From: btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T Dehner)
Subject: Re: Pictures of a sea of lava, and where they may be found
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 03:48:47 GMT

In <2716@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

>From: Benjamin T Dehner, Iowa State University, Ames IA


>>1) Ted lies about the surface features of Venus.  He claims that Venus is a
>>smooth, lava-covered surface.  The Magellan radar maps of Venus are available
>>via anonymous FTP at ames.arc.nasa.gov (I forget where; ask/look for FAQ on
>>sci.astro or sci.space.news for more info) which CLEARLY show mountainous
>>and rugged terrain.

>Dehner lies in claiming that I ever claimed Venus to be smooth or without
>features;  as lying goes, putting words in other peoples mouthes is a 
>particularly pernicious variety.

Perhaps I did put words in your mouth.  Here is what you wrote:

TH>Venus is a very complex system.  The one thing which for sure is not
TH>going on on Venus is Sagan's bullshit Super-Greenhouse effect.  Images
TH>which we've now all seen show Venus' entire surface to be a sea of lava,
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
TH>most of it recent.  That says new planet, ala Velikovsky.  The heat at
TH>the surface is native, due to the planet's recent formation;  what
TH>greenhouse effect does exist due to the thick CO2 layers holds the heat
TH>and restrains it from escaping as rapidly as it otherwise might.


To me, the phrase 'sea of lava' implies 'smooth'.  Perhaps you should be more
careful with your terminology.

>That Venus is mostly covered by lava and much of that recent is well known
>by now from the probes and may be seen in the Jan. 92 issue of Discover 
>magazine which is readily available.  Quotes include "... one of the most
>striking characteristics of the Venusian topography is its distinct shortage
>of craters..."

	Of COURSE there's a lack of crateres.  For the same reason that
there are very few on Earth.  The atmosphere is thick enough that the planet
is shielded from most metoer impacts (they burn up first) and the atmosphere
also provides a weathering process to get rid of impacts.

>That's because the lava flows cover them up.  The article goes on to say:
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	Would you keep your conjectures more separate from something you
are quoting?  You almost imply here that this was a conclusion reached and
agreed upon by the article.

>The planet's pristine face does not mean that it somehow dodged such bom-
>bardment;  rather, it implies that something came along to erase the traces
>left behind.  That something, Magellan scientists now think, was probably
>lava.  At various points in the planets history, large localized valcanoes
>may have spilled lava over hundreds of thousands of miles, in effect
>resurfacing much of the planet."

	If you were familiar with current theories of solar system forma-
tion, the idea is that most cratering happened within the first billion
or so years of the existence of the solar system.  "Recent", in this
context, means within the past 10 million or so years.

>Ever heard the term, "You don't have to be a rocket scientist to ....."

>I'm beginning to suspect the phrase should go "You don't WANT to be a
>rocket scientist to ..."

>I mean, these suckers have been looking at these pictures of a lava-
>covered planet for two years now and they're just starting to figure out
>that maybe ....

	Seems a contradiction here.  If the planet were covered by a sea
of lava from cataclysmic eruptions in the past 2000 yrs, how do we see any 
features on the planets surface?

>>2) Ted shows total ignorance of radiative transfer and atmospheric modeling.

>Again, this is a case in which I can take justifiable pride in my ignorance.

	Anyone proud of ignorance in ANY field is an idiot.  If you knew
more about the subject, you could then, assuming you were right, point to 
a particular equation or model and tell where and why something was wrong.  
Instead of 'they just screwed up.'

>Dehner obviously refers to the sort of radiative transfer which would allow
>the surface of Venus, which receives less than 2% of any solar energy which
>gets past the cloud tops, which is less than gets past our cloud tops, to
>reach temperatures far in excess of those of the middle cloud layer which
>absorbs 90% of this energy or more, i.e. to a radiative transfer model which
>is in gross violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

	Then why do you keep babbling about 'the second law of thermodynamics'?
It has absolutely NOTHING to do with radiative transfers.  Furthermore,
I would like to know where this '90%' figure comes from.  And what you
mean by the 'middle cloud layer'.  If it is the fairly extensive layer I
think it is, it can probable loose it's excess energy fairly rapidly by
convective processes, so that there will not be a large heat excess in this
region. 

