Planets and moons losing mass by the tonnes/sec

How much loss of mass is too much?

Eden/Earth is still thawing out from the last ice age this planet w/
moon is ever going to see. Most of this process (at least 75% and
perhaps 90%) is perfectly natural considering the interpretation that
we’ve only somewhat recently obtained our Selene/moon, and the obvious
matter of the geological evolution on behalf of any similar planet
having two primary gravitational tidal issues along with our failing
geomagnetic force that’s becoming insufficient for sustaining our
protective magnetosphere.

With our planet loosing primarily its helium and some hydrogen 1000
kg/sec or roughly 30e6 tonnes/year may seem a bit exaggerated,
although at times of major geological eruptions and geothermal out
gassing (the vast majority of which is underwater), when combined
along with our multiple commercial means of extracting coal, oil,
natural gas and quite a fair number of lesser contributors of
releasing helium and hydrogen, is perhaps not too far off the mark.

Thankfully we’re still receiving 50e3 to 500e3 tonnes per year of
local and cosmic dust along with our fair share of meteors. However,
at best that’s merely 0.5 million tonnes/year, and some of that is in
unavoidably the form of hydrogen and even helium that simply does not
stick around. None of our helium or that of whatever gets imported
ever combines with anything that’ll ever stay with the all-inclusive
mass of Earth.

In the media as well as these Google Groups (aka Usenet/newsgroups),
it’s like this artificially and otherwise naturally released tonnage
of helium per year along with our failing geomagnetic force is no big
deal, so instead lets all focus on the CO2 that’s too heavy to be
going anywhere. JAXA is recently giving it a go: http://www.eorc.jaxa.jp/en/index.html

The polluted element of CO2 is after all a darn good indicator, though
not in of itself a cause of GW. Perhaps it’s a good thing that fossil
derived energy and its unavoidable consequences is not necessary on
the geothermally driven environment of Venus. However, our unusually
wet and icy Eden has within the last thousand years become highly
dependent or rather addicted to the stuff, regardless of the mostly
negative and/or acidic consequences of the sooty wet CO2 and sooty wet
NOx within our lower atmosphere and surface environment, whereas the
substantial thinning of our protective upper most dry atmosphere has
only recently been given loads of extra H2 and He.

One fairly obvious secondary source of helium (to that derived from
natural gas) that’s artificially released, is via the whole
petrochemical thing that’s creating essentially a one-way helium
ticket to ride. On a global basis, it seems we dispose of and/or the
industry consumes and otherwise burns off nearly as much natural gas
than regular end-use energy consumers actually use, and as such it is
unavoidably polluting high and low in more invisible ways than most of
us would care to realize, especially since all of the methane
containing toxic elements plus helium never manages to actually
consume or otherwise recombine any of the helium.

Helium from extracting and processing crude oil (aka flare gas burnoff
or just raw venting of crude methane):
If on average we used a highly conservative 500% per volume of oil
as methane vapor we’d be close enough (it’s actually much worse, 30
m3/m3 for coal and oil extraction), and by using 1% of that methane as
helium certainly wouldn’t be unheard of. Thus I’ll suggest for this
limited analogy that we use a round number of 5% per given volume of
extracted oil is helium.

The all-inclusive global oil production (including spillage and
wastage) as of 2009-2010 is roughly 86.4e6 barrels/day = 3.15e10
barrels/yr (5e9 m3/yr), and if anything it’s actually somewhat greater
because the industry itself takes at least 10% of its own product in
order to function (an EROEI ratio of 4:1 or 25% is perhaps more
typical, and it gets much worse yet for oily sand whereas the Net
Energy Gain of zero (NEG0), as well as being especially cost
ineffective whenever the global spot market for crude oil drops below
$45/barrel, not to mention the process of synfuel from coal), so for
this conservative analogy effort we can safely take this volumetric
extraction of oil accounting to at least 5.5e9 m3/year.

5.5e9 x .05 = 2.75e8 m3 helium/yr

2.75e8 x .178 = 4.895e7 kg = 48,950 tonnes/yr as helium.

I believe that’s taking just about all the natural production of
Earth’s helium/year, if not exceeding the internal makings via
radioactive decay, and remember this artificial helium release is just
from our oil extraction process, including the oil industry
consumption of its raw natural gas that simply does not consume or
recombine that element of helium. In some instances the surplus of
this raw natural gas is for the moment getting pumped back into the
ground, through also requiring considerable process energy demand in
of itself. Oil extraction and process data w/o obfuscation is next to
impossible to come by, therefore you can bet your bottom dollar that
it’s actually much worse off than we can imagine, and the failed or
perhaps foiled OCO mission would have easily quantified such data
independently, with sufficient resolution as to pinpoint each and
every natural and artificial source of released and/or consumed gas.

Give or take e few numbers here and there, as to the all-inclusive oil
extraction and processing that often utilizes other commercial sources
of natural gas, could easily push their volumetric release of helium
upwards of 100,000 tonnes per year, not to mention whatever mother
nature releases, or the volumetric worth of our global coal that
directly vents, and of the global natural gas industries that do
nothing but extract and distribute their methane laced with the
element of helium, that only goes up up and away.

Even though we can’t see it, smell it or touch it, it’s still the one
of a kind mass that’s primarily derived from within Earth via
radioactive decay, and lo and behold once released its forever going
away from us. Remember, this report is just focused upon what’s
conservatively related to crude oil extraction, and not of our natural
gas which is unavoidably laced with helium, and there’s other
significant sources including coal, multiple other mining operations
and deep water extraction that’s also continually adding to mother
nature’s flatulence. Basically Eden/Earth has been hemorrhaging its
precious helium, and having only been expedited by humanity, that
which for the most part this helium doesn’t recombine with anything.

