Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.

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
DarwinX
Posts: 1298
Joined: April 14th, 2013, 4:30 am
Favorite Philosopher: Stephen Hurrell
Location: Australia

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by DarwinX » February 6th, 2014, 8:21 pm

Hog Rider wrote:
DarwinX wrote:The properties of Co2 are that with increasing density of its reflection decreases exponentially after it reaches saturation point. Thus, increasing CO2 doesn't necessarily increase its reflective properties to any measurable amount. Don't forget that light has to get through the CO2 before it can be reflected back again. Thus, a large part of the reflection occurs at this point which annuls the backwards reflection of the infra red spectrum. Note - The IPCC did not take into consideration the properties of CO2 when they made their assessment that CO2 was to blame for global warming. They also did not take into consideration the heat island effect which has caused the so called 0.7 degree increase in global temperature. In fact in thousands of pages of IPCC reports the word sun is never mentioned. The sun is, apparently, just an inconvenience to the IPCC which shows the hypocrisy and corruption which is endemic within the IPCC.
Can you cite any of this?
Some references are

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/t ... n-dioxide/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Beware! The devil wears the mask of a saint.

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

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Barry Sears » February 27th, 2018, 5:12 am

I have been researching planetary motion with respect to planetary formation theories. There are theories with mathematics and physics that support different concepts, but at this point of time planetary motion and planetary evolution is only theoretical.

Simplifying the concept the planets could 1/ be motionless. This would mean that all planets around all suns, in all Galaxies, have positioned themselves from a bang a long time ago. Some suggest the planets move in or out and change over billions of years.
2/ The planets could be moving away from the sun, although over billions of years this simple motion would determine the planets have come from the sun, which wouldn't happen.
3/ An organic planetary formation process defines the planets form and grow in a process moving towards the sun. Each of our planets show the different phases a planet passes through.
The evidence that is available to support the theories, is fossil orientated, as measuring devices and theories are still only possibilities. We have a record of life on Earth as evolution explains and we also have tidal fossil imprints. This is when days are recorded in such things as coral and tidal layers. This is evidence that defines a year once had more days, approximately 400 million years ago a year had 420 days.
Studying a relationship between evolutionary changes when creatures were larger and better suited to cooler temperatures at dinosaur times and considering the ten thousand year feature and size changes to smaller species, what planetary motion produces correlated environmental conditions. A motion towards the sun becomes logical. This also explains why a year may have had 420 days, because if further from the sun a year would also be much longer allowing for 420 days.
With regards to global warming a movement of the planets towards the sun would produce a warming atmosphere. Sites around the equator, 4-5 thousands years ago, once lush spots are now dry deserts. We have changed and adapted to changing environmental conditions. We also have the ability to design for the future.

Steve3007
Posts: 5624
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Steve3007 » February 27th, 2018, 6:14 am

Barry Sears wrote:I have been researching planetary motion with respect to planetary formation theories. There are theories with mathematics and physics that support different concepts, but at this point of time planetary motion and planetary evolution is only theoretical.
In your view, what does it mean for something to be "only theoretical"? Does it mean that the theory is not an accurate description of the observations? If so, then theories of planetary motion (if, by that, you mean mathematical models of the orbits of the planets deriving from Newton's and Einstein's theories of gravity) are pretty accurate, as shown by the fact that such things as eclipses can be predicted many years in advance.
Simplifying the concept the planets could 1/ be motionless. This would mean that all planets around all suns, in all Galaxies, have positioned themselves from a bang a long time ago. Some suggest the planets move in or out and change over billions of years.
By "motioless" I presume you mean that the radii of their orbits haven't changed? I don't know what you mean by "have positioned themselves from a bang". What bang?
2/ The planets could be moving away from the sun, although over billions of years this simple motion would determine the planets have come from the sun, which wouldn't happen.
If the planetary orbits were getting bigger over time it wouldn't necessarily follow that they came from the Sun. It would simply mean that the orbits were a bit smaller when the planets formed.
The evidence that is available to support the theories, is fossil orientated, as measuring devices and theories are still only possibilities. We have a record of life on Earth as evolution explains and we also have tidal fossil imprints. This is when days are recorded in such things as coral and tidal layers. This is evidence that defines a year once had more days, approximately 400 million years ago a year had 420 days.
This is because the Earth's rate of spin on its own axis - the thing which defines the length of a day - is gradually slowing due to tidal forces with the moon.
Studying a relationship between evolutionary changes when creatures were larger and better suited to cooler temperatures at dinosaur times and considering the ten thousand year feature and size changes to smaller species, what planetary motion produces correlated environmental conditions. A motion towards the sun becomes logical. This also explains why a year may have had 420 days, because if further from the sun a year would also be much longer allowing for 420 days.
The Earth's temperature has varied over millions of years in a way that has little to do with any change in its distance from the Sun. During the the Mesozoic (dinosaur period) there were various cold and warm periods, including periods when it was much hotter than it is today, for example during the Jurassic. These changes are caused by changes in the constituents of the atmosphere.
With regards to global warming a movement of the planets towards the sun would produce a warming atmosphere. Sites around the equator, 4-5 thousands years ago, once lush spots are now dry deserts. We have changed and adapted to changing environmental conditions. We also have the ability to design for the future.
The warming commonly referred to as "global warming" is measured on timescales of 10's or 100's of years. Whether the Earth is moving away from of towards the Sun, there is no significant change on timescales of less than millions of years. Even on those timescales the difference in the size of the Earth's orbit is small. Certainly desertification on timescales of 4000 years has nothing to do with the size of the Earth's orbit. That's less than a millionth of the entire age of the Earth.

