Discussion:
OT silly false claim - The golden asteroid that could make everyone on Earth a billionaire
(too old to reply)
a425couple
2019-06-26 22:23:29 UTC
Permalink
from
https://www.rt.com/business/462703-golden-asteroid-everyone-billionaire/

The golden asteroid that could make everyone on Earth a billionaire
Published time: 26 Jun, 2019 08:48
Edited time: 26 Jun, 2019 13:47
Get short URL

The golden asteroid that could make everyone on Earth a billionaire

(Idiots with silly claims, NO, it would not make everyone rich.
It would make the initial investors very rich, while the price
for precious metals dropped, and dropped. People who are currently
invested, will lose value. All the public would then gain
marginally as the prices of devices that need these
precious metals drops some. Not a lot of gold in most
phones or computers.)

© Getty Images / MARK GARLICK / SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY

Whether it was the Big Bang, Midas or God himself, we don’t really need
to unlock the mystery of the origins of gold when we’ve already
identified an asteroid worth $700 quintillion in precious heavy metals.
If anything launches this metals mining space race, it will be this
asteroid--Psyche 16, taking up residence between Mars and Jupiter and
carrying around enough heavy metals to net every single person on the
planet close to a trillion dollars.

The massive quantities of gold, iron and nickel contained in this
asteroid are mind-blowing. The discovery has been made. Now, it’s a
question of proving it up.

NASA plans to do just that, beginning in 2022.

Of course, says veteran miner Scott Moore, CEO of EuroSun Mining “The
‘Titans of Gold’ now control hundreds of the best-producing properties
around the world, but the 4-5 million ounces of gold they bring to the
market every year pales in comparison to the conquests available in space.”

In the decades to come, if you want to be a gold titan, you’ll have to
get your feet off the ground. The real titans will be far from Earth.

Moore should know: He heads up a junior mining company that is seeking a
seat at the titan table with the biggest in-development gold mine in Europe.

The 21st-Century Gold Rush

Can we actually extract this space gold? That is the quintillion-dollar
question, certainly.

Speaking to Outerplaces, Professor John Zarnecki, president of the Royal
Astronomical Society, estimates that it would take around 25 years to
get ‘proof of concept’, and 50 years to start commercial production.

Of course, it all depends on two key things: Economic feasibility and
our advancement of space technology.

And then, we’re not alone, either. There are other world powers who
would like to get their hands on that asteroid, as well. China
definitively plans to dominate this race.

Mitch Hunter-Scullion, founder of the UK-based Asteroid Mining Company,
tells the BBC that this is definitively the next industry “boom”.

ALSO ON RT.COM
Gold & platinum came to Earth in a massive star explosion – study
also
https://www.rt.com/business/422022-gold-origins-discovered-space/

“Once you set up the infrastructure then the possibilities are almost
infinite,” he said. “There’s an astronomical amount of money to be made
by those bold enough to rise to the challenge of the asteroid rush.”

EuroSun’s Moore agrees: “What we’re doing on the ground now may be
impressive, but like everything else, even gold exploration in space is
only a matter of infrastructure. We’ll get to it, eventually.”

But it’s not just about the quintillion-dollar prospects of the Asteroid
Belt, which is 750 million kilometers from Earth.

“This may be the Holy Grail of space exploration for gold, but it won’t
be the first stop on this adventure,” Moore says.

There are also Near-Earth asteroids, which pass close to Earth and could
be pushed into an orbit from which water and other elements could be
extracted.

Then there’s the moon, which holds resources from gold and platinum
group metals to Helium-3, water and rare earth metals. Even though
mining operations require gravity and the Moon’s is only one-sixth of
Earth’s, scientists say there is enough gravity to make it work.

The Global Asteroid Mining Market

Yes, there is already a global market for asteroid mining, and Allied
Market Research estimates that it will top $3.8 billion by 2025.

They’re counting ongoing and future space missions, the rise in inflow
of investments in space mining technologies, and the growing use of
print materials obtained from asteroids in 3D printing technology.

According to Allied, while the spacecraft design segment of this market
accounted for four-fifths of the total revenue in 2017 and is expected
to continue to dominate through 2025, the big change here will be in the
space mining segment, or the “operation segment”. That segment is
expected to grow at a CAGR of over 29% by 2025 “due to a surge in
investment by public and private stakeholders in space mining
technologies for resource exploitation”.

ALSO ON RT.COM
Bitcoin v gold: Peter Schiff tells Boom Bust which is the real safe
haven at time of turmoil

“You can’t just think of space mining as something that will suddenly
happen in 25 or 50 years,” says EuroSun’s Moore. “It’s already happening
from an investment perspective. And the Asteroid Belt is just one aspect
of this market. The entire global space market is worth hundreds of
billions already.”

Indeed, Morgan Stanley estimates the global space economy to be worth
$350 billion today. By 2040, it will be worth a cosmic $2.7 trillion.

Nor is the Psyche-16 Asteroid the only thing of interest in the Belt.
Another small asteroid measuring 200 meters in length could be worth $30
billion in platinum.

Who Will Get There First?

China has vowed to dominate this race, and that’s an easier game for a
country that controls all the major natural resource companies and
maintains a tight leash on tech developers.

That’s not to say that the US doesn’t have ambitions here. The
difference, though, is stark. While NASA is focused on space exploration
and scientific missions, China is focused on a space-based economy that
is zeroing in on long-term wealth generation.

Even Europe, where EuroSun is developing a major goldmine in Romania,
has its hand in the game. In January, the European Space Agency(ESA)
announced a deal with ArianeGroup, the parent company of Arianespace, to
study a prep mission to the moon in 2025. It’s got natural resources on
its mind.

ALSO ON RT.COM
Moon mining: ESA sets up lunar project to secure oxygen & water by 2025

Even tiny Luxembourg has 10 space-mining companies registered since
2016, with some targeting space ventures to the Moon, and others eyeing
near-Earth asteroids for mining.

Tokyo-based iSpace, for instance, is a private space exploration company
that plans to complete a lunar orbit in 2020, and a soft landing in 2021.

