I’d been giving this some thought for a while and waiting for a good moment to release this, but it just hasn’t come up. I could follow the leads of others and write something vapid and not very provocative, but perhaps there are some readers out there still wishing to exercise the old noodle instead.
Technical note and warning: For the novice and people who have physical reactions to energy equations and strange mathematical symbols, such as eyes rolling into the back of your head and smoke emitting from your ears, and or convulsions, don’t worry, you’ll see some, but that isn’t the focus of this post. In climate science, I believe we make things unnecessarily complex. Usually, this is the product of irrational thought and the complexity is simply rationalizations of the errant thought. In other words, if the errant thought doesn’t fit well with reality, then, we must dazzle with BS. The neat part about this post, is that one can make it very complex or very simple. So, if you’re one of those, don’t worry. I’ll embolden the parts that are pertinent. If others want to do the math stuff, the necessary information will be provided, so you can get your backs of your envelopes out and ready!
As we are always so want to do, we often compare other globes to our own. Venus and Mars being our nearest neighbors are often used for such purposes. Why is Venus so hot and why is Mars so cold?
For now, we’re only going to focus on Venus.
There are really only two competing theories, but everyone seems to wish to express them differently. One is that the atmospheric pressure is what makes it so hot. The other is that carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas) is so prevalent, so thick, that infrared (IR) energy can’t escape Venus’ atmosphere.
Today, we’re going to use a paper from Cal Poly titled…..
“A Tutorial on the Basic Physics of Climate Change”
Now, for an average reader, there’s a lot of heavy lifting and well, frankly a lot of gobblygook to sift through to get to the part about why Venus is so much hotter than Earth. The paper does make some rather clear statements to calculate the energy balance of Earth vs. Venus, but the purpose of this post isn’t to engage in that, but rather to show where there may be some difficulties in the premises behind the calculations. We’ll let atmospheric physicists and chemists take if from there……. for those who wish to play along at home, on page 3 (the first mention of Venus) we see this…..
As a comparison we calculate Ta-V for Venus, which has a higher solar flux since the radius of its orbit is only 60% that of Earth: so-V = so(rE/rV)2 = (1367 W/m2)(1.50 x 108 km/1.08 x 108 km)2 = 2610 W/m2. (10)
However, Venus’s higher albedo of 0.76 reflects a greater fraction of sunlight, greatly reducing the average absorbed flux to (1 – a)so-V/4 = (1 – 0.76)(2610 W/m2)/4 = 157 W/m2, (11) which is smaller than Earth’s 239 W/m2. The upper atmospheric temperature of hot Venus, Ta-V = [157 W-m–2/s] 1/4 = 229 K (12) is 26 K colder than Earth’s 255 K. However, Venus’s higher CO2 concentration traps IR, giving it a surface temperature of 750 K, three times Earth’s surface temperature of 287 K.
Again, for those adverse to Ks, so-V and W/m2s and the like just focus on the emboldened text. The authors continue with their explanation……
Our zero-dimensional box model did not take into account the following variable factors: Reflection, absorption and emission by air, aerosols, clouds and surface; Convection of sensible and latent (evaporation) heat; Coupling to oceans and ice; Variations in three dimensions; and Variable solar flux.
So, they introduce a layered model on page 5…….
Multi-Layer Atmosphere. Next we divide the planetary atmosphere into n zones, layered vertically. By using several layers, the temperature gradient in each layer is reduced, smoothing the temperature profile to become more continuous. The thickness of a layer is such that almost all incident IR on a layer is just absorbed in that layer, which then radiates it upwards and downwards. Planets with small amounts of CO2 and H2O have less than one zone, while Venus has many zones. Due to lack of space, we leap to the answer:
T0 = [(1 – a)so/4s]1/4 and Ts = (n + 1)1/4 T0,
Okay, so far so good. This seems to be a rational thought regarding IR(infrared) . I do enjoy leaps! It clarifies much when people leap. They calculate that the earth has 0.6 layers. And they continue with the conclusion and answer as to why Venus is so much warmer than Earth…..
It is not surprising that Earth’s atmosphere contains only 60% of an IR layer since O2 and N2 hardly absorb IR, leaving the task of IR absorption to trace amounts of CO2 and H2O. Venus, on the other hand, has a large temperature difference between the upper atmosphere at T0 = 229 K and the surface at Ts = 750 K. These temperatures give 74 IR layers for CO2 rich Venus!
