Essay

Senior Members
  • Content count

    520
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

98 Excellent

About Essay

  • Rank
    Molecule
  • Birthday 02/09/1955

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Colorado State University
  • Interests
    Saving humanity/civilization, Gaia theory, biochemistry and biophysics, earth sciences, cosmology, history, economics, ecology, sociology, psycholgy, feminism, anthropology, philosophy, citizenship, agriculture, soil sciences, microbiology, evolution, religion, genetics, epigenetics, humus, biochar, graphene, Artificial Intelligence, networking, Type I civilization, C.P. Snow, E.O. Wilson, Klaus Kinder-Geiger, Stephen J. Pyne, Steven Stoll, Charles C. Mann, biogeochemistry, and climate science. Sustainability issues.
  • College Major/Degree
    BSc in Chem/Biochem from CSU via UNLV & George Mason Univ.
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Biochemistry, Carbon-cycle ecology, and all.
  • Biography
    Univ. Research Library, Preservation.
  • Occupation
    connecting good science with good citizenship

Recent Profile Visitors

14261 profile views
  1. Stephen Hawking Passed Away 3/14/2018

    From Light Into Heat. His Radiation Remains. The Journey Complete. ..
  2. What exactly is this?

    Isn't this what DNA would look like, if looking down along the axis of the helix? ~
  3. Is anyone arguing otherwise? Doesn't the history of Pluto, with collisions and many moons, suggest other sources of heating after formation? But.... From that link to Thermodynamics of the Earth and Planets, this seemed most relevant to your OP: ...just to point out there are a lot of different reasons planets don't all behave the same. Heck, just look at the major similarities in formation, yet big differences now, between Earth and Venus. Venus, due to its closer proximity to the sun, should be about 80 degrees warmer than Earth, iirc, and yet it is very different. ~
  4. Great source! Searching that led to this (Trinity College Dublin) PDF of a university class on the topic of "Planetary interiors." Sources include "Thermodynamics of the Earth and Planets," such as the graph of “Radioactive heating of Earth since formation,” on page 27. Pages 21-27 cover "Heating of the planets," which then leads into the section on “Cooling of the Planets,” starting on page 28 (of 47). I did not know about the significant "Heat of Differentiation" involved with planetary formation, but it makes sense. ~
  5. all time snow record

    Speaking of records tumbling: For the third year in a row, reports of record-breaking high temperatures in the Arctic, during the dark of winter, continue in the news. So it all comes fairly close to averaging out, in the end; it is just a degree or so warmer overall globally, over the decade. Although, continuing like this, decade upon decade for a century of so, would be a more extreme climate event than the planet has seen since long before primates first evolved. ~ edit: ...and yes, it would be great to see the source of your information about "no more snow."
  6. Possibly, or possibly not. Either way, here and now there are many ways to leverage the forces around us to create and store energy. We could build houses to extract energy from the daily cycle of expansion and contraction the materials go through as temperatures change. They even have expansion/contraction joints in bridges, but those aren't designed as power capturing devices. Our shoes, with every step we take, could be charging up our devices. Maybe someday.... ~
  7. If you can find something like gravity or an aether that is connected to that infinity, then sure ...it is part of your local system, but in reality.... All you need to do is tap into the unlimited supply of gravititational waves washing over us daily from every corner of the universe. It's already started (plus the new reports about how "scientists have detected gravitational waves from merging neutron stars"), but as with radio waves, it is hard to collect enough energy to be useful as a power source. ~ edit: but with the expanding universe, I'm not sure how infinitely long you could do that.
  8. Global Warming and India:

    Good questions! Searching the internet, most sites say that a long period of weather observations are needed to define a climate norm or trend. I learned that 30 years was the minimum. “The traditional definition of climate is the 30-year average of weather.” ...searching further, the reports are of declining rainfall as well as increasing extremes: ...maybe on average it all stays the same? ...but there is also a graph: "Figure below shows that while the mean summer monsoon rainfall over India is decreasing, the extreme rainfall events are on a rise. That means longer dry periods interspersed with short spells of heavy downpour." ...there seem to be some trends, over several 30 year periods. ~
  9. I don't see what any of those facts and figures mean, in terms of anomalous heat, but is anybody saying "never?" Whatever discrepancies you might wonder about …there are enough ways to generate heat, between gravity and pressure and the Coriolis effects of rotation as well as chemistry and turbulence, to account for a lot of ways to imagine generating some extra heat—or at least retaining and recirculating some of the heat of formation. Just think about how complex are the thin handful of atmospheric and oceanic layers here on Earth—and the tectonic layers have their own complexities as well. There is a lot of energy around to capture, here on Earth, but it’s tricky; just like it would be on any planet, it is hard to get a good return for your efforts and investment. And in the long run, whatever you extract from the system is going to weaken the system you extract it from. In a sustainable biosphere that is likely to become a problem, in the long run. But thinking about ways to become less dependent on fossil fuels (reservoirs of chemically stored sunlight), or to offset the negative consequences of their usage, is a worthy goal; so if that is what you’re doing, keep it up! ~
  10. What anomalous heat production?!? Does my edit of your post change some extra meaning that you are trying to convey, which I have missed? Do you see any contradiction in those two descriptions (of the limits for a “nuclear fusion reaction to start”)? “Quite warm” temperatures are very different from nuclear fusion temperatures, in somewhat the same way that single digits are different from double digits, aren’t they? ...and now for a non-rhetorical question: If you could prove (or even plausibly suggest) the existence of, and/or any mechanism for, some new source of energy that heats massive objects, do you think it could be used as a new source of energy for civilization, or are you just wondering for academic reasons? ~
  11. The Beast from the east:

    Good point! I probably should have included a relevant quote, from the accompanying text of the 1991 source, to provide that context. They say: They go on to mention other explanations for the discrepancy too, such as the "...modulation of atmospheric signals by volcanism and solar variability, i.e., by 'natural' climate fluctuations," as well as intrinsic or internal "interactions in a nonlinear coupled system" that can "generate low-frequency climate variance." ~
  12. The Beast from the east:

    The “Lazy Jet Stream Theory” seems to be supported by all these observations. The theory explains how the polar jet stream, which is driven by the difference in temperatures between the polar air mass (Polar Cell) and the temperate or mid-latitude air mass (Ferrel Cell), will weaken or get “lazy” as the polar air mass warms more than the global average. In the same way the arms of a spinning ice skater can be extended more easily as the skater slows down, the borders of the polar air mass (polar jet stream) can wander more easily away from the center and toward the lower latitudes—creating so-called “omega loops.” This leads to more longitudinal patterns in our weather, instead of the more traditional latitudinal or zonal flow to weather patterns that agriculture depends on. This more frequent interruption in traditional weather patterns also makes it more likely to break weather records, such as record cold temperatures farther south or record warm temperatures farther north, especially in winter and spring when the loss of the normal temperature differential is most pronounced. Certainly, the early prediction of amplified arctic warming, which was specifically expected to result from extra CO2 heating, seems to have been born out (see colored arrows and shaded text on annotated graph below) over the first climatologically significant period of time—thirty years—since Stuiver's prediction. The non-annotated graph (in black and red) was first published in 1981, and it was used in the 1991 textbook for climate researchers, on page 253: Oxford Monographs on Geology and Geophysics no.16; Paleoclimatology; edited by Crowley & North. ~
  13. Scientific Method in climate science

    NO. Glad to be able to clear that up for you. All you have made clear is that you will accept nothing about the validity of science. ~ They have instructions on the pages I linked to earlier. You just set the conditions to what is expected (i.e. double CO2 levels) for whatever time frame you want to look at, such as 100 years. Then the model shows what average climate would be expected. ~
  14. Scientific Method in climate science

    As long as the authority is valid, argument from authority is part of the scientific method, isn't it? You might be confusing the authority that science generates with the fallacy of an individual who claims his own authority, or some unvalidated authority. See how the internet defines this: (argument from authority, appeal to false authority, appeal to unqualified authority, argument from false authority). Description: Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument. It is the underlined part that differentiates the arguments by science from those arguments by overly enthusiastic folks on the internet. ...or differentiates the ("relevant") authority of science from the ("false") authority of overly enthusiastic folks on the internet. ~
  15. Scientific Method in climate science

    So when is there a need for authority? When does authority become worthy? edit: By your logic, authority is only worthy if there is evidence, but then it is not needed. Pretzel much?