The Nature of Venus' Heat [The Velikovskian]
... From: The Velikovskian Vol 1 No 3 (1993)
The Nature of Venus' Heat, Charles Ginenthal
_Ever since 1956, when the American team of radio astronomers from the U.S. Naval Research laboratory, headed by Cornell H. Meyer, discovered that "the surface of Venus is hot --far hotter than anyone had previously imagined," (1) (Emphasis added.) which fits Immanuel Velikovsky's hypothesis that Venus was a newborn planet in the early cool-down stages of its development, the scientific community --and, in particular, the astronomers --sought a non-Velikovskian, non-catastrophist explanation for this surprising finding. It was and still is unthinkable to these upholders of a stable solar system that Venus could be a recently born, newly acquired member of the solar system's family. Ultimately, the only other explanation for the planet's high temperature was the hypothesis that Venus was in the grip of a runaway greenhouse effect. The early greenhouse model was promoted by Carl Sagan in 1960 and 1962. (2)
_In 1970, S. I. Rasool and C. de Bergh added the "runaway" aspect to the model. (3) Thus, the runaway greenhouse theory was born and was expected to explain the high temperature of Venus by straightforward uniformitarian processes. This model worked its way into both scientific thought and nearly every astronomy textbook, becoming the only other theory about Venus' high temperature besides the catastrophist model presented by Velikovsky, in spite of the fact that 20 years after the runaway greenhouse model was proposed, Werhner von Braun openly admitted that "scientists would like to be sure that the greenhouse effect is indeed the cause of the hot surface and lower atmosphere [of Venus. So far it is only a theory not yet proven by experiment." (4)
_In the ensuing years, Soviet and American space probes to Venus measured and collected evidence which has been used by greenhouse advocates to show that Venus is heated by a runaway greenhouse effect and that Velikovsky and his followers are gravely mistaken to have imagined otherwise regarding its high thermal emission. Nevertheless, with respect to Venus' high temperature, I will show that the evidence clearly contradicts the runaway greenhouse theory and is fully congruent with Velikovsky's concept that Venus is a newborn planet still shedding its primordial heat. I will show that, on many levels, evidence investigated and proposed as supportive by the greenhouse advocates is, at best, extremely weak and often contradicts the underlying assumptions. The runaway greenhouse model is, fundamentally, in direct opposition to physics, observations, measurements and the historical theory of planetary formation, which is one of the cornerstones of science's uniformitarian thinking. The reader will be able to understand how impoverished the claimed evidence for the runaway greenhouse theory is, how deeply flawed the case for the runaway greenhouse mechanism is, upon examination, and how it, in effect, strengthens Velikovsky's theory: that Venus' heat is derived from its interior.
_THE ORIGIN OF VENUS' GREENHOUSE
_A scientific theory that purports to explain Venus' high temperature must also explain how and why the process began. David Morrison and Tobias Owen explain the origin of Venus' runaway greenhouse: The runaway greenhouse is a process through which a planet can fundamentally alter the state of its surface and atmosphere. Imagine what would happen if we could move the Earth into the orbit of Venus. Our planet would suddenly be closer to the Sun at 72% of its present distance. Sunlight would [deliver about twice as much energy to every square meter of the Earth's surface. Most of the Earth is covered by oceans, so the immediate result would be an increase in [their temperatures....The increase in temperature would lead to increased evaporation. More water vapor would be present in the atmosphere, which would trap more infrared radiation from the Earth's surface. In other words, we would have increased the greenhouse effect. This, in turn, leads to a further increase in the planet's surface temperature, resulting in more evaporation of water and a continuation of the cycle. We have established a positive feedback loop, in which the initial disturbance --increasing the Earth's surface temperature --produces consequences which lead to an enhancement of that disturbance! The cycle continues until the oceans literally boil away and all water is converted to vapor, [producing an exceedingly hot atmosphere. This is the runaway greenhouse effect. (5)
_This is the concept that must stand up to the evidence. What Morrison and Owen have omitted from their discussion is the nature of stellar evolution. They have analyzed the behavior of ancient Venus in its early evolution by invoking the present heat of the Sun upon Venus. Venus must be analyzed with respect to the Sun as the Sun actually existed in its early evolutionary development. Once done, an entirely different picture emerges with respect to this process. Zdenek Kopal makes this clear: The entire argument defended by some planetologists [regarding the origin of the greenhouse effect contains one fatal flaw --an implicit assumption that, in the early days of the solar system, the youthful Sun was as bright as it is now. Actually, as a zero-age [new Main Sequence star, our Sun should have been approximately 40% less luminous than we see it today and its surface temperature 10% lower. Venus is 28% closer to the Sun than [the Earth is and any element of its surface receives almost twice as much heat as we do on the Earth. Even so, the early climactic conditions on Venus could not have been much warmer than they are in the terrestrial tropics today, and, had there once been oceans on Venus, very little of their waters could have evaporated. Therefore, we are back where we started. (6)
_The greenhouse theorists are well aware of this problem. What is their explanation? James B. Pollack, Sagan's former pupil and, later, collaborator says: Over the age of the solar system...the Sun's total luminosity...increases by several tens of percent --a long-term trend that would have induced dramatic changes in the climates of the terrestrial planets.... [This suggests that Venus' surface temperature was just on the borderline of not being in a runaway state in the early solar system, when the Sun's total energy output was [25% to 30% less than it is today. The likelihood that Venus had oceans in its early history, (albeit) hot ones, improves further when the possible effect of water clouds are considered. Clouds reflect sunlight back to space better than they trap thermal radiation, so early Venus may have experienced a "moist" greenhouse (hot oceans) rather than a runaway greenhouse (no oceans) [vaporized oceans. (7) (Emphasis added.)
_The reader will notice two things: Pollack says the Sun's temperature was "several tens of percent" cooler than at present, but uses figures of 25% to 30% less than present, while Kopal uses 40% less luminosity. Pollack also admits that clouds would tend to cool Venus, but, on page 101 of his book, tells us that his analysis was based on Venus having "cloudless skies." Thus, with cloud cover over Venus, its temperature would be even cooler than Pollack has computed. It would be below the threshold of a "moist" greenhouse. Significantly, his statement that "early Venus may have experienced a `moist' greenhouse" is tantamount to an admission that it may not have had a moist greenhouse. James E. Oberg tells us that Pollack does not believe Venus had an early, runaway greenhouse effect. He states that, "[ according to Dr. James Pollack, any guesses about the early climate of Venus depend strongly on what kind of atmosphere the planet possessed." ( 8 )
_Taking into account the 30% lower solar brightness, computations show that a reasonable atmosphere on Venus would have led to "` quite moderate temperatures' for more than a billion years ...." (9) This means that Venus had a moderate climate for a billion years or more and then started its runaway greenhouse effect. Let us, nevertheless, allow the assumption that the Sun, in its early history or thereafter, was just sufficiently hot so as to generate a greenhouse effect on Venus. What must follow? Morrison and Owen explain: At this point, the atmosphere is so hot that water vapor can easily rise to great heights, where it becomes exposed to solar ultraviolet light. This is a crucial step. On Earth, water is protected by the natural cold trap in the atmosphere. The air at the top of the troposphere is so cold that water cannot diffuse upward to levels where it could be attacked by ultraviolet light. A runaway greenhouse can raise the temperature throughout the lower atmosphere, giving water free access to high altitudes. Because of the large mass of Venus, only the light hydrogen atoms escape into space. The oxygen remains behind to combine with rocks on the planet's surface and with other gases that have been produced by the intense heating. The runaway greenhouse leads to elimination of water from the planet in a perfectly natural way....Quantitative studies of this phenomenon indicate that water simply cannot remain on the surface of a planet at [Venus' distance from the Sun. (10)
_The escape of hydrogen from the H 2 O molecule into space is fundamental to all concepts for the removal of water from Venus' atmosphere. Thomas M. Donahue and James B. Pollack state this explicitly: "A common feature of all...[water loss mechanisms is the implicit requirement that molecular hydrogen readily escape. Otherwise, they would be incompatible with the trace amount of molecular hydrogen that characterizes Venus' current atmosphere of, at most, 10 ppm v/v." (11) The problem of ridding Venus of its photodissociated hydrogen is far from simple, due to the cold nature of Venus' exosphere. An exosphere is the upper region of an atmosphere which has become so thin that atoms and molecules rarely, if ever, collide. From here, hydrogen must escape from Venus into space. Sagan explains that, "[ if the exosphere temperature is very high, then the rate of escape of a planetary atmosphere would be very high." (12)
_What happens to molecules in an extremely cold atmosphere? On Earth, the temperature of the exosphere is between 950 K [degrees Kelvin to 1,050 K, while the exosphere of Venus is about 285 K, or 665 K cooler. On Earth, the temperature of the upper atmosphere becomes hot; part of this region is called a thermosphere, or hot atmosphere; however, on Venus, the temperature of the upper atmosphere falls with altitude and is thus called a cryosphere, or cold atmosphere. William K. Hartmann states: The H 2 O [water is too heavy to escape thermally in the lifetime of the solar system. Thermal escape of H [hydrogen produced by photodissociation of the H 2 O was thought to have caused the loss of H 2 O from Venus. However, Pioneer discovered the [285 K exosphere temperature and calculations show that the [hydrogen escape time from such an exosphere is 20 Gy [20 giga, or billion, years. So how could H, and, hence, H 2 O, have been depleted? If the exosphere had once been heated to 1,000 K or so, the [hydrogen escape time could be brought to a tiny fraction of the age of the solar system. In any case, Pioneer scientists (Stewart A. [et al, 1979 "Ultraviolet Spectroscopy of Venus: Initial Results from the Pioneer Venus Orbiter," Science 203, p. 777) concluded, "If Venus ever possessed a large amount of water, it cannot have lost it by escape mechanisms known to be operating now." (13)
_The results, when more fully analyzed, showed that the hydrogen loss rate is presently only about 10 7 H cm -2s-1 (ten million hydrogen molecules per one hundredth of a centimeter per second squared). (14) "At this rate," Donahue and Pollack explain, "only...[about 9 meters [30 feet of water could be eliminated from Venus over its lifetime." (15) In order to generate a greenhouse effect on a body as large as Venus, it becomes apparent that a great amount of water, or of some other material, must be vaporized in its atmosphere to create a greenhouse powerful enough to literally cook the planet's carbon dioxide out of its surface rock. But Pollack has also told us that the early solar radiation would, if Venus had an ocean, produce only a moist greenhouse, or a very moderate one at best. Thirty feet, or so, of water on Venus will produce thousands of lakes similar to those on the Earth. Most of Venus' surface would be land and the moist or moderate greenhouse that Pollack proposes under these conditions means no greenhouse, because Venus had no oceans. The nightside of the planet's land surface would quickly cool and the lost heat derived from the dayside by convection would keep the planet cool, so that no runaway greenhouse could get started. In the same way that Pollack assumed that the Sun must be just sufficiently hot on ancient Venus so as to start the greenhouse mechanism, he and the other advocates of this heat phenomenon must also assume that the escape rate of hydrogen from Venus in the early solar system was immensely greater than at present. This is stated by Pollack: "[ It will be assumed that hydrogen can readily escape to space, although, as we have seen, this remains to be demonstrated." (16) (Emphasis added.)
