<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Venus on acid</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/22/venus-on-acid/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/22/venus-on-acid/</link>
	<description>I am an astronomer, writer, and skeptic. I likes reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way. My real name is Phil Plait, and I run the Bad Astronomy blog.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 01:23:07 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Buzz Parsec</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/22/venus-on-acid/comment-page-1/#comment-72116</link>
		<dc:creator>Buzz Parsec</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2008 01:47:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/22/venus-on-acid/#comment-72116</guid>
		<description>Oops!  Venus has too much carbon, not too little...   &quot;Never mind!&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oops!  Venus has too much carbon, not too little&#8230;   &#8220;Never mind!&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Buzz Parsec</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/22/venus-on-acid/comment-page-1/#comment-72115</link>
		<dc:creator>Buzz Parsec</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2008 21:36:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/22/venus-on-acid/#comment-72115</guid>
		<description>BPL, I think Tom started with the sedimentary rocks, and then someone else added in the dissolved-ocean CO2.

I&#039;m wondering if Venus could have lost carbon in the form of methane evaporating into space from the upper atmosphere.  methane CH4 has a molecular weight of just 16, half O2&#039;s 32 and about 1/3 of CO2&#039;s 44.  Lighter molecules travel faster at the same temperature and thus are more likely to reach escape velocity.  CO2+2(H2O) -&gt; CH4 + 2O2.  If this is the case, wonder what happened to the oxygen?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>BPL, I think Tom started with the sedimentary rocks, and then someone else added in the dissolved-ocean CO2.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m wondering if Venus could have lost carbon in the form of methane evaporating into space from the upper atmosphere.  methane CH4 has a molecular weight of just 16, half O2&#8217;s 32 and about 1/3 of CO2&#8217;s 44.  Lighter molecules travel faster at the same temperature and thus are more likely to reach escape velocity.  CO2+2(H2O) -&gt; CH4 + 2O2.  If this is the case, wonder what happened to the oxygen?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: andy</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/22/venus-on-acid/comment-page-1/#comment-72114</link>
		<dc:creator>andy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:06:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/22/venus-on-acid/#comment-72114</guid>
		<description>Tom Marking - you are neglecting heat transfer by ocean currents or wind in the atmosphere in your analysis of the slowly rotating planet, thus you are coming up with a worst-case scenario for the temperature.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tom Marking &#8211; you are neglecting heat transfer by ocean currents or wind in the atmosphere in your analysis of the slowly rotating planet, thus you are coming up with a worst-case scenario for the temperature.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rational Skepticism &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Observing the Will of God</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/22/venus-on-acid/comment-page-1/#comment-72113</link>
		<dc:creator>Rational Skepticism &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Observing the Will of God</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:11:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/22/venus-on-acid/#comment-72113</guid>
		<description>[...] archived episode of Astronomy Cast from last September about Venus, and then same day, Phil Plait posts up an article about Venus, citing many of the same facts from that podcast episode. A second example &#8211; this [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] archived episode of Astronomy Cast from last September about Venus, and then same day, Phil Plait posts up an article about Venus, citing many of the same facts from that podcast episode. A second example &#8211; this [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom Marking</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/22/venus-on-acid/comment-page-1/#comment-72112</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom Marking</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:31:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/22/venus-on-acid/#comment-72112</guid>
		<description>&quot;Venus has about 90 bars of CO2 and Earth has about 60&quot;

I&#039;m attempting to do that very calculation including sedimentary rocks on Earth and I&#039;m only getting a value of 18 bar for Earth, not 60.  The estimates for the amount of limestone/dolomite in sedimentary rocks seems to vary widely depending upon the source of the information so it&#039;s almost impossible to get an accurate number.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Venus has about 90 bars of CO2 and Earth has about 60&#8243;</p>
<p>I&#8217;m attempting to do that very calculation including sedimentary rocks on Earth and I&#8217;m only getting a value of 18 bar for Earth, not 60.  The estimates for the amount of limestone/dolomite in sedimentary rocks seems to vary widely depending upon the source of the information so it&#8217;s almost impossible to get an accurate number.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom Marking</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/22/venus-on-acid/comment-page-1/#comment-72111</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom Marking</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:25:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/22/venus-on-acid/#comment-72111</guid>
		<description>&quot;Tom Marking - simulations of synchronously rotating planets have shown they can retain liquid water at the surface (despite one hemisphere being under permanent sunlight), so I doubt slow rotation would be the main problem.&quot;

