Life Cycle of a Planet

Because there was a full and abundant plant life in these areas prior to the start of the ice age that we are still technically in, that seems to has started, around 2.5 million years ago. The planet would not have gone from a warm, plant-filled with adequate carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to a cold icebound planet in a short period. It would have been much more likely a small start and stop process, which would have cooled the northern and southern areas the quickest, locking in of whatever carbon was in the soils at the time, because the bacteria that had been most responsible for the break-down of the carbon in the now cool soils, would not have been as efficient as today's bacteria, which is now used to being active at lower temperatures as compared to when the soils were generally warmer, one would think that that adaptation would have not come into play until needed! The longer that an area has been frozen and then lightly thaws over and over cause the soils in the permafro...

 Are we the devil, who wantonly cares nothing about the planet, but only of what we can take from it? Or are we the only possible savior of an otherwise doomed ecological system that will finally run out of carbon in a form that plant life can use? Looking at the planet from an outsider's point of view, a good case could be made for either one. They would see plastic pollution in the oceans of the planet, killing all types of sea life, they would see over-harvesting of sea life. they would see many things that would tell them that we are not careful with all of the resources the planet has. But if they looked deeper and looked at life on this planet, the first thing that would jump out at them is how little carbon dioxide that there is in the atmosphere, only .04 of a percent, the gas Argon is .94 of a percent that is 23 times as much of the rare gas Argon, then the life-giving gas of Carbon Dioxide. How could plant life survive on such a low amount? The easy answer is evolution, i...

Mankind is the most advanced species on the planet, most species that exist do not try or attempt to try and change their environment, some plant species can alter the soils so that they are more likely to benefit their own species, Many pine trees do this by making the soils more acidic then other plants can tolerate. Many animals make burrows and den's so that their young have a better chance of survival and for protection from other animals. In my view, beavers do the most to change their environment, not just to improve their young's survival but they dam rivers and streams so that wet and dry years have less of an effect on them. Even many species of ants, keep other insects so that they may have a continuing supply of food. Only mankind completely changes the environment that surrounds them, and without fire, we could not survive. Even if it is an electric fire! I am not a philosopher, I work with my mind and hands I do not ask why I am here. I build to make life easier f...

What if there is another way to repair some of the climate change causation in a different way? That I have been hesitant to talk about, the reason being that, if it shows to have a positive effect on cloud formation and also rain production downstream of where it occurs. Many people will want to jump on such an opportunity! Since it can only be done over very large bodies of water such as an ocean which if any government would want to do, there would be little other nations could do to stop them since the vast majority of the oceans of the planet are not governed by treaties, once outside the standard 12-mile limit that most counties agree are there's. The idea started with lake effect snows, from around the Great Lakes in the USA, and Canada. If you would take this idea of somehow increasing the amount of water that is evaporated above a large body of water, by introducing miles of fountains of water over certain areas of oceans when winds are moving in the right direction that w...

     This one is both very easy and extremely tricky to answer! The straightforward approach is to tell you that if you would find enough land to plant that many trees you would have to either make sure that the area that you are using has enough rainfall for the trees to grow, otherwise someone will have to bring water to them. It does not have animals that like to eat trees such as beavers, deer, rabbits, and other animals such as porcupines. Then you have to wait 30 years for them to get big enough to store the necessary carbon! Plus they do little in adding to plant respiration, in places that this need is greatest! But yes they can be a help in such places that have had forests before, replanting the tropical rain forests would be the best place for them! The real negatives would be in thinking that by planting these trillion trees would solve global warming and it would not because you have not repaired enough of the temperature regulating abilities of the planet. T...

Into another word, if you do not read what you have written very closely. In my last post, I missed spelled "about," and they changed it to "above," Grammarly, they are very good, it is only my own fault that I did not reread my post closely enough! ( but it does make a person feel good to blame someone or something else, whoever wants to be wrong about anything?) But the facts are that mankind is wrong many times before it finally gets it right, and we still can not get rid of wars. Had Germany stopped after taking over Poland, it had pulled itself out of one of the worst periods of depression by building up its war machine, and could have taken back it's standing of being the powerhouse of Europe, Many Countries in Europe would have been grateful to have Germany as an Allie, instead, we all know what happened to end up with the slaughter of 6 million people of the Jewish faith. Even to this day, that war is being played out in the Middle East. We should never ...

     Why something is happening, is the number one reason, most of the time! This is one of the times that why something is happening, is not as important as how they repair it! While I am stating that Carbon sequestration over the total life span of the planet, has brought the planet to the point that we are now at! Where over 25% of the land surface of the planet has not enough access to both carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the necessary rainfall to keep plant life in abundance over those surfaces. However, now that mankind has added around 150 parts per million of the life-giving gas, carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere, we are also the only species on the planet that can make use of it by adding water to these arid and semi-arid areas of the planet. which will bring back some of the ability of the planet for temperature-regulation. Any other way of removing this new carbon dioxide, perhaps by planting 1 trillion trees, or making giant machines to suck the car...