Long Ago, Venus Looked Strikingly Similar to Earth

By John Wenz | August 12, 2016 1:16 pm

venus

It’s hard to imagine now, but hellish Venus may once have had balmy temperatures and shallow seas. Even with Venus’ much slower rotation rate, it may have even looked a whole lot like Earth.

Of course, that’s gone now. In a paper published in Geophysical Research Letters, researchers were able to make the Venus of old come alive by using climate modelling software to reconstruct the Venus of the past. Instead of a world surrounded by a thick, toxic fog that inhibits the planet with scorching temperatures, the model found a world surrounded by seas with a temperate climate.

The oceanous planet lasted roughly 2 billion years, which may have been enough time for some lifeforms to emerge. However, Venus’ proximity to the sun eventually led to the breakdown of the ocean and the escape of hydrogen from the atmosphere, with the oxygen left behind bonding with carbon and creating the hellish planet seen today.

Still, some features on Venus correspond to what may have been the seabed of this shallow sea, as seen by the Pioneer Venus missions. The new study from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies may have given some credence to the theory, but studying it in the future in the same way as we’ve done with the Curiosity rover on Mars may be too hard on Venus. The last lander on Venus lasted just 56 minutes before it could no longer take the heat.

 

This article originally appeared in Astronomy.com

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Space & Physics, top posts
MORE ABOUT: solar system
ADVERTISEMENT
  • darryl

    It’s still not too bad as long as you’re high up in the atmosphere.

    -d

    • OldCootNo1

      Are you saying we just need to smoke more grass?

      • zlop

        “just need to smoke more grass?”

        Carl Sagan smoked — that is why he used thermodynamics to calculate the surface temperature of Venus.

        • nik

          Velikovski was the first to expound the ‘heresy’ that Venus was hot, ‘nearly incandescent’
          Carl Sagan entered the scene decades later.

          • zlop

            Because of Genetically Modified Weed,
            Planetary climate science has advance considerably since Valikovski “Cosmos On Weed with Neil deGrasse Tyson – YouTube”

  • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm Uncle Al

    Venus’ to Earth’s semi-major orbital axis ratio is 0.7233. 1/(0.7233)^2 = 1.911. Venus received, receives, will receive 190% of Earth’s solar constant. Venus has always been an oven.

    Climatology vends what is politically convenient, not what is empirically true. “climate modelling software” When did macroeconomics ever work? US economics has daily data dating from 13 December 1711.

    • OWilson

      Love the declarative headline!

      Also the implicit message. Lok what NASA’s amazing modelling software is telling us about Venus past.

      (and what it can tell us about the Earth’s future!)

      • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm Uncle Al

        I suspect a NASA diversity hire mixed Imperial and metric units, again. Or maybe NASA uses circular thermometers calibrated to 360 degrees. No, wait! The NASA database is Queen of Outer Space, 1958. The Queen’s guards’ uniforms were Starfleet red, gold and blue.

        • Marymagdalene Taurus

          Purple, with a blue hue…

  • OldCootNo1

    What is so great about Venus? I am old enough to remember when the USA was habitual. In the next fifty or seventy years this country will be in such a shape coyotes won’t be able to live here.

    • 9Athena

      habitable?

      • nik

        Perhaps he means the population is all on drugs?

        • 9Athena

          Was? What are we on now? Pokemon?

          • nik

            Maybe, habits can be multiple.

  • zlop

    Gases make Venus warm. To cool Venus down, the Sun
    has to be blocked or most of the atmosphere removed.

    Could giant refrigeration units make liquid CO2,
    to be stored in well insulated containers?

  • Marymagdalene Taurus

    Venus will always be front and center,
    Heart-Full, what metals are we discussing, Rover?

  • http://www.churchofreality.org mperkel

    This is somewhat ridiculous because a planet with 92x earths atmosphere would not look like that. I doubt Venus ever cooled off. Earth is molten a few miles down and if we had 92x atmosphere the heat from the core of our planet would create the similar temps at the surface.

    • OWilson

      An often overlooked source of the Earth’s heat is the residual heat left over from it’s formation and cataclysmic history. A molten core. The Continents are actually floating on a thin skin of scum over this semi liquid mantle.

      In addition, there is naturally occurring radiation decay contributing to the heat, and this heat shows it’s fury sometimes in spectacular fashion, like Krakatoa scale events, but more importantly (and much less studies) a constant stream of venting to the surface, both on land and under the oceans.

      Then, of course we have that huge nuclear furnace blazing down contantly.

