Planets and moons losing mass by the tonnes/sec
|
|
Thread rating:  |
BradGuth - 15 Feb 2009 18:27 GMT For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere contains Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%), He = .1786 kg/m3 Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%), H2 = .0899 kg/m3
We seem to know more about the perpetual loss/sec of hydrogen and helium for planets (including a few exoplanets) other than Earth. http://vega.lpl.arizona.edu/~gilda/extrass.html
At 0.55 ppmv, in order that our atmosphere sustain that average H2 saturation, at any given moment there’s 25e6 kg of hydrogen getting made available and unavoidably migrating upwards and away from Earth’s surface in order to create and sustain the average 0.55 ppmv. The question is, at what average vertical escapement velocity or volumetric/sec exit away from Earth?
Is our hydrogen escapement worth merely 25e6 kg per day = 9.125e6 tonnes/yr, or is it as great as 25e6 kg per hour = 219e6 tonnes/year?
Like the GP-B fiasco, at best our EUVE (Extreme Ultra Violet Explorer) could have been representing a false positive, all be its observationology given a nifty eye-candy yellow and reddish colorized UV image of Earth’s surrounding cloud of helium and hydrogen. However, the solar wind caused planetary exhaust trail of H2 and He is what needs to be more closely looked at and objectively quantified, as most easily accomplished from our Selene/moon or from it's L1 that we still do not have.
Existing UV and IR imaging: http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect20/A3.html
The badly failing magnetosphere has been capable of restraining or mildly sequestering some of Earth's hydrogen and helium by way of having been protecting our atmosphere, but unfortunately for the past 2000 years this too is going away (most recently at -.05%/year or even <–120 nT/yr), is perhaps as good of reason why that lofty cloud of hydrogen and helium isn't sticking around, and why the lethal SAA contour has been exponentially growing and nearing the surface. On the other hand, care to imagine what could happen if such terrestrial hydrogen and helium didn’t leak away? http://io9.com/395272/is-earths-magnetic-field-failing-us http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/category/geomagnetism/
Of course our perpetual naysayers and usual evidence excluding gauntlet of our resident Usenet/newsgroup wizards and brown-nosed clowns are not paying serious attention, or allowing any context of consideration as to the worth or consequences of our badly failing geomagnetic force and of its subsequent magnetosphere. It’s as though our best physics and/or objective science doesn’t hardly matter, unless it’s strictly interpreted in order to sustain their mainstream status quo. In other words, for sustaining our mainstream as a viable cabal of happy campers, apparently our best public funded science is but worth used toilet paper.
I recall mentioning at least a few thousand times, about our having the Selene L1 platform of science instruments easily established as of 4 decades ago, including many UV and IR imaging cameras looking at Earth and equally at our Selene/moon that's losing it's sodium and a few other elements at an alarming rate. However, without our having such a nifty perspective it's simply much harder if not nearly impossible to interpret whatever's going on.
btw, the often bogus mindset of "I always had the thoughts that free hydrogen, and helium were lost in space and that Earth's gravity was not strong enough to hold it" isn't what I'd gotten out of those previously posted comments. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite of what we’ve typically heard from most others, insisting that supposedly Earth never loses mass, whereas instead I was the first in this or any other Usenet/newsgroup to insist that our moon and Earth have each been losing mass, and implying that the modern day human race has been artificially assisting in this natural process.
Perhaps this can also explain as to why ETs would bother going to all the trouble of extracting minerals and raw elements from another planet or moon, such as our dire need of extracting He3 from our Selene/moon, or that of whomever is taking substances away from Venus.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
Saul Levy - 15 Feb 2009 19:20 GMT f.cking sh.t, BradBoi, I thought we were ALL DOOMED in 2012? lmfjao!
DOOM AND GLOOM FOREVER!
Saul Levy
>For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere >contains [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > >~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / Guth Usenet Saul Levy - 15 Feb 2009 23:12 GMT As another note: Hoax to Hoax is now moving more toward 2019 as the date of the coming apocalypse.
I guess 2012 is coming too soon for them since NOTHING IS HAPPENING!
Too bad NOTHING WILL HAPPEN DURING OUR LIFETIMES!
BET ON IT! So about 2016 expect them to extend the onset of this TOTAL DISASTER ad nauseum!
Saul Levy
>f.cking sh.t, BradBoi, I thought we were ALL DOOMED in 2012? lmfjao! > >DOOM AND GLOOM FOREVER! > >Saul Levy Double-A - 16 Feb 2009 00:07 GMT > As another note: Hoax to Hoax is now moving more toward 2019 as the > date of the coming apocalypse. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > >Saul Levy I was once concerned wirh this prophesy by Mother Shipton (reputed to be the Devil's daughter!):
"The world to an end shall come In nineteen hundred and eighty-one."
After the year went by safely, I found out that the original version had been:
"The world to an end shall come In eighteen hundred and eighty-one."
Now I know that even that "original" was a fake written some 300 years after her death.
Just wait until they reprint it in 2080, or so!
Double-A
BradGuth - 16 Feb 2009 00:54 GMT > > As another note: Hoax to Hoax is now moving more toward 2019 as the > > date of the coming apocalypse. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Double-A The good news, Earth will still have a healthy surplus of hydrogen and helium by 2080, although Earth may weigh a whole lot less, that is unless we're impacted by Apophis in 2036 and pick up those 20e6 tonnes plus 5e6 of other assorted debris, offers perhaps roughly 4% of what mass in hydrogen and helium that'll have been lost over the next 70 years.
We're losing our geomagnetic force by roughly -.05%/year, so that's not exactly a good sign.
~ BG
Double-A - 16 Feb 2009 21:54 GMT > > > As another note: Hoax to Hoax is now moving more toward 2019 as the > > > date of the coming apocalypse. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > mass in hydrogen and helium that'll have been lost over the next 70 > years. I see other things besides daffodils popping up out of the fround now. In spite of the freezing temperatures, nothing can stop the irrepressible force of spring! Except that is for the Tholen doomsday asteroid: Apophis!
> We're losing our geomagnetic force by roughly -.05%/year, so that's > not exactly a good sign. > > ~ BG Not a good sign.
Double-A
BradGuth - 17 Feb 2009 05:47 GMT > > > > As another note: Hoax to Hoax is now moving more toward 2019 as the > > > > date of the coming apocalypse. [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > Double-A Once upon a time Earth had 100 bar of atmosphere to work with.
99 bar worth of atmosphere (5.1e20 kg) is quite a bit of bulk mass reduction, especially considering the ongoing natural production of atmosphere plus the artificial contributions by way of humanity.
~ BG
Saul Levy - 17 Feb 2009 12:37 GMT Hoax to Hoax had a UFO researcher (whatever that is!) on last night. He stated that the Earth is hit by 10^12 meteors EVERY DAY!
That's a TRILLION, BradBoi! lmfjao!
The current gas mass loss is TINY compared to that.
Saul Levy
>> > > > As another note: Hoax to Hoax is now moving more toward 2019 as the >> > > > date of the coming apocalypse. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> >> > > > >Saul Levy
>> > The good news, Earth will still have a healthy surplus of hydrogen and >> > helium by 2080, although Earth may weigh a whole lot less, that is [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> >> > ~ BG
>Once upon a time Earth had 100 bar of atmosphere to work with. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > ~ BG BradGuth - 17 Feb 2009 14:52 GMT > > > > As another note: Hoax to Hoax is now moving more toward 2019 as the > > > > date of the coming apocalypse. [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > Double-A Try to find the ongoing production of Earth's atmosphere, and lo and behold it's another one of those science obfuscated matters that's still in the wind (so to speak).
Once upon a time Earth had a robust 100 bar of atmosphere to work with (perhaps similar to Venus).
99 bar worth of atmosphere (5.1e20 kg) is quite a bit of bulk mass reduction, especially considering the ongoing geophysics venting and natural productions of atmosphere, plus those artificial contributions by way of humanity.
Supposedly there's still <3 kg/s arriving via meteor influx that had been much greater in the past. So, that's certainly a lot of lost atmospheric tonnage per thousand years, and the ongoing rate of loss is clearly increasing.
Once Mars lost its geomagnetic force and subsequent loss of magnetosphere, it didn't take long for the solar wind to extract the vast bulk if its atmosphere and of most everything else responsible for having created and sustained that once viable atmosphere. Now you get to hold your breath, or else.
~ BG
Saul Levy - 09 Mar 2009 01:19 GMT If there is still a healthy surplus, then why were you so worried about it, GOOFBALL? lmfjao!
The difference in mass (weight) will be MEANINGLESS! 0.00000000000001?
BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Saul Levy
>The good news, Earth will still have a healthy surplus of hydrogen and >helium by 2080, although Earth may weigh a whole lot less, that is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > ~ BG BradGuth - 15 Feb 2009 23:59 GMT > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere > contains [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet” Sorry, I had to use our rabbi Saul Levy for my topic Gold Stars, although I'm fairly certain that his cabal isn't going to let it stand without first delivering a few swift kicks into my private parts.
Fortunately, Earth isn't going to run itself out of hydrogen or helium anytime soon, not even with our help. However, thus far we have managed to lose much of our valuable He and He3, and mother Earth certainly isn't getting itself any heavier, nor is our geomagnetic force showing any signs of slowing its ongoing demise.
~ BG
Saul Levy - 16 Feb 2009 05:21 GMT The Earth IS getting heavier every day, BradBoi! lmfjao!
Too bad you think the opposite!
Saul Levy
>Sorry, I had to use our rabbi Saul Levy for my topic Gold Stars, >although I'm fairly certain that his cabal isn't going to let it stand [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > ~ BG BradGuth - 16 Feb 2009 14:53 GMT > > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere > > contains [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > > ~ BG Earth receives but 2 to 3 kg of space dust and assorted meteorites per second.
At the same time we're most likely losing at least 300 kg/s of our hydrogen and helium.
There's simply no contest, whereas Earth is losing mass, and by some basic accounting it is easily worth a tonne/sec if you'd care to honestly include the human derived forms of hydrogen and helium released and/or wasted from all of our fossil energy and many artificial forms of having created such gasses.
~ BG
Michael Moroney - 17 Feb 2009 04:14 GMT >Earth receives but 2 to 3 kg of space dust and assorted meteorites per >second.
>At the same time we're most likely losing at least 300 kg/s of our >hydrogen and helium. Umm, you better check your figures. The earth gets a net increase of mass from intercepted space dust and meteors, which exceeds that lost from light gases. Some of the H/He in the atmosphere is from intercepted solar wind, so is really just a visitor to Earth. Except for solar hydrogen which reacts with oxygen, which becomes a permanent contribution to the oceans.
Besides, who cares? Hydrogen would come from photodisassociation from water, and less water would mean a decrease in sea level, a good thing if global warming is real, and if there's enough of that to be noticeable. Helium is a limited supply, but once it gets into the atmosphere, it's pretty much lost (not worth trying to extract), and who cares if it sticks around or escapes into space.
BradGuth - 17 Feb 2009 05:31 GMT On Feb 16, 8:14 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
> >Earth receives but 2 to 3 kg of space dust and assorted meteorites per > >second. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > pretty much lost (not worth trying to extract), and who cares if it sticks > around or escapes into space. What part of the artificially released H2 and He didn't you get?
Are these figures correct, and if so is there an increase taking place, and if not then where is all the artificial plus natural H2 and He going?
Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%) Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%)
What combined tonnage of H2+He is Earth losing per hour?
Is your private data that you have no intentions of sharing based upon some secret satellite data?
The 1< 3 kg/sec of incoming debris doesn't seem like much, does it?
~ BG
Michael Moroney - 17 Feb 2009 22:07 GMT >On Feb 16, 8:14=A0pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> pretty much lost (not worth trying to extract), and who cares if it sticks >> around or escapes into space.
>What part of the artificially released H2 and He didn't you get? What about it?
>Are these figures correct, and if so is there an increase taking >place, and if not then where is all the artificial plus natural H2 and >He going? H and He in the atmosphere is in equilibrium between loss to space, outgassing from the earth, solar wind and cosmic dust (can contain several PPM of embedded solar wind atoms). The amount over time doesn't change much.
> Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%) >Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%) And what if all that H + He completely disappear tomorrow? Will it even be measurable on a barometer on tomorrow's weather report? Will your voice be a millionth of an octave lower, now that that helium is all gone?
>What combined tonnage of H2+He is Earth losing per hour?
>Is your private data that you have no intentions of sharing based upon >some secret satellite data? Once you tell me which orifice you got your data from. On the other hand, I don't want to know.
>The 1< 3 kg/sec of incoming debris doesn't seem like much, does it? BradGuth - 18 Feb 2009 02:28 GMT On Feb 17, 2:07 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
> >On Feb 16, 8:14=A0pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > >The 1< 3 kg/sec of incoming debris doesn't seem like much, does it? Your not wanting to know is what tells us more than we needed to know about your mindset.
~ BG
Saul Levy - 18 Feb 2009 05:37 GMT Telling you we don't care, BradBoi, just affirms how much we KNOW ABOUT YOU! lmfjao!
Maybe you should read up on the Zetas?
Saul Levy
>Your not wanting to know is what tells us more than we needed to know >about your mindset. > > ~ BG Michael Moroney - 18 Feb 2009 16:09 GMT >On Feb 17, 2:07=A0pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> >> >The 1< 3 kg/sec of incoming debris doesn't seem like much, does it?
>Your not wanting to know is what tells us more than we needed to know >about your mindset. That's the best answer you can come up with? Not that I expected anything any better.
BradGuth - 19 Feb 2009 01:17 GMT On Feb 18, 8:09 am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
> >On Feb 17, 2:07=A0pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > That's the best answer you can come up with? Not that I expected anything > any better. Maxwell Boltzmann http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/energy/Companion/E07.4.pdf.xpdf “Hydrogen and helium have a mean speed that is a significant fraction of the escape speed. For this reason, there is almost no hydrogen or helium in Earth’s present atmosphere.”
As our geomagnetic field fades away at -0.05%/year (possibly signaling another magnetic pole reversal) and subsequently our protective magnetosphere fails us, the SAA contour expands and deepens, as the average 400 km/s solar wind (halo CME 600<1600 km/s) reaches ever deeper into the upper atmosphere, whereas subsequently our natural and artificially introduced hydrogen and helium gets superheated and easily accelerated above 11 km/s.
Earth is simply not gaining sufficient mass to offset the escapement of our hydrogen and helium. In other words, there is not a volumetric balance of mass taking place.
Now it's your turn to obfuscate.
~ BG
Michael Moroney - 19 Feb 2009 17:55 GMT >On Feb 18, 8:09=A0am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >ing >> any better.
>Maxwell Boltzmann >http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/energy/Companion/E07.4.pdf.xpdf [snip irrelevant explanation of mechanism]
Lack of any source for your figures, nor of the orifice of origin, noted.
BradGuth - 19 Feb 2009 19:06 GMT On Feb 19, 9:55 am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
> >On Feb 18, 8:09=A0am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Lack of any source for your figures, nor of the orifice of origin, noted. I've given multiple sources for quantifying the artificial dumping of helium. Obviously you can't read or much less think for yourself.
So, you admit that you have no idea as to how much Earth is outgassing and/or venting atmospheric worthy gasses from the surface.
Why isn't there absolute objective quantified science existing about Earth?
Why are you so deathly afraid of using our Selene/moon L1 to discover anything?
~ BG
Michael Moroney - 19 Feb 2009 19:45 GMT >> >On Feb 18, 8:09=3DA0am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >> >Your not wanting to know is what tells us more than we needed to know >> >> >about your mindset.
>> >> That's the best answer you can come up with? Not that I expected anything
>> >> any better. >> >Maxwell Boltzmann [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> Lack of any source for your figures, nor of the orifice of origin, noted.
>I've given multiple sources for quantifying the artificial dumping of >helium. Obviously you can't read or much less think for yourself. No you haven't given any sources to the amount of gas escape. I have, however, found a few online sources that state loss of all atmospheric gases ranges from about 1/3 the mass gained from meteors/space debris to an order of magnitude less. In other words, the earth is still gaining mass. Not that it makes any difference, the net increase of the mass of the earth is so small compared to the mass of the earth it won't change anything.
>So, you admit that you have no idea as to how much Earth is outgassing >and/or venting atmospheric worthy gasses from the surface. See above. And such gases are hardly "worthy", they're too dilute to be worth recovering for anything, and their eventual loss has no effect.
>Why isn't there absolute objective quantified science existing about >Earth? There is, but you simply ignore it.
>Why are you so deathly afraid of using our Selene/moon L1 to discover >anything? Your imagined fear of mine is just another part of your obsession.
BradGuth - 19 Feb 2009 21:33 GMT On Feb 19, 11:45 am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
> >> >On Feb 18, 8:09=3DA0am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > the earth is so small compared to the mass of the earth it won't change > anything. So, the amount of tonnage in helium that's 7< 8% per volume of natural gas doesn't count?
The ongoing terrestrial outgassing of water and other gaseous elements from within doesn't count?
> >So, you admit that you have no idea as to how much Earth is outgassing > >and/or venting atmospheric worthy gasses from the surface. > > See above. And such gases are hardly "worthy", they're too dilute to be > worth recovering for anything, and their eventual loss has no effect. Your subjective science and conditional laws of physics with obfuscation is noted. When are you going to provide something purely objective, like I have done?
> >Why isn't there absolute objective quantified science existing about > >Earth? > > There is, but you simply ignore it. I can't hardly ignore what can't be found. Please cite whatever of public and/or private funded science that is posted to the internet or otherwise published.
> >Why are you so deathly afraid of using our Selene/moon L1 to discover > >anything? > > Your imagined fear of mine is just another part of your obsession. Then what's your wiser plan of action, or rather same old status quo inaction about not utilizing our Selene/moon L1?
I'm only obsessed about learning and utilizing the best available truths for the greater good. Sorry about that, I'll have to try being more mainstream brown-nosed and otherwise like Hitler and Bush if that would make you a happier camper.
~ BG
Michael Moroney - 19 Feb 2009 22:36 GMT >On Feb 19, 11:45 am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> the earth is so small compared to the mass of the earth it won't change >> anything.
>So, the amount of tonnage in helium that's 7< 8% per volume of natural >gas doesn't count? Only the outgassing from the atmosphere to space would count. Somewhere from 10-33% of the gain in mass from meteroids.
>The ongoing terrestrial outgassing of water and other gaseous elements >from within doesn't count? No. Earth's atmosphere is part of Earth. Some mass (water, CO2) can go back and forth between the atmosphere and liquid or solid Earth.
>> >So, you admit that you have no idea as to how much Earth is outgassing >> >and/or venting atmospheric worthy gasses from the surface. >> >> See above. And such gases are hardly "worthy", they're too dilute to be >> worth recovering for anything, and their eventual loss has no effect.
>Your subjective science and conditional laws of physics with >obfuscation is noted. When are you going to provide something purely >objective, like I have done? Show me a process that can recover gaseous H/He from the atmosphere that is worth the effort, objectively.
>> >Why are you so deathly afraid of using our Selene/moon L1 to discover >> >anything? >> >> Your imagined fear of mine is just another part of your obsession.
>Then what's your wiser plan of action, or rather same old status quo >inaction about not utilizing our Selene/moon L1? Not relevant to this discussion.
I don't see much of interest about the earth-moon L1 other than as a temporary waypoint for lunar missions. It's unstable long term. Lunar orbits are also long-term unstable (due to mascons) but have the advantage of being closer to the moon for study of the moon.
>I'm only obsessed about learning and utilizing the best available >truths for the greater good. Sorry about that, I'll have to try being >more mainstream brown-nosed and otherwise like Hitler and Bush if that >would make you a happier camper. Hah! You obsess over:
The moon, imaginary "DARPA" conspiracies, the moon, "brown-nosing" someone, the moon, "Jewish Nazis" (whatever the hell they're supposed to be, kind of like red-hot ice or black polar bears or something, I guess), the moon, the moon and the moon.
I almost forgot one - the moon.
BradGuth - 20 Feb 2009 06:27 GMT On Feb 19, 2:36 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
> >On Feb 19, 11:45 am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Show me a process that can recover gaseous H/He from the atmosphere > that is worth the effort, objectively. Without our help, the lithosphere alone creaes an extra 3e3 tonnes/ year of helium.
Why exactly are you excluding our commercial extractions of natural gas?
Natural gas alone contributes a minimum of 4e6<40e6 tonnes of helium.
Earth uncontrollably vents hundred+ millions of hydrogen and helium tonnes per year, however some of which is derived from the 3.5e12 m3/ year of natural gas.
At the natural gas wellheads, a cryogenic process could extract and salvage the bulk of he2, he3 and he4. H2 can be safely passed along and consumed with the methane.
> >> >Why are you so deathly afraid of using our Selene/moon L1 to discover > >> >anything? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Not relevant to this discussion. Your perpetual denial and obfuscation is noted.
> I don't see much of interest about the earth-moon L1 other than as a > temporary waypoint for lunar missions. It's unstable long term. Lunar > orbits are also long-term unstable (due to mascons) but have the advantage > of being closer to the moon for study of the moon. Again, your purely subjective interpretation that's mostly negative is noted.
> >I'm only obsessed about learning and utilizing the best available > >truths for the greater good. Sorry about that, I'll have to try being [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I almost forgot one - the moon. What's wrong with obsessing over our physically dark and naked Selene/ moon that's loaded with nifty minerals and valuable elements like He3?
I also obsess over the planet Venus. Sorry about that.
btw, Earth is losing mass.
~ BG
Michael Moroney - 20 Feb 2009 21:19 GMT >On Feb 19, 2:36 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> >> Show me a process that can recover gaseous H/He from the atmosphere >> that is worth the effort, objectively.
>Without our help, the lithosphere alone creaes an extra 3e3 tonnes/ >year of helium.
>Why exactly are you excluding our commercial extractions of natural >gas? You didn't answer the question.
>At the natural gas wellheads, a cryogenic process could extract and >salvage the bulk of he2, he3 and he4. H2 can be safely passed along >and consumed with the methane. No such thing as He2.
You still haven't given us any reason why anyone should worry about helium loss.
For a few gas wells, there's enough helium in them to be worth it to extract commercially. It's not worth it to extract it from the air or from most of the other wells.
>btw, Earth is losing mass. Still no source (or even orifice identification) for this claim, I see.
BradGuth - 21 Feb 2009 00:05 GMT > >On Feb 19, 2:36 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You didn't answer the question. Silly boy. I have a number of derogatory names for naysay folks of denial like yourself.
> >At the natural gas wellheads, a cryogenic process could extract and > >salvage the bulk of he, he3 and he4. H2 can be safely passed along > >and consumed with the methane. > > No such thing as He2. Word games, you know exactly what I meant.
> You still haven't given us any reason why anyone should worry about helium > loss. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Still no source (or even orifice identification) for this claim, I see. It's a Muslim encrypted top secret called the world wide web. Some of our public funded and even privately funded science gets posted and/or made accessible via the WWW, but only accessible to those of us smarter than a 5th grader or Elmo. Some faith-based mindsets can't interpret the obvious, so it's all up to myself.
2009/2010 ~ 3.5e12 m3/year of natural gas, with some of those NG wells offering <9% helium. Do the math.
So, how much mass is Earth losing per second?
~ BG
Michael Moroney - 21 Feb 2009 02:43 GMT >> >On Feb 19, 2:36 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> >> You didn't answer the question.
>Silly boy. I have a number of derogatory names for naysay folks of >denial like yourself. I know you do, but I still find it interesting that you refuse to answer the question.
>> >At the natural gas wellheads, a cryogenic process could extract and >> >salvage the bulk of he, he3 and he4. H2 can be safely passed along >> >and consumed with the methane. >> >> No such thing as He2.
>Word games, you know exactly what I meant. Yes, it means that you're ignorant. Also I find it interesting that you changed your own quoted reply to read simply "he, he3 and he4", rather than "he2, he3 and he4", foolishly thinking that removing the evidence of your ignorance would be that easy.
>> You still haven't given us any reason why anyone should worry about helium >> loss. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >> Still no source (or even orifice identification) for this claim, I see.
>It's a Muslim encrypted top secret called the world wide web. Some of >our public funded and even privately funded science gets posted and/or >made accessible via the WWW, but only accessible to those of us >smarter than a 5th grader or Elmo. Some faith-based mindsets can't >interpret the obvious, so it's all up to myself. You mean the same world wide web that told me that mass loss in offgassing to space was 10% the mass gained from space dust/meteroids?
>2009/2010 ~ 3.5e12 m3/year of natural gas, with some of those NG wells >offering <9% helium. Do the math. Knowing that there may be a single well or three that contains 9% helium doesn't help us make any such calculatations, since we don't know the helium content of all the other wells.
And once again, why does it matter?
>So, how much mass is Earth losing per second? The earth gains mass somewhere between 40,000,000 and 500,000,000 kg/yr, according to that evil top secret web.
BradGuth - 22 Feb 2009 19:29 GMT > >> >On Feb 19, 2:36 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > The earth gains mass somewhere between 40,000,000 and 500,000,000 kg/yr, > according to that evil top secret web. You can also find all sorts of certified disinformation and fancy infomercial hype that's government published on the WWW. In fact, the vast majority of what the WWW contains and/or offers links to is either false, bogus or entirely subjective data to start with.
How long does it take a surface release of raw helium to reach 100 km?
I'll have to edit/revise my topic into LeapFrog format, and essentially give this another lose cannon shot in the dark, so to speak.
~ BG
Saul Levy - 15 Mar 2009 18:56 GMT I sure wish you'd tell PIGGY about this, GOOFBALL! lmfjao!
HE BELIEVES ALL THAT sh.t!
Your posts are on the Web too. Full of FALSE, BOGUS and ENTIRE SUBJECTIVE sh.t!
You and PIGGY really should get married! lmfjao!
Saul Levy
>You can also find all sorts of certified disinformation and fancy >infomercial hype that's government published on the WWW. In fact, the >vast majority of what the WWW contains and/or offers links to is >either false, bogus or entirely subjective data to start with. > > ~ BG BradGuth - 14 Mar 2009 01:23 GMT > >> >On Feb 19, 2:36 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > The earth gains mass somewhere between 40,000,000 and 500,000,000 kg/yr, > according to that evil top secret web. You notice whatever makes you and other Zionist Nazis of your kind happy campers, just like you'd noticed all of those Muslim WMD.
Earth loses several million tonnes per year, mostly of hydrogen and helium.
What keeps our helium from being blown away by the solar wind?
How much if any of our released helium never leaves us for good?
~ BG
Saul Levy - 14 Mar 2009 02:43 GMT Who gives a FLYING RAT'S f.cking a.s, GOOFBALL! lmfjao!
Only an INSANE IDIOT like YOU!
Saul Levy
>You notice whatever makes you and other Zionist Nazis of your kind >happy campers, just like you'd noticed all of those Muslim WMD. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > ~ BG BradGuth - 14 Mar 2009 03:05 GMT > > >> >On Feb 19, 2:36 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > >> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > > ~ BG Darn, I'd forgotten to mention the 1.7 million tonnes of sodium that our Selene/moon has to keep replenishing, and perhaps its even having to lose a good portion of that much sodium per year.
Seems Earth and Selene each need more meteor influx and asteroid impacts, in order to make up for the ongoing loss in mass.
~ BG
marika - 30 Apr 2009 02:50 GMT >Darn, I'd forgotten to mention the 1.7 million tonnes of sodium that >our Selene/moon has to keep replenishing, and perhaps its even having >to lose a good portion of that much sodium per year.
>Seems Earth and Selene each need more meteor influx and asteroid >impacts, in order to make up for the ongoing loss in mass. try gatorade
mk5000
:"How do you like me now, Sandman! "--Queen Margo, Meet the Spartans BradGuth - 30 Apr 2009 03:15 GMT > >Darn, I'd forgotten to mention the 1.7 million tonnes of sodium that > >our Selene/moon has to keep replenishing, and perhaps its even having [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > :"How do you like me now, Sandman! "--Queen Margo, Meet the Spartans alt.usenet.legends.lester-mosley ?
marika - 01 May 2009 03:58 GMT On Apr 29, 6:50 pm, "marika" <marika5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > :"How do you like me now, Sandman! "--Queen Margo, Meet the Spartans
>alt.usenet.legends.lester-mosley ? I've been mocking your lack of white space for years, from there, and you just NOW noticed?
apart from language, arts, fashion, pop culture, politics and stuff like that, this group is also fascinated with all sorts of sciency stuff. If that's what your question implied
mk5000
Lenny Cole: I thought you lot drink vodka. Uri: Whisky is the new vodka. Lenny Cole: I thought you'd join me. Uri: I don't drink. -rocknrolla
BradGuth - 01 May 2009 05:48 GMT > On Apr 29, 6:50 pm, "marika" <marika5...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Lenny Cole: I thought you'd join me. > Uri: I don't drink. -rocknrolla alt.usenet.legends.lester-mosley, Just be honest enough to admit that you and others of your kind don't care how much mass Earth and our moon are losing. Now, was that so hard?
~ BG
Saul Levy - 13 Mar 2009 12:31 GMT When ANYTHING is up to YOU, GOOFBALL, we are IN BIG TROUBLE! lmfjao!
Everyone KNOWS you're INSANE so even that would mean no harm occurs!
Your BORG friends on VENUS are calling you!
Saul Levy
>Silly boy. I have a number of derogatory names for naysay folks of >denial like yourself. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > ~ BG Uncle Al - 16 Feb 2009 18:44 GMT > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere > contains [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > helium for planets (including a few exoplanets) other than Earth. > http://vega.lpl.arizona.edu/~gilda/extrass.html [snip crap]
Hey stooopid - second by second the Earth sweeps up more non-volatile debris mass than it loses light gas mass.
 Signature Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
BradGuth - 16 Feb 2009 19:41 GMT > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere > contains [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet” Earth receives as little as 1 kg/sec, but otherwise perhaps as much as 2 to 3 kg of space dust and assorted meteorites per second. However, at the same time we're most likely losing at least 300 kg/s of our hydrogen and helium.
There's simply no contest, whereas Earth has been losing mass, and by some basic accounting it is easily worth as much as losing a tonne/sec if you'd care to honestly include the human derived forms of hydrogen and helium released, and/or that which is mostly wasted from all of our fossil energy and many artificial and industrial forms of having created such gasses.
Our badly failing geomagnetic field is not exactly helping, and yet there is still no official accounting of Earth’s mass reduction that we can objectively agree upon, which leads to our using swags and deductive speculations because so much of our basic public funded science is either need-to-know, taboo/nondisclosure rated and/or having been overlooked, obfuscated, or simply lost along the way.
Science obfuscation = lying by omission.
Physics obfuscation = worse than lying by omission.
The public accessible science pertaining to our Selene/moon and the planet Venus are each loaded with mainstream obfuscation.
On the other hand, what government and of it’s many agencies doesn’t obfuscate?
Clearly the Pope on multiple occasions has obfuscated his holy butt off, and Zionist Jews just can’t seem to keep from obfuscating as long as it’s only taking advantage of others.
The public funded Stanford executed GP-B experiment was obfuscation on steroids.
Is there some kind of public mainstream policy or tradition of systematic obfuscation? (apparently there is if our Ponzi Madoff approved SEC and more than half our banking and mortgage infrastructure is any example)
What I’d like to know is exactly (+/-10%) how much tonnage per second or per year our planet is typically losing, in much the same way that exoplanets of viable habitats have been recently identified by their loss of such elements. An average vertical escape velocity or migration or propagation of 4 to 5 m/s seems likely, but there's still no objective science to go by, other than an artificial release of H2 that’s clocked at roughly 16 m/s. So, as far as I can tell there’s no actual need of conditional physics or hocus-pocus science obfuscation, but then I certainly could be wrong.