Evidence suggests that the Earth's orbit is increasing in size by about 15cms per year. If that rate of increase has been approximately constant for the last 4000 years (a reasonable assumption given that this is a very, very small proportion of the Earth's history) then 4000 years ago the Earth was about 600 metres closer to the Sun than it is now. That's 0.0000004% of the size of the Earth's orbit (150 billion metres). Since the Earth's orbit is elliptical, this 600 metres is far, far less than the variation in distance between Earth and Sun on every orbit. On every orbit, the Earth's distance from the Sun varies by about 5 billion metres.

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

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Barry Sears » February 28th, 2018, 6:33 am

Kiaora from New Zealand Steve.
I wonder if you believe the traditional Turkish World formation theory or you are more in tune with contemporary Chinese concepts. I would like it if you could explain in a simple paragraph your understanding of planetary formation, just the basics in your own words so I can grasp what you believe please.
I notice you have quoted the work of the Japanese team Takaho Miura, Hideyoshi Arakida, Masumi Kasai, Shuichi Kuramata who base there works on Gregoriy A. Krasinsky and Victor A. Brumberg's revolutionary influence.
Legends for their work, I question if you are familiar with the review panel who have scrutinised the detail concluding the work is not able to determine the direction or movement of the Earth towards or away from the sun.
I am not sure if you agree with the mainstream scientific belief, that the Earth has never, always, had water which alters considerably, calculations using Earths mass as a constant for evolutionary purposes over vast periods on time. I wonder if you are familiar with this water process. I am familiar with only two basic theories but harmonise with the movement through the Goldilocks zone.
You obviously have a good scientific grasp and so you must understand that if the Earth was further from the sun and had a larger revolution period this would also allow for more days to exist in a year. From a scientific point of view this is a possibility of which the motion or theory, also logically explains the observation of 420 days per year. The movement also produces a more suited situation for dinosaurs, as time itself would alter correlating to the size and nature of life then.

I currently seek evidence supporting planetary motion. Please don't get confused with theories or ideas as evidence. I am most interested in evidence and observations if you are familiar with any please

Steve3007
Posts: 5624
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Steve3007 » February 28th, 2018, 7:50 am

Barry Sears wrote:Kiaora from New Zealand Steve
Kiaora to you too! :) And thank you for introducing me to a new word which, until you said it and I looked it up, I thought was just the brand name of a soft drink!
I wonder if you believe the traditional Turkish World formation theory or you are more in tune with contemporary Chinese concepts. I would like it if you could explain in a simple paragraph your understanding of planetary formation, just the basics in your own words so I can grasp what you believe please.
I suspect I might not "believe" anything about the formation of the solar system in the sense in which you appear to be using that word. But let's see.

My understanding of the most likely course of events, given the evidence and the laws of physics, is that the solar system formed when a diffuse mixture of gas and dust contracted under its own gravity into an accretion disc. It formed a rotating disc because conservation of angular momentum means that any slight net rotation in the original material increases as it reduces in size. This process can be modelled using computer simulations based on well established laws of physics. (I've done it myself). As the contraction increases, sometimes (as in the case of our solar system) only the central mass achieves enough heat and pressure to ignite nuclear reactions and become a star. Sometimes there is more than one such event, which results in binary, triple or multiple star systems. In our case, if Jupiter had been a bit bigger, ours would be a binary system. Other clumping together due to mutual gravitational attraction in the outer parts of the disc forms the planets and their natural satellites. As they contract they gradually "suck in" most of the material in the disc until we reach the situation we have today of a few large masses (star, planets and satellites) and relatively little in between.

