ROCK ART- ancient evidence of a Velikovskian sky
Walter Alter
Suns and Planets in Neolithic Rock Art
Ev Cochrane
If you have had your attention directed to the novelties of thought in your
own lifetime, you will have observed that almost all really new ideas have a
certain aspect of foolishness when they are first presented.
A. Whitehead In science, unlike religion, the great revelations lie in the
future; the coming generations are the authorities; and the pupil is greater
than the master, if he has the gift to see things anew. All fruitful ideas
have been conceived in the minds of non-conformists, for whom the known is
still the unknown, and who often went back to begin where others passed by,
sure of their way. The truth of today was the heresy of yesterday.
I. Velikovsky In Worlds in Collision, Immanuel Velikovsky claimed that the
planets only recently settled upon their present orbits; that, in fact, great
cataclysms have distinguished the recent history of the solar system. All
agree that if true this thesis would have profound implications for various
branches of natural science, particularly celestial mechanics and cosmology.
Few agree, however, as to what constitutes valid evidence of the sort of
events Velikovsky described.
Velikovsky himself, together with many of his supporters, suggested that
Radvance claimsS regarding the state of various planets (such as the
inordinate heat of Venus or radio-noises emanating from Jupiter, both
anticipated by Velikovsky prior to their discovery) constituted prima facie
evidence in support of the thesis. His critics, however, countered that
correct predictions do not always constitute verification of the underlying
thesis, while some even questioned the specificity and/or verification of
Velikovsky's advanced claims.1 Thus the question remains: What sort of
evidence apart from Venus suddenly leaving its current orbit and resuming a
comet-like appearance would it take to convince conventional scholars that
that planet recently moved upon a different orbitQthat the ancient skies were
vastly different than the ones we see today?
It is apparently not enough that ancient peoples from around the world said as
much. For example, a survey of ancient traditions reveals the following
recurring motives: (1) in ancient times different RsunsS dominated the visible
heavens; (2) the world was once plunged into darkness and brought to the brink
of destruction when the sun was eclipsed as a result of being swallowed by a
giant dragon; (3) on one occasion, it is said, the planet Venus took on a
comet-like appearance.2 Such traditions, in the rare event that they are
encountered and subjected to analysis, are notoriously difficult to interpret,
and, in any case, are typically explained away as poetic metaphor having
little basis in reality.
In deference to the currently prevailing opinion which would downplay the
importance of ancient mythological traditions, we seek a more RobjectiveS
source of evidence with which to explore the nature of the ancient cosmos. In
addition to the ancient literary traditions, another record exists which
offers evidence in support of recent changes in the solar system namely,
prehistoric rock art. Ancient skywatchers from around the world have been
drawing pictures of the celestial bodies since time immemorial, and the fact
is that such pictures cannot be made to accord with the current arrangement of
the solar system.
Prehistoric Petroglyphs of the Sun
The discovery in 1879 of spectacular paintings in the caves of Altamira
(Spain) was initially met with disbelief and ridicule, so radical was the idea
that Stone Age men could have created art of such sophistication and beauty.
It was only upon the discovery of similar finds in France, Portugal and
elsewhere in Europe that the scientific world became forced to accept the
reality of Paleolithic rock art. Indeed, it has since been shown that rock
art is abundant upon all inhabited continents and spans a period of time
measured in millennia (the paintings of Altamira and Lascaux are typically
dated to ca. 10-20,000 BCE).3
During the Paleolithic age, rock art was primarily devoted to the realistic
representation of various forms of wildlife, the latter presumably objects of
the hunt and rites of sympathetic magic.4 Especially common are paintings of
horses and wisent, the great bison that once roamed the steppes of Europe,
although mammoths, woolly Rhinoceroses, and other long extinct fauna also
appear.
It was during the Neolithic age, apparently, that man began recording his
perceptions of celestial phenomena through paintings and petroglyphs (incised
images in rock). Not unlike fossilized bones, which provide an objective
record against which to check the deductions drawn by paleontologists, rock
art represents an objective record of mankind's enduring interest in the stars
and offers a check upon conclusions deduced from comparative mythology.
Among the most common petroglyphs are those typically interpreted as images of
the sun. Included here are simple images featuring a circular disc from which
RraysS emanate in all directions (see Figure 1).5 Certainly this is how one
might expect our forbears to have depicted the current solar orb.
Figure 1
Other images, however, are more difficult to interpret. Consider Figure 2,
one of the most common images in all of ancient rock art.6 It depicts what
would appear to be a circular disc with a smaller orb set within its center.
Figure 2 Figure 3
Even more difficult to reconcile with the current appearance of the sun is
Figure 3, which depicts a flower-like object set against the backdrop of an
orb or disc.7 Although less common than Figure 2, this image also has
parallels throughout the ancient world.
Consider further the image represented in Figure 4.8 How is it possible to
explain the wheel-like RspokesS (typically four or eight in number) of this
supposed solar-petroglyph by reference to the current sun?9 And yet this very
image occurs throughout the ancient world! Most perplexing, perhaps, is the
fact that such images occur in Neolithic contexts and thus predate by several
millennia the invention of spoked wheels.
Figure 4
Figure 5, finally, adds a pillar-like appendage to the aforementioned images.
10 Here again we are dealing with a petroglyph of universal distribution,
typically interpreted as the sun with RraysS.
Figure 5
Although the various Rsun-imagesS occur in a wide variety of artistic
contexts, it is not uncommon to find them associated with scenes of apparent
worship and ritual. Well known, for example, are engravings depicting people
Roffering salutationsS to the sun-god with upraised arms. In Camonica
ValleyQarguably the richest and most thoroughly excavated petroglyph site in
the worldQAnati observes: RThe carvings of the first period are limited to the
depiction of one person praying, facing the sunQwhich is drawn as a disc with
a dot in its center.S11 Such scenes, coupled with the obvious prominence of
the sun in ancient religion, have led scholars to assume that the solar images
served some sort of religious purpose for the Stone Age artists and their
communities.12
The anomalies presented by these images have not escaped the attention of
scholars. Aside from the fact that each of them is routinely identified with
the sun, the various Rsun-imagesS would appear to have very little in common
apart from the presence of a smaller orb in the center of a larger disc. In
The Sun-Gods of Ancient Europe, M. Green offered the following observation:
RIt is very difficult to interpret the exact meaning of these sun-like images
occurring on passage-grave stones. If we may assume that the signs are
symbolic, then either they are purely abstract or they represent something in
the natural world.S13
A. Willcox asks, not without some justification, why the ancients would need
so many different symbols for the Sun? Noting that Rthe forms claimed to be
solar symbols do not really look like the sun,S Willcox would regard them as
non-representational in nature, and suggests their origin is rooted in
physiology.14
There would thus appear to be two schools of thought with regard to these so-
called solar images: that which would regard them as rooted in the natural
world, and thus representational; and that which would regard them as non-
representational. Inasmuch as each of these petroglyphs might be paralleled
on any of the inhabited continents, it is difficult to accept the proposition
that they are purely abstract in nature. Whatever they represent, it seems
clear that the images had as their inspiration some objective reference in the
natural world. How then do scholars explain the peculiar nature of the Rsun-
imagesS?
Here Green speculates that for some reason ancient man was unable (or
disinclined) to depict the sun as it actually appears:
When we look at the way that mankind in ancient Europe depicted the image of
the sun, we see immediately that [its] obvious circularity dominated his
perception. But what is more interesting is that man did not simply look at
the sun and copy what he saw to the best of his ability. He went further and
interpreted and superimposed new images of the sun which were not based
entirely on his visual perception.15
Why this should be the case is not intuitively obvious. One would think that
part of communicating the sanctity of a religious symbol would be recording it
faithfully, particularly if the symbol served a magical or apotropaic purpose
(as, in fact, is known to be the case with Rsun-signsS, which are featured
prominently on amulets throughout the ancient world). Moreover, it is common
to find RsolarS petroglyphs upon the same rock face with images of animals and
people, the latter drawn in relatively realistic fashion.16 Why then need we
invoke subjective factors to explain the RsolarS petroglyphs?
There is a very simple answer to this question: It is simply unthinkable to
consider the logical alternativeQthat the petroglyphs faithfully depict the
ancient RsunS, albeit one radically different in appearance from the current
solar orb.
This is not to deny the possibility that sacred images become more abstract
through time. Certainly representations of the ancient sun-god became more
anthropomorphic as civilization progressed.17 But the question before us is
not whether religious images are subject to evolution and transmutation;
rather, why prehistoric images of the sun do not conform with its current
appearance?
If one is willing to entertain the possibility that prehistoric rock art is
representative in nature, how is it possible to discover the celestial
phenomenon behind the various Rsun-imagesS? Inasmuch as writing did not yet
exist at the time most of these images were created, it would appear that we
have reached a dead end in our investigation. Religious beliefs, however, are
notoriously conservative in nature, and thus it may be possible to trace our
solar forms in later art. Should this prove to be the case, we might gain
therefrom some insight into the original significance of the prehistoric
images. With this strategy in mind, we turn to consider the iconographical
evidence from the ancient Near East, where we will find that strikingly
similar images appear amongst the earliest art and writing.18
Pictographs of the Sun in the Ancient Near East
It is well-known that writing originated in the ancient Near East, first in
Sumer and shortly thereafter in Egypt. In the earliest scripts, great
reliance was placed upon pictographs in order to convey the message of the
writer.19 Initially, the various pictographs represented familiar objects as
realistically as possible, and thus in most cases it is possible to identify
the natural objects depicted in the various pictographs. 'pon further
evolution of the script, however, the signs took on an increasingly abstract
character (particularly in Mesopotamia, the Egyptian script generally
retaining its pictographic form). The Assyrian character , for example, is
known to have evolved from a Sumerian pictograph featuring a bird.20
Recognizable amongst the earliest pictographs of the Sumerians, Egyptians,
Maya and Chinese is the RsolarS disc with central dot (our Figure 2). In both
Egypt and China, this sign originally connoted RsunS.21 Other pictographs
feature a rosette, a wheel-like disc, and the sun-disc upon a pillar, and thus
resemble closely our Figures 3-5. Such correspondences support the conclusion
that a certain continuity exists between prehistoric images of rock art and
pictographic systems of writing, a conclusion reached by scholars on other
grounds.22
There would also appear to be a general continuity with respect to the objects
of worship.23 Thus it is well-known that the sun-god featured prominently in
the earliest pantheons of both Sumer and Egypt. If we are looking for clues
to the nature of the prehistoric sun-god, it is essential that we inquire into
the sacred iconography associated with these cults.
Of the Sumerian sun-god 'tu, relatively little is known. Indeed, even the
reading of the god's name is not beyond doubt.24 Among the symbols of god,
however, appears our Figure 2Qthe sun disc with central dotQset upon a pole.25
Better attested is the Akkadian Shamash, who appears in a wide variety of
iconographical contexts. 'pon countless cylinder seals and reliefs, for
example, Shamash is depicted in anthropomorphic form emerging from the
Rmountain of the eastS.26
The most common symbol for Shamash is shown in Figure 6, attested already in
Akkadian times.27 In most cases the image features a circular disc, in the
center of which appears a four-pointed star with wavy lines emanating between
the points. This particular symbol may appear alone, or, more commonly,
alongside a crescent and star, a patent reference to the intimate relationship
believed to exist between Shamash, Sin and Ishtar, the divine triad of ancient
Babylon.28 Although the crescent of Sin is readily understandable given the
god's customary identification with the Moon, why the ancient Babylonians
would have represented the sun with this particular symbol is difficult to
explain. The same image, moreover, is frequently found perched atop a pillar-
like structure, raising further questions as to the objective basis of the
image.29 Remembering the pillar-like appendage associated with early RsunS
images in prehistoric rock art, one can't help but wonder whether the
Babylonian symbol of Shamash atop his pillar-like staff represents a stylized
vestige of the former 30
Figure 6 Figure 7
Elsewhere, however, Shamash could be represented by another symbol which
features an eight-pointed star set against a circular disc (see Figure 7).31
Here too, it must be admitted, it is difficult to see much resemblance between
this image and the current solar orb. Why the ancient Babylonians would elect
to represent their sun-god Shamash with an 8-pointed star is a question which
bears careful consideration. Indeed, a satisfactory answer could portend a
revolution in our understanding of the recent history of the solar system.
Stars and Planets in Early Pictographs
The eight-pointed star is one of the oldest pictographs in all of ancient
Mesopotamia, occurring already during the prehistoric period (see Figure 8).32
According to leading scholars, the star-sign originally signified the concepts
RGodS, RHeavenS, or RAnS, a clear indication, it would appear, of the
celestial basis of Sumerian religion.33
Figure 8
In later times, scholars are agreed, the star came to be regarded as the
special symbol of the planet Venus. This planet featured prominently in
Sumerian religion, being identified with the goddess Inanna (her Akkadian
counterpart being Ishtar).34 Indeed, according to Wolfgang Heimpel, the
identification of Inanna and Venus was first made in prehistoric times and is
apparent Rin all historical periods.S35
In addition to the 8-pointed star, the planet-goddess Inanna could also be
signified by several other pictographs.36 Prominent among these is the rosette
(see Figure 9), whichQlike the RstarSQcommonly adorns artistic scenes and
objects deemed sacred to the great goddess. About the antiquity of the
rosette's association with the goddess there is no doubt. Thus van Buren
declares: RFrom the earliest times the rosette was a symbol of the goddess
Innin-Ishtar.S37
Figure 9 Figure 10
Significantly, early examples of the rosette closely resemble the star,
featuring little more than eight appendages or RarmsS extending out from a
central dot (see Figure 10).38 Indeed, as van Buren points out, it is probable
that the rosette is artistically cognate with the eight-pointed star: RThe
eight-pointed star of Istar, frequently illustrated on monuments of the second
and first millennia, was an adapted form of the archaic rosette as may be
clearly seen from the star carved at the top of a kudurru from Susa.S39
Our discussion of the star of Ishtar has direct relevance to the question
posed earlier: What is the significance of the 8-pointed star adorning the
disc of Shamash? Given the intimate association of the star with the planet
Venus, the question arises as to what relation, if any, exists between the 8-
pointed-star in the Shamash-symbol and that which signifies Venus? Does this
convergence of imagery mean that artistic license prevailed, or does it
perhaps commemorate some hitherto unrecognized relationship between Venus and
the ancient sun-god?40
The Sun and Venus in Ancient Egypt
That the worship of the sun and various celestial bodies belongs to the oldest
Egyptian religion is commonly acknowledged. Countless passages in the Pyramid
Texts, for example, allude to the King's identification with the ancient sun-
god and his intimate relationship to the morning star.41
In Egypt the star appears amongst the earliest pictographs, being found
already upon predynastic pottery.42 Although both 8-pointed and 5-pointed
stars are attested very early on, the 5-pointed star eventually came to
predominate.
Here it is relevant to note that the image of a star superimposed upon a disc
also appears in Egyptian hieroglyphic writing, as an ideogram for the
underworld (see Diagram 11). This sign may be transcribed as either Dat or
Duat, and is conventionally translated the Rkingdom of the starsS or the
Rstar-circleS.43 It is acknowledged, however, that both words are cognate with
the name of the Morning StarQDuai.44 Indeed, according to T. Hopfner, the word
Duat originally signified the Morning Star before later being used in the
sense of Rstarry skyS or RunderworldS.45 Thus it is reasonable to conclude
that the Egyptian sign of the Rstar in discSQlike the Babylonian analog cited
aboveQlikewise had some reference to the planet Venus.
Figure 11
In Babylonian iconography, however, the star of Inanna/Venus was superimposed
upon the disc of Shamash. Apart from the obvious resemblance of the disc of
the Duat to the disc which elsewhere forms the backdrop of the sign of Re
(Figure 2), is there any evidence linking the sign of the Duat to the ancient
sun-god? The truth is that the evidence leaves no doubt upon the matter.
Thus, in the Pyramid Texts the Duat is specifically identified as the domain
of Re, thereby attesting to the region's intimate relationship with the
ancient sun-god.46 Elsewhere, the Duat is identified as the place from which
the sun rose in the morning.47
The identification of the Duat as the netherworld on the one hand, and as the
place where the sun rises on the other, strikes the modern reader as
incongruous. Nevertheless, the idea of the sun-god as the regent of the
netherworld was common throughout the ancient world.48 Here a most relevant
parallel is to be found in Sumerian tradition, where the netherworld was known
as Dilmun, described as ki-u4-e, Rthe place where the sun rises.S49 This
epithet of Dilmun, significantly, finds a close parallel in the cult of
Inanna. Thus, in an early hymn known as Inanna's Descent to the 'nderworld,
the goddess identifies herself as ki-d'tu-e-a-as, RInanna of the place where
the sun rises.S50 Such traditions suggest that the relationship between Venus
and the netherworld, and between Venus and the ancient sun-god, was of a more
intimate nature than hitherto suspected.
It might be objected here that the Egyptian sign of the Duat features a five-
pointed star, while the Babylonian symbol of Venus features an eight-pointed
star. While it is beyond the scope of the present article to investigate the
significance of the various star-forms associated with Venus, suffice it to
say here that Inanna/Ishtar could also be signified by a five-pointed star.51
Indeed, the five-pointed star as a symbol of Venus is well attested throughout
the ancient world. 'pon Babylonian kudurru, moreover, the Venusian pentagram
can be found superimposed upon the disc of Shamash (Figure 12).52
Figure 12
The Sun and Venus in Mesoamerica
Worship of the ancient sun-god and the planet Venus is as conspicuous in the
New World as it is in the Old. Each of the so-called solar images (Figures 1
through 5) can be found in prehistoric petroglyphs, as can the eight-pointed
star and pentagram.53
In most cases, of course, New World petroglyphs occur in contexts otherwise
devoid of writing, and thus it is difficult to be certain which celestial body
is the subject of the glyph. Such is not the case in Mesoamerica, however,
which reached a high stage of civilization under the Olmec and Maya. In
addition to developing a sophisticated system of writing, the Maya were also
skilled astronomers, capable of calculating the period of Venus to within a
fraction of its true value. Early symbols and pictographs of Mesoamerica,
consequently, provide an invaluable key to unlocking the secrets of celestial
imagery in prehistoric rock art.
A prominent characteristic of Mesoamerican astronomyQindeed of Mesoamerican
culture in generalQwas an obsession with the planet Venus. Like their
counterparts in ancient Babylon, Mesoamerican skywatchers chronicled the
movements of Venus with amazing diligence and accuracy, viewing it as an agent
of great omen and danger. Of the Mexican preoccupation with Venus a Spanish
monk was led to report: RSo accurately did they keep the record of the days
when it appeared and disappeared that they never made a mistake.S54
It would be difficult to cite an aspect of Mesoamerican culture devoid of the
planet's influence. Temples were constructed and aligned with the purpose of
gaining the optimum view of the planet; various rituals, including human
sacrifices and the practice of war, were timed to correspond to important
aspects of the planet's orbit; even the calendar was designed to take into
account the planet's movements. Everywhere the sacred iconography associated
with Venus abounds.
The omnipresent influence of Venus upon Mesoamerican culture invites
comparison with Old World cultures, particularly that of Babylon. And, as we
have documented elsewhere, the two cultures share much in common with respect
to the sacred traditions and iconography surrounding the planet Venus.55
Among the Maya and Aztecs, for example, Venus was represented as a star. This
was in keeping with its name RGreat StarS, a common epithet of the planet
amongst various peoples in Mesoamerica.56 Figure 13a depicts an Aztec symbol
for Venus.57 This figure bears comparison with the four-pointed star which
adorns the disc of Shamash in Figure 6. The resemblance is striking, down to
and including the central point within the four-fold star. It is even
possible that the volutes which distinguish the Aztec glyph correspond to the
wavy-lines which emanate from behind the star in the Babylonian symbol. The
resemblance between the Aztec symbol and the Mesopotamian, needless to say,
supports the conclusion that the four-pointed star originated in the objective
appearance of the planet Venus.
