Vacationing on Venus Basic Geology Series Part 1
Guest post by Steven Goddard
Magellan radar imaged Venus – NASA Image
In some ways, Venus is similar to earth. It is about the same size as the earth, has a nickel-iron core, and has volcanic activity due to radioactive heating in the interior. But that is where the similarities end. Venus has some serious problems as a vacation spot – mainly that it is extremely hot and the atmosphere is a thick cloud of sulfuric acid, CO2 and other unpleasant chemicals.
So how did Venus get to be like that, and why is the earth different?
- Venus is closer to the sun, which makes it hotter and prevents formation of oceans due to excessive evaporation.
- Venus suffered a traumatic collision in it’s early days, which causes it to rotate very slowly and parallel to the ecliptic. This makes for long afternoons (thousands of hours long) which get extremely hot.
- Because of 1 and 2, Venus was never able to sequester CO2 in limestones like the earth.
For the last few billion years, volcanoes on earth have been spewing out the greenhouse gases H2O, CO2 and CH4, as well as, H2SO4, SO2, H2S, HCl and Cl2. If not for the oceans and limestone sequestration, we would have a very thick, hot acidic atmosphere like Venus which could not support life. Fortunately, temperatures and other conditions on earth were just right to allow huge volumes of CO2 to move into the oceans and precipitate carbonate rock layers, where the CO2 became sequestered. This makes earth the pleasant place which we all enjoy.
Wikipedia image – carbonate rocks in Italy, uplifted miles above sea level.
One of the oft stated concerns by the IPCC and others is excess CO2 from cement production, which involves heating carbonate rocks and has the side effect of returning CO2 to the atmosphere. Dr. Hansen and others have also suggested that periods of rapid warming in the past have been due to limestone formations being subducted into hot volcanic regions and losing their CO2 to the atmosphere.
But make no mistake, without the CO2 sequestered in limestone and other carbonate rocks, earth would be hot, toxic and probably unlivable – like Venus.
Some more detailed discussion here and here .
Part 2 will be a discussion of how fossil fuels fit into the picture.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Re the issue of CO2 from cement making in the article:
“One of the oft stated concerns by the IPCC and others is excess CO2 from cement production, which involves heating carbonate rocks and has the side effect of returning CO2 to the atmosphere. Dr. Hansen and others have also suggested that periods of rapid warming in the past have been due to limestone formations being subducted into hot volcanic regions and losing their CO2 to the atmosphere.”
I would like to draw attention (for two reasons) to the following from concrete specialists in Denmark:
“Approximately half of the CO2 emissions from cement production stems from the calcination of limestone. Theoretically, hardened concrete binds approximately the same amount of CO2 in the carbonation process. (See
http://www.dti.dk/18487).
It seems that after concrete has been poured and hardened, it reacts with CO2 and recovers CO2 lost in the cement manufacturing process. I suspect, too, that CO2 emissions emitted by heating of limestone in a subduction zone in the earth’s crust gets reacted back into the resulting lime in contact with CO2 dissolved in sea water.
The first reason for citing this is obvious – IPCC’s concerns are misplaced.
The second reason is that science has gone completely off course and if permitted to continue, we could be in more danger of being wiped out by bad science before we see palm trees in Greenland again. Scientists trained in one area now shamelessly employ a priori reasoning in other disciplines to support their ideas rather than consult practitioners in the other field or at least consult the internet first to obtain a real answer. Perhaps this is why we have a railway engineer and an engineering economist chairing and vice chairing IPCC, who refer to themselves as climate specialists. Incidentally, it may also be significant that the word “climatologist” is underlined in red when typed in”Word” and the Oxford On line dictionary doesn’t have an entry for it at least up to a year ago. This is a very young science indeed although paleoclimatology has been around for a long time.
Ok, Mercury’s axis is perpendicular, Venus’ is 178deg, Mars’ is roughly the same as Earth’s, Jupiter’s is 3deg, Saturn’s is 27deg, Uranus’ is 98deg, Neptune’s is 28deg, Pluto’s is 122deg.
So what’s “normal”?
Michael D Smith (15:35:07) :
The logarithmic response of CO2 concentrations and temperature is a product of curve fitting and doesn’t hold for high or low concentrations. A few halvings and you’re out of range. Of course, that falls out of your analysis readily enough and certainly by the 97th halving. The first few would have a very big impact.
Whether or not Venus had an impact, it is believed that Earth definitely had an impact during its formation. The obvious result of that is our Moon. We can guess that a lot of atmosphere may have been lost then. However, meteorite composition indicates that there were a lot of volatiles in the Earth, so it is not surprising that we have an atmosphere.
Also, water has dominated Earth’s surface. There was at least one ocean very early in Earth’s history, which implies some upper limits on the effects of the Moon-forming impact. Water is part of the chemistry in the mantle, so there is more of it down there also, some primordial and some subducted.
