EvMick@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 8/12/00 8:38:10 AM Central Daylight Time,
> retroman@turbont.net writes:
>
> > Is this that Hogan guy who buys into Velikovsky's BS?
>
> Yup...same guy...
>
> According to Foggs
> > _Terraforming: Engineering Terrestrial Environments_ Venus reflect 70%
> > of the liht hitting it, with, as I recall 90% of the remainder being
> > retained by the greenhouse system there. I'll go dig up the book outta
> > my Jeep and get some better data...
>
> That would appear to make it difficult to come up with enough energy to cause
> a surface tempeture high enough to "melt lead" then?
Not at all- consider two ways to heat that chunk of lead: a blowtorch in
the open air, or a small heating element under a thick layer of
insulation. The equilibrium temperature is the same, but the heat
fluxes are vastly different.
> However...here's the reference.....
>
> "Venus irradiates forty times more energy than it receives from the Sun, as
> is indicated by the data from Magellan Sonde between 1990 and 1994 (Broad,
> W.J. 1996, "Venus's remade face offers hints of cataclysm: Earth's twin
> planet, with its surface radically remade by inner heat, is no twin after
> all" in New York Times/Science Times, 16 July, 1996). "
Hmmm, that's kinda sparse. However, if you have both a high
reflectivity and a low emmissivity, the *net* heat fluxes can be hard to
determine, swamped by the strong sunlight. It sounds like an instrument
calibration problem to me...
-- Doug Jones Rocket Plumber, XCOR Aerospace http://www.xcor-aerospace.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:35:47 MDT