Electric                    Astral               Pre-historical
Universe              Catastrophism        Reconstruction


     Mikamar
           Publishing
 

Articles & Products Supporting the Pre-historical Reconstruction and Plasma Cosmology
 home       features       science/philosophy       wholesale store       used books        contact

Site Section Links

Introduction Material
Articles
The Third Story
Features

Cosmology, Origins
The Nature of Time
Nature of Time video
The Nature of Space
The Neutrino Aether
Nature of Force Fields

Geophysical Material
Origin of Modern Geology
Niagara Falls Issues
Climate Change Model
Climate Change Questions

Philosophy Material
Philosophy Links

Reconstruction &
Mythology Material
Modern Mythology Material
Language/Symbol Development
1994 Velikovsky Symposium
Pensee Journals TOC
Selected Velikovskian Article

Miscellaneous Material
Modern Mythology
State of Religious Diversity
PDF Download Files
Open letter to science editors

 

The Venus "Greenhouse Theory" --Debunked
C. J. Ransom

In 1950, Velikovsky (Worlds in Collision, p. 371) claimed that Venus was hot due to its violent history, its Solar approaches, and its residual natal heat.  Contemporary scientific opinion of the time envisioned Venus as being only slightly, if at all, warmer than the Earth.  On the basis of the calculated greenhouse effect, the surface temperature of Venus was estimated to be about 100 degrees C above the radiative-equilibrium temperature.

When space probes of the late 1950's and early 1960's revealed that Venus' temperature probably exceeded 400C, [1] it was realized that the greenhouse effect alone could not account for such heat.  Therefore, an "enhanced" (C. Sagan, Astronomical Journal, 6.5, 1960, 352) and "runaway" (S. I. Rasool and C. de Bergh, Nature, 226, 1970, 1037) greenhouse effect were postulated, with the assistance of hypothetical water vapor.

In 1973, however, M. A. Janssen and several colleagues of UCLA-Berkeley reported that they could find "no evidence of water vapor in the lower atmosphere of Venus . . . . it remains to be shown that a 'greenhouse' mechanism can be supported with the present constraints on the water vapor content" [Science, 179, 994, March 9, 1973; also see Pensee V (Fall, 1973), p. 27; KRONOS 1:4 (April, 1976), p. 90].

The Nov. 3, 1975 issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology, in reporting on the two Russian Venus probes--Venera 9 and Venera 10, commented thus about the Venus greenhouse theory: "Data and photographs returned from Venera-9 and -10 Soviet Venus lander spacecraft portray a well-lighted rocky surface belonging to a young, evolving planet ... Venus is a planet in an early cool-down phase of evolution rather than in a final stage of suffocation in a thickening atmospheric greenhouse" [See KRONOS I:3 (Nov., 1975), p. 85; KRONOS 11: I (August, 1976), pp. 104-105].

Adherence to the belief in a supposed runaway greenhouse effect, in order to explain Venus' high temperature, has led to some rather strained reasoning on the part of professional astronomers.  Consider, as an example, the following statement by Lloyd Motz from his 1975 book titled The Universe--Its Beginning and End:

"The marvelous chemical balance of carbon dioxide, oxygen, and plant life never got started on Venus because Venus could not get rid of most of its carbon dioxide, which produces a runaway greenhouse effect.  This, in turn, produced a very high surface temperature, which prevented plant life from developing there; without plant life Venus could not accumulate any free oxygen in its atmosphere.  Finally, without any free oxygen to shield its water-vapor molecules from dissociation by solar ultraviolet radiation, Venus lost most of its water.  Thus, instead of being a pleasant, life-supporting planet, Venus is a hot, and planet with a very dense carbon dioxide atmosphere" (p. 203).

With regard to Venus' heat and the runaway greenhouse theory, Jueneman has already raised a crucial question.  "With a runaway greenhouse phenomenon that has been going on for untold eons, one is left to inquire why Venus still has any atmosphere left.  Over the hundreds of millions, if not billions of years that Venus is supposed to have been circling the sun in its self-same orbit, this greenhouse effect would have had the tendency to void the planet of any atmosphere whatsoever, except for some nominal residue" [KRONOS 1:3 (Nov., 1975), p. 791.

In line with the above remarks, Firsoff (The Interior planets, London, 1968, p. 103) had this to say: "An adiabatic atmosphere of a mass envisaged by Sagan [and now approximately doubled by Venera findings] is possible only if it is heated from below.  In other words, the surface of Venus would have to be kept at a high temperature by internal sources.  If this were so, Venus would have been still hotter in its aphroditological past, and its atmosphere would have been lost by molecular dissipation even more effectively than was the primitive atmosphere of the Earth ... [Cp.  Jueneman].  It would also have had less chance to evolve and retain [a] secondary atmosphere if only comparable to our air.  But the present-day hot surface condition appears impossible in any case.  Both planets will be of the same age and the same general mineralogical composition, which implies a comparable rate of liberation of radioactive heat [Cp.  Velikovsky, Yale Scientific Magazine, April 1967, p. 101.  As we have seen . . ., the heat liberated in the Earth's crust makes no significant contribution to its surface climate, and the oceanic depths are cold.  Nor is there any indication that things are significantly different on the other terrestrial planets."  So Firsoff found the answer, then rejected it as unthinkable.

Juergens, too, has pointedly summed up the fundamental weaknesses of the Venus greenhouse theory.  "As of today, two of the most important postulates of the greenhouse model--sunlight of consequence reaching the surface of Venus, and water vapor of detectable quantities in the lower atmosphere of the planet--remain questionable.  And there is another problem, seldom mentioned by proponents of greenhouse hypotheses, that is just as important to the maintenance of their stance.

"Were sunlight actually the source of the heat of Venus, the input of energy would always be confined largely to the sunlit hemisphere.  Since Venus rotates so slowly that one of its nights is as long as two months on Earth, it is reasonable to expect, as I. I. Shapiro has pointed out (Science 159, 1124, 8 March 1967), 'larger temperature differentials between day and night' on Venus than on Earth.  Even if some of the heat were convected and conducted to the dark side of the planet, considerably less than 100-percent efficiency would characterize the process.  The dark side would necessarily remain cooler, on the average, than the sunlit side.  Yet this is apparently not the case" [KRONOS 1:4, pp. 90-91].

                        As Velikovsky has succinctly put it: Many scientists cling to "the completely unsupportable hypothesis of a greenhouse effect as the cause of Venus' heat, even in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics" [See "My Challenge to Conventional Views in Science" elsewhere in this issue; Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia (4th ed., Princeton, 1968), p. 1840; Pensee 1, "Is Venus Heat Decreasing?" (May, 19 72), p. 511.

The greenhouse model for Venus has been ridiculed by no less than Russian cosmologist S. K. Vsekhsvyatskii, head of the Kiev Observatory [KRONOS 11:2 (Nov., 1976), p. 541, as well as British astronomer V. A. Firsoff [KRONOS 1:4, p. 921.  Additional greenhouse problems have been noted by Ransom [The Age of Velikovsky, pp. 118-121, 23 1; See also Optical Spectra (Dec., 1975), p. 101.

Since the proposed greenhouse effect for Venus is so problematic, why do people like Sagan, et al. still cling so tenaciously--almost desperately--to the runaway greenhouse theory as a means of accounting for Venus' hellish heat?  The answer is quite simple.  At present, the most logical and plausible theoretical alternative is Velikovsky's explanation--"The reflecting, absorbing, insulating, and conducting properties of the cloud layer of Venus modify the heating effect of the sun upon the body of the planet; but at the bottom of the problem [of Venus' heat] lies this fact: Venus gives off heat"; and because this heat is primordial, arising from Venus itself, "the core of the planet Venus must still be hot" (Worlds in Collision, p. 371--emphasis added)--but this is an explanation that the scientific community is unwilling to accept.  What, then, is the solution--a "runaway, runaway, runaway" greenhouse effect?  This sounds more like a current popular song than a serious scientific hypothesis.

