e, of the above mentioned attenuations of radiation, the absorption is the most important factor regarding the storage of energy within the system and for building the greenhouse effect, because more energy stored means more energy emitted and added to the greenhouse. A thick cover reduces the transmitted radiation because the absorption of solar and IR radiation is higher, since the absorption of radiation is directly proportional to the length the ray crosses the medium. So, a thick layer of glass produces a greater greenhouse effect (which results in higher temperatures) than a thin layer of glass or plastic, all put over a box with or without water, or, if it would be possible, over the atmospheric layers of the planet. The temperatures attained by the glass cover of a solar still are much higher than the ambient temperatures, than a plastic film cover ones and than the water temperatures of an open evaporator, due to the high absorption of solar and IR radiation by the glass, which afterwards emit them to the greenhouse. These higher temperatures are also reached due to the closing effect conditions (reduced convection) produced by the glass cover. These higher temperatures are also verified in [4] [5] [21] . Although a cover reduces the direct solar radiation that enters the greenhouse, at the same time it keeps up energy inside the greenhouse and then increases its temperatures. Therefore, the reduction of energy by a transparent cover cannot be used alone for deciding about the warming of a greenhouse, in contrast to the current generalized understanding. A thick layer (or high concentration) of transparent water vapor produces a higher greenhouse effect than a thin layer (or low concentration) of transparent water vapor, or, than a thin layer (or low concentration) of another gas with a lower absorption power, such as the CO2. A gas that does not absorb radiation is not considered a greenhouse gas.

However, knowing that both the water vapor and the CO2 influence the atmospheric warming/cooling pro- cesses, it is important to know how much the contribution of both gases on the air temperature is. The current literature speech always focuses on “concentrations”, thus let’s see the effects of concentrations on the greenhouse effect caused by gases, not by the cloud cover. It is well known (e.g., [2] ) that the CO2 has a minor effect comparatively to the water vapor on the air temperature, and [7] showed that such influence is about one percent, but the author admitted that both gases had identical index of absorption of radiation. Since the CO2 has a much smaller capacity of absorption of radiation than the water vapor, its influence on the temperature is in reality much less than one percent.

NASA [20] also says that “scientists know which wavelengths each greenhouse gas absorbs and the concentration of the gases in the atmosphere and then how much each gas contributes to warming the planet”. Let’s see this, too. Figure 1 presents the well-known graph of the solar radiation wavelength spectrum with the absorption bands by different atmospheric gases. Figure 2 is an equivalent representation of Figure 1, but clearer and more didactic (there are similar ones in the literature).

It can be seen that the water vapor is the strongest absorber among all the greenhouse gases, and it is also mostly absorber in the more energetic portions of the solar and IR radiation spectrums. Its property of most absorber and its highest concentration in the atmosphere make the water vapor the most important greenhouse gas for building and changing the air temperature. Only these two properties of each gas are able to determine the current and future influence on the atmospheric warming/cooling, varying only the concentrations. These same data are also used to determine that the oxygen and nitrogen are not considered greenhouse gases. Thus, the statement (e.g., [20] ) “CO2 is the most important gas for controlling Earth’s temperature” is invalid and not supported

Figure 1. Solar radiation spectrum with absorption bands by different atmospheric gases.

Figure 2. Solar and IR radiation spectrums with absorption bands by different atmospheric gases (Wikipedia).

by scientific analyses and thus requires scientific and consistent proof. Moreover, the NASA statement [20] “Carbon dioxide controls the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and thus the size of the greenhouse effect” is also invalid because a tiny amount of an element (CO2) without a special power cannot control and contain a bigger amount of another element (H2O) and with a much greater radiation absorption power, and also because the water vapor absorbs the CO2, not the contrary, as well as the water vapor affects the atmosphere in other senses, as explained in this paper and in [7] . The water vapor absorbs CO2, which interaction forms the carbonic acid H2CO3, and comes back with the precipitation and then a more humid air removes more CO2 from the atmosphere and also changes the heat and mass balances of the atmosphere. This chemical reaction also serves to invalidate the current thinking (e.g., [2] ) that “gases that do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as ‘forcing’ climate change and gases such as water vapor, which respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are seen as ‘feedbacks’”. In this case, both the CO2 and the H2O respond chemically in forming this acid and physically by altering the mass and heat balances of the atmosphere, which ones then respond to changes in temperature.