~ BG
Saul Levy - 16 Feb 2009 20:22 GMT Now it's clear, BradBoi, your posts are OBFUSCATIONS! lmfjao!
You can't shed any light on gas losses, only a REAL scientist can even attempt that task.
And you don't know any scientists, do you?
Saul Levy
>Earth receives as little as 1 kg/sec, but otherwise perhaps as much as >2 to 3 kg of space dust and assorted meteorites per second. However, [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > ~ BG namekuseijin - 16 Feb 2009 21:44 GMT You're too much of an alarmist. Earth is frigging immense. Not even if man was to explode all existant nukes on it would have much effect other than killing us off and saving other species from our monkey sh.t-throwing. Not much of a dent on Earth's surface, though.
If Earth loses matter, there's nothing we can do, only prepare our future to abandon ship eventually. Live with it as the rest of mankind has been doing for the past few millenia.
BradGuth - 16 Feb 2009 23:59 GMT > You're too much of an alarmist. Earth is frigging immense. Not even if > man was to explode all existant nukes on it would have much effect other [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > future to abandon ship eventually. Live with it as the rest of mankind > has been doing for the past few millenia. Doing nothing is not an option, unless you're a Zionist Nazi republican Mafia cabal, then by all means continue to do nothing that'll benefit humanity or that of our badly failing environment. Failing to understand out best science is also not an option, because what's next?
~ BG
namekuseijin - 17 Feb 2009 18:22 GMT >> If Earth loses matter, there's nothing we can do, only prepare our >> future to abandon ship eventually. Live with it as the rest of mankind >> has been doing for the past few millenia. > > Doing nothing is not an option I said "prepare our future to abandon ship". It takes time, though, and if you think Earth is doomed tomorrow, then there's nothing we can do, yes.
What would you do?
BradGuth - 17 Feb 2009 18:33 GMT > >> If Earth loses matter, there's nothing we can do, only prepare our > >> future to abandon ship eventually. Live with it as the rest of mankind [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > What would you do? I'd hire the likes of William Mook, as long as sufficiently medicated for his bipolar disorder, but otherwise I'd start creating underground and undersea habitats.
The only viable off-world option seems to be the robust planet Venus, however robotics could make our Selene/moon worthy, along with its 256e6 tonne LSE-CM/ISS.
The planet Venus offers unlimited local energy that's 100% renewable as is (nothing of hydrocarbons or otherwise combustible needed), a thick protective atmosphere that's 65+kg/m3 buoyant and rather nicely shields your frail DNA against cosmic and solar radiation, hundreds of teratonnes of easily accessible water and otherwise by far the easiest access to planetary minerals, and everything weighs roughly 10% less. Perhaps only to a smart ET, the planet Venus is representing the ultimate mother load of Eden on steroids.
On Feb 13, 5:09 pm, namekuseijin <namekuseijin.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't know if I recommend for you to read a physics book (and even try > it out yourself) or for you to go see a mental doctor. Instead of your conditional laws of physics and science obfuscation, I stick with using the exact same deductive observationology, regular physics and best available science for interpreting Venus as per the same as that of our terrestrial physics and science, whereas you folks tend to use faith-based and/or politically correct conditional physics and as much hocus-pocus infomercials packed with all sorts of eye- candy and hype, along with your obfuscation laced science to boot, that you and others of our mainstream can manage to get away with.
~ BG
Saul Levy - 17 Feb 2009 20:21 GMT Your observationology is REALLY f.cked UP, BradBoi! lmfjao!
Especially about Venus.
Saul Levy
>Instead of your conditional laws of physics and science obfuscation, I >stick with using the exact same deductive observationology, regular [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > ~ BG namekuseijin - 17 Feb 2009 21:59 GMT > The planet Venus offers unlimited local energy that's 100% renewable > as is (nothing of hydrocarbons or otherwise combustible needed), a > thick protective atmosphere that's 65+kg/m3 buoyant and rather nicely > shields your frail DNA against cosmic and solar radiation, My skin may be shielded away from radiation, only to be melted away under hot carbon dioxide!
> hundreds of > teratonnes of easily accessible water and otherwise by far the easiest > access to planetary minerals, and everything weighs roughly 10% less. > Perhaps only to a smart ET, the planet Venus is representing the > ultimate mother load of Eden on steroids. Too hot to be Eden. OTOH, Africa too was too hot for Eden, though not nearly as much. My view of Eden is that a temperate forest full with plenty of trees to provide fruits and the all too-important shadows, as well as rivers nearby for hygiene and recreational needs.
BradGuth - 18 Feb 2009 07:19 GMT > > The planet Venus offers unlimited local energy that's 100% renewable > > as is (nothing of hydrocarbons or otherwise combustible needed), a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > My skin may be shielded away from radiation, only to be melted away > under hot carbon dioxide! Your dumbfounded intentions of doing Venus in the nude is noted.
> > hundreds of > > teratonnes of easily accessible water and otherwise by far the easiest [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > plenty of trees to provide fruits and the all too-important shadows, > as well as rivers nearby for hygiene and recreational needs. You must be Muslim, obfuscating whatever it takes and excluding applied physics and otherwise banishing proven technology.
Your terrestrial limited idea of Eden wouldn't impress a 5th grade ET.
~ BG
namekuseijin - 20 Feb 2009 03:19 GMT > > My skin may be shielded away from radiation, only to be melted away > > under hot carbon dioxide! [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You must be Muslim, obfuscating whatever it takes and excluding > applied physics and otherwise banishing proven technology. No.
> Your terrestrial limited idea of Eden wouldn't impress a 5th grade ET. I think it's better than living in an astronaut's suit all day long or deep below the ground to protect against a ravaging atmosphere.
Saul Levy - 20 Feb 2009 06:00 GMT Be glad that BradBoi didn't call you a ZIONIST/NAZI! lmfjao!
Been there, done that, have the bubble gum card!
Saul Levy
>> > My skin may be shielded away from radiation, only to be melted away >> > under hot carbon dioxide! [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >I think it's better than living in an astronaut's suit all day long or >deep below the ground to protect against a ravaging atmosphere. BradGuth - 25 Feb 2009 06:19 GMT > > > My skin may be shielded away from radiation, only to be melted away > > > under hot carbon dioxide! [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I think it's better than living in an astronaut's suit all day long or > deep below the ground to protect against a ravaging atmosphere. There's no law or policy that'll make or force you to use the laws of physics or technology. Doing Mars in the buff isn't advisable, any more so than our moon or Venus.
Perhaps you shouldn't consider ever leaving Earth.
~ BG
BradGuth - 18 Feb 2009 07:24 GMT > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere > contains [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet” Maxwell Boltzmann http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/energy/Companion/E07.4.pdf.xpdf “Hydrogen and helium have a mean speed that is a significant fraction of the escape speed. For this reason, there is almost no hydrogen or helium in Earth’s present atmosphere.”
As our geomagnetic field fades away at -0.05%/year (possibly signaling another magnetic pole reversal) and subsequently our protective magnetosphere fails us, the SAA contour expands and deepens, as the average 400 km/s solar wind (halo CME 600<1600 km/s) reaches ever deeper into the upper atmosphere, whereas subsequently our natural and artificially introduced hydrogen and helium gets superheated and easily accelerated above 11 km/s.
Earth is simply not gaining sufficient mass to offset the escapement of our hydrogen and helium. In other words, there is not a volumetric balance of mass taking place.
~ BG
Saul Levy - 18 Feb 2009 14:03 GMT You keep RANTING about mass loss, but what real effect will it have, BradBoi? lmfjao!
DAMN LITTLE!
The Earth is GAINING MASS anyway! 10^12 (A TRILLION) meteors enter the atmosphere EVERY DAY!
Saul Levy
>Earth is simply not gaining sufficient mass to offset the escapement >of our hydrogen and helium. In other words, there is not a volumetric >balance of mass taking place. > > ~ BG BradGuth - 25 Feb 2009 06:09 GMT Here’s a somewhat better researched and context improved version.
For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere contains Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%), He = .1786 kg/m3 Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%), H2 = .0899 kg/m3
We seem to know more about the perpetual loss/sec of hydrogen and helium for other planets (including a few exoplanets) other than Earth. http://vega.lpl.arizona.edu/~gilda/extrass.html
At 0.55 ppmv, in order that our atmosphere sustain that average H2 saturation, at any given moment there’s 25e6 kg of hydrogen getting made available and unavoidably migrating upwards and away from Earth’s surface in order to create and sustain the average 0.55 ppmv. The question is, at what average vertical escapement velocity or volumetric/sec exit away from Earth?
Is our 0.55 ppmv of hydrogen escapement worth merely 25e6 kg per day = 9.125e6 tonnes/yr, or is it as great as 25e6 kg per hour = 219e6 tonnes/year?
If the H2 loss isn’t impressive enough, now we need to focus on our atmospheric helium that’s nearly ten fold greater by volume.
Like the GP-B fiasco, at best our EUVE (Extreme Ultra Violet Explorer) could have been representing a false positive, all be its observationology given a nifty artificial eye-candy hue of yellow and reddish colorized EUV image of Earth’s surrounding cloud of helium and hydrogen. However, the solar wind caused planetary exhaust trail of H2 and He is what needs to be more closely looked at and objectively quantified, as most easily accomplished from our the surface of our Selene/moon or best from it's L1 that oddly we still do not have to work with.
Existing EUV, UV and IR imaging: http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect20/A3.html
The badly failing magnetosphere has been capable of restraining or mildly sequestering some of Earth's hydrogen and helium by way of having been protecting our upper most atmosphere, but unfortunately for the past 2000 years this too has been going away (most recently at -.05%/year or even <–120 nT/yr), is perhaps as good of reason why that lofty cloud of hydrogen and helium isn't sticking around, and why the lethal SAA contour has been exponentially growing and nearing the surface. On the other hand, would anyone care to imagine what could happen if such terrestrial hydrogen and helium didn’t leak away? http://io9.com/395272/is-earths-magnetic-field-failing-us http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/category/geomagnetism/
Of course our perpetual naysayers and the usual evidence excluding gauntlet of our resident Usenet/newsgroup wizards and brown-nosed clowns of perpetual obfuscation and denial are not paying serious attention, or allowing any context of consideration as to the worth or consequences of our badly failing geomagnetic force and of its subsequent fading magnetosphere. It’s as though our best physics and/ or objective science doesn’t hardly matter, unless it’s strictly interpreted by those in charge in order to sustain their mainstream status quo. In other words, for sustaining our mainstream as a viable cabal of happy campers, apparently our best public funded science is but worth used toilet paper, and whatever NASA mishaps of botched or failed missions are not to be taken seriously, if at all.
I recall mentioning at least a few thousand times, about our having the Selene L1 platform of science instruments easily established as of 4 decades ago, including a 10x TRACE-II, plus many UV and IR imaging cameras looking at Earth and equally at our Selene/moon that's losing it's sodium and a few other elements at an alarming rate. However, without our having such a nifty perspective it's simply much harder if not nearly impossible to interpret whatever's going on.
btw, the often bogus mindset of "I always had the thoughts that free hydrogen, and helium were lost in space and that Earth's gravity was not strong enough to hold it" isn't what I'd gotten out of the vast bulk of previously posted comments. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite of what we’ve typically heard from most others, insisting that supposedly Earth never loses mass, whereas instead Earth supposedly gains several thousand tonnes per year. However, I was the first in this or any other Usenet/newsgroup to insist that our moon and Earth have each been losing mass, and implying that the modern day human race has in fact been artificially assisting in this natural process.
Perhaps this can also explain as to why ETs would bother going to all the trouble of extracting minerals and raw exotic elements from another planet or moon, such as our dire need of extracting He3 from our Selene/moon, or appreciating that of whomever is taking substances of value away from Venus.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth - 25 Feb 2009 06:12 GMT Earth atmosphere = 5.2 ppm of He (5.2e-6 parts per volume or 0.00052%) that is continually escaping towards space, along with hydrogen, certain freons and perhaps even pulling some methane along for the ride, that’s all helping to create and/or expand those ozone holes along the way. On any given day there’s 26.5e8 m3 of helium made available, as otherwise our atmosphere simply wouldn’t sustain those readings of 5.2 ppm, and at 1 bar that’s worth 472e3 tonnes per any given day.
2009 wellhead natural gas extraction = 3.5e12 m3, <9% (avg 1.5%) of this natural gas volume is the element of helium.
Coal at 4.75e9 m3, crude oil 5.25e9 m3 of production and their subsequent consumption might suggest <1% per volume as helium, but let us say 0.1% on average = 1e7 m3.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium “In 2005, approximately one hundred and sixty million cubic meters of helium were extracted from natural gas or withdrawn from helium reserves”
2008 only 175e6 m3 (31.5e3 tonnes) of helium got commercially extracted from natural gas, of which is not accounting for the ongoing natural flux or terrestrial helium that’s continually leaking away from Earth, and of course most of the hydrogen is a given loss in this process.
LNG (geopressurized deep within Earth) = 450 kg/m3 Natural gas(methane) = 0.72 kg/m3 (@20°C and 1 bar) Extracting 125e12 cf/year (3.5e12 m3/yr) or 2.5e9 tonnes/year He@1.5% of 3.5e12 m3/yr = .0525e12 m3, @.178 kg/m3 = 9.345e6 t/yr
Otherwise helium is continually created and given off as a perfectly natural byproduct via radioactive decay of existing terrestrial elements within rocks and minerals, including within those hydrocarbon packed minerals of coal and oil. It has been suggested the world helium reserves total some odd 30 billion compressed cubic meters, however much is geophysically stored in a highly compressed form with always more getting created by the surrounding natural radioactive decay, and that’s an assessment not even including the recently discovered reserves in India that’s apparently sitting on top of the global mother load cache of thorium and uranium that could suggest we have at least a 300e9 m3 reserve of such Geopressurized helium, indirectly accessible from WHPs of <100+ bar, might suggest the deeper (5+ km) underground volumetric worth along with the more conventional well depths is a worthy reserve of 300e12 m3 at 1 bar (roughly at best a thousand years worth at the current rate plus natural loss that’s being taken, although the next decade of human consumption could revise that estimate down to lasting only another century).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium “In this way an estimated 3000 tonnes of helium are generated per year throughout the lithosphere.” (from what I’m reading of India, I’d personally revise that estimate to 30,000 tonnes/year)
Helium has also been otherwise extensively expedited unto our atmosphere, as derived from our commercial mining those volumes of various minerals including nuclear ore extractions and vast consumptions of coal, oil and by way of a few other commercially accomplished methods contributing <7e6 tonnes He/yr.
At any one time our atmosphere unavoidably contains vast millions of helium tonnes, with the bulk of that hovering near the top, just below the vast bulk of excess hydrogen that’s also leaking away even faster. Each geomagnetic pole reversal brings another era of losing our life essential hydrogen and helium, as forever removed from the atmospheric cycle of sustaining terrestrial life as we know it.
Otherwise our lithosphere outgassing flux (depending on which source of research you’d care to cite) leaks and/or gives up 2e11<2e12 kg/ year (200<2000 million tonnes/year) of complex elements from Earth’s interior, some of which (say at the very least 1% or 2s6<20e6 tonnes unavoidably includes the atmospheric gasses of helium and hydrogen. Radioactive decay of Thorium, Uranium, Radium and Potassium within Earth is what continually creates elements of helium and a few other isotope gasses, including radon. As part of the 64 TW from Earth’s core, Earth has been losing <16e6+MW or 16+ TW via surface and undersea geothermal vents and volcanic activity that’s at least partially sustained by the 2e20 N/s trauma of the tidal radius force it takes for holding onto our Selene/moon.
Earth has roughly 700 some odd active volcanoes as mostly identified above sea level, with some of these fire and brimstone spewing monsters degassing and contributing their physical flux <4e8 kg/sec, a slight portion of which (<4000 kg/s) are gasses. Roughly an average of 64~72 volcanoes erupt each year, 20~24 of which are actively erupting on any given day.
Remote Sensing of Active Volcanoes: Schneider (1999) estimated that 7.1e9 kg of gas is contributed per year.
For example, a seriously explosive volcano might deliver a mass flux of 5e4 kg/sec. However, such a typical volcano is otherwise contributing 50 kg/sec of gaseous elements if taking just 0.1% of those eruption contents into account.
http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/EPS/pdf/2002/5403/54030327.pdf “Satsuma-Iwojima volcano continuously releases magmatic volatiles from the summit of Iwodake, a rhyolitic lava dome. The temperature of fumaroles is high, between 800◦ and 900◦C, and the water-rich composition of volcanic gases has not changed essentially over the past 10 years. Sulfur dioxide flux measured by COSPEC is almost constant with an average of 550 t/d since 1975.” (this was only accounting for the SO2 = 6.4 kg/s, whereas the hydrogen and helium could easily represent another kg/sec.)
India must be setting on the global mother load of thorium and uranium and radium. http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/jun252005/1883.pdf
Large-scale helium escape from earth surface around Bakreswar–Tantloi geothermal area in Birbhum district, West Bengal, and Dumka district, Jharkhand, India http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/apr252002/993.pdf
“Once emission begins, there is a gradual helium build-up in the air till it reaches a maximum, typically between 2000 and 20,000 ppm, at which level it remains steady for a duration ranging from about 5 to 20 min before falling rapidly to normal background.”
This also represents how quickly the outflux of helium and of course hydrogen manage to vertically escape once their having migrated past the surface, with only our failing magnetosphere acting as their final buffer before getting solar wind extracted.
Inter-American Corporation Helium http://www.helium-corp.com/facts/heliumfound.html
Perhaps our global combined natural and artificial release of helium and hydrogen is worth <200e6 tonnes/year. In other words, in spite of the100e3 < 400e3 tonnes of comet, meteor and dust influx/year, Earth has been losing at least 100e6 tonnes/year, whereas of lately much of that lost tonnage has become directly related to human activity that’s responsible for directly and indirectly releasing hydrogen and helium, thereby thinning the upper atmospheric density and allowing more solar and secondary moon emitted energy to reach our polluted lower atmosphere that’s now containing a higher percentage of water. How can this trend not help but to warm Earth?
Unfortunately, we still do not have the Selene/moon L1 platform of science instruments by which to properly quantify the ongoing loss or outgoing flux of helium and hydrogen from Earth. In fact we don’t even have objective science on many terrestrial and moon related factors that our Selene L1 could have easily provided as of 4 decades ago. Therefore we have to make due with our swags and educated guesses as based upon the best available science that’s seldom if ever in agreement.
Of what publicly funded satellite obtained science we have is often kept need-to-know encrypted, and/or having been obfuscated to death in order to suit whatever they think we didn’t need to know about, and thereby keeping us snookered and just dumbfounded enough to think only the most highly paid wizards are capable and/or entitled to interpreting such data. Sorry, I just do not agree with that methodology of our always having to pay for everything multiple times and having to settle for the select and clearly biased interpretations by those having a vested interest in protecting their personal status and/or the future status of others.
At an average or perhaps conservative vertical rise (w/o payload or balloon drag) of 2 m/s, it would only take helium 43,200 seconds or 12 hours for raw helium to reach 86.4 km. That means for each and every atom of helium that emerges from the surface will in as little as one day or at most within another day manage to reach the necessary altitude of becoming affected and/or picked off by the fast (400 km/s) moving solar wind that manages to penetrate our badly failing magnetosphere, giving Earth a comet like trail of hydrogen and helium.
http://moo.pl/~tygrys/balloon/ w/payload it reached altitude of 28.8 km (94550ft) AMSL Using helium, the average ascent rate: 5.5 m/s
The question of the day is; how much of our helium (including He3 and H2) do we intend to ignore and subsequently waste, and to what extent is this contributing to our AGW?
As is, it’s looking as though better than 99.9% of our helium has been going to waste and unavoidably escaping away from the weak gravity and badly diminished magnetosphere of Earth. Within this global warming and resource limited era, is that a good or a bad thing?
Can Earth afford to continually waste and subsequently lose all 300e12 m3 of helium (53.4e9 t) along with an even greater tonnage of hydrogen?
In other words, how much all-inclusive mass can mother Earth afford to lose?
Mother nature may eventually come to our rescue, whereas shortly after oil becomes depleted is also when our deposits of methane and next coal should start to run out and/or become too spendy to locate and extract, whereas much like a near empty tank of LNG or propane, it’ll become a rather sudden decline in global NG and coal synfuel production and thereby termination of affordable natural gas and synfuel fossil energy, as well as the end to those vast underground reservoirs or pocket reserves of helium.
Natural gas and of its extensive pipe distributed infrastructure should eventually and for all the right business and environmental reasons (as so often detailed to death by William Mook) be entirely replaced by green/renewable hydrogen, and otherwise the ongoing thorium and uranium decay process will likely sustain <30,000 helium tonnes/yr, most of which (<99% or 29,000+ tonnes/yr) will likely continue to be wasted and unavoidably vented off into space, because of our having no valid infrastructure of otherwise appropriately dealing with it, not even through nanofilters or molecular sieves that can be systematically regenerated seems a bit odd, in that so many of us are continually dumbfounded past the point of no return. Hopefully by the end of such fossil and geothermal created energy, whereas in spite of ourselves we’ll become nearly 100% thorium reactor based and/ or having He3/fusion making up whatever our moon assisted geothermal and other renewable energy can’t, with India setting the lead example due to their massive reserves of thorium and uranium that’s creating so much of their surplus helium outgassing.
Here’s the geothermal alternative, just like I and Steven Chu said. Plug into a Greener Grid: RE<C and RechargeIT Initiatives Video: Intro to Enhanced Geothermal Systems http://www.google.org/rec.html
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth - 25 Feb 2009 14:23 GMT Once upon a time, Eden (proto Earth) had a robust 100 bar worth of atmosphere to work with, and was obviously losing little of its original hydrogen and helium due to the passive solar wind and because our geomagnetic force and subsequent magnetosphere was at least ten fold stronger, and our sun was at the time even more passive, as not likely delivering more than half the average solar wind.
99 bar worth of atmosphere (5.1e20 kg) is actually quite a bit of bulk mass reduction, especially considering those early arrivals of <1e9 kg/ yr that’s extensively vaporized into becoming atmosphere, water and minerals, along with the terrestrial/natural outgassing of atmospheric elements including raw hydrogen and helium that tend to uncontrollably rise, plus all the recent artificial contributions by way of humanity and our mass consumption of various natural and synthetic hydrocarbons plus having created nearly a million tonnes per year of potentially toxic CFCs, HFCs and HCFCs that should have been replaced by good old CO2, though even CH4 would have always been a better alternative to artificial CFCs and HCFCs, but that kind of common sense would have destroyed those wealthy empires of Union Carbide and DuPont. Seems the general public’s lack of physics and science education has been a perpetual godsend treasure trove of loot for the Rothschilds.
If Earth had been capably holding onto its atmosphere (including its H2 and He), whereas instead of having lost 5.1e20 kg, perhaps like a immature gas giant we’d still be gaining atmospheric mass. Lucky for us that hasn’t been the case, though not to say that a gas giant with a substantial solid core (16+ Me) like Jupiter couldn’t coexist at 1 AU.
As of lately our lower (6 km) half of atmospheric mass has been rather nicely polluted, warming and thereby increasing its density by way of holding more water along with our toxic laced soot, while the upper atmospheric density has been gradually decreasing or thinning by having received a greater percentage of methane topped off by natural and artificial freons and then good old He and H2 that Earth’s gravity and weak magnetosphere simply can not forever hold onto.
Earth currently receives an average of as little as 1 kg/sec, but otherwise perhaps at times as much as 10 kg/sec of space dust and assorted meteorites per second. However, my recent interpretation is that at the same time along with our assistance we're most likely losing at least 300 kg/s (9.5e6 tonnes/year) of our hydrogen and helium.
In running the numbers of what we annually extract and attempt to utilize of our terrestrial gasses, there's simply no viable contest, whereas Earth has been losing mass, and by some basic accounting it is easily worth losing a tonne/sec if you'd care to honestly include the natural and human derived forms of hydrogen and helium released, plus that which is mostly wasted from all of our fossil energy and many artificial and industrial forms of having created and subsequently released such lofty gasses. Perhaps that the best reason why we do not have the whole Earth coverage from Selene L1.
Our badly failing geomagnetic field is not exactly helping, and yet there is still no official accounting of Earth’s mass reduction that we can objectively agree upon, which leads to our using swags and deductive speculations because so much of our basic public funded science is either need-to-know encrypted, taboo/nondisclosure rated and/or having been systematically overlooked, obfuscated, or simply lost along the way because otherwise it makes ‘Big Energy’ look even worse than it is.
Science obfuscation = lying by omission.
Physics obfuscation = worse than lying by omission.
The public accessible science pertaining to our Selene/moon and the planet Venus are each examples loaded with such mainstream obfuscation.
On the other hand, what doesn’t our disingenuous government and of it’s many faith-based agencies that in perpetual denial obfuscate in order to protect thy public funded job security, thy nifty benefits and their golden egg retirement at public expense?
Clearly the Pope on multiple occasions throughout history has obfuscated his holy butt off, and Zionist just can’t seem to keep from obfuscating as long as it’s only taking advantage of others or false flag blaming of others. On the other hand, you can believe it was always those physics and science smart Atheists as having supposedly gotten us safely to/from our moon, and otherwise only these smart Atheists and Muslims as having helped Hitler, if that’s what makes you a happy camper.
The public funded and Stanford executed GP-B experiment was every bit as good as any obfuscation on steroids, and their perpetual denial of being in denial is every bit as disingenuous.
Is there some kind of public mainstream policy or tradition of systematic obfuscation? (apparently there is, if our SEC approved Ponzi Madoff and more than half our banking and mortgage infrastructure is any example)
Outside of pretending at being politically correct and always having to be faith-based passive or neutral, what I’d like to know for the pure sake of knowing is exactly (+/-10%) how much tonnage per second or per year our planet is typically losing, in much the same way that exoplanets of viable habitats for life have been recently identified by their loss of such EUV detected elements as hydrogen and helium. In the case of Earth, an average vertical escape velocity of helium migration or vertical propagation of merely 2 to 4 m/s seems likely, except there’s much the same devoid of objective data as raw ice coexisting in 1 AU space, with still no objective science on behalf of our H2 or He escapement to go by. As far as I can tell, there’s no actual political or faith-based need of their mainstream imposing conditional physics or the hocus-pocus infowar tactics of science obfuscation, but then I certainly could be wrong.
~ BG
BradGuth - 25 Feb 2009 21:56 GMT The question imposed by this topic, about mass leaving Earth isn’t hardly in question, so much as is the given amount of mass loss per second can be argued fairly extensively, especially since we still have not established the Selene/moon L1 in behalf of Earth, solar and moon observations that could have told us nearly everything we needed to know as of 4 decades ago.
Maxwell Boltzmann http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/energy/Companion/E07.4.pdf.xpdf “Hydrogen and helium have a mean speed that is a significant fraction of the escape speed. For this reason, there is almost no hydrogen or helium in Earth’s present atmosphere.”
As our geomagnetic field proceeds to fade away at -.05%/year (signaling yet another magnetic pole reversal) and subsequently our protective magnetosphere fails us for another extended period of time, allowing the SAA contour to expand and deepen, as the average 400 km/s solar wind (halo CMEs of 600<1600 km/s) reaches ever deeper into the upper atmosphere, whereas subsequently our natural and artificially introduced volumes of hydrogen and helium gets solar and even somewhat via Selene/moon superheated and easily accelerated above 11.2 km/s (enough to easily escape Earth).
As a direct result, Earth is simply not gaining a sufficient influx of mass to offset the ongoing and accelerated escapement of our natural and artificial hydrogen and helium. In other words, there is simply not a volumetric balance of sufficient oncoming mass taking place, and at the least our upper 50% mass of atmosphere is getting thinned out and/or displaced by the vertical supply of helium and hydrogen, and perhaps how could this not allow more solar and secondary Selene/moon radiated energy in?
The current rate of Earth’s surface and ocean floor outgassing of mineral saturated fluids and otherwise natural gas saturated matter from deep geothermal vents and volcanoes is likely in the realm of contributing at least 1e12 kg/year, and perhaps roughly 10% of that being in the form of direct atmospheric worthy gasses (including raw hydrogen and helium).
If this were introducing 1e12 kg/yr or 1000 megatonnes/year (<1e10 kg/ yr of He and H2) of such gasses from within Earth isn’t bad enough, there’s an influx of mostly vaporized meteorites worthy of contributing another 1e8 to 5e8 kg/yr, from which hydrogen and helium (including He3) is always a part of. Factor in the electrostatic/ lightning created hydrogen if you’d care to add a little more insult to injury.
Now add the human contributed/expedited volumetric tonnage of helium that’s typically 1<9% of our natural gas. In India they have recently quantified some of their natural geothermal venting areas as giving off <2% helium per volume of what’s surface escaping along with many other gasses (including radon), meaning there’s loads of nearby thorium, uranium and radium below, along with a substantial natural gas reserve of perhaps <10% helium purity. In other words, India can’t possibly lose, with far cheaper and more abundant energy that’s as close to renewable as you’re going to get.
If clean energy derived via thorium is quite good enough, here’s the geothermal alternative, just like I and Steven Chu said. (just how many GW would you like?)
“Plug into a Greener Grid: RE<C and RechargeIT Initiatives” Video: Intro to Enhanced Geothermal Systems http://www.google.org/rec.html
Even the nearly all electric 18<24 wheeler isn’t outside of what clean/ renewable energy can deliver, within as little as 6 hours of recharging or battery pack exchange that’s capable of providing <12 hrs of serious truck long hauling, and better yet if the hybrid ICE option could run on h2o2+synfuel or replaced by an h2o2 fuel cell kind of super-battery. In which case little if any hydrogen gets released, and the whole birth-to-grave energy process contributes zero NOx as well as zero helium.
~ BG
Saul Levy - 27 Feb 2009 21:01 GMT The basic answer is: SO WHAT, BradBoi? lmfjao!
You are only worried about loss of hydrogen and helium, the most abundant elements in the Universe? They've been leaking away for the entire 4.5 BILLION YEAR history of the Earth. Seems we haven't run out yet! The Earth's gravity hasn't changed all that much during that entire period, has it? Even if the atmospheric pressure used to be much higher, that would only cause a greater amount to leak away, wouldn't it?
Our KNOWN natural gas deposits are at an ALL-TIME HIGH, aren't they? New discoveries of oil and gas occur every year. We have tremendous reserves of both, don't we? The Bakkan Fields are HUMONGOUS and have hardly been touched yet. There are other such huge fields that are now known. Roughly one per year are still being discovered!
As a number of us have told you many times already: the Earth is GAINING mass EVERY DAY from the ONE TRILLION METEOROIDS entering the Earth's atmosphere! The losses you worry about are more than made up by this mass increase. It doesn't matter whether in a volumetric sense or by mass. The volcanic contributions are even MORE HUMONGOUS! The Earth is VERY geologically active and will remain so for a VERY long time to come.
So why are you so worried about a possible thining of the upper atmosphere? The upper atmosphere isn't breathable NOW, is it? Is the lower atmosphere getting thinner too? You seem to be worried about something which won't affect life on Earth for a VERY LONG TIME, IF EVER! There is plenty of lower atmosphere to protect life from any harmful solar or cosmic rays.
What humans add to our atmosphere compared to nature is NOTHING! It just doesn't make any kind of a dent!
Isn't this topic just more DOOM AND GLOOM FOREVER! WITHOUT ANY REAL SUBSTANCE? I think that's exactly what it is!
Quit CRYING WOLF already. You haven't shown us any harm from any of this. It's just another of your FIXATIONS!
Battery technology is still way off what's needed to be successful. The batteries in the Chevy Volt aren't recyclable at all, have to be replaced every 3 years or so and COST PLENTY! The battery costs alone will prevent the Volt from ever paying back the EXCESSIVE up-front costs! Newer battery technology is STILL UNPROVEN! Note that GM will LOSE money on every Volt they sell! Are we going to have to make that up too? Another bailout? BULLSHIT on BAILOUTS!
