Life Cycle of a Planet

But it is going to take, noted scientists to produce the needed documentation before the population of the planet will take note. While this is the proper way, it is also time-consuming, and someone has to pay for it. Even once it is done there will be conflict inside the scientific community about what this all means. In the meantime, we know that stopping the polluted rivers of the planet from entering the oceans will help clean them up, and this river water is still excellent water for growing plant life (with a little clean up where needed ) and we know that increasing the plant life around the planet will reduce the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And we know that there is a very large population of refugees around the planet, that are basically an unwanted problem for most country's. So even if scientists take years to come to the right conclusion that took me 40 years to do so, let's start now because my "solution" will only heal the planet of excess carbon d...

While this works for most of life, it work's very well in predicting temperature regulation on the planet. Using millions of years not only a few thousand that mankind has been concerned with, that is because we have to go back in time prior to the formation of so many arid and semi-arid areas of the planet. Otherwise, we are not comparing like conditions, and that is the rub, in all of the planet's history that we know about, never has there been 25% of the landmass fitting those descriptions! But now with a little over 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we can replant much of the areas of the planet that has lost its plant cover, and still keep the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere above the numbers needed to maintain that growth and then the planet will now reacquire almost all of its temperature regulating ability! ( Some loss will still be on the planet, due to all of the ice that the planet stages that were not here 3,000,000 years ago. But with a l...

History if rife with truth, half-truths, condemnations, and outright lies when it comes to information, that may put someone else's belief's or livelihood, in turmoil. This means that mankind has a long history of how to achieve those goals that can best fit their own desires, whether or not they're in the best interest of science or society! And scientists have also played a role in this, on both sides of these issues. Truth will out, sorry no, maybe money will out, is how it usually works. But this issue of planetary life, cannot be played with when all life on this planet is at stake, even if it is in the near future, and not tomorrow. For if it is allowed to be compromised for money today, then the next generation will simply continue with the mistaken idea of what the planet is going thought!  Right now, we need to decide the best way forward, in many ways this is a perfect time, we have a very large workforce waiting to be wanted and needed, there is a large groundswe...

The true nature of the planet running out of carbon, because it would be less complicated to simply explain how to repair global warming by replanting the arid and semi-arid areas of the planet. And not get too in-depth as to why that would be the only correct way to go about fixing the problem. Meaning that it also repairs the temperature regulating ability that the planet has partially lost due to the creation of so many heat-producing areas of the planet, caused by the lack of adequate carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, that allows all areas of the planet to have plant life in abundance! When fully planted this planet uses moisture in the atmosphere as cloud cover to both blanket the planet to keep the surface, warmth in at night and reflexing much of the sun's ray's during the day to prevent too much heat energy reaching the planet's surface. I truly feel that withholding this truth would be the same as saying that mankind can not handle the truth, and only certain peopl...

When you really think about life on any planet, every time one extinction event happens, something is waiting in the wings, to take advantage of that for their own gain. And it always seems to be an upwards event, not life in a simpler form but in a more advanced form. The need for evolution to get more complex, seems to be hard-wired into nature, why, if all life required was to be, then would it not be advantageous to be simpler, not more complex. Take a horse for an example, It can survive almost anywhere on the planet as long as there is food to eat and water to drink, and other horses to continue their line. Why was it not at the pinnacle of evolution and then stop? Or perhaps a better question is why are their viruses on the planet especially ones that kill their host and by extension themselves or is the host's death a way of stopping an unwanted mutation of the virus from continuing to mutate in the wrong way so that the virus could not become a parasitic growth in the spec...

been able to affect, the whole of the planetary eco-system. Some people would disagree with this, saying that, "the great oxidation event" made the whole planet's ability for what type of life could now survive, change for the foreseeable future! Not only that, but they would say just like today they poisoned themselves, out of existant! No! That is the history of all life, on this great planet, If you can't adapt to changes in the environment whether caused by yourself, others, or outside influences, then yes your species will go the way of almost all life that was here before you. But now there is a winkle in this narrative, and it will affect all life on the whole planet, not just one species! When most life disappeared after "the great oxidation event" life could, and did continue because all of the basic needs for life were still there. Sun for energy, water for chemical reactions and carbon in the form of carbon dioxide and now there was free oxygen in...