Following the logic [7] again for giving an insight on the influence of greenhouse gases on the air temperature according to their concentrations we can also estimate the influences (linearly) of other so called greenhouse gases such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) on the air temperature. For the current levels of 1.75 ppm for the CH4 and 0.32 ppm for the N2O, the participation of each one on an average temperature of 20˚C is about 0.00074˚C and 0.00014˚C, respectively, that is, even considering that these gases have the same radiation absorption capacity and the same layer length of the H2O, their contributions are almost nothing. As we know that the absorptions and concentrations of the CO2, CH4 and N2O are tremendously smaller than those of the H2O in the atmosphere, the corresponding influences by such gases become even smaller than the estimated ones above. Also, according to the Beer-Lambert’s law, the radiation absorption by substances is directly proportional to the length through which the ray crosses and also to the concentration, that is, A a Lc. However, for high concentrations (>0.01 M―Molarity) this law is not valid because after a certain value of concentration the absorption does not increase linearly (it decelerates), thus the atmospheric gases have smaller participations in the air temperature than the ones estimated above

Moreover, for a stated 6˚C increase in the average air temperature for 2100 (e.g., [1] ―see IPCC AR4) we should have more than 20,000 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. However, this amount would be much higher than 5,000 ppm, a limit of allowable human exposure to the CO2, because this amount already causes deprivation of oxygen, suffocation [22] . Thus, much prior to any warming, the people would face serious problems of survival with such level of CO2. An amount of 5,000 ppm of CO2 would correspond to an increase of much less than 2˚C and then an increase of 6˚C due to this gas would be almost impossible, because the world would finish much before such supposed temperatures.

The current literature links the radiation almost exclusively to the CO2 and this to the air temperature, but since the radiation is not the only factor influencing the air temperature, since the CO2 does not have the highest concentration in the atmosphere, since the CO2 is not the major absorber of radiation, since the CO2 is not sufficiently dense to be able to reduce the wind, the convection and the evaporation, since the CO2 does not have the supposed high power for increasing the air temperature too much, then there are not scientific reasons that justify the relevance of linking the radiation only to the CO2 and then to the exclusive determination of the air temperatures.

Venus is the hottest planet of our solar system and its atmospheric temperature at the surface is about 467˚C, being its atmosphere composed of about 96% CO2, 3.5% nitrogen and traces of other gases, including water vapor. Its atmospheric layer is about 100 times thicker than our own on Earth and its cloud cover composed of sulfur dioxide and droplets of sulfuric acid is also very thick and dense.

Venus is the second planet from the Sun and although receives only about 25% of the solar radiation received by the first one (Mercury), it is hotter than Mercury and thus people do not understand why. What happens is that Venus has a very thick, dense and heavy cloud cover that traps the Sun’s heat and the outgoing IR radiation, while Mercury, for practical considerations, has no atmosphere, no blanket and no cover to keep up the energy. A pressure pot is more efficient and heats the food more than a common pot without cover because it traps and stores the heat, increases the temperature and thus increases the pressure inside. All the thermal processes in the atmosphere are the same, only the amounts change, and these are the same behaviors and principles demonstrated for closed and open evaporators [5] , and for the “closed” and open atmospheres [7] . In these two works it is demonstrated that although the closed evaporator and “closed” atmosphere (by a transparent cloud cover) receive less energy inside, the corresponding temperatures are much higher than the open ones (closings created by a glass cover, a pot cover or a cloud cover).

Venus proves how strong the effect of a cloud cover in increasing the temperatures is. Venus clouds reflect almost all of the sunlight that hit them and the total solar energy received by the planet’s surface is less than that received by the Earth’s surface, but even so the temperatures below the clouds are much higher than above them and than those of the Earth’s surface. Please pay attention: such high temperatures happen below the cloud deck, not above it, although above it there is much CO2, where and while the corresponding temperatures are negative.

