NASA builds high pressure Venus surface simulation

Posted: January 23, 2012 by tallbloke in Astronomy, atmosphere, climate, solar system dynamics, volcanos

From ‘The Telegraph’

H/T the Daily Bayonet

In the first of its kind, the American space agency has built the 12-tonne “Extreme Environment Test Chamber” to simulate the burning temperatures and intense pressure experience on the planet’s surface.

Scientists hope the new state-of-the-art chemical chamber, which includes two “Sapphire glass windows”, will recreate the toxic, probe-destroying atmosphere of Earth’s closest neighbouring planet.

In turn, they hope it will lead to better understanding of climate change on Earth based on experiments of a planet baked of its water and suffocated by greenhouse gases and sulphuric clouds.

So presumably if all the suffocating on Venus is done by the greenhouse gases and sulphuric clouds, the heating is done by the pressure of the atmosphere….

Time for Harry Dale Huffman to take a bow I think. 🙂

Harry has made three comments on the Nikolov and Zeller Unified Theory of Climate:

 
Observation on a “Unified Climate Theory”

Second Response to “Unified Climate Theory”

Unified Climate Theory III

All well worth a read.

Comments
  1. malagaview says:

    Time for Harry Dale Huffman to take a bow I think.

    And plenty of awards, accolades and admiration…

  2. tchannon says:

    Year of the Water Dragon, Happy New Year.

    Reminder, once every 60 years.

  3. adolfogiurfa says:

    In turn, they hope it will lead to better understanding of climate change on Earth based on experiments of a planet baked of its water and suffocated by greenhouse gases and sulphuric clouds ….
    It seems they already know that Venus´s high temperature is primarily caused by “greenhouse gases”…
    As late al 1959, Venus´ground temperature was calculated to be only 17ºC….But by 1961, from the nature of the radio signals emitted by Venus, it was found that Venus´ground temperature is about 315º, or 600ºF.. there was admittedly no satisfactory explanation of such high temperature of Venus in the frame of the accepted notions….The Mariner II, ..in December 1962, was instrumented to detect whether the heat is real and as high as 600º. It found it real and a full 800º….it found, also, that the night side of Venus is, if anything, hotter than the day side and that light does not penetrate the cloud cover…..very little greenhouse effect could realize itself under such conditions.
    Dr.Immanuel Velikovsky, “Worlds in Collision”, p.3, preface to the paperback edition, Abacus, 1972.

  4. Vuk says:

    OT:
    Yesterday geomagnetic storm was moderate
    http://flux.phys.uit.no/cgi-bin/plotgeodata.cgi?Last24&site=tro2a&
    All quiet on the ‘western front’ until next one arrives in two days time:

    [changed to archived copy from live server, date as image

    Live version http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/rt_plots/Xray.gif
    –Tim]

  5. Don keiller says:

    Venus
    Atmosphere 90 x denser than that on Earth- totally different composition.
    No magnetic field to prevent stripping of hydrogen and water vapour
    Distance from sun 100 million kilometres, cf. Earth 150 million.
    About twice the solar input (inverse square law) than Earth.

    Yes, Venus makes a great model to study climate change on Earth!

  6. malagaview says:

    Don keiller says: January 23, 2012 at 5:54 pm
    Yes, Venus makes a great model to study climate change on Earth!

    Totally agree: A great way to validate ATE with real data.

  7. Mike WIlliams says:

    Don,

    Don’t forget no plate tectonics, no moon, next to no rotation, etc.

    From NASA: http://pds.nasa.gov/planets/special/venus.htm vs http://pds.nasa.gov/planets/special/earth.htm

    I am sure this is going to produce some interesting results but other than providing HDH with ammo I am not sure how relevant it is to our climate.

    I remember in the early days of climate alarmism the MSM and so called experts used to play the Venus card (as in “if we don’t stop GW the planet will become just like Venus”). For some reason they don’t do this anymore (/sarc).

  8. Brian H says:

    As for the “sulphuric clouds” explaining the “toxic probe-destroying atmosphere” — there ain’t none on the surface. They hang around at considerable altitude, as clouds are wont to do.

    And what’s with “toxic”? Toxicity has bupkis to do with inanimate probes.

    Clearly trying to “spin-up” Venus.

  9. Anything is possible says:

    If I am understanding Harry Dale Hoffman correctly, he is not necessarily saying that N & Z are wrong, but that they need to take their theory one step further and, rather than simply accept surface pressure as being a primary explanation, along with solar radiation, for surface temperatures, they need to ask what factors cause surface pressure – break it down into constituent elements if you will. I think he is onto something……..

    ……Surface pressure is primarily a function of atmospheric mass and our old friend, gravity. Atmospheric depth also – they are intrinsically interlinked. The greater the depth of the atmosphere, the greater the distance over which adiabatic lapse rate (a function of gravity (again!) and heat capacity) applies. The greater the distance over which the adiabatic lapse rate applies, the greater the temperature difference between the top of the atmosphere and the surface.

    Does this make sense? I know it is simplistic, but this is deliberate as I am trying to break things down into basic principles. I can’t see any fault in the logic. Can anyone else?

    Following on, my working hypothesis is this :

    The TRUE effective surface temperature (TEST – I like that!) of a planetary body is defined by incoming solar radiation and the thermal inertia (heat capacity) of its surface. Speed of rotation and axial tilt MAY be other factors which need to be taken into consideration. The presence of liquid (water) on the Earth’s surface raises the TEST of the Earth as compared to planets with dry, rocky surfaces because the heat is essentially stored in a third dimension, so its surface has a higher heat capacity.

    Clearly, accurately determining TEST is going to be very difficult, but assuming it is possible, I have a hypothesis arising :

    TEST defines height in the atmosphere at which it is correct to start applying the appropriate adiabatic lapse rate. Apply that all the way down the surface and voila!, you have your observed surface temperatures.

    This is just a line of thought I am persuing right now, I have an uncomfortable feeling that I am probably missing something blindingly obvious or indulging in circular reasoning, but as far as I can tell it works in principle on all the planetary bodies examined by N & Z : On Venus, because it has a very thick atmosphere, on Earth because of the reason I have outlined and on Europa, Titan and Triton because they all have low lapse rates on account of weak gravity. Mercury, Mars and the Moon all have negligible atmospheres, so it doesn’t apply

    If somebody would be so kind as to point out where I am going wrong, and shoot it down in flames I will not take offense.

    TIA.

  10. Dizzy Ringo says:

    The lengths Hansen will go to to promulgate his religion!

  11. Afternoondave says:

    I guess NASA will have a greater chance of getting funding for a rover mission to Venus, if it’s applied for under the ruse of climate change research. Even though it’s clear to anyone in the know, that the similarities in that regard between Venus & Earth are pretty close to 0%. Getting a successful rover on the surface on Venus is an exciting prospect for me.

  12. Vuk says:

    Some interesting statistics
    4 M6+ quakes in just over 3 days, against normally 130/ year., which in any case are congregating around larger CMEs

    MAP 6.3 2012/01/21 18:47:16 14.963 -93.087 79.5 OFFSHORE CHIAPAS, MEXICO
    MAP 6.0 2012/01/22 05:53:41 -56.670 -25.018 9.8 SOUTH SANDWICH ISLANDS REGION
    MAP 6.2 2012/01/23 16:04:54 -36.415 -73.015 29.7 OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE
    MAP 6.3 2012/01/24 00:52:06 -24.959 178.611 582.8 SOUTH OF THE FIJI ISLANDS
    Any more over next 2-3 days?

  13. Joe's World says:

    TB,

    Venus is a good test study for the right theory considering it rotates backwards and is extremely slow in rotation to our planet.
    The study should be about how these toxic gases came to be?
    From the sun or volcanic activity from the past when it’s water dried.
    Comparisons of landscape…Is it like the moon?
    No, the mountains are not craters, so their must have been some water and water can ONLY survive if not at the boiling point.

  14. I think the Venus “Greenhouse” came from (Sir) John Houghton’s book published 1977 “The Physics of Atmospheres” in which he clearly demonstrates he has no understanding of Thermodynamics, Heat transfer or Fluid Dynamics -words he uses on P2 (or he is deliberately trying to confuse others who have no understanding). On page 4 he mentions the adiabatic lapse rate but does not relate it to anything. Then on page16 he mentions Venus and the “greenhouse” effect with no mention of the lapse rate there and the pressure at the surface ie he does not understand what is happening there.
    Another point of lack of understanding on page 127 Houghton mentions the Reynolds number (in a chapter on Turbulence) but again does nothing with it.
    Basically, Houghton has looked in some Engineering books plucked out a few formulae without considering their context or limitations (and without understanding their use) then wrote a text book for the pseudo-scientists playing around with climate.

  15. AusieDan says:

    I tried to make the following comment at H DH’s web, but couldn’t get the hang of how to identify myself, so I am transferring it to here, in the hope that Harry can read it and provide me with his comments, or perhaps Roger can help.

    QUOTE
    Harry – I have been reading your posts about Earth and Venus for some months, which led me to your blog, which I have read with interest, including the comments from others and your explanations and corrections. These helped me a lot.

    Because of that, I was very interested when Nikolov & Zeller first arived on the scene.