Meanwhile, Chu is a WACKO GLOBAL WARMING NUTJOB who happens to be a scientist. He's toeing the ObaMAO line to the HILT. Eventually this will get him into BIG TROUBLE when GW turns out to be a GIANT FRAUD! It is and that knowledge is growing! Al Gore and friends will be shown to be nothing more than the MONEY GRUBBING FRAUDS we already know they are!
Saul Levy
>The question imposed by this topic, about mass leaving Earth isnt >hardly in question, so much as is the given amount of mass loss per [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > > ~ BG BradGuth - 26 Feb 2009 02:52 GMT The question that I’ve imposed by this topic, about mass leaving Earth isn’t hardly in question, so much as is the given amount of mass loss per second can be argued fairly extensively, especially since we still have not established the Selene/moon L1 in behalf of Earth, solar and moon observations that could have told us nearly everything we needed to know as of 4 decades ago.
Maxwell Boltzmann http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/energy/Companion/E07.4.pdf.xpdf “Hydrogen and helium have a mean speed that is a significant fraction of the escape speed. For this reason, there is almost no hydrogen or helium in Earth’s present atmosphere.”
As our geomagnetic field proceeds to fade away at -.05%/year (signaling yet another magnetic pole reversal) and subsequently our protective magnetosphere fails us for another extended period of time, allowing the SAA contour to expand and deepen, as the average 400 km/s solar wind (halo CMEs of 600<1600 km/s) reaches ever deeper into the upper atmosphere, whereas subsequently our natural and artificially introduced volumes of hydrogen and helium gets solar and even somewhat via Selene/moon superheated and easily accelerated above 11.2 km/s (enough to easily escape Earth).
As a direct result, Earth is simply not gaining a sufficient influx of mass to offset the ongoing and accelerated escapement of our natural and artificial hydrogen and helium. In other words, there is simply not a volumetric balance of sufficient oncoming mass taking place, and at the least our upper 50% mass of atmosphere is getting thinned out and/or displaced by the vertical supply of helium and hydrogen, and perhaps how could this not allow more solar and secondary Selene/moon radiated energy in?
The current rate of Earth’s surface and ocean floor outgassing of mineral saturated fluids and otherwise natural gas saturated matter from deep geothermal vents and volcanoes is likely in the realm of contributing at least 1e12 kg/year, and perhaps roughly 10% of that being in the form of direct atmospheric worthy gasses (including raw hydrogen and helium).
If this were introducing 1e12 kg/yr or 1000 megatonnes/year (<1e10 kg/ yr of He and H2) of such gasses from within Earth isn’t bad enough, there’s an influx of mostly vaporized meteorites worthy of contributing another 1e8 to 5e8 kg/yr, from which hydrogen and helium (including He3) is always a part of. Factor in the electrostatic/ lightning created hydrogen if you’d care to add a little more insult to injury.
Now add the human contributed/expedited volumetric tonnage of helium that’s typically 1<9% of our natural gas. In India they have recently quantified some of their natural geothermal venting areas as giving off <2% helium per volume of what’s surface escaping along with many other gasses (including radon), meaning there’s loads of nearby thorium, uranium and radium below, along with a substantial natural gas reserve of perhaps <10% helium purity. In other words, India can’t possibly lose, with far cheaper and more abundant energy that’s as close to renewable as you’re going to get.
If clean energy derived via renewable alternatives and thorium isn’t quite good enough to suit your fancy, here’s the geothermal alternative, just like I and Steven Chu said. (how many hundred GW would you like?)
“Plug into a Greener Grid: RE<C and RechargeIT Initiatives” Video: Intro to Enhanced Geothermal Systems http://www.google.org/rec.html
Even the nearly all electric 18<24 wheeler isn’t outside of what clean/ renewable energy can deliver, within as little as 6 hours of 3 phase recharging or battery pack exchange that’s capable of providing <12 hrs of serious truck long hauling, and better yet if the hybrid ICE option could run on h2o2+synfuel or replaced by an h2o2 fuel cell kind of super-battery. In which case little if any hydrogen gets released, and the whole birth-to-grave energy process contributes zero NOx as well as zero helium.
~ BG
Saul Levy - 26 Feb 2009 12:36 GMT I'd be careful siding with the likes of Chu, BradBoi! lmfjao! You realize that NUCLEAR POWER is the cleanest source, don't you?
He is going to go DOWN IN FLAMES!
ObaMAO is talking about RAISING ENERGY COSTS by $1.2 TRILLION! EVERYONE WILL SUFFER BECAUSE OF THAT ALONE!
Yet the SPENDING continues unabated: $20 BILLION here, $10 BILLION there, etc. $837 BILLION too. $1.75 TRILLION DEFICIT ALONE!!!!!!!!!!
IMPEACH OBAMA NOW! DESTROY THE DEMORATIC PARTY! They continue to SELL THE U.S. OUT!
f.ck THESE SOCIALIST SCUM OF THE EARTH!
Saul Levy
>If clean energy derived via renewable alternatives and thorium isnt >quite good enough to suit your fancy, heres the geothermal [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > ~ BG Saul Levy - 17 Mar 2009 00:38 GMT Same old GOOFBALL sh.t yet again! lmfjao!
BETTER RESEARCHED? Like your comment that the Sun is headed to BOTH Sirius and 61 Cygni AT THE SAME TIME?
What a VILLAGE IDIOT you are, BradBoi! lmfjao!
It's hard to be more WACKO than a REAL WACKO!
Saul Levy
>Heres a somewhat better researched and context improved version. > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >If the H2 loss isnt impressive enough, now we need to focus on our >atmospheric helium thats nearly ten fold greater by volume.
>~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / Guth Usenet [I deleted the rest of your RANT, unread as usual! Hope you don't mind!]
BradGuth - 04 Mar 2009 13:56 GMT Here’s a somewhat better researched and context improved version.
For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere contains Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%), He = .1786 kg/m3 Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%), H2 = .0899 kg/m3
We seem to know more about the perpetual loss of hydrogen and helium for the likes of other planets (including a few exoplanets) other than Earth. http://vega.lpl.arizona.edu/~gilda/extrass.html
At 0.55 ppmv, in order that our atmosphere sustain that average H2 saturation, at any given moment there’s a natural 25e6 kg flow of hydrogen getting made available and unavoidably migrating upwards and away from Earth’s surface in order to create and sustain the average 0.55 ppmv. The question is, at what average vertical escapement velocity or volumetric/sec exit away from Earth?
The question is, is our 0.55 ppmv of hydrogen escapement worth merely 25e6 kg per day = 9.125e6 tonnes/yr, or is it as great as 25e6 kg per hour = 219e6 tonnes/year?
If the H2 loss isn’t impressive enough, now we need to focus on our atmospheric helium that’s nearly ten fold greater by volume.
Like the GP-B fiasco, at best our EUVE (Extreme Ultra Violet Explorer) could have been representing a false positive, all be its observationology given a nifty artificial eye-candy hue of yellow and reddish colorized EUV image of Earth’s surrounding cloud of helium and hydrogen. However, the solar wind caused planetary exhaust trail of H2 and He is what needs to be more closely looked at and objectively quantified, as most easily accomplished from our the surface of our Selene/moon or best from it's L1 that oddly we still do not have to work with.
Existing EUV, UV and IR imaging: http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect20/A3.html
The badly failing magnetosphere has been capable of restraining or mildly sequestering some of Earth's hydrogen and helium by way of having been protecting our upper most atmosphere, but unfortunately for the past 2000 years this too has been going away (most recently at -.05%/year or even <–120 nT/yr), is perhaps as good of reason why that lofty cloud of hydrogen and helium isn't sticking around, and why the lethal SAA contour has been exponentially growing and nearing the surface. On the other hand, would anyone care to imagine what could happen if such terrestrial hydrogen and helium didn’t leak away? http://io9.com/395272/is-earths-magnetic-field-failing-us http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/category/geomagnetism/
Of course our perpetual naysayers and the usual evidence excluding gauntlet of our resident Usenet/newsgroup wizards and brown-nosed clowns of perpetual obfuscation and denial are not paying serious attention, or allowing any context of consideration as to the worth or consequences of our badly failing geomagnetic force and of its subsequent fading magnetosphere. It’s as though our best physics and/ or objective science doesn’t hardly matter, unless it’s strictly interpreted by those in charge in order to sustain their mainstream status quo. In other words, for sustaining our mainstream as a viable cabal of happy campers, apparently our best public funded science is but worth used toilet paper, and whatever NASA mishaps of botched or failed missions are not to be taken seriously, if at all.
I recall mentioning at least a few thousand times, about our having the Selene L1 platform of science instruments easily established as of 4 decades ago, including a 10x TRACE-II, plus many UV and IR imaging cameras looking at the whole sphere of Earth and equally at our Selene/ moon that's losing it's sodium and a few other elements at an alarming rate. However, without our having such a nifty perspective it's simply much harder if not nearly impossible to interpret whatever's going on.
Btw, the often bogus mindset of "I always had the thoughts that free hydrogen, and helium were lost in space and that Earth's gravity was not strong enough to hold it" isn't what I'd gotten out of the vast bulk of the previously posted comments. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite of what we’ve typically heard from most others, insisting that supposedly Earth never loses mass, whereas instead Earth supposedly gains several thousand tonnes per year. However, I was clearly the first contributor in this or any other Usenet/newsgroup to insist that our moon and Earth have each been losing a great deal of mass, and implying that the modern day human race has in fact been artificially assisting in this natural process.
Perhaps this can also explain as to why ETs would bother going to all the trouble of extracting minerals and raw exotic elements from another planet or moon, such as our dire need of extracting He3 from our Selene/moon, or appreciating as to that of whomever is taking substances of value away from Venus.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth - 04 Mar 2009 14:23 GMT Once upon a time, Eden (proto Earth) had itself a fairly robust 100 bar worth of atmosphere to work with, and was obviously losing little of its original hydrogen and helium due to the passive solar wind and because our geomagnetic force and subsequent magnetosphere was at least ten fold stronger, and our sun at that time was even more passive, as not likely delivering more than half or even a quarter the average solar wind.
A loss of 99 bar worth of atmosphere (5.1e20 kg) is actually suggesting quite a bit of bulk mass reduction, especially considering those early arrivals of <1e9 kg/yr that’s extensively vaporized into becoming additional atmosphere, water and minerals, along with the terrestrial/natural outgassing of atmospheric elements including impressive amounts of raw hydrogen and helium that tend to uncontrollably rise, plus all the recent artificial contributions by way of humanity and our mass consumption of various natural and synthetic hydrocarbons as having created another million of tonnes per year of potentially toxic CFCs, HFCs and HCFCs that should have been replaced by good old CO2, though even CH4 would have always been a better alternative to artificial CFCs and HCFCs, but that kind of common sense would have destroyed those wealthy empires of Union Carbide and DuPont. Seems the general public’s lack of physics and science education has been a perpetual godsend kind of treasure trove of vast loot for the Rothschilds.
If Earth had been capably holding onto its atmosphere (including its H2 and He), whereas instead of our having lost 5.1e20 kg to start with, perhaps like a immature gas giant we’d still be gaining atmospheric mass. Lucky for us that hasn’t been the case, though not to say that a gas giant with a substantial solid core (16+ Me) like our Jupiter couldn’t coexist at 1 AU, along with life sustaining moons.
As of lately our lower (6 km) half of atmospheric mass has been rather nicely polluted, warming and thereby increasing its density by way of holding more water along with our toxic laced soot, while the upper atmospheric density has been gradually decreasing or thinning by having received a greater percentage of methane topped off by natural and artificial freons and then loads of good old He and H2 that Earth’s gravity and weak magnetosphere simply can not forever hold onto.
Earth currently receives an average of as little as 1 kg/sec, but otherwise perhaps at times as much as 10 kg/sec of space dust and assorted meteorites. However, my recent interpretation is at the same time along with our persistence is why we're most likely losing <300 kg/s (9.5e6 tonnes/year) of our hydrogen and helium, and even if it were a tenth that amount is still an impressive million tonnes/year loss in mass.
In running the numbers of what we annually extract and attempt to utilize of our terrestrial coal, oil and gasses, there's simply no viable contest, whereas Earth has been losing mass, and by some basic accounting it is easily worth losing as great as a tonne/sec if you'd care to honestly include the natural and human derived forms of hydrogen and helium released, plus that which is mostly vented and/or wasted from all of our fossil energy and many artificial and industrial forms of having created and subsequently released such lofty gasses. Perhaps that’s the best reason why we do not have the whole Earth coverage from Selene L1, because it would only become too much bad news to deal with.
Our badly failing geomagnetic field is not exactly helping, and yet there is still no official accounting of Earth’s mass reduction that we can objectively agree upon, which leads to our using swags and deductive speculations because so much of our basic public funded science is either need-to-know encrypted, taboo/nondisclosure rated and/or having been systematically overlooked, obfuscated to death, or simply lost along the way because otherwise, it makes ‘Big Energy’ look even worse than it already is.
Science obfuscation = lying by omission.
Physics obfuscation = worse than lying by omission.
The public accessible science pertaining to our Selene/moon and the planet Venus are each examples loaded with such mainstream obfuscation.
On the other hand, what doesn’t our disingenuous government and of it’s many faith-based agencies that in perpetual denial obfuscate in order to protect thy public funded job security, thy nifty benefits and their golden egg retirement at public expense?
Clearly the Pope on multiple occasions throughout history has obfuscated his holy butt off, and Zionist just can’t seem to keep from obfuscating as long as it’s only taking advantage of others or false flag blaming of others. On the other hand, you can believe it was always those physics and science smart Atheists as having supposedly gotten us safely to/from our moon, and otherwise only these smart Atheists and Muslims as having helped Hitler, if that’s what makes you a happy camper.
The public funded and Stanford executed GP-B experiment was every bit as good as any obfuscation on steroids, and their perpetual denial of being in denial is every bit as disingenuous.
Is there some kind of public mainstream policy or tradition of systematic obfuscation? (apparently there is, especially if our SEC approved Ponzi Madoff and more than half our banking, investment and mortgage infrastructure is any example)
Outside of pretending at being politically correct and always having to be faith-based passive or neutral, what I’d like to know for the pure sake of knowing is exactly (+/-10%) how much tonnage per second or per year our planet is typically losing (mostly in hydrogen and helium), in much the same way that exoplanets of viable habitats for life have been recently identified by their loss of such EUV detected elements as hydrogen and helium. In the case of Earth, an average vertical escape velocity of helium migration or vertical propagation of merely 2 to 4 m/s seems likely, except there’s much the same devoid of objective data as raw ice coexisting in 1 AU space, with still no objective science on behalf of our H2 or He escapement to go by. As far as I can tell, there’s no actual political or faith-based need of their mainstream imposing conditional physics or the hocus-pocus infowar tactics of science obfuscation, but then I certainly could be wrong.
~ BG
Saul Levy - 04 Mar 2009 14:26 GMT FIXATED JACKASS that you ARE, BradBoi! lmfjao!
I've already shown that your GRAVE CONCERN about this STUPID TOPIC is NONSENSE!
Get a LIFE already!
NOTHING IS HAPPENING! BET ON IT!
The Earth continues to GAIN mass every day.
Who cares about the other planets? I sure don't! You haven't proven anything about them either!
Saul Levy
>Heres a somewhat better researched and context improved version. > [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > >~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / Guth Usenet BradGuth - 04 Mar 2009 14:47 GMT The question that I’ve imposed by this topic, about mass leaving Earth isn’t hardly in question, so much as is the given amount of mass loss per second can be argued fairly extensively, especially since we still have not established the Selene/moon L1 in behalf of Earth, solar and moon observations that could have told us nearly everything we needed to know as of 4 decades ago.
Maxwell Boltzmann http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/energy/Companion/E07.4.pdf.xpdf “Hydrogen and helium have a mean speed that is a significant fraction of the escape speed. For this reason, there is almost no hydrogen or helium in Earth’s present atmosphere.”
As our geomagnetic field proceeds to fade away at -.05%/year (signaling yet another magnetic pole reversal) and subsequently our protective magnetosphere fails us for yet another extended period of time, allowing the SAA contour to expand and deepen, as the average 400 km/s solar wind (halo CMEs of 600<1600 km/s) reaches ever deeper into the upper atmosphere, whereas subsequently our natural and artificially introduced volumes of hydrogen and helium gets solar and even somewhat via Selene/moon superheated and easily accelerated above 11.2 km/s (enough to easily escape Earth).
As a direct result, Earth is simply not gaining a sufficient influx of mass in order to offset the ongoing and accelerated escapement of our natural and artificial hydrogen and helium. In other words, there is simply not a volumetric balance of sufficient oncoming mass taking place, and at the very least our upper 50% mass of atmosphere is getting thinned out and/or displaced by the vertically migrating supply of helium and hydrogen, and perhaps how could this atmospheric thinning not allow more solar and secondary Selene/moon radiated energy in?
The current rate of Earth’s surface and ocean floor outgassing of mineral saturated fluids and otherwise natural gas saturated matter from deep geothermal vents and volcanoes is likely in the realm of contributing at least 1e12 kg/year, and perhaps roughly 1% of that being in the form of direct atmospheric worthy gasses (including raw hydrogen and always helium that doesn’t naturally recombine with anything).
If this were introducing 1e12 kg/yr or 1000 megatonnes/year (<1e10 kg/ yr of He and H2) of such gasses from within Earth isn’t bad enough, there’s an influx of mostly vaporized meteorites worthy of contributing another 1e8 to 5e8 kg/yr, from which hydrogen and helium (including He3) is always a part of that meteor/comet influx. Factor in the electrostatic/lightning created hydrogen if you’d care to add a little more insult to injury.
Now add the human contributed/expedited volumetric tonnage of helium that’s typically 1<9% of our natural gas. In India they have recently quantified some of their natural geothermal venting areas as giving off <2% helium per volume of what’s surface escaping along with many other gasses (including radon), meaning there’s loads of nearby thorium, uranium and radium below, along with a substantial natural gas reserve of perhaps <10% helium purity. In other words, India can’t possibly lose, with far cheaper and more abundant energy that’s as close to renewable as you’re going to get.
If clean energy derived via renewable alternatives and thorium isn’t quite good enough to suit your fancy, here’s the geothermal alternative for us, just like I and Steven Chu said. (how many hundred GW would you like?)
“Plug into a Greener Grid: RE<C and RechargeIT Initiatives” Video: Intro to Enhanced Geothermal Systems http://www.google.org/rec.html
Even the nearly all electric commercial 18<24 wheeler isn’t outside of what this clean/renewable energy can deliver, within as little as 6 hours of 3 phase recharging or battery pack exchange that’s capable of providing <12 hrs of serious truck long hauling, and better yet if the hybrid ICE option could run on h2o2+synfuel or replaced by an h2o2 fuel cell kind of super-battery, in which case little if any hydrogen gets released, and the whole birth-to-grave energy process contributes zero NOx as well as having contributed zero helium.
Put Steven Chu and even the bipolar wizardly likes of William Mook in our national think tank, and right off the bat we’ll start going places without nearly as much environmental consequences. It would be nice if a physics kind of stop-loss order could be placed, so that mother Earth and our one and only Eden stops losing mass.
~ BG
BradGuth - 07 Mar 2009 14:09 GMT > Here’s a somewhat better researched and context improved version. > [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > > ~BradGuth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “GuthUsenet” Interesting how the best available truth is so upsetting to those in charge of mainstream PR damage control. Speaking of Earth losing its hydrogen and helium to space is not an accepted topic among to hose in charge of keeping us snookered and dumbfounded past the point of no return.
Thankfully there was no good reason to sabotage the Kepler mission, as having existed with the OCO mission.
According to Wikipedia, in addition to our heading towards Sirius at 7.6 km/s, seems we’re also headed towards “Cygni A” at 64 km/s, and it’s only 11.4 ly distant as is. A large red dwarf with likely planets is what the spendy Kepler mission is going to catalog the obvious, that other stars accommodate planets. “61 Cygni” may have a large outer planet with a 7.5 year orbit. The smaller “Cygni B” could also have planets, just like a much larger version of Jupiter would have moons. Eventually we’ll get to within 9 ly of “Cygni A/B”.
Our Selene L1 along with an artificial shade would have been an ideal location for such observations as of 4+ decades ago. According to our Apollo missions, our Selene/moon L1 is quite passive, not the least bit toasty or receiving any kind of X-ray or gamma from our naked Selene/moon. (must be the unusually high vacuum of 1e-18<1e-21 bar)
~ BG
BradGuth - 08 Mar 2009 00:23 GMT OCO may have rather oddly failed, but at least it's so far so good for Kepler, whereas thankfully there were no corporate syndicated reasons to sabotage the Kepler mission, as having clearly existed with the OCO mission.
OCO would have given substantial data as to the methane released and otherwise consumed, that contains known amounts of hydrogen and helium, as indirectly telling us about the ongoing loss in global mass we are experiencing, although other existing ESA, ISRO and JAXA missions would likely provide better objective accounting of those two lofty gasses. I think Canada is deathly afraid to look.
According to Wikipedia, in addition to our heading towards Sirius at 7.6 km/s, seems we’re also seemingly headed towards Cygni at 64 km/s, and it’s only 11.4 ly distant as is. Obviously stellar motions (including our own) are a wee bit more complicated then that.
A large red dwarf with those likely planets is what the spendy Kepler mission is going to catalog the obvious, that other stars (the older the better) accommodate viable life capable planets. “Cygni A” may have a large outer planet with a 7.5 year orbit. The smaller “Cygni B” could also have planets, just like a much larger version of Jupiter would have moons as possibly larger than Earth. Eventually we’ll get to within 9 ly of “Cygni A/B”, or rather it’s “Cygni A/B” that’s migrating its way towards us and Sirius at the same time.
Our Selene L1 along with an artificial shade would have been an ideal location for such observations as of 4+ decades ago. According to our Apollo missions, our Selene/moon L1 is quite passive, not the least bit toasty or receiving any kind of unusual X-ray or gamma from the physically dark surface of our naked Selene/moon. (must be the unusually high vacuum of 1e-18<1e-21 bar that’s keeping the Selene L1 dosage to the bare minimums)
~ BG
Saul Levy - 08 Mar 2009 22:52 GMT Same old FIXATED sh.t from the VILLAGE SLIMEBALL GOOFBALL! lmfjao!
Saul Levy
>OCO may have rather oddly failed, but at least it's so far so good for >Kepler, whereas thankfully there were no corporate syndicated reasons [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > ~ BG BradGuth - 13 Mar 2009 23:45 GMT > OCO may have rather oddly failed, but at least it's so far so good for > Kepler, whereas thankfully there were no corporate syndicated reasons [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > ~ BG Some global warming is unavoidable by way of volcanism, the vast majority of which takes place underwater. Ever since the last ice age it seems our terrestrial volcanism has been increasing, as though the reactive core of Earth hasn’t seen its last spurt of growth.
In addition to an extremely slight rise per century in solar influx of perhaps <0.1 w/m2 that amount to merely 25.5e9 kw, whereas in order to raise the ocean temperature by an average of 1°C per century would require an extra continuous energy influx of 1.1e12 kw above whatever you can say is the norm. For considering one fully interactive source of such energy that’s keeping Earths’ core a little extra hot, our Selene/moon demands a holding force of 2e20 N.m, and this interactive force alone equals 55.5e12 kw if it were all converted into geothermal energy. However, at 1% conversion via internal friction of the 2e20 N.m force into energy = 0.555e12 km, roughly half of the required energy to raise the ocean temperature by 1°C/century and seems perfectly conservative enough, because at 2% conversion it more than covers the entire global warming package deal.
There is also the ongoing -.05%/year demise of our magnetosphere that ties in rather nicely to what is geothermally manifesting, as though the internal process is somehow indirectly contributing additional ocean and surface heat. “Will Compasses Point South?” http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9803E3DD1E3BF930A25754C0A9629C8B63
Robert W. Felix, as author of “Not by Fire but by Ice” is not saying that we humans haven’t contributed to the global warming trend, but instead is looking at the greater geothermal picture, though without his fully understanding exactly where and how mother Earth sustains or much less increases her geothermal output is only somewhat misleading or at least incomplete data in order to draw a fully informed opinion, as to what is primarily driving our global thaw from the very last ice age this planet w/moon is ever going to see. In other words, there’s still a question as to where exactly other than the sun is Earths’ surface environment getting this extra dosage of energy, if not from within and from our interactive tidal grip of our moon.
There is global warming from the inside out: With more than 200,000 counted thus far, there could be “Three Million Underwater Volcanoes” (venting superheated gasses, fluids and solids) Researchers estimate that in total there could be about 3 million submarine volcanoes, 39,000 of which rise more than 1000 meters over the sea bed. http://www.iceagenow.com/Ocean_Warming.htm http://www.iceagenow.com/Three_Million_Underwater_Volcanoes.htm
Besides underwater venting of geothermal superheated solids (including S8) and new water, however this activity is also venting a great deal of CO2, SO2, CH4, Rn, He and H2.
Earths’ relatively thin-crust ocean floor and the underlying cache of our georeactive core, as further agitated along by the interactive 2e20 N tidal force that’s holding onto our Selene/moon, plus a solar tidal force, whereas this continuous interaction along with our geo- reactor core is what subsequently produces the 64 TW of surplus/spare geothermal radiated energy, along with having been creating a number of gasses and radioactive decay products, such as radon and helium. (64 TW was an amount based upon a square meter of cleared test area that’s situated under a thick layer of Antarctica ice as radiating at 125 mw, thus I am ignoring the million some odd global hydrothermal vents or hot spots, and otherwise keeping in mind that in sufficient thickness ice is actually a good thermal insulator)
In addition to our artificial ocean heating that’s worth a good TW, "A normal hydrothermal vent might produce something like 500 megawatts - this is producing 100,000 megawatts. It's like an atom bomb down there.” http://www.iceagenow.com/Megaplume.htm
If given a speculation of 100 MW per each of one million natural hydrothermal vents is worth 1e11 kw. However without the likes of OCO and PFS global readings we can’t be sure.
None the less, this brings a good portion of our human environmental impact into perspective, as a contributing but somewhat minor factor in our continued thaw from the very last ice age this planet w/moon is ever going to see. However, the OCO mission would have rather easily mapped those primary natural and artificial ventings of gasses in sufficient resolution that would have removed most all doubt as to the sources, volumes and objectively quantified affects. With some easily validated interpolation as to the extent or volumes of helium released could also have been established, along with a mission of PFS deep IR penetration imaging would map every 0.1 km2 of Earth’s surface (including the ocean floor at 1 km2 or better).
All of terrestrial venting or outgassing that includes solids, fluids and various gasses can not help but include those two most lofty elements of hydrogen and helium that eventually leave us for places unknown. The heavier of gaseous elements (natural as well as artificial) do however stick around to haunt us, and not always in a positive or constructive way.
As I’ve stated before, along with some limited science interpretation as having suggested that our human impact upon this global warming trend could be as little as 10% of the overall picture, and otherwise it’s certainly not more than 25%, of which is entirely different than our much greater contribution on behalf of having physically polluted and otherwise contaminating most of everything in sight. Until the failed and/or intentionally foiled OCO mission is replaced, along with a PFS or similar IR imager, we’ll not have sufficient global data to draw upon, which is not to say that current information and the regular laws of physics need be ignored or systematically excluded, as is so often the case by those having a vested interest in Big Energy that would pay nearly any amount to have such an openly objective source of atmospheric, chemical and thermal data put off for as long as possible, because obviously they do not want to held accountable.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
Saul Levy - 13 Mar 2009 23:54 GMT BABBLE ON, GOOFBALL! lmfjao!
Volcanism IS NOT GROWING EITHER.
Why do LOONS always claim these things are INCREASING?
Oh yeah, WE ARE DOOMED! lmfjao!
Saul Levy
>> OCO may have rather oddly failed, but at least it's so far so good for >> Kepler, whereas thankfully there were no corporate syndicated reasons [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> and its only 11.4 ly distant as is. Obviously stellar motions >> (including our own) are a wee bit more complicated then that. [I've already corrected you on this WRONG ASSUMPTION!]
>> A large red dwarf with those likely planets is what the spendy Kepler >> mission is going to catalog the obvious, that other stars (the older [quoted text clipped - 123 lines] > >~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / Guth Usenet BradGuth - 14 Mar 2009 21:23 GMT > OCO may have rather oddly failed, but at least it's so far so good for > Kepler, whereas thankfully there were no corporate syndicated reasons [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > ~ BG Some if not the greater portion of global warming is unavoidable by way of volcanism and geothermal ventings, the vast majority of which has been taking place underwater. Ever since the last ice age it seems our terrestrial thermal activity has been increasing, as though the reactive core of Earth hasn’t seen its last spurt of growth.
In addition to an extremely slight rise per century in solar influx of perhaps <0.1 w/m2 that amounts to merely 25.5e9 kw, whereas in order to raise the ocean temperature by an average of 1°C per century would require an extra continuous energy influx of 1.1e12 kw above whatever we can say is the norm. For considering one fully interactive source of such energy that’s keeping Earths’ core a little extra hot, our Selene/moon demands a holding force of 2e20 N.m, and this interactive force alone equals 55.5e12 kw if it were all converted into geothermal energy. However, at 1% conversion via internal friction of this 2e20 N.m force into energy = 0.555e12 km, roughly half of the required energy to raise the ocean temperature by 1°C/century and seems perfectly conservative enough, because at 2% conversion this alone more than covers the entire global warming package deal.
There is also the ongoing -.05%/year demise of our magnetosphere that ties in rather nicely to what is geothermally manifesting, as though the internal process that sustains our global magnetic field is somehow indirectly contributing additional ocean hydrothermals and volcanic activity that in turn unavoidably impacts our oceans, surface and global environment as heat. “Will Compasses Point South?” http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9803E3DD1E3BF930A25754C0A9629C8B63
Robert W. Felix, as author of “Not by Fire but by Ice” is not saying that we humans haven’t contributed to the global warming trend, but instead is looking at the greater geothermal picture, though without his fully understanding exactly where and how mother Earth sustains or much less increases her geothermal output is only somewhat misleading or at least incomplete data in order to draw a fully informed opinion, as to what is primarily driving our global thaw from the very last ice age this planet w/moon is ever going to see. In other words, there’s still a question as to where exactly other than the sun is Earths’ surface environment getting this extra dosage of energy, if not from within and from our interactive tidal grip of our moon.
There is global warming from the inside out: With more than 200,000 counted thus far, there could be “Three Million Underwater Volcanoes” (venting superheated gasses, fluids and solids) Researchers estimate that in total there could be about 3 million submarine volcanoes, 39,000 of which rise more than 1000 meters over the sea bed. http://www.iceagenow.com/Ocean_Warming.htm http://www.iceagenow.com/Three_Million_Underwater_Volcanoes.htm
Besides underwater venting of geothermal superheated solids (including S8) and new water, however this kind of activity is also venting a great deal of CO2, SO2, CH4, Rn, He and H2.
Earths’ relatively thin-crust ocean floor and the underlying cache of our georeactive core, as being further agitated along by the interactive 2e20 N of tidal force that’s holding onto our Selene/moon, plus always a solar tidal force, whereas this continuous interaction along with our geo-reactor core is what subsequently produces the average background of 64 TW in surplus/spare geothermal radiated energy, along with our reactive core energy having been creating a number of gasses and radioactive decay products, such as radon and helium. (note: 64 TW was an amount based upon a square meter of cleared test area that’s situated under a thick layer of Antarctica ice as radiating at 125 mw, thus I am ignoring the million some odd global hydrothermal vents or hot spots, and otherwise keeping in mind that in sufficient thickness ice is actually performing as a good thermal insulator)
In addition to our own artificial ocean heating that’s worth at least something more than a few good terawatts, "a normal hydrothermal vent might produce something like 500 megawatts - this is producing 100,000 megawatts. It's like an atom bomb down there.” http://www.iceagenow.com/Megaplume.htm
If given a highly conservative speculation of 100 MW per each of one million natural hydrothermal vents is worth 1e11 kw (100 TW). However, without the likes of OCO and PFS global readings we’re kind of brain dead and can’t be sure.
