@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
EVERYTHING Ive told you is fact, it s the really easy material. ANy first year tuent would have this knowledge. You continue on trip of defiant ignornce (Thats all it is because Id originally been rather avuncular in my discussions with you).
When you try to turn pfectly good bases of knowledge into "word salad" by just making up ****, I do get angry at how you can be so stupid yet so full of yourself.
Having aid that, I think Ive made my position clear. Im not going to address you further, BUT I WILL, address what youve said.
SO, you may soldier on or go away. Try to find someone who is easily impressed with your nonsense. I am not and Ive fully lost all patience with your scientific illiteracy.
I have read some geology journals and they are very esoteric. The level of complexity makes it extremely difficult to sort out thermodynamics. For this reason, I can understand why you are avoiding engaging in discussion of geology in the way I am framing it, i.e. in terms of thermodynamics.
Climate science has been focused on the atmosphere, mostly, and to some extent the oceans. Gas and liquid are a lot less complex than what goes on in the solid ground beneath them. The ocean is flat, but the solid ground isn't, so there are much greater and slower-moving pressure dynamics, and there are so many chemical/mechanical processes forming different types of rock, all of which are being collected and analyzed by geologists as clues to piece together a picture/narrative of how the land has taken shape over long geological time.
I understand how complex it all is, and so I have great respect for those, like you seemingly, who go through the trouble of learning and teaching these many complexities. I'm sorry that my interest only runs somewhat parallel to the kind of geology that makes journals and PhDs.
What I have become interested in, however, because of climate science and my more general interest in energy and thermodynamics is what I have explained to you, which is that I'm trying to put together a mechanical picture of how different forms of energy interact between the sun, atmosphere, biosphere, and below. When they teach us as teenagers about plate tectonics, the various layers/temperatures of the Earth, the biosphere, and atmosphere, and other planets/stars; it gives us a broad framework for analyzing how things work. Then, those of us who are interested enough to care pay attention to the science news and the climate news and try to be involved as active, critical-thinking citizens who aren't just puppets of big players who are pulling our strings by telling us to trust one source and distrust others, etc.
So instead of insulting and discouraging me and thus people like me, you should be reaching out with your more advanced, esoteric knowledge and trying to speak to the kinds of questions that I am posing, however naive and childish they may sound to you. If nothing else, you should be able to explain somewhat why a certain question is difficult to answer and/or what kind of knowledge/information would be needed to answer it.
I know that it is a big leap to try to take information from geology journal articles about various minerals, how they are distributed through a certain geographical/topographical formation, and critically analyze how a given formation has formed and shifted, etc. I've read how these issues are written about in geology journals and they have a level of complexity of analysis over relatively small areas and short-duration time-spans that make it all but impossible to extrapolate from them more generalizable hypotheses about how overall geological energy/power works on a larger scale. I thought someone like you who seems to be very learned in this discipline would be able to break it down for people like me to think the way we do at a more layman level, but I guess not.
Really, as I've said, I think the really critical question to deal with is what the long-term geological prognosis is for the crust/mantle/core temperatures and thus magnetic field and why. If Earth is going to keep cooling and losing its magnetic field strength, we really don't have a chance of sustainability that will last until the time the sun becomes a red giant and engulfs the Earth. If, however, there is some reason/way that the core and mantle can maintain their present energy levels until that time, human life on Earth could be much more sustainable.
If what you are saying is true, that biological sediments add nothing significant to the interior heat of the planet, then what hope is there to avoid the fate of losing the magnetic field eventually? Earth has a fusion reactor, i.e. the sun, and the sun is delivering lots of energy all the time, so if all that energy isn't enough to maintain the interior energy and thus magnetic field, then what ever could be? Even if humans developed fusion power and began applying it to the task of maintaining the energy of the interior at present levels indefinitely, what would that do to the biosphere to have all that waste heat radiating back out through the crust? What's more, could we even recharge the interior considering how much of the energy is stored in nuclear form, i.e. as heavy elements and heavy isotopes of lighter elements? Even if we had fusion power, we can't make uranium from lead, and if we did, could we implant it in the cooling mantle/core in a way that would keep them from cooling/dying? It may be as hopeless a prospect as trying to keep a dying person alive when age has taken them beyond the point where medicine can make a difference.
Anyway, as a person who claims to be interested in science; I would have thought you would find these kinds of questions interesting; but it appears you're more interested in policing the boundary between established science and questions/issues that haven't yet been established. Ironically, they makes you an anti-science agent in public discourse, but so many 'science people' are, it doesn't surprise me. Now I'm sure you will once again reply to say condescending and insulting things to assert the status hierarchy of 'science' to stay on the right side of your precious academic/education unions, but your politics of science aren't science and they are ultimately hurting science, but I'm sure you won't care as long as your true purpose is to protect academic education and its paying participants against the internet as a site where people can go to discuss science free of charge.