    I have spent a considerable amount of time working through their first paper and all of their calculations.

    I have also turned their equations inside and out and have done much the same analysis and some of the same simplifications as yourself, although I did not necessarily come to the same conclusions.

    However, I’m not clear about the essential difference between what they are saying and yourself.

    I’m sorry if I seem dumb, but could you please explain exactly what is the essential difference, in terms of “they say that xxxxxx” but I say its is “ZZZZZZ”, for each area of difference.

    Thanks

  16. […] NASA builds high pressure Venus surface simulation […]

  17. tallbloke says:

    I left this comment with Harry:

    Hi Harry,

    I think both you and N&Z are pushing the cart in the general direction of home, so there’s no need for me to take sides other than my own while being supportive of both you and N&Z.
    You said:
    “the atmosphere is fundamentally warmed by direct absorption of incident solar infrared radiation, as tallbloke seems to understand (although his statement is evasive about making my point, contenting himself with saying only “quite a lot” of the Sun’s energy is directly absorbed)”.

    According to NASA Earth’s atmosphere and clouds absorb 19% of incoming solar radiation and the land and oceans absorb 51%. There is a very different situation on Venus I know.

    One fifth is quite a lot but it’s a lot less than half.

    Radiative models of Earth’s clouds have a ~30w/m^2 deficiency in estimating their capacity to absorb energy. This may be due to fundamentally flawed physics around the issues of forward propagation and Mie scattering. But let’s not allow mere details to spoilt the party for now.

  18. Tenuc says:

    “…Time for Harry Dale Huffman to take a bow I think. 🙂 …”

    Indeed! Harry deciding to compare Earth to Venus and limit his variables to just solar distance and atmospheric pressure was a stroke of genius. His method resolves all the dodgy uncertainties of albedo, radiation, e.t.c., and the evidence he puts on the table proves that all current climate science has been built on the wrong foundations. No theory required… 🙂

    I’m looking forward to seeing the IPCC cabal of cargo-cult scientists trying to deal with this once the penny drops. As with the ideas of Hans’, N&K and others, this is another nail in the coffin of the CO2 scam.

  19. tallbloke says:

    I’ve worked out where Willis Eschenbach’s “atmospheric sponges and bowls” comment in reference too N&Z came from;
    “So I asked everyone if anyone out there could explain Nikolov’s theory. I’ve had no takers, not even you, Roger. No one can explain to me in clear scientific terms what his theory is. He talks about atmospheric sponges and bowls, I can’t make sense of it.”

    It’s from Harry’s original Venus-no greenhouse article

    “There is no sign whatever of a greenhouse effect on either planet. The fact that the temperature ratios are so close to that predicted solely by their relative distances from the Sun tells us that both atmospheres must be warmed, overall, essentially in the same way, by direct IR solar irradiation from above, not by surface emissions from below. Keeping it simple, the atmospheres must be like sponges, or empty bowls, with the same structure (hydrostatic lapse rate), filled with energy by the incident solar radiation to their capacity to hold that energy.

    There is no greenhouse effect on Venus with 96.5% carbon dioxide, and none on the Earth with just a trace of carbon dioxide.”

    Clearly, Willis prefers the “keeping it simple” summary for bigmouths policyfakers. It’s pretty obvious he doesn’t understand the actual science. And can’t even tell that Ned Nikolov is not Harry Dale Huffman.

  20. […] Comments Tenuc on Back to basics: History of the…tallbloke on NASA builds high pressure Venu…cedar rebellion on 1000 scientists and counting b…tallbloke on Back to basics: History of […]

  21. Doug Cotton says:

     
    This is garbage – see Section 8 of this paper which proves why the temperature on Venus has nothing to do with any greenhouse effect..

    [reply] or see Harry Huffman’s original work. Or Nikolov and Zellers work. Both of which precede Miatello.
     

  22. Doug Cotton says:

    TB: Yes, I agree Nikolov & Zellers certainly did attribute planetary temperatures to the adiabatic lapse rate which relates to pressure, and thus to atmospheric mass and the force of gravity. This page goes into more detail, and I mentioned the effect in Appendix Q.2 of my March 2012 paper..

    Frankly, I don’t know why the message hasn’t sunk in, because this phenomenon fully explains the surface temperature and demolishes any conceivable reason to assume backradiation is contributing to a warmer surface. On Venus, for example, hardly any Solar radiation even gets through to the surface, let alone weaker backradiation. Yet climatologists persist in claiming that Venus demonstrates a “runaway” GHE. Section 8 above explains quite clearly why it doesn’t, and I would suggest that no one could refute the argument with any valid physics.