None the less, this brings a good portion of our human environmental impact into a better perspective, as a contributing but somewhat minor factor in our continued thaw from the very last ice age this planet w/ moon is ever going to see. The OCO mission would have rather easily mapped those primary natural and artificial ventings of gasses in sufficient resolution that would have removed most all doubt as to the sources, volumes and objectively quantified affects. With some easily validated interpolation as to the extent or volumes of helium released could also have been established, along with a mission of PFS deep IR penetration imaging would map every 0.1 km2 of Earth’s surface (including the ocean floor at 1 km2 or better).
All of terrestrial venting or outgassing that includes solids, fluids and various gasses can not help but include those two most lofty elements of hydrogen and helium that eventually leave us for places unknown. The heavier of gaseous elements (natural as well as artificial) do however stick around to haunt us, and not always in a positive or constructive way.
As I’ve stated before, along with some limited science interpretation as having suggested that our human impact upon this global warming trend could be as little as 10% of the overall picture, and otherwise it’s certainly not more than 25%, of which is entirely different than our much greater contribution on behalf of having physically polluted and otherwise contaminating most of everything in sight. Until the failed and/or intentionally foiled OCO mission is replaced, along with a PFS or similar IR imager, we’ll not have sufficient global data to draw upon, which is not to say that current information and the regular laws of physics need be ignored or systematically excluded, as is so often the case by those having a vested interest in Big Energy that would pay nearly any amount to have such an openly objective source of atmospheric, chemical and thermal data put off for as long as possible, because obviously they do not want to held accountable.
In other words, the more withholding and/or obfuscating of science the better chance Big Energy has at pulling out profits before the jig is up, so to speak. Otherwise it’s also like a form of Ponzi geology, whereas keeping the rest of us snookered and dumbfounded past the point of no return has terrific benefits for those in charge that’ll continue to make future generations pay for our actions or inactions. In this method no one of the current generation is ever going to be held accountable, or much less responsible. Therefore it is imperative on behalf of Big Energy to subvert or foil whatever science that’s capable of being all-inclusive and current enough to apply to the situation at hand.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth - 15 Mar 2009 13:32 GMT > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere > contains [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet” Apparently, our having essential knowledge about Earth is not a good thing, but we can never have too much knowledge about Mars or other godforsaken planets and moons. Such as knowing our thermal imbalance, extent of pollution and the ongoing loss in mass isn’t worth the trouble if there’s any price or consequences to pay.
Some if not the greater portion of our global warming is unavoidable by way of volcanism and geothermal ventings, the vast majority of which has been taking place underwater. Ever since the last ice age it seems our terrestrial thermal activity has been increasing, as though the reactive core of Earth hasn’t seen its last spurt of growth.
In addition to an extremely slight rise per century in solar influx of perhaps <0.1 w/m2 that amounts to merely 25.5e9 kw, whereas in order to raise the ocean temperature by an average of 1°C per century would require an extra continuous energy influx of 1.1e12 kw above whatever we can say is the norm. For considering one fully interactive source of such energy that’s keeping Earths’ core a little extra hot, there’s our Selene/moon which demands a holding force of 2e20 N.m, and this interactive force alone equals 55.5e12 kw if it were all converted into geothermal energy. However, at 1% conversion via internal friction of this 2e20 N.m force into thermal energy = 0.555e12 kw, roughly half of the required energy to raise the ocean temperature by 1°C/century, and 1% seems perfectly conservative enough, because at 2% conversion is where this alone more than covers the entire global warming package deal.
There is also the ongoing -.05%/year demise of our magnetosphere that ties in rather nicely to what is geothermally manifesting, as though the internal process that sustains our global magnetic field is somehow indirectly contributing ocean hydrothermals and volcanic activity that in turn unavoidably impacts our oceans, surface and global environment as measurable heat. “Will Compasses Point South?” http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9803E3DD1E3BF930A25754C0A9629C8B63
Robert W. Felix, as author of “Not by Fire but by Ice” is not saying that we humans haven’t contributed to the global warming trend, but instead is looking at the greater geothermal picture, though without his fully understanding exactly where and how mother Earth sustains or much less increases her geothermal output is only somewhat misleading or at least incomplete data in order to draw a fully informed opinion, as to what is primarily driving our global thaw from the very last ice age this planet w/moon is ever going to see. In other words, there’s still a question as to where exactly other than the sun is Earths’ surface environment getting this extra dosage of energy, if not from within and from our interactive tidal grip of our moon.
There is global warming from the inside out: With more than 200,000 counted thus far, there could be “Three Million Underwater Volcanoes” (venting superheated gasses, fluids and solids) Researchers estimate that in total there could be about 3 million submarine volcanoes, 39,000 of which rise more than 1000 meters over the sea bed. http://www.iceagenow.com/Ocean_Warming.htm http://www.iceagenow.com/Three_Million_Underwater_Volcanoes.htm
Besides underwater venting of geothermal superheated solids (including S8) and new water, however this kind of activity is also venting a great deal of CO2, SO2, CH4, Rn, He and H2.
Earths’ relatively thin-crust ocean floor and the underlying cache of our georeactive core, as being further agitated along by the interactive 2e20 N of tidal force that’s holding onto our Selene/moon, plus always a solar tidal force, whereas this continuous interaction along with our geo-reactor core is what subsequently produces the average background of 64 TW in surplus/spare geothermal radiated energy, along with our reactive core energy having been creating a number of gasses and radioactive decay products, such as radon and helium. (note: 64 TW was an amount based upon a square meter of cleared test area that’s situated under a thick layer of Antarctica ice as radiating at 125 mw, thus I am ignoring the million some odd global hydrothermal vents or hot spots, and otherwise keeping in mind that in sufficient thickness ice is actually performing as a good thermal insulator)
In addition to our own artificial ocean heating that’s worth at least something more than a few good terawatts, "a normal hydrothermal vent might produce something like 500 megawatts - this is producing 100,000 megawatts. It's like an atom bomb down there.” http://www.iceagenow.com/Megaplume.htm
If given a highly conservative speculation of 100 MW per each of a million natural hydrothermal vents is worth 1e11 kw (100 TW). However, without the likes of OCO and PFS global readings we’re kind of brain dead and can’t be sure.
None the less, this brings a good portion of our human environmental impact into a better perspective, as a contributing but somewhat minor factor in our continued thaw from the very last ice age this planet w/ moon is ever going to see. The OCO mission would have rather easily mapped those primary natural and artificial ventings of gasses in sufficient resolution that would have removed most all doubt as to the specific sources, volumes and objectively quantified affects. With some easily validated interpolation as to the extent or volumes of helium released could also have been established, along with a mission of PFS deep IR penetration imaging would map every 0.1 km2 of Earth’s surface (including the ocean floor at 1 km2 or better).
All of terrestrial venting or outgassing that includes solids, fluids and various gasses can not help but include those two most lofty elements of hydrogen and helium that eventually leave us for places unknown. The heavier of gaseous elements (natural as well as artificial) do however stick around to haunt us, and not always in a positive or constructive way.
As I’ve stated before, along with some limited science interpretation as having suggested that our human impact upon this global warming trend could be as little as 10% of the overall picture, and otherwise it’s certainly not more than 25%, of which is entirely different than our much greater contribution on behalf of having physically polluted and otherwise contaminating most of everything in sight. Until the failed and/or intentionally foiled OCO mission is replaced, along with a PFS or similar IR imager, we’ll not have sufficient global data to draw upon, which is not to say that current information and the regular laws of physics need be ignored or systematically excluded, as is so often the case by those having a vested interest in Big Energy that would pay nearly any amount to have such an openly objective source of atmospheric, chemical and thermal data put off for as long as possible, because obviously they do not want to held accountable.
In other words, the more withholding and/or obfuscating of science the better chance Big Energy has at pulling out profits before the jig is up, so to speak. Otherwise it’s also like a form of Ponzi geology, whereas keeping the rest of us snookered and dumbfounded past the point of no return has terrific benefits for those in charge that’ll continue to make future generations pay for our actions or inactions. In this method no one of the current generation is ever going to be held accountable, or much less responsible. Therefore it is imperative on behalf of Big Energy to subvert or foil whatever science that’s capable of being all-inclusive and current enough to apply as to the situation at hand.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth - 17 Mar 2009 00:59 GMT > Apparently, our having essential knowledge about Earth is not a good > thing, but we can never have too much knowledge about Mars or other [quoted text clipped - 130 lines] > > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet” Where's all the love and affection from those claiming to know all there is to know?
Where's our Selene/moon L1 platform of remote science, with all of its nifty global science data?
~ BG
Saul Levy - 17 Mar 2009 12:55 GMT Same old L1 sh.t, GOOFBALL! lmfjao! I deleted most of it. Everyone here should be able to quote the rest from memory by now!
Why don't we send you there. No space suit. No oxygen. No NOTHING! So you can explore L1 all you want!
What a WONDERFUL IDEA!
Let us know what you find out!
Saul Levy
>> Apparently, our having essential knowledge about Earth is not a good >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > ~ BG BradGuth - 17 Mar 2009 14:50 GMT Where's all the topic/author love and affection from those claiming to know all there is to know?
Where's our Selene/moon L1 platform of remote science, along with all of its nifty global science data?
Why exactly are the environmental related satellites having such a tough time of their getting into orbit?
I have far more questions than answers. Sorry about that.
~ BG
> > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere > > contains [quoted text clipped - 209 lines] > > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet” Saul Levy - 03 Apr 2009 00:25 GMT Talking to YOURSELF again, GOOFBALL? lmfjao!
No one really cares about your questions!
Saul Levy
>Where's all the topic/author love and affection from those claiming to >know all there is to know? [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> >> ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / Guth Usenet BradGuth - 22 Mar 2009 21:32 GMT One fairly obvious secondary source of helium that’s artificially released is the whole petrochemical thing.
Helium from extracting and processing crude oil: If we on average we used a conservative 500% per volume of oil as methane vapor we’d be close enough (it’s actually much worse), and using 1% of that methane as helium certainly wouldn’t be unheard of. Thus 5% per given volume of oil is helium.
The all-inclusive global oil production (including spillage and wastage) as of 2009-2010 is roughly 86.4e6 barrels/day = 3.15e10 barrels/yr (5e9 m3/yr), and if anything it’s actually somewhat greater because the industry itself takes nearly 10% of its own product in order to function (much worse yet for oily sand, not to mention synfuel from coal), so we can safely make that volumetric accounting 5.5e9 m3/year.
5.5e9 x .05 = 2.75e8 m3 helium/yr
2.75e8 x .178 = 4.895e7 kg = 48,950 tonnes/yr is helium
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
> > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere > > contains [quoted text clipped - 209 lines] > > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet” BradGuth - 22 Mar 2009 21:54 GMT > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere > contains [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet” One fairly obvious secondary source of helium (to that of natural gas), that’s artificially released is via the whole petrochemical thing. On a global basis, it seems we dispose of or burn off nearly as much natural gas than regular energy consumers actually use.
Helium from extracting and processing crude oil (aka flare gas burnoff or just venting of crude methane):
If we on average we used a conservative 500% per volume of oil as methane vapor we’d be close enough (it’s actually much worse), and using 1% of that methane as helium certainly wouldn’t be unheard of. Thus 5% per given volume of extracted oil is helium.
The all-inclusive global oil production (including spillage and wastage) as of 2009-2010 is roughly 86.4e6 barrels/day = 3.15e10 barrels/yr (5e9 m3/yr), and if anything it’s actually somewhat greater because the industry itself takes nearly 10% of its own product in order to function (much worse yet for oily sand, not to mention synfuel from coal), so we can safely make that volumetric accounting 5.5e9 m3/year.
5.5e9 x .05 = 2.75e8 m3 helium/yr
2.75e8 x .178 = 4.895e7 kg = 48,950 tonnes/yr is helium, and I believe that’s taking about all the natural production of Earth’s helium/year, if not exceeding the internal makings of helium.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth - 23 Mar 2009 04:21 GMT > > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere > > contains [quoted text clipped - 103 lines] > > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet” Apparently those Big Energy folks and their money hording cabal/cartel has informed their brown-nosed minions to lay off this topic, as well as the other related one "Is this why we still do not have Selene L1".
~ BG
BradGuth - 23 Mar 2009 15:53 GMT > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere > contains [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > planet or moon, such as our dire need of extracting He3 from our > Selene/moon, or that of whomever is taking substances away from Venus. Perhaps it’s a good thing that fossil derived energy and its unavoidable consequences is not necessary on Venus. However, our Eden has become highly dependent or rather addicted to the stuff regardless of the mostly negative consequences.
One fairly obvious secondary source of helium (to that from natural gas) that’s artificially released is via the whole petrochemical thing. On a global basis, it seems we dispose of and/or they consume and otherwise burn off nearly as much natural gas than regular energy end-use consumers actually use, and it unavoidably polluting high and low in more invisible ways than most of us would care to know.
Helium from extracting and processing crude oil (aka flare gas burnoff or just raw venting of crude methane):
If on average we used a conservative 500% per volume of oil as methane vapor we’d be close enough (it’s actually much worse, <30 m3/m3), and using 1% of that methane as helium certainly wouldn’t be unheard of. Thus 5% per given volume of extracted oil is helium.
The all-inclusive global oil production (including spillage and wastage) as of 2009-2010 is roughly 86.4e6 barrels/day = 3.15e10 barrels/yr (5e9 m3/yr), and if anything it’s actually somewhat greater because the industry itself takes at least 10% of its own product in order to function (an EROEI ratio of 4:1 or 25% is perhaps more typical, and much worse yet for oily sand whereas the NEG>0, especially ineffective whenever the global spot market drops below $45/ barrel, not to mention synfuel from coal), so for this effort we can safely take this volumetric extraction of oil accounting to at least 5.5e9 m3/year.
5.5e9 x .05 = 2.75e8 m3 helium/yr
2.75e8 x .178 = 4.895e7 kg = 48,950 tonnes/yr as helium.
I believe that’s taking about all the natural production of Earth’s helium/year, if not exceeding the internal makings via radioactive decay, and remember this helium release is just from our oil extraction process, and the industry consumption of its raw natural gas simply does not consume the element of helium. In some instances the surplus of this raw natural gas is for the moment getting pumped back into the ground, through also requiring considerable process energy in of itself. Oil extraction and process data w/o obfuscation is next to impossible to come by, therefore you can bet your bottom dollar that it’s actually much worse off than we can imagine, and the failed or perhaps foiled OCO mission would have easily quantified such data with sufficient resolution as to pinpoint each and every natural and artificial source of released and/or consumed gas.
Give or take e few numbers here and there, as to the all-inclusive oil extraction and processing that often utilizes other sources of natural gas, could easily push their volumetric release of helium upwards of 100,000 tonnes per hear, not to mention whatever mother nature releases, or the volumetric worth of the global natural gas industries that do nothing but extract and distribute their methane laced with helium.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth - 26 Mar 2009 23:54 GMT How much loss of mass is too much?
Eden/Earth is still thawing out from the last ice age this planet w/ moon is ever going to see. Most of this process (at least 75% and perhaps <90%) is perfectly natural considering the interpretation that we’ve only somewhat recently obtained our Selene/moon, and the obvious matter of the geological evolution on behalf of any similar planet having two primary gravitational tidal issues along with our failing geomagnetic force that’s becoming insufficient for sustaining our protective magnetosphere.
With our planet loosing primarily its helium and some hydrogen <1000 kg/sec or roughly 30e6 tonnes/year may seem a bit exaggerated, although at times of major geological eruptions and geothermal out gassing (the vast majority of which is underwater), when combined along with our multiple commercial means of extracting coal, oil, natural gas and quite a fair number of lesser contributors of releasing helium and hydrogen, is perhaps not too far off the mark.
Thankfully we’re still receiving 50e3 to 500e3 tonnes per year of local and cosmic dust along with our fair share of meteors. However, at best that’s merely 0.5 million tonnes/year, and some of that is in unavoidably the form of hydrogen and even helium that simply does not stick around. None of our helium or that of whatever gets imported ever combines with anything that’ll ever stay with the all-inclusive mass of Earth.
In the media as well as these Google Groups (aka Usenet/newsgroups), it’s like this artificially and otherwise naturally released tonnage of helium per year along with our failing geomagnetic force is no big deal, so instead lets all focus on the CO2 that’s too heavy to be going anywhere. JAXA is recently giving it a go: http://www.eorc.jaxa.jp/en/index.html
The polluted element of CO2 is after all a darn good indicator, though not in of itself a cause of GW. Perhaps it’s a good thing that fossil derived energy and its unavoidable consequences is not necessary on the geothermally driven environment of Venus. However, our unusually wet and icy Eden has within the last thousand years become highly dependent or rather addicted to the stuff, regardless of the mostly negative and/or acidic consequences of the sooty wet CO2 and sooty wet NOx within our lower atmosphere and surface environment, whereas the substantial thinning of our protective upper most dry atmosphere has only recently been given loads of extra H2 and He.
One fairly obvious secondary source of helium (to that derived from natural gas) that’s artificially released, is via the whole petrochemical thing that’s creating essentially a one-way helium ticket to ride. On a global basis, it seems we dispose of and/or the industry consumes and otherwise burns off nearly as much natural gas than regular end-use energy consumers actually use, and as such it is unavoidably polluting high and low in more invisible ways than most of us would care to realize, especially since all of the methane containing toxic elements plus helium never manages to actually consume or otherwise recombine any of the helium.
Helium from extracting and processing crude oil (aka flare gas burnoff or just raw venting of crude methane): If on average we used a highly conservative 500% per volume of oil as methane vapor we’d be close enough (it’s actually much worse, <30 m3/m3 for coal and oil extraction), and by using 1% of that methane as helium certainly wouldn’t be unheard of. Thus I’ll suggest for this limited analogy that we use a round number of 5% per given volume of extracted oil is helium.
The all-inclusive global oil production (including spillage and wastage) as of 2009-2010 is roughly 86.4e6 barrels/day = 3.15e10 barrels/yr (5e9 m3/yr), and if anything it’s actually somewhat greater because the industry itself takes at least 10% of its own product in order to function (an EROEI ratio of 4:1 or 25% is perhaps more typical, and it gets much worse yet for oily sand whereas the Net Energy Gain of zero (NEG>0), as well as being especially cost ineffective whenever the global spot market for crude oil drops below $45/barrel, not to mention the process of synfuel from coal), so for this conservative analogy effort we can safely take this volumetric extraction of oil accounting to at least 5.5e9 m3/year.
5.5e9 x .05 = 2.75e8 m3 helium/yr
2.75e8 x .178 = 4.895e7 kg = 48,950 tonnes/yr as helium.
I believe that’s taking just about all the natural production of Earth’s helium/year, if not exceeding the internal makings via radioactive decay, and remember this artificial helium release is just from our oil extraction process, including the oil industry consumption of its raw natural gas that simply does not consume or recombine that element of helium. In some instances the surplus of this raw natural gas is for the moment getting pumped back into the ground, through also requiring considerable process energy demand in of itself. Oil extraction and process data w/o obfuscation is next to impossible to come by, therefore you can bet your bottom dollar that it’s actually much worse off than we can imagine, and the failed or perhaps foiled OCO mission would have easily quantified such data independently, with sufficient resolution as to pinpoint each and every natural and artificial source of released and/or consumed gas.
Give or take e few numbers here and there, as to the all-inclusive oil extraction and processing that often utilizes other commercial sources of natural gas, could easily push their volumetric release of helium upwards of 100,000 tonnes per year, not to mention whatever mother nature releases, or the volumetric worth of our global coal that directly vents, and of the global natural gas industries that do nothing but extract and distribute their methane laced with the element of helium, that only goes up up and away.
Even though we can’t see it, smell it or touch it, it’s still the one of a kind mass that’s primarily derived from within Earth via radioactive decay, and lo and behold once released its forever going away from us. Remember, this report is just focused upon what’s conservatively related to crude oil extraction, and not of our natural gas which is unavoidably laced with helium, and there’s other significant sources including coal, multiple other mining operations and deep water extraction that’s also continually adding to mother nature’s flatulence. Basically Eden/Earth has been hemorrhaging its precious helium, and having only been expedited by humanity, that which for the most part this helium doesn’t recombine with anything.
I’m sure that others here will have to side with Big Energy, employing their usual failsafe obfuscation and denial as though the regular laws of physics and best available science simply doesn’t apply to them, and perhaps it doesn’t because supposedly most bad or even questionable things are the fault of Muslims. (if you don’t get the jest of that satire, don’t worry because most others don’t either)
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
> For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere > contains [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet” BradGuth - 27 Mar 2009 04:15 GMT Knowing our thermal imbalance along with the ongoing extent of natural and artificial pollution and quantifying our global loss in mass per year isn’t worth the trouble if there’s any Big Energy price or consequences to pay. Apparently, any objectively scientific founded notions or subsequent improved science interpretations as could have been easily obtained from a Selene/moon L1 platform of instruments, or even via OCO, as to our having essential knowledge about Earth is not such a good thing according to Big Energy, though apparently on the other hand we can never have too much knowledge about Mars or most any other godforsaken planets and moons (apparently the cost and time be damned).
Some if not the greater portion of our global warming trend is unavoidable by way of volcanism and geothermal ventings, whereas the vast majority of which has been taking place underwater is by far exceeding all of our human contributions. Ever since the last ice age it seems our terrestrial internal thermal activity has been increasing, as though the reactive core of Earth hasn’t seen its last spurt of growth.
In addition to an extremely slight rise per century in solar influx of perhaps <0.1 w/m2 that amounts to merely 25.5e9 kw, whereas in order to raise the ocean temperature by an average of 1°C per century would require an extra continuous energy influx of 1.1e12 kw above whatever can be said is the global background norm. For considering one fully interactive source of such energy that’s keeping Earth’s core on the move and a little extra hot, there’s always our Selene/moon which demands a radial holding force of 2e20 N.m, and this interactive force alone equals 55.5e12 kw if it were all converted into geothermal energy. However, at 1% conversion via internal friction caused by this 2e20 N.m force into thermal energy = 0.555e12 kw, roughly half of the required energy to raise the ocean temperature by 1°C/century, and 1% seems perfectly conservative enough, because at 2% conversion is where this alone more than covers the entire global warming package deal.
There is also the ongoing -.05%/year demise of our geomagnetic force that sustains our protective magnetosphere, and ties in rather nicely to what is geothermally manifesting as though the internal process that sustains our global magnetic force field is somehow indirectly contributing ocean hydrothermals and volcanic activity that in turn unavoidably impacts the thermal balance of our oceans, surface and global environment as measurable heat. My observationology includes NOAA, USGS and a number of other public and private funded authorities, whereas this ongoing demise in our geomagnetic force and subsequent magnetosphere is actually somewhat worse off than I’d thought. “Will Compasses Point South?” http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9803E3DD1E3BF930A25754C0A9629C8B63
Robert W. Felix, as author of “Not by Fire but by Ice” is yet another honest investigative soul that’s not saying we humans haven’t contributed to the global warming trend, but instead looking at the greater geothermal picture, though without his fully understanding exactly where and how mother Earth sustains or much less increases her geothermal output is only somewhat misleading or at least incomplete data in order to draw a fully informed opinion, as to what is primarily driving our global thaw from the very last ice age this planet w/moon is ever going to see. In other words, there’s still an ongoing question as to where exactly other than the sun is our surface environment getting the bulk of this extra energy dosage, if not from within and from our unusually nearby interactive tidal grip of our moon.
There’s always global warming from the inside out: With more than 200,000 counted thus far, there could be “Three Million Underwater Volcanoes” (venting superheated gasses, fluids and solids) Researchers estimate that in total there could be about 3 million submarine volcanoes, 39,000 of which rise more than 1000 meters over the sea bed. http://www.iceagenow.com/Ocean_Warming.htm http://www.iceagenow.com/Three_Million_Underwater_Volcanoes.htm
Besides underwater venting of geothermal superheated fluids and solids (including S8) and new water, whereas this kind of internal activity is also venting a great deal of CO2, SO2, CH4, Rn, He and H2.
Earths’ relatively thin-crust ocean floor and the underlying cache of our georeactive mantel and its core, as being further agitated along by the interactive 2e20 N of tidal force that’s holding onto our Selene/moon, plus there’s always a solar tidal force, whereas this continuous interaction that flexes Earth’s surface by 55 cm, along with our geo-reactor core is what subsequently produces the average background of 64 TW in surplus/spare geothermal radiated energy, along with our reactive core of energy having been creating a number of gasses and radioactive decay products, such as radon and helium. (note: 64 TW was an amount based upon a square meter of cleared test area that’s situated under a surrounding thick layer of Antarctica ice, as bedrock radiating at 125 mw/m2, thus I am ignoring or excluding those million some odd global hydrothermal vents or hot spots, and otherwise keeping in mind that in sufficient thickness of all that surrounding ice is actually performing as a good thermal insulator by which those exposed bedrock thermal measurements become more normalized)
In addition to our own commercial methods of artificial environment heating that’s worth at least something a little more than a good hundred some odd terawatts, "a normal hydrothermal vent might produce something like 500 megawatts - this is producing 100,000 megawatts. It's like an atom bomb down there.” http://www.iceagenow.com/Megaplume.htm
If given a highly conservative speculation of merely 100 MW per each of a million natural hydrothermal vents is worth 1e11 kw (100 TW). However, without the likes of our OCO and PFS global readings we’re kind of brain dead, and therefore we can’t be sure.
None the less, this limited knowledge brings a good portion of our human environmental impact into a better perspective, as a contributing but somewhat minor factor in our continued thaw from the very last ice age this planet w/moon is ever going to see. The recently failed OCO mission would have rather easily mapped those primary natural and artificial ventings of gasses in sufficient resolution that would have removed most all doubt as to the specific sources, their volumes and objectively quantified affects. With some easily validated interpolation as to the extent or volumes of helium released could also have been established, along with a mission of PFS giving deep IR penetration imaging would map every 0.1 km2 of Earth’s surface (including the ocean floor at 1 km2 or better).
All of terrestrial venting or outgassing that includes solids, fluids and various gasses can not but help include those two most lofty elements of hydrogen and helium that eventually leave us for places unknown, whereas some of the H2 recombines and returns to our surface environment as rain, and except for helium the heavier of gaseous elements (natural as well as artificial) do however stick around to haunt us, and not always in a positive or constructive way.
As I’ve stated before, along with some limited science interpretation as having suggested that our human impact upon this global warming trend could be as little as 10% of the overall picture, and otherwise it’s certainly not more than 25%, of which is entirely different than our much greater contribution on behalf of having physically polluted and otherwise measurably contaminating most of everything in sight. Until the failed and/or intentionally foiled OCO mission is replaced, along with a PFS or similar IR spectrometry imager, we’ll not have sufficient global data to draw upon, which is not to say that current information and the regular laws of physics need be ignored or systematically excluded, as is so often the case by those having their vested interest in Big Energy that would pay nearly any amount to have such an openly objective source of atmospheric, chemical and thermal data put off for as long as possible, because obviously the current generation simply do not want to held accountable.
In other words, the more withholding and/or obfuscating of science the better chance Big Energy has at pulling out profits before the jig is up, so to speak. Otherwise it’s also like a form of Ponzi geology and the environmental golden nest egg for continued public funded research grants, whereas keeping the rest of us snookered and dumbfounded past the point of no return is what offers terrific benefits for those in charge that’ll continue to make future generations pay for our actions or inactions. In this method no one of the current generation is ever going to be held accountable, or much less responsible, and therefore it is imperative on behalf of Big Energy to subvert or foil whatever science that’s capable of being all-inclusive and current or real time enough to apply as to the situation at hand.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth - 27 Mar 2009 18:43 GMT Planets and moons losing mass by the tonnes/sec ? Here’s a somewhat better researched and a little context improved version.
For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere contains Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%), He = .1786 kg/m3 Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%), H2 = .0899 kg/m3
We seem to know more about the perpetual loss of sodium, methane, hydrogen and helium for the likes of other moons and planets (including a few exoplanets) other than Earth. http://vega.lpl.arizona.edu/~gilda/extrass.html
At 0.55 ppmv, in order that our atmosphere sustain the average H2 saturation, at any given moment there’s a natural 25e6 kg outflow of hydrogen getting made available and unavoidably migrating upwards and away from Earth’s surface in order to create and sustain the average 0.55 ppmv. The question is, at what average vertical escapement velocity or volumetric/sec exit away from Earth?
The question is, is our 0.55 ppmv of hydrogen escapement worth merely 25e6 kg per day = 9.125e6 tonnes/yr, or is it ever as great as 25e6 kg per hour = 219e6 tonnes/year?
If the H2 loss isn’t impressive enough, now we need to focus on our volumetric worth of atmospheric helium that’s nearly ten fold greater by volumetric saturation, and this He element having roughly twice the mass of H2.
Like the GP-B fiasco, at best our EUVE (Extreme Ultra Violet Explorer) could have been representing a false positive, all be its published observationology given a nifty artificial eye-candy hue of yellow and reddish colorized EUV image of Earth’s surrounding cloud of helium and hydrogen. However, the solar wind caused planetary exhaust trail of H2 and He is what seriously needs to be more closely looked at and objectively quantified, as most easily accomplished from the naked surface of our Selene/moon or best from the more ideal vacuum of the Selene/moon L1, that which oddly after all these decades we still do not have to work with.
Existing EUV, UV and IR imaging: http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect20/A3.html
The badly failing geomagnetic field and subsequent magnetosphere has been capable of restraining or mildly sequestering some of Earth's hydrogen and helium by way of having been protecting our upper most atmosphere, but unfortunately for the past 12000 years this too has been going away (most recently at -.05%/year or <–120 nT/yr), is perhaps as good of reason as any why that lofty cloud of hydrogen and helium isn't sticking around, and why the lethal SAA contour has been exponentially growing and nearing the surface. On the other hand, would anyone care to suggest what could happen if such terrestrial hydrogen and helium didn’t get blown away? http://io9.com/395272/is-earths-magnetic-field-failing-us http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/category/geomagnetism/
Of course our perpetual naysayers and their usual evidence excluding gauntlet of their Big Eneregy resident army of Usenet/newsgroup wizards and brown-nosed clowns of perpetual obfuscation and denial are not paying this topic serious attention, or having allowed any outside context of consideration as to the greater worth or consequences of our badly failing geomagnetic force and of its subsequent fading magnetosphere. It’s as though our best physics and/or objective science doesn’t hardly matter, unless it’s strictly interpreted by those of Big Energy in charge of sustaining their mainstream status quo. In other words, for sustaining our mainstream as a viable cabal of happy campers, apparently our best public funded science has been the worth of used toilet paper, and whatever NASA mishaps of botched, failed or foiled missions are not to be taken all that seriously, if at all.
I recall mentioning at least a few thousand times, about our having the Selene/moon L1 platform of science instruments easily established as of 4 decades ago, including by now a 10x TRACE-II, plus an array of UV and IR imaging cameras looking at the whole sphere of Earth and as equally at our Selene/moon that's losing it's sodium and a few other elements at an alarming rate. However, without our having such a nifty viewing perspective it's simply much harder if not nearly impossible to interpret whatever's going on without our having to connect many terrestrial and LEO obtained dots, so to speak.
