Help with flat earth facts and English language.

[Fredski]

our planet (assuming you're of Earth origin) is 4.5 billion years old. It has been in a state of change constantly. in recent years due to politicians there has been an argument over mankind's overall influence on our entire ecosystem. the arrogance of assuming an idling 57 Chevy is playing a large enough role to actually impact overall atmospheric temperature gain is beyond preposterous. almost every bit of weather that this planet has ever known is directly linking to that ball of fire in the sky.currently we are yet again entering a grand solar minimum. as with most things we humans observe this is a cycle that has been taking place and impacting our way of life for many centuries. why do you suppose great civilizations of the past and multiple Chinese dynasties just seemed to dry up and disappear? if you match these once thriving masses of people and compare that to solar cycles you'll see a significant link.
is carbon dioxide a poison or pollutant? your lawn, your forests and anything else that requires photosynthesis to exist have a major affinity to carbon dioxide. why is so much of our planet green?? carbon dioxide and this planet have been locked in a symbiotic relation for billions of years.
so is carbon anywhere near as bad as some Chicken Little-types would have you believe? any real scientist won't bother answering because they're too busy laughing.

 

[Ratchit]

Still cant find H2O on any green house gas list, help me out and give a ref for it please. I would really appreciate decent reading material i can cite to show that H2O is a major gas in climate change..... Several of the tutors i know for enviromental science are watching this thread, they wuld also like to see this source (seriously), we find your theory......fascinating and would like to fully understand the mechanism.

I did warn them first that your not big on giving out references.

Challenge given and challenge accepted. I never said that water vapor was a large factor in climate change. I said it is more of a thermal insulating gas than CO2 is. Neither of those gases is causing climate change, but if they were, water vapor would be the first gas to worry about. It is more prevalent and potent. The real cause is the solar wind from the Sun which determines how many cosmic rays get through to the Earth's atmosphere and help condense the water vapor into liquid water clouds. These clouds partly shield the Earth from the Sun and keep the temperature down. You can see this effect in a cloud chamber.

.

Here are the references you asked about.

This article confirms that water vapor is more significant than CO2, It does not seem to know the relationship between the solar wind and cloud formation, however.
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...s-co2-isnt-the-most-important-greenhouse-gas/

Again, the following article affirms the significance of water vapor, but does not seem to know about the solar cycle.
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

https://scienceofdoom.com/2011/02/24/water-vapor-vs-co2-as-a-greenhouse-gas/
Same comment as above.

Especially, see this documentary.
https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/great-global-warming-swindle/

Ratch

 

[JoeJester]

WGS84 is the current political agreed upon "shape" of this planet. There are later datums, with the latest being Chinese obfuscated datum 2002.

So if LG had his handy dandy GPS device, he could stand on the prime meridian with his GPS giving him an alternate location.

 

[unclejed613]

>>In the bible the sky sits on the ground. At the horizon the sky does seem to meet the earth.
>>Bible again; The earth is flat and round. Like a dish or Frisbee. If you are in the desert or ocean you can see 40 miles in all directions. The earth appears to be flat/round and the sky appears to be a dome sitting on the ground all around you. Remember the God(s) walk on the hard sky, which holds most of the water. Water, grain, blessings are kept in the sky and are sent to us through the windows in the sky. The bible is true, which leaves physics as not true.

actually, this is incorrect, there's at least one place in the Bible that says the earth is round. it never says the sky "sits on" the ground, and it never says the earth is flat, as a matter of fact there is even one or two places that says it wobbles like a drunk (it can only do that if it's spherical and spinning).

FOX news is always true. Any idea on the internet is true. The CIA is trying to hide the true nature of the earth from you. For the low low sum of $10.95 a month I will sent you a news letter telling you what the CIA does not want you to know.

so, there's the "meat" of the matter right there, "the low sum of $10.95 a month" for the newsletter. while i think alphabet soup agencies are often ignoring the Constitution, and do many things that are criminally wrong, i doubt that they would try to falsify something as basic as the shape of the earth (which was proven to be a sphere in 240 BC).

 

[unclejed613]

Challenge give and challenge accepted. I never said that water vapor was a large factor in climate change. I said it is more of a thermal insulating gas than CO2 is. Neither of those gases is causing climate change, but if they were, water vapor would be the first gas to worry about. It is more prevalent and potent. The real cause is the solar wind from the Sun which determines how many cosmic rays get through to the Earth's atmosphere and help condense the water vapor into liquid water clouds. These clouds partly shield the Earth from the Sun and keep the temperature down. You can see this effect in a cloud chamber.

.

Here are the references you asked about.

This article confirms that water vapor is more significant than CO2, It does not seem to know the relationship between the solar wind and cloud formation, however.
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...s-co2-isnt-the-most-important-greenhouse-gas/

Again, the following article affirms the significance of water vapor, but does not seem to know about the solar cycle.
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

https://scienceofdoom.com/2011/02/24/water-vapor-vs-co2-as-a-greenhouse-gas/
Same comment as above.

Especially, see this documentary.
https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/great-global-warming-swindle/

Ratch

there's a very good reason why there's more CO2 in the atmosphere during warming trends, as the average temperature goes up, more CO2 is liberated from sea water. the solubility of CO2 in water is inversely proportional to temperature. increased CO2 levels are a result of a warming trend, not the cause of it. when CO2 is liberated from sea water, it also changes the balance of C12 and C14. because water acts as a radiation shield because it's much more dense than air, the CO2 released by seawater has a lower percentage of C14 than the CO2 already in the atmosphere. C14 is actually produced in the stratosphere by neutron activation of nitrogen atoms.

 

[Ratchit]

there's a very good reason why there's more CO2 in the atmosphere during warming trends, as the average temperature goes up, more CO2 is liberated from sea water. the solubility of CO2 in water is inversely proportional to temperature. increased CO2 levels are a result of a warming trend, not the cause of it. when CO2 is liberated from sea water, it also changes the balance of C12 and C14. because water acts as a radiation shield because it's much more dense than air, the CO2 released by seawater has a lower percentage of C14 than the CO2 already in the atmosphere. C14 is actually produced in the stratosphere by neutron activation of nitrogen atoms.

Yes, I said in my previous posts that the increase in global warming is releasing more CO2 from the land and water. Still, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is minuscule compared to the water vapor and other gases. Keep in mind that CO2 is not a catalyst in a chemical reaction. It's contribution as a physical constituent is insignificant.

Ratch

 

[ronsimpson]

actually, this is incorrect

Daniel 4:11 Tree tall enough to be seen from the ends of the earth.
"the ends of the earth" & "the corners of the earth" is every where in the bible. I think this does not indicate there is a end or corner, (maybe). Job 28:24, Job 38:13, etc
"the earth is a circle" Proverbs 8:27, Isaiah 40:22, etc ( circle not sphere is used)
"sky is a dome" Amos 9:6, Job 37:18, The word “raqa” is used to describe the sky. It is also used to describe how metal is pounded into a curved shield, or a bole. (to expand by hammering, hard curved object) Versions of raqa are used to describe hard curved objects. (depending on who translated and into what language)
The word ‘aguddah’, translates; a vault, to bind up, to hold in one place, is used to describe how water is stored above the sky.
Psalm 77:18 gets translated many different ways. bowl or skull as a description of sky. also whirlwind
Is. 40:22; Job 22:14; Prov. 8:27 is used to prove sphere or round. BUT "hug" should never be sphere (different word), it is dome.
Prov. 8:27-28 He drew a circle (hug) on the earth and made firm the skies above it.

which was proven to be a sphere in 240 BC

Every thing I quoted predates 240BC

Sorry I am missing several key verses. My Hebrew translator is in bed.