It all depends on the insolation which in turn depends primarily on the distance from the star, albedo of the planet, and luminosity of the star.  In the case of Earth with a 243-day retrograde rotation the sun would appear to move in the sky 2.47 degrees per 24 hours (west to east).  If you consider the subsolar point the sun will be within 20 degrees of zenith for 389 hours (16.2 days).  The area near the subsolar point is going to get very hot with no chance to cool off at night.

Let&#039;s compute how much energy that point receives.  Assume the solar constant is 1366 watts/m^2 and the albedo is 30%.  Assume the average elevation angle is 80 degrees.  Then average solar power received over 389 hours is 1366 * 0.7 * sin(80) = 924 watts/m^2.  Assume that the same energy is re-radiated back into space assuming a blackbody emitter.  Then temperature of emission is (924 / 5.67E-8)^0.25 = 357 deg K = 84 deg C.  This is only 16 deg C less than the boiling point of water.  The evaporation of water will be tremendous causing huge quantities of water vapor to be released into the atmosphere.  The temperature only has to rise 16 deg C before the oceans really start to boil in earnest.  So a slow rotation is not a good thing for a terrestrial planet.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Tom Marking &#8211; simulations of synchronously rotating planets have shown they can retain liquid water at the surface (despite one hemisphere being under permanent sunlight), so I doubt slow rotation would be the main problem.&#8221;</p>
<p>It all depends on the insolation which in turn depends primarily on the distance from the star, albedo of the planet, and luminosity of the star.  In the case of Earth with a 243-day retrograde rotation the sun would appear to move in the sky 2.47 degrees per 24 hours (west to east).  If you consider the subsolar point the sun will be within 20 degrees of zenith for 389 hours (16.2 days).  The area near the subsolar point is going to get very hot with no chance to cool off at night.</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s compute how much energy that point receives.  Assume the solar constant is 1366 watts/m^2 and the albedo is 30%.  Assume the average elevation angle is 80 degrees.  Then average solar power received over 389 hours is 1366 * 0.7 * sin(80) = 924 watts/m^2.  Assume that the same energy is re-radiated back into space assuming a blackbody emitter.  Then temperature of emission is (924 / 5.67E-8)^0.25 = 357 deg K = 84 deg C.  This is only 16 deg C less than the boiling point of water.  The evaporation of water will be tremendous causing huge quantities of water vapor to be released into the atmosphere.  The temperature only has to rise 16 deg C before the oceans really start to boil in earnest.  So a slow rotation is not a good thing for a terrestrial planet.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Barton Paul Levenson</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/22/venus-on-acid/comment-page-1/#comment-72109</link>
		<dc:creator>Barton Paul Levenson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:54:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/22/venus-on-acid/#comment-72109</guid>
		<description>The comparison to Venus&#039;s CO2 using Earth&#039;s dissolved-ocean CO2 misses the huge amount of carbonates in sedimentary rocks.  When you do the comparison that way, Venus has about 90 bars of CO2 and Earth has about 60.  I believe the comparison was first done that way in the 1950s, by Harold C. Urey (of Urey-Miller experiment and Urey Reaction fame).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The comparison to Venus&#8217;s CO2 using Earth&#8217;s dissolved-ocean CO2 misses the huge amount of carbonates in sedimentary rocks.  When you do the comparison that way, Venus has about 90 bars of CO2 and Earth has about 60.  I believe the comparison was first done that way in the 1950s, by Harold C. Urey (of Urey-Miller experiment and Urey Reaction fame).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
