The Cure For Global Warming

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Post Reply
User avatar
calm-realm
New Trial Member
Posts: 4
Joined: March 31st, 2018, 11:36 am

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by calm-realm » April 17th, 2018, 1:01 pm

Technology could be a very "green" factor and our lifestyle would not to be change much. Imagine just all cars bring electric or using ethanol, all powerplants using atomic/solar/water/wind energy. Just changes in "infrastructure", very "little" change on our lives, and the CO2 emissions would drop drastically diminishing the (well known) greenhouse effect and global warming. Farms also produce much more food using much less area because of technologies in the field. The problem is just what Greta pointed:
Greta wrote:
March 19th, 2018, 8:02 pm
It's a matter of mitigation. At present adaptation is difficult due to the inertia of powerful energy corporations determined not to waste their fossil fuel infrastructure. Once this drag factor is released rapid progress in this area will be achieved.
I don't think if the whole world returns to the Amish lifestyle it would be a solution, because, as already mentioned, they need a big area proportionally to the population, making it unscalable.

The expansion of the Sun and changes in the orbit of the earth are really on another time scale. The changes observed that might be attributed to men's activities are in the 100-year dimension.

User avatar
Barry Sears
Posts: 322
Joined: December 2nd, 2014, 4:05 am

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Barry Sears » April 18th, 2018, 7:55 am

Greetings Calm Realm,
Yes as we live within a time frame of roughly 100 years this is the perfect moment to us personally and individually to help and do what we can to develop and teach each other about life and specifically sustainability. Living respectively with the World. We must decide what improvements we can make and pass our changes on. I believe the World is filled with this conscious movement and it sound you have you hands well attached to the ground.
As I have studied this planetary motion concept, yes it applies to a definitely larger time scale. There appears to be some benefits to this understanding.
The bible describes how the World began in the first chapter and imagines how the World ends in the last chapter, not forgetting the continuation of life. It is strange how many people who don't know or haven't read the bible, firmly believe the World will end soon. I am not sure of any time indications biblically but the World cycle is pretty reliable. Why do people think it is so limited to simple years? Planetary movement indicating the planets move towards the sun, is the same conclusion as the fiery cremation suggested biblically for the World but lets give it at least hundreds of thousands of years and I hope people can move forward with a little positivity with regards to time remaining or the World ending.
This planetary movement is logical for me and I see the benefits for the ability for more long term planning. This could be a greater focus on solar energy. This could be developing global regions for specific crop management or considering house design and material selection...Long term planning is just as essential as short term planning, it is for future generations.

User avatar
Halc
Posts: 278
Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Halc » April 18th, 2018, 8:10 am

I just spotted these posts, after only a month no less...
Barry Sears wrote:If you sat on each of our planets, this is the number of days you would experience.
Mercury 1, Venus 1, Earth 365, Mars 670, Jupiter 10504, Saturn 25292
It is very logical to predict that if a planet had 420 days it would sit between the current position of Earth and Mars.
That is very poor logic indeed. It assumes that the spin of each planet is identical. Venus can't be where it is by your logic if it's day is the same as Mercury. In fact, the quote for both planets is poorly represented. Mercury has exactly half a day per year, and Venus has just short of 2, and then this insane jump to 365 for Earth despite Venus being in closest proximity to us. It should have about 220 days per year by the logic you suggest here.
Bottom line is that the days per year is completely independent of its distance from the sun. The number of days is a function of that distance and also its rotation rate.

