The Secret Campaign To Deny Global Warming

Apparently "The Secret Campaign To Deny Global Warming" has to do with
ignoring all the laws of physics and of having to exclude the best
available science pertaing to our moon.

It's not that humans haven't been affecting Earth's environment, as we
have, but simply not to the vast extent of other factors at play.
Such as tidal friction (inside and out) of our 98.5% fluid Earth
causes heat.

A portion of what's keeping our moon via gravity from leaving Earth is
what unavoidably becomes added thermal energy. If Earth were instead
as inert and thereby as planetology dead as our somewhat salty old
moon, as such there'd be little if any significant friction caused by
way of those moon and solar tidal actions.

The moon itself has little if anything fluid at its disposal, thus
little if any tidal induced friction ever takes place within that
physically dark and nasty sucker.

Oops! I'd previously made another pesky math mistake for the past few
months, of my having multiplied by 3.6e3 instead of having dividing by
3.6e3 for having converted into watts or W.h of the available energy
that's within our moon's tidal force. Even though the jest of my
argument remains exactly the same, this error only shifts the amount
of friction induced heating that's continually available. sorry about
all that.

In spite of all that's CO2, NOx and otherwise via human toxic soot
worthy, there's far more of what's more than sufficiently nearby
that's naturally cooking our goose, at least a whole lot more so than
any of those pesky human contributed factors, and gosh darn if this
other consideration sort of looks exactly like a very large and fast
moving moon of 7.35e22 kg.

Estimate of our core energy leaving Earth at .08 w/m2 = 41e12 watts.
human contributed at 1e3 w = 6.7e12 watts (16.34% of core energy
loss).
human contributed at 1e4 w = 67e12 watts (163.4% of core energy
loss).
Gravity/tidal energy existing between Earth and moon = 5.555e16 watts.

Gravity/tidal energy that's clearly existing between Earth and moon =
5.555e16 watts(w.h), as for otherwise that moon of ours would have
been leaving us in its sodium infused trail of local and cosmic morgue
worth of its reactive moon dust.

Even if merely 1% of that gravity/tidal energy becomes internal heat
to our 98.5% fluid Earth, as such that's an extra 5.555e14 watts, of
which our all-inclusive global environment (inside and out) has to
deal with in addition to whatever's solar, or else.

However, why on Earth should we limit that nifty energy influx (via
friction becoming heat) at merely 1% ?

Why not imply 10% as becoming part of our ongoing thaw, as of ever
since the last ice age this planet will ever see?

-

Since we're talking about the existing Fc that's existing between
Earth and moon, as a centripetal force per second, therefore the
conversion over to joules is also of one that's based upon the same
second by second basis.

1 joule = 1 W.s (watt second)
3600 j = 1 W.h (watt hour)
1 watt hour of applied energy is therefore worth: 3600 joules
1 joule/sec as applied for an hour becomes worth 3600 joules

Each kgf (kg of applied force/m/s) = 9.80665 joules at the surface of
Earth

Upon average, there's roughly 2.0394e19 kgf of Fc(centripetal force),
whereas that's continually applied second by second as ongoing and
obviously opposed via the gravitational force that's between Earth and
our unusually massive and as fast(1023 km/s) moving as our nearby
orbiting mascon (aka moon).

That second by second amount of centripetal force becomes:
2.0215e19 * 9.80665 = 19.824e19 joules

On the per hour basis, that amount of second by second applied energy
becomes worth:
2.0215e20 j / 3.6e3 = .5615e17 W.h (watts per hour), or 5.615e16 watts

If that energy were only dealing with contributing to the surface
friction of warming Earth:
At 1% is 5.615e14 / 5.112e14 m2 = 1.0984 w/m2
At 10% is 5.615e15 / 5.112e14 m2 = 10.984 w/m2
At 50% is 28.075e15 / 5.112e14 m2 = 54.92 w/m2

Obviously the all inclusive whole 1.1e21 m3 volume of our fluid Earth
(including its atmosphere) has been getting the warm and fuzzy benefit
of our moon (ideally as much as half of our mutual gravity/tidal
action being available for global warming):
At 1% is 5.615e14/1.1e21 = 5.105e-7 w/m3
At 10% is 5.615e15/1.1e21 = 5.105e-6 w/m3
At 50% is 28.075e15/1.1e21 = 25.52e-6 w/m3

The actual amount of gravity/tidal force that's applied inside and
out, as having caused friction, which in turn having become heat is
somewhere between the 1% and the 50% mark. I've long sinse asked of
others claiming to know all there is to know to suggest upon a number,
but instead they merely did all they could in order to topic/author
stalk, bash and having otherwise applied as much naysay and/or
banishment as possible. Obviously they have the superior computers,
the superior software and all the necessary expertise to have been
sharing the truth as of decades ago. I wonder what they're waiting
for?
- Brad Guth

BradGuth wrote:

Apparently "The Secret Campaign To Deny Global
Warming" has to do with ignoring all the laws of
physics and of having to exclude the best
available science pertaing to our moon.

