COULD MOON DUST HELP REDUCE GLOBAL TEMPERATURES?

The impacts of climate change continue to mount on human civilization, with warning signs that worse times are yet to come. Despite the scientific community raising an early warning as to the risks of continued air pollution and greenhouse gas output, efforts to stem emissions have thus far had minimal impact. Continued inaction has led some scientists to consider alternative solutions to stave off the worst from occurring.

Geoengineering has long been touted as a potential solution for our global warming woes. Now, the idea of launching a gigantic dust cloud from the moon to combat Earth's rising temperatures is under the spotlight. However, this very sci-fi solution has some serious implications if pursued, if humanity can even achieve the feat in the first place.


CLOUD OF PROTECTION

A new concept involves spraying dust from the Moon towards the L1 point between the Sun and the Earth. This would potentially be much more efficient than launching billions of kilograms of dust from the Earth's surface by conventional methods. Credit: Gregory H. Revera, CC BY-SA 3.0
The idea behind the proposal is simple. By reducing the energy input into the Earth from the Sun, we can better account for the Earth's increased insulation in recent times. There are a variety of ways to achieve this, with the emission of sulfur dioxide aerosols an area of active research for many scientists. However, moon dust could serve in a very similar role, if properly distributed around the Earth.

Researchers have explored methods such as creating a large singular cloud of dust to protect the Earth. Dust particles floating in a cloud between the Sun and the Earth would help reduce the planet's temperature by absorbing heat from the sun as well as scattering light away from the Earth. One study suggested that to effectively block enough sunlight to halt climate change, over 10 billion kilograms of dust per year, perhaps sourced from near-Earth asteroids, would need to be positioned at the L1 Lagrange point. Here, the gravitational tug of the sun and Earth cancel each other out, allowing objects to remain stationary.

However, continuous maintenance of the cloud would be necessary due to particles in the cloud being disrupted by the solar wind, gravitational effects, and radiation pressure from sunlight. A further problem is simply one of scale; the weight of dust required is over 700 times greater than the total mass humanity has launched into space to date. Getting all that dust into the right spot in orbit would require a huge number of launches; a logistical effort far eclipsing anything humanity has done before.


Researchers explored a variety of materials, both engineered and naturally existing, for their capabilities in serving in a dust cloud to shield the Earth from solar radiation. Credit: Research paper
Another research paper published earlier this year in PLOS Climate suggests an alternative method. Thanks to recent computer simulations by Benjamin Bromley and his team at the University of Utah, a promising approach might be directly launching a steady stream of dust from the moon's north pole on ballistic trajectories towards L1. These simulations indicated that each particle could block sunlight heading to Earth for approximately five days before scattering throughout the solar system. This offers a practicality benefit, too. The short-lived nature of the cloud means that it could be varied in its density or removed entirely in just a few days in order to control the intensity of its shading effect.

Of course, the logistics of deploying such a massive amount of dust would still remain a challenge. Bromley's calculations are based on somewhat idealized particles, which would be manufactured in situ on the Moon. We lack the technology to do that right now, as well as the technology to launch these particles towards L1. Bromley hypothesizes that a railgun would be an effective method, given that it could be powered via solar panels placed on the Moon itself. It would, at the very least, be a far more efficient method than launching 10 billion kilograms of dust from Earth itself.

HAZARDS OF GEOENGINEERING

In recent years, scientists have noted the cooling effect of sulfur dioxide emissions from the shipping industry. Despite this beneficial effect, there is reluctance to pursue this as a geoengineering method due to the risks involved. Credit: Jin, et al, 2018
While these efforts sound promising, if far-out, there are caveats. For starters, it's uncertain whether such a massive undertaking would be worth the effort. Even if we had the technology to create such a dust cloud, the effects may not be so simple. Even if it reduces Earth's average temperatures, it could change sunlight distributions on the Earth in such a manner as to influence things like ocean currents, rainfall patterns, and other climate phenomenon. This could drastically impact agriculture and the livability of inhabited areas, with potentially disastrous effects for the global food supply. Global climate systems are so complex that it is difficult to model such diffuse effects with any real certainty.

The most significant concern, however, is the commitment this method requires. If we start geoengineering to counteract greenhouse gas output, it may become necessary to make it a near-permanent solution. Politically, any such sun shield could be used as a convenient excuse for halting emissions reductions. This could then leave Earth dangerously exposed to rapid temperature rise if the geoengineering effort fails in future. Ideally, such measures would only be used as a temporary solution to buy us more time to implement proper emissions reductions to return Earth to a more sustainable footing.

Given the global impacts of such geoengineering projects, comprehensive studies involving multiple countries, overseen by bodies like the United Nations, are imperative. Many uncertainties, from inaccuracies in dust deployment to potential damage to satellites, need thorough examination. While many oppose geoengineering as a foolhardy distraction from emissions reductions efforts, others counter that we should study these ideas lest we need them in a pinch.

In any case, the idea of using moon dust as a geoengineering solution underscores the urgency of our climate crisis. As tantalizing as the concept is, a lunar dust shield must be pursued with caution. We may be opening a proverbial Pandora's Box: once we start, we may find ourselves locked into a solution that we have to maintain at any cost, whether we like it or not.

HarveyH55 wrote:
COULD MOON DUST HELP REDUCE GLOBAL TEMPERATURES?