I’m sure that others here will have to side with Big Energy, employing
their usual failsafe obfuscation and denial as though the regular laws
of physics and best available science simply doesn’t apply to them,
and perhaps it doesn’t because supposedly most bad or even
questionable things are the fault of Muslims. (if you don’t get the
jest of that satire, don’t worry because most others don’t either)

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”


On Feb 15, 10:27*am, BradGuth wrote:
For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere
contains
* * Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%), He = .1786 kg/m3
Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%), H2 = .0899 kg/m3

We seem to know more about the perpetual loss/sec of hydrogen and
helium for planets (including a few exoplanets) other than Earth.
*http://vega.lpl.arizona.edu/~gilda/extrass.html

At 0.55 ppmv, in order that our atmosphere sustain that average H2
saturation, at any given moment there’s 25e6 kg of hydrogen getting
made available and unavoidably migrating upwards and away from Earth’s
surface in order to create and sustain the average 0.55 ppmv. *The
question is, at what average vertical escapement velocity or
volumetric/sec exit away from Earth?

Is our hydrogen escapement worth merely 25e6 kg per day = 9.125e6
tonnes/yr, or is it as great as 25e6 kg per hour = 219e6 tonnes/year?

Like the GP-B fiasco, at best our EUVE (Extreme Ultra Violet Explorer)
could have been representing a false positive, all be its
observationology given a nifty eye-candy yellow and reddish colorized
UV image of Earth’s surrounding cloud of helium and hydrogen.
However, the solar wind caused planetary exhaust trail of H2 and He is
what needs to be more closely looked at and objectively quantified, as
most easily accomplished from our Selene/moon or from it's L1 that we
still do not have.

Existing UV and IR imaging:
*http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect20/A3.html

The badly failing magnetosphere has been capable of restraining or
mildly sequestering some of Earth's hydrogen and helium by way of
having been protecting our atmosphere, but unfortunately for the past
2000 years this too is going away (most recently at -.05%/year or even
–120 nT/yr), is perhaps as good of reason why that lofty cloud of
hydrogen and helium isn't sticking around, and why the lethal SAA
contour has been exponentially growing and nearing the surface. *On
the other hand, care to imagine what could happen if such terrestrial
hydrogen and helium didn’t leak away?
*http://io9.com/395272/is-earths-magn...eld-failing-us
*http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.co.../geomagnetism/

Of course our perpetual naysayers and usual evidence excluding
gauntlet of our resident Usenet/newsgroup wizards and brown-nosed
clowns are not paying serious attention, or allowing any context of
consideration as to the worth or consequences of our badly failing
geomagnetic force and of its subsequent magnetosphere. *It’s as though
our best physics and/or objective science doesn’t hardly matter,
unless it’s strictly interpreted in order to sustain their mainstream
status quo. *In other words, for sustaining our mainstream as a viable
cabal of happy campers, apparently our best public funded science is
but worth used toilet paper.

I recall mentioning at least a few thousand times, about our having
the Selene L1 platform of science instruments easily established as of
4 decades ago, including many UV and IR imaging cameras looking at
Earth and equally at our Selene/moon that's losing it's sodium and a
few other elements at an alarming rate. *However, without our having
such a nifty perspective it's simply much harder if not nearly
impossible to interpret whatever's going on.

btw, *the often bogus mindset of "I always had the thoughts that free
hydrogen, and helium were lost in space and that Earth's gravity was
not strong enough to hold it" isn't what I'd gotten out of those
previously posted comments. *In fact, it's pretty much the opposite of
what we’ve typically heard from most others, insisting that supposedly
Earth never loses mass, whereas instead I was the first in this or any
other Usenet/newsgroup to insist that our moon and Earth have each
been losing mass, and implying that the modern day human race has been
artificially assisting in this natural process.

Perhaps this can also explain as to why ETs would bother going to all
the trouble of extracting minerals and raw elements from another
planet or moon, such as our dire need of extracting He3 from our
Selene/moon, or that of whomever is taking substances away from Venus.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”

Knowing our thermal imbalance along with the ongoing extent of natural
and artificial pollution and quantifying our global loss in mass per
year isn’t worth the trouble if there’s any Big Energy price or
consequences to pay. Apparently, any objectively scientific founded
notions or subsequent improved science interpretations as could have
been easily obtained from a Selene/moon L1 platform of instruments, or
even via OCO, as to our having essential knowledge about Earth is not
such a good thing according to Big Energy, though apparently on the
other hand we can never have too much knowledge about Mars or most any
other godforsaken planets and moons (apparently the cost and time be
damned).

Some if not the greater portion of our global warming trend is
unavoidable by way of volcanism and geothermal ventings, whereas the
vast majority of which has been taking place underwater is by far
exceeding all of our human contributions. Ever since the last ice age
it seems our terrestrial internal thermal activity has been
increasing, as though the reactive core of Earth hasn’t seen its last
spurt of growth.

In addition to an extremely slight rise per century in solar influx of
perhaps 0.1 w/m2 that amounts to merely 25.5e9 kw, whereas in order
to raise the ocean temperature by an average of 1°C per century would
require an extra continuous energy influx of 1.1e12 kw above whatever
can be said is the global background norm. For considering one fully
interactive source of such energy that’s keeping Earth’s core on the
move and a little extra hot, there’s always our Selene/moon which
demands a radial holding force of 2e20 N.m, and this interactive force
alone equals 55.5e12 kw if it were all converted into geothermal
energy. However, at 1% conversion via internal friction caused by
this 2e20 N.m force into thermal energy = 0.555e12 kw, roughly half of
the required energy to raise the ocean temperature by 1°C/century, and
1% seems perfectly conservative enough, because at 2% conversion is
where this alone more than covers the entire global warming package
deal.

There is also the ongoing -.05%/year demise of our geomagnetic force
that sustains our protective magnetosphere, and ties in rather nicely
to what is geothermally manifesting as though the internal process
that sustains our global magnetic force field is somehow indirectly
contributing ocean hydrothermals and volcanic activity that in turn
unavoidably impacts the thermal balance of our oceans, surface and
global environment as measurable heat. My observationology includes
NOAA, USGS and a number of other public and private funded
authorities, whereas this ongoing demise in our geomagnetic force and
subsequent magnetosphere is actually somewhat worse off than I’d
thought.
“Will Compasses Point South?” http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C0A9629C8B 63

Robert W. Felix, as author of “Not by Fire but by Ice” is yet another
honest investigative soul that’s not saying we humans haven’t
contributed to the global warming trend, but instead looking at the
greater geothermal picture, though without his fully understanding
exactly where and how mother Earth sustains or much less increases her
geothermal output is only somewhat misleading or at least incomplete
data in order to draw a fully informed opinion, as to what is
primarily driving our global thaw from the very last ice age this
planet w/moon is ever going to see. In other words, there’s still an
ongoing question as to where exactly other than the sun is our surface
environment getting the bulk of this extra energy dosage, if not from
within and from our unusually nearby interactive tidal grip of our
moon.

There’s always global warming from the inside out:
With more than 200,000 counted thus far, there could be “Three
Million Underwater Volcanoes” (venting superheated gasses, fluids and
solids)
Researchers estimate that in total there could be about 3 million
submarine volcanoes, 39,000 of which rise more than 1000 meters over
the sea bed.
http://www.iceagenow.com/Ocean_Warming.htm
http://www.iceagenow.com/Three_Milli..._Volcanoes.htm

Besides underwater venting of geothermal superheated fluids and solids
(including S8) and new water, whereas this kind of internal activity
is also venting a great deal of CO2, SO2, CH4, Rn, He and H2.

Earths’ relatively thin-crust ocean floor and the underlying cache of
our georeactive mantel and its core, as being further agitated along
by the interactive 2e20 N of tidal force that’s holding onto our
Selene/moon, plus there’s always a solar tidal force, whereas this
continuous interaction that flexes Earth’s surface by 55 cm, along
with our geo-reactor core is what subsequently produces the average
background of 64 TW in surplus/spare geothermal radiated energy, along
with our reactive core of energy having been creating a number of
gasses and radioactive decay products, such as radon and helium.
(note: 64 TW was an amount based upon a square meter of cleared test
area that’s situated under a surrounding thick layer of Antarctica
ice, as bedrock radiating at 125 mw/m2, thus I am ignoring or
excluding those million some odd global hydrothermal vents or hot
spots, and otherwise keeping in mind that in sufficient thickness of
all that surrounding ice is actually performing as a good thermal
insulator by which those exposed bedrock thermal measurements become
more normalized)

In addition to our own commercial methods of artificial environment
heating that’s worth at least something a little more than a good
hundred some odd terawatts, "a normal hydrothermal vent might produce
something like 500 megawatts - this is producing 100,000 megawatts.
It's like an atom bomb down there.”
http://www.iceagenow.com/Megaplume.htm

If given a highly conservative speculation of merely 100 MW per each
of a million natural hydrothermal vents is worth 1e11 kw (100 TW).
However, without the likes of our OCO and PFS global readings we’re
kind of brain dead, and therefore we can’t be sure.

None the less, this limited knowledge brings a good portion of our
human environmental impact into a better perspective, as a
contributing but somewhat minor factor in our continued thaw from the
very last ice age this planet w/moon is ever going to see. The
recently failed OCO mission would have rather easily mapped those
primary natural and artificial ventings of gasses in sufficient
resolution that would have removed most all doubt as to the specific
sources, their volumes and objectively quantified affects. With some
easily validated interpolation as to the extent or volumes of helium
released could also have been established, along with a mission of PFS
giving deep IR penetration imaging would map every 0.1 km2 of Earth’s
surface (including the ocean floor at 1 km2 or better).

All of terrestrial venting or outgassing that includes solids, fluids
and various gasses can not but help include those two most lofty
elements of hydrogen and helium that eventually leave us for places
unknown, whereas some of the H2 recombines and returns to our surface
environment as rain, and except for helium the heavier of gaseous
elements (natural as well as artificial) do however stick around to
haunt us, and not always in a positive or constructive way.

As I’ve stated before, along with some limited science interpretation
as having suggested that our human impact upon this global warming
trend could be as little as 10% of the overall picture, and otherwise
it’s certainly not more than 25%, of which is entirely different than
our much greater contribution on behalf of having physically polluted
and otherwise measurably contaminating most of everything in sight.
Until the failed and/or intentionally foiled OCO mission is replaced,
along with a PFS or similar IR spectrometry imager, we’ll not have
sufficient global data to draw upon, which is not to say that current
information and the regular laws of physics need be ignored or
systematically excluded, as is so often the case by those having their
vested interest in Big Energy that would pay nearly any amount to have
such an openly objective source of atmospheric, chemical and thermal
data put off for as long as possible, because obviously the current
generation simply do not want to held accountable.

In other words, the more withholding and/or obfuscating of science the
better chance Big Energy has at pulling out profits before the jig is
up, so to speak. Otherwise it’s also like a form of Ponzi geology and
the environmental golden nest egg for continued public funded research
grants, whereas keeping the rest of us snookered and dumbfounded past
the point of no return is what offers terrific benefits for those in
charge that’ll continue to make future generations pay for our actions
or inactions. In this method no one of the current generation is ever
going to be held accountable, or much less responsible, and therefore
it is imperative on behalf of Big Energy to subvert or foil whatever
science that’s capable of being all-inclusive and current or real time
enough to apply as to the situation at hand.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”

Planets and moons losing mass by the tonnes/sec ?
Here’s a somewhat better researched and a little context improved
version.