Okay so in 30 years with a workforce of @ least 30 million ex refugees we will be replanting 16% of the surface of the planet, and every year after a new square mile of the area is replanted, the soil sequestration will increase by 15% until we would reach saturation after 8 years then the plant respiration will have increased to  ( I hope you can see where I am going with this all of these numbers that have been completely pulled off of the top of my head ) because no matter how much observation science, could put into a day by day or year by year on the planet. Things change, conditions change, fire, volcanoes, sunspots, how dark the clouds become, just before a storm to change it reflecting sunlight ability, almost every aspect of life can not be accounted for unless you put the whole planet under a roof that is maintained at one temperature and an exact amount of light is given to each plant. Really all we can go on is the distant past, long before mankind even came down from t...

We need to have simple math so that everyone can follow how to fix this problem, so there will be no square root, or pi, no algorithms, just adding, subtraction, multiplying, and dividing! So here goes, since the start of the current ice age that we are in right now, (right now we are in an interglacial period, but with so much ice being staged on the planet right now we technically are still in the present ice age that started around 2.5 million years ago.) At that time there were very little arid or semi-arid areas, mainly these were caused by mountain ranges such as the Himalayas in central Asia which prevented moist airflow on one side of the mountains, or another and even this areas were much smaller than now, they were not caused by low carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. As each ice cycle progressed trees died, arid and semi-arid areas increased and the ocean levels fall, until a tipping point comes where carbon sequestration from the land is offset by the creation of desert, the ...

There really are many reasons why first, mankind has been at it the longest, second are the absolutes that no other science has, third only politicians, can twist numbers to fit their causes so if we ignore them and go forward anyway, we should be alright. So why is this a good thing that math can be considered dependable? Because numbers are how we can see if what I am saying, is correct! Carbon sequestration since life began on this planet, these are the known numbers between 65,000,000,000 and 100,000,000,000 gigatonnes (one gigaton is 1billion tons) is store on the planet as limestone, every pound of it was once organic life, no longer available to support new life! 10 gigatonnes are being sequestrated every year, 3 gigatonnes replace by natural causes every year. (We are not talking at all about what mankind is returning into the atmosphere, we are pretending that mankind does not exist!) That means 7 gigatonnes of carbon are lost to life's carbon cycle each year. Now let'...

That is exactly what I was hoping for, the need to get a perspective out, that while agreeing with the need to help get a handle on global warming and climate change, but to understand the underlying cause! By doing so, mankind can choose to correct the imbalance that the sequestration of carbon over the lifetime of the planet, has brought about! I have posted my 12-page paper and 100 newer posts over the last 6 months or so, and have tried to cover as many of the topics, that my main paper has alluded to, since then. But as with anyone who is pushing forth an unusual idea, there are things that I may miss or not see as important as others will, so I am asking others out there, to send in your point of view, not just if you think that I am right, or perhaps simply missed something. Even if you think that I am all wet, If you do think that, please explain why do not quote me something from a book that relies on a belief that can not be verified. But put your thought down so I may read a...

For now, let's talk about it from a habitable planet's point of view. If we went back 3 billion years would our planet fall under the Goldilocks principle for being a habitable planet? Would it be considered to be at the right distance from a star of the right size? Yes. would it have liquid water? Yes. Would it be at the temperature needed to sustain life? Yes. Could mankind live there? Not a chance! It would be as inhospitable as a planet could be, to human life! Constant bombardment from both the sun's rays and meteors, on the surface of the planet, earthquakes, and volcanoes, and the atmosphere would kill you so many ways, first, it would squash you like a bug, because of it's density, then it would poison you with the amount of carbon dioxide in its atmosphere, and finally, it would suffocate you with not having any oxygen in the atmosphere. With all of this, life still existed! And it was a carbon-based lifeform, that would not be able to survive on the surface of...

This is the point that we are at, the scientific community sees cause and effect, but they do not see the true cause and effect. What there are seeing is the cause and effect of a crippled planet! There is not one person alive on this planet that has seen the planet with only minimal amounts of arid and semi-arid areas. So we all say that this is how the planet has been forever! As recently as the civil war in American the great Sahara desert was a lot smaller, then it is now! Where do we find all of the great bones of past ages? Arid and semi-arid areas that showed a much greener planet then we have now, I am not only talking about dinosaurs bones but even the bones of glaciers grazing animals and every type in between all living in greener pastures than we currently see. And almost everywhere on the planet, billions and billions of gigatonnes of limestone. That can only be created by the death of so much sea and ocean shellfish that it staggers the mind. All of this was once living a...

By far the largest set, are people that have no opinion one way or the other, and really do not see how it could make much difference, in their day to day lives. If the government would simply build more dams to control the increased flooding that most see as the only direct result. Then why bother worrying about something that you have no control over. The next larger set contains people that have lots of different reasons for not wanting to have to respond to any need to change how they approach the world. From people working in the fossil fuel industry and this number is in the many millions, to people that can afford a more upscale lifestyle and all of the amenities that come with that lifestyle, to politicians, commentators, and writers that profit from being on "that side of the issue" So you can see these are some of the most influential people on the planet. The smallest set is the climate change believers, one of there main problems that prevent them from changing ot...

You treat them like infants and do not take their views seriously. Many things that they say are correct but without context. The first thing that they will tell you is how something so important to all life, carbon dioxide, can be killing the planet! And then they will tell you that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are increasing crop yields around the world because it acts as a super fertilizer! since the 1970's it has increased wheat yields from 45 bushels per acre to around 60 bushels per acre. And since wheat is not a hybrid crop and therefor seed companies cannot claim increased yields due to their fieldwork. The next thing they will tell you is that we do not have enough climate temperature history so as to prove that the last few years, are not simply the planet having a slightly warmer spell than normal. We only have around 100 years of data on a planet that is very old. All of these responses are valid on the surface, especially about crop yields, these have been p...

Trick question, there is no way to know that, either with mankind on the planet or no mankind on the planet. I do not care how large of a supercomputer you put onto that problem. There are simply too many variables that we do not know the interactions with, on this planet. We can see outcomes, such as a warmer planet, and we can measure glaciers melting, we can see the ups and downs of levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere with each growing season in both hemispheres. But instead of looking backward in time, we try to see the future. There are reasons why we have certain sayings, anyone can be a Monday morning quarterback. If we do not learn from history then we are sure to repeat it. But many people have come to the conclusion that scientists have the power to foresee, outcomes. And yet every scientist I have ever known will tell you only what the probability will be, be it as simple as the weather, or the chance of an earthquake, or whether a volcano will explode, and how strong...

I am hoping that this is a good sign, that at least people are starting to wonder. But few are still willing to contact me about my paper "Life cycle of a planet daniel kadavy" or my many posts since. However on the assumption that I am starting to reach people, to at least think that we may be missing some very important aspects of global warming and climate change. The key to me was when I came to realize why the planet went into a glaciation period around 2.5 million years ago. It was not caused by Milankovitch oscillations that only makes a one-tenth of a percent of different of how much sunlight hit's the planet over a period of time and as the sun is every so slowly increasing in strength at the rate of 1% every 100 million years, this one-tenth equals the difference of at what point we enter into another glacier cycle. When we are closest to the sun we start to enter when carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reaches 180 parts per million, but when we are receiving the ...

temperature regulation system is going to have to be agreed upon by the so many different groups, countries, governments, that this will only happen if enough people join together to do so! We are not talking about a few hundred well-meaning individuals. And we are not talking about taking to the streets, to try and force change, no we are talking about using mass social media to give everyone on the planet who uses all of the different types of social media, to be taught the truth about the life of the planet and every living plant, animal, insect, that in endangered of extinction because of carbon sequestration! Right now, we have the most important decision's that any one of us can make concerning the continuation of life on this planet! Do you know why I never say Earth or our world, It is because of every planet that ever could sustain life, will have at some point in their journey towards the future, come to this same point that we are at NOW! Did they see what was happening ...