Btw, the often bogus mindset of "I always had the thoughts that free hydrogen, and helium were lost in space and that Earth's gravity was not strong enough to hold it" isn't what I'd gotten out of the vast bulk of the previously posted comments. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite mindset of what we’ve typically heard from most others, insisting that supposedly Earth never loses mass, whereas instead we’ve been systematically informed that our Eden/Earth supposedly gains several thousand tonnes per year, as what most others and myself used to believe. However, I was clearly the first contributor within this or any other Usenet/newsgroup to insist that our moon and Earth have each been losing a great deal of mass, and implying that the modern day human race has in fact been artificially assisting in this mostly natural process.
Perhaps this personal deductive analogy can also explain as to why ETs would ever bother going to all the trouble of extracting minerals and raw exotic elements from an exoplanet or its moon, such as our dire needs of extracting He3 and a number of other elements from our Selene/ moon, or as to otherwise why having any appreciation as to that of whomever is taking substances of value away from the planet Venus.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth - 28 Mar 2009 03:09 GMT Once upon a time, our Eden (proto Earth) had itself a fairly robust 100 bar worth of primal atmosphere to work with, and was obviously at that time losing little of its original hydrogen and helium due to the passive solar wind and because our geomagnetic force and subsequent magnetosphere was at least ten fold stronger, plus our sun at that early time was relatively passive, as not likely delivering more than half or even a quarter the average solar wind with few if any halo CMEs.
A loss of 99 bar worth of this robust atmosphere (5.1e20 kg worth) is actually suggesting quite a bit of our global bulk in mass reduction, especially considering those early meteor and comet arrivals of <10e9 kg/yr that extensively vaporized into becoming additional atmosphere, water and minerals, along with the terrestrial/natural outgassing of many atmospheric elements including impressive amounts of raw hydrogen and helium that tend to uncontrollably rise (helium recombining with nothing), plus all the recent artificial contributions by way of humanity and our mass consumptions of various natural and synthetic hydrocarbons as having created another million tonnes per year of potentially toxic CFCs, HFCs and HCFCs that should have been replaced by way of simply using good old CO2, though even CH4 (methane) would have always been a better alternative to artificial CFCs and HCFCs, but that kind of common sense would have destroyed those wealthy petrochemical and synthetic chemical empires of Union Carbide and DuPont. Seems the general public’s lack of physics and science education has been a perpetual godsend kind of commercial treasure trove, of vast loot for the Rothschilds.
If Earth had been capably holding onto its atmosphere (including its lofty H2 and He), whereas instead of our having lost 5.1e20 kg to start with and perhaps like a immature gas giant we’d still be gaining atmospheric mass. Lucky for us that hasn’t been the case, though not to say that a gas giant with a substantial solid core (16+ Me) like that of our Jupiter couldn’t coexist at 1 AU, along with any number of goldilocks sustaining moons.
As of lately our lower (6 km) half of atmospheric mass has been rather nicely polluted, warming and thereby increasing its density by way of holding more water vapor along with our sooty saturations of toxic CO2 and NOx, while the upper atmospheric density has been gradually decreasing or thinning by having received a greater percentage of methane topped off by natural and artificial freons plus loads of good old He and H2 that our gravity and weakening magnetosphere simply can not forever hold onto.
Earth currently receives an average of as little as 1 kg/sec, but otherwise perhaps at times as much as 10 kg/sec of space dust and assorted meteorites and a few asteroid encounters. However, from my recent interpretation, Eden is at the same time along with our human enterprising persistence why we're most likely losing at least 300 kg/ s (9.5e6 tonnes/year) of our hydrogen and helium, and even if it were as little as a tenth that amount is still an impressive million tonnes/ year loss in mass.
In running the numbers of what we annually extract and attempt to utilize of our terrestrial coal, oil and natural gasses there's simply no viable contest, whereas Earth has been losing considerable mass, and by some basic accounting this kind of loss can become easily worth losing as great as a tonne/sec if you'd care to honestly include the natural and human derived forms of hydrogen and helium getting released, of which has to include that which is mostly vented and/or wasted from all of our fossil energy and many ongoing artificial and industrial forms of having created and subsequently released such lofty gasses as hydrogen and helium. Perhaps that’s the best kind of reason why we do not have the whole-Earth science coverage from Selene L1, because it would only become too much public bad news for Big Energy and our industrial chemical empires to deal with.
Our badly failing geomagnetic field is not exactly helping, and yet with all the best of intentions there is still no official accounting of Earth’s mass reduction that we can objectively agree upon, which only leads to our using out best swags and deductive speculations because so much of our basic public funded science is either need-to- know encrypted, kept taboo/nondisclosure rated and/or having been systematically overlooked and otherwise obfuscated to death, or simply lost along the way because otherwise, it would sort of make ‘Big Energy’ and other Big Money look even worse than it already is.
Science obfuscation = lying by way of omission
Physics obfuscation = worse than lying by omission
Ponzi Physics = perpetual job and benefit security as priority No.1
It’s not just about Earth, whereas the public accessible science pertaining to our unusually massive and nearby Selene/moon and also the planet Venus are each examples loaded with such mainstream obfuscation, and otherwise Mars is just an infomercial game of perpetual hype and loads of mostly inert eye-candy.
On the other hand, what doesn’t our disingenuous government and of it’s many faith-based dominated agencies of mostly the devout pretend Atheists cabal or Mafia kind, that in their perpetual denial tend to obfuscate as policy in order to protect thy public funded job security, thy nifty golden nest egg benefits and their precious retirements at public expense?
Clearly the Pope on multiple occasions throughout history has obfuscated his holy butt off, and Zionists just can’t seem to keep from obfuscating as long as it’s only taking advantage of others or capably false flag blaming of others. On the other hand, you can believe it was always those physics and science smart Atheists or Muslims as having supposedly gotten us safely to/from our moon, and otherwise believe it was only these smart Atheists and Muslims as having helped Hitler achieve so much global domination from so little, if that’s what makes you a happy camper.
The public funded and Stanford University executed GP-B experiment was every bit as good as any obfuscation on steroids, and their perpetual denial of being in denial is every bit as disingenuous. Perhaps there is some kind of public mainstream policy or tradition of systematic obfuscation? (apparently there is, especially if our SEC approved Ponzi Madoff and more than half our banking, investment and mortgage infrastructure is any example)
Outside of our having to pretend at being politically correct and always having to be faith-based passive or neutral, what I’d like to know for the pure sake of knowledge is exactly (+/-10%) how much tonnage per second or per year our planet is typically losing (mostly in hydrogen and helium), in much the same way that exoplanets of viable habitats for life have been recently identified by way of their loss of such EUV detected elements as hydrogen and helium. In the case of Earth, an average vertical escape velocity of helium migration or vertical propagation of merely 2 to 4 m/s seems likely, except there’s much the same devoid of objective data as with raw ice coexisting within 1 AU space, along with still no objective science on behalf of the volumes of our H2 and He escapement or loss to go by.
As far as I can tell, there’s no actual political or faith-based need of their mainstream policy imposing such conditional physics or the hocus-pocus infowar tactics of science hype and obfuscation, but then I certainly could be wrong.
~ BG
Saul Levy - 28 Mar 2009 20:53 GMT What a wide-ranging KOOKRANT, GOOFBALL! lmfjao!
You said NOTHING NEW!
Saul Levy
>Once upon a time, our Eden (proto Earth) had itself a fairly robust >100 bar worth of primal atmosphere to work with, and was obviously at [quoted text clipped - 130 lines] > > ~ BG BradGuth - 28 Mar 2009 21:11 GMT The question that I’ve imposed by this topic about significant mass leaving Earth isn’t hardly in question, so much as it’s the given amount of the ongoing mass loss per second or per year that can be subjectively argued fairly extensively, especially since we still have not established the Selene/moon L1 science platform on behalf of whole Earth, solar and moon observations that could have told us nearly everything we needed to know as of 4 decades ago.
Maxwell Boltzmann http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/energy/Companion/E07.4.pdf.xpdf “Hydrogen and helium have a mean speed that is a significant fraction of the escape speed. For this reason, there is almost no hydrogen or helium in Earth’s present atmosphere.” (considering the vast volume of our atmosphere, there’s actually quite an extensive tonnage that gets maintained and/or replenished in spite of such lofty elements as H2 and He that tend to forever rise, becoming heated and continually escape Earth’s gravity)
As our geomagnetic field proceeds to fade away at -.05%/year (signaling yet another magnetic pole reversal) and subsequently our protective magnetosphere fails us for yet another extended period of time, allowing the SAA contour to expand and deepen, as the average 400 km/s solar wind along with halo CMEs of 800<1600 km/s reaches ever deeper into the upper atmosphere, whereas subsequently our natural and artificially introduced volumes of hydrogen and helium gets solar and even somewhat via Selene/moon superheated and thereby easily accelerated above 11.2 km/s (affording enough solar wind enhanced velocity to easily escape Earth).
As a direct result, Earth is simply not gaining a sufficient influx of mass in order to offset the ongoing and accelerated escapement of our natural and artificial hydrogen and especially that of our helium. In other words, there is simply not a volumetric balance of sufficient incoming mass taking place, and at the very least our upper 50% mass of atmosphere is getting progressively thinned out and/or displaced by the vertically migrating supply of helium and hydrogen. How could this upper atmospheric thinning not allow more solar and secondary Selene/moon radiated energy in (including UV, X-rays and gamma)?
The current rate of Earth’s surface and ocean floor outgassing of mineral saturated fluids and otherwise natural gasses from deep geothermal vents and undersea volcanoes is likely in the realm of contributing at least 1e12 kg/year, and perhaps roughly 1% of that being in the form of direct atmospheric worthy gasses (including raw hydrogen and always helium that doesn’t naturally recombine with anything unless we’re talking fusion).
If this 1e12 kg/yr or 1000 megatonnes/year (<1e10 kg/yr of He and H2) of such solids and gasses from within Earth isn’t bad enough, there’s an influx of mostly vaporized meteorites worthy of contributing another 5e7 to 5e8 kg/yr, from which hydrogen and helium (including He3) is always a part of that meteor/comet influx, and factor in the electrostatic/lightning created hydrogen if you’d care to add a little more insult to injury.
Now add the human contributed/expedited volumetric tonnage of helium that’s released, such as typically 1<9% of our natural gas and otherwise from the extractions of coal and oil. In India they have recently quantified some of their natural geothermal venting areas as giving off <2% helium per volume of what’s surface escaping along with many other gasses (including methane and radon), meaning there’s loads of nearby thorium, uranium and radium below, along with a substantial natural gas reserve of perhaps certain locations worth <10% helium purity. In other words, India can’t possibly lose, with far cheaper and more abundant nuclear worthy ore that’s as close to sustainable if not somewhat renewable as we’re going to get.
If clean energy derived via a number of renewable alternatives plus thorium isn’t quite good enough to suit your fancy, here’s the old reliable geothermal alternative for us, pretty much just like I and Steven Chu said. (how many hundred GW or TW would you like?)
“Plug into a Greener Grid: RE<C and RechargeIT Initiatives” Video: Intro to Enhanced Geothermal Systems http://www.google.org/rec.html
Commercial hybrids: With a national surplus of clean energy, even the nearly all electric commercial 18<24 wheeler isn’t outside of what this geothermal renewable kind of energy can deliver, such as within as little as 3 hours of 3 phase recharging or battery pack exchange that’s capable of providing <12 hrs of serious truck hauling, and better yet if the hybrid ICE option ran on h2o2+synfuel or replaced by an h2o2 fuel cell kind of high energy density battery (similar to what the GM Volt has planned), in which case little if any hydrogen gets released, and the whole birth-to-grave energy consumption process become capable of contributing zero NOx as well as having released zero helium.
Put Steven Chu and even the bipolar wizardly likes of our informative William Mook in our national green/renewable energy think tank, and right off the bat we’ll start going to better places without nearly as much environmental consequences, creating a national surplus of clean energy to boot. In closing, it would certainly be nice if a physics kind of stop-loss order could be placed, so that mother Earth as our one and only Eden could also stop losing mass.
~ BG
BradGuth - 29 Mar 2009 19:46 GMT Is this why we still do not have anything at Selene L1?
Shouldn’t we have the right to know about our own planet? (apparently not)
By the observationology science of our looking at Mars and deductively interpreting the UV obtained data, we know that <21,000 tonnes of methane is seasonally vented and most likely lost to space within a given amount of time. By way of using the same degree of observationology science can also quantify exactly how much of Earth’s methane is made available, as well as for observing our build up of CO2 plus any number of many other elements, including helium and hydrogen that do not stick with Earth.
If the general public knew what our government agencies of DARPA, NASA, DoE, DNR and their Big Energy puppet masters have been obfuscating and otherwise doing to us and our frail environment (similar to our SEC approved Ponzi Madoff), we’d likely terminate the whole lot as though they were nothing but worse than another Muslim sleeper cell hiding WMD and OBL. In other words, we’d react first and ask questions later, especially since the darkening cloud of evidence by way of their actions isn’t all that hidden from modern observation methods of easily detecting and quantifying such atmospheric elements. (in other words, perhaps our recently foiled Orbiting Carbon Observatory mission wasn’t of such an unavoidable anomaly after all)
As of 4 decades ago, the Selene L1 (Earth-moon L1) platform of global observation and other science instruments could have been accomplished for 10% the cost of one Apollo mission, and as such it could have been interactively station keeping and telling us the whole body of naked truths about Earth, instead of our being limited by the published mainstream and obfuscated infomercial alternatives that’s telling us only what limited parts of our public funded science they see fit to share, so that we can’t be well informed as to how much and from which sources are contributing the most into our environment.
Not so unexpected, it seems Big Energy and those otherwise invested have needed something to refocus or divert our public media and the general public attention away from the ugly truths, whereas the AGW fiasco as having fingered freons and then CO2 as being the primary culprit has certainly been their failsafe ticket to ride thus far. Oddly, it seems Earth has been unexpectedly warming as of 11,711 years ago (long before artificial freons and CO2 were invented), and only as of lately has Earth been losing a great deal of its mass at the same time, partially via natural causes including by holding onto our Selene/moon, and otherwise extensively due to all of the human released gasses of mostly methane, hydrogen and helium in addition to our CO2. The volumes and subsequent gigatonnage/year of terrestrial methane for the most part is consumed and otherwise recombines and doesn’t manage to leave our environment, however, eventually the megatonnage/year of its helium and even some of its hydrogen does manage to leave.
We’ve been told and/or informed by those in charge that our planet is always gaining mass. However, in spite of the local and cosmic influx of 1<5 kg/sec, seems Earth has actually been losing a great deal of its mass, mostly by way of its insufficient tidal radius grip on our helium and hydrogen. Directly related to where some of that hydrogen and helium comes from, and far away from the supposed mainstream promoted and heavily infomercial hyped truth, whereas it seems there’s actually nothing all that clean or environmentally friendly about our extracting and using coal, not to mention the obvious atmospheric pollution of toxic elements you wouldn’t dare breath yourself, plus surface and aquifer loads of mostly fresh water consumptions and subsequent contamination of the surrounding terrain and ground water that’s downright mind boggling.
On the lighter side of such released elements, Earth’s atmosphere sustains an average 5.2 ppm of helium (5.2e-6 parts per volume or 0.00052%) that continually migrates towards space along with freed hydrogen leading the way, plus certain freons and perhaps even pulling some of our methane along for the ride, that’s all helping to expand those O3 ozone holes along the way. In other words, within any given minute or hour there’s a volume of 26.5e8 m3 of helium being made available from the interior and surface of Earth, as otherwise our atmosphere simply wouldn’t sustain those background readings of 5.2 ppm, and at 1 bar this kind of saturation is worth a global volumetric 472e3 tonnes of helium per vertical cubic meter of added mass, that’s continually made available on any given minute, hour or day after day (try to remember that’s per vertical meter, whereas a km gives us 472e6 tonnes to work with).
Methane w/helium: Our global 2009 wellhead natural gas extraction = 3.5e12 m3, He<9% (avg 0.5<1.5%) of this natural gas volume is always contributing our isotope element of helium. Using 1% as the helium content average = 3.5e10 * .178 = 6.23e9 kg or 6.23 million tonnes of He/year.
Basically, other than our trusty DoE and USGS, there’s no one all- inclusive or any other specialized agency of oversight for this global accounting on behalf of released hydrogen and helium from oil wells, oily sands, coal, methane or multiple other deep aquifer and mineral mining operations, so instead we have any number of a mostly industry self funded and of a few semi-private research reports to pick from, none of which agree with most any other report. Therefore, tossing out the high and the low, we get to use our loose cannon swag of our deductive interpretation in order to obtain rough estimates as based upon average of everything else. Being highly conservative, I have used 1% of the methane volume and 0.1% of the extracted coal and oil volumes as a rough basis for estimating the extent of helium released. However, as it turns out I’ve only been off by a factor of 10<30 fold at having underestimated the raw methane and subsequent helium per m3 of coal and oil, mostly because I had no educated idea how much methane comes along with the process of uncovering or extracting each tonne or m3 of coal and oil.
Judging by the following US Coal reports on methane absorption and subsequent emissions, if used for further interpreting such on behalf of speculating global methane released from abandoned mines, as likely in excess of contributing 1e10 m3/year in raw methane, and therefore we’re looking at perhaps 1e8 m3 of helium, or 0.178e8 kg = 17.8e3 tonnes He/year that’s derived from just those abandoned sites, and because of so much interior having been exposed from deep within Earth, whereas even those flooded mines do not entirely stop this ongoing release of helium, means that previous estimate of 17.8e3 tonnes/year could easily be conservative by a factor of 10. http://www.coalinfo.net.cn/coalbed/meeting/2203/papers/coal-mining/CM030.pdf
This next example of an active coal mining operation of extracting <4e6 t/year of coal is worth 30<35 m3 of methane/tonne, directly venting <72 m3/minute of methane, or 37.8e6 m3/yr, and otherwise less than a third of the 30<35 m3/tonne of extracted coal is captured, and for the most part utilized on site. http://www.methanetomarkets.org/Data/Coal_MX_Mimosa_poster.pdf Total volume of ventilation from mine: 150 m3/sec = 9000 m3/minute Volume of raw methane in ventilation air: 72 m3/min Average methane concentration in ventilation air: 0.5% Fluctuation of methane concentration: 0.5% -0.8% Total volume of gas drained: 22.5 m3/minute Volume of pure methane drained: 18 m3/minute Average methane concentration in drained gas: 75% Fluctuation of methane concentration in drained gas: 50 –75% Coal permeability: 30 – 4 milidarcy Coal in situ gas content: 10 m3/tonne Relative emissions: 30 m3/tonne of coal mined
“From the present coal production the emissions from the mines are 30-35 m3 of methane per tonne of coal mined. Only 30% of the average gas emitted is captured from underground mining operations of each mine. The remaining 70% is exhausted in the atmosphere as ventilation air methane (VAM).”
In other words, the vast bulk of their VAM from the coal related mining is 130e6 m3/yr, including whatever portion that’s helium is simply vented, and their consumed methane simply does not consume or otherwise recombine its content of helium. At the distributed energy equivalent value of 33<36e3 btu/m3 or ~10.5 kwh/m3 @100% eff. (typical power generation efficiency at 39% = 4.1 kwhr/m3, and top quality home/ office/commercial heating can supposedly extract <96% eff), means these coal and methane energy supplying wizards never heard of the wise old phrase “waste not, want not”. Perhaps BHO as our new and improved fearless leader needs to create a national methane piping grid with 99% helium removal, just as badly as we have needed to upgrade and expand our national electrical grid, because our Big Energy providers are clearly wasting nearly as much or more energy via vented and/or burned off methane than we actually need to use, and otherwise needlessly venting helium in the process.
Richard Heinberg's MuseLetter: Coal in China http://globalpublicmedia.com/museletter_coal_in_china
http://www.itc.nl/personal/coalfire/index.html When underground coal uncontrollably burns (thousands of such fires exist, and many of those were artificially caused and/or of spontaneous fires via exposed coal as having been allowed to burn), besides all the toxic CO2 and multiple other sooty and gaseous pollutants released (China’s underground fires alone providing 360 million tonnes/year of CO2), whereas the geologically stored element of helium is never consumed, but instead the release of coal, oil and methane sequestered helium is greatly accelerated. With perhaps 250 million tonnes/year of global underground coal fires plus whatever associated methane per year going up in smoke, so to speak, there’s perhaps a bare minimum of a million of tonnes worth of helium getting released per year by this process alone. This natural plus artificial release of helium, much like that continually released via commercial and residential natural gas consumption, simply doesn’t recombine or otherwise stick with the mass of Earth.
Perhaps our not having put out or terminated those underground coal fires has been a bad idea, and simply not a viable future option unless 1000 ppm of CO2 plus multiple other toxic pollutants isn’t a bother. Of course it’s much worse if you’re situated near or down wind of any natural pockets, underwater volumes or geothermal vents of CO2, that from time to time gets released and manages to kill off most of everything each invisible and often odorless cloud of CO2 surrounds.
Frankly, I’ve had no good idea as to how utterly dynamitic and extensive the natural outflux plus that of our artificial release of helium was, and that so little of the bulk methane per tonne of excavated coal and oil was even captured. I’m only now understanding how limited or rather systematically obfuscated our public knowledge has been about the vast extent of this ongoing factor of released methane and subsequent helium via oil, coal and multiple other mining operations. Another important consideration is that it takes anywhere from 3 to 9 tonnes worth of coal per tonne of synfuel, so that option of solid to liquid fuel conversion isn’t exactly a viable solution unless the ultimate goal is actually intended to toxic gas and mineral saturate our frail environment while roughly quadrupling the release of coal sequestered helium in order to supplement our ongoing consumption of liquid hydrocarbons.
Apparently 130e6 m3 of methane released per year from a given coal mining operation is not all that uncommon. Whereas <1% of this gaseous volume is likely helium, thus 1.3e6 m3 of helium (231 t) is released per year from a typical coal mining operation, and throughout the world there’s at least a thousand of such major underground mines ongoing = 231e3 t of He/year, plus a thousand more of active surface mines, and of course we don’t want to even discuss deaths directly related to this global extraction, transporting, processing and the final consumption and/or conversions of coal. Gee, I wonder why BP, GE and ExxonMobil are not bragging about who has contributed the most helium. Is there a secret DNR (department of natural resources) promoted race with China to see who can manage to release the most helium?
If I were the proper kind of brown-nosed NASA or DARPA puppet, and/or the good kind of public funded minion of such a faith-based government that’s run extensively by the likes of those Rothschilds and Big Energy cartels and Mafia cabals, I sure as hell would not want to see any such OCO (Orbiting Carbon Observatory) mission or that of any Selene L1 platform of objective spectrometer founded battery of science instruments looking at our environment, and much less allowing the general media access to interpreting any of such publicly funded research that would easily identify and even quantify per km3 as to how much of our environment is getting consumed by natural and artificial fire, and otherwise as having been polluting our upper most atmosphere with additional helium and hydrogen that’s unavoidably going away from Earth at a fairly alarming rate, because we might actually realized how extensively screwed we are.
Wonder how those smart ETs on Venus ever manage to get by without having created their fair share of internal or open combustion? (just kidding, because there’s all sorts of perfectly renewable and/or geothermal accomplished ways that’ll put most anything we have [short of He3/fusion] to shame, and then some). Too bad we don’t have the cool Venus L2 location as for accommodating our POOF City or future ISS outpost as our interplanetary Oasis/Gateway home away from home, perhaps for the same insidious and/or obfuscated reasons we still don’t have anything of Selene L1 at our disposal for even robotic/ remote obtained solar/Earth/moon science.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
Saul Levy - 20 Apr 2009 23:29 GMT Now observationology is a SCIENCE, GOOFBALL? lmfjao!
BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You've NEVER defined it!
"...hocus-pocus or illusionism" says as much as anything else about you! That's all you SPEW HERE TOO!
See: http://groups.google.cd/group/epistemology/web/observationology-epistemology-mod erated
Saul Levy
>Is this why we still do not have anything at Selene L1? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >By the observationology science of our looking at Mars and deductively >interpreting the UV obtained data, we know that <21,000 tonnes of [rest of insane rant deleted, unread as usual]
BradGuth - 31 Mar 2009 04:22 GMT Mention something/anything of helium loss along with Big Energy, lo and behold all the sudden the Usenet/newsgroup lights go out. No wonder they foiled our spendy OCO mission.
~ BG
> For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere > contains [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet” BradGuth - 03 Apr 2009 01:10 GMT > Mention something/anything of helium loss along with Big Energy, lo > and behold all the sudden the Usenet/newsgroup lights go out. No [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > > > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet” Is there some good reason why our resident rabbi is trying to foil this topic?
~ BG
Saul Levy - 20 Apr 2009 23:29 GMT My name never even came up, GOOFBALL! lmfjao!
Seems it's YOU who is SO f.cked UP HERE!
Maybe it's YOUR tinfoil hat?
Saul Levy
>Is there some good reason why our resident rabbi is trying to foil >this topic? > > ~ BG BradGuth - 04 Apr 2009 05:01 GMT It has gotten so dark and deathly quite in Usenet/newsgroups that we can hear those tiny pins drop. Is this topic banishment all because of the tonnage of helium Eden/Earth is losing?
~ BG
> Mention something/anything of helium loss along with Big Energy, lo > and behold all the sudden the Usenet/newsgroup lights go out. No [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > > > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet” Saul Levy - 04 Apr 2009 06:32 GMT I told you, GOOFBALL, this topic is FULL OF sh.t! lmfjao!
Saul Levy
>It has gotten so dark and deathly quite in Usenet/newsgroups that we >can hear those tiny pins drop. Is this topic banishment all because >of the tonnage of helium Eden/Earth is losing? > > ~ BG BradGuth - 04 Apr 2009 18:41 GMT How much mass of mostly He and H2 can Eden/Earth afford to lose?
What happens when our geomagnetic force is half of what it is today?
~ BG
> For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere > contains [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet” BradGuth - 05 Apr 2009 17:35 GMT Too bad there’s still no mainstream focus on how much mass Earth is losing. Of course faith-based cabals and Big Energy cartels could each care less, but never quite enough less to keep their brown-nosed spooks and moles from screwing with and pouncing upon any methods of others obtaining objective science. It’s as though there’s simply too much bad news that needs to get banished or at least obfuscated to death and/or made entirely taboo/nondisclosure rated.
The best resolution and even the dynamic range from ISRO sucks. http://www.universetoday.com/2009/04/03/latest-images-from-chandrayaan-1/ Oddly there’s still equal or better resolution images via them old Apollo analog metric mapping images, even as poorly scanned into digital format none the less. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/metric/
However, now there’s atmospheric bacteria surviving at 41 km above Earth. “ISRO makes intriguing "extraterrestrial" life discovery -- let's hope they're on our side!” http://www.worldnewsforum.net/computers-space-technology-gaming/3530-ndian-space -researchers-claim-extraterrestrial-life-discovery.html Discovery of New Microorganisms in the Stratosphere http://www.isro.org/pressrelease/Mar16_2009.htm
By rights, this means there should be Mars microbes, and/or at least spores.
Notice how all of the American media has been instructed/warned not to convey anything positive or otherwise constrictive about ISRO, obviously it’s because ISRO at less than ten cents on the dollar is making our NASA and DARPA look entirely pathetic, if not bogus.
Instead of being continually outdone by India, Japan and even China, the Selene/moon L1 could have been all ours as of 4 decades ago.
In addition to obtaining far superior Earth, sun and moon science, as accomplished from Selene/moon L1, with an optical telephoto lens or sufficient telescope could have accomplished a whole lot better job than one meter per pixel, along with a DR of at least 32 DB, and with multiple narrow bandpass filters to boot. In other words, we wouldn't have needed OCO or a dozen other spendy satellite obtained science missions, plus so much other could have been accomplished from Selene L1.
~ BG
> How much mass of mostly He and H2 can Eden/Earth afford to lose? > [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > > > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet” hanson - 05 Apr 2009 18:11 GMT What happens ....
I recall mentioning at least a few thousand times,
hanson wrote: Brad, Brad, Brad... You are talking to *yourself*. That's not a good way to advance your cause. You need to convince your clients/readers, NOT yourself.... ahahaha...
ETs would bother going to all the trouble... taking substances away from ... Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
hanson wrote: WOW.!.. that's quite possibly the source and cause for you failing in your mission, Brad. Never the less, you are still a good man. Carry on. Don't let me or anyone elese cramp your style. Thanks for the laughs, Brad...ahahaha ahahahaha... ahahahahahanson
BradGuth - 05 Apr 2009 18:46 GMT > What happens .... > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > cramp your style. Thanks for the laughs, Brad...ahahaha > ahahahaha... ahahahahahanson The Zionist Nazi mindset of hanson doesn't hold much water, though perhaps that's only because it's already chock full of the usual mainstream status quo sh.t that Old Testament certified. Your every word has proven that I'm right, as otherwise you'd be easily proving me wrong or constructively assisting by way of your superior talent, expertise and first hand knowledge, though oddly none of which has ever shown its face.
btw, your bogus/stealth profile sucks and blows like every other brown-nosed spook and mole. At least Hitler never hid his ID or kept his intentions and global domination mindset from the public, so you must be something worse than Hitler.
~ BG
hanson - 05 Apr 2009 20:00 GMT -------- AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... ----------
What happens ....
I recall mentioning at least a few thousand times,
hanson wrote: Brad, Brad, Brad... You are talking to *yourself*. That's not a good way to advance your cause. You need to convince your clients/readers, NOT yourself.... ahahaha...
ETs would bother going to all the trouble... taking substances away from ... Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
hanson wrote: WOW.!.. that's quite possibly the source and cause for you failing in your mission, Brad. Never the less, you are still a good man. Carry on. Don't let me or anyone elese cramp your style. Thanks for the laughs, Brad...ahahaha ahahahaha... ahahahahahanson
The Zionist Nazi mindset of hanson doesn't hold much water, though perhaps that's only because it's already chock full of the usual mainstream status quo sh.t that Old Testament certified. Your every word has proven that I'm right, as otherwise you'd be easily proving me wrong or constructively assisting by way of your superior talent, expertise and first hand knowledge, though oddly none of which has ever shown its face.
hanson wrote: .... ahahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... now you are getting somewhere, with your "I'm right"... But you will have to prove or at least announce where that "where" is... ahahaha... Is it in jerUSAlem or in L1?
tw, your bogus/stealth profile sucks and blows like every other brown-nosed spook and mole. At least Hitler never hid his ID or kept his intentions and global domination mindset from the public, so you must be something worse than Hitler.
hanson wrote: Ahhh, the "spook and mole and Hitler"... ahahaha... You would be in the clear about all that and not "suck and blow", like you constantly do, if you were to study --- [ http://www.jewwatch.com ] ---- ahahahaha....
ahahahaha... Brad, don't w.nker, strain & crank yourself so obviously. I know you try your hardest to be funny. And you are a very good joke, especially in your tortured attempts to have the last word. Will that make you happy?... Thanks for the laughs. ahaha... ahahaha... ahahahanson.
BradGuth - 05 Apr 2009 20:04 GMT > -------- AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... ---------- > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > make you happy?... Thanks for the laughs. > ahaha... ahahaha... ahahahanson. Didn't read anything you had to say, but then you (aka nobody) didn't actually have anything to say, so what's the difference?
~ BG
hanson - 06 Apr 2009 07:14 GMT AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... ---------- -------- AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... ----------
> >> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: What happens ....
I recall mentioning at least a few thousand times,
hanson wrote: Brad, Brad, Brad... You are talking to *yourself*. That's not a good way to advance your cause. You need to convince your clients/readers, NOT yourself.... ahahaha...
ETs would bother going to all the trouble... taking substances away from ... Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
hanson wrote: WOW.!.. that's quite possibly the source and cause for you failing in your mission, Brad. Never the less, you are still a good man. Carry on. Don't let me or anyone elese cramp your style. Thanks for the laughs, Brad...ahahaha ahahahaha... ahahahahahanson
The Zionist Nazi mindset of hanson doesn't hold much water, though perhaps that's only because it's already chock full of the usual mainstream status quo sh.t that Old Testament certified. Your every word has proven that I'm right, as otherwise you'd be easily proving me wrong or constructively assisting by way of your superior talent, expertise and first hand knowledge, though oddly none of which has ever shown its face.
hanson wrote: .... ahahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... now you are getting somewhere, with your "I'm right"... But you will have to prove or at least announce where that "where" is... ahahaha... Is it in jerUSAlem or in L1?
tw, your bogus/stealth profile sucks and blows like every other brown-nosed spook and mole. At least Hitler never hid his ID or kept his intentions and global domination mindset from the public, so you must be something worse than Hitler.
hanson wrote: Ahhh, the "spook and mole and Hitler"... ahahaha... You would be in the clear about all that and not "suck and blow", like you constantly do, if you were to study --- [ http://www.jewwatch.com ] ---- ahahahaha....
ahahahaha... Brad, don't w.nker, strain & crank yourself so obviously. I know you try your hardest to be funny. And you are a very good joke, especially in your tortured attempts to have the last word. Will that make you happy?... Thanks for the laughs. ahaha... ahahaha... ahahahanson.
Didn't read anything you had to say, but then you (aka nobody) didn't actually have anything to say, so what's the difference?
hanson wrote: ahahahaha... then why did you answer? AHAHAHA... Brad, don't w.nker, strain & crank yourself so obviously. I know you try your hardest to be funny. And you are a very good joke, especially in your tortured attempts to have the last word. Will that make you happy?... Thanks for the laughs. ahaha... ahahaha... ahahahanson.
BradGuth - 06 Apr 2009 14:49 GMT > AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... ---------- > -------- AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... ---------- [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > make you happy?... Thanks for the laughs. > ahaha... ahahaha... ahahahanson. Atill didn't read anything you had to say, but then you (aka nobody) didn't actually have anything to say, so what's the difference?
~ BG
BradGuth - 09 Apr 2009 02:08 GMT Too bad the whole truth and nothing but the truth in this case is wisely taking the fifth.
I can see that our official Usenet/newsgroup topic banishment policy is running at full tilt, whereas in this case Big Energy and our soon to be unplugged NASA are in some kind of mutual cahoots with one another.
~ BG
> For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere > contains [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet” Saul Levy - 09 Apr 2009 06:26 GMT Why are you now TOP POSTING, GOOFBALL? lmfjao!
Saul Levy
>Too bad the whole truth and nothing but the truth in this case is >wisely taking the fifth. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > ~ BG hanson - 09 Apr 2009 06:39 GMT hanson wrote: ... ahahahaha... Brad, Brad, Brad, old buddy,.... you are talking to yourself again... ahahaha....
But then, the FULL MOON is coming up... ahaha Thanks for the laughs... ahahahanson
BradGuth - 09 Apr 2009 17:41 GMT > hanson wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > But then, the FULL MOON is coming up... ahaha > Thanks for the laughs... ahahahanson Thanks for the usual topic update, of adding nothing of any relevance whatsoever. We know, it's what you and others of your kind do best.
~ BG
BradGuth - 12 Apr 2009 19:42 GMT > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere > contains [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet” We're still losing considerable mass per year, mostly via helium, and apparently there's not an honest soul in Usenet/newsgroups (aka Google Groups) that knows or gives a tinkers damn, just like not caring about the ongoing demise of our geomagnetic force field.
~ BG
BradGuth - 15 Apr 2009 03:51 GMT > > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere > > contains [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > > ~ BG What gives?
Is the ongoing loss of planetary mass actually all that dark and scary?
Do I have to restart this and other topics, just so that you folks get an extra potty break?
~ BG
Eric Gisse - 15 Apr 2009 05:55 GMT > > > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere > > > contains [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] > > ~ BG Nobody cares.
Talk to yourself for another 3 months.
BradGuth - 15 Apr 2009 07:00 GMT > > > > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere > > > > contains [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > > Talk to yourself for another 3 months. Your "alt.morons" mainstream obfuscation and perpetual denial is noted, as is your pro Zionist Nazi and republican mindset.
~ BG
Eric Gisse - 15 Apr 2009 07:23 GMT > > > > > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere > > > > > contains [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > > ~ BG So long as its' noted.
BradGuth - 16 Apr 2009 03:33 GMT > > > Nobody cares. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > So long as its' noted. As per usual, your "alt.morons, alt.whine" of mainstream obfuscation and perpetual denial is noted, as is your pro Zionist Nazi and republican mindset. ~ BG
Saul Levy - 16 Apr 2009 00:06 GMT No one CARES about your FIXATIONS, GOOFBALL! lmfjao!
More MEANINGLESS DRIVEL!
Saul Levy
>> > > > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere >> > > > contains >> > > > Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%), He = .1786 kg/m3 >> > > > Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%), H2 = .0899 kg/m3
>> > > > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / Guth Usenet >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > ~ BG Saul Levy - 15 Apr 2009 17:50 GMT It's YOU that's CONSTIPATED, GOOFBALL! lmfjao!
The SAME REPEATS OVER AND OVER AND OVER!
The rest of us get OVER topics. You don't!
Saul Levy
>> > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere >> > contains >> > Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%), He = .1786 kg/m3 >> > Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%), H2 = .0899 kg/m3
>What gives? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > ~ BG BradGuth - 17 Apr 2009 14:41 GMT > > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere > > contains [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > > ~ BG Notice how so many Usenet/newsgroup individuals that are often bogus to begin with and seldom if ever create valid topics of their own, nor otherwise constructively contribute to the serious topics of others. It's as though their faith-based and otherwise politically skewed ulterior motives and hidden agenda is above all else, and whatever human life and/or salvation of our frail environment is entirely meaningless. In other words, it's almost as though Hitler and his Mafia thugs of Zionist Nazis never left town.
Our planet becoming polluted and otherwise losing mass is quite serious business, and it takes a considerate and open mindset that's not so easily influenced by the mainstream orchestrated debauchery of what's making everything as difficult and spendy as hell.
~ BG
Sanny - 17 Apr 2009 18:10 GMT Most Scientists have become slaves. They just work for the salary they get. They do not really care nor are any interested in the work they do.
What % of the mass is decreased in an year? or may be in a Century?
If It loses less than 1% in 1000 years then nothing to worry about.
Bye Sanny
BradGuth - 17 Apr 2009 19:14 GMT > Most Scientists have become slaves. They just work for the salary they > get. They do not really care nor are any interested in the work they [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Bye > Sanny Sanny, I would not call a 1% loss in mass per thousand years of "nothing to worry about". However, it's likely far less than 0.0001% per thousand years, but that's still not a good sign.
I'd think 6e12 tonnes/year might be on the extreme high side, whereas it's more likely closer to as little as 6e8 tonnes/yr, though possibly as great as 6e9 tonnes/yr, of which is still hardly anything to worry about, other than it's extensively thinning our upper most atmosphere at the same time, and thereby adding to our global warming and further reducing our shielding from solar, moon and cosmic radiation. It's also a real darn shame to be wasting our precious radioisotope of helium and the small portion of extremely valuable He3 that goes along for the ride. ~ BG
Saul Levy - 18 Apr 2009 14:49 GMT Means you're still a LOON, GOOFBALL! lmfjao!
That's over ONE BILLION YEARS to lose it all!
That IS NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT!
Saul Levy
>> Most Scientists have become slaves. They just work for the salary they >> get. They do not really care nor are any interested in the work they [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >for the ride. > ~ BG BradGuth - 17 Apr 2009 19:43 GMT > > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere > > contains [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > > ~ BG With OCO we could have nailed this annual loss of mass to within +/-10%, however w/o OCO we are lucky if ever to get this subjective analogy within +/-50%. However, even without OCO and at worse case of our estimate being off by 50% is still a tremendous annual megatonnage loss in global mass, of at the very least ten fold greater than all of the physical influx per year. A loss in terrestrial hydrogen is of course important to realize, however it’s actually the helium loss that’s extensively associated with methane that’s much worse.
I'd think 6e12 tonnes/year might be on the extreme high side, whereas it's more likely closer to as little as 6e8 tonnes/yr, though possibly as great as 6e9 tonnes/yr, of which is still hardly anything to worry about in terms of global mass, other than it's extensively thinning our upper most atmosphere at the same time, and thereby adding to our global warming as well as further reducing our shielding from solar, moon and cosmic radiation. It's also a real darn shame to be wasting our precious radioisotope of helium and the small portion of extremely valuable He3 that goes along for the ride.
However, this topic isn’t just about an ongoing loss in global mass, although the tip of a given iceberg that’s likely as big as this one is always a good enough place to start our process of quantifying on behalf of our having a better understanding.
Notice how so many Usenet/newsgroup individuals that are often bogus to begin with and seldom if ever create valid topics of their own (outside of merely posting copycat infomercials on behalf of their mainstream status quo), nor having otherwise constructively contributed to the serious independent topics of others, whereas it's as though their faith-based and otherwise politically skewed ulterior motives and hidden agenda is above all else, and whatever human life and/or salvation of our frail environment is entirely meaningless. In other words, it's almost as though Hitler and his Mafia thugs of Zionist Nazis never left town, and Big Energy is otherwise in charge of cultivating and formulating public opinion, mostly in order to cover their own butts and for keeping their offshore banked pockets as chock full of our hard earned loot as possible ( the only Rothschild thing to do).
Our planet becoming depleted of its stored energy, as well as summarily polluted and otherwise losing considerable mass (mostly of helium) is quite serious planetology business, and it takes a considerate and open mindset that's not so easily influenced by all the mainstream orchestrated debauchery and perpetual obfuscation of what's making everything as difficult and spendy as hell, in order to keep us from realizing and appreciating the vast scope of what sort of global demise we’ve headed our next generations towards, with such few viable (meaning affordable) options unless we take full stock and inventory of what we currently have to work with.
~ BG
BradGuth - 19 Apr 2009 22:59 GMT Perhaps a better question of the day, is why would our devout Zionist rabbis be so deeply concerned either way about the amount of mass Eden/ Earth has been losing?
Are they suggesting that Eden/Earth doesn't actually lose any of its hydrogen or helium?
Are they suggesting that Eden/Earth has always had such a thin atmosphere?
Are they suggesting we can survive without any geomagnetic force that's in charge of creating and sustaining our magnetosphere?
~ BG
> > > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere > > > contains [quoted text clipped - 133 lines] > > ~ BG BradGuth - 20 Apr 2009 14:50 GMT At perhaps an influx of 1e12 physical particles/day as having an average mass of 1mg/meteorite, Earth receives 365e3 tonnes of mostly extremely fine dust per year, though much of which having any larger size and mass is vaporized before reaching the surface. So it's not that everything is outgoing when I speak of the continual loss in mass being perhaps as great as 365 million tonnes/year.
Even without our help, Earth has a perpetual loss of hydrogen and helium to contend with. This is also how we're discovering other exoplanets that could sustain life as we know it, is by detecting their surrounding upper most atmosphere and the unavoidable comet like trail of hydrogen and helium such planets have to offer.
So, what's the big hocus-pocus deal about quantifying as to how much tonnage of H2 and He that we're losing?
~ BG
> Perhaps a better question of the day, is why would our devout Zionist > rabbis be so deeply concerned either way about the amount of mass Eden/ [quoted text clipped - 148 lines] > > > ~ BG BradGuth - 21 Apr 2009 06:29 GMT Notice how the mainstream minions of the most remorseless brown-nosed kind don't seem to give a tinkers damn about Eden/Earth, or that of humanity, our frail environment and otherwise not offering any consideration as to that of our Selene/moon, Venus or the Sirius star/ solar system. The public be damned is their policy, and every bit as Zionist faith-based as Nazis can make it.
Odd and/or pathetic that so much of terrestrial and off-world matters have become taboo/nondisclosure rated and mainstream approved.
~ BG
> At perhaps an influx of 1e12 physical particles/day as having an > average mass of 1mg/meteorite, Earth receives 365e3 tonnes of mostly [quoted text clipped - 166 lines] > > > > ~ BG BradGuth - 21 Apr 2009 14:50 GMT Yet another nice try by those in perpetual AGW denial or bust damage- control mode, but none the less there’s still no celestial GW cigar for James Croll, and Milankovitch isn’t exactly doing much better.
According to the Milankovitch cycles, a +0.1% change in the 1380 w/m2 average solar influx = 1.12 K average surface temperature increase (an impressive 0.39% maximum thermal shift). Which is to say that whatever affects the orbital eccentricity of Earth (such as Jupiter and Saturn) has in fact measurably affected the average terrestrial temperature, just as the human industrial and each of our individual impacts upon our environment having measurably affected the atmospheric thinning, albedo dimming via soot laced with various elements of artificial pollution and the subsequent average surface temperature having upon average shifted upwards.
Btw, ingesting a few16oz cans/servings of carbonated whatever per day is offering perhaps 5 to as great as 27 fold that of what our background CO2 daily intake of polluted atmosphere has to offer. “Carbonated soft drinks contain from 2700 to more than 10000 ppm”, but then some of us manage to down a CO2 saturated sixpack worth of carbonic acidic drink per day, and for some reason we are still here to talk about it. So, our polluted environment that includes a commercial industry that is intentionally creating CO2, has quite a ways to go before our artificially carbonated atmosphere starts to sparkle and fizz. However, for this global environment there is always too much of a good thing, including amounts above 250 ppm (. 025%) CO2, unless it were only the factor and not the dozen some odd other nasty contributions that we’ve provided on top of our 360 ppm CO2 saturation.
Oddly the most local of orbital eccentricity influences comes from our Selene/moon and most certainly next getting contributed from that of a nearby Venus alignment that seems in of itself highly tidal locked, in that the same face of Venus is shown to us upon each and every 19 month alignment cycle, at times compounded worse yet whenever a combined lunar plus Venus alignment takes place should nearly exceed the +/- 0.05% solar influx shift, though only for a very short period of time, as for having influenced our briefly distorted terrestrial orbit about our mostly passive sun.
Once again and again, if only we had a sufficient platform of our science instruments operating from within the efficient orbital location of our Selene/moon L1, as could have been quite easily and affordably established as of four decades ago, and greatly improved upon ever since.
The truly big thermal shift of thawing us out from the very last ice- age this planet w/moon is ever going to see, started as of 11,711 years ago (+/- 1 yr). Before then is gets more than a little weird, as these pesky ice-ages and subsequent thaw cycles occurred more and more frequently, therefore making it highly unlikely that the influence of Jupiter and Saturn were all that responsible unless they were each orbiting closer and a little faster.
As of most recently in geological and evolutionary time, it seems the human race has been helping mother nature get rid of her hydrogen and helium, of which the natural isotope element of helium that’s strictly derived from radioactive element decay is simply not recombining and thus not sticking around, so to speak, and we’re talking about roughly a thousand fold more tonnage of mostly helium and some hydrogen that’s leaving Eden per year, as opposed to <365,000 tonnes/yr of debris received.
The good news is that eventually we’ll run ourselves out of fossil fuels and not even have sufficient alternatives for mining other raw mineral elements, therefore the loss of helium will greatly reduce itself back to the background norm of seeing an outgassing flow of perhaps less than 1 ppmv at sea level, as well as hydrogen at less than 0.5 ppmv. Of course the WWV economy by then will also become based upon how many sticks and stones each of us has. ~ BG
> > > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere > > > contains [quoted text clipped - 133 lines] > > ~ BG BradGuth - 25 Apr 2009 20:28 GMT Where's all the Usenet/newsgroup (aka Google NONA Groups) love and affection?
~ BG
> > > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere > > > contains [quoted text clipped - 133 lines] > > ~ BG BradGuth - 06 May 2009 06:16 GMT > > > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere > > > contains [quoted text clipped - 133 lines] > > ~ BG Are we afraid to know the truth, or are we just afraid of most everything?
~ BG
BradGuth - 07 May 2009 19:10 GMT > > > > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere > > > > contains [quoted text clipped - 136 lines] > Are we afraid to know the truth, or are we just afraid of most > everything? Besides losing <100 kg/sec of our helium from coal and most of everything else that comes into our frail environment via natural and artificial means out of the ground, and quite possibly it's even as great as a tonne/sec if that's an all-inclusive tally of He and H2 that's getting solar wind blown away. However, in addition we should also quantify upon the added dosage of radiation that's obtained mostly from coal, that's by no means going away.
~ BG
BradGuth - 08 May 2009 17:56 GMT > > > > > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere > > > > > contains [quoted text clipped - 146 lines] > > ~ BG Not only is whatever planet loss of mass (mostly He and H2) being kept as taboo/nondisclosure rated, but more so forbidden is anything having to do with our badly failing geomagnetic force that's sustaining our protective magnetosphere, plus far worse yet is anything of Big Energy and their systematic radioactive pollution of our frail environment.
It's bad enough what mother nature keeps tossing at us, however it's strictly need-to-know as to what sorts of nasty stuff we're doing to ourselves.
Notice how nothing has come of the OCO fiasco, as to any investigation is unusually quiet to nonexistent.
~ BG
Saul Levy - 08 May 2009 23:43 GMT OCO? What happened to Madoff, JACKASS? lmfjao!
Saul Levy
>Notice how nothing has come of the OCO fiasco, as to any investigation >is unusually quiet to nonexistent. > > ~ BG BradGuth - 10 May 2009 20:46 GMT And the forever grand ruse/sting of the century continues, along with so much so obfuscation and denial that only the resident rabbi Art Deco (aka Saul Levy) is left in charge of performing our mainstream damage-control with little if any backup.
> > > > > > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere > > > > > > contains [quoted text clipped - 154 lines] > Notice how nothing has come to past of our spendy OCO fiasco, as to > any investigation unto this failure is unusually quiet to nonexistent. " ~ BG
hanson - 10 May 2009 21:55 GMT And the forever grand ruse/sting of the century continues, along with so much so obfuscation and denial that only the resident rabbi Art Deco (aka Saul Levy) is left in charge of performing our mainstream damage-control with little if any backup.
Notice how nothing has come to past of our spendy OCO fiasco, as to any investigation unto this failure is unusually quiet to nonexistent. "
hanson wrote: "OCO"... ... ... CO2?... OKLO, Gabon?, Oort Cloud Object? ... ahahahaha... But Brad, you are a bit unkind to the Kike "Fart Gecko and his syphilitic homo band". Google for it. Fart Geco, aka Saul Levy, seems to be keep away kosherly .. or you maybe you have driven him away by boring him with your talking to yourself . See above . Or maybe he got a call to duty, in Dimona, IL, where he works officially as a Janitor but in reality does.... well, that's classified, Brad... You know in Dimona, where they make what they deny the Iranians to have too... Do you get it git, git-it, git, git-it? .... ahahahahaha.. Thanks for the laughs... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson
BradGuth - 10 May 2009 22:17 GMT > And the forever grand ruse/sting of the century continues, along with > so much so obfuscation and denial that only the resident rabbi Art [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > have too... Do you get it git, git-it, git, git-it? .... ahahahahaha.. > Thanks for the laughs... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson Are you becoming afraid that I'm the only one, other than Sanny, that'll bother to reply to your less than 5th grade worth of clownish mainstream brown-nosed fuckology?
How much mass per second is Eden/Earth losing?
a) 1 kg/sec
b) 10 kg/sec
c) 100 kg/sec
d) 1e3 kg/sec
~ BG
Saul Levy - 10 May 2009 23:58 GMT Poor INSANE GOOFBALL! lmfjao!
NO ONE CARES, IDIOT!
Saul Levy
>> And the forever grand ruse/sting of the century continues, along with >> so much so obfuscation and denial that only the resident rabbi Art [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > ~ BG Saul Levy - 10 May 2009 23:57 GMT Wow, hanson, you REALLY AREN'T FUNNY ANYMORE! lmfjao!
I noticed that WEEKS AGO!
Saul Levy
>And the forever grand ruse/sting of the century continues, along with >so much so obfuscation and denial that only the resident rabbi Art [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >have too... Do you get it git, git-it, git, git-it? .... ahahahahaha.. >Thanks for the laughs... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson Michael Moroney - 10 May 2009 22:42 GMT [snip]
Talking to one's self that much just has to be an indication of insanity.
Chinga Tuu - 10 May 2009 23:30 GMT >Talking to one's self that much just has to be an indication of insanity. Replying to the catamite troll is a far clearer one. Killfile the child molesting bastard and be done with him.
OM
--
]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[
Saul Levy - 10 May 2009 23:54 GMT I'm sorry GOOFBALL molested you, Chinga! lmfjao!
We keep him around for LAUGHS! He serves good purpose as a WARNING ABOUT INSANITY!
Saul Levy
>>Talking to one's self that much just has to be an indication of insanity. > >Replying to the catamite troll is a far clearer one. Killfile the >child molesting bastard and be done with him. > > OM BradGuth - 11 May 2009 02:07 GMT > On Sun, 10 May 2009 21:42:18 +0000 (UTC), > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ > ]=====================================[ Good grief, OM, am I cutting into your mainstream infomercial spewing business?
What’s the matter with your bloated killfile this time?
Can we assume God and most everyone else is also on your NO Fly list?
It must be a very big killfile list if it has to contain nearly all 6.7 billion of us.
Are you just unusually cranky because your Zionist God has taken your legs, and is thinking seriously about taking your balls next? ~ BG
kT - 11 May 2009 02:10 GMT Robert Mosley III of Austin, Texas USA wrote:
>> Replying to the catamite troll is a far clearer one. Killfile the >> child molesting bastard and be done with him. Isn't that slander and defamation again, Mosley?
>> OM >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ >> ]=====================================[ BradGuth - 10 May 2009 23:32 GMT On May 10, 2:42 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
> [snip] > > Talking to one's self that much just has to be an indication of insanity. In other words, I'm more than right as to the amount of mass Eden/ Earth is losing could easily be more than 100 kg/sec, and possibly at times greater than a tonne/sec, and/or otherwise unavoidably increasing as we continually dig and drill into Earth, consume hydrocarbons as our geomagnetic force and its subsequent magnetosphere fails us by -.05%/year. (what could possibly go wrong?)
Would you care to speculate along with sharing whatever deductive reasoning, as to the loss of mass/sec?
~ BG
Saul Levy - 11 May 2009 00:31 GMT The EARTH continues to GAIN MASS, GOOFBALL! lmfjao!
We keep telling you this...
Saul Levy
>On May 10, 2:42 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > ~ BG Michael Moroney - 11 May 2009 01:38 GMT >On May 10, 2:42=A0pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >> Talking to one's self that much just has to be an indication of insanity.
>Would you care to speculate along with sharing whatever deductive >reasoning, as to the loss of mass/sec? Naah. Earth's small gain in mass from micrometeors isn't very interesting to me. I'll just let you continue to talk to yourself. Sorry for the interruption.
BradGuth - 11 May 2009 02:16 GMT On May 10, 5:38 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
> >On May 10, 2:42=A0pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > to me. I'll just let you continue to talk to yourself. Sorry for the > interruption. "Earth's small gain in mass from micrometeors" is absolutely correct, worth perhaps at best as much as 10% of the ongoing loss in mass, although it could be worth as little as 1% unless we get hit by lots of really big stuff.
At any rate, your mainstream policy of obfuscation is noted.
~ BG
Saul Levy - 11 May 2009 00:22 GMT Lucky for YOU, GOOFBALL, I don't NEED any BACKUP! lmfjao!
Saul Levy
>And the forever grand ruse/sting of the century continues, along with >so much so obfuscation and denial that only the resident rabbi Art >Deco (aka Saul Levy) is left in charge of performing our mainstream >damage-control with little if any backup. [rest of rant deleted, unread as usual]
Saul Levy - 09 May 2009 07:44 GMT The only thing we are afraid of, GOOFBALL, is INSANE people like YOU! lmfjao!
Saul Levy
>Are we afraid to know the truth, or are we just afraid of most >everything? > > ~ BG BradGuth - 11 May 2009 20:44 GMT Perhaps in addition to those volumes and tonnage amounts of H2 and He we're obfuscating our butts off in order to exclude or banish, and otherwise losing track of, it's time once again to rant about the radiation dosage from coal, with any number of peer replicated cites that are on public record and even of public funded research to boot.
Excessive radiation of this terrestrial kind is actually fun stuff, because you get to suffer from the inside out a little more and die a little sooner, rather than later.
However, notice how the mainstream doesn't bother to police their own kind, especially of those brown-nosing on behalf of Big Energy, and most of all on behalf of anything related to coal. Notice how the loss of human life and the systematic trashing of our environment has no apparent meaning unless it's putting more of our hard earned loot into their offshore bank accounts.
I guess we could all use a little more radiation of the bad kind, letting our DNA mutate and fend for itself, and otherwise seeing plant, animal and human population control in real live action of losing ground (so to speak), can't be all bad news.
Perhaps somewhere there's a pubic or private funded study/report of where this artificially increased radiation dosage has actually been a good thing. If so, now would be a good time to share.
~ BG
> > > > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere > > > > contains [quoted text clipped - 136 lines] > > ~ BG BradGuth - 13 May 2009 20:40 GMT The last time I'd checked, we're still losing mass. However, since the faith-based majority do not care in the least bit, perhaps we should just continue with the party until the very last tonne of coal, drop of oil and cubic meter of methane is extracted, and then figure out what to do with our much higher oceans of extensive dead zones populated with mostly jellyfish.
> Perhaps in addition to those volumes and tonnage amounts of H2 and He > we're obfuscating our butts off in order to exclude or banish, and [quoted text clipped - 162 lines] > > Are we deathly afraid to know the truth, or are we just afraid of most > > everything? What could possibly go wrong if we do nothing right?
~ BG
Saul Levy - 16 May 2009 06:35 GMT BULLSHIT, MORON GOOFBALL! lmfjao!
Saul Levy
>The last time I'd checked, we're still losing mass. However, since >the faith-based majority do not care in the least bit, perhaps we >should just continue with the party until the very last tonne of coal, >drop of oil and cubic meter of methane is extracted, and then figure >out what to do with our much higher oceans of extensive dead zones >populated with mostly jellyfish. BradGuth - 15 May 2009 22:50 GMT How’s our spendy OCO mission-failure investigation going?
Oops, what investigation?
Why would Big Energy and their faith-based partners in crimes against humanity, of even less than half in their right mind, allow any such OCO investigation, much less allow any kind of powerful spectrometry with that kind of capable resolution to map and quantify such natural and industry related gasses?
Secondly, we may be losing merely 100 kg/sec of mass, mostly of our helium and some hydrogen, although there’s a strong enough possibility that our Eden/Earth is losing as much as a tonne/sec as our badly failing geomagnetic force is fading away by roughly -05%/year. This may be insignificant to those of you as mainstream snookered and dumbfounded past the point of no return, but to those few of us that actually care about the future of our survival, it’s anything but insignificant.
~ BG
> > > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere > > > contains [quoted text clipped - 133 lines] > > ~ BG Saul Levy - 16 May 2009 01:43 GMT You are INSANE, GOOFBALL! lmfjao!
What you are is INSIGNIFICANT!
Saul Levy
>Hows our spendy OCO mission-failure investigation going? > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > ~ BG BradGuth - 16 May 2009 02:18 GMT Attention all 5th graders; do a search for OCO investigation and see what comes up. They call it a "mishap", because that sounds a whole lot better than saying the OCO was intentionally foiled by way of Big Energy and their invested supporters, making certain the OCO deployment would not go according to plan.
"The MIB will make recommendations for actions to prevent a similar incident"
There now, doesn't that Mishap Investigation Board make you feel a whole lot better. With our very own fat-boy Rick Obenschain in charge and wearing a good looking rug none the less, what could possibly be overlooked or rather obfuscated.
~ BG
> How’s our spendy OCO mission-failure investigation going? > [quoted text clipped - 154 lines] > > > ~ BG BradGuth - 16 May 2009 18:37 GMT Our Eden/Earth is still losing mass, at perhaps roughly 100 kg/sec. With proper instruments in orbit (some of which already exist) or otherwise as best situated within the Selene L1, we could objectively quantify this ongoing loss.
If nothing goes wrong with this final Hubble repair/upgrade, we’ll have a good $12+ billion invested in our favorite eye-candy machine, and still little old TRACE is doing it’s far more important science at initially less than $50M.
A pair of new and improved TRACEx100s might run us $120M, or roughly 1% of our Hubble investment, and that’s without ever having to risk one human cell or strand of DNA, nor having caused 1% the global pollution. I might go so far as to suggest situating one of the TRACEx100s at Earth L1, and the other at Earth L2, as that way we could have a stereo view of Sirius, plus many other stereo/3D applications including nifty Earth science pertaining to our magnetosphere and solar wind, along with another darn good option of using the Earth-moon L1 (Selene L1) location instead of the polar LEO that’s currently in use by the old existing TRACE.
At 1% the cost of Hubble, either of two TRACEx100s (100x greater resolution than our existing TRACE), plus 4 db of added dynamic range and quite possibly even a third TRACEx100 could also perform multiple OCO duties, as well as offering some limited Selene/moon related science and even basic astronomy functions from within Selene L1. Perhaps with some luck and composite imaging from the renewed and greatly improved Hubble we’ll locate the massive cloud of molecular gasses that gave such a vibrant birth to the nearby Sirius star/solar system, and thereby obtaining a better understanding as to the most recent evolution of stars, and essentially of everything else (including ourselves).
The whole package deal of creating and deploying 3 TRACEx100s should come in under $200M, and it’s nearly all Earth, moon and solar related science to boot. The original creators of TRACE could be contracted to create these new and improved TRACEx100, which should easily exceed a decade or two in their deployed operation without further attention. http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/trace_mosaic.html
> > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere > > contains [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > Groups) that knows or gives a tinkers damn, just like not caring about > the ongoing demise of our geomagnetic force field. For whatever it's worth, we need to be taking objective and constructive steps at better understanding what Eden/Earth has to work with. Those opposing such science are clearly in charge of public media moderation, obfuscation and the continued dumbfounding of humanity for all it's worth. In other words, this is not a game.
~ BG
Saul Levy - 16 May 2009 22:42 GMT No it's not, JACKASS GOOFBALL! lmfjao!
Saul Levy
>Our Eden/Earth is still losing mass, at perhaps roughly 100 kg/sec. >With proper instruments in orbit (some of which already exist) or >otherwise as best situated within the Selene L1, we could objectively >quantify this ongoing loss. BradGuth - 16 May 2009 22:55 GMT Our Eden/Earth is still losing mass, at perhaps a minimum of roughly 100 kg/sec (0.1<1 t/sec), while receiving at most 10 kg/sec (1<10 kg/ sec). With proper instruments in orbit (some of which already exist) or otherwise as best situated within Selene L1, via observationology we could deductively interpret in order to better understand and objectively quantify this ongoing loss. The OCO mission was also supposed to identify certain gaseous elements related to global dimming and greenhouse heating, as well as accurately map their terrestrial origin, but that got terminated just in the nick of time.
If nothing goes wrong with this final Hubble repair/upgrade, we’ll have a good $12+ billion invested in our favorite eye-candy machine, and still little old TRACE is doing it’s far more important science at initially less than $50M.
A pair of new and improved TRACEx100s might run us $120M, or roughly 1% of our Hubble investment, and that’s without ever having to risk one human cell or strand of DNA, nor having caused 1% the global pollution. I might go so far as to suggest situating one of the TRACEx100s at Earth L1, and the other at Earth L2, as that way we could have a stereo view of Sirius, plus many other stereo/3D applications including nifty Earth science pertaining to our magnetosphere and solar wind, along with another darn good option of using the Earth-moon L1 (Selene L1) location instead of the polar LEO that’s currently in use by the old existing TRACE.
