Global cooling is pure BS by rue

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Global cooling is pure BS

POSTED BY: RUE
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 4, 2009 04:39
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1678
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:16 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

http://www.rdmag.com/Environment-Search-for-truth-in-climate-change-nu
mbers-heats-up/?wnnvz=cIpb87iV1KLyC6-c

"The case that the Earth might be cooling partly stems from recent weather. Last year was cooler than previous years. It's been a while since the super-hot years of 1998 and 2005. So is this a longer climate trend or just weather's normal ups and downs?

In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.

Records kept by the British meteorological office and satellite data used by climate skeptics still show 1998 as the hottest year. However, data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA show 2005 has topped 1998. Published peer-reviewed scientific research generally cites temperatures measured by ground sensors, which are from NOAA, NASA and the British, more than the satellite data.

The recent Internet chatter about cooling led NOAA's climate data center to re-examine its temperature data. It found no cooling trend.

... 'The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record,' said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. 'Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming.'"

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 5:50 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Prominent Russian Scientist: 'We should fear a deep temperature drop -- not catastrophic global warming'
'Warming had a natural origin...CO2 is 'not guilty'
http://climatedepot.com/a/3515/Prominent-Russian-Scientist-We-should-f
ear-a-deep-temperature-drop--not-catastrophic-global-warming

Quote:
Observations of the Sun show that as for the increase in temperature, carbon dioxide is "not guilty" and as for what lies ahead in the upcoming decades, it is not catastrophic warming, but a global, and very prolonged, temperature drop. [...] Over the past decade, global temperature on the Earth has not increased; global warming has ceased, and already there are signs of the future deep temperature drop. [...] It follows that warming had a natural origin, the contribution of CO2 to it was insignificant, anthropogenic increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide does not serve as an explanation for it, and in the foreseeable future CO2 will not be able to cause catastrophic warming. The so-called greenhouse effect will not avert the onset of the next deep temperature drop, the 19th in the last 7500 years, which without fail follows after natural warming. [...] We should fear a deep temperature drop -- not catastrophic global warming. Humanity must survive the serious economic, social, demographic and political consequences of a global temperature drop, which will directly affect the national interests of almost all countries and more than 80% of the population of the Earth. A deep temperature drop is a considerably greater threat to humanity than warming.

2009 U.S. Senate Report of More Than 700 Dissenting Scientists Over Man-Made Global Warming
www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentR
ecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3

Global Warming Tax
www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php

Which is why GoreObama traded "Global Warming" for "Climate Change". Hedge their bets.

"The Sun... it's that big hot fireball in the sky. But that's not important right now?"
-Pirate News

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 7:00 PM

DREAMTROVE

May be kicking a dead horse, but I'll say it again:

Co2 rising and global warming are two symptoms of the same thing: Deforestation. This isn't rocket science.

There are two types of cloud formations: Transpiration and evaporation. It doesn't take a 5th grader to figure out that the former occurs at a much lower temp. and acts as a convection current to keep the Earth close to the geothermal temp.

These theories about the oceanic rise of co2 are based on ignorance: The oceans are the source of co2, not the destination. The shrinking forests consume co2. The production/destruction of co2 annually dwarfs any impact that human industry has on the stuff.

97% of animal life lives in the sea, and produces co2 and h2o from o2 and c6h12o6. Plants live on land and produce o2 and c6h12o6 from co2 and h2o. Trees transpire a far larger volume of water than anything else on land, and land animals are really negligible.

I think we just determined that an acre of land can support a couple humans, several thousand mice, a hundreds of pounds of insects or so, and 20 tons of plants. At least we know where the land biomass is. destroy that, and, of course, the whole planetary ecosystem is fucked.

I'm sorry, this isn't rocket science. I don't even get why there's a debate. I hear these panic stories about "runaway co2." News flash: There is not enough carbon on or in the Earth to cause that effect.

But if we just use our heads instead of our wallets, it will never become an issue, because plants currently seeded in the Earth have been waiting aeons for the co2 level to reach heights at which they can thrive. Expect a rapid devolution into primeval forests, provided there's something more than sand for them to grow on. This can happen sooner, like when we're still alive, or later, like after the human race has done itself and most of the species on Earth in.

Footnote: There has been a lot of fancy speculation about why my area of the planet is dropping in temperature, rather than rising. I can solve this one in an instant also: I live in NY, upstate, which essentially all forest. The melting subarctic ice has been causing a rise in the water table, hence forests thrive. More transpiration, more mild temperatures. Actually, the winters have gotten much warmer here, the summers colder, the average, a couple degrees colder or so.

If you happen to live in smog city, ca, then you might experience some greenhouse effect. The rest of the planet, not so much. But mostly the heat you're feeling is just coming from lack of trees, and oh yeah, building a city in the middle of the desert.

Peace out

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 7:34 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

The Ecoterrorists want to deforest the planet to REDUCE CO2 and Global Warming...

Google it.

Yes they are insane.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 29, 2009 1:28 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
The Ecoterrorists want to deforest the planet to REDUCE CO2 and Global Warming...

Google it.

Yes they are insane.

Okay, THAT was funny. PN called someone else "insane".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 29, 2009 2:03 AM

RIVERLOVE

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
The Ecoterrorists want to deforest the planet to REDUCE CO2 and Global Warming...

Google it.

Yes they are insane.

I thought they loved trees, and Nature, and stuff like dat. Burning down houses is the means they use to justify their desired ends I guess. Don't make no sense.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 29, 2009 3:38 AM

DREAMTROVE

If an ecoterrorist really wanted to accomplish something, they'd take out the IMF.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 29, 2009 4:41 AM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
I'm sorry, this isn't rocket science. I don't even get why there's a debate. I hear these panic stories about "runaway co2." News flash: There is not enough carbon on or in the Earth to cause that effect.

Umm... Hmm. I'm going to have to disagree with you there. We have pretty strong evidence that during the Hadean and Archaen eras, the planetary atmosphere was MOSTLY CO2.

In the Hadean area, the Earth was mostly molten rock, though I'm not sure if we've proven that's because the atmosphere was hot enough to melt the rock or if it's just because the earth was so young. The time frame occurs at about the same time as we've dated the major volcanic fields on the moon, so it's possible that when the moon got blasted out of the earth both exhibited increased volcanism.

But we know the atmosphere was mostly CO2 in both, because we started finding what we call banded iron formations all over the earth dated to those times. The formations are layered, banded with silicate sediments and then a layer of iron rich material.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banded_iron_formation

The theory goes that the formations were the result of photosynthesizing, possibly thermophile microbes. When there were enough microbes, they used up a lot of the CO2 in the atmosphere and introduced O2, and the O2 was able to bind up free-floating iron ions and settle. Eventually you introduced enough O2 in relation to CO2 that you had a big cooling event, which some call snowball earth because we've found glacial till dated to the times at locations that at the time would have been at the equator. I actually have a few outcrops of it near my house.

Well, the cool off resulted in a die off, warmer microbes surviving around vents, until volcanism introduced enough CO2 again to bring the CO2 O2 levels back into balance and warm the earth back up, and then you get normal (silicate) sedimentary deposition.

Secondly, I'm not one hundred percent on the statement that the ocean is a CO2 producer, not a sink, because photosynthesizing plants and microbes outnumber oxygen breathing animals... And because of limestone production. Well, another thing to look into.

Back when you explained your argument about deforestation (particularly slash and burn), though, I found it very convincing. I think that explains very well a lot of the data in regards to the correlation between CO2 increases and global warming temperatures (which are measured and real). I still have yet to compare the projected tons of CO2 from slash and burn deforestation compared to industry such as coal and from cars, but it's a viable one.

I sincerely doubt that we have the atmospheric constituents to really get on the path of a run-away greenhouse, because we've had MORE CO2 and MORE methane in the atmosphere before, and no greenhouse. We do need to keep watch on our trees, for any environmental stress on species, and other global warming concerns like drought and strong storms and rising water. I don't think the measures that have been proposed to combat global warming, such as green technology, will hurt us (except cap and trade, that's stupid, it doesn't even solve the problem it was created to address), they probably even are helpful, but we need to watch that we don't lose our heads and give into certain dangerous interests.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 29, 2009 9:36 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

http://nasascience.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-sys
tem/ocean-carbon-cycle

Prior to the Industrial Revolution, the annual uptake and release of carbon dioxide by the land and the ocean had been on average just about balanced. In more recent history, atmospheric concentrations have increased by 80 ppm (parts per million) over the past 150 years. However, only about half of the carbon released through fossil fuel combustion in this time has remained in the atmosphere, the rest being sequestered the ocean.

