| The Earth's Core is Cooling21-01-2022 18:17 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
What his might actually point to is that global cooling might be on its way. This would have to do with the spin of the Earth and its distance from the Sun. This is where most people haven't considered the kinetic energy the Earth has and the energy in the Sun's gravitational field that it occupies.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/earths-core-rapidly-cooling-study-145843834.html |
| 21-01-2022 22:07 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21597) |
James___ wrote:
What his might actually point to is that global cooling might be on its way. This would have to do with the spin of the Earth and its distance from the Sun. This is where most people haven't considered the kinetic energy the Earth has and the energy in the Sun's gravitational field that it occupies.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/earths-core-rapidly-cooling-study-145843834.html
See Kepler's laws.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 21-01-2022 22:20 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
What his might actually point to is that global cooling might be on its way. This would have to do with the spin of the Earth and its distance from the Sun. This is where most people haven't considered the kinetic energy the Earth has and the energy in the Sun's gravitational field that it occupies.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/earths-core-rapidly-cooling-study-145843834.html
See Kepler's laws.
He believed in universal electricity. That the planets and the stars were connected. And then Newton said gravity. How do these thoughts relate to Keppler's law? |
| 21-01-2022 22:32 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
What his might actually point to is that global cooling might be on its way. This would have to do with the spin of the Earth and its distance from the Sun. This is where most people haven't considered the kinetic energy the Earth has and the energy in the Sun's gravitational field that it occupies.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/earths-core-rapidly-cooling-study-145843834.html
See Kepler's laws.
He believed in universal electricity. That the planets and the stars were connected. And then Newton said gravity. How do these thoughts relate to Keppler's law?
See Kepler's laws.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 22-01-2022 01:55 |
IBdaMann ★★★★★
(14404) |
James___ wrote:What his might actually point to is that global cooling might be on its way.
Well, if you are going to be so specific, and so definite, and so exactly precise, you leave me no choice but to confer with GasGuzzler because he's the absolute expert on this sort of topic.
GasGuzzler, I read the article James__ smote upon this site, and I need you to explain/clarify a few things before I can even attempt to discuss this matter at the adults' table.
Scott Gleeson wrote: Earth's interior is cooling faster than we previously estimated.
This makes sense because all Climate Change is always accelerating faster than we had previously feared ... and Gleason appropriately uses the Marxist "we" because neither he nor I have ever estimated the rate of earth's internal cooling (or even cared).
What I don't get, however, is exactly how much the government must increase our taxes in order to ameliorate the threat. Was it written there somewhere and I just missed it? I'm not supposed to be doing my own independent thinking, am I?
Scott Gleeson wrote: ... prompting questions about how long people can live on the planet.
Obviously the correct answer is "twelve more years if we don't act NOW, although it might already be too late", right? ... or was this a trick question. I get confused.
Scott Gleeson wrote: There's no exact timetable on the cooling process, which could eventually turn Earth solid, similar to Mars.
This is what threw me off. Obviously this means "by the end of the century." Is this projecting out beyond it being too late?
Scott Gleeson wrote: But results from a new study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Earth and Planetary Science
So this is settled science, right? We therefore have to acknowledge that every word of this article is TRUE because peer review has confirmed the science that has confirmed the cooling that is turning Earth into a lifeless rock, which might already be too late, right?
... and the study is new so it overrides anything that was ever said before, yes?
Scott Gleeson wrote: ... focuses on how quickly the core may cool by studying bridgmanite,
Well, I'm certainly more confident in the study now that I know they picked the right proxy measure to determine precisely how quickly the core may cool. It looks like we should respect the time and effort that went into making these calculations. What do you think?
Scott Gleeson wrote: "Our results could give us a new perspective on the evolution of the Earth's dynamics,"
I'm a big fan of the Theory of Evolution of Earth's Dynamics. There is no longer any serious debate about Earth's dynamics evolving. The entire science community acknowledges that dynamics are dynamic, duhhhhh.
I just wish Gleason would have spelled it out for the dullards that Earth's dynamic dynamics are responsible for Earth's Climate changing faster than previously estimated. This part hasn't changed any, has it?
