Talk:Venus/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

No surface images

Why are there no surface images, which should be one of the most interesting features in an article about a planet for many visitors? Copyright issues?

(There are a few such images by Venera probes...)

Intrr (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect the Venera images are covered by copyright, although possibly a copy could be included under fair use law.—RJH (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There was an important discussion that occurred just a short time ago at the Commons (Link). Most of the Venera images were traded to NASA without conditions, during the Soviet era (meaning they were given as public domain content). I've yet to pursue the final requested step in clearing the use of these images. This is due in part to my being busy with other projects and my uploading them being largely just a point-making scenario after several of the images were previously deleted. Secondly, I am also in disagreement that any further step is necessary as Dr. Bell's response clearly indicates that these images are in the public domain and to ask for permission to use them is completely counter to the recognized definition. Nevertheless, if anyone wishes to finish this process, feel free. --Xession (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The ghost of richard stallman cries every time a child peers upon the surface of venus through a medium that might not pass the "free speech not free beer" mantra that has guided civilization to its current glory. sorry, no pics for you, the soviet union might rise again to crush your inquisitive search for knowledge on their space program :\ 76.103.47.66 (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Venus & Moon

{{edit semi-protected}} "Planet With no Moon." 65.26.51.69 (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This is already discussed in the "Orbit and rotation" section.—RJH (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Baseball Watcher 22:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request - Moment of Inertia

Contrary to the claims of the "Internal Structure" section, we know Venus's moment of inertia and can thus say that it has a differentiated mantle and core, with about the same proportions as Earth's: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html --Simon Heath, Feb 27 2011

Since the reference you give makes no mention of the internal structure then that means your analysis from that one figure would constitute original research and thus is not eligible for inclusion in the article until a reliable source is found that clearly states the internal structure. HumphreyW (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Clouds of Sulfuric Acid

Why are there "Clouds of Sulfuric Acid" when there is no sulfuric acid listed in the atmospheric composition and very little hydrogen containing compounds? Should it not read "Clouds of Sulfur Dioxide"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim1138 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Not when the sources say sulfuric acid. This molecule appears in the less dense upper atmosphere, but it is a trace constituent overall (on average).[1]—RJH (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the research. I suspect that the clouds are mostly SO2. Will do some more research. Jim1138 (talk) 07:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

"Sulfuric acid, which is the main compound of the clouds, is created by photochemistry in the upper clouds. SO₂ and H₂O are the gases precursor of the clouds particles..." per Zasova et al. (2007). For me, an interesting question is where the hydrogen came from. Is it just the surviving hydrogen from the original surface oceans, or was it added as a result of external sources and excretion from underground storage?—RJH (talk)

bright enough to cast shadows

My intuition tells me this is not possible, as the only time Venus is visible in the sky is near sunrise/sunset and the twilight should still be much brighter. This may be latitude dependent, however. Rip-Saw (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Venus is often visible hours after sunrise/set, and when it is very dark. Saros136 (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

In theory every light source, no matter how dim, will cast a shadow. It is just a matter of deciding at what point do you say that the shadow is too undifferentiated to still be a shadow. Basically, there would need to be some sort of clear definition of how to measure and decide at what point you declare that a shadow is seen? HumphreyW (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There have been some informal reports of Venus casting a shadow.[2][3][4][5] Regards, RJH (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Dynamo Theory - Point of View

This article discusses the lack of dynamo in the core of Venus, presuming that Earth has dynamo. I quote, "In 1967, Venera-4 found that the Venusian magnetic field is much weaker than that of Earth. This magnetic field is induced by an interaction between the ionosphere and the solar wind, rather than by an internal dynamo in the core like the one inside the Earth." Contrarily, the dynamo theory has a plausible competitor, the rapid decay theory. Isn't the inclusion of the dynamo theory as fact when it is still a theory in violation of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy? Jack Elviri (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The dynamo theory is a well-accepted fact in the scientific community, commonly taught in classrooms and discussed in scholarly papers. I have to profess ignorance of the rapid decay theory, despite having done a fair amount of studying regarding the terrestrial magnetic field and near-Earth environment. Absent some compelling evidence, I don't think it's a violation of NPOV as it stands. siafu (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

"sister planet" explained

In the introduction, it's written:
... it (Venus) is sometimes called Earth's "sister planet"
and then someone added [by whom?] after the sentence.
The explanation is actually in the "Physical characteristics" paragraph. Could someone remove the [by whom?], and write sometimes like "(see below)" in its place?
石庭豐 (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

doesn't matter, I've changed it myself. 石庭豐 (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 204.113.118.138, 10 May 2011

In this article's intro, it says "Venus has the densest atmosphere of all the terrestrial planets in our solar system..." It should say "Venus has the densest atmosphere of all the terrestrial planets in the solar system..." 204.113.118.138 (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done. -- Kheider (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Venus' Moon

The article currently claims "In the 17th century Giovanni Cassini reported a moon orbiting Venus which was named Neith and there were numerous reported sightings over the following 200 years but it was ultimately determined that most were stars in the vicinity." While Cassini did report a moon orbiting Venus, he did not name it "Neith", nor was that name ever proposed for a Venusian moon. Rather, "Neith" was a hypothetical planet lying between Venus and Earth used by Jean-Charles Houzeau to explain the observations of a Venusian moon. There is a discussion of this situation in chapter 6.1 of Helge Kragh's "The Moon that Wasn't: The Saga of Venus' Spurious Satellite". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.184.190 (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

EU / ESA

Pointing to "ESA" when refering to the European Space Angency on tables results in a incorrect flag display (ESA = El Salvador ISO code). Suggest adapt to EU on tables. 19:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.106.87.191 (talk)

I changed the ESA entries to simply say "ESA" and not use {{flagicon}}, as I guess it's better for ESA to show up without a logo than for El Salvador's flag to be used. Maybe someone who knows what to do can add the ESA logo. gspr (talk) 07:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Image is processed

The image in the information box seems to have been enhanced to bring out details of the atmosphere compared to unenhanced true color images, but the text doesn't seem to acknowledge this. As Emily Lakdawalla points out in the Planetary Society Blog, Venus is boring in unenhanced true color. (Emily Lakdawalla, Venus Looks More Boring than You Think It Does, Planetary Society Blog, Sept. 21 2009); she posts a MESSENGER image in both enhanced and unenhanced true color.

By the way, the origin of the image used is rather obscure. The actual image source seems to be here: astrosurf.com/nunes/explor/explor_m10.htm, but without enough information to clearly figure out how the image was made. By sourcing the image from spacecraft blue and clear, and then inserting the color after, I think that he may effectively be over-emphasizing the blue. I do note that Nunes has an unenhanced image from Venus Express, Orbit 31, on one of the subpages of the page linked, labelled "Venus Express images in aproximate real color", but even in this image, if you read the details, the blue channel of the image includes 50% ultraviolet, which again enhances the details. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is probably enhanced (blue polar caps). I fixed the information on the file page. Ruslik_Zero 17:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 January 2012

The article for “Venus” shows under “Physical Characteristics” that the volume of Venus is 0.857 Earth’s volume. This is not mathematically correct:

 a. The Wikipedia article for “Earth” shows that Earth’s volume is 1,083,210,000,000 cubic km
 b. The article for “Venus” shows that the volume of Venus is 938,000,000,000 cubic km
 c. 938,000,000,000 cubic km / 1,083,321,000,000 cubic km = 0.86594 (not 0.857)

24.42.223.19 (talk) 02:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Corrected, thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Why protection?

No seriously. Are people contributing to the article about Venus's indigenous life? Mucking it up with astrology? Did Colbert demand that his minions 'enhance' the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.147.145 (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This article was subject to frequent vandalism. All 5th graders know that Venus rhymes with penis and is made of poop. When an article is vandalized far more often than it is improved, the page gets protection. You can make you an edit request on this talk page. -- Kheider (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Misdirected link

The "Galileo" link in the timeline list links to Galileo the person instead of the spacecraft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_%28spacecraft%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.94.86 (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed it. HumphreyW (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 February 2012

This article states, "Venus is always brighter than any star." It's just under the "observation" headline. Obviously the sun is brighter. Jpaszko (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I suppose one could say, "At night, Venus is always brighter than any star." Regards, RJH (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed Good catch. Thanks. Dru of Id (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request on 17/02/12 Modification to Rotation Section

In light of the new info obtained from the ESA's Venus Express craft regarding the suspected slowing of Venus' rotation, it would be reasonable to update this section.