Side note is that many web sites list the day length of Mercury as 1408 hours. It is in fact 4222 hours. 1408 hours is the sidereal period. Apparently there are a lot of writers that don't know the difference.
Barry Sears wrote: The evidence which coral rings presents, is that a 420 day year once existed. This can be achieved two ways. The first is if the rotational spin of the Earth was once faster and is slowing down, but this has been evaluated by the IERS. The IERS concludes this is incorrect as detailed above.
Yes, a 420 day year may once have existed. Maybe even a 900 day year much further back. The IERS details above have no data on rotation rates in the past, so it concludes nothing of the sort.
The only other possible cause to achieve a 420 day year is if the Earth is further from the sun, thus having a larger orbital radius, producing a longer year and longer seasons, allowing for a 420 day year. The Earth and planets move slowly towards the sun producing a constant warming process, influencing the evolution of life on Earth.
For this to be true, something would need to be putting a force on Earth causing it to drop to a lower orbit. Without any theory of where this force might originate, the idea violates Newton's second law of motion.

Let's go back to the slowing spin idea. This has actually been demonstrated even under short term, and is the reason we now need leap seconds added to the clock once in a while. Again, we need to identify a force responsible for the change in angular velocity. But we have one: The tides. This makes the days longer and also the months longer until the day is about 1500 hours long and there are no months, at which point the process reverses and the days start shortening to eventually under 10 hours. All this is if we keep our oceans, which we will not, and if the Earth is left in orbit all this time, which it will not. So this is a fiction that assumes other factors don't change. In fact, long before this all can happen, the sun goes nova and swallows the whole business.

User avatar
Barry Sears
Posts: 322
Joined: December 2nd, 2014, 4:05 am

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Barry Sears » April 21st, 2018, 12:44 am

Hello Halc thank you for your detail I shall in the future change this to;-
Mercury 0.5 Venus 2 Earth 365 Mars 670 Jupiter 10504 Saturn 25292 Now we can see a better logic, that is if one was to assume a better planetary location for Earth to have a 420 day year this would in actual fact be approximately one third closer to Mars. Thank you for clarifying this logic.
The evidence that a year once had 420 days can be achieved two ways. One is if the Earth is slowing it's rotation and two if the year was longer due to a larger distance from the sun. A larger year could also include the factor of a slowing rotation.
The information presented by the IERS could not be put any clearer
"No satisfactory conclusion can here be arrived at due to inaccuracy inherent in the process of matching-up coral growth rings to the seasonal progression versus the tiny amount by which Earth's rotation is presumed to be slowing down (only 0.001 to 0.002 seconds per century)."

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf
If cosmic drag exists it will have observable consequences, which makes the SEC theory falsifiable. Cosmic drag explains the motion of matter in spiral galaxies and predicts that the planets slowly spiral toward the Sun with accelerating angular velocities. Optical observations in the solar system since the introduction of atomic time have now detected this acceleration as discussed in Masreliez, 1999.

Diminishing angular momentum should cause the planets to slowly spiral toward the Sun. I will show in an upcoming paper that Newton’s law of gravitation is modified in the SEC so that the gravitational potential is changed by a factor of order (r/T)2 : 2 (1 ( / ) ) GM P Or T r = ⋅+ (5.1) The difference between this potential and the Post-Newtonian potential is of order 10–28 in the solar system. This is negligible, which means that Kepler’s third law holds:

I guess you are also assuming that mass is constant which is not defined in this theory as the process of water through the goldilocks zone, first on and the off is determined to be a major factor in the process of evolution of both the planet and terrestrial life.

User avatar
Halc
Posts: 278
Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Halc » April 21st, 2018, 1:30 am

Barry Sears wrote:
April 21st, 2018, 12:44 am
... that is if one was to assume a better planetary location for Earth to have a 420 day year this would in actual fact be approximately one third closer to Mars. Thank you for clarifying this logic.
It would be a third closer to Mars if the spin was the same. But it wasn't.
The evidence that a year once had 420 days can be achieved two ways. One is if the Earth is slowing it's rotation and two if the year was longer due to a larger distance from the sun. A larger year could also include the factor of a slowing rotation.
The information presented by the IERS could not be put any clearer
"No satisfactory conclusion can here be arrived at due to inaccuracy inherent in the process of matching-up coral growth rings to the seasonal progression versus the tiny amount by which Earth's rotation is presumed to be slowing down (only 0.001 to 0.002 seconds per century)."
All the sources I read say something like 0.001 to 0.002 seconds per year, not per century. Leap seconds are beginning to be almost an anual event. Soon they'll need more than one per year. Earth spin was enough for 420 days about 600M years ago. Is the coral that old?

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf
If cosmic drag exists it will have observable consequences, which makes the SEC theory falsifiable. Cosmic drag explains the motion of matter in spiral galaxies and predicts that the planets slowly spiral toward the Sun with accelerating angular velocities. Optical observations in the solar system since the introduction of atomic time have now detected this acceleration as discussed in Masreliez, 1999.
[/quote]
That link is to a very non-standard theory in opposition to the standard model. If the Earth is being dragged into the sun, the energy and momentum need to go somewhere. It does go somewhere in the case of the spin rate. Where does it go when planets drop to lower orbits? Or is this some theory that discards the conservation of angular momentum?

I hunted around and could find no independent data on any significant change to the orbit of Earth. Nothing that gave numbers. There's bound to be a bit of going to higher orbit from solar tides, and a little to lower orbit due to mild accretion.

User avatar
Barry Sears
Posts: 322
Joined: December 2nd, 2014, 4:05 am

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Barry Sears » April 22nd, 2018, 8:24 am

Halc
My writing describes observation of the World and how terrestrial life is connected to the Earth's evolution, in a non standard perspective. It is due to my observation and understanding of the World that I comprehend a motion based on much more than coral records. I have described how the full process of evolution is potential evidence that suggests the movement of the planet. I have looked into different theories and the standard concept that suggests the Earth is slowing and so had 420 days, but this theory is not supported and confirmed by the experts (IERS). Obviously there is a comprehensive review of which I have extracted a couple of lines.
Although this appears to be "standard" it is not the only option and as with all options there is supporting maths and physics
Thus, according to the SEC theory the planets spiral toward the Sun with accelerating tangential and angular velocities while their distances from the Sun decrease steadily. The angular (secular) acceleration of the Earth is about 2.8 arcsec/century2 and the orbital radius currently decreases by about 20 meters per year assuming T=14 billion years.
You are suggesting that the World has been slowing down at a constant rate over millions and millions of years "Earth spin was enough for 420 days about 600M years ago". This has been discussed previously and once again there is absolutely no supporting data to suggest this at all, it is a very naive assumption of which it is also unsupported by the IERS.
The length of the solar day (LOD) is defined to be 24 hours long (or also 86,000 seconds in length). In the last half of the Twentieth Century, the length of the solar day was very accurately measured for the first time using atomic clocks. These very accurate measurements show an increase in the length of the day of 0.0017 seconds (or 1.7 milliseconds) for the century. It is here significant that these measurements additionally show Earth's rotation is changing at a variable rate. Essentially, the measurements do not reflect that Earth's rotation changes at any constant rate. IERS.

User avatar
Halc
Posts: 278
Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Halc » April 22nd, 2018, 2:54 pm

Barry Sears wrote:
April 22nd, 2018, 8:24 am
I have looked into different theories and the standard concept that suggests the Earth is slowing and so had 420 days, but this theory is not supported and confirmed by the experts (IERS). Obviously there is a comprehensive review of which I have extracted a couple of lines.
The design-of-time link you gave around post 70 pretty much describes the accepted rate of slowing of spin rate, adding a day to the year every 16 million years or so. Of the lines you quoted (from IERS??), I found no data about past spin rates or past orbital periods. All I saw was a chart of the current rotations per orbit (not number of days) for each planet, which is not a function of only orbital distance. Perhaps the data is in another post. It is simple mathematics to determine that at a 24 hour day, Earth would need to be very close to 10% further from the sun to log 420 days per year. The IERS data doesn't indicate that. Venus needs to be far closer to the sun if that data was relevant. It has only one (-1 actually) rotation per orbit, less than Mercury even.

OK, so you found a reference to an alternative view that suggests Earth orbit degrading into the sun due to some value based on the age of the universe, despite no explanation of how the angular momentum is conserved. The acceleration rate quoted for Earth is 1.4 arcsec/century2 which is a slower change to the number of days per year than has been measured for spin change. I also don't see that 1.4 value referenced outside the site. It is actually a significant effect still, but every reference I find reports no significant drop in orbit.
While this would be a gradual change and not the unprecedented (except for prior volcanic events) abrupt change to the warming rate that is being measured, it nevertheless seems to feed your need to deny human involvement in global warming, like the blame was somehow on you personally.
Not saying this motivation is the case is with you, but it is the vibe I get from adoption of such cherry-picked theories. There are those that accept the science, and even they don't offer any solutions. At best they propose ways to delay the inevitable, which isn't really a solution. Humans really are no more rational than bacteria in a petri-dish of nutrients. We see it, but can't face it.
Xkcd sometimes puts out the best way to visualize real things: https://xkcd.com/1732/ That is the most accurate graph I've seen of the temperature trends of the last 22 millennia. Note the part about data limits around 15700 BC. Compare those trends (especially the line slopes) to the final decades at the end.
Although this appears to be "standard" it is not the only option and as with all options there is supporting maths and physics
Thus, according to the SEC theory the planets spiral toward the Sun with accelerating tangential and angular velocities while their distances from the Sun decrease steadily. The angular (secular) acceleration of the Earth is about 2.8 arcsec/century2 and the orbital radius currently decreases by about 20 meters per year assuming T=14 billion years.
I would like to see the math concerning the conserved angular momentum in this scenario.
You are suggesting that the World has been slowing down at a constant rate over millions and millions of years "Earth spin was enough for 420 days about 600M years ago". This has been discussed previously and once again there is absolutely no supporting data to suggest this at all, it is a very naive assumption of which it is also unsupported by the IERS.
Quite a bit of data, including that used by the design-of-time link you referenced, and yet you choose to turn a blind eye to it (even though it has little to do with global warming, so I'm wondering why). It is also necessary physics since there is a known force resisting the spin and balanced by the very-much measured increase in distance of the moon by about 4cm per year. How is this not supporting data? All those fancy atomic clocks you mention have measured it in the short run. Earth spin was slowing far more than any planet except Mercury which was too close to the sun and apparently found equilibrium in its current state and stopped slowing. Perhaps it will start again after its orbit becomes less elliptical.

Yes, the spin rate varies in short term, but in long term, the changes are all positive, resulting in 23 leap seconds being added to the clocks since 1970, and never did they need to remove one.

User avatar
Barry Sears
Posts: 322
Joined: December 2nd, 2014, 4:05 am

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Barry Sears » April 23rd, 2018, 7:51 am

Hi Halc,
Please note that I am not disagreeing with the data. What I have found with my study of the material is that people don't really know what is happening with planetary motion. The"standard" idea seems to be that the Earth doesn't change it's position from the sun and that a change in Earth's rotation accounts for a 420 day year in the past. As I have stated this is an option but not the only option. For the below calculations and measurements to be considered what discrepancies would be accounted for if the radius does actually change very slightly per year. Below are a couple of quotes of which I apologise for the length but hopefully this may help as it has taken into account this decrease in radius and has picked up discrepancies unaccounted for.
I have included some figures below about the reduction of days verses the distance reduction and the position of Venus you may find is perfectly placed.
Most importantly I have a great respect for nature and support and consider all movements that help, protect and nurture Papatuanuku. Conservation and sustainability are extremely important, alive and highly conscious especially here in New Zealand. My discussion here is based on a natural process of planetary motion resulting in a constant planetary warming as indicated from your graph.
The modern lunar-month cycle (or the synodic month) has been determined to be 29.53059 days (on the average). If it is assumed that the rotation of the Earth has slowed relative to the Sun by the average rate of 0.01 seconds per millennium, and if it is further assumed that the rotation of the Earth has also slowed relative to the Moon by the average rate of 0.01 seconds per millennium, then--by way of example--it can be concluded that the count of the synodic month of 6,500 years ago was 29.53062 days, or 1.92 spin-seconds faster then the modern rate. (Note that each lunar month contains 29.53 rotations of the Earth and if the rotational rate of the Earth is assumed to slow-down by 0.01 seconds per millennium then the corresponding count of the lunar month can be predicted to become reduced at the rate of 0.2953 spin-seconds per millennium). If--on the other hand--it is assumed that the rotation of the Earth has not slowed relative to the Moon, then the definition of the synodic month of the past would be unchanged from the modern rate.
Sat to Jup -14788 distance 649
Jup to Mars -9834 distance 550.4
Mars to Earth -305 days distance 78.3,
Earth to Venus -365 days distance 41-4
The rate of deceleration of the Earth’s rotation that would correspond to the observed acceleration of the Sun’s motion can be estimated. Correcting UT for this estimated spin-down rate of the Earth and eliminating short-term fluctuations gives “Ephemeris Time (ET)” by which the motion of the Earth and the planets are uniform on the average. However, it also creates an unresolved discrepancy between the spin-down rate of the Earth’s rotation and the motion of the Moon, which are related by conservation of angular momentum, (Masreliez, 1999). This problem has been thoroughly investigated by for example Newton (1985) and Dicke (1966) but no good explanation has yet been found. However, the planetary drifts Kolesnik and several other investigators have detected are based on accurate modern optical observations and they use atomic time. Therefore, these drifts are unquestionably real. Today we are facing a curious situation; the drifts detected by optical observations are not apparent when constructing the modern ephemerides. These ephemerides are fitted primarily to radar ranging data between the Earth and the three other inner planets and laser ranging to the Moon. Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) has found that the measured ranges can be fitted excellently to Newtonian ephemerides with relativistic corrections (Post-Newtonian) using a traditional approach by which the temporal argument implicitly is derived in the ephemeris construction process (Standish, 1998). It is commonly believed that this good fit to the ranging data confirms that the planetary orbits are Post-Newtonian with the implicit assumption that the ephemeris time, ET, is proportional to Atomic Time, AT. However, this is not necessarily the case. A good fit does not guarantee that the ephemerides actually are Newtonian in a cosmological reference frame that is not Minkowskian. It is possible that a perfect Post-Newtonian fit might be obtained when the ephemeris construction process determines the time base, since this approach automatically might select a local Minkowskian system in which Newton’s law of gravitation applies. If spacetime is curved locally, as is the case with the SEC model, a local Minkowskian system may always be found. But, the temporal coordinate of this local Minkowskian coordinate representation could accelerate relative to atomic time, see Appendix 1. This would allow perfect ranging data agreement with the Post-Newtonian ephemerides, since the law of gravitation differs by merely an order (r/T)2 , where T is the Hubble distance, between the two coordinate representations, which as we saw is in the order of 10–28. In spite of excellent fit to the PostNewtonian ephemerides optical observations will deviate from the ephemerides, thus explaining the mysterious discrepancy (Masreliez, “Optical observations and ranging”). Therefore, ranging data cannot without atomic time verify whether or not Newton’s law (with its relativistic corrections) applies in the cosmological reference system. Newtonian ephemerides in a local Minkowskian system might not be Newtonian in a cosmological coordinate system with curved spacetime. Investigating the consequence of this hypothesis, assuming that the SEC theory is correct, we find that the Moon’s distance from the Earth changes more slowly than estimated and that the Moon very well could have formed at the same time as the Earth. Although modern ephemerides primarily are based on very accurate range measurements to the nearby planets, the ephemerides for the outer planets still use optical observations and Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI). However, the low angular velocities of the outer planets hide their accelerations, which, if detected, easily could be interpreted as being due to observational errors or modelling inadequacies. Making use of all the available ranging data since the inception of the planetary ranging program some thirty years ago might make it possible to check whether the coordinate time of the ephemerides accelerates relative to atomic time. The temporal acceleration of the time base derived from ranging predicted by the SEC theory is 1/T corresponding to 2-3 seconds quadratic drift relative to AT in fifty years. However, the JPL approach of fitting the ephemeris time as closely as possible to a time-base proportional to AT would reduce this discrepancy by at least a factor eight making it very difficult to detect. The Earth moves at a speed of 30 km/sec so the position discrepancy due to the timing error amounts to merely 3-4 km in 30 years. This is of the same size as the ranging uncertainties. In spite of being very small, planetary acceleration could account for the drifts detected by optical observations, since planetary secular accelerations are amplified by a factor three due to changing radial distance, see relation (5.2). The circumstance that the secular planetary accelerations due to cosmic drag are proportional to the motions explains how they could have been misinterpreted as being caused by a decelerating universal time. The semi-acceleration of the Sun, deduced by Spencer Jones from solar eclipses, is 1.23 arcsec/cy2 , which comparing with Table 1 suggests that this acceleration primarily could be due to the SEC theory’s cosmic drag and not to slowing rotation of the Earth. This could explain the discrepancy between optical observations and the ephemerides and resolve the mismatch between the angular momentum of the Earth and the motion of the Moon. There is at least one study in which the planetary ephemerides are constructed based on atomic time rather than on a timebase fitted to the observations. This is the study by Oesterwinter and Cohen (1972), which concludes that the old ET based on planetary angular motions, drift relative to AT by about 7 seconds in 50 years. This agrees well with relation (5.2) above, which with T=14 billion years gives a corresponding quadratic temporal drift of 7.5 seconds on 50 years assuming that the drift is caused by a slowing progression of Universal Time. Also, very early analyses of measured radar ranges by two different teams, one American and one Russian, report positive planetary tangential accelerations based on numerical integrations. Reasenberg & Shapiro (1978) derived positive tangential accelerations of Mercury and Venus based on about 15 years of range measurements. Krasinsky et. al. (1986) also gave positive accelerations derived from radar observations in the interval 1961- 1982. These results are consistent with the SEC theory. With T=14 billion years the predicted normalized tangential acceleration is (dv/dt)/v =1/T=0.71·10–10/year. Note that the old ET, which is based on the planetary motions, differs from the temporal argument in the modern ephemerides. The old ET is determined so that the average planetary angular motion is constant relative to the stellar background and therefore corrects for the angular acceleration (5.2). On the other hand, the JPL ephemerides are determined so that the tangential accelerations disappear on the average and corrects for (5.4); the radial motions can be ignored. These two time bases are not the same and they both differ from Atomic Time, which could explain observational inconsistencies. Summarizing, planetary acceleration as predicted by the SEC theory has recently been detected by several independent studies and will soon be confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt (if they exist) since the position discrepancies increase quadratically with time.

User avatar
Halc
Posts: 278
Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Halc » April 23rd, 2018, 11:12 am

Barry Sears wrote:
April 23rd, 2018, 7:51 am
Hi Halc,
Please note that I am not disagreeing with the data. What I have found with my study of the material is that people don't really know what is happening with planetary motion.
Perhaps some don't. I looked it up, in hopes of not making a fool of myself, something I do regularly.
The"standard" idea seems to be that the Earth doesn't change it's position from the sun and that a change in Earth's rotation accounts for a 420 day year in the past. As I have stated this is an option but not the only option.
Yes, the days-per-year measure is a function of several variables, notably mass of sun, spin rates (sidereal) of planets, and orbital distance. Vary any of these and the days-per-year changes, and absent empirical measurements, one can postulate that 420 days is due to having been further away in the past. But these have all been independently measured. Solar mass probably decreases (converts to energy and radiates away) faster than new material is acquired. That drop in gravity causes the planets to recede a tiny bit, not spiral in. Tides also cause orbit to increase (by even lesser degree) for the same reason the moon is moving (significantly) away from Earth. There is no known drag on orbits and no measured drop in orbital radius. They have measured this, and no drop is reported in any publication I can find.
My discussion here is based on a natural process of planetary motion resulting in a constant planetary warming as indicated from your graph.
My graph indicates neither cause of temperature changes nor constant planetary warming. It only goes back to the most recent ice age, and if that trend was extrapolated back to the dinosaur age, they would have lived on a planet where even the oxygen was frozen. The curve is essentially gradual all the way except for the last 40 years or so where the slope abruptly increases by a factor of more than 10. A theory of Earth gradual decrease in orbital distance cannot explain that, nor can the more accepted theory of the Sun becoming more radiant as it ages.

So my question is more a philosophical or perhaps psychological one. Why do you and others seek out these low probability alternative explanations? What is the motive for the denial? You didn't reply to that part of my post. I suspect the inability to face the issue (even I have trouble with it), or perhaps an unwillingness to take even minimal steps to reduce personal impact. In the end, even those that don't deny the science have not proposed any solutions, so it's not like there's a clear course of action being actively avoided.

User avatar
Barry Sears
Posts: 322
Joined: December 2nd, 2014, 4:05 am

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Barry Sears » April 24th, 2018, 5:23 am

Hi Halc,
I personally had a basic comprehension of life and astronomy but my observations of the World began to mature as my focus on helping the World ascended. Many ancient messages fitted together like a jigsaw and due to my contemporary perspective I was able to balance these with contemporary knowledge. Personally I see a physical formation of the World and have been shown how this evolves and so formulated a life-cycle process. This World pattern has allowed me to see how terrestrial evolution has progressed, formed to the larger dinosaur structures and changed to the structures present today. The World formation and evolution directly correlated to the unique physical characteristics of life on Earth.
Due to an in-site into these aspects of life for the past 25 years I have been researching and developing many avenues associated with these subjects. If I personally haven't explained this in response to your questioning this may be because I have been discussing this here for several years now, also on other discussion forums and with specialists for several years of which many here have prior experience of my ramblings. My focus here is exactly as you have presented, establishing what people understand and believe and why, with regards to simple planetary motion.
You will obviously be aware that most ideas even Newton's start as "low probability alternative explanations"

User avatar
Halc
Posts: 278
Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Halc » April 25th, 2018, 12:33 am

Barry Sears wrote:
April 24th, 2018, 5:23 am
My focus here is exactly as you have presented, establishing what people understand and believe and why, with regards to simple planetary motion.
This thread is about a cure for global warming, not about planetary motion. This spiraling-inward idea adds less than one degree of warmth every 10 million years. If it was even that high, the Jurassic dinosaurs would have lived their lives in ice, and life would have begun somewhere below the Kelvin range. So any theory of planetary motion is not going to explain the abrupt warming of 4 degrees per century that is our current situation, more than 100000 times the pace that can be attributed to even the most radical theories of altered orbital radius.

I also cannot help but notice the straw-man method used to introduce this idea you champion. Either the solar-system positions itself in fixed orbits 'from a bang', the planets emerged outward from the sun, or the only remaining choice, which is this thing that you've chosen to push in a global-warming topic. I don't think any of those options conform to theories with notable acceptance rates, and none of them are relevant to this thread topic.

I didn't want to single you out. Some others are doing it as well, perhaps with different motives. But you're responding to me.

Imagine person in the passenger seat of a car approaching a curve (with cliff of course) too quickly. It seems to be human nature to deny the evidence and latch onto whatever improbable explanation where the car slows down on its own, or perhaps at least removes blame from the driver or from the passengers for not pointing out the danger to the driver.
Meanwhile, in the back seat is the guy who very much sees the curve, but has no particularly useful suggestion. He urges the driver to slow, but the turn is already too close. It will only serve to slightly delay when the car goes over the cliff. So who is doing the more sane thing? The denier in the passenger seat, or the guy in the back spending his last seconds freaking out?
Of course the guy in the back urged the driver to slow down a ways back when there was still enough time, but the driver pointed out a scorpion on the brake pedal, so could somebody else please hit the brakes? Turns out that not even the guy in the back seat was willing to do that.