The impacts of climate change continue to mount on human civilization, with warning signs that worse times are yet to come. Despite the scientific community raising an early warning as to the risks of continued air pollution and greenhouse gas output, efforts to stem emissions have thus far had minimal impact. Continued inaction has led some scientists to consider alternative solutions to stave off the worst from occurring.

Geoengineering has long been touted as a potential solution for our global warming woes. Now, the idea of launching a gigantic dust cloud from the moon to combat Earth's rising temperatures is under the spotlight. However, this very sci-fi solution has some serious implications if pursued, if humanity can even achieve the feat in the first place.


CLOUD OF PROTECTION

A new concept involves spraying dust from the Moon towards the L1 point between the Sun and the Earth. This would potentially be much more efficient than launching billions of kilograms of dust from the Earth's surface by conventional methods. Credit: Gregory H. Revera, CC BY-SA 3.0
The idea behind the proposal is simple. By reducing the energy input into the Earth from the Sun, we can better account for the Earth's increased insulation in recent times. There are a variety of ways to achieve this, with the emission of sulfur dioxide aerosols an area of active research for many scientists. However, moon dust could serve in a very similar role, if properly distributed around the Earth.

Researchers have explored methods such as creating a large singular cloud of dust to protect the Earth. Dust particles floating in a cloud between the Sun and the Earth would help reduce the planet's temperature by absorbing heat from the sun as well as scattering light away from the Earth. One study suggested that to effectively block enough sunlight to halt climate change, over 10 billion kilograms of dust per year, perhaps sourced from near-Earth asteroids, would need to be positioned at the L1 Lagrange point. Here, the gravitational tug of the sun and Earth cancel each other out, allowing objects to remain stationary.

However, continuous maintenance of the cloud would be necessary due to particles in the cloud being disrupted by the solar wind, gravitational effects, and radiation pressure from sunlight. A further problem is simply one of scale; the weight of dust required is over 700 times greater than the total mass humanity has launched into space to date. Getting all that dust into the right spot in orbit would require a huge number of launches; a logistical effort far eclipsing anything humanity has done before.


Researchers explored a variety of materials, both engineered and naturally existing, for their capabilities in serving in a dust cloud to shield the Earth from solar radiation. Credit: Research paper
Another research paper published earlier this year in PLOS Climate suggests an alternative method. Thanks to recent computer simulations by Benjamin Bromley and his team at the University of Utah, a promising approach might be directly launching a steady stream of dust from the moon's north pole on ballistic trajectories towards L1. These simulations indicated that each particle could block sunlight heading to Earth for approximately five days before scattering throughout the solar system. This offers a practicality benefit, too. The short-lived nature of the cloud means that it could be varied in its density or removed entirely in just a few days in order to control the intensity of its shading effect.

Of course, the logistics of deploying such a massive amount of dust would still remain a challenge. Bromley's calculations are based on somewhat idealized particles, which would be manufactured in situ on the Moon. We lack the technology to do that right now, as well as the technology to launch these particles towards L1. Bromley hypothesizes that a railgun would be an effective method, given that it could be powered via solar panels placed on the Moon itself. It would, at the very least, be a far more efficient method than launching 10 billion kilograms of dust from Earth itself.

HAZARDS OF GEOENGINEERING

In recent years, scientists have noted the cooling effect of sulfur dioxide emissions from the shipping industry. Despite this beneficial effect, there is reluctance to pursue this as a geoengineering method due to the risks involved. Credit: Jin, et al, 2018
While these efforts sound promising, if far-out, there are caveats. For starters, it's uncertain whether such a massive undertaking would be worth the effort. Even if we had the technology to create such a dust cloud, the effects may not be so simple. Even if it reduces Earth's average temperatures, it could change sunlight distributions on the Earth in such a manner as to influence things like ocean currents, rainfall patterns, and other climate phenomenon. This could drastically impact agriculture and the livability of inhabited areas, with potentially disastrous effects for the global food supply. Global climate systems are so complex that it is difficult to model such diffuse effects with any real certainty.

The most significant concern, however, is the commitment this method requires. If we start geoengineering to counteract greenhouse gas output, it may become necessary to make it a near-permanent solution. Politically, any such sun shield could be used as a convenient excuse for halting emissions reductions. This could then leave Earth dangerously exposed to rapid temperature rise if the geoengineering effort fails in future. Ideally, such measures would only be used as a temporary solution to buy us more time to implement proper emissions reductions to return Earth to a more sustainable footing.

Given the global impacts of such geoengineering projects, comprehensive studies involving multiple countries, overseen by bodies like the United Nations, are imperative. Many uncertainties, from inaccuracies in dust deployment to potential damage to satellites, need thorough examination. While many oppose geoengineering as a foolhardy distraction from emissions reductions efforts, others counter that we should study these ideas lest we need them in a pinch.

In any case, the idea of using moon dust as a geoengineering solution underscores the urgency of our climate crisis. As tantalizing as the concept is, a lunar dust shield must be pursued with caution. We may be opening a proverbial Pandora's Box: once we start, we may find ourselves locked into a solution that we have to maintain at any cost, whether we like it or not.

There are graphics if you go to the link. Don't think they paste. Also so pretty good comments after the article, for a left-rag.

Have seen several of these block-the-sun schemes. Always kind of idiotic, hard to believe some actual think they are a good idea. Guess if it gets free-money, it's always a good idea... Solar, is one of our primary renewables, and not very efficient to begin with, 20% in ideal conditions... Closer to 10-12% in the real world. Plants kind of need full sunlight too. If some people hate life so much, maybe we should legalize euthenasia, so they don't drag us all down with them.

The article is more about filling the L1 Lagrange point with dust, from the moon specifically. Though a little doubtful there is a huge supply, unless the plan to crush moon rock as well. Don't we need the moon? Maybe they could use asteroids instead. They want to mine them anyway. Always some fearmongering near-misses with earth, every few years.

Really think the climate-crisis is a bunch of junk science, politically driven, and funded. We've been through periods of harsh weather in the past, which eventually settle down, without human intervention. Using computer models, and a 'carbon-god', is no different from political nonsense of the past, to control populations. Myths and superstitions, nothing more, just modernized. We are just along for the ride. The planet is going to keep going through it's flight, regardless of our hopes and dreams. We either adapt to the changes, or die. It's always been that way, and always will be...

James_ wrote:
With the attached image, it is obvious that global temperatures varied little between about 1945 and 1978. This is when testing of atomic and thermonuclear bombs was done. Was it possible that the radiation they released reflected solar radiation back out into space just as ozone does?
And if there's enough ozone in the depleted ozone layer, could it absorb other spectrums besides UV A, B and C radiation?

HarveyH55 wrote:
COULD MOON DUST HELP REDUCE GLOBAL TEMPERATURES?

The impacts of climate change continue to mount on human civilization, with warning signs that worse times are yet to come. Despite the scientific community raising an early warning as to the risks of continued air pollution and greenhouse gas output, efforts to stem emissions have thus far had minimal impact. Continued inaction has led some scientists to consider alternative solutions to stave off the worst from occurring.

Geoengineering has long been touted as a potential solution for our global warming woes. Now, the idea of launching a gigantic dust cloud from the moon to combat Earth's rising temperatures is under the spotlight. However, this very sci-fi solution has some serious implications if pursued, if humanity can even achieve the feat in the first place.


CLOUD OF PROTECTION

A new concept involves spraying dust from the Moon towards the L1 point between the Sun and the Earth. This would potentially be much more efficient than launching billions of kilograms of dust from the Earth's surface by conventional methods. Credit: Gregory H. Revera, CC BY-SA 3.0
The idea behind the proposal is simple. By reducing the energy input into the Earth from the Sun, we can better account for the Earth's increased insulation in recent times. There are a variety of ways to achieve this, with the emission of sulfur dioxide aerosols an area of active research for many scientists. However, moon dust could serve in a very similar role, if properly distributed around the Earth.

Researchers have explored methods such as creating a large singular cloud of dust to protect the Earth. Dust particles floating in a cloud between the Sun and the Earth would help reduce the planet's temperature by absorbing heat from the sun as well as scattering light away from the Earth. One study suggested that to effectively block enough sunlight to halt climate change, over 10 billion kilograms of dust per year, perhaps sourced from near-Earth asteroids, would need to be positioned at the L1 Lagrange point. Here, the gravitational tug of the sun and Earth cancel each other out, allowing objects to remain stationary.

However, continuous maintenance of the cloud would be necessary due to particles in the cloud being disrupted by the solar wind, gravitational effects, and radiation pressure from sunlight. A further problem is simply one of scale; the weight of dust required is over 700 times greater than the total mass humanity has launched into space to date. Getting all that dust into the right spot in orbit would require a huge number of launches; a logistical effort far eclipsing anything humanity has done before.


Researchers explored a variety of materials, both engineered and naturally existing, for their capabilities in serving in a dust cloud to shield the Earth from solar radiation. Credit: Research paper
Another research paper published earlier this year in PLOS Climate suggests an alternative method. Thanks to recent computer simulations by Benjamin Bromley and his team at the University of Utah, a promising approach might be directly launching a steady stream of dust from the moon's north pole on ballistic trajectories towards L1. These simulations indicated that each particle could block sunlight heading to Earth for approximately five days before scattering throughout the solar system. This offers a practicality benefit, too. The short-lived nature of the cloud means that it could be varied in its density or removed entirely in just a few days in order to control the intensity of its shading effect.

Of course, the logistics of deploying such a massive amount of dust would still remain a challenge. Bromley's calculations are based on somewhat idealized particles, which would be manufactured in situ on the Moon. We lack the technology to do that right now, as well as the technology to launch these particles towards L1. Bromley hypothesizes that a railgun would be an effective method, given that it could be powered via solar panels placed on the Moon itself. It would, at the very least, be a far more efficient method than launching 10 billion kilograms of dust from Earth itself.

HAZARDS OF GEOENGINEERING

In recent years, scientists have noted the cooling effect of sulfur dioxide emissions from the shipping industry. Despite this beneficial effect, there is reluctance to pursue this as a geoengineering method due to the risks involved. Credit: Jin, et al, 2018
While these efforts sound promising, if far-out, there are caveats. For starters, it's uncertain whether such a massive undertaking would be worth the effort. Even if we had the technology to create such a dust cloud, the effects may not be so simple. Even if it reduces Earth's average temperatures, it could change sunlight distributions on the Earth in such a manner as to influence things like ocean currents, rainfall patterns, and other climate phenomenon. This could drastically impact agriculture and the livability of inhabited areas, with potentially disastrous effects for the global food supply. Global climate systems are so complex that it is difficult to model such diffuse effects with any real certainty.