_Furthermore, one cannot remove the remaining water of an ocean by having it form hydrate compounds with surface materials. Under such circumstances over time, the water would be recycled volcanically back into Venus' atmosphere. So far, two assumptions have been put forth to establish the credibility of the origin of the greenhouse effect. The first assumption posits that the Sun was just hot enough to heat Venus' oceans. The second assumption posits that an escape mechanism, shown by the data to contradict the hydrogen removal processes for escape into space, is wrong. What must be pointed out is that a newborn planet would be born with little or no water. Zdenek Kopal makes this clear: "We are fairly sure that the newly-formed Earth contained no water on its surface. It was born dry and its oceans have since been exuded from the interior by thermal `cracking' [heat removal of water of the hydrates [water-bearing minerals." (17) Absolutely no assumption must be made regarding the lack of water in newborn Venus' atmosphere. If Venus is a newborn planet, as Velikovsky claimed, its lack of water is completely in harmony with its present waterless condition.
_The other problem related to the photodissociation of water and the escape of hydrogen is, Where did the residual oxygen go that cannot escape into space? After an entire planet's ocean rose into the upper regions of Venus' atmosphere and was dissociated by ultraviolet light from which hydrogen escaped, the planet was left with a lot of oxygen. Morrison and Owen have informed us that "[ the oxygen remained behind to combine with the rocks on the planet's surface." (18) Billy P. Glass addresses the same question, asking, "[ Where is the oxygen? Pioneer Venus probes only detected 70 ppm [parts per million oxygen in the lower atmosphere. Some of the oxygen to account for a vanished `ocean' of water would require that several kilometers of rock be oxidized. This would require an extremely geologically active planet." (19) Most scientists are skeptical that early Venus had, for its first billion years of existence, immense volcanic activity. On the Earth, it took an exceedingly long time before enough water was vented volcanically from the interior prior to ocean formation. The same is also expected for Venus. In this respect, Venus would have had to exude its water vapor more rapidly and much earlier than the Earth, so as to allow its oxygen to unite with molten surface material. In fact, there is no such scenario to suggest that, after the Earth formed oceans on its surface, the crust --for some inexplicable reason --began to ooze giant flows of lava. Hence, this is also a problem needing explanation.
_Barrie William Jones deals with this question, saying that oxygen would not escape to space in appreciable quantities, and so [the combination [of oxygen with surface materials provides the only repository. However, it is difficult to believe that sufficient quantities of suitable substances could have appeared at the cytherean [Venusian surface to mop up anywhere near the amount of water. Indeed, chemical evidence from the sulfur-bearing gases in the lower atmosphere of Venus...indicate that the surface rock today does not contain the maximum amount of oxygen possible. (20) The germane question is, How much crustal rock material must be exuded as molten lava to mop up the residual oxygen of a planet's oceans? What must be emphasized is that this turning over of Venus' surface crustal material had to occur over a billion years or more after the planet cooled and its crust had become solid. According to Oberg, "Pollack suggests that `runaway conditions were not reached on Venus until halfway through its history.'" (21) J. Kelly Beatty tells us that to remove all of Venus' atmospheric oxygen, as suggested, requires no less than "remnant oxygen combined [with materials to a depth of perhaps 450 kilometers" (22) [279 miles. Such a depth of volcanic turnover is simply not believable. It would require that, after Venus formed a crust like that of the early Earth and outgassed an ocean of water, the entire crust and mantle remelted to a depth of 280 miles, or 451 kilometers. But even at a depth of 100 miles, or 161 kilometers, of melt, there is no geological method presently known that would remelt the entire surface of a planet that much, particularly that of a planet believed to have a similar, early geological history as that of the Earth. What is required is based on a uniformitarian geology that is impossible. The entire concept lacks support.
_James Oberg deals with a similar problem --getting rid of all the oxygen in Venus' present atmosphere --and concludes that this concept simply will not work: Imagine that all the carbon dioxide [CO 2 could be converted, in the wink of an eye, into free oxygen and carbon soot [as Morrison, Owen and others suggest happened to H 2 O on ancient Venus. Now, instead of 90 bars of carbon dioxide, we have only 60 bars of free oxygen, still three hundred times as much as on Earth. To get rid of it, we may try to lock it up in surface rocks (the hotter the rocks, the faster the reaction); but calculations show that the mass of rock needed to absorb that excess mass of oxygen (assuming even that the rock was not already partially or, even, predominantly oxidized) would cover the planet to a depth of 100 kilometers [62 miles or more. That means that the top 100 kilometers of the surface of the entire planet would have to be gardened [turned over or selectively exposed to air so as to absorb the oxygen. On Earth, this process is accomplished by water erosion of mountains raised by tectonism over eons of geologic time. Something different would be needed on Venus. (23) To remove an ocean's oxygen content from Venus by ordinary volcanic processes would take much longer than the lifetime of the solar system. There is no uniformitarian process by which to rid Venus of an ocean! Without water turned to stupendously hot vapor, how does one cook the carbon dioxide which had formed carbonates out of the Venusian crust?!
_Some greenhouse advocates claim that the heating of Venus' crust and mantle to a great depth would, nevertheless, release an enormous amount of carbon monoxide. If the oxygen in the atmosphere united with this additional carbon monoxide as well as with surface materials, it would generate much of the carbon dioxide presently found on Venus. However, Beatty explains that "[ excess oxygen probably combined with carbon monoxide driven from the interior, although University of Michigan's Thomas Donahue admits it would take a `stochastic miracle' [a highly improbable set of conditions to match the gases [oxygen with carbon monoxide easily." (24) If this process actually occurred, there would be, in overwhelming probability, a large, noticeable amount of either excess oxygen or carbon monoxide in Venus' atmosphere. This, of course, is not the case. The geophysical processes employed by the astronomers to remove Venus' atmospheric oxygen are either impossible or generally implausible or require a stochastic miracle. In this respect, Donahue and Pollack admit that "[ even if a vigorous recycling of crustal material did occur in Venus' past, the incorporation of water into the subducted material is not assured." (25) This means that, even with plate tectonic crustal movement, the water on Venus would probably still remain on the surface. According to Eric Burgess, "[ no completely satisfactory explanation is yet available for what happened to the [Venusian oxygen." (26)
_Let us assume that Venus did have an ocean. In recent articles, some astronomers claim that they can see the region where Venus' ocean lay. J. Kelly Beatty explains what would be left of the Venusian topography after an ocean became vapor: Venus receives twice the sunlight we do, enough to have converted all its oceans to vapor --the equivalent of 250-300 bars of atmosphere on top of its 90 bars of carbon dioxide. At that point, the greenhouse effect would have run rampant; calculations show the surface temperature would reach 1,500 K. Venus' surface melted its lithosphere transformed [to lava into a churning cauldron that continuously exposed fresh magma to its atmosphere. (27) Simply melting the upper layer of surface rock would not churn 280 miles, or 451 kilometers, of material. What would happen, however, is that all ocean basins and continents would flatten at the surface and neither the original oceanic basins nor the continents could survive.
_Modern astronomers are grasping at straws to suggest that they can locate the original ocean basins on Venus. As far as I know, the greatest problem involved in the removal of Venusian oxygen, ozone formation, is never discussed by greenhouse theorists. This problem is ignored every time one of the greenhouse advocates discusses ultraviolet photodissociation of water molecules in Venus' high atmosphere. Morrison and Owen had told us that the origin of the greenhouse effect requires "the atmosphere...[to become so hot that water vapor can easily rise to great heights where it becomes exposed to solar ultraviolet light." (28) Of course, greenhouse advocates tell us that ultraviolet radiation will photodissociate water into oxygen and hydrogen. What these same advocates fail to tell us is that ultraviolet light, in Venus' high atmosphere, must generate ozone! And every astronomer knows this simple fact. Morrison and Owen state: In the upper part of the stratosphere [of Earth, the absorption of solar ultraviolet light creates a layer of ozone (O 3 ), an unusual form of oxygen with three atoms per molecule instead of two. The ozone layer, sometimes called the ozonosphere, extends from approximately 20 [kilometers to 50 kilometers [12 miles to 31 miles. Without it, solar ultraviolet light would penetrate to the surface. (29) Valentin A. Firsoff focused on the nub of the entire problem as long ago as 1973: The mechanism by which Venus is supposed to have lost its water is... unconvincing. [Water may be dissociated to hydrogen and oxygen by the short [wave ultraviolet, the former [hydrogen escaping to space. But the oxygen will not be lost. The formaldehyde reaction: CO 2+ H 2 O= H+ CHO+ O 2, also mediated by the ultraviolet, should further contribute to the supply of atmospheric oxygen while radiation below 160Å [160 Angstroms dissociates CO 2. Thus, by any reckoning, free oxygen should have evolved in the [Venusian atmosphere, which would shelter [water against further dissociation even if there had been no clouds and no cold trap to keep it in the lower atmosphere. (30) One simply cannot expect to photodissociate an immense amount of water vapor into hydrogen and oxygen without creating an ozonosphere. Once the ozonosphere forms, it stops the dissociation of water vapor dead in its tracks and whatever water remained in Venus' atmosphere or oceans could never be further dissociated by ultraviolet because ozone has stopped the "feedback loop." Based on this evidence, Venus would have lost very little water. There is no way around this problem. That is probably why it is evaded.
