A stupid idea, but could it ever work?

Well, the answer to this one doesn't seem to be forthcoming: How can we have less precipitation during a time of global warming? More heat puts more water into the air. Glaciers naturally move to the sea. If they aren't renewed they melt down. Also, where is the predicted rise in sea level? Yet another doomsday prediction down the tubes?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Clouds are formed when water droplets are seeded by air-borne particles, such as pollen. Polluted air results in clouds with larger number of droplets than unpolluted clouds. This then makes those clouds more reflexsive. More of the sun's heat and energy is therefore reflected back into space.
This reduction of heat reaching the earth is known as Global Dimming There is LESS HEAT

Who said anything about less precipitation? or Doomsday for that matter?
We were discussing polar melt. If you think this is about doomsday then you
ain't seen nothing yet. The forthcoming crustal displacement will probably
glaze your eyes over but if you understand it you'll realize it's only geo
changes. pls don't think of this as a doomsday subject.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There's nothing for me to rethink - it's actually your turn. You need to go and do a bit more study about the transfer of energy via electromagnetic energy.

Because even with a greater cloud cover, there is still a net gain of energy at the Earth's surface from solar insolation. While there IS a larger portion reflected back into space than under cloudless conditions, a large part of the high-frequency radiant energy still makes it to the surface. And once it's here, it normally radiates back into space as longer-wavelength infrared. And here's the catch that you don't understand in addition to what I just explained (that you didn't know) - the clouds impede the infrared as it tries to leave the Earth. And so do the "greenhouse gasses." So the final result is a small net GAIN in energy stored in the atmosphere and on the Earth's surface. And that, dear lady, cause a rise in temperature.

So read all that again to make sure you have it right this time and feel free to check it out through other sources. And THEN come back and apologize for having been completely and totally wrong!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"The main suspect is increasing air pollution, which produces haze and cuts down on the solar radiation reaching the surface," said L. Ruby Leung of the U.S. Energy Department. Leung points out there has been a ninefold increase in fossil-fuel emissions from China over the last half-century.
"From the 1960s to the 1980s, the dimming may have been large enough to counterbalance the greenhouse-induced increase in downward long-wave radiation," Wild said. If these preliminary numbers are right and the brightness of the skies is being altered by pollution levels, the effects could be widespread, Leung points out. From slower plant growth to less frequent precipitation, further dimming could eventually lead to food and water shortages in some regions. The fact that the phenomenon might also be skewing the intensity of global warming also holds consequences, argues Charlson, since it's important to carefully measure effects in order to curb them. "It makes sense - there are good reasons why we expect man-made particles to affect the Earth globally," Charlson said. "We just need the observations, and we need to do them much better.

Profound Contradiction: Here is further proof that global warming is not caused by greenhouse gas emissions. In the article above we are told that as a probable result of atmospheric pollution, less sunlight has been reaching the Earth for the last 50 years. With less sunlight reaching the Earth, less heat is trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gas emissions, and a cooling of the atmosphere should have taken place. However, global warming has increased over the same period, in contradiction to the theory that greenhouse gas emissions are the cause of global warming, or that sunlight has anything to do with it either.

The only other possible source of heat not directly related to the Sun that can explain the phenomenon known as global warming, is heat from the center of the Earth itself. The internal temperature of the Earth oscillates between periods of greater and lesser temperature ranges, producing periodic ice ages and global warming. During periods when the core temperature rises, the additional heat is carried from the Earth's core to the surface via the magma convention system that circulates between the core and surface of the planet, where it radiates outward through the Earth's crust and sea floor, warming the oceans and atmosphere above, and melting the glacial and sea ice from below.

Although the internal temperature of the Earth is thought to be constant, and produced by such factors as radioactive decay, friction, and gravitational compression, there is one other factor that is seldom considered, and that is electricity. The Earth's core contains mega voltages of electrical energy in the form of an electrified plasma. Electricity produces heat in direct proportion to current flow, and the internal temperature of the planet must therefore be directly related to the total amount of electrical energy contained within the core, in addition to other heat sources produced by geological processes.

 

Global dimming? Most likely. But global cooling? No. You are only looking at a third of the overall process.

Let's cut directly to the chase here, Protostar. Show us some solid evidence for your claim that global increases in temperature are the results of heat escaping from the interior of the Earth. Can you do that? I really, really doubt it!!