The most significant concern, however, is the commitment this method requires. If we start geoengineering to counteract greenhouse gas output, it may become necessary to make it a near-permanent solution. Politically, any such sun shield could be used as a convenient excuse for halting emissions reductions. This could then leave Earth dangerously exposed to rapid temperature rise if the geoengineering effort fails in future. Ideally, such measures would only be used as a temporary solution to buy us more time to implement proper emissions reductions to return Earth to a more sustainable footing.

Given the global impacts of such geoengineering projects, comprehensive studies involving multiple countries, overseen by bodies like the United Nations, are imperative. Many uncertainties, from inaccuracies in dust deployment to potential damage to satellites, need thorough examination. While many oppose geoengineering as a foolhardy distraction from emissions reductions efforts, others counter that we should study these ideas lest we need them in a pinch.

In any case, the idea of using moon dust as a geoengineering solution underscores the urgency of our climate crisis. As tantalizing as the concept is, a lunar dust shield must be pursued with caution. We may be opening a proverbial Pandora's Box: once we start, we may find ourselves locked into a solution that we have to maintain at any cost, whether we like it or not.

There are graphics if you go to the link. Don't think they paste. Also so pretty good comments after the article, for a left-rag.

Have seen several of these block-the-sun schemes. Always kind of idiotic, hard to believe some actual think they are a good idea. Guess if it gets free-money, it's always a good idea... Solar, is one of our primary renewables, and not very efficient to begin with, 20% in ideal conditions... Closer to 10-12% in the real world. Plants kind of need full sunlight too. If some people hate life so much, maybe we should legalize euthenasia, so they don't drag us all down with them.

The article is more about filling the L1 Lagrange point with dust, from the moon specifically. Though a little doubtful there is a huge supply, unless the plan to crush moon rock as well. Don't we need the moon? Maybe they could use asteroids instead. They want to mine them anyway. Always some fearmongering near-misses with earth, every few years.

Really think the climate-crisis is a bunch of junk science, politically driven, and funded. We've been through periods of harsh weather in the past, which eventually settle down, without human intervention. Using computer models, and a 'carbon-god', is no different from political nonsense of the past, to control populations. Myths and superstitions, nothing more, just modernized. We are just along for the ride. The planet is going to keep going through it's flight, regardless of our hopes and dreams. We either adapt to the changes, or die. It's always been that way, and always will be...

James_ wrote:
With the attached image, it is obvious that global temperatures varied little between about 1945 and 1978. This is when testing of atomic and thermonuclear bombs was done. Was it possible that the radiation they released reflected solar radiation back out into space just as ozone does?
And if there's enough ozone in the depleted ozone layer, could it absorb other spectrums besides UV A, B and C radiation?

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
With the attached image, it is obvious that global temperatures varied little between about 1945 and 1978. This is when testing of atomic and thermonuclear bombs was done. Was it possible that the radiation they released reflected solar radiation back out into space just as ozone does?
And if there's enough ozone in the depleted ozone layer, could it absorb other spectrums besides UV A, B and C radiation?

LOL, can you translate the following to English?

And if there's enough ozone in the depleted ozone layer, could it absorb other spectrums besides UV A, B and C radiation?

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
With the attached image, it is obvious that global temperatures varied little between about 1945 and 1978. This is when testing of atomic and thermonuclear bombs was done. Was it possible that the radiation they released reflected solar radiation back out into space just as ozone does?
And if there's enough ozone in the depleted ozone layer, could it absorb other spectrums besides UV A, B and C radiation?

LOL, can you translate the following to English?

And if there's enough ozone in the depleted ozone layer, could it absorb other spectrums besides UV A, B and C radiation?

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
With the attached image, it is obvious that global temperatures varied little between about 1945 and 1978. This is when testing of atomic and thermonuclear bombs was done. Was it possible that the radiation they released reflected solar radiation back out into space just as ozone does?
And if there's enough ozone in the depleted ozone layer, could it absorb other spectrums besides UV A, B and C radiation?

LOL, can you translate the following to English?

And if there's enough ozone in the depleted ozone layer, could it absorb other spectrums besides UV A, B and C radiation?

It was English, but just scripture from the Church of the Ozone Hole. He denies the Chapman cycle.

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
With the attached image, it is obvious that global temperatures varied little between about 1945 and 1978. This is when testing of atomic and thermonuclear bombs was done. Was it possible that the radiation they released reflected solar radiation back out into space just as ozone does?
And if there's enough ozone in the depleted ozone layer, could it absorb other spectrums besides UV A, B and C radiation?

LOL, can you translate the following to English?

And if there's enough ozone in the depleted ozone layer, could it absorb other spectrums besides UV A, B and C radiation?

It's known that O2 + O + hv > O3 (ozone).
Is it possible that when more solar radiation is absorbed by ozone naturally occurring in the stratosphere that it will increase the bandwidth that it absorbs?
If so then we might be able to use CO2 to generate methane for energy/fuel while creating a source of O2 for the ozone layer (Chapman cycle).

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
With the attached image, it is obvious that global temperatures varied little between about 1945 and 1978. This is when testing of atomic and thermonuclear bombs was done. Was it possible that the radiation they released reflected solar radiation back out into space just as ozone does?
And if there's enough ozone in the depleted ozone layer, could it absorb other spectrums besides UV A, B and C radiation?

LOL, can you translate the following to English?

And if there's enough ozone in the depleted ozone layer, could it absorb other spectrums besides UV A, B and C radiation?