At 1% the cost of Hubble, either of two TRACEx100s (100x greater resolution than our existing TRACE), plus 4 db of added dynamic range and quite possibly even a third TRACEx100 that could also perform multiple OCO duties, as well as offering some limited Selene/moon related science and even basic astronomy functions from within Selene L1. Perhaps with some luck and composite imaging from the renewed and greatly improved Hubble we’ll locate the massive cloud of molecular gasses that gave such a vibrant birth to the nearby Sirius star/solar system that started off as roughly 12 solar masses, and thereby obtaining a better physics and science understanding as to the most recent evolution of stars, and essentially of better understanding most everything else (including ourselves).
The whole package deal of creating and deploying three TRACEx100s should come in under $200M, and it’s nearly all Earth, moon and solar related science to boot. The original creators of TRACE could be contracted to create these new and improved TRACEx100, which should easily exceed a decade or two in their deployed operation without further attention. http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/trace_mosaic.html
> > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere > > contains [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet” We're still losing considerable mass per year, mostly of helium and secondly hydrogen, though apparently there's not an honest soul in Usenet/newsgroups (aka Google Groups) that knows any better or gives a tinkers damn one way or another, just like their not caring about the ongoing demise of our geomagnetic force field that's responsible for sustaining our protective magnetosphere, that's in turn responsible for defending our atmosphere from the solar wind, and thereby in charge of defending our frail DNA from all of the solar, cosmic and lunar radiation. In other words, there's a darn good reason for everything in nature. ~ BG
Saul Levy - 17 May 2009 11:22 GMT NOTHING WILL HAPPEN, GOOFBALL! lmfjao!
You still don't GET IT!
Saul Levy
>Our Eden/Earth is still losing mass, at perhaps a minimum of roughly >100 kg/sec (0.1<1 t/sec), while receiving at most 10 kg/sec (1<10 kg/ [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >dimming and greenhouse heating, as well as accurately map their >terrestrial origin, but that got terminated just in the nick of time. BradGuth - 17 May 2009 13:38 GMT > Our Eden/Earth is still losing mass, at perhaps a minimum of roughly > 100 kg/sec (0.1<1 t/sec), while receiving at most 10 kg/sec (1<10 kg/ [quoted text clipped - 132 lines] > lunar radiation. In other words, there's a darn good reason for > everything in nature. Why not remain openly investigative and otherwise topic positive/ constructive, like myself?
At least I have affordable options and the best of intentions for using our best talents and resources for the greater good that'll benefit the lower 99.9% of humanity, and not otherwise trashing our environment in the process. ~ BG
BradGuth - 17 May 2009 16:32 GMT > > Our Eden/Earth is still losing mass, at perhaps a minimum of roughly > > 100 kg/sec (0.1<1 t/sec), while receiving at most 10 kg/sec (1<10 kg/ [quoted text clipped - 141 lines] > environment in the process. > ~ BG Seems folks here are deathly afraid to talk about real physics and otherwise frightened senseless to share the best available science that could rock a few mainstream boats.
If Eden/Earth is taboo/nondisclosure rated, then suggest as to how much mass has Mars lost track of?
~ BG
BradGuth - 18 May 2009 19:39 GMT While our Eden/Earth is in the process of losing considerable mass of at least 100 kg/sec, it is also receiving 1<10 kg/sec, and otherwise our trusty sun/sol picks up roughly 1000 t/sec of physical influx, although there's no contest as to which one is losing the greater ratio of mass/sec.
Never the less, our continually ongoing loss in mass of what's mostly helium and secondly hydrogen is not a small amount when it's all taken fully into account, and then given some correlation as to the ongoing thinning of our upper atmosphere isn't exactly a good thing. ~ BG
> Our Eden/Earth is still losing mass, at perhaps a minimum of roughly > 100 kg/sec (0.1<1 t/sec), while receiving at most 10 kg/sec (1<10 kg/ [quoted text clipped - 120 lines] > > > Selene/moon, or that of whomever is taking substances away from > > > Venus.
> We're still losing considerable mass per year, mostly of helium and > secondly hydrogen, though apparently there's not an honest soul in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > everything in nature, and no good reason for the systematic obfuscation > that's in charge of most everything we get to read or hear about. ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth - 19 May 2009 15:11 GMT > While our Eden/Earth is in the process of losing considerable mass of > at least 100 kg/sec, it is also receiving 1<10 kg/sec, and otherwise [quoted text clipped - 144 lines] > > everything in nature, and no good reason for the systematic obfuscation > > that's in charge of most everything we get to read or hear about. Hmmmm, seems Big Energy has certainly put their naysay and official kibosh on this one. Probably has something to do with those pesky carcinogens and radiation released by their coal, not to mention their ongoing release of helium and hydrogen that's unavoidably included within most every cubic meter of methane, as well as artificially released by most other mining and drilling excavations. It's a race to see who can out-pollute and otherwise systematically traumatize our environment the most while making the maximum profit that's offshore protected from being taxed or in anyway assessed for covering damages of their own doings.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth - 20 May 2009 15:02 GMT Unlike most other topics, this one is related to our very survival, and to the precarious future if nothing is changed about our ongoing and future actions that will be reflected in multiple negative consequences.
How much mass can this frail and overpopulated Eden/Earth afford to lose?
How much environmental radiation can our frail DNA manage to deal with? ~ BG
> While our Eden/Earth is in the process of losing considerable mass of > at least 100 kg/sec, it is also receiving 1<10 kg/sec, and otherwise [quoted text clipped - 146 lines] > > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet” Saul Levy - 20 May 2009 19:47 GMT You have been OVERSTATING this sh.t since the beginning, GOOFBALL! lmfjao!
Give us a BREAK already!
I know you won't, so f.ck OFF!
Saul Levy
>Unlike most other topics, this one is related to our very survival, >and to the precarious future if nothing is changed about our ongoing [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >with? > ~ BG Yousuf Khan - 20 May 2009 17:26 GMT > We're still losing considerable mass per year, mostly via helium, and > apparently there's not an honest soul in Usenet/newsgroups (aka Google > Groups) that knows or gives a tinkers damn, just like not caring about > the ongoing demise of our geomagnetic force field. Honestly Brad, look up the word "triviality", and get to understand it.
Yousuf Khan
BradGuth - 21 May 2009 14:41 GMT > > We're still losing considerable mass per year, mostly via helium, and > > apparently there's not an honest soul in Usenet/newsgroups (aka Google [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Yousuf Khan triviality: "The quality of being trivial or unimportant"
Your turn; look up the word "obfuscation", and get to understand it.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth - 22 May 2009 03:05 GMT > > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere > > contains [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > Groups) that knows or gives a tinkers damn, just like not caring about > the ongoing demise of our geomagnetic force field. Apparently to some, a conservative loss estimate of 100 kg/sec is no big deal. Perhaps they can't do basic math of figuring out just how many seconds there are per year, and what each decade of seconds there are, times 100 kg/sec.
1e2 x 3.6e3 x 24 x 3.65e2 x 10 = 31.536e9 kg
Try to remember that losing 31.536e6 tonnes/decade is conservative, especially of the past decade and of the next that's going for broke could push this loss to a full tonne/sec.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
Saul Levy - 23 May 2009 00:40 GMT BORING, GOOFBALL! lmfjao!
NO ONE CARES!
Saul Levy
>Apparently to some, a conservative loss estimate of 100 kg/sec is no >big deal. Perhaps they can't do basic math of figuring out just how [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / Guth Usenet BradGuth - 22 May 2009 17:50 GMT For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and the atmosphere contains: Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%), He = .1786 kg/m3 Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%), H2 = .0899 kg/m3
We seem to know more about the perpetual loss of hydrogen and helium for the likes of other planets (including a few exoplanets) other than Earth. http://vega.lpl.arizona.edu/~gilda/extrass.html
At 0.55 ppmv, in order that our atmosphere sustain that average H2 saturation, at any given moment there’s a natural 25e6 kg flow of hydrogen getting made available and unavoidably migrating upwards and away from Earth’s surface in order to create and sustain this average of 0.55 ppmv. The question is, at what average vertical escapement velocity or volumetric/sec exit away from Earth are we looking at?
This topic pertaining to our 0.55 ppmv of atmospheric hydrogen and its escapement; is it worth merely 25e6 kg per day = 9.125e6 tonnes/yr, or is it as great as 25e6 kg per hour = 219e6 tonnes/year?
If the ongoing loss of H2 loss isn’t quite impressive enough, now we need to focus on our atmospheric helium that’s nearly ten fold greater by volume.
Like the GP-B fiasco, at best our EUVE (Extreme Ultra Violet Explorer) could have been representing a false positive, all be its observationology given that nifty artificial eye-candy hue of yellow and reddish colorized EUV image of Earth’s surrounding cloud of helium and hydrogen. However, the solar wind caused planetary exhaust trail of H2 and He is what needs to be more closely looked at and objectively quantified, as most easily accomplished from our the surface of our Selene/moon or best from it's L1 that oddly we still do not have to work with.
Existing EUV, UV and IR imaging: http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect20/A3.html The badly failing magnetosphere has been capable of restraining or mildly sequestering some of Earth's hydrogen and helium by way of having been protecting our upper most atmosphere, but unfortunately for the past 2000 years this too has been going away (most recently at -.05%/year or even <–120 nT/yr), is perhaps as good of reason why that lofty cloud of hydrogen and helium isn't sticking around, and why the lethal SAA contour has been exponentially growing and nearing the surface. On the other hand, would anyone care to imagine what could happen if such terrestrial hydrogen and helium didn’t leak away?
http://io9.com/395272/is-earths-magnetic-field-failing-us http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/category/geomagnetism/ Of course our perpetual naysayers and the usual evidence excluding gauntlet of our resident Usenet/newsgroup wizards and brown-nosed clowns of perpetual obfuscation and denial are not paying serious attention, or allowing any context of consideration as to the worth or consequences of our badly failing geomagnetic force and thereby of its subsequent fading magnetosphere. It’s as though our best physics and/ or objective science doesn’t hardly matter, unless it’s strictly interpreted by those in charge in order to sustain their mainstream status quo. In other words, for sustaining our mainstream as a viable cabal of happy campers, apparently our best public funded science is but worth used toilet paper, and whatever NASA mishaps of botched or failed missions are not to be taken seriously, if at all.
I recall mentioning at least a few thousand times, about our having the Selene L1 platform of science instruments easily established as of 4 decades ago, including a 10x TRACE-II, plus many UV and IR imaging cameras looking at the whole sphere of Earth and equally at our Selene/moon that's losing it's sodium and a few other elements at an alarming rate. However, without our having such a nifty remote perspective it's simply much harder if not nearly impossible to interpret whatever's going on.
Btw, the often bogus mindset of "I always had the thoughts that free hydrogen, and helium were lost in space and that Earth's gravity was not strong enough to hold it" isn't what I'd gotten out of the vast bulk of the previously posted comments. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite of what we’ve typically heard from most others, insisting that supposedly Earth never loses mass, whereas instead Earth supposedly gains several thousand tonnes per year. However, I was clearly the first contributor in this or any other Usenet/newsgroup to insist that our moon and Earth have each been losing a great deal of mass, and implying that the modern day human race has in fact been artificially assisting in this natural process.
Perhaps this can also explain as to why ETs would bother going to all the trouble of extracting minerals and raw exotic elements from another planet or moon, such as our dire need of extracting He3 from our Selene/moon, or appreciating as to that of whomever is taking substances of value away from Venus.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
Saul Levy - 23 May 2009 00:46 GMT See, I was RIGHT! lmfjao!
Another WORTHLESS REPEAT from the GOOFBALL VILLAGE IDIOT!
ALLAH should SAVE US ALL!
BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Saul Levy
>For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and the atmosphere >contains: [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > >~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / Guth Usenet BradGuth - 23 May 2009 04:09 GMT > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and the atmosphere > contains: [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > our Selene/moon, or appreciating as to that of whomever is taking > substances of value away from Venus. Where's the mainstream physics and science that's supposedly proving Earth isn't losing mass?
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
Saul Levy - 23 May 2009 20:26 GMT All the SIGNS are that Earth is GAINING MASS, GOOFBALL! lmfjao!
You just don't get it! FOOL! IDIOT! MORON!
Saul Levy
>Where's the mainstream physics and science that's supposedly proving >Earth isn't losing mass? > > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / Guth Usenet BradGuth - 23 May 2009 21:57 GMT > > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and the atmosphere > > contains: [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > Where's the mainstream physics and science that's supposedly proving > Earth isn't losing mass? Where's the mainstream objective and quantified proof-positive, as to one way or the other?
I guess we all know who in Usenet is on the side of Big Energy.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
Saul Levy - 23 May 2009 23:29 GMT Why don't you just reply to yourself and leave the rest of us alone, GOOFBALL? lmfjao!
Don't even post anything. Just talk to yourself like the VILLAGE IDIOT that you are!
Saul Levy
>> > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and the atmosphere >> > contains: [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / Guth Usenet BradGuth - 24 May 2009 16:49 GMT > > > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and the atmosphere > > > contains: [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > > I guess we all know who within Usenet is on the side of Big Energy. There's no question that Eden/Earth has been losing a minimum of 100 kg/sec, and otherwise our volumetric gaseous loss of helium and hydrogen may be as great as worth a tonne/sec. Of course the resident Borgs of our republican saturated mainstream status quo could care less, especially their Big Energy cares far less.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
Saul Levy - 27 May 2009 13:46 GMT Us NON-republicats don't care either, GOOFBALL! lmfjao!
What a DORK you are!
Saul Levy
>There's no question that Eden/Earth has been losing a minimum of 100 >kg/sec, and otherwise our volumetric gaseous loss of helium and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / Guth Usenet qqq_qqq - 01 Jun 2009 09:26 GMT >>>> For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and the atmosphere >>>> contains: [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet” But the Earth also receives mass by incoming meteorites.
Q
 Signature Ultimately to survive we should blow up our Moon, the particles in orbit that remain help to combat global warming.
BradGuth - 01 Jun 2009 14:12 GMT > >>>> For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and the atmosphere > >>>> contains: [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > > Q The vast bulk of incoming debris is deflected before entering our upper atmosphere, but otherwise It receives on average perhaps 1 kg/ sec, and it's still losing <100 kg/sec of just helium. The all- inclusive loss of helium, hydrogen and a few other volumes of our upper atmospheric elements could easily exceed a tonne/sec, especially as our geomagnetic force keeps falling off and those solar CMEs start picking up their volumetric density and speed, as expected to happen.
> -- > Ultimately to survive we should blow up our Moon, the particles > in orbit that remain help to combat global warming. No way. Instead we simply relocate our trusty Selene/moon out to Earth L1. Think about it before you sound off as being really stupid by replying to this notion in any negative or condescending tone. I'm deadly serious, though how about yourself?
~ BG
Saul Levy - 01 Jun 2009 22:23 GMT What's DEFLECTING DEBRIS, GOOFBALL? lmfjao!
I think YOU ARE WACKO NUTJOB IN THE HEAD!
Saul Levy
>The vast bulk of incoming debris is deflected before entering our >upper atmosphere, but otherwise It receives on average perhaps 1 kg/ [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > ~ BG BradGuth - 01 Jun 2009 23:02 GMT > > >>>> For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and the atmosphere > > >>>> contains: [quoted text clipped - 109 lines] > by replying to this notion in any negative or condescending tone. I'm > deadly serious, though how about yourself? Perhaps as little as 1% of the incoming space dust and whatever substantial items other than our own satellite junk, ever makes contact with the surface of Earth, and otherwise nearly 90% of most everything else burns up rather nicely within the upper atmosphere, that which almost never gets to bind our atmospheric elements along with any significant portion of this incoming hydrogen, and nothing binds with helium.
In other words, it's rather unlikely that 10% of the total incoming mass ever get to stick with mother Earth.
~ BG
Saul Levy - 03 Jun 2009 01:21 GMT If it's IN the Earth's atmosphere, it's PART OF THE EARTH, JACKASS! lmfjao!
All 100% of it!
Saul Levy
>Perhaps as little as 1% of the incoming space dust and whatever >substantial items other than our own satellite junk, ever makes [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > ~ BG BradGuth - 03 Jun 2009 01:57 GMT > > >>>> For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and the atmosphere > > >>>> contains: [quoted text clipped - 109 lines] > by replying to this notion in any negative or condescending tone. I'm > deadly serious, though how about yourself? Perhaps as little as 1% of the incoming space dust and whatever substantial items other than our own satellite junk, ever makes contact with the surface of Earth, and otherwise nearly 90% of most everything else burns up rather nicely within the upper atmosphere, that which almost never gets to bind our atmospheric elements along with any significant portion of this incoming hydrogen, and nothing binds with helium.
In other words, if vaporized within the upper atmosphere and subsequently solar wind blown away, it's rather unlikely that 10% of the total incoming mass ever gets to stick with mother Earth. That why I say that Earth receives perhaps 1 kg/sec as added mass, while 100+ kg/sec (possibly < 1 t/sec) of H2, He and H3 leaves.
~ BG
BradGuth - 09 Jun 2009 20:19 GMT > >>>> For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and the atmosphere > >>>> contains: [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > Ultimately to survive we should blow up our Moon, the particles > in orbit that remain help to combat global warming. Not necessary to explode moon, when simply relocating it to Earth L1 would kill multiple birds in one proper action (so to speak).
btw, Earth only receives 1 kg/sec of what sticks with us, whereas the rest keeps getting diverted and/or solar wind blown away, along with everything that's naturally and artificially contributed of helium and hydrogen.
Here’s my revised/edited version of stellar timelines that’ll offer some interpretation as to the life of the Sirius star/solar system, and that of most likely having impacted our relatively nearby and passive solar system.
Our sun consumes or burns through 4.28e9 kg/sec The original Sirius B of perhaps 8 solar masses had an expedited timeline up until reaching its recent white dwarf phase, as obtained at least 75 to 100 times faster stellar evolution than our sun reaching it’s white dwarf phase within roughly 150e9 years. Actually that more like a thousand fold faster stellar evolution required.
Sirius B had to burn through its fuel at 1e14 < 1e15 kg/sec In other words, having to burn through roughly 8 times as much mass in as little as 1/1000th the time is what represents an extremely vibrant star, especially along with the original Sirius A at perhaps 3+ solar mass and Sirius C at whatever it started out as perhaps worth <1 solar mass is represent in heck of a great deal of burning through such hydrogen and helium mass.
Now that’s a seriously hot star that’s sharing loads of substantial hard-X-rays and gamma, taking place at perhaps less than 10 light years from us, while the red supergiant phase and its helium flashover (aka slow nova) into becoming the little white dwarf happening even closer to us.
Our Earth and moon is losing mass at the very least 1e3 kg/sec, combined with the 4.28e9 kg/sec that our sun is burning through, and the persistent 300~400 km/s of solar wind that’s pushing upon us (not to mention the added force of halo CMEs), is suggesting it’s most likely this gradual loss of gravity or reduction in tidal radius is what’s causing the majority of our recession away from the sun.
This could actually become a good thing, especially if we somehow manage to artificially cause Earth and our moon combined to lose 1e4 kg/sec, while our sun keeps getting more and more into the IR spectrum that’ll eventually become an inflated red giant of <250 times radii, with fluctuation affects and the increased loss of mass reaching out nearly to Mars radii, means that Earth needs to get as far away form our sun as possible, and the sooner the better.
Nothing all that much to worry about: (as long as our fading geomagnetic force doesn’t entirely fail us) http://spaceweather.gmu.edu/index_files/cme.jpg http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/images/lasco-c2-cme.jpg http://www.astronomycast.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/cme.jpg http://soho.nascom.nasa.gov/gallery/images/large/suncombo1_prev.jpg http://ct.gsfc.nasa.gov/insights/vol13/tele.htm
Btw, Sirius A has most likely gone through at least 30% of it’s original mass, and is about to become an impressive red supergiant of its very own once exceeding 33% consumption, especially with a nearby Sirius B sucking the hydrogen life out of Sirius A, as such isn’t exactly retarding this process.
Of course, within the next million years there’ll be considerably less magnetosphere and insufficient terrestrial resources for Eden/Earth to sustain much other than robust bugs, microbes and spores of whatever we once had been. That million years is a very short cosmic time, so not to worry about such matters is best, even though advancing technology could held salvage our otherwise certain demise. Too bad the previous million years of terrestrial life had been so wasted, and perhaps better luck next time unless some faith-based cults have other intentions.
~ BG
BradGuth - 27 May 2009 20:28 GMT > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and the atmosphere > contains: [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] > our Selene/moon, or appreciating as to that of whomever is taking > substances of value away from Venus. Interesting how our news media is so screwed. More interesting is how the public is getting systematically screwed and apparently lowing every minute of it. Thank God for our "no child left behind" policy, as kids nowadays (especially the most educated) simply do not have to think for themselves.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth - 30 May 2009 00:35 GMT > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and the atmosphere > contains: [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet” How much mass can Earth afford to lose?
~ BG
BradGuth - 31 May 2009 20:36 GMT > > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and the atmosphere > > contains: [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > > How much mass can Earth afford to lose? Don't you find it a tad odd, as to how Big Energy and their bought and paid for politicians have put their mutual faith-based foot down of this topic, especially when mentioning OCO or damn near anything associated with their ongoing global environmental impact.
These mostly Republicans puppets and their and Zionist Nazi puppet masters must be so proud of themselves.
~ BG
Saul Levy - 01 Jun 2009 00:37 GMT It's NOT LOSING ENOUGH TO MATTER, JACKASS! lmfjao!
It's GAINING mass!
Saul Levy
>How much mass can Earth afford to lose? > > ~ BG BradGuth - 01 Jun 2009 02:16 GMT > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and the atmosphere > contains: [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] > our Selene/moon, or appreciating as to that of whomever is taking > substances of value away from Venus. Don't you folks find it a tad odd, as to how Big Energy and their bought and paid for politicians have put their mutual faith-based foot down of this topic, especially whenever mentioning OCO or damn near anything associated with their ongoing global environmental impact.
These mostly Republican puppets and their and Zionist Nazi puppet masters must be so proud of themselves. Notice how only their brown- nosed clowns and Usenet resident rabbis (three or more per bogus Usenet account) are placed in charge of topic/author stalking and mainstream damage control.
~ BG
Eric Gisse - 01 Jun 2009 02:25 GMT [snip all, unread]
Nobody is listening. STFU.
Tired of seeing this stupid f.cking thread endlessly bumped. Get a blog and rant to it where we don't have to see it. Ever.
BradGuth - 01 Jun 2009 02:35 GMT > [snip all, unread] > > Nobody is listening. STFU. > > Tired of seeing this stupid f.cking thread endlessly bumped. Get a > blog and rant to it where we don't have to see it. Ever. Apparently you don't believe in the regular laws of physics or in the best available science. At least this topic is perfectly honest and real important, and otherwise the public has a right to know what's artificially happening to our global environment, and that individuals like yourself exist.
~ BG
Saul Levy - 01 Jun 2009 20:46 GMT SHUT THE f.ck UP was the only sensible thing in there, GOOFBALL! lmfjao!
Why don't you LISTEN?
Saul Levy
>> [snip all, unread] >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > ~ BG BradGuth - 01 Jun 2009 06:26 GMT > [snip all, unread] > > Nobody is listening. STFU. > > Tired of seeing this stupid f.cking thread endlessly bumped. Get a > blog and rant to it where we don't have to see it. Ever. Apparently you don't believe in the regular laws of physics or place any value in the best available science. At least this topic is perfectly honest and real important, and otherwise the public has a right to know what's artificially happening to our global environment, and that sicko individuals like yourself actually exist.
~ BG
Saul Levy - 01 Jun 2009 22:20 GMT Eric's trying to tell you, GOOFBALL, that it's YOU who are SICK! lmfjao!
Do you realize that Sanny is our NEW VILLAGE IDIOT?
Saul Levy
>> [snip all, unread] >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > ~ BG Jeff Findley - 01 Jun 2009 19:27 GMT > [snip all, unread] > > Nobody is listening. STFU. > > Tired of seeing this stupid f.cking thread endlessly bumped. Get a > blog and rant to it where we don't have to see it. Ever. Killfile Brad Guth. Problem solved.
Jeff
 Signature "Take heart amid the deepening gloom that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National Lampoon
BradGuth - 01 Jun 2009 19:53 GMT On Jun 1, 11:27 am, "Jeff Findley" <jeff.find...@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
> > [snip all, unread] > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National > Lampoon Our government and it’s vast army of brown-nosed clowns (aka Jeff Findley and the like) are once again big-time lying to us.
The magnetosphere protects our upper atmosphere, which in turn protects our frail DNA from cosmic, solar and lunar radiation. The lower half atmospheric mass of Eden/Earth can be sustained by natural geological forces and artificial means, that is as long as our core is alive and getting that extra help from our Selene/moon.
However, the geomagnetic force has a long history of a flip (polar- reversal) and reset cycle, though each time it gets measurably weaker, originally worth 10+ VADM (virtual axial dipole moment or +/- cycle), whereas the most recent flip and subsequent variations got this magnetic intensity down to a dip of nearly 3. We are currently losing our polar magnetic force at <0.1%/year, as it shifts and continues to weaken as an accelerated or compounded rate.
Our Selene/moon is however helping at keeping our geomagnetic force pumped up, whereas without such a terrific moon, Earth may have become a larger version of Mars. Our holding onto Selene is worth 2e20 N, or if you like 55.5e12 kw, and the global flip or reversal cycle is currently worth roughly 225,000 ~ 250,000 years, although in the past it has supposedly cycled as often as 100,000 years (for the most part not related to ice ages and subsequent thaws that are only of a somewhat recent era). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field
"The Earth's magnetic north pole is drifting from northern Canada towards Siberia with a presently accelerating rate — 10 km per year at the beginning of the 20th century, up to 40 km per year in 2003.[6] It is also unknown if this drift will continue to accelerate."
"At present, the overall geomagnetic field is becoming weaker at a rate which would, if it continues, cause the dipole field to temporarily collapse by 3000–4000 CE. The South Atlantic Anomaly is believed by some[who?] to be a product of this. The present strong deterioration corresponds to a 10–15% decline over the last 150 years and has accelerated in the past several years; however, geomagnetic intensity has declined almost continuously from a maximum 35% above the modern value achieved approximately 2000 years ago."
At a VADM dip of 3, we're in serious cosmic and solar radiation trouble. At a VADM dip of reaching down to the level of 2 could mean the start of the end of natural genetic survival above the surface, especially unfortunate at any time when solar halo CMEs are at their maximum because that’ll obviously extract the most tonnage of our atmosphere.
Each cycle on the way down (a process of losing our geomagnetic polar force that sustains our protective magnetosphere) we unavoidably lose more and more of our atmosphere (consequently involving an accelerated loss of mass). The next magnetic reset or flip may not happen for quite some time (another couple thousand some odd years), and meanwhile we continue to lose increasing portions of our upper most atmosphere that's extensively populated by hydrogen and helium.
Eden/Earth is losing at the very least 10 kg/sec of helium, although a loss of 100 kg/sec is certainly possible. Since nothing binds with helium, so therefore all helium is eventually lost, along with a portion of our terrestrial hydrogen that didn't manage to bind with O2 and O3, as such simply isn’t going to stick with us.
The OCO mission would have indirectly given us this kind of global science, and thus reasonably quantified as to how much loss in helium and hydrogen is ongoing. The new and greatly improved Hubble could also accomplish this task, although the Selene/moon L1 location for taking such objective measurements of our entire global atmospheric environment would have been far superior as of four decades ago, at a cost of not greater than $50M for that era.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth - 02 Jul 2009 20:14 GMT > > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and the atmosphere > > contains: [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > Usenet account) are placed in charge of topic/author stalking and > mainstream damage control. Unless colliding/merging, galaxies are not gaining mass. So, how is our solar system or most any other star/solar system any different?
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth - 01 Jun 2009 19:18 GMT > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and the atmosphere > contains: [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] > our Selene/moon, or appreciating as to that of whomever is taking > substances of value away from Venus. The geomagnetic force has a long history of a flip (polar-reversal) and reset cycle, though each time it gets measurably weaker, originally worth 10+ VADM (virtual axial dipole moment or dip), whereas the most recent flip and subsequent variations got this magnetic intensity down to a dip of nearly 3. We are currently losing our polar magnetic force at <0.1%/year, as it shifts and continues to weaken as an accelerated or compounded rate.
Our Selene/moon is however helping at keeping our geomagnetic force pumped up, whereas without such a terrific moon, Earth may have become a larger version of Mars. Our holding onto Selene is worth 2e20 N, or if you like 55.5e12 kw, and the global flip or reversal cycle is currently worth roughly 225,000 ~ 250,000 years, although in the past it has supposedly cycled as often as 100,000 years (for the most part not related to ice ages and subsequent thaws that are only of a somewhat recent era). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field
"The Earth's magnetic north pole is drifting from northern Canada towards Siberia with a presently accelerating rate — 10 km per year at the beginning of the 20th century, up to 40 km per year in 2003.[6] It is also unknown if this drift will continue to accelerate."
"At present, the overall geomagnetic field is becoming weaker at a rate which would, if it continues, cause the dipole field to temporarily collapse by 3000–4000 CE. The South Atlantic Anomaly is believed by some[who?] to be a product of this. The present strong deterioration corresponds to a 10–15% decline over the last 150 years and has accelerated in the past several years; however, geomagnetic intensity has declined almost continuously from a maximum 35% above the modern value achieved approximately 2000 years ago."
At a VADM dip of 3, we're in serious cosmic and solar radiation trouble. At a VADM dip of reaching down to the level of 2 could mean the start of the end of natural genetic survival above the surface, especially unfortunate at any time when solar halo CMEs are at their maximum because that’ll obviously extract the most tonnage of our atmosphere.
Each cycle on the way down (a process of losing our geomagnetic polar force that sustains our protective magnetosphere) we unavoidably lose more and more of our atmosphere (consequently involving an accelerated loss of mass). The next magnetic reset or flip may not happen for quite some time (another couple thousand some odd years), and meanwhile we continue to lose increasing portions of our upper most atmosphere that's extensively populated by hydrogen and helium.
Eden/Earth is losing at the very least 10 kg/sec of helium, although a loss of 100 kg/sec is certainly possible. Since nothing binds with helium, so therefore all helium is eventually lost, along with a portion of our terrestrial hydrogen that didn't manage to bind with O2 and O3, as such simply isn’t going to stick with us.
The OCO mission would have indirectly given us this kind of global science, and thus reasonably quantified as to how much loss in helium and hydrogen is ongoing. The new and greatly improved Hubble could also accomplish this task, although the Selene/moon L1 location for taking such objective measurements of our entire global atmospheric environment would have been far superior as of four decades ago, at a cost of not greater than $50M for that era.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth - 01 Jun 2009 21:55 GMT > > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and the atmosphere > > contains: [quoted text clipped - 147 lines] > environment would have been far superior as of four decades ago, at a > cost of not greater than $50M for that era. I forgot to mention, there's still no real OCO mission failure investigation.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth - 02 Jun 2009 16:44 GMT > > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and the atmosphere > > contains: [quoted text clipped - 147 lines] > environment would have been far superior as of four decades ago, at a > cost of not greater than $50M for that era. How much H3/Tritium are we losing?
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth - 03 Jun 2009 01:49 GMT > > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and the atmosphere > > contains: [quoted text clipped - 147 lines] > environment would have been far superior as of four decades ago, at a > cost of not greater than $50M for that era. In addition to losing hydrogen and helium, how much of H3/Tritium are we losing per second?