I hope that wasn't too long for the one paragraph you asked me to provide. I'll leave it there for now and deal with some of your other points later.

I just tried to use Google Translate to find the Māori word for "goodbye for now" or "farewell" but it would only give me a word for "repent" ("mihi")! So I guess I'll leave that. :)

Steve3007
Posts: 5624
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Steve3007 » February 28th, 2018, 9:00 am

A bit more:
Barry Sears wrote:I notice you have quoted the work of the Japanese team Takaho Miura, Hideyoshi Arakida, Masumi Kasai, Shuichi Kuramata who base there works on Gregoriy A. Krasinsky and Victor A. Brumberg's revolutionary influence.
I've read that these people have more than one theory as to why the Earth is moving away from the Sun at approximately 15 cms per year. But, as I understand it, the evidence that it is observed to be doing that is reasonably well settled:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 004-0633-z

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... m-the-sun/

"...Having such a precise yardstick allowed Russian dynamicists Gregoriy A. Krasinsky and Victor A. Brumberg to calculate, in 2004, that the sun and Earth are gradually moving apart. It’s not much – just 15 cm per year – but since that’s 100 times greater than the measurement error, something must really be pushing Earth outward. But what?"

The measurement being 100 time greater than the measurement error means that it's fairly reliable.
Legends for their work, I question if you are familiar with the review panel who have scrutinised the detail concluding the work is not able to determine the direction or movement of the Earth towards or away from the sun.
No, I'm not aware of that and would be interested to see it. But if, for the sake of argument, it turns out that the Earth's orbit is getting smaller, not bigger, by about that same amount (15 cms per year) it would still be an insignificant amount compared to the total size of the Earth's orbit and the eccentricity of that orbit, when considering timescales of 1000s or even millions of years.
I am not sure if you agree with the mainstream scientific belief, that the Earth has never, always, had water which alters considerably, calculations using Earths mass as a constant for evolutionary purposes over vast periods on time.
I'm not sure what you mean by the phrase "has never, always, had water". Do you mean "has not always had water"?
You obviously have a good scientific grasp...
Of some of the basics. I wouldn't claim to be an expert on the physics of planet formation.
...and so you must understand that if the Earth was further from the sun and had a larger revolution period this would also allow for more days to exist in a year.
If the length of the day was the same, yes. You don't need to be an expert to see that. Likewise, it's easy to see that if the length of the year was constant and the days were shorter, there would also be more of them in a year. This appears to be the case. As I said, evidence (as I understand it) points to the Earth's rotation gradually slowing due to tidal forces in the Earth/Moon system.
From a scientific point of view this is a possibility of which the motion or theory, also logically explains the observation of 420 days per year. The movement also produces a more suited situation for dinosaurs, as time itself would alter correlating to the size and nature of life then
Evidence, as I understand it, does not fit this explanation for there being more days in the year a long time ago. I don't know what you mean by "time itself would alter correlating to the size and nature of life". I don't know of any sense in which changing the size of the Earth's orbit or the speed of its intrinsic rotation would "alter time itself".
I currently seek evidence supporting planetary motion. Please don't get confused with theories or ideas as evidence. I am most interested in evidence and observations if you are familiar with any please
I presume you mean that you're not interested in speculative theories that are unsupported by any evidence? There is a theory that there is such a thing as gravity which results in objects accelerating towards each other. That theory stems from, and is strongly supported by, empirical evidence. Presumably, on that basis, you would accept that theory, yes?

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

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Barry Sears » March 1st, 2018, 6:09 am

Hi Steve

It is without a doubt that the works of Krasinsky and Brumberg are of great influence for Celestial mechanics and with no disrespect to the works, it as with all works have specialty areas. Here are a couple of important comments from the expert analytical overview of the theories, which should be considered.
1/A complete numerical experiment has to be realized to be convinced of the success of this approach. So, the question of the interest of the use of elliptic functions for the complete problem of the eight planets of the solar system remains open

2/However, as it was demonstrated by [17], these types of ephemerides didnot have sufficient accuracy for being fitted directly to observations or to give accurate enough representation of the planet motions...
How do you measure the distance between Earth and the Sun?

