Venus, Velikovsky & Miscellaneous Speculations

[rynner2]

"Moon Earth fission" search throws-up over a million hits and they all speak of fission as being the consensus opinion among academics.

Really? Measuring the degree of scientific consensus by the number of google hits doesn't seem very scientific!

Especially as googling on "Moon Earth impact" returns over 4 million hits!
And I won't claim they all support this theory, but many do, eg:

The Moon is widely attributed to a huge impact early in Earth's history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_eve ... act_events

EDIT:

The giant impact hypothesis proposes that the Moon was created out of the debris left over from a collision between the young Earth and a Mars-sized body. This is the favored[1] scientific hypothesis for the formation of the Moon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis

 

[Ghostisfort]

The giant impact hypothesis is also described as fission on many sites.

 

[eburacum]

The giant impact hypothesis is also described as fission on many sites.

The best fit for this event is supposedly a collision between a Mars-sized object (the planet, not the chocolate bar) and an Earth which was slighly smaller than today. This impact resulted in a chaotic mix between the matter in the two objects- when the violence of the collision died down, we were left with a slighly larger Earth and a smaller Moon - both objects containing mass from both of the progenitor objects.

That isn't really what I would call fission. It is more like two decks of cards of different sizes, which are shuffled and reorganised into two different packs which are not the same sizes as the original. It certainly doesn't resemble the kind of fission Van Flandern was describing in his paper, which results from prolate objects over-spinning.

I should point out that the early Solar System was a violent and catastrophic place; Velikovsky would have loved it. There is evidence that Uranus and Neptune swapped places, for instance. Planets and planetesimals were colliding and being thrown into interstellar space at frequent intervals.

But all that happened a very long time ago - no massaging of the figures can make a recent, historical era re-orbiting of Venus (and/or Mars) feasible. The fact that the Moon remains in its stable orbit is one indication that no encounters have occured recently.

 

[Ghostisfort]

Clarke's fourth law: "For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert."

We have here an excerpt from William Corliss, The Moon and Planets, P87, Non gravitational Forces and Earth Moon Acceleration Discrepancies.

What it shows is a Lunar acceleration, contrary to reports that there are none, dating from a time predicted by Velikovsky who said there was an encounter with a planet in the sixth century CE. It's been a while since I read any of this and so I rely on memory.

Nongravitational Forces ALB3
Examples
Xl. Radar-derived discrepancies. "Abstract. Precise measurements of the Doppler shift of radar waves reflected from Moon disclose unexpectedly large discrepancies---averaging about 0.6 centimeter per second---between the radial velocities and the predictions based on the Eckert-Brown lunar ephemeris. These residuals have a rapidly changing component corresponding to a relatively large, variable, and unexplained discrepancy in radial acceleration of about 10-4 centimeter per second, per second, in magnitude and about 1 day in period." The authors could not identify any specific cause for these discrepancies. (RI)
X2. "Sudden" perturbations in nongravitational
forces. "The parameter [D"], which is a linear combination of the accelerations of the Earth and Moon, can be followed as a function of time with high confidence from about 700 BCE to the present. From its behavior,
t = - we are apparently forced to conclude that there was something like a 'square wave! in the non-gravitational forces that began about 700 CE and that lasted until about 1300 CE. During the time of this square wave, the accelerations apparently changed by factors of around 5.
We are seriously lacking in mechanisms to explain the non-gravitational forces. The only mechanism of tidal friction (the 'shallow seas' model) that has been evaluated quantitatively provides only about one fourth of the necessary amount of friction, and it does not provide for much change with time within a period as short as historic times. Forces of non-tidal origin, which are of the same order as the tidal forces, may be due largely to core-mantle interactions. There are no quantitative theories of these interactions; there are only models whose parameters are uncertain within many orders of magnitude. " (R2) CE equals Christian Era.


R1. Smith, Carl R. , et al; "Discrepancies between Radar Data and the Lunar Ephemeris," Science, 160:876, 1968. (XI)

R2. Newton, R. R. ; "Astronomical Evidence Concerning Non-Gravitational Forces in the Earth-Moon System," Astrophysics and Space Science, 16:179, 1972. (X2)

 

[rynner2]

We have here an excerpt from William Corliss, The Moon and Planets, P87, Non gravitational Forces and Earth Moon Acceleration Discrepancies.

What it shows is a Lunar acceleration, contrary to reports that there are none, dating from a time predicted by Velikovsky who said there was an encounter with a planet in the sixth century CE. It's been a while since I read any of this and so I rely on memory.