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth - 07 Jun 2009 05:32 GMT > > > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and the atmosphere > > > contains: [quoted text clipped - 150 lines] > In addition to losing hydrogen and helium, how much of H3/Tritium are > we losing per second? Add a touch of He3 to that list of what we're losing. So, where's the expertise that's so all-knowing and willing to explain why the spendy OCO mission was foiled, besides following instructions from Big Energy.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
G=EMC^2 Glazier - 17 Jun 2009 23:14 GMT Double A Just juger-luged down a can of Bud hoping all money left will go every where. We are bankrupt. Its now all play money. Obama is using the word "depression" He has put the finishing touch to what Bush started. No need to change the letters GM it now stands for Godfather Motors. Godfather will own GM and Chrysler was just a smoke screen. I clearly see his mind game. Why would he stoop to Chrysler when he can have GM. It all fits TreBert PS just on 6 news Progress Energy was given still another price increase by Charlie Crist. Its making me laugh how nasty Crist is He is a true Good Old boy O ya
Double-A - 18 Jun 2009 00:08 GMT > Double A Just juger-luged down a can of Bud hoping all money left will > go every where. Think I'm going to start buying grape juice and yeast, as that is the only way food stamps will supply me with drink.
> We are bankrupt. Its now all play money. Obama is using > the word "depression" He is probably depressed with what he he is faced with.
> He has put the finishing touch to what Bush > started. No need to change the letters GM it now stands for Godfather > Motors. Godfather will own GM and Chrysler was just a smoke screen. I > clearly see his mind game. Why would he stoop to Chrysler when he can > have GM. Of course he's a Cadillac man!
> It all fits TreBert PS just on 6 news Progress Energy was > given still another price increase by Charlie Crist. Its making me laugh > how nasty Crist is He is a true Good Old boy O ya I thought he was running for the Senate? Oh, I guess it's not those who vote that matter, as Stalin said, what matters is controlling those who count the votes!
Double-A
BradGuth - 18 Jun 2009 00:38 GMT > > Double A Just juger-luged down a can of Bud hoping all money left will > > go every where. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Double-A GW Bush and Duck Cheney used that tactic as well, as I'm certain most every stealth dictator/warlord did. Votes for the opposition seem rather easy to disqualify or lose.
~ BG
G=EMC^2 Glazier - 18 Jun 2009 22:11 GMT Double A Just on 5 pm news A retirement area not far from me are after 3 years losing their homes to the bank that gave them all "Pick a plan" They moved in with 700 a month mortgage payment but it was in fact a balloon note. Deferred interest. Now the bank wants 2,000 bucks a month or out they go. Time for these old people to buy a good shot gun. These are the same banks that got trillions to split. O well its all part of fascist America,and best get use to it. News commentator stated this has been done by banks in every state,and the sh.t is now just kicking in. TreBert
Double-A - 18 Jun 2009 22:34 GMT > Double A Just on 5 pm news A retirement area not far from me are after > 3 years losing their homes to the bank that gave them all "Pick a plan" > They moved in with 700 a month mortgage payment but it was in fact a > balloon note. Don't you love those baloon payments? You know they outlawed them in the 30's becaue so many people had lost their homes, but somewhere along the line, the banks quietly got those laws repealed.
Double-A
> Deferred interest. Now the bank wants 2,000 bucks a month > or out they go. Time for these old people to buy a good shot gun. These > are the same banks that got trillions to split. O well its all part of > fascist America,and best get use to it. News commentator stated this > has been done by banks in every state,and the sh.t is now just kicking > in. TreBert BradGuth - 19 Jun 2009 02:52 GMT > > Double A Just on 5 pm news A retirement area not far from me are after > > 3 years losing their homes to the bank that gave them all "Pick a plan" [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > has been done by banks in every state,and the sh.t is now just kicking > > in. TreBert Just like our SEC approved Ponzi Madoff, and now there's plans of giving the private Federal Reserve (close partner of our corrupt SEC) which otherwise has no official connection to federal government, more authority. What could possibly go wrong?
~ BG
BradGuth - 18 Jun 2009 00:31 GMT > Double A Just juger-luged down a can of Bud hoping all money left will > go every where. We are bankrupt. Its now all play money. Obama is using [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > given still another price increase by Charlie Crist. Its making me laugh > how nasty Crist is He is a true Good Old boy O ya BHO is actually spending the borrowed loot from China and a few others as having been brave enough to trust us.
We should have been investing in clean and every bit as renewable of energy as we can muster, but as you and I might say, instead it seems the rich and powerful (regardless of how corrupt) are getting richer and more powerful. Let the good times roll.
This borrowed loot has to get paid back with interest and/or with concessions. Foreign investors would very much prefer concessions, because on the long run that's better than interest.
~ BG
BradGuth - 08 Jun 2009 21:24 GMT > > > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and the atmosphere > > > contains: [quoted text clipped - 147 lines] > > environment would have been far superior as of four decades ago, at a > > cost of not greater than $50M for that era. In addition to our losing hydrogen and helium, how much of H3/Tritium are we losing per second?
Don't forget to add a touch of He3 to that list of what we're continually losing.
So, where's the expertise that's so all-knowing and willing to explain why the spendy OCO mission was foiled, besides their following instructions from Big Energy.
Obviously those directly or indirectly funded by way of Big Energy and/ or via republican special interest groups has informed those of their kind to not contribute to this topic. Of course this never stops a devout Zionist Nazi rabbi from topic/author stalking and bashing for all it's worth.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
Saul Levy - 09 Jun 2009 12:41 GMT Talking to yourself again, GOOFBALL? lmfjao!
Yep! INSANE TWIT!
Saul Levy
>> > > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and the atmosphere >> > > contains: [quoted text clipped - 165 lines] > > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / Guth Usenet BradGuth - 09 Jun 2009 20:13 GMT > > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and the atmosphere > > contains: [quoted text clipped - 147 lines] > environment would have been far superior as of four decades ago, at a > cost of not greater than $50M for that era. Here’s my revised/edited version of stellar timelines that’ll offer some interpretation as to the life of the Sirius star/solar system, and that of most likely having impacted our relatively nearby and passive solar system.
Our sun consumes or burns through 4.28e9 kg/sec The original Sirius B of perhaps 8 solar masses had an expedited timeline up until reaching its recent white dwarf phase, as obtained at least 75 to 100 times faster stellar evolution than our sun reaching it’s white dwarf phase within roughly 150e9 years. Actually that more like a thousand fold faster stellar evolution required.
Sirius B had to burn through its fuel at 1e14 < 1e15 kg/sec In other words, having to burn through roughly 8 times as much mass in as little as 1/1000th the time is what represents an extremely vibrant star, especially along with the original Sirius A at perhaps 3+ solar mass and Sirius C at whatever it started out as perhaps worth <1 solar mass is represent in heck of a great deal of burning through such hydrogen and helium mass.
Now that’s a seriously hot star that’s sharing loads of substantial hard-X-rays and gamma, taking place at perhaps less than 10 light years from us, while the red supergiant phase and its helium flashover (aka slow nova) into becoming the little white dwarf happening even closer to us.
Our Earth and moon is losing mass at the very least 1e3 kg/sec, combined with the 4.28e9 kg/sec that our sun is burning through, and the persistent 300~400 km/s of solar wind that’s pushing upon us (not to mention the added force of halo CMEs), is suggesting it’s most likely this gradual loss of gravity or reduction in tidal radius is what’s causing the majority of our recession away from the sun.
This could actually become a good thing, especially if we somehow manage to artificially cause Earth and our moon combined to lose 1e4 kg/sec, while our sun keeps getting more and more into the IR spectrum that’ll eventually become an inflated red giant of <250 times radii, with fluctuation affects and the increased loss of mass reaching out nearly to Mars radii, means that Earth needs to get as far away form our sun as possible, and the sooner the better.
Nothing all that much to worry about: (as long as our fading geomagnetic force doesn’t entirely fail us) http://spaceweather.gmu.edu/index_files/cme.jpg http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/images/lasco-c2-cme.jpg http://www.astronomycast.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/cme.jpg http://soho.nascom.nasa.gov/gallery/images/large/suncombo1_prev.jpg http://ct.gsfc.nasa.gov/insights/vol13/tele.htm
Btw, Sirius A has most likely gone through at least 30% of it’s original mass, and is about to become an impressive red supergiant of its very own once exceeding 33% consumption, especially with a nearby Sirius B sucking the hydrogen life out of Sirius A, as such isn’t exactly retarding this process.
Of course, within the next million years there’ll be considerably less magnetosphere and insufficient terrestrial resources for Eden/Earth to sustain much other than robust bugs, microbes and spores of whatever we once had been. That million years is a very short cosmic time, so not to worry about such matters is best, even though advancing technology could held salvage our otherwise certain demise. Too bad the previous million years of terrestrial life had been so wasted, and perhaps better luck next time unless some faith-based cults have other intentions.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth - 10 Jun 2009 14:35 GMT A combined loss of mass is reducing the gravitational force that’s keeping us associated with our sun. We are simply not getting heavier, but then most of us would much rather believe anything published by your Zionist Nazi masters of mainstream infomercials and false eye-candy deception. What’s so hard to figure otherwise?
Here’s my further revised/edited version of stellar timelines that’ll offer some alternative interpretation as to the recent birth and life of the Sirius star/solar system, and that of this process most likely having impacted our relatively nearby and passive solar system.
Our sun consumes or burns through 4.28e9 kg/sec The original Sirius B of perhaps 8 solar masses had an expedited timeline up until reaching its recent white dwarf phase, as obtained at least 100 times faster stellar evolution than our sun reaching it’s white dwarf phase within roughly 250e9 years (in other words for us, our sun is never going to die unless something extremely large smacks into it). Actually that’s more like a thousand fold faster stellar evolution required, because Sirius B may have survived for as little as 200 million years before having become the white dwarf.
Sirius B had to burn through its fuel at 1e14 < 1e15 kg/sec In other words, having to burn through roughly 8 times as much mass in as little as 1/1000th the time is what represents an extremely vibrant (nearly exploding) kind of star, especially along with the original Sirius A at perhaps 3+ solar mass and Sirius C at whatever it started out as perhaps worth <1 solar mass is representing one heck of a great deal of burning through such volumes of hydrogen and helium mass.
Now that’s a seriously hot star system that’s sharing loads of substantial hard-X-rays and gamma, taking place at perhaps less than 10 light years from us, while the red supergiant phase and its helium flashover (aka slow nova) into becoming the little white dwarf happening even closer to us.
Our Earth and moon are each losing mass, and at the very least we are losing 1e3 kg/sec, combined with the 4.28e9 kg/sec that our sun is burning through, and given the persistent 300~400 km/s of solar wind that’s pushing upon us (not to mention the added force of halo CMEs), is suggesting it’s most likely this gradual loss of gravity or reduction in tidal radius is what’s causing the majority of our recession away from the sun.
This could actually become a good thing, especially if we somehow manage to artificially cause Earth and our moon combined to lose 1e4 kg/sec, while our sun keeps getting more and more into the IR spectrum that’ll eventually become an inflated red giant of <250 times radii, with fluctuation affects and the increased loss of mass reaching out nearly to Mars radii, means that Earth needs to get as far away form our sun as possible, and the sooner the better.
Nothing all that much to worry about: (as long as our fading geomagnetic force doesn’t entirely fail us) http://spaceweather.gmu.edu/index_files/cme.jpg http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/images/lasco-c2-cme.jpg http://www.astronomycast.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/cme.jpg http://soho.nascom.nasa.gov/gallery/images/large/suncombo1_prev.jpg http://ct.gsfc.nasa.gov/insights/vol13/tele.htm
Btw, Sirius A has most likely gone through at least 30% of it’s original mass, and is about to become an impressive red supergiant of its very own once exceeding 33% consumption, especially with a nearby Sirius B sucking the hydrogen life out of Sirius A, as such isn’t exactly retarding this process.
Of course, within the next million years there’ll be considerably less magnetosphere and insufficient terrestrial resources for Eden/Earth to sustain much other than robust bugs, microbes and spores of whatever we once had been. That million years is a very short cosmic time, so not to worry about such matters is best, even though advancing technology could held salvage our otherwise certain demise. Too bad the previous million years of terrestrial life had been so wasted, and perhaps better luck next time unless some faith-based cults have other intentions.
~ BG
> > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and the atmosphere > > contains: [quoted text clipped - 149 lines] > > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet” BradGuth - 14 Jun 2009 22:29 GMT > A combined loss of mass is reducing the gravitational force that’s > keeping us associated with our sun. We are simply not getting [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > perhaps better luck next time unless some faith-based cults have other > intentions. Earth and our moon are each still losing mass. Is there anyone out there that gives a tinkers damn?
BTW, how's the OCO investigation going?
~ BG
Saul Levy - 15 Jun 2009 23:26 GMT Maybe you're starting to get it, GOOFBALL! lmfjao!
NO ONE GIVES A DAMN ABOUT THESE TOPICS!
NO ONE SANE that is!
Saul Levy
>Earth and our moon are each still losing mass. Is there anyone out >there that gives a tinkers damn? > >BTW, how's the OCO investigation going? > > ~ BG BradGuth - 15 Jun 2009 23:44 GMT On Jun 15, 3:29 am, "Painius" <starswirlern...@maol.com> wrote:
> "Double-A" <double...@hush.com> wrote in message... > > Thanks, Saul. I have long wondered and speculated as to whether this [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Indelibly yours, > Paine Ellsworth In spite of whatever our resident rabbi Saul Levy spews from between his mainstream infomercial flapping butt-cheeks, Paine Ellsworth as usual is mostly correct, in that the earth-sun tidal interaction is extremely minor, whereas the ongoing loss of 1e10 kg/sec is not so minor.
Actually, in order for that main sequence red giant phase to begin within just 7.5 billion years, our sun of 12 billion years would have had to have been consuming plus tossing off a combined average of at least 1e11 kg/sec (100 million tonnes/sec), and otherwise the more than likely average loss of 1e12 kg/sec (1000 million tonnes/sec) seems a whole lot closer to the truth because, 1e12 kg/sec represents a more respectable 12 billion year loss of 17.8% from an original solar mass of 2.13e30 kg.
Unless my math is wrong (wouldn’t be the first time), or that a given main sequence star simply doesn’t have to burn through nearly as much of its hydrogen as we’ve been told, whereas it seems that we’ve been systematically misinformed about how much mass a given star has to consume and/or blow off before going into its red giant phase.
In addition to the considerable loss of solar mass, Earth and our moon are each still in the process of losing mass. However, is there anyone out there that gives a tinkers damn? (apparently not)
BTW, how's the foiled OCO mission investigation going? (Oops! what investigation)
~ BG
Saul Levy - 16 Jun 2009 18:16 GMT GOD DAMN, GOOFBALL, ANOTHER REPEAT! lmfjao!
You are REALLY SICK!
Saul Levy
>In spite of whatever our resident rabbi Saul Levy spews from between >his mainstream infomercial flapping butt-cheeks, Paine Ellsworth as [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > ~ BG BradGuth - 16 Jun 2009 18:39 GMT > On Jun 15, 3:29 am, "Painius" <starswirlern...@maol.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > ~ BG In other fewer words; if our sun is going into its red giant phase as of a 12 billion year lifetime, the average loss of mostly hydrogen mass would have to be more like 1e12 kg/sec (1000 million tonnes per second), and otherwise not the wussy 4e6 tonnes as suggested by the vast bulk of what our mainstream closed mindset has to say.
This also means that Sirius B was in fact a very large and extremely massive star of perhaps 8+ solar masses to begin with, and that it was extremely bright as it so quickly burned through and ejected a combine 7 solar masses within ~250 million years, before the helium flashover and becoming the little white dwarf that we can barely see today (though essentially an invisible spectrum to the human eye).
~ BG
Saul Levy - 17 Jun 2009 18:32 GMT Your still making up numbers, GOOFBALL! lmfjao!
Much too BIG numbers.
Saul Levy
>In other fewer words; if our sun is going into its red giant phase as >of a 12 billion year lifetime, the average loss of mostly hydrogen [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > ~ BG BradGuth - 17 Jun 2009 19:07 GMT > > On Jun 15, 3:29 am, "Painius" <starswirlern...@maol.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > > ~ BG Public supercomputer simulations should help to confirm and/or to correct my fuzzy math, as to better depicting what I suspect is the case, that our sun may have to consume and/or expel <2e12 kg/sec if we're looking at the 12 billion year life of our sun that's prior to its going red giant and subsequently snuffing out all terrestrial life as we know it, although Goldilocks life on a few of those Jupiter and Saturn moons might become just right.
However, as is Earth is also losing < 1e3 kg/sec, as having been made worse by the ongoing methods humanity has taken to systematically pillage, plunder and rape mother Earth for all she's worth. OCO would have extensively quantified this ongoing loss, but then Big Energy kind of foiled that mission.
In the end, don't blame me for not having said "I told you so". Instead blame the likes of my Jewish shadow and their devout army of brown-nosed clowns (mostly Republican Zionist Nazis) that have no intentions of ever sharing the truth.
~ BG
BradGuth - 19 Jun 2009 23:58 GMT > A combined loss of mass is reducing the gravitational force that’s > keeping us associated with our sun. We are simply not getting [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > perhaps better luck next time unless some faith-based cults have other > intentions. The not so insignificant mass that our relatively passive sun loses:
> > The correct value is only 6 billion kg/sec. > > > > http://www.universetoday.com/2008/02/07/the-astronomical-unit-may-nee... > > > > Double-A In that case our sun will never go red giant, because of the required time to consume a third of its mostly hydrogen mass at the wussy rate of merely 6e9 kg/sec simply doesn't cut it.
1/3 solar mass = 6.7e29 kg
1 year = 3.1536e7 seconds
6.7e29 / 6e9 / 3.1536e7 = 3.541e12 years (that's 3,541 billion years)
The original sun might have represented 2.1e30 kg, and thus bringing on the red giant phase only after 3.7 trillion years if it were limited as to the loss of merely 6e9 kg/sec, which doesn't add up to what stars are supposed to do.
Obvious in my previous estimate of 2~3e12 kg/sec (possibly as great as 4e12 kg/sec) is not excluding whatever mass that CMEs manage to toss away.
Our sun has been consuming and otherwise tossing away a staggering amount of its mass, of somewhere between 2 and 3e12 kg/sec (possibly as great as 4e12 kg/sec), whereas subsequently and especially as of lately the solar wind has been removing roughly 1e3 kg/sec from Earth, artificially assisted by those of us intent upon making a fast energy and industrial buck without regard as to whatever the consequences.
Essentially, we've been incorrectly informed by those in charge of such matters (meaning extensively Big Energy), and as such we’ve been cabal snookered and systematically dumbfounded so that we can't seem to properly fathom the consequences, especially as they affect the frail environment of our Eden/Earth and that of appreciating whatever the nearby Sirius star/solar system as our second sun (Sirius B) for quite some time had to offer.
The failing geomagnetic force that sustains our protective magnetosphere has been losing it’s worth at the rate of -0.1%/year, combined with the solar maximum cycle that’s coming as of 2012 is going to become another test for the stamina and survival of our frail DNA to either accommodate or die while trying.
~ BG
Saul Levy - 20 Jun 2009 05:42 GMT May I suggest that YOU ARE WRONG, GOOFBALL? lmfjao!
About everything!
BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Saul Levy
>In that case our sun will never go red giant, because of the required >time to consume a third of its mostly hydrogen mass at the wussy rate [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > ~ BG BradGuth - 20 Jun 2009 06:01 GMT > > A combined loss of mass is reducing the gravitational force that’s > > keeping us associated with our sun. We are simply not getting [quoted text clipped - 118 lines] > going to become another test for the stamina and survival of our frail > DNA to either accommodate or die while trying. Of course, notice how those which do not police their own kind are not having any of this. But of course, they also do not give a tinkers damn about anyone outside of their faith-based cabal, so it makes no difference how much mass our sun or Earth is losing.
Regardless of peer replicated science, such well established mainstream lies are pretty much here to say, because it'll take generations to undo there damage, if ever.
~ BG
BradGuth - 22 Jun 2009 15:50 GMT > > A combined loss of mass is reducing the gravitational force that’s > > keeping us associated with our sun. We are simply not getting [quoted text clipped - 118 lines] > going to become another test for the stamina and survival of our frail > DNA to either accommodate or die while trying. The recent made for TV stuff isn't very good physics or science, but it's certainly terrific eye-candy.
An icy Selene becoming our moon could have sucker punched Eden/Earth without destroying all life. If it happened today, perhaps at least 1% of the human species could be saved.
~ BG
BradGuth - 23 Jun 2009 14:24 GMT > > A combined loss of mass is reducing the gravitational force that’s > > keeping us associated with our sun. We are simply not getting [quoted text clipped - 118 lines] > going to become another test for the stamina and survival of our frail > DNA to either accommodate or die while trying. Earth receives <2 kg/sec, while all the time losing a minimum of 100 kg/sec < 1 t/sec of mostly helium and hydrogen. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227131.700-moon-rocks-and-how-to-spot-th em.html “YOU don't have to visit the moon to hold a chunk of it in your hand. Every day around 160 tonnes of rubble from space rains down on Earth, and some of it comes from the moon. All you need to find a piece of moon rock is keen eyesight, patience and an expanse of ice or desert against which a dark little chunk of our neighbor will stand out.”
1.85 kg/sec seems like a lot of incoming flack, however much of that tends to vaporize within the upper atmosphere and thus never physically materializes on the surface. The net gain that sticks with the surface of Earth is mostly dust and perhaps closer to 1 kg/sec, all because of what portion vaporizes is in part oxygen plus those elements of hydrogen and helium that our persistent solar wind tends to blow away. However, a recent increase in meteorite deposits is likely pushing that number a bit higher.
As you can see for yourself from meteorite photographs and video, moon rocks of mostly dark basalt are really not that hard to spot, and because of their mineral, paramagnetic and magnetic qualities are not all that hard to qualify as different than terrestrial basalt. The only rocks that do not look or easily qualify as all that much like moon rocks are those of the Apollo mission, but then most of their science is at risk of further doubt because so much has been misplaced or forever lost, and there’s still no way of independent peer replication to support hardly any of it..
~ BG
BradGuth - 28 Jun 2009 16:34 GMT Earth moving away from the Sun! (because of losing mass) On Jun 15, 3:29 am, "Painius" <starswirlern...@maol.com> wrote:
> "Double-A" <double...@hush.com> wrote in message... > > Thanks, Saul. I have long wondered and speculated as to whether this > > was happening. > > > Double-A http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/83e4c2295e1651d8/ d141d0c03c29d0d3?hl=en&q=%22+Earth+moving+away+from+the+Sun!%22#d141d0c03c29d0d3
> Six inches a year is such a small amount that 4.5 billion > years ago (if that rate has not changed) and using the [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Indelibly yours, > Paine Ellsworth In spite of whatever our resident rabbi and others of his Kosher type spew from between their mainstream infomercial flapping butt-cheeks, you are as per usual mostly correct, in that the earth-sun tidal interaction if causing whatever perceived orbital recession is extremely minor, whereas the ongoing loss of at least 1e12 kg/sec is not so minor.
In order for that main sequence red giant phase to begin within 7.5 billion years, our sun of 12 billion years worth would have had to have been consuming plus CME losing a combined average mass of at least 1e12 kg/sec (1000 million tonnes/sec), and otherwise the more than likely requirement for an average loss of 2e12 kg/sec (2000 million tonnes/sec) seems a whole lot closer to the truth, whereas 2e12 kg/sec represents a more respectable 12 billion year accumulated loss of 33.3% from an original solar mass of 2.27e30 kg down to the 1.51 solar red giant mass, which by some estimates may still represent an insufficient rate of losing hydrogen mass in order to bring on that bloated red giant phase.
If our red giant phase is coming any sooner than 7.5 billion years from now, simply adjust the rate of average mass loss to suit, such as <3e12 kg/sec or whatever qualifies within that window of time as given for the stellar birth to red giant.
Unless my math is wrong (wouldn’t be the first time), or that a given main sequence star simply doesn’t have to burn through nearly as much of its hydrogen as we’ve been told, whereas it seems that perhaps we’ve been systematically misinformed about how much hydrogen mass a given main sequence star has to consume and/or blow off before going into its red giant phase. Therefore our sun may actually require this depletion rate of 2e12 kg/s in order to have burned and otherwise blown off sufficient hydrogen, helium and a few other elements of mass within its maximum 12 billion year cycle, or perhaps <3e12 kg/sec for a given 9 billion year life cycle before becoming that red giant.
Now try to imagine how much mass Sirius B (if originally <9 solar mass) had to have been going through (say 250 million years is worth <1e15 kg/sec?), and Sirius A for the past 300 million years has been using and losing at the rate of perhaps 1e14 kg/sec.
Of further interest is the original molecular cloud that gave such births to Sirius ABC (<12.5 solar mass) had to be worth at least 1.25e5 solar masses, if not 1.25e6 solar masses as of just 300 million years ago and nearby. So, where exactly is the remaining 99.999% of this terrific cloud, and why was our solar system supposedly never affected by any of this nearby cosmic activity?
~ BG
> > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and the atmosphere > > contains: [quoted text clipped - 149 lines] > > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet” BradGuth - 29 Jun 2009 15:35 GMT > Earth moving away from the Sun! (because of losing mass) > On Jun 15, 3:29 am, "Painius" <starswirlern...@maol.com> wrote:> "Double-A" <double...@hush.com> wrote in message... [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > this terrific cloud, and why was our solar system supposedly never > affected by any of this nearby cosmic activity? The OCO mission certainly would have been a good start towards understanding how much mass a planet like ours is losing, and if having a platform of even better instruments at Selene L1 (including TRACEe3) would of course have been ideal.
Now that Hubble is supposedly fixed and its CPU unglitched, whereas it too could in its spare time accomplish some of the OCO observationology science, as well as for locating the molecular cloud that gave such an impressive birth to the nearby Sirius star/solar system.
~ BG
BradGuth - 02 Jul 2009 14:58 GMT > > Earth moving away from the Sun! (because of losing mass) > > On Jun 15, 3:29 am, "Painius" <starswirlern...@maol.com> wrote:> "Double-A" <double...@hush.com> wrote in message... [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > > ~ BG The list of taboo/nondisclosure topics is certainly growing, and the nifty "Search Groups" function of Google Groups has been shut down.
Now you have to ask for a specific Usenet/newsgroup and search within just that one group. This changes our game plan.
~ BG
Saul Levy - 03 Jul 2009 13:12 GMT That doesn't affect me at all, WACKO GOOFBALL! lmfjao!
Saul Levy
>The list of taboo/nondisclosure topics is certainly growing, and the >nifty "Search Groups" function of Google Groups has been shut down. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > ~ BG BradGuth - 03 Jul 2009 14:36 GMT Speech and even just reading the words of others is getting a little less freedom nowadays.
> > > Earth moving away from the Sun! (because of losing mass) > > > On Jun 15, 3:29 am, "Painius" <starswirlern...@maol.com> wrote:> "Double-A" <double...@hush.com> wrote in message... [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > Now you have to ask for a specific Usenet/newsgroup and search within > just that one group. This changes our game plan. Now it seems our Google Groups is quietly making public access for viewing these Usenet/newsgroups a whole lot harder to deal with. Looks as though the free ride to research and publish is just about over when you can't even use the "Search Groups" function in order to see whatever is happening or getting reported across the entire body of Usenet of public newsgroups. It seems we now have to go specifically into a given newsgroup in order to individually accomplish a local "Search this group".
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
Saul Levy - 03 Jul 2009 18:33 GMT Your problem is that YOUR FREEDOMS have NOT been INFRINGED, GOOFBALL! lmfjao!
You belong in a RUBBER ROOM!
Saul Levy
>Speech and even just reading the words of others is getting a little >less freedom nowadays. BradGuth - 03 Jul 2009 20:05 GMT > Speech and even just reading the words of others is getting a little > less freedom nowadays. [quoted text clipped - 109 lines] > > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet” What would I ever do without my very own kosher shadow?
~ BG
Saul Levy - 04 Jul 2009 06:57 GMT Become a vegetarian, GOOFBALL? lmfjao!
Saul Levy
>What would I ever do without my very own kosher shadow? > > ~ BG BradGuth - 03 Jul 2009 14:49 GMT > > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and the atmosphere > > contains: [quoted text clipped - 147 lines] > environment would have been far superior as of four decades ago, at a > cost of not greater than $50M for that era (today might cost us $500M). A star that's losing 2e12<3e12 kg/sec is not going to forever hold onto its planets unless the laws of physics, orbital mechanics and the subsequent tidal radii do not count for anything. Along with out planet losing <1t/sec, as such our world could be saved from the red giant phase, although a whole lot better off if we could park our Selene/moon within Earth L1.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth - 03 Jul 2009 20:03 GMT > > > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and the atmosphere > > > contains: [quoted text clipped - 154 lines] > giant phase, although a whole lot better off if we could park our > Selene/moon within Earth L1. ”Whoever controls the past, controls the future” / George Orwell
“We're ignorant of life in the universe. We only have one planet that serves as an example and in science it's not good to derive information from a sample size of one.” / David Grinspoon
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth - 04 Jul 2009 19:09 GMT > > > > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and the atmosphere > > > > contains: [quoted text clipped - 160 lines] > serves as an example and in science it's not good to derive > information from a sample size of one.” / David Grinspoon So, it seems the upper most 0.1% mindset remains in charge of the lower 99.9% of mostly dumbfounded village idiots, whereas whatever the 0.1% has to say is what goes. That's pretty much exactly what Hitler and his Zionist Nazi minions counted on, and having got their way for nearly a decade before Russia put a major stop to that kind of faith- based global domination madness.
Apparently the Big Energy foiled loss of OCO and the ongoing systematic debauchery by the mainstream status quo is going to fight this one out to the bloody end. Go figure, no wonder the public is so terrified of revision and otherwise dumbfounded of anything new that might upset their boss.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
Eric Gisse - 04 Jul 2009 19:24 GMT [snip all, unread]
Congrats, guthball. You have been talking to yourself for 6 months now.
BradGuth - 04 Jul 2009 19:40 GMT > [snip all, unread] > > Congrats, guthball. You have been talking to yourself for 6 months now. It's more like a decade, and you're still a very special kind of "alt.morons" dumbfounded braille fool that's brown-nosed, that can't manage to contribute or revise anything of the past, present or future because, that's obviously not what clowns and parrots do.
Why don't you Zionist Nazi loving folks ever reply to my favorite kosher shadow and contributor rabbi Saul Levy (aka Art Deco)?
~ BG
Saul Levy - 04 Jul 2009 19:52 GMT I'm still here, GOOFBALL! lmfjao!
Art Deco isn't.
Saul Levy
>> [snip all, unread] >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > ~ BG BradGuth - 04 Jul 2009 20:37 GMT > [snip all, unread] > > Congrats, guthball. You have been talking to yourself for 6 months now. Why don’t you reply to our resident rabbi Saul Levy (aka Art Deco), as he’s such a jolly old fart of the Zionist Nazi kind that like yourself never contributes anything topic positive or otherwise constructive. How can you and your cabal of fellow brown-nosed clowns ignore such an upstanding kosher parrot (one of your own kind) like that?
~ BG
Saul Levy - 05 Jul 2009 00:25 GMT How about getting ANGRY at ObaMAO and his MERRY BAND OF THUGS, CROOKS and LIARS, GOOFBALL? lmfjao!
Correction: It's been a LOT LONGER THAN 6 MONTHS!
Saul Levy
>> [snip all, unread] >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > ~ BG BradGuth - 05 Jul 2009 01:00 GMT > > > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and the atmosphere > > > contains: [quoted text clipped - 154 lines] > giant phase, although a whole lot better off if we could park our > Selene/moon within Earth L1. Imagine Sirius B burning through and losing <1e15 kg/sec and possibly even < 3e15 kg/sec depending on the given stellar evolution amount of time.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
|
|
|