Talk:Atmosphere of Venus

message: I made some minor changes to references; I also deleted a sentence that mentioned the albedo of Venus is 0.76 since one sentence later stated that Venus reflected 90% of the incident sunlight.  The alternative to deleting this sentence would have been a long discussion of the different types of albedo (which varies with wavelength), which would have been rather off-topic; people actually interested in albedo can look at the albedo entry.
Geoffrey.landis 15:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References &c.

message: "Hydrogen is primarily present as sulfuric acid (H2SO4), and hydrogen can easily be extracted through condensing the droplets."
Sulfuric acid does not release any hydrogen by "condensing" the droplets. On the contrary, sulfuric acid attracts and holds any water violently. Perhaps this is the reason why there is any trace of water on Venus left at all. 84.160.239.47 22:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. --Xanthine 12:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If proponents of Gaia theory are to be believed, a major reason for the water on Earth is due to the abundant presence of life. Indeed, all living things capable of aerobic respiration produce water as a matter of discourse. Venus and Mars, on the other hand, have atmospheres relatively close to their equilibrium states (Mars more so than Venus). Interestingly enough, Lovelock discusses this in the first of his Gaia books, calculating that if Earth were to be left to form an equilibrium state (ie: if all life were somehow wiped out), it's atmosphere would be ~95% carbon dioxide and its surface temperature would be in the region of 250 centigrade. Makes you think, doesn't it...? --Xanthine 12:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Surely speculation is the entire point of a talk page! :) I'd love to continue this conversation, but I fear it'll soon venture too far off-topic... --Xanthine 12:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Venus is hot because of the pressure of its atmosphere You have a source for this? Perhaps this is based on the ideal gas laws, in which case it is a misunderstanding. When you compress a gas, it will certainly heat up. But temperature and pressure are independent variables, i.e. you can have gas under high pressure which also at a low temperature. Pressure cookers work by increasing the boiling point of water, which allows the creation of hotter steam than is otherwise possible. The food isn't heated by putting it under pressure. You might suppose that Venus is warm because it is closer to the sun and gets more solar radiation. But, no, the albedo of the clouds is so high that the radiation Venus receives is actually somewhat less than that of Earth. Volcanism must have something to do with the high surface temperature since virtually no sunlight reaches it. At the very high pressure that exists on the surface (92 bars), 30 cm of CO2 is enough to absorb almost all the IR. So there's a super blanket that keeps the surface warm, whatever originally warmed it.  Kauffner (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  hydrogen can easily be extracted 

message: How much hotter is Venus than Earth?
It's a lot hotter if you compare surface temperatures to surface temperatures -- 288K to 750K.  But, if you compare atmospheric temperatures at the same pressures, say at 1 Bar, the difference is a lot less dramatic.  Earth's 1 Bar temperature is 288K while Venus' is 360K. If you also subtract out the extra temperature due to Venus having to shed more heat from solar radiation, the difference in atmospheric temperature is around 20 K -- a whole lot less than the almost 500-degree difference in surface temperatures.
This means that the extra heat at the surface is coming from adiabatic compression (extra pressure), not from extrasolar radiation or the greenhouse effect.  I've written up an article explaining this more fully and posted it at 
www.whiteworld.com/technoland/stories-nonfic/2008-stories/Venus-temp.htm
I'd like to get an external link reference put in this article if I could.
Cyreenik 15:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Venus is so immensely hot, that a cat on a hot tin roof would stay on the roof, if it just knew how lucky it was. Said: Rursus ☻ 08:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: 35 km above Venus's surface, the temperature is as hot as a typical baking or cooking oven. (See your cookbooks, if you're in America, there'll probably be quite a few references to 350 degrees Fahrenheit, which translates into 177 degrees Celsius, or 450 Kelvin. I dunno what it's like in other countries.)68.36.214.143 (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How hot is Venus? 