User avatar
Barry Sears
Posts: 322
Joined: December 2nd, 2014, 4:05 am

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Barry Sears » April 29th, 2018, 5:12 am

I have just had a lovely few days away with my two boys. One was in a hockey tournament but we all had a long day at the beach at Raglan. I had my first go at surfing. I was curious what your response would be but don't do electronic devices when out cruising in our campervan.
To be honest on return I found your last paragraph quite odd and I am sure you may read this again in the future and think the same. With regards to planetary motion it is perhaps simplified when you actually consider the options that are available. It is also easy to image these options moving, when you consider vast periods of time. I was impressed however that you attempted to run some maths based on the idea.
As I have read quite extensively on the subject now I would like to emphasise that the experts do not guarantee and confirm the theory that a decrease in the rotation of the earth is accountable for a 420 day year in the past. With this in mind it is still necessary to account for the discrepancies modern measurement and techniques are recording.
I think that you are totally contradicting your comments when you calculate a warming rate if Earth moves towards the sun but then suggest it is irrelevant for a global warming topic. Your graph was interesting because it indicates that the temperature average at the latest reading in 2016 was actually the same as it was in 5000bc. You may be interested to know that at present all historical marine records are being collated and will be added to existing temperature records and this will give a better data base.
Bit confused here but if you are sitting in the back seat I suggest you jump out.

User avatar
Halc
Posts: 278
Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Halc » April 29th, 2018, 7:43 pm

Barry Sears wrote:
April 29th, 2018, 5:12 am
I have just had a lovely few days away with my two boys. One was in a hockey tournament but we all had a long day at the beach at Raglan. I had my first go at surfing. I was curious what your response would be but don't do electronic devices when out cruising in our campervan.
Sounds awesome. I've never had a mobile device, but two of my kids do, and they don't use them at such places.
I think that you are totally contradicting your comments when you calculate a warming rate if Earth moves towards the sun but then suggest it is irrelevant for a global warming topic.
It could be relevant if the numbers worked, but they don't. Any planetary motion theory is going to involve steady change, not abrupt change unless there is abrupt change to our orbit. So I chose an arbitrary value of a degree per 10M years. Even at that slow pace, the Earth a quarter billion years ago would have been set on a ball of ice instead of the warmer climate that existed back then. There were no polar ice caps at all. So the long-term average warming rate must be considerably less than that, but the current warming is 400,000 times that rate. That's why any theory about long term rates is irrelevant to the thread. It doesn't begin to touch on that incredible pace that is going on.
Your graph was interesting because it indicates that the temperature average at the latest reading in 2016 was actually the same as it was in 5000bc. You may be interested to know that at present all historical marine records are being collated and will be added to existing temperature records and this will give a better data base.
All correct. Normal fluctuations happen. But the slope of the line at 5000 BC is zero. The worst slope I found was around 13k and 9.5k BC, at about 0.2 deg/century. These are normal ice age fluctuations. There was negative slope in the millennia before that. The Earth has been warmer in the far past (something not consistent with Earth orbit dropping), but the steep slopes have all been accompanied by significant extinction events. In 2016 that slope is 4 deg/century, unprecedented in absence of something like a Yellowstone eruption.
Bit confused here but if you are sitting in the back seat I suggest you jump out.
Ah, the Elon Musk solution. Takes trillions of dollars most of us don't have, and probability of short term survival is low, but long term might be better than the certain calamity of staying in the car. Sounds more hazardous than stepping on the scorpion sitting on the brake pedal.

User avatar
Barry Sears
Posts: 322
Joined: December 2nd, 2014, 4:05 am

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Barry Sears » April 30th, 2018, 7:31 am

If you are sitting in the back seat, applying the brake is not an option. If your attempts to resolve the inevitable outcome by communication with the driver of the motor vehicle wasn't successful, then taking action to jump would be necessary.

Image


Post Reply