Venus, Velikovsky & Miscellaneous Speculations

[Ghostisfort]

I applaud the recent posters for not sticking to the party line.

The conspiracy innuendos are diversions from facts arising from the failure of climate scientists regarding Climategate. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... l-warming/

In the 1970s a number of scientists put out warnings that a new ice age was imminent. They were based on the supposed mean global temperature as indicated by an averaged record of Northern Hemisphere weather station measurements which showed a decline for 36 years
This record convinced many scientists and journalists that a new ice age was about to commence. The US National Science Board 1972 stated:
"Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end… leading into the next glacial age". http://www.john-daly.com/tar-2000/ch-1.htm

But, of course scientists are hooked on presentism and what they do now is so much better than what they did then.
Actual laboratory experiments to test greenhouse effects are hardly ever mentioned, although I do recall some by a German scientist two or three years ago. He claimed that the assumptions were all wrong and as far as I know was not heard from again. I don't have a link for this.

Venus plays a large part in this drama, being the exemplar for runaway global atmospheric heating.
Again untested and unproven.

Climate Change, the emotive phrase that conjures-up all manner of imaginary but terrible scenarios, as has been pointed out by an earlier poster, is the normal state of climate, we have always had a changing climate.

And so, we find that there is not much real researched evidence (apart from computer models that support the prevailing paradigm but don't give accurate weather predictions) to support the greenhouse effect here or on Venus and what there is, is distorted by scientists who have become politicians.

 

[Mythopoeika]

...

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:

If you're fine with that as an explanation, then I'm fine with it too. :lol:

 

[Mythopoeika]

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?

Well, I wouldn't want to be in the way when a flare comes in. It could ruin my complexion.

 

[Mythopoeika]

Another thing - what about magnetic inductance?
There is a very small magnetic field which maintains a shallow ionosphere around Venus. Perhaps this is magnetically induced by the Sun's huge magnetic field?
I'm sure that would also cause some heating to occur.

 

[Ghostisfort]

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!

I find a problem in the notion that if they were honest, scientists would have to admit that they don't have a clue as to how the geomagnetic field works. Venus used to be called Earth's twin and the lack of a field must have come as quite a shock.
I've always had a sneaking suspicion that planetary magnetic fields are due to:

Magnetotactic bacteria (or MTB) are a polyphyletic group of bacteria discovered by Richard P. Blakemore in 1975, that orient along the magnetic field lines of Earth's magnetic field. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetotactic_bacteria

I would imagine that floating in a balloon, 50 km to 65 km above the surface of Venus would have to be one of the most dangerous of explorations, such as to deter even the Montgolfier brothers.

 

[Jerry_B]

The conspiracy innuendos are diversions from facts arising from the failure of climate scientists regarding Climategate.

Seeing as you originally raised the idea that there was 'suppression' taking place, I find that statement odd.

And so, we find that there is not much real researched evidence (apart from computer models that support the prevailing paradigm but don't give accurate weather predictions) to support the greenhouse effect here or on Venus and what there is, is distorted by scientists who have become politicians.

You have proof for the last part of that sentence, or is just opinion again?

 

[eburacum]

In the 1970s a number of scientists put out warnings that a new ice age was imminent.

Yep; I remember that.
I was at college studying environmental science at the time, and I wondered if we might see glaciers and herds of reindeer again in the future. But most of this was hype, caused at least partly by a BBC series in 1974 by Nigel Calder.

However a statistical analysis of publications in the 1970s about climate change shows that a large majority of publications at that time concerned global warming, rather than global cooling; Calder was making a big noise, but he was very much in a minority even then. Don't confuse the public perception of scientific consensus with the real thing.

Climate myths - they predicted global cooling in the 1970s

 

[Ghostisfort]

Jerry_B
Giving support to that which cannot be supported, like the actions of those involved in Climategate is a kind of denial.
It would be impossible to deny that global warming is political and that the scientists involved are more political than scientific. I would have thought that everyone already knows this?

The resultant science derived from denial is the computer modelling that we see regarding Venus's atmosphere.