Scott Gleeson wrote: ETH Zurich professor Motohiko Murakami, the lead author of the study, said in a press release. "They suggest that Earth, like the other rocky planets Mercury and Mars, is cooling and becoming inactive much faster than expected."
Who are these idiots who are always underestimating the rate of Climate Change and the rate of Earth's internal cooling?
... and now, back to James__
James___ wrote: This would have to do with the spin of the Earth and its distance from the Sun.
Well, James__ would know. In fact, if his project works out, he'll be able to have a life with free rotation within the Van Allen belt.
James___ wrote:This is where most people haven't considered the kinetic energy the Earth has and the energy in the Sun's gravitational field that it occupies.
James__ has me pegged. I have to admit that I never once considered Earth's kinetic energy nor the energy in the sun's gravitational field. I'm ashamed to have to admit this but perhaps I need to take a step back and take a new look at the magnetosphere. What are your thoughts?
.
I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit
A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles
Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris
Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit
If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles
Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles
Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn
You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.
The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank
:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude
IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
|
| 22-01-2022 02:22 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:What his might actually point to is that global cooling might be on its way.
Well, if you are going to be so specific, and so definite, and so exactly precise, you leave me no choice but to confer with GasGuzzler because he's the absolute expert on this sort of topic.
GasGuzzler, I read the article James__ smote upon this site, and I need you to explain/clarify a few things before I can even attempt to discuss this matter at the adults' table.
Scott Gleeson wrote: Earth's interior is cooling faster than we previously estimated.
This makes sense because all Climate Change is always accelerating faster than we had previously feared ... and Gleason appropriately uses the Marxist "we" because neither he nor I have ever estimated the rate of earth's internal cooling (or even cared).
What I don't get, however, is exactly how much the government must increase our taxes in order to ameliorate the threat. Was it written there somewhere and I just missed it? I'm not supposed to be doing my own independent thinking, am I?
Scott Gleeson wrote: ... prompting questions about how long people can live on the planet.
Obviously the correct answer is "twelve more years if we don't act NOW, although it might already be too late", right? ... or was this a trick question. I get confused.
Scott Gleeson wrote: There's no exact timetable on the cooling process, which could eventually turn Earth solid, similar to Mars.
This is what threw me off. Obviously this means "by the end of the century." Is this projecting out beyond it being too late?
Scott Gleeson wrote: But results from a new study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Earth and Planetary Science
So this is settled science, right? We therefore have to acknowledge that every word of this article is TRUE because peer review has confirmed the science that has confirmed the cooling that is turning Earth into a lifeless rock, which might already be too late, right?
... and the study is new so it overrides anything that was ever said before, yes?
Scott Gleeson wrote: ... focuses on how quickly the core may cool by studying bridgmanite,
Well, I'm certainly more confident in the study now that I know they picked the right proxy measure to determine precisely how quickly the core may cool. It looks like we should respect the time and effort that went into making these calculations. What do you think?
Scott Gleeson wrote: "Our results could give us a new perspective on the evolution of the Earth's dynamics,"
I'm a big fan of the Theory of Evolution of Earth's Dynamics. There is no longer any serious debate about Earth's dynamics evolving. The entire science community acknowledges that dynamics are dynamic, duhhhhh.
I just wish Gleason would have spelled it out for the dullards that Earth's dynamic dynamics are responsible for Earth's Climate changing faster than previously estimated. This part hasn't changed any, has it?
Scott Gleeson wrote: ETH Zurich professor Motohiko Murakami, the lead author of the study, said in a press release. "They suggest that Earth, like the other rocky planets Mercury and Mars, is cooling and becoming inactive much faster than expected."
Who are these idiots who are always underestimating the rate of Climate Change and the rate of Earth's internal cooling?
... and now, back to James__
James___ wrote: This would have to do with the spin of the Earth and its distance from the Sun.
Well, James__ would know. In fact, if his project works out, he'll be able to have a life with free rotation within the Van Allen belt.
James___ wrote:This is where most people haven't considered the kinetic energy the Earth has and the energy in the Sun's gravitational field that it occupies.
James__ has me pegged. I have to admit that I never once considered Earth's kinetic energy nor the energy in the sun's gravitational field. I'm ashamed to have to admit this but perhaps I need to take a step back and take a new look at the magnetosphere. What are your thoughts?