Your memory is not the only problem. You bounce around through history, picking on things that you consider anomalies, and present them out of context as if they were conclusive proof of something, rather than just as puzzles of their time, many of which will have been resolved by now.

William Corliss wrote this particular book in 1985. He died in July this year, but I suspect he would have been an interesting person to talk to.

According to Bob Rickard, "What excited Corliss most was the prospect of stumbling upon some unexpected anomalous datum with the potential to destabilize paradigms and accelerate scientific change "The philosophical foundation stones of the clockwork universe are eroding fast," he wrote. "The idea that nature is in balance, that geological processes are uniformitarian, that life evolved in small, random steps, and that the cosmos is deterministic. The sheer abundance of anomalies is a driving force behind this change."

He added that "anomaly research, while not science per se, has the potential to destabilize paradigms and accelerate scientific advances." Forteans, by themselves, he believed, "may stimulate scientific revolutions but cannot carry them through." As examples, he pointed to Velikovsky, Wilhelm Reich and von Daniken, whose publicising of anomalies in orthodox thinking had "barely perturbed science". Besides, he added, their advocacy was distinctly anti-science and their authoritarian tone "un-Fortean".

http://blogs.forteana.org/node/163

"The philosophical foundation stones of the clockwork universe are eroding fast," he wrote. "The idea that nature is in balance, that geological processes are uniformitarian, that life evolved in small, random steps, and that the cosmos is deterministic."

But some of that had been 'eroded' before he was born, and the rest 'eroded' during his lifetime.

So, 'interesting', but not all-knowing.

 

[eburacum]

This effect Corliss refers to was found by RR Newton, who extracted it from ancient and historical observations. It is small enough to be caused by observational error, and probably was. but let's assume that it wasn't.

This effect appears to have lasted six hundred years and so cannot have been caused by a short-lived phenomenon such as an encounter with any passing planet, especially not one in the sixth century, two hundred years before the effect kicks in. During the period 700-1300 the planets were in their proper positions, allowing for observational error; so if Newton's effect was real, we need to look elsewhere for its cause.

Here's Newton's full paper, by the way.
http://www.pereplet.ru/gorm/atext/newton1.htm

 

[Ghostisfort]

rynner2

The Egyptian priest had said to Solon, "You have no antiquity of history, and no history of antiquity;"

Without history we don't know who we are.

History is the most inescapable of subjects: we inherit it, we make it, and we are fated to become part of it. In our education system, however, its study is increasingly neglected: indeed, in a large number of British schools, the end of history is already a reality. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... rance.html

I realise that history leads to awkward questions about science, but this is FT and that's life.
I use history in my threads because, not only do I find it interesting, but those who read it tell me that they also find it interesting. Educators take note.
Corliss was called the modern-day Fort, something I profoundly disagree with, but his anomalies do provide grist to the Fortean mill. I believe he was naive in expecting to change a science that has been fighting change since before Queen Victoria. This will eventually and inevitably lead to its demise.

I did not claim that this is proof of Velikovsky's theories:

What it shows is a Lunar acceleration, contrary to reports that there are none, dating from a time predicted by Velikovsky who said there was an encounter with a planet in the sixth century CE. It's been a while since I read any of this and so I rely on memory."

My memory of such things is usually good.

Even if the date was way-out, which it's not, giving leeway for historical and astronomical calculation accuracy, it answers the original post:

"But all that happened a very long time ago - no massaging of the figures can make a recent, historical era re-orbiting of Venus (and/or Mars) feasible. The fact that the Moon remains in its stable orbit is one indication that no encounters have occurred recently.

"

That the orbit of the Moon and planets has always been an unanswered question where stability is concerned. Some Solar System bodies are chaotic.
Note to other readers: See previous thread on ephemeris time and the calibration of atomic clocks.


eburacum

'We don't know what it is, but it's certainly not Velikovsky', is not very scientific, although appealing to authority with an empty head seems to pass for qualification these days.
I will certainly read Newton's paper.
If it's "small enough to be caused by observational error and probably was." then why are these same measurements used for ephemeris time and to calibrate atomic clocks, not to mention proofs of relativity?
You can't have it both ways.

Additionally, I would like to point out that Velikovsky said in WIC that there was some cratering and melting of the Moons surface during the Venus encounter, but the effects on the moon's orbit cannot be detected as this took place around 1500 BC and there are no acceptable astronomical records from this time.

