|
|
Post by Maui on Apr 30, 2009 18:35:11 GMT
I appreciate your time and consideration!
My theory is intuitively obvious to me, while I am well-educated and I have traveled to several libraries for research. My favorite library is USGS in Reston, VA; the tritium information I have is from DOE HQ in DC. If anyone can recommend a library for solar-terrestrial physics, I welcome the suggestion; I checked the Orcas Library regional search and was only able to find one institution in the state with Journal of Atmospheric and Solar Terrestrial Physics.
My current Congressional Representative (Rick Larsen) has never responded to my emails. A recent study completely revises tectonic theory of our district, and is consistent with my theory. [University of Missouri in Columbia and Washington University in St. Louis scientists have been able to measure heat flow in samples of crust material subjected to high temperatures. They have found that the Earth's lower crust must act as an insulator, increasing the crust's potential to generate molten magma. Whittington and Hofmeister, Nature 458, pp. 319-321; 19 March 2009; also Jean Braun (Universite de Rennes) lin the same issue pp. 292-293.]
|
|
|
|
Post by Maui on Apr 30, 2009 18:48:48 GMT
In response to your edit (and I really need to get out and do yard work...)
Tritium ("blue hydrogen") is the fusion material in a nuclear weapons. Due to its short half-life (15 yrs), it must be replaced in weapons every five years. As President of the Senate, Al Gore tried to arrange to buy tritium from Russia, to keep their scientists away from hanky-panky. His idea didn't work out, so it was decided to get tritium from Savannah River. The Environmental Impact Statement for that project is a source for a lot of what I know about tritium. It is a by-product of almost any fusion or fission reaction ("neutron capture"). It is useful not only for weapons but in industry also.
Deuterium ("heavy water") is likely the fuel for the process I describe. It is a safe and common substance, and is easily extracted at a cost of three cents per one hundred gallons gasoline energy equivalence if used for fusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maui on May 4, 2009 15:41:48 GMT
I would like to reproduce Jean Braun's "implications of a lower crust that is warmer than expected," but Nature wants a $57.50 fee. Anyway, it shows a newly inferred "channel of molten rock" under most of my congressional district. I really believe Rep. Rick Larsen is negligent by ignoring my emails. He is probably of the same opinion as Isvalgaard, "'perhaps I'm not really competent to discuss those 'far out' things..."
|
|
|
|
Post by amarkscpa on May 6, 2009 5:36:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on May 6, 2009 5:52:44 GMT
The article speculates that the lower solar output during minimum cools the Earth. The variation is too small, in my opinion, to have an effect exceeding 0.1 degree (C) and would not be enough to account for el Nino. |
|
jtom
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 248
|
Post by jtom on May 7, 2009 0:41:01 GMT
Dr. S., if you are including all solar output, and not just SI, then for the global temps to go down, either earth's albedo is changing, earth is radiating more energy (i.e., absorbing less), or something is sequestering the energy. That energy has to go somewhere.
Any thoughts on this or is it too far out of your areas of interest?
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on May 7, 2009 1:03:05 GMT
Dr. S., if you are including all solar output, and not just SI, then for the global temps to go down, either earth's albedo is changing, earth is radiating more energy (i.e., absorbing less), or something is sequestering the energy. That energy has to go somewhere. Any thoughts on this or is it too far out of your areas of interest? The amount of total solar output in terms of energy is indistinguishable from SI, the non-SI part being so minute. |
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on May 7, 2009 3:12:02 GMT
Dr. S., if you are including all solar output, and not just SI, then for the global temps to go down, either earth's albedo is changing, earth is radiating more energy (i.e., absorbing less), or something is sequestering the energy. That energy has to go somewhere. Any thoughts on this or is it too far out of your areas of interest? The amount of total solar output in terms of energy is indistinguishable from SI, the non-SI part being so minute. Whatever causes significant fluctuations here on earth, its unlikely that it's the TSI. There just isn't enough energy involved. On the other hand, the outer atmosphere just dropped 160 KM. Whatever causes THAT and the potential loss of all energy absorbed by that 2+% atmospheric reduction in capture cross section (directly and/or through lensing)...THAT could have an impact on earth's climate. Of course...as we stray into talk of the climate we really stray into topics that are meant to be discussed elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on May 7, 2009 3:38:58 GMT