I think it is unfair to say any group of people (Babylon, Egypt, Israel, Greeks, Romans) believe (fill in the blank). When a group of people lasts 1000 years their ideas change over time. English text books of 200 years ago are not the same as today's.

 

[large_ghostman]

I got banned for 24 hours from the thread, i forget its not allowed to upset some people.

I havnt read all the refs yet you posted. But you did say solar winds and water vapor, so really to back that uyp you need to find something that shows the connection and not half the story. Come on your intelligent, posting you tube vids as peer reviewed reference is a bit of an insult Ratch, i dont expect you to like me but i do expect some decent refs to read. I actually enjoy reading decent material, and despite my spelling and grammar i can read technical papers very well.

I havnt insulted you by posting quotes out the Beano have i! And please everyone move away from CO2, its old news and TBH if we still had half the rain forest we did 30 years ago it wouldnt be much a issue. Look more at the chemicals that takes hundreds of years to degrade and do damage.

Yes i strongly advocate methane, yes i have a small business that is connected with it (full disclosure), but captured and burnt, Methane makes a sensible fuel, add a atomized fog of Carbonate in the flue and you have a decent reactor buffer, or feed the flue gas into water for hydroponic use. Its better than composting badly and letting the stuff escape, also the amount of **** we produce and simply do next to nothing with in the west, is a crime. All that **** in a modern 4-5 chamber system could produce an enormous amount of decent clean energy, but we literally throw it away!

I dont see CO2 as much of an issue, it isnt hard to capture where its produced and like the pilot scheme running in India, they are producing tons of Bicard from it by atomized carbonate fogs, made from ultrasonic fog making machines, cheap simple and easy and a decent end product. Even cows belching Methane is getting under control with new diets and supplements. Read that pdf, out of all the gases CO2 is not the biggest bogey man out there.

And like i just said, Methane could be used to our advantage if we acted like third world countries and used it, i agree old reactor were nor efficient, but one or two chamber systems will never be any good, the newer ones like the 4-5 chamber ones are nearly up into the 90 odd% range efficiency if used as a synergistic system. Water vapour to me is a friend in carbon capture but true gaseous water vapor isnt really something that stays as a gas for long. No one needs a chemistry lesson to work out how long H2O is going to stay as a gas with other chemicals about!

But what i was after was the tie in with solar winds and water vapor, your two main bogey men in this scenario, bogey men used purely as a description.

And mods please dont go banning me for 24 hours just because sides get taken. if its admin then read it all and at least send me a decent message, saying banned for bickering implies two people minimum involved, you cant ban one person for bickering unless they are bickering amongst themselves. Well you can but makes more sense to simply ask me to stay away, level fields and all that....

And as i pointed out, you got some decent views for a change, something i would think would be encouraged. Personally i cant see the bickering, difference of opinion yes, but to be fair i have tried to completely back up everything i have said. If it was admin and you dont like it then contact me at least, trust me if you dont want me here i dont have a problem with that.

 

[tcmtech]

I got banned for 24 hours from the thread, i forget its not allowed to upset some people.

And mods please dont go banning me for 24 hours just because sides get taken. if its admin then read it all and at least send me a decent message, saying banned for bickering implies two people minimum involved, you cant ban one person for bickering unless they are bickering amongst themselves. Well you can but makes more sense to simply ask me to stay away, level fields and all that....

And as i pointed out, you got some decent views for a change, something i would think would be encouraged. Personally i cant see the bickering, difference of opinion yes, but to be fair i have tried to completely back up everything i have said. If it was admin and you dont like it then contact me at least, trust me if you dont want me here i dont have a problem with that.

Yes, When the others, plus moderators, tell you to knock something off, like making things personal (baiting and trolling someone) when there's no dignified and respectable or relevant reason for it, it's probably a good idea to listen to them and not keep pushing it.