Additionally, I would like to point out that Velikovsky said in WIC that there was some cratering and melting of the Moons surface during the Venus encounter, but the effects on the moon's orbit cannot be detected as this took place around 1500 BC and there are no acceptable astronomical records from this time.

This formed part of his prediction that there would be remnant magnetism on the Lunar surface due to electrical discharge and also traces of radioactivity.

As anticipated by Velikovsky, the crater Aristarchus proved to be the center of a region of especially strong radioactivity. ... http://www.catastrophism.com/intro/sear ... zoom_and=1

 

[eburacum]

If it's "small enough to be caused by observational error and probably was." then why are these same measurements used for ephemeris time and to calibrate atomic clocks, not to mention proofs of relativity?

These quite unreliable observation from the eighth to the fourteenth centuries are not accurate enough to be used to check relativity; look at the size of those error bars! I am not sure why you think they have been used for this purpose.

 

[Ghostisfort]

The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.

Although this is an independent definition that does not refer to the older basis of ephemeris time, it uses the same quantity as the value of the ephemeris second measured by the cesium clock in 1958. This SI second referred to atomic time was later verified by Markowitz (1988) to be in agreement, within 1 part in 1010, with the second of ephemeris time as determined from lunar observations...

...Previous to the 1960 change, the 'Improved Lunar Ephemeris' had alrady been made available in terms of ephemeris time for the years 1952-1959[30] (computed by W J Eckert from Brown's theory with modifications recommended by Clemence (1948)).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephemeris_ ... tandard.29

Following several years of work, Louis Essen from the National Physical Laboratory (Teddington, England) and William Markowitz from the United States Naval Observatory (USNO) determined the relationship between the hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium atom and the ephemeris second.[14][16] Using a common-view measurement method based on the received signals from radio station WWV,[17] they determined the orbital motion of the Moon about the Earth, from which the apparent motion of the Sun could be inferred, in terms of time as measured by an atomic clock. They found that the second of ephemeris time (ET) had the duration of 9,192,631,770 ± 20 cycles of the chosen caesium frequency.[16] As a result, in 1967 the Thirteenth General Conference on Weights and Measures defined the second of atomic time in the International System of Units as
FOCS 1, a continuous cold caesium fountain atomic clock in Switzerland, started operating in 2004 at an uncertainty of one second in 30 million years.

the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.[14]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second#Int ... secondNote

There are endless pages of this stuff for anyone with the patience to read it. I didn't find the one I was looking for, the use of very old positions to calculate the second, but I'm sure I will find it.
The bottom line is that the atomic clocks are calibrated by the movement of the Solar System bodies ( most recently the moon) and the records used go back a long way.

No one seems to understand this: that the second used by atomic clocks did not appear as a result of the clocks, but was calibrated by the movement of Solar System bodies.
The second is an angle of the Earth's rotation relative to these bodies (the Moon) and NOT an emanation of atomic clocks. Atonic clocks do not measure time until they are calibrated by the Moon.
Therefore, the measurements of relativity that the clocks are assumed to make are based on the movements of the Moon that are declared by you to be unreliable.

 

[kamalktk]

Therefore, the measurements of relativity that the clocks are assumed to make are based on the movements of the Moon that are declared by you to be unreliable.

I'd imagine with sufficiently precise measurement ability, we'd find that those movements are unreliable, just as the rotation of the earth was found to be unreliable. There's no doubt the atomic second was designed to be what people think of a second (as opposed to making an "atomic second" a minute or an hour long). But we don't understand time well enough to come up with a natural unit, or their doesn't seem to be a natural unit for time (since it's inherently relative).

The standardization of meters, kilograms etc are designed to be based on repeatable, natural sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units.

 

[rynner2]

No one seems to understand this: that the second used by atomic clocks did not appear as a result of the clocks, but was calibrated by the movement of Solar System bodies.

We've been here before!

Atomic clocks are the standard time keepers. They are not calibrated by solar system movements (which are variable and erratic) but aligned with them. This is because we have a time-keeping system and calendar which most people understand, and which relates to their daily lives and the passing of the seasons, and it makes sense to hang on to this framework. The small errors that arise from the astronomy are corrected by the use of Leap Seconds.

But you do not seem to understand this...

This is another example of you re-playing your cracked old records on your wind-up gramophone and ignoring the nice, shiny, hi-fi system you could have.

And what's it got to do with Venus anyway?