Gary Pearse,
Thanks for the link about concrete binding CO2. That is an important point and if true would point to another area of deficient science surrounding AGW.
Jeff Alberts,
Most of the planets have had collisions at one point or another. The theory of how the solar system accreted would necessarily have the planets rotate perpendicular to the ecliptic and in the same direction.
A good discussion here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System
Thanks for the explanation, Mr. Goddard. I’ll be following along.
Does anyone know why the levels of He and Ne are so high on Venus?
He can reach escape velocity on Earth and only lasts for about 70 million years before disappearing into space.
Does the concentration of He on Venus mean that it absorbing He from the solar wind or that the radioactivity on Venus is very much higher than on Earth; about 50 times greater or more.
The Earth’s atmosphere will fairly rapidly (on geological timescales) reach a stable CO2 level resulting from the lower limit of CO2 in plant photosynthesis.
Since photosynthesis appeared it will have become progressively more efficient at utilizing CO2 and hence the stable level of atmospheric CO2 would have declined, likely in a stepwise manner.
This explains the much higher CO2 levels in the past, such as the Carboniferous Age.
It also explains a rather puzzling mystery. How did those very large flying dinosaurs fly, when the largest flying creature today has a wingspan of only 20 feet and a much smaller body.
The answer is that the atmosphere was denser, with higher levels of CO2.
Steven Goddard (17:39:59) :
“The reason why the small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has a big impact on temperature is because there is a spectral SW band which CO2 absorbs that is not absorbed by H2O. The first few tens of PPM CO2 in the atmosphere have a large impact on temperature.”
All of the solar energy re-radiated by the Earth at frequencies in the CO2 spectral bands is 95% absorbed within about ten meters of the re-radiating surface at the present atmospheric concentration of CO2. Increasing the concentration of this gas in the atmosphere will only mean that the re-radiated energy in those frequency bands will be absorbed sooner, say within eight meters of the surface, not that more energy will be absorbed. Greenhouse-wise, saturation occurred at the CO2 concentration that existed thousands of years ago. Increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is analogous increased glass thickness in a greenhouse; the effect is trivial, if even measurable.
Gary Pearse (18:05:02) :
Re the issue of CO2 from cement making in the article:
I would like to draw attention (for two reasons) to the following from concrete specialists in Denmark:
“Approximately half of the CO2 emissions from cement production stems from the calcination of limestone. Theoretically, hardened concrete binds approximately the same amount of CO2 in the carbonation process. (See
http://www.dti.dk/18487).
It seems that after concrete has been poured and hardened, it reacts with CO2 and recovers CO2 lost in the cement manufacturing process. I suspect, too, that CO2 emissions emitted by heating of limestone in a subduction zone in the earth’s crust gets reacted back into the resulting lime in contact with CO2 dissolved in sea water.
If you read the paper you will have noticed that the recovery process takes the order of a century to complete, part of it after demolition of the structure.
Concerning this electrical phenomenon, it sounds like venus is behaving to a certain extent like a light bulb.
I also remember hearing that preasure creates friction, and friction creates heat. With the atmospheric pressure being so high on Venus, could this also be the case?
Calculations using the size of flying dinosaur fossils shows the atmosphere was 3 to 5 times denser than the current atmosphere.
AKD (12:12:24) :
CO2 is an “unpleasant chemical”?
Alex (13:20:56) :
I find CO2 to be very pleasant :P… particularly when the bubbles in a cool Schweppes fizz and tickle the sinuses!
If you take a bottle of cold soda and pour it from altitude into a tall glass, filling the glass halfway up, after the suds settle, the top of the glass should filled with CO2 gas. Stick your nose in the glass and inhale a deep breath of CO2 to see if it’s pleasant.
Bill Illis (16:59:03) :
I have not seen any calculations for how much gravitational compression adds to Venus’ surface temperature (or the Earth for that matter which I assume is a non-zero figure).
You’ll find that on an “adiabatic chart”. We used to use such things when I minored in Atm Sci back in college (pre wx satellite and supercomputers). Here’s a simple one –
http://san.hufs.ac.kr/~gwlee/session3/adiabatic.html
It goes only to 1.2 bar, and is for earth’s atmosphere mix. The pressure scale looks logarithmic and the temp scale linear. I’m sure there’s some equation on the web that would allow making a higher pressure chart, at least for air.
Mike McMillan:
“If you take a bottle of cold soda and pour it from altitude into a tall glass, filling the glass halfway up, after the suds settle, the top of the glass should filled with CO2 gas. Stick your nose in the glass and inhale a deep breath of CO2 to see if it’s pleasant.”
Can’t handle a little humour there mike?? Obviously with any chemical be it O2 , CO2, Ne etc it would be dangerous to take a deep breath of that.
So then every single compound/element in existence is effectively “unpleasant”. rather silly if you ask me. How about putting a plant in that CO2 cloud?? Unpleasant? I think not.
Leif: 300 000 times?? Someone here made reference to 1700 times… make up your mind people…
“One of the oft stated concerns by the IPCC and others is excess CO2 from cement production, which involves heating carbonate rocks and has the side effect of returning CO2 to the atmosphere.
Just propaganda put out by the asphalt and lumber companies. [sic]
IIRC on earth, half of co2’s warming effect comes from the first 24ppm in the atmosphere. to double that warming, you have to add something like another 240ppm. I’ll try to find the exact figures.
In Australia, C02 is being blamed for the wildfires. This is sad.
Chazz,
The earth’s radiative balance is always maintained, so all of the incoming SW is accounted for either as outgoing reflected SW, as emitted LW or as an increase of stored heat in the oceans. Note that there is a band of LW radiation at about 650cm-1 which absorbs IR higher up in the atmosphere.
http://www.aer.com/scienceResearch/rc/m-proj/lbl_clrt_mls.html
Because of the requirements equilibrium, it is impossible to trap radiation near the surface – rather the temperature gets raised to maintain incoming/outgoing equilibrium. Adding more CO2 increases the required temperature to maintain equilibrium.
This from VENUS: MAGNETIC FIELD AND MAGNETOSPHERE by J. G. LUHMANN AND C. T. RUSSELL, originally published in Encyclopedia of Planetary Sciences:
“Besides the more obvious atmospheric composition and pressure differences, and the related extreme temperatures at the surface described elsewhere in this volume, events in the history and evolution of the interior of Venus have left that planet with…
practically no intrinsic magnetic field.
The consequences for the space environment and atmosphere are numerous, ranging from the presence of an ‘induced’ magnetotail in the wake, to an ionosphere and upper atmosphere that are constantly being scavenged by the passing solar wind. “
Matt (17:08:57) :
“Dr. Hansen and others have also suggested that periods of rapid warming in the past have been due to limestone formations being subducted into hot volcanic regions and losing their CO2 to the atmosphere.
This statement also needs to be called into question. Continental crust like limestone is too light to be subducted.”
Strongly agree – limestones getting uplifted via continental mountain building and then getting weathered would seem a much more reasonable explanation for CO2 liberation in the past. I believe there is some evidence for a lagged correlation in the geologic record between mountain building (Alps, Himalayas, even the early Appaclachians) and subsequent explosions in regional flora and fauna, presumably due to a greening from the CO2 spike and increased sedimentation.
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.28.1.85
Steve,
As Jeff Alberts showed, Venus’ rotation axis is not parallel with the orbital plane. The 178 degree number means it is 2 degrees from perpendicular, but rotates backwards. Only Uranus has a rotation axis close to being parallel to its orbital plane. While a collision probably caused this, it was most likely a collision that hit close to Venus’ equator and drove the rotation backwards without affecting the orientation of the axis.
I too find it fascinating to compare the histories of Venus and Earth.
Phil,
Cement carbonation “takes the order of a century to complete, part of it after demolition of the structure.”
More than a century has past and a lot of demolition has taken place since portland cement was invented. Also, I suspect that the the process is more rapid in the early stages and decays over the century. Meanwhile, all the concrete structures in the world are recovering a bit of todays added CO2 so it can at least be said that the IPCC concern is substantially overstated.
Mike: >> “Leif: 300 000 times?? Someone here made reference to 1700 times… make up your mind people…”
1700 times the concentration, 300,000 times the total amount.
Steven,
You wrote: “All of the planets with the exception of Venus rotate perpendicular to the ecliptic and in the same direction as their orbits. The fact that Venus orbits parallel to the ecliptic, slowly and in the wrong direction is pretty solid evidence that it has suffered a severe collision since it’s formation. How else could that have happened?”
In the weekly journal Nature, the article “The four final rotation states of Venus” (Alexandre C.M. Correla & Jacques Laskar, Vol. 411, 14 June 2001) shows that “terrestrial planets with dense atmosphere like Venus can evolve into one of only four possible rotation states”. “Most initial conditions will drive the planet towards the configuration at present seen at Venus”, viz. a very slow rotation in a retrograde direction in 243 Earth days. The rotation of the Earth takes 23 hours and 56 minutes.
Perhaps this article can give you an answer to your question.
Goddard wrote:
The fact that Venus orbits parallel to the ecliptic, slowly and in the wrong direction is pretty solid evidence that it has suffered a severe collision since it’s formation. How else could that have happened?
I remember reading somewhere that the solar tidal drag on Venus’ dense atmosphere would have damped any original angular momentum the planet had and would have resulted in tidal locking after about one billion years. The fact that Venus’ current rotation rate closely matches its orbital period is circumstantial evidence in favor of this hypothesis, but obviously we don’t know for certain. The slight differential in rates, as well as the retrograde nature of Venus’ rotation, could have resulted from minor impacts on the planet and/or tidal acceleration perturbing the planet’s orbital characteristics. This is all speculation at this point, and there may be problems with this account that I have not considered. Does anyone else have an opinion?