Your dad never played those games (and had everyone's respect for it) so if even if you don't see any of us as worth your respect, as a peer group or whatever (why are you here if you really don't care what we say or think?) you care to define us as together or individually, at least respect his memory, and ours of him, by acting appropriately and maturely on his behalf.

 

[large_ghostman]

Yes, When the others, plus moderators, tell you to knock something off, like making things personal (baiting and trolling someone) when there's no dignified and respectable or relevant reason for it, it's probably a good idea to listen to them and not keep pushing it.

Your dad never played those games (and had everyone's respect for it) so if even if you don't see any of us as worth your respect, as a peer group or whatever (why are you here if you really don't care what we say or think?) you care to define us as together or individually, at least respect his memory, and ours of him, by acting appropriately and maturely on his behalf.

what was that about personal? I doubt i was banned for what i said to you, trust me no one here thinks you got baby soft skin,

If it was then i a surprised you didnt get banned, or you got special privilege or something, i see you hand out far worse. If you take what i say personally or to heart then you need to thicken your skin.

I did learn in this thread that you can give more than you can take. At no point did i remotely get upset or angry, i am really surprised you seem to be more snow flake than snowball. Or maybe the button pusher dosnt like his own pressed, idunno.

As per normal you get a semi cryptic message about a ban and no real explanation, not that it matters. We all know what happens when people get ban happy.

 

[Ratchit]

I got banned for 24 hours from the thread, i forget its not allowed to upset some people.

I havnt read all the refs yet you posted. But you did say solar winds and water vapor, so really to back that uyp you need to find something that shows the connection and not half the story. Come on your intelligent, posting you tube vids as peer reviewed reference is a bit of an insult Ratch, i dont expect you to like me but i do expect some decent refs to read. I actually enjoy reading decent material, and despite my spelling and grammar i can read technical papers very well.

If you have not read all the references you asked for, how can you say they are substandard? They indicate that water vapor is more important than CO2, but neither affects global warming as much as the Sun. You should especially look at the last reference which is a documentary put out by the BBC some years back.

I havnt insulted you by posting quotes out the Beano have i! And please everyone move away from CO2, its old news and TBH if we still had half the rain forest we did 30 years ago it wouldnt be much a issue. Look more at the chemicals that takes hundreds of years to degrade and do damage.

Yes i strongly advocate methane, yes i have a small business that is connected with it (full disclosure), but captured and burnt, Methane makes a sensible fuel, add a atomized fog of Carbonate in the flue and you have a decent reactor buffer, or feed the flue gas into water for hydroponic use. Its better than composting badly and letting the stuff escape, also the amount of **** we produce and simply do next to nothing with in the west, is a crime. All that **** in a modern 4-5 chamber system could produce an enormous amount of decent clean energy, but we literally throw it away!

I dont see CO2 as much of an issue, it isnt hard to capture where its produced and like the pilot scheme running in India, they are producing tons of Bicard from it by atomized carbonate fogs, made from ultrasonic fog making machines, cheap simple and easy and a decent end product. Even cows belching Methane is getting under control with new diets and supplements. Read that pdf, out of all the gases CO2 is not the biggest bogey man out there.

And like i just said, Methane could be used to our advantage if we acted like third world countries and used it, i agree old reactor were nor efficient, but one or two chamber systems will never be any good, the newer ones like the 4-5 chamber ones are nearly up into the 90 odd% range efficiency if used as a synergistic system. Water vapour to me is a friend in carbon capture but true gaseous water vapor isnt really something that stays as a gas for long. No one needs a chemistry lesson to work out how long H2O is going to stay as a gas with other chemicals about!

Methane is a very high heat insulating gas, but there is so little of it that its effect is probably insignificant.

But what i was after was the tie in with solar winds and water vapor, your two main bogey men in this scenario, bogey men used purely as a description.

The solar winds create the northern/southern lights. The cosmic rays show up in a cloud chamber. That shows both are present in the vicinity of Earth.

