From: hyde@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Falsifying Data
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:08:30 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <2712@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> 


	Ted has reposted his "venus" file from last august, without
	change except for some preliminary babble.  I will therefore
	repost my reply to him.  Apologies to those who have
	already read this.  To those who have not I would
	like to reccomend my comments on the Ginenthal-"Strabisimus"
	matter.  It is clear that "Strabisimus" was playing
	Ginenthal for a fool, and that Ginenthal is amazingly
	ignorant of atmospheric science.  I find it amusing
	that a man should so crucify himself in his own book.
	This part will be found towards the end of this post.
> 
> 
> 
> By nobody's account does any more than 2% of solar energy get to Venus'

	I see we are making some progress.  Last year Ted was
	quite clear that absolutely no sunlight reached the
	surface of venus.


> surface, and since the middle cloud layers absorb the vast bulk of any
> solar energy, any theory (including SGH) trying to explain the heat of
> Venus as an affect of solar energy must predict the middle cloud layer
> to be hotter than the surface, 

	No, Ted.  This cannot be said without consideration
	of the mass of the absorbing unit (you know, heat capacity).
	In addition, the middle atmosphere has less atmosphere
	above it, and thus loses a greater fraction of its IR
	to space.

	Of course, the relevant variable here is actually
	potential temperature, not temperature, but you will
	ignore that as usual. And once again you are confusing
	power with energy.


which it is not.  Super Greenhouse is
> thus seen to involve a gross violation of the second law of
> thermodynamics.

	Only to those who don't understand the second law.


	[repost begins]

> ......................................................................
> 

	For those allergic to long posts, a quick summary
	of my reply.

	Of Ted's 900 line post, about 600 lines were in reference
	to legends, tablets, etc.  I have answered none, because
	they do not bear on the super greenhouse theory at all,
	let alone "quantitatively".

	Ted was incautious enough to quote Mr Ginenthal
	extensively.  This was fortunate, for it was revealed
	that Mr G. had to get someone else (a purported
	physicist using an alias) to demonstrate such
	earth-shattering results as "sea level pressure
	is approximately the weight of the air above you",
	and to *compute the energy necessary to change the
	volume of a gas*.

	In other words, Ted has revealed that Mr G is
	completely ignorant of second year thermodynamics,
	and of elementary meteorology.  The most amusing
	part is that Mr G talks of the "physicists"
	conclusions as if they were "discoveries".

	Ginenthal is about as qualified to do planetary
	physics as the average high school graduate.  But
	not more so.

	Ted brings back the old complaint that "venus is
	15% out of energy balance", and attributes later
	analysis showing that it *is* in balance to simple lying.
	However, Mr G and the "physicist" present a scenario
	which is at least 100% out of balance.  Makes the
	astronomers look pretty good...

	Best of all, Mr G's ideas can be tested  - and fail
	spectacularly.

	Now to Ted's post


>     I claim that empirical evidence involving Venus is being
>doctored and falsified at every turn because it does not fit with
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	Good debating technique.  Start by accusing your
	opponents of being liars.

>scientists' pre-conceived ideas involving the age of our solar
>system, and because it does not match any of the logical
>requirements of Carl Sagan's "super-greenhouse" theory.


>    Consider evidence involving the so-called thermal balance of
>Venus.  "Super-Greenhouse" REQUIRES that Venus be in thermal
>equilibrium.  Is it?

 
>     Robert Anton Wilson's "The New Inquisition", page 73 quotes
>T.B. Pawlicki to the effect that Jupiter, like Venus, gives off
>more heat than it absorbs from the sun, and cites Funk and
>Wagnall's encyclopedia as a source.

	What a reference!  Non-scientist Wilson quotes
	unattributed "Pawlicki" as to what an encyclopedia
	says.  

	Why post a doubly hearsay version of a secondary
	source?  Science is done by going to primary
	sources, by observing data directly, or by
	going to secondary sources of proven excellence
	for well established points.  Your "reference"
	is quite useless.

 ........................................................
 
>     The Nov. 13 1980 issue of New Scientist 

	Now this is more like it.  But the New Scientist
	is still a secondary source.

>contained an article
>entitled "The mystery of Venus' internal heat", which read as
>follows:
 
>     "Two years surveillance by the Pioneer Venus orbiter seems to
>     show that Venus is radiating away more energy than it receives
>     from the sun.  If this surprising result is confirmed, it
>     means that the planet itself is producing far more heat than
>     the earth does.
 
>     F.W. Taylor of the Clarendon Laboratory at Oxford presented
>     these measurements at a Royal Society meeting last week. 
>     Venus surface temperature is higher than any other in the
>     solar system, at 480 C.  

 
>     But Taylor found that Venus radiates 15 percent more energy
>     than it receives.  

	Notice that no error bars are given on this figure.
	That alone tells us something crucial is being left out.

>     To keep the surface temperature constant,
>     Venus must be producing this extra heat from within.
 
>     Taylor himself has no explanation for his result.  He simply
>     points out that the discrepancy seemed at first to be simply
>     experimental error - but with more precise measurements, it
>     refused to go away.  More measurements are needed before
>     astronomers accept the result, and most planetary scientists
>     are obviously expecting - and hoping - that the embarrassing
>     extra heat will disappear on further investigation.
 
     
>     It would be naive to assume the astronomical community would
>sit around waiting for the extra heat to go away of its own
>volition.  Later explanations (from the astronomical community)

	Did you or Ginenthal do any analysis yourselves?
	Then it is hardly surprising that later explanations
	came from the astronomical community.  Nor have you any
	grounds to complain.

>would have us believe that an error had been made in our estimate
>of the albedo of Venus, and that the subsequent corrections have
>put the notion of thermal equilibrium at least within the error-
>bounds of what is actually observed.  Do you believe it?

	Planetary albedo is a difficult thing to
	measure precisely. Since venus absorbs (about) 20%
	of incoming solar, an error of 3% in albedo
	estimate will produce a net imbalance of
	15% between output IR and input solar.  
	
	In "The thermal balance of the middle and upper
	atmosphere of Venus", by Taylor, Hunten, and
	Ksanfomalti (in the book "Venus" university
	of Arizona press, 1983), Taylor estimates
	the albedo as .76 plus or minus .01, rather
	than the .80 plus or minus .02 used in the
	paper you cite.  The equilibrium point is within
	the error bars of this estimate.

	Now, you say you just don't believe the
	newer figure.  This is why you are not seriously
	addressing the greenhouse question.  If you don't
	believe the observers your *only* recourse is
	to check their work (i.e. the instrument design, the data)
	or do the observations yourself.  To do otherwise
	is not science.
 
.............................................................
 
>     Consider then what happens as probes descend deep into the
>atmosphere of Venus towards the surface.
 
>     In the upper atmosphere, all of these instruments showed
>infrared fluxes which the scientists could at least think about
>living with; as they descended, however, all began to show very
>large net fluxes UPWARDS, which is what you might expect if
>(HORRORS) Velikovsky's view of Venus were the correct one:

	And would also be true if the Greenhouse model
	were true.  *Earth* has a large net upward
	infrared flux.  The problem, as far as I can tell
	from your limited citations, is a matter of
	scale, not sign.  By the way, congratulations for
	citing a real journal.
 
..............................................................
 
>     Several posters on t.o noted that such large flux
>differentials (as high as 600 w/m**2) would necessarily translate
>into equally large outflows at the top of the atmosphere which
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>CAN'T be, because our industrious astronomers have already adjusted
>the figures for the top of the atmosphere right?  

	Contradiction city.  You state above that the
	instruments produced upwards fluxes the scientists
	could live with (i.e. small), in the upper
	atmosphere and excessively large fluxes
	below.  You also say that you are sure these
	instruments were working correctly.  Now you say
	that a large flux below would mean a large
	flux at the top of the atmosphere.  So either
	the instruments were malfunctioning or your
	comment above is wrong.

	Note that even if you were right, an excess output
	of 600 w/m**2 would translate to far more than a
	15% imbalance.

>That's what the
>first part of this article was about.  Besides, how would the
>planet throw off that much heat?

	Perhaps you'd like to rephrase the question, as it
	doesn't make much sense.
 
..............................................................
 
>From a journal article of Charles Ginenthal:
 
>   A 1973 article in New Scientist noted the work of four
>scientists at Caltech's Jet Propulsion Laboratory demonstrating
>that Venus shows "regular changes in the spectrum of its
>atmosphere," with marked variations in the carbon dioxide lines on
>a four-day cycle:
 
>Ginenthal here cites the actual New Scientist article (vol 58,
>1973, page 72):
 
	Once again a secondary source, and one that is twenty
	years old.   What is it that prevents you and Ginenthal
	from using primary (and up to date) material?
	
