[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Ahaa, you clicked on this ready to make statements about carbon dioxide.

If by mans activity during the hours of daylight (point of the earth facing the sun) applies force to the surface of the earth, whilst by the hours of darkness he is static, would this activity have an effect (however small)  to permanently alter the distance of the earth from the sun (and all the earths varying orbit cycles) and thus altering the climate.

If a plane takes off from the surface of the earth when it is facing the sun, the earth is forced away from the sun. Said plane thrusts against the earth via the airduring the hours of daylight. When the plane lands the earth and plane once more move closer together, but the plane is now in darkness and once more the earth is moved further away from the sun and is left permanently more distant from the star. Similar activities powered by mass energy usage include vehicles moving across the surface.The flaw in this theory is that the earth should be getting colder, but i wonder whether i have the physics wrong and this activity is acting as a gravitational source that moves the earth closer.

Also if the result of burning hydrocarbons is water and co2 is the sea level rise down to increased liquid in the oceans ? and i do not mean via the exon valdez.

[Bored chemist]

"If by mans activity during the hours of daylight (point of the earth facing the sun) applies force to the surface of the earth, whilst by the hours of darkness he is static, would this activity have an effect (however small)  to permanently alter the distance of the earth from the sun"

No.
The laws of momentum conservation make this impossible.
Essentially, nothing on earth can change the earth's orbit, because it would have nothing to push against.

[jeffreyH]

I'll answer the original question since the rest is nonsense. The planet goes through cycles. We cannot avoid that. A cycle can be modified by other inputs. These include volcanic eruptions for instance. Our role is becoming more apparent as time goes on. We are turning a gradual cycle that is easy to adapt to into something a lot less manageable. I personally don't think we know what it is we are doing exactly to cause this. However it is likely to not be just output of CO2.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

See you say that but what brought it to my attention is the diflection tequniques employed against hypothetical meteors, such as altering with gravitational attraction, thrusts into surface, and solar radiation utilisation. Im pretty sure if we exploded nukes on one side of the ear5h we could shift the earth and save mankind from global warming Earthquakes have had an effect on the orbit of earth. I guess we'll have to tell them no then !

Gravity tractor

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_tractor


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_impact_avoidance#Deflection_efforts

And also if were burning all this fossil fuel and producing all this extra water surely we're producing lots of heat 2ith it? Is this like having a parrafin heater in a greenhouse ?

[guest39538]

Essentially, nothing on earth can change the earth's orbit, because it would have nothing to push against.

Nothing on Earth as you say but not nothing of the Earth such as Quantum field fluctuations.  Affect the field magnitude affect the radius r as you know.

[guest39538]

I'll answer the original question since the rest is nonsense. The planet goes through cycles. We cannot avoid that. A cycle can be modified by other inputs. These include volcanic eruptions for instance. Our role is becoming more apparent as time goes on. We are turning a gradual cycle that is easy to adapt to into something a lot less manageable. I personally don't think we know what it is we are doing exactly to cause this. However it is likely to not be just output of CO2.

ΔS over time is causing this Jeffrey, you know that!

[paulggriffiths]

Man made?
Millions of years of trees burnt in 100 years. Cough cough...
5 gallon a car times billion cars times 52 weeks times many years. 13,000,000,000,000 gallons seems unlucky to me.

Now, 4 * PI * 6,000 wide earth * 20 miles high atmosphere is something like 1.5 million miles square.
13,000,000,000,000 / 1.5 million = 8,666,666.666666667 gallons of petrol per square mile of atmosphere.
Which is 3.85 gallons per square meter.
This can't be true, I'm going over the maths...

The maths seems correct for an extreme 50 years. So guess a gallon per square meter is an acceptable answer? Where the carbon monoxide has gone or turned into may or may not save us.

Edit: found the mistake. I divided mile by 1,500 m / 1,500 m. Sould be / 1,500 / 1,500 /  1,500.
Don't quote me yet...

0.0025679012345679 gallons or 0.0116582716049383 litres per square meter of atmosphere.

I did believe the atmosphere was 2 miles high. It's 20 - 40 depending what you consider atmosphere.
BUT 0.2% (about 1/3 mile? ) could be a layer of danger or something else could be of danger?

If you check my beautiful picture http://strong-grip.com there is layering and there getting thinner and could possibly be due for a change?

Go over this if you can. Ill be back tomorrow.

[guest39538]

Man made?
Millions of years of trees burnt in 100 years. Cough cough...
5 gallon a car times billion cars times 52 weeks times many years. 13,000,000,000,000 gallons seems unlucky to me.

Now, 4 * PI * 6,000 wide earth * 20 miles high atmosphere is something like 1.5 million miles square.
13,000,000,000,000 / 1.5 million = 8,666,666.666666667 gallons of petrol per square mile of atmosphere.
Which is 3.85 gallons per square meter.
This can't be true, I'm going over the maths...

The fuels burnt etc, were already a part of the Universes mass, only ourselves are a change to the Universe.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

According to this http://www.roperld.com/science/minerals/FossilFuelsDepletion.htm

Coal extracted 326x 10to (9) or 326000000000 tonnes, 21gigajoules of energy per tonne =

Oil extracted 1110x 10 to (9) or 1110000000000 barrells 1 barrel=139 kg = 154x10(9) tonnes 42 giga joules a tonne =

Gas extracted 3285 x 10 to (12) or 3285000000000000cubic feet  = 3.63kg cubic foot 11.9x 10 (12) tonnes of gas

I am not sure about the gas calculation,seems a littlehigh i think doubling the oil would be more prudent and still an overestimate. So 300 tonnes of oil and gas.

Coal is mostly carbon, so it produces no water, unlike  the hydrocarbon oil and gas. But if we say 300 x10 (9) tonnes of oil and gas have been burned that produce twice as many water molecules as carbon molecules. Averaging 3300 kg co 2  per tonne of hydrocarbons , atomic weight 12+8+8 =28, h20 must be (1+1+8=10)x2 2000 kg of water per tonne of fuel ? So 300x10 (9)x 2000 means a net increace of 6000000000 cubic metres of water.

And 19x10 (21) joules of energy or 19 zetta jouless of energy released between oil coal and gas.

[guest39538]

According to this http://www.roperld.com/science/minerals/FossilFuelsDepletion.htm

Coal extracted 326x 10to (9) or 326000000000 tonnes, 21gigajoules of energy per tonne =

Oil extracted 1110x 10 to (9) or 1110000000000 barrells 1 barrel=139 kg = 154x10(9) tonnes 42 giga joules a tonne =

Gas extracted 3285 x 10 to (12) or 3285000000000000cubic feet  = 3.63kg cubic foot 11.9x 10 (12) tonnes of gas

I am not sure about the gas calculation,seems a littlehigh i think doubling the oil would be more prudent and still an overestimate. So 300 tonnes of oil and gas.

Coal is mostly carbon, so it produces no water, unlike  the hydrocarbon oil and gas. But if we say 300 x10 (9) tonnes of oil and gas have been burned that produce twice as many water molecules as carbon molecules. Averaging 3300 kg co 2  per tonne of hydrocarbons , atomic weight 12+8+8 =28, h20 must be (1+1+8=10)x2 2000 kg of water per tonne of fuel ? So 300x10 (9)x 2000 means a net increace of 6000000000 cubic metres of water.

And 19x10 (21) joules of energy or 19 zetta jouless of energy released between oil coal and gas.

But none of that matters, the coal etc was already a part of the systems mass and energy ratio.  By burning a piece of coal it changes nothing in the system, nothing is ever lost it is transformed.  There is only us and things that grow that add too the total entropy .

=Δ

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

But none of that matters, the coal etc was already a part of the systems mass and energy ratio.  By burning a piece of coal it changes nothing in the system, nothing is ever lost it is transformed.  There is only us and things that grow that add too the total entropy .