It's known that O2 + O + hv > O3 (ozone).
Is it possible that when more solar radiation is absorbed by ozone naturally occurring in the stratosphere that it will increase the bandwidth that it absorbs?
If so then we might be able to use CO2 to generate methane for energy/fuel while creating a source of O2 for the ozone layer (Chapman cycle).

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
With the attached image, it is obvious that global temperatures varied little between about 1945 and 1978. This is when testing of atomic and thermonuclear bombs was done. Was it possible that the radiation they released reflected solar radiation back out into space just as ozone does?
And if there's enough ozone in the depleted ozone layer, could it absorb other spectrums besides UV A, B and C radiation?

LOL, can you translate the following to English?

And if there's enough ozone in the depleted ozone layer, could it absorb other spectrums besides UV A, B and C radiation?

It was English, but just scripture from the Church of the Ozone Hole. He denies the Chapman cycle.

And you deny the last ice age along with your other self's

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
With the attached image, it is obvious that global temperatures varied little between about 1945 and 1978. This is when testing of atomic and thermonuclear bombs was done. Was it possible that the radiation they released reflected solar radiation back out into space just as ozone does?
And if there's enough ozone in the depleted ozone layer, could it absorb other spectrums besides UV A, B and C radiation?

LOL, can you translate the following to English?

And if there's enough ozone in the depleted ozone layer, could it absorb other spectrums besides UV A, B and C radiation?

It was English, but just scripture from the Church of the Ozone Hole. He denies the Chapman cycle.

And you deny the last ice age along with your other self's

I am just me, Sock.
What ice age?

James_ wrote:
Some of the research that I get into because math is something I can do until I can
get my life back and this means the surgery that I need.
The atmospheric pressures can be factored following f(x) = Δy/Δx. y = Venus is 1350 psi/93 bars.

x = (1+.02395)^x. The exponent will be the percent further from the Sun than Venus squared. That allows for the inverse square law to show a decrease in the strength of the Sun's gravitational field.

The Earth is ^191 while Mars is ^403.
This allows for Earth to be
93/(1+.02395)^191 = 1.01214 bars while it is 1.013 bars.

And for Mars to be
93/(1+.02395)^403 = 0.0067 bars while it is .00658 bars.

What this suggests is that gravity (gravitational energy) helps to influence
atmospheric pressure and temperature. This is because PV = 3/2kT
This link shows how PV = rNT becomes KE = 3/2kT http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/kintem.html

Why this matters is because all emissions which increase the number of particles
in the atmosphere increases atmospheric temperature. This is where if my woodworking projects work out then maybe thousand of drones with CO2 and ozone traps could patrol the skies.
Still, with what I'm pursuing I consider regional climate variance also happens.
Examples are the Roman warm period, the Dark Ages cool period followed by the Medieval warm period which was followed by the Little Ice Age. Notice the pattern?
I doubt it's a coincidence when tectonic plate shifting would change feedback mechanisms like the north pacific current and the Gulf Stream. When their velocities change so does their ability to absorb/release heat change. And this will
get complicated. But that is what science should be able to explain as well.

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
Some of the research that I get into because math is something I can do until I can
get my life back and this means the surgery that I need.
The atmospheric pressures can be factored following f(x) = Δy/Δx. y = Venus is 1350 psi/93 bars.

x = (1+.02395)^x. The exponent will be the percent further from the Sun than Venus squared. That allows for the inverse square law to show a decrease in the strength of the Sun's gravitational field.

The Earth is ^191 while Mars is ^403.
This allows for Earth to be
93/(1+.02395)^191 = 1.01214 bars while it is 1.013 bars.

And for Mars to be
93/(1+.02395)^403 = 0.0067 bars while it is .00658 bars.

What this suggests is that gravity (gravitational energy) helps to influence
atmospheric pressure and temperature. This is because PV = 3/2kT
This link shows how PV = rNT becomes KE = 3/2kT http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/kintem.html

Why this matters is because all emissions which increase the number of particles
in the atmosphere increases atmospheric temperature. This is where if my woodworking projects work out then maybe thousand of drones with CO2 and ozone traps could patrol the skies.
Still, with what I'm pursuing I consider regional climate variance also happens.
Examples are the Roman warm period, the Dark Ages cool period followed by the Medieval warm period which was followed by the Little Ice Age. Notice the pattern?
I doubt it's a coincidence when tectonic plate shifting would change feedback mechanisms like the north pacific current and the Gulf Stream. When their velocities change so does their ability to absorb/release heat change. And this will
get complicated. But that is what science should be able to explain as well.

Yea so, what are you trying to say?

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
Some of the research that I get into because math is something I can do until I can
get my life back and this means the surgery that I need.
The atmospheric pressures can be factored following f(x) = Δy/Δx. y = Venus is 1350 psi/93 bars.

x = (1+.02395)^x. The exponent will be the percent further from the Sun than Venus squared. That allows for the inverse square law to show a decrease in the strength of the Sun's gravitational field.

The Earth is ^191 while Mars is ^403.
This allows for Earth to be
93/(1+.02395)^191 = 1.01214 bars while it is 1.013 bars.

And for Mars to be
93/(1+.02395)^403 = 0.0067 bars while it is .00658 bars.

