Earth will manage to get hotter

In spite of ourselves, "Earth is going to get itself even hotter".

I honestly believe that our Earth is nearing an important crossroad of
affordably sustaining life as we know it. I'm thinking we either
accept our fate and go with the flow as we adapt the best we can, or
die trying. Since we can't all become rich and powerful, it's your
personal choice of continually doing absolutely nothing or doing
something constructive, even if it's merely thinking in a positive and
thus constructive minset sort of way. However, the very worse you can
possibly do is to favor the ongoing denaial of global warming, because
that kind of naysay mindset is only going to further expedite the
existing bad situation, that's clearly more than bad enough as it is.

Using that icy orb of Sedna, as for becoming situated within Earth's
L1, for obtaining a barely sufficient spot of solar shade (especially
once it's thick layer of surface ice is gone), is perhaps at best a
1000+ year plan, and at the present ongoing demise of our environment
and of it's badly failing magnetosphere, even if the relocation of
Sedna were technically and otherwise affordably doable, I believe we
do not have that thousand plus year option.

Doing nothing but cleaning up our terrestrial act is also not an
option unless a great deal of fusion energy or perhaps going deep for
that of extracting geothermal energy becomes the norm of giving us an
affordably clean 100 teraWatts to work with (on a global end-user
scale, $.01/kwhr is affordable, whereas $.10/kwhr is not going to be
affordable to the lower 90% of humanity). If all the "Ice Sheets
Melt", we're in a whole lot deeper GW trouble than merely having to
swim and otherwise eat jellyfish because, of what's coming around the
next corner is anything but all that survivable, unless the evolution
of our DNA becomes rad-hard, or we've become as rich and powerful as
GW Bush, Dick Cheney and Exxon.

I honestly believe this argument on behalf of blocking out a
sufficient portion of our sun is all about sustaining and/or improving
the quality of life as we know it. If that focus or motive on behalf
of salvaging whatever's left of our badly failing environment takes on
the Guth lose cannon form of accomplishing my LSE-CM/ISS, or that of
my VL2 POOF City as part of the ultimate game plan, while our moon is
gradually getting relocated to Earth's L1, then so be it.

As to the perfectly valid argument(s) or honest topic jest of
artificially blocking out a little more than sufficient portion of our
sun, as such this substantial plan of action is all about sustaining
and/or improving the quality of all life.

Not exactly sure how I'd gotten that first round of those numbers off
by so much, but once again, according to another fresh run of my PC/
CAD program with the following items;

Our sun at given a fairly robust 700,000,000 m radius
Earth along w/50 km atmosphere at 6,428,000 m radius
That salty old moon at the usual 1,738,000 m radius
Earth's L1 placement of the moon at 1,537,600,000 m

A given surface location could perceive a 5.92% reduction, however
incorporating the whole realm of mother Earth is not nearly so
impressive, whereas the actual global worth of that solar isolation
factor, if to be including our badly polluted atmosphere, should
become much less than of that spot amount, perhaps worth as little as
1.645% or -22.5 w/m2) as having been derived by our moon parked at
Earth's L1, as well as having accomplished a whole lot less of those
pesky tidal issues, and of those remaining tides should otherwise
become very consistent. The best tidal estimate that I can accomplish
thus far, is coming up with the moderated new and improved sun + (moon
at Earth L1) as becoming worth 50.4% of our existing lunar tide.

A 50% reduction in tidal action is perhaps a little less important to
ocean and other terrestrial life than we've been giving it credit.
Most tidal accommodated life can manage to adapt, some of which
getting by along with a little of our best intelligent design, as
transitional habitat help wherever necessary.

This moon relocation process of getting that mascon situated out to
Earth's L1 (roughly 4X further away than it's current orbital trek
that has been doing us more harm than good) is going to take a century
or more, and therefore I'm not some evil messenger from hell that's
imposing an overnight change upon whatever terrestrial life that we
know of, that has attached its life endurance to our existing lunar
cycle and ocean tidal issues.

There will be some unfortunate extinctions of life which simply can
not adapt, though hopefully humanity will not become one of those.
However, at the very same time, other existing species that are
currently finding it downright difficult or nearly impossible to
survive as is, as such will likely bloom or otherwise better populate
under the greatly improved conditions of their having less terrestrial
trauma to deal with.

A measured reduction in global warming (in good part due to the solar
isolation afforded by the moon itself), along with having accomplished
much less gravity/tidal trauma taking place (inside and out), is what
should by rights benefit most all known species of life on Earth
(hopefully just short of bringing on another ice age).

What we honestly need most for this daunting task of relocating our
moon to Earth's L1, is having that spendy supercomputer running all of
its parallel CPUs off the charts, doing exactly whatever's necessary
for figuring out what's doable, and otherwise telling us whatever else
needs to be avoided at all cost. If you should happen to have such
supercomputer access, and wouldn't terribly mind running off a few of
these weird ideas, as such I'd like to see a few of those what-if
results in 3D animation.
-
Brad Guth

On May 15, 7:31 pm, BradGuth wrote:
In spite of ourselves, "Earth is going to get itself even hotter".