L. M. Greenberg

SAGAN'S APPENDICES: A QUICK APPENDECTOMY

I

At the 1974 AAAS meeting, Carl Sagan claimed that the odds against the events occurring in the Solar System, as described by Velikovsky, were 1023 to 1. This figure was widely quoted in the scientific and popular literature as "proof' that the events did not happen; it was also taken on faith since no statistical verification was ever provided.

The mathematical support for 1023 to 1 was supposed to be found in an appendix to the text that Sagan gave to the press.  The appendix was not supplied with the rest of the paper, however, much to Sagan's benefit.  In fact, it was well over a year after the AAAS conference was no longer newsworthy before the appendix saw much circulation.  Even then, Sagan failed to substantiate his widely quoted probability figure of 1013 to 1; and the origin of that particular number remains a mystery (Cf.  C. J. Ransom, The Age of Velikovsky, pp. 228-230).

Students who are informed about various subjects but do not happen to know the answer to a given test question often use a standard smokescreen technique.  Instead of leaving the space blank, the student answers a question slightly related in appearance to the question asked, but the answer in reality has nothing to do with the correct solution.  Sagan's so-called probability calculation resembles d-ds technique.  He seems to draw a number out of a hat and then claims that number as the probability that the events occurred.

Sagan becomes his most disingenuous when he incorrectly states that "Velikovsky believes in several statistically independent collisions in a few hundred years".  About this assumption, Professor Robert W. Bass, a Rhodes Scholar and expert in celestial mechanics, had this to say: At the AAAS Symposium on Velikovsky, Sagan "claimed that the odds against multiple planetary near-collisions were 1023 to 1. When I asked him afterwards how he could have computed this without employing "ergodic theory", Sagan told me that the proof would appear as an Appendix to a forthcoming paper by him based on his AAAS presentation.  He mentioned that he had followed a published method, used by such scientists as Ípik and Urey, to obtain apparently reasonable statistics about meteoritic collisions with the Moon, Mars, and Venus; but in such calculations it is assumed (as an approximation) that the collisions were statistically independent events.   Because the planetary motions inherently tend under their mutual gravitational attractions toward some sort of quasi periodicity, in which future near-misses can be causally related to past near-misses, this assumption is absolutely identical to the assumption that Newton's Law of Gravity may be ignored! (That is, the planets are regarded as non-interacting random billiard balls, an approximation used in the kinetic theory of gases.)  For the reason indicated (planetary masses are comparable while the analogy with meteoritic collision seems of questionable applicability), I am skeptical of Professor Sagan's figure of 1023 to 1. (See R. W. Bass, "Can Worlds Collide?" KRONOS I:3, November, 1975, p. 60--emphasis in text).

Sagan's calculation for a planetary collision was also based on the erroneous premise that the surfaces of Venus and Earth actually "scraped".  It is obvious from Worlds in Collision (p. 372) that this is not what Velikovsky suggested.  To support his incorrect grazing collision assumption, Sagan referred to what he claimed was a statement on page 87 of Worlds in Collision--"The waters were piled up to the height of sixteen hundred miles, and they could be seen by all the nations of the earth".  The statement is not there.  It is on page 72.  But it does not matter what page Sagan had in mind.  It is quite clear that Velikovsky never intended to convey the idea of a grazing collision.  The statement in question was not taken literally by Velikovsky and is followed by an immediate qualifier "The figure in this sentence intends to say that the heap of water was tremendous." Nothing more, nothing less.  Furthermore, a Venus approach to the Earth within one or two Earth-radii would exceed the Roche limit of both bodies, something which the historical records appear to rule out.