_What scientists have done is play a game of hide-and-seek with ultraviolet radiation processes. Ultraviolet is invoked to dissociate water into hydrogen and oxygen. This is the process in which ultraviolet is scientifically observed. The fact that oxygen, acted upon by ultraviolet, generates ozone is kept hidden, conveniently ignored. In order to make the oceans of Venus disappear, greenhouse theorists must deny the reality of a well-known scientific process. Morrison and Owen state that [the most important cloud-forming process on Venus is probably photochemistry, chemical reactions driven by the energy of ultraviolet sunlight. Photochemical reactions are important in the upper atmosphere of planets, including the Earth, where the production of ozone from oxygen is an example of a photochemical process. (31) But there is never any discussion of the photochemical formation of ozone from an ocean of oxygen in the early Venus atmosphere. Why does ultraviolet dissociate water in Venus' atmosphere but somehow fail to generate ozone? As far as I know, neither Morrison, Owen, nor anyone else has addressed this question. When discussing Mars, Eric Burgess points out that Firsoff's analysis regarding an ozonosphere's ability to halt the escape of oxygen is quite correct: "[ A fairly dense atmosphere of oxygen might have accumulated on Mars in a period of a million years....Incoming solar ultraviolet radiation would have further restricted the escape of oxygen into space." (32) If ozone restricts the escape of oxygen on Mars, of course, it will do precisely the same on Venus.
_This phenomenon of a lack of oxygen or ozone on ancient Venus is unexplained by the runaway greenhouse effect and is further evidence in support of Velikovsky's theory. What must be pointed out is that, as a newborn planet, Venus would be expected to possess little or no oxygen and, therefore, no ozonosphere. This is clarified by L. V. Berkner and L. C. Marshall in their paper, "The History and Growth of Oxygen in the Earth's Atmosphere": The absence of a significant content of oxygen in the primitive secondary atmosphere is confirmed by several lines of evidence. First, there is no suitable source....Second, the incomplete oxidation [oxygen joined with other substances of early sedimentary materials [on Earth (three billion years of age) as demonstrated Raukama, Ramdohr, Lepp and Goldich, and others...suggests very early lithospheric [crustal sedimentation in a reducing [oxygen-free atmosphere....Finally, the rapidly growing evidence on the origin of life on planet Earth appears to forbid significant oxygen concentration. (33) Absolutely no specialized process must be invoked regarding the lack of oxygen in Venus' atmosphere, based on Velikovsky's hypothesis. Barrie William Jones has said that there is no indication that the surface rock is saturated with oxygen. Thus, the lack of water and oxygen on Venus is evidence one would expect to find on a newborn planet and is in full harmony with Velikovsky's concept.
_Nevertheless, one may raise the argument that we don't need water at all in Venus' atmosphere. Venus was simply born without it, or very little of it, and that solves the problem. Oberg states: Alternately, of course, the ocean theory may be completely wrong, and Venus may never have had much water. The oceans may never have had much water. Different theories of solar system formation can give different ratios of Venusian water to terrestrial water. The ocean may never have been there, or the temperatures may always have been too high (but then another agent for high temperatures would have had to be invented). (34) But this suggestion is not a solution. If there was no water in Venus' ancient atmosphere, how does the planet start the greenhouse effect? One needs either water or an inordinate amount of some gas to hold sufficient heat to cook the carbon dioxide out of the surface rock. Methane does that job well. But methane is a light gas, like water vapor, and, if Venus was endowed with methane, it would also have been endowed with water. Furthermore, astronomers do not seriously suggest that the two planets, Earth and Venus, situated so close to each other in the inner solar system, created from the same processes, would have totally different inventories of water. Morrison and Owen state that "if all the carbon [of the Earth were put back into the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide, the atmosphere would have a pressure of about 70 bars [70 times more pressure than at present and a composition [consisting of more than 98% carbon dioxide and little more than 1% nitrogen." (35) According to Pollack, Venus' 90 bar atmosphere is 96% carbon dioxide and 3.5% nitrogen. (36)
_Pollack also states that "[ when all these reservoirs [of gases are taken into account, we find that Earth and Venus have very comparable amounts of [carbon and [nitrogen. This similarity implies that the two planets initially had comparable amounts of water." (37) He concludes that, "[ regardless of the sources, these worlds [terrestrial planets obtained comparable initial endowments of volatiles. Specially in the cases of Earth and Venus." (38) There is no reason to argue whether or not Venus lacked water based on all geophysical concepts. To do so is to negate the fundamental theories of solar system formation. Oberg adds these telling remarks: Even with great amounts of carbon dioxide, Venus could have a moderate climate if water was in short supply but present in enough amounts to form pools within which carbonate rocks could be formed to absorb some carbon dioxide. The addition of off-planet substances in trace amounts (Pollack suggests "collisions with volatile-rich comets and asteroids") may also have had catastrophic climactic effects by blocking off hitherto open "windows" in the "greenhouse effect." (39) In essence, no natural processes, using Venus' gases alone, would lead to a runaway greenhouse effect. Pollack was finally forced to invent additional gases from the ad hoc concept that comets or asteroids must have brought these additional constituents. But this simply will not do! All theories of planetary formation suggest that the early planetesimals that formed the planets were made of comets and asteroids. So the same materials had to exist inside the planets Earth and Venus.
_This being the case, for Venus to start a greenhouse, some other gas or gases must be invoked. And this is precisely what Carl Sagan has been attempting to do. To save the process, he has sought some other gas to enhance the action of water vapor. According to Pollack: Sagan and George Mullen have suggested that as little as 10 parts per million of ammonia (NH 3) may have produced the desired greenhouse enhancement. However, practically no ammonia should have been outgassed by volcanoes into the early atmosphere. Moreover, NH 3 is easily broken down by ultraviolet radiation into nitrogen and hydrogen, and it is very difficult to recombine these two back into the parent molecule. Therefore, ammonia is probably not the agent involved in the early greenhouse enhancement. (40) It has been more than 30 years since the greenhouse effect arose as an explanation for Venus' high temperature. For over 30 years, the scientists who have diligently worked on this mechanism have failed to find a valid process that will get it started. In order to begin the phenomenon, they have had to turn to exotic enhancement gases that are not believed to have existed in the early atmosphere of Venus and that cannot survive for very long in the presence of ultraviolet light.
_When a theory is correct, over time, it finds suitable answers and the various problems and questions begin to be resolved, each element falling into place. This is not the case with the evidence regarding the runaway greenhouse effect. Its origin is still widely unknown and highly problematic. Its advocates are seeking new gases to enhance water vapor and suggest that the entire crust of the planet somehow remelted long after it solidified so as to remove its oxygen. Its supporters have stubbornly failed to come to grips with Firsoff's objection regarding the formation of an ozonosphere. These theorists don't even know if the early Sun was hot enough to start such a process and simply wave their hands in order to make hydrogen escape the planet rapidly. None of their processes have been validated in any way other than by taking theoretical assumptions as facts. As stated earlier, a phenomenon like the greenhouse effect has to have an origin. If there is no origin for a theoretical concept, it becomes exceedingly difficult to accept the hypothesis that is proposed. This is the case for the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus: No beginning, no greenhouse. Nevertheless, its advocates suggest that, since the process is ongoing, we simply have to assume that our knowledge of the precise ancient history of planetology is flawed; and, even with these difficulties, we can see Venus today in the full throes of a runaway greenhouse effect. That the early history of the solar system is nebulous is a reasonable, cautious suggestion, but before passing such a favorable judgement on this heating mechanism, one must be able to demonstrate, fully, that Venus is in the midst of a runaway greenhouse effect. The question in this instance is, Does the evidence fully support this conclusion? Let us investigate this claim, remembering Werhner von Braun's admonition regarding the greenhouse model: "So far, it is only a theory not yet proven by experiment." (41) What is the evidence for a runaway greenhouse effect on Venus?
_EVIDENCE OF A VENUSIAN GREENHOUSE?
