In an effort to save lives, the author and his research team have enclosed within these pages the

Venus Paradox theory. Readers, the importance of this paper is self-evident especially in light of recent meteorological disasters such as Hurricane Sandy, the massive tornado in Oklahoma, the Earths rapid loss of glacial ice, and the continued decline and loss of flora and fauna species. Over the last few years our research group correctly predicted several past traumatic meteorological events. For example, our team predicted the terrible ferocity and resulting death toll of Hurricane Sandy, as well as the injury and loss of life as a result of the tornado in Oklahoma-perhaps to date the Earths largest recorded tornado. The team even went as far as to make extensive efforts to warn government officials, Senators, and local politicians of the impending danger that these storms posed. Our team outlined the path of destruction for each event and explained why these particular storms were able to form. We wrote to many Senators, the Department of Energy, and several news organizations warning them, all to no avail. Our research team neither heard back from any of the people and organizations we contacted, nor did anyone acknowledge our communications. We were expecting an email or courtesy phone call, at minimum, whereby at least a few more lives of either infants, children or adults, might have been spared. The loss of life and injuries caused by Hurricane Sandy and the Oklahoma tornado, albeit tragic, were somewhat avoidable according to our team's research and findings. The goal of this following paper is to inform the public and scientific community of these findings. Our fervent hope is that any reader viewing this research will find nearly the same conclusions, and thus perhaps also save lives. Conversely, the worst case scenario is, that we, as humans, will do nothing and the Venus Paradox, as our research team sees it, will then become reality, over time.

Robert J. Strang, M.D., Ph.D., Pharm.D.

Signature

PART 1: THE VENUS PARADOX: DATA AND PROOF, HYPOTHESIS AND THEORY
R O B E R T J . S TR A N G , R E S E A R C H E R , M . D . , P H. D . , B . S . & P HA R M D .

This paper is the culmination of five years of research-more than 2.5 million bits of plotted data points, computer calculations, journal referencing and searches, multiple scientific inputs and analysis, data pulled from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (with help from their staff) and computer analysis. This article is split into two parts out of necessity and for clarity. Part 1 is used to show a small portion of the Venus Paradox: namely the lowering of the Earths lowest cloud layer over this past half century. From detailed information obtained from NOAA (the U.S. Government agency covering the atmosphere) and some of its staff, its data bank was accessed. Further, on the computer, the old data was compared with recent data (2009, 2010, & 2011). Ten sites or cities, all within the North American Hemisphere, were randomly selected, their data computed for each of their sites, and this data was compared with baseline data from the 1950s. The main objective was to show, or not show, whether there is true cloud lowering at each and every one of the random sites over this past 50 year period. Part 2, coupled with Part 1, is then clearly outlined to show what is meant by the Venus Paradox: statement of hypothesis, theory, and what implications this has for Earth. It also helps explain why we are currently experiencing such violent weather, storms, and droughts. For confirmation, a New Zealand study (done blind to our study at the same time) also showed cloud lowering over the Indian Ocean.

Keywords: Venus Paradox, global warming, trapped heat sinks, high surface winds, much more violent weather, storms, heat

1. ABOUT AUTHOR
Name: Robert J. Strang, M.D., Ph.D., Pharm.D. Address: 420 Peterson Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52245 Phone: 319-354-4904 (America: Iowa)

2. INTRODUCTION
As it stands now in 2012, even the most steadfast and cynical skeptics of global warming in this past decade are now back treading and even reversing their position. This is understandable. This past winter of 2012 was one of the warmest on record (Dolce). One could wear t-shirts in Iowa in January 2012. Proven Earth measurements, recent satellite measurements, and massive receding glacial deposits worldwide, show that there has been a uniform and rapid melting of the major icecaps at the poles, Icelandic glacial deposits, and others. Much of this has been attributed to the steady and increased release of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere from all human activity. Regardless of the question of global warming, there is now little dispute as to whether there has been huge CO2 releases into the atmosphere of Earth in this past century, or since the start of the Industrial Revolution in the early 1800s(Marland, G., Boden, T.A., Andres, R.J.). NOAA, in an article published in 2011 (Stott) explained how bad it appears. The current CO2 concentration in Earths atmosphere in 2011 (as measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii) is just at 392 ppm (parts-per-million by volume).