IMPORTANT POINTS
1) CO2 has gone up due to large-scale release of previously sequestered carbon caused by burning of fossil fuels
2) The ocean is a sink for CO2, absorbing roughly half of emitted CO2
3) Trees do not appear to be an important sink, as the rest of the emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere

Additionally:

https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2007/NR-07-04-03.htm
l
"Planting and preserving forests in the tropics is more likely to slow down global warming.
But the study concludes that planting new trees in certain parts of the planet may actually warm the Earth.
The research, led by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory atmospheric scientist Govindasamy Bala, appears in the April 9-13 online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
According to the study, new forests in mid- to high-latitude locations could actually create a net warming. ...
Forests affect climate in three different ways: they absorb the greenhouse gas – carbon dioxide – from the atmosphere and help keep the planet cool; they evaporate water to the atmosphere and increase cloudiness, which also helps keep the planet cool; and they are dark and absorb sunlight (the albedo effect), warming the Earth. Previous climate change mitigation strategies that promote planting trees have taken only the first effect into account.
“Our study shows that only tropical rainforests are strongly beneficial in helping slow down global warming,” Bala said. “It is a win-win situation in the tropics because trees in the tropics, in addition to absorbing carbon dioxide, promote convective clouds that help to cool the planet. In other locations, the warming from the albedo effect either cancels or exceeds the net cooling from the other two effects.”"

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/biochar-charcoa
l-global-warming-460709
BIOCHAR OTOH MAY be a solution to long-term sequestering of carbon.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 29, 2009 9:47 AM

BYTEMITE

I'm familiar with two of those arguments, which is why I argued that the ocean IS a sink for CO2.

but this one I haven't heard much about.

Quote:
Trees do not appear to be an important sink, as the rest of the emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere

Do you have cites for this?

I still think slash and burn is likely a large source for CO2, even if trees aren't a sink.

Also, your comments contradict themselves:

Quote:
Forests affect climate in three different ways: they absorb the greenhouse gas – carbon dioxide – from the atmosphere and help keep the planet cool

Trees aren't a sink, but forests are?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 29, 2009 10:16 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

If you read the link - you'll see that NEW trees take up and sequester carbon dioxide - mature trees don't, except for the very small amount in the leaves.

Mature trees NOT in the tropics take up CO2 as they are leafing out in spring, but release it in fall when the leaves - uhm - fall - and decay.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 29, 2009 11:06 AM

BYTEMITE

Ah, okay. Sorry about that. <_< I thought you were just including the article as a cite.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 29, 2009 11:59 AM

DREAMTROVE

Byte,

All depends what planet you live on:

1. No one has proof that the Earth existed during the Hadean aeon. Sure, prior to that, some sort of proto-earth existed, but you're going to have to sail the earth through the sun to recreate those conditions. Under any such situation, we would have far larger problems then the level of co2.

2. The earth, as a gaseous cloud, or liquid, would be as it is today, in terms of chemical constituents. IIRC, there's about 1000 times as much oxygen as carbon. Universe wide, or even solar system wide, oxygen is only about twice as common as carbon, but we're not a carbon rich planet. There's very little that one can do to radically alter the gas-liquid-solid portion of the earth's crust, without destroying the surface of the Earth first, which again leads us to larger problems.

3. During the years of the solid earth, I've never run across evidence that the co2 content was any higher than 0.77%, and the o2 content is around 23%? Okay, taking into account that 99% of the biosphere is ocean, the ocean is 85% oxygen and <0.003% carbon. The earth's crust is somewhere around 50% oxygen by mass, and only trace amounts <1% carbon. The absurd situation could be created, and may have been as you say, but not in an Earth that anyone could be standing on for a number of other reasons.

Given the absence of large amounts of carbon, any early high readings of %co2 content would be due to an absence of oxygen in the atmosphere, not a prevalence of carbon.

Quote:
so it's possible that when the moon got blasted out of the earth both exhibited increased volcanism.

I feel quite certain no such event occured. It seems far more likely that the Earth and the moon had nothing in common until they fell into a mutual orbit, probably around 3.3 million years ago, a good half billion post-hadean. My guess, the moon was probably here first, because the Earth falls within the heliosphere which made up the sun, so it's unlikely that a high-hydrogen body like the earth could have formed within this area, and that it's more likely that the earth was formed somewhere outside the heliosphere, and its orbit decayed do to a cataclysmic event, or that the moon did, and brought with it a tremendous amount of hydrogen, then stolen by the earth due to the greater mass. The only flaw with the latter idea is that the moon dates back considerably older than the earth, and it would make sense that the moon has always been hydrogen poor. To be sure, we would have to test the mountains of the moon for embeded water or hydrogen content.

4. There is greenhouse effect, but it's not the major thing that's going on. The temperature was higher when the co2 was at 7700ppm, but correlation doesn't prove causation. Also, the Earth was perfectly habitable at the time.

Going back to the less habitable snowball earth scenario: If you take my radical position that the Earth was not always orbiting at 1AU, no more radical information is needed. My theory is based on the abundance of hydrogen on the Earth, which is really impossible under the laws of star formation we have, if you place the earth within the heliosphere, which IIRC, is about 1.5 AU radius.

Placing the Earth initially at 2-3 AU would make a lot more sense, given our chemical constituency. Placing it further out and it would be liable to become a satellite of Jupiter. Introduce a highly elliptical orbit for either the Earth or the moon, and the two could have easily passed close enough to have a major cataclysmic event, especially if the earth was in possession of any smaller moons, which would be likely. This would create a snowball earth. I can't think of anything else that would. It would also explain why the moon is hydrogen poor and the earth hydrogen rich.

Still, you're not going to achieve radical co2 levels unless you remove the oxygen from the earth's atmosphere, which is another far worse problem than high co2 levels.

Quote:
I still have yet to compare the projected tons of CO2 from slash and burn deforestation compared to industry such as coal and from cars, but it's a viable one.

I'm not sure if this was addressed at me. This wasn't really my take on it. The quantity of co2 created and destroyed on a regular basis by the other inhabitants of the earth dwarf anything we do.

I'm pretty sure Kathy's off the mark here: yes, this might be true per unit mass of tree, but certainly not per tree, and I feel fairly certain it's not per acre, as old growth forests turn over a much higher volume of transpiration.

As for where the co2 is coming from and going to, pictures say it better:

Nasa's co2 reading map, July 2008

Green map

The old growth forests show up in dark green, medium green are second growth, and light green are grasslands, semi-arid, the rest is desert.

It's obvious and 100% predictable that the first growth forests are showing lowest land-based co2, and the deserts showing the highest.

Remember, this doesn't mean those deserts are producing co2, just that they aren't combating it. The co2 is travelling a lot from its major production areas, which appear to be odd bands where there is probably a lot of animal life.

Most curious is that Antarctica appears to be a huge carbon sink, as well as not, in parts, but on balance, yes.

Note the total absence of any indication of human presence in the map. If human-generated pollution were a major factor, NE China would show up as the major red area, followed by NE US, and Europe.

The behavior of co2 related to temperature probably effects its polar behavior. But the picture make the point: This a huge dynamic system, and our directly co2 production is basically undetectable, but the rise in co2 levels due to lack of consumption in deforested areas glares as the single most striking feature on the face of the earth.

More pretty pictures

Co2 history (if I can find a longer one, prior to the 7700 peak, it was all the way down at 300, went to 3000, then back down, then up to 7000, at least twice)

I think my point about levels of forestry vs. co2 is made, but the co2 variation on the ocean in curious. Of course, some of it is obvious: Shallow oceans contain more life, and produce more co2. I'm going to take a random guess and say that the temperature related condensation of co2 is responsible for the polar activity.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 29, 2009 12:22 PM

BYTEMITE

With the Earth capture theory, I think we're getting into things that are going to be pretty hard to prove or disprove, so I'm not going to make any comment on that besides to bring up Occam's Razor. The simplest, most elegant explanation, that fits ALL of the data, is more likely to be correct.

It may well be that your suggestion fits all the data, and better than other theories, and I'd have to look into that more. If it does, then this is the best explanation.

But without reading more into this, I find this more complicated than building on the foundation that the earth formed where it is. Earth isn't the biggest, most massive terrestrial planet ever, but it would have been one heck of a gravitational wild card during the solar system's formation if it's orbit was so extreme. And while the moon doesn't have an atmosphere, and as such some of the components contained within earth's closed system, the rocks are consistent with earth rock compositionally, in that they're mostly mafic feldspar, as earth mantle rock is considered.

The amount of the free oxygen on earth is thought to have been contributed to by degassing rock, but mostly organic processes. It could be that carbon dioxide originally bound up with the same free atmospheric oxygen has become fixed in organisms.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 29, 2009 2:02 PM

DREAMTROVE

There simply isn't enough carbon on Earth.

The only way you can get a venutian atmosphere on the Earth is to remove the oxygen, which could be done through metal oxides, especially with metals towards the core, but such an earth probably would not have a solid surface.

As for the Earth's current location, the problem is that there was no hydrogen present at the formation of the earth, which is why it is apparently absent from all the inner planets, and rare on mars. Curiously, it's also rare on the Moon.

Most models for the sun's creation have it starting as a large ball of hydrogen, forming out of the center of a disk. a critical gravitational point causes the rest of the solar system to form into bands, but the hydrogen within the sun collapses down before the bands form into planets.

I don't remember the exact size, but I think it was 1.5 AU, it was certainly large enough to encompass the Earth. There are trace amounts of hydrogen on Venus and Mars, but nothing like Earth. Chemically, we much more strongly resemble the moons of Jupiter, and probably formed out of the band that of Jupiter. It's really hard to say, but it's not going to be an easy answer.

I just mentioned it because you mentioned the snowball planet, and that would be about the right time. I suppose there's probably a way to test the radiation levels Earth's surface received in the past. It's also entirely possible that the moon came to the earth and brought hydrogen some 3.3 billion years ago. The gravitational pull of the Earth could have trapped it, and pulled in the former lunar atmosphere, much like Jupiter does.

Near collisions with highly gravitational objects can radically alter orbits. The moon could have started with a fairly normal orbit, and then had a close encounter, or even a direct hit. A comet hitting the moon would be like a bullet hitting a waterballoon, except that the mass and deep space would have caused most of the mass to pull back together into a sphere.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 29, 2009 2:10 PM

BYTEMITE

Ngggn. Still not sold on this, but before I go home, I'll give you something FOR your theory we can both chew on. The asteroid belt between Jupiter and Mars. Earth running around between there, dipping inwards towards the sun, possible collisions.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 29, 2009 2:25 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I just wanted to chime in - the whole solar system is a shooting gallery. Have you looked at MARS ???? It resembles nothing so much as a ball with the outer layer of the top half blasted off. And the top half is much, much less dense than the bottom half. http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/global/PIA02817.html

And then there is the moon with a crust a lot like earth. Maybe something REALLY big hit the earth and a blob got ejected out the other side.

The solar system ain't a peaceful place !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 29, 2009 4:59 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Proof of Global Warming in land of Oz:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/64
45352/Australians-could-be-banned-from-living-on-the-coast.html

If the Queen says so it must be true...

Ethnic cleansing by the Greenie Meanies.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 29, 2009 5:59 PM

DREAMTROVE

Kathy,

Doesn't quite work. The force of the impact of a meteor large enough to cause even a moderate dispersion would completely liquify the planet. In fact, a much smaller impact would. This is a factor seldom dealt with in sci-fi.

If you revert to the bullet-water balloon scenario, the bullet is an object between 20 feet to 20 miles in diameter, and the result is the integrity of the balloon surface is completely compromised, so what remains is the water. The water is most likely going to coalesce into one body, minus some a trailing stream of droplets that follow the bullet out, or knowing physics, follow the path it came in.

If the object coming in is large enough to cause a break the size of the moon, I doubt that would be the result. It would probably either be absorbed into the earth completely, or both would be obliterated. I'll admit it's a possibility, but it's not ranking high on my selection of likely scenarios.

I'm going to throw another monkey wrench in here:

Bode's Law:

The reason Bode's Law works is that each ring in the formation of the disk has a certain mass which is not particularly difficult to calculate, and that mass will compete with the mass of the sun and the other rings via the inverse square law of gravity, to result in separate bands. Due to the nature of orbit, as perpetual free fall, every ring will eventually coalesce into a sphere. I think the average first year physics student probably got there already.

The curious think is that Bode's law predicts several bands outside the sun:

Mercury
Venus
Earth/Luna
Mars
(Asteroids)
Jupiter/Io/Europa/Ganymede/Calisto (and internal Bode system of its own)
Saturn (et al)
Uranus
Neptune
(Pluto-Oort)

Okay, there are a couple issues with this. One is the radically low mass of inner planets. This is easily explained by the heliosphere that made up the sun, which robbed mass, particularly of lighter* elements, from these rings.

* The heavier elements fall first, and falling is orbit, and this prevents them from being drawn in through a slow cohesive gravitation.

As a result, we can now predict the size of inner planets pretty easily. Obviously, once outside this sphere, planets get much larger. The major missing issue is the asteroid belt. Not only does it not have a planet, it doesn't have anywhere near the collective mass that the ring from which it was made would have.

It's been postulated many times that there must have been a planet there, and the chemical composition and size of that planet can be pretty easily calculated. Like most of astronomy and much of science, the inconsistency is written off with random theories like "it went poof."

Well, it went somewhere, and I tend to dislike theories that say it was struck by something so massive and which such a high velocity that it left the system, taking the planet with it. It didn't take me long to figure out where it had gone, which was here. There are two planets in the third orbit, and not Earthly reason for this to be so, if you pardon the pun, especially since the two are really not that similar.

This doesn't mean the missing planet is the Earth, though that's a fairly likely scenario, the Moon is an equally likely candidate. Whoever it was had hydrogen and brought it here. I nominate the Earth mainly on the basis of a higher gravitational pull, to haul the atmosphere. Ultimately, we would end up with the atmosphere anyway, given that we have more gravity. The Moon is a good candidate for a different reason: The pull of jupiter could have effected its orbit in such a way as to acquire a highly elliptical path.

Assume we have two objects, called 3 and 5. 3 exists in a stable virtually circular orbit, has little hydrogen, and a fairly high temperature range. 5 is colder, exhibits an elliptical orbit. At some point, there is a cataclysmic event, and here I bring in the bullet-waterballoon scenario. The splash leaves behind a small series (or ceres) of asteroids, which collectively do not possess the mass of a planet, and these sit around gathering dust. One result of the collision is 5 gets caught in the orbit of 3.

During such a collision, the surface of 5 would be either completely or almost completely destroyed. The surface of the planet would not show a major surface the age of Mars. From this we can probably data the event to either 3.8 or 3.3 bya, depending on which one of us is #5. If the Earth is 5 then the collision is dated at 3.8, and it arrives at position #3 at 3.3, 500 million years later, bringing with it a large number of small asteroid moons, which batter the surface of Luna, causing a cataclysmic event which we can see with the naked eye.

This leaves the system with a small number of asteroid moons, one in particular of decent size that still hangs around. If Luna is 5, the time of impact is probably 3.3, and the procession is more rapid. Of course, the age of the lunar sea could be the age of the end of plate tectonics.

Either scenario explains a number of otherwise loose ends in the solar system. As for transporting hydrogen around Luna, think about the moons of Jupiter. A planet covered ice would liquify, and eventually could lose the entire atmosphere to earth. The Earth as #5 has more consistency with this overall picture. The coincidence of the size of Earth and Venus is peculiar to say the least, as is the coincidence of the arc size of the Sun and the Moon in the sky.

At any rate, whatever removed object #5 from its orbit did so *before* the asteroids collected there, I would suspect. I don't buy the gravitational tug of war Jupiter vs the Sun theory, because neither is exerting much gravitational pull at that distance. The asteroids themselves are not the entire contents of the #5 band because they simply don't have anywhere near enough collective mass.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 31, 2009 6:28 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
Co2 rising and global warming are two symptoms of the same thing: Deforestation. This isn't rocket science.

That's my opinion.

A friend in Australia told me that they're warned about going out when the sun is directly overhead where she lives, which wasn't the case years ago. Supposedly it's because of the depletion of the ozone layer. I don't know beyond that.

Arguments can be made for or against about anything, even by scientists, so I don't pay a lot of attention the the various arguments. As far as I'm concerned, it seems pretty obvious that the day is long past when the actions of humans DON'T contribute negatively to the environment. You just can't pump that much crap into the land, water and atmosphere without effecting it; Earth can't repair fast enough.

We've polluted about everything, including the oceans, over-harvested, under-replaced, strip mined, deforested, etc.; in essence, we've done about everything we can think of to destroy the natural balance of things, and we're now too populous and cover too much of the earth NOT to have a negative effect. Given how short-sighted humans are, I pretty much fear it'll get past the point of no return before we wise up. Especially given politics...

I'm glad to be over 60 and have no kids, and I weep for those who come after us.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 1, 2009 7:17 AM

DREAMTROVE

Niki,

1) Who, exactly, comes after us? At this rate...
2) I appreciate the backup, but a couple side notes
a) The damage done to the environment by humans through land destruction is visible from space.
b) The polution humans put out doesn't even show up on a spectrometer. I think I just proved both these points
c) The Earth isn't filled with human, there aren't really very many human. I just drove across the US, I am always impressed by the lack of humans. I live on the city side of upstate, about 4-5 hours from the city. There are almost no humans in the middle there, it's 200 miles of empty forest.

It's the damage humans do, particularly in agriculture. Primitive humans make deserts, and ini some parts of the world, they're still doing it. But civilized humans make some pretty massive destruction. There's almost nothing left of Iowa but farmland. A couple hundred years ago that was an old growth assiduous forest home to countless species of life. Now it has basically four: Humans, cows, corn, and soy beans.

But this has far reaching climate effects as well.

I just want to remind people where to focus their energies: There are political moles everywhere trying to redirect the efforts of concerned citizens towards things which look like their cause but aren't.

Here's one red herring, just as an example: The mutated baby pictures in iraq are a mix of aborted foetuses and chemical weapons side effects from the attacks on the kurds. They have nothing to do with depleted uranium. The land in Iran is filled with U-238, a naturally occurring element. There's a hotspot of it which is actually a resort on the Caspian sea. (always gets flagged by the CIA as one of their research sites, which it isn't) No one ever suffers ill effects, because this is less radiation than you get from the sun, and far less than a television set.

Focus, people. This is just to everyone out there: Life on Earth is in danger, directly, from people killing things. Very little else we do has any effects. Take an issue, like Afghanistan. The outcome of this war is irrelevant. What's relevant is that the war plan could kill up to 10 million people. That's far more than would be killed by the Taliban or whomever (I'm dubious of the Taliban, since we seem to have 3 million enemy combatants, only 25,000 of whom are Taliban, and a few hundred are Al Qaeda) Also, bear in mind that we are likely fighting Russians, and this whole mess could create a Pakistani civil war, and a war between India and Muslim South Asia, which is probably the goal of TPTB

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 1, 2009 8:28 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Sigh...yes, I get the "who?", but I think it will take a number of generations before what I fear comes to pass, and those generations will suffer unimaginable consequences first.

Yes, we don't "fill" the earth. But our impact is proportionately gigantic to that of any other species. Agriculture is a prime example; the way we do it now is not only horrendously wasteful, but wastes the land in more ways than one. As you said,

Quote:
Primitive humans make deserts, and in some parts of the world, they're still doing it. But civilized humans make some pretty massive destruction. There's almost nothing left of Iowa but farmland. A couple hundred years ago that was an old growth assiduous forest home to countless species of life. Now it has basically four: Humans, cows, corn, and soy beans.

I'm afraid I don't hold much hope you, or anyone else speaking the truth, will convince anyone in time. We are a short-sighted species and always have been.

As to creating deserts, did you know Afghanistan wasn't always the way it is now? It was a trade route--still is, I believe (hope)--and as the caravans passed through, they cut down trees for fuel, etc. Created their own litle desert, they did, in the places where it wasn't already one.

As far as the rest of it, Pakistan had a lot of involvement in making Afghanistan the way it is since the Russians left; they have their own agenda and, like all countries, pursued it via manipulation. Unfortunately, what they got wasn't what they wanted to get, and now there's this whole mess. I don't know about the outcome or the Russian involvement, and I don't know how it will end up. I feel for the Afghan people, and all those caught up in a war not of their own making.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 3:35 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Quote:
Co2 rising and global warming are two symptoms of the same thing: Deforestation. This isn't rocket science.
That's my opinion.

A friend in Australia told me that they're warned about going out when the sun is directly overhead where she lives, which wasn't the case years ago. Supposedly it's because of the depletion of the ozone layer. I don't know beyond that.

Arguments can be made for or against about anything, even by scientists, so I don't pay a lot of attention the the various arguments. As far as I'm concerned, it seems pretty obvious that the day is long past when the actions of humans DON'T contribute negatively to the environment. You just can't pump that much crap into the land, water and atmosphere without effecting it; Earth can't repair fast enough.