.
Son, it is sad that you don't understand science. We both understand it which is why you are our son.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZoJiTP5XZo |
| 22-01-2022 10:06 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:What his might actually point to is that global cooling might be on its way.
Well, if you are going to be so specific, and so definite, and so exactly precise, you leave me no choice but to confer with GasGuzzler because he's the absolute expert on this sort of topic.
GasGuzzler, I read the article James__ smote upon this site, and I need you to explain/clarify a few things before I can even attempt to discuss this matter at the adults' table.
Scott Gleeson wrote: Earth's interior is cooling faster than we previously estimated.
This makes sense because all Climate Change is always accelerating faster than we had previously feared ... and Gleason appropriately uses the Marxist "we" because neither he nor I have ever estimated the rate of earth's internal cooling (or even cared).
What I don't get, however, is exactly how much the government must increase our taxes in order to ameliorate the threat. Was it written there somewhere and I just missed it? I'm not supposed to be doing my own independent thinking, am I?
Scott Gleeson wrote: ... prompting questions about how long people can live on the planet.
Obviously the correct answer is "twelve more years if we don't act NOW, although it might already be too late", right? ... or was this a trick question. I get confused.
Scott Gleeson wrote: There's no exact timetable on the cooling process, which could eventually turn Earth solid, similar to Mars.
This is what threw me off. Obviously this means "by the end of the century." Is this projecting out beyond it being too late?
Scott Gleeson wrote: But results from a new study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Earth and Planetary Science
So this is settled science, right? We therefore have to acknowledge that every word of this article is TRUE because peer review has confirmed the science that has confirmed the cooling that is turning Earth into a lifeless rock, which might already be too late, right?
... and the study is new so it overrides anything that was ever said before, yes?
Scott Gleeson wrote: ... focuses on how quickly the core may cool by studying bridgmanite,
Well, I'm certainly more confident in the study now that I know they picked the right proxy measure to determine precisely how quickly the core may cool. It looks like we should respect the time and effort that went into making these calculations. What do you think?
Scott Gleeson wrote: "Our results could give us a new perspective on the evolution of the Earth's dynamics,"
I'm a big fan of the Theory of Evolution of Earth's Dynamics. There is no longer any serious debate about Earth's dynamics evolving. The entire science community acknowledges that dynamics are dynamic, duhhhhh.
I just wish Gleason would have spelled it out for the dullards that Earth's dynamic dynamics are responsible for Earth's Climate changing faster than previously estimated. This part hasn't changed any, has it?
Scott Gleeson wrote: ETH Zurich professor Motohiko Murakami, the lead author of the study, said in a press release. "They suggest that Earth, like the other rocky planets Mercury and Mars, is cooling and becoming inactive much faster than expected."
Who are these idiots who are always underestimating the rate of Climate Change and the rate of Earth's internal cooling?
... and now, back to James__
James___ wrote: This would have to do with the spin of the Earth and its distance from the Sun.
Well, James__ would know. In fact, if his project works out, he'll be able to have a life with free rotation within the Van Allen belt.
James___ wrote:This is where most people haven't considered the kinetic energy the Earth has and the energy in the Sun's gravitational field that it occupies.
James__ has me pegged. I have to admit that I never once considered Earth's kinetic energy nor the energy in the sun's gravitational field. I'm ashamed to have to admit this but perhaps I need to take a step back and take a new look at the magnetosphere. What are your thoughts?
.
Son, it is sad that you don't understand science. We both understand it which is why you are our son.
You are describing yourself.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 22-01-2022 19:08 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler, I read the article James__ smote upon this site, and I need you to explain/clarify a few things before I can even attempt to discuss this matter at the adults' table.
Unfortunately, there's not much to discuss. I confirmed what might be happening. Through great effort, much labor and love, I unpacked and assembled the long probe. As I pierced the core, I was alarmed at what the thermometer was suggesting.
How could this be? I do suspect waste heat gravitational fields of Jupiter have been overlooked. I do want to stress that this is preliminary and more peer review will follow.
In the meantime, 12 years looks like a bargain.
Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
Attached image:
Edited on 22-01-2022 19:54 |