I don't know, By most law's around the planet, the waters belong to the Nation for 12 miles around them, even if they are not using it, and no government on this planet is going to want to give it away, for free, once they realize how large of a resource it can be. My best guess is that some financial arrangements will have to be made with each and every nation on the planet. Hopefully, with enough pressure from the people of the planet, something can be worked out. Just think how difficult, governments could make it! One, letting locks be placed on all of there rivers so that any boat's or ship's wanting to come in or leave would need to come and go by them, free of charge! Two, allowing all of that water to be moved all over their country and into another country, perhaps the fees for that would simply be a percent of the waters. Three, allowing outsiders (the refugee population that would be used for the work involved) to enter and work with-in their borders! (All of...

This part of the plan, stopping the freshwater of the planet from entering the seas and oceans of the planet has by far the most need for infrastructure and innovation. Moving such a vast amount of water around the planet, and much of it will be uphill, how much will all depend on how many people will be crying foul if we want to take waters flowing past there towns, so we will have to take the water further downstream. Even with the explanation that whatever amounts of water their need will be, stored for them just off of the river, they will feel that once out of the river they will lose control of it. This will mean that every foot of lost elevation will be one more foot of lift somewhere down the line. The phase not in my back yard has become something that is easy to get people riled about. We have been lied to, cheated by, so many people and governments that anything to do with what we consider ours, will get us defensive, and blind to the truth sometimes, in trying to save what ...

What do they mean, the money angle? Let me break it down, when George W Bush became president in the USA from 2001 to 2009 the price of a barrel of oil went from 15 dollars a barrel to over 100 dollars a barrel! And many people actually wanted it higher, saying that only by making gas very expensive will American's reduce their use of fossil fuels! Did that work? In some way's yes, we bought smaller cars and reduced some unnecessary driving, but no, you can not undo 50 years of suburban living, where most people live miles away from where they work and shop. This extra fuel cost made many families, increased credit card debt to levels never seen before. Did the cost of oil become higher because of the cost of producing it had increased? No, the reason was because of speculation by oil buyers wanting more money and the Bush administration helped fuel those increases. Surprise, surprise Both the President and the Vice president were big oil men! So now in 2020, politicians and bi...

I think that many people would love having such a setup if it could support a family. I know the work that would be required to get to that point, but that is what life takes, work, effort, and a little luck. Okay so the governments will start to see a slowing of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, then after a few years and many tens of thousands of acres being replanted, the trend of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will have stopped and begin to lower. As more and more land is replanted, the carbon in the soil will also start to increase, which will help the process along even faster. But this is a slow process that will start to feed on itself only as time and replanting continues. However, the melting of glaciers will see no improvement! So with people still telling the politicians that not enough is being done, and seeing that replanting is helping, maybe replacing snow on the dwindling glaciers will be a good idea, and using refugee's worked so well in the desert's, moving...

But what if the world government decides I am full of beans. Or more likely, will not even bother to listen to someone with NO standing in the scientific world, How should they then choose to remediate extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, at the lowest cost? The least amount of trouble for the economy of the planet, while keeping water levels from rising in the oceans? And preventing places that rely on glaciers for there water source from losing that source? And where would they get the manpower necessary for whatever they decided to go ahead with?                                                                       First off the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, many people agree that using it for plant growth would be the cheapest fix. Every organization on the planet could have a planting party, ...