If you bother to read what is written in WIC, you will see that the predictions of Velikovsky about Venus and other Solar System bodies have all been proven to be correct. Not by him, but by the subsequent space exploration of NASA and other space agencies.

Academia know all about this, but have continued to deny it for fifty years or more. I think this is glaring proof of suppression.

 

[Ghostisfort]

In the 1970s a number of scientists put out warnings that a new ice age was imminent.
Yep; I remember that.
I was at college studying environmental science at the time, and I wondered if we might see glaciers and herds of reindeer again in the future. But most of this was hype, caused at least partly by a BBC series in 1974 by Nigel Calder.

However a statistical analysis of publications in the 1970s about climate change shows that a large majority of publications at that time concerned global warming, rather than global cooling; Calder was making a big noise, but he was very much in a minority even then. Don't confuse the public perception of scientific consensus with the real thing.

Climate myths - they predicted global cooling in the 1970s

Calder was the editor of New Scientist and you're saying that he didn't know what was going on in scientific circles? LoL

... one of my complaints is that you've got far more scientists than ever before but the pace of discovery has not increased. Why? Because they're all busy just filling in the details of what they think is the standard story. Nigel Calder http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nigel_Calder

 

[eburacum]

... my point is that greenhouse gases are not the only thing causing warming on Venus.

There are three factors contributing to heat budget on Venus- tidal friction, radiation in the core and insolation.

Rynner has pointed out that tidal effects on Venus are minimal; the contribution of internal radiation is also minimal, so most of the heat comes from the Sun.

Concerning the heat emitted by Venus' core- this heat cannot escape, simply because Venus' atmosphere, crust and mantle are all good insulators. Heat can only escape from Venus by radiation, and only at the top of the atmosphere where the atmosphere finally becomes transparent to infra-red. Below this layer, infrared is reabsorbed and retransmitted constantly.

The whole world has a continuous thermal gradient from the core to the top of the atmosphere - even though the contribution by the core is very small, it can't get out.

 

[rynner2]

If you bother to read what is written in WIC, you will see that the predictions of Velikovsky about Venus and other Solar System bodies have all been proven to be correct.

I have read Worlds in Collision (more than once), but many years ago.

Perhaps you could summarise his predictions, and their subsequent proofs, with appropriate references (preferably online)?

 

[eburacum]

Nigel Calder seems to have been wide of the mark in predicting an imminent glacial, in any case. He was comparing the length of the previous (Eemian) interglacial to the length (so far) of the current (Holocene) interglacial, and expecting the cold to come back within the next 2000 years. But recent work on the Milankovich cycles which are thought to dictate the length of glacial/interglacial cycles suggest that this current interglacial might last as much as 50,000 years.
Climate. An exceptionally long interglacial ahead? Berger A, Loutre MF.
see
http://earth-pages.co.uk/2002/08/01/lon ... erglacial/

I'm not entirely convinced by Berger and Loutre, but it is all academic, anyway; anthropogenic warming will change the natural climate cycle at least until fossil fuels run out or are replaced, whichever happens soonest.

 

[Ghostisfort]

The whole world has a continuous thermal gradient from the core to the top of the atmosphere - even though the contribution by the core is very small, it can't get out.

To make a statement of this kind would require the Venusian equivalent of geology, which simply does not exist!

 

[eburacum]

If you bother to read what is written in WIC, you will see that the predictions of Velikovsky about Venus and other Solar System bodies have all been proven to be correct.

Well, nonsense. Velikovsky said Venus was a comet- it isn't.

 

[Ghostisfort]

If you bother to read what is written in WIC, you will see that the predictions of Velikovsky about Venus and other Solar System bodies have all been proven to be correct.

I have read Worlds in Collision (more than once), but many years ago.

Perhaps you could summarise his predictions, and their subsequent proofs, with appropriate references (preferably online)?

I'll see what I can do.
Not much of a challenge.

 

[Ghostisfort]

If you bother to read what is written in WIC, you will see that the predictions of Velikovsky about Venus and other Solar System bodies have all been proven to be correct.

Well, nonsense. Velikovsky said Venus was a comet- it isn't.