The amount of total solar output in terms of energy is indistinguishable from SI, the non-SI part being so minute. Whatever causes significant fluctuations here on earth, its unlikely that it's the TSI. There just isn't enough energy involved. On the other hand, the outer atmosphere just dropped 160 KM. Whatever causes THAT and the potential loss of all energy absorbed by that 2+% atmospheric reduction in capture cross section (directly and/or through lensing)...THAT could have an impact on earth's climate. Of course...as we stray into talk of the climate we really stray into topics that are meant to be discussed elsewhere. The upper atmosphere in a million [and more higher up] times thinner [density] than the surface atmosphere, so what is absorbed up there is so small compared to the rest that it makes no measurable difference. |
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on May 7, 2009 8:39:31 GMT
Whatever causes significant fluctuations here on earth, its unlikely that it's the TSI. There just isn't enough energy involved. On the other hand, the outer atmosphere just dropped 160 KM. Whatever causes THAT and the potential loss of all energy absorbed by that 2+% atmospheric reduction in capture cross section (directly and/or through lensing)...THAT could have an impact on earth's climate. Of course...as we stray into talk of the climate we really stray into topics that are meant to be discussed elsewhere. The upper atmosphere in a million [and more higher up] times thinner [density] than the surface atmosphere, so what is absorbed up there is so small compared to the rest that it makes no measurable difference. Ahhh...but the absorption is logarithmic and there's a LOT of oxygen in the atmosphere. The first 20ppm of CO2 for example absorbs over half the energy that's absorbed at 400ppm. Then there's another issue. While it is indeed a wispy atmosphere...we're talking about light passing along the edge of a sphere. The sunlight has to pass through hundreds of kilometers (thousands at somewhat lower levels) of an oxygen rich mixture. I doubt it's absorbing all that UV but it's absorbing a lot more than most would expect from such a thin atmosphere. |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on May 7, 2009 14:09:46 GMT
The upper atmosphere in a million [and more higher up] times thinner [density] than the surface atmosphere, so what is absorbed up there is so small compared to the rest that it makes no measurable difference. Ahhh...but the absorption is logarithmic and there's a LOT of oxygen in the atmosphere. The first 20ppm of CO2 for example absorbs over half the energy that's absorbed at 400ppm. Then there's another issue. While it is indeed a wispy atmosphere...we're talking about light passing along the edge of a sphere. The sunlight has to pass through hundreds of kilometers (thousands at somewhat lower levels) of an oxygen rich mixture. I doubt it's absorbing all that UV but it's absorbing a lot more than most would expect from such a thin atmosphere. There is a long way to a million [or a billion or a trillion - the density goes down by a factor of 1000 for each 50 km], so even 'a lot more' makes no difference. |
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on May 7, 2009 17:21:58 GMT
Ahhh...but the absorption is logarithmic and there's a LOT of oxygen in the atmosphere. The first 20ppm of CO2 for example absorbs over half the energy that's absorbed at 400ppm. Then there's another issue. While it is indeed a wispy atmosphere...we're talking about light passing along the edge of a sphere. The sunlight has to pass through hundreds of kilometers (thousands at somewhat lower levels) of an oxygen rich mixture. I doubt it's absorbing all that UV but it's absorbing a lot more than most would expect from such a thin atmosphere. There is a long way to a million [or a billion or a trillion - the density goes down by a factor of 1000 for each 50 km], so even 'a lot more' makes no difference. Guess it just makes it that much more curious then how it could get the energy to expand by 160km during a maximum |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on May 7, 2009 17:39:54 GMT
There is a long way to a million [or a billion or a trillion - the density goes down by a factor of 1000 for each 50 km], so even 'a lot more' makes no difference. Guess it just makes it that much more curious then how it could get the energy to expand by 160km during a maximum Because the upper atmosphere is so extremely tenuous it takes very little energy to make it expand. It expands because it is heated to 600 degrees or more, yet is so tenuous that you would freeze solid in minutes if placed in it [in the shade]. |
|
|
|
Post by rbateman on May 8, 2009 3:29:45 GMT
The way it was reported, they seemed shocked to find it had shrunken as much as it did.
Were they just uninformed, or was it a case of sensationalism?
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on May 8, 2009 5:03:49 GMT
The way it was reported, they seemed shocked to find it had shrunken as much as it did. Were they just uninformed, or was it a case of sensationalism? 'Me too', PR sensationalism, fitting in with 'lowest solar activity', 'lowest solar wind', 'lowest magnetic field', 'highest cosmic rays', 'hell freezing over', etc. |
|