 

[Jerry_B]

This is what is suppressed and the reason no one wants to talk about Venus.
I don't know if the Russians suppress this because as far as I know, they don't talk about it either.

The fact that the Soviet data did not contradict findings made by the West tends to show that there was no suppression going on. Perhaps there is nothing to talk about because there has been no suppression of the alleged 'truth'?

 

[Ghostisfort]

And what's it got to do with Venus anyway?

What it has with Venus is a post not more than a day or two ago that denied the possibility of any planetary interactions with the Moon in recorded history.
Any evidence of a close approach is denied and claimed to be due to observational error, whilst the same Lunar observations are used to calibrate atomic clocks and allegedly prove relativity.
We can, I think, call this selective use of data?

You say: "Atomic clocks are the standard time keepers. They are not calibrated by solar system movements (which are variable and erratic) but aligned with them."

Please explain what this means and also tell us all just where the standard second originates, as atomic clocks are not given birth with built-in seconds.

The caesium atom was known to vibrate at 9,162,613,770 times a second, (a frequency) before the atomic clock was built and so where did this second come from?

 

[Ghostisfort]

Therefore, the measurements of relativity that the clocks are assumed to make are based on the movements of the Moon that are declared by you to be unreliable.

I'd imagine with sufficiently precise measurement ability, we'd find that those movements are unreliable, just as the rotation of the earth was found to be unreliable. There's no doubt the atomic second was designed to be what people think of a second (as opposed to making an "atomic second" a minute or an hour long). But we don't understand time well enough to come up with a natural unit, or their doesn't seem to be a natural unit for time (since it's inherently relative).

The standardization of meters, kilograms etc are designed to be based on repeatable, natural sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units.

I agree entirely.
There are no natural time units, something I've tried to get across for weeks.

 

[Ghostisfort]

This is what is suppressed and the reason no one wants to talk about Venus.
I don't know if the Russians suppress this because as far as I know, they don't talk about it either.

The fact that the Soviet data did not contradict findings made by the West tends to show that there was no suppression going on. Perhaps there is nothing to talk about because there has been no suppression of the alleged 'truth'?

The thermal gradient of Venus has been suppressed in as much as it's not widely known that all Venus probes found that the heat was from the planet surface and not from the Sun.
It has been known ever since the Venus probes and even before that, that Venus emits much more heat than it receives from the Sun.

Examples from Corliss
Xl. Permanent feature. "Perhaps the most perplexing of the atmospheric problems lingering after Pioneer is the 460°C temperature at the bottom of_the atmosphere. The much ballyhooed greenhouse effect of Veunus's carbon dioxide atmosphere can account for only part-of the heating, and evidence for other heating mechanisms is now in a turmoil. The question concerns how the sun's energy behaves once it penetrates the highest clouds. When Pioneer Venus's probes looked at the amount of radiant energy passing through the atmosphere, each one found more energy being radiated up from the lower atmosphere than enters it as sunlight
Working with data from the Pioneer Venus Orbiter, F. W. Taylor found that Venus radiates 15 per cent more energy than it receives.

To keep the surface temperature constant, Venus must be producing this extra heat from within. All the inner planets, including the Earth, produce internal heat from radioactive elements in their rocks. But Taylor's observations of Venus would mean that Venus is producing almost 10,000 times more heat than the Earth and it is inconceivable, according to pre
sent theories of planetary formation, that Venus should have thousands of times more of the radioactive elements than the Earth does. At last week's meeting, Taylor's suggestion met with scepticism---not to say sheer disbelief---from other planetary scientists. " (R2)
References:
Rl. Kerr, Richard A.; "Venus: Not Simple or Familiar, But Interesting, " Science, 207:289, 1980. (X1)
R2. "The Mystery of Venus's InternalHeat," New Scientist, 88:437, 1980.

 

[Jerry_B]

How does using a quote from an esteemed journal as Science show that there is suppression of information? Surely it would simply not have been published at all, if there was some conspiracy? Aside from that, it doesn't show how the Soviets were colluding with this.

 

[Ghostisfort]

How does using a quote from an esteemed journal as Science show that there is suppression of information? Surely it would simply not have been published at all, if there was some conspiracy? Aside from that, it doesn't show how the Soviets were colluding with this.

If you look at some of the other threads that were current when this one started, you will see that extra solar planets were being based on greenhouse Venus history and the probe findings were ignored. It is still assumed by scientists that Venus temperature is due to a greenhouse effect.