Well, okay, there’s the answer! Venus has 74 IR layers compared to Earth’s 0.6. Apparently this is due to Venus’ atmospheric CO2 (carbon dioxide). This makes sense,……. Venus’ atmospheric composition is Carbon dioxide 96.5 %, Nitrogen 3.5 %, Sulfur dioxide 150 ppm, Argon 70 ppm, Water vapor 20 ppm……
Now, committed readers here ……….. (both of them 
, not really,……. surprisingly, there’s becoming more and more each month. It’s been rather serendipitous. I may get to that in another post.) But, people, both, committed and those who haven’t been caught, yet, may recognize a problem with the posit. Recall earlier when I stated, “In other words, if the errant thought doesn’t fit well with reality, then, we must dazzle with BS.”
We see this is exactly what Cal Poly and most of the carbonphobes have done. This looks like science, it sure is complex enough to make people believe it is science, but it isn’t science and doesn’t address the realities and the nature of CO2. We see that nearly all of Venus’ atmosphere is made up of CO2 and Nitrogen. Before anyone asks,….. Molecular nitrogen is largely transparent to infrared and visible radiation because it is a homonuclear molecule and, thus, has no dipole moment to couple to electromagnetic radiation at these wavelengths. And for the pedantic, SO2 is a cooling aerosol.
So, the IR layers consist of CO2. The realities I referred to are the absorbance and transmittance of CO2. The error in Cal Poly paper is an egregious one, and one that is all to common in so called climate science. They simply treat so called greenhouse gases (GHG) as all equal. Specifically, they seem to assume the GHGs will capture all IR energy across the spectrum. They don’t. And, CO2 is especially limited in the energy it captures. Worse, once CO2 does capture what little IR energy it can, it transmits in the exact opposite frequency. So, WTF does a layer mean when once the CO2 emits it emits in a frequency which passes right through CO2? See the images below and play along at home by clicking on the link.
http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Units=SI&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1#IR-SPEC
There, a Cal Poly tutorial on basic atmospheric physics entirely demolished by using only critical thinking, logic and simple observation. The question is, how many young people had their heads filled with this unscientific gobblygook and are believing that it reflects some sort of reality?
The takeaway on all of this….. models and the theories behind them are very useful when postulating new thoughts. But, only if they include the realities science has already given us. And lastly, in all science, regardless of the school of thought, observation is king. It always has been, it always will be. You can model, theorize and postulate until the cows come home but none of that matters when observation tells you otherwise.
I’ll be damned………….you’re making too much sense today!
I need to read that again………….
….where’s Mike? LOL
I was holding onto that waiting for the Venus issue to pop up again, but it didn’t so…… 😉
Smoke is coming out of my ears and my eyes are rolling in my head.
And I thought I was good at Baffle with BS!
A classic….. I prolly should have put that in my post!
74 IR layers! WOW that is really impressive. We need to invade Venus to get some of those for our planet!
lol, yes, that was my first response….. “wow, thems a lot of layers!!!”
I had 15 Road Island Red layers on the farm before I left and we usually had enough eggs to give some away.
We crossed our Reds with a strange oriental type…… the roosters were great, the layers laid a lot and the chickens had a lot of meat for butchering.
I even had Barred Rock Layers and Guinea Layers before the Road Island Reds.
But I had not thought about trying to find any IR layers.
OK That is supposed to be spelled RHODE Island. 🙂
Well the reds were better all around than the rocks and the guineas turned out to be a disaster.
But I left the farm to find a new life.
Guineas are a pain in a behind. I haven’t bothered with poultry since leaving home so many years ago. It’s funny……. we could have made a killing back then if the world had just concerned itself with free-range chickens a few years earlier.
I wanted to take a one day out and one day back motorcycle ride in the next couple of week but both of you are two days out. So I may have to run through Kansas on my way to Nevada toward the end of May, if i go.
lol…… maybe not…… How’s this….. I’m going to be in Nashville at the end of April, is that close enough? In May, I’m not sure what part, I’ll be in Georgia for a brief time.
Nashville is 4 hours away. I have wanted to visit the Hermitage again. I could ride over for lunch. Depending on what part of Georgia, I am close to Bristol, TN.