>     Over 20 years ago, Gerard Kuiper noted day-to-day fluctuations
>     in the infrared spectrum of Venus, but no one has yet got to
>     the bottom of these changes.  In order to study the
>     oscillations A.T., L.G., and J.W. Young and J.T. Gerstrahl
>     obtained spectra nightly during the autumn of last year
>     [1972].  Their data on the carbon dioxide line show an
>     unmistakable oscillation.
 
 
>     The observed variation is not periodic, but more akin to a
>     relaxation oscillation in which the amplitude builds up on
>     successive cycles and then suddenly collapses.  In order to
>     produce the observed changes the cloud deck of Venus must be
>     moving up and down as much as one kilometer, simultaneously
>     over the entire surface of the planet.  

	Care to demonstrate this (i.e. go to the *primary* source
	and summarize the argument.)?  What are the error
	bars?  "As much as one kilometer" clearly includes
	a number like "ten meters".

	Such an oscillation (one kilometer!) would lead to
	thorough mixing of the lower atmosphere, and the
	establishment of near zero lapse rates.  Instead the
	lapse rates observed by the Veneras and the Pioneer
	sounder probe are just shy of adiabatic - indicating
	convective equilibrium.


>     Such a large
>     atmosphere oscillation requires a high input of mechanical
>     energy.  This condition is difficult to account for in the
>     case of a slowly rotating planet heated uniformly by the suns
>     rays [greenhouse effect].

	Especially when the lapse rate evidence destroys
	the whole possibility of such an oscillation.
	But this is the problem with quoting twenty year
	old secondary results.
 
>     Therefore, the cycle variations point to some unexplained,
>     deep-seated property of the atmospheric dynamics.
 
>Ginenthal offers his own explanation:
 
 
>     What is very apparent is that the surface heat is building up
>     so strongly that it cannot be convected away as rapidly as it
>     builds up.  The super-hot air therefore expands and rises,
>     pushing the layers above it which also expand and rise.

	Very good.  Ginenthal gives us a reasonably
	scientific hypothesis.  Now, where is the testing,
	the model, the results?  You mean there are none?
	Ah well...

	Actually, a test of Ginenthal's idea is quite easy:

	Note that Ginenthal's hypothesis predicts
	a strong four day oscillation in surface temperature.
	Do the data show this?  Sadly, no.  There is no such
	signal in the microwave output, nor did the landers
	in their brief functional stay notice any part
	of such an oscillation. If Ginenthal
	were a scientist he'd toss this theory out, but
	I rather expect he won't.

	Of course, Ginenthal's idea also fails the lapse
	rate test, but then I rather expect he's never
	heard of lapse rates.

>Again, several t.o posters have insisted that the vertical waves
>mentioned xist only in the upper atmosphere [an effect without a
>cause].  Ginenthal correctly notes that this cannot be:
 
>     "One cannot assume that only a small part of the upper
>     atmosphere is raised because there would have to exist a layer
>     in the atmosphere that is hotter than the layers beneath it. 

	Once again Ginenthal reveals his (and your) ignorance
	of meteorology.  Such disturbances are known
	on earth ("upper level disturbances").  Lifting can
	be caused by several things other than higher
	temperature.  Convergence, for example, produces
	lifting.

	G Schubert, in "General Circulation and the
	dynamical state of the venus atmosphere" (ibid)
	cites gravity waves (1-10 km amplitude), planetary
	scale traveling waves, waves forced by the slow
	moving terminator, all with periods of 4--6 days,
	most of them affecting IR output.  It helps to have more recent
	referneces.

	Far from understanding Venus, Ginenthal is even
	ignorant of elementary facts about earth.
 
>i.e. the same old war between Sagan and the second law of
>thermodynamics.  

	Or between you and observed fact.
 
..............................................................
 
>     The following is also from Ginenthal's "Sagan and Velikovsky"
 
>     "A physicist, Leopold Strabismus (his humorous pseudonym
>     meaning crosseyed) at the author's request undertook to
>     calculate the amount of energy necessary to raise the Venus
>     atmosphere 1 kilometer over the entire planet.  