GRAPH 1

Graph 1 by Keeling shows CO2 concentrations at Mauna Loa (Keeling, C.D., Whorf, T.P.). The global carbon emissions chart by Wikimedia Commons (Keeling, C.D., Whorf, T.P.) shows in 2007, global, regional, and national CO2 emissions. As a matter of fact, the present current CO2 levels are certainly higher than at any time in the last 800 thousand years (Amos), and more than likely one would have to go back more than 20 million years to find higher CO2 levels than from today. At 20 million years ago, man was not even walking, most mammals were nonexistent, and dinosaurs were the dominant species or relatives thereof, on Earth (Grida). Most sources of CO2 production on Earth in the past have been natural. These include natural decay of organic forest matter, tundra, grasslands, and dead decaying animal, fish and insect matter. Other sources include volcanic activity, some incoming solar matter (meteors), natural fires, and the life processes of all bacteria, and other life forms on earth, including humans, that expire CO2 in exchange for O2, to live. Of course, what is not included in this above list, which we know is not natural, are the exclusive source of CO2 deliberately made by man alone-for his livelihood, or his enjoyment. This includes his burning of gasoline for his faster cars, planes, trains, boats and internal combustion machines of all sorts and manner, his smoking, and, to a lesser extent, burning of his home fires. More recently, this deliberate

production of CO2 has now expanded to indiscriminate burning of vast tracts of forest lands (deforestation-also seen from space), in Brazil and Indonesia. The list goes on and on. This is the wildcard factor. How vast is this exclusive production of CO2 outside natural sources? It is estimated that humans by themselves produced, manufactured, or generated more than 31.8 gigatonnes of CO2 in 2008 alone (Staff, Global Carbon Budget 2008). Note that this is not in billions of tons, but in gigatonnes. It is estimated that humans generated more than 334 gigatonnes (Staff, Calculated From File Global) of CO2 from 1901 to 2008 (maximum industrial revolution). That is a number so large it is hard to wrap ones mind around it (Graph 1). This brings us now to the main issue of this article. Can the Earth sustain this kind of damage? We now have credible evidence that we have massive global warming. Also, we now have credible evidence that we are experiencing rapid glacial melts around the world. There is, however, to this author, an even more ominous factor on the horizon that has been recently discovered, something this author will call the Venus Paradox or effect. This journal article will be devoted exclusively to this new proposed effect and its ramifications. Part of this Venus paradox is the cloud lowering mentioned earlier. Therefore, for discussion, this will be addressed first. The author, as a boy, had several school projects and scout badges, where I was taken by Piper Cub, to just below the lowest cloud level, where we measured the cloud level at its bottom (from the planes altimeter), its temperature, and a small sample for particulate matter (bugs, dust, etc.). At the time, the data was recorded and saved all of these years. This was done in the summers of 1950 and 1951. More recently, to this author, this lower cloud level, on observation over several recent years, appears to be much closer to Earth (more so than at any time in memory). With the old scout numbers, and observational curiosity, NOAA was asked for help and assistance. Starting with their old completed data (1950-DVD disc) we worked up to current data. Thus, with their help, old scout readings, and more recent data, a