I seem to recall one of the mods on these pages saying he rejected Velikovsky's ideas because no cometary dust of the period had been found in the oceans. Oops.........I didn't say that.
The Venus of Velikovsky was a planet in transit that appeared to be a comet to ancient observers. As it would. 8)

 

[eburacum]

Velikovsky's 'predictions' are almost all not original with him; he seems to have read the popular science literature of the day (perhaps Scientific American, or Nature) and picked out the most interesting new nuggets of data, then (without any clue about the science involved) concocted a fantasy about how that may have come about.
Sometime he was just wrong.

Terence Hines, in Pseudoscience and the Paranormal (Prometheus Books, New York, 1988), writes:

"Velikovsky and his followers often claim that his theory made several correct predictions about the nature and characteristics of the planets. One such prediction concerns the temperature of Venus and Mars. Velikovsky said in Worlds in Collision that Venus was hot. Although his precise meaning is unclear, he apparently meant that Venus was giving off more heat to space than it was receiving from the sun. This additional heat was said to come from Venus's cometary travels when it passed close to the sun. Velikovsky also said that Mars gives off more heat than it receives from the sun, heat received when it encountered Venus in its travels. Neither Venus nor Mars radiates more heat than it receives from the sun. In this sense, then, both of Velikovsky's predictions were wrong. When it was discovered in the early 1970s that the surface temperature of Venus was high, about 850 degrees Fahrenheit, Velikovsky and his followers changed the nature of the prediction after the fact and claimed that it was correct. They conveniently forgot the prediction about Mars, which is wrong no matter how one interprets it." (pp.231-232)

http://www.blackstarreview.com/rev-0054.html

 

[rynner2]

The interpretation of Velikovsky's works does seem to have a lot in common with interpretations of Nostradamus - it can be very changeable!

 

[Ghostisfort]

I have read Worlds in Collision (more than once), but many years ago.

Perhaps you could summarise his predictions, and their subsequent proofs, with appropriate references (preferably online)?

I would think that this should suffice for a start?

In 1963, Professor H. H. Hess, then Chairman of the Space Board of the National Academy of Science, wrote to Velikovsky:

"We are philosophically miles apart because basically we do not accept each other's form of reasoning — logic. I am of course quite convinced of your sincerity and I also admire the vast fund of information which you have painstakingly acquired over the years.

"I am not about to be converted to your form of reasoning though it certainly has had successes. You have after all predicted that Jupiter would be a source of radio noise, that Venus would have a high surface temperature, that the sun and bodies of the solar system would have large electrical charges and several other such predictions. Some of these predictions were said to be impossible when you made them. All of them were predicted long before proof that they were correct came to hand. Conversely I do not know of any specific prediction you made that has since been proven to be false. I suspect the merit lies in that you have a good basic background in the natural sciences and you are quite uninhibited by the prejudices and probability taboos which confine the thinking of most of us.
http://www.velikovsky.info/Predictions

I don't think that Nostradamus had friends like Einstein and H.H.Hess?

 

[Ghostisfort]

Velikovsky's 'predictions' are almost all not original with him; he seems to have read the popular science literature of the day (perhaps Scientific American, or Nature) and picked out the most interesting new nuggets of data, then (without any clue about the science involved) concocted a fantasy about how that may have come about.
Sometime he was just wrong.

Terence Hines, in Pseudoscience and the Paranormal (Prometheus Books, New York, 1988), writes:

A book about a book is how most debunkers handle Velikovsky. They never seem to want to read the original.
There are some mistakes in the above, but that has never been a problem.
The "Venus hot" original quote comes from Donald Menzel:

In regard to the high temperature of Venus, the astronomer argued that '" hot" is only a relative term. For example, liquid air is hot [196 deg below zero, centigrade], relative to liquid helium [269 deg below zero, centigrade]... ' Later in his article Menzel referred to this comparison: 'I have already disposed of the question of the temperature of Venus. '

Menzel was the author of several howlers that no doubt will surface during this thread.

"

Velikovsky also said that Mars gives off more heat than it receives from the sun, heat received when it encountered Venus in its travels. Neither Venus nor Mars radiates more heat than it receives from the sun. In this sense, then, both of Velikovsky's predictions were wrong.
Terence Hines, in Pseudoscience and the Paranormal"

The "Mars hot" in this excerpt is news to me, something original I fear, from the fevered mind of a misguided debunker. The "Venus hot" has already been discussed above.

 

[eburacum]

There are some mistakes in the above, but that has never been a problem.
The "Venus hot" original quote comes from Donald Menzel:

So are you saying that Velikovsky did not expect Venus to be hot?

 

[Jerry_B]

Jerry_B
Giving support to that which cannot be supported, like the actions of those involved in Climategate is a kind of denial.
It would be impossible to deny that global warming is political and that the scientists involved are more political than scientific. I would have thought that everyone already knows this?

No. It's perhaps instead your opinion (and that of some others perhaps) on such matters. To confuse that with actuality may be a little wide of the mark.

Academia know all about this, but have continued to deny it for fifty years or more. I think this is glaring proof of suppression.

That would imply an active and organised plan in order to carry out and sustain any suppression. Feel free to supply evidence of this, should you have it.

 

[Ghostisfort]

There are some mistakes in the above, but that has never been a problem.
The "Venus hot" original quote comes from Donald Menzel:

So are you saying that Velikovsky did not expect Venus to be hot?

No, it was Menzel who was surprised. The quote in the thread above is a criticism of Velikovsky by Menzel. I was referring you to the source of your debunkers information.

The article continues:

This is all Menzel had to say about the temperature of Venus, although in 1955 he himself revoked his own estimate of two decades earlier that the ground temperature of Venus would be 50 deg C. The revocation was explained by saying that the temperature must surely be much lower. In 1959 the ground temperature of Venus was still estimated to be 17 deg C. Mariner II found it to be at least 430 deg C, or about 800 deg F.
http://www.grazian-archive.com/quantavo ... air_02.htm

 

[Ghostisfort]

Jerry_B
Giving support to that which cannot be supported, like the actions of those involved in Climategate is a kind of denial.
It would be impossible to deny that global warming is political and that the scientists involved are more political than scientific. I would have thought that everyone already knows this?

No. It's perhaps instead your opinion (and that of some others perhaps) on such matters. To confuse that with actuality may be a little wide of the mark.

Academia know all about this, but have continued to deny it for fifty years or more. I think this is glaring proof of suppression.

That would imply an active and organised plan in order to carry out and sustain any suppression. Feel free to supply evidence of this, should you have it.

The Times March 24, 2010
"Public scepticism prompts Science Museum to rename climate exhibition"
"The Science Museum is revising the contents of its new climate science gallery to reflect the wave of scepticism that has engulfed the issue in recent months.

The decision by the 100-year-old London museum reveals how deeply scientific institutions have been shaken by the publics reaction to revelations of malpractice by climate scientists.

The museum is abandoning its previous practice of trying to persuade visitors of the dangers of global warming. It is instead adopting a neutral position, acknowledging that there are legitimate doubts about the impact of man-made emissions on the climate."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 073272.ece

As for suppression of Velikovsky's ideas, just Google 'Velikovsky' and you will see a large percentage of the 420,000 hits with examples of suppression that date back to the 1950's. You will see misquotes, misrepresentations and outright lies. But you will never know which is which until you read his books.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Climategate, Climategate, etc. Climategate is a nasty piece of manipulation, by climate-sceptics, who filleted stolen e-mail messages and applied any apparently incriminating bits out of context to bamboozle gullible patsies, like George Monbiot.

How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies

Claims based on email soundbites are demonstrably false – there is manifestly no evidence of clandestine data manipulation

guardian.co.uk, Fred Pearce 1 February 2010

Almost all the media and political discussion about the hacked climate emails has been based on brief soundbites publicised by professional sceptics and their blogs. In many cases, these have been taken out of context and twisted to mean something they were never intended to.

Elizabeth May, veteran head of the Canadian Green party claims to have read all the emails and declared: "How dare the world's media fall into the trap set by contrarian propagandists without reading the whole set?"

Part One:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/climate-emails-sceptics

Part Two:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/climategate-bogus-sceptics-lies

The scientists involved in the e-mail scandal were eventually exonerated. However, the damage had been done. A fine example of how simple lies can smother more complicated truths.

 

[eburacum]

So are you saying that Velikovsky did not expect Venus to be hot?

No, it was Menzel who was surprised. The quote in the thread above is a criticism of Velikovsky by Menzel. I was referring you to the source of your debunkers information.

As far as I can see Menzel is irrelevant.
Either Velikovsky said that Venus emits more heat than it receives from the sun, or he didn't.

If Velikovsky did state that Venus emits more heat than it receives from the sun, then (according to F W Taylor, who has revised his calculations since your original cite) he was wrong. Taylor now believes that Venus is hot because of solar heat and the greenhouse effect.

If Velikovsky did not state that Venus emits more heat than it receives from the sun, then there is no controversy. Apart from a small amount of radioactive heat and tidal friction from the core, that is the normal state of all terrestrial planets, and it takes no skill to predict the null case.

 

[Jerry_B]

The Times March 24, 2010
"Public scepticism prompts Science Museum to rename climate exhibition"
"The Science Museum is revising the contents of its new climate science gallery to reflect the wave of scepticism that has engulfed the issue in recent months.

The decision by the 100-year-old London museum reveals how deeply scientific institutions have been shaken by the publics reaction to revelations of malpractice by climate scientists.

The museum is abandoning its previous practice of trying to persuade visitors of the dangers of global warming. It is instead adopting a neutral position, acknowledging that there are legitimate doubts about the impact of man-made emissions on the climate."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 073272.ece

That doesn't answer anything. So we still really just have your opinion about this on the matter.

As for suppression of Velikovsky's ideas, just Google 'Velikovsky' and you will see a large percentage of the 420,000 hits with examples of suppression that date back to the 1950's. You will see misquotes, misrepresentations and outright lies. But you will never know which is which until you read his books.

Again, that is not an answer. Various people disagreeing with Velikovsky is not proof of suppression - it just means that a fair few people think that his ideas are bunk. It doesn't prove that there's any organised plan, let alone any 'glaring proof of suppression'. You seem to be confusing 'dislike of certain ideas' with 'a plot to suppress certain ideas'.

 

[Ghostisfort]

I shudder to even think what you would have said about the Inquisition. :shock:

 

[Jerry_B]

Hardly an accurate or useful analogy - insulting even.

If there was some sort of organised Inquisition-like organised front to suppress Velikovsky's work, the you would perhaps have a case. We are still really just talking about your opinion in relation to those that don't share it. There seems to be no actual evidence of any suppression (unless you prove otherwise) and to confuse such thing with a mere difference of opinion is only going to work against whatever point you're trying to prove.

 

[Ghostisfort]

So are you saying that Velikovsky did not expect Venus to be hot?

No, it was Menzel who was surprised. The quote in the thread above is a criticism of Velikovsky by Menzel. I was referring you to the source of your debunkers information.

As far as I can see Menzel is irrelevant.
Either Velikovsky said that Venus emits more heat than it receives from the sun, or he didn't.
If Velikovsky did state that Venus emits more heat than it receives from the sun, then (according to F W Taylor, who has revised his calculations since your original cite) he was wrong. Taylor now believes that Venus is hot because of solar heat and the greenhouse effect.
If Velikovsky did not state that Venus emits more heat than it receives from the sun, then there is no controversy. Apart from a small amount of radioactive heat and tidal friction from the core, that is the normal state of all terrestrial planets, and it takes no skill to predict the null case.

I'm sure that I already posted to the effect that Velikovsky said that Venus emits more heat than it receives from the sun. This was also verified by radar and Venus probe data.

Additionally, I've posted a thread about the admission of meteorologists that the workings of the weather circulation on our own planet is something of a mystery.

You are trying to tell us all that Taylor has cracked a similar problem on a distant planet with almost zero data?
I would say that there is one hell of a controversy about his methods.

Menzel is typical in that his methods were not dissimilar to those of Taylor.