What this suggests is that gravity (gravitational energy) helps to influence
atmospheric pressure and temperature. This is because PV = 3/2kT
This link shows how PV = rNT becomes KE = 3/2kT http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/kintem.html

Why this matters is because all emissions which increase the number of particles
in the atmosphere increases atmospheric temperature. This is where if my woodworking projects work out then maybe thousand of drones with CO2 and ozone traps could patrol the skies.
Still, with what I'm pursuing I consider regional climate variance also happens.
Examples are the Roman warm period, the Dark Ages cool period followed by the Medieval warm period which was followed by the Little Ice Age. Notice the pattern?
I doubt it's a coincidence when tectonic plate shifting would change feedback mechanisms like the north pacific current and the Gulf Stream. When their velocities change so does their ability to absorb/release heat change. And this will
get complicated. But that is what science should be able to explain as well.

Yea so, what are you trying to say?

Pollution increases the mass of the Earth's atmosphere (increases the amount of energy in it) and when ocean currents speed up, they absorb heat. And when they slow down they release heat.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
With the attached image, it is obvious that global temperatures varied little between about 1945 and 1978. This is when testing of atomic and thermonuclear bombs was done. Was it possible that the radiation they released reflected solar radiation back out into space just as ozone does?
And if there's enough ozone in the depleted ozone layer, could it absorb other spectrums besides UV A, B and C radiation?

LOL, can you translate the following to English?

And if there's enough ozone in the depleted ozone layer, could it absorb other spectrums besides UV A, B and C radiation?

It was English, but just scripture from the Church of the Ozone Hole. He denies the Chapman cycle.

And you deny the last ice age along with your other self's

I am just me, Sock.
What ice age?

The ice age that turds like you deny

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
Some of the research that I get into because math is something I can do until I can
get my life back and this means the surgery that I need.
The atmospheric pressures can be factored following f(x) = Δy/Δx. y = Venus is 1350 psi/93 bars.

x = (1+.02395)^x. The exponent will be the percent further from the Sun than Venus squared. That allows for the inverse square law to show a decrease in the strength of the Sun's gravitational field.

The Earth is ^191 while Mars is ^403.
This allows for Earth to be
93/(1+.02395)^191 = 1.01214 bars while it is 1.013 bars.

And for Mars to be
93/(1+.02395)^403 = 0.0067 bars while it is .00658 bars.

What this suggests is that gravity (gravitational energy) helps to influence
atmospheric pressure and temperature. This is because PV = 3/2kT
This link shows how PV = rNT becomes KE = 3/2kT http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/kintem.html

Why this matters is because all emissions which increase the number of particles
in the atmosphere increases atmospheric temperature. This is where if my woodworking projects work out then maybe thousand of drones with CO2 and ozone traps could patrol the skies.
Still, with what I'm pursuing I consider regional climate variance also happens.
Examples are the Roman warm period, the Dark Ages cool period followed by the Medieval warm period which was followed by the Little Ice Age. Notice the pattern?
I doubt it's a coincidence when tectonic plate shifting would change feedback mechanisms like the north pacific current and the Gulf Stream. When their velocities change so does their ability to absorb/release heat change. And this will
get complicated. But that is what science should be able to explain as well.

Yea so, what are you trying to say?

Pollution increases the mass of the Earth's atmosphere (increases the amount of energy in it) and when ocean currents speed up, they absorb heat. And when they slow down they release heat.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
With the attached image, it is obvious that global temperatures varied little between about 1945 and 1978. This is when testing of atomic and thermonuclear bombs was done. Was it possible that the radiation they released reflected solar radiation back out into space just as ozone does?
And if there's enough ozone in the depleted ozone layer, could it absorb other spectrums besides UV A, B and C radiation?

LOL, can you translate the following to English?

And if there's enough ozone in the depleted ozone layer, could it absorb other spectrums besides UV A, B and C radiation?

It was English, but just scripture from the Church of the Ozone Hole. He denies the Chapman cycle.

And you deny the last ice age along with your other self's

I am just me, Sock.
What ice age?

The ice age that turds like you deny

What 'ice age' am I trying to deny?

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
With the attached image, it is obvious that global temperatures varied little between about 1945 and 1978. This is when testing of atomic and thermonuclear bombs was done. Was it possible that the radiation they released reflected solar radiation back out into space just as ozone does?
And if there's enough ozone in the depleted ozone layer, could it absorb other spectrums besides UV A, B and C radiation?

LOL, can you translate the following to English?

And if there's enough ozone in the depleted ozone layer, could it absorb other spectrums besides UV A, B and C radiation?

It was English, but just scripture from the Church of the Ozone Hole. He denies the Chapman cycle.

And you deny the last ice age along with your other self's

I am just me, Sock.
What ice age?

The ice age that turds like you deny

What 'ice age' am I trying to deny?

You deny the last ice age

Often abbreviated to LGM, the last glacial maximum was the most recent of the five glacial periods (ice ages) within the past 450,000 years, and it occurred during the final stage of the Pleistocene Epoch (2.58 million to 11,700 years ago).

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
Some of the research that I get into because math is something I can do until I can
get my life back and this means the surgery that I need.
The atmospheric pressures can be factored following f(x) = Δy/Δx. y = Venus is 1350 psi/93 bars.

x = (1+.02395)^x. The exponent will be the percent further from the Sun than Venus squared. That allows for the inverse square law to show a decrease in the strength of the Sun's gravitational field.

The Earth is ^191 while Mars is ^403.
This allows for Earth to be
93/(1+.02395)^191 = 1.01214 bars while it is 1.013 bars.