real difference was noted. With that, one of the authors longest and most detailed research projects was launched, totaling five years of work. This author wanted to know with certainty if there was true statistical cloud lowering over, say, a sixty year time period (1950-2010). The first question asked by this research team is where would one obtain reliable, observable data on just the lowest cloud layer? In this past century of plane flight, it is known that most airports have to have the lowest cloud ceiling data to keep incoming planes from crashing into the ground. In other words, the airport tower would report to the incoming pilot that he has a specific increment of a lower cloud ceiling, plus other data (crosswinds, temperature, ice, etc.) so that he did not risk his life or the life of his passengers. The United States, according to their own records, started some early serious data taking and analysis as early as the 1950s, especially for large airports (La Guardia-New York). Multiple sites were then started in 1973 (see colored site map), under NOAA meteorological summary sites (via DVD-4). Ten North American sites (Chart 1) were randomly selected for detailed analysis. More sites could have been chosen, even up to a thousand, but considering that the ten sites chosen involved more than 2.5 million data points, it was felt that there was sufficient certainty on the overall answer. Statistical analysis shows that we could tell within a 99.5% certainty that there was, in fact, statistical lowering over a sixty year period.

CHART 1- TEN NORTH AMERICAN SITES

Most of NOAA has used successive instruments to get accurate lower cloud ceiling measurements. Early after World War II, it used direct airplane flight to take altimeter measurements, some crude reckoning, and crude cloud height meters. In the late 40s and early 50s, it switched over to more accurate height sensors called Ceilometers (see info on same in the rear of report). Over time even these were improved. Finally, the newest model called the CL31 Ceilometer, has replaced the old CT12K model on August 8, 2011 (see index at the end of this report). The Government has wisely placed most of these modern meters at United States airports, where they are most needed. Both the old and new Ceilometers were designed to read only the lowest opaque layer in the sky. This, of course, was exactly what most pilots had demanded. They needed accurate gauges to tell the height of the lowest cloud layer, so that they did not crash into the ground or buildings. They needed to stay under the clouds for visual confirmation of where the airport was, and to assure that they had plenty of airspace to make a proper landing. Therefore, as expected, these instruments will not read very high cloud layers, but only lower cloud layers or groupings. One thing to note on most NOAA charts is the use of the number 722. Its only function is to tell the reader that the meter is registering readings of unusually very high clouds, which of course is of no use to most pilots. Thus, when the meter wants to read these higher layers, it designates them at 722 values (meaning non-readable, false positive, or nonusable readings). On a clear day with no clouds, the meters will have a line of 722 readings, which of course has no meaning. The Ceilometers have been expertly designed to give very accurate lower cloud layer measurements every day, on the hour, all year long. This valuable data can then be given to the incoming pilot. A few times, very large numbers will appear with or in the 722 numbers. These, also, are excluded.

3. CHART AND COMPUTER ANALYSIS

FIGURE 1-NOAA METEOROLOGICAL SUMMARY SITES (DVD-4)

FIGURE 2-TEN SELECTED SITES FROM NOAA SUMMARY

DIAGRAM 1-SEATTLE AIRPORT DATA: 2009-2011

TABLE 1-BASELINE DATA (THOUSANDS OF SHEETS)-NOAA: DOS 1950-1973 DONE FOR PARTICULAR MONTHS OF JAN. AND FEB.

FIGURE 3-REQUEST FORM-2011

TABLE 2-2011 GLOBAL DATA (THOUSANDS OF SHEETS):CDCO02291325 NOTE: THIS SHEET FOR INDIANAPOLIS, IND.-CURRENT

TABLE 3-CALCULATIONS FOR NOAA METEROLOGICAL CLIMATE DATA STATUS: WITH % DETERMINED ABOVE, THEN ONE CAN GET AN AVERAGED VALUE OF THE CEILING HEIGHT (OVER THOUSANDS & THOUSANDS OF DETERMINATIONS). FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE INDIANAPOLIS SHEET (Table 2) THE 50% VALUE GIVES A SPLIT OF 73.9% AND 26.1%. THIS 26.1% IS THEN USED TO GET THE AVERAGED CEILING HEIGHT ON THE LEFT OF THE CHART: 26.1 % *1000=261FT. 261FT +7000FT=7261FT AVERAGED. THIS IS THEN DONE FOR ALL THE THOUSANDS OF SHEETS TO GIVE ANOTHER AVERAGE, WHICH STATISTICALLY WILL BE VERY CLOSE TO WHAT IS OBSERVED.

