What would the planet Venus be like if it hadn't lost its magnetic field and stopped spinning?

Like Earth. Livable. Also Venus is spinning, but in the opposite direction from the rest of the planets in our solar system.

Where in the world do you get your information? Venus is still rotating. It just rotates in the opposite direction as earth and all the other planets.

It’s not livable because of its dense atmosphere, which is mostly carbon dioxide gas (about 96%), with some nitrogen (about 3%) and a very small amount of water vapor (0.003%). It also has a thick layer of sulfuric acid clouds. This is what traps the heat, not the rotation.

It can never be more Earth-like, because of it’s placement in the solar system, the second planet out from the sun. It would take a huge stretch of science fiction to make it so.

Can you give us a link to the article that gave you the idea that Venus’ core is no longer rotating?

@Dutchess_III I think Yellowdog means if Venus’ core was spinning. Not the planet.

http://www.universetoday.com/36687/rotation-of-venus/

From the link @Rarebear posted @Yellowdog “Astronomers think that Venus was impacted by another large planet early in its history, billions of years ago. The combined momentum between the two objects averaged out to the current rotational speed and direction.”

So the “core” didn’t just stop spinning for some reason. Being hit by another planet, billions of years ago, caused to to change the direction of its rotation.

No, it’s not conducive to life, like earth is.

Nope. Too much greenhouse gas.

I am the original poster. I guess one of the things I really hate about Fluther is the condescending attitude I often get when I ask a question.

Venus rotates VERY SLOWLY in the opposite direction. Its year and its day are about the same. Not merely retro but slow

Venus has very little magnetic field as a result of this, Where “in the world” did I get my information? Maybe in Fourth or Fifth grade or the summer in between, in 1974 or 1975? I took one year of Astronomy as a physics course in college (1986) and worked in a planetarium in high school.

Anyhow, the lack of a magnetic field cannot protect the planet from the solar winds and that is what caused the planet to heat up, causing the water to evaporate into the clouds or never form on the surface at all. A runaway greenhouse effect took over from there, again, with no magnetic field to shield the planet from solar winds.

Well, anyhow, if Venus had a magnetic field, that is, if its core was spinning to produce one, it would not be as affected by solar winds and still be in the habitable zone for life. My question was merely, what would the temperatures without those clouds / greenhouse conditions.

Maybe I should give up this Fluther thing.

.

It would still be too hot to sustain life because of its proximity to the sun.

@Dutchess_III @Yellowdog is correct on the last post.

Would the planet be habitable if it didn’t have the green house gases?

@Dutchess_III Potentially, yes. No way to really know, though. I’m sure there are “what if” computer models, though.

PamPerdue on Amazon’s Askville Q&A website answered this question in 2009. Formulaically speaking, if Venus were more Earthlike in composition BUT IN ITS POSITION IN PROXIMITY TO THE SUN, its surface temps would range about 70–80 degrees F. hotter than similar Earth latitudes. The polar regions MIGHT be comfortable for life as we know it. But most of the planet would be considerably over 120 degrees, even 180s, year round. (averaging 140 as to Earth’s 70). The North and South poles might freeze briefly in the winters.

Depending on their composition, if it had cloud cover like we thought of similar composition to Earth’s, there could be blockage of the sun’s radiation and the surface could remain dark and frozen. But as others have pointed out, the CO2 gasses are not like Earth’s clouds, contributing to the greenhouse effect and heat not dissipating