For Moore, the prospect is daunting, even if it is the clear future
reality, because mining in EuroSun’s Rovina Valley project in
west-central Romania has been a cakewalk, both in terms of geology and
infrastructure. Everything lines up for a large, low-cost project (the
biggest in-development gold mine in Europe.) That won’t be the case in
space, but it’s a big bill that governments will want to help foot or
risk losing their place in space.

Whoever gets there first will become the new god of gold, and the
competition is heating up.

This article was originally published on Oilprice.com
Thomas Koenig
2019-06-27 19:18:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by a425couple
The golden asteroid that could make everyone on Earth a billionaire
ObSF: Rincewind and the Patrician in "The Colour of Magic".
Post by a425couple
(Idiots with silly claims, NO, it would not make everyone rich.
Well, Rincewind said so, the Patrician did not contradict him,
so it must be true :-)
Kevrob
2019-06-27 22:49:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by a425couple
The golden asteroid that could make everyone on Earth a billionaire
ObSF: Rincewind and the Patrician in "The Colour of Magic".
Post by a425couple
(Idiots with silly claims, NO, it would not make everyone rich.
Well, Rincewind said so, the Patrician did not contradict him,
so it must be true :-)
ObSF: in Stirling's "The Stone Dogs," the Alliance pisses off the Draka
by capturing a gold-rich space rock and thereby screwing with the Snakes'
currency, the Auric.

Kevin R
a425couple
2019-06-29 13:44:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by a425couple
The golden asteroid that could make everyone on Earth a billionaire
ObSF: Rincewind and the Patrician in "The Colour of Magic".
Post by a425couple
(Idiots with silly claims, NO, it would not make everyone rich.
Well, Rincewind said so, the Patrician did not contradict him,
so it must be true :-)
ObSF: in Stirling's "The Stone Dogs," the Alliance pisses off the Draka
by capturing a gold-rich space rock and thereby screwing with the Snakes'
currency, the Auric.
Kevin R
OK. Yes, any nation that based it's currency on gold,
would get disrupted. The real life true value of it's
gold reserves would get reduced. If an opposing power
was getting this gold from space, that power could really
jerk around inflation at it's will. And corrupt many
individuals or groups at it's will.

By the way:
"As of September 2018, U.S. Government Gold Reserves are
8,965 metric tons (261.5 million oz. troy), with a market value
of over $310.5 billion (of which 56.35% is held at Fort Knox).
In contrast, the GDP of the United States was $19.4 trillion as
of April 2017. ... The mint gold bars are nearly pure gold."
United States Bullion Depository - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bullion_Depository

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/09/gold-standard.asp
The gold standard is not currently used by any government.
Britain stopped using the gold standard in 1931 and the U.S.
followed suit in 1933 and abandoned the remnants of the system
in 1971. The gold standard was completely replaced by fiat money,
a term to describe currency that is used because of a government's
order, or fiat, that the currency must be accepted as a means
of payment.

Top 10 Countries with Largest Gold Reserves - U.S. Global Investors
www.usfunds.com › Investor Library › Frank Talk
Jul 5, 2018 - The top 10 central banks with the largest gold
reserves have remained mostly unchanged for the last few years.
The United States holds the ...

Gold reserve - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_reserve
Official U.S. gold reserve since 1900. Changes in Central Bank
Gold Reserves by Country 1993-2014. Changes in Central Bank
Gold Reserves by Country versus time for the last 10 years.
Gold reserves per capita. A gold reserve was the gold held by
a national central bank, intended mainly as a guarantee to ...

And a couple of months ago we looked at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Buddha_(statue)
"--- with a weight of 5.5 tonnes (5,500 kilograms). It is located
in the temple of Wat Traimit, Bangkok, Thailand. At one point in
its history the statue was covered with a layer of stucco and
coloured glass to conceal its true value, and it remained in this
condition for almost 200 years, ending up at what was then a pagoda
of minor significance. During relocation of the statue in 1955,
the plaster was chipped off and the gold revealed."
Interesting history. They did not know what it really was.
But, does it really matter?

Has anybody reading here played Space Engineers?
They deal with refineries.
Space Engineers Tutorial: Refineries

David DeLaney
2019-06-30 02:35:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by a425couple
The golden asteroid that could make everyone on Earth a billionaire
ObSF: Rincewind and the Patrician in "The Colour of Magic".
Post by a425couple
(Idiots with silly claims, NO, it would not make everyone rich.
Well, Rincewind said so, the Patrician did not contradict him,
so it must be true :-)
ObSF: in Stirling's "The Stone Dogs," the Alliance pisses off the Draka
by capturing a gold-rich space rock and thereby screwing with the Snakes'
currency, the Auric.
ObOlderSF: Fred Hoyle, _Element 79_ (the short story inside the collection of
the same title).

Dave, one of the books the E. Cleveland Public Libray's stacks' SF section had
when I was a kid
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Ahasuerus
2019-06-30 02:57:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Kevrob
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by a425couple
The golden asteroid that could make everyone on Earth a billionaire
ObSF: Rincewind and the Patrician in "The Colour of Magic".
Post by a425couple
(Idiots with silly claims, NO, it would not make everyone rich.
Well, Rincewind said so, the Patrician did not contradict him,
so it must be true :-)
ObSF: in Stirling's "The Stone Dogs," the Alliance pisses off the Draka
by capturing a gold-rich space rock and thereby screwing with the Snakes'
currency, the Auric.
ObOlderSF: Fred Hoyle, _Element 79_ (the short story inside the
collection of the same title).
Dave, one of the books the E. Cleveland Public Libray's stacks' SF
section had when I was a kid
ObMuchOlderSF: _La chasse au météore_ (1908)
(http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2570441) by Jules Verne and
Michel Verne, originally published as by Jules Verne alone. The
English title _The Chase of the Golden Meteor_ should be self-
explanatory.
Quadibloc
2019-07-01 14:13:30 UTC
Permalink
Speaking of gold in the heavens...

Recently, headlines announced a new discovery. It had formerly been believed
that the heavy elements were formed in the violence of a supernova explosion.

But, embarrasingly, research kept coming up with the answer that even a
supernova wasn't quite violent enough for the r-process of nucleosynthesis to
really work. The problem has finally been solved: instead, the even greater
violence of the collision of two neutron stars is needed.

It used to be believed that solar systems with planets only originated in close
encounters between two stars that pulled matter out from them. This meant that
planets would be very rare. It is now known, of course, that planets instead are
a result of the normal mechanism of star formation, and they're found around the
overwhelming majority of stars.

So, if close encounters between two stars are rare, collisions between two
neutron stars must be rare indeed, it would seem. Well, perhaps it's not that
bad. Multiple star systems are common, and if two stars in such a system end as
supernovae, leaving behind two neutron stars, they will eventually lose energy
and collide.

I remember reading accounts claiming that supernovae - now, colliding neutron
stars instead - were the source of all elements heavier than iron.

Looking into the matter, recently, I see that it isn't quite so bad.

The "alpha process", the way that ordinary stars create heavier elements,
already goes slightly beyond iron - all the way up to nickel. Which it needs to
in order to make iron, as iron-52 isn't stable, iron-56 is. So the alpha process
needs to get to nickel-56 to get to iron-56 through a couple of beta decays.

But there's also the "s-process". This happens in red giant stars - we were
tipped off to that when Technetium was found in the spectra of such stars. That
can produce elements right up to *lead*. Which means that even gold, a lighter
element than lead, doesn't really need supernovae or worse to make it.

What might this mean for the Drake equation? Or the Fermi paradox?

Well, Thorium and Uranium definitely *are* heavier elements than lead. So they,
not gold, are what still need colliding neutron stars. And if they were mind-
bogglingly rare...

then this would mean the galaxy should be teeming with intelligent life, because
it never had the opportunity to blow itself up in nuclear war after all, right?

On the other hand, given the difficulties of getting *fusion* power to work,
perhaps industrial civilizations without fissionables are doomed to perish from
the greenhouse effect. At least as industrialized civilizations; there may be
survivors who find harmony with nature. The lucky ones with a way of escape, of
course, need to avoid blowing themselves up with it.

John Savard
Lynn McGuire
2019-07-02 01:03:34 UTC
Permalink
On 7/1/2019 9:13 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
...
Post by Quadibloc
On the other hand, given the difficulties of getting *fusion* power to work,
perhaps industrial civilizations without fissionables are doomed to perish from
the greenhouse effect. At least as industrialized civilizations; there may be
survivors who find harmony with nature. The lucky ones with a way of escape, of
course, need to avoid blowing themselves up with it.
John Savard
Do you really think that the human race is going to die from the world
average temperature going up 2 C ?

Lynn
J. Clarke
2019-07-02 01:49:08 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 20:03:34 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
...
Post by Quadibloc
On the other hand, given the difficulties of getting *fusion* power to work,
perhaps industrial civilizations without fissionables are doomed to perish from
the greenhouse effect. At least as industrialized civilizations; there may be
survivors who find harmony with nature. The lucky ones with a way of escape, of
course, need to avoid blowing themselves up with it.
John Savard
Do you really think that the human race is going to die from the world
average temperature going up 2 C ?
Is it going to stop at 2C? That's what IPCC wants to hold it to by
stopping all greenhouse emissions completely.
Lynn McGuire
2019-07-02 02:04:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 20:03:34 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
...
Post by Quadibloc
On the other hand, given the difficulties of getting *fusion* power to work,
perhaps industrial civilizations without fissionables are doomed to perish from
the greenhouse effect. At least as industrialized civilizations; there may be
survivors who find harmony with nature. The lucky ones with a way of escape, of
course, need to avoid blowing themselves up with it.
John Savard
Do you really think that the human race is going to die from the world
average temperature going up 2 C ?
Is it going to stop at 2C? That's what IPCC wants to hold it to by
stopping all greenhouse emissions completely.
The IPCC wants to stop global warming at 1.5 C now.
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

I don't believe that global warming due to human causes is happening.
All global warming is natural and has been occurring since the last ice age.

That said, we, the human race, can not stop global warming without
herculean means. Things like solar space umbrellas will be required.
There is no way that all of the nations will line up to stop purported
greenhouse emissions. So, the best way to stop the purported global
warming is to limit the energy reaching the planet.

And yes, there are those who believe that the Earth is in a runaway
greenhouse effect and that the oceans will boil at some point in the
near future.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bmjqvz/by-2100-everything-you-know-about-the-ocean-will-be-wrong

Lynn
David DeLaney
2019-07-02 03:58:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
I don't believe that global warming due to human causes is happening.
Then there's very little about this we can actually discuss with you; you're
not in tune with reality.
Post by Lynn McGuire
All global warming is natural and has been occurring since the last ice age.
Sure, some may have been. But then it should still be going at a few
ten-thousandths or hundred-thousandths per year. And should be the same for,
say, the decade 1900-1910 as it is for the decade 2000-2010.

The latter is quite visibly not what is happening. Ask how many of the last
century's hottest summers and coldest winters and warmest overall years and
biggest/strangest/most out-of-place storms took place in the last decade.

(Hint: way more than ten percent.)

Ask when the planting lines get to given temperatures, compared to 40 or 50
years back. Ask what's actually been happening to numbers of insects (not of
insect species). Or continue on as you are, not asking anything other than
access to alt-right news sites and broadcasts which reassure you that of
COURSE it's not hu-mons' fault, that might mean someone might have to accept
RESPONSIBILITY for it - or even worse, for trying to do something to prevent
it. No, clearly this is all a plan of Mother Nature's, and She wouldn't ever do
anything to imperil the very existence of the civilizations of Her most favored
children, right?
Post by Lynn McGuire
There is no way that all of the nations will line up to stop purported
greenhouse emissions.
Well, at least you won't live to see the worst of it (and neither shall I,
most likely). Pity you had children, though.
Post by Lynn McGuire
And yes, there are those who believe that the Earth is in a runaway
greenhouse effect and that the oceans will boil at some point in the
near future.
Um, no.

But it doesn't take all that much change to change sea levels, continental
outlines, growing seasons, and basically a lot of the assumptions that "we have
N million people in this many square miles"'s sustainability depends on. If
the breadbasket of North America moves north enough that it stretches from
North Dakota up through Manitoba & Saskatchewan to Nunavut, a great deal of
the middle of the USA will undergo catastrophic economic upheaval, for example.