Here is an article that is skeptical of the cosmic ray theory. Those are the opinions and conclusions of a couple of scientists, who could be wrong. Just remember what I said before. Climate change hysteria has put a lot of dinners on the table for a lot of people. Anyway, they don't explain how such a small percentage of CO2 can change anything.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cosmic-rays-not-causing-climate-change/

Below is another article that pontificates on the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation. It, too, has its critics. You can find proponents and opponents on both sides of the issue, but the cosmic ray theory makes the most sense to me.

https://phys.org/news/2015-03-cosmic-fluctuations-global-temperatures-doesnt.html

And mods please dont go banning me for 24 hours just because sides get taken. if its admin then read it all and at least send me a decent message, saying banned for bickering implies two people minimum involved, you cant ban one person for bickering unless they are bickering amongst themselves. Well you can but makes more sense to simply ask me to stay away, level fields and all that....

And as i pointed out, you got some decent views for a change, something i would think would be encouraged. Personally i cant see the bickering, difference of opinion yes, but to be fair i have tried to completely back up everything i have said. If it was admin and you dont like it then contact me at least, trust me if you dont want me here i dont have a problem with that.

 

[large_ghostman]

If you have not read all the references you asked for, how can you say they are substandard? They indicate that water vapor is more important than CO2, but neither affects global warming as much as the Sun. You should especially look at the last reference which is a documentary put out by the BBC some years back.



Methane is a very high heat insulating gas, but there is so little of it that its effect is probably insignificant.



The solar winds create the northern/southern lights. The cosmic rays show up in a cloud chamber. That shows both are present in the vicinity of Earth.

Here is an article that is skeptical of the cosmic ray theory. Those are the opinions and conclusions of a couple of scientists, who could be wrong. Just remember what I said before. Climate change hysteria has put a lot of dinners on the table for a lot of people. Anyway, they don't explain how such a small percentage of CO2 can change anything.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cosmic-rays-not-causing-climate-change/

Below is another article that pontificates on the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation. It, too, has its critics. You can find proponents and opponents on both sides of the issue, but the cosmic ray theory makes the most sense to me.

https://phys.org/news/2015-03-cosmic-fluctuations-global-temperatures-doesnt.html

I will read all the stuff you posted, but wont be for a couple of days (unless i get lucky), thats o reflection on you, just i would rather read it fully then reply and at the moment that takes a chunk of time i cant spare in one go. But i will read and respond since you have kindly provided references i will give them proper consideration. Cosmic ray.....If nothing else sounds like an interesting read, ues i do except every theory is going to have both for and against. But so does over unity, unike over unity however i will read what you provided with an open mind.

 

[Pommie]

Especially, see this documentary.
https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/great-global-warming-swindle/
Ratch

Just finished watching this and must say, it's the most thought provoking global warming documentary I've ever seen.

I highly recommend everyone that can should watch it.

Mike.

 

[tcmtech]

what was that about personal? I doubt i was banned for what i said to you, trust me no one here thinks you got baby soft skin,

If it was then i a surprised you didnt get banned, or you got special privilege or something, i see you hand out far worse. If you take what i say personally or to heart then you need to thicken your skin.

You probably got banned for continuing on with irrelevant unfounded comments about others personal lives well after you were asked to stop by them and the mods being your claims were unfounded and could be taken as rude personal attacks.

Chose your words wisely when making irrelevant too the topic speculative personal comments about others lives or actions you know nothing factual about. Especially if that person or persons has asked you to and solidly refuted any claims you have made about them. It makes you look at minimal petty, ignorant and rude even if you were joking.

What others do or don't do based on your observations and assumptions is not carte blanche for you to say and do whatever you want to them. You don't know the full story of their actions and reasonings any better than they know yours. Also don't confuse ones own thick head, pride and ego with the problem being someone else's thin skin. Know when your joke stopped being funny or if it was never funny to begin with.

