"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:3b4798c18ba5f7c68ea8bab83c67fd60.49644@mygate .mailgate.org
Besides gravity and of the subsequent ongoing tidal forced transfer of
energy that has been operating to the substantial tune of multi
terajoules, is there anything else worth our while that's existing
between Earth and that of our extremely substantial mascon of a moon?
The following is simply a little sub-topic of the rather substantial
applied energy that's ongoing, that's in the process of thawing out
every last km3 of ice in sight.
topic: How cold Earth w/o moon
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...13cd58f593306b
http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/sc...ma ilgate.org
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
ups.com
We conclude the moon is responsible for tectonic
and seismic action in and on Earth.
Interesting info that's getting way better than most, as to sharing the
estimated 70 megatons of TNT/day worth of energy applied into the crust
and lithosphere. What about the super-rotating muck below all of that?
How much tidal forced energy is getting applied into our oceans and
atmosphere?
What about w/o whatever 3.8 cm/yr of recession taking place, of merely
sustaining the 2e20 joules worth of centripetal/orbital force as is.
Or, is there a little something else (aka electrostatic or magnetic)
keeping that moon stuck to our realm?
In other words, how many spare/extra terajoules does it take for keeping
our oceans and atmosphere on the move, as being accomplished via the
moon's tidal/gravity forces.
According to some wise enough environmental wizards, it takes the likes
of roughy +/- 10 j/m2 in order for mother Earth's seasonal tilt to pull
off her summer/winter thing. In other words, a relatively short term
thermal shift of 20 w/m2 takes an extremely hot summer environment into
the absolute dregs of an icy winter in essentially no planetology time
at all.
Therefore, over considerable time and without benefit of orbital mascon
imposed seismic, atmospheric and ocean tidal forces at play (other than
solar gravity generated), it seems as little as a sustained impact of
+/- 1 joule/m2 could eventually turn what's left of our frail
environment upside down. Thereby taking away a mere 2 j/m2 could
nullify GW if not put us into another gradual ice age cycle.
Now, I'm not into suggesting that we actually get rid of our moon. I'm
merely pointing out that with less attention on the sorts of hocus-pocus
physics that's orchestrating so much infomercial science, as having us
hyped into being afraid of our own shadows while running us every which
way but lose, whereas instead we can focus our best talents and
resources upon efforts that could make or break our future plans.
It seems knowing where the bulk of GW energy is derived from is simply a
win-win for the old save thy butt gipper, that's unavoidably a healthy
part our ongoing environmental fiasco that has long since managed to
have taken a notch out of our insufficient albedo that's only getting
worse off as we rant on and on, that which has only created more at risk
than merely the ongoing task of our assisting in the process of melting
every last km3 of ice in order to make our badly polluted oceans of
becoming mostly jellyfish habitats deeper.
There are some species of life upon Earth (including a few too many
humans) that simply haven't evolved sufficiently or having lost too many
of those nifty DNA codes along the way, in order to cope with the
failing magnetosphere and that of our assisted GW fiasco at the same
time, at least not without having to pay the ultimate price, and then
some. For this reason I'm thinking we need to start trying out a few
weird ideas, just in case we've missed a little something important
along the way.
-
PS: This seems to account for the stagnant nature of Venus's
surface, in the past 500 million years.
Other than most likely having lost it's moon to a larger planet, what's
all that "stagnant" about the relatively newish planetology and thereby
geothermally active environment of Venus?
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server -
http://www.Mailgate.ORG