To cloud the issue further, Sagan estimates the probability that one of the Apollo objects (either dead comets or asteroids) would be the size of Venus.  This is totally irrelevant to the argument at hand; it is as useful as measuring all the Hondas in the world and then calculating the probability of finding one the size of a Mack truck.

In a six-part NASA news release series of 1976, Sagan described the Viking mission and some of what scientists expected from the Viking probes.  While discussing the possibility of life on Mars, Sagan said that he had heard many odds quoted including "a million to one against".  Following this, Sagan said, "When I hear such high odds, I always lay my dollar down".

Regarding the planetary scenario postulated by Velikovsky, Sagan claims to have calculated the odds against it as being 1023 to 1. Although this figure was shown to be spurious, the odds stated are such that Sagan, by his own reasoning, would certainly have to bet that Velikovsky was right.

Finally, we may appropriately conclude this section with a statement by Chris Sherrerd: "The basic issue is not whether we can prove the plausibility or non-plausibility of Dr. Velikovsky's hypothesis, but rather how much do the ancient historical records and oral traditions have to say to the physical sciences?  The answer is--a great deal, to him who is willing to set aside his bondage to the religious dogmas of scientistic humanism long enough to listen, and to seriously subject to honest scientific investigations what he hears."

II

Sagan's second appendix approaches accuracy only when he admits that one of the often quoted "scientific proofs" used against Velikovsky's ideas throughout the fifties and sixties was actually false.  It was argued by astronomer Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin and others that if the Earth stopped rotating, everything not tied down would exit the Earth at 900 miles per hour.  Sagan, as did hundreds of open-minded investigators before him, realized that this was not true.

When one is in the business of setting up straw men, if one fails, another must be introduced.  So Sagan provided another calculation supposedly demonstrating that, if the Earth stopped, the average temperature increase would be anywhere from 100K to 240K.  However, this is based on the erroneous assumption that all of the Earth's energy would be directly converted into fairly evenly distributed heat.  Similar false reasoning about airplanes would lead to the conclusion that passengers should notice a large temperature rise upon landing.

It should also be mentioned that Sagan perpetuated the mistaken notion that Velikovsky insists that the Earth actually stopped rotating during the time of Joshua (Cf.  Worlds in Collision, "The Most Incredible Story," p. 44; "Epilogue," pp. 385-387).  This type of mistake is often made by Sagan and others when dealing with Velikovsky's ideas; and such errors are then used to support the claim that Velikovsky's work should not be investigated.

III

Appendix Three deals with the "present temperature of Venus if heated by a close passage to the Sun".  This appendix is entirely erroneous.  It is based upon Sagan's misrepresentation of page 77 of Worlds in Collision and his obvious misunderstanding of page 371.  Moreover, it concludes with a useless calculation relating to a completely inaccurate thermal model of Venus.

Sagan incorrectly implies that, according to Velikovsky's theory, Venus was heated only by a close approach to the Sun.  Sagan assumed that Venus was at a certain temperature (6000K) 3500 years ago, that it received no additional heat from the Sun, and radiated perfectly since that time.  The temperature he then calculated for Venus today (79K) was naturally much lower than the actual present temperature of the planet.  This enabled Sagan to claim that Venus could not have been 6000K 3500 years ago.  But, by the same logic, Venus must have been hotter than 6000K 3500 years ago, even if Velikovsky had never presented his theory.

By omitting any reference to the material presented on page 371 of Worlds in Collision, Sagan is able to conclude Appendix Three by invoking his own pet theory--"The Venus Greenhouse Effect".  Indeed, it would appear that this was the sole reason for Appendix Three's existence.  However, the untenable position of the Venus greenhouse theory has been duly discussed elsewhere in this issue ("The Venus 'Greenhouse Theory'--Debunked"; see also Velikovsky Reconsidered, N. Y., 1976, pp. xxii-xxviii; Yale Scientific Magazine, April, 1967, pp. 9-10 and references 19 and 20 of p. 10).

Interestingly enough, in his book The Cosmic Connection (1973), Sagan passed the following comment about the Venus greenhouse theory.  "I had earlier proposed a specific theory, in terms of the greenhouse effect, to explain how the surface of Venus could be at such high temperatures.  But my conclusions against cold-surface models in 1968 did not depend upon the validity of the greenhouse explanation: It was just that a hot surface explained the data and a cold surface did not" (p. 84--emphasis added).

In this appendix and in other instances, Sagan stresses that Velikovsky did not make a certain calculation, as if this negated the concept, demonstrated that the idea was not worth considering, or that this was unprecedented in the scientific community.  However, Laplace, one of the world's finest mathematicians, presented the nebular theory for the origin of the Solar System and gave no mathematical support for his cosmological hypothesis.  This theory is still widely acclaimed.  Like Laplace, Velikovsky did not present his reconstruction of the recent activity of the Solar System in mathematical terms.  Unlike Laplace, Velikovsky's model was based, to a considerable extent, on ancient observational data.

IV

The title of Appendix Four-"Magnetic Field Strengths Necessary to Circularize an Eccentric Cometary Orbit"--makes it clear that this appendix has little, if anything, to do with the total thesis of Worlds in Collision.  Although Velikovsky clearly and correctly suggested in 1950 that electromagnetic fields played a greater role in the Solar System than most scientists then thought, his model for orbital changes was fully compatible with those forces responsible for the behavior of comet Oterma III.  "Before 1938 Oterma III had an orbit entirely between the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn.  During a near approach to Jupiter in that year it changed its orbit so that it was entirely between Mars and Jupiter" (R. W. Bass, "Did Worlds Collide?" Pensee VIII, Summer, 1974, p. 15).

Furthermore, according to Bass, "if one removed Venus from its present orbit and gave it the initial conditions of the comet Oterma III, the initial orbit of Venus would lie entirely between the orbits of Saturn and Jupiter, while in less than two decades, Venus would work itself inward into an orbit lying entirely between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter! . . . Thus we can be quite sure that the solar system is not stable in the sense of Laplace and Littlewood" (R.  W. Bass, "Can Worlds Collide?" KRONOS 1:3, p. 68; Bass, Pensee, Ibid.; R. W. Bass, "'Proofs' of the Stability of the Solar System," KRONOS 11:2, November, 1976, p. 28; see also R. A. Lyttleton, The Comets and Their Origin, Cambridge, 1953, p. 13, Fig. 3).

For additional commentary on the circularization problem, the reader is referred to pages 82 and 99 in the articles by Greenberg and Juergens, respectively, elsewhere in this issue.

Sagan concluded Appendix Four with irrelevant remarks about rock magnetization.  More relevant comments about magnetic field reversals and the remanent magnetic field evidence in rocks can be found in Earth in Upheaval, "Magnetic Poles Reversed" and a forthcoming paper by Ralph Juergens--"Geogullibility and Geomagnetic Reversals".

Overall, Sagan's appendices exhibit the same critical sloppiness as the text which they pretend to support.  They have very little to do with Velikovsky's historical model of the recent events in the Solar System and are as error-filled as the rest of the paper.  Anyone with a physics background, and especially anyone with this background who is familiar with Velikovsky's ideas, should read these appendices since they demonstrate the depths to which one can go when one considers himself so great an authority that he does not need to think about what he writes.

[1].  In 1972, Dr. C. J. Ransom, physicist, calculated that " 'if Venus' temperature is taken to be 700K now (a conservative estimate) and 701K 10 years ago (allowing for error in the Pettit and in the Strong and Sinton measurements [see Pensee I (May, 1972),p. 51]), then the temperature [of Venus] 3500 years ago would be 1184K'--or fully incandescent" [Pensee II (Fall, 1972), p. 18].

 home       features       science/philosophy       wholesale store        policies        contact
Mikamar Publishing, 16871 SE 80th Pl,  Portland  OR  97267       503-974-9665