Earth's Climate Change

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />I'm refering to the truth that no one believes the ocean is warmed by the mantle of Earth as much as it is from the sun. The total energy required to warm the surface of Earth comes from two places the sun and the mantle. Assuming the sun is the only energy supply for Earth is false and leads modelers to error.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The mantle is directly in contact with the oceans, so heat transfer from it to the bulk of the ocean can take place in all three ways: conduction, convection and radiation. I would agree that the heat source is radioactive decay within the Earth. However, I don't think a sparse scattering of uranium, etc, can account for it. Instead, I would reiterate my speculation that we have a nuclear core which undergoes radioactive decay on its surface. That easily provides enough energy for the observed heat release. And if this surface decay is slow enough, it would go on "forever".

It would really be a stretch to justify how the Sun could be the source of episodic heating of the Pacific Ocean - thus creating "El Nino". If it were the sun, why wouldn't this happen in all oceans (except polar) at the same time? Can the history of "El Nino" be tied to the four seasons or our place in orbit? Apparently not.

Earth climatic heating or cooling can be mechanistically tied to the appearance and disappearance of sunspots. It s very similar to exothermic chemical reactions. It is late and I will speculate later...


Gregg Wilson

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Earth climatic heating or cooling can be mechanistically tied to the appearance and disappearance of sunspots. [Gregg]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The variable sun; through sunspots, corona holes, and solar flares, resulting in such things as disturbances in the earth's magnetosphere, and variations of earth's cloud-cover patterns, correlates well with the geological record of temperature variation in 11 and 22 year cycles, and "little ice age" cycles of 100-400 years.

100,000 year ice-age cycles and other multi-millennial scale cycles closely correspond to astronomical cycles and variations in the earth's orbit's eccentricity, precession, and tilt, and also what seems most likely, in the 100 kyr orbital inclination cycle, (as measured by the invariable [solar system] plane) though the later has traditionally revealed no apparent mechanism (for affecting insolation) for these long term earth temperature cycles.

Annual or more or less frequent, random, or stochastic cycles may result from such things as El Nino (e.g., the one responsible for the large bump in 1998) for global warming; and large volcanic eruptions (spewing out dust clouds) that cool the earth temporarily. There are other climate patterns and mechanisms that effect warming and cooling cycles.

Anthropogenic greenhouse gases may be responsible for only a very small part of the change, the politically charged, mainstream theory to the contrary notwithstanding. ( The Global Warming Swindle website has a good reading list. John Imbrie's book on Ice Ages is another good source.) [Neil DeRosa]

I think the solar cycle explaination is wrong because much too much energy is required to change the climate than can be found in any solar cycle(the greatest energy flux in solar cycles occurs every year as the Earth/sun distance varies). The Earth is also subjected to some kind of unknown force from gravity due to the acceleration force of the sun. And there are a lot of nuclear reactions that are unknown to science at this time. There are a lot of possible energy sources not now known that could be the source of energy heating the ocean.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Earth climatic heating or cooling can be mechanistically tied to the appearance and disappearance of sunspots. [Gregg]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The variable sun; through sunspots, corona holes, and solar flares, resulting in such things as disturbances in the earth's magnetosphere, and variations of earth's cloud-cover patterns, correlates well with the geological record of temperature variation in 11 and 22 year cycles, and "little ice age" cycles of 100-400 years.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Release of more energy in the Elysium medium can be derived as follows:

If there is only a gravitational flux and a light carrying medium - Elysium - then there is no mechanism to cause condensation or vaporization of Elysium. There is not even any mechanism to cause electromagnetic waves. Gravitons would continually collide with elysons but they would simply behave in a completely random, disorganized fashion.

Now place in some protons. The protons do not to do anything but be in the way - to be an obstacle. The elysons would be driven up against the protons by the gravitational flux. Assuming that the Elysium can exist both as a vapor and a liquid - then the elysons driven up against a proton would condense.