This correct knowledge on how the greenhouse effect really works is also decisive for solving another unsolved problem [23] : “In Venus there are high-velocity winds in the upper atmosphere, but the atmosphere below the cloud deck appears to be relatively stagnant. So, the high velocity upper level winds and the contrasting stagnation of the lower atmosphere are not well understood”. The solution for this problem is given through the principles and explanations described in [5] [7] and in the present paper. When you put a cover onto a pan with or without water, you block the wind from passing directly over the water or over the dry bottom and then you convert the forced convection (wind) above the cover into the free convection (small air movements, not winds) below the cover, and then your action naturally reduces the wind (thus causes less heat loss) and the evaporation (in case of water), although the inner temperature increases. The cloud covers of ours and Venus atmospheres produce the same or equivalent effect as the glass cover for the solar still and the metallic cover for the pot. This stagnation is the proof of the effect produced by any cover.

Importantly, since gases, including the CO2, do not have the property of forming thick dense layers and strong thermal inertias, they do not have the capacity of blocking the wind or making it stagnant and also to reduce the evaporation. Furthermore, winds are generated by pressure differences, which ones are generated by temperature differences. The atmospheric pressure at Venus’ surface is about 92 times that of Earth’s, and then the very high pressure and temperatures below the cloud cover of Venus generate strong winds at the limits of its cloud layer. The heavy cloud cover and the strong atmospheric pressure of Venus are responsible for keeping the heat below it (like a pressure pot) and thus increasing the temperatures. Below the Venus’ cloud cover there are very high temperatures, but not great temperature differences, which ones generate great wind speeds.

If the Earth’s atmosphere was 100 times thicker than it is, a normal temperature of 20˚C would be converted into a temperature of about 2000˚C (linearly), that is, an Earth’s temperature produced mainly by the water vapor would become greater than a Venus’ temperature of 467˚C produced by the dominant CO2. And as explained above, the CO2 is not able to increase the cloud cover, to reduce the wind speed and the evaporation, and to increase the precipitation and the humidity, as has already happened in some places of the world in the last decades (see [7] ).

The current literature normally attributes the high temperatures of Venus to its high content of CO2. Is this true? No! Mercury also has high temperatures of about 427˚C similar to those of Venus, but for practical purposes Mercury does not have CO2. OK, then Mars, which is composed by 95% CO2 must also have such high temperatures, right? Wrong! Mars reaches only about 20˚C at noon in summer and its yearly average is about −55˚C. Thus, the 95% CO2 content of the Martian atmosphere is not able to cause high warming such as the one supposed by the literature for Venus and for the less than one percent CO2 of the Earth’s atmosphere. NASA [2] tries to justify stating that “Venus has about 300 times as much CO2 in its atmosphere as Earth and Mars do, producing a greenhouse effect and a surface temperature hot enough to melt lead”. NASA [2] uses two weights and two measures (double standards): for Venus the highest CO2 concentration is decisive, but for Earth the low CO2 concentration is also decisive. Meanwhile, Jupiter’s atmosphere does not have CO2 and receives 27 times less solar energy than Earth and 52 times less solar energy than Venus, but its temperatures below the cloud cover (the water clouds form the densest layer of clouds) vary between ~50˚C - 180˚C, while above it there are negative temperatures. The system that stores energy (dense and heavy cloud cover) plays a powerful role and can explain these much higher temperatures than the ones on Earth, which atmosphere contains CO2.

The average solar constant (W/m2) of Mercury is 9611.4, of Venus is 2611.0, of Earth is 1366.1, of Mars is 588.6 and of Jupiter is only 50.5. Venus receives 3.5 times less solar energy than Mercury but has higher temperatures below the cloud cover than those on Mercury. Mars receives less than half of the Earth’s solar energy but its temperatures below the cloud cover are similar to those on Earth. Jupiter receives less than 10% of the solar energy of Mars but its temperatures below the cloud deck are very high, while high temperatures do not happen on Mars. So, the CO2 is not important for the warming and a powerful system of accumulation of energy together with less heat loss (greenhouse effect caused by dense and closed covers) can make the planets’ atmospheres to reach high temperatures. This effect can also be observed theoretically [5] and theoretically and experimentally [4] , where we can see that the water temperatures of the closed evaporator (solar still) are much higher than those of the open evaporator, even at night. At the night hours, we can verify the very interesting and important effect of the closed system which accumulates energy received during the day and loses less heat, while the open one loses more heat due to the wind and due to direct irradiation to the sky. Although the closed evaporator receives less heat during the day it keeps more energy and higher temperatures during the day and night than the ones of the open evaporator.