message: * "Looks good" to me, except the last images at the bottom illustrating future missions need to be better sourced. One just says "from NASA", the other says "from university, presumably copied from NASA." Potatoswatter (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added a direct link to the NASA site for the first image. I temporally removed the second one because I can not find it on the NASA server. Ruslik (talk) 05:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article nomination 

message: WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination.  It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section, please.  The survey will end on April 30.
* Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?
**No. This article has had many contributors of varying English expertise; the path to clarity is clear. Potatoswatter (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: I've signed up to review this, and I'll put comments when I get a chance for a thorough read  Jimfbleak (talk) 11:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I made a few changes in the lead section. Ruslik (talk) 11:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

text:  Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

text:  It was decided some time ago not to use them in the planetary articles. Ruslik (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

text:  Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

text:  Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

text:  I would not because in NASA pages it is written without italicization (Venus in Situ Explorer). Ruslik (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

text:  Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

text:  Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

text:  Removed. Ruslik (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I'll go through in detail, do  refs, images etc when i next get time. Jimfbleak (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

text:  Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

text:  Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

text:  Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

text:  Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

text:  Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

text:  Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

text:  Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Jimfbleak (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

text:  Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

text:  There is no disagreement in my opinion. Ruslik (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

text:  Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

text:  Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I think that's all I can see now Jimfbleak (talk) 05:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: missed two "vapour", fixed now Jimfbleak (talk) 07:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
#:a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail: </div>
Nice article and a good read Jimfbleak (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article assessment

message: From this image I thought Venus' surface level is below Earth's ocean level at 50 meters below. Venus has 3 levels of cloud layers, and the haze lies between each cloud layer. Do someone want to clarify this image a little bit.--Freewayguy What's up? 20:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venus' surface level 

message: I am not an astronomer or physicist, so I may sound idiotic, but shouldn't it be specified whether the elemental composition given in the table is molar or by mass? After all, if in one kilogramme of the Venerian atmosphere there is 965 g of carbon dioxide, this is not the same as saying that in one mol of Venerian atmosphere molecules, 96.5% will be carbon dioxide molecules.
Edit (different person): hyper physics has CO2 in the Venusian atmosphere at 96.5% by volume. I don't know how sources are qualified on Wikipedia (I don't edit, myself), but the values are the same.  Could be a good lead on a better citation. 
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Solar/venusenv.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.184.252.75 (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Composition 

message: Particularly, the section referencing carbonyl sulfide...
if you reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonyl_sulfide, it appears this molecule is created from geothermal vents and volcanoes, and readily forms in the presence of CO and S, not a likely candidate to say that it's an "unambiguous indicator of life"
Thoughts?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.104.60.6 (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibility of life 

message: I think it is a relevant aspect for the article why the atmosphere of Venus is so much denser than the one on earth. In the German Wikipedia, this question came up, too. Therefore I think it's a good idea to include this aspect in the article. I don't have any sources for these things, neither book nor web. Can anyone help here? Thx. --Hg6996 (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outcome of this discussion for the article 

message: In the lead section: "It is currently thought that the atmosphere of Venus up to around 4 billion years ago was more like that of the Earth with liquid water on the surface."
1. There is no citation.
2. The sentence does not make it clear whether or not Venus' atmosphere 4 billion years ago was like Earth's current atmosphere, which has dramatically changed since the dawn of life (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Evolution_of_Earth.27s_atmosphere heading "Evolution of Earth's Atmosphere"), or Earth's atmosphere of 4 billion years ago. For me, this is an interesting discussion because Earth's atmosphere has been fundamentally affected by the processes of life, and if Venus once had an atmosphere like Earth's today, then it is logical to question whether or not life had a role in its origins as well. However, because there is no citation, it is difficult to judge the source of this conjecture.
Perhaps this sentence should be cited or omitted?
fraktol 17:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison of Ancient Venus' atmosphere to that of Earth's 

message: The original version  used vapor and metre. The version around GAN  mixed US and UK spelling, so as the current version. What spelling should we use? Materialscientist (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "vapor and metre" – this is already a mixture of Brit/US English. Ruslik_Zero 11:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, and in such cases the spelling is often decided by some major article version, or simply by a vote, thus please do - a GA should not remain in such state. Materialscientist (talk) 11:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Arbitrarily chose UK and unified spelling in the article - a GA may not stay like that. Materialscientist (talk) 10:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling

message: Since on the surface of Venus, carbon dioxide is a supercritical fluid and not gas, does it mean there are still winds on the surface or are there flows instead? --Artman40 (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Winds

message: 24.50.151.151 (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What is "water veil"? Ruslik_Zero 20:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  what does this mean? 

message: A request was made for a new infobox, but can't find one suitable. Any suggestions? FriarTuck1981 (talk) 01:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: See suggestions at Talk:Atmosphere_of_Mercury#Infobox.3F. --Liam McM (Talk) 15:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have created a new infobox template (Template:AstronomicalAtmosphere) and included it in this page to replace the old one.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liam McM (talk • contribs) 16:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox? 