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about- ... termediate
"The Earth is known to constantly slow down and speed up, which imperceptibly alters the length of our days.
We are taught that the day is 24 hours, or 86,400 seconds. That is true, but there are irregularities on the millisecond level," said David Salstein, an atmospheric scientist at Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc."
Recent research now indicates such discrepancies with Earth's rotation slowing, has larger fluctuating rates, and it would be unreliable to apply this as a constant over millions of years. I also believe that the actual diameter of the sun is not measured to cm's, but more to a thousand kilometres. An AU is defined to hundreds of meters. 15cm is not a fact sorry.

The maths and the physics for the relationship between planetary bodies, applies regardless of whether the Earth moves towards or away from the sun. What I suggest is that the real evidence is how life has changed. What I mean when I say "time would change" is that years and days take on different values. If you live on Mars a year would have 670 days, years and seasons would be much longer. Time would be different. This is the shift in time that establishes conditions better suited to dinosaurs dynamics..

Steve3007
Posts: 5624
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Steve3007 » March 1st, 2018, 8:18 am

Hi again Barry.

The elliptical model of the orbits of the planets around the Sun (or more generally any orbit around a single body) are only a first approximation. They would only be precisely accurate if there were only two bodies in the Universe, if they both acted as though their masses were all concentrated at their centres (i.e. they were perfectly uniform spheres) and if there was no such thing as General Relativity. Clearly this in not the case.

Kepler discovered that the orbits are approximately elliptical and Newton then used that information to come up with his Theory of Universal Gravitation. Since that theory correctly predicts that all bodies are gravitationally attracted by all other bodies, the next important thing to take into account in a system like our solar system is the gravitational influence of the planets on each other, not just the influence between each individual planet and the Sun.

This is what causes the things they call "perturbations" in the planets' orbits. It was careful observations of these perturbations, combined with the predicted perturbations of Newton's laws, that allowed the existence of as-yet-unobserved planets to be successfully predicted in the past. For example, Saturn was found to be deviating from its expected orbit in such a way that, if Newton's laws were correct, another planet must be having an effect on it. This planet (Uranus) was then discovered. Likewise with Uranus and Neptune.

I'm a software engineer by trade and one of my past jobs was creating computer models of various aspects of physics. One of these was a model of the solar system accurate enough to be able to predict solar eclipses. To do this with a great deal of accuracy means taking into account all of these perturbations. At heart, the computer simulations are numerical calculations of Newton's (and to some extent Einstein's) laws. I know from having to use them that they are very accurate.

Regarding this, that you quoted:
1/A complete numerical experiment has to be realized to be convinced of the success of this approach. So, the question of the interest of the use of elliptic functions for the complete problem of the eight planets of the solar system remains open

2/However, as it was demonstrated by [17], these types of ephemerides didnot have sufficient accuracy for being fitted directly to observations or to give accurate enough representation of the planet motions...
Out of context, this quote appears to be saying what I said above - ellipses are only a first approximation of the motions of planets in their orbits.

As I explained above, the fact that ellipses are not precise models of planetary motions is well known. This is not directly relevant to any consideration of whether the planets' orbits are getting generally bigger or smaller over time.

And this:
"The Earth is known to constantly slow down and speed up, which imperceptibly alters the length of our days.
We are taught that the day is 24 hours, or 86,400 seconds. That is true, but there are irregularities on the millisecond level," said David Salstein, an atmospheric scientist at Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc."
Yes, the Earth, and other planets, speed up and slow down at various points on their orbits due both to these perturbations and because, as Kepler correctly said, this is what happens in elliptical orbits even without the perturbations. Kepler's laws explicitly tell you how fast the planet goes at various points on its orbit in an idealised elliptical orbit. I presume that's what the above quote is saying. Again, this has nothing directly to do with any long term change in the overall size of the orbit.
Barry Sears wrote:Recent research now indicates such discrepancies with Earth's rotation slowing, has larger fluctuating rates, and it would be unreliable to apply this as a constant over millions of years.
I'm confused as to what you mean when you say "constant over millions of years". Obviously the planets don't stand still, so I assumed you were talking about the constancy, or otherwise, of the sizes of their orbits. But if so, this has nothing to do with the planets speeding up and slowing down at various points on their orbits. You appear to be talking about the overall size of this approximate ellipse changing over time.
I also believe that the actual diameter of the sun is not measured to cm's, but more to a thousand kilometres. An AU is defined to hundreds of meters. 15cm is not a fact sorry.
Like you, I'm just telling you about the research that I've read about. Like you, I haven't done any of these measurements personally. The research I've read does not apparently rely on measurements of the Sun's diameter. It relies on various types of measurements of distances to other planets. The research I've read says that the size of the Earth's orbit has been calculated, from measurements, to be increasing by an average of about 15 cms per year plus or minus 4 cms:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 004-0633-z

As I said, the question of why this might be is a separate one and appears to be the subject of various possible theories, including those by the people who's names you've quoted. As I understand it, these figures are calculated using radar echolocation and spacecraft Doppler-telemetry techniques with other planets, such as Venus. More about this here:

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~po ... ussun.html

According to the above cited article, the Earth-Sun distance has been calculated using these techniques to measure the distance to the planet Venus as follows:

"By the mid-20th century, Venus Transits and Mars Parallaxes were supplanted by radar echolocation and spacecraft Doppler-telemetry techniques. During the late 20th century, direct radar measurements of the distances of Venus accumulated over 40 years helped to refine the estimate of the Astronomical Unit to its modern value of 149,597,870.691±0.030 kilometers. Yes, that is not a typographical error: the AU really is known to a precision of ±30 meters (roughly the width of an American football field)."

+/-30 metres is still not 15 cms. So how do they know that figure? Perhaps an average over a number of years. I don't know. More reading required to find out.
The maths and the physics for the relationship between planetary bodies, applies regardless of whether the Earth moves towards or away from the sun. What I suggest is that the real evidence is how life has changed. What I mean when I say "time would change" is that years and days take on different values. If you live on Mars a year would have 670 days, years and seasons would be much longer. Time would be different. This is the shift in time that establishes conditions better suited to dinosaurs dynamics..
Yes, as I've said, if evidence of various kinds here on Earth (including evidence of the characteristics of past life forms) suggests that in the distant past there were a different number of days in a year then this either means a different length for the year, a different length for the day or both. As I said, the evidence as I understand it is that it was primarily due to the days being shorter in the past because the Earth was spinning faster on its axis. As I said, the slowing of the Earth's intrinsic spin (the rotation that determines the length of a day) is thought to be caused by tidal forces in the Earth/Moon system.

Note: All of this is just what I've read about. It's not something that I believe as a matter of faith. It's just what appears, based on the available evidence, to be the case.

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

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Barry Sears » March 2nd, 2018, 7:48 am

Respect to you Steve,
After thousands of posts you have expressed your opinion and understanding with clarity, meaning and respect. Not a word of frustration, impatience or disrespect.
At this point of time I wish to express how ancient traditional beliefs also have a larger than believed scientific input and require recognition. To bind with ancient knowledge carried forward over thousands of years and to balance this with the recent explosion of contemporary scientific knowledge requires an open mind.
You are perhaps more in-tune with the mathematical equations than I, but you seem to express these as evidence or fact. To believe that the Earth is slowing in it's rotation at a rate of 2m/s per hundred years and has been doing so for 500 million years is not a fact. Scientific data also suggests otherwise (I'm confused as to what you mean when you say "constant over millions of years")
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.
Throughout a time-stretch of some 50-million years, the definition for the solar year may have remained at about 365.24 days. 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).
It should be obvious from the cited research of mollusk shells that the length of the synodic month of 29.5 days can be interpreted to have remained relatively unchanged for millions of years into the past. (https://design-of-time.com/slowing.htm)

To believe the Earth is moving away from the sun at 15 cm per year, is not a fact. It is a mathematical equations and theory, but other options can also be explained and supported.
Open minded I am most interested if other forms of evidence exist.
Global warming is still a possible result of planetary motion, moving towards the heat source.

Steve3007
Posts: 5624
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Steve3007 » March 5th, 2018, 3:32 am

Barry Sears wrote:After thousands of posts you have expressed your opinion and understanding with clarity, meaning and respect. Not a word of frustration, impatience or disrespect.
I don't think I could claim to have never shown any frustration, impatience or disrespect, but thanks anyway!
At this point of time I wish to express how ancient traditional beliefs also have a larger than believed scientific input and require recognition. To bind with ancient knowledge carried forward over thousands of years and to balance this with the recent explosion of contemporary scientific knowledge requires an open mind.
I agree it's always good to have an open mind but I also think it's good to be clear as to what one wants to achieve when considering the pros and cons of the various thoughts and worldviews that have been expressed by various people over the millennia. In other words, I like to take a kind of utilitarian view of these things; a practical view. What are my goals (I ask myself)? And what use are these thoughts and worldviews in achieving these goals?

I think often our goal is to find a worldview, or a system of beliefs, that resonates with something in us; that "strikes a chord"; that "rings true". I think it's interesting that there are several forms of this musical/resonance metaphor in our language. I think it reflects our desire to feel connected to the rest of the universe in some way.

Different people attempt to achieve that connection in different ways. Some people attempt to do it by trying to find underlying patterns in the observed behaviour of various things, like planets for example, and using those patterns to try to predict unobserved behaviour.
You are perhaps more in-tune with the mathematical equations than I, but you seem to express these as evidence or fact.
You use this word "fact" a lot. I prefer not to use it much and I don't see mathematical equations per se as evidence. Instead, I'd put it like this:

"Evidence" means the things that people observe, and sometimes measure, directly or indirectly, using their senses. For example, if somebody looks through a telescope and observes the planet Saturn moving in a particular way, then this constitutes evidence that there exists a planet that we call Saturn and that it is currently moving in a particular way.

When we make these observations of various objects moving in various ways, we usually find that there are patterns in these movements and other behaviours. Using the language of mathematics, we can describe those patterns. We can hypothesize that they will continue to follow the same pattern and then look to see if they do. If they do, then we can propose that they follow these patterns even when we're not looking. We can propose that they followed similar patterns a long time ago when we hadn't yet looked at them. We can say to ourselves: "If they did do that, what observations could I make to test this proposition?"

This is how science works.

An example of one of these patterns is Newton's theory of Universal Gravitation. It's a pattern that can be described by a pretty small, simple bit of mathematics. It simply states that there is a force between every object and every other object that is proportional to their masses multiplied together and which gets smaller if they're further apart. It is proposed that, if no other objects get in the way, these objects accelerate towards each other in a way that is directly proportional to this force, and that this acceleration (change in velocity) can be observed.

All observed objects' movements seem to follow this pattern. So, until an observation is made to refute it, it seems reasonable to give it the status of a universal law - i.e. to assume that as-yet-unobserved objects will follow it and to assume that objects in the past followed it. If we do this, and we use this simple bit of maths, applied over and over again, to a simulated system of objects we can successfully model the observed behaviour of the solar system to a very high degree of accuracy. We can then use this same bit of maths to model the formation of the solar system from lots of mutually gravitating particles.

This is why I think there is evidence that the solar system formed by the condensation of a cloud of dust and gas into an accretion disc, as I described earlier. It fits an established pattern of behaviour. It is not certain. Nothing is. There is no certainty that any of the patterns we see in Nature will continue when we haven't yet observed them to do so. There is no certainty that the Earth will keep turning and that the Sun will therefore rise tomorrow as it did yesterday. But, as a general rule, we tend to think that the more these patterns continue, the more likely they are to continue doing so. We all think this. It's how we all make sense of the world, whether or not we consider ourselves to be "doing science".
To believe that the Earth is slowing in it's rotation at a rate of 2m/s per hundred years and has been doing so for 500 million years is not a fact.
That's correct. A belief is not a fact. It is a belief. If it is believed, then that belief is based on observations and patterns as described above.
Scientific data also suggests otherwise (I'm confused as to what you mean when you say "constant over millions of years")
The part in brackets above is slightly confusing. I assume you're quoting me and then answering that quote.
To believe the Earth is moving away from the sun at 15 cm per year, is not a fact. It is a mathematical equations and theory, but other options can also be explained and supported.
I think it would help if you sorted out your terminology. The belief that the Earth's orbit is getting bigger over millions of years is not a mathematical equation. See description above.
Open minded I am most interested if other forms of evidence exist.
Good. So long as you are clear as to what constitutes evidence.
Global warming is still a possible result of planetary motion, moving towards the heat source.
As I said in an earlier post, the term "global warming" is generally used to refer to the warming of the globe that has happened over the past 100 years or so. 100 years is almost nothing as a proportion of the total amount of time for which the Earth has existed. There is, essentially, zero probability that this warming has been caused by the size of the Earth's orbit shrinking. It's possible, in the same sense that it is possible that the Moon is made from cheese. But, in that same sense, it is not probable.

Remember: The fact that the Earth's orbit is elliptical means that every time it goes around the Sun the Earth's distance from the Sun varies by billions of metres. For the Earth's orbit to have shrunk by enough to make a difference to the climate on a timescale of 100 years would require it to be shrinking by a gigantic, unmistakable amount which would be easily and undisbutably measurable. It would mean that the before a few thousand years ago the Earth must have been too cold to sustain life. Evidence does not support this. Unless it suddenly started to move towards the Sun 100 years ago. That also seems improbable.

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

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Barry Sears » March 5th, 2018, 6:40 am

Hi Steve,
You have presented two points, one the Earth is moving away from the sun at a rate of 15 cm per year and two, the Earth is slowing in it's rotation at a rate of 2m/s per 100 years.
I have presented expert opinions on both of these points that explain they are not necessarily true.
"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."
Throughout a time-stretch of some 50-million years, the definition for the solar year may have remained at about 365.24 days. "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)."
"It should be obvious from the cited research of mollusk shells that the length of the synodic month of 29.5 days can be interpreted to have remained relatively unchanged for millions of years into the past."
The quotes above are sourced from The International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS). This clearly states that this article is not correct. It does not account for the evidence which is, that a year once had 420 days approximately 400 million years ago. 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. An approximate position can be calculated very simply and the approximate distance of travel also.
Here is another calculation from somebody else on another discussion site
Many years ago I read in a science text that around 15 million years ago there were a little over 400 days in an Earth year....I wanted to understand how it was that we lost 35 days in the time since.....I reasoned that the circumference of our orbit must be shorter...It is a fact that today we are still changing our clocks to account for the fact that we are still losing about 2 seconds every decade......My efforts were to try and link the two to show an ongoing event...that is that the seconds we are losing today are linked somehow with the 35 days over 15000000 years...It is with this info that I worked the math to such as to suggest that we are moving closer to the Sun at a rate of . 43 miles a year.I posted that we would travel .002 AU to gain or lose a day....Try this using the same math.....1.07 AU...You will find an Earth year of 404.26 days...I was then able to calculate that the time period for this number of days at .43 miles a year to be 15,139,534 years ago. Where I am going with this is to suggest that if in fact we are moving closer to the Sun then we are being subjected to gradual increases in the concentration of solar particles per cubic foot of air space.This then would naturally affect our climate over time..
If the theory or calculations don't fit the observations or evidence, then one must rethink and look for alternative possibilities.

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

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Barry Sears » March 6th, 2018, 5:38 am

Hi Steve
I am not sure if you have read these papers, but this is a detailed account of what I am trying to suggest, but it has all of the physics and maths that might be more supportive to your profession.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf
1. Introduction In the first paper of this series the author introduced a new cosmological theory, the Scale Expanding Cosmos (SEC) theory and showed how this theory might resolve several longstanding problems with the Standard Cosmological Model (SCM) based on the big bang. In this paper I will investigate a new feature predicted by the SEC theory – cosmic drag. Cosmic drag would cause relative velocities of freely moving objects to diminish with time and angular momenta of rotating system to dissipate. This paper discusses how cosmic drag could explain the formation and shape of spiral galaxies. Evidence for cosmic drag in the solar system, which would cause the planets to spiral toward the Sun, is presented and why this phenomenon has not been detected previously is discussed. The paper concludes with suggesting how cosmic drag might be verified by observations in the solar system.

User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Atreyu » March 13th, 2018, 5:52 pm

My view is that there could be no "cure" for global warming because 1) the forces behind this phenomenon are too powerful for man to alter, and 2) it's not a "problem" in the first place.

I believe the natural order is that planets grow bigger and warmer over time, regardless of any carbon emissions.

And if a planet is shrinking and cooling, that means it is 'dying'.

So to work against global warming is to work against the interests of the Earth itself. Not that that is necessarily or inherently a bad thing to do, but it is certainly a futile endeavor....

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

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Barry Sears » March 14th, 2018, 5:46 am

Greetings Atreyu, always lovely to read your input and perspective.

To spell out my conclusion, I too believe this is a natural phenomenon caused by the natural organic process of planetary motion or evolution. 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.
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.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3131
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by LuckyR » March 14th, 2018, 2:51 pm

Regardless of the cause, it's happening and going to cause devastation to a substantial minority of the population of the planet. Luckily it can be managed, though it will take a certain will to do so, which is currently lacking.
"As usual... it depends."

Post Reply