The literature associates more clouds with a cooling effect only, because they reduce the solar radiation entering the system (greenhouse). It also believes that less energy due to the cloud effect means a cooling effect only. This is true for isolate clouds, but not always for full cloud covers. And such unique line of reasoning and immediate general adoption do not allow the discovery of the cover effects, as extensively demonstrated [5] [7] and in the present paper. Furthermore, articles from the literature normally adopt such corresponding understanding stating that evaporation cools the global climate because it creates more clouds and then these ones cool the planet. This is incorrect, because this variation depends on the cloud color (transparency), absorption characteristics, density, thickness, amount, closing conditions, geographical location, etc. Furthermore, a full cloud cover and dense water vapor trap the heat and as any cover reduce the wind and thus reduce the evaporation and the removal of heat from the air and from bodies, which conditions increase the warming below these layers, as happens in the solar still. Moreover, a cloud cover also eliminates the open sky window (8 to 13 mm) for the radiation loss from the Earth’s surface and thus increases the warming below it. A full cloud cover blocks the sky temperature (in clear sky) of being very low for the high emissions of radiation from Earth, converts it almost to the air temperature and then more heat remains below it, because the lower part of the clouds is almost at the same surface air temperature and then radiates back with higher intensity than would do a clear sky. The radiation is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature. Also, in the last decades the clouds increased despite the fact that the evaporation decreased [13] , which means that more heat remained at the surface.

A good example is the Amazon, where the sky is almost always fully covered by clouds and it rains everyday, but the weather is warm, humid and with low wind velocity. In [9] there is a mathematical comparison between the thermal behaviors of the Amazon and the Sahara, where we see that the Amazon’s atmosphere is warmer than the Sahara’s one. The Amazon is not an example of a cooled place. The Sahara’s atmospheric warming depends on the solar radiation directly and lasts while there is solar energy, because there are almost no water vapor and no clouds to sustain and regulate the warming, whereas the Amazon’s atmosphere keeps up the heat and humidity for a longer time. During the day, the Sahara reaches very high temperatures (50˚C - 60˚C), but at night reaches very low temperatures including those below zero, while the Amazon’s temperatures are kept almost in the same level during the day and night along the year (~26˚C - 34˚C). It is clear the presence of the process of energy storage by the water vapor and cloud cover. Cities rounded by mountains are much warmer than others because the air remains stagnant and this works as a cover that traps the heat and humidity causing weak removal of heat and humidity from the skin. Since the Sahara’s atmosphere certainly has a lower level of CO2 than the Amazon’s one, such low level is not responsible for the very high temperatures of that desert as well as the Amazon’s higher level of CO2 is also not responsible for the corresponding lower temperatures than those of the Sahara.

Ice cores with their air bubbles have been utilized to “determine” “past” atmospheric warming or cooling. Ice cores are extracted by drilling devices that release a lot of heat to the samples and these are also transported to laboratories by vehicles and thus suffer direct influence of the corresponding environments and manipulations, which transfer heat to the ice cores. In laboratories the samples are fractioned and stored, which manipulations also change the original conditions of the ice. Moreover, local measurements cannot be generalized for the entire globe. Besides the introduction of these scientific errors and many others in the results, let’s see whether ice cores can be considered or not a correct means for determining such temperatures of the long past. Due to the high heat-temperature-sensitive nature of the ice cores, please respond: which solid material, brick or ice, transfers heat by conduction faster? Those who answered “brick” gave the wrong answer. The thermal conductivity (k) of brick (common) at 25˚C is 0.60 W/mK and the k for ice (−25˚C) is 2.45 W/mK, that is, ice transfers 4.1 times faster than bricks the same amount of heat received. Bricks absorb more heat (short wave absorptivity = 55%) than ice (31%), of course, but they are 4.1 times slower in transferring the heat received. For comparison, the k of asphalt (25˚C) is 0.75 W/mK and the k of dry sand (25˚C) is 0.15 - 0.25 W/mK [24] . A common wall of bricks (about 0.15 m wide) lasts about 4 hours to transfer the heat received from one side to the other. Then, a wall of ice with the same width would need about one hour to transfer the same amount of heat from one side to the other. Therefore, the heat accumulated and its variations in ice cores supposed to be from thousands or millions years ago can be in reality from some hours ago only, and also vary according to the heat gained during transportation and manipulations. The mass of air trapped in ice cores may be old, but the corresponding temperatures are not. And the relevant understanding is to know whether humans can affect the climate nowadays independent of ancestral times and solar energy variations, as already shown in [7] and in the present paper. Conceptualizations that generate more uncertainties than convictions should be left aside.