For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere
contains
Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%), He = .1786 kg/m3
Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%), H2 = .0899 kg/m3

We seem to know more about the perpetual loss of sodium, methane,
hydrogen and helium for the likes of other moons and planets
(including a few exoplanets) other than Earth.
http://vega.lpl.arizona.edu/~gilda/extrass.html

At 0.55 ppmv, in order that our atmosphere sustain the average H2
saturation, at any given moment there’s a natural 25e6 kg outflow of
hydrogen getting made available and unavoidably migrating upwards and
away from Earth’s surface in order to create and sustain the average
0.55 ppmv. The question is, at what average vertical escapement
velocity or volumetric/sec exit away from Earth?

The question is, is our 0.55 ppmv of hydrogen escapement worth merely
25e6 kg per day = 9.125e6 tonnes/yr, or is it ever as great as 25e6 kg
per hour = 219e6 tonnes/year?

If the H2 loss isn’t impressive enough, now we need to focus on our
volumetric worth of atmospheric helium that’s nearly ten fold greater
by volumetric saturation, and this He element having roughly twice the
mass of H2.

Like the GP-B fiasco, at best our EUVE (Extreme Ultra Violet Explorer)
could have been representing a false positive, all be its published
observationology given a nifty artificial eye-candy hue of yellow and
reddish colorized EUV image of Earth’s surrounding cloud of helium and
hydrogen. However, the solar wind caused planetary exhaust trail of
H2 and He is what seriously needs to be more closely looked at and
objectively quantified, as most easily accomplished from the naked
surface of our Selene/moon or best from the more ideal vacuum of the
Selene/moon L1, that which oddly after all these decades we still do
not have to work with.

Existing EUV, UV and IR imaging:
http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect20/A3.html

The badly failing geomagnetic field and subsequent magnetosphere has
been capable of restraining or mildly sequestering some of Earth's
hydrogen and helium by way of having been protecting our upper most
atmosphere, but unfortunately for the past 12000 years this too has
been going away (most recently at -.05%/year or –120 nT/yr), is
perhaps as good of reason as any why that lofty cloud of hydrogen and
helium isn't sticking around, and why the lethal SAA contour has been
exponentially growing and nearing the surface. On the other hand,
would anyone care to suggest what could happen if such terrestrial
hydrogen and helium didn’t get blown away?
http://io9.com/395272/is-earths-magn...eld-failing-us
http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.co.../geomagnetism/

Of course our perpetual naysayers and their usual evidence excluding
gauntlet of their Big Eneregy resident army of Usenet/newsgroup
wizards and brown-nosed clowns of perpetual obfuscation and denial are
not paying this topic serious attention, or having allowed any outside
context of consideration as to the greater worth or consequences of
our badly failing geomagnetic force and of its subsequent fading
magnetosphere. It’s as though our best physics and/or objective
science doesn’t hardly matter, unless it’s strictly interpreted by
those of Big Energy in charge of sustaining their mainstream status
quo. In other words, for sustaining our mainstream as a viable cabal
of happy campers, apparently our best public funded science has been
the worth of used toilet paper, and whatever NASA mishaps of botched,
failed or foiled missions are not to be taken all that seriously, if
at all.

I recall mentioning at least a few thousand times, about our having
the Selene/moon L1 platform of science instruments easily established
as of 4 decades ago, including by now a 10x TRACE-II, plus an array of
UV and IR imaging cameras looking at the whole sphere of Earth and as
equally at our Selene/moon that's losing it's sodium and a few other
elements at an alarming rate. However, without our having such a
nifty viewing perspective it's simply much harder if not nearly
impossible to interpret whatever's going on without our having to
connect many terrestrial and LEO obtained dots, so to speak.

Btw, the often bogus mindset of "I always had the thoughts that free
hydrogen, and helium were lost in space and that Earth's gravity was
not strong enough to hold it" isn't what I'd gotten out of the vast
bulk of the previously posted comments. In fact, it's pretty much the
opposite mindset of what we’ve typically heard from most others,
insisting that supposedly Earth never loses mass, whereas instead
we’ve been systematically informed that our Eden/Earth supposedly
gains several thousand tonnes per year, as what most others and myself
used to believe. However, I was clearly the first contributor within
this or any other Usenet/newsgroup to insist that our moon and Earth
have each been losing a great deal of mass, and implying that the
modern day human race has in fact been artificially assisting in this
mostly natural process.

Perhaps this personal deductive analogy can also explain as to why ETs
would ever bother going to all the trouble of extracting minerals and
raw exotic elements from an exoplanet or its moon, such as our dire
needs of extracting He3 and a number of other elements from our Selene/
moon, or as to otherwise why having any appreciation as to that of
whomever is taking substances of value away from the planet Venus.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”

Once upon a time, our Eden (proto Earth) had itself a fairly robust
100 bar worth of primal atmosphere to work with, and was obviously at
that time losing little of its original hydrogen and helium due to the
passive solar wind and because our geomagnetic force and subsequent
magnetosphere was at least ten fold stronger, plus our sun at that
early time was relatively passive, as not likely delivering more than
half or even a quarter the average solar wind with few if any halo
CMEs.

