Biofuel Consumption and Effect on Earth's Rotation and Orbit

The amount of mass removed is so ridiculously tiny in comparison to the size of the object as to cause so small an effect (if any) likely isn't even measurable let alone something to ever worry about. Even when taking redirection of waterways (eg- hydro power and irrigation works schemes) into account.

We could never cause problem as suggested if we tried.

The really short answer is ROFLOL.

Better to worry about the Earth's water....we have lost ~25% in the last 4 billion years.....methane in the atmosphere breaks down the water molecules and the hydrogen is lost in space and leaves behind the heavier oxygen atoms that protect this planet from ultraviolet radiation from the Sun.....Of course the total water of this planet only makes up about .05% of it's mass, so as far as weight loss it's really insignificant....

Reference....

Well, when that comet smashes into us, it will replenish our water supply, so what me worry?

"...methane in the atmosphere breaks down the water molecules ..."

How's that?

Methanogenesis....of course this was dependent on the atmospheric conditions at the time....over time we have a lot more oxygen now compared to the amount of hydrogen and methane that existed in the past....

an excerpt:

..."“Today the atmosphere is rich in oxygen, which reacts with both hydrogen and deuterium to recreate water, which falls back to the Earth's surface. So the vast bulk of the water on Earth is held in a closed system that prevents the planet from gradually drying out."

Young Sun Paradox

The analyses also showed how much methane existed in the atmosphere of the infant Earth. The methanogenesis process creates hydrogen from methane, and since the researchers know how much hydrogen was lost to space, they were also able to estimate how much methane the atmosphere must have contained in the past.

Their calculations show that at the time when the rocks in the Isua Belt in Greenland were formed, the atmosphere contained 50 to 500 times more methane than it does today.

This result is relevant to the debate on why the Earth's climate in prehistory was almost as warm as it is today, despite the fact that the Sun was significantly fainter – an apparent contradiction known to researchers as the Young Sun Paradox."...

http://sciencenordic.com/earth-has-lost-quarter-its-water

Yeah, there is something wrong with this definition of methanogenesis:

'....The methanogenesis process creates hydrogen from methane ....'

'Methanogenesis', as the name suggests is supposed to be used to refer to a process that generates methane. Hydrogen and carbon monoxide are actually consumed during the process. Molecular hydrogen is not generated from methane during methanogenesis.

Methanogens are responsible for methanogenesis. Methanogens are anaerobic and extremely sensitive to oxygen even at fairly low concentrations. Obviously the idea that methanogens are splitting water to produce methane does not make sense given their oxygen sensitivity.

.

Even the opposite of methanogenesis, AOM (anaerobic oxidation of methane) does not yield molecular hydrogen.

Yes I would have to agree with you from what I've read....but if we add electrochemical forces then the possibility seems more plausible...In an atmosphere with a high concentration of hydrogen and a low availability of oxygen, it's not hard to imagine hydrogen being lost to space....

..." bulk hydrogen is usually produced by the steam reforming of methane or natural gas"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production

Sure, in a methane rich oxygen poor atmosphere hydrogen loss to space should be appreciable.

That still doesn't square with the claims about water loss (nor the odd attribution to methanogenesis). The hydrogen might be potential water, but then it is also potential polyethylene by that senae as well, and no one seems to be claiming we are losing plastics to space.

Of course the total water of this planet only makes up about .05% of it's mass, so as far as weight loss it's really insignificant....

Here's a graphical perspective

Solar eagle, " we have lost ~25% " .

1. Can you explain how anyone would know this ?

2. How long has man been recording total volume of water on earth and rate of water lost.

3. If 25% has been lost over a 4 billion year time period and humans have only been around for the last ______ years ( fill in the blank ) , does anyone think that humans will be around 4 billion years from now to see the next 25% disappear. ?

1. Reference....

2. Recording? Maybe 100 years?

3. No.

In reading the reference the water was in fact not lost but synthesised into serpentine. What was thought lost was found as another elements.

'Serpentine is formed when the Earth's crust comes into contact with seawater circulating at high temperature through channels and cracks in the Earth's crust beneath the seabed'.

“Today the atmosphere is rich in oxygen, which reacts with both hydrogen and deuterium to recreate water, which falls back to the Earth's surface'.

So is it in fact lost and a bad thing?

Tony,

You should have directed your reply to SolarEagle.

I provided the "reference" merely as a point of clarification because I thought you had missed it.