And for Mars to be
93/(1+.02395)^403 = 0.0067 bars while it is .00658 bars.

What this suggests is that gravity (gravitational energy) helps to influence
atmospheric pressure and temperature. This is because PV = 3/2kT
This link shows how PV = rNT becomes KE = 3/2kT http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/kintem.html

Why this matters is because all emissions which increase the number of particles
in the atmosphere increases atmospheric temperature. This is where if my woodworking projects work out then maybe thousand of drones with CO2 and ozone traps could patrol the skies.
Still, with what I'm pursuing I consider regional climate variance also happens.
Examples are the Roman warm period, the Dark Ages cool period followed by the Medieval warm period which was followed by the Little Ice Age. Notice the pattern?
I doubt it's a coincidence when tectonic plate shifting would change feedback mechanisms like the north pacific current and the Gulf Stream. When their velocities change so does their ability to absorb/release heat change. And this will
get complicated. But that is what science should be able to explain as well.

Yea so, what are you trying to say?

Pollution increases the mass of the Earth's atmosphere (increases the amount of energy in it) and when ocean currents speed up, they absorb heat. And when they slow down they release heat.

What ' pollution'?
It is not possible to absorb or release heat. Heat has no location.
What ocean current is 'speeding up' or 'slowing down'?

It is not possible to absorb or release heat.

What ocean current is 'speeding up' or 'slowing down'?

HarveyH55 wrote:

Lot of made up numbers, from faith-based 'science'. There is really no way to confirm that piles of rocks and crap, were all left there by glaciers, or when. Moraines are also the same crap found in rivers. In the Book of Genesis there was a massive flooding event, which would have moved a lot of rock and crap. Seems more likely than thousand year long winter, over entire continents. Lot of good stuff in the bible, if you can read, and with an open mind. It's not all meant to be read literally. It's intended to provoke thought in the reader, not do the thinking for them.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
Some of the research that I get into because math is something I can do until I can
get my life back and this means the surgery that I need.
The atmospheric pressures can be factored following f(x) = Δy/Δx. y = Venus is 1350 psi/93 bars.

x = (1+.02395)^x. The exponent will be the percent further from the Sun than Venus squared. That allows for the inverse square law to show a decrease in the strength of the Sun's gravitational field.

The Earth is ^191 while Mars is ^403.
This allows for Earth to be
93/(1+.02395)^191 = 1.01214 bars while it is 1.013 bars.

And for Mars to be
93/(1+.02395)^403 = 0.0067 bars while it is .00658 bars.

What this suggests is that gravity (gravitational energy) helps to influence
atmospheric pressure and temperature. This is because PV = 3/2kT
This link shows how PV = rNT becomes KE = 3/2kT http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/kintem.html

Why this matters is because all emissions which increase the number of particles
in the atmosphere increases atmospheric temperature. This is where if my woodworking projects work out then maybe thousand of drones with CO2 and ozone traps could patrol the skies.
Still, with what I'm pursuing I consider regional climate variance also happens.
Examples are the Roman warm period, the Dark Ages cool period followed by the Medieval warm period which was followed by the Little Ice Age. Notice the pattern?
I doubt it's a coincidence when tectonic plate shifting would change feedback mechanisms like the north pacific current and the Gulf Stream. When their velocities change so does their ability to absorb/release heat change. And this will
get complicated. But that is what science should be able to explain as well.

Yea so, what are you trying to say?

Pollution increases the mass of the Earth's atmosphere (increases the amount of energy in it) and when ocean currents speed up, they absorb heat. And when they slow down they release heat.

What ' pollution'?
It is not possible to absorb or release heat. Heat has no location.
What ocean current is 'speeding up' or 'slowing down'?

It is not possible to absorb or release heat.

If that were true then heat could not be a flow of energy.

What ocean current is 'speeding up' or 'slowing down'?

Both the north pacific current and the Gulf Stream are slowing. Do you really need to
be an IsN'T?

James_ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Lot of made up numbers, from faith-based 'science'. There is really no way to confirm that piles of rocks and crap, were all left there by glaciers, or when. Moraines are also the same crap found in rivers. In the Book of Genesis there was a massive flooding event, which would have moved a lot of rock and crap. Seems more likely than thousand year long winter, over entire continents. Lot of good stuff in the bible, if you can read, and with an open mind. It's not all meant to be read literally. It's intended to provoke thought in the reader, not do the thinking for them.

They're actually able to use core soil samples to know where glaciers were. Organic matter
isn't deposited under a glacier and radiocarbon dating would show when this happens. Then
with other observations they'll understand how this influenced things.
There's a group in eastern Washington State that believe that the reason the ground is rippled that an ice age lake that when emptied flowed through there.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/article/channeled-scablands

Into the Night wrote:

Heat is not a flow of energy. It is not 'absorbed' or 'release'. Heat is a flow of thermal energy only.
Neither current is slowing.

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
With the attached image, it is obvious that global temperatures varied little between about 1945 and 1978. This is when testing of atomic and thermonuclear bombs was done. Was it possible that the radiation they released reflected solar radiation back out into space just as ozone does?
And if there's enough ozone in the depleted ozone layer, could it absorb other spectrums besides UV A, B and C radiation?

LOL, can you translate the following to English?

And if there's enough ozone in the depleted ozone layer, could it absorb other spectrums besides UV A, B and C radiation?

It was English, but just scripture from the Church of the Ozone Hole. He denies the Chapman cycle.