10

DIAGRAM 2 STATUS: THE MONTHS OF JANUARY AND FEBRUARY OF EACH YEAR (OF ALL DATA) WAS SELECTED. ONE CAN SEE THAT THOSE MONTHS HAVE THE HIGHEST CHANCE FOR CLOUD COVER. TO GO ON AND SHOW EVEN THE POSSIBILITY OF OVERALL CLOUD LOWERING, ONE HAS TO HAVE STRONG CLOUD COVERING. THIS ALSO BOLSTERS THE HYPOTHESIS SET FORTH IN THE NEXT SECTION UPCOMING.

4. DISCUSSION
After computer analysis of all the data, the old baseline data (taken from NOAADisc 4) was compared with the new data provided by the new Ceilometers (CL31), and a percent drop of the lower cloud cover was computed for each of the random sites selected on the North American continent. That gave Chart 2 and Diagram 3.

11

CHART 2

DIAGRAM 3 A GRAPH OF THE SEATTLE CLOUD LAYERS WAS PLOTTED OVER A THREE YEAR PERIOD. THE REASON FOR DOING THIS IS THAT WE DISCOVERED THIS PARTICULAR SITE HAD A VERY LINEAR, REPRODUCIBLE DECLINE FOR THE VERY RECENT YEARS OF 2009, 2010, AND 2011. SEATTLES LOWER CLOUD LAYER HAD A DECLINE SO LINEAR (DIAGRAM 1) ONE COULD PREDICT THE NEXT YEARS VALUE VERY ACCURATELY. IT JUST SO HAPPENED THAT THE SEATTLE SITE CLOSELY MIRRORED ALL THE SITES, IN OVERALL FORM (DEFINITE LOWERING) BUT NOT IN VALUES. WITH CLOUDS, WHICH VARY GREATLY IN SHAPE AND FORM (MUCH LIKE CHAOS THEORY), WHAT IS EXPECTED TO SHOW IS AN OVERALL TREND, AND THE MORE SITES SHOWING THE SAME TREND, THE STRONGER THE THEORY, ESPECIALLY WHEN ONE IS DEALING WITH MORE THAN 2.5 MILLION DATA POINTS.

12

5. FINAL COMMENTS
As it just so happens, this paper is not the only voice out in the ether on this serious subject of the lowering cloud cover. Unbeknownst to this author, when our team started our research five years ago, there was another research effort launched by a New Zealand team at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. They used NASAs Terra Spacecraft over the Indian Ocean. They employed the Multi-angled Imaging Spectro Radiometer (MISR) onboard Terra. Their study was headed by Chief Scientist, Roger Davies (Davies, Richard & Molloy, Matthew). Using different methods, the two teams came to the same scientific conclusionthat the Earth is experiencing cloud lowering. The two studies were done totally blind to one another. Thus, halfway around the world, neither team knew that there was anyone else working on the same problem. Both teams came up with virtually the same conclusions. Both teams, likewise, came up with approximately the same percent lowering. The New Zealand team determined about a 1% decline drop of cloud cover over this last decade (March 2000 to February 2010). The U.S. team came up with about a 6%-7% decline drop over the last quarter century (25 years). This is not just coincidental. The numbers are too perfect and match each other closely. Both groups used very reliable government instruments or data. Each group compiled data with detailed efforts or with the help of the agency they were working with (NASA/NOAA). With that kind of validity and scrupulous attention to detail, this author and our team here in the United States believe, however, in a much more ominous and farreaching conclusion to this problem of cloud lowering. We, to the man here, do not conclude, nor believe (as inferred by Roger Davis in his article) that the Earth will now undergo cooling. Our modeling and conclusions are quite the opposite of cooling.

13

From all the models that we have studied and drawn up, there is but one conclusion: Earth will not only continue to warm but will do so in catastrophic fashion, if nothing is done, and perhaps even if there is something done. We will experience continued droughts, year after year, shortened winters, shortages of water and water supplies. We may even see many peoples without food or drink that will span the globe. Our models predict a slow run-up to the above catastrophes, perhaps in the realm of decades or more. The true timetable is not known, only that it is right around the corner (geologically) if no changes are made.

END OF PART 1

14

REFERENCES
Amos, Johnathon. "Deep Ice Tells Long Climate Story." British Brodcasting Corp 28 April 2010: News. Basilevsky, Alexander T., Head, James W. "The Surface of Venus." Reports on Progress in Physics 2003: 66. Davies, Richard & Molloy, Matthew. "Global Cloud Height Fluctuations Measured by MISR on Terra From 2000 to 2010." Geophysical Research Letters 3 February 2012: 1-6. Dolce, Chris. "Warmest First Quarter (January to March) in recorded US History." NOAA Report 9 April 2012. Document. Fiche. Clouds and Atmosphere of Venus. Institute de Mecanique Celest et de Calcul des Ephemerides, 2004. Book. Grida. "Climate Change 2001: Scientific Basis." 2001. Grida. Web site. Ingersoll, A.P., Dowling, T.E., Gierasch, P.J., Orton, G.S., Read, P.L., Sanchez, Lavega, Showman, A.P., Vasavada, A.R.,. Dynamics of Jupiter's Atmosphere. Lunar and Planetary Institute, 2007. Book. Keeling, C.D., Whorf, T.P. Atmospheric CO2 Records From Sites in the SIO Air Sampling Network. Hawaii: Mauna Loa Observatory, 2004. Document. Leisner, S. "Observations of Enceladus and Dione as Sources for Saturn's Neutral Cloud." Lunar and Planetary Science (2007): 1425. Lunine, Jonathan I. "The Atmospheres of Uranus and Neptune." Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics (1993): 217-263. Document. Marland, G., Boden, T.A., Andres, R.J. "Global, Regional, and National CO2 Emissions." In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change (n.d.). Normile, Dennis. "Mission to Probe Venus' Curious Winds and Test Solar Sail For Propulsion." Science 2010. Ridpath, Ian. Eyewitness Companions-Astronomy. New York: DK Publishing, 2006. Book. Staff. "Calculated From File Global." 2008. IGMAC. "Global Carbon Budget 2008." 2008. IGMAC. Stott, Peter. "The 2011 State of the Climate Report (NOAA)." Met Office Centre of United Kingdom: Extreme Events of 2011 (n.d.). Document. Svedhem, Hakan, Titov, Dmitry V., Taylor, Fredric, Witasse, Oliver. "Venus as a More Earth-like Planet." Nature 2007: 629-632. Document.

15

PART: 2 THE VENUS PARADOX: DATA AND PROOF, HYPOTHESIS AND THEORY
R O B E R T J . S TR A N G , R E S E A R C H E R , M . D . , P H. D . , B . S . & P HA R M D .

The second part of this article involves explaining the rest of what is meant by the Venus Paradox. In Part 1, data was explained and research was shown on this important cloud cover lowering problem. This fact also has implications covering the Venus Paradox. To finish the discussion, well introduce another study done on the same problem of the cloud lowering done by Auckland University (Feb. 2012). The two studies were done blind to each others work, half a world away, but came up with nearly identical conclusions and values. (Davies, Richard & Molloy, Matthew) Next, questions were asked about whether there might be some insight gained by studying another planet that has cloud cover within our own solar system. Many were studied, and finally Venus was chosen as the best fit to this study. Data was also compiled on all the rest of the planets within our solar system that had cloud cover also. From those studies, a hypothesis was proposed to help explain the fact: why in our solar system do we have five of eight planets with a cloud cover? Is there a reason for this? Keywords: Venus Paradox, global warming, trapped heat sinks, high surface winds, much more violent weather, storms, heat

1. ABOUT AUTHOR
Name: Robert J. Strang, M.D., Ph.D., Pharm.D. Address: 420 Peterson Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52245 Phone: 319-354-4904 (America: Iowa)