=Δ

There is the problem of the energy capture from the sun, without plants light would have impacted and eithe warmed the planet or would have been reflected in a process as you allude to, light in planet moves one way, light out, planet moves the other. With fossil fuels it is no longer just heat to be lost in a even way, now the energy can de directed as kinetic energy, as in spacecraft engines, an action in one direction has an equal and opposite.

 what do we mean 'Gray' mr griffith ?

[paulggriffiths]

But none of that matters, the coal etc was already a part of the systems mass and energy ratio.  By burning a piece of coal it changes nothing in the system, nothing is ever lost it is transformed.  There is only us and things that grow that add too the total entropy .

=Δ

There is the problem of the energy capture from the sun, without plants light would have impacted and eithe warmed the planet or would have been reflected in a process as you allude to, light in planet moves one way, light out, planet moves the other. With fossil fuels it is no longer just heat to be lost in a even way, now the energy can de directed as kinetic energy, as in spacecraft engines, an action in one direction has an equal and opposite.

 what do we mean 'Gray' mr griffith ?

Oyy, don't forget the S, it means son of a king.

Gray as in dirty cloud.

Anyway ppl, add some comedy to your posts. I've seen less squares in a fence.

[alancalverd]

The only permanent contribution of any animal is to raise the temperature of the planet by burning carbon compounds previously made by plants. That's life.

[paulggriffiths]

I'm not saying anything.

[paulggriffiths]

I know they say oil/coal/gas comes from plants.
I proved my theory, grass to soil to rock.

A long way down, so could oil/coal/gas come from a pre-plant era? Or something between plants?
Or when a carbon atom breaks? Does it release oil?

13 billion years old? If I gave them LEGO they would speculate if red can scientifically fasten to yellow.

The furthest dinosaur bone is 2000 meteres down.
1mm a year is only 2 million years ago.
If life to the core then 45 to 450 billion years old planet if 10 to 100 times compression? Could be 1000-10000+ if no longer recognizable atoms?

Stonehenge may only be 500 years old. Judging by my last visit to the area, I believe it was some kind of prison, if out of view you were fine.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

The only permanent contribution of any animal is to raise the temperature of the planet by burning carbon compounds previously made by plants. That's life.

And when the plant where growing did they lower the lemperature, increace the mass, affect the balance gravitationally of the planet by capturing extra energy when there side of the earth faced rhe sun and storing it, and not allowing it to escape as heat and light. Over the years that must have built up.

[paulggriffiths]

The only permanent contribution of any animal is to raise the temperature of the planet by burning carbon compounds previously made by plants. That's life.

And when the plant where growing did they lower the lemperature, increace the mass, affect the balance gravitationally of the planet by capturing extra energy when there side of the earth faced rhe sun and storing it, and not allowing it to escape as heat and light. Over the years that must have built up.

Exactly my point... It's impossible for it to cool down. Constant heat from the sun would never increase the temperature.

[guest4091]

but i wonder whether i have the physics wrong

Newton's 'equal and opposite reaction' is a generalization of momentum when applied to solid bodies. It isn't true for composite bodies. When a small mass, rocket, is accelerated from a large mass, Earth, due to an application of energy between them, there is a vector mV for the rocket, but no apparent vector Mv for the Earth. The exhaust impinges on the earth surface and the air, and is dispersed as heat. The reason is; energy is more quickly absorbed by objects with less inertial resistance. A common occurrence in flooding, where loose soil is washed away, leaving boulders in place, and wind erosion of loose granules from rock surfaces. Analyzing the composite body, the total momenta from each particle will total to the Mv vector, but there is no directed motion that alters the orbit. The earth currently varies in distance from the sun in its elliptical path.

If there was a sufficient release of energy to cause the earth to split into two significant pcs, the energy would act on both and alter their paths, just as 2 electrons separate due to em forces.

