bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (08/27/85)
As I pointed out earlier, one of the prime characteristics of Crank Scientists is that they systematically ignore evidence that is contrary to their beliefs. They point to and exaggerate their successes, and ignore their failures. Here is another good example: > 4. Velikovsky's correct prediction in 1950 of the surface heat > of Venus and of it's hydrocarbon atmosphere as natural > fallouts of his theory of the origin of Venus. The > "super-greenhouse" theory which is currently in use to > explain Venus' heat is the single worst example of an > after-the-fact ad-hoc theory which I am aware of. The > theory's creation was an example of what I would call > dishonorable behavior on the part of astronomists. The > theory exists for no other reason than to prevent Immanuel > Velikovsky from claiming credit which is rightly his. My > own distrust of the natural sciences and their journals, > particularly astronomy, stems from such reasons. Rupert Wildt [1] first predicted an elevated surface temperature for Venus on the basis of the Greenhouse Effect in 1940, fully ten years before Velikovsky's book. His estimate erred greatly on the low side, being based on a hand calculation (no computers existed at the time). Nevertheless, it is plain wrong to claim that the idea of a hot Venus originated with Velikovsky, and it is wrong to claim that the Greenhouse Effect was only invoked after the fact of Venus' high temperature was known. Velikovsky claims to have read all the relevant astronomical literature, but gives no credit to Wildt for any of this. Modern calculations fully explain the high surface temperature of Venus based on the Greenhouse Effect. Ted's slander of astronomers does not alter this fact. Nor does it alter the fact that Velikovsky's "prediction" of a high surface temperature for Venus is much more ambiguous than his supporters claim. It is based on a vague statment in his 1950 edition (p. 77) that the comet that was supposed to become Venus was in a state of "candescence". Venus was supposed to have cooled rapidly after that. In his 1965 edition Velikovsky took credit for having predicted "an incandescent state of Venus". Nowhere did he predict an actual temperature. Furthermore, his prediction that Venus would be found to be cooling off is contradicted by the observations. As for the alleged hydrocarbon atmosphere, that is flat out wrong. No trace of hydrocarbons has been found even at the level of 1 ppm (Connes, *et. al.* [2]). Wildt also searched for evidence of hydrocarbons in Venus atmosphere long before Velikovsky, but abandoned the possibility in 1942 [3]. Again, Velikovsky gives no credit to Wildt for this idea. [1] Wildt, R. 1940, *Astrophysical Journal* 91:266. [2] Connes, P., Connes, J., Benedict, W. S., and Kaplan, L. D. 1967, *Astrophysical Journal* 147:1230. [3] Wildt, R. 1942, *Astrophysical Journal* 96:312. One has to be amused by Ted's *Chutzpah*. Like a lawyer who hasn't got the facts or the law on his side, he is trying to win his case by bringing up irrelevancies, by shouting longer and louder than anyone else, by bombast, by intimidation, and by insult. And I suspect that he will have about as much success as lawyers do in such situations. -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) (08/30/85)
Bill Jeffries doesn't like my straight forward denunciation
of the astronomical profession's motives in having concocted the
runaway-greenhouse theory to explain the great heat of the planet
Venus. Jeffery's main points were:
>Rupert Wildt [1] first predicted an elevated surface temperature
>for Venus on the basis of the Greenhouse Effect in 1940, fully
>ten years before Velikovsky's book. His estimate erred greatly on
>the low side, being based on a hand calculation (no computers
>existed at the time). Nevertheless, it is plain wrong to claim
>that the idea of a hot Venus originated with Velikovsky, and it is
>wrong to claim that the Greenhouse Effect was only invoked after the
>fact of Venus' high temperature was known. Velikovsky claims to
>have read all the relevant astronomical literature, but gives
>no credit to Wildt for any of this.
>Modern calculations fully explain the high surface temperature
>of Venus based on the Greenhouse Effect. Ted's slander of
>astronomers does not alter this fact. Nor does it alter the
>fact that Velikovsky's "prediction" of a high surface temperature
>for Venus is much more ambiguous than his supporters claim. It is
>based on a vague statment in his 1950 edition (p. 77) that the
>comet that was supposed to become Venus was in a state of "candescence".
>Venus was supposed to have cooled rapidly after that. In his 1965
>edition Velikovsky took credit for having predicted "an incandescent
>state of Venus". Nowhere did he predict an actual temperature.
>Furthermore, his prediction that Venus would be found to be cooling
>off is contradicted by the observations.
