Venus Was Never Habitable
Venus has bad news and bad news: it was never Earthlike
and models to determine its habitability are unreliable
The habitability of “Earth’s evil twin” has long revolved around the question of whether Venus ever had water. Because of their thinking based on hydrobioscopy, secular scientists had hoped that Perelandra was a lush land of tropical forests and maybe even dinosaurs. That was until December 1962, when Mariner 2 and subsequent landers discovered Venus to be a hothouse from hell, with temperatures of up to 900 degrees Fahrenheit on the surface under a crushing poisonous atmosphere.
Still hoping against hope, hydrobioscopists had theorized that Venus might have been habitable in its geologic past. Those hopes were sunk further in a new paper published 13 Oct 2021 in Nature by Turbet et al., “Day–night cloud asymmetry prevents early oceans on Venus but not on Earth.”
The authors note that Venus today is “completely dry” and “has undergone global resurfacing events that obscure most of its history.” How can one determine, therefore, whether it had water before the obscuration? The authors think computer models can do it.
Here we show using three-dimensional global climate model simulations of early Venus and Earth that water clouds—which preferentially form on the nightside, owing to the strong subsolar water vapour absorption—have a strong net warming effect that inhibits surface water condensation even at modest insolations (down to 325 watts per square metre, that is, 0.95 times the Earth solar constant). This shows that water never condensed and that, consequently, oceans never formed on the surface of Venus.
Bad News #2
Secular scientists with a moyboy fixation knew from their models of stellar evolution that the young sun would have given off 30% less heat when the Earth was assumed to be forming. This “faint young sun paradox” led them to worry about Earth forming as an ice ball, never able to melt into today’s habitable paradise. The new model suggests an opposite outcome: the Earth narrowly escaped a similar fate to that of Venus.
Furthermore, this shows that the formation of Earth’s oceans required much lower insolation than today, which was made possible by the faint young Sun. This also implies the existence of another stability state for present-day Earth: the ‘steam Earth’, with all the water from the oceans evaporated into the atmosphere.
A press release from the University of Switzerland at Bern (lead author Martin Turbet’s institution) explains that even less insolation at the birth of our home could have led to a steam-house Earth. The real bad news, however, is the realization that models are unreliable. Previous models gave the complete opposite prediction. Co-author Emeline Bolmont remarks,
“this is a complete reversal in the way we look at what has long been called the ‘Faint Young Sun paradox’. It has always been considered as a major obstacle to the appearance of life on Earth! ” The argument was that if the Sun’s radiation was much weaker than today, it would have turned the Earth into a ball of ice hostile to life. “But it turns out that for the young, very hot Earth, this weak Sun may have in fact been an unhoped-for opportunity,” continues the researcher.
So was the ice-ball Earth a scientific truth before this model was published? Or is this new model now the truth? How could one ever be sure without a time machine to go back and see what the young Earth and Venus were like when they formed? Computers and simulations are not time machines. They are totally dependent on the input and the assumptions programmed into them. This means that another university’s researchers could some day produce a different model with different assumptions that comes up with different conclusions from these. After all, the previous two models, looking at the same planet with the same data, completely contradicted each other.
Even if futurists could build time machines, they might hit a wall trying to go back before 6,000 BC.