Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon

I see that Earth's failing magnetosphere is just as taboo/nondisclosure
of a topic, as is that of our moon or that of my LSE-CM/ISS and/or the
other intelligent life that's existing/coexisting on Venus.
Unfortunately, I may have inadvertently saved our resident warlord's
sorry butt, by way of my having identified the significant and/or
primary cause of global warming, that which has nothing to do with our
fossil energy consumption nor that of otherwise pillaging and raping of
mother Earth for all she's worth.

I'm obviously going to have to rewrite this entire topic and that of our
being "Global Warmed to Death" a few extra times, even though it'll
essentially end up saying the same thing in fewer and better words plus
improved math, conveying that our moon has been the primary and ongoing
cause of global warming, and that's not saying we/humanity haven't
accomplished more than our fair share of making a bad situation a whole
lot worse off than it ever needed to be.

2e20 joules = moon orbital energy, and that's merely the joules/second
that's unavoidably going somewhere and thereby having been accomplishing
some form of energy transfer, with a slight percentage of which becoming
interactive tidal/friction thermal energy.

The reflected IR energy of what's mostly secondary solar IR and thus
providing an extremely thermal penetrating form of FIR heat that's hard
to avoid, probably isn't nearly the terrestrial impact factor as
otherwise represented by the continual friction that's caused by the
ongoing gravity and tidal forces, that's getting continually reapplied
inside and out as a direct result of the moon's orbital gravity
influence, whereas this gravity influence continually pulls upon and
subsequently pushes elsewhere upon everything that's Earth, including a
portion of which had contributed on behalf of sustaining the interior
rotation of our magnetosphere's generating layer.

However, I'd thought you folks might get an extra laugh out of this one;
Luna's (Earth's Moon) Thermal Environment
http://www.tak2000.com/data/planets/luna.htm
The planetary infrared is of such a magnitude that the radiator
surfaces are significantly affected in lunar orbit. In particular,
the spacecraft attitude for "parking" or "sleep" periods should be
picked to minimize the view to the lunar surface. Since most
radiators surfaces have a relatively low solar absorptance, but a
high infrared emittance, it can frequently be preferable to point
the radiators toward the Sun to some extent in order to minimize
its view to the lunar surface.

In other words, our physically dark moon is so freaking double/reactive
IR hot and reflective, that in order to cool off a given spacecraft
that's cruising anywhere above that hot deck of our naked moon needs to
have those thermal radiators pointed towards the sun rather than the
lunar surface. Of course, this is exactly what I'd been saying all
along, that the secondary IR/FIR energy remains as a big consideration
for any of those orbital missions, and especially of those fly-by-rocket
landings and subsequent EVA moon walking efforts, even a little tough on
robotics that'll need to get rid of surplus heat that's arriving from
most all directions, with the sun itself being one of the least of your
IR considerations since it's representing little more than a
point-source of thermal energy to deal with.

The surface area of Earth affected by lunar gravity = 5.112e14 m2
Surface area of our moon affected by Earth's gravity = 0.38e14 m2

Earth at 2e20/5.112e14 = 0.39e6 joules/m2 (rotating/active)
moon at 2e20/0.38e14 = 5.263e6 joules/m2 (non-rotating/passive)

Obviously this is all about one or the other orb causing an influence
upon the other orb's environment, whereas clearly it's not about how
extra hot Earth's gravity is making the moon that's already a lost
cause, and that's because our moon is somewhat of a passive or inactive
situation, but otherwise as to the amount of energy that's due to our
moon affecting our terrestrial environment that's rotating and thereby
having fluids inside and out that get unavoidably affected by the forces
at play.

Even if merely 0.1% of the lunar gravity influence gets converted into
tidal friction is upon average contributing 390 joules/m2. Cut that
down to 0.05% and it's still worth 195 joules/m2, and that's not only
24/7 per each and every week but per day and night of each and every
second year round, but that's also not to mention the continual flow of
thermal transfers due to tidal currents and/or of the extra amount of
sea-ice breakage due to tidal and storm generated waves and simply ocean
elevation shifts. Therefore it is by far our moon that is still the
primary culprit, of the greater importance as to our global warming
trend as we've exited away from the last ice age which this terrestrial
environment will ever see.

Adding in the secondary IR is worth perhaps less than an a few extra
joules/m2, and even though it's FIR energy represents yet another
constant resource of global warming, I believe for the moment can be
excluded because of the rather enormous affect of what the lunar gravity
itself imposes. Of course, if Earth were a near solid there wouldn't be
all that much if any friction, nor would there be an active
magnetosphere, and subsequently Earth would soon become a larger version
of an icy cold Mars w/o life as we know it.

Obviously I'm being sufficiently right with my somewhat dyslexic
encrypted analogy, that's based upon the regular laws of physics and
supported by the best available science, whereas otherwise you folks
could have so easily impressed the living hell out of us village idiots
with all of your vast wizardly expertise, and thereby having shared
those supposed much better numbers, and that of being so kind as to
sharing in whatever's in support of such numbers that supposedly has our
moon with us from the very beginning rather than just since the last ice
age.

Otherwise, our Usenet team which offers an orchestrated naysay mindset,
that's also into calling a continuous application of an extra 254
gigajoules per second or merely 914 tj/hr of lunar recession energy, as
supposedly being so much less impressive than a few wussy milliseconds
worth of terrestrial lightning strikes, is certainly offering us yet
another new and improved mainstream of their science weirdness. It only
gets so much more so impressive if those lightning storms are somehow
overtaking the continuous 2e20 joules/sec of what the entire lunar
orbital worth of energy has to offer, as representing the sort of
wag-thy-dogs to death of whatever your superior conditional laws of
physics has to offer, as extracted from whatever's scripted within their
NASA/Apollo koran of nifty infomercial-science, that's supposedly
representing the orbital mechanics of our moon affecting Earth as
somehow being of what's so gosh darn insignificant.

Silly me, whereas I honestly didn't realize that 2e20 joules/sec of a
continuous applied force was so gosh darn wussy by way of our NASA's "so
what's the difference" policy, of their infomercial-science standards of
supposedly such all-knowing expertise. I guess that I'll have to be
certain to past that one along, so that other Village idiots don't
mistake such big numbers as having any meaning whatsoever.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG