The atmosphere of Venus is composed of 96.5% carbon dioxide, 3.5% nitrogen, and traces of other gases…
“The three major constituents of air, and therefore of Earth’s atmosphere, are nitrogen, oxygen, and argon. Water vapor accounts for roughly 0.25% of the atmosphere by mass. The concentration of water vapor (a greenhouse gas) varies significantly from around 10 ppm by volume in the coldest portions of the atmosphere to as much as 5% by volume in hot, humid air masses, and concentrations of other atmospheric gases are typically quoted in terms of dry air (without water vapor).
The remaining gases are often referred to as trace gases, among which are the greenhouse gases, principally *carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone.”
a day on Venus is longer than its year! This is because it takes 246 (earth) days to rotate on its axis and 227 days to orbit the sun. In other words, one side of Venus does not receive direct sunlight for months
Earth could turn into a hothouse planet like Venus, with boiling oceans and acid rain, if humans don’t curb irreversible climate change, physicist Stephen Hawking claimed in a recent interview.
“We are close to the tipping point, where global warming becomes irreversible. Trump’s action could push the Earth over the brink, to become like Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees [Celsius], and raining sulfuric acid,” he told BBC News, referring to the president’s decision to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate deal.
But most climate experts say that scenario is a dramatic and implausible exaggeration: Relative to Venus, planet Earth is much farther from the sun and given its chemical makeup will never have such a thick carbon dioxide atmosphere, so it could not likely reach temperatures of 482 degrees Fahrenheit (250 degrees C) that Hawking described in the interview, they say. [Doomsday: 9 Real Ways the Earth Could End]
Earth, meanwhile, is protected from solar radiation by an atmosphere that is dramatically different from that of Venus.
“Venus’ atmosphere is about 100 times thicker than Earth’s atmosphere, and composed almost entirely of CO2 [carbon dioxide],” Robinson said. By contrast, Earth’s atmosphere is mostly molecular nitrogen and oxygen, with less than 0.04 percent coming from carbon dioxide, Robinson told Live Science in an email.
This is what university education looks like
In a recent academic journal article, two feminist professors claim that citing sources in scholarly articles contributes to “white heteromasculinity.”
Rutgers University professor Carrie Mott and University of Waterloo professor Daniel Cockayneadvance the claim in an article published last month in the Feminist Journal of Geography, but also suggest that citation can serve as “a feminist and anti-racist technology of resistance” if references are chosen with the explicit intent of promoting “those authors and voices we want to carry forward.”
Mott and Cockayne say citation practices are an issue of scholarly concern because whether a professor’s work is cited by other scholars has strong implications for hiring, promotion, tenure, and how “certain voices are represented over others” in academia.
“To cite only white men…or to only cite established scholars…does a disservice to researchers and writers who are othered by white heteromasculinism,” they argue, defining “white heteromasculinism” as “an intersectional system of oppression describing on-going processes that bolster the status of those who are white, male, able-bodied, economically privileged, heterosexual, and cisgendered.”
The authors claim that this oppressive tradition contributes to the “marginalization of women, people of color, and those othered through white heteromasculine hegemony,” asserting that “particular voices and bodies are persistently left out of the conversation altogether.”
Mott, one of the co-authors, told Campus Reform that she and Cockayne were inspired to write about citation practices after observing that “white men tend to be cited in much higher numbers than people from other backgrounds,” explaining that “we started looking into research that had been done in other fields about similar topics, and wanted to write something specifically for Geographers to think about the relationship between knowledge production and identity.”
According to Mott, women and minorities “have contributed a lot to Geographic research,” but those contributions have largely been overlooked by other researchers, which not only hinders the professional advancement of individual scholars, but also denies the benefit that their diverse perspectives might offer to the discipline.
“When it is predominantly white, heteronormative males who are cited, this means that the views and knowledge that are represented do not reflect the experience of people from other backgrounds,” she asserted. “When scholars continue to cite only white men on a given topic, they ignore the broader diversity of voices and researchers that are also doing important work on a that topic.”
According to the most recent research by the American Association of Geographers, however, women only account for 37 percent of geography professors, and only publish 33 percent of research articles related to geography.
Campus Reform inquired as to whether the citational disparity might simply reflect the relative preponderance of white men in the field, but Cockayne rebuffed that suggestion, saying, “the point we are trying to make is that important research done by traditionally marginalized voices…is often ignored by ‘mainstream’ and very well-established scholars—which means, in geography at least, white male Marxists.”
The professors conclude their paper by suggesting that researchers practice “conscientious engagement” in their citations “as a way to self-consciously draw attention to those whose work is being reproduced.”
Specifically, they urge their fellow scholars to “think through how many women, people of color, early career scholars, graduate students, and non-academics are cited,” saying this will call attention to “the power dynamics that are unintentionally reproduced therein.”
They caution, however, that this approach entails a certain risk of “basing assumptions of gender or cisnormativity on particularly gendered names.”