Venusian lightning

PlutonianEmpire · Post #1by **PlutonianEmpire** » 03.02.2007, 11:31

How much lightning does Venus have anyway? I mean, I've grown up believing that it is a world with incessant lightning storms that make Earth's worst lightning storm look tame...

LordFerret · Post #2by **LordFerret** » 04.02.2007, 22:43

I'm pretty sure that currently there is no definitive answer to that. I've seen plenty of webpages which cite US and Soviet probes observing lightning, along with much note of such activity around Venus' volcanoes as well. However, for the time being, I'll accept the following source as a fair and accurate summation:

"Lightning on Venus is still a controversial subject after decades of study. During the Soviet Venera and U.S. Pioneer missions of the 1970s and 80s, signals suggesting lightning may be present in the upper atmosphere were detected.[18] However, recently the Cassini-Huygens mission fly-by of Venus detected no signs of lightning at all." - Wikipedia

PlutonianEmpire · Post #3by **PlutonianEmpire** » 05.02.2007, 08:01

Aww, shucks. Venus must be pretty boring then...

MKruer · Post #4by **MKruer** » 05.02.2007, 08:37

PlutonianEmpire wrote:Aww, shucks. Venus must be pretty boring then... :(

What?€™s more interesting is that Venus is thought to go through periodic volcanic upheaval every few hundred million years. This totally rewrites the landscape

Le Chacal · Post #5by **Le Chacal** » 05.02.2007, 09:40

Like Earth... only 30% of the surface is resilient. the others 70% are oceanic floor and are also renewed every hundred millions years...

Post #6by **t00fri** » 05.02.2007, 09:56

Le Chacal wrote:Like Earth... only 30% of the surface is resilient. the others 70% are oceanic floor and are also renewed every hundred millions years...

Is this facts or fiction? Any published scientific sources for your statement?

Bye Fridger

julesstoop · Post #7by **julesstoop** » 05.02.2007, 13:02

I think he means that the ocean plates continuously renew themselves by being created at ridges and 'destroyed' by subduction when they reach the continental shelve.
The complete journey from the middle to the edge takes several tens of millions of years on average.

Post #8by **selden** » 05.02.2007, 14:17

On the Earth, that's true.
Unfortunately, LeChacal's sentence structure is rather confusing.

I suspect Fridger was wondering about evidence for tectonic plates on Venus. My understanding is that there is no such evidence.

LordFerret · Post #9by **LordFerret** » 06.02.2007, 02:37

PlutonianEmpire wrote:Aww, shucks. Venus must be pretty boring then...

Volcanic activity aside, I keep thinking about Venus' clouds of sulfuric acid... and picturing battery-acid rain.

Post #10by **t00fri** » 06.02.2007, 08:43

selden wrote:On the Earth, that's true.
Unfortunately, LeChacal's sentence structure is rather confusing.

I suspect Fridger was wondering about evidence for tectonic plates on Venus. My understanding is that there is no such evidence.

Right, Selden,

in particular, I don't fancy statements that sound like well-known facts without actually having a solid basis...

Bye Fridger

Post #11by **selden** » 06.02.2007, 08:48

Fridger,

I think that he was actually referring to the resurfacing of Venus by volcanic action and comparing it to the resurfacing of Earth by tectonic action but phrasing it badly. But he'll have to clarify that himself.

Spaceman Spiff · Post #12by **Spaceman Spiff** » 06.02.2007, 11:12

I think Le Chacal was indeed referring to something on possible Venusian plate tectonics rather than lightening, not so made up but perhaps stated with more conviction than deserved.

Fridger, Selden, this Beeb article about a recent development should clarify what that was about: Doubt cast on Venus catastrophe ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4815230.stm ).

Spiff.

Le Chacal · Post #13by **Le Chacal** » 06.02.2007, 16:08

Sorry for my bad sentence, it was a comparison with the earth tectonic, which is something really amazing when you think about it.

Too bad it was misunderstood, and taken for pseudoscience. But I find Fridger's reaction lacking moderation for what it is only an english phrase from someone who isn't fluent.

Maybe I'll come back someday, after a Master degree in english litterature.

Post #14by **t00fri** » 06.02.2007, 17:13

Le Chacal wrote:Sorry for my bad sentence, it was a comparison with the earth tectonic, which is something really amazing when you think about it.

Too bad it was misunderstood, and taken for pseudoscience. But I find Fridger's reaction lacking moderation for what it is only an english phrase from someone who isn't fluent.

Maybe I'll come back someday, after a Master degree in english litterature.

English is also not my native language. So, along the lines of your reply, an American/British person would probably have chosen somewhat "smoother-sounding" words than I did. Yet I stay with the essence of my statement. I think whatever you actually meant, you made a very far-reaching and non-trivial statement concerning Venus that usually requires some solid citation to be believable, unless the authority of the writer is generally known.

Bye Fridger

LordFerret · Post #15by **LordFerret** » 07.02.2007, 05:28

I find this to relate, perhaps what Le Chacal was trying to describe?

"While modern Venus is in a quiet state most of the time, it does enter into short periods of intense volcanic activity where the old surface of Venus is destroyed and a new one is created." - JPL/NASA, Venus Holds Clues to Finding Earth's Platinum and Diamonds

While a quick search on my part did not turn up anything online to post, there are a multitude of references to the subject available for research if anyone is interested. Just do a find on the webpage (CTRL-F) and search "plate tectonic" and you'll quickly pull up a number of sources.
SELECTED READINGS IN VENUS GEOLOGY AND GEOPHYSICS