The same basic image is apparent in Figure 13b, a version of the Lamat-glyph,
an acknowledged Maya glyph for Venus.58 Here the star is set against a
circular disc not unlike that associated with Shamash in Figure 6.
It is equally common, however, to find Venus depicted as a five-pointed star
(see Figure 13c).59 Here too, the Mesoamerican symbol finds a close
counterpart in the Babylonian cult of Ishtar/Venus (see Figure 12).
Figure 13a Figure 13b Figure 13c
The Quincunx
As was the case in the ancient Near East, pictographs featured prominently in
Mesoamerican systems of writing. Included among the earliest pictographs is
one believed to be associated with the planet Venus (see Figure 14).60
Commonly known as a quincunx from the appearance of four circles about a
central orb, it has been said that: RThe quincunx is the most frequently
occurring sign in the Mesoamerican symbolic language.S61 And, like the star in
Mesopotamian iconography, the quincunx appears ubiquitously amongst the sacred
iconography surrounding the planet Venus.
Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16
Given the Maya's renowned obsession with heavenly phenomena, it is not
surprising that other celestial objects also came to be represented on their
sacred stelae and imposing stone monuments. The sun, for example, was
commonly signified by a glyph known as the kin (see Figure 15).62 Of the kin-
glyph, Thompson opined that it was probably derived from some type of four-
petaled flower.63
It is not uncommon, however, to find the quincunx-sign superimposed upon the
kin-sign (see Figure 16).64 Of the meaning of this surprising superimposition
of glyphs Thompson offers nary a clue, only the following observation: RThe
quincunx is frequently set on the regular four-petaled kin glyph, apparently
without altering its value in any way.S65
The reader will recognize at once, of course, that this is the very same
situation we encountered in ancient symbols from the Old World. Again we ask:
What could possibly be the significance of this bizarre convergence of
iconography, whereby a sign of Venus is placed upon the sign of the sun?
Archaeoastronomers, confronted with this evidence from ancient hieroglyphs,
might well be tempted to suggest that early scribes were trying to illustrate
some important celestial event, such as the inferior conjunction of Venus and
the sun. The latter is an event recurring every 584 days or so in which Venus
passes directly between the Earth and the Sun. 'nfortunate for the
hypothetical thesis, however, is the fact that Venus is invisible during
inferior conjunction and thus this would appear to be a most unlikely
explanation of the glyphs in question.66
Another possibility, of course, is to assume that modern scholars have erred
in their identifications of the glyphs for the Sun and Venus. This too is
highly unlikely, at least with regard to the sign for Venus. What then can be
the explanation for the glyphs in question?
The position taken in this essay accepts the ancient signs at face valueQas
faithful, albeit somewhat rudimentary attempts to depict a celestial
phenomenon in which Venus appeared to be superimposed against the backdrop of
a much larger sun-like orb. Those readers familiar with previous essays of
Talbott and myself will recognize here a familiar theme.67
Summary
In the present essay we have documented that glaring anomalies distinguish the
earliest iconography associated with the various celestial bodies.
Prehistoric petroglyphs from around the world consistently portray the ancient
sun-god in a fashion that bears little resemblance to the appearance of the
current solar orb. Among the most common petroglyphs are those which show the
solar disc equipped with a central dot, an eight-spoked body, a rosette, and a
pillar-like appendage. The fact that the very same images appear amongst the
earliest pictographs in Sumeria, Egypt, and Mesoamerica not only confirms the
stubborn longevity of these sacred images, it offers some justification for
the view that a continuity of beliefs (e.g. astral worship) likewise underlies
the common images, thereby offering hope of discovering the original
significance of the prehistoric petroglyphs upon analysis of their historical
counterparts.
In Mesopotamia, as we have seen, the most ancient symbol of Shamash depicted a
star set upon a circular disc. The star, however, originally signified the
planet Venus, not only in Mesopotamia but also in Mesoamerica and Egypt. In
light of the fact that the Babylonians and Maya are renowned for their
astronomical prowess, particularly as it applied to the observation of Venus,
we would venture forth the opinion that the stellar iconography surrounding
this planet was representative in nature, and thus reflected the objective
appearance of Venus in prehistoric times.
How then are we to explain the presence of the Venus-star upon the disc of the
Sun? At the very least this juxtaposition of images suggests a hitherto
unnoticed relationship between the planet Venus and the Sun, difficult to
explain given the current relationship which pertains between these two
bodies. More probably, these images allude to a RlostS solar system, one in
which the planet Venus appeared to be superimposed upon a sun-like orb, the
latter to be distinguished from the current solar orb.68
Support for this conclusion can be obtained upon further analysis of the
prehistoric Rsun-imagesS. Certainly there is a remarkable resemblance between
the Venusian star in Figure 8a and the 8-spoked body adorning the sun-disc in
Figure 4. Indeed, it is the opinion of this author that the 8-spoked body in
Figure 4 does in fact represent the planet Venus and thus marks a prehistoric
analogue of the eight-pointed star which adorns the symbol of Shamash in
Figure 7.
Nor is it difficult to recognize a certain affinity between the rosette in
Figure 9 and the flower-like object adorning the solar disc in Figure 3. That
the rosette was one of the oldest symbols of Inanna/Venus is commonly
acknowledged, as is its intimate relationship to the eight-pointed star.69 As
we have seen, the eight-pointed star is frequently depicted as little more
than eight-arms or spokes emanating from a central hub (Figure 10), and some
early examples of the star, such as that from Elam depicted in Figure 8b,
render the resemblance to the Venusian-rosette readily apparent. Indeed, the
resemblance extends to the finest details of the respective images: Witness
the dark dot located within the innermost core of the star, found not only in
Figures 3 and 8b, but also within various examples of Figures 2 and 13.70
Having discussed the images represented by Figures 3 and 4, it remains to
discuss Figure 2, the most common petroglyph of the RsunS and one of the most
prominent images in all of ancient art (Figure 5 will be dealt with at length
in a subsequent essay). If we are to be consistent, the smaller orb is to be
identified with the planet Venus. That the same body may at one time be
represented as a star and elsewhere as an eye-like orb upon the face of the
sun-god need not be a contradiction. In ancient times, perhaps, the planet
went through cyclical phases, not unlike our current Moon, which alternately
presents the appearance of a crescent and a circular disc.71 More probably,
the different images associated with the planet Venus represent different
stages in the evolutionary history of the planet, particularly as it related
to that planet's interaction with the ancient sun-god and other bodies in the
solar system. It can be shown, in fact, that the planet Venus underwent
various m etamorphoses in appearance during its long-term association with the
ancient sun-god. During the course of the past decade, Talbott and myself
have discussed several of the more clearly delineated phases in the history of
Venus.72 Among the most prominent, as we have documented in great detail, is
the phase in which Venus was identified with the eye of the sun-god. Thus it
is that Venus is identified with an eye, or with the eye of the ancient sun-
god, throughout the ancient world.73 In ancient Egypt, to take the most
familiar example of this motive, the Eye of RaQone of the most sacred objects
in all of Egyptian religionQis identified with Venus.74 And the glyph for Ra,
it will be remembered, is our Figure 2!
Conclusion
Together with the polychrome paintings of bison and mammoths on the cave walls
at Altamira, ancient images of the RsunS and planet Venus provide compelling
evidence of lost worlds. The hypothesis that Venus moved upon a radically
different orbit in very recent times (during the Neolithic age, perhaps) will
no doubt be met with the same skepticism as that which greeted the discovery
of the Paleolithic cave-paintings in the past century. Be that as it may, the
testimony of ancient rock art is not to be explained away. Indeed, it is our
opinion that the evolutionary history of the solar system can be reconstructed
in great detail upon analysis of ancient iconography and mythology. Like the
ancient oracle at Delphi, the mysterious images engraved in stone call out to
us with news of the ancient gods. But given the cynical nature of the modern
world, who among us will listen?
______________________________
______________________________
/ \
// **** ***** **** *** * \\
/// *** * *** *** * **** * \\\
//// *** * **** *** * *** ** \\\\
///// ****** *** *** * *** * \\\\\
////// *** * ***** ** * *** * \\\\\\
AEON is a journal of science devoted to the collection and exploration
of archaeo-astronomical traditions and analysis of common patterns in
ancient myths from around the world. Articles and abstracts build
upon the pioneering work of Immanuel Velikovsky, author of the best
selling "Worlds In Collision". Featured topics include:
Evidence of catastrophic planetary interactions in historic times
Reconstruction of standard archaeological dating systems
Evidence for cataclysmic evolution and extinction
Astral worship in the Egyptian Pyramid Texts, the Veda, and ancient
Babylon and mythological traditions surrounding the planets in general
Astral myths of the American Indians, astral worship in Meso-America
The role of Osiris in Egyptian myth; Thor; the Mother goddess; the
birth of Athena; Oedipus in Compartive Mythology; etc.
Common elements in the myths of Heracles, Indra, and Cuchulainn; in
the myths of Heracles and Gilgamesh and myths of the Deluge from
around the world
Please send all manuscripts and inquiries to:
AEON
2326 Knapp,
Ames, IA, 50014.
email: e...@eai.com
Subscriptions are $40 per year* $55 foreign air mail.
1This was a frequent ploy of Sagan, for example: C. Sagan, RAn Analysis of
Worlds in Collision,S in D. Goldsmith, ed., Scientists Confront Velikovsky
(New York, 1979), pp. 99ff.
2I. Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision (New York, 1950).
3See the discussion in A. Willcox, The Rock Art of Africa (Kent, 1984), pp. 1-
5.
4H. Breuil & H. Obermaier, The Cave of Altamira (Madrid, 1935), p. 12; F.
Windels, The Lascaux Cave Paintings (London, 1949), p. 127.
5This image is taken from M. Devlet, Petroglify Mugur-Sargola (Mockba, 1980),
Figure 20, p. 237. Close parallels can be found in E. Twohig, The Megalithic
Art of Western Europe (Oxford, 1981), Figures 49 and 217; and E. Anati,
Camonica Valley (New York, 1961), p. 95. On the age of these petroglyphs
Anati writes: RThe most ancient Valley carvings dealing with sun worship
belong to the end of the Stone Age, to the second half of the third millennium
BC. At that period the sun is drawn as an isolated disc; seldom is it
accompanied by a person with hands upraised in an attitude of prayer, or by an
abstract sign.S Anati, op. cit., p. 162.
6E. Anati, op. cit., p. 162. See also R. Heizer & C. Clewlow, Prehistoric
Rock Art of California (Ramona, 1973), Figure 329. Of this image, Anati
remarks: RThis kind of symbolic representation of the sun is common to many
primitive societies and ancient civilizations. It occurs in the ancient Near
East, in the Far East, as well as in Europe and elsewhere.S op. cit., p. 47.
7This image, taken from Cairn T of Lough Crew, forms Figure 235 in E. Twohig,
The Megalithic Art of Western Europe (Oxford, 1981). For a parallel from the
New World see R. Heizer & C. Clewlow, op. cit., Figure 85.
8See Figure 238 from Twohig, op. cit.; Figure 8:4 from A Willcox, The Rock Art
of Africa (London, 1984), p. 83; Figure 10 from L. Cressman, Petroglyphs of
Oregon (Eugene, 1982), p. 20; Figure 24 from P. Schaafsma, Indian Rock Art of
the Southwest (Santa Fe, 1980), p. 44; Figure 208 from C. Dubelaar, The
Petroglyphs in the Guianas and Adjacent Areas of Brazil and Venezuela: An
Inventory (Los Angeles, 1986), p. 197.
9Of the wheel-like images Anati observes: RA number of hypotheses have been
advanced in an attempt to explain them, but none is truly satisfactory.S op.
cit., p. 163.
10E. Anati, op. cit., p. 162. See also Figures 189 and 283 from P. Schaafsma,
Indian Rock Art of the Southwest (Santa Fe, 1980), pp. 230 and 340; Figure 8.4
from A Willcox, The Rock Art of Africa (London, 1984), p. 83; Figure 73 from
C. Dubelaar, The Petroglyphs in the Guianas and Adjacent Areas of Brazil and
Venezuela: An Inventory (Los Angeles, 1986), p. 87.
11E. Anati, op. cit., p. 47.
12Ibid., p. 230.
13M. Green, The Sun-Gods of Ancient Europe (London, 1991), p. 27.
14A. Willcox, op. cit., pp. 97, 239-244.
15Ibid., p. 33.
16With respect to the rock art of the Camonica Valley, Anati observes: RThe
scenes are engraved in realistic style and with great precision of detail.S
op. cit., p. 23.
17E. Anati, op. cit., p. 111.
18Here a leading authority has offered the following observation:
RInterpretations of a religious cult which originated in the dawn of
civilization must necessarily be tentative or purely hypothetical. Its real
significance can only be surmised from what we know of the traces of it which
survived into later and more literate ages.S See E. van Buren, RNew Evidence
Concerning an Eye-Divinity,S Iraq 17 (1955), p. 172.
19E. Budge, Egyptian Language (New York, 1983), p. 2; M. Thomsen, The Sumerian
Language (Copenhagen, 1984), p. 20.
20H. Frankfort, The Birth of Civilization in the Near East (Garden City,
1950), Figure 13.
21J. Norman, Chinese (New York, 1988), p. 61; E. Budge, op. cit., p. 74.
22W. Arnett, Predynastic Origin of Egyptian Hieroglyphs (Washington DC.,
1982), pp. 9-21. M. 'yanik, Petroglyphs of South-Eastern Anatolia (Graz,
1974), p. 15.
23With respect to solar elements in Mesopotamian religious cult, Goff
concluded: RThis study suggests that there was more continuity of religious
values in prehistoric art than has usually been recognized.S See B. Goff,
Symbols of Prehistoric Mesopotamia (New Haven, 1963), p. 89.
24Ibid., p. 236.
25D. Wolkstein & S. Kramer, Inanna: Queen of Heaven and Earth (New York,
1983), pp. 30, 185.
26E. van Buren, RThe Sun-God Rising,S Revue d'Assyriologie 49:1 (1955), pp. 1-
14.
27H. Prinz, op. cit., Tafel X: no. 1. See also B. Hrouda, RGottersymbole und
Attribute,S Reallexikon der Assyriologie III (1957-1971), p. 485.
28H. Prinz, op. cit., pp. 53-65.
29Ibid., pp. 90-94. According to van Buren, most examples of the disc on a
post occur on cylinder seals of the Early Babylonian period and upon seal
impressions on RCappadocianS tablets. See Figure E-8 in Van Buren.
30The staff of Shamash, moreover, has a precise parallel in the rod of Helios.
31E. van Buren, Symbols of the Gods in Mesopotamian Art (Rome, 1945), p. 88.
Such is the case on the stelae of Naram-Sin and Gudea, for example. It is
noteworthy that these are two of the oldest examples of the sign of Shamash.
32B. Hrouda, op. cit., p. 485. See Figure 306 in B. Goff, Symbols of
Prehistoric Mesopotamia (New Haven, 1963).
33R. Labat, Manuel D'Epigraphie Akkadienne (Paris, 1963), p. 48. Jeremias
made much the same point with respect to the astral nature of early
Mesopotamian religion at the turn of the century. See A. Jeremias, RSterne,S
RML, col. 1439.
34E. van Buren, Symbols of the Gods, (Rome, 1945), p. 82. Numerous cultic
images of the goddess likewise bear the sign of the star. Ibid., pp. 83-85.
See also '. Seidl, RInanna/Istar,S in Reallexikon der Assyriologie Vol. 5
(Berlin, 1976-1980), p. 86.
35W. Heimpel, RA Catalog of Near Eastern Venus Deities,S Syro-Mesopotamian
Studies 4:3 (1982), p. 12.
36In the earliest pictographic script Inanna was signified by a sign
interpreted as a ring-post with bundle. We will explore the original
significance of this symbol in a future essay.
37E. van Buren, RThe Rosette in Mesopotamian Art,S ZA 45 (1939), pp. 99-107.
38See D. Wolkstein & S. Kramer, Inanna: Queen of Heaven and Earth (New York,
1983), pp. 60, 67.
39Van Buren, op. cit., p. 105. Labat also relates the rosette to the earlier
eight-pointed star. Labat, op. cit., p. 48.
40F. Steinmetzer went so far as to explain the presence of the eight-pointed
star on the disc of Shamash as an error on the part of the artist. F.
Steinmetzer, Die babylonischen Kudurru (Grenzsteine) als 'rkundenform
(Paderborn, 1922), p. 181. Significantly, an 8-pointed star also graces the
disc of the sun in Mesoamerican iconography. See Figure 8e in A. Aveni,
Skywatchers of Ancient Mexico (Austin, 1980).
41R. Faulkner, RThe King and the Star-Religion in the Pyramid Texts,S JNES 25
(1966), pp. 153-161.
42W. Arnett, The Predynastic Origin of Egyptian Hieroglyphs (Washington DC.,
1982), pp. 13-14.
43E.H., RDat,S Reallexikon der Egyptologie Vol. I (Berlin, 1977), pp. 994-995.
44E.O., RDuai,S Reallexikon der Egyptologie Vol. I (Berlin, 1977), p. 1147.
45M. Stracmans & G. Libon, RLe nom de la planete Venus et ses antecedents
egyptiens,S Latomus 6 (1947), p. 5.
46Line 272a-273b.
47Line 306a. See here the discussion in S. Mercer, The Pyramid Texts Vol. 4
(New York, 1952), p. 34. See also H. Brugsch, Die Agyptologie (Amsterdam,
1970), p. 327.
48M. Astour, Hellenosemitica (Leiden, 1967), p. 287.
49A. Sjoberg and E. Bergmann, The Collection of the Sumerian Temple Hymns
(Locust Valley, 1969), p. 89.
50Lines 80-81. See here the discussion of A. Sjoberg and E. Bergmann, op.
cit., pp. 89-90. That this passage specifically relates to Inanna in her
aspect as the planet Venus is generally recognized by scholars. See. W.
Heimpel, op. cit., pp. 9-10.
51F. Steinmetzer, Die Babylonischen Kudurru (Grenzsteine) als 'rkundenform
(Paderborn, 1922), p. 181. See also A. Jeremias, Handbuch der
altorientalischen Geisteskultur (Leipzig, 1913), p. 100.
52A. Jeremias, op. cit., p. 77.
53For examples of the five-pointed star see R. Heizer & C. Clewlow,
Prehistoric Rock Art of California (Ramona, 1973), Figures 34, 37, 40, 91,
272; for examples of the eight-pointed star see Figures 298 and 364; for the
eight-spoked RwheelS, see Figures 47 and 371; for rosette-like images see
Figures 76, 85, and 275. Examples of the RsunS with rays, RsunS with central
dot, and RsunS with pillar can be found on virtually every page of this book.
54Quoted in A. Aveni, RVenus and the Maya,S American Scientist 67 (May/June,
1979), p. 274.
55D. Talbott & E. Cochrane, RWhen Venus was a Comet,S Kronos XII:1 (Winter
1987), pp. 2-24.
56E. Thompson, Maya Hieroglyphic Writing (Norman, 1975), p. 218. Similar
names for Venus will be found around the world. The Polynesian Islanders, for
example, refer to Venus as Hokutoa, RGreat StarS. M. Makemson, The Morning
Star Rises (New Haven, 1941), pp. 141, 193-4, 207.
57L. Sejourne, Burning Water (Berkeley, 1976), p. 90.
58W. Gates, An Outline Dictionary of Maya Glyphs (New York, 1978), p. 149.
59Figure 1i in J. Carlson, Venus-regulated Warfare and Ritual Sacrifice in
Mesoamerica: Teotihuacan and the Cacaxtla RStar WarsS Connection (College
Park, 1991).
60L. Sejourne, Burning Water (Berkeley, 1976), p. 91. See also B. Stross,
RSome Observations on T585 (Quincunx) of the Maya Script,S Anthropological
Linguistics 28 (1986), p. 294; E. Thompson, op. cit., p. 171.
61L. Sejourne, op. cit., p. 91.
62Figure 26:49 of E. Thompson, Maya Hieroglyphic Writing (Norman, 1975).
63E. Thompson, op. cit., p. 142.
64Figure 26:51 of E. Thompson, op. cit.
65E. Thompson, op. cit., p. 172.
66Recently, however, the possibility that Venus could occasionally be observed
during inferior conjunction has been considered.
67D. Talbott & E. Cochrane, RThe Origin of Velikovsky's Comet,S Kronos X:1
(Fall 1984); idem., ROn the Nature of Cometary Symbolism,S Kronos XI:1 (Fall
1985); idem., RWhen Venus was a Comet,S Kronos XII:1 (Winter 1987). D.
Talbott, RMother Goddess and Warrior-Hero,S AEON I:5 (1988), pp. 38-65; RThe
Mythical History of the Comet Venus,S AEON II:4 (1991), pp. 29-48; E.
Cochrane, ROn Comets and Kings,S AEON II:1 (1989), pp. 67-70; RThe Birth of
Athena,S AEON II:3 (1990), pp. 25-28.
68See here D. Talbott, The Saturn Myth (New York, 1980); D. Cardona,
RIntimations of an Alien Sky,S AEON II:5 (1991), pp. 5-34.
69Significantly, Venus was also compared to a flower in the New World. Thus a
Maya name for the planet was u lol zaz caan, Rthe luminous (big) flower of the
sky.S See W. Lamb, RStar Lore in the Yucatec Maya Dictionaries,S in A. Aveni,
ed., Archaeoastronomy in Pre-Columbian America (Lubbock, 1975), p. 234.
70That the dark dot actually depicts the planet Mars will be demonstrated in a
subsequent essay. For the logic behind this statement see D. Talbott, RMother
Goddess and Warrior-Hero,S AEON I:5 (1988), pp. 41-45; E. Cochrane, RThe Death
of Heracles,S AEON II:5 (1991), pp. 67-68.
71Jeremias and Weidner both held that the phases of Venus must have been
visible in order to account for references to the RhornsS of Venus in ancient
Babylonian astronomical texts. See Jeremias, op. cit., p. 79.
72See D. Talbott & E. Cochrane, RWhen Venus was a Comet,S Kronos XII:1 (Winter
1987), pp. 14-16; D. Talbott, RThe Mythical History of the Comet Venus,S AEON
II:4 (1991), pp. 36-43; E. Cochrane, ROn Comets and Kings,S AEON II:1 (1989),
pp. 25-28.
73In Australia, for example, Venus was known as Mimungoona, RBig EyeS.
Polynesian islanders referred to Venus as Tamata-nui, RGreat-EyeS. The Maya
likewise compared Venus to an eye, naming the planet Nohoch Ich, RGreat EyeS.
See D. Talbott, RThe Mythical History of the Comet Venus,S AEON II:4 (1991),
pp. 42-44; D. Talbott & E. Cochrane, RWhen Venus was a Comet,S Kronos XII:1
(Winter 1987), pp. 14-16; E. Thompson, op. cit., p. 218.
74R. Anthes, RMythology in Ancient Egypt,S in S. Kramer, ed., Mythologies of
the Ancient World (New York, 1961), pp. 89-90.
Alan Scott
Walter Alter <wal...@netcom.com> wrote:
[tons of stuff deleted]
>Consider further the image represented in Figure 4.8 How is it possible to
>explain the wheel-like RspokesS (typically four or eight in number) of this
>supposed solar-petroglyph by reference to the current sun?9 And yet this very
>image occurs throughout the ancient world! Most perplexing, perhaps, is the
>fact that such images occur in Neolithic contexts and thus predate by several
>millennia the invention of spoked wheels.
Stonehenge and other ancient solar observatories are arranged in a spoked
wheel formation having some unknown religious significance.
>Figure 4
>
>Figure 5, finally, adds a pillar-like appendage to the aforementioned images.
>10 Here again we are dealing with a petroglyph of universal distribution,
>typically interpreted as the sun with RraysS.
>
Stonehenge is also made from large stone pillars upon which the sun will
appear to rest at certain religiously important times of the year.
[a veritable flood of interesting stuff, which seems to be badly interpreted
by the author, deleted]
A primo example:
>
>The identification of the Duat as the netherworld on the one hand, and as the
>place where the sun rises on the other, strikes the modern reader as
>incongruous.
Not this reader. The sun obviously sinks into the netherworld upon sunset
and then rises from it at dawn. What's so incongruous about that?
[stuff zapped]
>Summary
[more stuff]
>
>How then are we to explain the presence of the Venus-star upon the disc of the
>Sun? At the very least this juxtaposition of images suggests a hitherto
>unnoticed relationship between the planet Venus and the Sun, difficult to
>explain given the current relationship which pertains between these two
>bodies.
If we go by the boring old uniformitarian assumption that Venus was in
the same circular orbit then that it is in now, the connection between
Venus and the Sun is rather obvious and doesn't need any long, physically
unsupported assertive essays to explain it. The reason that Venus is
sometimes called the morning star is that it is visible in the morning
just before the sun rises. It seems painfully obvious that the ancients
interpret Venus then as a herald for the Sun. If Venus commonly went before
the Sun it would be unsurprising that the image of Venus is superimposed
on that of the Sun in their religious symbolism.
> More probably, these images allude to a RlostS solar system, one in
>which the planet Venus appeared to be superimposed upon a sun-like orb, the
>latter to be distinguished from the current solar orb.68
>
Yeah. 'nuff said.
[miles 'o stuff deleted]
In summary, nothing in this huge work needs to be explained by Velikovsky's
disciples. There are many much more plausible explanations for all of it
which do not stretch the bounds of reality and ignore physical impossibility.
--
asc...@physics.watstar.uwaterloo.ca
The Bard
Company of Dreams
Justin Fang
Cochrane) wrote:
> The following post was written by David Talbott in response to a post of
> Tim Thompson's (May 2, 1994).
> Lastly, I would challenge your statement about the possibility of an
> exchange of planetary atmosphere or oceans outside the Roche limit, when
> one of the participants is a planet as small as Mars. Are you saying
> for the record it is ABSOLUTELY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY IMPOSSIBLE that a
> Mars-sized planet, moving in the vicinity of a Venus or Earth-sized
> planet could lose its atmosphere and oceans of water?
Think about it. What holds the atmosphere/oceans of a planet to its
surface? The planet's gravity. Why would the atmosphere/oceans of a planet
leave it for another one? Only if the force attracting them to the second
planet was stronger than the gravitational force holding them to the first
planet. When does this happen? When the two planets are closer together
than their Roche limit.
Of course, this analysis only considers gravity. You could, I suppose,
invoke electromagnetic forces to strip one planet of its atmosphere.
However, neither water, nor carbon dioxide, nor any of the other common
components of planetary atmospheres are very magnetic. They are also not
generally electrically charged, so I can see no mechanism for stripping a
planet of it's atmosphere using electric or magnetic forces. If you can
find a plausible one, please don't hesitate to tell us.
>Let's be hones on this: Can we really claim that
> our limited sense of the possible has predicted ANY of the more dramatic
> findings of the space age? How many times, looking at images glaring back
> at them from space, did mission scientists exclaim, "That's not possible!"
Very few, I'd guess. If it has happened, then obviously it's possible,
(barring instrument malfunction, etc.) so the important question is how it
happened. However, I have yet to see convincing evidence that any of the
events postulated by archeoastronomers has, in fact, happened.
> Ev Cochrane/Editor-Publisher of Aeon, A Journal of Myth and Science
> 2326 Knapp, Ames IA, 50014 e...@eai.com
Justin Fang (jus...@cco.caltech.edu, jus...@ugcs.caltech.edu)
This space intentionally left blank.
Ev Cochrane
Tim Thompson's (May 2, 1994).
Ev Cochrane was kind enough to send me a copy of your recent post
concerning Bob Grubaugh's suggested model of a planetary "polar
configuration".
While I believe that Bob will have a strong reply (he cannot be as
ignorant of orbital calculations as you suggest, since for many years he
made his living calculating orbits), it is not my place to argue with
anyone on the physical principles. I do know that Robert Driscoll, a
well accredited physicist, has looked at the model, endorsed it, and
added an important electromagnetic consideration.
In Bob Grubaugh's defense, by the way, he assured me when he first
submitted his article to Aeon that he was untrained in issues of
magnetism. Then he withdrew his published comments on magnetism in
deference to Driscoll's objections even before the issue was in the
mail. He has, however, engaged more than one competent critic on the
orbital dynamics issues and has held his own quite well.
Also, I do stand by my own statement about Kepler's Third Law "not
applying". If you will read the context of that statement you will
see that the issue is not whether you can use Kepler to calculate the
orbital velocity of the Moon (yes, that IS elementary!), but that the
interactions of the planets in the polar configuration nullify a
familiar "textbook" application of the principle, which says that in a
system involving more than one satellite, the satellite with the
greater orbital radius will have a lower orbital velocity and a longer
orbital period. Consider two bodies revolving around the Sun. If you
imagine the more distant of the two bodies also REVOLVING AROUND the
second body once each "year", its velocity in relation to the Sun will
be GREATER than that of the second body in relation to the Sun. That
issue became important because all of the initial statements on the
model from Leroy Ellenberger cited Kepler's law, arguing that the more
remote bodies in the configuration would have lower orbital velocities
and longer periods than the more proximate bodies. In other words, he
overlooked the fact that the outer bodies are revolving around the inner
bodies, not just revolving independently around the Sun. (It is,
incidentally, more than a little insulting to someone of Bob's training
to suggest that he does not understand the concept of a barycenter).
I do trust that if you will look at my own statement again you will see
that there is no denial of Kepler's Third Law!
From what I have seen of Bob's prior exchanges with others, I think the
first requirement is to understand the suggested principle from a three-
body perspective. For my own peace of mind on this, I would like to be
sure you are not suggesting it is IMPOSSIBLE for an Earth-sized body
to revolve around a gas giant once each solar "year", if the gas giant
is placed in the vicinity of Venus' orbit today. If it IS possible,
would not the Earth retain a stationary angle in relation to Saturn and
the Sun throughout its orbit? (Also, why did you suggest Lagrangian
calculations, since no Lagrange point is involved in this version of a
synchronous orbit?) I use this example because Bob has convinced me
(tentatively, of course), that what you can do with a synchronous orbit
of two bodies around the Sun you can do with three additional bodies
"in line".
Lastly, I would challenge your statement about the possibility of an
exchange of planetary atmosphere or oceans outside the Roche limit, when
one of the participants is a planet as small as Mars. Are you saying
for the record it is ABSOLUTELY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY IMPOSSIBLE that a
Mars-sized planet, moving in the vicinity of a Venus or Earth-sized
planet could lose its atmosphere and oceans of water? Here, I will
happily stick my own neck out, because I do not believe there is any
way of escaping the historical/pictographic/mythological evidence that
a stream of gas or water was drawn from Mars to spiral around Venus
when the two orbs moved in very close proximity for a sustained period.
And yes, I do believe there are plenty of reasons to reconsider what is
POSSIBLE when widely distributed historical evidence reaches a certain
point of concurrence. Let's be hones on this: Can we really claim that
our limited sense of the possible has predicted ANY of the more dramatic
findings of the space age? How many times, looking at images glaring back
at them from space, did mission scientists exclaim, "That's not possible!"
Mr. Thompson: From what Ev has told me, I believe you are a fair-minded
and command very broad respect. When a group of interlopers stepped in
with a preposterous idea, you took the time to consider a preliminary
model. I am therefore asking you to consider Grubaugh's model again,
along with a clarifying note from him over the next week or so. I am
also taking the liberty of sending you a copy of my 47-page article,
"The Great Comet Venus" (the first of six installments). For reasons I
will cite in a subsequent post, I believe that the proposed comet-like
Venus is the best immediate test of the methodology. One advantage is
that this particular issue can be isolated sufficiently to prevent
arguments from raging all over the map. If that focus serves only to
reduce the indecipherable noise of so many posts on the larger subject,
it will have achieved SOMETHING.
--
Ev Cochrane/Editor-Publisher of Aeon, A Journal of Myth and Science
2326 Knapp, Ames IA, 50014 e...@eai.com
The views presented here are those of Ev Cochrane alone and do not
necessarily reflect the views of EAI and Iowa State University.
(However, it wouldn't surprise me if both attempt to claim
responsibility in the years ahead).
Tim Thompson
>The following post was written by David Talbott in response to a post of
>Tim Thompson's (May 2, 1994).
>
like to make a few real-time comments.
[ ... ]
>
>While I believe that Bob will have a strong reply (he cannot be as
>ignorant of orbital calculations as you suggest, since for many years he
>made his living calculating orbits)
If this is a true description ofGrubaugh's job, then it is a stunning
revelation that immediately calls honesty into question, as dangerous a
thing as that might be to say in public. The paper I read used a method
absolutely and incontrovertibly incompatible with any kind of orbit
calculation ever, a fact that must be well familiar to anyone who
calculates orbits for a living. I don not believe that Grubaugh ever did
a professional orbit calculation.
>I do know that Robert Driscoll, a
>well accredited physicist, has looked at the model, endorsed it, and
>added an important electromagnetic consideration.
>
I don't know who Driscoll is, but I am surprised that any "accredited"
physicist would accept what Grubaugh wrote. I amy not be "accredited", but
I do have lot's of problems with Grubaugh's model.
>
>Consider two bodies revolving around the Sun. If you
>imagine the more distant of the two bodies also REVOLVING AROUND the
>second body once each "year", its velocity in relation to the Sun will
>be GREATER than that of the second body in relation to the Sun. That
>issue became important because all of the initial statements on the
>model from Leroy Ellenberger cited Kepler's law, arguing that the more
>remote bodies in the configuration would have lower orbital velocities
>and longer periods than the more proximate bodies. In other words, he
>overlooked the fact that the outer bodies are revolving around the inner
>bodies, not just revolving independently around the Sun. (It is,
>incidentally, more than a little insulting to someone of Bob's training
>to suggest that he does not understand the concept of a barycenter).
>
Neill Reid has already put in a comment about the applicability of
Kepler's laws. If Grubaugh is so well informed about barycenters, then
why did he not do the model correctly?
>For my own peace of mind on this, I would like to be
>sure you are not suggesting it is IMPOSSIBLE for an Earth-sized body
>to revolve around a gas giant once each solar "year", if the gas giant
>is placed in the vicinity of Venus' orbit today. If it IS possible,
>would not the Earth retain a stationary angle in relation to Saturn and
>the Sun throughout its orbit? (Also, why did you suggest Lagrangian
>calculations, since no Lagrange point is involved in this version of a
>synchronous orbit?)
Possible, I suspect, but not stable. I think that at that close distance
to the sun, the orbit of the Earth around Jupiter would be forced to
precess by tidal effect of the sun; better farther out.
As for the Lagrange method, I am not suprised you mistook this for
a reference to Lagrange points if you are not a physicist. The Lagrangian
method I alluded to has nothing to do with Lagrange points, it is a method
for deriving the equations of motion in a dynamic system that makes the
work very much easier than dojng it "the long way", from Newtons F=ma. The
Hamiltonian method similar.
[ ... ]
>
>Lastly, I would challenge your statement about the possibility of an
>exchange of planetary atmosphere or oceans outside the Roche limit, when
>one of the participants is a planet as small as Mars. Are you saying
>for the record it is ABSOLUTELY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY IMPOSSIBLE that a
>Mars-sized planet, moving in the vicinity of a Venus or Earth-sized
>planet could lose its atmosphere and oceans of water?
If you mean to lose them because of the gravitational interaction with
another approaching body, and to do so without also destroying the
body from which the thievery is made, then yes, I am saying that, for the
record.
[ .. ]
>And yes, I do believe there are plenty of reasons to reconsider what is
>POSSIBLE when widely distributed historical evidence reaches a certain
>point of concurrence. Let's be hones on this: Can we really claim that
>our limited sense of the possible has predicted ANY of the more dramatic
>findings of the space age? How many times, looking at images glaring back
>at them from space, did mission scientists exclaim, "That's not possible!"
>
Almost never,and I have had this experience first hand. Even the
"surprising" discovery of volcanoes on IO was predicted in a paper that
was submitted to SCIENCE before Voyager arrived at Jupiter, but published,
I believe afterwards. Now, "That's a surprise" is heard a lot, but scientists
have a better grasp than you might think, for what is and is not possible,
and their collective opinion is rarely turns out wrong.
---
---------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Thompson, Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Earth & Space Sciences Division ...
Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflectance Radiometer
Board of Directors, Los Angeles Astronomical Society ...
Vice President, Mount Wilson Observatory Association ...
INTERnet/BITnet: t...@lithos.jpl.nasa.gov
NSI/DECnet: jplsc8::tim
SCREAMnet: YO!! TIM!!
GPSnet: 118:10:22.85 W by 34:11:58.27 N
Keith Justified And Ancient Cochran
Ev Cochrane <e...@pi.eai.iastate.edu> wrote:
>Ev Cochrane was kind enough to send me a copy of your recent post
>concerning Bob Grubaugh's suggested model of a planetary "polar
>configuration".
Ok, Ev, so who the fuck is writing here?
>While I believe that Bob will have a strong reply (he cannot be as
>ignorant of orbital calculations as you suggest, since for many years he
>made his living calculating orbits), it is not my place to argue with
>anyone on the physical principles. I do know that Robert Driscoll, a
>well accredited physicist, has looked at the model, endorsed it, and
>added an important electromagnetic consideration.
And that electromag consideration was???
>From what I have seen of Bob's prior exchanges with others, I think the
>first requirement is to understand the suggested principle from a three-
>body perspective. For my own peace of mind on this, I would like to be
>sure you are not suggesting it is IMPOSSIBLE for an Earth-sized body
>to revolve around a gas giant once each solar "year", if the gas giant
>is placed in the vicinity of Venus' orbit today. If it IS possible,
>would not the Earth retain a stationary angle in relation to Saturn and
>the Sun throughout its orbit? (Also, why did you suggest Lagrangian
>calculations, since no Lagrange point is involved in this version of a
>synchronous orbit?) I use this example because Bob has convinced me
>(tentatively, of course), that what you can do with a synchronous orbit
>of two bodies around the Sun you can do with three additional bodies
>"in line".
Take a look at the poles of Uranus(?), and what they do when they wander
around the sun each year.
>Lastly, I would challenge your statement about the possibility of an
>exchange of planetary atmosphere or oceans outside the Roche limit, when
>one of the participants is a planet as small as Mars. Are you saying
>for the record it is ABSOLUTELY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY IMPOSSIBLE that a
>Mars-sized planet, moving in the vicinity of a Venus or Earth-sized
>planet could lose its atmosphere and oceans of water? Here, I will
>happily stick my own neck out, because I do not believe there is any
>way of escaping the historical/pictographic/mythological evidence that
>a stream of gas or water was drawn from Mars to spiral around Venus
>when the two orbs moved in very close proximity for a sustained period.
I'll have to defer to someone else to do the calculations, but do
have any idea how much energy would be required to move lake Michigan
(let's say) from the surfact of Mars to escape velocity?
And, of course, we have the everpresent "ice shield" flood problem
when all that water enters the atmosphere of the target planet...