>I'm PROUD to be ignorant of that sort of physics, Dehner.  I am NOT ignorant
>of the basic principal upon which Sagan's super greenhouse theory rests,
>however.  P.T. Barnum stated that principal early in this century: "There's
>a sucker born every minute...", Mencken illuminated the principal somewhat
>further:  "...Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American
>public...", and a recent German Reichskanzler formalized the doctrine  
>in what came to be known as the principal of the big lie.

	Oh, this is rich.  You claim to understand the principles of the green-
house effect, and go on to quote such noted authorities in the area such
as P.T. Barnum and H.L. Mencken.  Boy, I'm impressed.  Ted, I'll believe that
you might have a possibility of being right when you start using SCIENTIFIC
arguements instead of polemic ones, and start showing signs of doing REAL,
FIRSTHAND research instead of using third and fourth-hand quotes, and these
from a popular magazine and not a scientific journal.   Your arguement
against the greenhouse theory boils down to calling its proponents liars.
	As a hint, whether you like it or not, the greenhouse effect IS the 
currently accepted model of Venus.  If you wish to prove otherwise, it is up 
to you to show where this model is wrong.  And you will not do that with
arguements shown here; again, scientific arguements, using firsthand data,
along with calculations is the only thing that will work.  Not ad hominum
attacks.

>>He mistakes measurements of the infra-red (IR) energy flux in the middle 
>>atmosphere with IR flux at the top of the atmosphere, does not take into

>You're obviously not having much luck reading anything complicated and 
>comprehending what's being said, Dehner;  I'd suggest you start with something
>simple like Dick and Jane.  I mentioned  IR flux in the low, not the middle
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	Can I borrow yours?  

>atmosphere, and mentioned that the discrepencies were ballpark for matching
>up with what actual data said was happening at the top as far as total
>heat loss, which more or less has to balance out.

	Perhaps so.  YOU still haven't addressed the possibility of convective
energy transport within the atmosphere, which makes the low and middle 
atmosphere IR transport rates an incomplete part of the picture.

>>5) Ted calls almost all astronomers liars and dogmatics.  Several responses
>>suggest themselves, varying from insulting to obscene.  While I don't mind
>>so much insults directed at me, as I have little concern for the opinions
>>of Ted, he is now attacking the integrity of a professional community of
>>which I am a part.  Keep it up Ted; one of these days you will have a chance
>>to prove your paranoid rambling in a court for a slander suit.


>The guy calls me a liar, ignorant, a creationist, and then talks about
>suing me for slander...

	Read what I said.  You insult me, I insult you, we all have a fun
time with the flame war.  I'm really not interested in a discussion of who
called who else what first; that isn't the problem.  The problem comes when
you challenge the integrity of a professional institution, such as astronomers
in general.  These are honest, hard working people doing their best to
educate the public.  If you have a problem with them, I suggest you take it
up with better array of facts.

>I do not ever start these name-calling contests.  I believe in doing
>unto others as they do unto others, i.e. in dealing with each in accordance
>to his own kind.  The one or two times I've jumped on somebody who was
>basically innocent of such behavior here simply due to the confusion caused
>by replying to 10 or 15 articles, 9 or 14 of which include name-calling
>directed at me, I've apologized for it.

>Ted Holden
>HTE

>-- 
>HTE
>bear

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner          Department of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu             Iowa State University 
                            Ames, IA 50011

"Great holes secretly are diggged where earth's pores ought
to suffice, and things have learnt to walk that ought to crawl."
 -- Abdul Alhazrad 
Newsgroups: talk.origins