Life Cycle of a Planet

          Magic, in past times, almost anything that people did not understand was considered this. And many women were killed in the process, for being witches along with a few men, but there were always men who wanted women to be only cooks, cleaners, and to be used in bed. And had no problem with using falsehoods and anything else at their disposal to stop strong-minded women from gaining respect or power in a community.                                                                                                                                                                      Time travel, other than time slowing down, for that traveling at speeds that get closer to the speed of light, is again most unlikely in relation to those not traveling at those speeds. Yet there is one exception to this, the speed of light is a very exact number so we can see back in time to what the universe was like with a powerful enough telescope because the light that has been traveling for billion

            That would indicate that we have underestimated how much carbon has been sequestrated over the 3,000,000,000 years of abundant carbon-based life on the planet, by almost 100,000,000 gigatonnes. Is this of any real importance, and if so in what way? It is in that, when the Siberian traps were active for upwards of a million years, the carbon that was being expelled into the atmosphere was more likely coming from carbon that had been sequestrated, and forced under the tectonic plates as they collided, instead of coming from carbon raising over the plate collisions.  How active is tectonic plate movement on the planet, now that much of the radiation-induced heating has been half-lived in the 4.5 billion years, relying more on mass and gravity for internal heating and tectonic plate movement, than the nuclear-induced fission process? I personally do not worry too much about whether or not there are only 100,000,000, gigatonnes of carbon or 200,000,000 gigatonnes of carbon seque

       Many people, seem to think that math is the most boring, difficult, mundane, and most likely to be twisted to give one side or the other, reason to believe something that is not true! I myself almost always distrust when % is included, for instance, someone will state that a bank is the fastest growing bank in the whole country at a 100% growth rate when you check this out, last year there was only one bank, and this year they opened up one more bank, which does technically mean that the bank grew by 100% in a 12 month period! While a much larger banking system went from having 5,000 banks, and in the following year added 50 more banks for only a 1% growth rate. Yes, math can be made to mislead and has been used on numerous occasions to do so. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is one place that people will use % to influence us (with I believe their, and our best intentions at stake) they will state that mankind has caused a doubling of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since

            Lets, get these over with, and yes many of these numbers are best guesses by people who have spent lifetimes collecting information, that others twist and turn to make their point of view work. (Hopefully, I am not one who does that but simply let the numbers speak for themselves, okay maybe a little interpretation!)           This beautiful planet is around 4,500,000,000 years old and no almost nothing alive today could have lived on it until perhaps a couple of hundred million years ago, and it would have been tough even then with all the tools for life we have today at our disposal. I believe that living on the planet Mars now would be easier to do than the Earth, 200 million years ago! But I start to ramble again, life on Earth took a very long time to become established sometime at around 1,000,000,000 years after our planet has taken shape life had become established but the makeup of that primeval atmosphere, have almost nothing in common with the atmosphere of the p

          The very thought that we must be the saviors of all life on the planet, is completely foreign to what we have been taught! Basically, we have been taught, that we are just another species on the planet, yet the most dangerous towards all other lifeforms. There is much truth in that way of thinking, and the need for us to understand and limit the damage that we do to all life on the planet, is of great importance! Already there are many organizations, that try and accomplish those very goals, yet our money-based-sociality is many times at odds with those goals. Things as simple as "save the spotted owl", or "protect baby seals", or the thousand and one other goals, all have a price tag in a money-driven economy. The balancing act that must be designed and constantly adjusted to fit changing norms and our own understanding of us and the needs of the planet, seems to be never-ending.                                                                             

          We do not try and reroute the electricity to another point and bypass the break, but that is what climate scientists are telling us we need to do. To repair the lost temperature regulation ability that the planet has lost, they feel is not at issue, the only thing at issue is the extra 150 parts per million of carbon dioxide that mankind has added to the atmosphere! Arid and semi-arid formations are the underlying problem that needs to be addressed, everything else is only a symptom, not causation of what the planet and all carbon-based life are facing. If a bearing is starting to go out, on some machine you can add oil or grease to improve its ability to work, but only as an interim solution, not as a long-term solution to a problem that only replacement can repair. Removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by sequestration is much the same as greasing a bearing that no longer meets the specs, instead of replacing the bearing itself does. Mankind has a long history of temp

          Are we so sure that a higher power is in charge that we will not even consider the evidence that thousands of people have spent much of their lives collecting? Almost every religion has an end of the world scenario, or judgment day! Many times it involves one side of humanity against another, many would say that our polarized planet is in that state right now, on so many different aspects of life. The list of differing points of views on just about every issue that you can think of is staggering, Even the one point that almost everyone on the planet can agree with "the universal search for love" is as polarizing as any other topic, what type of love is acceptable, with who, at what age, and again it is religion that is used to make what is considered by those to be within those bounds of right and wrong!                                                                          Interpretation of knowledge has always been where our differences begin, are all of the dif

           What would the worst way to attempt to mitigate Global warming and Climate Change? Well that answer is easy, all of the planet's problems come from carbon sequestration over the 3 billion years of plant, and animal life having been on the planet, so for mankind to decide that we must sequestrate even more carbon from an already starving planet is the height of cutting off your nose to spite your face, type of respond, in other words, "WRONG NOT CORRECT" or doing it back-asswards! The next worst way is to plant a trillion trees and hopes that there will grow up and drink up the extra carbon in about 50 years, locking it in place for another 100 years so that the life-giving carbon is again removed from the short term carbon cycle.                                                                                                                                                                So how do we use up the excess carbon without taking it out of the short-ter

          I have explained what the weather and atmosphere were like when dinosaurs ruled the planet and why low carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, started the planet into a "cyclical in nature" series of ice-ages with their corresponding inter-glacial periods that mankind has "unwitting and yet thankfully" caused to continue for the foreseeable future! Just as necessarily drove mankind introduction of massive use of agriculture to both feed a growing population, and prevent the loss of most animals of the planet by overhunting, this same drive to increase and multiply, required mankind to learn to adapt the resources of the planet for our benefit.           All actions have unintended consequences, some are minor and many are much more encompassing and far-reaching, with both benefits and harm caused! When I was young, the chances of a nuclear war were already becoming less likely, but still one of mankind's greatest concerns. But you could not go a month withou

          Why simply adding carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere as mankind has been doing since we became an agricultural-driven society is not the answer? Let me explain what the planet was like when dinosaurs ruled the planet. (This is the best guess about this time out there) First there was probably no ice anywhere on the planet, or if there was it was likely only because of the 6 months of dark at either poles, and would have quickly melted as 6 months of sunlight returned, the whole planet would have maintained a very limited temperature range as we now see in the tropics. seldom would there be a full day of sunlight as the cloud cover and the moisture in the air would be quite consistent! Insects would have also ruled the planet and that would explain why thick hard skin would have been the dominant rule for the dinosaurs and why so many lived in and near water. Plantlife was rampant on the whole planet, while there were a few arid and semi-areas areas on the planet these we

            Not to just too a few, that may even try and make it their own, but to as many people on the planet that can be reached! Everyone needs to begin understanding just how important their lives are, mankind is at "NOT" perhaps, but "AT" the most pivotal point in the history of the planet, of whether or not, all carbon-based life really does have a future on the planet and not just for a few hundred years more! Would, or will, the adoption of the "Plan" change much of the economies of the world? One would hope that a more fundamental equality of wealth distribution would be realized for most of the planet, once what is really at stake is understood!                                                                                                                                                        It would be so easy for big corporations to come in and fence off the bottom 40 miles of each major river delta, saying that great construction of dams, l

          I can not express how important it is for the whole planet to be covered by enough cloud cover, to both reflect much of the energy of the sun, and use what energy does reach the surface of the planet for plant growth instead of being converted into heat that then rises and is distributed around the planet. Yes, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and if it was not, then life could not exist on the planet as it would be very cold all the time. However, nothing converts the suns energy to heat faster than bare dark soils or rocks, and without either a blanket of clouds, or carbon dioxide in the atmosphere then at night much of that heat would drift off into space and the temperature extremes would be even greater then we see over deserts today. These temperature extremes can sometimes be almost 100 degrees, from a high of 140 Fahrenheit to a low of 45 degrees Fahrenheit all in a 24 hour period, while in a tropical forest the difference between high and low is much closer to onl

What should be the first response when the citizens of a town have a serious grievance with some part of the town's administration, that needs a very quick response? The first example that comes to mind is when someone is shot by a policeman especially if it was a person of color. If the weather is okay to do so, then those in control of the party's involved should all met in a location chosen by the citizens of the town, with no podiums or stands to make others more important than anyone else. A system of microphones placed in as many places as possible so as many people as possible could speak, Yes there would be people in charge of who can speak with the microphone to keep some order, I would recommend the media would be in charge of that including print, television, and social media such as you see on-line. Cameras should be placed so that in a large gathering everyone could see what was being discussed. People have to decide are we truly a representative government, or are

          Everything that new communities need to grow and succeed. All while improving the food supply's around the planet and solving the planet's problems of Global Warming and Climate Change. at very little cost and in a timely manner! The "Refugee Problem" that the whole planet is facing, is one of the more challenging aspects of living on a planet that places very low worth on the majority of mankind! Where you are born and who you are born to, it then the defining factor on what your potential is. I was very lucky in being born in Nebraska to white parents, neither of my parents had a college education but were hard-working middle-class farmer/railroad worker, housewife, raising 11 children (see how easy it is to define oneself in this society, without really knowing anyone or what they may be capable of!)? How far advanced could we be, if everyone's full potential was nurtured from birth? Many of us are end up being just a minor player even in our own live

          Fish habitat, (both for migration and food production)  soil replenishment for farms, recreational purposes, and most importantly, as an opportunity of using its waters for replanting arid and semi-arid areas of the planet. this means that the river must be completely tamed and controlled. Yes, controlled means even swamps and wildlife areas must be designed to prevent floods or make controlled floods it that is what is needed for both local and passing wildlife.                                                                                                            In doing this the river will actually hold much more water than it would hold if it was not controlled. Perhaps the biggest change would be how we would use the controlled river for the commercial movement of materials. instead of huge barges, container ships, and liquid or gas transports, there would be railroad type cars that could be loaded on and off at each terminal onto rail transportation to minimize tran

This is not something that is of little or no importance, I do believe that even if nothing is accomplished in my lifetime, there will absolutely be a time when it will become so apparent to scientists around the planet that all carbon-based life is in jeopardy that a new direction will need to be followed. Perhaps someone will find these posts and at least will have a starting place to repair what life has caused. Of course, by then there may be 4,000 posts instead of only around 360 now! And mankind will have spent unwards of a trillion dollars in ways that did little to actually benefit the planet and more to safe-guard our infrastructure! But at what cost to the remaining carbon-based life on the planet, will there be enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to replant the deserts and semi-arid areas of the planet at that point, as there is now? Will the oceans be so polluted as to be impossible to bring back all of life's diversity. In the worst case scenio we would only be abl

          The one most talked about now is that mankind is a kind of parasite on the planet, and if we wish to survive we need to clean up our act and undo just about everything that puts the planet's life at risk, quickly! The second school of thought is that mankind is just one species on the planet and we are not able to really affect the planet in any significant way as the planet is just too large to make any truly lasting change to how the planet operates! Both of these views hold the belief that if mankind does die out as a species we would be no more than a curve in the planet's direction (or a bump in the road) and mankind would simply be forgotten and go the same way as the dodo bird, and time would heal the planet. Neither of these views is correct. And both views if acted upon incorrectly, will cause major harm to both mankind and all life on the planet!                                                                                                                 

          But I do not know of any life on the planet that can survive, without carbon. At the beginning of life on this planet, carbon was, simply put, the only option life had a chance to start with, and where is all of that carbon now? Turned into mountains, caves, or buried deep under seas and oceans, no longer available for life to make use of. Every year prior to mankind's arrival as a species (that does not so much live with the planet, as it adapts the planet for our needs) the planet has lost access to around 10 gigatonnes of carbon every year, year in and year out and in the early day's of life on the planet, this amount was quite a bit higher. However, the planet's interior was quite a bit more active than it is today, but because of the slowly cooling down, that comes with time and the slow decaying of elements that normally produce heat as they decay, the tectonic plate actively has decreased. Try and tell someone who was in a large earthquake or volcanic event

          Today I was listening to Nebraska Public Radio, about how men's sperm count has lowered over 50% since 1973 until now, in what many consider the west (Europe, America's, Australia, New Zealand) but could include the whole planet, not enough data to do so! This is not the first scientific study to do so! If this data is correct can we interpret the cause down to mankind's use of chemicals, or down to another example of adaptation caused by ever-changing conditions that a single species faces with what could be over-population? There have been studies of many species that will limit their own populations in times of hardship, with many causes that can lead to such a development. Could this be one example of that, we know that mankind has made direct decisions to have fewer children born, and the use of birth control is most prevalent in the most educated countries, but it is also in the most populous countries, that governments have tried to reduce its population. S

          Plus, all of the necessary people needed to support them! "Life cycle of a planet by Dan Kadavy" is a short 12-page read that while not particularly well written, explains in detail how planet's, everyone in the universe will all face the same crisis that our own planet is now facing, the slow extinction of whatever type of life that has found a way to succeed, on any planet that had the ability to support life in the first place.                 What those limiting factors are, vary and I would be hard-pressed to think too far out of the known box on these reasons. Understanding our own solar system has not yet been accomplished, yet any understanding of systems hundreds and millions of light-years away would seem impossible at this time. If it ends up that our own solar system is much like what others systems are, then this would narrow down what types of life have the best chance of evolving in any or at least most other systems. Should we think that life on

          A misdiagnosis, does a misdiagnosis constitute fraud, absolutely not,  the term "diagnosis" means to learn, to come to know, between, it does not mean "absolutely" exact, or definitely! It truly is a process that requires adaptation to change to changing knowledge, changing parameters, and ever-changing social norms! During both world wars, information was coerced by intimidation of sexual exposure, had there been no reason to worry about others' reaction to one's love life then threats about that, would have kept more important information safe! People are so afraid of a misstep in bringing forth unique ways of looking at a problem, they feel much safer being considered "in step" with others. Even if they are later proved wrong or mistaken everyone else is in the same boat. It is easier to say we were wrong instead of I was wrong.       Now, however, being on the side that ridicules others, are seen as straight shooters not afraid to tel

          Think of a movie plot, Perry Mason style, people hear a gunshot, they rush it and see a beautiful woman holding a gun a "Smoking Gun" that science later proves is the murder weapon. If this had been a true police case, "quilty," but this is a case for Perry Mason, and you know what that means, That there is another explanation, and by the end of the show "Not guilty"! But you say to yourself this is not a movie script, where the screenwriter can make anything become reality, we need to follow the science! Have we truly done that? No, we have not done that, science has always gone back only as far as when mankind entered the scene. Example: The planet has not seen carbon dioxide levels this high since the ice-ages first appeared 2.5 million years ago. Yes, this is very true but since low levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are the reason for the appearance of the ice-ages in the beginning, this should not be a surprise! Plus mankind has onl