      I would have to drive my SUV a long way to compete with that! :)

    • CB

      “This is somewhat ridiculous because a planet with 92x earths atmosphere would not look like that.”

      That’s the point.

      At the time, the atmosphere wasn’t so dense.

      The reason why the atmosphere of Venus is so dense now is because the entire ocean went into the sky… and once it was in the sky, it triggered a runaway greenhouse effect.

      That’s why Venus is so hot, not because it never cooled down…

      “Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps infrared radiation beneath Venus’s thick cloud cover. A runaway greenhouse effect is what makes Venus even hotter than Mercury!”

      (NASA Science, “Blazing Venus”)

      • http://www.churchofreality.org mperkel

        First of all, you just made all that up because water is hydrogen and oxygen and that’s not what is in the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect depends on the solar energy making it to the surface and being trapped. On Venus light doesn’t make it to the surface. Most all solar is reflected into space and Venus absorbs less solar than the earth.

        • CB

          “water is hydrogen and oxygen and that’s not what is in the atmosphere.”

          It is what’s in the atmosphere.

          RTFM:

          “Venus’ proximity to the sun eventually led to the breakdown of the ocean and the escape of hydrogen from the atmosphere, with the oxygen left behind bonding with carbon and creating the hellish planet seen today.”

          • http://www.churchofreality.org mperkel

            On Venus it’s CO2 Hydrogen Sulfide Sulfuric Acid, and nitrogen. None of which is water.

          • CB

            “On Venus it’s CO2”

            Right!

            The oxygen in that CO₂ comes from water.

            Venus had oceans at one time. All of the trillions and trillions of tonnes of oxygen in those oceans went into the air. The hydrogen was split off high in the atmosphere and blown off into space by the solar wind. The free oxygen then bonded with carbon from the crust and became CO₂.

            Since both water and CO₂ are powerful greenhouse gasses, the surface of Venus continues to be hot enough to melt lead.

            Understand now?

            “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”

            (NASA, “Climate change: How do we know?”)

          • Inimical Jim

            Water is greenhouse gas?

          • CB

            “Water is greenhouse gas?”

            One of the most powerful!

            It’s also a feedback. The amount of water in the air is entirely dependent on how hot it is. Once you get close to 100°C, the show’s over.

            “Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.”

            (NASA, “Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change”)

          • nik

            On Earth, WATER is the main greenhouse gas.
            Forget the CO2 political myth, on Earth, the effect of CO2 is trivial.

          • Palaeologism

            Source?

          • nik

            Any reputable school science book.

          • Palaeologism

            Give me one, you muppet.

          • nik

            Explanation;
            CO2 caused climate change is utter bullshit!

            600 million years ago, atmospheric CO2 was 7000 ppm, it fell steadily to 3000 ppm for 150 million years, Global temperatures remained steady.
            At about 450 million years ago, global temperatures dropped rapidly by 25 deg C, and then rose again, CO2 actually rose,
            When global temperature rose again to former levels, CO2 fell dramatically by about 1500 ppm. As a gauge, current CO2 levels are around 400 ppm.
            Over the next 50 million years, the temperature again remained steady, but CO2 rose by 100 ppm.
            From about 180 million years ago, CO2 has fallen steadily, but global temperatures first fell, and then rose again to previous levels, and peaked at about 30 deg C, then fell abruptly from 50 million years ago, with a slight rise midway, and then dropped to present levels.
            Current global temperatures, and CO2 levels are the LOWEST that they have been for around 300 million years.
            In fact CO2 is dangerously low, if it falls to 150 ppm, all vegetation, [food] will start to die, and humans and all other animal life along with it.
            Many food growers pump CO2 into their greenhouses to increase plant growth.
            Increased CO2 and temperatures would be entirely beneficial for humanity.

            and more;

            Whether the earth is warming or cooling, CO2 is not a driver of our climate, and it’s a fraud of politicians to attempt to enforce a tax on it.

            A highschool student could figure out that AGW is a fraud, if motivated to actually delve into it.

            Here are some important facts:
            total CO2 in atmosphere = 3.16×1015 kg (about 3,000 gigatonnes)
            TOTAL Human emissions = about 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year.
            26 / 3000 = .0086667
            ~~~~~~~~~~
            CO2 = .04% of total atmosphere
            H2O Vapor = 1%
            Total H2O vapor = 25x total CO2
            CO2 = 1/25 of H2O vapor
            ~~~~~~~~~~
            Specific Heat capacity of H20 vapor = 1.93
            Specific Heat capacity of CO2 = 0.844
            H2O is 2.29 times more efficient heat carrier than CO2
            ~~~~~~~~~~

            If we stop ALL human CO2 emissions, and returned to the stone age, we would make 1/25x.0086667/2.29 = .00016925 difference. JUST IN COMPARISON TO WATER VAPOR alone. About 1.7 TEN-THOUSANDTH of the effect of water vapor annually.

