The Ends of the Earth

[Ivan Seeking]

Since some of this is completely new to me so I have some reservations about this report. Perhaps some of our experts like Andre, Nereid, or Bystander can help to shed some light on this story? [not to leave anyone out but they come to mind :smile: ]

5 reasons why the planet is going to hell.

Exploratory all-terrain vehicles are capering around Mars, yet our own planet remains bafflingly alien. We're Mother Earth's children and we think we know her well, but whenever some unexpected phenomenon rouses our curiosity, we uncover disturbing aspects of her secret life. Lately, the rush of peculiar discoveries has been downright embarrassing. Let's consider some of Mom's eccentricities - and their implications. [continued]

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.04/view.html?pg=4?tw=wn_tophead_5

Also, a question about sleep cycles: I find that if I allow myself to follow a natural cycle [I work at home a lot and at times I have a great deal of flexibility in my schedule] I tend to run about a 26 hour day. I asked a medical doctor about this once and he said that most people will do this. Does anyone know what governs this cycle? At first I assumed that this related to the changing length of the day - that we evolved with an average 26 hour day or so - but obviously this appears to be going in the wrong direction.

[Bystander]

From the link: "global dimming, 10%;" "shorter days rather than longer in recent years;" "impactors;" "supernovae;" and "insurance payouts."

Dimming? 10%? The crackpot detector is buzzing like an angry rattlesnake.

Shorter days? Showed up some years back with all the artificial reservoirs at high latitudes reducing the moment of inertia enough that it actually showed up in The Clock. No big deal.

Impactors? Instability in the dynamics of any system comprised of three or more bodies has been known/understood(? sorta)/recognized since Poincare picked up ol' whosisface's prize for resolving the question of unique solutions for dynamics of three (or more) body systems --- end of 19th century. No big deal --- unless, of course, we get an up close and personal demonstration of such events.

Supernovae? Nereid's going to have to handle this one --- last I heard, the "neighborhood" ain't great, few stars rented to college kids, and one or two black/brown dwarves being used for crack houses and meth labs down the street, but it also ain't that run down that we're fugitives from the SN incidence rate law of averages.

Insurance payouts? Bankrupting insurance companies? Hah! Fat chance --- this is nothing more than some more Enron style bookkeeping.

My inclination would be to file this under "questionable conclusions and questionable sources."

[Andre]

Somebody called?

Dimming? crackpot detectors? Don't shoot the messenger (http://fm-eth.ethz.ch/eth/peoplefinder/FMPro?-db=whoiswho.fp5&-format=who%5fdetail%5fen.html&-lay=html&-sortfield=who%5fname&who%5fstatus=0&-op=cn&who%5fname%5ffirstname=ohmura&-max=20&-recid=34725&-find=) if he tells something (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1108853,00.html) that you don't (want to) believe or won't believe.

However the mechanism is pretty simple, if the air contains more soot, haze and aerosols, it intercepts some sunlight making it a wee bit more dim. But there is more. The intercepted light is transferred to heat and this may be accounting for the slight (global) warming up in the last century of some 0,6 degrees C.

And if this is also the (main) cause of that warming then CO2 is not the (main) cause. So the message is: forget greenhouse gas emission and focus on reducing air pollution.

However the overal impression of the article is that it should bear the signature of Chicken Little. But it pays well I guess, spelling disaster.

[Sariaht]

Hey, it might be dangeorus to turn energy into visible light!!!

That's it!!!

We should use those glases instead! It would actually increase the lifelength of the earth with i don't know how much!

Cause almost all energy we use we release, that's the problem with todays society. Might this be right? Partly?

Then we should or should not use oil to compensate?

Oil is the only energy that is not in use, sun beams creates winds and heats the water etc, uranium aswell. Haha! The environmentialists got on their noses! Or no?

[Sariaht]

So, in 300 years, the earth is dead?

[Andre]

Well, I say we last at least several dozens of milions years, but perhaps not much more. But who is going to check it.

If you have to play Chicken Little, there are at least twenty more ways for the Earth to come to an end. (http://www.talisman.org/~erlkonig/misc/twenty-ends-for-earth.html)

[Sariaht]

Prove that in 266.6 years, all flowers have not died.