A loss of 99 bar worth of this robust atmosphere (5.1e20 kg worth) is
actually suggesting quite a bit of our global bulk in mass reduction,
especially considering those early meteor and comet arrivals of 10e9
kg/yr that extensively vaporized into becoming additional atmosphere,
water and minerals, along with the terrestrial/natural outgassing of
many atmospheric elements including impressive amounts of raw hydrogen
and helium that tend to uncontrollably rise (helium recombining with
nothing), plus all the recent artificial contributions by way of
humanity and our mass consumptions of various natural and synthetic
hydrocarbons as having created another million tonnes per year of
potentially toxic CFCs, HFCs and HCFCs that should have been replaced
by way of simply using good old CO2, though even CH4 (methane) would
have always been a better alternative to artificial CFCs and HCFCs,
but that kind of common sense would have destroyed those wealthy
petrochemical and synthetic chemical empires of Union Carbide and
DuPont. Seems the general public’s lack of physics and science
education has been a perpetual godsend kind of commercial treasure
trove, of vast loot for the Rothschilds.

If Earth had been capably holding onto its atmosphere (including its
lofty H2 and He), whereas instead of our having lost 5.1e20 kg to
start with and perhaps like a immature gas giant we’d still be gaining
atmospheric mass. Lucky for us that hasn’t been the case, though not
to say that a gas giant with a substantial solid core (16+ Me) like
that of our Jupiter couldn’t coexist at 1 AU, along with any number of
goldilocks sustaining moons.

As of lately our lower (6 km) half of atmospheric mass has been rather
nicely polluted, warming and thereby increasing its density by way of
holding more water vapor along with our sooty saturations of toxic CO2
and NOx, while the upper atmospheric density has been gradually
decreasing or thinning by having received a greater percentage of
methane topped off by natural and artificial freons plus loads of good
old He and H2 that our gravity and weakening magnetosphere simply can
not forever hold onto.

Earth currently receives an average of as little as 1 kg/sec, but
otherwise perhaps at times as much as 10 kg/sec of space dust and
assorted meteorites and a few asteroid encounters. However, from my
recent interpretation, Eden is at the same time along with our human
enterprising persistence why we're most likely losing at least 300 kg/
s (9.5e6 tonnes/year) of our hydrogen and helium, and even if it were
as little as a tenth that amount is still an impressive million tonnes/
year loss in mass.

In running the numbers of what we annually extract and attempt to
utilize of our terrestrial coal, oil and natural gasses there's simply
no viable contest, whereas Earth has been losing considerable mass,
and by some basic accounting this kind of loss can become easily worth
losing as great as a tonne/sec if you'd care to honestly include the
natural and human derived forms of hydrogen and helium getting
released, of which has to include that which is mostly vented and/or
wasted from all of our fossil energy and many ongoing artificial and
industrial forms of having created and subsequently released such
lofty gasses as hydrogen and helium. Perhaps that’s the best kind of
reason why we do not have the whole-Earth science coverage from Selene
L1, because it would only become too much public bad news for Big
Energy and our industrial chemical empires to deal with.

Our badly failing geomagnetic field is not exactly helping, and yet
with all the best of intentions there is still no official accounting
of Earth’s mass reduction that we can objectively agree upon, which
only leads to our using out best swags and deductive speculations
because so much of our basic public funded science is either need-to-
know encrypted, kept taboo/nondisclosure rated and/or having been
systematically overlooked and otherwise obfuscated to death, or simply
lost along the way because otherwise, it would sort of make ‘Big
Energy’ and other Big Money look even worse than it already is.

Science obfuscation = lying by way of omission

Physics obfuscation = worse than lying by omission

Ponzi Physics = perpetual job and benefit security as priority No.1

It’s not just about Earth, whereas the public accessible science
pertaining to our unusually massive and nearby Selene/moon and also
the planet Venus are each examples loaded with such mainstream
obfuscation, and otherwise Mars is just an infomercial game of
perpetual hype and loads of mostly inert eye-candy.

On the other hand, what doesn’t our disingenuous government and of
it’s many faith-based dominated agencies of mostly the devout pretend
Atheists cabal or Mafia kind, that in their perpetual denial tend to
obfuscate as policy in order to protect thy public funded job
security, thy nifty golden nest egg benefits and their precious
retirements at public expense?

Clearly the Pope on multiple occasions throughout history has
obfuscated his holy butt off, and Zionists just can’t seem to keep
from obfuscating as long as it’s only taking advantage of others or
capably false flag blaming of others. On the other hand, you can
believe it was always those physics and science smart Atheists or
Muslims as having supposedly gotten us safely to/from our moon, and
otherwise believe it was only these smart Atheists and Muslims as
having helped Hitler achieve so much global domination from so little,
if that’s what makes you a happy camper.

The public funded and Stanford University executed GP-B experiment was
every bit as good as any obfuscation on steroids, and their perpetual
denial of being in denial is every bit as disingenuous. Perhaps there
is some kind of public mainstream policy or tradition of systematic
obfuscation? (apparently there is, especially if our SEC approved
Ponzi Madoff and more than half our banking, investment and mortgage
infrastructure is any example)

Outside of our having to pretend at being politically correct and
always having to be faith-based passive or neutral, what I’d like to
know for the pure sake of knowledge is exactly (+/-10%) how much
tonnage per second or per year our planet is typically losing (mostly
in hydrogen and helium), in much the same way that exoplanets of
viable habitats for life have been recently identified by way of their
loss of such EUV detected elements as hydrogen and helium. In the
case of Earth, an average vertical escape velocity of helium migration
or vertical propagation of merely 2 to 4 m/s seems likely, except
there’s much the same devoid of objective data as with raw ice
coexisting within 1 AU space, along with still no objective science on
behalf of the volumes of our H2 and He escapement or loss to go by.

As far as I can tell, there’s no actual political or faith-based need
of their mainstream policy imposing such conditional physics or the
hocus-pocus infowar tactics of science hype and obfuscation, but then
I certainly could be wrong.