You don't have to be nostra-****ing-damus to figure that one out.

[...]

On May 15, 7:37 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 15, 7:31 pm, BradGuth wrote:

In spite of ourselves, "Earth is going to get itself even hotter".

You don't have to be nostra-****ing-damus to figure that one out.

[...]

Perhaps how true, but you most certainly do have to be correct as to
the primary cause of our GW fiasco.

Much like yourself and most others, your "nostra-****ing-damus" hasn't
an honest clue.
-
Brad Guth

On 2007-05-16 03:37:15 +0100, Eric Gisse said:

On May 15, 7:31 pm, BradGuth wrote:
In spite of ourselves, "Earth is going to get itself even hotter".

You don't have to be nostra-****ing-damus to figure that one out.

[...]

If you want real idiocy, follow Painius' and OldCoot defend their push
(Le Sage) gravity theory....


--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).

Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.

"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in message
anews.com...
On 2007-05-16 03:37:15 +0100, Eric Gisse said:

On May 15, 7:31 pm, BradGuth wrote:
In spite of ourselves, "Earth is going to get itself even hotter".

You don't have to be nostra-****ing-damus to figure that one out.

[...]

If you want real idiocy, follow Art Deco and myself as we post "crap".

We will watch and laugh, Duckie-Wuckie.

HJ

On May 16, 9:11 am, Phineas T Puddleduck
wrote:
On 2007-05-16 03:37:15 +0100, said:

On May 15, 7:31 pm, BradGuth wrote:
In spite of ourselves, "Earth is going to get itself even hotter".

You don't have to be nostra-****ing-damus to figure that one out.

[...]

If you want real idiocy, follow Painius' and OldCoot defend their push
(Le Sage) gravity theory....

10 bucks says their gravity "theory" is a k/r^2 force law.


--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).

Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.

On 2007-05-16 21:28:06 +0100, Eric Gisse said:

On May 16, 9:11 am, Phineas T Puddleduck
wrote:
On 2007-05-16 03:37:15 +0100, said:

On May 15, 7:31 pm, BradGuth wrote:
In spite of ourselves, "Earth is going to get itself even hotter".

You don't have to be nostra-****ing-damus to figure that one out.

[...]

If you want real idiocy, follow Painius' and OldCoot defend their push
(Le Sage) gravity theory....

10 bucks says their gravity "theory" is a k/r^2 force law.


If I said Lindner and Shifman (?) would you laugh....

Apparently gravity and the SNF are the same thing as fluid space flows
into the centre of masses of particles and disappears to reappear at
the edge of the universe.....

--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).

Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.

The future of *what if* is actually right here and now, as mostly
happening below our two left feet and otherwise in front of our
dumbfounded eyes.

Using our moon as the ultimate shade of our salvation, over sufficient
time and without the human footprint of soot and many other nasty/
toxic contributions, -22.5 w/m2 should by rights bring on one of those
ice ages. However, along with our human soot and thereby of our
continued global dimming (by perhaps yet another percentage point)
that's worth 6.85 w/m2, plus tossing in the added 100 teraWatts of
artificially produced energy should further offset the onset of cold
by another .1956 w/m2, making our new and improved future along with
our (6.85 + 0.1956) = 7.0456 w/m2 as based upon our nifty contribution
of having expanded our oceans, plus much other atmospheric soot and
having introduced those 100 teraWatts into creating a the improved
global thermal budget end result of accomplishing -15.454 w/m2, which
should be just a few watts/m2 short of bringing on that full-blown ice
age.

In other words, with that moon parked at Earth's L1 we'd have
ourselves shade to burn (sort of speak), along with no future shortage
of those winter Olympic locations, as well as we'd have much fewer of
those lethal storms, fewer and less extensive forest fires, and lots
of those badly GW traumatised polar bares and other polar realm
dependent species that should very much thank us.

Of course once again, this perfectly deductive analogy of "what if" is
yet another ideal computer simulation of 3D worthy animation, that
which any supercomputer worth its parallel CPU salt can give us most
all of those matter of fact answers, of whatever these "what ifs" have
to contribute to our future of somehow getting us by as is w/o
relocating our moon, or that of the new and improved results as
artificially created by way of having relocated that moon of ours out
to Earth's L1.

Naturally, those future moon expedition missions for obtaining the
likes of He3 and many other raw elements will end up taking us four
times as long for the to/from commute, but that's a small price to pay
for the salvation of Earth, wouldn't you say!

BTW; a mostly robotic established moon observatory, or simply
utilized as the secondary S-band signal reflector, or whatever radar
image receiving aperture, on behalf of an Earth based or even the
moon--L1--Earth radar imaging alternative, should by rights get
rather impressive, as we'd have the total solar isolation of the
moon's L1 that's facing Earth to accommodate my LSE-CM/ISS w/tether
dipole element reaching to within 2r of Earth (a bit closer if you'd
dare), as well as having the combined (Earth+moon) L2 for
accomplishing a whole lot better solar related science. Again, all of
that being within the existing supercomputer expertise of telling us
exactly those sorts of "what if" matter of hard facts.
-
Brad Guth

On May 16, 11:01 am, BradGuth wrote:
The future of *what if* is actually right here and now, as mostly
happening below our two left feet and otherwise in front of our
dumbfounded eyes.

Using our moon as the ultimate shade of our salvation, over sufficient
time and without the human footprint of soot and many other nasty/
toxic contributions, -22.5 w/m2 should by rights bring on one of those
ice ages. However, along with our human soot and thereby of our
continued global dimming (by perhaps yet another percentage point)
that's worth 6.85 w/m2, plus tossing in the added 100 teraWatts of
artificially produced energy should further offset the onset of cold
by another .1956 w/m2, making our new and improved future along with
our (6.85 + 0.1956) = 7.0456 w/m2 as based upon our nifty contribution
of having expanded our oceans, plus much other atmospheric soot and
having introduced those 100 teraWatts into creating a the improved
global thermal budget end result of accomplishing -15.454 w/m2, which
should be just a few watts/m2 short of bringing on that full-blown ice
age.

In other words, with that moon parked at Earth's L1 we'd have
ourselves shade to burn (sort of speak), along with no future shortage
of those winter Olympic locations, as well as we'd have much fewer of
those lethal storms, fewer and less extensive forest fires, and lots
of those badly GW traumatised polar bares and other polar realm
dependent species that should very much thank us.

Of course once again, this perfectly deductive analogy of "what if" is
yet another ideal computer simulation of 3D worthy animation, that
which any supercomputer worth its parallel CPU salt can give us most
all of those matter of fact answers, of whatever these "what ifs" have
to contribute to our future of somehow getting us by as is w/o
relocating our moon, or that of the new and improved results as
artificially created by way of having relocated that moon of ours out
to Earth's L1.

Naturally, those future moon expedition missions for obtaining the
likes of He3 and many other raw elements will end up taking us four
times as long for the to/from commute, but that's a small price to pay
for the salvation of Earth, wouldn't you say!

BTW; a mostly robotic established moon observatory, or simply
utilized as the secondary S-band signal reflector, or whatever radar
image receiving aperture, on behalf of an Earth based or even the
moon--L1--Earth radar imaging alternative, should by rights get
rather impressive, as we'd have the total solar isolation of the
moon's L1 that's facing Earth to accommodate my LSE-CM/ISS w/tether
dipole element reaching to within 2r of Earth (a bit closer if you'd
dare), as well as having the combined *(Earth+moon L2)-- sol L1* for
accomplishing a whole lot better solar related science. Again, all of
that being within the existing supercomputer expertise of telling us
exactly those sorts of "what if" matter of hard facts.
-BradGuth

Relocating our moon from its existing orbit, out to being parked
within the orbit of Earth's L1 is an all around win-win for everything
and everyone on Earth, although at least half the moon is going to
become a little worse off (sorry about that).

At accomplishing this tidal moderation, of what should become worth
slightly more than half of our existing tidal forced situation, as
such is going to extensively moderate the amount of this orbiting
mascon energy that's unavoidably converting into various forms of
terrestrial friction, and thus into creating heat, not to mention the
little reduction in reflected and secondary IR/FIR that's derived from
our moon that will obviously no longer exist.

The amount of shade or solar isolation created by way of having our
moon at Earth's L1 is of course the primary benefit, whereas of my
best swag thus far suggesting that it'll essentially cause a global
insolation reduction of -22.5 watts/m2. According to many other forms
and expertise of global warming research, that's offering us a
compensation worth of better than three times the amount estimated as
the surplus or excess of energy that's being supposedly responsible
for having created our environment's recent past, existing and
continually warming situation, that's not looking good if you happen
to be made of ice or otherwise manage to survive because of snow and
ice.
-
Brad Guth

In sci.physics, BradGuth

wrote
on 17 May 2007 09:45:56 -0700
.com:

[snip for brevity]


Relocating our moon from its existing orbit, out to being parked
within the orbit of Earth's L1 is an all around win-win for everything
and everyone on Earth, although at least half the moon is going to
become a little worse off (sorry about that).

It would be, if you can explain how we could -- somehow --
get two pieces of space rock -- I'm not sure how big they/d
have to be, but it depends on the thrust -- to impact the
Moon at precisely the right points to change its orbit
from its current affair to the L1 Lagrange point.

For the record, the moon is 7.35 * 10^22 kg and is
currently orbiting at a speed of about 1 km/s, so we're
talking quite a momentum shift here. Best I can do is a
few decades, with the incoming rocks hurtling in at about
72 km/s. (30 km/s Earth velocity, 42 km/s velocity of
the rock as it comes in a retrograde orbit from very far out.)

I'll admit to wondering whether we'd have any detrius
kicked up and fall on Earth or not. At best, we'd have
two additional moons. At worst, we'd have a hell of a
pair of collisions with Earth as the spent rocks bounce
off the Moon then hurtle directly towards our muddy marble.

And then there's the fine tuning; if the Moon isn't placed
at exactly the Lagrange point, how are we going to move it?

[rest snipped]

--
#191,
Linux. Because Windows' Blue Screen Of Death is just
way too frightening to novice users.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com