I did learn in this thread that you can give more than you can take. At no point did i remotely get upset or angry, i am really surprised you seem to be more snow flake than snowball. Or maybe the button pusher dosnt like his own pressed, idunno.

Perception and speculation is relative but good social manors and courtesy is not and it's necessary to know the limits of acceptability of each.

Your assumptions of others reality does not make others reality true so don't go around making false claims and accusations in order to push others buttons or pass off your own faults and actions and assume you wont get negative reactions for it.

Also don't play childish petty and stupid games to pass blame or get out of owning up to your actions when they go wrong. That's a property you really don't want to own and once you do get the title its very hard to get rid of. Especially if you deliberately worked at it just to get under someones skin and keep renewing the contract to get at them more.

Same with assuming you know more than someone else, especially about their assumed life. Your assumptions will likely be proven wrong very fast if you do. Especially if you're making derogatory assumptions and claims about someone else's life based entirely on your own.

Wild easily viewed as derogatory speculation on your behalf does not make you the better person ever. Neither does pursuing a weak unfounded personal accusation well past when it was proven false and you were told to leave it alone.
That thing you were throwing stones at for fun because you thought it was a weak little rabbit might turn into a dragon real fast and if not it still might have dragons for friends that dont like what you are doing, or both, so think before you instigate accuse and proclaim because one of those stones you throw might be attached to your last breath by a very short string (as you found out with this thread once already).

Own your mistakes and shortcomings and treat others as you would wish to be treated in their position or plan to pay the consequences of your arrogance/ignorance/foolishness with interest.

 

[tcmtech]

Just finished watching this and must say, it's the most thought provoking global warming documentary I've ever seen.

I highly recommend everyone that can should watch it.

Mike.

That's one of the biggest issues the environmentalists sect has had going against it from day one.

They have too much corruption and greed entrenched in their side and are too often willfully blind to it because they think its helping their agenda when it's clearly not. They're who's helping the corruption and greeds agenda like happy useful idiots and thats why so many fight them on every level over every claim they make.

Same with the incessant use of gross exaggeration and hyperbole forever backed by worst case scenario assumptions of reality that as time passes by never play out to be anything close to what they said was going to happen.

Saying theres a 30% chance that something bad might happen tomorrow and being wrong is understandable but saying that there is a 100% chance its going to be world ending and everyone has to give you their money and freedom now to stop it, and then never having anything remotely bad happen countless days in a row and counting does not bode well for one credibility. Especially when that money and power they got just gets used to grab more money and power.

Even worse when it can easily be seen to be the exact same game and agendas that corrupt religious, cultic and poltical sects have used since day one to grab and hold cultural power at every level they can find.

Collectively we should really know how that game works by now and not fall for it over and over and over, yet here we are still.

 

[tcmtech]

there's a very good reason why there's more CO2 in the atmosphere during warming trends, as the average temperature goes up, more CO2 is liberated from sea water. the solubility of CO2 in water is inversely proportional to temperature. increased CO2 levels are a result of a warming trend, not the cause of it. when CO2 is liberated from sea water, it also changes the balance of C12 and C14. because water acts as a radiation shield because it's much more dense than air, the CO2 released by seawater has a lower percentage of C14 than the CO2 already in the atmosphere. C14 is actually produced in the stratosphere by neutron activation of nitrogen atoms.

I started digging into the C14 doping issue and it actually rather interesting. Sadly the climatologist sides claims and views follow the same tired old dogmatic game of using a narrow highly selective windows of proof in its application that when dug into and expanded on fall apart rather badly due to what all other known and measurable factors are also in play that they conveniently don't acknowledge.