~ BG

The question that I’ve imposed by this topic about significant mass
leaving Earth isn’t hardly in question, so much as it’s the given
amount of the ongoing mass loss per second or per year that can be
subjectively argued fairly extensively, especially since we still have
not established the Selene/moon L1 science platform on behalf of whole
Earth, solar and moon observations that could have told us nearly
everything we needed to know as of 4 decades ago.

Maxwell Boltzmann
http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~w...E07.4.pdf.xpdf
“Hydrogen and helium have a mean speed that is a significant fraction
of the escape speed. For this reason, there is almost no hydrogen or
helium in Earth’s present atmosphere.” (considering the vast volume of
our atmosphere, there’s actually quite an extensive tonnage that gets
maintained and/or replenished in spite of such lofty elements as H2
and He that tend to forever rise, becoming heated and continually
escape Earth’s gravity)

As our geomagnetic field proceeds to fade away at -.05%/year
(signaling yet another magnetic pole reversal) and subsequently our
protective magnetosphere fails us for yet another extended period of
time, allowing the SAA contour to expand and deepen, as the average
400 km/s solar wind along with halo CMEs of 8001600 km/s reaches ever
deeper into the upper atmosphere, whereas subsequently our natural and
artificially introduced volumes of hydrogen and helium gets solar and
even somewhat via Selene/moon superheated and thereby easily
accelerated above 11.2 km/s (affording enough solar wind enhanced
velocity to easily escape Earth).

As a direct result, Earth is simply not gaining a sufficient influx of
mass in order to offset the ongoing and accelerated escapement of our
natural and artificial hydrogen and especially that of our helium. In
other words, there is simply not a volumetric balance of sufficient
incoming mass taking place, and at the very least our upper 50% mass
of atmosphere is getting progressively thinned out and/or displaced by
the vertically migrating supply of helium and hydrogen. How could
this upper atmospheric thinning not allow more solar and secondary
Selene/moon radiated energy in (including UV, X-rays and gamma)?

The current rate of Earth’s surface and ocean floor outgassing of
mineral saturated fluids and otherwise natural gasses from deep
geothermal vents and undersea volcanoes is likely in the realm of
contributing at least 1e12 kg/year, and perhaps roughly 1% of that
being in the form of direct atmospheric worthy gasses (including raw
hydrogen and always helium that doesn’t naturally recombine with
anything unless we’re talking fusion).

If this 1e12 kg/yr or 1000 megatonnes/year (1e10 kg/yr of He and H2)
of such solids and gasses from within Earth isn’t bad enough, there’s
an influx of mostly vaporized meteorites worthy of contributing
another 5e7 to 5e8 kg/yr, from which hydrogen and helium (including
He3) is always a part of that meteor/comet influx, and factor in the
electrostatic/lightning created hydrogen if you’d care to add a little
more insult to injury.

Now add the human contributed/expedited volumetric tonnage of helium
that’s released, such as typically 19% of our natural gas and
otherwise from the extractions of coal and oil. In India they have
recently quantified some of their natural geothermal venting areas as
giving off 2% helium per volume of what’s surface escaping along with
many other gasses (including methane and radon), meaning there’s loads
of nearby thorium, uranium and radium below, along with a substantial
natural gas reserve of perhaps certain locations worth 10% helium
purity. In other words, India can’t possibly lose, with far cheaper
and more abundant nuclear worthy ore that’s as close to sustainable if
not somewhat renewable as we’re going to get.

If clean energy derived via a number of renewable alternatives plus
thorium isn’t quite good enough to suit your fancy, here’s the old
reliable geothermal alternative for us, pretty much just like I and
Steven Chu said. (how many hundred GW or TW would you like?)

“Plug into a Greener Grid: REC and RechargeIT Initiatives”
Video: Intro to Enhanced Geothermal Systems
http://www.google.org/rec.html

Commercial hybrids: With a national surplus of clean energy, even the
nearly all electric commercial 1824 wheeler isn’t outside of what
this geothermal renewable kind of energy can deliver, such as within
as little as 3 hours of 3 phase recharging or battery pack exchange
that’s capable of providing 12 hrs of serious truck hauling, and
better yet if the hybrid ICE option ran on h2o2+synfuel or replaced by
an h2o2 fuel cell kind of high energy density battery (similar to what
the GM Volt has planned), in which case little if any hydrogen gets
released, and the whole birth-to-grave energy consumption process
become capable of contributing zero NOx as well as having released
zero helium.

Put Steven Chu and even the bipolar wizardly likes of our informative
William Mook in our national green/renewable energy think tank, and
right off the bat we’ll start going to better places without nearly as
much environmental consequences, creating a national surplus of clean
energy to boot. In closing, it would certainly be nice if a physics
kind of stop-loss order could be placed, so that mother Earth as our
one and only Eden could also stop losing mass.

~ BG

Is this why we still do not have anything at Selene L1?

Shouldn’t we have the right to know about our own planet? (apparently
not)

By the observationology science of our looking at Mars and deductively
interpreting the UV obtained data, we know that 21,000 tonnes of
methane is seasonally vented and most likely lost to space within a
given amount of time. By way of using the same degree of
observationology science can also quantify exactly how much of Earth’s
methane is made available, as well as for observing our build up of
CO2 plus any number of many other elements, including helium and
hydrogen that do not stick with Earth.

If the general public knew what our government agencies of DARPA,
NASA, DoE, DNR and their Big Energy puppet masters have been
obfuscating and otherwise doing to us and our frail environment
(similar to our SEC approved Ponzi Madoff), we’d likely terminate the
whole lot as though they were nothing but worse than another Muslim
sleeper cell hiding WMD and OBL. In other words, we’d react first and
ask questions later, especially since the darkening cloud of evidence
by way of their actions isn’t all that hidden from modern observation
methods of easily detecting and quantifying such atmospheric elements.
(in other words, perhaps our recently foiled Orbiting Carbon
Observatory mission wasn’t of such an unavoidable anomaly after all)

As of 4 decades ago, the Selene L1 (Earth-moon L1) platform of global
observation and other science instruments could have been accomplished
for 10% the cost of one Apollo mission, and as such it could have been
interactively station keeping and telling us the whole body of naked
truths about Earth, instead of our being limited by the published
mainstream and obfuscated infomercial alternatives that’s telling us
only what limited parts of our public funded science they see fit to
share, so that we can’t be well informed as to how much and from which
sources are contributing the most into our environment.

Not so unexpected, it seems Big Energy and those otherwise invested
have needed something to refocus or divert our public media and the
general public attention away from the ugly truths, whereas the AGW
fiasco as having fingered freons and then CO2 as being the primary
culprit has certainly been their failsafe ticket to ride thus far.
Oddly, it seems Earth has been unexpectedly warming as of 11,711 years
ago (long before artificial freons and CO2 were invented), and only as
of lately has Earth been losing a great deal of its mass at the same
time, partially via natural causes including by holding onto our
Selene/moon, and otherwise extensively due to all of the human
released gasses of mostly methane, hydrogen and helium in addition to
our CO2. The volumes and subsequent gigatonnage/year of terrestrial
methane for the most part is consumed and otherwise recombines and
doesn’t manage to leave our environment, however, eventually the
megatonnage/year of its helium and even some of its hydrogen does
manage to leave.

We’ve been told and/or informed by those in charge that our planet is
always gaining mass. However, in spite of the local and cosmic influx
of 15 kg/sec, seems Earth has actually been losing a great deal of
its mass, mostly by way of its insufficient tidal radius grip on our
helium and hydrogen. Directly related to where some of that hydrogen
and helium comes from, and far away from the supposed mainstream
promoted and heavily infomercial hyped truth, whereas it seems there’s
actually nothing all that clean or environmentally friendly about our
extracting and using coal, not to mention the obvious atmospheric
pollution of toxic elements you wouldn’t dare breath yourself, plus
surface and aquifer loads of mostly fresh water consumptions and
subsequent contamination of the surrounding terrain and ground water
that’s downright mind boggling.

On the lighter side of such released elements, Earth’s atmosphere
sustains an average 5.2 ppm of helium (5.2e-6 parts per volume or
0.00052%) that continually migrates towards space along with freed
hydrogen leading the way, plus certain freons and perhaps even pulling
some of our methane along for the ride, that’s all helping to expand
those O3 ozone holes along the way. In other words, within any given
minute or hour there’s a volume of 26.5e8 m3 of helium being made
available from the interior and surface of Earth, as otherwise our
atmosphere simply wouldn’t sustain those background readings of 5.2
ppm, and at 1 bar this kind of saturation is worth a global volumetric
472e3 tonnes of helium per vertical cubic meter of added mass, that’s
continually made available on any given minute, hour or day after day
(try to remember that’s per vertical meter, whereas a km gives us
472e6 tonnes to work with).

Methane w/helium:
Our global 2009 wellhead natural gas extraction = 3.5e12 m3, He9%
(avg 0.51.5%) of this natural gas volume is always contributing our
isotope element of helium. Using 1% as the helium content average =
3.5e10 * .178 = 6.23e9 kg or 6.23 million tonnes of He/year.

Basically, other than our trusty DoE and USGS, there’s no one all-
inclusive or any other specialized agency of oversight for this global
accounting on behalf of released hydrogen and helium from oil wells,
oily sands, coal, methane or multiple other deep aquifer and mineral
mining operations, so instead we have any number of a mostly industry
self funded and of a few semi-private research reports to pick from,
none of which agree with most any other report. Therefore, tossing
out the high and the low, we get to use our loose cannon swag of our
deductive interpretation in order to obtain rough estimates as based
upon average of everything else. Being highly conservative, I have
used 1% of the methane volume and 0.1% of the extracted coal and oil
volumes as a rough basis for estimating the extent of helium
released. However, as it turns out I’ve only been off by a factor of
1030 fold at having underestimated the raw methane and subsequent
helium per m3 of coal and oil, mostly because I had no educated idea
how much methane comes along with the process of uncovering or
extracting each tonne or m3 of coal and oil.

Judging by the following US Coal reports on methane absorption and
subsequent emissions, if used for further interpreting such on behalf
of speculating global methane released from abandoned mines, as likely
in excess of contributing 1e10 m3/year in raw methane, and therefore
we’re looking at perhaps 1e8 m3 of helium, or 0.178e8 kg = 17.8e3
tonnes He/year that’s derived from just those abandoned sites, and
because of so much interior having been exposed from deep within
Earth, whereas even those flooded mines do not entirely stop this
ongoing release of helium, means that previous estimate of 17.8e3
tonnes/year could easily be conservative by a factor of 10.
http://www.coalinfo.net.cn/coalbed/m...ning/CM030.pdf

This next example of an active coal mining operation of extracting
4e6 t/year of coal is worth 3035 m3 of methane/tonne, directly
venting 72 m3/minute of methane, or 37.8e6 m3/yr, and otherwise less
than a third of the 3035 m3/tonne of extracted coal is captured, and
for the most part utilized on site.
http://www.methanetomarkets.org/Data...osa_poster.pdf
Total volume of ventilation from mine: 150 m3/sec = 9000 m3/minute
Volume of raw methane in ventilation air: 72 m3/min
Average methane concentration in ventilation air: 0.5%
Fluctuation of methane concentration: 0.5% -0.8%
Total volume of gas drained: 22.5 m3/minute
Volume of pure methane drained: 18 m3/minute
Average methane concentration in drained gas: 75%
Fluctuation of methane concentration in drained gas: 50 –75%
Coal permeability: 30 – 4 milidarcy
Coal in situ gas content: 10 m3/tonne
Relative emissions: 30 m3/tonne of coal mined

“From the present coal production the emissions from the mines are
30-35 m3 of methane per tonne of coal mined. Only 30% of the average
gas emitted is captured from underground mining operations of each
mine. The remaining 70% is exhausted in the atmosphere as ventilation
air methane (VAM).”

In other words, the vast bulk of their VAM from the coal related
mining is 130e6 m3/yr, including whatever portion that’s helium is
simply vented, and their consumed methane simply does not consume or
otherwise recombine its content of helium. At the distributed energy
equivalent value of 3336e3 btu/m3 or ~10.5 kwh/m3 @100% eff. (typical
power generation efficiency at 39% = 4.1 kwhr/m3, and top quality home/
office/commercial heating can supposedly extract 96% eff), means
these coal and methane energy supplying wizards never heard of the
wise old phrase “waste not, want not”. Perhaps BHO as our new and
improved fearless leader needs to create a national methane piping
grid with 99% helium removal, just as badly as we have needed to
upgrade and expand our national electrical grid, because our Big
Energy providers are clearly wasting nearly as much or more energy via
vented and/or burned off methane than we actually need to use, and
otherwise needlessly venting helium in the process.

Richard Heinberg's MuseLetter: Coal in China
http://globalpublicmedia.com/museletter_coal_in_china

http://www.itc.nl/personal/coalfire/index.html
When underground coal uncontrollably burns (thousands of such fires
exist, and many of those were artificially caused and/or of
spontaneous fires via exposed coal as having been allowed to burn),
besides all the toxic CO2 and multiple other sooty and gaseous
pollutants released (China’s underground fires alone providing 360
million tonnes/year of CO2), whereas the geologically stored element
of helium is never consumed, but instead the release of coal, oil and
methane sequestered helium is greatly accelerated. With perhaps 250
million tonnes/year of global underground coal fires plus whatever
associated methane per year going up in smoke, so to speak, there’s
perhaps a bare minimum of a million of tonnes worth of helium getting
released per year by this process alone. This natural plus artificial
release of helium, much like that continually released via commercial
and residential natural gas consumption, simply doesn’t recombine or
otherwise stick with the mass of Earth.

Perhaps our not having put out or terminated those underground coal
fires has been a bad idea, and simply not a viable future option
unless 1000 ppm of CO2 plus multiple other toxic pollutants isn’t a
bother. Of course it’s much worse if you’re situated near or down
wind of any natural pockets, underwater volumes or geothermal vents of
CO2, that from time to time gets released and manages to kill off most
of everything each invisible and often odorless cloud of CO2
surrounds.

Frankly, I’ve had no good idea as to how utterly dynamitic and
extensive the natural outflux plus that of our artificial release of
helium was, and that so little of the bulk methane per tonne of
excavated coal and oil was even captured. I’m only now understanding
how limited or rather systematically obfuscated our public knowledge
has been about the vast extent of this ongoing factor of released
methane and subsequent helium via oil, coal and multiple other mining
operations. Another important consideration is that it takes anywhere
from 3 to 9 tonnes worth of coal per tonne of synfuel, so that option
of solid to liquid fuel conversion isn’t exactly a viable solution
unless the ultimate goal is actually intended to toxic gas and mineral
saturate our frail environment while roughly quadrupling the release
of coal sequestered helium in order to supplement our ongoing
consumption of liquid hydrocarbons.

Apparently 130e6 m3 of methane released per year from a given coal
mining operation is not all that uncommon. Whereas 1% of this gaseous
volume is likely helium, thus 1.3e6 m3 of helium (231 t) is released
per year from a typical coal mining operation, and throughout the
world there’s at least a thousand of such major underground mines
ongoing = 231e3 t of He/year, plus a thousand more of active surface
mines, and of course we don’t want to even discuss deaths directly
related to this global extraction, transporting, processing and the
final consumption and/or conversions of coal. Gee, I wonder why BP,
GE and ExxonMobil are not bragging about who has contributed the most
helium. Is there a secret DNR (department of natural resources)
promoted race with China to see who can manage to release the most
helium?

If I were the proper kind of brown-nosed NASA or DARPA puppet, and/or
the good kind of public funded minion of such a faith-based government
that’s run extensively by the likes of those Rothschilds and Big
Energy cartels and Mafia cabals, I sure as hell would not want to see
any such OCO (Orbiting Carbon Observatory) mission or that of any
Selene L1 platform of objective spectrometer founded battery of
science instruments looking at our environment, and much less allowing
the general media access to interpreting any of such publicly funded
research that would easily identify and even quantify per km3 as to
how much of our environment is getting consumed by natural and
artificial fire, and otherwise as having been polluting our upper most
atmosphere with additional helium and hydrogen that’s unavoidably
going away from Earth at a fairly alarming rate, because we might
actually realized how extensively screwed we are.

Wonder how those smart ETs on Venus ever manage to get by without
having created their fair share of internal or open combustion? (just
kidding, because there’s all sorts of perfectly renewable and/or
geothermal accomplished ways that’ll put most anything we have [short
of He3/fusion] to shame, and then some). Too bad we don’t have the
cool Venus L2 location as for accommodating our POOF City or future
ISS outpost as our interplanetary Oasis/Gateway home away from home,
perhaps for the same insidious and/or obfuscated reasons we still
don’t have anything of Selene L1 at our disposal for even robotic/
remote obtained solar/Earth/moon science.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”