2. INTRODUCTION
After all the research was completed here in the United States, the Auckland University study (Davies, Richard & Molloy, Matthew) was then studied in detail, and the two research programs were compared carefully. It was obvious to every

16

researcher in our study here in the United States that we are dealing with a potentially serious problem. Both studies coupled together indicate huge implications. After all, true cloud lowering is serious. We here do not know any other way to look at this problem. The Auckland University Team in New Zealand did a great job on the same problem. The question now asked here in the United States is: What do we do with this completed work? Should this information be disseminated out and to whom, and how far? What obligation do we have here? Can we, in good conscience, just sit on this information? In the end, do we need more information on really how serious this problem is and the study there-from? Now, what does this data really mean? To answer this end question, we asked ourselves: Can we gain some further insight by studying another planet within our solar system? Most all the planets have had some satellite work done either by the United States or other countries within this past fifty years (Basilevsky, Alexander T., Head, James W.)(Svedhem, Hakan, Titov, Dmitry V., Taylor, Fredric, Witasse, Oliver)(Normile). After much discussion and study, the overwhelming best choice or consensus agreed on here was Venus. Venus is only slightly smaller than Earth (only 400 miles diameter smaller) (Ridpath). Venus has been studied by no less than forty probes within the past forty years (Ridpath). Venus has a solid surface and soil. It has an appreciable atmosphere. From space, the cloud cover appears like an unbroken fuzz blanket covering its surface. Although Venus is very hot, 867F(Ridpath), it has no liquid pools of any kind. It has many valleys and mountains. Its surface is dotted by multiple volcanoes, perhaps some still active. Like Earth, it has some impact craters. The most important fact here, however, is that Venus has lots and lots of CO2 in its atmosphere, just like Earth. The Venus atmosphere, which is fifty miles deep, is predominately carbon dioxide (96.5%), with the rest (3.5%) being some nitrogen, water vapor, sulfur dioxide, and a little argon (Ridpath). Earths atmosphere is 310 miles deep and contains about 392 ppm (Ridpath) CO2 and other global warming gases. Although Earths total atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is less than that of Venus, the pace of accumulation here on

17

Earth is rapidly rising. The CO2 concentration currently on Earth is more than it has been in twenty million years (Amos). The question still front and center is: Why has there been cloud lowering? Both teams involved in this research (New Zealand and the United States) would like to know the answer! One question (from both studies) that is answered for sure now is: The cloud lowering is for real! Further, in the United States, we can find no literature studies or academia conferences that have even hinted on this. Thus, it was felt that further studies on Venus were needed and should be completed. With the studies of Venus, one other fact bore out-something we did not expect. If one looks carefully at all of the planets with complete cloud cover over their globe surface, or at the outer border of its atmosphere, one finds that the planet inside will always be associated with very high wind speeds. This is true of each and every planet studied. If the planet somehow obtains a cloud cover over millions and millions of years by natural processes, it will also obtain very high surface wind speeds. It appears that these two observable facts: (cloud covering and wind speed), seem to be linked somehow. We call this the Venus Paradox. It is a paradox. First off, it is not expected (see conclusions-thermodynamics). Second, it is a paradox, because these wind speeds do not seem to be associated with surface temperature. A case in point is Neptune, which has a surface temperature of -320F (coldest), but has the fastest wind speed: 1330 miles/hr. (the fastest by far)(Ridpath) Most, if not all, the cloud covered planets studied had wind speeds so fast that they would be uninhabitable by human life as we know it. Now, let us look at all the available data of each individual planet to see why it is, that in our solar system, five out of eight planets (Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune) are surfaced with total cloud cover. Of these, each and every one has associated high surface wind speeds. Of these wind speeds, we are not talking about light gusts of wind. The wind on each of these planets is constant, fierce, and unlivable in human terms.

18

3. PLANET AND COMPUTER ANALYSIS

PLANET: VENUS DIAMETER: 7,521 miles dia SURFACE TEMP: 867F MAIN GAS: CO2 -96.5%, N2-3.5% PROBES: 20 PLUS PROBES WIND SPEED: 220 m/hr PLANET: EARTH DIAMETER: 7,926 miles dia SURFACE TEMP: 59F MAIN GAS: O2 -20.9%, CO2-392ppm PROBES: Earth WIND SPEED: 0-40/60 mph

PLANET: JUPITER DIAMETER: 88,846 miles dia SURFACE TEMP: 54,000F-CORE MAIN GAS: H2 -89.8%, He, NH3-10.2% PROBES: VOYAGER 1-main one WIND SPEED: 100m/sec zonal

PLANET: SATURN DIAMETER: 74,914 miles dia SURFACE TEMP: CLOUD TOP- 292F MAIN GAS: H2 -96.3%, He 3.7% PROBES: CASSINI-main one WIND SPEED: 1,200 mph @EQUATOR

19

PLANET: URANUS DIAMETER: 31,763 miles dia SURFACE TEMP:-353F cloud top MAIN GAS: H2 -82.5%, He&CH-17.5% PROBES: VOYAGER 2-main one WIND SPEED: 250meters/sec

PLANET: NEPTUNE DIAMETER: 30,760 miles dia SURFACE TEMP: -320F cloud top MAIN GAS: H2 -79%, He-18% PROBES: VOYAGER 2-main one WIND SPEED: 1,300 mph (highest)

SOURCE 1: COLLECTED REFERENCES AGGREGATED

The inescapable fact from these planets is that they all have a fuzzy outer cloud cover. When that is present, each and every one of these planets has extremely high surface wind speeds. This is supported by the fact that neither Mercury nor Mars have much atmosphere, thus no wind speed. Mars did show occasional dust devils and few infrequent dust storms, but those both eventually abated and cleared. One observation agreed upon here in the United States is that if a planet is somehow able to get a cloud cover (either natural or man-made), then it will be forevermore left with high fierce wind speeds. The question asked here is

whether these planets had some single event that put the clouds on its entire surface. Or, was this a million or even billion year process where agents were released slowly into the atmosphere? Then, when the planet was completely cloud covered, the winds took off, or did this cloud cover accumulation happen over long time periods with gradual increase in wind speeds!? Perplexing!?

20

4. DISCUSSION AND HYPOTHESIS

This has, to this author, all the appearances of an ordered process. One would predict by applying thermodynamic principles, that all the planets would have a common denominator (via entropy-over billions and billions of years) of being featureless, worn down, simple and degraded much like Mercury. After all, we are dealing here with billions of years. That is a long time to have thermodynamics principles at work and applied, at least partially. We just do not see that type of solar system, try hard as we may. As discussed previously, the United States and New Zealands studies show lowering of the cloud cover. It only makes common sense that when the blanket of clouds is lowered, it will cover more surface area. From afar, then, Earth would gradually, over time, appear more and more as Venus does. In addition, here in the United States, modeling was done on this problem. It appears that the high surface wind speeds do go along with a lower cloud layer or blanket. The modeling shows that when surface winds were squeezed into a tighter, a more narrow gap or channel, the winds picked up speed. Thus, as the cloud layer gets lower and lower (even by small amounts), the surface winds pick up more and more. The surface winds then appear to become more and more unstable. What follows are very violent storms, eddies, and weird wind effects never seen before. More and more very high fierce surface winds will become the norm and rule the planet, be it Jupiter, Neptune, Uranus, Saturn or even Venus. 5. CONCLUSION Venus Paradox Hypothesis: When any planet or interplanetary body obtains a complete or nearly complete cloud cover, this will be linked with the planets surface winds during the planets geological development. Either through natural processes or by other means, the winds will increase in speed and tend to become unstable through time, much like Jupiter, as an example, in our solar system. The Earths environment is much like a chemical reaction vessel with layering of different chemicals (gases like O2, CO2, nitrogen, argon, and a few minor gases)