message: Has no one noticed that a table claims the temperature here to be 75°C, while the graph sitting at the top says it's roughly 0°C?
Which is more accurate, the graph or the table?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.246.56.116 (talk) 09:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temperatures at 50km altitude 

message: looks like we can finally say Venus has a climate now. Serendipodous 19:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Venus Express info regarding how terrain influences climate 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in the wiki linked articles. I have found content for some of :Atmosphere of Venus's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Russell, Philips":
From Venus: 
From Ashen light: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ,  Thanks. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Atmosphere of Venus]] 

message: The temperature of this layer—230 K (−43 °C) is far higher than the typical temperature found in the nightside thermosphere—100 K (−173 °C).[2] Kelvin cant be negative. it starts at absolute zero  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xirtyan (talk • contribs) 18:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temperature mistake 

message: I noticed there are four pieces of info that have  on the page. These need to be fixed. Firestar464 (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Most of the linked article is just so much sci-fi claptrap - "floating cities" and so on. I don't care what physicist off his nut wrote a paper that someone considers a RS - there won't be thousands of human beings living in the atmosphere of Venus.  I suggest removing that part from the lede as far too fanciful.  It's not a matter of technology, either. There has to be a point to colonization, and convincing a vast amount of people to give up Earth for some hang-on-by-your-nails environment is just pure dreaming. This should be a serious article.50.111.19.2 (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "Sci-fi claptrap" "physicist off his nut" and "pure dreaming" aren't phrases that belong on the talk page of a serious article, are they? If you would rather live in darkness in low gravity and virtually no atmosphere on the moon or mars where every second spent above ground gives you radiation damage that's... an interesting opinion but that's just your opinion. Mars has the added challenges of dust storms covering up the solar panels and being months away from any emergency aid, and yet there are people who want to live there. Weird comment all around. I suggest we delete this.Octaazacubane (talk) 04:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "colonization" 

message: The detection of phosphine in the atmosphere of Venus is an important discovery and should be mentioned briefly in the lede. When the head of NASA says so, then you know it is likely to be so. Additionally, as can be seen from the ways that the team has tried to eliminate signal-processing issues and used observations from multiple telescopes (i.e., JCMT and ALMA), it is not the case that this detection has not be confirmed - just as with any scientific result, it could be confirmed further, but it is not the case that it has not been confirmed at all. FOARP (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Phosphine

message: The table of pressure by altitude uses an imaginary unit of measurement the "atm" for pressure.  This unit is not used in SI Metric, and since all of the other units in the table are SI metric it is therefore ambiguous to what "atm" refers.  The SI metric unit of pressure is the Pascal.
"in 1982, the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry recommended that for the purposes of specifying the physical properties of substances, standard pressure should be precisely 100 kPa (1 bar)."  This means that it is ambiguous what the author of the original table quoted in this article intended.
Standard atmosphere
Unless someone can clarify exactly which definition of "atm" was intended by the original author, I intend to change the heading to read "bar". Jamescobban (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: But then you're changing the meaning of the sentence just to "sound more official." It should be kept as the author wrote it.Octaazacubane (talk) 04:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article uses an invented unit of measurement for air pressure 

message: It's common knowledge among people who know what they're talking about that Venus' lack of internal magnetic field allowed most of the gases lighter than carbon dioxide to be stripped away by the solar wind and that's what caused the extreme greenhouse effect and dense atmosphere. The blurb in the intro section should probably mention that instead of the less meaningful but more relevant to Earthling politics...thing that is currently there. I literally hear people say that anthropogenic climate change is going to turn Earth into Venus because of out-of-context statements like that. Octaazacubane (talk) 04:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution of Venus' atmosphere 

message: For the mixture ratios given in percent or p.p.m., it is not written whether they are by volume, by mass, or maybe by molecules (which would by approximately similar as by volume if the gases are approximately regarded as ideal, but which seems a bit odd regarding the extreme conditions there, where carbon dioxide is probably far from being an ideal gas). Checking reference 2 for answering this question to myself, it was also not easy to find out: only the captions of figures 3 and 4 there mention explicitly the term "volume mixing ratio". Is it that obvious (and not known only to me) what these ratios mean, such that it's not necessary to write it out? Or should it be added for the sake of clarity, because even if known to experts, Wikipedia should be precisely understandable also for non-experts? The main article about the planet Venus mentions at least in the summary box "composition by volume". 213.220.159.151 (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I added into the infobox that it is actually molar fraction. Ruslik_Zero 15:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Percentages by volume or by mass?