What's missing concerning global warming are the ice core samples from the north and south poles. Their analysis indicates a warming trend 1000 yrs ago, but at a much slower rate. This eliminates human activity as the sole cause of climate change.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

But the equal and oposite reaction is the dissipation of the energy as heat. But as that mass moves away the earth does move , if you have a rocket hovering SPECIFICALLY OVER ONE PLACE WITH NO ACCELERATION it does not force opposite no matter how long it hovers and how much energy it uses, due to gravitation providing the reason for the fuel use initially as in an equal system the gravitatinal attraction is balanced by the opposite thrust and generates heat, but when the rocket decends the earth does infact move toward it, and when it ascends the specific energy ammount of the decent has to be put back into the system to repel the earth. But it still stands, spacecraft in space gain there impetus through the equal and opposite without anything to thrust upon, otherwise we would never got above the atmosphere or had directional capability in space, and taking off from the moon would be very diffivult with its thin atmosphere. That is the theory of asteroid deflection.

If gravitational energy action happens repetedly over decades, always in the equal and opposite, taking off about noon, landing about midnight, no matter how many hours duration the flight was, would this alter the distance of the earth from the sun ?. I know about gravitational centres, and the theory being that the earth is moved away from the sun at noon, orbits the gravitational centre and returns to the same position at midnight as the craft lands, as you say the earth split in two around a gravittional centre, and then glued back to gether in the same place, however as with a plane one body in consuming energy staying aloft and undergoing acceleration around the gravitational centre,  during a specific orentation to a third body (the sun), would the gravitational centre alter in relation to the sun if the aircraft rocket behaveid in a certain way? Cars accelerate across the surface by day far more than by night ? And rest mass is greater than inertial mass, isnt it ?

Theorise this,

A huge rocket engine is strapped to earth and pokes through into clear space. Into this all the fossil fuel energy remaining on earth gained from photosynthesis capture from the sun is fed into the huge rocket engine, what happens ? It cannot be a sealed system.

I do agree though, small ammounts of energy upon a far larger gravitational system for a short time have no effect, perhaps something to do with escape velocities or other thresholds ? The emmitter probably does not achieve break away energy levels.

[guest4091]

Petrochemicals #18

But the equal and oposite reaction is the dissipation of the energy as heat. But as that mass moves away the earth does move , if you have a rocket hovering SPECIFICALLY OVER ONE PLACE WITH NO ACCELERATION it does not force opposite no matter how long it hovers and how much energy it uses, due to gravitation providing the reason for the fuel use initially as in an equal system the gravitatinal attraction is balanced by the opposite thrust and generates heat,
but when the rocket decends the earth does infact move toward it,

/only in a relative sense. If you are viewing from the moon, the rocket descends to the earth. The rocket does not have enough mass to gravitationally move the earth. The mass of the moon can move the oceans relative to the earth surface. Consider, what is the rocket mass relative to the moon?

But it still stands, spacecraft in space gain there impetus through the equal and opposite without anything to thrust upon, otherwise we would never got above the atmosphere or had directional capability in space, and taking off from the moon would be very diffivult with its thin atmosphere.

/The combustion of exhaust gases thrust the engine which being rigidly connected thrusts the rocket. The moon has no atmosphere.

If gravitational energy action happens repetedly over decades, always in the equal and opposite, taking off about noon, landing about midnight, no matter how many hours duration the flight was, would this alter the distance of the earth from the sun ?. I know about gravitational centres, and the theory being that the earth is moved away from the sun at noon, orbits the gravitational centre and returns to the same position at midnight as the craft lands, as you say the earth split in two around a gravittional centre, and then glued back to gether in the same place, however as with a plane one body in consuming energy staying aloft and undergoing acceleration around the gravitational centre,  during a specific orentation to a third body (the sun), would the gravitational centre alter in relation to the sun if the aircraft rocket behaveid in a certain way? Cars accelerate across the surface by day far more than by night ? And rest mass is greater than inertial mass, isnt it ?

/Consider planes, cars, etc. as bits of earth mass. Relative to the earth all these bits in motion would be equivalent to a dust cloud close to the surface. Highly unlikely it would have any significant effect on the daily or yearly cycle,