And you deny the last ice age along with your other self's

I am just me, Sock.
What ice age?

The ice age that turds like you deny

What 'ice age' am I trying to deny?

You deny the last ice age

Often abbreviated to LGM, the last glacial maximum was the most recent of the five glacial periods (ice ages) within the past 450,000 years, and it occurred during the final stage of the Pleistocene Epoch (2.58 million to 11,700 years ago).

Lot of made up numbers, from faith-based 'science'. There is really no way to confirm that piles of rocks and crap, were all left there by glaciers, or when. Moraines are also the same crap found in rivers. In the Book of Genesis there was a massive flooding event, which would have moved a lot of rock and crap. Seems more likely than thousand year long winter, over entire continents. Lot of good stuff in the bible, if you can read, and with an open mind. It's not all meant to be read literally. It's intended to provoke thought in the reader, not do the thinking for them.

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
With the attached image, it is obvious that global temperatures varied little between about 1945 and 1978. This is when testing of atomic and thermonuclear bombs was done. Was it possible that the radiation they released reflected solar radiation back out into space just as ozone does?
And if there's enough ozone in the depleted ozone layer, could it absorb other spectrums besides UV A, B and C radiation?

LOL, can you translate the following to English?

And if there's enough ozone in the depleted ozone layer, could it absorb other spectrums besides UV A, B and C radiation?

It was English, but just scripture from the Church of the Ozone Hole. He denies the Chapman cycle.

And you deny the last ice age along with your other self's

I am just me, Sock.
What ice age?

The ice age that turds like you deny

What 'ice age' am I trying to deny?

You deny the last ice age

Often abbreviated to LGM, the last glacial maximum was the most recent of the five glacial periods (ice ages) within the past 450,000 years, and it occurred during the final stage of the Pleistocene Epoch (2.58 million to 11,700 years ago).

Lot of made up numbers, from faith-based 'science'. There is really no way to confirm that piles of rocks and crap, were all left there by glaciers, or when. Moraines are also the same crap found in rivers. In the Book of Genesis there was a massive flooding event, which would have moved a lot of rock and crap. Seems more likely than thousand year long winter, over entire continents. Lot of good stuff in the bible, if you can read, and with an open mind. It's not all meant to be read literally. It's intended to provoke thought in the reader, not do the thinking for them.

LOL, so you believe that God built the Earth in 6 days 6000 years ago, which makes an ice age that ended 10000 years ago impossible.

Swan wrote:
Keep up the good work Noah

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
With the attached image, it is obvious that global temperatures varied little between about 1945 and 1978. This is when testing of atomic and thermonuclear bombs was done. Was it possible that the radiation they released reflected solar radiation back out into space just as ozone does?
And if there's enough ozone in the depleted ozone layer, could it absorb other spectrums besides UV A, B and C radiation?

LOL, can you translate the following to English?

And if there's enough ozone in the depleted ozone layer, could it absorb other spectrums besides UV A, B and C radiation?

It was English, but just scripture from the Church of the Ozone Hole. He denies the Chapman cycle.

And you deny the last ice age along with your other self's

I am just me, Sock.
What ice age?

The ice age that turds like you deny

What 'ice age' am I trying to deny?

You deny the last ice age

Often abbreviated to LGM, the last glacial maximum was the most recent of the five glacial periods (ice ages) within the past 450,000 years, and it occurred during the final stage of the Pleistocene Epoch (2.58 million to 11,700 years ago).

Lot of made up numbers, from faith-based 'science'. There is really no way to confirm that piles of rocks and crap, were all left there by glaciers, or when. Moraines are also the same crap found in rivers. In the Book of Genesis there was a massive flooding event, which would have moved a lot of rock and crap. Seems more likely than thousand year long winter, over entire continents. Lot of good stuff in the bible, if you can read, and with an open mind. It's not all meant to be read literally. It's intended to provoke thought in the reader, not do the thinking for them.

LOL, so you believe that God built the Earth in 6 days 6000 years ago, which makes an ice age that ended 10000 years ago impossible.

He can believe what he wants, just as you can. You believe that there was some sort of 'ice age' 10,000 years ago.

Swan wrote:
Keep up the good work Noah

Keep up the good work, Nunack.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Really don't get some people's obsession with the distant past, what may, or may not have happened. Can't change it. Can't recreate it. Can't hop in a time machine and experience it. Basically, it's just fantasy, and imagination, with no practical value. Well, unless that all you have to offer... Loser.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Changing the goal posts? I wasn't born any where near the last ice age, or even your moraines...

Maintenance-meds are for uneducated morons like you. Might make you feel good, 'happy', but they do damage to other parts of the body. Slow poison... Which means that as the years pass, your doctor is going to prescribe more pills, to 'fix' the damage done previously. Eventually, you have a fistful of pills for breakfast every morning, and a rapidly depleting bank account.

A doctor can only provide aid and comfort, 'happy-pills', but the patient's body can only do the healing. And it will, given time. I'll let my body heal on it's own, with few, if any 'happy-pills'. Not fun times, but better off for it. Broke a toe about a month ago, mostly healed. No doctor, no pills, no time off from work. Broken toes and fingers many times, doctors can't do anything more, than I did. Well, could have given me some pills, got me out of work, or light-duty... Insurance paperwork sucks, don't do drugs, work pays the bills. I don't take the 'easy' way through life, and better off for it.