. “The biggest factor behind Death Valley’s extreme heat is its elevation. Parts of it are below sea level,” (Live Science, 2017)

“Turpan Depression, China, This trough is the Earth’s third lowest point reaching an elevation of 505 feet below sea level (-154 meters.) Located in China’s western desert region south of Mongolia, the Turpan Depression is the country’s hottest and driest area.” (Wander Wisdom, 2017)

Here’s a great explanation of the phenomena I found on the internet.

Why is it colder at high altitudes?

“High altitudes are closer to the sun, which means that they should be slightly warmer. Furthermore, the moisture from clouds should keep these altitudes at an even temperature. So why do airplanes need heating systems and mountain climbers get frozen?

Most people will recognize, when reading the above paragraph, that a few thousand feet closer to the sun doesn’t make all that much of a difference, considering the 93 million miles that the light from the sun already has to travel to hit earth. At first glance it doesn’t make sense that high altitudes, with so little atmosphere to keep the air an even temperature, wouldn’t get blisteringly hot, at least during the day.

But it’s the lack of atmosphere, or rather, of atmospheric pressure, that sucks the heat out of high places. At sea level, the pressure is around 14.7 pounds per square inch. At five thousand feet it’s around 12.2 pounds per square inch. While humans are comfortable at either level, that’s quite a change in pressure.

For gases, a change in pressure means a change in temperature. Depending on the conditions, there can be a lot of ways to look at this. One is that pressure is an outside force, and pumps energy into the thing it is pressurizing. Looked at that way, it’s natural that gas molecules under high pressure would be at a higher energy level than gas molecules under less pressure. Another is that with a decrease in pressure gas often increases in volume. If the same number of gas molecules are in a bigger space, they don’t jostle into each other as much, and their total kinetic energy is spread out over a larger area, lowering the average temperature.

Air molecules at low altitudes are crowded together in cities. Rough, unpredictable, they’re likely to bounce off each other, and run riot through the streets, and go to nightclubs with guns stuck in the waistbands of their jean shorts. They’re at a high energy and that makes for a high temperature.

Meanwhile, high altitude air molecules wander in solitude, a pack on their back and a cranky yak carrying their tent behind them. They have more space to wander around in, and because they don’t bounce off each other as much, because they’re not crammed into a small space by the pressure of the air above them, each square inch has a much lower temperature than sea level air.”

Ref : https://io9.gizmodo.com/5550672/why-is-it-colder-at-high-altitudes

When was the last time you heard a “Green Fantasist” tell you that Venus was warm because of its air pressure?

4.3 Venus is Volcanic

This is self-explanatory. If you have thousands of volcanoes, spewing out heat and lava into the atmosphere then this will explain the high CO2 levels, the high sulphur levels in the atmosphere and the high temperatures. The Venetian core is literally dumping heat into its atmosphere. Here are examples. “Volcanoes on Venus may be young and hot” (NBC News, 2017)

“The surface of Venus is dominated by volcanism and has produced more volcanoes than any other planet in the solar system. The planet Venus has a surface that is 90{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} basalt, and about 80{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the planet consists of a mosaic of volcanic lava plains, indicating that volcanism played a major role in shaping its surface” (Crystal links, 2017)

“According to our modeling, the flank lava flows are the ones responsible for this [hot]spot,” D’Incecco said. “This is particularly important because this is the first time we can map, with such a high resolution, lava flows from a volcanic structure which is believed to be recently or still active on a terrestrial body other than Earth.” (Space.com, 2017)

I could provide hundreds of examples and as more satellites and expeditions study Venus, more and more examples of live volcanoes will be provided.

4.4 Venus has a thin crust

Not many people know this, but Venus has very thin crust compared to the Earth. The main reason for this, is that it doesn’t have an ocean, to cool the lava flows from its magma core, if it did the water would cool the lava flows rapidly and cause a thick layer to build over time. Also Oceans exert a huge weight on the crust, causing the plates to sub-duct down into Magma below, further cooling the core.

An atmosphere, even at high pressure, can’t match this weight. But because they don’t cool rapidly, a thick layer has no chance to build and so the heat and CO² just gets dumped into the atmosphere.

A thin crust means a direct heat transfer from the magma and core below as there is quite simply less insulation to the heat. This direct transfer of heat causes a massive warming to the Venetian atmosphere, which simply doesn’t happen on Earth because the Earth crust is thick.

“The mean thickness of the crust is constrained to a range of 8–25 km, somewhat lower than previous estimates.” (Peter B James, Maria T Zuber & Roger J Phillips, 2013, p859 to 875)

Figure 4.1 Crustal Thickness of Venus

(Crustal thickness and support of topography on Venus, 2013)

In another paper (one done in 1982), came to a similar conclusion. That the core of Venus, must be losing its heat via some mechanism. And in an absence of water, its lithosphere (crust) must be thin. “and forms resulting from plate convergence and divergence on Venus would differ substantially from those on the earth because of the high surface temperature and the absence of oceans on Venus, the lack of free or hydrated water in sub-ducted material, the possibility that sub-duction would more commonly be accompanied by Lithospheric delamination, and the rapid spreading rates that would be required if plate recycling removes a significant fraction of the internal heat.” (Sean C Solomon & James W Head, 1982, P 9236 to 9246.)

And this same paper, states below:-

“the hypothesis that lithospheric conduction dominates shallow heat transfer on Venus leads to the prediction that the Lithosphere is thin.” and it also goes onto say:-

“The hypothesis that hot spot volcanism dominates Lithospheric heat transfer on Venus leads to the prediction that the surface must be covered with numerous active volcanic sources”

What the paper is saying is that the Venus core must be ridding itself of its heat somehow, or else it will just keep warming. On Earth tectonic plate movements and the massive body of oceans, act as natural methods for removing this heat. These oceans don’t exist on Venus, so therefore, other mechanisms must play more dominant roles and those roles are most likely, thin crust and / or highly active volcanism. So one mechanism maybe more dominant than the other or both might play equal roles. But in any event, it is these mechanisms which are dumping heat into the Venetian atmosphere. It then goes on to conclude that more studies of Venus are required. This diagram taken from the paper sums it up well.

Figure 4.2 Mechanisms for Planetary Core Heat Loss

Did a “greenhouse fantasist” ever tell you this when talking about Venus, or did they spout off “runaway greenhouse effect, it will happen here on earth, solution, YOU PAY MORE TAX!” Just plain odd, isn’t it.

4.5 THE TWO GAS PLANETS

Now I will show how it is “COMPLETELY ABSURD” to think that a Carbon Dioxide gas planet would be warmer than an Oxygen gas planet, especially at Earth orbit distance.

In my illumination two, I showed that adding a greenhouse to a plate, in a fully vacuum environment, caused the plate to cool and explained that this was because the area of emission had increased, whilst the area of absorption had remained the same. So this caused the energy to be spread more thinly, therefore resulting in lower temperatures and used an approximation calculation to show the lower expected iso-thermic temperature.

As you recall I explained that reducing emission areas would cause temperature of the plate to rise, and increasing emission areas would cause temperatures to fall.

Now, there are other ways of causing temperature changes in an object in space, whilst keeping areas exactly the same. I will explain brief examples below.

4.5.1 Example 1 – Increasing Temperatures by reducing IR Emissivity

Using the 2 sided flat plate example again, we can cause the temperature of the plate to rise by selecting a different material, one with a lower emissivity.

A standard flat plate, with έ (IR emissivity) = 1.0 would maintain steady state temperatures of 331K or 58 C°.

When the IR emissivity is 1.0 and the solar absorptivity is 1.0 this is known in Rocket Science parlance as an A / E ratio of 1.0.

Now let’s suppose we selected an imaginary material with a lower emissivity, i.e 0.5 but maintained solar absorptivity of 1.0. The plate would have a steady state temperature of 394K or 121 C°. This is because the material doesn’t emit energy so readily and so needs to achieve higher temperatures to emit the energy that it absorbs. I.e. If the plate is absorbing 1367 watts of energy each second, it will emit energy out at 1367 watts at 121 C°. This is because at 331K the plate is only emitting a total of 683 watts, so its keeps on warming until it achieves equilibrium with the amount of energy it is absorbing.

To turn this example to gases, if a gas planet was less emissive, compared to a gas planet which was more emissive, the less emissive gas planet would also need to rise in temperature to emit out the energy it absorbed.

This object has an A / E Ratio of 2.0. Objects with A / E Ratios higher than 1.0 maintain steady state temperatures which are higher.

A point to note, is that Oxygen and Nitrogen are both far, far less emissive than CO² which is highly emissive. So in the absence of any other inputs, if we had an oxygen gas planet and a carbon dioxide gas planet (with no rocks at the centre) and if we assumed they both absorbed solar energy equally, we can understand that the Oxygen and Nitrogen planets would need to be hotter than the CO² planet, to emit out the same heat, because their molecules don’t emit IR radiation, so as they absorb energy the temperatures keep rising until they reach temperatures at which they do emit radiation so that the rate of energy being emitted matches the rate of energy that they are absorbing.

4.5.2 Example 2 – Decreasing Temperatures by reducing Solar Absorptivity

Going back to the two sided flat plate, if we assumed that it’s IR was 1.0 and it’s solar absorptivity is one we know we have a steady state temperature of 331K.

If we now select a material which has a lower solar absorptivity, ά = 0.5, what happens is this material isn’t very good at absorbing solar rays, the rest just reflect off. This has the effect of reducing the energy input.

So sticking with the two sided plate, the effect is the steady state temperature reduces, to 279K or 6 C°. As only 684 watts is being absorbed, and the plate emits 342 watts from each side. Easy to follow, isn’t it.

This object has an A / E ratio of 0.50. Objects which have A / E ratios lower than 1.0 maintain steady state temperatures which are lower.

To turn this example, to gases if we had a gas which had low solar absorptivity and compared that to a gas with high absorptivity, we know that the gas planet with the lower absorption ratio, is going to be cooler.

Comparing, Oxygen with CO², we know that Oxygen absorbs Ultra-Violet, it also absorbs some green light and red light spectra. CO² on the other hand doesn’t, it has a very low absorption of Sunlight. This means that Oxygen has a higher absorption than CO², meaning it will maintain higher temperatures.

But here’s the big clincher, CO² does emit equally with Oxygen. CO²is far more IR emissivity than Oxygen and CO² is simultaneously a poor solar absorber and Oxygen and relatively good absorber. How do we resolve this?

4.5.3 Example 3 The Importance of A / E Ratio’s

Going back to the 2 sided flat plate. If we pretended that the flat plate had the same low absorption of CO² and high emissivity of a planets worth of CO² what we would have would be something along the lines of ά = 0.003 and έ = 0.15.

So the flat plate would have a seriously low A / E Ratio of 0.02. This means it is going to be seriously cold in space. The plate would maintain a temperature of just 125K or -148 C°.

If we now pretended that the flat plate had similar properties to a planets worth of Oxygen, what we would have is something along the lines of ά = 0.13 and έ = 0.003 A / E ratio of 43.3, one seriously hot plate. This plate would maintain a temperature of 850 K or 557 C°.

Here is a table which gives a range of materials with different A / E ratios and in the notes column you can see it makes reference to the fact that aluminium foil would be very hot, because it has high A / E ratio. This isn’t made up science, this is the real science at hand which needs to be considered. Not some stupid “greenhouse effect” which really is the make believe, pseudo-science technobabble gibberish.

4.5.4 Example 4 Oxy and Gas Planets

Planets aren’t flat, they are spherical, this means adjustments need to be made to the absorption and emission areas.

Without showing all the maths, you would expect “Carbo” have an average temperature of T = 105 K or -168 C° Where as an “Oxy” gas planet would have an average of 715 K or 442 C°. Anyone who thinks differently is free to postulate what they think the average temperatures of these two imaginary gas planets would be (just gas, no rock.) You will come to the same conclusion, “Oxy” hot, “Carbo” cold.

Obviously in a real world environment we would expect much higher temperatures high in the atmosphere and much lower temperatures lower down due to the initial absorption of radiation at the surface layer and cooler closer to the centre if all the air was magically equally spread and didn’t mix around.

So if we then got a perfectly spherical rock, with an a/e ratio of 1 with an average temperature of 279K and stuck it the hot “Oxy”, we can see how the rock would warm. Conversely, we can see how the rock would not only cool, but completely freeze if we stuck it in the middle of the “Carbo” gas planet. And those thick wit, CO² causes global warming muppet men, expect you to believe the complete and utter reverse. They think placing a rock in a freezing gas would cause it to warm?????????????????? Like I said before. “COMPLETELY ABSURD!”

Conclusion

So there you have it, there is no point ever using Venus as an example of greenhouse gas warming, now you know the true reasons for Venus’s high atmospheric temperatures are:- its insanely high atmospheric pressure, the thousands of volcanoes and its highly active eruptive environment and the thinness of the Venetian crust due to its lack of ocean to cool the magma and soak up CO², meaning massive transfer of heat from the magma layers below into the atmosphere. Not a “greenhouse effect.”

Now you also know that a pure Oxygen planet would be warm and why that would be and a pure CO² planet would be freezing cold and why that would be. And to place a planet sized rock at the centre of “Oxy”, would cause the planet to warm and yet placing a planet sized rock into “Carbo” would cause the planet to cool. To think anything else is just plain stupid, like I said in my last letter, it is “COMPLETELY ABSURD”.

So replacing Oxygen in our atmosphere with CO² just can’t cause a warming, CO² is an emissive gas and thus cause’s localised atmospheric cooling, nothing else. Therefore if there really is any warming occurring on the planet, it is not “because of” increased levels of CO²but “in spite of”.

To think planetary temperatures can be controlled by playing around with CO² levels, is ridiculous, therefore resources should not be wasted in such fruitless and pointless pursuits and instead money be spent in other more effective ways.

In my next illumination no five, I will explain that the most denigrated so called “Fossil Fuel” oil, is in fact the “Ultimate Renewable Resource.” Yes that’s right, the “black stuff” is in fact a renewable resource, being made in the oceans on a daily basis. The billions wasted fighting “Fake” climate change should be spent on investigating the most optimum methods of taking advantage of this renewable resource, in an ever-lasting and eternally sustainable manner.

Geraint Hughes

Bibliography and Referencing

Books

HANNU KARTTUNEN (2007) Fundamental Astronomy, Fifth Edition, New York : Pearson.

Journals

P B JAMES, M T ZUBER & R J PHILLIPS, (2013) Crustal Thickness and support of topography on Venus [Online] Journal of Geophysical Research, p859 to 875. Available from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012JE004237/full [Accessed 20th August 2017]

S C SOLOMON & J W HEAD, (1982) Mechanisms for Lithospheric Heat Transport on Venus: Implications for Tectonic Style and Volcanism [Online] Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol 87, P9236 to 9246. Available from http://topex.ucsd.edu/venus/papers/005_Solomon_Head_JGR_1982.pdf [Accessed 20th August 2017]

Websites

NOVA CELESTIA, Venus [Online] http://www.novacelestia.com/space_art_solar_system/venus.html

[Accessed 20^th August 2017]

UNIVERSETODAY, Clouds on Venus, [Online]

https://www.universetoday.com/36871/clouds-on-venus/ [Accessed 20^th August 2017]

METOFFICE, Highs and Lows weather conditions, [Online]

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/learn-about-the-weather/highs-and-lows/weather-conditions [Accessed 20^th August 2017]

LIVE SCIENCE, Death Valley: 100 Years as Earths Hottest Spot [Online]

https://www.livescience.com/38054-why-death-valley-hot.html [Accessed 20th August 2017]

WANDER WISDOM, Below Sea Level The Worlds Ten Lowest Points of Land [Online]

https://wanderwisdom.com/travel-destinations/Below-Sea-Level-Exploring-the-Worlds-Ten-Lowest-Points-of-Land [Accessed 20th August 2017]

NBC NEWS.COM, Volcanoes on Venus may be young and hot [Online]

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/36286975/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/volcanoes-venus-may-be-young-hot/#.WYcBn9iou00 [Accessed 20^th August 2017]

CRYSTAL LINKS, Volcanoes off Planet [Online]

http://www.crystalinks.com/volcanoesplanets.html [Accessed 20th August 2017]

SPACE.COM, Volcanoes on Venus Erupted Recently, New Study Suggests [Online]

https://www.space.com/34420-venus-volcanos-erupted-recently-hotspot-study-suggests.html [Accessed 20th August 2017]

Images

Figure 4.1 Crustal Thickness of Venus

Figure 4.2 Mechanisms for Planetary Core Heat Loss

Figure 4.3 Table of A & E Ratios

SOLAR MIRROR, Absorptivity & Emissivity table 1 plus others [Online]

http://www.solarmirror.com/fom/fom-serve/cache/43.html [Accessed 20th August 2017]

About the author: Geraint Hughes is an award-winning British Incorporated Mechanical Engineer, writer and experimental scientist. His book, Black Dragon: Breaking the Frizzle Frazzle of THE BIG LIE of Climate is available to buy on Amazon.

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.