 

The answer is yes because Alex B123 said could it ever work, ever implies no time frame therefore thinking with an infinate time span, there in an infiate ammount of time to trial and error a system to pull water off the earth with super strong string and balloon so it would get done eventually, although it could take a finite ammount of earth's to get it right.
Any way with that idea sorted read my new thread and see if you think my plan is any better hope of working with in a time frame say of a thousand years.

 

Changes in the Chandler Wobble indicate the shifting of mass = magma within the interior of the Earth, or in the outer mantle itself, as the result of the rising or sinking of portions of same. This is probably in response to the increasing temperature of the core, and magma convection system, or the result of volcanic upheavals within the interior of the Earth. The Chandler Wobble is a precessional movement characteristic of all gyroscopes when an attempt is made to change the direction of axis. The fact that it has changed means that the previous imbalance in Earth's rotation that fought against the fixed axis of the core, is either gone, or is now counterbalanced by the shifting of weight somewhere within the outer mantle or the deeper interior of the planet.

It is too early to draw any conclusions yet, and we must wait to see what happens in the months ahead. Weather this is a permanent or temporary change remains to be seen. This does not mean that the previous imbalance within the outer mantle has gone, but that it is now counterbalanced by some other factor as yet unknown, and should this movement or shifting of mass within the Earth continue, it could make the previous imbalance even greater.
Yes the wobble is "coming back" Why is it so hard for you to realize that the
earth's core temp is rising when there has been such evidence as
the Hydro-thermal Mega Plume which was found in 2004 to be millions of
miles wide on the Indian Ocean Floor? Also, with the newly "formed" bulges
in the earths crust and gasses escaping from the crust as well, what leads
you to believe that these things come from above?

 

Protostar, i don't know of ANYONE stupid enough to deny volcanic activity and the spreading of the ocean rifts are caused by the internal heat of the Earth. (Well, maybe D. Rabon is that stupid since the thinks the core is cold.) Because that's nothing more than very basic geology. I dare say that anyone who is ten years old and attended school is pretty well aware of that!!

Instead of just ranting on about some extremely basic stuff taught in EVERY school - even below the high school level! - why do you play blind and not answer the request I made? Which precisely is this: Show us some links to hard evidence to back your silly claims. Not just more of your misinterpretation of geology and Earth sciences.

Remember - anyone can SAY anything, including you. Show some actual proof or back off!!!

 

Why? you have the internet at your disposal. Why don't you look it up?
Start here at your so called 3rd grade level, and check out this web-site
in which I have read their claims. If you pass the edgar casey stuff and
toggle down the page, you might just learn something. And while we are
at it dear vibration of electromagnetic waves, we could all learn from your
knowledge if the sarcasm was curbed. It would be much more enjoyable
to debate theories if it was excluded.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_2.htm
toggle past the edgar casey "phlosophy" and read then, check out
newton's law on gravitation.

 

Well, you ARE correct about one thing - I actually should tone it down a bit. And I'll make an effort to do just that.

You might take notice, though, that my impatience with you - very similar to what I experienced with some few students while I was teaching stemmed from only one thing: you completely chose to ignore a simple, direct question. Instead of dealing with that question, you chose to continue rambling on as if nothing had been said. I actually dismissed two post-graduate students from my class because of that. (It must have done some good because they had to repeat the class in an additional quarter and did MUCH better that time around.)

So... I carefully and diligently read all you suggested (and a bit more). I'm quite sorry to say that there was nothing new there. Shifting/reversing magnetic poles, tectonic plate movement, magma activity, the wobble of the planetary axis, a discussion on Newtonian gravity and Relativity. All of these things are fairly common knowledge to even most high school graduates, much less people who have gone through college.

But what disappointed me the most is that I didn't see one single thing that addressed your idea about the interior of the Earth increasing in temperature. Nada. Nothing.

So I ask you - seriously - why did you want me read all that? It took almost 40 minutes and didn't bring me any closer to your idea. Was there something else on that site that does?

 

Wouldn't the creation of a dome from below be sufficient enough to
realize that the interior is heating up? here's an article I found w/
info on where it came from:

Question: I'm looking for information on Hick's Dome in southern Illinois. I've heard it was created by an underground volcanic explosion. I'd like to know if this is true, and when this occurred, plus any other interesting facts about it.