I did not provide the reference in the first place. I did not vet it before I posted it.

I have no concerns about this one way or the other, because it is moot to us all since there is nothing anyone can do about it. It's like asking, "how many stars are there"?

As to global warning, and science in general, the subjects are now verboten.

"As to global warning, and science in general, the subjects are now verboten."

The last time I checked 'Verbotenen' didn't mean 'To require valid unbiased proof confirmed by credible study done by non politically/media/personal driven agendas.'

Hence the reason its being so continually debated over the validity and factually correct aspects of what had been reported top the public Vs what actually happens in the world being so far none of what has been reported to be true has ever proven itself to not have a huge amount of bias and or highly questionable and weak correlations to the reality of what actually did or does happen when, where, why and how.

So, "As for global warming, and the science in general, the subjects are now under review for 'validation' before any further adjustment to the way we do things will be made." And given the long run outrageous lies and highly questionable political and outrightly unethical acts that have been done under the 'prevent climate change' flag world wide there's a pretty good chance that it will not be getting validated anytime soon either.

So given that the only thing 'Verboten' about it will be the making new regulations without warranted scientifically backed justification in its name.

The new Emperor may like to walk around in his clown underwear in public but at least he's not naked and too full of himself to admit it.

Vooompah . . .

Vooompah . . .

Vooompah . . .

Vooompah . . .

- ding -

"Noah, . . . ."

I cannot stress how much mass we are talking about compared to the mass humans have pulled from the ground and transported to say the other side of the planet.

The Earth' mass is estimated at 5.972 × 10^24 kg

That's 5,972,000,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes. This is even before taking into account this mass is rotating at around 1673 km per hour.

As a thought experiment try scaling that down to your gyroscope example, what effect do you think that would have when the mass redistribution is many orders of magnitude less than the total weight of the gyroscopic mass? Answer - none.

Baloney.

I think what you were trying to say is that the last sentence in the post appears to violate the law of conservation of mass. (Although we might want to discuss the issues surrounding general relativity in regard to these chemical reactions that occur when we burn coal and petroleum products even though those differentials in mass are untold magnitudes in difference. )

True. Even "normal" combustion entails very slight relativistic mass effects.

I don't think that was intended as the whole point of the post revolves around mass redistribution from things like mining and its effects on the rotating earth.

I know.

But since we're grasping at straws I thought it would be fun to duck down this rat hole.

I think you have a good point, but the wrong culprit.

Human migration on the surface of the planet probably has more to do with changing the Earth's orbit than mineral extraction from below the surface.

That problem will soon be solved by great walls and new barriers to such migration.

Equilibrium will soon be restored by the new order.

Seriously, the total mass removed is not enough to change anything for a couple million years. Don't worry, be happy!

Since the equilibrium will be restored by the new order, this will be a good thing and you too can be happy ☺

Energy is energy is energy and is not being "consumed".

End of story.

Where is the worry about all these tall Wind power generators? Do they slow down Earth? We discussed that here in CR4. So have a read and come back with your worries. We can help you stay sober in those discussions.

"....Oil and coal have weight, but energy is consumed and leaves little or no residual weight behind...."

Hmmm. So do you think tye Earth losses mass when a wrecked ship is raised from ocean bottom to the water's surface?

And when a plane takes off?

.

The whole vanishing mass thing deserves reconsideration.

.

Perhaps enough mass is moved closer to the center during the mountain leveling (valley filling) coal strip mining operations

. Perhaps it can offset the slowing caused by the tidez having to drag the moon around.

Does a grain of sand left in the boot of your car slow it down?
The problem here is one of comprehension of size. Most people have no concept of big numbers and very few have any concept of how big even a million is.
Ask 'em how long a million hours is, and see how close they get.
Ask 'em how many beers they have had... they probably can't even count that accurately.
Del

The effect is miniscule in comparison with other activities, such as:

• Building dams
• Earthquakes
• Volcanism
• Tidal drag
• Etc.

as to be inconsequential in comparison.

• Raising the level of the river Yangtse by constructing the Three Gorges Dam, for example, is something that did produce a measureable effect.
• The length of the day varies by a few milliseconds each way depending upon which way the wind is blowing.
• As biofuels are a cycle driven by sunlight, one wouldn't expect much, if any, change in spin as a result of reinforcing the cycle.
• Seawater injection is a valuable way of boosting the output from dino-fuel reservoirs, and water is denser than the materials recovered, by and large.

So the answer is that the signal from this activity is such a way down in the noise of other activities that its capablility of being detected and isolated is swamped by the aggregate of everything else.

Don't worry. Be happy.

...also:

• Incoming meteorites.

... duck and cover...

"Estimates vary of how much cosmic dust and meteorites enter Earth’s atmosphere each day, but range anywhere from 5 to 300 metric tons"

http://www.universetoday.com/94392/getting-a-handle-on-how-much-cosmic-dust-hits-earth/

While mining operations are probably moving more than 300 metric tons of material a day, the distances aren't that great and the velocities are pretty low.

I wonder if the cosmic dust and meteorites comes in with with net momentum in a consistent direction.

The mass of the earth is 5.972 × 10^24 kg

Some interesting facts from Earth mass - Wikipedia

Net gains[edit]

In-falling material

Cosmic dust, Cosmic Rays, meteors, comets, etc. are the most significant contributor to Earth's increase in mass. The sum of material is estimated to be 37,000 to 78,000 tons annually^[12][13]
Global warming
Nasa has calculated that the Earth is gaining energy due to rising temperatures. It has been estimated that this added energy increases the mass of Earth by a tiny amount – 160 tonnes per year.^[14]
Solar energy conversion (minuscule)
Solar energy is converted to chemical energy by photosynthetic pigments as plants construct carbohydrate molecules. This stored chemical energy represents in increase in mass. Most of the chemical energy is reconverted into heat and then lost (radiated) through chemical processes, but some is sequestered and becomes biomass or fossil fuel.^{[citation needed]}
Artificial photosynthesis (minuscule)
Can also theoretically add mass, assumed to be negligible but added for sake of completeness.^{[citation needed]}
Heat conversion (probably minuscule)
Some outbound radiation is absorbed within the atmosphere by photosynthetic bacteria and archaea, including from chlorophyll f, which bind the energy into matter in the form of chemical bonds.^{[citation needed]}

Net losses[edit]

Atmospheric escape of gases.

About 3 kg/s of hydrogen or 95,000 tons per year^[15] and 1,600 tons of helium per year^[16] are lost through atmospheric escape.
Spacecraft on escape trajectories (minuscule)
Spacecraft that are on escape trajectories represent an average mass loss at a rate of 65 tons per year.^[11] Earth lost about 3473 tons in the initial 53 years of the space age, but the trend is currently decreasing.
Human energy use (minuscule)
Human activities conversely reduce Earth's mass, by liberation of heat that is later radiated into space; solar photovoltaics generally do not add to the mass of Earth because the energy collected is merely transmitted (as electricity or heat) and subsequently radiated, which is generally not converted into chemical means to be stored on Earth. In 2010, the human world consumed 550 EJ of energy,^[17] or 6 tons of matter converted into heat, then almost entirely lost to space.^{[citation needed]}
Deceleration of Earth's core (minuscule)
As the rotation rate of Earth's inner core decelerates, it loses rotational kinetic energy, which equates to a loss of 16 tons per year.^{[citation needed]} However, this rotation speed has been shown to fluctuate over decades.^[18]
Non photosynthesizing life forms consume energy, and radiate as heat.^{[citation needed]}
Natural processes (probably minuscule)
Events including earthquakes and volcanoes can release energy as well as hydrogen, which may be lost as heat or atmospheric escape.^{[citation needed]}
Radiation Losses(minuscule)
From radioisotopes either naturally or through human induced reactions such as nuclear fusion or nuclear fission amount to 16 tons per year.^[11]
Additional human impact by induced nuclear fission
Nuclear fission, both for civilian and military purposes, greatly speeds up natural process of radiodecay. Some 59,000 tons of uranium was supplied by mines in 2013.^[19] The mass of the uranium is reduced as it is converted to energy during the fission reaction. Also, the growing spent fuel stockpiles and environmental releases continues to produce heat (and therefore mass) largely lost to space.^{[citation needed]}

So what's the bottom line are we gaining mass or losing it? ...and if we are gaining mass, why is the Moon moving away from the Earth? Is the Moon losing mass?

Well, I embarked on a fast program of calculations but about halfway through, my time to calculate ran out, so I was left with only half-fast calculations that are inconclusive.

I'm guessing that because of our mass, we'll attract more space stuff than we'll lose.

The Moon is moving away from the Earth because the tides are attempting to drag it around faster. Energy is being transfered from the Earth's rotation (slowing the length of the day ever so slightly).

The Moon is moving away from the Earth because the tides are attempting to drag it around faster.

that's interesting that's not entirely complete of details.

The migration of the Moon away from the Earth is mainly due to the action of the Earth's tides. The Moon is kept in orbit by the gravitational force that the Earth exerts on it, but the Moon also exerts a gravitational force on our planet and this causes the movement of the Earth's oceans to form a tidal bulge.

And while the suns gravitational pull on the earth is only 46% of the moons. It makes the moon the biggest gravitationaleffect on the earth.

The Moon is kept in orbit by the gravitational force that the Earth exerts on it, but the Moon also exerts a gravitational force on our planet and this causes the movement of the Earth's oceans to form a tidal bulge.

Due to the rotation of the Earth, this tidal bulge actually sits slightly ahead of the Moon. Some of the energy of the spinning Earth gets transferred to the tidal bulge via friction.

This drives the bulge forward, keeping it ahead of the Moon. The tidal bulge feeds a small amount of energy into the Moon, pushing it into a higher orbit like the faster, outside lanes of a test track.

The last paragraph is something similar to when as a kid friends ice skating playing 'crack the wipe'

Still not complete...

I'd add, "The Moon is kept in orbit by the gravitational force that the Earth exerts on it" and its forward momentum.

And if the earth is transferring energy to the moon, which it is, the moon orbits increases.

I always thought it was interesting that satellites in orbit was in a free fall.

Wipe...Whip...Mr. Whipple. Wow, are you ever a genius.

I knew you were a groupie,... Feel better, Charmin?

That's funny.

Completeness is not typically (if ever) an attainable goal when formulating a descriptiln of a concrete physical phenomena that has been observed.

Moreover the essence of what is occuring and how/why it occurs is unlikely to ever be fully and acurately elucidated.

Language is an abstraction. Confusing constructs of abstractions with concrete physical reality is a falacy known as reification. I do my best to mindfully avoid reification.

Still, I don't see much difference in what you wrote, and the idea that the tides are transfering energy from the rotation of the Earth (slowing the day) to the Moon (widening the orbit).

"Essentially, all models are wrong, some are useful" George E P Box

.

"We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." Werner Heisenburg.

Completeness is not typically (if ever) an attainable goal

Interesting,... as from my last sentence in my post.

"Still not complete..."

When you used the term 'reification', I have to remember that one. Thanks.

btw,

don't be too concerned about your spelling... it's me that Tornado wants to impress his little friends with. Its just a thing he has with me.

Apparently I am either not very concerned about my spelling, or what concern I have has proven insufficient motivation for my spelling to improve.

I understand, for some, its all they have, I learned that at a younger age also, good for you... lol.

There has been some postulation on it affecting the shape of the earth since according to the author, most is being removed from the northern hemisphere, but nothing further appears on the web.

What author? Are you referring to a book, an article, what? Can you give a reference?

As a practical matter, there is no discernable effect on mankind's movement of mass on the earth's rotation or orbit. But as a thought experiment, when you move a stone to the top of a hill, you increase the earth's moment of Inertia very slightly.

Angular velocity, ω, times the moment of inertia, I, equals the angular momentum, L, which is always constant. L = Iω = constant. So when I increases, ω decreases, the earth slows down very slightly.

The energy stored in a spinning object, E, equals half the moment of inertia I, times the angular velocity squared. E=Iω²/2 = Lω/2. So the earth's rotational energy is proportional to its angular velocity ω and is reduced when the stone is moved to the top of the hill.

So where does the earth's Energy go? Since the earth is rotating, centrifugal force is acting on the stone, making it slightly lighter. The energy removed from the earth's rotation helps to lift the stone to the top of the hill.

I doubt it has much affect at all. If that was the case, the weight on the northern hemisphere far out weighs the weight on the southern hemisphere, as there are far more concrete buildings, tarmac'd roads, houses, industrial areas etc., in the north. I would go as far to suggest if anything, there are far more pockets of dense weight in the northern hemisphere from cities, people, vehicles, so possibly the earths wobble is enhanced in the northern side.

It is clear that cities change wind patterns over an area and temperatures and I would even say, there are more people on the northern side adding weight up top. Earth would seem to be top heavy and have a greater portion of land mass than the southern side.

Any follow up questions or statements Eric? Did all this answer your questions?