            Rather minuscule effect… at best, because that’s giving CO2 a plethora of benefits of the doubt. There are further diminishing factors… ocean dissolution of CO2, carbonate sequestering, plants, etc.

            The above doesnt yet consider that water vapor has a much broader and more complex IR absorption spectrum than CO2, nor the H2O IR feedback loop called the oceans (no oceans of CO2 on Earth). Nor that atmospheric CO2 is soluble in rain and some of that gets sequestered in the oceans nor that plants grow faster and thus sequester CO2 faster if levels rise (negative feedback). Nor that CO2 at 20ppm is practically “opaque” in the atmosphere at that point, and increasing concentration has diminishing effect. Now we’re really talking MINUSCULE.

            Now consider the rest of the 98.96% of the atmosphere. Sure, the Ir spectrum’s are not broad for most of this, but it is a mega-huge mass not to be discounted. It certainly makes CO2’s impact even more MINUSCULE.

            Even common sense tells us that nights are warmer in humid areas. We all KNOW humidity is a huge factor in our weather and climate. We all know through life experience that heat is retained by water vapor. We cook with steam. Our weather stations tend to be concerned with humidity for this very reason — they dont report on local CO2 concentrations because its doesnt effect ANYTHING. Yet, the AGW religion would have us believe otherwise.

            Neither fossil fuels use nor carbon dioxide affect climate. Carbon dioxide IS NOT a ‘greenhouse gas”. CO2 is in perfect equilibrium in the environment. A high-school sophomore can compute a mass balance for carbon dioxide using credible public information sources.

            Anthropogenic global warming is a textbook mania, based on falsehoods. The media continues to feed the mania by promoting false assumptions. We can use as much fossil fuels as we please without having any effect on climate. Regulating or limiting human CO2 emissions is a colossal waste of money and effort.

            While carbon dioxide may show nominal greenhouse properties in the lab, it has no adverse effect on climate. Changes in atmospheric ambient CO2 are the result of natural temperature changes caused by other forces, likely the solar Maunder cycle. A warmer temperature results in a higher equilibrium CO2 content, and the ocean de-gasses CO2 like a warmed soda. Cooler weather means less ambient CO2, and the ocean sequesters more. CO2 increases in the geological record show it follows warming (primarily due to sun cycles), not preceding as lied to us by Al Gore and his fake chart.

            96.8% of CO2 emissions are from natural sources. The earth reabsorbs 99.9985% of CO2 emitted from all natural and human sources. The average residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is less than 11 minutes. It goes into seawater, where it is quickly converted to carbonate rock, where it will remain for tens of millions of years.
            Limestone, for example = CaCO3. An acre of oysters or coral can form more than ten tons of carbonate rock in a single growing season (CaO+CO2 = CaCO3). The carbonate formation process is voracious and robust, and will consume all the carbon dioxide that humans can generate.

            The primary drivers of our climate, BY FAR, are the sun cycles and water vapour. But it’s kind of hard to convince people to pay a tax on water vapour.
            Show less

          • Palaeologism

            You haven’t given me the source still, you muppet!

          • nik

            Buy your self a bottle of ketchup, and sit on it!
            That should be sauce enough..

          • pmoseman

            “. . . for 150 million years, Global temperatures remained steady.”

          • zlop

            All atmospheres are greenhouse — warm the surface.
            However, IPCC has it upside down. The near surface zone
            (net) loses heat gained from higher up.

          • VooDude

            Venus isn’t like earth.

            The way the “greenhouse effect” works is by sunshine, the short wavelength radiation, warming the ground (or the oceans), and the “greenhouse gases’ interfere with the much longer wavelength, infrared radiation, on the way up to space. No sunshine reaches the ground in Venus. The cloud-top albedo is very high, about 65% (about twice that of earth). At the top of the atmosphere, in Venus, the incident radiation is about double that of earth, but the difference in albedo reflects a lot more, so the total solar insolation that reaches the lower atmosphere is less than what reaches through our troposphere. The cloud deck is 30-35 km up, and is 30-40 km thick. This is evident by the surface temperature of Venus. The difference in temperature is nil between the sun-facing side, and the opposite side (I hesitate to say “night” and “day” because No sunshine reaches the ground in Venus). OK, the daylight is very, very dim, and the night is really, really black. I just pulled an alarmist trick, exaggerating for effect – sorry about that. The difference is, I fessed up, and apologized, while the alarmist just “doubles-down” and says ”It’s worse than we thought”.