It's not that humans haven't been affecting
Earth's environment, as we have, but simply not
to the vast extent of other factors at play.
Such as tidal friction (inside and out) of our
98.5% fluid Earth causes heat.

A portion of what's keeping our moon via gravity
from leaving Earth is
what unavoidably becomes added thermal energy.
If Earth were instead as inert and thereby as
planetology dead as our somewhat salty old moon,
as such there'd be little if any significant
friction caused by way of those moon and solar
tidal actions.

The moon itself has little if anything fluid at
its disposal, thus little if any tidal induced
friction ever takes place within that physically
dark and nasty sucker.

Oops! I'd previously made another pesky math
mistake for the past few months, of my having
multiplied by 3.6e3 instead of having dividing
by 3.6e3 for having converted into watts or W.h
of the available energy
that's within our moon's tidal force. Even
though the jest of my argument remains exactly
the same, this error only shifts the amount
of friction induced heating that's continually
available. sorry about all that.

In spite of all that's CO2, NOx and otherwise
via human toxic soot worthy, there's far more of
what's more than sufficiently nearby that's
naturally cooking our goose, at least a whole
lot more so than any of those pesky human
contributed factors, and gosh darn if this other
consideration sort of looks exactly like a very
large and fast moving moon of 7.35e22 kg.

Estimate of our core energy leaving Earth at .08
w/m2 = 41e12 watts. human contributed at 1e3 w =
6.7e12 watts (16.34% of core energy loss).
human contributed at 1e4 w = 67e12 watts
(163.4% of core energy loss).
Gravity/tidal energy existing between Earth and
moon = 5.555e16 watts.

Gravity/tidal energy that's clearly existing
between Earth and moon = 5.555e16 watts(w.h), as
for otherwise that moon of ours would have been
leaving us in its sodium infused trail of local
and cosmic morgue worth of its reactive moon
dust.

Even if merely 1% of that gravity/tidal energy
becomes internal heat to our 98.5% fluid Earth,
as such that's an extra 5.555e14 watts, of which
our all-inclusive global environment (inside and
out) has to deal with in addition to whatever's
solar, or else.

However, why on Earth should we limit that nifty
energy influx (via friction becoming heat) at
merely 1% ?

Why not imply 10% as becoming part of our
ongoing thaw, as of ever since the last ice age
this planet will ever see?

-

Since we're talking about the existing Fc that's
existing between Earth and moon, as a
centripetal force per second, therefore the
conversion over to joules is also of one that's
based upon the same second by second basis.

1 joule = 1 W.s (watt second)
3600 j = 1 W.h (watt hour)
1 watt hour of applied energy is therefore
worth: 3600 joules 1 joule/sec as applied for an
hour becomes worth 3600 joules

Each kgf (kg of applied force/m/s) = 9.80665
joules at the surface of Earth

Upon average, there's roughly 2.0394e19 kgf of
Fc(centripetal force), whereas that's
continually applied second by second as ongoing
and obviously opposed via the gravitational
force that's between Earth and our unusually
massive and as fast(1023 km/s) moving as our
nearby orbiting mascon (aka moon).

That second by second amount of centripetal
force becomes: 2.0215e19 * 9.80665 = 19.824e19
joules

On the per hour basis, that amount of second by
second applied energy becomes worth:
2.0215e20 j / 3.6e3 = .5615e17 W.h (watts per
hour), or 5.615e16 watts

If that energy were only dealing with
contributing to the surface friction of warming
Earth: At 1% is 5.615e14 / 5.112e14 m2 = 1.0984
w/m2 At 10% is 5.615e15 / 5.112e14 m2 = 10.984
w/m2 At 50% is 28.075e15 / 5.112e14 m2 = 54.92
w/m2

Obviously the all inclusive whole 1.1e21 m3
volume of our fluid Earth (including its
atmosphere) has been getting the warm and fuzzy
benefit of our moon (ideally as much as half of
our mutual gravity/tidal action being available
for global warming): At 1% is 5.615e14/1.1e21 =
5.105e-7 w/m3 At 10% is 5.615e15/1.1e21 =
5.105e-6 w/m3 At 50% is 28.075e15/1.1e21 =
25.52e-6 w/m3

The actual amount of gravity/tidal force that's
applied inside and out, as having caused
friction, which in turn having become heat is
somewhere between the 1% and the 50% mark. I've
long sinse asked of others claiming to know all
there is to know to suggest upon a number, but
instead they merely did all they could in order
to topic/author stalk, bash and having otherwise
applied as much naysay and/or
banishment as possible. Obviously they have the
superior computers, the superior software and
all the necessary expertise to have been
sharing the truth as of decades ago. I wonder
what they're waiting for?
- Brad Guth

Brad, not only have the factors you mentioned not
been taken into consideration but as far as I
know, no one seems to have studied the
possibility of plate tectonics playing a role in
world climate.

Although the plates are moving slowly, by human
standards, there seems a possibility that ocean
currents could be changing as a result which in
turn would influence weather patterns, not to
mention oceanic temperature changes at or near
the convergent, divergent and transform plate
margins.

Of course, there is the constantly changing
volcanic activity which is spewing all sorts of
stuff into our atmosphere.

The earth is not static. It is VERY dynamic and I
wonder if the "Climatologists" and modelers are
aware of how geologically dynamic it really is.

On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 10:24:08 -0400, Paul E. Lehmann wrote:

BradGuth wrote:

Apparently "The Secret Campaign To Deny Global Warming" has to do with
ignoring all the laws of physics and of having to exclude the best
available science pertaing to our moon.

It's not that humans haven't been affecting Earth's environment, as we
have, but simply not to the vast extent of other factors at play. Such
as tidal friction (inside and out) of our 98.5% fluid Earth causes heat.

A portion of what's keeping our moon via gravity from leaving Earth is
what unavoidably becomes added thermal energy. If Earth were instead as
inert and thereby as planetology dead as our somewhat salty old moon, as
such there'd be little if any significant friction caused by way of
those moon and solar tidal actions.

The moon itself has little if anything fluid at its disposal, thus
little if any tidal induced friction ever takes place within that
physically dark and nasty sucker.

Oops! I'd previously made another pesky math mistake for the past few
months, of my having multiplied by 3.6e3 instead of having dividing by
3.6e3 for having converted into watts or W.h of the available energy
that's within our moon's tidal force. Even though the jest of my
argument remains exactly the same, this error only shifts the amount of
friction induced heating that's continually available. sorry about all
that.

In spite of all that's CO2, NOx and otherwise via human toxic soot
worthy, there's far more of what's more than sufficiently nearby that's
naturally cooking our goose, at least a whole lot more so than any of
those pesky human contributed factors, and gosh darn if this other
consideration sort of looks exactly like a very large and fast moving
moon of 7.35e22 kg.

Estimate of our core energy leaving Earth at .08 w/m2 = 41e12 watts.
human contributed at 1e3 w = 6.7e12 watts (16.34% of core energy loss).
human contributed at 1e4 w = 67e12 watts (163.4% of core energy loss).
Gravity/tidal energy existing between Earth and moon = 5.555e16 watts.

Gravity/tidal energy that's clearly existing between Earth and moon =
5.555e16 watts(w.h), as for otherwise that moon of ours would have been
leaving us in its sodium infused trail of local and cosmic morgue worth
of its reactive moon dust.

Even if merely 1% of that gravity/tidal energy becomes internal heat to
our 98.5% fluid Earth, as such that's an extra 5.555e14 watts, of which
our all-inclusive global environment (inside and out) has to deal with
in addition to whatever's solar, or else.

However, why on Earth should we limit that nifty energy influx (via
friction becoming heat) at merely 1% ?

Why not imply 10% as becoming part of our ongoing thaw, as of ever since
the last ice age this planet will ever see?

-

Since we're talking about the existing Fc that's existing between Earth
and moon, as a centripetal force per second, therefore the conversion
over to joules is also of one that's based upon the same second by
second basis.

1 joule = 1 W.s (watt second)
3600 j = 1 W.h (watt hour)
1 watt hour of applied energy is therefore worth: 3600 joules 1
joule/sec as applied for an hour becomes worth 3600 joules

Each kgf (kg of applied force/m/s) = 9.80665 joules at the surface of
Earth

Upon average, there's roughly 2.0394e19 kgf of Fc(centripetal force),
whereas that's continually applied second by second as ongoing and
obviously opposed via the gravitational force that's between Earth and
our unusually massive and as fast(1023 km/s) moving as our nearby
orbiting mascon (aka moon).

That second by second amount of centripetal force becomes: 2.0215e19 *
9.80665 = 19.824e19 joules

On the per hour basis, that amount of second by second applied energy
becomes worth:
2.0215e20 j / 3.6e3 = .5615e17 W.h (watts per hour), or 5.615e16 watts

If that energy were only dealing with contributing to the surface
friction of warming Earth: At 1% is 5.615e14 / 5.112e14 m2 = 1.0984 w/m2
At 10% is 5.615e15 / 5.112e14 m2 = 10.984 w/m2 At 50% is 28.075e15 /
5.112e14 m2 = 54.92 w/m2

Obviously the all inclusive whole 1.1e21 m3 volume of our fluid Earth
(including its atmosphere) has been getting the warm and fuzzy benefit
of our moon (ideally as much as half of our mutual gravity/tidal action
being available for global warming): At 1% is 5.615e14/1.1e21 = 5.105e-7
w/m3 At 10% is 5.615e15/1.1e21 = 5.105e-6 w/m3 At 50% is
28.075e15/1.1e21 = 25.52e-6 w/m3

The actual amount of gravity/tidal force that's applied inside and out,
as having caused friction, which in turn having become heat is somewhere
between the 1% and the 50% mark. I've long sinse asked of others
claiming to know all there is to know to suggest upon a number, but
instead they merely did all they could in order to topic/author stalk,
bash and having otherwise applied as much naysay and/or
banishment as possible. Obviously they have the superior computers, the
superior software and all the necessary expertise to have been sharing
the truth as of decades ago. I wonder what they're waiting for?
- Brad Guth

Brad, not only have the factors you mentioned not been taken into
consideration but as far as I know, no one seems to have studied the
possibility of plate tectonics playing a role in world climate.

Although the plates are moving slowly, by human standards, there seems a
possibility that ocean currents could be changing as a result which in
turn would influence weather patterns, not to mention oceanic temperature
changes at or near the convergent, divergent and transform plate margins.

Of course, there is the constantly changing volcanic activity which is
spewing all sorts of stuff into our atmosphere.

The earth is not static. It is VERY dynamic and I wonder if the
"Climatologists" and modelers are aware of how geologically dynamic it
really is.

The Mid-Atlantic ridge is spreading up to 40cm/decade according to this:

http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/humphr01/node5.html

On Aug 4, 7:24 am, "Paul E. Lehmann" wrote:
Brad, not only have the factors you mentioned not
been taken into consideration but as far as I
know, no one seems to have studied the
possibility of plate tectonics playing a role in
world climate.

Of plate tectonics as having been primarily forced along by the
gravity/tidal energy of our moon is in fact the vast majority of
what's thawing Earth as of the very last ice age we'll ever see.


Although the plates are moving slowly, by human
standards, there seems a possibility that ocean
currents could be changing as a result which in
turn would influence weather patterns, not to
mention oceanic temperature changes at or near
the convergent, divergent and transform plate
margins.

In addition to our oceans moved along by our sol+moon gravity/tidal
energy, so has our wet atmosphere been kept extra motivated into being
pulled along and/or distorted by those off-world factors. Don't ever
forget about our rather badly failing magnetosphere, that has lately
been losing its potential by roughly -.05%/year, allowing more of
solar and cosmic energy to get through (less magnetosphere = hotter
Earth). So, there's no one cause, but there are primary causes and
several minor causes, that when combined are responsible for the
ongoing demise of our frail environment.


Of course, there is the constantly changing
volcanic activity which is spewing all sorts of
stuff into our atmosphere.

Again, the natural events of planetology and nature are in fact far
worse off than most of what we humans have managed to contribute.
However, I give humanity credits for at least 10%, but not more than
25% of our ongoing GW fiasco that started its thaw as of more than
12,000 years ago, about the time when a certain lithobraking icy proto-
moon arrived and Earth obtained its seasonal tilt.


The earth is not static. It is VERY dynamic and I
wonder if the "Climatologists" and modelers are
aware of how geologically dynamic it really is.

I totally agree, whereas Earth is essentially 98.5% fluid dynamic, as
compared to our salty moon that's something less than 1% tidal fluid.
Venus (including its robust atmosphere) is perhaps better than 99%
fluid, but simply rotating much too slowly for the one and only solar
gravity/tidal factor to cause any significant plate tectonics,
although its fast rotating atmosphere is clearly tidal forced into
adding heat via friction that's in addition to the surface 20.5 w/m2
from the somewhat newish planetology core heat that's continually
leaving Venus, and thus responsible for the vast bulk of why the
surface environment of Venus is so downright toasty (day or night).
- Brad Guth

On Aug 4, 10:23 am, Bill Ward wrote:

The Mid-Atlantic ridge is spreading up to 40cm/decade according to this:

http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/humphr01/node5.html

If Earth were otherwise passive, what's the required terawatts of
applied energy for sustaining this ongoing planetology migration of
40cm/decade, or 4cm/year?

In other words, if this 4cm/year were artificially accomplished, how
much applied energy would that task require?
- Brad Guth

"Paul E. Lehmann" wrote
Although the plates are moving slowly, by human
standards, there seems a possibility that ocean
currents could be changing as a result which in
turn would influence weather patterns, not to
mention oceanic temperature changes at or near
the convergent, divergent and transform plate
margins.

I guess to innumerate morons, two continents that are 4,000 miles apart
separating by 2cm a year is enough to cause a ocean circulation change in a
few years.

But then to the numerically igorant mind many childish ideas are
respectable.

If you flap your arms fast enough you can fly. It's true. Absolutely
true...

On Aug 4, 7:24 am, "Paul E. Lehmann" wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
Apparently "The Secret Campaign To Deny Global
Warming" has to do with ignoring all the laws of
physics and of having to exclude the best
available science pertaing to our moon.

It's not that humans haven't been affecting
Earth's environment, as we have, but simply not
to the vast extent of other factors at play.
Such as tidal friction (inside and out) of our
98.5% fluid Earth causes heat.

A portion of what's keeping our moon via gravity
from leaving Earth is
what unavoidably becomes added thermal energy.
If Earth were instead as inert and thereby as
planetologydead as our somewhat salty old moon,
as such there'd be little if any significant
friction caused by way of those moon and solar
tidal actions.

The moon itself has little if anything fluid at
its disposal, thus little if any tidal induced
friction ever takes place within that physically
dark and nasty sucker.

Oops! I'd previously made another pesky math
mistake for the past few months, of my having
multiplied by 3.6e3 instead of having dividing
by 3.6e3 for having converted into watts or W.h
of the available energy
that's within our moon's tidal force. Even
though the jest of my argument remains exactly
the same, this error only shifts the amount
of friction induced heating that's continually
available. sorry about all that.

In spite of all that's CO2, NOx and otherwise
via human toxic soot worthy, there's far more of
what's more than sufficiently nearby that's
naturally cooking our goose, at least a whole
lot more so than any of those pesky human
contributed factors, and gosh darn if this other
consideration sort of looks exactly like a very
large and fast moving moon of 7.35e22 kg.

Estimate of our core energy leaving Earth at .08
w/m2 = 41e12 watts. human contributed at 1e3 w =
6.7e12 watts (16.34% of core energy loss).
human contributed at 1e4 w = 67e12 watts
(163.4% of core energy loss).
Gravity/tidal energy existing between Earth and
moon = 5.555e16 watts.

Gravity/tidal energy that's clearly existing
between Earth and moon = 5.555e16 watts(w.h), as
for otherwise that moon of ours would have been
leaving us in its sodium infused trail of local
and cosmic morgue worth of its reactive moon
dust.

Even if merely 1% of that gravity/tidal energy
becomes internal heat to our 98.5% fluid Earth,
as such that's an extra 5.555e14 watts, of which
our all-inclusive global environment (inside and
out) has to deal with in addition to whatever's
solar, or else.

However, why on Earth should we limit that nifty
energy influx (via friction becoming heat) at
merely 1% ?

Why not imply 10% as becoming part of our
ongoing thaw, as of ever since the last ice age
this planet will ever see?

-

Since we're talking about the existing Fc that's
existing between Earth and moon, as a
centripetal force per second, therefore the
conversion over to joules is also of one that's
based upon the same second by second basis.

1 joule = 1 W.s (watt second)
3600 j = 1 W.h (watt hour)
1 watt hour of applied energy is therefore
worth: 3600 joules 1 joule/sec as applied for an
hour becomes worth 3600 joules

Each kgf (kg of applied force/m/s) = 9.80665
joules at the surface of Earth

Upon average, there's roughly 2.0394e19 kgf of
Fc(centripetal force), whereas that's
continually applied second by second as ongoing
and obviously opposed via the gravitational
force that's between Earth and our unusually
massive and as fast(1023 km/s) moving as our
nearby orbiting mascon (aka moon).

That second by second amount of centripetal
force becomes: 2.0215e19 * 9.80665 = 19.824e19
joules

On the per hour basis, that amount of second by
second applied energy becomes worth:
2.0215e20 j / 3.6e3 = .5615e17 W.h (watts per
hour), or 5.615e16 watts

If that energy were only dealing with
contributing to the surface friction of warming
Earth: At 1% is 5.615e14 / 5.112e14 m2 = 1.0984
w/m2 At 10% is 5.615e15 / 5.112e14 m2 = 10.984
w/m2 At 50% is 28.075e15 / 5.112e14 m2 = 54.92
w/m2

Obviously the all inclusive whole 1.1e21 m3
volume of our fluid Earth (including its
atmosphere) has been getting the warm and fuzzy
benefit of our moon (ideally as much as half of
our mutual gravity/tidal action being available
for global warming): At 1% is 5.615e14/1.1e21 =
5.105e-7 w/m3 At 10% is 5.615e15/1.1e21 =
5.105e-6 w/m3 At 50% is 28.075e15/1.1e21 =
25.52e-6 w/m3

The actual amount of gravity/tidal force that's
applied inside and out, as having caused
friction, which in turn having become heat is
somewhere between the 1% and the 50% mark. I've
long sinse asked of others claiming to know all
there is to know to suggest upon a number, but
instead they merely did all they could in order
to topic/author stalk, bash and having otherwise
applied as much naysay and/or
banishment as possible. Obviously they have the
superior computers, the superior software and
all the necessary expertise to have been
sharing the truth as of decades ago. I wonder
what they're waiting for?
- Brad Guth

Brad, not only have the factors you mentioned not
been taken into consideration but as far as I
know, no one seems to have studied the
possibility of plate tectonics playing a role in
world climate.

Although the plates are moving slowly, by human
standards, there seems a possibility that ocean
currents could be changing as a result which in
turn would influence weather patterns, not to
mention oceanic temperature changes at or near
the convergent, divergent and transform plate
margins.

Of course, there is the constantly changing
volcanic activity which is spewing all sorts of
stuff into our atmosphere.

The earth is not static. It is VERY dynamic and I
wonder if the "Climatologists" and modelers are
aware of how geologically dynamic it really is.

I agree, Earth is essentially 98.5% fluid, and it has an absolutly
impressive mascon in orbit, that's neaby and moving rather fast. 2e20
joules worth of applied gravity/tidal force is going somewhere, and
unavoidably doing at least a little something within our fluid earth.

There is no human record or any other geology/planetology proof Earth
had that moon as of prior to 12,000 BP.

Most of the ongoing GW fiasco is not human caused, whereas at least
75% has been contributed by our moon, although it could be as much as
90% caused by our moon.
- Brad Guth

On Aug 5, 9:49 pm, "ExterminateAllRepubliKKKans"
wrote:
"Paul E. Lehmann" wrote

Although the plates are moving slowly, by human
standards, there seems a possibility that ocean
currents could be changing as a result which in
turn would influence weather patterns, not to
mention oceanic temperature changes at or near
the convergent, divergent and transform plate
margins.

I guess to innumerate morons, two continents that are 4,000 miles apart
separating by 2cm a year is enough to cause a ocean circulation change in a
few years.

But then to the numerically igorant mind many childish ideas are
respectable.

If you flap your arms fast enough you can fly. It's true. Absolutely
true...

Are we having another silly Yiddish day?

I agree that a few cm on the move here and there is not the primary
cause of GW, although adding to the notion that our 98.5% fluid Earth
is affected by our moon is not such a "childish idea".

Speaking of the "numerically igorant mind"; when did Earth get its
last seasonal tilt?

At what given date(s) did our antipode mountains suddenly emerge?
- Brad Guth