21

layered according to density of the chemical. Carbon dioxide, being heavier than oxygen or nitrogen, will have a tendency to hug the earth more than other gases. Of course, there will be constant mixing of these gases, but carbon dioxide will still be in predominance closer to Earth. It is felt that the drop of the clouds is tied in with this density mix of the gases. Apparently, with more CO2 in our lower atmosphere, this has pulled the water vapor clouds down. Certainly, it is felt that the increased carbon dioxide (from many sources)is in the end to blame. It is felt that the cloud lowering that the two research teams uncovered can well explain most, if not all, violent and weird weather phenomena that Earth is now experiencing. Cloud lowering found at any time in Earths history cannot be good. This is the more serious side to this research. If we are correct, even a small amount in what we have found, then this research can be used to explain many of the storms, droughts, and records that seem to be broken monthly when associated with our weather. It helps explain Hurricane Sandy and the record-breaking tornadoes in Oklahoma. Beyond just helping explain current weather patterns, we here consider the overall outcome of our studies to have some important, ominous warnings. Having done all of this research over a five year period, we have seen the clear warning markers on the road, or as some would say, we have seen the radar screens. It is not as if we are not sensitive to the needs of humans and nations here on Earth. We tried hard, here, to see if the data could be interpreted differently and less ominously-but we could not. Finally, in closing, the Earth and its people are on a collision course with themselves. We may not have to wait for an incoming meteor to wipe Earth out. We may do that by ourselves using our own means, greed and inaction.

THE END

22

REFERENCES
Amos, Johnathon. "Deep Ice Tells Long Climate Story." British Brodcasting Corp 28 April 2010: News. Basilevsky, Alexander T., Head, James W. "The Surface of Venus." Reports on Progress in Physics 2003: 66. Davies, Richard & Molloy, Matthew. "Global Cloud Height Fluctuations Measured by MISR on Terra From 2000 to 2010." Geophysical Research Letters 3 February 2012: 1-6. Dolce, Chris. "Warmest First Quarter (January to March) in recorded US History." NOAA Report 9 April 2012. Document. Fiche. Clouds and Atmosphere of Venus. Institute de Mecanique Celest et de Calcul des Ephemerides, 2004. Book. Grida. "Climate Change 2001: Scientific Basis." 2001. Grida. Web site. Ingersoll, A.P., Dowling, T.E., Gierasch, P.J., Orton, G.S., Read, P.L., Sanchez, Lavega, Showman, A.P., Vasavada, A.R.,. Dynamics of Jupiter's Atmosphere. Lunar and Planetary Institute, 2007. Book. Keeling, C.D., Whorf, T.P. Atmospheric CO2 Records From Sites in the SIO Air Sampling Network. Hawaii: Mauna Loa Observatory, 2004. Document. Leisner, S. "Observations of Enceladus and Dione as Sources for Saturn's Neutral Cloud." Lunar and Planetary Science (2007): 1425. Lunine, Jonathan I. "The Atmospheres of Uranus and Neptune." Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics (1993): 217-263. Document. Marland, G., Boden, T.A., Andres, R.J. "Global, Regional, and National CO2 Emissions." In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change (n.d.). Normile, Dennis. "Mission to Probe Venus' Curious Winds and Test Solar Sail For Propulsion." Science 2010. Ridpath, Ian. Eyewitness Companions-Astronomy. New York: DK Publishing, 2006. Book. Staff. "Calculated From File Global." 2008. IGMAC. "Global Carbon Budget 2008." 2008. IGMAC. Stott, Peter. "The 2011 State of the Climate Report (NOAA)." Met Office Centre of United Kingdom: Extreme Events of 2011 (n.d.). Document. Svedhem, Hakan, Titov, Dmitry V., Taylor, Fredric, Witasse, Oliver. "Venus as a More Earth-like Planet." Nature 2007: 629-632. Document.

23