            The alarmists say that “climate sensitivity” of the earth is 2°C – 3°C (I say it is a lot less, but…) but the effect is logarithmic. You get the 3°C each time the concentration in the atmosphere doubles… at 800 ppmv, 3°C, then at 1600 ppmv, 6°C, 3,200 ppmv, 9°C … at 82% CO2, you reach 33°C … you cannot double the concentration of CO2, so you can’t reach 36°C, so how does that get you to the Venus surface temperature of 485°C? But the key that keeps the earth the way it is, is the effect of water vapour. Earth has a thousand times more water vapour in our troposphere than the whole atmosphere of venus. Way back in 1938, Callendar observed that clouds compensate for warmth, keeping the earth in a reasonable balance… “On the earth the supply of water vapour is unlimited over the greater part of the surface, and the actual mean temperature results from a balance reached between the solar “constant” and the properties of water and air. Thus a change of water vapour, sky radiation and temperature is corrected by a change of cloudiness and atmospheric circulation, the former increasing the reflection loss and thus reducing the effective sun heat.”

            Callendar, Guy Stewart 1938. “The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature.” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley [DOT]

            com/store/10.1002/qj.49706427503/asset/49706427503_ftp.pdf?v=1&t=i2hp7mkq&s=5ca4636029afeea93cc59249acfa87a4df86d8f6

            The planet that we have, has ‘reactions’ that stabilize the planet. These are absent on Venus. For example, an increase in surface temperature results in increased evaporation. This is an increase in latent heat transport, and also (with clouds) an increase in albedo.

            Venus lacks this response.

            Venus receives double the TSI that earth does … 1.9X

            It does not have (appreciable amounts of) water. Water, in all of its forms, act as a thermostat for earth.

            Li 2014 clearly demonstrates this – the darker blob in the upper righthand corner. Venus doesn’t have that.

            Cloud formation preferentially over warmer water

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4ec3895fb112894916c27040e32a62730a9bb4e186b1fcff7d0b26eea876c72c.jpg

            Clouds have a profound impact on the Earth’s radiation budgetThey cool the Earth by reflecting incoming shortwave radiation back to space but warm the Earth by trapping outgoing long wave radiation. Changes in cloud amount modify the radiative and latent heating of the atmosphere and thus also influence the large-scale atmospheric circulation … But despite their importance for climate, the representation of clouds in current climate models remains challenging … and cloud radiative feedback remains a major source of uncertainty in predicting future climate change … ”

            ”For example, periods and regions of relatively low sea surface temperature (SST) and high lower tropospheric stability are marked by increased abundances of marine stratocumulus, and vice versa.”

            ”CloudSat and Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation (CALIPSO) satellites provide the first global-scale data set of cloud vertical structure [Stephens et al., 2002].”

            Li, Ying, et al. 2014 “A global survey of the instantaneous linkages between cloud vertical structure and large‐scale climate.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres

            http://www.atmos.colostate [DOT]

            edu/~yingli/pub_files/Li_Thompson_Stephens_Bony_JGR_2014.pdf

          • nik

            My sulphuric acid contains a large percentage of water, so I imagine the same would be the case on Venus, unless physics and chemistry have new laws on Venus.

        • zlop

          “The greenhouse effect depends on the solar
          energy making it to the surface and being trapped”?

          “physical nature of the so-called GH effect is a

          Pressure-induced Thermal Enhancement (PTE),
          which is independent of the atmospheric chemical composition.”

          Additionally — unlikely as it sounds, the surface zone
          (net) loses energy that is turbulenced from above.
          (look at atmosphere potential temperature charts)

  • zlop

    Venus is the product of unknown events.

    “The temperature at which limestone yields
    calcium oxide is usually given as 825°C”
    825 – 273 = 552°K — Venus T=735°K
    Just to hot to form carbonate rocks.

    Seems like Solar shading is the way.

  • http://www.churchofreality.org mperkel

    Earth has a greenhouse effect problem. But global warming is a religion with extremists on both sides. There are many articles out there on the pro side that just make stuff up. Making stuff up isn’t science. And this article is an example of this. So while I believe Earth has a CO2 problem, Venus is so different that it just doesn’t apply. Venus is hot for different unrelated reasons.