--
=kcoc...@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza. OK???=
= "Let's get one thing straight. I'm not." =
Everett Cochrane
criticize my posts in rather colorful terms. Thus far, however, I have
failed to get good old Carl to discuss any of the evidence raised by
me in support of recent orbital changes on the part of Venus. It was with
this in mind that I offered a lengthy post on May 6th directed at Carl,
askinghim to comment on various anomalies in the histori
historical record involving Venus. There I cited Venus' frequent depiction
as an 8 or 5 pointed star, this same star often being superimposed over
the orb of the Sun, in striking contradiction to modern observation. I
also cited, for the second or third time, the universal image of Venus
superimposed upon a crescent, and asked Carl how he would explain it.
I closed my post by asking Carl to do a little research on the subject
before countering with his usual off the cuff remarks.
In response to this two-paged, detailed post, complete with footnotes,
Carl responded with one paragraph, again refusing to discuss the evidence
presented by me. There he wrote: "I have little choice but to conclude
that your reasons for giving your 'interpretation' of what I said rather
than quoting me verbatim are related to your desire to engage in a
strawman argument. If you want me to respond to your bullshit, try
sticking to the facts rather than posting yet more bullshit in which you
'interpret' my statements."
This, as usual, was very colorfully worded. It is also complete garbage.
In fact, I had quoted Carl accurately as a reading of the posts in question
will show. I can only conclude that Carl either doesn't know how to read
his own posts (which I doubt), or he is afraid to discuss the evidence
raised by me in well over a dozen posts on the subject.
Everett Cochrane
paper of mine, Keith Cochran objected to my statement: "Why were the
greatest of ancient goddesses - Inanna, Ishtar, Astarte, Isis, Anat,
Aphrodite, etc. - invoked by the epithet Queen of Heaven and specifically
identified with the planet Venus?" Cochran's objection consisted of
the following statement: "I'll just note here that Hera was the greatest
of the Greek goddesses, since she was married to Zeus."
What is your point Keith? That Hera wasn't identified as the Queen of
Heaven (she was, in fact). Or that Hera wasn't identified with the planet
Venus (she was, in fact, See K. Kerenyi, Goddesses of Sun and Moon, p. 59).
Mr. Cochran later went on to add the following statement: "I'll also note
that the greatest of American Indian Goddesses, Mother Earth, had nothing
to do with being the 'Queen of Heaven' or Venus." Here I beg to differ.
In fact, most great goddesses will be identified with Venus and with the
"Earth", for the simple reason that the word earth originally had a
specifically celestial reference. Thus Inanna was called ki, "earth", a
fact which came as a great surprise to scholars in lieu of her well-known
identification with Venus (see W. Hallo and J. van Dijk, The Exaltation
of Inanna, 1968, p. 61). The planet Venus was also known as the "Earth-
star" in by the ancient Maya (See M. Closs, "Venus in the Maya World," in
M. Robertson, Tercera Mesa Redonda..., 1978, p. 152). I suspect the same
was true of the American Indian goddesses as well, and if you will kindly
give me the name of one I will gladly check into it and report back
my findings.
Everett Cochrane
the possibility of an endogenous source for the spectacular heat of Venus
and questioned the adequacy of the runaway, runaway greenhouse effect
as an explanation of such heat, Tim Thompson responded that he was aware
of no physical evidence "that would imply that the internal heat of Venus
is responsible of the temperature of its lower atmosphere." Tim also
added: "As for the greenhouse theory, I have heard on many occasions that
it is flawed, but I have yet to be shown the flaw. I should be happy to
see it."
Actually, I find this statement surprising, as I would have thought that
the difficulties surrounding the greenhouse theory of Venus' heat were
well-known. Certainly they are well-known in Velikovskian circles. For
starters, there is the little problem of water. As is well-known, most
if not all early models of the greenhouse effect relied on water to
produce the greenhouse effect. In his book Intelligent Life in the
Universe, for example, Sagan wrote as follows: "From a variety of
observations at visual, infared, and radio frequencies, it has recently
been established that the clouds of Venus are indeed made of water...
The CO2 and H2O in the Cytherean atmosphere, plus the water in the clouds,
combine to produce a very efficient greenhouse effect."
As Velikovsky showed in his detailed response to Sagan in 1967 and again
in 1978 ("The Weakness of the Venus Greenhouse Theory", in Kronos 1978),
water is exceedingly scarce on Venus. There he quoted E.J. Opik: "There
is no water on Venus worth mentioning." In last month's issue of
Scientific American, James Pollack et al reported as follows: "One of
the most stunning aspects of the Venusian atmosphere is that it is
extremely dry. It possesses only a hundred thousandth as much water as
the earth has in its oceans. If all of Venus' water could somehow be
condensed onto the surface, it would make a global puddle only a couple
of centimeters deep." (p. 93).
Quite clearly, the evidence supports Velikovsky and not Sagan on the
matter of the abundance of water on Venus. My question then is as
follows: Given this acknowledged lack of water, and the fact that water
formed a prominent component in early models of the greenhouse effect,
how then are we to explain the supposed greenhouse effect?
There are other problems as well with the greenhouse effect, but I'll leave
those to another post. In closing I'll simply cite the words of the
astronomer V. A. Firsoff, who raised the following objection to the
adequacy of the greenhouse effect in 1973 (Astronomy and Space):
"Increasing the mass of the atmosphere may intensify the greenhouse
effect, but it must also reduce the proportion of solar energy reaching
the surface, while the total of the available energy must be distributed
over a larger mass and volume. Indeed, if the atmosphere of Venus
amounts to 75 air-masses... the amount of solar energy per unit mass of
this atmosphere will be about 0.01 of that available on the Earth. Such
an atmosphere would be strictly comparable to our seas and remain
stone-cold, unless the internal heat of Venus were able to keep it at
temperatures corresponding to the brightness temperatures derived from
the microwave emission."
Velikovsky's theory and prediction regarding the endogenous nature of
Venus' heat is certainly among his most original claims. It is also
eminently testable. When and if Velikovsky is vindicated on this
score, will you then give him credit Tim?
"If you have had your attention directed to the novelties of thought in your
own lifetime, you will have observed that almost all really new ideas have a
certain aspect of foolishness when they are first presented."
L. Drew Davis
>[quoting Tim Thompson]
>"As for the greenhouse theory, I have heard on many occasions that
>it is flawed, but I have yet to be shown the flaw. I should be happy to
>see it."
>
>Actually, I find this statement surprising, as I would have thought that
>the difficulties surrounding the greenhouse theory of Venus' heat were
>well-known. Certainly they are well-known in Velikovskian circles.
Velikovskians seem to know a great many things that aren't necessarily
true. Perhaps, rather than a giant conspiracy of all scientists, it's
merely a small conspiracy of Velikovskians? Or perhaps we should just
skip that sort of insinuation and look at the facts?
>For
>starters, there is the little problem of water.
What problem is this? (More on this topic later.)
>As is well-known, most
>if not all early models of the greenhouse effect relied on water to
>produce the greenhouse effect. In his book Intelligent Life in the
>Universe, for example, Sagan wrote as follows: "From a variety of
>observations at visual, infared, and radio frequencies, it has recently
>been established that the clouds of Venus are indeed made of water...
>The CO2 and H2O in the Cytherean atmosphere, plus the water in the clouds,
>combine to produce a very efficient greenhouse effect."
Do you have a date on that book? Better yet, how about the primary
publications from Sagan?
>As Velikovsky showed in his detailed response to Sagan in 1967 and again
>in 1978 ("The Weakness of the Venus Greenhouse Theory", in Kronos 1978),
>water is exceedingly scarce on Venus. There he quoted E.J. Opik: "There
>is no water on Venus worth mentioning." In last month's issue of
>Scientific American, James Pollack et al reported as follows: "One of
>the most stunning aspects of the Venusian atmosphere is that it is
>extremely dry. It possesses only a hundred thousandth as much water as
>the earth has in its oceans. If all of Venus' water could somehow be
>condensed onto the surface, it would make a global puddle only a couple
>of centimeters deep." (p. 93).
This fact is not remotely surprising. The intensity of solar radiation
at Venus is quite sufficient to cause the photodissociation of water in
the atmosphere. (That is, it breaks up the molecules -- no more water.)
This fact was known before Velikovsky, as was the composition of the
atmosphere *and* the difference between the composition of the atmospheres
of Jupiter and Venus, the similarity of which was quite central to
_Worlds In Collision_. Again, Velikovsky is trailing with an incorrect
explanation for something scientists already knew. (See, for a start,
those Rupert Wildt references Dr. Scott posted in the "Venus is hot"
thread sometime back, or email me if you're interested.)
>Quite clearly, the evidence supports Velikovsky and not Sagan on the
>matter of the abundance of water on Venus.
Velikovsky didn't predict an absence of water, to my knowledge
(indeed, his "vermin" probably need it). Both quotes you supply
apparently reference other's observations. Quoting Velikovsky
quoting a source that says (17 years after WIC) that there's no
water on Venus merely means that the man can read, it's not
"support" for his view. His scenario would have to explicitly
state there was no water on Venus, and tell us why. Modifying
the claim or adding it after the facts are in is necessary to
maintain touch with reality, but not something for which you
can claim points.
>My question then is as
>follows: Given this acknowledged lack of water, and the fact that water
>formed a prominent component in early models of the greenhouse effect,
>how then are we to explain the supposed greenhouse effect?
*Both* CO2 and water are capable of the observed greenhouse effect.
Water is better at it. Unfortunately, water can't survive on Venus.
Fortunately (for the greenhouse theory) it doesn't have to. Quite a
number of theories include the early effect of water during development of
the atmosphere, since water may indeed have once existed on Venus in
significant quantity. (This point is one that is truly debated, as
opposed to the supposed debate about the efficacy of greenhouse.) One
possible worst-case scenario involves *only* water, with *no* CO2, merely
to show that if all the CO2 were bound in rocks, the greenhouse heat from
water would be sufficent to liberate the CO2 before the water dissociates.
If Venus started with a lot of CO2, it's even easier for the atmosphere to
produce the observed heat.
In short, you don't even need water, though water will make Venus
hotter faster. The lack of water is expected, and not a problem for
creating a greenhouse atmosphere.
(As an aside, the reason that the Earth doesn't lose its water the
same way, besides the lower solar flux, is that our atmosphere is colder,
and water freezes before it can circulate that high. No vapor pressure,
no vapor, no dissociation. Venus is hot enough to keep that from happening,
so, bye, bye, water. Had Venus been initially equipped with an Earthload
of water, it'd have disappeared in some tens of millions of years, after
jumpstarting greenhouse or boosting the existing one.)
>
>There are other problems as well with the greenhouse effect, but I'll leave
>those to another post.
Perhaps you should, since these objections aren't particularly
substantive.
--------------
L. Drew Davis Internet: dr...@cc.gatech.edu
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt5645c
You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment.
Tim Thompson
[ ... ]
>
>Quite clearly, the evidence supports Velikovsky and not Sagan on the
>matter of the abundance of water on Venus. My question then is as
>follows: Given this acknowledged lack of water, and the fact that water
>formed a prominent component in early models of the greenhouse effect,
>how then are we to explain the supposed greenhouse effect?
>
the times. Water is not relevant to the Venus greenhouse effect. All
of the necessary is supplied by the strong IR absorption due to CO2 in
the Cytherean "troposphere".
>There are other problems as well with the greenhouse effect, but I'll leave
>those to another post. In closing I'll simply cite the words of the
>astronomer V. A. Firsoff, who raised the following objection to the
>adequacy of the greenhouse effect in 1973 (Astronomy and Space):
>"Increasing the mass of the atmosphere may intensify the greenhouse
>effect, but it must also reduce the proportion of solar energy reaching
>the surface, while the total of the available energy must be distributed
>over a larger mass and volume. Indeed, if the atmosphere of Venus
>amounts to 75 air-masses... the amount of solar energy per unit mass of
>this atmosphere will be about 0.01 of that available on the Earth. Such
>an atmosphere would be strictly comparable to our seas and remain
>stone-cold, unless the internal heat of Venus were able to keep it at
>temperatures corresponding to the brightness temperatures derived from
>the microwave emission."
>
Firsoff is correct about the amount of visible radiation that makes
it to the surface of Venus, probably only a few percent of the incident
total. However, the presumption that this will defeat the greenhouse
is wrong. The IR emission from the surface, due only to this source,
will heat the atmosphere until it is approximately in equilibrium with
incident insolation.
>Velikovsky's theory and prediction regarding the endogenous nature of
>Venus' heat is certainly among his most original claims. It is also
>eminently testable. When and if Velikovsky is vindicated on this
>score, will you then give him credit Tim?
>
Yes, but the evidence, in fact, bodes ill for the Velikovskian view.
Now I would like to make a philosophical point. At least part of the
reason for the Velikovskian failure to understand that their criticism
of greenhouse theory is invalid is the constant reliance on the "same
old story". Judging from the continual stream of articles on mythology
that Aeon publishes, one would assume that this is an area where the
latest research is read and assimilated. Why can't the Velikovskian do
the same for the physical sciences? Why just keep repeating the same
old story, like a myth handed down from father to son?
There are numerous sound scientific reasons for not believing that
the Velikovskian scenario ever happened. In order to criticise these
views, science from the opposition must be just as sound, or it will
not be heard at all.
L. Drew Davis
>
>Actually, I find this statement surprising, as I would have thought that
>the difficulties surrounding the greenhouse theory of Venus' heat were
>well-known. Certainly they are well-known in Velikovskian circles. For
>starters, there is the little problem of water. As is well-known, most
>if not all early models of the greenhouse effect relied on water to
>produce the greenhouse effect. In his book Intelligent Life in the
>Universe, for example, Sagan wrote as follows: "From a variety of
>observations at visual, infared, and radio frequencies, it has recently
>been established that the clouds of Venus are indeed made of water...
>The CO2 and H2O in the Cytherean atmosphere, plus the water in the clouds,
>combine to produce a very efficient greenhouse effect."
>
>As Velikovsky showed in his detailed response to Sagan in 1967 and again
>in 1978 ("The Weakness of the Venus Greenhouse Theory", in Kronos 1978),
>water is exceedingly scarce on Venus. There he quoted E.J. Opik: "There
>is no water on Venus worth mentioning." In last month's issue of
>Scientific American, James Pollack et al reported as follows: "One of
>the most stunning aspects of the Venusian atmosphere is that it is
>extremely dry. It possesses only a hundred thousandth as much water as
>the earth has in its oceans. If all of Venus' water could somehow be
>condensed onto the surface, it would make a global puddle only a couple
>of centimeters deep." (p. 93).
I just snagged this issue (April 94) away from a co-worker, and find
it odd that you would pull out this sentence as supposed support for
your claim. After all, on the facing page, there's a picture more
than a half page high showing a cross-section through the atmosphere.
What do you see in the clouds, from 50-90 km? Sulfur dioxide,
sulfuric acid -- hydrated -- and H20. Looks like the clouds *are*
made of water, just as Sagan said. (And next time, could you
provide a reference from a work that's on topic? Sagan's written
a good bit about the atmosphere of Venus, and you don't have to
wander as far afield as a book entitled "Intelligent Life in the
Universe" to find a claim.) The depth of water should it cover
the entire surface is hardly relevant to the composition of the
clouds.
>
>Quite clearly, the evidence supports Velikovsky and not Sagan on the
>matter of the abundance of water on Venus.
I don't find this clear at all. In fact, I still haven't found
a claim of Velikovsky's as to the amount of water on Venus, predating
observations thereof.
>My question then is as
>follows: Given this acknowledged lack of water, and the fact that water
>formed a prominent component in early models of the greenhouse effect,
>how then are we to explain the supposed greenhouse effect?
Am I to assume this question was sufficiently answered, due to lack
of response? If not, you might read the SciAm article, rather than
skim it looking for a sentence to yank. It has a nice precis.
Tero Sand
Everett Cochrane <ecoc...@delphi.com> wrote:
>On May 10th, I pointed out that various early models of the runaway
>greenhouse effect on Venus required significant amounts of water in
>order for the greenhouse effect to work. There I quoted Carl Sagan,
>one of the more vocal proponents of this theory:
>"From a variety of observations at visual, infared, and radio frequencies,
>it has recently been established that the clouds of Venus are indeed
>made of water... The CO2 and H2O in the Cytherean atmosphere, plus the
>water in the clouds, combine to produce a very efficient greenhouse
>
>Now along comes Drew Davis, who, with reference to other quotes of mine
>documenting the dearth of water on Venus, writes as follows: "This fact
>is not remotely surprising. The intensity of solar radiation is quite
>sufficient to cause photodissociation of water in the atmosphere...This
>fact was known before Velikovsky, as was the composition of the atmosphere
>will make Venus hotter faster. The lack of water is expected, and not
>a problem for creating a greenhouse atmosphere."
>
[cut]
You beg to differ _on what_? The stuff I deleted seems to indicate that
you "differ" on Drew's claim that Venus's clouds _are_, after all,
composed of water. However, that is not what Drew says _up there_. The
most significant part of what he says is the last sentence; to repeat,
"The lack of water is expected, and is not a problem [for a greenhouse
model]." If you differ with _that_, begging or not, then please elaborate.
--
Tero Sand, 2 kyu ! Science is a process of enlarging one's
! ignorance to dizzying heights.
EMail: cus...@cc.helsinki.fi ! - D.C.Lindsay in talk.origins
cus...@cc.helsinki.fi !
Everett Cochrane
greenhouse effect on Venus required significant amounts of water in
order for the greenhouse effect to work. There I quoted Carl Sagan,
one of the more vocal proponents of this theory:
it has recently been established that the clouds of Venus are indeed
made of water... The CO2 and H2O in the Cytherean atmosphere, plus the
water in the clouds, combine to produce a very efficient greenhouse
Now along comes Drew Davis, who, with reference to other quotes of mine
documenting the dearth of water on Venus, writes as follows: "This fact
is not remotely surprising. The intensity of solar radiation is quite
sufficient to cause photodissociation of water in the atmosphere...This
fact was known before Velikovsky, as was the composition of the atmosphere
[Venusian, that is]...In short, you don't even need water, though water
will make Venus hotter faster. The lack of water is expected, and not
a problem for creating a greenhouse atmosphere."
Carl Sagan and the astronomers who subscribed to his explanation of the
runaway greenhouse effect. Is it so difficult to just acknowledge this
fact rather than try and obfuscate the issue by describing how current
theory imagines the process and differs from Sagan's model?
And the statement implying that the composition of Venus' atmosphere was
known before Velikovsky (1950) is disingenuous at best. Although it could
be said that the composition of the Venusian atmosphere is "known" to a
high degree of probability, I would still hesitate to say that we know
the precise composition of the atmosphere. In any case, it is only
recently, with the successes of the various space probes, that we have
arrived at this knowledge. Thus as recently as 1973, Dr. Albert
Burgstahler could write as follows on this question: "Until about 1960
the depth and density of the Cytherean atmosphere were generally considered
to be about the same as on Earth...As would be expected, the high
reflectivity of the clouds makes spectral determination of atmospheric
constituents difficult and complicated...Unfortunately, it is has not
proved feasible to determine with certainty from spectral data alone
the total or absolute amount of CO2 in the atmosphere of Venus...With
direct chemical sampling of the lower atmosphere by Venera probes 4, 5,
and 6, CO2 has been found to be present to the extent of about 97%."
("The Nature of the Cytherean Atmosphere, Pensee 1973, pp. 24-27)
The situation is even more uncertain regarding the composition of the
Venusian clouds. Thus, in 1979 Sagan wrote as follows, contradicting
his earlier opinion, cited above: "The question of the composition o
of the Venus clouds - a major enigma for centuries - has recently been
solved [ref. to Young and Young, 1973 and Pollack et al, 1974). The
clouds of Venus are composed of approximately 75% solution of sulfuric
acid." (Broca's Brain, 1979, p. 111).
Several years later, Billy Glass wrote as follows: "The nature of the
clouds [of Venus] has been a question of great interest for a long time.
Speculative interpretations regarding the principal constituent of the
clouds include: water drops, ice, frozen carbon dioxide, carbon suboxide,
mercury, halite, ammonium nitrate, ammonium chloride, silicate, dust
particles, carbonate particles, formaldehyde, hydrocarbon droplets,
partially hydrated herric chloride and hydrochloric acid." (Introduction
to Planetary Geology, 1982, p. 310).
In a subsequent post (May 12), Drew pointed to the April issue of
Scientific American cited by me as documenting the fact that Venus'
atmosphere is "extremely dry", this finding constituting, according to
Pollack et al, "one of the most stunning aspects of the Venusian
atmosphere." There Drew called attention to a diagram on page 92,
where the authors state that some water is present in the Venusian
clouds. This prompts Dave to accuse me of selective reading, adding
"Looks like the clouds *are* made of water, just as Sagan said."
apparently present in Venus' clouds, this hardly confirms Sagan's
aforementioned expectation that "the clouds are indeed made of water".
As we have already noted, Sagan himself corrected his earlier statement
in 1979. To say with Davis that Venus' clouds are made of water is like
saying that the Earth's clouds are made of argon upon the basis of trace
elements present in the terrestrial atmosphere.
(I am indebted to Charles Ginenthal for various arguments in this post)
L. Drew Davis
(1) "Sulfuric acid", even the nasty, oily, concentrated, 15-molar stuff
found in labs, is largely water. It's a solution, not a separate
compound. (That's why your SciAm diagram lists it as "H2SO4 * n H2O".) I
imagine spectroscopy of sulfuric acid would reveal lots of water, and
maybe some hydrogen sulfate were you to go look for it. There is also the
free (from the H20 + SO2 -> H2SO4 reaction) water below the sulfuric acid,
in the thermal dissociation region, and above, in the photochemical
region. It still absorbs heat, although the CO2 is more important. We're
splitting hairs, here. In any event, the point seems to have wandered
from the original claim that greenhouse was flawed, and insufficient to
account for the heat of Venus, to generalized Sagan-bashing. (And is it
all that surprising that in a book about "Intelligent Life", he emphasizes
the water? Not that I'm much of a Sagan fan.)
(2) I'm inclined to do another historical summary of greenhouse,
but it won't even get started for at least two weeks. Sorry to keep
you waiting, but Real Life(tm) intrudes. Feel free to remind me at
the end of May.
Mark Isaak
>>Quite clearly, the evidence supports Velikovsky and not Sagan on the
>>matter of the abundance of water on Venus.
>
> I don't find this clear at all. In fact, I still haven't found
>a claim of Velikovsky's as to the amount of water on Venus, predating
>observations thereof.
Velikovsky's comments on vermin from Venus indicate that he thought it
possible that there were biting flies there. In all the biting flies I can
think of, the larval forms are aquatic, with the exception of the human bot
fly, whose larvae grow in humans. Therefore, Velikovsky predicted that
Venus's surface should either have liquid water or human inhabitants or
both. He was, as usual, spectacularly wrong.
--
Mark Isaak "There lives more faith in honest doubt,
is...@aurora.com Believe me, than in half the creeds." - Tennyson
Mark Isaak
>In all the biting flies I can think of, the larval forms are aquatic, with
>the exception of the human bot fly, whose larvae grow in humans.
I almost forgot about the Hippoboscidae (ked flies), whose larvae grow in
the mother until just before they pupate. The reality about flies is a
lot more interesting than Velikovsky's silliness about them.
Walter D Morris
For several weeks now I have been debating the merits of the so-called
"runaway greenhouse effect" as an explanation for the inordinately high
surface temperature of Venus. As is well-known, early models of the
greenhouse effect - such as that offered by Carl Sagan - required
significant amounts of water to augment the greenhouse properties of
CO2. In recent years, however, it has become clear that Venus is
"extremely dry", this finding constituting, according to Sagan's early
collaborator James Pollack, "one of the most stunning aspects of the
Venusian atmosphere." ("The Pioneer Mission to Venus," in Scientific
American, April 1994, pp. 92-93).
One would have thought that this finding might have prompted astronomers
to reevaluate the adequacy of the "runaway greenhouse" model. Such is
not the case apparently. Thus Tim Thompson, followed by Bruce Scott,
Erik Francis and others, have responded to my previous post to the effect
that CO2 by itself is more than sufficient to account for Venus' heat.
Erik Francis, for example, wrote as follows "But carbon dioxide is really
all you need for a runaway greenhouse effect...Water is not required
(though it does help), but the vast majority of Venus' clouds are carbon
dioxide, so a little water here and there would probably make little
difference."
Not being an astronomer, I am willing to be educated on this issue. Is
there a consensus among astronomers that CO2 acting alone is sufficient
to produce a greenhouse effect as efficient as that required by the heat
of Venus? I, for one, find it significant that leading astronomers
expressed
contrary views within the past decade. Thus, Barrie William Jones wrote
as follows: "Efficient trapping [of heat] cannot be produced by CO2 alone,
in spite of the enormous mass of CO2 in the Venusian atmosphere." (The
Solar System, 1984, pp. 138-139) Gary Hunt and Patrick Moore offered a
similar opinion: "CO2 is responsible for about 55% of the trapped heat.
A further 25% is due to the presence of water vapor, while SO2, which
constitutes only 0.02 of the atmosphere, traps 5% of the remaining
infared radiation. The remaining 15% is due to the clouds and hazes
which surround the planet." (Venus, 1982, p. 132)
Richard Kerr, the editor of Science, let the cat out of the bag when
he noted certain Pioneer findings which suggested that Venus itself
might be radiating more heat than it receives from the Sun: "Perhaps
the most perplexing of the atmospheric problems lingering after Pioneer
is the 460 degrees C temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere. The
much ballyhooed greenhouse effect of Venus' carbon dioxide atmosphere
can account for only part of the heating, and evidence for other heating
mechanisms is now in a turmoil. The question concerns how the Sun's
energy behaves once it penetrates the highest clouds. When Pioneer
Venus' probes looked at the atmosphere, each one found more energy
being radiated up from the lower atmosphere than enters it as sunlight."
(Science, 1980, p. 289)
Why is it that astronomers are unwilling to consider the possibility
that Venus itself is a source of heat and is not in thermal equilibrium?
(On the problems attending the Venus greenhouse I have benefited greatly
from the writings of Charles Ginenthal. See "The Youthful Atmosphere of
Venus," AEON, 1988, pp. 5-13).
Having tried and failed to post this for several days now, I find it
necessary to once again avail myself of the account of Dr. Morris.
Ev Cochrane
e...@eai.com
--
Walter D Morris
wdmo...@iastate.edu
Tim Thompson
[Ev Cochrane speaking ...]
[ ... ]
>
>One would have thought that this finding might have prompted astronomers
>to reevaluate the adequacy of the "runaway greenhouse" model. Such is
>not the case apparently. Thus Tim Thompson, followed by Bruce Scott,
>Erik Francis and others, have responded to my previous post to the effect
>that CO2 by itself is more than sufficient to account for Venus' heat.
>Erik Francis, for example, wrote as follows "But carbon dioxide is really
>all you need for a runaway greenhouse effect...Water is not required
>(though it does help), but the vast majority of Venus' clouds are carbon
>dioxide, so a little water here and there would probably make little
>difference."
>
but it's late and I just can't do it full justice at the moment, though
I promise to do so within aday or two.
Breifly put, it is the evolution of the atmosphere over time that is
the key. It is unlikely that the primitive Venus atmosphere was as heavy
with CO2 as is the current atmosphere. That atmosphere would have
gotten the greenhouse ball rolling with water as an important ingredient.
However, the water is photolyzed, and driven out over time as the
hydrogen is blown out, and CO2 takes over. While water probably did play
a role in the birth of the greenhouse, it is not necessary to maintain
it, so the absence of water at this time is of no consequence. I will
provide more details later.
[ ... ]
>
>Why is it that astronomers are unwilling to consider the possibility
>that Venus itself is a source of heat and is not in thermal equilibrium?
>(On the problems attending the Venus greenhouse I have benefited greatly
>from the writings of Charles Ginenthal. See "The Youthful Atmosphere of
>Venus," AEON, 1988, pp. 5-13).
>
A stubborn and constant, but very untrue criticism. Neither I, nor any
other scientist gives a damn whether or not Venus is out of thermal balance,
and it may well be, at least by a small amount. Your problem is that you let
clowns like Ginenthal teach you science, instead of letting people who have
devoted their lives to it try a hand. There is not now any evidence at all
to suggest that Venus has any serious internal heat flow contributing to
the thermal state of the lower atmosphere. This has not got anything to do
with an unwillingness to believe anything. It has to do with facts, and
evidence, both of which the thoroughly un-informed Velikovskians run from
like the plague.
Bruce Scott TK
[...]
|> "...When Pioneer Venus' probes looked at the atmosphere, each one found
|> more energy being radiated up from the lower atmosphere than enters it
|> as sunlight." (Science, 1980, p. 289)
It seems to me people are forgetting that heat is transported by other
mechanisms than radiation. Namely, convection. Further, a whole host of
wave propagation effects (see A Gill _Atmosphere-Ocean Dynamics for an
exposition of these) which on Venus can be excited by the thermal tides
which spin up its atmosphere. So if one makes a model keeping only radiative
transfer one will not get correct results.
But beyond this... what counts for thermal equilibrium is the comparison
between _total_ radiation incident on the planet and not reflected away (ie,
absorbed in some way) and _total_ thermal radiation leaving the planet.
As has been posted before, these agree to high accuracy (I'm not sure this
was known in 1980 -- maybe some radio astronomers can comment; I cannot
check this just now).
|> Why is it that astronomers are unwilling to consider the possibility
|> that Venus itself is a source of heat and is not in thermal equilibrium?
Three reasons: (1) no plausible mechanism (2) more prosaic things like energy
transfer by other familiar mechanisms are not ruled out (3) no indication
that the total radiation budget is not in balance.
Ev, when you look at energy balance to see if it is in equilibrium, you
can't single out one atmosphere layer and ignore the rest. You have to
look at the whole. If it is known that _this_ is out of balance, _then_
you have an argument.
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik odorless and transparent
b...@ipp-garching.mpg.de -- W Gibson
Robert Huss
|> Ev Cochrane (e...@eai.com) quotes Richard Kerr, the editor of Science:
|>
|> [...]
|>
|> |> "...When Pioneer Venus' probes looked at the atmosphere, each one found
|> |> more energy being radiated up from the lower atmosphere than enters it
|> |> as sunlight." (Science, 1980, p. 289)
|>
|> It seems to me people are forgetting that heat is transported by other
|> mechanisms than radiation. Namely, convection. Further, a whole host of
|> wave propagation effects (see A Gill _Atmosphere-Ocean Dynamics for an
|> exposition of these) which on Venus can be excited by the thermal tides
|> which spin up its atmosphere. So if one makes a model keeping only radiative
|> transfer one will not get correct results.
The other forms of heat transfer are conduction and convection. Conduction
depends on atomic and molecular activity. Treating Venus as a non-moving
object surrounded by space, you could potentially calculate the conduction
through the space near Venus. Since space is a near vacuum, conduction between
Venus and space is insignificant. Convection also rewuires molecular motion.
The motion of a fluid (space) past a surface (Venus) produces more heat
transfer than a stationary fluid next to a surface. However, again, the mass
in vacuum is small, as is the heat capacity, convective heat loss from
Venus is insignificant.
|> |> Why is it that astronomers are unwilling to consider the possibility
|> |> that Venus itself is a source of heat and is not in thermal equilibrium?
|>
|> Three reasons: (1) no plausible mechanism (2) more prosaic things like energy
|> transfer by other familiar mechanisms are not ruled out (3) no indication
|> that the total radiation budget is not in balance.
Why is there no plausible mechanism for Venus to be a heat source? Earth
was once much hotter than it is now, and was a heat source as it cooled. During
the formation of the solar system, wouldn't the planets closer to the sun
be formed from material with a higher temperature/thermal energy than
the planets farther from the sun? As Venus formed, it developed its thick
atmosphere, which may have slowed the cooling process. Therefore Venus
could still be cooling down. Furthermore, do we assume that other
planets have reached thermal equilibrium? Has the moon? Has Mars?
|>
|> Ev, when you look at energy balance to see if it is in equilibrium, you
|> can't single out one atmosphere layer and ignore the rest. You have to
|> look at the whole. If it is known that _this_ is out of balance, _then_
|> you have an argument.
You can surely do an energy balance over one layer of the atmosphere.
If that section of the atmosphere is not in thermal equilibrium, you have an
indication that the interior layers and the planet itself is not in
thermal equilibrium. If you check the heat flux from a window of your house
and find it is changing, isn't that an indication that your house
is not in equilibrium with the outside?
Bob.
.
Bruce Scott TK
|> In article <2rimje...@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>, b...@slcbdsipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TK ) writes:
|> |> Ev Cochrane (e...@eai.com) quotes Richard Kerr, the editor of Science:
|> |>
|> |> [...]
|> |>
|> |> |> "...When Pioneer Venus' probes looked at the atmosphere, each one found
|> |> |> more energy being radiated up from the lower atmosphere than enters it
|> |> |> as sunlight." (Science, 1980, p. 289)
|> |>
|> |> It seems to me people are forgetting that heat is transported by other
|> |> mechanisms than radiation. Namely, convection. Further, a whole host of
|> |> wave propagation effects (see A Gill _Atmosphere-Ocean Dynamics for an
|> |> exposition of these) which on Venus can be excited by the thermal tides
|> |> which spin up its atmosphere. So if one makes a model keeping only radiative
|> |> transfer one will not get correct results.
|>
|> The other forms of heat transfer are conduction and convection. Conduction
|> depends on atomic and molecular activity. Treating Venus as a non-moving
|> object surrounded by space, you could potentially calculate the conduction
|> through the space near Venus. Since space is a near vacuum, conduction between
|> Venus and space is insignificant. Convection also rewuires molecular motion.
|> The motion of a fluid (space) past a surface (Venus) produces more heat
|> transfer than a stationary fluid next to a surface. However, again, the mass
|> in vacuum is small, as is the heat capacity, convective heat loss from
|> Venus is insignificant.
Please read my words again. I refer to transport within the atmosphere,
and then remind that one may not consider one layer of the atmosphere in
isolation because it transfers heat with other layers in the atmosphere.
Besides conduction (which is negligible) and convection, this can go via
wave propagation and dissipation. Ev was discussing atmospheric models and
asserting that a high surface temperature was out of line with thermal
blanketing models. This has to do with the atmospheric model, and so
intra-atmospheric transfer is important.
Considering Venus as a _whole_, then the ball in space is appropriate, but
then one discusses only radiation entering and leaving. Finding them in
good balance, we discount the proposition that Venus's interior is an important
source of heat vis-a-vis solar radiation.
|> Why is there no plausible mechanism for Venus to be a heat source? Earth
|> was once much hotter than it is now, and was a heat source as it cooled. During
|> the formation of the solar system, wouldn't the planets closer to the sun
|> be formed from material with a higher temperature/thermal energy than
|> the planets farther from the sun? As Venus formed, it developed its thick
|> atmosphere, which may have slowed the cooling process. Therefore Venus
|> could still be cooling down. Furthermore, do we assume that other
|> planets have reached thermal equilibrium? Has the moon? Has Mars?
You refer to primordial heat. Note that proximity to the Sun is a negligible
contribution to that; the self-gravitational energy of initial formation is
much larger. But today a more important contribution is radiogenic heat,
that is, heat resulting from the decay of long-lived radioactive nuclei
such as Uranium, Thorium, and Potassium-40.
The planets are not in thermal equilibrium, but their heat loss rates
can be measured either directly or by inference. For the latter, note
that the total radiation leaving a planet can be measured and compared
to the total radiation entering it. When these are in close agreement,
internal heat is a negligible contributor to heating the atmosphere,
since what you are measuring is solar energy. Only in the case that the
total radiation leaving a planet is significantly larger that the solar input,
as in the case of Jupiter, can one argue that internal heat mechanisms
are important to the _surface_ (or high atmospheric) temperature. Note
that the contribution of internal heat to the atmosphere is the difference
between exiting and incoming radiation (and reflected incoming radiation
is subtracted from the input).
All of the terrestrial planets are cooling down, but their cooling times
are in the 10s of millions of years. By contrast, the atmpospheric cooling
times are of order a week for the Earth and in the months for Venus. This
is a question of time scales: planets have a great amount of internal heat
but they lose it so slowly that it is not an important contributor to the
energy balance of the atmosphere. To treat this quantitatively you have
to learn to separate scales, in this case time scales.
|> You can surely do an energy balance over one layer of the atmosphere.
Not when you ignore the other layers. You have to keep intra-atmospheric
exchange with the other layers. This can be local (conduction, convection,
or radiation in a _thick_ atmosphere) or it can be distant (wave transfer,
or radiation in a _thin_ atmosphere). For example, the Earth's atmosphere
is so thin that visible light penetrates all the way to the surface when
not scattered by clouds, but it is thick enough with H2O and CO2 that
the outgoing long-wave radiation is impeded (on the Earth the thermal blanket
is at least 80 per cent H2O, but on Venus it is nearly all CO2). You need
to keep all these effects, and when you do you find that to a very good
approximation -- better than you can measure -- you can neglect the planetary
interior entirely. You take the incoming solar radiation as a source and
consider only the atmosphere, and the surface as a boundary.
|> If that section of the atmosphere is not in thermal equilibrium, you have an
|> indication that the interior layers and the planet itself is not in
|> thermal equilibrium. If you check the heat flux from a window of your house
|> and find it is changing, isn't that an indication that your house
|> is not in equilibrium with the outside?
Yes but the radiation leaving Venus is not observed to change. That is the
point. On very long time scales the planet's interior is not in equilibrium,
but for the atmosphere on short time scales (say years) one can ignore the
rate at which the interior loses heat to the atmosphere because this effect
is so small -- by orders of magnitude.
Sorry for all the repetition but I feel it is necessary just now.
Andrew MacRae
writes:
> In article <2rimje...@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
> b...@slcbdsipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TK ) writes:
> |> Ev Cochrane (e...@eai.com) quotes Richard Kerr, the editor of Science:
> |>
> |> |> Why is it that astronomers are unwilling to consider the
> |> |> possibility that Venus itself is a source of heat and is not in
> |> |> thermal equilibrium?
> |>
> |> Three reasons: (1) no plausible mechanism (2) more prosaic things
> |> like energy transfer by other familiar mechanisms are not ruled out
> |> (3) no indication that the total radiation budget is not in balance.
>
> Why is there no plausible mechanism for Venus to be a heat source?
> Earth was once much hotter than it is now,
True.
> and was a heat source as it cooled.
True. But it is not particularly hot now. Compared to other
terrestrial planets, the Earth is currently more tectonically active, and
releases more internal heat. However, that heat is miniscule compared
solar sources.
> During
> the formation of the solar system, wouldn't the planets closer to the
> sun be formed from material with a higher temperature/thermal energy
> than the planets farther from the sun? As Venus formed, it developed
> its thick atmosphere, which may have slowed the cooling process.
> Therefore Venus could still be cooling down.
The basic problem is that the current geology of Venus, based on
the recent Magellan data, indicates it is less tectonically active
currently than the Earth is [1]. The internal, geologic contribution to
the tectonically-active Earth's heat budget is in the milliwatts per
square metre, as opposed to about 150 Watts/m^2 for the total heat flux.
I.e. the solar contribution completely swamps the geological one. For
Venus to be significantly contributing heat from its interior, it would
have to be _currently_ experiencing volcanism on a massive scale - several
orders of magnitude greater than the Earth - when in fact it appears
_LESS_ tectonically active than the Earth. If it was that active, the
high mountain ranges that are present would not be stable, and more
gravitational anomalies would be observed (and they are not even as large
and common as on Earth). That puts the hypothesis of significant internal
(i.e. geological) heat generation into the realm of "falsified", at least
at the scale that is being demanded by the scenarios being proposed. The
geological evidence _should_ be obvious, and it is simply _not_there_. If
Venus does not appear to be in "thermal balance", there must be some other
explanation.
Kerr, R.A., 1994. A new portrait of Venus: thick-scinned and decrepit.
Science, v.263, p.759-760.
-Andrew
mac...@pandora.geo.ucalgary.ca
or: mac...@geo.ucalgary.ca
Tim Thompson
[ ... ]
>
>The other forms of heat transfer are conduction and convection. Conduction
>depends on atomic and molecular activity. Treating Venus as a non-moving
>object surrounded by space, you could potentially calculate the conduction
>through the space near Venus. Since space is a near vacuum, conduction between
>Venus and space is insignificant. Convection also rewuires molecular motion.
>The motion of a fluid (space) past a surface (Venus) produces more heat
>transfer than a stationary fluid next to a surface. However, again, the mass
>in vacuum is small, as is the heat capacity, convective heat loss from
>Venus is insignificant.
>
planetary atmosphere are radiation and convection; all the rest, even
combined, are orders of magnitude farther down the scale. For our purposes,
space cannot be considered a fluid, has zero mass, and zero thermal
conductivity. The only mechanism for heat loss into space is through radiative
emission from the top of the atmosphere (I am ignoring the few molecules
that fly out of the high speed end of the Boltzmann distribution as they
are insignificant).
[ ... ]
>
>Why is there no plausible mechanism for Venus to be a heat source?
>
Whether or not Venus really does have an internal heat source is, oddly
enough, not at issue. Of course, it could. What is at issue is the magnitude
of energy released by this source. Is it a significant amount of the thermal
energy found at the base of the atmosphere? According to Ted Holden, the
answer is yes. According to everyone else the answer is no. The measurements
in hand so far do not support his claims, though he seems to think they do.
Such a significant internal source of heat would produce other effects,
besides the high atmosphere temperature, and these effects are not seen,
as is indicated even by Taylor on the same page Ted likes to quote all
the time.
[ ... ]
>
>You can surely do an energy balance over one layer of the atmosphere.
This might work for a globally averaged model, but certainly not for any
kind of local measurements ...
>If that section of the atmosphere is not in thermal equilibrium, you have an
>indication that the interior layers and the planet itself is not in
>thermal equilibrium. If you check the heat flux from a window of your house
>and find it is changing, isn't that an indication that your house
>is not in equilibrium with the outside?
>
But your house is local, and we are interested in global balance. The
radiometers in question plunged into the atmosphere of Venus along specific
trajectories, and measured the emission seen locally. This is not a global
measurement, and will not recover global properties. Therefore, even if it
were true that the probes indicated a high flux of infrared (which they did
not), they would at best present weak evidence in favor of global imbalance.
Other, corraborating measurements are not forthcoming. The data in hand are
actually insufficient for settling the question. Holden's method is to
arbitrarily presume that "old" data are flawed, essentially by definition,
and should be rejected. his criterion seems to be that any data that do not
agree with his pre-conceived notions are "old" and "flawed" and should be
rejected; a peculiar attitude indeed.
Ted Holden
>But beyond this... what counts for thermal equilibrium is the comparison
>between _total_ radiation incident on the planet and not reflected away (ie,
>absorbed in some way) and _total_ thermal radiation leaving the planet.
>As has been posted before, these agree to high accuracy (I'm not sure this
>was known in 1980 -- maybe some radio astronomers can comment; I cannot
>check this just now).
Bullshit. Venus' atmosphere, as I have clearly demonstrated, using the best
measurements available to us, is massively out of thermal balance. Check
page 658 of VENUS, Hunten/Colin/Donahue/Moroz, Univ. of Arizona Press,
1983, ISBN 0-8165-0788-0 for F.W. Taylor's explaination of PV data bearing
on thermal imbalance on Venus.
Tim Thompson
>
>Bullshit. Venus' atmosphere, as I have clearly demonstrated, using the best
>measurements available to us, is massively out of thermal balance. Check
>page 658 of VENUS, Hunten/Colin/Donahue/Moroz, Univ. of Arizona Press,
>1983, ISBN 0-8165-0788-0 for F.W. Taylor's explaination of PV data bearing
>on thermal imbalance on Venus.
>
As I said before, and as is spelled out ever so clearly in the relevant
papers in ICARUS, both of the probe designs suffered from design flaws.
One allowed Cytheran atmosphere gases to enter the probe and contact the
radiometer, producing an uncorrectable error. The other suffered from a
field-of-view problem, which means that it measured radiance from the sky
and ground, when it was supposed to measure ground only. This flaw could
be corrected, with a knowledge of the probe's geometry, and local atmosphere.
Both of these flaws were seen in the laboratory with clone devices.
Are we going to go through all this again? My, but you are stubborn.
Maurizio MORABITO; Tel.6661
[Ev Cochrane's post]
[stuff deleted]
-:("The Pioneer Mission to Venus," in Scientific
-:American, April 1994, pp. 92-93)
-: (The
-:Solar System, 1984, pp. 138-139)
-:(Venus, 1982, p. 132)
-:
-:(Science, 1980, p. 289)
-:
-:Why is it that astronomers are unwilling to consider the possibility
-:that Venus itself is a source of heat and is not in thermal equilibrium?
-:(On the problems attending the Venus greenhouse I have benefited greatly
-:from the writings of Charles Ginenthal. See "The Youthful Atmosphere of
-:Venus," AEON, 1988, pp. 5-13).
-:
But if you can find these references, so maybe 'astronomers' are still open-
minded to new possibilities. I am talking as a layman but do you like to
look for conspiracies?
maurizio
Richard A. Schumacher
>Bullshit. Venus' atmosphere, as I have clearly demonstrated, using the best
>measurements available to us, is massively out of thermal balance. Check
>page 658 of VENUS, Hunten/Colin/Donahue/Moroz, Univ. of Arizona Press,
>1983, ISBN 0-8165-0788-0 for F.W. Taylor's explaination of PV data bearing
>on thermal imbalance on Venus.
Bold talk from a guy who admitted not understanding the
concept of "standard deviation". Are you in a position
to demonstrate anything in a scientific context?
L. Drew Davis
Explain the relationship between (1) albedo, (2) the insolation received
by a planet, and the (3) radiation emitted therefrom. How do you
measure (1), (2), and (3)?
--
--------------
L. Drew Davis Internet: dr...@cc.gatech.edu
Rick Russell
Carl J Lydick <ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU> wrote:
> Again, Ted's insisting on citing a hopelessly outdated source.
> Understandable, since if he were to cite a more recent source, his
> claims would be untenable.
...
> Please note that the "best measurements available" on which Ted
> basis his entire argument were those of Pioneer Venus, and those
> measurements are from a couple of decades ago. The most recent
> article Ted cites was published more than a decade ago.
I find this counter-argument unsatisfying, because while Mr. Lydick
repeatedly makes the claim that new data will support the expected
answer of simple solar-only thermal balance (without Venus as a heat
source), he does not present any data (or even any names of
investigators) which support his claim. The age of the cited sources
does automatically imply that they are wrong, unless there is some
more complete or more modern data to counter them.
All in all, I'd say the original poster (Ted Holden) produced a much
more convincing argument, since he actually cited some observation.
As a meteorologist, I certainly expect that the answer will be the
simple one, but I won't let that expection cloud my mind into
accepting claims that "new data fixes everything up" without some
references of some kind.
--
Rick Russell *** rick-r...@tamu.edu ** IRCnick: Cobalt
Rick Russell
Rick Russell <rick-r...@tamu.edu> wrote:
+investigators) which support his claim. The age of the cited sources
+does automatically imply that they are wrong, unless there is some
^
not
:-)
Glenn Durden
>I assume you have never seen my primary article on this topic. There is
>no real debating this topic; all emperical data say that Venus is badly
>out of thermal equalibrium.
>For your reading enjoyment:
>The Nov. 13 1980 issue of New Scientist contained an article
> I am looking at two articles from Icarus magazine dated 1982
>and 1985, the first by H.E. Revercomb, L.A. Sromovsky, and V.E.
>sensors on the Venus probes which landed in Dec. 1978, so that even
>by the time the first article was written (82), these people had
>Arizona Press, 1983). This monstrosity is a size-equivalent to
>Tomasko cites one 1968 calculation of albedo of .77 +- .07 without
>bothering to tell you that that estimate was later revised upwards to
>.80 +- .07 in 1975 (Taylor tells us that on page 657), and notes that
Say what?!?
1980, 1982, 1985, 1983, 1968, 1975...
Havnt you got anything more recent than a decade old?
Owen M. Hartnett
>Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky are the only two authors of
>theories which attempt to explain the intense surface heat of Venus.
>Velikovsky claims that Venus is simply a new planet, which has not had
>time to cool; a wealth of historical evidence supports him. Sagan
>claims that the < 2% of solar energy which somehow finds its way through
>the thick CO2 clouds of Venus to the surface is forever trapped there
>and cannot re-radiate as infra-red flux and thus escape. This he claims
>causes the intense heat; he even manages to keep a straight face.
>
>"Super-Greenhouse" REQUIRES that Venus be in thermal equilibrium. Either
>thermal balance pertains on Venus, in which case Sagan is right, or it
>doesn't and Velikovsky is correct. There is no third possibility.
Excellent posting, I'm looking forward to opposing opinions.
But there is a third possibility. They could both be wrong. There are
always things that no one has thought of. We should all bear this in mind
and not limit ourselves to our presuppositions.
-Owen
--
Owen Hartnett o...@cs.brown.edu
"FAITH, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks
without knowledge, of things without parallel."
-Ambrose Bierce - The Devil's Dictionary
Ted Holden
>Considering Venus as a _whole_, then the ball in space is appropriate, but
>then one discusses only radiation entering and leaving. Finding them in
>good balance......
Say what?? Huh????? Finding radiation entering and leaving Venus in
good balance?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
I assume you have never seen my primary article on this topic. There is
no real debating this topic; all emperical data say that Venus is badly
out of thermal equalibrium.
For your reading enjoyment:
.....................................
Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky are the only two authors of
theories which attempt to explain the intense surface heat of Venus.
Velikovsky claims that Venus is simply a new planet, which has not had
time to cool; a wealth of historical evidence supports him. Sagan
claims that the < 2% of solar energy which somehow finds its way through
the thick CO2 clouds of Venus to the surface is forever trapped there
and cannot re-radiate as infra-red flux and thus escape. This he claims
causes the intense heat; he even manages to keep a straight face.
"Super-Greenhouse" REQUIRES that Venus be in thermal equilibrium. Either
thermal balance pertains on Venus, in which case Sagan is right, or it
doesn't and Velikovsky is correct. There is no third possibility.
The Nov. 13 1980 issue of New Scientist contained an article
entitled "The mystery of Venus' internal heat", which read as
follows:
"Two years surveillance by the Pioneer Venus orbiter seems to
show that Venus is radiating away more energy than it receives
from the sun. If this surprising result is confirmed, it
means that the planet itself is producing far more heat than
the earth does.
F.W. Taylor of the Clarendon Laboratory at Oxford presented
these measurements at a Royal Society meeting last week.
Venus surface temperature is higher than any other in the
solar system, at 480 C. The generally accepted theory is that
sunlight is absorbed at Venus' surface, and re-radiated as
infrared. The later is absorbed in the atmosphere, which thus
acts as a blanket, keeping the planet hot. It is similar to
the way a greenhouse keeps warm.
Pioneer has shown that there is enough carbon dioxide and the
tiny proportion of water vapor needed to make the greenhouse
effect work -- just. If this is the whole story, the total
amount of radiation emitted back into space, after its journey
up through the atmospheric blanket must be exactly equal to
that absorbed from sunlight (otherwise the surface temperature
would be continuously changing).
But Taylor found that Venus radiates 15 percent more energy
than it receives. To keep the surface temperature constant,
Venus must be producing this extra heat from within.
All the inner planets, including earth, produce internal heat
from radioactive elements within their rocks. But Taylor's
observations of Venus would mean that the planet is producing
almost 10,000 times more heat than the earth, and it is
inconceivable according to present theories of planetary
formation, that Venus should have thousands of times more of
the radioactive elements than Earth does. At last weeks
meeting, Taylor's suggestion met with skepticism - not to say
sheer disbelief - from other planetary scientists.
Taylor himself has no explanation for his result. He simply
points out that the discrepancy seemed at first to be simply
experimental error - but with more precise measurements, it
refused to go away. More measurements are needed before
astronomers accept the result, and most planetary scientists
are obviously expecting - and hoping - that the embarrassing
extra heat will disappear on further investigation.
Astronomers now claim that Venus is "within error bounds of thermal
equilibrium" and cite the noted astronomer Tomasko as a source. I will
explain how this works momemtarily.
.............................................................
Consider then what happens as probes descend deep into the
atmosphere of Venus towards the surface.
I am looking at two articles from Icarus magazine dated 1982
and 1985, the first by H.E. Revercomb, L.A. Sromovsky, and V.E.
Suomi of the Space Science and Engineering Center, Univ. of
Wisconsin at Madison, the second by the same three gentlemen along
with R.W. Boese of NASA-Ames (Icarus 52, 279-300 and Icarus 61,
521-538). Both of these articles involve the infra-red flux
sensors on the Venus probes which landed in Dec. 1978, so that even
by the time the first article was written (82), these people had
quite awhile to think about what the probes had told them. Three
small probes carried net flux radiometers carried externally, and
a larger probe carried an infrared radiometer internally, which
viewed the atmosphere through a window. All of these instruments
measured the infrared flux of the Venereal atmosphere.
In the upper atmosphere, all of these instruments showed
infrared fluxes which the scientists could at least think about
living with; as they descended, however, all began to show very
large net fluxes UPWARDS, which is what you might expect if
(HORRORS) Velikovsky's view of Venus were the correct one:
"Below the Venus cloud deck both LIR and SNFR flux
measurements appear to affected by serious errors..."
"...Although the LIR [large probe enclosed instrument]
measurements might be correctable, using the multispectral
information of the data to deduce the magnitude of the
asymmetry, no reliable corrections have yet been obtained [by
1982 three years after the fact]... Thus we cannot at this
time make use of the LIR results..."
However, if the scientists lacked imagination in forcing the
large probe data into a suitable uniformitarian, Saganesque mold,
no such lack occurred with the data from the probes carried on the
three small probes:
"The magnitudes of the corrections for both instruments are
determined by forcing agreement with a range of calculated net
fluxes at one altitude deep in the atmosphere, where the net
flux must be small because of the large density of CO2.
"Must be small" based on the known facts of uniformitarianism and
"Super-Greenhouse". The idea that four separate instruments of two
different sorts, three carried externally and one internally all
telling the same story MIGHT possibly just be correct does not even
occur to the scientists. Religious belief overrides evidence; the
round evidence must be pounded into the square hole.
Members of what I call the t.o "crew" have always tried to argue that
infrared light simply cannot penetrate thick CO2 clouds, period. That would
imply that everybody involved in the Pioneer Venus effort was basically
incompetant, and should be fired. Why spend the taxpayers' money on the
devices if the answer is known beforehand?
..............................................................
But then, we know that Venus is "within error bounds of" thermal
equilibrium in its upper atmosphere (as a number of the t.o regular crew
members delight in noting), and so these lower atmosphere figures cannot
possibly be right, no? No indeed!
The astronomers and others are citing Tomasko's article on pages
611 - 612 of THE BOOK (VENUS, Hunten, Colin, Donahue, Moroz, Univ. of
Arizona Press, 1983). This monstrosity is a size-equivalent to
War & Peace, GWTW, and the Bible, and costs $80 in North America. They
aren't making it on volume... One notes also that they clearly intend
that ordinary hoodlums (such as myself) should not have access to the
book; it turns out, this could cause some embarassment to the
astronomers.
It turns out, that there are two articles on thermal equilibrium, the
Tomasko article on pages 611 - 612, AND the article by F.W. Taylor
on page 658. It turns out that only by adopting the most myopic view which
it is possible to take can you get thermal equilibrium from this story, and
that is precisely what Tomasko does.
For thermal equilibrium to pertain, two numbers must match up; the
actual observed albedo of Venus, and the albedo as computed from thermal
data, ASSUMING thermal balance as explained on page 658 of THE BOOK by
F.W. Taylor. Tomasko notes this .76 derived albedo on
pp 611-612) "For the whole planet to be in equilibrium with absorbed
sunlight, the bolometric albedo would have to be .76..."
Now, the Pioneer Venus readings on albedo (Taylor's article, page 658)
was .80 plus/minus .02. The one other recent value noted in THE BOOK
was also .80. Other values which certain members of the t.o crew claim
need to be averaged in include values derived from an assumption of
thermal balance, the very thing they are trying to demonstrate, and one
value derived by extrapolating an average of very old visual spectrum
values to a total value. Nobody claims they're smart...
The closest you get, even ceding all of the error bound toward the direction
of equalibrium, is within .02.
Now, you might ask, what's a lousy .02 amongst friends; doesn't sound
like much... This is one of those cases in which a little bit appears
to go a long way. Consider what Taylor claims would be required to
be believed if the .80 figure for albedo were to hold good (also page
658):
"Clearly, the Pioneer measurements of emission and reflection are not
consistent with eachother if radiative balance applies. A source
inside Venus equal in magnitude to 20% of the solar input (i.e.
accounting for the difference between A = 0.76 and 0.80 is very
unlikely since Venus is thought to have an Earth-like makeup which
would imply heat sources several orders of magnitude less than this.
Also, even if such sources were postulated, it is difficult to
construct a model in which these fairly large amounts of heat can be
transported from the core to the atmosphere via a rocky crust without
the later becoming sufficiently plastic to collapse the observed
surface relief. This could only be avoided if the transport were very
localized, i.e., via a relatively small number of giant volcanoes.
Although large, fresh-looking volcanoes do appear to exist on Venus
(see chapter 6), and the content of the atmosphere is consistent with
vigorous output from these, a simple comparison with terrestrial
volcanism shows that the volcanic activity on Venus would have to be on
an awesome scale to account for the missing 10^15 W or so of power."
That, of course (the little thing about "awesome" volcanic activity), is
more or less what Magellan tells us. Taylor, naturally enough, does not
particularly care to believe what the data is telling him. Nonetheless,
the data IS telling him that there is no way that Venus is even within
error bounds of thermal equilibrium. How then does Tomasko make such a
claim?
Tomasko cites one 1968 calculation of albedo of .77 +- .07 without
bothering to tell you that that estimate was later revised upwards to
.80 +- .07 in 1975 (Taylor tells us that on page 657), and notes that
Taylor indicates that the .02 error bounds for the Pioneer reading (the
most recent, and done with the best instruments from the best distance)
may be "too small".
Taylor indeed notes (page 758):
"A more acceptable alternative is that the preliminary estimate of 0.80
+- .02 for the albedo from the PV measurements is too high, since the
uncertainty limit is now known from further work to be too conservative
(J. V. Martinchik, personal communication). A fuller analysis of PV
albedo data - still the best in terms of wave length, spatial and phase
coverage, and radiometric precision, which is likely to be obtained for
the forseeable future, is likely to resolve this puzzle. In conclusion
then, the best thermal measurements of Venus, with the assumption of
global energy balance, yeild a value of the albedo of 0.76 +- .01;
this is the most probable value."
Tomasko is basing his entire case on one entirely outdated calculation,
and upon a "personal communication from Martinchik". That's hear-say...
worthless. For all anybody on the planet other than Taylor knows, the
"personal communication from Martinchik" which Taylor cites as the only
possible basis for believing anything other than that Venus is out of
thermal balance in a major way, could easily have been a phone call, made
under the influence of alcoholic beverages.
Taylor is saying that the best measurements available tell us that
thermal balance is not to be had on Venus, and that Sagan and his super
greenhouse theory are FUBAR, but that that can't really be, that he and
others are probably, hopefully looking at something the wrong way, but
he doesn't know what that something is.
Tero Sand
In article <2s95gb$5...@news.tamu.edu>,
Rick Russell <rick-r...@tamu.edu> wrote:
>In article <2s843d$8...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
>Carl J Lydick <ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU> wrote:
>
>> Again, Ted's insisting on citing a hopelessly outdated source.
>> Understandable, since if he were to cite a more recent source, his
>> claims would be untenable.
>
>...
>
>> Please note that the "best measurements available" on which Ted
>> basis his entire argument were those of Pioneer Venus, and those
>> measurements are from a couple of decades ago. The most recent
>> article Ted cites was published more than a decade ago.
>
>I find this counter-argument unsatisfying, because while Mr. Lydick
>repeatedly makes the claim that new data will support the expected
>answer of simple solar-only thermal balance (without Venus as a heat
>source), he does not present any data (or even any names of
>investigators) which support his claim. The age of the cited sources
>does [not] automatically imply that they are wrong, unless there is some
>more complete or more modern data to counter them.
>
Actually, the data that supports it is old. As TJT recently posted,
there were flaws in the instruments (to Ted: yes, in two different kinds
of instruments. Take a look at the failure rate of probes sometimes;
it's not at all inconceivable). I've included here at the end a couple
of posts by TJT; please [try to] ignore the insults in the latter one
(although I have to add they did *not* come out of the blue), and
concentrate on the substance.
>All in all, I'd say the original poster (Ted Holden) produced a much
>more convincing argument, since he actually cited some observation.
>
>As a meteorologist, I certainly expect that the answer will be the
>simple one, but I won't let that expection cloud my mind into
>accepting claims that "new data fixes everything up" without some
>references of some kind.
I just hope you're not suggesting that Venus being molten in historical
times is a real possibility. The geologic data just about rules that one
out.
==========
Article 52455 of talk.origins:
Path: klaava!news.funet.fi!sunic!pipex!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!scn2!tjt
From: t...@scn1.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Holden Refuted: The Final Chapter!
Date: 18 Jan 1994 06:44:50 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Lines: 133
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <2hg0h2$h...@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>
Reply-To: t...@scn1.jpl.nasa.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.149.9.2
On page 658 of "Venus", Taylor et al. describe the quality of
the Pioneer Venus (PV) data as "still the best, in terms of
wavelength, spatial and phase coverage, and radiometric precision,
which is likely to be obtained for the foreseeable future". On the
strength of this statement, Mr. Holden believes that all other
previous data regarding the albedo and thermal balance of Venus
should be ignored. I have already argued elsewhere that this is
an unwarranted decision.
However; I will now proceed to do as Mr. Holden suggests.
I will consider only the PV data, and show that these data
neither require, nor imply, that Venus is not in net radiative
balance with the sun.
In order to do this, I must present some equations as definitions
for terms, as they are presented in chapter 20 of "Venus". The
need to do this in ASCII is a bit cumbersome, but I trust my
method is clear enough.
---------------------------------------------------------------
DEFINING EQUATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------------
BOLOMETRIC TEMPERATURE (aka "effective temperature")
(1) T = (1/sig) [Int(0,2pi)Int(0,inf) I(w,sa) dw d(sa)] ^(1/4)
where
T = temperature
sig = Stefan's constant
w = wavelength
sa = solid angle
I(w,sa) = thermal radiance (as a function of w and sa)
Int(a,b) = integration over limits from a to b; inf = infinity
SPHERICAL BOLOMETRIC ALBEDO (aka "albedo")
Numerator = Int(0,2pi)Int(0,inf) Iout(w,sa) dw d(sa)
Denominator = Int(0,2pi)Int(0,inf) Iin(w,sa) dw d(sa)
(2) A = Numerator / Denominator
where
A = albedo
Iout = reflected solar radiance
Iin = incoming solar radiance
NET RADIATIVE BALANCE EQUATION
(3) sig * (T^4) = (1-A)*E0 / a^2
where
E0 = solar constant
a = distance from the sun
---------------------------------------------------------------
The wavelength integral in (1) is over the region occupied by
the planet's thermal spectrum, and in (2) over the region occupied
by the solar spectrum.
Schofield et al., 1982, used the PV data to evaluate the integrals
in equation (1) and obtained a value for T = 229.4 +/- 2.2 Kelvins (K),
corresponding to a mean outgoing flux of 157.0 +/- 6.0 Watts/meter^2
(W/m2). On page 606 of "Venus" Tomasko says "If Venus is in
equilibrium with absorbed sunlight, it should emit 150 +/- 45 W/m2
corresponding to an effective temperature of 227 +15 -20 K". There is
no prior, arbitrary assumption here concerning net radiative balance.
The measured thermal emission of Venus by PV is consistent with what
would be expected, if Venus were in net radiative balance with the sun.
According to Taylor et al., on page 658, Tomasko et al., 1980,
used the PV 0.4 to 4.0 micrometer (um) channel of the PV IR
radiometer to evaluate the albedo via equation (2), and got the
result A = 0.80 +/- 0.02. Tomasko gives the same number on page
612, but gives the reference as Taylor et al., 1980, rather than
as himself.
Since equation (1) returns a temperature, and equation (2)
returns an albedo, one of those numbers has to be expressed in
terms of the other, in order to compare results. Equation (3)
provides a relationship between albedo (A) and temperature (T),
assuming that there is net radiative balance. Since the
temperature derived by Schofield et al. from (1) already implies
net radiative balance, it is a simple matter to convert from T
to A via equation (3), as they did, and arrive at the result
A = 0.76 +/- 0.006
By paying attention only to the numeric albedos, and not to
how they were calculated, Mr. Holden fell into the trap of
thinking that Schofield's number, from equation 3, required an
arbitrary assumption of net radiative balance, and therefore
could not be used to argue that there was net radiative balance.
We have seen that this is not the case.
We have seen that the PV thermal measurements directly imply
that Venus is in net radiative balance (or "net thermal balance")
with the sun. We have seen that the PV 0.4 to 4.0 um data imply
that Venus is not in net thermal balance. All are PV data, all
are "good" data, and they are not consistent. How does one choose?
The integrals in (1) are relatively easy to evaluate, as the
spectrum is thermal, and thermal black-body curves are of well
defined shape, and because most of the radiative emission will
occur in the measured peak areas. On the other hand, the
integrals in equation (2) are not thermal, and therefore
assumptions must be made about the characteristics of the emission
spectrum of Venus in regions not measured by the radiometer
(no radiometer measures from 0 to infinity). These assumptions
in turn require knowledge of the chemical inventory of the upper
atmosphere (for line absorption & emission calculation). And,
there is the difficulty in calibrating the radiometer, mentioned
by both Taylor and Tomasko.
This all means that the intrinsic uncertainty of the result from
equation (1) [0.76 +/- 0.79%] is rather less than that of the
result from equation (2) [0.80 +/- 2.5%]. These arguements are
sufficient to easily show that it is not proper to characterize
these data as requiring Venus to be out of net thermal balance,
let alone "wildly" so. Add to this, that if Venus were so far
out of thermal balance, other symptoms of this condition would
necessarily have been visible, and are not. Taylor discusses this
in chapter 20 of "Venus", when he chooses the Schofield et al.
value A = 0.76 +/- 0.006 as the most probable value of A for
Venus.
So, we have seen, that even if we restrict ourselves to the PV
data, and only the PV data, Mr. Holden's claim that Venus is
out of thermal balance is not supported.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Thompson, Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Secretary, Los Angeles Astronomical Society.
Vice President, Mount Wilson Observatory Association.
INTERnet/BITnet: t...@scn2.jpl.nasa.gov
NSI/DECnet: jplsc8::tim
SCREAMnet: YO!! TIM!!
GPSnet: 118:10:22.85 W by 34:11:58.27 N
Article 64299 of talk.origins:
Path: news.helsinki.fi!news.funet.fi!news.eunet.fi!EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov!grover.jpl.nasa.gov!kea!tjt
From: t...@scn1.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Thompson's average: t.o. majority sile
Date: 20 May 1994 20:42:39 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Lines: 74
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <2rj7bv$6...@grover.jpl.nasa.gov>
References: <medved.769397878@access1>
Reply-To: t...@scn1.jpl.nasa.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: kea.jpl.nasa.gov
In article 769397878@access1, med...@access1.digex.net (Ted Holden) writes:
>t...@scn1.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) writes:
>
>> And I would appreciate it if you would stop being so stupid, and try to
>>read beyond one page. The albedo was calculated, using the equation that
>>assumes thermal balance BECAUSE THE INTEGRATED RADIANCE GIVEN ABOVE, 157 +/- 6
>>WATTS PER SQUARE METER IS WITHIN THE BOUNDS EXPECTED FOR THERMAL BALANCE,
>>150 +/- 45 AS QUOTED ABOVE.
>> So, as you can see, there was no presumption of thermal balance at all,
>>despite the million times you have quoted Taylor. Learn to read.
>
>First "...the albedo was calculated using the equatino that assumes thermal
>balance..." and then "...as you can see, there was no presumption of
>thermal balance..."
>
>What I can see, is that you are attempting to master the kind of language
>usage which George Orwell described. Orwell anticipated and feared this
>from politicians and creatures of a beaurocracy gone mad; he must not have
>known much about astronomers.
>
I even used CAPS, and he STILL can't figure it out. I have decided that
this "Holden" is actually an AI program running on an old 286 DOS machine.
The albedo is calculated from the radiance. All albedoes are always
calculated from radiances. You infer albedo from radiance. The radiance is
the original, physical quantity, which is the radiation, either at a point,
or integrated over a surface. This radiation is the direct manifestation of
temperature. Albedo is not germaine to this discussion any more, but
radiance most certainly is.
Schofield and Taylor wrote the paper in question, "Net Global Thermal
Emission from the Venusian Atmosphere", J.T. Schofield and F.W. Taylor,
Icarus vol. 52, no. 2, November 1982, pp 245-262. This is the same issue
of Icarus as at least one of the Revercomb/Suomi papers that Holden likes
to quote. Based on Pioneer Venus OIR flux measurements, they calculated
radiative transfer in the implied atmosphere model (chemical abundances,
pressure-temperature profiles, etc.) and calculated the anticipated top
of atmosphere radiances. There was no assumption of thermal balance in the
calculations. You can read the paper for yourself.
The assumption of thermal balance comes in when one decides which equation
to use to calculate the albedo. In this case, since the top-of-atmosphere
radiance derived from the PV measurements was, in fact, the radiance expected
from an atmosphere in balance, this completely justifies the use of the
equation.
Remember, that "radiance" means radiated energy. If Venus is really out of
thermal balance, then it must radiate more energy out the top of its
atmosphere than if it were (assuming it is out of balance in the positive
direction).
Schofield & Taylor derived a radiance, an energy outflow, of 157.0 +/-
6.9 Watts/square meter ("Venus" says +/- 6.0, which I presume to be a
misprint). Tomasko says that energy radiated in the range 150 +/- 45
implies that the planet is in thermal balance.
It is up to Holden to explain how a planet "wildly" out of thermal
balance, in the positive direction, could radiate just the right amount
of energy into space to look balanced.
Now, is there anybody out there besides the Holden AI program that
has trouble understanding this?
---
---------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Thompson, Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Earth & Space Sciences Division ...
Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflectance Radiometer
Board of Directors, Los Angeles Astronomical Society ...
Vice President, Mount Wilson Observatory Association ...
INTERnet/BITnet: t...@lithos.jpl.nasa.gov
NSI/DECnet: jplsc8::tim
SCREAMnet: YO!! TIM!!
GPSnet: 118:10:22.85 W by 34:11:58.27 N
==========
>Rick Russell *** rick-r...@tamu.edu ** IRCnick: Cobalt
--
Tero Sand, 2 kyu (4k*) ! Science is a process of enlarging one's
Carl J Lydick
=Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky are the only two authors of
=theories which attempt to explain the intense surface heat of Venus.
=Velikovsky claims that Venus is simply a new planet, which has not had
=time to cool; a wealth of historical evidence supports him. Sagan
=claims that the < 2% of solar energy which somehow finds its way through
=the thick CO2 clouds of Venus to the surface is forever trapped there
=and cannot re-radiate as infra-red flux and thus escape.
First of all, this shows Ted's ignorance of thermodynamics. No, Ted, the energy
is NOT "forever trapped there" and it CAN reradiate as infrared light. If 2%
or the solar energy were in fact "forever trapped," then the temperature of
Venus would be increasing, and in addition, we'd see less energy escaping from
Venus than it absorbs from the sun.
="Super-Greenhouse" REQUIRES that Venus be in thermal equilibrium.
Correct.
=The Nov. 13 1980 issue of New Scientist contained an article
=entitled "The mystery of Venus' internal heat", which read as
=follows:
=
= "Two years surveillance by the Pioneer Venus orbiter seems to
= show that Venus is radiating away more energy than it receives
= from the sun. If this surprising result is confirmed, it
= means that the planet itself is producing far more heat than
= the earth does.
Of course, Ted ignore the fact that the result was NOT confirmed.
= F.W. Taylor of the Clarendon Laboratory at Oxford presented
= these measurements at a Royal Society meeting last week.
= Venus surface temperature is higher than any other in the
= solar system, at 480 C. The generally accepted theory is that
= sunlight is absorbed at Venus' surface, and re-radiated as
= infrared. The later is absorbed in the atmosphere, which thus
= acts as a blanket, keeping the planet hot. It is similar to
= the way a greenhouse keeps warm.
No, Ted. The way a greenhouse keeps warm is by placing a barrier between the
air inside the greenhouse and the air outside the greenhouse. Thus, rather
than simply having the plants and ground inside the greenhouse give up their
heat to the air and allowing convection to immediately replace that air with
more cold air, we now also have to have the heat from the air inside the
greenhouse transmitted via conduction through the walls and roof of the
greenhouse, then transmitted to the air outside the greenhouse, where
convection replaces the heated air with ambient air. Thus the efficiency of
heat transfer is significantly reduced.
= Pioneer has shown that there is enough carbon dioxide and the
= tiny proportion of water vapor needed to make the greenhouse
= effect work -- just.
Surprise, surprise! If it weren't "just," then the temperature of Venus would
be different. Ted apparently sees the fact that greenhouse theory accurately
predicts the temperature of Venus as a failure in the theory. Amazing, isn't
he?
= If this is the whole story, the total
= amount of radiation emitted back into space, after its journey
= up through the atmospheric blanket must be exactly equal to
= that absorbed from sunlight (otherwise the surface temperature
= would be continuously changing).
Correct.
= Taylor himself has no explanation for his result. He simply
= points out that the discrepancy seemed at first to be simply
= experimental error - but with more precise measurements, it
= refused to go away. More measurements are needed before
= astronomers accept the result, and most planetary scientists
= are obviously expecting - and hoping - that the embarrassing
= extra heat will disappear on further investigation.
As it did.
=Astronomers now claim that Venus is "within error bounds of thermal
=equilibrium" and cite the noted astronomer Tomasko as a source. I will
=explain how this works momemtarily.
It works by noting that the Pioneer measurements and other measurements made at
the time when Ted apparently decided arbitrarily to decide that new
measurements weren't necessary (and could therefore be ignored) were far from
exhaustive.
= Consider then what happens as probes descend deep into the
=atmosphere of Venus towards the surface.
=
= I am looking at two articles from Icarus magazine dated 1982
=and 1985, the first by H.E. Revercomb, L.A. Sromovsky, and V.E.
=Suomi of the Space Science and Engineering Center, Univ. of
=Wisconsin at Madison, the second by the same three gentlemen along
=with R.W. Boese of NASA-Ames (Icarus 52, 279-300 and Icarus 61,
=521-538). Both of these articles involve the infra-red flux
=sensors on the Venus probes which landed in Dec. 1978, so that even
=by the time the first article was written (82), these people had
=quite awhile to think about what the probes had told them. Three
=small probes carried net flux radiometers carried externally, and
=a larger probe carried an infrared radiometer internally, which
=viewed the atmosphere through a window. All of these instruments
=measured the infrared flux of the Venereal atmosphere.
They measured the infrared intensity at various altitudes. They did not
directly measure flux. Of course, Ted chooses to ignore that fact.
= However, if the scientists lacked imagination in forcing the
=large probe data into a suitable uniformitarian, Saganesque mold,
=no such lack occurred with the data from the probes carried on the
=three small probes:
=
= "The magnitudes of the corrections for both instruments are
= determined by forcing agreement with a range of calculated net
= fluxes at one altitude deep in the atmosphere, where the net
= flux must be small because of the large density of CO2.
="Must be small" based on the known facts of uniformitarianism and
="Super-Greenhouse".
No, Ted. Whether Venus's heat comes from entirely greenhouse warming or in
part from heat generated internally by Venus, the IR has to pass through the
atmosphere. High CO2 concentrations cause enough absorption and reradiation of
IR that the flux must be small, REGARDLESS OF THE SOURCE OF THE IR.
=Members of what I call the t.o "crew" have always tried to argue that
=infrared light simply cannot penetrate thick CO2 clouds, period.
Er, Ted? There's no such thing as "CO2 clouds" at the temperatures and
pressures we're talking about here. CO2 exists neither as a liquid nor as a
solid at those temperatures and pressures. Only as a gas. No liquid or solid
CO2, no CO2 clouds.
=The astronomers and others are citing Tomasko's article on pages
=611 - 612 of THE BOOK (VENUS, Hunten, Colin, Donahue, Moroz, Univ. of
=Arizona Press, 1983). This monstrosity is a size-equivalent to
=War & Peace, GWTW, and the Bible, and costs $80 in North America. They
=aren't making it on volume... One notes also that they clearly intend
=that ordinary hoodlums (such as myself) should not have access to the
=book; it turns out, this could cause some embarassment to the
=astronomers.
Ted's apparently never heard of a library.
=Now, the Pioneer Venus readings on albedo (Taylor's article, page 658)
=was .80 plus/minus .02. The one other recent value noted in THE BOOK
=was also .80. Other values which certain members of the t.o crew claim
=need to be averaged in include values derived from an assumption of
=thermal balance, the very thing they are trying to demonstrate, and one
=value derived by extrapolating an average of very old visual spectrum
=values to a total value. Nobody claims they're smart...
Ted's apparently under the impression that Pioneer included instruments to make
detailed measurements at a huge number of frequencies across the entire EM
spectrum. It didn't.
=That, of course (the little thing about "awesome" volcanic activity), is
=more or less what Magellan tells us.
Not at all. Ted's grossly exaggerating the vulcanism of Venus.
= "A more acceptable alternative is that the preliminary estimate of 0.80
= +- .02 for the albedo from the PV measurements is too high, since the
= uncertainty limit is now known from further work to be too conservative
= (J. V. Martinchik, personal communication). A fuller analysis of PV
= albedo data - still the best in terms of wave length, spatial and phase
= coverage, and radiometric precision, which is likely to be obtained for
= the forseeable future, is likely to resolve this puzzle. In conclusion
= then, the best thermal measurements of Venus, with the assumption of
= global energy balance, yeild a value of the albedo of 0.76 +- .01;
= this is the most probable value."
Again, Ted's insisting on citing a hopelessly outdated source. Understandable,
since if he were to cite a more recent source, his claims would be untenable.
=Taylor is saying that the best measurements available tell us that
=thermal balance is not to be had on Venus, and that Sagan and his super
=greenhouse theory are FUBAR, but that that can't really be, that he and
=others are probably, hopefully looking at something the wrong way, but
=he doesn't know what that something is.
Please note that the "best measurements available" on which Ted basis his
entire argument were those of Pioneer Venus, and those measurements are from a
couple of decades ago. The most recent article Ted cites was published more
than a decade ago.
In other words, Ted's attitude is reminiscent of religious fanatics the world
over: Once you've found a text that appears to confirm your prejudices, demand
that that text be the end-all of the field; never consider any new data. After
all, since the book was published, it must contain everything you'd ever need
to know about the subject, and must be 100% correct, right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Rick Russell
+I find this counter-argument unsatisfying, because while Mr. Lydick
+repeatedly makes the claim that new data will support the expected
+answer of simple solar-only thermal balance (without Venus as a heat
+source), he does not present any data (or even any names of
+investigators) which support his claim. The age of the cited sources
+does not automatically imply that they are wrong, unless there is some
+more complete or more modern data to counter them.
True to the nature of the net, Drew Davis (dr...@cc.gatech.edu) was
kind enough to send me plenty of data and old posts demonstrating that
errors in the measurement of the albedo of Venus (among other things)
are quite large enough to account for the apparent discrepancies in
thermal calculations.
Thanks
Bruce Scott TK
>I assume you have never seen my primary article on this topic. There is
>no real debating this topic; all emperical data say that Venus is badly
>out of thermal equalibrium.
>For your reading enjoyment:
[...]
And by now we should have seen Holden's credibility drop to zero. Thanks to
Lydick and Sand (via Thompson) for posting details I didn't have. One is
reassured once more in the integrity of the people who actually do these
experiments.
By the way, one comment. The upper atmosphere of Venus rotates extremely
fast, in four days with a speed of about 100 m/s. Since this is an appreciable
fraction of the sound speed, one notes that the driving and dissipation
mechanisms for this flow should be taken into account when doing energy budgets
for the upper atmosphere and looking for small discrepancies. See Lewis and
Prinn, _Planets and their Atmospheres_, pp 134-140.
Ted Holden
> On page 658 of "Venus", Taylor et al. describe the quality of
>the Pioneer Venus (PV) data as "still the best, in terms of
>wavelength, spatial and phase coverage, and radiometric precision,
>which is likely to be obtained for the foreseeable future". On the
>strength of this statement, Mr. Holden believes that all other
>previous data regarding the albedo and thermal balance of Venus
>should be ignored.
I have noted particularly that albedo values derived from thermal
readings VIA an assumption of thermal balance, as described by Taylor on
page 658 of VENUS, must not be averaged with the observed albedo (from
radiometer readings) in an attempt to find an average which is closer to
the .76 value required for thermal balance than the actual .80 reading.
Doing that quite literally amounts to lying with figures.
> However; I will now proceed to do as Mr. Holden suggests.
>I will consider only the PV data, and show that these data
>neither require, nor imply, that Venus is not in net radiative
>balance with the sun.
i.e. you know more about this topic than F.W. Taylor, who states the
opposite conclusion on page 658 of VENUS...
> In order to do this, I must present some equations as definitions
[equations omitted as irrelevant]
> Schofield et al., 1982, used the PV data to evaluate the integrals
AS Taylor notes on page 658, Schofield derived a value of .76 BY ASSUMING
THERMAL BALANCE, and by using an equation which is derived from that
assumption.
> Since equation (1) returns a temperature, and equation (2)
>returns an albedo, one of those numbers has to be expressed in
>terms of the other, in order to compare results.
Remember Thunderball? Remember James Bond noting that the skeet gun
which somebody had handed to him was a woman's gun and, asked if he was
much of an expert on shotguns replied something like "No, but I know a
lot about women..." Here, we have a similar case; being able to read
scientific articles like the ones which Thompson is failing so miserably
at dealing with here begins with simply being able to read.
The .76 albedo value which Schofield derived is the same value noted as
that which an actual albedo must match up with (Tomasko), but does not.
As I have observed, trying to use that very same value in any way to
argue against the obvious conclusion which taylor notes from the
discrepancy between that value (.76) and the observed albedo of .80, i.e.
to try to average the .76 value WITH the .80 value as Thompson would have
us do, is entirely dishonest.
Again, most people learn how to read before they learn how to do
equations; Thompson seems to be something of an exception. I would
suggest he correct the deficiency as rapidly as possible.
Maurizio MORABITO; Tel.6661
-:Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky are the only two authors of
-:theories which attempt to explain the intense surface heat of Venus.
-:Velikovsky claims that Venus is simply a new planet, which has not had
-:time to cool; a wealth of historical evidence supports him. Sagan
-:claims that the < 2% of solar energy which somehow finds its way through
-:the thick CO2 clouds of Venus to the surface is forever trapped there
-:and cannot re-radiate as infra-red flux and thus escape. This he claims
-:causes the intense heat; he even manages to keep a straight face.
-:
-:"Super-Greenhouse" REQUIRES that Venus be in thermal equilibrium. Either
-:thermal balance pertains on Venus, in which case Sagan is right, or it
-:doesn't and Velikovsky is correct. There is no third possibility.
-:
-:
I am sorry, Sir, but this last phrase is ridiculous. Be careful, this is
not exactly the best way to be seriously considered.
maurizio
Carl J Lydick
=ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
=
=>In article <medved.770140569@access1>, med...@access1.digex.net (Ted Holden) writes:
=>=Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky are the only two authors of
=>=theories which attempt to explain the intense surface heat of Venus.
=>=Velikovsky claims that Venus is simply a new planet, which has not had
=>=time to cool; a wealth of historical evidence supports him. Sagan
=>=claims that the < 2% of solar energy which somehow finds its way through
=>=the thick CO2 clouds of Venus to the surface is forever trapped there
=>=and cannot re-radiate as infra-red flux and thus escape.
=
=>First of all, this shows Ted's ignorance of thermodynamics. No, Ted, the energy
=>is NOT "forever trapped there" and it CAN reradiate as infrared light. If 2%
=>or the solar energy were in fact "forever trapped," then the temperature of
=>Venus would be increasing, and in addition, we'd see less energy escaping from
=>Venus than it absorbs from the sun.
=
=I agree with your observation but not with your conclusion, i.e. you have
=not demonstrated how ignorant I am, but rather how ignorant Carl Sagan
=is...
Perhaps you'd care to cite Sagan's actual statements on the subject? Thus far,
all we've got is your interpretation of his statements, and since you didn't
seem to see anything wrong with the scenario as you stated it, I argue that
that demonstrates your cluelessness.
=I never professed to believe in such a system. As you note, the
=requirements of "super-greenhouse" are opposite to what is actually found.
What? I never noted any such thing. Really, Ted, get your head out of your
ass ane learn at least a LITTLE bit of the physics of the situation.
Ted Holden
>In article <medved.770140569@access1>, med...@access1.digex.net (Ted Holden) writes:
>=Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky are the only two authors of
>=theories which attempt to explain the intense surface heat of Venus.
>=Velikovsky claims that Venus is simply a new planet, which has not had
>=time to cool; a wealth of historical evidence supports him. Sagan
>=claims that the < 2% of solar energy which somehow finds its way through
>=the thick CO2 clouds of Venus to the surface is forever trapped there
>=and cannot re-radiate as infra-red flux and thus escape.
>First of all, this shows Ted's ignorance of thermodynamics. No, Ted, the energy
>is NOT "forever trapped there" and it CAN reradiate as infrared light. If 2%
>or the solar energy were in fact "forever trapped," then the temperature of
>Venus would be increasing, and in addition, we'd see less energy escaping from
>Venus than it absorbs from the sun.
I agree with your observation but not with your conclusion, i.e. you have
not demonstrated how ignorant I am, but rather how ignorant Carl Sagan
is... I never professed to believe in such a system. As you note, the
Tedd Hadley
>I assume you have never seen my primary article on this topic. There is
>no real debating this topic; all emperical data say that Venus is badly
>out of thermal equalibrium.
>For your reading enjoyment:
>.....................................
I've read your article the last few times you've posted it but
I still don't see you addressing the Schofield 1982 bolometric flux
calculation. Wasn't that value derived independently of albedos
or equilibrium assumptions, demonstrating thermal balance solely
from observed thermal emission? It also sounds to me like it's a more
reliable result, given the emission spectrum and line absorption
assumptions that supposedly must be made in order to calculate the
albedo. I may be confused, of course, this not being my area -
corrections welcome.
++
Tedd Hadley (had...@uci.edu)
Ted Holden
>In article 769837364@access1, med...@access1.digex.net (Ted Holden) writes:
>>
>>Bullshit. Venus' atmosphere, as I have clearly demonstrated, using the best
>>measurements available to us, is massively out of thermal balance. Check
>>page 658 of VENUS, Hunten/Colin/Donahue/Moroz, Univ. of Arizona Press,
>>1983, ISBN 0-8165-0788-0 for F.W. Taylor's explaination of PV data bearing
>>on thermal imbalance on Venus.
>>
> Speaking of Taurian Excretions, have you got a long-term memory problem?
>As I said before, and as is spelled out ever so clearly in the relevant
>papers in ICARUS, both of the probe designs suffered from design flaws.
>One allowed Cytheran atmosphere gases to enter the probe and contact the
>radiometer, producing an uncorrectable error. The other suffered from a
>field-of-view problem, which means that it measured radiance from the sky
>and ground,
You were there (on Venus) and saw this happen, right?? You're saying
that the people involved were able to get a space-craft to Venus, but
failed in four tries to manufacture something as simple as an infrared
flux-meter, right? Field-of-view really effects an infrared flux-meter,
which measures upward/downward flux, right?
Mooooooooo - plop - plop - plop - moooooOOooooooooooooo
Tero Sand
Ted Holden <med...@access1.digex.net> wrote:
>t...@scn1.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Thompson) writes:
>>[flaws in instruments]
>
>You were there (on Venus) and saw this happen, right?? You're saying
>that the people involved were able to get a space-craft to Venus, but
>failed in four tries to manufacture something as simple as an infrared
>flux-meter, right? Field-of-view really effects an infrared flux-meter,
>which measures upward/downward flux, right?
>
>Mooooooooo - plop - plop - plop - moooooOOooooooooooooo
>
Creativity is a good thing, but creative editing most definitely is not.
The following line is from the message you're responding to:
Both of these flaws were seen in the laboratory with clone devices.
Now please grab your ears with both hands and pull your head out of your
ass. Thank you.
Tero Sand
In article <2sabf0...@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
Bruce Scott TK <b...@slcbdsipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
>And by now we should have seen Holden's credibility drop to zero. Thanks to
>Lydick and Sand (via Thompson) for posting details I didn't have.
[cut]
Correction: Thompson via Sand. I.e. Thompson wrote it, I just [re]posted
it.
>Dr Bruce Scott The deadliest bullshit is
Ted Holden
> I've read your article the last few times you've posted it but
> I still don't see you addressing the Schofield 1982 bolometric flux
> calculation. Wasn't that value derived independently of albedos
> or equilibrium assumptions, demonstrating thermal balance solely
> from observed thermal emission? It also sounds to me like it's a more
> reliable result, given the emission spectrum and line absorption
> assumptions that supposedly must be made in order to calculate the
> albedo. I may be confused, of course, this not being my area -
> corrections welcome.
Taylor addresses the Schofield value on page 658 of "Venus" Hunten/Colin/
Donahue/Moroz, 1983, Univ. of Ariz. Press. isbn 0-8165-0788-0. As Taylor
notes, the .76 value which Schofield derived is taken from an equation
which arises via an assumption of thermal balance. The fact that that value
does not line up with the .80 observed albedo IS the entire problem.
When Tomasko says that the albedo MUST BE .76 for balance to pertain, he
is using the Schofield result as a source. The logic should be fairly
obvious. If thermal balance did pertain, then observed albedo and any
albedo derived from the equation relating temperature and albedo should
line up. They don't.
Tim Thompson, on the other hand, wishes to simply force an alignment by
averaging the .76 value WITH the observed value of .80. That makes life
pretty easy for him, I guess...
Tedd Hadley
>had...@vlsi.ics.uci.edu (Tedd Hadley) writes:
>> I've read your article the last few times you've posted it but
>> I still don't see you addressing the Schofield 1982 bolometric flux
>> calculation.
>Taylor addresses the Schofield value on page 658 of "Venus" Hunten/Colin/
>Donahue/Moroz, 1983, Univ. of Ariz. Press. isbn 0-8165-0788-0. As Taylor
>notes, the .76 value which Schofield derived is taken from an equation
>which arises via an assumption of thermal balance.
No, I think .76 was an albedo calculation. I'm talking about the
bolometric flux calculation 157.0 +/- 6.0 W/m2 which was within the
range for net radiative balance (150 +/- 45 W/m2), according to Tomasko.
Unless I'm mistaken, this value was derived _only_ from thermal
emission (i.e. nothing to do with albedos, no equilibrium assumptions)
and should be judged on it's own merit because it implies thermal balance
(something your article is attempting to disprove). That is my
understanding from Tim Thompson's article.
++
Tedd Hadley (had...@uci.edu)
Ted Holden
> No, I think .76 was an albedo calculation. I'm talking about the
> bolometric flux calculation 157.0 +/- 6.0 W/m2 which was within the
> range for net radiative balance (150 +/- 45 W/m2), according to Tomasko.
> Unless I'm mistaken, this value was derived _only_ from thermal
> emission (i.e. nothing to do with albedos, no equilibrium assumptions)
> and should be judged on it's own merit because it implies thermal balance
> (something your article is attempting to disprove). That is my
> understanding from Tim Thompson's article.
The question of thermal balance hangs on the equality of direct
measurements of albedo with albedo values derived from thermal
measurements via assuming thermal balance.
Taylor's description of the entire situation (pages 657-658 ) is utterly
clear:
"The Pioneer Venus infrared radiometer had a .4 - 4.0 micrometer channel,
calibrated by a lamp, from which Tomasko et. al. (1980b) obtained a
preliminary albedo for Venus of .80 +1 .02. Another approach is simply
to assume that the atmosphere is in net radiative balance, whence the
equation <... equation given ...> should apply... In this way a value
of .79 +.02 - .01 has been obtained from Venera radiometry (Ksanfomality
1977 1980b) and of .76 +1 .006 from Pioneer Venus emission measurements
(Schofield et. al. 1982)... Clearly, the Pioneer measurements of
emission and reflection are not consistent with eachother if net
radiative balance applies... A source inside Venus equal in magnitude to
20% of the solar input (i.e. accounting for the difference between A =
.76 and .80) is very unlikely since Venus is thought to have an
Earth-like makeup.... A fuller analysis of the PV albedo data -- still
the best, in terms of wavelength, spatial, and phase coverage and
radiometric precision, which is likely to be obtained for the forseeable
future - is likely to resolve this puzzle."
Taylor is a world expert, and has honestly and openly stated the
problem. Thompson is claiming that there is no problem, that all we need
to do is average the .76 value derived from assuming thermal balance, and
the problem vanishes. For good measure, he would also have you average
in a number of very old values going back to the 1800's, all in the
visible spectrum, which have been extrapolated to all spectrum values,
kind of like averaging distances from medieval maps in with those taken
by modern methods...
I am somewhat gratified to see that a certain Dr. Scott from the Max
Planck Institute has joined in with Thompson; I'd hate to think that
idiots in high places were a problem peculiar to my own country...
Antony A. Stark
and by different instruments differ by only 2 sigma? That's really
good agreement! ( 0.80 +- 0.2 vs. 0.76) Even if the errors are well-behaved
and the instrumentation totally free of systematic effects, the probability
of this happening entirely by chance is around 2 percent. In real
experiments, however, it takes skill and many repetitions of the experiment
to get it free of flaws. So an agreement this close, on a one-off
spacecraft experiment is actually remarkably good agreement, but to nail it down
needs follow-up experiments. These apparently do show that the numbers
agree with greater accuracy.
Further, it is important to stress the point made by Carl Lydick, that
regardless of which theory is right, each individual layer of the
atmosphere must be nearly in thermal equilibrium, since neither theory
involves heat sources or sinks in the atmosphere. Even if Venus is
young the net cooling of the atmosphere over millenia will not cause
an observable lack of thermal balance.
Tony Stark
Andrew MacRae
..
>
> "Clearly, the Pioneer measurements of emission and reflection are not
> consistent with eachother if radiative balance applies. A source
> inside Venus equal in magnitude to 20% of the solar input (i.e.
> accounting for the difference between A = 0.76 and 0.80 is very
> unlikely since Venus is thought to have an Earth-like makeup which
> would imply heat sources several orders of magnitude less than this.
> Also, even if such sources were postulated, it is difficult to
> construct a model in which these fairly large amounts of heat can be
> transported from the core to the atmosphere via a rocky crust without
> the later becoming sufficiently plastic to collapse the observed
> surface relief. This could only be avoided if the transport were
> very
> localized, i.e., via a relatively small number of giant volcanoes.
> Although large, fresh-looking volcanoes do appear to exist on Venus
> (see chapter 6), and the content of the atmosphere is consistent with
> vigorous output from these, a simple comparison with terrestrial
> volcanism shows that the volcanic activity on Venus would have to be
> on an awesome scale to account for the missing 10^15 W or so of
> power."
>
>
> That, of course (the little thing about "awesome" volcanic activity), is
> more or less what Magellan tells us.
Ted, it has been previously pointed out, with references, that
this is _not_ what Magellan tells us. Please stop misrepresenting the
literature, and at least acknowledge that the current interpretation of
the surface of Venus, as observed by the Magellan probe, indicates there
_was_ massive volcanism at a planetary scale, but currently there is not,
and it appears tectonically less active than the Earth. You can not be
faulted for having your own opinions and interpretations, but you _can_ be
faulted for misrepresenting what is said about the geology of Venus by
others, _unless_ you want to interpret the _raw_ data yourself - e.g.,
find an image of a currently active huge volcano, or demonstrate there is
something wrong with the gravity results. Magellan images for much of the
planet are available on the Internet via anonymous FTP, or in current
literature (There is a Journal of Geophysical Research special volume on
the Magellan dataset, for example). Point to what is wrong with the
interpretations. If not, then you are stuck with accepting the current
literature.
Current interpretations are almost diametrically opposed to what
you have implied. Even the quote you provide (which predates the Magellan
data) indicates some of the problems with the model you are proposing
(specifically, collapsing the topography, and/or big enough localized
sources (volcanoes) that they should be blatently obvious, but are not
observed).
-Andrew
mac...@pandora.geo.ucalgary.ca
or: mac...@geo.ucalgary.ca
Thomas Kettenring
>In article <medved.770140569@access1> med...@access1.digex.net (Ted Holden) writes:
>>"Super-Greenhouse" REQUIRES that Venus be in thermal equilibrium. Either
>>thermal balance pertains on Venus, in which case Sagan is right, or it
>>doesn't and Velikovsky is correct. There is no third possibility.
>
>Excellent posting, I'm looking forward to opposing opinions.
>
>But there is a third possibility. They could both be wrong. There are
>always things that no one has thought of. We should all bear this in mind
>and not limit ourselves to our presuppositions.
Look! Even Ted's fans see some of his silliest mistakes.
--
thomas kettenring, 3 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
It's my only line. -- Carol Cleveland
Owen M. Hartnett
>In article <1994May28.1...@cs.brown.edu>, o...@cs.brown.edu (Owen M. Hartnett) writes:
>>In article <medved.770140569@access1> med...@access1.digex.net (Ted Holden) writes:
>>>"Super-Greenhouse" REQUIRES that Venus be in thermal equilibrium. Either
>>>thermal balance pertains on Venus, in which case Sagan is right, or it
>>>doesn't and Velikovsky is correct. There is no third possibility.
>>
>>Excellent posting, I'm looking forward to opposing opinions.
>>
>>But there is a third possibility. They could both be wrong. There are
>>always things that no one has thought of. We should all bear this in mind
>>and not limit ourselves to our presuppositions.
>
>Look! Even Ted's fans see some of his silliest mistakes.
It isn't just Ted who makes this mistake.