Well, the Georgia trip will be fairly rushed me, while the Nashville trip is pretty open, I’ll be there from a Sunday to Thursday….. its a sort of convention/user group meeting for people using a particular “signal over power line” technology. So, I can pull myself away just about anytime for just about any length of time.
I will send you an e-mail
“The upper atmospheric temperature of hot Venus, Ta-V = [157 W-m–2/s] 1/4 = 229 K (12) is 26 K colder than Earth’s 255 K.”
This is total BS. They are comparing the temperature of Venus at the tropopause, with the average temperature of the Earth’s troposphere. Apples to oranges.
The true temperature at the Earth’s tropopause, as defined by the international standard atmosphere, is 217K, and those 2 temperatures (217K for Earth and 229K for Venus) are the key to calculating the 2 planets surface temperatures. All you have to know is the thickness of the troposphere and the adiabatic lapse rate to calculate the surface temperatures :
On Earth, ST = 217+ (6.49K/Km*11km) = 288.39K
On Venus, ST = 229+ (7.9K/Km*65Km) = 742.5K
It really is that simple. Radiative theory is FUBAR.
“Radiative theory is FUBAR.” Thanks AIP!!
Yep….. I knew I’d get someone to play along with the numbers!!! I’m wondering if we can’t get someone who holds more to Hansen’s view to comment on this?
We are here having a good old time off topic and AIP wants to interject sciencey stuff into the conversation. 😉
Pingback: Your Questions About Chemistry Dictionary | Signs You Met the Right One
You argue with a highly simplified Cal Poly discussion and point out that since CO2 absorbs over a limited band of frequencies, the radiation from the surface of Venus should leak out in the wide range of frequences where CO2 does not absorb.
That would be the case, if the CO2 were only absorbing over that narrow range. With the very high densities and optical depths in the Venusian atmosphere, the molecules also absorb very far from their usual absorption bands — they begin to absorb pretty strongy over the whole spectrum. Because of this, the approximation in the Cal Poly paper isn’t bad. The proof is in the pudding — the outgoing thermal IR spectrum of the Venusian atmosphere has a temperature far, far below the very high temperature of the surface, because the radiation is originating only at the top of the atmosphere, which is much cooler than the surface.
This is all explained with impeccable physical correctness by Ray Pierrhumbert, at
Thanks, I’ll give the paper a read.
“The proof is in the pudding — the outgoing thermal IR spectrum of the Venusian atmosphere has a temperature far, far below the very high temperature of the surface.”
There’s no other possible explanation other than CO2 changes properties…… this ought to be good.
Anything is possible @ 1:03 on 4/1 — It does look as if the bulk of the atmosphere of Venus is in convective equilibrium, so that the temperature at the top of the tropopause is predictable from the adiabatic lapse rate. However, if the atmosphere of Venus were actually transparent in the infrared, there would be an enormous heat leak and the equilibrium temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere would be much lower than it is. Again, refer to the Pierrehumbert article for an authoritative discussion.
I really hope that wasn’t peer reviewed…… I’ll give more responses to the article in a bit, as my time is short this morning.
Well, I can certainly see why the author won’t allow content copying…….. it limits the rebuts for specific passages.
The author took a very long, unnecessary, yet, elegant trip attempting to rationalize inconsistencies in the theory. I’m wondering why people believe GHGs are a one-way door?
My lol, for the day….. Nitrogen is the most important GHG on Titan……. because of the dense atmosphere. Apparently, GHGs have characteristics similar to the Borg and assimilate all gases into being GHGs. ……… Or, it could just be gases adhering to the Natural Gas Law with mass and atmospheric pressure coming into play…….. naw….
“The author took a very long, unnecessary, yet, elegant trip attempting to rationalize inconsistencies in the theory. I’m wondering why people believe GHGs are a one-way door?”
Which inconsistencies in particular?
In what sense to you mean a ‘one-way door’? Radiative transfer theory considers radiation moving in all directions, and makes no assumption that radiation will flow only
inward or outward.
John, I have to apologize, in that I’m limited at the moment with my responses. So, if they seem to be incomplete thoughts, my bust.
Half the energy from the sun is IR. And the visible energy is blocked by a sulfuric acid layer. Further, isn’t it curious, the pressure broadening extends only one direction? What of the absorption at the 4um and 2um?…. That should even further broaden to exclude even visible energy! There’s no need even for the sulfur cloud explanation!
But, most importantly, is the seeming throwout statement regarding Nitrogen……which, in my post I included for this type of reason. Bear with me……
“In the case of the homonuclear diatomic molecules (H2, N2, O2) the excitation of the vibration is really forbidden because in the whole vibrational period: μi,j = 0.” For nitrogen to be a GHG, it needs a dipole moment. How does a homonuclear molecule do that?
“For nitrogen to be a GHG, it needs a dipole moment. How does a homonuclear molecule do that?”
Well, that I don’t know for sure, but I’d expect that the pressure broadening would allow it to absorb anyway, since the short-lived pseudomolecules in the collisions will no doubt have dipole moments. In the case of the earth, it’s not at all important anyway, because the earth’s atmosphere is much less dense than Titan’s. As for absorption in the visible, that’s a much higher frequency than the thermal IR, and it may be that the absorption coefficient remains very tiny even at the pressures found on Venus.
While Venus’ atmosphere is very thick to incoming radiation, some tens of watts per square meter make it down to the surface. The reason the equilibrium temperature is so high is that the energy then has a very hard time making it back out.
As I’ve pointed out earlier, the outgoing IR really does have to be blocked pretty effectivel for Venus to have the hot surface that it does. Remember that the hot surface is not hypothetical — it’s been verified by in situ measuremnt.
Right John, I’m not arguing the temperatures. I’m arguing about how it is we believe it has come to be.
Well, we agree that Venus is hot!
What I’m saying is that the surface temperature of the atmosphere can only be that high if the atmosphere presents a high optical depth for outgoing thermal IR — otherwise, heat would escape easily through radiation, and the equilibrium temperature would be much lower. The only question is, what is the opacity source? And CO2 — the major constituent of the atmosphere — is known to be a good broad-band absorber at those densities.
” There’s no other possible explanation other than CO2 changes properties…… this ought to be good.”
The physical effect you’re missing is pressure broadening, which Pierrehumbert describes in the paragraph that begins at the bottom of page 35, first column. Briefly, at high pressures, molecules can absorb across a wide range of frequencies, not just in the narrow bands that they absorb at low pressure. So yes, CO2 does change its properties significantly when physical conditions change significantly.
There’s nothing new about this. I learned about pressure broadening back in my stellar atmospheres classes in the 1970s.
Nitrogen, similarly, absorbs over a broader range of frequencies in the very dense atmosphere on Titan.
John, if CO2 changes its properties significantly due to the physical conditions on Venus, and Nitrogen changes its properties significantly due to the physical conditions on Titan, is it not reasonable to assume that if we were to replace the CO2 on Venus with an equivalent mass of Nitrogen, then the physical properties of Nitrogen would also change significantly?
Would you care to ponder the possible implications of that?
I suppose it’s possible, but one wouldn’t know without running the radiative transfer codes with the right input physics. It’s entirely hypothetical in any case. There is a lot of interest in exotic planetary atmospheres, because of the tremendous number of exoplanet discoveries flooding in from Kepler and other efforts.
Radiative transfer codes, by the way, have reached a high state of development over the last 60 years or so. A main scientific driver behind them has been stellar atmospheres work; at this point, it’s possible to explain with amazing detail how stars produce the spectra they do.
Hmm, I’ll try to help,………. because then nothing and everything is a GHG…… but only as it relates to volume, mass, and pressure.?
Whether something is a GHG or not depends on the physical circumstances — it’s not a cut-and-dried category. Nitrogen is not a GHG on earth, but it is one on Titan. CO2 is a broad-band absorber at the pressures found in Venus’ atmosphere, but absorbs over a narrower band in the earth’s atmosphere. The most reliable answers to questions like these come from detailed calculations and tracing the effects of various atmospheric constituents.
Yes, apparently relating to pressure, volume, and mass. Unless we’re stating that the physical properties of molecules are altered on different astral bodies. ……
You’re missing the key element that makes it all work, James. Gravity.
Apart from that, I think we (almost) have a theory. In essence that the radiative properties of gases change as physical conditions change, and the key physical condition is pressure. As pressure increases then gases have a tendency to absorb more and more radiation over a greater range of frequencies, and this leads to an increase in temperatures.
Running all the maths that would actually prove it is way above my pay grade, but conceptually at least, it makes perfect sense. More to the point, it fits in with our observations of atmospheres throughout the solar system, and is not inconsistent with our theories of stellar formation either.
That’s right. Gravity is an essential element of the concept of hydrostatic equilibrium (HSE), which is basic whenever you have a body of fluid that is in equilibrium in a gravity field. It’s very simple — the pressure has to increase as you go down in an atmosphere, because the lower layers have to support the weight of the layers above them. That’s the reason why the pressures are so high deep in the Venusian atmosphere, and the underlying reason why the CO2 behaves so differently than it does in earth’s atmosphere.
HSE also applies in bodies of water, obviously — that’s the reason why pressures are so
great deep in the ocean.
The pressure at the surface of Venus is 92 bars; 1 bar is equivalent to about 10 meters of water under Earth’s gravity. So the Venusian surface pressure is equivalen to several thousand feet of water — no wonder it’s such a strange place!
John, I wanted to say, I’ve appreciate your contributions to this discussion. We cover some controversial and often charged topics. It isn’t often we can discuss things of this nature without exploding vitriol. Do stick around! I try to put something out about science or climate change at least once a day. Economics, energy, and politics are some of the other topics.
Thanks! I’ll hang out a bit and contribute when I think I can say something constructive.
lol, constructive is always appreciated….. never necessary.
You’ve given me something to chew on for a while. Thanks!
lol, John beats me to the punch. I’ll post my comment anyway.
ahhh….. not forgotten, just was dancing around it for a bit….. 😉
Gravity shapes and influences all atmospheric processes……
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7d.html
All of this stated, I’m still having a problem with Venus. I’ll run the numbers in the near future…… but consider Mars…… here, of course, the pressure/gravity is much less. On the IR emitting we see that Venus’ is just a bit less than Mars in the paper offered by John.(fig 3) But, the Kelvins are more. Now, if we grant the GHG’s blocks the coming and going of IR in Venus except for the upper atmosphere, and then only a small part of the “visible” heat gets to the surface….. where’s the heat coming from? It seems to me they’re saying more heat is exiting than is getting in.
All of that stated, I’ve got just a little more time then I’ll have much weightier considerations! Such as do I have enough beer to watch the game and will KU actually get Withey the ball? Can Robinson bring his A game? Will Tyshawn Taylor actually make a 3? Can Self’s coaching make a difference in this one? Or will UK’s talent simply overwhelm KU?
“It seems to me they’re saying more heat is exiting than is getting in. ”
This can’t be the case, unless there’s another major source of heat aside from the sun (e.g., the Venusian equivalent of geothermal heating). I don’t believe Venus’ internal heat contributes significantly.
On the Fig. 3 comparison, it’s worth noting that the Mars spectrum is for a summer afternoon — and you’re looking almost straight at the surface, since there’s so little atmosphere, so it is (unsurprisingly) an excellent blackbody — except for the notch cut out by the CO2. The Venusian spectrum is for the night side. The right side of the figure shows that you are indeed only seeing a very shallow slice of the Venusian atmosphere at these wavelengths. Because the opacity is complicated, you’re seeing to different depths (which are at different temperatures) at different frequencies — so the spectrum is a poor match to a blackbody.
If you were seeing all the way to the bottom of the Venusian atmosphere, the IR would
be far, far brighter than what you see here; the total radiation in a blackbody is proportional to the FOURTH power of the temperature.
“This can’t be the case, unless there’s another major source of heat aside from the sun (e.g., the Venusian equivalent of geothermal heating). I don’t believe Venus’ internal heat contributes significantly. “
Exactly my point. And, while I don’t disagree with the rest of your statement, it’s lacking some key points. Not the least of which is that IR emitting isn’t the total amount of energy leaving the bodies (or their atmosphere). And this still doesn’t solve the conundrum that CO2 doesn’t emit at the frequencies it absorbs. Unless, we’re positing that characteristic also changes with density and pressure.
I looked around a bit, and found that the idea that Venus contribued its own energy was looked at and discarded back in the 1970s. It really is unimportant.
The IR really is the total energy leaving the atmosphere, at the top (except, of course, for sunlight that is reflected right away.) If you were to put an imaginary sphere around the planet, and count the energy going in and the energy going out, they have to balance in equilibrium. And radiation is the only way in which significant energy can be transferred through the vacuum of space.
That’s the key to the whole problem — the equilibrium temperature of the planet is determined by radiation balance. Energy can be transported through an atmosphere in a number of ways — convection, radiation, and even some conduction (though that’s usually unimportant), but once you’re past the top of the atmosphere, there’s nothing except radiation. That is why downward looking spectra such as the ones featured in Pierrhumbert’s article are so enlightening.
“And radiation is the only way in which significant energy can be transferred through the vacuum of space.”
Yes…. sort of….my thoughts are, it isn’t confined to IR. I think most of the energy hitting the surface of Venus is UV. This easily explains the lack of visual and IR able to reach the surface. However, this doesn’t look so good when viewing the outgoing energy. The equation isn’t proper. Sadly, I’m reduced to assumptions and percentages. Percentages are great, but when they’re percentages of assumptions……
Actual outgoing energy measurements and incoming are necessary. I know this isn’t quite as coherent as you may like it to be…. I’m on my second 12 pack… but, I’ll put it in a post at some point showing the inequity. It isn’t there if the assumptions are correct, and we know it must have an equilibrium.
For the record, I don’t believe Venus is a heat source.
Replying to your post below: I’d be very surprised if any ultraviolet at all reaches the Venusian surface. Ultraviolet is, in general, absorbed much more strongly than visible light and infrared. In the earth’s atmosphere, the extinction in the ultraviolet band is around double what it is in visible light. Also, the sun’s luminosity in the ultraviolet is pretty small compared to the bulk of the solar radiation at longer wavelengths. UV is important because it carries a relatively high energy per photon, which gives it power to dissociate weakly-bound molecules, but this only matters high up in the atmosphere.
Turns out the game isn’t on until 10:30 tonight…… WTF?
john says:
April 3, 2012 at 6:52 am (Edit)
Replying to your post below: I’d be very surprised if any ultraviolet at all reaches the Venusian surface. ……..In the earth’s atmosphere, the extinction in the ultraviolet band is around double what it is in visible light.
================================================
True….. due to ozone. I don’t believe Venus has any of that… or very little. I’ll have to look it up for the exact numbers…..but, about 8% of solar energy is UV.
Observe this:
Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles, Venus from Magellan Cycle 1
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.html
“Guth Venus” 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in question:
https://picasaweb.google.com/bradguth/BradGuth#5630418595926178146
https://picasaweb.google.com/bradguth/BradGuth#5629579402364691314
http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Pingback: Your Questions About Chemistry Dictionary | Signs You Met the Right One
Thus far, there’s apparently not one observationology wizard here that’s willing to give or take on what that unusually hot terrain of Venus has to offer.
What sort of weird planet geology or that of its geodynamics looks or acts anything like this?
Thumbnail images, including “mgn_c115s095_1.gif” (225 m/pixel)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/thumbnail_pages/venus_thumbnails.html
Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles, Venus from Magellan Cycle 1
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.html
Not even the most active moon of Jupiter being Io has this remarkable degree of surface geology complexity to offer, and there’s certainly nothing remotely artificial looking with anything about the planet Mars or thus far of any other planet or moon to speak of, outside of Venus.
If anything the metallicity of Venus is somewhat greater than Earth, and its ability to create and maintain its substantial atmosphere of mostly CO2 as having such an abundance (12 ppm) of helium, and having sustained it without benefit of the geomagnetic protection that our planet has to work with, is truly an impressive accomplishment, and especially for a smaller than Earth like planet w/o moon and situated so much closer to the sun.
Firstly, our mainstream eyecandy science cache of infomercials via our public funded NASA and otherwise NOVA as owned by Google, could help with exploiting this ongoing research if they wanted to, and otherwise without their assistance you might try to understand that we really do not want to use microscopic or even much higher resolution than 75 m/pixel imaging when the items of most interest have always been so extremely or unusually big to begin with. So, you can continue to argue that these images as a derivative of a 36 look or scanned composite offering this initial 225 meters per pixel format are simply not good enough, but you’d only be proving to yourself and others as to how unintelligent and/or obstructive that sort of closed or naysay mindset really is.
Venus is perhaps not unlike hell, but otherwise its unusually high metallicity as indicated by its radar reflective attributes and its considerable surplus of helium plus the mostly geothermal energy driven environment, is at least technically manageable as long as you have a functioning brain of at least a 5th grader without all the usual mainstream status-quo tumors that disable your investigative skills and deductive reasoning, that’s otherwise considered as human intelligence.
Of course to most of you that have taken a basic look-see at this old Magellan radar obtained image of Venus, and especially of the fuzzy or blocky pixel image of “Guth Venus” or “GuthVenus”, is perhaps suggestive of nothing more than offering a nasty looking terrain of random geology with piles of extruded hot rock. However, within the highly confirmed patterns of such mostly hot rock are several odd geometric items of somewhat large scale and offering us those extremely interesting formations, that at least on Earth or upon any other imaged planet or moon hasn’t come remotely close to offering this level of sophisticated geology complexity and rational community looking configuration or modification of such a mountainous terrain site. This makes GuthVenus a one of a kind off-world location, at least up until other better resolution images become available.
Besides merely following my deductive interpretations, do reconsider as to bothering yourself to take another subjective look-see and then honestly interpret this thick and dense atmospheric insulated terrain for yourself, as to what some of those highly unusual patterns could possibly represent, as anything other than the random geology happenstance of hot rocks.
“Guth Venus” 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in question:
https://picasaweb.google.com/102736204560337818634/BradGuth#slideshow/5629579402364691314
This is not to say that 99.9999% of this Venus surface doesn’t look perfectly natural (at least it does to me), just like the surface of Earth might look if having to use the exact same SAR-C imaging methods and its limited resolution that could be easily improved upon by any new missions for mapping Venus in greater detail (such as 7.5 meters/pixel). After all, a millionth of that hot Venus surface area is still 4.6e8 m2, or 460 km2, and this most complex area of “Guth Venus” (100 x 100 pixels or 506 km2) that which includes mostly natural geology, isn’t involving but a fraction more than a millionth of the Venus surface area, and yet it seems as though highly developed and to a large enough scale that makes for deductively interpreting those patterns as rather easy and reliably pixel truthworthy items that do in fact exist because the image resampling process isn’t even capable of artificially creating them.
It can also be suggested and reasonably argued that initially (4+ billion years ago) our sun was 25% cooler than nowadays, thereby making Venus quite Goldilocks approved. But this still doesn’t fully explain as to why such a large and complex geometric sale of a structured community or mining operation was established and as to why Venus has been radiating such a large amount of its geothermal core energy plus having been creating all of that unprotected atmosphere that should have been extensively solar wind blown away as of more than a billion years ago, whereas instead there’s enough new atmosphere created to make up for the lack of a protective geomagnetosphere.
BTW; life even as we know it can adjust or acclimate to extreme pressures and even much higher temperatures, and yet lo and behold there’s still no American flags on Venus, but there have been USSR/Russian flags on multiple landers that got there decades before us. So, perhaps we’ll have to accept that Venus and all of its natural resources belongs to Russia. Otherwise NOVA as having been owned by Google could help all of us better understand and appreciate what the extremely nearby planet Venus has to offer, but only if they wanted to. Obviously our NASA has been avoiding this extremely nearby planet, perhaps because our expertise and talent for getting active probes to survive with that atmosphere is simply less than what Russians have accomplished.
http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”
Did you have to give up on Venus?
Why is the extremely nearby planet Venus such a mainstream taboo/nondisclosure issue?
Be my guest and apply your very own photographic enlargement software, as to viewing this one small but rather interesting mountainous area of Venus, using your independent deductive expertise as to enlarge or magnify this extensively mountainous terrain of Venus that I’ve focused upon, really shouldn’t be asking too much. Most of modern PhotoZoom and other photographic software variations tend to accomplish this enlargement process automatically (including iPhone and Safari), although some extra applied filtering and thereby image enhancing for dynamic range compensations can further improve upon the end result (no direct pixel modifications should ever be necessary, because it’s all a derivative from the original Magellan radar imaging).
“GuthVenus” 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in question:
https://picasaweb.google.com/102736204560337818634/BradGuth#slideshow/5630418595926178146
https://picasaweb.google.com/102736204560337818634/BradGuth#
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG, Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”, GuthVenus