In this thread/post by me:
http://suzukisavage.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1484743304

I was wondering if our planet might die....
And I wondered if man made stuff, like Global Warming producing behavior/products might cause it.

Extending that man, too many of them, would be better if some population thinning was to occur to protect the planet.

You made the claim, I hope I get this right, that nothing new is added to our enviroment, everything is already present, it just changes forms.....
Is that right?
Could you then tell us how this jives, with man causing GW, then?

Thanks.

raydawg wrote on 01/19/17 at 17:11:41:

I will start this by saying that there are many scientists on both sides of the debate as to if and how much of an effect humans play on climate change.  Certainly in earths history climate has shifted such as the most recent ice ages that produced the lovely great lakes of our country.  For the purposes of this thread I will not take a side of this debate but merely answer the question directly.  When I said that everything is already present it was in reference to elements, that is atoms otherwise known as  the basic unit of matter.  With the small exception of meteorites the earth is not gaining or losing matter.  The same matter that was here 4 billion+ years ago when the planet was formed is still here.  To add to this I said that this matter can change form, but ultimately it was always here.  In reference to the theory of GW the main culprit is often sited as carbon dioxide.  Now carbon dioxide is made of 1 carbon atoms and 2 oxygen atoms.  It is produced from living things and the combustion engine in essentially the same way.  To oversimplify the process an organic carbon source (food for living things or gasoline for the combustion engine) is oxidized down to carbon dioxide and water and in the process energy is released which can then be used to perform work.  In the case of living things this reaction looks like (it is similar for cars):
C6H12O6 + 6O2     ---> 6CO2        +   6H2O  + energy
glucose      oxygen     carbon dioxide    water      

This process is essentially reversed in plants which take energy from the sun, water from the ground, and carbon dioxide from the air and make sugar and oxygen.   SO you see the carbon and oxygen and hydrogen that make up this process has always been here and is just changing form in a cycle.  More to your point one important thing to note is that as matter changes form often times its properties also change.  For instance, no one would say that sugar or oxygen causes global warming, but when they are changed to carbon dioxide some people do.  Another perfect analogy to illustrate this point is water   Water is made of hydrogen and oxygen and anyone that has watched the hindenburg disaster video knows that hydrogen gas is very flammable, similarly you can't have an open flame around oxygen gas because it to is very flammable, but when you mix them in a 2 to 1 ratio to make water you have a substance that is often used to put out fires.

I've been absent from the Tall Table for a bit but this is a great thread topic thanks Joer.

My memory was the earth loses a great deal every day, but I couldn't remember why exactly. I cheated  and consulted the Oracle.

Apparently the earth gains 40,000 tons a year of dust from space but loses 90,000 tons in hydrogen escaping the atmosphere. So it's a net loss. But, not to worry since 50,000 tons is meaningless in the big picture.

Also, a minor correction, oxygen in and of itself, is not flammable. It facilitates combustion. I admit I'm on dangerous ground here, I'm not a chemist, but I sold flame resistant fibers for a few years so picked up info from much smarter people than me.

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 01/20/17 at 05:42:38:


yes combustion is a redox reaction

not really sure what your asking raydawg

WebsterMark wrote on 01/20/17 at 05:16:41:


you are correct on both points but as you said 50,000 tons while it seems a lot is actually minuscule in term of the total mass of the earth which is about 6,500,000,000,000,000,000,000lbs  
which is 3,250,000,000,000,000,000 tons

so 50,000 tons is 1/65,000,000,000,000 of the mass of the earth or 0.0000000000015% and it would take 65 quadrillion years for all the mass to go away which is about 8million times the life expectancy of the earth so over the course of the entire life of earth it would only lose about 1/8000000 or 0.0000125% of its mass.  to put that into visual terms that is like a 200lbs man losing about 20 hairs over his entire life.  

BTW I like math  

Yes you are right I made a gaff, oxygen is not flammable but facilitates combustion like you said but it still fits my analogy

Joer0952 wrote on 01/20/17 at 07:09:48:


I'm not either  

How hydrogen, depending on how its mated, with other elements, can go from friend, to foe, depending on who it is hanging out with....yes?

Let me ask this observation/example, as a question, as to how a machine (living creatures) use the same element, oxygen, which is made of more than one matter, right.... to survive, using it as the source of its power.

Man, we breath it in, a natural form, or could I say in (oxygen's) suspend or default, state, into our lungs.
They extract the matter our living body needs to run, we exhale the carbon dioxide, or spent hydrogen.

Fish do the same, but the environment it is in requires a different machine to extract the same matter, yes?

Does this method create carbon dioxid, in the water, after it passes over a fishes gills?

Dolphin then live in sort of both of these environments, so it has machinery that has fish and human engineering  

Does this observation have any merit, or am I still suffering from the years of dope use as a liberal  

WebsterMark wrote on 01/20/17 at 05:16:41:


Welcome back webby....
Hope all is well!

Yes, I get that, I think  
What I was trying to link was we use the same disfussion, but adapted to our environment.
Can "earth" do the same, re: global warming, cooling, etc....
It appears to me that earth reacts according to the present condition it finds itself, even to the point of locality, for it appears to me that weather often seems cylindrical in nature, a prolonged dry spell often produces a condition that might/will, produce above "average" precipitation.

Yes?