We've polluted about everything, including the oceans, over-harvested, under-replaced, strip mined, deforested, etc.; in essence, we've done about everything we can think of to destroy the natural balance of things, and we're now too populous and cover too much of the earth NOT to have a negative effect. Given how short-sighted humans are, I pretty much fear it'll get past the point of no return before we wise up. Especially given politics...

I'm glad to be over 60 and have no kids, and I weep for those who come after us.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

Yeah, being in Australia - I can tell you that there is a hole in the ozone layer directly above us - and that it's much easier to get sunburned than in other places.

I agree with you, Niki. The whys and wherefores are neither here nor there. I don't need a science degree to see how much damage has been done to this planet - it's in our face. I think we're a more vulnerable environment down here, so we see the effects - long term drought and water shortages, increased threats from bushfire, increase in extreme weather, coastal erosion, less arable land available for cultivation - not to mention the pollution of water ways, stripping of forests, toxic dumps, overpopulation of cities....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 4:29 PM

RALLEM

All I know is in the winter time Global Warming sounds like a damn good idea. ;)

http://www.swyzzlestyx.com/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 4:34 PM

BYTEMITE

Not for places that desperately need snow for water needs during the summer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 4:49 PM

DREAMTROVE

Nik

Quote:

our impact is proportionately gigantic to that of any other species.

I avoid generalizations, but this one works at the moment. I suspect the great mass extinctions of the geologic record are probably also the work of single species.

Quote:
I'm afraid I don't hold much hope you, or anyone else speaking the truth, will convince anyone in time.

No convincing is required. Simply provide them with food through the use of technology.

Almost all cleared land on the earth was cleared for agriculture. Yes, I know the many other stories, and these are disasters as well, but ag is still well over 90% of all deforestation, and has been since the dawn of man. Cause an economic collapse in ag by introducing sufficiently advanced GMO, and the problem is solved. I really think it's that simple, and should be done at a corporate level. During that time of weakness, such a company could purchase the remaining wildlands, and put them to better use.

Biodiversity is far more valuable, potentially. You don't need anyone to agree with you, that's the best thing about a free market: If you can do it, the you can make all the decisions, without the support of anyone else. If you're farsighted enough, then everyone else's shortsightedness is no longer a problem. A forest that generates more wealth as a forest than it would as farmland is pretty well protected. In order to do that, all you need is some forest dependent GMOs.

I think this is pretty soluable, you don't need a whole lot of cooperation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 5:03 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

the problem with the free market is it's shortsightedness - the 'I'll create this mess because it generates a whole lot of wealth and someone else can clean it up tomorrow' mentality that often prevails

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 7:10 PM

DREAMTROVE

Magonsdaughter,

I think that's more our quarterly capitalism than the free market. But yes, I agree it's a widespread systematic flaw. I think that getting rid of the stock market and the concept of "publically held corporation" and replacing it with one where both workers and investors had a long term interest in the success of the company might fix this problem.

It does make me sick to see someone sail into a company, wreck it, make off with billions, and then have the company have to pay the bill, while the individual who caused the havoc bears no liability at all, no longer being an employee or shareholder when everything goes to pot.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 7:17 PM

DREAMTROVE

Rallem,

Byte is correct again. Snow is far more efficient than rain as a means of getting water. It's the reason that the world's largest ecosystem is the Taiga, a first growth forest covering 17% of the Earth's surface, and consuming far more co2 than all human industry produces. The Taiga subsists on really quite a small amount of precipitation, because it filters into the ground at such a slow rate. The ecosystem is defined by the fact that the majority of its precipitation comes in the form of snow. The Adirondacks are part of the system, and there's a small portion in the north midwest, but most of it is north of 50.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 7:58 PM

BYTEMITE

I'm sure Rallem was just kidding (sorry about that!) but that's something I hear a lot of. Usually it's from people from places that get more than enough precipitation in one year so they don't have to worry about snowpack, but every now and then I hear it from a fellow desert-dwelling local and am just amazed.

It's funny, snow being less dense than water (and therefore less volume than from rain), you'd think it's the other way around. The key factor is in the gradual melt rate of the snow pack and how so much of it isn't lost as run-off (oversaturation of the vadose zone) but actually goes to recharging groundwater aquifers. Raise the water table and you also raise water levels in rivers and lakes.

Ha, but DT already said that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 4, 2009 4:39 AM

DREAMTROVE

Byte,

yeah, I got that, I was just explaining your comment, because a lot of people don't know that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE