Naturally Climate Change

[xiomi]

No matter what is happening on the earths surface,we cannot change the natural phenomenon happening in the earths core within.The ultimate challenge we face is an impending overheating within,and unbearable climate conditions.None of our efforts can deter the many years our mother Earth has experienced and time is racing .The over the normal temperatures,melting ice glacier's,and floods ,are not man made they are our deteriorating ecological, logical occurrence since evolution.We must concentrate on new methods of survival for these coming climate changes .Forget the space exploration,the new fashion of the money powers we wastefully explore.Lets try to scientifically find ways to survive our current crisis of this impending doom which is the Natural phenomenon happening to our tired "Mother Earth"! I welcome any suggestions to this topic and methods of new survival skills above the earth we live.

Edited July 20 by xiomi
Misspelled words

[Phi for All]

15 minutes ago, xiomi said:

Forget the space exploration,

We have the resources to do several things at once, especially when those things teach us so much.

[Peterkin]

26 minutes ago, xiomi said:

We must concentrate on new methods of survival for these coming climate changes

The problem word in that statement is "we". There isn't one.

[zapatos]

44 minutes ago, xiomi said:

The ultimate challenge we face is an impending overheating within

Can you please provide some data regarding this 'overheating'.

[xiomi]

51 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

The problem word in that statement is "we". There isn't one.

Agree people!

54 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Can you please provide some data regarding this 'overheating'.

https://www.space.com/rotation-earth-inner-core-slowing-down

[zapatos]

22 minutes ago, xiomi said:

https://www.space.com/rotation-earth-inner-core-slowing-down

I was asking about your assertion that the earth was over heating from within, not about the rotation of the core slowing down.

[xiomi]

By our slowing down our rotation we are experiencing longer day time and night ,more radiation with the day sun time exposure.Actually it is rotating backwards.People are in trouble of extreme global warming.Faster beach errotion,and tilt is getting worse.

[zapatos]

How does the core rotation slowing down result in the rotation of the surface slowing down?

[swansont]

9 minutes ago, xiomi said:

By our slowing down our rotation we are experiencing longer day time and night ,more radiation with the day sun time exposure.Actually it is rotating backwards.People are in trouble of extreme global warming.Faster beach errotion,and tilt is getting worse.

The core slowing makes the outer shell rotate faster, owing to conservation of angular momentum. We’ve seen this effect in recent years, but the scale of this is of order a millisecond a day.

[xiomi]

40 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I was asking about your assertion that the earth was over heating from within, not about the rotation of the core slowing down.

I can't do all the work for you ,you can read on it yourself.

1 hour ago, xiomi said:

Agree people!

https://www.space.com/rotation-earth-inner-core-slowing-down

I can but I can't do the work for you I did my research,posted my conclusion, now you can do your own homework.

2 minutes ago, xiomi said:

I can't do all the work for you ,you can read on it yourself.

I can but I can't do the work for you I did my research,posted my conclusion, now you can do your own homework.

Please note we are not scientist ,we go by what we read and interpret.Wrong or right it's their findings.

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

We have the resources to do several things at once, especially when those things teach us so much.

In all the yrs of research and exploring we still can't live outside our own galaxy,or prevent the asteroid from us.

[zapatos]

9 minutes ago, xiomi said:

I can't do all the work for you ,you can read on it yourself.

I read it. It doesn't say anything at all about the earth overheating from within. It talks about the rotation of the core. 

11 minutes ago, xiomi said:

Wrong or right it's their findings.

Their findings said nothing at all about the earth overheating from within.

13 minutes ago, xiomi said:

In all the yrs of research and exploring we still can't live outside our own galaxy

I would be interested in even one piece of research that has been done on us living outside our own galaxy.

At this point I have to conclude that you are just making shit up as you go.

[joigus]

4 hours ago, xiomi said:

Forget the space exploration,the new fashion of the money powers we wastefully explore.

(my emphasis)

New?!! Does Спутник-1 ring a bell? The last fad from 1957, I suppose.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, xiomi said:

I can't do all the work for you ,you can read on it yourself.

Oh come on. If you’re going to post these assertions it’s your obligation to back them up or clarify them.

[Peterkin]

3 hours ago, xiomi said:

Agree people!

Well, if that doesn't work, I don't know what will.

[harlock]

firslty, humans'd have to focus the real reason of global warming to have good solutions.

 

-about CO2 reason: 2 years ago a 2,000 year old alpine pass (the time of the ancient romans) was found after a swiss glacier melted, but 2,000 years ago there was no greenhouse gas. it's a visible test -> CO2 reason isn't sure, even because there's a real reason scientifically speaking!

 

-real reason: First law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor be destroyed but can be transformed from one form to another -> biomass energy comes from solar energy, a part of solar energy's transformed to biomass energy so wood production(etc...) removes solar energy from the environment   -> it's against global warming, the loss of a lot of forests in the past years is a real reason for global warming.(fires and bacterial decompositions return heat to the environment)

 

-real solutions...

1) palm oil for diesel: this palm's an high growing tree that produces a lot of wood.  furthermore, in plantations the tree always grows, it does not die(it doesn't decompose) like in nature but it is cut and replanted, but after the vegetative cycle trunks're used for furnitures etc...-> wood's stored! another aspect to consider is the possible breeding based on waste fronds(about 10 t/ha).  

2)pellet from agricultural residues for heating/(new steam engines etc...)

3) wood from forest crops for industrial use etc... to store wood. breeding(based on leaves. goats're an example) in symbiosis with these crops

 

so it's REALLY possible to contrast global warming if good humans want.

 

[exchemist]

31 minutes ago, harlock said:

firslty, humans'd have to focus the real reason of global warming to have good solutions.

 

-about CO2 reason: 2 years ago a 2,000 year old alpine pass (the time of the ancient romans) was found after a swiss glacier melted, but 2,000 years ago there was no greenhouse gas. it's a visible test -> CO2 reason isn't sure, even because there's a real reason scientifically speaking!

 

-real reason: First law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor be destroyed but can be transformed from one form to another -> biomass energy comes from solar energy, a part of solar energy's transformed to biomass energy so wood production(etc...) removes solar energy from the environment   -> it's against global warming, the loss of a lot of forests in the past years is a real reason for global warming.(fires and bacterial decompositions return heat to the environment)

 

-real solutions...

1) palm oil for diesel: this palm's an high growing tree that produces a lot of wood.  furthermore, in plantations the tree always grows, it does not die(it doesn't decompose) like in nature but it is cut and replanted, but after the vegetative cycle trunks're used for furnitures etc...-> wood's stored! another aspect to consider is the possible breeding based on waste fronds(about 10 t/ha).  

2)pellet from agricultural residues for heating/(new steam engines etc...)

3) wood from forest crops for industrial use etc... to store wood. breeding(based on leaves. goats're an example) in symbiosis with these crops

 

so it's REALLY possible to contrast global warming if good humans want.

 

This ignores the whole, well-established phenomenon of the greenhouse effect, whereby certain molecules in the atmosphere (chiefly water, CO2 and methane) absorb, and re-emit in random directions, the IR radiation that is continually being re-radiated up from the ground and oceans warmed by the sun. This creates a longer path length for IR radiation to escape from the Earth into space, delaying its escape and causing the net amount of heat retained by the earth's surface and atmosphere to increase.

I'm sure you are right that the energy in light captured by photosynthesis will not be available to be re-radiated as IR radiation, but this is not the main issue.  Changes in vegetation cover are important, certainly, but that is because photosynthesis absorbs CO2, rather than because it reduces the re-radiation of IR.   

[swansont]

3 hours ago, harlock said:

-about CO2 reason: 2 years ago a 2,000 year old alpine pass (the time of the ancient romans) was found after a swiss glacier melted, but 2,000 years ago there was no greenhouse gas. it's a visible test -> CO2 reason isn't sure, even because there's a real reason scientifically speaking!

You can’t seriously think CO2 and methane didn’t exist 2000 years ago. Even if there were no humans, i.e. no anthropogenic sources, greenhouse gases would exist

3 hours ago, harlock said:

-real reason: First law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor be destroyed but can be transformed from one form to another -> biomass energy comes from solar energy, a part of solar energy's transformed to biomass energy so wood production(etc...) removes solar energy from the environment   -> it's against global warming, the loss of a lot of forests in the past years is a real reason for global warming.(fires and bacterial decompositions return heat to the environment)

Solar energy gets transformed to other forms regardless. The issue is how much gets re-radiated back into space, vs getting trapped as thermal energy.

Your conjecture would greatly benefit from a mathematical analysis. Quantifying this idea would make it much easier to discuss.

[harlock]

9 hours ago, swansont said:

You can’t seriously think CO2 and methane didn’t exist 2000 years ago. Even if there were no humans, i.e. no anthropogenic sources, greenhouse gases would exist

are you sure 2e3 years ago there were greenhouse gases? is there a proof? 

9 hours ago, swansont said:

Solar energy gets transformed to other forms regardless. The issue is how much gets re-radiated back into space, vs getting trapped as thermal energy.

Your conjecture would greatly benefit from a mathematical analysis. Quantifying this idea would make it much easier to discuss.

however the difference between  the surfaces of the woods produces a different temperature because of the law of energy conservation about absorbed solar energy. there must be a difference in temperature!  

[exchemist]

13 minutes ago, harlock said:

are you sure 2e3 years ago there were greenhouse gases? is there a proof? 

however the difference between  the surfaces of the woods produces a different temperature because of the law of energy conservation about absorbed solar energy. there must be a difference in temperature!  

Here's a graph covering the last 1000yrs:

 

From: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GB004247

 

[harlock]

Just now, exchemist said:

Here's a graph covering the last 1000yrs:

 

From: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GB004247

 

it'd be really important to see co2 concentration 2e3 years ago 

[exchemist]

6 minutes ago, harlock said:

it'd be really important to see co2 concentration 2e3 years ago 

If it has been stable from 1000 to the start of the industrial revolution why do you think it would be radically different 1000 yrs before that? 

[zapatos]

8 minutes ago, harlock said:

it'd be really important to see co2 concentration 2e3 years ago 

Given that you claimed there was none, perhaps you can provide us with the data that supports your assertion and tells us what was around 2000 years ago.

Edited August 23 by zapatos

[studiot]

1 hour ago, harlock said:

it'd be really important to see co2 concentration 2e3 years ago 

If you really want to study this,

The subject is called paleoclimatology.

Here is a graph of the C0₂ levels compared with temperature levels over the last 10,000 years.

You can see the timestamp from the video lecture by  Roger Palmer.

The whole video is the first in a series and is 1 hour and forty minutes long.

However it is really excellent and I heartily recommend it.

 

If however you would prefer a book,

The Emerald Planet by David Beerling provides a different perspective.

 

Good luck but it is up to you to do some work to get up to speed on what scientists have found out and how they found it.

Data comes from ice cores, tree samples, rock analysis, deep sea sediments.

 

[Ken Fabian]

1 hour ago, harlock said:

are you sure 2e3 years ago there were greenhouse gases? is there a proof? 

Despite - because of - your profound absence of actual knowledge about climate change you want to argue that the world's leading science agencies are wrong? Not off to a good start. You seriously think plants and other life, that depends on atmospheric CO2 and the carbon cycle didn't exist 2,000 years ago? The reality is there was never a time when Earth's atmosphere did not have CO2 (and methane).

For what it is worth Antarctic ice cores provide a record of CO2 going back more than 2 million years, Here is 800,000 years worth of CO2 concentrations -

---------------------------------

PS - Studiot beat me to it and more comprehensively...

Edited August 23 by Ken Fabian

[swansont]

1 hour ago, harlock said:

are you sure 2e3 years ago there were greenhouse gases? is there a proof? 

Yes, of course there is. Ice cores.

“as the ice compacts over time, tiny bubbles of the atmosphere—including greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane—press inside the ice”

https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/climate-science/core-questions-an-introduction-to-ice-cores/

But how could there not be, considering that animals produce both CO2 and methane. Suggesting that these didn’t exist is not a serious proposal

 

1 hour ago, harlock said:

however the difference between  the surfaces of the woods produces a different temperature because of the law of energy conservation about absorbed solar energy. there must be a difference in temperature!  

How much?

Where is the energy stored that’s not converted to heat? I can only think of potential energy stored in the trees, and that number should be something you can estimate, and I suspect isn’t going to be all that much, relative to the total solar power that hits the earth.