As they present it as proof of being man made dilution.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/c14tellsus.html

The bigger timeline picture that shows there far more to the story that what their selective timeline slice implies.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/bombspike.html

The problem being argued by some is that the rate of atmospheric C14 levels are not dropping quite as they are assumed they should be in the sense that the trailing end is not showing the assumed to be proper rate of 'washout' (dilution from man made c12 based CO2 emissions ) nor from the anticipated natural degradation (reabsorption and sequestration by natural CO2 sequestration/recycling processes) which means that something is adding more C14 isotopes back into the system from someplace or places.

We know that man made radiation sources are not sufficient at this point so it's pointing to nature in the effect that either solar radiation may be adding some new C14, (once thought to be minimal but now not easily dismissable at this point due to known solar energy increases due to both solar cycle uptick and the weakening geo magnetic fields allowing more higher energy particles to hit the atmosphere) or some of it's coming back out of the environmental stores which would point to it being primarily from oceanic CO2 releases due to warming of the oceans of which again the energy to do that is near 100% natural from both solar energy increase and natural geothermal actions.

New solar/geomagnetic field interaction concerns that have observable weather and climate influences that will get worse in the near future.

At this point both sides can be argued but only one is addressing the bigger picture beyond just man made CO2 additions being to blame for any and everything and that side is gaining a huge amount of new data and credibility over a far wider range of specialized fields of study for it.

In fact there is serious plausible concerns that in the next decade or so we might start cooling off at a fast rate due to greater solar cycles compounding together and playing out.

We do affect our planet but nature is proving that it has a far bigger hand on the wheel than one side cares to accept and or admit to.

Other semi relevant info.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14

https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp057/ndp057.htm

 

[DerStrom8]

TCM & LG,

You were threadbanned because you would not stop bickering. You just returned and you're already back at it. If you can't stop you will be banned from this thread permanently.

 

[Mickster]

Just finished watching this and must say, it's the most thought provoking global warming documentary I've ever seen.

I highly recommend everyone that can should watch it.

Mike.

Just watched it and have to agree with your sentiments.
It also raises a question regarding the premise of forcing the release of CO2, in order to raise the temperature, as mentioned in the below YT video (The Mars underground)

Skip to around 1:04:30 for the relevant part, if you don't want to watch the whole thing.

 

[Ratchit]

Just watched it and have to agree with your sentiments.
It also raises a question regarding the premise of forcing the release of CO2, in order to raise the temperature, as mentioned in the below YT video (The Mars underground)

Skip to around 1:04:30 for the relevant part, if you don't want to watch the whole thing.

Good documentary and visuals. Especially about the politics and infighting related to funding large projects.

Earth has a strong magnetosphere, Mars does not. That might make it vulnerable to losing the lightest elements of its atmosphere. https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1141336

What would living for long periods of time in one-third Earth gravity do to the human body? We know that zero gravity is not good for humans.

Ratch

 

[tcmtech]

Earth has a strong magnetosphere, Mars does not. That might make it vulnerable to losing the lightest elements of its atmosphere.

That's another one of the things that seems to get ignored in the AGW debates and the Mars terraforming theories.

Here on earth it has a multitude of influences that work both ways while on Mars unless there is a stable planetary geomagnetic field in play any useful atmosphere would just be burned away so whatever was generated would have a extremely high demand for vital replenishment gases plus whatever is on the surface would still have minimal protection from the various lethal solar energy bombardments we don't get here thanks to our Geomagnetic field plus other things.

Creating and maintaining a viable long term Earth like atmosphere on Mars is way beyond any present realistic engineering concepts simply due to the physical and logistical limitations that making a semi functional and habitable zombie planet carry with it.

I don't recall the estimated energy requirements just to make a theoretically viable artificial Geomagnetic field for Mars but I think it was in the multi to tens of Terrawatts, if not more, and would require a field coil around the equator of the planet to work as a - close enough to function - approximation to how the Earth's Geomagnetic field functions which would be like putting a modern multi Gigawatt nuclear power plant every few miles or less at equal spacings all the way around Mars just to power it which at today's prices would carry an on Earth price tag of $10 - $30+ billion each!