Dave, how far above sea level is the lowest point in your county, again? and do
you know what the Western Interior Seaway was, and when?
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Lynn McGuire
2019-07-03 04:40:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Lynn McGuire
I don't believe that global warming due to human causes is happening.
Then there's very little about this we can actually discuss with you; you're
not in tune with reality.
Post by Lynn McGuire
All global warming is natural and has been occurring since the last ice age.
Sure, some may have been. But then it should still be going at a few
ten-thousandths or hundred-thousandths per year. And should be the same for,
say, the decade 1900-1910 as it is for the decade 2000-2010.
The latter is quite visibly not what is happening. Ask how many of the last
century's hottest summers and coldest winters and warmest overall years and
biggest/strangest/most out-of-place storms took place in the last decade.
(Hint: way more than ten percent.)
Ask when the planting lines get to given temperatures, compared to 40 or 50
years back. Ask what's actually been happening to numbers of insects (not of
insect species). Or continue on as you are, not asking anything other than
access to alt-right news sites and broadcasts which reassure you that of
COURSE it's not hu-mons' fault, that might mean someone might have to accept
RESPONSIBILITY for it - or even worse, for trying to do something to prevent
it. No, clearly this is all a plan of Mother Nature's, and She wouldn't ever do
anything to imperil the very existence of the civilizations of Her most favored
children, right?
Post by Lynn McGuire
There is no way that all of the nations will line up to stop purported
greenhouse emissions.
Well, at least you won't live to see the worst of it (and neither shall I,
most likely). Pity you had children, though.
Post by Lynn McGuire
And yes, there are those who believe that the Earth is in a runaway
greenhouse effect and that the oceans will boil at some point in the
near future.
Um, no.
But it doesn't take all that much change to change sea levels, continental
outlines, growing seasons, and basically a lot of the assumptions that "we have
N million people in this many square miles"'s sustainability depends on. If
the breadbasket of North America moves north enough that it stretches from
North Dakota up through Manitoba & Saskatchewan to Nunavut, a great deal of
the middle of the USA will undergo catastrophic economic upheaval, for example.
Dave, how far above sea level is the lowest point in your county, again? and do
you know what the Western Interior Seaway was, and when?
We've had this conversation before. Twice IIRC.

And my house is 70 ft above MSL. My office building is 81 ft above MSL.

Lynn
Quadibloc
2019-07-02 12:41:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
And yes, there are those who believe that the Earth is in a runaway
greenhouse effect and that the oceans will boil at some point in the
near future.
While that is unlikely, if we keep spewing more and more carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere, it could indeed eventually happen. Why take chances? There are
greenhouse gases being released from frozen swamps now thawing.

Certainly, though, it is true that "life here" did not really begin "out there".
The differentiation between humans and apes happened on Earth.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2019-07-03 02:02:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
And yes, there are those who believe that the Earth is in a runaway
greenhouse effect and that the oceans will boil at some point in the
near future.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bmjqvz/by-2100-everything-you-know-about-the-ocean-will-be-wrong
This article says that if nothing happens to our carbon use before 2100, things
will be bleak, but not yet Venus-like. I think it's unlikely we will just ignore
global warming for another three or four decades, though, so even if the article
were 100% scientifically accurate, the bad things in it won't happen.
Other bad things will happen soon enough as to get our attention. When we do
change course, still more bad things will continue to happen, because while a
change in equilibrium temperatures can be reversed immediately, the actual
change in temperature as equilibrium is approached... takes longer to reverse.
You're making the same assumption as all the
politicoclimatologists--that the equilibrium temperature based on CO2
controls. Several million years of glaciation cycles suggest strongly
that there's sommething a lot more complicated going on, and the ones
who are saying it is the Kondratieff cycle seem to be engaging in
voodoo physics--the period of the weakest forcing in that cycle has
some correlation with the glaciation cycle but the lags tens of
millennia and the stronger forcings seem to have no effect at all.
Dorothy J Heydt
2019-07-03 02:42:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
And yes, there are those who believe that the Earth is in a runaway
greenhouse effect and that the oceans will boil at some point in the
near future.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bmjqvz/by-2100-everything-you-know-about-the-ocean-will-be-wrong
This article says that if nothing happens to our carbon use before
2100, things
will be bleak, but not yet Venus-like. I think it's unlikely we will
just ignore
global warming for another three or four decades, though, so even if
the article
were 100% scientifically accurate, the bad things in it won't happen.
Other bad things will happen soon enough as to get our attention. When we do
change course, still more bad things will continue to happen, because while a
change in equilibrium temperatures can be reversed immediately, the actual
change in temperature as equilibrium is approached... takes longer to reverse.
You're making the same assumption as all the
politicoclimatologists--that the equilibrium temperature based on CO2
controls. Several million years of glaciation cycles suggest strongly
that there's sommething a lot more complicated going on, and the ones
who are saying it is the Kondratieff cycle seem to be engaging in
Wait a minute. The Kondratieff cycle is an *economic*
phenomenon, and though the glaciation cycle will undoubtedly
affect how the Kondratieff plays out, they are not the same
thing.
Post by Lynn McGuire
voodoo physics--the period of the weakest forcing in that cycle has
some correlation with the glaciation cycle but the lags tens of
millennia and the stronger forcings seem to have no effect at all.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
J. Clarke
2019-07-03 03:33:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
And yes, there are those who believe that the Earth is in a runaway
greenhouse effect and that the oceans will boil at some point in the
near future.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bmjqvz/by-2100-everything-you-know-about-the-ocean-will-be-wrong
This article says that if nothing happens to our carbon use before
2100, things
will be bleak, but not yet Venus-like. I think it's unlikely we will
just ignore
global warming for another three or four decades, though, so even if
the article
were 100% scientifically accurate, the bad things in it won't happen.
Other bad things will happen soon enough as to get our attention. When we do
change course, still more bad things will continue to happen, because while a
change in equilibrium temperatures can be reversed immediately, the actual
change in temperature as equilibrium is approached... takes longer to reverse.
You're making the same assumption as all the
politicoclimatologists--that the equilibrium temperature based on CO2
controls. Several million years of glaciation cycles suggest strongly
that there's sommething a lot more complicated going on, and the ones
who are saying it is the Kondratieff cycle seem to be engaging in
Wait a minute. The Kondratieff cycle is an *economic*
phenomenon, and though the glaciation cycle will undoubtedly
affect how the Kondratieff plays out, they are not the same
thing.
Sorry, Milankovich--I'm getting my Russians conflated.
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Lynn McGuire
voodoo physics--the period of the weakest forcing in that cycle has
some correlation with the glaciation cycle but the lags tens of
millennia and the stronger forcings seem to have no effect at all.
Dorothy J Heydt
2019-07-03 04:52:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
And yes, there are those who believe that the Earth is in a runaway
greenhouse effect and that the oceans will boil at some point in the
near future.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bmjqvz/by-2100-everything-you-know-about-the-ocean-will-be-wrong
This article says that if nothing happens to our carbon use before
2100, things
will be bleak, but not yet Venus-like. I think it's unlikely we will
just ignore
global warming for another three or four decades, though, so even if
the article
were 100% scientifically accurate, the bad things in it won't happen.
Other bad things will happen soon enough as to get our attention. When we do
change course, still more bad things will continue to happen, because
while a
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Lynn McGuire
change in equilibrium temperatures can be reversed immediately, the actual
change in temperature as equilibrium is approached... takes longer to
reverse.
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Lynn McGuire
You're making the same assumption as all the
politicoclimatologists--that the equilibrium temperature based on CO2
controls. Several million years of glaciation cycles suggest strongly
that there's sommething a lot more complicated going on, and the ones
who are saying it is the Kondratieff cycle seem to be engaging in
Wait a minute. The Kondratieff cycle is an *economic*
phenomenon, and though the glaciation cycle will undoubtedly
affect how the Kondratieff plays out, they are not the same
thing.
Sorry, Milankovich--I'm getting my Russians conflated.
Ah. Okay.