Source: http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Venus_Express/SEM0TLSXXXG_0.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.14.224.126 (talk) 04:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

venus

why did they call it venus ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.112.230 (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It is stated in the second sentence of the lead: "The planet is named after Venus, the Roman goddess of love and beauty." HumphreyW (talk) 03:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I suppose you can then ask, "Why did they name Venus after her and not another Roman God? Why are they named after Roman Gods?" There seems to be a tradition for the ancients to name Venus after a goddess of love.96.39.94.86 (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Nonresonance rotation of Venus

In the section "Orbit and rotation" a "tidal locking" with Earth is mentioned with Ref. 67. This should be corrected to take account of I.I. Shapiro et al. showing in 1979 that this supposed resonance with Earth is spurious; see Astrophys J. 1979; 230: L123-L126. This discovery was reported in Oct. 1979 issue of Astronomy, also. Phaedrus7 (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I modified the text per the first reference you supplied. Is that sufficient, or would you prefer different wording? Regards, RJH (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thank you for updating this subject. Phaedrus7 (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Daytime Viewing with Naked Eye

On March 26, 2012 Venus, near its point of greatest elongation from the sun and near the crescent moon, enabled easy daylight viewing with the naked eye in clear skies, near sea level, even in relatively humid Washington DC. A quick search of the web shows that the ability to view Venus in daylight is known and photographed. An discussion in Wikipedia of the basic ability to view Venus in full daylight in the "observation" section would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.42.45 (talk) 05:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The ability to view Venus during the daylight is already mentioned in the Observation section. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Observation Topic

In the "Observation topic" in the second paragraph, it says, "While Mercury, the other inferior planet". I am not qiute sure that it should be considered as inferior in this case. Should it just stay like that? Karicats7 (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes the expression is correct. See inferior planet. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction

At the top of the article we are told the water disappeared due to a runaway greenhouse effect. Further down we are told it was likely due to erosion by the solar wind. Is this a controversy?JG17 (talk) 12:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The lead makes the distinction that the surface water disappeared due to the runaway greenhouse, then hydrogen from photodissociated water vapor was spalled away by the solar wind. The latter would happen anyway, but it is the water-rich atmosphere that makes the spalling effect occur at a much higher rate. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The hyperlink under the word "dissociation" is not very helpful. More relevant is the page called "dissociation constant"' leading as it does to "equilibrium constant". However, since the topic applies to both Venus and Mars it would seem that a page relating to the current thoughts on how planetary water may be lost would be useful and it could perhaps lead on to a description of the unique nature of the Earth's magnetic field and how that might have arisen.Drg40 (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it should probably have been linked to Photodissociation. I modified the page accordingly. The Atmospheric escape article appears to cover the topic in a little more details. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Please link "Earth" in Earth days to the "Earth" article in Wikipedia...

... it would be useful for people doing quick comparisons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.147.3.69 (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the first use of a word is the appropriate place for a link. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Period/Resonance

Wikipedia says Venus orbit is 224.65 days. Here is how Genesis and all planetarium programs proves it false; (I dont have to ask the gods of wikipedia, it's proven easily above their power they think they have here to delete).

I have heard it best said that Venus "overtakes" the Earth every 583.92 days. This can be seen by 8 years as 5x 583.92 days = 13x 224.58 days (224.5846 not 224.65). Notice how seen from Earth the 5 orbits around the sun plus 8 orbits of Earth total 13 actual orbits of Venus. Geometrically the stated orbit of synodic Venus and actual orbit must fit an equation in this manner. Note the Wikipedia claim of: 13x 224.65 = 5x 584.09 days, this being false because ancient people 4000 years ago were aware that Venus loses 2 days every 40 years which makes it less than 584 days, an exact 584.92 days by formula. Take the 243 Julian year cycle (152x 583.92 = 395.2x 224.5846 days) as verification (not 224.65). Use the 251-year Gregorian cycle (Shemiramis= 157x 583.92 days = 408.2x 224.5846 days), 365.2425 Gregorian calendar average divided by 157 is 583.9227 days, and divided 408.2 is 224.5856 days (not 224.65). From 2369bc Oct 9 superior conj to 2013ad G.Oct 22 is 4384 egyptian years (4381 Julian) of 548 x 8-year cycle (548x 5 orbits = 2740 orbits; 548x 13 actual orbits =7124) minus 219 days as 583.92-day cycle is 2013ad G.Mar 17 but Venus is 11 days past that on G.Mar 28 and thus 11 days more than point of 583.92 average making it 224.586 days (not 224.65). Then 18x 243 Julian years = 4374 Julian ends Oct 9 or G.Oct 22 in 2006ad (Venus would be 583.919 as 2 days before a 583.92-day venus as 18x 152 (or 2736x 583.92)on G.Oct 24 just 3 days before actual G.Oct 27 syuperior conj. So 1,597,608 days /2736 =583.921 = 7113.6x 224.585 days (not 224.65). No where do you get 224.65 days. Wikipedia has again publish more lies. 98.144.71.174 (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Earth and Venus are in a 8:13 near resonance. It is not exact. -- Kheider (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

At epoch 2000-Jan-01 12:00 UT (JD 2451545) JPL Horizons shows Venus has an orbital period of 2.246983300777193E+02 days. The orbital period is not a constant due to perturbations by the other planets.

• 1. Go to http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi?find_body=1&body_group=mb&sstr=2
• 2. Change "Ephemeris Type" to: "Orbital Elements"
• 3. Click "Generate results. You will see that for epoch 2012-Jun-21 Venus has PR= 2.247039145114551E+02. The Venus Fact Sheet also agrees. -- Kheider (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

PS: The next Venus superior conjunction will be 2013-Mar-28 and the last was on 2011-Aug-16. -- Kheider (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

edit to orbit

In the section "Orbit and rotation" on paragraph 4, sentence 2, the word reportedover should be reported over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AstrumArchon (talk • contribs) 00:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Richerman (talk) 01:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

"Venus orbits the Sun at an average distance of about 108 million kilometers (about 0.7 AU), and completes an orbit every 224.65 days. Although all planetary orbits are elliptical, Venus is the closest to circular, with an eccentricity of less than 0.01.[2] When Venus lies between the Earth and the Sun, a position known as "inferior conjunction", it makes the closest approach to Earth of any planet, lying at an average distance of 41 million km during inferior conjunction.[2] The planet reaches inferior conjunction every 584 days, on average.[2] Due to the decreasing eccentricity of Earth, the minimum distances will become greater. From the year 1 to 5383, there are 526 approaches less than 40 million km; then there are none for about 60,200 years.[63] During periods of greater eccentricity Venus can come as close as 38.2 million km.[2]"

There are a few things poorly worded here:

1) "all planetary orbits are elliptical", this should be: "all planets in our solar system have elliptical orbits"

2) "Due to the decreasing eccentricity of Earth" this is referring to the current portion of the Milankovic cycle, the Earth's eccentricity is oscillating, and will eventually beging to increase again. There should be a reference to Milankovic and also that the decrease is temporary (occuring on 100k & 400k year cycles)

3) "From the year 1 to 5383, there are 526 approaches less than 40 million km; then there are none for about 60,200 years." I couldn't find this statement anywhere in the cited SOLEX page, and this is also likely related to the currently oscillation of the Milankovic cycle. Although Venus has it's own eccentric oscillations, which isn't clear if the SOLEX simulation has accounted for.

4)"During periods of greater eccentricity Venus can come as close as 38.2 million km." This is referring to the current state of Earth's eccentricity, if the eccentricity were to change from the present, inferior conjuction would be even closer than 38.2. This is better stated simply as "The current closest approach to Earth is 38.2 million km" with no mention of eccentricity changing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.110.73 (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I have created a better reference for Solex. The numbers are verifiable. -- Kheider (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

brightest?

The text says maximum brightness of -4.6 magnitude but the info box says -4.9. Which is correct? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe that it is a 4.9. see Apparent magnitude. Karicats7 (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Both are basically correct. The value also depending on the epoch used to define it. 1.3 million years ago Venus was much brighter as it was only 34 million km from the Earth. -- Kheider (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This statement doesn't make sense; Venus varies from between 35 million km (conjuction) and 35 million km + 1 AU = ~ 180 million km (opposition) from Earth. A sensible choice for the infobox would be the mean apparent magnitude. siafu (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The maximum should be 1 AU + 1 AU - 35 million km and Venusian 'oppositions' are called superior conjunctions. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Mean is around -4.6, but the infobox gives a range. In 2013 Venus should reach -4.89. Venus has not always had a conjunction distance of 35 million km since planetary perturbations cause that value to vary over long time scales. -- Kheider (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Maximum brightness

"Venus reaches its maximum brightness shortly before sunrise or shortly after sunset." Is this brightness the same as apparent magnitude, or is it something else? Almanacs list Venus' magnitude with an interval of 5 days, so I'm led to believe that there are no changes of importance during a day, rather a change of 0.1 mag or something from some days to the next. Any comments and explanations to this will be greatly appreciated. Iceblock (talk) 10:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, more than several hours from sunlight it would be below the horizon, so not very impressive. And changes, it was -4.73 magnitude for almost 6 days last time, time makes no difference. And if it did you'd want to be right under it - in a place not conducive to nighttime - all to gain less than 0.0002 magnitudes of brightness from being closer to it. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply! If I get you right, you mean that the brightness was the same for almost 6 days. Is this correct? Does that mean that the lead section of the article Venus, in the sentence about "maximum brightness shortly before sunrise or shortly after sunset", should be changed? If the brightness is the same for 6 days, it does not change during the day. Iceblock (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Venus will always be at its brightest when it is a thin crescent, so will only be visible at its "maximum brightness shortly before sunrise or shortly after sunset". At other times (of maximum brightness) Venus will be lost in the Suns glare or below the horizon. -- Kheider (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The wording in the article might be interpreted as "maximum brightness shortly before (every) sunrise or shortly after (every) sunset". Should it be reworded to reflect that maximum brightness occurs when Venus is a thin crescent? Iceblock (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Surely someone should edit that line to read "prominence" rather than "brightness" - I'd be very surprised if sunrise or sunset visibly changed the amount of light reaching a spot on the earth, rather than simply making it appear more brilliant due to the fact none of the other stars are out yet, and the BIG star (the sun) is finally gone... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.158.16 (talk) 03:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Silhouette of Venus 1769.jpg

Please see Talk:Transit of Venus#File:Silhouette of Venus 1769.jpg where I am asking about an image that was removed from this article. Johnuniq (talk) 07:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Extremely unprofessional writing

Regarding these two sentences:

"The surface of Venus is often said to resemble traditional accounts of Hell.[44] But getting back to the Earth's surface ..."