    As to Earth – I’m more interested in SOLUTIONS than complainers. On solutions Elon Musk has most of that covered. The other cause is overpopulation. So if you want to save the planet – get a vasectomy.

    • nik

      “Belief” = an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.”

      At 0.04% atmospheric CO2, Earth does not have a CO2 problem.
      What it has is a political problem, invented as a scam to rip off billions in Carbon tax!

      Overpopulation is another political myth,
      The most prosperous nations on Earth all have a high population density, the poorest have a low population density. It is also considered that the Neanderthals became extinct because they lived in relatively small groups, compared to Homosapiens.
      It speaks for itself

    • zlop

      “you want to save the planet – get a vasectomy.”
      Tell that to Elon Musk.

  • Jm5150

    “climate modelling software”???? more like a picture of earth and MS paint

  • nik

    In any simulation, you first have to make assumptions.
    Those assumptions then determine the outcome.
    In this case the assumption is that Venus was once cool, so with that assumption, then the conclusion is predetermined.
    Start with the assumption that Venus was hot, and the conclusion will be what exists now, and that it always has existed in its present form.

    • zlop

      “so with that assumption, then the conclusion is predetermined.”

      Starting hot or cold The present state of Venus would be similar.

      • nik

        Thats not the point.
        If you start with the assumption that Venus was once cool, then if you model it thus, then it will be cool.
        The model is not how Venus is now, but how it was in the past, so if you assume it was cool, then it will be.
        It is also required to make an assumption as to the age of Venus, for the model to be viable, you would need to assume that it is the same age as the rest of the solar system, but there is no consensus that all the planets are of the same age.
        If Venus is a very young planet, captured by the solar system, as some think, then it would have had insufficient time to go through the changes in the model, where it started cool, and would never have been Earth-like.

        • zlop

          “If you start with the assumption that Venus was once cool,
          then if you model it thus, then it will be cool.”?

          Tendency is to a temperature, what it is today.
          Do you disagree?

          • nik

            Thats nonsense.

          • zlop

            “That is nonsense”?

            Please elaborate, why the starting temperature does
            not fade into the past and has little bearing on the
            present temperature. (are you proposing a stable,
            hysteresis determined, multy-temperature, system?)

          • nik

            How would hysteresis determine anything?

          • zlop

            “That’s also nonsense”?

            Watch the associated video — Basics here;
            “a system that exhibits hysteresis has “multiple stable states.””
            “Here’s a fascinating video presentation on hysteresis in ice sheets:”

          • nik

            Hysteresis is a delayed effect.
            It doesn’t determine anything.
            The cause of the effect is what determines the result.

          • zlop

            “Hysteresis is a delayed effect.
            It doesn’t determine anything.”?

            Past influences the present and future.
            Over time, the influence fades.

            Did you watch any of the suggested video?
            “Modeling the 100,000-year Glacial-interglacial Cycles:
            Forcing and Feedback”?

          • nik

            To what purpose, it has nothing to do with Venus.

          • zlop

            “To what purpose, it has nothing to do with Venus.”

            How do you know? Perhaps, there is a solid, molten
            metal cycle, similar to Earth’s glaciation?

          • nik

            Would that be a metal bicycle, or tricycle?

          • zlop

            “Would that be a metal bicycle, or tricycle?”

            Although bicycles and tricycles are not made of sulfides,
            You are very smart — I just found this:
            “”Heavy metal” snow on Venus is lead sulfide”

      • anna miller

        It is important to note that the “father of climate change” former NASA scientist, Jim Hansen, compares a possible Earth scenario to Venus, after his Venus studies. Last summer at COP21, Hansen was promoting more nuclear energy. If the grid ever remains down for longer than a week, the over 400 nuclear plants will melt down via Fukushima. Earth would then very much resemble Venus. The irony should is not lost on a thinking individual. Can people think logically anymore? That is the real question.

        • zlop

          Once upon a long, long, time ago, James
          Hansen used to protest against Nuclear.
          (there is money in being dishonest)

          “over 400 nuclear plants will melt down
          via Fukushima” — There are shutdown
          procedures, likely hardened against EMP.

          “Earth would then very much resemble Venus”

          Is there enough energy, in all the nuclear
          plants and bombs, to release all the CO2,
          quickly, from carbonate rocks?