If a proton is completely symmetrical - for example, a sphere - then the gravitational pontential would be the same at every point on the proton sphere. Since gravitons would continue to collide with the bunched up elysons - the momentum transfer would vaporize these liquid elysons. One cannot have condensation and vaporization simultaneously occurring at every point on a proton sphere. That would be a complete contradiction.

So, I propose that the proton is <b>not</b> symmetrical in shape. To make a long analysis short, let's assume that the proton is a hollow cone. Then from a gravitational heighth viewpoint, the highest elevation is the outside point of the cone and the lowest point is the inside point of the cone. Any Elysium which piles up against the proton surface and becomes a liquid, will flow downhill - from anywhere to the bottom inside of the cone. At this point, it cannot "retreat" any farther but is still exposed to the graviton bombardment. This vaporizes the liquid Elysium and it boils out as electromagnetic "waves". We now have a proton which can enable condensation of Elysium on its surface and vaporization of Elysium at its lowest gravitational position. Both phase transformations can occur on a single proton.

If one examines this picture, the proton will travel in the direction of its point - like a miniature rocket. When two protons come near each other, they will begin to shield one another from the gravitation "wind" which is in the direction of the straight, shortest line between the two protons. <b>The same mechanism as for two planets. </b> They will come together, point to point, not by intention, but by virtue of their shape. All the particles are dead and passive. There is no motivation by any of them.

When the two protons touch point to point, the gravitational elevation on them changes. Now downhill is from any point on the outer surface of each proton to the attachment position of the two points. The gravitational flux which is perpendicular to the line drawn through the two protons, point to point, will force the Elysium to concentrate at the point to point position - as a liquid. Now you have molecular hydrogen and the "chemical bond" is quite real - it is the liquid Elysium "glue" at the position of mutual contact.

The matter of nuclear fusion is not the major subject in this thread, so I will give it a very brief review. If two protons attach together, base to base, then one has deuterium. Deuterium would have no vaporizing Elysium repulsion as an open proton has, so under enough pressure, it can polymerize to form larger nuclei - sunspots.

Let's move on to chemical reactions. A nucleus of an oxygen atom - a fragment of a decomposed sunspot - will have both protons combined together as deuterium and open protons - whose Elysium vaporizing, hollow bases point outward. This oxygen nucleus has two valence points, which means that two positions on its nucleus do not have vaporizing Elysium repulsion. It is open for two "chemical bonds. Now have two hydrogen atoms approach the oxygen nucleus. They will be pushed - <b>not attracted </b>- into the two positions on the oxygen nucleus that did not have repulsion. Once they are in place - with their repulsive bases pointed outward - no further chemical reaction can take place. In effect, the H2O molecule is now just like an argon atom - its surface is entirely repulsive and no further chemical bonding can take place.

Now let's begin with a mixture of molecular oxygen and molecular hydrogen. Nothing happens until some collision occurence breaks a few of the oxygen and hydrogen molecules apart. Then they will recombine as H2O. Why? Because this is a more compact, complete, "perfect" fit for the nuclei.

Now keep in mind that some Elysium - as a liquid - is "hiding" within the molecular structure - protected from the gravitational "wind". When the reactants - molecular oxygen and molecular hydrogen - are broken apart, this "hidden" liquid Elysium is vaporized. When they recombine as H2O, there is less protected volume available for liquid Elysium. The <b>net</b> result of the chemical reaction is that some of the original, liquid Elysium ends up vaporized. Thus, you have the release of "chemical energy" in the form of light, heat, a vapor expansion explosion.

<b>All</b> the "force" and energy mechanisms consist of collisions between paricles. Every action is a <b>push</b>.

When a sunspot appears and grows, it is similar to a chemical reaction. A more compact, "perfect" fit for the nuclei is occurring. Some of the "hidden" liquid Elysium is forced to vaporize. The net output of electromagnetic energy in the Sun increases. The Earth receives more thermal energy from the Sun. The global climatic temperature rises to some extent.

If sunspots are not forming, the net thermal output from the Sun decreases. Earth's global temperature goes down to some extent.

Of course, if you believe in the Al Gore theory of global warming, we can stop that by implanting two corks into the big guy.


Gregg Wilson