No scientific writing should ever resemble this. Could someone with editing privileges clean this up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.170.153 (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done Sidelight12 (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

In literature

concerning this part:

"Perhaps the strangest appearance of Venus in literature is as the harbinger of destruction in Immanuel Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision (1950). In this intensely controversial book, Velikovsky argued that many seemingly unbelievable stories in the Old Testament are true recollections of times when Venus nearly collided with the Earth — when it was still a comet and had not yet become the docile planet that we know today. ==[insert suggestion]== He contended that Venus caused most of the strange events of the Exodus. He cites legends in many other cultures (such as Greek, Mexican, Chinese and Indian) indicating that the effects of the near-collision were global. The scientific community rejected his wildly unorthodox book, but it became a bestseller"

As a result of that Velikovsky predicted that the surface temperature of Venus should be much higher than it was expected, based on the traditional viewpoint of the creation of Venus in our solar system. The average temperature on Venus is measured to 735 kelvin (461° C, or 863° F), several hundred degrees more than previously accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.238.116.242 (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Calculation mistake (orbital period)

The period is listed as 224.698 days or 0.690847 years. Those two numbers are not equivalent. I suspect the period should be closer to 0.6152 years. At least, that's what my undergrad textbook (Carroll & Ostlie) claims. 108.162.184.59 (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I have corrected the infobox. Using an epoch of 2000, JPL Horizons shows PR= 2.246983300777193E+02. Divided by 365.25 would be 0.615190. -- Kheider (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Axial tilt is 177.3???

The infobox says the axial tilt is 177.3 degrees, which smells like someone was being capricious. It should say 2.7 degrees, no? Is venus "upside down" somehow?? The text of the article says "less than three degrees".

67.175.146.68 (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

177.3 means that the Venus' rotation is retrograde, i.e. it rotates in the opposite direction to its orbital motion. Ruslik_Zero 18:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Orbit and rotation "day"

The "day" in "Venus's rotation has slowed down by 6.5 minutes per day since the Magellan spacecraft visited it 16 years ago" is a little unclear at first glance, being in the middle of several definitions of "day" (Earth-day, Venusian sidereal day, Venusian solar day). 6.5 minutes per sidereal day would be clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.80.187 (talk) 08:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Earendil

Venus is the equivalent of Tolkien's Earendil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.102.199.118 (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Assuming this view can be sourced, it would probably be better included there, in the article Earendil, but not here. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 05:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I've always wondered, if Tolkien intended his stories to be a fictional past history of the world, why Venus is not described as a planet or even a star. You'd think we'd have noticed by now. The funniest (fan-fiction) explanation I've seen is that the Valar simply decided to give Eärendil a break sometime during the Fourth Age or so! (It's definitely a break and not permanent leave, since he's described as descending from the sky after Morgoth finally figures out how to get out of the Void and gets the Sun and Moon to quarrel with each other, thereby starting the Dagor Dagorath, meaning that he must be up there again when that happens. Space probes, take note.) Double sharp (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Synodic Period and Orbital Period

On the main info box, it says a synodic period of 583(earth)days, while the orbital period 224 earth days... when you scroll over them, it leads to the same article. Error? I think so, as one planet does not have 2 simultaneous orbits at the same time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.142.173.126 (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Ups, didn't bother reading orbital period article. Please disregard. 209.142.173.126 (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

MOS:RETAIN

Per the existence of the spelling "colour" in this revision, I am marking this as an article which should use British English. --John (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

That revision also has 'theorized', and thus is inconsistent. --JorisvS (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

No, theorized is acceptable in British English; colour is not acceptable in American English. Hence my observation. --John (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Which is a specific type of minority British English spelling. I've properly indicated it here. --JorisvS (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Venus in Natural Light

http://wanderingspace.net/2009/04/something-you-never-see-venus-in-natural-light/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ugordan/3447783055/

Gordan Ugarkovic has processed RGB images from the MESSENGER 2007 flyby to produce what, to my eyes, may be the most accurate image of Venus in natural light so far. Could it be included in the article or even replace the portrait at top? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2610:28:3090:4001:0:0:D6:DFAA (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 July 2013

Please change (and maybe for other planets also, using Earth density = 5.515 g/cm3):

 Mean density 5.243 g/cm3 

to:

 Mean density 5.243 g/cm3
              0.951 earths

69.255.18.206 (talk) 00:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 18:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Content that is added to wikipedia needs to have reliable sources to verify that additions are not Original Research. I would suggest reading Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing Sources.--Anderson I'm Willing To Help 22:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure you quite captured the nature of the request here Anderson — which was a little unclear in its wording. The anon user wasn't submitting any OR, he/she was just requesting that we add a mention of Venus' density as a proportion of Earth's to give some context for the figure. The closest thing to original research was some basic division (5.243 ÷ 5.515 = 0.9506... ≈ 0.951). Personally I don't have a strong opinion on that idea, but it's probably worthy of discussion — though it's probably a change that should be requested at Template_talk:Infobox_planet rather than here. --Xiaphias (talk) 01:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I see. Although i'm not referring to this request, We do need to be careful with some requests that aren't sourced. Especially requests without sources on BLP articles.Anderson I'm Willing To Help 20:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Grammatical error

In the second paragraph the sentence "It has also been shown to be very different from Earth in other respects.", uses the word "also" in a way implying similarity, yet the sentence instead speaks of dissimilarity. This is a confusing contradiction which should be avoided. One way to improve the sentence would be to rewrite it this way: "However, Venus has been shown to be very different from Earth in other significant respects." TenebrisCaelo (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Venus is similar in size to earth, But Venus is quite different compared to earth. Venus's atmosphere is somewhat different, due to thick carbon dioxide. there is an ozone layer, but it is less dense then earth's.

There is a runaway greenhouse effect on Venus, which makes it much hotter.

In other words, some people say that Venus is earth's twin. Best,--Anderson - What's up? 04:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure where the paragraph you quoted came from, but the information does not agree with other sources of information I've read on Venus. But the point is the unclear grammar, not the science. TenebrisCaelo (talk) 02:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

What i meant was Venus is not similar to earth due to it not being on the Earth Similarity Index. The paragraph was in 2013 Guinness book of world records. this link should simplify what i'm trying to explain. I will source it, if it's unsourced. Hope this info helps. Regards,--Anderson - What's up? 03:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Venus has ESI 0.78... Double sharp (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Venus has ESI 0.78..., I'm well aware of that after having a look at ESI. That's why i Striked out the portion of my text stating that it's not on the ESI.--Anderson I'm Willing To Help 21:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I was explaining that Venus is similar in mass and size compared to Earth. But how much different it is.--Anderson I'm Willing To Help 22:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The reference concerning the orbital characteristics

I wanted to verify orbital characteristics given in the main table. There is a reference 4 containing the following instructions: ^ Yeomans, Donald K. "HORIZONS System". JPL Horizons On-Line Ephemeris System.—At the site, go to the "web interface" then select "Ephemeris Type: ELEMENTS", "Target Body: Venus" and "Center: Sun".

I tried to find the characteristics according to these instructions, but I failed. Probably, the instructions are either obsolete, or too unclear. It is necessary to change something. --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Maybe, the following source would be much better: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done, ref added. The HORIZONS Web-Interface is spectacularly unintuitive. — Reatlas (talk) 01:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The orbital characteristics given in the main table are wrong, in part, as the Semi-major axis value given is listed as greater than the Aphelion value, and that is impossible, lol! The Semi-major axis value and Aphelion must've obviously got mixed up. The Perihelion distance looks about right though.

You can still access the JPL Horizons On-Line Ephemeris System (as of September 2013) for verifying the orbital elements. Go to the "web interface" (that's the link from this article) and then click once on the "change" tab next to "Ephemeris Type" and then select, from the "Ephemeris/Table Type", "Orbital Elements" and click on the "Use Selection Above", to confirm the change you're making. All you have to do after that is to click the "Generate Ephemeris" tab and you've got the table you can use to verify the error, I previously mentioned, in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.156.128 (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Uh...the aphelion is greater than the semi-major axis. I double checked the figures with the Nasa fact sheet, and they match up. (Still can't interprete the wall of numbers that is the HORIZONS thing.) — Reatlas (talk) 04:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

For "Epoch 2451545.000000000 = A.D. 2000-Jan-01 12:00:00" I get A = 7.233269274790104E-01 and AD= 7.282135695902918E-01. I see no problem. Ironically the older JPL Horizons numbers from July are technically more accurate than the generic NASA Fact sheet, but it probably does not matter in an article written for the public. I have made an update to the wiki Horizons instructions. -- Kheider (talk) 04:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Axial tilt 177° or 3°

In the "Infobox planet" box, on the right top side of this Wikipedia article, the axial tilt of Venus is given as 177.36° but in the main body of the article, under the "Atmosphere and climate section", the fifth paragraph down, it says in complete contradiction to that reasonable sounding value, "The planet's minute axial tilt—less than 3°, compared to 23° on Earth—also minimizes seasonal temperature variation." Which figure is correct, 177.36° or 3°? I am guessing that there was a misprint in the source from where the 3° figure was quoted from. Someone who drew up that NASA page probably got Jupiter and Venus somehow mixed up as Jupiter does have an axial tilt of around 3°. I do realise that obviously 180° - 177.36° is roughly 3° but so what?! Either Venus has a 177.36 degrees over its 224.701 day year which would make for extreme seasonality if it wasn't for its thick carbon dioxide atmosphere or it tilts by only 3 degrees over its 225 day year and wouldn't experience much seasonality even if it didn't have 89 atmospheres of carbon dioxide blanketing/smothering it so completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.137.155 (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Technically, 177.36° is correct, because Venus rotates in the opposite direction compared with its orbital motion. However, to explain to the layman what this means, one can say an axial tilt of 2.64° (3° if rounded) and rotating in the opposite direction. --JorisvS (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

No moon

I vote the fact that Venus has no moon should be mentioned explicitly and relatively early on in the introduction.--Cancun771 (talk) 10:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. That isn't a particularly notable fact; maybe just notable enough to stay in the lead, but definitely not notable enough to be second sentence. — Reatlas (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Reatlas, the absence of a moon is definitely not notable enough to be the second sentence in the lead, and certainly not in the bald way it has been added. I do not object in principal to mentioning the lack of a natural satellite in the lead, but it should come after the sentence 'However, it has also been shown to be very different from Earth in other respects'. Also while saying 'the Moon' might be slightly ambiguous Earth's Moon is the only moon that qualifies for either the definite article or a capital 'M' so I'm not sure about the addition of the qualifier 'Earth's' to 'the Moon' is necessary either. Physdragon (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

On the 3rd February experimental film researcher Vincenzo Giovanni Ruello and his wife Melaia Ruello photographed the first ever graphic photo of an HFA...Hot Flow Anomalie explosion eruption on the surface of Venus. The massive eruption at the top of the planet is unprecedented the images are being investigated by Nasa and can be seen t youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bluKP9aW5w — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.174.151.68 (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2014

Venus retrogrades like uranus and pluto and isnamed after roman goddess, Venusand in greek aphrodite

please put thisin thx 99.112.136.195 (talk) 06:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done All of those basic facts are already in the article if you actually read it. Cadiomals (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Active Volcanoes Revealed on Venus

Just dropping off some newly published info on Venus. If the link doesn't post, just look for "Active Volcanoes Revealed on Venus" at space dot com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.180.201.142 (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

This information should be added to the Wikipedia entry "Vulcanology of Venus", which presently lacks this update. I leave this task to others. Phaedrus7 (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Artificial satellite count?

I noticed that only the article for Earth lists any objects in orbit beyond natural satellites in the infobox, but I don't believe that's exclusively an Earth feature, so I figured I'd check the handy list of missions and use that. Unfortunately the fate of a few of the orbiters is a bit unclear, the only one that's said outright to still be in orbit is the Venus Express.

Is it reasonable to nevertheless change the infobox to say "Satellites: No natural, 1 artificial"?

130.243.154.207 (talk) 12:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect Albedo

I suspect this is indef-blocked editor Douglas Cotton

The only citation is behind a paywall. It says this about the albedo : Calculation of a planet’s albedo begins with a determination of its brightness when it is fully illuminated at α = 0◦. We eval- uated polynomials numbered 1 through 4 in Table 3 in order to arrive at the values of B1(0◦), V1(0◦), R1(0◦) and I1(0◦) which are listed in Table 6. The ratio of a planet’s observed flux to that from a per- fectly reflecting Lambert disk of the same size and distance at α = 0◦ defines the geometric albedo. Using the V magnitude of the Sun quoted in the previous section, and taking Venus V1(0◦) = −4.38 from the table, results in a luminosity ratio of Venus to the Sun, Lratio = 1.13 × 10−9 . The radius, r , of Venus is 6052 km and its cloud tops are 60 km above that according to Esposito et al. (1983), leading to an effective radius of 6112 km. The AU is 149.6 × 106 km, hence the area factor is sin2(r/AU), or 1.67 × 10−9. Therefore, the geometric albedo, p, is which evaluates to pV = 0.67. The values of the other geometric albedos range from pR = 0.69 to pI = 0.57, as listed in the table. Thus it appears that the reflectivity function of the fully illuminated disk of Venus peaks in the R filter. Having observed and fitted the phase curve out to nearly 180o, the phase integral and the spherical albedo can be cal- culated with practically no extrapolation for the first time. The phase integral, q, is given by Eq. (3) where luminosity, φ, re- places magnitude. 2π 􏰉 q = φ(α)sin(α)dα. (3) 0 The result for the V filter is qV = 1.35. The spherical albedo, A, being the fraction of total incident light reflected by Venus, is A=pq, (4) which, for the V filter, evaluates to AV = 0.90. The results for the other colors, shown in the table, indicate that the phase in- tegral and spherical albedo are highest in the V filter. This is despite the higher geometric albedo in R. The geometric albedo, phase integral and the spherical albedo derived above are com- pared to historical results in the next section. From what I understand this implies the albedo given is only for visual portion of the EM spectrum and 0.67 & 0.9 are the VISUAL geometric & bond albedo. I don't have a source giving a better albedo but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler-22b#Climate_and_habitability has Venus' equilibrium temperature as 307K which would mean a bond albedo of 0.23 but most place claim Venus' equilibrium temp is 260K which would mean a bond albedo of 0.6 Also most other websites claim an albedo of 0.75 or 0.76. http://www.universetoday.com/36833/albedo-of-venus/ - 0.75 http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/albedo.html - 0.75 http://principles.ou.edu/earth_planet/albedo.htm - 0.76 http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/energybalance/predictedplanetarytemperatures.html - 0.76 http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solar/soldata2.html#c2 - 0.65 http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/1010/SESSIONS/14.ans.html#6c - 0.72 http://www.lcas-astronomy.org/articles/display.php?filename=albedo_effects&category=observing - 0.76 or 0.65 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Googolplexbyte (talk • contribs) 09:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC) I'm not Douglas Cotton, apologies for forgetting to sign my last edit. Also what does it matter who I am, I provided a bunch of sources conflicting with a very specific piece of information on this wikipedia page. I think it's worth finding a better source for Venus' albedo or at least renaming the listed albedo from bond albedo to visual bond albedo. Just writing bond albedo implies it's the bolometric bond albedo, but the source listed mention a v-filter so it most certainly isn't the bolometric bond albedo. Googolplexbyte (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2014

I would like to edit one thing on this page 101.175.46.9 (talk) 10:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Dispute regarding alleged Greenhouse Effect on Venus

WP:NOR

I invite physicists and any other readers with a sound understanding of the physics of radiative heat transfer and thermodynamics to contribute to the discussion of this dispute, which involves a request to remove from the Venus article all reference to the alleged greenhouse effect on Venus. Below is a copy of the summary of the dispute ... Summary of dispute Fact 1: The temperature of the Venus surface (and its troposphere) rise by about 5 degrees (from 732K to 737K) during the course of its four-month-long day. There is cooling of about 5 degrees at night, so Venus could easily have cooled right down but for new energy that must be coming from the Sun. Fact 2: As determined from measurements made by Russian probes dropped to the surface of Venus, the mean incident solar radiation reaching the surface is less than 20 watts per square meter, because the CO2 absorbs most incident solar radiation and radiates energy back to space. Fact 3: If one applies Stefan-Boltzmann calculations for 732K and 737K the difference is about 450 watts per square meter, and so it cannot be direct solar radiation or radiation from the colder atmosphere which is supplying the extra energy into the surface that would be required to raise the surface temperature by 5 degrees. Hence there is no radiative greenhouse effect on Venus which can be explained with any valid energy budget and corresponding Stefan-Boltzmann calculations. (There is a totally different and valid explanation based on standard physics and supported by evidence such as in the Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube but this is not the issue in this dispute.) I contend that all reference to "greenhouse effect" and associated citations should be removed from this article in a manner in which I edited the article last week, so that it contains just factual information about Venus and no unnecessary discussion of other planets or contentious greenhouse claims which are discussed in other Wikipedia articles anyway. I will however watch here for any attempted rebuttal of my points above by anyone with comparable understanding of the physics of radiative heat transfer and thermodynamics. Douglas Cotton (talk) 04:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC) @Douglas Cotton: what reliable sources do you propose using as the basis for these changes to the article? VQuakr (talk) 06:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC) Which of the three facts do you doubt? There is information available on these issues, but let's see where we disagree first. What reliable sources do you or anyone else have to rebut any of these points? The Stefan-Boltzmann calculations, for example, should not be in dispute, are they? What reliable sources did the original author produce in the way of energy budgets and/or Stefan-Boltzmann calculations that might verify that a greenhouse effect might be possible on Venus? The onus is upon Wikipedia to check out the validity of the assumed greenhouse effect on Venus, which is of course fictitious if my quoted figures are even remotely near correct. Douglas Cotton (talk) 08:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC) I use the Second Law of Thermodynamics to confirm that any given location on the equator of Venus must cool by a finite amount during the 4-month-long Venus night. There is information that I have read which states the cooling is 5 degrees from 737K to 732K. The exact amount is not important, however, because there is no indication of any long term cooling in mean temperatures and so we can deduce that the given location will warm back up again by the same amount during the next 4-month-long day. Hence there is net energy entering the surface in the day. So I use the Second Law again to prove that the net energy entering the surface cannot be doing so by way of radiation from the colder atmosphere, because numerous sources (such as this*) indicate that all regions of the atmosphere have lower temperatures than the surface, and the Second Law states that entropy cannot decrease. In addition I then use the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to determine that an incoming solar radiative flux that would be required to raise the surface temperature would be in the vicinity of 14,000 to 16,000 watts per square meter for a realistic surface emissivity in the vicinity of 0.85 to 0.95. I then compare known data pertaining to solar flux reaching the TOA of Venus and state that even all the radiative flux reaching TOA would be far too little to result in a net energy input into the Venus surface. The First Law of Thermodynamics can be used to prove that energy in the total flux entering the Venus surface cannot be increased by any amount by any process (such as back radiation) within the atmosphere, because we cannot get such a huge increase in energy in any given time coming out of the atmosphere than we put into the atmosphere. Hence the concepts assumed in the radiative greenhouse postulate pertaining to Venus do not fall within the laws of physics, and are thus invalid. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0273117785902698 Douglas Cotton (talk) 11:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC) What evidence can the author(s) and/or editors of the article provide which shows any global warming on Venus in the temperature measurements for the Venus surface that have now been recorded for a few decades? If there is any proof of warming due to 96% of CO2 then why would that not indicate far, far lower warming expected for the 0.04% of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere? Douglas Cotton (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC) Douglas Cotton Your logic may or may not be sound, but this type of work greatly exceeds WP:CALC and falls firmly in the WP:NOR bucket. You will need to find someone who has published this research in a WP:RELIABLESOURCE to include it. your jumping straight to Arbitration is likely to WP:BOOMERANG on you, or at a minimum fail early, as you have not gone through the earlier steps in dispute resolution. I suggesst you withdraw the arb request, as it was entirely inappropriate. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC) I don't need to provide evidence that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is correct, nor the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. This is not research: it is just use of the laws of physics. Wikipedia needs to show why they think my use of the laws of physics (which I have known and understood for about 50 years) is incorrect and/or my conclusions incorrect. Douglas Cotton (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC) AND when you find a "reliable source" making the same points you allege in your "original research," then you may cite that source to that effect, but before then you should also disabuse yourself of the fallacious comparison between the rocky core of Uranus overlain by a thick icy mantle under an atmosphere and the solid, rocky body of Venus facing a dense atmosphere of mostly carbon dioxide and nitrogen. Phaedrus7 (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC) Douglas Cotton's response I am not discussing red herrings such as what substances are at what altitudes on what planets, because the temperatures would be very similar regardless. The depths of the Uranus mantle cum core (at around 25% of its radius) are far, far hotter than the surface of Venus, and Uranus is far, far further from the Sun. So you can't explain that, can you? Nor can you explain, as I can, how the required thermal energy gets down into the depths of these atmospheres to cause warming at locations on the "day" side, thus compensating for the energy losses when any particular location passes through the planet's "night." I don't find your "reliable sources" (who made assertive statements about greenhouse effects on Venus without valid proof back in the 1980's) at all reliable. When I study what is written about the so-called greenhouse effect on Venus, I find it to be a complete travesty of physics, filled with guesswork that is quite unmistakably ignoring the maximum entropy conditions associated with the state of thermodynamic equilibrium. Douglas Cotton (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC) Think about this: What happens when a gas is rather transparent to visual light (the bulk of the Sun's energy output), but rather opaque to infrared radiation (the bulk of the thermal radiation of planets)? --JorisvS (talk) 12:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC) Douglas, let's start with the assumption that you are correct, and it is false to claim that the surface temperature of Venus is due to a greenhouse effect. I think that one of the following two statements must be true: Peer-reviewed scientific literature discusses the temperature, explains why it is so high, and excludes the greenhouse effect as the reason Peer-reviewed scientific literature discusses the temperature, but does not demonstrate that the greenhouse effect is an invalid theory. Are there any other options? If the first is true, then we can cite the evidence, and remove the claim. If the second is true, then you have a chance to make a name for yourself by submitting a scientific paper refuting the notion that the cause is a greenhouse effect. Once that paper is accepted and published, we can cite it, and remove the reference.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC) Response to Douglas Cotton: Kindly note that the temperature of the rocky core of Uranus, buried under a great depth of icy mantle, has nothing to do with insolation and its distance from the Sun. How can any scientifically literate editor expect the Sun's radiance to penetrate the great depth of the dense atmosphere and thick icy mantle of Uranus? The high temperature of the rocky core of Uranus can very readily be accounted for by a combination of its residual primordial heat of formation and the heat from ongoing radioactive decay, the same conditions that explain the heat in the metallic core and rocky mantle of the Earth. Phaedrus7 (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC) These are the facts: Uranus is unique in that there is no convincing evidence of net energy output at TOA, so it is not generating internal energy or still cooling off. What happens on Uranus and all planets is more easily understood by considering Venus where we have more measurements. Venus cools 5 degrees at night and warms 5 degrees by day. Energy from the Sun warms it, but the vast majority of that energy gets into the surface by non-radiative processes wherein the state of thermodynamic equilibrium is being restored. (I am not the only author saying this. Two of us quite independently realized back in 2012 that this is the only possible explanation. Other physicists now agree we are right. Many others now know Loschmidt was right about the gravito-thermal effect (now demonstrated in a Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube) and our hypothesis depends on that. But 99.9% of "scientists" don't really understand thermodynamics and radiative heat transfer.) Downward convection (diffusion and advection) is totally in keeping with the process described in statements of the second law of thermodynamics when temperature inversions occur and hydrostatic equilibrium is disrupted, and you cannot prove otherwise. The atmosphere of Venus is almost totally opaque to incoming solar radiation. The Russians dropped probes to the surface and found that it receives only about 10% of the solar radiation received by the Earth's surface. How does it warm up? If by radiation, that would need 14,000 to 16000 watts per square meter from a source that is hotter than the surface, namely the Sun. There is no radiative greenhouse effect on Venus, and never was. All planets warm on their sunlit side. Radiative flux from their tropospheres cannot be added to that from the Sun when using Stefan-Boltzmann calculations to determine planetary surface temperatures. It will never work, because it is overlooking downward convection into the surface. All reference to a greenhouse effect on Venus is based on 1980's assertive assumptions and is not reliable and in defiance of the laws of physics. It should be removed, and if not, Wikipedia should expect adverse publicity about the issue. You cannot get more energy out of the base of the atmosphere than the Sun puts in at the top. Douglas Cotton (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC) See http://judithcurry.com/2014/04/03/open-thread-9/#comment-513142 or: http://joannenova.com.au/2014/04/global-warming-not-so-bad-at-all-really-says-nipcc-report-and-thousands-of-references/#comment-1418019 Douglas Cotton (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC) Are you seriously linking to your comments on another site as a source?!?!!?!? Sailsbystars (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC) I sympathize with Douglas here. The temperatures on Venus (both at the surface, and also at the 1 bar level where it is comparable to earth) can be perfectly explained by thermodynamic considerations alone. There is no need for a greenhouse effect, and older literature doesn't mention any. I find it sad to see that there exist researchers that speculate about greenhouse effect on venus and in doing so produce "reliable sources" that can in turn be used in a wikipedia article, while common sense does not count as a "reliable source" (but so are the rules on Wiki). Let me put it this way for all to see: if you were to dig a 40 km deep hole on earth, so that the pressure of the air column on the bottom of that hole reaches conditions like that on venus, you'd also see temperatures like that on venus. Just from the weight of the air column alone, not counting the fact that of course, at that depth, you'd also reach earth magma. OTOH, at the 1 bar level in venus atmosphere the temperature is comparable to that on the surface of earth, but a little hotter. But venus is also closer to the sun and if you plug in the numbers the temperature difference is exactly explainable from thermodynamics alone, no greenhouse effect is needed. 87.193.194.192 (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC) I read the article again and I find the wording is very disingenuous. It says "The CO2-rich atmosphere ... generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System ..." (this may very well be true) "... creating surface temperatures of at least 462 °C" (which is also true). Taken together this wording creates the impression that the conditions on venues are hellish as they are because of the greenhouse effect (and by extension "look to venus, all you puny humans on earth, lest you not repent, this is how you will end up"). Creating this impression may be intentional, even from good intentions, but this is factually wrong, and should have no place in a Wiki article on planet Venus. 87.193.194.192 (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Orbit of Venus

Hi. Someone has created this orphaned article. Is it a duplicate? Can someone link to it? or redirect it? Thanks Gbawden (talk) 07:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I created it. I created the Mars one and I'm currently working of a Mercury orbit one. I know how to link it, and I guess I will soon. But I haven't been interested in doing so yet, because it needs improvement.

It is not a duplicate. I made a point of not copying from the other Wikipedia articles, except for my contributions.

Saros136 (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Opening Sentence needs tweaking

"Venus is the second planet from the Sun, orbiting it at .7 AU every 224.7 Earth days." - Benjamin Franklin 65.34.130.188 (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Galileo discovered the Phases of Venus in 1610

The article says that Galileo discovered the phases of Venus in the early 17th century and then lists exact dates for other Venus discoveries. It should include "Galileo discovered the phases of Venus in 1610." (Did I get that year correct?) - Benjamin Franklin 65.34.130.188 (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2014

Citation for "During the Soviet Venera program, the Venera 11 and Venera 12 probes detected a constant stream of lightning, and Venera 12 recorded a powerful clap of thunder soon after it landed."

Ksanfomaliti, L. V. et al. Pis'jma Astr. Zh. 5, 229−236 (1979).

Jhmadden (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 01:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess he just wants you to add a ref after that quoted sentence Tetra quark (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, add the ref given for the sentence in quotes. "change X to Y" X=no citation Y=citation Jhmadden (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2014

Under current and future missions please replace the date "2014" with "2016" when referring to the ESA's BepiColombo mission as 2014 is incorrect with 2016 being the projected launch year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndicaXSS (talk • contribs) 08:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC) Reference: http://sci.esa.int/bepicolombo/47346-fact-sheet/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.159.76 (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Done  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  18:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Main image

Shouldn't the main image represent what the planet actually looks like, instead of a false-colour radar image without clouds? Serendi^podous 22:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps. Tetra quark (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd like to see it switched back, and plan to do so in the next couple weeks if there are no objections. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Torchiest: Now that the image has been changed, I started to miss the old one. The previous image is just a surface view from a radar, but it looks so much better :/ Tetra quark ^(talk) 14:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The HAVOC proposal

Should the article mention NASA's HAVOC proposal (High Altitude Venus Operational Concept)? A summary by NASA as well as a video can be viewed at http://sacd.larc.nasa.gov/branches/space-mission-analysis-branch-smab/smab-projects/havoc/

Mhklein (talk) 06:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think a speculative mission belongs in the main Venus article. IMO, the perfect place for it is in this table. A2soup (talk) 06:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Venus twin to earth

Venus which is near to the earth, and is not a suitable place to get settled due to high pressure and temperature according to recent research. Some notices about this planet can be studied from this website: [6]. --MansourJE (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, up in its atmosphere the conditions are relatively benign. The website you point to actually hints to that. --JorisvS (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Formation of Venus

There is a lot of information on Venus but no subtitle which outlines how this object formed. As well, how exactly would an object, so called Earth's twin, have such different features such as no strong global magnetic field, active plate tectonics, water oceans or life? Seems to me we are studying an object which is NOT Earth's twin.Wavyinfinity (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

In culture - Change this title to - In culture and religious thought

Add the following second paragraph to this section (paragraph will sit right above the Etymology section).

A book published by Christian thinkers in 2014 titled Venus: Don't Go There - What Science and Religion Reveal about Life after Death presents the planet Venus as an appropriate biblical model for where condemned souls go after the Day of Judgment. The text argues that heaven, hell, and the lake of fire exist in material form within space and time and are not just abstract ideas. </ref> BlueInk Book Review Services </ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeltsantini (talk • contribs) 21:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't seem very notable, and anyway, the Bible depicts Hell as a lake of burning sulphur, and as everyone knows, suphur boils at 445 C, meaning that Venus is actually hotter than Hell. Serendi^podous 08:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

surface image of Venus

I know the current image shows Venus as it actually looks like, but it is blurry and is low quality. The previous one, although possibly misleading, was much better looking. I would change it back Tetra quark ^(talk) 14:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I wondered why these images weren't included: surface of venus (taken by the Russian Venera-13 probe in 1982). I also couldn't find those on wikimedia commons. Why is that? If they really aren't up there I guess someone should contact the copyright-holder or something. --Fixuture (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It could have something to do with the copyright status of those images. I hope not, the article is not complete without an image like that. --JorisvS (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

If that's the case I guess we / someone should contact the copyright holder... --Fixuture (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It does have to do with the copyright status. Essentially, all Venus surface images are owned by Roscosmos and can only be used under a fair use rationale (which is why they can't be hosted on Commons). Following deletion of the best image (which was the same one suggested here) from Commons ([7]), I added the current image as non-free content ([8]), choosing it specifically to be entirely uncontroversial with regard to fair use.

If you want to try to substitute a better image under fair use, I would recommend first talking to someone knowledgable on the subject like User:Huntster. A2soup (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. But do you know if someone already contacted Roscosmos about whether or not they'd be willing to "open source" / change the copyright-status of these images? --Fixuture (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not knowledgeable or bold enough to enter negotiations with the Russian government on the issue, but feel free to try yourself. I (and another user) recently tried something similar with ESA about a Mars image and got an apologetic negative response (see discussion here).

I may come through later, though, and change the current image to a reduced-resolution version of the image you proposed. It would be a bit more controversial, but still allowable (I think). The whole fair use thing is very fuzzy. A2soup (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I doubt anyone has contacted Roscosmos about this specific issue, but they do not release images under a free license as a policy. I've never known of an exemption to that. Also, if folks don't like the current infobox image, why not move File:Venuspioneeruv.jpg into its place? It looks significantly better to me. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not the infobox image, but an image by a lander. The only currently included image [9] is just ridiculous, it does not tell the reader half of what is possible. Can't we use one decent image under fair use? --JorisvS (talk) 08:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was primarily replying about the surface image, but I thought someone had asked about the global image as well, which is why I mentioned it. I must have misread something. Regarding the surface image, it doesn't matter which image is used or from what mission. If you have a preference, lay it out. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

True, this thread seems to have originally started about the infobox image, but then quickly went on about an image from the surface. No one seeks to change the current infobox picture, AFAIK. I probably like almost any image from the surface better than the current one, including the one linked above (in the first response). --JorisvS (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Retrograde rotation versus animation

The animation in the article shows Venus rotating counter-clockwise together with other planets but the text speaks about retrograde rotation. Pavlix (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't show Venus rotating counter-clockwise: it shows Venus revolving counter-clockwise. The terms are confusing, but unfortunately pretty standard. Double sharp (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

surface geology / volcanoes

"Much of the Venusian surface appears to have been shaped by volcanic activity. Venus has several times as many volcanoes as Earth, and it possesses 167 large volcanoes that are over 100 km across. The only volcanic complex of this size on Earth is the Big Island of Hawaii."

What about Kerguelen and Iceland, or do they not count because they're not single volcanoes? 93.103.55.68 (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is the reference for the statement. If there are other sites to be added, we'll need suitable references. Praemonitus (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Which way is north?

We say that the axial tilt is 177 degrees, but also that the rotation is retrograde. Can't be both. So, is Ishtar Terra in the northern hemisphere per right-hand rule, or per the hemisphere north of the equatorial plane?

Okay, I see on that article that Ishtar is "really" in the south. I explained that as per the right-hand rule, and tagged it for citation. If Ishtar is in the north per this article due to taking the rotation as retrograde, then the axial tilt is 3 degrees, not 177. (That is, we should choose the axial tilt that results in the same "north" as we show on the maps we use.) Will change the info box. — kwami (talk) 05:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

orbital params fail verification

We cite two refs for the orbital params. Perhaps they disagree? because the figures we use contradict the Venus Fact Sheet. (I can't access the other.) I'll change the figures to match. If you revert me, please add the ref to each figure, and explain here why they disagree. Our rotational period in days did not match the period in years, presumably because they were from different sources. Thanks. — kwami (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Venus's rotation has noticeably slowed in the sixteen years between Magellan and Venus Express, which may explain the difference. I think it is best to include the periods as determined by both spacecraft in the infobox for clarity. --JorisvS (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, but we should also clearly discuss this in the text, so readers don't need to guess what we mean. — kwami (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Axial tilt

The infobox is not just about figure we use. It is a summary of data. Axial tilt as defined by the right-hand rule, i.e. systematically, is not something to be relegated to a note, regardless of which convention is used in the article. --JorisvS (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Anything in the box should not be at odds with the text. Rotation and tilt had been in conflict. Then you had two tilts but only one rotation. If we have two axial tilts, we need two rotations to match. But we don't need both, because they're interdependent: the hand-rule defines the polarity of the rotation. You see this in RS's. I don't think it's necessary to specify that the rotational period of Venus is both −244 days (retrograde) and +244 days (prograde). — kwami (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Orbital period

Maybe I'm nitpicking, but it confuses the hell out of me, and I don't know what to do for now or where to ask. So which is it? 224.7 or 224.65? and if they are both right, please add the info there, maybe there are 2 different numbers for 2 different points of view, but I am not aware at this detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by If.mihai (talk • contribs) 11:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed. You're quite right to go here. The Fact Sheet (ref 2) says 224.701 d and the "224.65 d"s are either near that ref or near no ref, so I changed those to say 224.7 d. --JorisvS (talk) 12:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Venus pentagram

THIS ARTICLE SHOULD INCLUDE the following from pentagram... The Venus pentagram is the path that Venus makes as observed from Earth with the naked eye as being a 40-year cycle with a 40-day regression. Successive inferior conjunctions of Venus repeat very near a 13:8 orbital resonance (The Earth orbits 8 times for every 13 orbits of Venus), shifting 144° upon sequential inferior conjunctions. The resonance 13:8 ratio is approximate. 8/13 is approximately 0.615385 while Venus orbits the Sun in 0.615187 years (224.7 days / 7.4 average Earth months [30.4 days]).The Pentagram of Venus. It was the ancients' observation of the 'wandering star' of the Planet Venus that historically gave us the association of the pentagram with the 5-pointed star. 69.180.104.60 (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I added a section, but in regards to ancient observations and pentagram inferences, we're going to need some sources. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

OP is a sock of User:Brad Watson, Miami -- WP:RBI. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Venus Days

I think one day on Venus is 243 earth days, not 117. Please check this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.190.183 (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It depends on whether you are talking about sidereal days, which is the time that it takes to spin around relative to background stars, or the synodic days which are the time it takes to spin around relative to the sun. Due to Venus's retrograde rotation, the synodic day on Venus is much shorter (117 earth days) than the sidereal day (243 Earth days). A venus day is about the same length as a venus year, so venus spins around about half way in half a year. But since it's going backward the sun is now on the same side as it started on because venus is on the opposite side of the sun. So the article is correct, but the reason why is complicated. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

No green house effect on Venus

"The CO2-rich atmosphere, along with thick clouds of sulfur dioxide, generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System, creating surface temperatures of at least 735 K (462 °C)"

This is all wrong. It is not the physical surface of Venus receiving solar radiation (altough that is where the highest temperatures are yielded), but higher layers of the thick atmosphere. The sunlight does not reach the actual surface. In those "thermodynamically active" atmospheric layers, that both receive solar radiation and deradiate heat back into space, we have quite moderate temperatures, compareable to earth. Which is to be expected, given by comparison to Earth, Venus' higher albedo allmost perfectly compensates for its closer vicinity to the sun. So if at all, there is only a weak "green house effect" in these atmospheric layers. The very low temperatures above, and the very high temperatures below however get both perfectly explained by the effects of adiabatic (de-)compression. That is: compressing gases will heat them up, decompressing cools them down. Temperature distribution within Venus atmosphere perfectly represents this well known physical principle. It is a way hard to understand, how psychics is being traded for fairy tales in this context. (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

By this logic it would be impossible to have high pressures gasses at low temperatures. Your statement sounds a lot like a common climate change denial argument. We had a discussion about it a while back at Temp w/o greenhouse effect?; the physics haven't changed since then. VQuakr (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

So there are some posts pointing to the fact of an adiabatic temperature profile, which is perfectly right. And there some posts arguing that psychics may not be discussed because it could raise skepticism? Serious!? So we skip the science for politics? What is that .. wikipedia of the dark age? Leitwolf22 (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Physics explains the runaway greenhouse effect in Venus without relying on pressure only. If you want to contradict this scientific fact, you may want to use a forum dedicated to that. Thanks. BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

We are not falsifying an argument by ignoring the argument. Much more the inability to even take on the argument speaks a lot for it self. Furthermore we can finally make the case definite by comparing Venus' temperature profile to the ones of other planets with similar or stronger atmospheres. We have some of those, and they are called gas giants. Interestingly the "surface" of a gas giant is defined by the atmospheric layer at 1 bar. As the Venus surface has a pressure of 92 bar it is, by a doubtful definition, the deepest surface in our solar system.

As the temperature profile on Uranus shows, gas giants are showing just the same temperature profile as Venus does. You may just as well want to google temperature profiles for Jupiter, Saturn or Neptune, which all show the pattern as Venus does. And that is not due to any green house effect, but solely and exclusively to the physical principles named above.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Uranus#/media/File:Tropospheric_profile_Uranus_new.svg

I think it is hard to imagine to bring up more evidence and to make a point clearer and more undisputable than I have done it here. The only question is, whether wikipedia shall be about facts and science, or about politics. Leitwolf22 (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Your concept of what Wikipedia is is mistaken. It is about quoting reliable references, and you show none. BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding what greenhouse effect means. Greenhouse effect is a measure of how much heat is lost compared to heat gained, not the source of the heat. Heat at the surface of Venus is unable to escape due to the insulating properties of the carbon dioxide atmosphere. You are correct that the source of thermal energy is not solar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.241.226.70 (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't we use a non-IR image? The one by MESSENGER for example

This one: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3317/3447783055_7201387b94_o.png

This is much more closer to what our eyes would see. The image on the article is half-IR, you would never see those yellow clouds on real life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.106.81 (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I think a change would be in order if you can find a MESSENGER image with a slightly larger frame (so that nothing is cut off), and have a link to the image on a NASA page where it says that it shows actual visible spectrum data, not false color. If you can provide those two things, I will happily change the image. A2soup (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

News on nasa website (low res image tho):

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/multimedia/venus_flyby.html

PIA image (this is black and white, doesn't have the minimal reflection shades by the sun's light tho):

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA10124

The one I posted is the color version with the color filter applied after the original. There is not a version which a larger frame I think, but even if not full frame, that is, by far, the best image of Venus ever taken. I wish we had better tho :(. Venus is that white ball, it has mostly no details at all, thats why they used it to calibrate camera for mercury :) We would see Venus as the first comment image if we were that close, sun reflect included.

The one in the article now is cool yea but it's using both RGB and IR channels from Mariner 10. Those yellows are cool but they're absolutely impossible to see with our eyes, since you need infrared vision for that. Maybe I didn't aport absolutely all the info needed for the MESSENGER one, but I honestly think that we'll still be better using that image since the actual one is way less real anyway. I would respect your opinion anyway! Thanks!

PS: I just see that Akatsuki took also a (black and white) real color photo of Venus:

http://cnet4.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2015/12/09/bccd7491-ac30-4f00-bdcd-84f78cf47924/resize/970x546/3bd645efd2cf5ddeca52172945a30f92/akatsukivenus2.jpg

It's cool, not much quality, but considering that it is one of the real few images we have from real color venus... it's sad.

81.184.65.162 (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2015

Under the section Colonization and terraforming

The sentance, " The atmospheric pressure and temperature approximately fifty kilometres above the surface are similar to those at Earth's surface and Earth air (nitrogen and oxygen) would be a lifting gas in the Venusian atmosphere of mostly carbon dioxide." should be split. The sentence is confusing as it discusses two different topics; conditions at 50 km and how a balloon would use standard Earth air as a lifting gas. I recommend the following:

The atmospheric pressure and temperature approximately fifty kilometers above the surface are similar to those at Earth's surface. In Venus's mostly carbon dioxide atmosphere Earth's air (nitrogen and oxygen) would act as a lifting gas.

63.241.226.70 (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Done Mz7 (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Venus can cast shadows on Earth and the Ancients regarded this with strong religious significance: Hebrews' Shekinah

The opening paragraph states, "(Venus) casts shadows." This is not accurate enough. It should read "(Venus) can cast shadows on Earth and the Ancients regarded this with strong religious significance. Even the mystic Hebrews who with their One God worship didn't treat the 7 Classical Planets as gods like their neighbors, viewed the light of Venus as the Holy Shekinah. 69.180.104.60 (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Not accurate? I would agree that it would be more accurate to say that the light from Venus is strong enough on Earth to cast a shadow, as the light from any planet would be strong enough to cast a shadow somewhere in space, but the Hebrew word "Shekinah" seems to refer to something that happens only occasionally, such as at the time of a conjunction of Venus and Mercury.[10][[11]. You would need a citation from a wp:reliable source to add something like that. Richerman (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Striking sock edit - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brad Watson, Miami. Doug Weller talk 17:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Italicizing craft

Huntster, why do you feel it is ok to ignore NASA style guidelines re. italicizing? Considering they named the probes in the first place, it seems right to follow their system. I haven't seen anything in the MOS covering this. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 18:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Why should we follow them? We create our own to facilitate a more unified encyclopedic appearance. Regardless, due to the extremely widespread nature of this formatting style on the site, I suggest you take the issue to WT:WikiProject Spaceflight to gain consensus if you feel this is such a major issue. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hillbillyholiday, additionally, please go back and restore the formatting that you changed until you find consensus. Such sweeping changes are inappropriate to unilaterally impose. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

All the articles I changed were inconsistent with their italiciaztion and many I looked at were already in the non-italic form (e.g. Apollo program or Mariner 9), so I won't be reverting myself just yet. I agree it would be a good idea to bring up at the spaceflight project, I'll do that tomorrow. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 20:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and started the discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spaceflight#Italics_for_spacecraft_names.3F. A2soup (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

We have our own standard - see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting. This kind of mass change is rarely useful and often divisive.Rmhermen (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

So...the atmosphere is...?

Sulfur dioxide, or carbon dioxide? Hard to tell from the article. Pic caption says sulfur, body says carbon.Gimelgort (talk) 04:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Atmosphere is carbon dioxide with sulfur dioxide clouds (although the total sulfur dioxide content is <0.1%). It seems that whoever wrote the caption thinks sulfur dioxide is the opaque yellow part, and I think they're right, although I'll check. Feel free to rewrite stuff if you think you can improve the clarity. A2soup (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The article says that the surface is obscured by sulfuric acid clouds not sulfur dioxide. The caption is wrong. If someone doesn't fix it I will. Dr. Morbius (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

According to Atmosphere of Venus, Venus's clouds are sulphur dioxide with sulphuric acid droplets mixed in. The atmosphere as a whole is mostly CO2. Serendi^podous 16:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Exploration section may be too long

It seems to largely duplicate much of Observations and explorations of Venus rather than summarise it. Maybe need to sync them and condense this summary (if that is what we want) ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea. Serendi^podous 16:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, massive duplication. I'm on it to create a summary, per MOS' WP:SPLIT. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Why is an IR (fake color) being used as article photo?

The one from MESSENGER (http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpegMod/PIA10124_modest.jpg) or PIA10124 in Nasa JPL's PhotoJournal is a real color image from Venus: the white ball that really is to our eyes, not the IR clouds painted in yellow over it.

If we are using real color images for all the planets, Venus should also have its one, not an half-IR fake image from Mariner.

The infobox image has been processed so that it approximates what the eye would see, though the clouds are a little more enhanced. However, it is still superior to the MESSANGER one as it is a full globe image rather than being cut off on one side. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2016

I would like to be able to edit. -Emilyjones14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilyjones14 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Once your account is four days old and you have made 10 edits, you will be. Ruslik_Zero 20:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Symbol

On the bagua, Venus is associated with the trigram image of the lake. The lake, a concentrated reflective body analogous to a man-made mirror. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.0.237.58 (talk) 04:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2017

Venus' Bond albedo value should be changed to either 0.77 or 0.8, compare discussion section. 129.13.156.135 (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done I have changed it to the NASA fact sheet value, as secondary sources are preferred and the value is more precise. Great job spotting the error!! A2soup (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I suspect this articles Bond albedo to be wrong

The paper source for Bond Albedo does calculate the Albedo only for a specific visual wavelength band to be 0.9. However, the General Bond Albedo should be given for the full solar spectrum. The wrong Bond albedo in this article leads to consistently wrong calculations of Venus' radiation equilibrium temperature elsewhere in wikipedia and the web, because Albedo in such calculations is very crucial. This NASA fact sheet http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html states 0.77 for Venus' Bond Albedo. I agree that there could be better citable sources, however just check the source given at the moment and you will find that only a relatively narrow-band Bond albedo is described in the source. --129.13.156.135 (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I have found this source: "Spectroscopy of planetary atmospheres in our Galaxy", authors: Giovanna Tinetti, Thérèse Encrenaz & Athena Coustenis, stating 0.8 for Venus' albedo (NASA: 0.77). --129.13.156.135 (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I have changed the value as noted in the edit request section below. Thanks so much for spotting this! You have probably noticed that the infobox also cites a "geometric albedo" from the same paper that game the narrow-band Bond albedo. I don't know how geometric albedo differs from Bond albedo, but is that value accurate or also only for a specific wavelength? A2soup (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, never mind. The NASA fact sheet also gives a geometric albedo - I will just change it to that value. A2soup (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Venus Bond, spherical and geometric albedo there seem to be differing values for identical albedo types (e.g. "geometric") in the literature, so that I am really confused now. And NASA has been definitely changing its fact sheet over time. I hope - as best available experts - they are correct now. --129.13.156.135 (talk) 10:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I hope so too. As they are a reliable secondary source, they are preferred over any specific albedo reports in the primary literature. A2soup (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for editing and co-deciding A2soup! Best regards --129.13.156.135 (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Rotation phrasing

Venus's rotation has slowed down by 6.5 min per Venusian sidereal day in the 16 years between the Magellan spacecraft and Venus Express visits.[98]

Venus's rotation has slowed down in the 16 years between the Magellan spacecraft and Venus Express visits, making the Venusian sidereal day 6.5 minutes longer.[98]

Original sentence is poorly written, is Venus's sidereal day 6.5 minutes or 2.6 hours slower today? Reference states 6.5 minutes but some napkin math based on that 'per' clause could lead someone to believe otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.109.145.48 (talk) 07:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I've change the wording in the article per this request, though slightly modified. I wasn't quite satisfied with using the word "making" in the article. Let me know if there's any further changes needed. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Earth Venus Pentagram is Heliocentric

In the image on the right side it says:

The pentagram of Venus. Earth is positioned at the centre of the diagram, and the curve represents the direction and distance of Venus as a function of time.

This is incorrect. The Sun is positioned at the centre of the diagram. To understand why, see this animation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metasintactic (talk • contribs) 05:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Metasintactic, here's the thing: the image can represent *both* a Geocentric and Heliocentric view (and, I believe, it works in a Cytherocentric model as well). It's kind of nifty like that. Your video shows the Heliocentric view, but the citation at https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2014/01/04/the-pentagram-of-venus/ shows the Geocentric view. The question is which description better serves our readers so they understand what's going on. So, here's the two captions together:

• Original, Geocentric: The pentagram of Venus. Earth is positioned at the centre of the diagram, and the curve represents the direction and distance of Venus as a function of time.
• Proposed, Heliocentric: The pentagram of Venus. This diagram represents the direction and distance between Venus and Earth as they orbit the Sun. Each point shows the center of motion between the two planets.

So, which provides the better educational and comprehensive value? — Huntster (t @ c) 22:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Huntster, my feeling is that the heliocentric model is more clear because using a geocentric model implies that venus is orbiting the earth, which clearly it does not. The video animation I provided clearly illustrates the motion that's depicted in this image. I have seen various written claims that it works geocentrically, but I've not seen any illustration or animation which explains how this geometry is arrived at from that perspective. I wouldn't have brought it up were it otherwise. — Metasintactic (t @ c) 10:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Metasintactic, I have no problem using a Heliocentric model, but we have to find an image or animation that is freely licensed. But as to the different models, it doesn't matter which you choose, they'll all show the same orbital paths. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Huntster, I don't see there's any problem sticking with the existing image. All that needs to change is the text underneath. Also, though I realise wikipedia tends to frown on using external links, this is one case where I feel the link to the youtube video above would provide an invaluable context to help people understand precisely what's depicted. I'd appreciate your thoughts on that also. — Metasintactic (t @ c) 07:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Venus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://chemistry.unina.it/~alvitagl/solex/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060929003116/http://sse.jpl.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Venus&Display=Facts&System=Metric to http://sse.jpl.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Venus&Display=Facts&System=Metric

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Venus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071016161443/http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/interplanetaryseasons.html to http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/interplanetaryseasons.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20000817181616/http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/TYPE/venus2.html to http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/TYPE/venus2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hellish Atmosphere and Electric Winds

Recent Discoveries regarding Venus Atmosphere indicate that a powerful electric wind stripped all water from the planet by breaking down water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen atoms.

"Add this to the list of reasons Venus is a blistering hellscape: not only is the surface hot enough to melt lead, not only will the sulfuric acid rainstorms burn gaping holes in your partially-melted spaceship, it’s got a monstrous electric wind that appears to have helped strip all the water out of the atmosphere. Good luck gardening in your cloud city. Scientists have long suspected that all planets with an atmosphere also have an electric field, generated by a layer of charged particles in the upper atmosphere called the ionosphere. But so far, on every planet where we’ve looked, including our own, we’ve been unable to detect it. The working theory is that these electric fields are very, very weak—Earth’s is thought to be in the range of one to two volts. Venus is different. “Venus’ electric field is enormous—it’s a monster lurking in the sky,” said Glyn Collinson, lead author on a study published today in Geophysical Research Letters which used data collected by the ESA’s Venus Express mission to measure that electric field for the very first time.[12]

Reverted block evasion

by Brad Watson (Miami) Doug Weller talk 06:58, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Venus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151214005503/https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2014/01/04/the-pentagram-of-venus/ to https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2014/01/04/the-pentagram-of-venus
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120711103532/http://link.aip.org/link/?APCPCS/654/1193/1 to http://link.aip.org/link/?APCPCS%2F654%2F1193%2F1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

TFA rerun

Any objections to throwing this article into the pile of potential TFA reruns for this year and next? Any cleanup needed? If it helps, here's a list of dead or dubious links. - Dank (push to talk) 23:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

(The only dubious link today is at researchgate.net.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The link in question seems to be working for me, though. I don't have any objections to re-running this. Double sharp (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Some of the text is missing references (the second paragraph in Observation, and the end of the first paragraph in Early studies). This can be a problem when we're scheduling an article at TFA; I generally ask for comments on reruns at WT:TFA, and I'll leave that up to the commenters. - Dank (push to talk) 21:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Venus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100526121353/http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/20227/1/98-1117.pdf to http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/20227/1/98-1117.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)