Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!dual!mordor!ut-sally!utastro!bill
From: bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Venus and Velikovsky
Message-ID: <705@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 12-Sep-85 18:07:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: utastro.705
Posted: Thu Sep 12 18:07:25 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 15-Sep-85 10:02:22 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 197

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)