_Morrison and Owen explain how the greenhouse effect works: Why is Venus hot? The answer comes from a phenomenon known as the greenhouse effect....In a typical greenhouse, the glass in the roof allows visible sunlight to enter and be absorbed by the plants and soil within. These objects then heat up and radiate at infrared wavelengths just like the Earth itself. The glass of a greenhouse, however, is largely opaque to infrared radiation. It acts as a color filter, letting short wavelengths [of sunlight in through [the glass, but limiting passage of longer wave [infrared thermal radiation [out. Since most of the heat cannot escape the interior of the greenhouse, it warms the glass to balance the energy coming in. A similar effect occurs in a car left out in the Sun on a hot day.... The gases in a planet's atmosphere can play the same role as the glass in a greenhouse, if they have the same property of transparency to visible light and opacity to infrared. (42) Therefore, one would expect that the gases in Venus' atmosphere can act as does the glass in the greenhouse, but, more importantly, that these gases are found in sufficient quantities to permit short-wave sunlight to pass through them, then act to block infrared thermal radiation from escaping. When discussing the composition of the constituents of Venus' atmosphere, I pointed out that the components of Venus' atmosphere were carbon dioxide, which comprises 96%, and nitrogen, which comprises 3.5%, with other gases making up the rest of Venus' inventory. The greenhouse theorists insist that the three component gases for their greenhouse model are carbon dioxide, water vapor and sulfur dioxide. And, indeed, there can be no doubt that there is sufficient carbon dioxide to carry out this greenhouse function. However, carbon dioxide, even in the abundance found on Venus, will not produce the opacity necessary to generate a runaway greenhouse. According to Barrie William Jones: efficient trapping [of heat cannot be produced by CO 2 [carbon dioxide alone, in spite of the enormous mass of CO 2 in the Venusian atmosphere. This is because CO 2 is fairly transparent over certain [short wavelengths [to escape in infrared, thermal wavelength ranges [and to [escape in planetary [infrared wavelengths. Radiation could escape through these "windows" in sufficient quantities [so as to greatly reduce the greenhouse effect below that which [presently exists....[Additional...windows [closed by SO 2 [sulfur dioxide and H 2 O, and by the clouds [and hazes, [are what greatly increases the greenhouse effect. (43) Carbon dioxide needs the assistance of water vapor, sulfur dioxide, clouds and hazes to complete the job that it began. Of significance, then, is the contribution each of these gases makes to the greenhouse effect. Gary Hunt and Patrick Moore have outlined these contributions: CO 2 is responsible for about 55% of the trapped heat [in Venus' atmosphere. A further 25% is due to the presence of water vapor, while SO 2, which constitutes only 0.02 [2/100 of a percent of the atmosphere, traps 5% of the remaining infrared radiation. The remaining 15% is due to the clouds and hazes which surround the planet. (44) Let us examine the closing of windows with respect to the amount of hazes, clouds and sulfur dioxide in Venus' atmosphere. These constituents are responsible for shutting off the escape of 20% of the thermal radiation left open by carbon dioxide and water vapor. According to Larry W. Esposito, Pioneer Venus has continued to monitor these constituents [haze and sulfur dioxide above the clouds. Over the years, a remarkable discovery has emerged: Both the sulfur dioxide and the haze have been gradually disappearing. By now, only about 10% of the 1978 amount remains. This disappearance has also been confirmed by the Earth-orbiting International Ultraviolet Explorer [satellite between 1979 and 1987 and by other Earth-based observations. The haze and the sulfur dioxide are now approaching their pre-1978 values. Analysis of recent Earth-based radio observations, by Paul Steffes and his colleagues, [also shows less sulfur dioxide below the clouds. [Emphasis added than was measured by Pioneer Venus and Venera landers, which is also consistent with the decrease of sulfur dioxide. (45) Pollack concurs with this observation: "Measurements by the Pioneer Venus orbiter show that the amount of sulfur dioxide present near the cloud tops declined from approximately 200 parts per billion (ppb) in 1978 to about 10 [parts per billion...in 1986." (46) Morrison and Owen also concur, stating that "[ observations over the past [20 years have indicated that large fluctuations occur in the concentration of sulfur dioxide (SO 2) in the atmosphere of Venus above the clouds." (47) The proponents of the greenhouse effect admit that the components responsible for 20% of the opacity of sulfur dioxide and hazes decline by up to 90% above the clouds and, to some lesser percentage, below the clouds. If the levels of the hazes and sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere fall to significantly lower concentrations above, as well as below, the clouds from their former levels, they cannot act as influentially to block the entire 20% of the greenhouse windows. This evidence could be a blow to the runaway aspect of the greenhouse effect. Consider the suggestion that particles in the clouds also act as does the glass in a greenhouse. These particles are either liquid droplets or tiny, solid particles. Therefore, the composition of the Venusian clouds ought to be known, so as to determine how influential these particles are in blocking heat escape. Greenhouse advocates believe that they know the composition of the clouds and use that assumption in their calculations. According to A. Seiff, "Pollack and Young (1975) assumed 75% H 2 SO 4 [sulfuric acid clouds." (48) This is, indeed, the conclusion Carl Sagan proposed when he said: Moreover, the question of the composition of the Venus clouds --a major enigma for centuries --has recently been solved (Young and Young, 1973; Sill, 1972; Young, 1973; Pollack et al., 1974). The clouds of Venus are composed of approximately 75% solution of sulfuric acid. This identification is consistent with the chemistry of the Venus atmosphere, in which hydrofluoric and hydrochloric acid have also been found; with the real part of the refractive index deduced from polarimetry, which is known to three significant figures (1.44), with the 11.2 (and now far infrared) absorption features; and with the discontinuity in the abundance of water vapor above and below the clouds. (49) This statement by Sagan, for all its impressive spectroscopic, analytical evidence, is disingenuous to say the least. Zdenek Kopal explains why: The reader should, however, be encouraged not to take these current cosmochemical scenarios as gospel truth. Although the sulfuric acid hypothesis accounts satisfactorily for many optical properties of the clouds surrounding Venus, it cannot explain one important property --the yellowish colors of the planet. The color must be produced by some substance that absorbs in the blue and ultraviolet regions of the spectrum. Sulfuric acid does not meet the requirement, nor does any other likely substance which could be considered in this connection. (50) Oberg admits, "The light yellow clouds seen from Earth are almost certainly droplets of sulfuric acid....The actual cause of the yellow tinge and the variable ultraviolet absorption is still unexplained." (51) But this assertion proves nothing. It is merely an attempt to evade facing the implication that the yellow tinge of the clouds denies that they are sulfuric acid in composition. Jones further explains: Detailed studies, mainly by spacecraft, have revealed the existence of at least three types of cloud particles. First, there are the tiny particles....The observations indicate they probably (Emphasis added.) consist of nearly pure sulfuric acid....These are present in the main cloud and in the hazes above and below, but though they are the dominant constituent of the haze they are a minor constituent of the main cloud. Second, there are larger particles...largely confined to the cloud, each particle probably (Emphasis added.) consisting of a liquid droplet of rather impure H 2 SO 4 [sulfuric acid with up to 20% of other substances. [Third, there are solid particles...largely confined to the lower half of the main cloud....This third type is the dominant constituent of the main cloud and also accounts for most of the opacity. (52) Jones tells us that this third constituent produces most of the opacity of the clouds. Greenhouse theorists base their conclusions regarding cloud opacity upon this third constituent. One cannot, as Sagan seems to suggest, derive a spectroscopic analysis of this deeper cloud material for two reasons: One, this material is located much deeper in the clouds and light from this region is very difficult to see. Two, even if one sees down to these depths, these particles do not produce spectroscopic lines. Kopal asks, What do the clouds of Venus really consist of? To determine their composition is far more difficult than to identify the gases constituting the atmosphere, because these clouds must consist of particles which are either solid or liquid. Such materials, unlike gases, do not produce spectral lines that can identify them. (53) Since I am dealing with Sagan's claim that the clouds of Venus are composed of sulfuric acid, I will complete this discussion using additional information. Billy P. Glass shows that Sagan's pronouncement regarding the composition of Venusian clouds is highly speculative. He informs us, contrary to Sagan, that [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 (Emphasis added.), partially hydrated ferric chloride and hydrochloric acid. (54) What becomes apparent is that the makeup of the clouds' principal liquid or solid component is still in question, no matter how often Velikovsky's critics suggest otherwise. Is it, therefore, possible that Sagan is still unaware that the composition of clouds is disputed? In their book, The Planetary System, David Morrison and Tobias Owen have a foreword written by Carl Sagan. He lauds the authors as "pioneers in the modern exploration of the solar system" whose book is "marked by a judicious and comprehensive selection of topics [with clear qualitative explanations." (55) What do Morrison and Owen say regarding the makeup of the Venusian clouds? Space probes that have passed through the clouds have given us a picture...of discrete cloud layers. Clouds are seen extending from 30 kilometers to 60 kilometers [19 miles to 38 miles above the surface. But what are the various clouds made of? Are they all sulfuric acid, as are the visible [topmost layers? Only the Soviet probes have attempted compositional measurements and their results have been contradictory. Sulfur or, possibly, chlorine compounds of some sort are indicated, but their exact identities are unknown. (56) (Emphasis added.) Thus, Sagan's sulfuric acid clouds are nothing of the sort. Sagan has disqualified himself from any meaningful discussion of Velikovsky's work. Furthermore, with respect to the greenhouse effect, one cannot assume anything about the opacity of the clouds because their chemical makeup is simply not known. With the ability of the hazes, clouds and sulfur dioxide to block 20% of the greenhouse windows in question because the hazes and sulfur dioxide levels fall to 10% of their earlier measured values over periods of years, their efficiency in blocking infrared from escaping Venus must also be reduced to some level below the full efficiency of 20%. This being the case, it becomes critical for the runaway greenhouse theory that water vapor be found in sufficient quantity so as to block the remaining 25% greenhouse window. The question is, How much water vapor is needed to do this? Originally, when Sagan first began his work, he believed the surface pressure on Venus was only 4 bars. From this, he calculated a required water vapor fraction of the atmosphere, between 5% and 23%, to close this greenhouse window and permit a surface temperature of 600 K. (57) As time went on, space probes made more precise measurements of Venus' chemical makeup and solar heating values. The parameters of pressure changed and, with these changes, the water vapor requirement changed. In essence, the greenhouse investigators did not know what each of the parameters really was and, thus, had to adjust their theoretical requirements accordingly. Nevertheless, these parameters are now very well measured, though they may vary slightly, and the greenhouse theorists have a good idea of the amount of water vapor necessary to reach the full 25% window closure needed to support the theory. Yet, years of searching for this water vapor constituent on Venus have failed to find anything like this necessary component at the required level. As recently as September, 1991, it was still reported that a research team [had focused on a greenhouse puzzle....The absence of water vapor above Venus' clouds mystifie[d scientists because models of the planet's strong greenhouse effect suggest[ed that vapor play[ed a key role in maintaining the warming. Researchers ha[d...looked below the cloud deck and down to the surface --and their search ha[d come up dry.... Evidence of a dry Venus may force researchers to consider whether other chemicals could create and sustain the planet's greenhouse effect, said David Crisp of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory,...who co-authored the report. (58) Hence, the critical, second most important constituent for closing the 25% greenhouse window is clearly known to be insufficient to do its job. As with the problem discussed