By using the 50 million and counting, refugees from all of the conflicts around the planet. These people are looking for a new place to live, raise their children, and escape the problems of their past. With hope, not just desperation, Making a place that can give them all of this, along with the respect, that knowing what you are doing is really making the planet a better place to live for all of its inhabitants. Not just mankind, but everything that uses carbon for living! (which is pretty much everything) They are many times the creme of the crop, people chased out because they are educated, or leaders in their communities many were teachers, doctors, lawyers, and many are just trying for a better life and willing to suffer hardships for that chance. When I look for people, These are exactly the driven people I want on my job sites. Are there people there, that are not good people, yes perhaps running from the law, yes but considering what law many of them are fleeing, that in itsel...

Melt all of the ice on the planet in the long run. You would be right if the amount of carbon dioxide approached around 5000 parts per million in the atmosphere. But even if we somehow converted all of the known fossil fuel reserves of about 4000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere all at once, it would bring the carbon dioxide levels up to around 2,400 parts per million. If we do not get rid of most arid and semi-arid areas of the planet then this level of 2,400 part per million would warm up the planet enough to melt most if not all of the ice on the planet, if however, we could replant the planet leaving only the 2 largest deserts alone, the Antarctic and Arctic deserts, then the planet temperature regulating system would kick in full strength, and with some help by mankind in replenishing the amount of ice being staged around the planet, the checks and balances of cold and warm could be maintained. Do I think that the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will ever get that high? N...

If only it was that simple, the planet has changed so much since the start of the present ice age that we are in. Around 2.5 million years ago the planet entered into its current cyclical nature of having more or less ice on the planet. There are two main parts to this reoccurring cycle, the first will last up to 100,000 years as the great sheets of ice descend on much of the planet due to low carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, many people have been taught about "Milankovitch oscillations" and say that is why there are times of lots of ice and times of less ice being staged on the planet. There is some truth to this, but only on when the growth of ice starts and ends. If we are receiving more sunlight from the sun, then ice begins to grow when carbon dioxide reaches only 180 ppm when less sunlight is hitting the planet then ice growth begins around 200 ppm. The reverse is true, for when ice begins receding. The second part of the cycle is usually only 10,000 years long, this t...

They have read all of my posts. But now I realize that is not how people do things. So my plan is to once in a while, restate my main point's about what carbon sequestration, has done to the lifecycle of the planet! I hope that this does not become a problem for those that are following my posts. So here is what has been going on. About 3 billion years ago life on this planet really started taking off, but the atmosphere was radically different then it is now, we could not have survived in that atmosphere, not just because of it had no oxygen, but it was also much denser then it is now, and the carbon dioxide was very much higher. During the next 700 million years or so, life that used carbon dioxide and the sun's energy to create more life, changed some of the carbon dioxide, into carbon plus oxygen, and this turned into the "Great Oxidation Event". Which literally poisoned much of the planet's life, which could not survive in such an environment. But it did pave...

I have given my paper to quite a few people, that I consider to be fairly well read, but the response is not what I hoped, it is not that they do not think that I am right or wrong. But that is simply outside of anything that they have ever thought about, and what could they do about it anyway! Get the word out! tell people about my paper  Life cycle of a planet dan kadavy  read it on google, or go to my blog site  https://lifecycleofaplanet.blogspot.com.   Read the papers that I have written, then once a day, a week, even once a month, tell somebody about it and ask them for there opinion, and to send it on down the line. There are people that are reading what I post every day, are they spreading the word? I have no idea, but why read every post I do and not tell others? This is one of the most important topic of our lives, the consequences of following no path or the wrong path, will not only increase what people will have to pay out of there own pocket with n...

     Or is this putting the cart before the horse? No, I don't think so, It is almost impossible to change people's opinion's once they have made up their minds to go in one direction. And scientists are even harder than most, especially if they have made any statement's about a topic! My point of view is that really no scientist has made any statement's one way or the other about the planet running out of carbon that is necessary for all life on the planet! And if we were talking about an asteroid, that some astronomer has just seen that was 5 years out, but had a chance of hitting the planet, we would say, how lucky we were to have 5 full years to find a solution. But if that same astronomer, only gave us 6 months, we would say, why did you not see it sooner, not realizing how large space is, the average person would feel betrayed somehow. Without reason in my opinion! It is the same with carbon sequestration, in my way of thinking, any scientist will tell you tha...

From what I understand, scientists want to keep the oceans from rising because of the melting glaciers, Done collect the water's at the source, in dam's and return that what is needed back onto the glaciers every winter. Stop all of the rivers of the planet, and move that water to semi-arid and arid areas, and replant them into a ground cover vegetation, and then trees and fish hatcheries, Done. Reduce the amount of carbon dioxide that is in the atmosphere, Done, by replanting the desert's and semi-arid areas and causing the carbon dioxide to become plant life and then sequestrated into the soils! Reduce temperature extremes, so that there will be fewer weather extremes! Done, by the increased cloud cover caused by removing heat collecting, arid and semi-arid areas, and replacing it with ground cover that will help restart plant respiration of water into the atmosphere, causing more cloud cover and rainfall to help regulate planet-wide temperature. Reduce mankind's rein...

Could mankind survive, when the planet's carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere reach below 150 parts per million? This is the level where C3 plants can no longer survive, although C4 and cam plant can, even if their production value does decrease. While mankind could survive, on a planet covered by deserts and growing all of there food in greenhouse type structures that would have to be airtight, so that carbon dioxide could be pumped into them. My best guess would be that because of all the treeless and plant less landmass, it would be very hot during the day, because of the sun's energy being converted straight into heat, but at night freezing cold because all of the heat generated during the day would escape straight out to space with little or no cloud cover. These temperature extremes would create havoc on the weather. Without C3 plant being around for grazing animals to feed on, many species would either go extinct, on their numbers would be very limited by whatever pla...

There are several ways to get energy out of tides and waves, you can look online for quite a few idea's that have been around for quite a few years. But the potential amount of energy is many, many, times what mankind would ever need! But the one I like best is where you use a very large old tanker that because it was never double-hulled, and therefore is no longer used for oil transportation, and make it into a pumping, and electrical producing station that can be moved around the world. Where ever there is a need for either or both, and since it still remains a very large cargo ship, it could also be stocked with large amounts of necessary supplies. (if the red cross had several of these, think how much easier any long term stay would be!) Plus it would be much easier to protect a site offshore, than on land. Or you could tow into place many smaller stations that could then be locked into place, and moved whenever needed. The thing to remember with using tides and waves to genera...

 OCEAN! Why is this so important you ask? Good question, ENERGY, where is there more untapped energy than in the massive energy stored in all of the ocean's of the planet, by the movement of the tides, caused by the moon itself! We talk about how much hydro-electric power we get from all of the great dams of the planet, right now we are talking about 16 to 20% of all the electric power the planet uses. Pretty impressive right, but the amount of untapped, and extremely consistent energy, that we could be generating, wow there would never be an energy shortage again, ever! And unless the moon is destroyed, free moon power. Yes, we need to channel this energy, but there are so many ways of doing just that! Rough sea's are perhaps the easiest way, to channel water movement either to pumping action as I have explained in an earlier post (the one about pumping freshwater, made from sea ice into the interior of the Antarctic, to stage as much ice in the interior of Antarctica, as is n...

How does this work? If there were only C4 and CAM plants on the planet, then it would not work as well. But C3 plants need to open up their stoma's larger when carbon dioxide levels are lower, and if the area where the C3 plants live, also happens to produce less rainfall than other places, this extra stress may cause the loss of the plant life living in that area. As we know, without a full-plant life in any one place, this can cause a cascading effect, because of the loss of plant respiration, injecting that water back into the atmosphere, then there are fewer clouds and therefore less rain. This can just turn into a short-duration event, or it can snowball into a semi-arid or arid area. The good news here is without that plant life using carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. is become available elsewhere. As time goes on the carbon that had been stored in the soil then becomes carbon dioxide by decomposition, and with no replacement from living plant life, that carbon becomes avai...