/e tries to envision conflated Russians; shudders at result
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Quadibloc
2019-07-03 16:31:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
And yes, there are those who believe that the Earth is in a runaway
greenhouse effect and that the oceans will boil at some point in the
near future.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bmjqvz/by-2100-everything-you-know-about-the-ocean-will-be-wrong
This article says that if nothing happens to our carbon use before
2100, things
will be bleak, but not yet Venus-like. I think it's unlikely we will
just ignore
global warming for another three or four decades, though, so even if
the article
were 100% scientifically accurate, the bad things in it won't happen.
Other bad things will happen soon enough as to get our attention. When we do
change course, still more bad things will continue to happen, because
while a
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Lynn McGuire
change in equilibrium temperatures can be reversed immediately, the actual
change in temperature as equilibrium is approached... takes longer to
reverse.
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Lynn McGuire
You're making the same assumption as all the
politicoclimatologists--that the equilibrium temperature based on CO2
controls. Several million years of glaciation cycles suggest strongly
that there's sommething a lot more complicated going on, and the ones
who are saying it is the Kondratieff cycle seem to be engaging in
Wait a minute. The Kondratieff cycle is an *economic*
phenomenon, and though the glaciation cycle will undoubtedly
affect how the Kondratieff plays out, they are not the same
thing.
Sorry, Milankovich--I'm getting my Russians conflated.
Ah. Okay.
/e tries to envision conflated Russians; shudders at result
I figured it was an error for Milankovič, but I thought he was Serbian or
something. Googled, yes, Serbian. Like Nicola Tesla.

John Savard
Quadibloc
2019-07-04 23:48:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
I figured it was an error for Milankovič, but I thought he was Serbian or
something. Googled, yes, Serbian. Like Nicola Tesla.
Or Mohorovicič, of Mohole fame.

John Savard
David DeLaney
2019-07-08 06:48:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by J. Clarke
Sorry, Milankovich--I'm getting my Russians conflated.
Ah. Okay.
/e tries to envision conflated Russians; shudders at result
They'd have to be rather drunk first, of course.

Dave, in Soviet Rrrooossia, nomenclature conflates YOU

ps: wait, were you imagining them in conflagrante delicto? see, THERE'S your
problem!
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
William Hyde
2019-07-03 23:07:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Lynn McGuire
And yes, there are those who believe that the Earth is in a runaway
greenhouse effect and that the oceans will boil at some point in the
near future.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bmjqvz/by-2100-everything-you-know-about-the-ocean-will-be-wrong
This article says that if nothing happens to our carbon use before 2100, things
will be bleak, but not yet Venus-like. I think it's unlikely we will just ignore
global warming for another three or four decades, though, so even if the article
were 100% scientifically accurate, the bad things in it won't happen.
Other bad things will happen soon enough as to get our attention. When we do
change course, still more bad things will continue to happen, because while a
change in equilibrium temperatures can be reversed immediately, the actual
change in temperature as equilibrium is approached... takes longer to reverse.
You're making the same assumption as all the
politicoclimatologists--that the equilibrium temperature based on CO2
controls.
No such assumption is made.

Several million years of glaciation cycles suggest strongly
Post by J. Clarke
that there's sommething a lot more complicated going on, and the ones
who are saying it is the Kondratieff cycle seem to be engaging in
voodoo physics--the period of the weakest forcing in that cycle has
some correlation with the glaciation cycle but the lags tens of
millennia and the stronger forcings seem to have no effect at all.
Milankovitch forcing is applied using the laws of physics. If you are the engineer you claim to be you could read the actual papers. A number of the climatologists who have worked at this problem originally trained as engineers - including Milankovitch himself.

William Hyde
J. Clarke
2019-07-03 23:20:49 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 16:07:10 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
Post by William Hyde
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Lynn McGuire
And yes, there are those who believe that the Earth is in a runaway
greenhouse effect and that the oceans will boil at some point in the
near future.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bmjqvz/by-2100-everything-you-know-about-the-ocean-will-be-wrong
This article says that if nothing happens to our carbon use before 2100, things
will be bleak, but not yet Venus-like. I think it's unlikely we will just ignore
global warming for another three or four decades, though, so even if the article
were 100% scientifically accurate, the bad things in it won't happen.
Other bad things will happen soon enough as to get our attention. When we do
change course, still more bad things will continue to happen, because while a
change in equilibrium temperatures can be reversed immediately, the actual
change in temperature as equilibrium is approached... takes longer to reverse.
You're making the same assumption as all the
politicoclimatologists--that the equilibrium temperature based on CO2
controls.
No such assumption is made.
Several million years of glaciation cycles suggest strongly
Post by J. Clarke
that there's sommething a lot more complicated going on, and the ones
who are saying it is the Kondratieff cycle seem to be engaging in
voodoo physics--the period of the weakest forcing in that cycle has
some correlation with the glaciation cycle but the lags tens of
millennia and the stronger forcings seem to have no effect at all.
Milankovitch forcing is applied using the laws of physics.
No, Milankovitch forcing is applied using the assumption that
correlation=causation.
Post by William Hyde
If you are the engineer you claim to be you could read the actual papers. A number of the climatologists who have worked at this problem originally trained as engineers - including Milankovitch himself.
Find me a paper that shows other than by much arm-waving why the
temperature maxima occur when the eccentricity is lowest.

Find me a paper that shows other than by much arm-waving why the other
two Milankovitch forcings do not seem to have any correlation to
glaciation.

The basic argument seems to be that there is a 100,000 year glaciation
cycle and a 100,000 year eccentricity cycle so eccentricity must drive
glaciation, never mind that there's no reason to believe that the
eccentricity cycle was different before the periodic glaciations
started.
Quadibloc
2019-07-03 23:36:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
The basic argument seems to be that there is a 100,000 year glaciation
cycle and a 100,000 year eccentricity cycle so eccentricity must drive
glaciation, never mind that there's no reason to believe that the
eccentricity cycle was different before the periodic glaciations
started.
Well, that definitely makes more sense than to suppose that the glaciation
drives the eccentricity cycle. At least a *possible* mechanism exists the other
way around - the Earth's orbit somehow affecting the amount of sunlight the
Earth receives, at least in the right places.

Therefore, it is a reasonable step to investigate if a change in eccentricity,
for example by making the seasons more or less severe, could plausibly drive
glaciation. If so, it is indeed reasonable to provisionally conclude that it is
indeed the driver, rather than there just being a big coincidence.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2019-07-04 00:10:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
The basic argument seems to be that there is a 100,000 year glaciation
cycle and a 100,000 year eccentricity cycle so eccentricity must drive
glaciation, never mind that there's no reason to believe that the
eccentricity cycle was different before the periodic glaciations
started.
Well, that definitely makes more sense than to suppose that the glaciation
drives the eccentricity cycle. At least a *possible* mechanism exists the other
way around - the Earth's orbit somehow affecting the amount of sunlight the
Earth receives, at least in the right places.
Therefore, it is a reasonable step to investigate if a change in eccentricity,
for example by making the seasons more or less severe, could plausibly drive
glaciation. If so, it is indeed reasonable to provisionally conclude that it is
indeed the driver, rather than there just being a big coincidence.
You're ignoring the third possibility, that the Milankovitch cycles
don't have anything to do with it and there's something else going on.
William Hyde
2019-07-04 23:41:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
The basic argument seems to be that there is a 100,000 year glaciation
cycle and a 100,000 year eccentricity cycle so eccentricity must drive
glaciation, never mind that there's no reason to believe that the
eccentricity cycle was different before the periodic glaciations
started.
Well, that definitely makes more sense than to suppose that the glaciation
drives the eccentricity cycle.
You need not worry, since neither assumption is made.

At least a *possible* mechanism exists the other
Post by Quadibloc
way around - the Earth's orbit somehow affecting the amount of sunlight the
Earth receives, at least in the right places.
Or, to put it another way: it could be that this is a problem that was solved, exactly, many years ago.

Oh, wait. It was!
Post by Quadibloc
Therefore, it is a reasonable step to investigate if a change in eccentricity,
for example by making the seasons more or less severe, could plausibly drive
glaciation.
If you can locate a copy of Croll's "Climate and Time", you will find much interesting and up to date thought on this topic.

Of course, as it was published in 1875 you might have trouble getting a copy.

William Hyde
Quadibloc
2019-07-04 23:47:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
If you can locate a copy of Croll's "Climate and Time", you will find much interesting and up to date thought on this topic.
Of course, as it was published in 1875 you might have trouble getting a copy.
Climate and Time in their geological relations: a theory of secular changes in
the Earth's climate.

It being old enough to be in the public domain, a digital copy, at least, was
easy to locate on the Internet Archive.

I thought it sufficient to show him wrong even in a vacuum; that the Milancovič
cycle is old enough to be in such books is only a bonus.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2019-07-05 02:04:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by William Hyde
If you can locate a copy of Croll's "Climate and Time", you will find much interesting and up to date thought on this topic.
Of course, as it was published in 1875 you might have trouble getting a copy.
Climate and Time in their geological relations: a theory of secular changes in
the Earth's climate.
It being old enough to be in the public domain, a digital copy, at least, was
easy to locate on the Internet Archive.
I thought it sufficient to show him wrong even in a vacuum; that the Milancovi?
cycle is old enough to be in such books is only a bonus.
Wrong about what? Does he show maximum insolation coincident with
thermal peaks? Quite a trick in 1875 when we didn't have access to
the data that allowed the timings of the thermal maxima to be
determined.

Quadi, you really need to learn the difference between correlation and
causation and you might while you're about it look up the word
"coincidence".
William Hyde
2019-07-07 19:14:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by William Hyde
If you can locate a copy of Croll's "Climate and Time", you will find much interesting and up to date thought on this topic.
Of course, as it was published in 1875 you might have trouble getting a copy.
Climate and Time in their geological relations: a theory of secular changes in
the Earth's climate.
It being old enough to be in the public domain, a digital copy, at least, was
easy to locate on the Internet Archive.
I thought it sufficient to show him wrong even in a vacuum; that the Milancovič
cycle is old enough to be in such books is only a bonus.
Do I really have to explain the joke?

I have huge respect for Croll, who was a carpenter by trade and entirely self educated in geology and climate (and who had his first and only drink on his 69th birthday), but do you think I am seriously recommending a book from 1875 as up do date?

William Hyde
Quadibloc
2019-07-07 19:36:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
Do I really have to explain the joke?
I have huge respect for Croll, who was a carpenter by trade and entirely self
educated in geology and climate (and who had his first and only drink on his
69th birthday), but do you think I am seriously recommending a book from 1875
as up do date?
I thought you were indeed joking a little, but I thought that you still did
select the book as one that presented theories vaguely pointing in the right
direction - that some of how a change in the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit
would affect the climate was obvious even back then.

Hey, science may march on, but most of what's in Principia Mathematicae
Philosophia Naturalis is still valid today.

John Savard
William Hyde
2019-07-08 22:43:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by William Hyde
Do I really have to explain the joke?
I have huge respect for Croll, who was a carpenter by trade and entirely self
educated in geology and climate (and who had his first and only drink on his
69th birthday), but do you think I am seriously recommending a book from 1875
as up do date?
I thought you were indeed joking a little, but I thought that you still did
select the book as one that presented theories vaguely pointing in the right
direction - that some of how a change in the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit
would affect the climate was obvious even back then.
Hey, science may march on, but most of what's in Principia Mathematicae
Philosophia Naturalis is still valid today.
That is a good point.

The difference is that Newton, for example, was building on the work of many predecessors. Croll was working in a very new field.

Croll had no equivalent of Kepler or Tycho before him. For example, he was well aware that the obliquity had changed over time, but the history of obliquity changes was not known (worked out a generation later by Ludwig Pilgrim). Milankovich was more in the position of Newton.

William Hyde
David DeLaney
2019-07-08 06:51:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
I thought it sufficient to show him wrong even in a vacuum;
... does Nature still abhor climate change, in a vaccuum?

Dave, do bats eat cats? do cats eat bats?
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
J. Clarke
2019-07-05 02:33:13 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 16:41:54 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
Post by William Hyde
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
The basic argument seems to be that there is a 100,000 year glaciation
cycle and a 100,000 year eccentricity cycle so eccentricity must drive
glaciation, never mind that there's no reason to believe that the
eccentricity cycle was different before the periodic glaciations
started.
Well, that definitely makes more sense than to suppose that the glaciation
drives the eccentricity cycle.
You need not worry, since neither assumption is made.
At least a *possible* mechanism exists the other
Post by Quadibloc
way around - the Earth's orbit somehow affecting the amount of sunlight the
Earth receives, at least in the right places.
Or, to put it another way: it could be that this is a problem that was solved, exactly, many years ago.
Oh, wait. It was!
Post by Quadibloc
Therefore, it is a reasonable step to investigate if a change in eccentricity,
for example by making the seasons more or less severe, could plausibly drive
glaciation.
If you can locate a copy of Croll's "Climate and Time", you will find much interesting and up to date thought on this topic.
Of course, as it was published in 1875 you might have trouble getting a copy.
First note that he is trying to sell his model. He mentions other
researchers who disagree with him.

He also argues for alternating northern and southern hemisphere
glaciations which we know do not occur.

Then, he, himself says:
"Astronomically, the principle is correct, but physically, as shown in
Chapter IV, it is totally erroneous, and calculated to convey a wrong
impression regarding the whole subject of geological climate".

So, sorry, it's an interesting bit of history, but it is hardly a
compelliong argument for the notion that eccentricity is the primary
driver of glaciation.

By the way, the copy on Google Books seems more complete in most
regards than the one on Archive.org, but Archive seems to do a little
better with the charts.
William Hyde
2019-07-04 23:36:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 16:07:10 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
Post by William Hyde
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Lynn McGuire
And yes, there are those who believe that the Earth is in a runaway
greenhouse effect and that the oceans will boil at some point in the
near future.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bmjqvz/by-2100-everything-you-know-about-the-ocean-will-be-wrong
This article says that if nothing happens to our carbon use before 2100, things
will be bleak, but not yet Venus-like. I think it's unlikely we will just ignore
global warming for another three or four decades, though, so even if the article
were 100% scientifically accurate, the bad things in it won't happen.
Other bad things will happen soon enough as to get our attention. When we do
change course, still more bad things will continue to happen, because while a
change in equilibrium temperatures can be reversed immediately, the actual
change in temperature as equilibrium is approached... takes longer to reverse.
You're making the same assumption as all the
politicoclimatologists--that the equilibrium temperature based on CO2
controls.
No such assumption is made.
Several million years of glaciation cycles suggest strongly
Post by J. Clarke
that there's sommething a lot more complicated going on, and the ones
who are saying it is the Kondratieff cycle seem to be engaging in
voodoo physics--the period of the weakest forcing in that cycle has
some correlation with the glaciation cycle but the lags tens of
millennia and the stronger forcings seem to have no effect at all.
Milankovitch forcing is applied using the laws of physics.
No, Milankovitch forcing is applied using the assumption that
correlation=causation.
I don't think you understand what "forcing" means in this context.

Variations in the earth's orbit affect the amount of sunlight incident at the top of the atmosphere. This can be, and has been calculated as a function of latitude, longitude and time. It is expressed in Watts per square meter. It is the Milankovitch forcing and it is real, something that actually happens.

Milankovitch himself spent years computing this by hand, though now the whole thing takes a second or so of CPU time to do.

This forcing is applied in climate model simulations of the past. The incident sunlight at a given time and place is increased or deceased, as is appropriate to the characteristics of the earth's orbit at that time. It is no different from using variations in seasonal insolation in weather forecasts.

These changes in sunlight will be expressed through the first law of thermodynamics in the code, the resulting temperature changes will affect wind and precipitation, and the predicted climate will be a bit different than it would be if we ignored the earth's variable orbit.

If the climate model is coupled to an ice-sheet model, the ice sheet will also respond to the Milankovitch forcing. How it will respond will depend on a number of factors.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by William Hyde
If you are the engineer you claim to be you could read the actual papers. A number of the climatologists who have worked at this problem originally trained as engineers - including Milankovitch himself.
Find me a paper that shows other than by much arm-waving why the
temperature maxima occur when the eccentricity is lowest.
Find me a paper that shows other than by much arm-waving why the other
two Milankovitch forcings do not seem to have any correlation to
glaciation.
Hard to do as this is not true.

If you really want to know more about this, I have posted many references in earlier discussions. Read those, or go to realclimate.org where active research scientists will answer your questions.
Post by J. Clarke
The basic argument seems to be that there is a 100,000 year glaciation
cycle and a 100,000 year eccentricity cycle so eccentricity must drive
glaciation,
This is simply not the case. No such absurd argument is made.

The coincidence of the two hundred thousand year cycles was noted long ago. But it was noticed also, not quite so long ago, that the power spectrum of the Milankovitch forcing did not contain a strong 100k peak.

The largest term describing sunlight variations due to Milankovitch which involves eccentricity contains a component of the form:

e*sin(wt)

where e is the eccentricity, w is the frequency of precession of perihelion.

Now, if, to keep things simple, e has a period of 100,000 years, and precession has a period of 20,000 years, can you work out the spectrum of e*sin(wt)?

I knew you could!

So from the mid 1970s on, the questions were more like:

"What is causing the 100k cycle in ice volume given that it seems it cannot be eccentricity?" and "If the eccentricity cycle is not driving the ice cycle, why do the two have a consistent phase relationship?" and "Could the tiny 100k eccentricity power (which comes from another, smaller, term in the insolation equation) nonetheless guide the 100k ice cycle?".

Not quite the kind of debate you are imagining. And of course, the above must leave vast amounts out.

A number of us believe that the 100k cycle is a subharmonic resonance, which can explain both the period (not always 100kyr) and the phase relation. Ice sheet simulations I was doing in the 1980s unexpectedly produced this result (we were speculating that the 100k cycle might be due to lithosphere-mantle-core interactions with isostatic depression), and while that model is hopelessly primitive by today's standards more modern models agree (Indeed it was "independently confirmed" a few years ago by people who should have done a deeper literature search).

Peter Huybers believes that it is actually a subharmonic obliquity resonance. And for the earlier period I think he's right.

But if the community had simply agreed "heck, it's the eccentricity and that's that", I would have had to find a different PhD topic, wouldn't I?

never mind that there's no reason to believe that the
Post by J. Clarke
eccentricity cycle was different before the periodic glaciations
started.
You are bashing a straw man here.

The major eccentricity periods (IIRC) are based on Earth-Jupiter and Earth-Saturn resonances, and don't change much at all even over hundreds of millions of years.

The shorter Milankovich cycles do change in time. As the earth-moon distance changes the obliquity and precessional cycles, for example, change. The latter very obviously. Even these changes are fairly small.

Milankovitch forcing changes climate even when there are no ice sheets. Change in the orbit results in temperature change, and hence precipitation change, and different sediments are formed. In New Jersey there is a large formation of Triassic rock where you can see the Milankovich cycles in the rock, the 100k, 400k, 40k and 20k.

As discovered by John Kutzbach in the 1980s, Milankovitch change has a strong effect on the various monsoon circulations. Lakes can form and dry up over a Milankovitch 20k cycle. And do it again next cycle, etc.

Where sediments are laid down smoothly for a long time, finding Milankovitch cycles is more the rule than the exception.

Milankovitch cycles affect much more than ice sheets.

William Hyde
Quadibloc
2019-07-02 12:38:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Do you really think that the human race is going to die from the world
average temperature going up 2 C ?
Not at all. After it passes that, a few people will die in certain tropical
countries, as they will have trouble switching to different food crops in time.
I say a few, but likely thousands of people will be affected.

And this is avoidable, because we do have nuclear power as an alternative. Going
to a low-energy green energy future might indeed kill even more people.

John Savard
Quadibloc
2019-07-12 04:04:25 UTC
Permalink
It may be noted that if gold became dirt cheap, besides helping lower the cost of
advanced electronics, another benefit would happen.

I recently read of a discovery that a very strong metal can be made from an alloy
of Titanium and Gold.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2019-07-12 04:17:58 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 21:04:25 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
It may be noted that if gold became dirt cheap, besides helping lower the cost of
advanced electronics, another benefit would happen.
I recently read of a discovery that a very strong metal can be made from an alloy
of Titanium and Gold.
A hard metal, "4 times harder than most steels". Not clear how strong
it is--hard doesn't always mean strong. I also can't find any actual
numbers on the hardness.
Peter Trei
2019-07-12 14:08:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 21:04:25 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
It may be noted that if gold became dirt cheap, besides helping lower the cost of
advanced electronics, another benefit would happen.
I recently read of a discovery that a very strong metal can be made from an alloy
of Titanium and Gold.
A hard metal, "4 times harder than most steels". Not clear how strong
it is--hard doesn't always mean strong. I also can't find any actual
numbers on the hardness.
There are a number of alloys which see little use, due to rarity of ingredients,
or other reasons. Magnesium-Thorium alloys have excellent strength to weight,
and good high-temperature characteristics.

They are also, of course, slightly radioactive. They have been used in some
aircraft and missiles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mag-Thor

pt
Thomas Koenig
2019-07-13 11:43:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 21:04:25 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
It may be noted that if gold became dirt cheap, besides helping lower the cost of
advanced electronics, another benefit would happen.
I recently read of a discovery that a very strong metal can be made from an alloy
of Titanium and Gold.
A hard metal, "4 times harder than most steels".
Argh. This sentence manages to be inaccurate in so many ways,
it really is astonishing. "Most steels" is really something,
especially since the hardness of steel can be varied _a lot_
by hardening.

Well, at least https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/7/e1600319,
the link in the article gives some information. So, they are
talking about Vickers hardness with a load of 300 g.
Post by J. Clarke
Not clear how strong
it is--hard doesn't always mean strong. I also can't find any actual
numbers on the hardness.
There are a lot of things that the article does say - they didn't
look at the tensile strength, toughness, low- and high
temperature behavior, ... They looked at hardness and
abrasion resistance.

For what they want to use it for, a biocompatible, high-wear
resistant material for implants, it makes sense.

Loading...