earlier about finding another enhancement gas besides water vapor to start the greenhouse mechanism on ancient Venus, we are faced with scientists searching for another gas besides water vapor to assist in mopping up 25% of the escaping infrared radiation on present-day Venus. The composition of the gases in Venus' atmosphere is very well-known, except for the constituents of the clouds. The constituents of the clouds are what greenhouse advocates have at their disposal as enhancement gases. As we already know, ammonia cannot be invoked for primordial Venus because Pollack has shown that photodissociation by ultraviolet radiation of ammonia, into nitrogen and hydrogen, would readily occur in the clouds --and these gases are difficult to recombine. Earlier, I mentioned that methane could have been invoked in the ancient atmosphere as an enhancement gas because it is an excellent greenhouse gas. And, in fact, there is evidence for methane in Venus' present atmosphere. (59) But, if the greenhouse theorists wish to turn to methane as the enhancer to close their 25% greenhouse window, they will be opening a door for Velikovsky's theory. Based on the research done, Velikovsky assumed "that Venus must be rich in petroleum gases. If, and as long as, Venus is too hot for the liquefaction of petroleum, the hydrocarbons will circulate in gaseous form." (60) Methane is the simplest of the hydrocarbon gases. The reader will recall Zdenek Kopal's statement that the yellowish color of the clouds, as seen in ultraviolet, denies that the clouds are composed of sulfuric acid. The question is, Can methane account for the yellowish color of Venus' deeper clouds? The answer may lie in the nature of a solar system body known to have much methane. Kenneth R. Lang and Charles A. Whitney discuss Titan, a giant satellite of Saturn: In 1944, Gerard Kuiper discovered signs of methane in the spectrum of Titan's atmosphere. The presence of nitrogen was firmly established in 1980, when the ultraviolet detectors aboard Voyager I showed that nitrogen molecules account for the bulk of Titan's atmosphere. Visible light cannot penetrate Titan's atmosphere, for it is covered by an obscuring veil of orange smog (Emphasis added.) produced by photochemical reactions as ultraviolet sunlight breaks methane and nitrogen molecules apart. Some of these fragments then recombine to create the smog, and, in Titan's dry cold atmosphere, the smog builds to an impenetrable haze. (On Earth, smog also forms by the action of sunlight on hydrocarbon molecules in the air.) (61) If Venus' clouds contain hydrocarbons, then the same photochemistry occurring in Titan's clouds may be occurring in Venus' clouds. Venus has nitrogen comparable to that of the Earth; its atmosphere is dry, ultraviolet is available and the clouds are very dark at a deeper level, as with Titan. Hence, with perhaps fewer reactions taking place where there is less methane to create smog, the number of reactions may create a yellowish smog rather than an orange one. One still cannot dismiss Velikovsky's hydrocarbon cloud composition for Venus, because the clouds' chemical composition is still not known. Returning to the greenhouse, if the clouds of Venus are made up of significant amounts of hydrocarbons, just as Velikovsky claimed, then the greenhouse advocates may be able to better secure their theory because methane --in abundance --may shut all the greenhouse windows that may be open. It is a fascinating catch-22 situation; Velikovsky's greenhouse critics refuse to claim that the Venusian clouds are made of hydrocarbons, because Velikovsky would have been right all along respecting this prediction. On the other hand, these greenhouse advocates may fail in their campaign if they reject hydrocarbon clouds, because their greenhouse enhancement gas may not be available. For those suggesting that, for Venus, no scientists would propose that an early-age planet would possess methane in its atmosphere, I cite James Oberg. Discussing how Mars, in its early day, maintained water on its surface at a time when the Sun produced 30% to 40% less radiation than it does now, he writes: According to [James B. Pollack, a Martian greenhouse of carbon dioxide alone would not produce a very efficient "greenhouse effect." In fact, a surface pressure of 2 bars [double the Earth's atmospheric pressure would be required for the globally- and annually-averaged surface temperatures to be above freezing. However, if the atmosphere were predominantly methane with admixtures of ammonia and water vapor, a very effective "greenhouse effect" would have been created which would have allowed liquid water to form...." (62) (Emphasis added.) If scientists suggest the possibility of methane, a hydrocarbon, in the early atmosphere of Mars, there is no compelling reason to deny that the same exists in Venus' atmosphere, presently, if Venus is an extremely young planet. At this stage of analysis, it is evident that all the component gases necessary to fully generate a runaway greenhouse effect on Venus are not found in appropriate amounts to sustain this effect --except for carbon dioxide. The amount of water vapor stands as a major obstacle to the solution of this problem. To argue that the water is there, except that we can't find it, is assuming what must be proven. Furthermore, much of the evidence regarding the hazes and clouds is simply assumed to be correct, as is, for example, the conclusion that they are composed of a 75% solution of sulfuric acid; when, in fact, there is enormous disagreement among scientists about the composition of the clouds. As we can see, all the assumptions must be taken as facts and, even with these, one cannot be confident that the greenhouse is a runaway greenhouse. But the assumptions are only assumptions "still to be proven by experiment," as von Braun stated. Therefore, the view that the runaway greenhouse is correct is simply not conclusive, and, therefore, ought not be promulgated. The conclusion that these gases are doing all that is claimed for them (except carbon dioxide) in Venus' atmosphere is tenuous at best.
_ATMOSPHERIC CIRCULATION
_There are two sources of energy that can circulate air masses in a planetary atmosphere. The first source of energy is the rotation of the planet. The Earth's winds generally blow in a west-to-east direction because of the Earth's rapid west-to-east rotation on its axis. Surface topography in contact with the atmosphere causes the bottom layer of air to move in the direction of the Earth's rotation. This motion at the bottom of the atmosphere is transferred by air currents to the rest of the atmosphere and imparts the west-to-east motion throughout. East-to-west or west-to-east motions are designated as zonal motion or zonal circulation. The second source of energy that imparts motion in a planet's atmosphere is solar heat. The sun's radiant energy heats the dayside of a planet, more so in the equatorial regions than in the polar regions. This form of radiant input causes the hot air to rise at the equator and, in the upper atmosphere, to move toward the cooler polar regions. When the air becomes sufficiently cooled, it sinks to the surface and then returns, along this surface route, to the hot equatorial regions where it is heated to rise and repeat the cycle. George Hadley, who explained this motion, has had this atmospheric circulation named for him. Such heat-driven motions are called Hadley cells. North-to-south and south-to-north motions are designated as meridional motion or meridional circulation. On the Earth, which is rotating rapidly and is also heated by solar radiation, a combination of these two motions develops. Air, heated at the equator, rises and blows meridionally north in the northern hemisphere and south in the southern hemisphere. But the air masses are also feeling the influence of the Earth's rotation and, thereby, are forced to veer toward the east in both hemispheres as they leave the equatorial regions. Because the air masses at the equator are moving zonally at 1,000 miles per hour while those air masses farther north and south are moving more slowly in relation with the Earth's rotation, a pseudo-force is created which causes air masses to circulate in a broad, counterclockwise movement in the northern hemisphere and to circulate clockwise in the southern hemisphere. For example, if we were to slow down the Earth's rotation to a sidereal rotation period of 100 days, the Earth's air masses would receive almost no push from the surface topography and the west-to-east zonal motion would, over time, dissipate and almost come to a stop. The Sun would still be heating the equatorial regions on such a slowly rotating Earth, on the dayside, for longer time periods. This solar heat force would generate very powerful Hadley cells and the dominant form of atmospheric circulation would be meridional, north and south motions. There would be practically no zonal motion in the Earth's atmosphere under such conditions. On Venus, we encounter the same two forces: planetary rotation and solar radiation. However, there is a singular difference between the two planets. Venus' rotation rate is 243 times slower than that of the Earth. There is no compelling rotational force on Venus to cause its atmosphere to rotate zonally, that is east to west. Because of this one fact, the other force --solar radiation --becomes the only significant, driving mechanism in Venus' atmosphere and should induce two giant, hemispheric, meridional Hadley cells. This, then, is an excellent way with which to test Velikovsky's concept that Venus is heated uniformly from its hot molten core not far below its crust and compare it to the concept of solar greenhouse heating. If the solar-induced runaway greenhouse effect is the dominant source of heat for Venus' atmospheric circulation, its atmosphere should exhibit clearly observable, directly measurable Hadley cells. In Pioneer Venus we read that [thermal contrasts provide the driving mechanism for the general circulation, since they set up the pressure differences to drive [air flow. The absence of large thermal contrasts in the atmosphere of Venus means that there is a very effective transport of heat from equator to poles and from the subsolar to antisolar points by means of atmospheric circulation; the atmosphere must be able to transport heat from the region below the Sun to the rest of the planet. (63) If such a circulation is not found, or the atmosphere shows practically no or extremely small, meridional motions, one may be confident that the greenhouse mechanism is not the generating force in Venus' atmosphere. If Velikovsky is correct and the entire planet is heated fairly uniformly from its subsurface, then Hadley cells are not required so as to circulate the air masses. Velikovsky's theory requires no such circulation pattern. If Venus' heat is derived from below its hot crust, then all that the Venusian atmospheric gases have to do is either radiate, conduct or convect heat upward. There is no requirement to circulate hot air masses from the equator to the poles and back to the equator. If the runaway greenhouse effect is correct, there will be definite Hadley cells circulating the atmosphere. If Velikovsky is correct, few or no Hadley cell motions will be observed or measured. Gerald Schubert explains how this Hadley circulation works and why it is necessarily expected for the Venus greenhouse theory: The basic drive for atmospheric circulation is latitudinal imbalance between absorbed solar radiation....In equatorial latitudes, more energy is absorbed than is reradiated to space. The opposite is true in polar latitudes. The atmosphere must redress this imbalance by transporting heat poleward. Meridional transport of heat in the Earth's atmosphere is accomplished by a Hadley circulation in low latitudes and by baroclinic [pressure change eddies in mid-latitudes....However, baroclinic heat transport would not be expected to dominate in the mid-latitudes of an atmosphere on a slowly rotating planet like Venus and a Hadley circulation, on Venus, would be expected to extend to high polar latitudes. Thus, it would be anticipated that the primary circulation mechanism on Venus would be a pair of [north and south hemispheric Hadley cells symmetric about the equator, with rising motions over the equatorial latitudes, poleward flow at high latitudes sinking over the polar regions and equatorward flow near the surface. It is, therefore, remarkable that Venus' dominant atmospheric circulation is a westward super-rotation. However, zonal winds cannot transfer heat poleward, so there MUST BE a weaker meridional circulation as well. (64) (Capitalization added.) Gerald Schubert fully agrees that the greenhouse mechanism requires Hadley cells as the dominant form of circulation. To the chagrin of the greenhouse theorists, instead of discovering a circulation pattern in harmony with the greenhouse theory, one featuring the opposite was found. Westward blowing winds, Schubert admits, do not transport heat toward the poles and super-rotation means that, at all latitudes and altitudes, the wind is moving zonally east to west on Venus. Thus, where is the meridional circulation carrying hot air to the poles and cooler air back to the equator, if the greenhouse effect dominates Venus' atmosphere?! According to Schubert, somehow a weak meridional circulation must exist. By saying that such a circulation must be proves absolutely nothing. What is the evidence for this circulation pattern? Let us examine the bottom layers of the atmosphere to see if any turnover Hadley cells are operating there. Pioneer Venus reported the following: A surprising discovery is that much of the deep atmosphere is stably stratified like the Earth's stratosphere or like air in the Los Angeles basin on a smoggy day. (Emphasis added.) From the clouds down to 30 [kilometers altitude (a layer 23 kilometers deep) [14 miles and in the lower layer [at the surface between 15 kilometers and 20 kilometers[ 9 miles to 12 miles altitude, the atmosphere is stratified and free of convective activity. It does not rise and overturn in the way that air does over hot farm or desert land on Earth, or in cumulus clouds. This was unexpected, because the high temperatures in the deep atmosphere were thought to be a source of hot rising gas which would lead to deep convective cells [Hadley cells and turbulence. Also, before Pioneer Venus, theoretical studies had indicated that, at radiative equilibrium much of the lower atmosphere would be unstable and would be overturning. (65) (Emphasis added.) There is no Hadley circulation in atmospheric layers; one being, from the surface, up to 12 miles high and the other from the clouds down, a layer 14 miles thick. This lack of circulation in the lower atmosphere is a fundamental contradiction to the greenhouse mechanism and Schubert specifically makes this point: "A direct meridional circulation in the deep atmosphere is...needed to balance the observed increase in infrared cooling with latitude." (66) If there is more heat at the equator and less toward the poles, as Schubert claims, where is the circulation of air toward the equator that should support this statement? These conclusions exist nowhere, except in theory and on paper. For example, on the basis of certain readings from one Pioneer Venus Night probe, it was quickly determined that there were three layers of air in Venus' atmosphere below 40 kilometers (25 miles) where winds blow north and south, away from the equator, as giant air flows, distributing hot air from the equator very near to the poles and the returned cooler air back to the equator. (67) Nevertheless, Pioneer Venus probes measured the wind directions at other points on the planet and found that "the meridional winds below 40 kilometers at the other Pioneer Venus probe sites...are not consistent with a three-layer mean circulation pattern and probably represent eddies." (68) There is no evidence for Hadley cell circulation in the lower atmosphere. Is there any solid evidence for air descending at or around the poles to the surface, as the greenhouse model requires? We do know that the data at all sites showed that the lowest 20 kilometers of air is stable over the entire planet. That should have been enough to eliminate that idea, but we find Hunt and Moore suggesting: Infrared observations from Pioneer Orbiter have led to the discovery of a significant cloud morphology in the north polar region of Venus, which appears as a dipole structure. It consists of two clearings in the clouds, in locations straddling the pole and rotating around it in about 2.7 days. The clearings are thought to be evidence for subsidence of the atmosphere at the center of the polar vortex. (Emphasis added.) The absence of descending [air motions elsewhere suggests that a large, single circulation [Hadley cell may fill the northern hemisphere at levels near the cloud tops. (69) On the other hand, Schubert states that these hot spots may be lowering, in the cloud tops associated with descending motion near the center of the polar vortex. However, other prominent thermal features of the cloud level polar atmosphere are not so obviously related to the descending motions of a polar vortex. "[ Radiometer measurements at the poles [of Venus appeared to confirm theories of a downward-moving polar vortex. But the belt of atmosphere above the cloud tops proved to be about 10 C (18 F) hotter than similar regions at the equator." (71) Therefore, cooler equatorial cloud top air masses that are hotter than polar air masses, at the same altitude, should not blow toward the poles. This type of motion would defy the Second Law of Thermodynamics! There are other similar, supposed thermal features in other areas of Venus' atmosphere, like those at the poles, which show no signs that air is descending. Schubert remarks that the "interpretation of the meridional wind velocities measured by P.V. [Pioneer Venus probes in terms of the mean meridional circulations...is only speculative and is guided by other observations of wind speed and atmospheric structure and theoretical ideas about the nature of the mean circulation." (72) (Emphasis added.) Clark R. Chapman put the situation into the clearest perspective when he said that "[ theorists began to expect there might be traditional Hadley cell winds, with greenhouse-warmed air rising in the Venusian tropics. But, after Pioneer Venus, the Hadley model remains a plausible hypothesis in search of confirmation." (73) All the evidence contradicts the notion that solar radiation is moving heat to the poles or that cooler polar air is moving to the equator. Why, then, are the scientists driven to find some meridional Hadley cell circulation? Schubert reasons that, "[ while there is not actual evidence of indirect meridional cells, there are strong theoretical reasons to expect that they exist." (74) Chapman stated that greenhouse theorists expect Hadley cell circulation. Schubert stated that there are strong, theoretical reasons for their existence. This means that the greenhouse effect requires them to exist, therefore they must exist. The theory is determining what the evidence must say. In the following segment of this paper, the reader will see the lengths to which the astronomers have gone to make the evidence that fully contradicts the greenhouse fit this theoretical belief. Here, too, we see the same dismissal of evidence! Pollack sums up the case being made: "The east-west winds on Venus blow in the direction of the planet's rotation at all latitudes." (75) The question that must be answered is, Why is the atmospheric circulation on Venus zonal rather than meridional? Velikovsky has proposed that this east-to-west circulation is caused by the angular momentum of Venus' enormous tail of gas that fell to the planet a few thousand years ago when it achieved its present orbit. The enormous mass of that body of gas in the tail descended, in a sweeping orbit, down and around the planet, moving in one direction as it wrapped and enveloped Venus. The great, angular momentum created is still moving the Venusian atmosphere in a powerful super-rotation at all latitudes and altitudes, east to west. According to Schubert: From the dynamical viewpoint, the major challenge of the Venus atmosphere is to explain its bulk super-rotation. We have seen that this is westward at all latitudes and at altitudes between 10 kilometers and 100 kilometers. Zonal wind velocity increases steadily with height above the surface....The angular momentum density of the atmosphere's rotation increases with height from the surface to 20 kilometers and decreases with height above this level. Most of the atmospheric angular momentum is contained in the layer between 10 kilometers and 40 kilometers....The problem facing the dynamicist is to find the source of the excess atmospheric angular momentum, and the processes which transport this momentum both vertically and horizontally. (76) Venus' total atmospheric angular momentum is greater than that of the Earth by almost a factor of 200. This angular momentum would be able to change the rotation of the solid planet by several hours. This amount of angular momentum, 3.6 X 10 28 kg M 2 S -1, (77) does not dissipate quickly. But, over millions, not to say billions, of years, it should have dissipated if the greenhouse heating effect was operating. The bulk of the atmosphere's momentum is found some 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) above the surface, up to 40 kilometers (25 miles) high, with an air flow that is 19 miles thick. Like an air stream, the greatest force of the current is in the region above the stream bed and below the upper regions. This region on Venus is where the atmosphere is as dense as possible, where the bulk of the atmosphere's mass is found, where there is practically no topographical obstruction below and where there are the fewest eddy motions. As Schubert explained above, only one of the four Pioneer Venus probes encountered eddy currents below 40 kilometers. (78) What is, therefore, observed is a gravitational force like that found in an oceanic stream. This is fully congruent with Velikovsky's theory because Venus' tail, as it fell, would create such a stream. The air masses below and above the stream are forced, by contact with it, to move in the same direction, while, at the very bottom of the atmosphere, the dense air is harder to move. According to Jonathan Weiner, loops or rings of water break off from the Gulf Stream into the Atlantic Ocean. These rings flow in circles which are many miles in diameter, but they are not whirlpools. The water inside and outside the rings is not rotating at all. The depth of water rotating in the rings is 900 feet deep and these rings of motion may continue to flow from four months up to several years. (79) If a ring of water flowing in the ocean can last for several years, a shallow ocean flowing in one direction would flow for tens of thousands of years. How do the atmospheric scientists explain this motion? They have only two forces with which to create super-zonal rotation. One is the rotation of Venus, which is too slow to generate this kind of circulation. The other is the Sun, which should produce meridional Hadley cell circulation. What these scientists suggest is that the very force which will generate Hadley cell circulation --the Sun --can create eddies in the upper atmosphere that move east to west predominantly and act as a torque to create the same east-to-west motions below them. Of course, no one believes that the Sun, which has sufficient influence to produce super-zonal rotation, is doing this; because, if it can do this, its influence would and should generate super-meridional Hadley cell circulation by the very same process, specially when that is the very nature of the circulation that should be generated by the Sun. Oberg sums up the unreality of the interpretation of super-zonal atmospheric rotation. He finds it is a: puzzle [that awaits explanation, the wind velocities in Venus' atmosphere.... Venus rotates at a speed of only five mph [miles per hour at its equator, but these cloud markings are traveling at a velocity 100 times that. On Earth, jet streams in the outer atmosphere may occasionally travel [20% or 30% faster than Earth's spin.... How could Venus' upper atmosphere be propelled around the planet at such disproportionate velocities? Initial meteorological computer simulations could not account for speeds [anywhere near as high. The dynamics of this atmosphere, which should have been so simple, were increasingly puzzling. Although recent computer models have been able to simulate the effect thought to have been seen on Venus, they are rather strained and artificial. (80) In essence, the scientists have explained super-zonal rotation by the very force that explains super-meridional Hadley cell circulation. The contradiction is so apparent that it requires no further attention. As stated by S. S. Limaye, the greenhouse model has still failed to explain the super-rotation of Venus'atmosphere. (81) Once again, there is a fundamental contradiction in what the scientists are proposing and none with respect to Velikovsky's concept. After billions of years of having greenhouse solar heat pump hot air to the poles from the equator, on a slowly rotating planet, and back to the equator via Hadley cell circulation, Venus' atmosphere should not exhibit any significant zonal circulation at all. The entire process, created by the scientists to have the Sun create atmospheric zonal motion, is the complete antithesis to its action. It is a futile operation, strained and artificial, reminiscent of the inventions of Rube Goldberg.
_BALANCING THERMAL IMBALANCE
_Ultimately, what is the reason given for support of this theory? The answer is that Venus must have a runaway greenhouse effect operating because the planet is in thermal balance. If Velikovsky was right, Venus, as a newborn planet in the early cool down stages of it development, should be emitting much more heat than is supplied to it by the Sun. It should have a thermal imbalance; the nearer to the planet one measures infrared emissions, the greater this imbalance should be between solar input and infrared planetary output. Venus is not heated from below its surface, we are informed by greenhouse advocates, but by the greenhouse effect. It is made clear that measurements prove, conclusively, that Venus is known to be in thermal balance at all levels in its atmosphere and, therefore, Velikovsky is wrong. As Carl Sagan stated: What I think Velikovsky is trying to say here is that his Venus...is giving off more heat than it receives from the Sun and that the observed temperatures, on both the night and day sides, are due more to the "candescence" of Venus than to the radiation it now receives from the Sun. But this is a serious error. The bolometric albedo (the fraction of sunlight reflected by an observed infrared temperature of the clouds of Venus of about 240 K) that is to say, the clouds of Venus, are precisely at the temperature expected on the basis of the amount of sunlight that is absorbed there. (82) If Sagan's conclusion and analysis of the measured data is correct, then, certainly, Velikovsky's theory is dead. But Sagan's claim that Venus is in thermal balance is contradicted by a series of measurements that show that there is no thermal balance observed anywhere in Venus' atmosphere, from its cloud tops to its surface!
_In 1978, George R. Talbott, a physicist whose specialty is thermodynamics, carried out a fundamental calculation regarding Venus' surface temperature. He did something quite commonly done in laboratories all over the world. If a substance is heated to candescence and then left to cool, a thermal analysis of its properties with regard to heat conduction, radiation, etc., can tell how long ago the substance was candescent. Talbott started with a candescent Venus, 3,500 years ago, and determined what its surface temperature would be after 3,500 years of cooling. Of course, Talbott's calculations were much more complicated than the simple analysis carried out in laboratories. What he discovered after setting up all the possible parameters on a computer and running the program was a surprise and a shock. He started with a molten Venus with a surface temperature of 1,500 K and 2,000 K, allowed for heat transfer, internally, by flowing cells of magma radiating into a heavy atmosphere, and found that Venus' surface temperature, presently, was exactly 750 K --just what the surface temperature presently is. (83) Some individuals claimed that Talbott could not have reckoned correctly, because the parameters governing Venus 3,500 years ago could not be known with precision. On the other hand, overestimates of some parameters could have been balanced by underestimates of others. However, for Talbott to be wrong, as is --supposedly --Velikovsky, Talbott's work would have had to be in error by 100%. Other than that, Venus is in thermal imbalance.
_As I will show below, the actual measurements of infrared emissions from Venus, compared to solar radiation input at the Venusian surface, do not contradict Talbott's work. By taking the known surface temperature of the Sun and calculating the distance to Venus, Venus' thermal balance or imbalance is determined. At Venus' distance, the solar radiation will be diminished to a particular value. One then calculates the diameter of the planet with its atmosphere to determine how much area intercepts this solar radiation value. What is most important for the rest of the calculations is to determine, as precisely as possible, how much light is reflected by the planet's clouds and how much light or radiant energy is absorbed. This ability of clouds to reflect light is called its albedo. The higher the percentage of albedo, the more light is reflected; the lower the percentage of albedo, the more light is absorbed. This albedo figure must be known precisely, before it can be determined, at the cloud top temperature of 240 K, whether or not Venus is in thermal balance. Only a few percentages of difference, say, 0.76 and 0.78, or 2%, at the cloud tops, would have a pronounced effect on Venus and would indicate about 10% more heat coming from the planet than is supplied by sunlight. What do the measurements actually show? V. I. Moroz presented some of the earlier measurement of Venus' albedo. G. Muller measured it to be 0.878, or 87.8%, in 1893. Andre Danjon derived a spherical albedo for Venus of 0.815 in 1949, while C. F. Knuckles, M. K. Sinton and W. M. Sinton derived a spherical albedo for Venus, of 0.815, in 1961. (84) What Moroz did was average the readings to get the best possible indication of the actual albedo. The more acceptable measurements are the most recent and use the latest technical developments, specially those taken from spacecraft orbiting Venus. These are fully discussed by F. W. Taylor et al. in an article titled, "The Thermal Balance of the Middle and Upper Atmosphere of Venus." The albedo found does not indicate thermal balance, but thermal imbalance. The reader will learn that these readings and their implications of a thermal imbalance were so distressing to the investigators that they rejected all the measurements showing that Venus was emitting more heat than the sunlight was delivering. F. W. Taylor states: Measurements of albedo are more difficult to calibrate than those of thermal flux, because of the problem of obtaining an accurate reference source. Using earth-based measurements, Irvine (1968) calculated a (1968) calculated a value for A [albedo of 0.77 0.07, which was later revised upward to 0.80 0.07 by Travis (1975). The Pioneer Venus infrared radiometer had a 0.4 to 4.0 µm channel calibrated by a lamp from which Tomasko et al. (1980b) obtained a preliminary albedo for Venus of 0.80 0.02. Another approach to determining the albedo is simply to assume that the atmosphere is in net radiative balance...[by equation. In this way, a value of 0.79+ 0.02- 0.01 has been obtained from Venera radiometry (Ksanfomality, 1977, 1980b) and [a value of 0.76 0.006 [has been obtained from Pioneer Venus emission measurements (Schofield et al., 1982). Clearly the Pioneer measurements of emission and reflection are not consistent with each other if net radiative balance applies. (Emphasis added.) A source inside Venus equal in magnitude to 20% of the solar input (i.e., accounting for the difference between A= 0.76 and A= 0.80) is very unlikely, since Venus is thought to have an Earth-like makeup, which would imply internal 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 latter becoming sufficiently plastic to collapse of the observed surface relief. This could be avoided if the transport was very localized, i.e., via a relatively small number of giant volcanoes. Although large, fresh-looking volcanoes do appear to exist on Venus...and the composition 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 5 X 10 15 W [watts, or so, of power. A more acceptable alternative is that the preliminary estimate of 0.80 0.2 for the albedo from the P. V. [Pioneer Venus measurements is too high, since the uncertainty limit is now known from further work to be too conservative. (J. V. Martonchik, personal communication.) A fuller analysis of the P. V. [Pioneer Venus albedo data --still the best, in terms of wavelength, spacial and phase coverage, and radiometric precision, which is likely to be obtained for the foreseeable future --is likely to resolve this puzzle. In conclusion, then, the best thermal measurements of Venus WITH THE ASSUMPTION OF GLOBAL ENERGY BALANCE yield a value for the albedo of 0.76 0.1; this is the most probable value. (85) (Capitalization added. Let us examine what was assumed as the truth regarding the reasons for Venus being in radiative balance. First, Taylor and his colleagues assumed that each of the albedos measured by all the other investigators was wrong or that the instrumental error range in every other investigator's case was always on the minus side. There were three measurements: one by Irvine of 0.77 0.07, revised upward by Travis to around 0.80 0.07; another by Tomasko et al., using Pioneer Venus instruments to obtain a value of 0.80 0.02; and another, based on the assumption that Venus was in thermal balance, by Ksanfomality, who used Venera instrumentation to calculate an albedo of 0.79+ 0.02- 0.01. Thus, three albedo measurements indicated that the reflection of light, in terms of albedo, clustered around 0.80, the last two with tolerance levels plus or minus well above 0.76, accepted as the emission albedo by Taylor and his colleagues. If Venus reflected 80% of the light incident to it, but allowed 4% more light than was found by the emission albedo of 0.76, then the planet was emitting 20% more heat than sunlight delivered. Usually when a group of scientific measurements cluster around a particular value, as the 80% albedo did, scientists assume that the averaged value of these readings is a fairly good indication of the actual figure. By averaging the measurements, scientists achieve the best approximate value. However, since it was unthinkable that Venus could be in radiative imbalance, even based on one measurement that assumed balance but arrived at a figure of A= 79%, J. V. Martonchik reevaluated the Pioneer Venus data that gave an albedo of 80% .02% and recalculated the possible instrument error to make it large enough so that, on the minus side, it would agree with the lower 76% emission albedo. This was presented in a private communication that could not be analyzed by other investigators to determine whether or not Martonchik's correction was itself without error. Second, Taylor and his colleagues assumed that Venus must possess an internal heat source almost equivalent to that of the Earth. Since the Earth generates an internal heat value much smaller than the value that suggests a 20% imbalance on Venus, they concluded that Venus, itself, could not be responsible for this additional heat. If Venus' emissions were actually this much greater, they said, Venus would have to be enormously volcanic, and --in the next breath --said Venus appears to exhibit a highly volcanic surface. They also admit that the Venusian atmosphere appears to contain the gases consistent with vigorous, volcanic outgassing. But all these correlations mean nothing. Taylor and his collleagues say such agreement between thermal imbalance and Venus' volcanic surface and atmosphere is too incredible to accept, and reject all of this on the one assumption that Venus must be in thermal balance. Yet their conclusion states that the 0.76 0.01 albedo is the most probable value. There is no evidence to suggest this. Nevertheless, if this assumption is correct, it should be corroborated by all the other readings taken by Venera and Pioneer Venus probes. These readings should exhibit demonstrable evidence of radiative balance throughout the rest of the Venusian atmosphere. This, in fact, is not the case. In fact, all the other readings deliver a death blow to any assertion that Venus ' atmosphere is in thermal balance. If the runaway greenhouse effect is correct, not only must the cloud tops exhibit thermal balance between solar input and infrared thermal output, but the lower atmosphere must show the same. If, as Velikovsky claims, the greenhouse effect presents only a minor contribution to Venus' high thermal emission, then as one gets closer to the surface of the planet, the measurements should show an even greater radiative imbalance than the 20% suggested by the cloud top readings. The nature of establishing radiative balance in an atmosphere is explained thus, "Radiative balance occurs [on a planet at every level when the amount of downward, directed solar radiation that is absorbed is equal to the amount of infrared radiation that is emitted upward. When local temperature satisfies this balance, the atmosphere temperature is maintained." (86) (Emphasis added.) M. G. Tomasko further reinforces this concept: In a steady state, the algebraic sum of the atmospheric heating and cooling rates due to all physical processes should [equal zero at each location. At a given location, the heating and cooling rates depend on the state of the atmosphere: its temperature, pressure, composition, radiation and wind fields. A successful steady-state model for the thermal balance of Venus' lower atmosphere will include the relationship of the heating and cooling rates to the atmospheric state, and show that the atmospheric structure leading to net zero heating or cooling at each location is equal to the observed structure. (87) What, then, do the Pioneer Venus probes that entered the atmosphere show regarding this? According to Tomasko, "Among the most accurate measurements of the temperature-pressure structure of the lower atmosphere of Venus [we find those made by the four Pioneer Venus (PV) probes....The probe entry locations...vary in latitude from 30 South to 60 North [and measure Day and Night...temperature profiles...." (88) According to Richard A. Kerr, the editor of Science: When Pioneer Venus probes looked at the temperature, each one found more energy being radiated up from the lower atmosphere than enters it as sunlight....To further complicate the situation, the size of the apparent upward flow of energy varies from place to place by a factor of [two, which was a disturbing discovery. (89) It is impossible to believe that in one area the greenhouse effect is twice as efficient as in others. From Velikovsky's theoretical viewpoint, parts of Venus' surface, known to the scientists as coronea, or hot spots, are much hotter than other areas of the surface. This would clearly explain these measurements. From the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) publication, Pioneer