Answer: Basically, you are correct. Most geologists who have studied Hicks Dome interpret it as the product of one or more underground volcanic explosions. Drilling into the core of Hicks Dome reveals greatly shattered sedimentary rocks, intermixed with igneous material. Also, small igneous dikes radiate from the center of Hicks Dome on the surface. I have heard suggestions that Hicks Dome resulted from a meteorite impact, but the surficial and underground structure of the dome clearly indicate that the forces that formed the dome came from below, rather than above.

If you are interested in a technical report that provides more details, see our ISGS Circular 550, written by J.C. Bradbury and J.W. Baxter in 1992.
You may find information on Illinois State Geological Survey Publications at: http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu or you can contact our Information Office at 217/333-4747.

 

Domes have been forming and volcanos exploding on Earth for billions of years- but there is no indication that these happened because the core overheated. Remember, it takes tens of thousands of years (or more) for heat from the core to be transmitted to the surface of the Earth.

 

Hundreds of millions of years doodah: the Earth is still cooling down internally.

Protostar, try reading some geology textbooks without the preconceived ideas. That might make it possible for you to learn something.

 

Protostar, do you realize what you are doing? You're attempting to convince me/us that volcanic activity is real. We already know it's real. Volcanoes have been active since the planet Earth was young. That's what created the modern-day Hawaiian Islands among other things - we ALL know that. It also formed many, many other structures, such as Georgia's famous Stone Mountain near Atlanta and built many mountains across the world.

No one is doubting that process. Domes have formed innumerable times through the eons. What you don't seem to realize is that it's NOT an indication of the core temperature increasing.

There are several ideas of why the core is hot to begin with. Some appear to more likely than others. The two most common ones are that it is residual heat left over from the very formation of the Earth itself. Another is that it's produced by the breakdown of fissionable materials (uranium, plutonium, etc.) Perhaps the true answer is a combination of these two and possibly others.

But whatever the actual cause, you still have in no way shown us anything to indicate the temperature is rising. In fact, most geologists seem to think is is slowly (very slowly) dropping.

You shall have to come up with something much better and quite different from the reference you just gave us. Because it provides nothing at all to support your idea.

 

Plutonium, Light? Are you sure?

 

He isn't now.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Laika: "Plutonium, Light? Are you sure? "

You're both correct - I'm not sure.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Just going on the assumption that if uranium and other materials are there that plutonium would be formed as a result of fission activity. I readily admit that I am neither a geologist nor atomic physicist. But since a small amount PU is produced as a byproduct in commercial power reactors, why not? Seriously, it's been decades since I took a single class on atomic physics in school. Can someone explain what I've evidently forgotten?

 

The Earth is iron based in composition, and is covered by water in some places miles deep, and because of these chacteristics is a very good conductor of electricity. The Earth also has an iron core surrounded by a solid outer mantle, also composed of iron, which gives it the structure of an electric dynamo, and produces mega voltages of electrical energy that is the source of the planet's magnetic field.
In addition to the above characteristics, this very same dynamo like construction acts as a magnetic induction coil, and is able to produce more electrical energy via the process of electromagnetic induction, as the Earth passes through the magnetic field of the Sun, or when the Earth is struck by moving magnetic fields that sweep through it's position in space, such as plasma clouds ejected by the Sun, and interstellar gamma ray bursts.

Electrical energy produced within the solid outer mantle transfers to the molten core, where it remains in the form of an electrified plasma. Electricity produces heat in direct proportion to the amount of current flow, and the internal temperature of the Earth must therefore depend on the total amount of electrical energy contained within the core plasma, in addition to other sources of heat such as radioactive decay, friction, and gravitational compression. All of these in unison produce the core temperature of the Earth.

Although the dynamo construction of the inner Earth probably produces a fairly constant voltage, the process of electromagnetic induction from extraterrestrial sources does not, and is variable according to the activities of the Sun, and interstellar radiation such as the gamma ray burst mentioned in the articles above. Although the Sun is now in a period known as the solar minimum, and sunspot and solar flare activity are also at a minimum, gamma rays continue to bombard the Earth from deep space, and induce electrical energy in the Earth's core.

Believe it or not.

 

Light, the most important contributors of breakdown-derived heat are isotopes of uranium, thorium and potassium. Plutonium is generally artificial, although there are natural concentrations in the ancient natural reactors at Oklo. Such natural reactors can no longer form because fissile material doesn't exist in high enough concentrations.

 

I'm with you so far, Laika, but who knows what the materials are in the core? Why cannot it be a natural reactor also? In fact, I was under the impression that one one of the assumptions about it (in addition to residual heat from the formation of the Earth being the leading idea for it's heat).