Greenhouse effect
A runaway greenhouse effect occurs if positive feedbacks lead to the evaporation of all greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. A runaway greenhouse effect involving carbon dioxide and water vapor is thought to have occurred on Venus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Now, having been shown by space technology that Venus temperature is not due to a greenhouse effect, scientists continue to claim that it is?
Maybe you can tell me what is going on?

I've already told you, I don't know anything about the Soviets - this was your idea.

 

[Jerry_B]

I don't think that you understand the points I'm making. Firstly, the suggestion that information is being supressed is not borne out by the fact that it's being covered by mainstream scientific journals (i.e. Science). Secondly, Soviet data does not contradict that in the West, which would suggest that the data matches and is therefore not being manipulated or suppressed by Western sources.

So it seems that the case for a suppression of data is not proven, just yet.

 

[eburacum]

F W Taylor (who was datamined by Corliss) has apparently recalculated, and now appears to believe that the radiative contribution from Venus' surface is minimal; here's a powerpoint presentation by him about the subject
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/vexag/chapman_c ... tue_am.pdf

The difference is due to the fact that only a small part of the
thermal emission to space takes place from the surface; most is
from the colder regions near the tropopause.

Modelling such vast dense atmospheres is not simple, and it is easy to overlook a factor that can radically change the characteristics of a world. In this case I suspect Taylor had not yet allowed for the effect of the adiabatic lapse rate, which increases the effective temperature greatly with depth without any extra source of energy. Presumably he has done so now.

 

[Ghostisfort]

I don't think that you understand the points I'm making. Firstly, the suggestion that information is being supressed is not borne out by the fact that it's being covered by mainstream scientific journals (i.e. Science). Secondly, Soviet data does not contradict that in the West, which would suggest that the data matches and is therefore not being manipulated or suppressed by Western sources.

So it seems that the case for a suppression of data is not proven, just yet.

The Science article you refer to is from 1980, a time when global warming was not at the forefront as it is today.
No one is saying that this was suppressed at the time.
What I've said is that it's NOW ignored because it does not support the prevailing paradigm, which in itself is a kind of suppression. I've posted links in past threads about information that has been removed from Wiki simply because it does not support global warming.

Runaway Greenhouse
Venus was originally cooler than what it is now and it had a greater abundance of water several billion years ago. Also, most of its carbon dioxide was locked up in the rocks. Through a process called a runaway greenhouse, Venus heated up to its present blistering hot level. http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s9.htm

I think you will find that most science sites now again support the Venus greenhouse scenario even though it was shown to be incorrect in Science 1980 because it supports global warming.

You seem to have created a straw man with your insistence that Soviet data does not contradict western data. Something that no one but you has mentioned because no one knows what the Soviet thinking on the subject was. They only supplied a minimum of data to western scientist. Why don't you give us a link?

 

[Ghostisfort]

F W Taylor (who was datamined by Corliss) has apparently recalculated, and now appears to believe that the radiative contribution from Venus' surface is minimal; here's a powerpoint presentation by him about the subject
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/vexag/chapman_c ... tue_am.pdf

The difference is due to the fact that only a small part of the
thermal emission to space takes place from the surface; most is
from the colder regions near the tropopause.

Modelling such vast dense atmospheres is not simple, and it is easy to overlook a factor that can radically change the characteristics of a world. In this case I suspect Taylor had not yet allowed for the effect of the adiabatic lapse rate, which increases the effective temperature greatly with depth without any extra source of energy. Presumably he has done so now.

Why go to all the trouble of theorising something unprovable until there is another lander when a hot surface temperature would answer all the questions?

 

[Jerry_B]

You seem to have created a straw man with your insistence that Soviet data does not contradict western data. Something that no one but you has mentioned because no one knows what the Soviet thinking on the subject was. They only supplied a minimum of data to western scientist. Why don't you give us a link?

It's not a straw man - it just seems that you do not understand my point. You claim that there's a so-called 'supression' of information, but you seem to ignore the fact that sources for data other than that collected by the US do not contradict those US findings. So much for suppression. Look up 'Venera' and 'Vega'.

 

[eburacum]

Why go to all the trouble of theorising something unprovable until there is another lander when a hot surface temperature would answer all the questions?

I am not quite with you, to be honest. The surface is hot; no-one disputes that. The question is, why is it hot? Corliss quoted one scientist, F W Taylor, who was initially puzzled about the source of this heat; since that time, working with the remarkable planetologist David Grinspoon, Taylor has determined the likely cause of this high temperature.