3. Conclusions

This paper analyzes and describes physically and mathematically the atmospheric behavior based on the correct theoretical principles that drive us in the right directions. Top concepts adopted by the current literature on cli- mate changes or atmospheric warming are not in agreement with the first principles of the physics. For example, the literature believes that the radiation is the only factor that influences and changes the air temperature, but this violates the law of conservation of energy and has also been demonstrated physically and mathematically in the paper. Also, the Sun is not the only heat source for the atmosphere because there is generation of heat at the Earth’s surface by human activities.

It is also shown that the water vapor is not a null effect and it cannot be removed from the atmosphere for temperature, greenhouse effect and climatic changes considerations, and thus the “feedback” concept is invalid, in contrast to what is adopted by the current science, where many equivocated concepts come from equivocated understandings.

The current literature also says that “water vapor increases as the Earth’s atmosphere warms”, but this is also incorrect because heat (from a supposed greenhouse effect due to the CO2) does not create mass (of water). The above equivocated understanding is accompanied by another one which believes that more water evaporates if the air temperature increases. This is also flawed because evaporation depends on many factors and can decrease even with an air temperature increase. These demonstrations together with other authors’ surveys showing that in the last decades the planet became wetter eliminate the literature concept that the water vapor does not have influence on the atmospheric warming/cooling.

It is also seen that although evaporation is a strong function of the water temperature, it is incorrect to state that evaporation increases based solely on the water temperature when there is the presence of the greenhouse effect caused by the full cloud cover. It is very important to know that although a closed system (greenhouse) formed by a glass cover or by a cloud cover receives less energy, its temperatures inside may be higher and the evaporation lower than the corresponding ones of an open system. So is the way how greenhouses really work.

Yes, certain human activities can influence the climate, but not as has been said by the current literature. For example, if one drop of water is thrown upward, one drop of water will come back, and fossil fuel and nuclear power plants, industries, vehicles, etc, have thrown millions of tons of water upward every second around the globe, and then much water has come back irregularly in amounts, time and space. This is easy to understand and to agree and is physically and mathematically expressed by the New Hydrological Cycle discovered by Sartori. This is totally different than the equivocated belief which removes the water from the atmospheric heat and mass balances and even so says that all climate changes (floods, for example) originate from a warming due to a “greenhouse effect caused by the CO2”. Such understanding is flawed because CO2 and heat do not create mass of water or any other mass! Certain human activities have also thrown thousands of tons of particulates every second around the world and then created “solid” barriers in the air and thus generated droughts in uncertain places and periods.

The mathematical formulations of the conventional and of the New Hydrological Cycle have been extended to the conventional (no human influence) and to the human-influenced CO2 cycle.

It is solved the problem on why the wind speed on Venus is very high above the cloud deck while it is stagnant below it, being this the same physical principle valid for the Earth’s cloud cover. It is demonstrated that the CO2 does not have significant importance for building and changing the temperatures of Venus, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter and Earth.

Ice cores are not valid for “determining” “past” temperatures of the planet, because besides the many scientific errors introduced in the measurements due to transportations and manipulations, the mass of their air bubbles may be old, but the corresponding temperatures are not.

References

  1. IPCC (2014) http://www.ipcc.ch
  2. NASA (2014) A blanket around the Earth. http://climate.nasa.gov/causes
  3. NOAA (2014) Greenhouse Gases―Water Vapor. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php
  4. Sartori, E. (1987) A Mathematical Model for Predicting Heat and Mass Transfer from a Free Water Surface. Proceedings of ISES Solar World Congress, Hamburg, 3160-3164.
  5. Sartori, E. (1996) Solar Still versus Solar Evaporator: A Comparative Study between Their Thermal Behaviors. Solar Energy, 56, 199-206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0038-092X(95)00094-8
  6. Sartori, E. (2006) Convection Coefficient Equations for Forced Air Flow over Flat Surfaces. Solar Energy, 80, 1063- 1071. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2005.11.001
  7. Sartori, E. (2012) The Physical Principles Elucidate Numerous Atmospheric Behaviors and Human-Induced Climatic Consequences. Open Journal of Applied Sciences, 2, 302-318. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojapps.2012.24045
  8. Sartori, E. (2000) A Critical Review on Equations Employed for the Calculation of the Evaporation Rate from Free Water Surfaces. Solar Energy, 68, 77-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0038-092X(99)00054-7
  9. Sartori, E. (2013) Evaporation and the Planet. http://sartori-globalwarming.blogspot.com
  10. van Vliet, M.T.H., Yearsley, J.R., Ludwig, F., Vögele, S., Lettenmaier, D.P. and Kabat, P. (2012) Vulnerability of US and European Electricity Supply to Climate Change. Nature Climate Change, 2, 676-681. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1546
  11. Alexander, L.V., Zhang, X., Peterson, T.C., Caesar, J., Gleason, B., Klein, T.A., Haylock, M., Collins, D., Trewin, B., Rahimzadeh, F., Tagipour, A., Rupa, K.K., Revadekar, J., Griffiths, G., Vincent, L., Stephenson, D.B., Burn, J., Aguilar, E., Brunet, M., Taylor, M., New, M., Zhai, P., Rusticucci, M. and Vazquez-Aguirre, J.L. (2006) Global Observed Changes in Daily Climate Extremes of Temperature and Precipitation. Journal of Geophysical Research, 111, DO5109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006290
  12. Groisman, P.Y., Knight, R.W., Easterling, D.R., Karl, T.R., Hegerl, G.C. and Razuvaev, V.N. (2005) Trends in Intense Precipitation in the Climate Record. Journal of Climate, 18, 1326-1350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3339.1
  13. Brutsaert, W. and Parlange, M.B. (1998) Hydrological Cycle Explains the Evaporation Paradox. Nature, 396, 30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/23845
  14. Roderick, M.L. and Farquhar, G.D. (2002) The Cause of Decreased Pan Evaporation over the Past 50 Years. Science, 298, 1410-1411.
  15. Sartori, E. (2003) Letter to the Editor. Solar Energy, 73, 481.
  16. Kaplani, E. and Kaplanis, S. (2014) Thermal Modeling and Experimental Assessment of the Dependence of PV Module Temperature on Wind Velocity and Direction, Module Orientation and Inclination. Solar Energy, 107, 443-460. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2014.05.037
  17. Sartori, E. (2014) Accuracy of Convection Coefficient Equations for Forced Air Flow over Flat Surfaces. http://www.scribd.com/doc/239567869/Accuracy-of-convection-coefficient-equations
  18. Araújo, I.B., Bos, M.S., Bastos, L.C. and Cardoso, M.M. (2013) Analysing the 100 Year Sea Level Record of Leixões, Portugal. Journal of Hydrology, 481, 76-84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.12.019
  19. NASA (2014) Climate Change: How Do We Know? http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
  20. NASA (2014) Effects of Changing the Carbon Cycle. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php
  21. Al-Mahdouri, A., Gonome, H., Okajima, J. and Maruyama, S. (2014) Theoretical and Experimental Study of Solar Ther- mal Performance of Different Greenhouse Cladding Materials. Solar Energy, 107, 314-327.
  22. WDHS―Wisconsin Department of Health Services (2014). http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/eh/chemfs/fs/carbondioxide.htm
  23. UTK―University of Tenessee Knoxville (2014) The Atmosphere of Venus. http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/venus/atmosphere.html
  24. TET―The Engineering Toolbox (2014) www.engineeringtoolbox.com

Journal Menu >>