In an article published in the Brisbane Courier Mail on 17 Jan, and on this site, Nicholas Gruen wrote of the planet Venus that: “The mother of all Greenhouse Effects boiled away its oceans. Venus's Greenhouse Effect adds nearly 400C to its ambient temperature. Want to smelt some lead? No problem on Venus – rocks glow and lead melts. All because of Venus's Greenhouse Effect.”
I am not sure where he got his information from but I have to say it is wrong.
Before the arrival of space probes it was commonly thought that Venus had a climate much like Earth’s and it was often called our sister planet. There was no runaway Greenhouse Effect on Venus then.
Then during the 1950s a Jewish psychoanalyst, Immanuel Velikovsky, published a controversial book “Worlds in Collision” in which he voiced the courageous opinion that Venus was a recent addition to the Solar System and must therefore be extremely hot.
The reception Velikovsky got from mainstream science was hostile to say the least and his treatment by the scientific mafia scandalous, but with the passage of time and the opportunity to review his predictions in the light of 50 years of space exploration, it now appears that Velikovsky was correct with his predictions of the properties of our Solar System members. In fact as geophysicist Harry Hess wrote of him, all of Velikovsky’s predictions were subsequently verified as correct.
James P. Hogan wrote a book “Killing the Sacred Cow” (KTSC) which reviews some of society’s sacred cows like AIDS, DDT, and Darwinism and to my surprise Velikovsky, where he summarises the extant scientific evidence.
The US space probe Mariner 2 showed that the surface temperature of Venus was 800F and the only scientist who predicted a high temperature, apart from Velikovsky, was Dr. Rupert Wildt, “whose work was on a Greenhouse mechanism and not generally accepted”. However the astronomer Carl Sagan decided that it was he himself who thought of this now fashionable idea in 1960, though a careful look at the evidence shows that was not so.
Let me restate this: Sagan invented a Greenhouse Effect to counter Velikovsky's interpretation that Venus was hot because it was extremely young.
However the Greenhouse Effect is principally produced by water vapour not CO2, and from recent work, even Mars with an atmosphere of 95% CO2 can barely manage a slight Greenhouse Effect, so one must question the existence of a runaway Venusian Greenhouse.
In any case a Greenhouse Effect is quite unable to maintain the huge temperature gradient through Venus’ atmosphere, “especially when it turns out that the heat source is at the bottom, not the top”, KTSC p. 215. The problem is that Venus’s atmosphere is so thick (90 times the surface pressure of earth) that only 20% of the incoming sunlight gets past the cloud tops 40-50 miles above Venus’ surface, the rest being reflected back into space and why Venus is so bright. There is another problem with the Greenhouse gas theory as Hogan quotes British Astronomer V. A. Firschoff in “The Interior Planets” in KTSC p. 251:
“The Greenhouse Effect cannot be magnified ad lib. Doubling the (glass) thickness may enhance its thermal insulation, so raising its temperature, but it will cut down the transmitted sunshine, so reducing its heat. The sea is a perfect “Greenhouse” of this kind – none of the obscure heat from the bottom can escape into space. But it is not boiling; in fact it is not much above freezing point. Sagan’s deep atmosphere would behave exactly in the same way…..An adiabatic atmosphere of a mass envisaged by Sagan is possible only if it is heated from below. In other words the surface of Venus would have to be kept and a high temperature by external sources”. P 216.
A New Scientist article, “The Mystery of Venus’ Internal Heat”, Nov 13, 1980, in which they report data from the Pioneer Venus Orbiter that showed Venus to be radiating 15% more energy than is received from the SUN (later revised to 20%), or …. “Producing ten thousand times more heat than the earth, apparently impossible according to present theories of planetary formation. Op. Cit P. 217.
As an extremely recent age for Venus is heretical, mainstream science then made the facts fit theory, as detailed by Hogan.
In addition, modelling of a simple Greenhouse Effect on Venus suggests that if Venus did have oceans like the earth, then the surface Greenhouse temperature would have had to been 1500K, above the solidus of rocks. Another more recent study is here .
However there is a slight discrepancy of > 100K between Greenhouse gas theory and geological evidence , enough to seriously question the reality of the Venusian Greenhouse theory.
The reason Venus radiates so much excess energy is because it is volcanically active, has no craters and has all the appearances of a pristine newly formed planet. This is why it is so hot. Not because of a runaway Greenhouse Effect.
Rather the geosciences are quietly discovering new facts about the interior of the earth and to quote Bruce Leybourne in the latest New Concepts in Global Tectonics newsletter: "…. I will say that all indications from observational evidence and theoretical basis, most if not all earthquakes are stimulated electrically. Even microseismicity along the ridges is like lightning from below."
No wonder prediction schemes to date have failed since this is still apparently undiscovered with all the research and money being thrown at earthquake prediction. It's unbelievable the overall scientific community is still ignorant about this. Bruce Leybourne of St. Louise, USA (Relevant article: Leybourne et al., 2004. Electrical wildfire propagation along geomagnetic anomalies. The 8th World Multi-conference on Systemics. Cybernetics and Informatics. Orland, FL, p. 298-299)
The issue here is that if earthquakes are actually the result of electrical discharges under the crust, as considered by the plasma geophysicists, then we have discovered another enormous source energy and heat that has direct application to the earth’s climate.
CO2 is a mere trifle compared to what is under our feet, an electrically active earth powered by Solar electricity.