          • anna miller

            With the new batteries for solar panels being able to successfully store energy, there is no longer any excuse to promote nuclear energy. The US only receives 20% energy from nuclear energy anyway. The ongoing leaks from aging nuclear plants, the high costs of maintenence, the fact there is no known safe technology for storage of nuclear waste, and the fact that ongoing spillage and no known technology for stopping radiation spillage from Fukushima, which might very well destroy the Pacific Ocean, is proof enough that humanity should exit from this harmful form of energy. Many nuclear plants were built near large bodies of water. Should these plants be flooded with water or undergo a severe enough earthquake, what will happen to the highly touted safety features?
            To answer the last question, I think if all the energy were released from products based on nuclear fission, our world would be quickly uninhabitable. The release of radiation alone from the testing of nuclear bombs, could very well explain the explosion of cancers. Any C02 released would be quickly polluted. But I guess the question was tongue in cheek?

          • zlop

            Even if nuclear were not dangerous — it is not renewable and will be needed for future space travel.

            There are many ways to cause cancer. Not a coincidence, it is a conspiracy — “Doctors Who Discovered Cancer Enzymes In Vaccines All Found Murdered”

            With the new batteries for solar panels being able to successfully store energy”?

            Batteries are still too expensive. “Molten Salts $15/kwh storage cost” — “generation cost of that same 1 kwh is about 4 cent” — total cost is about 3 ties compared to other methods . .. …

          • anna miller

            Like all technology the price will start to fall. Yes I read the info regarding the dead doctors. I often wonder why more middle management scientists, doctors, lawyers. gov. officials don’t speak out. But in truth some of them do, only to be found suicided, a victim of some freak accident or contracting a fast-moving cancer (Bill Hicks?) There could possibly be a method for creating cancer by injection-like a lab rat, or death from a “plane crash” or just come up dead, for no explainable reason. I read some time back that the polio vaccines contained cancer inducing chemicals. It is no secret amongst the aware, the Controllers want to thin down the herd.

          • zlop

            “Like all technology the price will start to fall.”

            If it is possible, with enough time and
            money, engineer will build it.

            Yes, vaccines are a conspiracy;
            Jim Stone exposes the T4 nanobots.

          • anna miller

            The simple fact that autism has exploded, should inform humans there is a major problem.
            Why do so many people fail to ever research beyond what the mainstream tells them?
            Is curiosity simply a genetic result, or is the apathy simply a result of generational social engineering?

          • zlop

            “Why do so many people fail to ever research beyond what the mainstream tells them?”

            Reminds me of a faithful German Shepherd dog. The owner tied it to a tree to be shot. The dog became so enraged that he could have killed the owner, as it was being shot to death. (True story, I heard while working in a construction camp)

  • zlop

    Maybe Venus was similar in another Solar system,
    then kicked out and captured by our Solar system.

    • anna miller

      Jim Hansen, “the father of climate change” uses the Venus meme to futher his bullshit human induced C02 NWO creation to usher in Agenda 21. Last summer at COP21 in Paris, Jim Hansen was shilling for the con struction of more nuclear energy plants. There was no mention of Fukushima releasing 300 tons per day of radiation into the Pacific Ocean, nor any mention of geoengineering. Forget that the levels of aluminum are soaring in soil sample testing, cloud seeding as part of geoengineering has been going on globally since the 1950’s and is unregulated. Studies prove that creating artificial clouds with silver iodide and other chemicals, actually traps heat at night, and creates a greenhouse affect.
      These articles on cloud-seeding can be found in mainstream articles. The supporters of human-induced climate change NEVER mention the NWO answer to climate change, which is Agenda 21. They also NEVER mention geoengineering or chemtrails. Therefore I call bullshit on this entire meme. People balk at the lies of the mainstream media, yet accept this crap hook, line and sinker. These gov. scientists are PAID whores, just like the media. Ask the average dumb-ass that mindlessly spreads the climate change propaganda about Agenda 21, nine times out of ten they look at you with a blank mind controlled stare. Degrees in geoengineering is established in numerous universities including Oxford. Climate change is occuring, and it is the control freaks out there known as geoengineers who are changing the climate. But yet the sheep refuse to investigate, because they are cowards, plain and simple. They won’t even acknowledge what they can observe by looking up in the sky on any given day. Obervation being the first step of the scientific method.

  • Chris Fotis

    Preposterous

  • iheretic

    Utter hogwash. Venus’ atmosphere is NINETY FIVE times that of Earth….

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

D-brief

Briefing you on the must-know news and trending topics in science and technology today.
ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collapse bottom bar
+