	Ginenthal can't do first year physics?  Why am I
	not surprised?

>     What
>     Strabismus found was that based on equations of state in
>     thermodynamics, he could obtain the measured sea-level
>     atmospheric pressure of earth as it coincides with results
>     from the kinetic theory of gases.  Dr. Strabismus has taken
>     this demonstration one step further by showing the total
>     gravitational weight of Earth's atmosphere divided by the
>     Earth's surface area yields the same result."

	Very amusing, Ted.  All of this was done decades (if
	not longer) ago, and not by any (conveniently anonymous) 
	"strabismus" - in fact part of it is a problem
	assigned to beginning meteorology students in chapter
	one of Wallace and Hobbs "Atmospheric science".

	In a slighly more refined form it is called the "hydrostatic
	approximation".  It is in chapter one of Holton's
	"Dynamic Meteorology" and chapter two of Wallace
	and Hobbs.

	We must assume from Ginenthal's *own words* that this
	trivial result was unknown to him, and thus that he
	is quite incompetent to write about Venus's atmosphere.
	(But then we knew this all along, didn't we?)
 
>     "Strabismus states, 'Specific weight versus altitude figures
>     were obtained for Venus, via NASA.  But when the equation was
>     applied to these figures, it led to a computed surface
>     pressure for Venus well in excess of the MEASURER surface
>     pressure of 90 bars.  

	Without the calculations this is meaningless.  Just
	the word of an anonymous (!) "Physicist".  These
	calculations should not be difficult.  Present them.

	Gerald Schubert (who feels no need to hide behind
	a pseudonym) sees no difficulty in using the
	hydrostatic approximation to Venus's atmosphere
	in "General circulation and dynamical state of
	Venus's atmosphere".

>      "However when this pressure is driven through an atmospheric
>     shell of one kilometer, thickness at the topopause of Venus,
>     it yields an energy of 2.96 E+23 foot pounds, each time the
>     cloud layer is raised.  

	Curiously enough, just what I get using (very) elementary
	thermodynamics.  And Ginenthal couldn't do this?

>     The energy is over 29 trillion,
>     trillion foot pounds. The raising of the Venus atmosphere
>     occurs about 80 times a year.  Thus, the 29 trillion must be
>     multiplied by 80, yielding 2.32 trillion quadrillion foot
>     pounds of energy per year.  The sun's radiation produces
>     nothing like that amount of energy in the Venus atmosphere,
>     but a hot volcanic surface can provide the necessary energy. 

	Kindly justify this with reference to how the heat
	is flowing out of the planet.  Or is Venus a perfect conductor?

>     [which is precisely what the Magellan probes are showing]

	Let's take a look at your numbers, Ted.

	You claim venus radiates away 15% more energy than
	it receives.  In four days this is about 3.6E21 Joules.

	You claim that over four days "a hot volcanic surface"
	provides 2.96 E23 fp of energy to the venusian
	atmosphere.  This is about 5E23 Joules.

	Where does that energy go?  According to your own
	figures only 1% can be radiated away.  Why is venus
	not getting hotter at a *very* fast rate?

	Under your hypothesis venus would have to radiate
	not 15, but about 100% more energy than it receives
	(and that assumes that *every* joule of sunlight is
	used towards these oscillations).

	You seem to have more trouble with data now than
	ever the astronomers did, Ted.
..............................................................
 
 
	[babylonian nonsense deleted - I asked for science, Ted]
.............................................
..............................................
 

	[more tablet commentary deleted]
 
 
>None of the above makes Carl Sagan or any of the astronomers who
>profess to believe his "Super-Greenhouse" theory look very good,
>does it?  Believe it:  they don't deserve to look very good.

	What it does is reveal Ginenthal for what he is - 
	a dabbler ignorant of the most elementary thermodynamics
	and meteorology (and I suspect the rest of physics also).
	Strange qualifications for a planetary astronomer.

	But then you're the one who hasn't the faintest
	idea how gravity works.  Perhaps he seems overqualified
	to you.
 
Ted Holden
HTE 


	That's it?  Nine hundred lines and only three (at most)
	scientific points with the rest interpretations of old
	legends?  Didn't you say something about substance, Ted?


						Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
hyde@ac.dal.ca or hyde@dalac