Assume for the moment that the 4.6 billion year age of the
solar system which Jeffery's favors is correct. Estimates for
surface temperatures for points on Venus, based on OUR
temperatures and relative differences between our distance from
the sun and Venus', would run only slightly hotter than for
equivalant points on our surface. Such was the general belief
amongst scientists until the sixties and seventies of this
century.
Wildt had proposed a reasonable greenhouse theory calling
for surface temperatures around 275 F, based on these same
hypotheses regarding the age of the solar system and carbon
dioxide in Venus' atmosphere. A Cray I wouldn't have helped him
any more than his calculator; his hypotheses were wrong.
Velikovsky's 1950 predictions, based on his theory of Venus'
catastrophic birth and early existence within our solar system
less than 10000 years ago, called for much higher temperatures
and, indeed, Venus' real temperatures have been found to be in
the neighborhood of 750 degrees K. Velikovsky and Wildt were
talking about totally different things; there was no reason for
Velikovsky to mention Wildt's theory in his books and he
apparently didn't.
The runaway-greenhouse theory was concocted by Sagan and
others to deal with this wild departure from what their major
theories regarding our solar system would have called for. It
can be shown to be rubbish by any of several lines of argument
which are well documented.
Consider that Venus rotates very slowly, about once in 58
earth days or so. If Venus' sole source of heat was the sun, as
called for by the runaway-greenhouse theory, we would expect it
to be a LOT hotter on the sunlit side of Venus than on the dark
side. Indeed, it would be perfectly logical to expect much
larger temperature differentials between day and night on Venus
than on the earth. Radio emmision analyses have never shown this
to be the case, however. Writing in PHYSICS TODAY, in 1961,
Frank Drake of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory wrote
that "there is little surface temperature difference between the
illuminated and dark hemispheres of Venus". Further exhaustive
radio spectrum analyses which Sagan and David Morrison have
conducted have failed to turn up a shred of evidence which they
could use in their anti-Velikovsky crusading. Morrison claimed
to have discovered "no phase effect after 100 hours of
observations".
The British astronomer Firsoff simply states:
"Increasing the mass of the atmosphere may intensify the
greenhouse effect, but it must also reduce the proportion of
solar energy reaching the surface, while the total of the
available energy must be distributed over a larger mass and
volumn. Indeed, if the atmosphere of Venus amounts to 75
air masses... the amount of solar energy per unit mass of
this atmosphere will be about .01 of that available on the
earth. Such an atmosphere would be strictly comparable to
our seas and remain stone-cold, unless the internal heat of
Venus were able to keep it at temperatures corresponding to
the brightness temperatures derived from the microwave
emission."
That is, unless Velikovsky is right.
Of course, Jupiter, Saturn, AND Venus radiate more energy
than they absorb; no greenhouse theory of any kind could account
for that. And even a pathalogical liar like Sagan would be
loathe to make the statement that Venus retains heat from it's
formation after 4.6 billion years.
HOLDEN'S PRAYER
"Thank you Lord for not making me a dingo dog, a citizen of
any communist nation, or a member of any profession which
is obligated to defend major theories which amount to
flagrant bullshit before an incredulous world, and then
cry and attempt to act outraged when the world reacts by
seeking legal limits to the extent to which that profession
may determine the manner in which it's children are being
educated with it's money."peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (08/31/85)
> Assume for the moment that the 4.6 billion year age of the > solar system which Jeffery's favors is correct. Estimates for > surface temperatures for points on Venus, based on OUR > temperatures and relative differences between our distance from > the sun and Venus', would run only slightly hotter than for > equivalant points on our surface. Such was the general belief > amongst scientists until the sixties and seventies of this > century. Assuming that in both cases black-body radiation is the only effect to be considered. > Consider that Venus rotates very slowly, about once in 58 > earth days or so. If Venus' sole source of heat was the sun, as > called for by the runaway-greenhouse theory, we would expect it > to be a LOT hotter on the sunlit side of Venus than on the dark > side. Indeed, it would be perfectly logical to expect much > larger temperature differentials between day and night on Venus > than on the earth. Radio emmision analyses have never shown this > to be the case, however. Writing in PHYSICS TODAY, in 1961, > Frank Drake of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory wrote > that "there is little surface temperature difference between the > illuminated and dark hemispheres of Venus". Further exhaustive > radio spectrum analyses which Sagan and David Morrison have > conducted have failed to turn up a shred of evidence which they > could use in their anti-Velikovsky crusading. Morrison claimed > to have discovered "no phase effect after 100 hours of > observations". See below. > "Increasing the mass of the atmosphere may intensify the > greenhouse effect, but it must also reduce the proportion of > solar energy reaching the surface, while the total of the > available energy must be distributed over a larger mass and > volumn. Indeed, if the atmosphere of Venus amounts to 75 > air masses... the amount of solar energy per unit mass of > this atmosphere will be about .01 of that available on the > earth. Such an atmosphere would be strictly comparable to > our seas and remain stone-cold, unless the internal heat of > Venus were able to keep it at temperatures corresponding to > the brightness temperatures derived from the microwave > emission." You're forgetting that we're talking about *equilibrium* conditions. So it takes venus a while to heat up & cool down. That explains the lack of phase differences... after sufficient time you reach equilibriumconditions, which may be completely different from short-term conditions. By your logic because there is a lot more mass to a 44 gallon drum than a coffeecup, you can't boil a 44 gallon drum (modulo conduction effects).
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (09/13/85)
I submitted this over a week ago, but it apparently didn't make it out of our site. ------ [Ted Holden writes, in response to my article] > Wildt had proposed a reasonable greenhouse theory calling > for surface temperatures around 275 F, based on these same > hypotheses regarding the age of the solar system and carbon > dioxide in Venus' atmosphere. A Cray I wouldn't have helped him > any more than his calculator; his hypotheses were wrong. Absolutely untrue. Not only do the computer calculations of the Greenhouse Effect accurately predict the 730 K temperature at the surface of Venus, but they accurately reproduce the temperature profile in the atmosphere as observed by spacecraft landing on Venus [1]. The major problems with Wildt's hypotheses were that he didn't know how truly massive Venus' atmosphere was, and he didn't know that there was water vapor on Venus in sufficient amounts to plug the 3.5 micrometer gap. > The runaway-greenhouse theory was concocted by Sagan and > others to deal with this wild departure from what their major > theories regarding our solar system would have called for. It > can be shown to be rubbish by any of several lines of argument > which are well documented. We shall soon see what's rubbish. > Consider that Venus rotates very slowly, about once in 58 > earth days or so. If Venus' sole source of heat was the sun, as > called for by the runaway-greenhouse theory, we would expect it > to be a LOT hotter on the sunlit side of Venus than on the dark > side. Indeed, it would be perfectly logical to expect much > larger temperature differentials between day and night on Venus > than on the earth. Radio emmision analyses have never shown this > to be the case, however. Writing in PHYSICS TODAY, in 1961, > Frank Drake of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory wrote > that "there is little surface temperature difference between the > illuminated and dark hemispheres of Venus". Further exhaustive > radio spectrum analyses which Sagan and David Morrison have > conducted have failed to turn up a shred of evidence which they > could use in their anti-Velikovsky crusading. Morrison claimed > to have discovered "no phase effect after 100 hours of > observations". Ted probably got this argument from the introduction to *Velikovsky Reconsidered* [2]. It's true, the phase effect on Venus is very small. David Morrison (who is Professor of Astronomy at the University of Hawaii, and past Charman of the Division of Planetary Sciences of the American Astronomical Society) says of this idea [3]: "It will be remembered that it was the nonvariation of cloud-top temperatures that apparently led Velikovsky first to hypothesize an internal heat source on Venus. He neglected the alternative possibility that the constancy of temperature could be due to the massive heat capacity of a thick atmosphere. His was perhaps an understandable omission, since the atmosphere of Venus was thought twenty-five years ago to be Earth-like. But no such excuse exists for his supporters today, who are well aware of the 100-atmosphere surface pressure on the planet. "The chain of logic on the question of surface temperature variations is virtually the opposite of that published in defense of Velikovsky. *A large greenhouse effect can only be maintained by a massive atmosphere, and a massive atmosphere must damp out surface temperature variations.* Therefore the absence of such variations is *expected* where a large greenhouse effect exists. The reason the radio observers (and I was one of them) expressed some surprise at the lack of variation seen in their data was that there were previous suggestions that this "microwave phase effect" had been detected, *not because their results contradicted some preconception based on a greenhouse model*. The radio data provide a very weak rod indeed with which to beat greenhouse explanations of the temperature of Venus." [Emphasis added]. > The British astronomer Firsoff simply states: > > "Increasing the mass of the atmosphere may intensify the > greenhouse effect, but it must also reduce the proportion of > solar energy reaching the surface, while the total of the > available energy must be distributed over a larger mass and > volumn. Indeed, if the atmosphere of Venus amounts to 75 > air masses... the amount of solar energy per unit mass of > this atmosphere will be about .01 of that available on the > earth. Such an atmosphere would be strictly comparable to > our seas and remain stone-cold, unless the internal heat of > Venus were able to keep it at temperatures corresponding to > the brightness temperatures derived from the microwave > emission." > > That is, unless Velikovsky is right. This argument can also be found in *Velikovsky Reconsidered* [2]. Firsoff is demonstrably wrong. Firsoff's assertions (which can be found in [4]) are contradicted by both observations and calculations [1]. Indeed, Firsoff was trying to argue that the surface of Venus was *cold*, despite the clear evidence to the contrary which even Velikovskyites accept. To me it seems disingenuous for Velikovsky's supporters to point to Firsoff to bolster their position that Venus is young and hot. If Firsoff was so wrong about the temperature of Venus what gives them confidence that he was right about the Greenhouse Effect? The contemporaneous direct measurements of the light available at the surface of Venus made by the Venus lander Venera 8 show that about 1% of the solar flux actually reaches the surface of Venus. According to Morrison, this is quite adequate to maintain the observed temperature via the Greenhouse Effect [5]. Though questioned by Velikovsky's supporters [6], these measurements have been confirmed by subsequent Venus landers. The most recent of the Venera series used the available light to take pictures of the surface of Venus which were transmitted' to Earth [7]. > Of course, Jupiter, Saturn, AND Venus radiate more energy > than they absorb; no greenhouse theory of any kind could account > for that. And even a pathalogical liar like Sagan would be > loathe to make the statement that Venus retains heat from it's > formation after 4.6 billion years. Wrong again. Venus does *NOT* radiate more energy than it absorbs. Direct measurement by orbiting spacecraft shows that the total energy radiated by Venus is precisely what one would expect from an otherwise cold body at that distance from the Sun. Morrison writes [8] "That Venus has a "hot" surface and a large internal heat source is perhaps the most widely quoted prediction made by Velikovsky. Repeated measurements of the cloud-top temperatures at a variety of infrared wavelengths, including those from the recent Mariner 10 flyby, however, verify that the total energy radiated from Venus is equivalent to that from a black body of about 230 K, or *just what one would expect in the absence of any internal energy source. Thus there is no evidence that Venus radiates more energy than it receives from the Sun.*" [Emphasis added]. These facts have not changed since Morrison wrote his article (Taylor *et. al.* [9]). In the same article, Morrison demonstrates convincingly that *even if we were to accept Velikovsky's hypothesis* that Venus was heated to approximately the melting point of rock ~3000 years ago, it would have cooled so rapidly that the present-day contribution of this heat would produce no more than about a 10 K elevation of the surface temperature of Venus, too small to measure. Velikovsky did not realize that a hot body cools off *much* more rapidly than a cool one, believing erroneously that the drop in temperature from the melting point of rock to 750 K would be linear in time. In fact, the decline from 2250 K to 750 K would have taken place in at most a few hundred years [10]. > > HOLDEN'S PRAYER > > "Thank you Lord for not making me a dingo dog, a citizen of > any communist nation, or a member of any profession which > is obligated to defend major theories which amount to > flagrant bullshit before an incredulous world, and then > cry and attempt to act outraged when the world reacts by > seeking legal limits to the extent to which that profession > may determine the manner in which it's children are being > educated with it's money." Grow up, Ted. This makes you sound very childish. REFERENCES [1] Donahue, T. M. and Pollack, J. B. (1983), in *Venus*, D. M. Hunten. *et. al.*, Editors. University of Arizona Press. p. 1028. [2] The Editors of Pensee (1976), *Velikovsky Reconsidered*, Doubleday. p. xxv. [3] Morrison, D. (1977), in "Scientists Confront Velikovsky*, D. Goldsmith, Editor. Cornell University Press. pp. 164-165. [4] Firsoff, V. A. (1973), *Astronomy and Space Science* *2*, No. 3. [5] Morrison, D. (1977), in "Scientists Confront Velikovsky*, D. Goldsmith, Editor. Cornell University Press. p. 159. [6] The Editors of Pensee (1976), *Velikovsky Reconsidered*, Doubleday. p. xxiv. [7] Florenskiy, K. P., *et. al.* (1983), in *Venus*, D. M. Hunten. *et. al.*, Editors. University of Arizona Press. pp. 137-153. [8] Morrison, D. (1977), in "Scientists Confront Velikovsky*, D. Goldsmith, Editor. Cornell University Press. p. 159. [9] Taylor, F. W., *et. al.* (1983), in *Venus*, D. M. Hunten. *et. al.*, Editors. University of Arizona Press. p. 671. [10] Morrison, D. (1977), in "Scientists Confront Velikovsky*, D. Goldsmith, Editor. Cornell University Press. pp. 161-162. -- Glend. I can call spirits from the vasty deep. Hot. Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them? -- Henry IV Pt. I, III, i, 53 Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (UUCP) bill@astro.UTEXAS.EDU. (Internet)