Venus, we have the following: The measured, infrared fluxes [upward from Venus show several anomalies, the origin of which is still being debated. Taken at face value, the anomalies suggest that parts of the atmosphere are transmitting about twice the energy upward than is available from solar radiation at the same level. (90) It is obvious that wind motions, pressures and all the other atmospheric conditions in Venus' atmosphere will not create a 50% imbalance. While the cloud top indicated a 20% thermal imbalance farther down in the atmosphere, the Pioneer Venus probes revealed a 50% radiative imbalance. This, of course, is in full agreement with Velikovsky's concept that the extremely hot planet's surface is the major heat source, indicated by greater fluxes of infrared closer to the thermal source. This finding was anathema to the investigators, as was the imbalance measured at the top of the cloud cover; but, What was to be done about these most accurate readings? Tomasko tells us exactly what some scientists did and why: The thermal flux profiles are surprisingly variable from site to site, in view of the great similarity in temperature profiles measured at these sites. In addition, at both the Night and North probes sites, they are much greater than the globally averaged solar net profile at low altitudes, implying a substantive radiative imbalance in the lower atmosphere. (Emphasis added.) In view of the large and variable nature of these flux measurements, the investigators have searched for instrumental problems which could have affected the measurements and have found one that could have systematically increased the measured thermal net fluxes....The authors believe that they understand the vertical dependence of the flux errors, and by adjusting the fluxes to reasonable values, at low altitudes, they have derived corrected fluxes. (91) (Emphasis added.) Corrected values are not really valid values. Not only did the scientists correct the two highest readings to "reasonable values," meaning thermal balance values, they corrected every probe reading because every probe showed strong radiative imbalance at all levels of the atmosphere --much as was found for the cloud tops. Based on the investigators' beliefs, they simply made the data fit the theory of a greenhouse in radiative balance. However, one may be quite sure that, if the readings corroborated their beliefs of thermal balance, we would be showered by this direct confirmation of theory. But these measurements did not exhibit any evidence for balance. As Kerr admitted, "The much ballyhooed greenhouse effect of Venus' carbon dioxide atmosphere can account for only part of the heating, and heating, for other mechanisms is now in turmoil." (92) In essence, the thermal imbalance at the cloud tops was corroborated by Pioneer Venus probes below the clouds, so one can be confident that such is also the case throughout the entire Venusian atmosphere. What must also be pointed out is that the Pioneer Venus probes did not measure radiation all the way down to the surface. According to Seiff, "[ temperature data were not obtained by the Pioneer probes below 12 kilometers [7 miles altitude." (93) Tomasko indicates that "[ the data from the temperature sensors of all four [Pioneer Venus probes terminated at 13 kilometers altitude." (94) From this fact, one would expect that, based on Velikovsky's concept, the Venera probes that did approach the surface, measuring the solar fluxes in and infrared thermal fluxes emitted from the surface, would show an even greater radiative imbalance than did the Pioneer probes. In fact, that is what they did! Seiff states: The heating rates needed to warm the atmosphere from the Day probe [Pioneer Venus profile to that of Venera 9 integrated over altitude...is 45 times the midday solar heat absorbed at 30 latitude....This is also true for the Venera 10, 11 and 12 data relative to the large probe data, for which necessary heating rates integrated over altitude are> [somewhat less than 40 times the mean dayside solar input for the albedo of 0.71. (95) (Emphasis added.) On page 219 of his article in Venus, Seiff essentially admits the same thing. The average reading from the Venera probes showed solar radiation absorbed by Venus. The surface infrared fluxes emitted were around 40 times more than enters Venus' atmosphere as sunlight. The tremendous rise in infrared heat nearer to the surface is similar to the heat emitted by a white-hot block of metal, in that, as one puts one's hand near the block, the heat rises, but, at a certain closer distance to the block, the heat rises immensely. This makes sense in terms of the greenhouse effect as well. The regions where most of the Sun's radiant energy is absorbed would, at those altitudes, generate the strongest greenhouse effect. Bruce Murray points out that On Venus,...a smaller fraction of the incident solar energy penetrates the atmosphere all the way to the surface. Most of it is scattered back into space to provide the bright image that is seen through the telescope; much of the remainder is absorbed within the atmosphere. Thus, Venus' atmosphere is heated more at the top and middle than at the bottom, and, in this sense, resembles more the shallow seas on Earth than its atmosphere. (96) The ocean is an excellent greenhouse, but sunlight is primarily absorbed at the upper 300 feet and this is the warmest region of the oceans. This explains why the solar greenhouse effect is greater at the cloud tops compared to Venus' output --by 80% of infrared heat energy, while the greenhouse effect's energy becomes reduced to 50% well below the clouds, and to 2.44% of infrared emissions given off by the planet at the surface. The regions of greatest solar absorption have the strongest greenhouse effect, compared to that emitted by the planet. The regions of least solar absorption have the weakest greenhouse effect, compared to that emitted by the planet. This apparently is true at Venus. Furthermore, all the readings showed the same clustering of values, of nearly 40 times greater than the solar radiation input, which strongly suggests that the readings were basically correct. The scientists found these measurements so repugnant to their theoretical greenhouse concept that they were dismissed. Seiff tells us that "it is clear that the Venera 9 Day probe differences cannot be induced by solar heating but must be ascribed to other processes or to measurement uncertainties." (97) All, and I stress, all of the measurements, from the cloud tops to the lower atmosphere to the surface, gave consistent readings of radiative imbalance --contrary to everything greenhouse advocates claim. No single set of probe readings by Pioneer Venus or Venera suggests, in any way, that scientists have clear measurements supporting their contention of thermal balance. Every reading is another nail in the coffin of their theory. Realizing this, their actions to ignore or deny these findings point to a rigidity that has no place in science. This rigidity of thought is expounded in Pioneer Venus, a NASA publication. Let us remember von Braun's admonition that the greenhouse effect is unproven by experiment. One of the primary objectives of the Pioneer Venus Multiprobe mission was to test thoroughly the belief that the "greenhouse effect" is responsible for the high surface temperature. (Emphasis added.) [After describing the measured thermal imbalance described above, they continue. Possible instrumental errors in this difficult measurement may be responsible. A possibility is that two of the probes entered regions that are unusually transparent to thermal radiation, but this is rather unlikely because much of the absorption [of infrared is due to ubiquitous carbon dioxide, which makes up nearly all the atmospheric gas. The suggestion has been made that heat balance oscillates around an average state and that the anomalous measurements were made during the heating phase [Venus' temperature goes up and down over time with respect to its balance temperature and the probes, just by coincidence, descended on Venus during the heating period. In spite of these difficulties in interpreting some of these observations, the greenhouse effect, coupled with global dynamics, is now well-established as the basic explanation of the high surface temperature. (98) At every step of the investigation, every measurement showed radiative imbalance wherever readings were taken in the Venus atmosphere; and, at every step, every measurement that contradicted the runaway greenhouse effect concept of thermal balance was either changed, culled or set side based solely on a theoretical belief that Venus must be in thermal balance. We have observed this irrational behavior, of setting aside evidence negative to greenhouse assumptions, from the beginning of this investigation right up to the end, based only on the theoretical greenhouse consideration. Why take measurements if the scientists are not willing to accept any that contradict their theory? Needless to say, one can fully comprehend the nature of what has been going on with the evidence as handled by the greenhouse theorists and its advocates. It is sheer hypocrisy to suggest that the rules of science governed the way this data has been handled. But, finally, let us return to George Talbott's analysis of the cooling of Venus from a molten state to its present 750 K temperature. When we apply the findings of the Venera probe's surface measurements to analyze what contribution the greenhouse effect makes and what is contributed by the planet, a most interesting set of figures emerges. The Venera surface readings indicate that Venus emits about 40 times more heat than sunlight imparts. Simple algebra shows that X= solar radiation plus 40 X= the internal planetary radiation together= 750 K, the surface temperature. X+ 40 X= 750 K 41 X= 750 K X= 18.3 K, solar radiation input 40 X= 731.7 K, planetary internal heat Therefore, Talbott's analysis of the cooling of Venus, to derive its present surface temperature from a molten state, illustrates a high degree of accuracy. The 18.3 K solar input to the 731.7 K planet's internal heat shows that Talbott's percentage of error is no more than 2.44%, which is an extremely small value. But even if we double this error range, or triple it or quadruple it, Venus clearly appears to have an enormous radiative imbalance. The entire concept of the runaway greenhouse is supported by expediently using procedures that accountants and economists call "smoke and mirrors," not to say, pure denial of the facts. Velikovsky's theory regarding the thermal nature of Venus is in complete harmony with the real evidence and the actual measurements. The history of the advocates of the runaway greenhouse mechanism has been to give the theory a presumptive status precluding the notion that it must stand or fall on the basis of the evidence. But, as has been demonstrated, whatever the evidence indicates plays little or no role in the status of the theory. I suggest that such methods employed to support the runaway greenhouse theory are antithetical to any science and reflect, instead, the rigid thought processes of its advocates rather than inductive science. How else could so much negative, inconvenient data be changed or remain unrecognized? At every level at which the theory is examined or analyzed, it fails on the basis of the evidence. One is forced to assume that no conceivable, negative finding that sorely contradicts the theory will ever find acceptance by these investigators. Such an adherence to theory, as dominant in science, is really only dogmatism in disguise. It is extraordinary that scientists can allow theory to blind them to the facts. James E. Oberg, a strong advocate of the runaway greenhouse effect and vocal critic of Velikovsky, stated that "the `runaway greenhouse effect' is still in the running." (99) However, Professor Irving Wolfe, in a recent telephone conversation, told me what Velikovsky claimed would eventually happen. "The greenhouse vill go avay," he said. (100) The reader is left to draw his own conclusions about whether the runaway greenhouse effect is still in the running or will go away. It is quite clear that there is a greenhouse effect on Venus --not a runaway greenhouse effect --and that Velikovsky's concept is well-supported by the evidence.
_References