Our luscious blue Earth used to be a frozen snowball

Nov 20, 2019
54
10
4,535
Visit site
NASA does not have the authority to rule anything in this field, because for years it has not been able to guess - unlike other scientists who instead make precise predictions and do not believe in the CO2 hoax - not even a correct prediction on solar cycles, therefore how can anyone believe that NASA understands anything about what and who influences the Earth's climate if they have no idea what makes up 95% of the matter in the universe?
 
I note here the article says, "using this plate tectonic model of where Earth's continents and ocean basins would have been some 700 million years ago, and pairing that model with another one that focused on carbon dioxide emissions, the team found the starting point of a powerful ice age known as the Sturtian glaciation, which spanned from 717 to 660 million years ago. As to what likely caused the beginning of this freezing time period? A significant loss of carbon dioxide emissions from volcanoes in present-day Canada. This loss, the team says, resulted in a prolonged "Planet Ice." "At this time, there were no multicellular animals or land plants on Earth. The greenhouse gas concentration of the atmosphere was almost entirely dictated by CO2 outgassing from volcanoes and by silicate rock weathering processes, which consume CO2," Dutkiewicz explained."

Intriguing here :) There is the Faint Young Sun problem and that goes back at least 4.5 Gyr to when the Sun first formed and appeared on the main sequence of the H-R star diagram. Were there other global ice ages on the early Earth too? Think about abiogenesis on the early Earth and all that asteroid and meteor bombardment taking place in the astronomical model now.


My SQL query for the data at this site shows 101 exoplanets with equilibrium temperatures < 273 K. So at least some of the known exoplanets could be cold :)
 
Development of higher life forms requires some form of temperature control in order to avoid freezing or boiling. On Earth, the CO2 emissions of volcanoes are moderated by weathering of silicate rocks and by ocean floor subduction. Things needed to allow these mechanisms: Plate tectonics, land masses upon which acid rain can fall, lots of silicates, plenty of water. Perhaps there is a narrow range of masses allowed. Too little and there is no plate tectonics, too much plate tectonics and no CO2 can persist to keep the planet warm.
 
I do not believe modern climate theory. Or the narratives of past climates. Evaporation and the air's moisture content controls our temperature. And with the ocean's cold sinks, the evaporation is self regulatory.

Water insulates us. CO2 means nothing.

And one other thing about climate research. Earth bound thermometers are the most biased sensors we have. Thermometers are place for convenience, not accuracy. Thermometers are use for local rates of change only. They are not built or installed for earth temperature monitoring.

And the more thermometers you add, the higher the bias. This is why the earth is getting warmer. This effect is added to the normal rise that we are in.

Terrible data. And a terrible indicator.

Ocean temperature gradient would be a much better indicator. The inventory of cold water. And the change in it.

Just 2 cents.
 
The report here indicates an ice age 700 Myr in the Precambrian. However, note this report about Earth's long term orbit and past history of its orbit - limits appear and chaos comes. This could impact the weather too :)

Passing stars altered orbital evolution of Earth and other planets, astronomers find, https://phys.org/news/2024-02-stars-orbital-evolution-earth-planets.html

Ref - Passing Stars as an Important Driver of Paleoclimate and the Solar System's Orbital Evolution, https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ad24fb, 14-Feb-2024.

My note. It seems that long age integration of Earth's orbit around the Sun is not solved, perhaps extrapolations back some 50-100 Myr is the limit. Meteorites are used to claim the Earth has been here at least 4.56 Gyr. Then we have the Faint Young Sun too for the weather forecast along with orbit changes for Earth as well :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: billslugg
I believe that as soon as a star ignites it starts to lose mass. And the star's gravity starts to decay.

And the objects in orbit about it, start to creep out. Once this attractive force starts to decay, it can not be reversed. It should take a long time for a long distance orbits to establish.

When a star expands it decreases it's density and therefore it's gravity. And in all likely hood allows planets to escape before cooling and then contracting.

All stars should be decreasing in gravity due to EM emission and solar wind. Thus a slow separation of matter in this cosmos.

4 cents.
 
Referring to the last three paragraphs of the article, NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! unless there is a birth out, a breakout, an Exodus of a 'complicate embryo' of life from Earth expanding, growing, outside the 'womb-world' into the alien raw, harsh and forbidding vaster space frontier reaches of the Solar System! The normal for all life then having the energies, the where-withal and readiness in the critically due time ("critically" else great positives inexorably and inevitably becoming negatives and self-destructive . . .otherwise benign(s) turning to malignant(s))!
 
Last edited:
Nov 20, 2019
54
10
4,535
Visit site
I do not believe modern climate theory. Or the narratives of past climates. Evaporation and the air's moisture content controls our temperature. And with the ocean's cold sinks, the evaporation is self regulatory.

Water insulates us. CO2 means nothing.

And one other thing about climate research. Earth bound thermometers are the most biased sensors we have. Thermometers are place for convenience, not accuracy. Thermometers are use for local rates of change only. They are not built or installed for earth temperature monitoring.

And the more thermometers you add, the higher the bias. This is why the earth is getting warmer. This effect is added to the normal rise that we are in.

Terrible data. And a terrible indicator.

Ocean temperature gradient would be a much better indicator. The inventory of cold water. And the change in it.

Just 2 cents.
there is also another aspect, in addition to the observations you make on the lack of knowledge of the climate regulation mechanisms on the planet; that is, the falsity of official explanations of how the sun affects the earth's temperature; the predictions of nasa, noaa, usaf etc. on solar cycles always turn out to be wrong, and are corrected a posteriori even falsifying the calculation of sunspots. Therefore, in the same way that it is not possible to advance credible theories of unification if we know nothing about 95% of the matter in the universe, so they cannot make a ruling on climate change if they do not even know the basic functioning of atmospheric warming
 
  • Like
Reactions: George²

Latest posts