Venus and Earth, twin planets? I'll tell you how it really happened!
Earth and Venus are often called "different twins". Although they have many differences,
they are undoubtedly the two most similar planets in our solar system. In fact,
they are about the same size, composition, and density. Venus is the second planet in the
solar system from the Sun. Earth is the third. Although Venus is closer to the Sun than Earth
and therefore more exposed to solar radiation, it was once in the so-called habitable zone,
the region of the Solar System where water in a liquid state can exist. This is because
our young Sun was smaller and warmer than today, allowing for the presence of water and, who knows,
the solar system's first life forms on this very planet that is so inhospitable today.
However, a recent study seems to contradict this hypothesis, stating that the conditions
on Venus never allowed for the formation of rain and, consequently, an ocean of water.
Aside from the ocean, some NASA simulations of the planet's evolution suggest that
Venus has had Earth-like temperatures (20-50°C) for about three billion years.
So why is it so uninhabitable today? What caused the drastic climate change on Venus?
How and why did such an Earth-like planet end up so different?
Don't listen to the "global warming" alarmists, carbon dioxide is not to blame...
Follow me and I will explain everything to you...
There would always be a lot to say about Venus, her extraordinary atmosphere and clouds
capable of raining sulfur compounds and causing a hundred other phenomena worthy of a horror movie.
Let us remember, however, that the evolutionary history of Venus is still
far from being fully elucidated, especially if we go into detail,
and we would therefore run the risk of making assumptions and nothing more.
So let us stick to the essentials, which are more than enough to show us the fundamental
characteristics of a sister so equal and so different; and above all, let us try to debunk
certain fanciful interpretations of scientific institutes, which clearly only want to support the
catastrophist view of our sisterhood with Venus. Indeed, it is always good to remember that,
contrary to what we have been taught, science is not always neutral in its conclusions.
But let's move on... We have said that Earth and Venus were born in the same region of the
Solar System as almost twin sisters, and thus formed from the same primordial planetesimals,
with slight variations in chemical composition. Theoretically, these two planets were destined
for almost identical evolution, but even the evolution of a planet is governed by chaos, and
very small differences in environmental conditions can cause huge differences in the final outcome.
We know very well that if a butterfly flaps its wings in the Himalayas, it will
probably rain in Calcutta tomorrow. For all the simplistic exaggerations given to this concept,
very small differences can actually cause huge differences over longer or shorter time scales.
Both planets were formed by the "cold" aggregation of dust particles - first by electrostatic
attraction and then, as the particles grew larger, by gravitational attraction.
In fact, contrary to what is often stated, all planetary cores form at low temperatures.
Only in the immediate vicinity of the protostar in formation does the heat gradually increase
due to the gravitational compression of gas and dust, while in the rest of the accretion disk,
the temperature remains virtually unchanged. The process that leads a protoplanet to heat
up is fueled by other factors. The first is the decay of radioactive elements trapped in the core;
the second is the continuous bombardment of the surface by comets and asteroids.
As the surface is heated and reshaped by the impacts, the heat emanating from
the core propagates more or less rapidly outward depending on the diameter and mass of the planet;
and being formed of the same material and having the same mass, heat propagation
was very similar for both Earth and Venus. After a hundred million years after formation,
however, things began to change--the surface crust of the two planets began to solidify, while the
internal heat manifested itself by promoting the rise of magma through volcanic conduits.
The original atmosphere of the two planets, which was light and composed only of hydrogen,
had already been blown away by the solar wind, which began to blow impetuously as soon as
the young star succeeded in activating the nuclear fusion process inside it.
Increasing volcanic activity, however, took to pouring heavy gases outward,
creating a second-generation atmosphere far more resistant to the force of the solar wind,
which, moreover, had now become quite weak.
And it was at this point that for the two planets, the paths began to diverge... Although small,
there was indeed a temperature difference between Venus and Earth.
Small for the first fairly turbulent and agitated phases,
but large enough to be felt as the planets began their slower and more regular evolution.
On Earth, in fact, the rocks had solidified quickly and were forming large basins where the
water brought in by comets was able to maintain its liquid state and was increasing more and more,
thanks in part to the rains that were unleashed for millennia as
the water vapor condensed due to cooling. Volcanoes kept spewing out carbon dioxide
and nitrogen, but on Earth, this was not a problem... a heavy gas like carbon dioxide
was settling to the ground and being absorbed by both rocks and the oceans that were forming.
And in that increasingly less hostile environment, it happened one day (even though it was a process
that lasted a million years, there must have been a single moment when it all began...don't
you think?),that life began to proliferate and enrich the atmosphere with oxygen.
And on Venus? On Venus, unfortunately, cooling proceeded much more slowly.
The rocks remained semi-fluid and still very hot, and in that state, they could not collect
and retain the water brought by cometary impacts. In fact, under those conditions, the liquid could
do nothing but instantaneously change to a gaseous state in the form of water vapor.
Although the Sun at that time was 30 percent fainter than it is now,
this would not have been enough to reduce the temperature of the young celestial body
enough to allow the formation of oceans. To give rise to vast expanses of water,
the temperature of its atmosphere would have had to decrease enough for the liquid to
condense and fall as rain over several thousand years, as happened on Earth.
In short, contrary to what you may read here and there, oceans of water never formed on Venus...
Instead, a heavy blanket of vapor formed over the entire planet, the first consequence of
which was to block the heat that came from the ground and tried to pour out into space.
The already warm soil began to heat up even more, and what little water had been conserved in the
colder spots also turned to gas, helping to fuel an increasingly perverse "greenhouse
effect" cycle. The effect is analogous to being in a greenhouse or in a car with the windows closed.
It is estimated that if Venus had no atmosphere and its surface could freely
scatter solar radiation into interplanetary space, it would now have a surface temperature of 100°C,
much lower than the actual 400°C! If instead, it had been able to
form a normal atmosphere, Venus would now be a planet with an average temperature of 40°C...
The fact is that in addition to the greenhouse effect caused by water vapor, there was also the
misfortune of very strong volcanic activity. In fact, the magma that erupted from the volcanoes
began to release immense amounts of carbon dioxide that could not be absorbed by the
non-existent oceans, as was the case on Earth... And these gases could not fall back to the ground,
which was now too hot, and wandered off with the water vapor that was now leaving
the planet, blown away by the solar wind... The atmosphere thus became a kind of dense,
poisonous molasses, consisting almost entirely of carbon dioxide...by now
the ground temperatures had reached the melting point of lead, and the planet's fate was sealed.
In short ... if you have followed me so far, you will also have realized that the real cause of
the greenhouse effect that ruined forever the wonderful planet that Venus could have been,
was not only the inordinate increase in carbon dioxide but also and above all the
fact that at some point in its history, the surface temperature did not decrease
enough to allow the accumulation of water and the formation of oceans, as on Earth.
The oceans would then have absorbed the large amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the volcanoes.
Basically, it was the lack of water that caused the greenhouse effect!
However, some of you may object that we just said that the lack of liquid water was due to
the crust of Venus being too hot, causing it to evaporate! And therefore it remains
to be explained why the crust of Venus has not cooled as much as that of the Earth...
And indeed it is true... We remedy this by saying that the excess heat of Venus'
crust can be partly explained by its greater proximity to the Sun,
but there is more: Venus, unlike Earth, does not have its own plate tectonics!
What it lacks is the "lubricant" that keeps the continental plates moving. In simple terms, on
Earth, water seeps into the interior of the crust and mantle and makes it easy for the superficial
zones to shift relative to the fluid zones below, thus giving rise to the famous continental drift.
On Venus, the water was not there when it mattered, blown away by the solar wind,
and the movements stalled or never started, like an engine that forgot to add oil.
And unfortunately for Venus, tectonics plays a very important role in regulating the amount of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Tectonic movement actually moves rocks around and
brings new rocks to the surface. Venusian and terrestrial rocks are mainly composed
of silicates, minerals made up of silicon and oxygen atoms. When silicates come into contact
with emitted carbon dioxide, they "capture" it and convert it into other substances that do
not contribute to the greenhouse effect. In short, without tectonics, the emitted
carbon dioxide will not be absorbed and will remain free to cause the greenhouse effect.
And here we come back to what we recommended at the beginning,
which is not to blindly believe everything that so-called official science claims.
The sad story of Venus, which went from a promising "garden planet" to an inferno,
has been used by many as an example of what could happen to the Earth if "mankind continues to
release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere". Well, while it is somewhat justified to warn
people not to pollute and to respect the environment, I do not think it is appropriate
to terrorize the world by saying that our planet could go the way of its former sister planet.
Astronomical and geological cycles have led the Earth through dramatic times and will
always do so, beyond the paltry amount of carbon dioxide that humans will be able to put into the
atmosphere. Amounts that a few good volcanic eruptions would be enough to equal an Amen.
And be sure... when they try to present Venus to you as a mirror of our future,
don't fail to point out that a paroxysmal phase of volcanic activity, which the lack of water
could not remedy, caused the temperature rise. It was the different amount of water that sealed
the different fates of the twin planets, not carbon dioxide. Say it loud and clear!