What would you expect to find from another lander? Hopefully there will be more landing missions, and they will no doubt uncover surprises; but we don't know what those surprises are yet (of course).

 

[Ghostisfort]

I watch the weather forecast every day and I see this as proof positive that little is known about atmospheric circulation and weather prediction on our own planet let alone a distant one. Forecasts more than a couple of days ahead are still not possible. As I recall, the Met Office have recently requested an even bigger computer.
OTOH, all of Velikovsky's predictions that have been checked have turned out to be positive (a challenge to debunkers). One that has not been verified is the internal heat of Venus that causes a large outflow of heat at the surface.
Maybe you can explain:

When Pioneer Venus's probes looked at the amount of radiant energy passing through the atmosphere, each one found more energy being radiated up from the lower atmosphere than enters it as sunlight. Working with data from the Pioneer Venus Orbiter, F. W. Taylor found that Venus radiates 15 per cent more energy than it receives.
Rl. Kerr, Richard A.; "Venus: Not Simple or Familiar, But Interesting, " Science, 207:289, 1980. (X1)
R2. "The Mystery of Venus's InternalHeat," New Scientist, 88:437, 1980.

Academic science is intransigent about getting something for nothing and I don't think it was Taylor alone who found the 15% unaccounted for..

 

[eburacum]

As mentioned above, F W Taylor now accepts that a combination of the greenhouse effect and the adibatic lapse rate are responsible for the surface temperature of Venus. Or do you suppose that he has been 'got at' by the Venusian conspiracy?

 

[Mythopoeika]

Maybe too much is being made of the greenhouse effect on Venus?
Given that Venus is closer to the Sun than Earth, it is possible that internal temperature may be a major contributor to the planet's overall high temperature.
This could be caused by the huge tidal effects of its close orbit to the Sun, causing the core to heat up and create huge volcanic activity. Lack of a strong magnetic field (probably due to a much smaller metallic core than Earth's) may also allow solar flares to actually reach the surface.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Maybe too much is being made of the greenhouse effect on Venus?
Given that Venus is closer to the Sun than Earth, it is possible that internal temperature may be a major contributor to the planet's overall high temperature.

...

Venus is closer to the Sun than the Earth, however, it's atmosphere is 96.5% CO2 as compared to 0.039% on Earth. That's potentially a lot of greenhouse effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

 

[Mythopoeika]

Maybe too much is being made of the greenhouse effect on Venus?
Given that Venus is closer to the Sun than Earth, it is possible that internal temperature may be a major contributor to the planet's overall high temperature.

...

Venus is closer to the Sun than the Earth, however, it's atmosphere is 96.5% CO2 as compared to 0.039% on Earth. That's potentially a lot of greenhouse effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

Yes, that's true - but my point is that greenhouse gases are not the only thing causing warming on Venus.

 

[rynner2]

Given that Venus is closer to the Sun than Earth, it is possible that internal temperature may be a major contributor to the planet's overall high temperature.
This could be caused by the huge tidal effects of its close orbit to the Sun, causing the core to heat up and create huge volcanic activity.

I don't think so!

Because of the retrograde rotation the length of a solar day on Venus is significantly shorter than the sidereal day. As a result of Venus's relatively long solar day, one Venus year is about 1.92 Venus days long.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus#Orbit_and_rotation

So tidal effects will be miniscule. (Especially as the orbit is almost circular.)

Lack of a strong magnetic field (probably due to a much smaller metallic core than Earth's) may also allow solar flares to actually reach the surface.

They may futz your satnav, but do they cause heating?

Anyhoo..

Unlike Earth, Venus lacks a magnetic field. Its ionosphere separates the atmosphere from outer space and the solar wind. This ionized layer excludes the solar magnetic field, giving Venus a distinct magnetic environment. This is considered Venus' induced magnetosphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus

The same page also offers this:

Despite the harsh conditions on the surface, the atmospheric pressure and temperature at about 50 km to 65 km above the surface of the planet is nearly the same as that of the Earth, making its upper atmosphere the most Earth-like area in the Solar System, even more so than the surface of Mars. Due to the similarity in pressure and temperature and the fact that breathable air (21% oxygen, 78% nitrogen) is a lifting gas on Venus in the same way that helium is a lifting gas on Earth, the upper atmosphere has been proposed as a location for both exploration and colonization...

Food for thought there!

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

Yes, that's true - but my point is that greenhouse gases are not the only thing causing warming on Venus.

So, you suspect the Venusian fire pixies, too? :shock: