Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon

Earth may be soon enough be w/o magnetosphere, but it also wasn't all
that long ago as being w/o Moon.

This new and improved syntax and a few pesky word improvements hasn't
change a darn thing, as otherwise it's the same old regular laws of
physics, of replicated science and associated old stories of Earth with
sufficiently artistic and intelligent souls from within our last ice
age, but w/o moon.

Not that anyone within this typically naysay Usenet from hell's
anti-think-tank that seriously sucks and blows actually gives an honest
tinker's damn, other than sharing as much of their infomercial-science
and infomercial-history as possible; Here's some of my old links of
information and short stories by others that's much the same as our NASA
loosing those 700 boxes of there own Apollo data, whereas instead our
planetology and historical archives thereof having also lost track of
records depicting the earliest existence of our moon, and that's without
my having involved Velikovsky's "Worlds in Collision" nor having
extracted from any other portions of his research and subsequent
writings.

Immanuel Velikovsky (banished for his being honest)
http://www.firmament-chaos.com/recent_papers.html
http://www.firmament-chaos.com/papers/fvenuspaper.pdf

Oldest petroglyphics(pecked art) of our moon? (not actually very old,
unless you'd consider that which had transpired since 10,500 BC as being
sufficiently classified as astronomically old), and to think that
12,000~15,000 years isn't hardly a drop in the evolutionary bucket of
our supposed intelligent life as we know it.

Where's our moon as of whatever's older than 10,500 BC, and especially
of anything that's 12,000 or forbid 15,000+ BC is entirely without moon
via such early depictions that's in any way is remotely suggestive of
being moon like. Yet those were artistically intelligent humans with
terrific cognitive skills as good as if not better then myself, that had
obviously been surviving for thousands of years prior to 15,000 BC (were
they all a species of blind souls, or were they simply afraid to go
outside their caves by night or even by day?)

Was there an early evolutionary glitch in humanity's ability, that would
have somehow prevented their depicting our moon? Or, was Earth's
environment of such a thick and dense atmosphere that was continually
clouded over and thereby masking the sun, our moon and stars as being
visually unknown to such an early species of humanity? (I don't think
so)

At best we have a little better than 10,500 years BC that'll contribute
as to our global environment having shared a moon as depicted within
such ancient petroglyphics/pictographics. Otherwise, as of anything
previously recorded or otherwise recorded seems w/o moon, whereas the
likes of pre 12,000 BC Earth seems as though entirely without offering
any appreciation of that nearby and otherwise of what should have been
an extremely extra earthshine illuminated moon, whereas most certainly
not all of mother Earth had been frozen solid. At least +/- 20 degrees
(Tropic of Cancer/Capricorn) near the equator remained as extensively
ice free, although winter snow coverage may have reached a bit further,
therefore the albedo of mother Earth had to have been 0.75 if not
greater, and that's a simply a substantial amount of moon illuminating
earthshine.

Via the Dropas/Dzopas and of those nifty CD like stone disks of their
micro inscribed format of recorded history, and of the graphics upon
their 10,000 BC cave habitats which do establish the moon as being a
part of Earth's thawing environment, which thus far according to modern
science wasn't at the time transpiring all that much differently than
the many ice age cycles before. Although there's a few thousand years
worth of somewhat unual thermal hovering rather than merely peaking
within the latest period of thaw, which clearly remains as an ongoing
and fairly rapid overshoot, which leaves us with a great deal to learn
of what actually transpired, as of those first indications of having
Earth's new and improved environment obtaining a working moon as of
roughly 10,500 BC.

http://www.burlingtonnews.net/dropas.html
"In the years since the discovery of the first disc, archeologists and
anthropologists had learned more about the isolated Bayan-Kara-Ula area.
And much of the information seemed to corroborate the bizarre story
recorded on the discs."

"Legend still preserved in the area spoke of small, gaunt, yellow faced
men who 'came from the clouds, long, long ago'. The men had huge,
bulging heads and puny bodies and were so ugly and repellent that they
were hounded down by local tribesmen on horseback. Strangely, the
description of the 'invaders' tallied with the skeletons orginally
discovered in the caves by Professor Chi Pu Tei. On the walls of the
caves themselves archeologists had uncovered crude pictures of the
rising Sun, the Moon, unidentifiable stars and the Earth... all joined
together by lines of pea-sized dots. Along with the discs, the cave
drawings had been dated around 12,000 years old."

So, what's there to behold that's established as of prior to 10,500 BC,
as having depicted our environment along with such an impressive looking
moon?

Lascaux cave paintings / 15,000 BC w/o moon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascaux
http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/arcnat/lascaux/en/
These and of so many other similar and quite possibly of older drawings
around the globe simply fail to depict nor otherwise having suggested
anything as to any such extremely nearby moon. I wonder why that is?

Was our moon so gosh darn nearby and perhaps so much more so reflective,
in that they'd considered it our second sun, or was it merely invisible?

For it's apparent size and especially of having been closer in, plus
receiving an extra special amount of earthshine, and especially if that
moon had been still hosting a surface layer of it's orginal salty ice,
as such it would have been appearing as though looking nearly as bright
as the sun.

If these 15,000+BC folks of Lascaux were so good as they were at
artistically depicting such 3D depth and of proper physiological
dimentions of terrain, plants and animals, then why are there other
depictions around the globe as having offered so many images of
extremely weird looking humans, as though looking so ET and/or of
somewhat as though 50/50 human+animal ET looking?

And, why not of similar detailed images or other depictions of
themselves, or were they all Muslim?

Other much older graphics are equally without moon.
http://www.jqjacobs.net/rock_art/dawn.html
"Australian rock art may be as old as human occupation of that
continent, up to 60,000 years old and perhaps far older. Hundreds of
Australian sites may predate the cave art of Europe (Bednarik). In
Tanzania rock art sites date back about 50,000 years (Karoma). Painted
and engraved images of animals on stone slabs have been excavated and
dated to 28,000 years ago in Namibia (Feder and Park). The oldest known
example of rock art in Europe is an arrangement of eighteen cup marks on
a rock slab over a child's burial in a French cave. Radiocarbon dates
for European paintings range back to more than 32,000 years (Gould). By
this time art traditions are known to have existed in southern Africa,
the Levant, eastern Europe, India and Australia (Bednarik). A California
rock art site has been dated to about 20,000 years ago, based on
analysis of mineral varnish covering a pictograph (Bower 96a)."

"The most sophisticated techniques, shading, outlining and
representation of movement, are now known to have existed in the
earliest Paleolithic art in Europe, more than 30,000 years ago."

Now I'm further wondering as to when exacly did such rock nifty art or
other formats of petroglyphics/pictographics start to include our moon,
that you'd have to think was rather unavoidably impressive?

Of fairly modern depictions on behalf of Earth having two suns, or
perhaps most likely intended to represent that of the sun and of our
extremely nearby icy moon are those depictions as having been
contributed since the end of the last ice age era (8000~10500 BC), and
thus representing a somewhat recent planetology w/moon timeline of a
fairly modern day version of our evolutionary history.
http://www.jqjacobs.net/rock_art/chelly.html
http://www.jqjacobs.net/rock_art/images/narbonae.jpg
This seems to suggest that earlier humans were either quite terribly
dumb and dumber heathens that were afraid of their own shadows, or that
perhaps they were a species of physiologically impaired sight or perhaps
that of actually being blind. Either that or perhaps they never once
stuck their proto-human heads outside of their caves for an honest
look-see at whatever had to have been rather nicely illuminating their
snowy cold and clear nighttime.

I believe this item offers a rather unusually large depiction of our
early moon:
Sedona Back Country - Sun or Moon Pictograph
http://gosw.about.com/od/bestdaytrip...onahike_10.htm
http://z.about.com/d/gosw/1/5/v/Pictograph1.jpg

I interpret this next one is just that of our moon and sun (unless that
second sun is that representing Sirius), thereby proving that as of
somewhat recent though of primitive humans could in fact draw a good
number of such items, including the capability of their having no
apparent problems with having depicted our extremely nearby moon within
somewhat proper proportion to that of our sun.
http://www.hao.ucar.edu/Public/image...es/slide20.png

Unfortunately, I'm obviously not nearly smart enough because, I'm still
looking for those of ice age and/or of whatever's pre ice age or at
least as to appreciating whatever's the earliest versions of these
depictions that'll so happen to include our moon. Thus far we're not
seeing all that much, are we, or am I the only fool on Earth that's
thinking outside the mainstream status quo box.

Here's what's depicted as seeming very ET and otherwise depicting as a
rather unusually large moon in relationship to our human stature and
that of our sun, and otherwise of Earth as clearly having two suns.
There's also a few interesting looking aircraft/spacecraft items, and
all of this again transpiring from a time well after the peak of the
last ice age cycle, such as when Earth was nearly 50% frozen solid
and/or covered in those much longer lasting winter seasons of thick
snow...
http://www.crystalinks.com/ancientastronauts.html
So, once again man's artistic realm should have had no intellectual nor
apparent physiological problems in having depicted that moon of ours,
yet as of much earlier depictions of having demonstrated much greater
artistic expertise than necessary (including a good deal of 3D depth of
perspective view) failed to share or otherwise having included any such
highly illuminated moon.

This by rights interprets as though all available terrestrial evidence
by way of our own kind has more than depicted our early planetary
history as having been without moon, thereby indicating that our moon is
actually that of a fairly recent arrival, and perhaps that same analogy
might as well go for the planet Venus that should otherwise have been
unavoidably and thus easily included within such early (peak ice age or
pre ice age) notations.

Perhaps this next item is within the timeline of the arrival of our
moon, or possibly it's merely that of our having received a rather
significant multi-teratonne worth of a moon iceberg, such as having
created the arctic ocean basin as of roughly 10500~11000 BC.
http://mirrorh.com/timeline1.html (11,000 B.C. - 9,000 B.C.)
"The northern regions of Alaska and Siberia appear to have been the
worst hit by the murderous upheavals between 13,000 and 11,000 years
ago. In a great swathe of death around the edge of the Artic Circle the
remains of uncountable numbers of large animals have been found -
including many carcases with the flesh still intact, and astonishing
quantities of perfectly preserved mammoth tusks. Indeed, in both
regions, mammoth carcases have been thawed to feed to sled dogs and
mammoth steaks have featured on restaurant menus in Fairbanks. One
authority has commented, 'Hundreds of thousands of individuals must have
been frozen immediately after death and remained frozen, otherwise the
meat and the ivory would have spoiled ... Some powerful general force
was certainly at work to bring the catastrophe about.' " [Graham
Hancock, Fingerprints Of The Gods, p. 212-213]

Somewhere around the timeline of 10,500 ~ 11,000 BC, Earth received
quite a substantial booty of advanced tools and intellectual expertise,
as though it all just fell out of the sky. Seemingly there were also a
variety of new species introduced, as though having somewhat God like or
via intelligent design having arrived and/or materialized out of
nowhere. Older than 10,500 BC depictions of our moon seem to be as
stealth as any Iraqi WMD, although, of other and much older artistic
expertise seems as though quite good enough and even somewhat impressive
looking, except oddly w/o moon.

Everything which includes our moon or Venus seems to have been depicted
as though having transpirored since our last thaw (10000~11000 BC),
meaning that only as of our most recent ice age has there been
depitstion of such, and there's lots other as having been telling us
this very same story over and over.
http://home.earthlink.net/~pcstef/venus_stone_age.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_character
Even China that had been perhaps the most intellectually,
technologically and artistically advance species, whereas even their
pictophonetics is coming up a little short of having included a moon
symbol at merely 6500 BC, whereas those little Dropas/Dzopas of China
having previously arrived along with their having engraved those CD like
stone disks seem to offer the most advanced skills as of their 10,000 BC
arrival are still of what's essentially sequestered as much as possible,
perhaps because of whom they were and of where they may have come from.
The only folks not telling us this honest story are the NASA/Apollo
rusemasters and of their loyal borg like collective of apparently incest
cloned Third Reich collaborating minions, that have essentially
everything you can imagine to lose if they so much as give an inch.

Unfortunate for the truth, as well as humanity and that of our failing
environment, it seems those following in the pagan faith-based footsteps
of our NASA are every bit as much at fault as are the originators of
this ongoung fiasco. So, we're talking tens of thousands of fools upon
fools and with more on the way that'll need to accept responsibility and
the consequences of their actions.

Obviously others and I could be wrong (certainly wouldn't be the first
time), in which case you folks that insist our moon is nearly as old,
essentially made of Earth and typically a passive orb that's safe to
walk upon, can easily point out all of those pre ice age pictographics
of what had to have been our extremely nearby and extra reflective moon,
that which should have been downright if not extremely impressive,
especially at colder times when considering the mostly snow and ice
covered Earth that included our icy and snowy environment as far south
as Cuba as having contributed to a nearly 75% albedo worth of
earthshine, which should have been unavoidably illuminating upon that
rather nearby and thus rather enormous looking pre-ice-age moon of ours,
that is if in fact such ever existed.

With Henry Kroll's and those of my ongoing research and of our
subsequent thoughts or best swag of the day, of our world previously not
having such nifty worth of tidal energy for physically causing such
horrific amounts of inside and out friction, or that of having been
contributing an extra share of secondary IR energy, and of thereby
having extensively kept our geothermal and solar influx of our
terrestrial thermal energy better distributed, chances are that the
previous ice ages w/o moon would have been much worse off (which I do
believe science has since proven they were), with only the latest thaw
as having been contributed and therefore affected by way of having those
lunar tidal forces and extra IR energy influx at play, is most likely
why we'll never see another deep ice age or even a mini-freeze,
especially since having contributed so much of our biological and
industrial byproducts and waste, along with our unmitigated arrogance is
what's going to continually see to the elimination of any significant
snowball's chance in hell, of our ever obtaining greater snow coverage
along with glacial and/or sea-ice improvements.

As a direct result of modern humanity's total indifference and via a
little secondary factor of whatever our moon contributes, snow and ice
are gradually becoming yet another thing of the past, which isn't
entirely a bad thing if you can afford the necessary time and resources
in order to deal with such changes. Of course, the poor and those
indifferent the truth may literally have to appreciate the task of
outrunning vast storms, swimming for their lives and otherwise of how to
go jellyfish (meaning ocean dead zones of mostly jellyfish will have to
become their new and improved resource of seafood).
-
Brad Guth


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

I see that our "Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon" has no meaning within
Usenet science or Usenet physics.

I guess the laws of Usenet physics are once again based upon the usual
space-toilet format of their infomercial-science that dictates as to
what those conditional laws of physics must thereby represent.

Too bad the scientific matter of replicated facts proves that I'm more
than sufficiently right. It also proves that you folks are just deathly
afraid of your own perpetrated cold-war shadows.

Thankfully, the smarts and wisdom of China and Russia are going to kick
serious butt, as they leave us in their moon dust and outside the ream
of what Venus has to behold.
-
Brad Guth


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

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

Usenet hot potato, as offered once more for the old gipper: Earth w/o
Magnetosphere, w/o Moon would have been so much worse off than our
merely getting excessively thawed out.

Henry Kroll and myself are into our usual deductive thinking, whereas
we're still proposing that intelligent/intellectual life as having
evolved entirely upon this Earth may simply have been a wee bit
pre-ice-age iffy, as having been situated a little too far away from our
sun that simply wasn't quite as active and thereby as nicely radiating
as it is today, and especially extra iffy should Earth be having to
manage this task without the enormous benefits of such a nearby moon.

Proto-Earth obviously once upon a time offered a nearly Venus like
atmosphere, thus technically capable of having created and obviously
having sustained such complex happenstance of extremely large and
somewhat bulky life, but perhaps not offering all that much
environmental quality nor of sufficient diversity, and especially if
still limited to existing within or of the below-surface environment,
and so much worse yet if the majority of mother Earth's above surface
environment had otherwise been so often and so nearly entirely
sub-frozen solid for so much of the time. As clearly indicated by way
of those ice core samples, depicting each of the many ice-ages that were
consistently worse off per each proceeding ice-age cycle, that's having
represented such an extensive planetology worth of environmental energy
differential, whereas in so much difference that such vast global
thermal cycles simply can not be so easily attributed to local orbital
mechanics without involving our moon, nor likely of sufficient solar
energy fluctuation cycles without having to involve another sun.

Unfortunately, this simple task of our asking others to contribute
constructively on what's clearly outside their cozy mainstream status
quo box, whereas obviously that's not going down without a damn good
fight, as that sort of fair and balanced open mindset simply hasn't been
transpiring as of long before we came along, at least not without
involving a few dead bodies of those mindset upon sustaining their one
and only outlook, which has been cultivated in order to suit their one
and only pagan faith-based interpretation, and that simply can't be
altered regardless of the physics and best available science that's
replicated.

Something else of a stellar like significant influence has allowed Earth
to freeze so extensively, and then to have thawed on the 100,000 year
cycle. The only problem with this well established history is that by
now we should have been deep into our next freeze cycle.

It is thought by many that human activity alone has been the culprit, as
of lately having contributed so extensively to our failing environment,
in that we humans alone are the primary cause of the accellerated global
warming fiasco that's showing us no remorse. The best available science
tends to support this analogy, although if life and of orbital mechanics
were only so simple, as such I'd agree that human contributions and
otherwise direct damage to our environment has been sufficiently proven
as having an affect that's anything but beneficial to our long term
quality of life.

As further pointed by Henry Kroll's and my ongoing research, there has
been no apparent indications of sufficient lunar orbital fluctuations
that's in any way capable of itself being associated with all of those
previous ice-age cycles, in fact if there's anything that's
scientifically and being orbital physics perfectly clear, is that our
moon had been unavoidably cruising so much closer and therefore would
have been more so moderating to our environment, if not having entirely
prevented such previous deep cycles of ice-ages.

We also believe the best available evidence and science we've got
demonstrates that our moon has only been involved with that of the
latest thaw, which seems to have no apparent end in sight. This analogy
from the best available science is what's suggesting that our currently
still salty and otherwise once upon a time icy proto-moon hasn't been
orbiting around Earth for quite as long as we'd been informed, much less
having been created by way of any Mars like impactor.

Taking a little notice as to how much orbital energy that moon of ours
currently represents, and thereby affording an unavoidable inside and
out influence upon Earth's environment.

Moon's orbital (Fc)Centripetal Force = 2.00076525e20 N = 2.04021e19 kgf

Converting those terrific gravity related Newtons worth of such orbital
kgf into raw energy of joules (Newton = 0.1 kg/m/s) and (1 kg/m/s =
9.80665 joules):

The associated centrifugal energy worth of 2.000765e20 N.m. = 2e20
joules

The 40 mm/year recession is essentially worthy of one meter/.04 = 25:1

Therefore, if leaving us at 40 mm/yr = 2.00076e20/25 = 8.00304e18
joules/yr

8.00304e18/8.76e3 = .91359e15 joules per hour = 913.6e12 jhr

913.6e12 jhr/3.6e3 = 253.8e9 joules/sec (recession energy = 254
gigajoules)

A second calculation that's based upon a bit more robust assesment of
gravitation force as also converted into joules of energy gets this
amount of applied energy a little more impressive;
http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...14/i4/moon.asp
Is the moon really old? by "Dr Don DeYoung . . . if the earth moon
system is as old as evolutionists say, we should have lost our moon long
ago."

"There is a huge force of gravity between the earth and moon - some 70
million trillion pounds (that's 70 with another 18 zeroes after it), or
30,000 trillion tonnes (that's 30 with 15 zeroes)."

If Dr. Don DeYong's 30e18 kgf were correct; 30e18 kgf * 9.807 = 2.94e20
Joules

At the supposed ongoing recession of .04 m/yr = 2.942e20/25 = 11.768e18
J/yr
The subsequent energy of recession per second:
11.77e18/31.54e6 = .3732e12 or 373.2e9 J (recession energy = 373
gigajoules)
-

In either case of 254 gj or 373 gj, and trust that I've not yet taken
into account the amount of extra tidal energy that's having to
compensate for the drag coefficient, nor of have I included the
reflected IR and FIR worth of whatever else that physically dark moon
has to offer, whereas this still represents a rather terrific amount of
energy that's obviously powerful enough to have affected Earth's
platetonics and perhaps towards keeping that inner laler that's up
against our outer shell that's surrounding our molten iron core in a
sufficient tidal motion, thereby extensively pumping up and otherwise
sustaining the highly beneficial if not critically essential
magnetosphere, that's unfortunately in the process of failing us at the
rate of 0.05%/year, perhaps every bit as Global warming lethal with
10,000 deaths per year currently attributed to various skin cancers that
are directly caused by the excess amounts of cosmic, solar and lunar
derived gamma nad hard-X-ray energy that's getting through our
insignificant atmosphere, that's going to leave us in great strides as
the magnetosphere fails to fend off those solar winds.

Remember that without such a magnetosphere, surface life as we've known
it wouldn't have stood much of a chance in this otherwise sub-frozen
hell of our having evolved or otherwise having coexisted upon Earth w/o
moon. From other research and of perfectly reasonable conjectures that
fit entirely within the regular laws of planetology physics, from which
we've also been informed that early Earth and therefore most likely
prior to our having a moon, is when this environment had a 50+ bar
(Venus like) worth of a highly protective atmosphere, that obviously
represented early life upon Earth didn't require the benefits of any
moon or that of the stabilized magnetosphere.

As it is (w/o drag coefficient or secondary IR/FIR), and especially if
going by the hour, it seems as though a great deal of available
recession energy either way.
Brad Guth: 254 gj * 3.6e3 = 914.4e12 j/hr
Don DeYoung: 373 gj * 3.6e3 = 1,343e12 j/hr

Even going by way of my less impressive numbers of 914 terajoules/hr,
excluding the fact that our moon was obviously once upon a time much
closer and if created via a Mars impactor would have been initially
receding at the much faster rate of 6+ km/s at it exited the physical
real of Earth's surface, whereas the more likely arrival and subsequent
glancing impact of our once upon a time icy proto-moon (that which
currently represents such an absolutely horrific amount of ongoing
applied energy), plus having ever since accommodated those extremely
beneficial tidal affects (inside and out), in that if this amount of
existing orbital energy were removed from our environment would cause a
great deal of harm in many ways other than the loss of it's nifty
moonshine and of it's reflectively good IR/FIR worthy albedo that's also
representing a contributing thermal energy factor on behalf of
sustaining our environment that's still thawing out from the last ice
age, and we believe so much so beneficial that if this moon as is were
to be removed, whereas Earth's oceans would not only become cesspools of
mostly jellyfish life, but our environment would also unavoidably and
rather extensively start to ice itself up to quite an extent.

We believe that life upon this Earth was simply situated a bit too far
away from the sun, especially if it were having to manage without the
enormous benefits of our moon, and it only gets worse yet if this life
were having to manage upon the surface without the extra benefit of a
substantial magnetosphere. Intelligent/intellectual life on Earth as we
know it simply couldn't have evolved and having matured and survived
above the surface without the enormous energy influx and physical
modualtion and thermal moderation benefits of the moon. Unfortunately,
not only is the moon still moving itself away from us, but so has the
magnetosphere been dropping off by roughly .05%/year. (we think those
two factors are somewhat related to one another)

Others having similar notions but sharing somewhat different conclusions
as to Earth w/o moon are still somewhat skewed by the supposed science
associated with our having explored our physically dark, salty and
otherwise extremely reactive/anticathode of a naked moon (Earth's
revolving mascon), as though it's no longer such a big deal.
http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys235...n/no_moon.html

Unfortunately, all forms of human recorded history or otherwise of
earlier proto-human depicted history are those extensively if not
entirely limited to the time since our last ice-age. It's exactly as
though we hadn't obtained a moon prior to that cycle of a badly frozen
time, and it's also as though whatever's intelligent/intellectual life
upon this Earth hadn't actually existed/coexisted to any extent prior to
the last ice-age. So, what's so entirely different as to our last ice
age and of the subsequent thaw?

I totally agree that proto-life as having formulated under a much
thicker atmosphere, below the surface and even from within salty ice was
perfectly doable without a moon, whereas the core energy of mother Earth
would have been doing it's thing of radiating and of venting geothermal
energy plus having contributed nifty loads of raw elements and thus
unavoidably having created a great deal of complex opportunities for the
random happenstance and chemistry on behalf of local and panspermia life
to have eventually gotten off to a good start (although our best efforts
thus far haven't managed to simulate nor otherwise having accomplished
such DNA formulation from scratch on behalf of even having created the
most basic forms of such intelligent proto-life). Using the soil and/or
of the available water and thereby mud certainly counts as a viable
shield against the otherwise lethal solar and cosmic radiation, as well
as for having 50+ bar worth of an early atmosphere would have
extensively if not entirely protected early life on Earth w/o moon and
w/o magnetosphere.

Earth’s atmosphere before the age of dinosaurs
by; Octave Levenspiel, Thomas J. Fitzgerald and Donald Pettit
"Our sister planet and nearest neighbor, Venus, has an atmosphere of 90
bar pressure, consisting of 96% CO2 (5). Why should Earth be so
different? Ronov measured the equivalent of at least 55 bar of CO2 tied
up as carbonates around the world (6), whereas Holland estimates that at
least 70 bar of CO2 is bound as carbonate materials (7). These
carbonates had to come from the atmosphere, by way of the oceans, so we
propose that, after the original oxidation of CH4 and CO, Earth’s early
atmosphere was at very high pressure, up to 90 bar, and that it
consisted primarily of CO2."

http://journals.iranscience.net:800/...l/12learn.html
This extra pressure and of mostly CO2 would also have represented a
great deal of buoyancy, that should have made life for the larger
species (as well known to roam about Earth's surface as of millions of
years ago) considerably more bearable and even flyable at great bulk.
Therefore, large scale life as we know evolved, as well as having
gradually adjusted to such pressure and even as surviving within the
concentrations of CO2 and sulphurs. CO2 alone (especially of dry CO2)
is not even taboo to life as we know it, whereas even in great amounts
and under such terrific pressure is just representing a different
environment that takes a little getting used to, in much the same as
other life upon Earth that survives at great ocean depths and near to
where it's hot enough to melt certain alloys has been proven as doable.

My fundamental two part question is:
How would the purely terrestrial evolution of intelligence have been
influenced or otherwise related to our having or not having a moon,
and/or that of our not having or as per having a viable magnetosphere
that's essentially of what's defending our relatively thin remainder of
an atmosphere?

Part two of the above question: Excluding the basic intelligence worth
of a given species survival that's proven as often being a whole lot
smarter than what many humans seem to have at their disposal, what if
anything does human intellectual intelligence of rational/irrational
thoughts (including that of our learned and thus cultivated bigotry,
greed and arrogance) have to do with planetology or that of various
orbital mechanics?

PLANETARY SCIENCE: HISTORY OF EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE / as published in
Nature and ScienceWeek
http://scienceweek.com/2003/sc031017-1.htm
Perhaps this one should have been entitled: Dare to think outside the
box is extremely lethal, whereas perhaps this report should also have
addressed the fundamental physics as to what other sorts of glancing
impactor(s) could have given enough rotational energy to have initially
started the outer surface rotating as different than our molten
interior, thus giving us our actively mascon motivated magnetosphere to
start with.

Clearly our thinking has been primarily limited or rather sequestered by
way of whatever our spendy mainstream infomercial-science plus
faith-based science has to guide us by, whereas our NASA and thereby
mostly based upon their religious faith approved Mars impactor notion
has been their all-knowing and apparently the one and only viable
alternative, that which continually gets published and otherwise
promoted at public expense, that's also sufficiently similar to the Alan
Guth accelerating expansion/BIG-BANG or "Inflationary Universe" theory
that's certainly very compatible with the pro-intelligent/creation and
thus within the pro-faith based realm of God's creation being the
general rule, that is unless you wouldn't mind losing all credibility
and most likely your job plus seeing your entire career and of
everything associated going down the nearest space-toilet, at least
that's how insecure and/or immoral most religious cults and of their
political partnerships have managed in the past, and remains as how they
would still most likely deal with such fools as outsiders that would
suggest anything that wasn't pre-approved and thus certified and
accepted by way of God's pagan replacement(NASA/Apollo). At least
that's my honest impression as based upon how this anti-think-tank of a
naysay Usenet from hell treats whatever's rocking their boat, that which
clearly has no apparent intentions of their cutting the rest of us any
slack.
-
Brad Guth


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

I see that this topic is still being avoided like the worse plague on
Earth. In that case I'll keep contributing as best I can.

Now here's another honest man from naysayville that's after at least
part my own global warming heart.

http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/sc...ma ilgate.org

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...e2e2810678d397
Earl; Not "not global warming". It is "not manmade global warming"

Earl; We have been in Global Warming ever since the Little Ice
Age ended around 1850. Well over half the temperature rise that
the Greens shrill about occured before WW2. Whereas the majority
of the CO2 that is the blame was consumed after 1980.
I obviously don't entirely agree with the "not manmade global warming",
as that's been more than proven via replicated science to have been a
contributing factor, although I'm thinking it could represent as little
as 10% of the ongoing root cause.

The rather unfortunate "sun is a variable star!!" logic is only ever so
slightly correct, but not nearly sufficient nor in any way proven as
even having been nearly sufficient to have fluctuated by such an extent
unless you're talking about that sucker going absolutely postal on us,
and otherwise having been a passive bonfire as of those multi-thousand
year ice age dips.

And the infomercial wars of our mainstream status quo that's wagging thy
dogs to death continues, as though we've got all the necessary smarts as
is, plus all time in the world, and it's also as though our physiucally
dark moon that has supposedly been with us from the very beginning has
absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with our ongoing thaw from the last
ice age. However, what if our moon had only arrived as of 10,500 BC?
-

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
ups.com

http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/sc...ma ilgate.org

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...4eeb1ff70466f1
HUGE MELTED LAKE IN BEAUFORT SEA!
Last year, scientists at NASA and the NSIDC reported the most
extensive summer meltdown of Arctic sea ice on record, and an
acceleration in the rate of its long-term decline.

In a new study reported last week, NASA researcher Josefino Comiso
found that the Arctic's winter ice is also in decline, and at an
accelerating rate.

The ice cap is crucial because it helps regulate the planet's
temperature. Its bright surface reflects 80 percent of the solar
energy that strikes it, sending it back into space.

Climatologists say a smaller ice cap will reflect less solar energy
and expose more open water, which is darker and absorbs 90 percent
of the solar energy that falls on it. It heats up, holds more of that
heat from year to year, and makes it harder for ice to form again in
the fall and winter.

So Arctic temperatures rise. From January through August 2005, they
were 3.6 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the long-term average
across most of the region.

I have to concur that's all very true, in that the darker Earth becomes
(especially ocean darkness as opposed to icy/snowy white), the more
solar energy gets absorbed, whereas instead of taking in as little as
10%, it goes to as great as 90% absorbson. Frozen tundra that's now
becoming extensively thawed is simply adding further insult to injury in
more ways than being of less snow and ice covered, and those ever
expanding dead zones of oceans are now limited to being populated with
jellyfish, if there's anything.

Of more cloud coverage by night and less by day is also creating a
somewhat energy collecting/storage environment, whereas by day the solar
energy obtains more unobstructed access to the darker albedo of Earth,
while at night the added moisture that gets placed into our atmosphere
by day becomes clouds by night which only retains the solar influx more
effectively.

But in spite of all else, there's also the nearby orbiting mascon worth
of our physically dark moon to take into account, and at this point I'm
not even talking about whatever amounts of reflected IR and of it's
emitted FIR that's also unavoidably contributed into our warming
environment.

That nearby mascon moon of ours could be representing as great as 90% of
our continuing thaw, or perhaps as little as 75% responsible, whereas
either way it's inevitable that Earth will continue to thaw and
subsequently continues to global warm itself, along with our help of
uncontrolled pillaging, raping and polluting of mother Earth is how
it'll simply accomplish this task a whole lot sooner rather than later.

0.1% of the 2e20 joules worth of mascon force as the potential energy
resource is worth an average of 390 J/m2 upon the surface of Earth. Do
you folks really think that it's limiited to merely 0.1% of the moon's
gravity force and of those subsequent tidal affects that are getting
converted via friction into thermal energy?

Do you really think that such mascon induced ocean currents and thus
terrific tides and subsequent currents are not responsible for
expediting the ongoing thermal moderation (warm energy going towards the
cold) of our global environment?

Do you really think that such a terrific gravitational applied force
that has been rotating about Earth isn't inducing the gradual
super-rotation of our molten mantle, that's situated a relatively short
distance below our feet?

Do you really think that such a terrific mascon affect isn't in any way
related to the ongoing platetonics and subsequent friction/energy
release plus having unavoidably contributed gaseous elements that emerge
to the surface, into our oceans and simply contribute to the atmosphere
from time to time?

I'm not saying that humanity is outside the loop of what's cooking our
goose. I'm simply giving you folks additional tools to appreciate the
ongoing demise that's primarily caused by our moon.

In other words, you should be 100% correct that global warming is
getting rather badly accelerated because of our own doings, and unless
we can moderate our ways and at the same time obtain greater amounts of
clean energy for our personal use without further pillaging and raping
Mother Earth, as such we're not going to get away with this fiasco
forever, and unfortunately most of us can not afford to keep finding
higher and safer ground, along with alternative resources of food and
energy.

Unfortunately, our education system is anything but. Of what we seem to
know is basically infomercial-history that's supported by way of
infomercial-science that's based extensively upon conditional physics,
and it's otherwise media driven down our throats and up our butts at the
commands of those encharge of such matters.

Such honest topics are being topic/author stalked, bashed and as much as
possible banished away from the GOOGLE/Usenet moderated groups is merely
the extra proof-positive that we're more than sufficiently right, as
otherwise why all the Usenet damage-control fuss and flak each and every
time we've posted another substantiated global warming topic, or much
less anything that's having to do with our moon or even Venus?

There's absolutely no question that Earth's continuing thaw from the
last ice age is transpiring before our mostly dumbfounded eyes, and it's
the few and far between folks like Roger Coppock that have seen the
light of how much of that thaw can be directly attributed to human
factors, though seemingly unable to translate that into practical
actions that'll make a worthy difference. Educating the public via this
mostly naysay Usenet anti-think-tank that's focused upon wagging those
poor dogs to death, is not going to happen unless the likes of Roger
Coppock and others of his kind can manage to kick a few extra butts, and
unfortunately the New York Times and of similar publications wouldn't so
much as dare print anything we've had to say because of their insider
clients and otherwise status quo or bust sponsors would either sue their
socks off and/or merely extract any future financial support, the
largest of which being our very own state and federal governments and/or
of those numerous government/public sponsored institutions, that upon
average is what pays for the most infomercial column inches.

Too bad that so much of our supposedly educated masses are those
snookered and thus dumb and dumber than merely dumbfounded.
-
Brad Guth


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

As per ususal, this topic isn't even going anywhere because, others and
myself are right. As such, here's another related sub-topic that's
worth tossing into this Usenet ring of fire.

Some folks think it's already too late, and perceive that we're still
way too addictive to energy that's being extracted and otherwise
produced via some of the dirtiest known and otherwise soot, NOx plus
many other toxin producing methods. I think we're just downright greedy
little perverted *******s that really don't give a damn about others or
that of our failing environment, that's about to get yet another slap in
the face from our badly failing magnetosphere. Too bad our DNA isn't
getting rad-hard.

The birth to grave cycle of global fossil energy exploitation (including
yellowcake) is basically taking us into that very same grave along with
our past, current and future ways that don't seem to be changing soon
enough to make a difference. Instead of having been honestly investing
in the future of cleaner and abundant energy, we're still investing in
the dirty past that's killing us.

This one even has our supposed environmental avenger Roger Coppock
dumbfounded past the point of no return, much like the matter of our
somewhat recently obtained moon having caused most of the last thaw via
gravity/tidal forces plus having contributed a little extra IR/FIR to
boot. Too bad so many folks like Roger can't think inside or much less
outside the cozy little box that has been orchestrated as though
constructed around our dumb and dumber mindsets, in that we have to
believe in anything that's GOOGLE/NOVA or MI/NSA~NASA.

"Exxon Stockholders Liable for Global Warming Damages"
wrote in message

HUGE MELTED LAKE IN BEAUFORT SEA!

http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/sc...ma ilgate.org

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...4eeb1ff70466f1

: This freshwater lake of melted ice is a thermal battery. That is, it
: has absorbed 96,126,250,000 Megajoules of HEAT in the act of meting.
: In order to refreeze it must emit that heat to the atmosphere. The
: battery has been charged.
The freshwater has a depth of 3 meters, which is too shallow not to have
mixed with the brine beneath. Therefore the freezing temperature has been
lowered and additional energy must be extracted from the battery before
refreezing could occur.

The differential is 17.7 degrees C times the volume 2.88e14 grams for an
additional discharge of 5.0976e15 calories of heat energy must be emitted
to the air before the lost ice is fully refrozen.

The net total is 5.0976e15 plus 2.295936e16 calories = 2.805696e16
calories of heat energy released to the air.

2.805696e16 calories = 1.175066e11 MegaJoules = 117,606,600,000 MJ.

2.805696e16 calories = 1.175066e17 Joules

In terms of Nukes the Fat Man and Little Boy atomic bombs (15.08e13
Joules)...

... 779 pairs of atomic bombs like Hiroshima and Nagasaki going of this
winter in the Arctic. One should reasonably prepare for some energetic
kinetics as a result.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaton
A megaton of TNT is 4.184e15 joules = 4.184 petajoules (PJ).
" This is 28 million tons of TNT set to blast. "

Absolutely impressive, and I totally agree that it's all about to
explode big-time in our highly bigoted, arrogant and greedy little
fossil fuel burning and soot producing faces, not to mention the
discarded Radium from yellowcake, coal and other deep geophysical energy
resources that's now into our surface environment along with all of the
megatonnes/year worth of NOx from hell.

Too bad we're all too dumb and dumber, along with having been so easily
snookered and subsequently dumbfounded as to even so much as realize how
totally snookered and summarily dumfounded we all are, and how soon some
of us are going to become prematurely dead and/or seriously broke as a
direct result.

The likes of ExxonMobile should be damn proud of themselves, just like
all of those lethal tobacco drug pushers of internal soot and of
numerous carsonagenics that are currently licensed to kill, and there's
absolutely no doubt that as such they're each doing just that while
turning a hefty profit.

There's next to nothing going into R&D of He3/fusion energy, or much
less the worth of what the nearby moon L1 of unlimited clean energy has
to offer. Even the superior terrestrial worth of wind derived energy
isn't but hardly a prototype of what a serious wind turbine application
has to offer, and of solar PV plus the thermal dynamic Stirling
alternatives that could easily share the base/foundation of those very
same wind turbine towers is apparently taboo/nondisclosure because,
apparently it's all too squeaky clean and too much 100% renewable
without hardly a stitch of repercussions.

Basalt insulation of R-1024/m that's potentially as structural as you'd
care to make it and essentially fire-proof is apparently yet another
taboo/nondisclosure little tidbit of what humanity and that of our
failing environment is never going to see, much less of extremely
compact hybrid batteries operating on hydrogen peroxide and aluminum, or
better internal combustion via h2o2/c12h26 or damn near any viable
combination (including biofuels) you'd care to mix that'll represent a
near zero soot factor as well as zilch worth if any of NOx because, the
mostly nitrogen atmosphere itself isn't getting consumed. God forbid
that we should ever have a surplus of such environmentally clean energy
to put into the makings, storage and distributions of such nifty
products as LH2 or h2o2, and of subsequently making the consumption of
damn near everything else so much more efficient and so much cleaner,
not to mention biologically and environmentally so much end-user
friendly.
-
Brad Guth


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

Earth's environment simply didn't have to contend with that nearby moon
of ours prior to 10,500 BC, just that of our 100,000 and some odd year
orbit of Sirius.

0.1% of the associated 2e20 Joules = 390 w/m2 (plus whatever secondary
IR/FIR)

0.01% of the associated 2e20 Joules = 39 w/m2 (plus whatever secondary
IR/FIR)

Therefore, giving humanity 10% responsibility and that nasty moon of
ours the other 90% seems more than likely, especially since the energy
cycle of making warm water to ice and then ice back into warm water is
so freaking horrific, especially if we're taking the km3 volumes of said
ice into account.

At most I'd be giving humanity 25% responsibility, although either way
of being 25% or as little as 10% is still worth our doing something
about, such as cutting that artificial impact in half seems perfectly
doable, and it's way more than beneficial in so many other positive
ways, other than moderating our fair share of this never ending cycle of
global warming, that is unless you're perfectly good with your next
'happy meal' being a McJellyfish sandwich.
-
Brad Guth


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

Even though our global warming avenger "Roger Coppock" and the likes of
most others may seem a little dumbfounded, our somewhat salty and most
likely icy proto-moon of 4000 km may have been somewhat Sedna like, and
simply affected by some other impacting arrival or greater mascon
encounter as having a sufficient influence, that would have caused the
orbital diversion that brought us together, such as via the Sirius
star/solar system which I believe gets visited by our solar system
roughly every 105,000 years (more frequently in the distent past).
Sedna itself gets to within 76 AU as is, and as such it would not take
all that much of an impact in order to cause that icy orb to head
directly our way, whereas if being dragged along and/or intentionally
deployed by a greater mascon is only better yet.

Obviously something if not several extremely large items had impacted
our moon, and quite possibly there's at least one such impact that may
have left it's mark in Earth as perhaps representing the arctic ocean
basin, as our arriving moon delivered a glancing blow.

All that Henry Kroll and myself can say with any reasonable certainty is
that our moon wasn't with us as of prior to 10,500 BC. I'd be very
interested to narrow that down to a specific decade or even a century,
although if Earth had been impacted by the arrival of such an icy moon,
chances are that most intelligent life on Earth went as deep as possible
into hiding, as I would have, and I'd suppose that the climate of Earth
would have remained as somewhat nasty and clouded over for a few
centuries thereafter, which might further explain as to why it took so
long before that moon of ours became noticed for what it was.

Come to think (just a little outside the box), our magnetosphere might
not have been nearly as extensive until after that Earth/moon encounter.
-

Our moon is geophysically via tidal friction warming Earth as of the
last ice age. As to what exact extent these gravitational forces of
such mascon induced tidal currents above and below the surface are being
converted into thermal energy may be a little fuzzy, but never the less
it's an ongoing global warming factor of such fuzzy logic that's telling
us what's perfectly real and happening to us, that's well above and
beyond the ongoing impact of humanity that's adding further trauma to
our environment.

Up until this last ice age, Earth's environment simply didn't have to
contend with that nearby moon of ours prior to 10,500 BC, just that of
our 100,000 and some odd year orbit of Sirius. If there were a moon
prior to 10,500 BC, as such it would have been included in many of the
artistic renderings of those tens of centuries of talented artistic and
otherwise serious records of those ice age and prior times.

Here's my two ballpark estimates of mascon/tidal warming between 0.01%
and 0.1%. It could be a little greater, but it most certainly isn't
anything less than the 0.01% mark.

0.1% of the associated 2e20 Joules = 390 w/m2 (plus whatever secondary
IR/FIR)

0.01% of the associated 2e20 Joules = 39 w/m2 (plus whatever secondary
IR/FIR)

Total change in greenhouse forcing from 1985 to 2004, we get 9.35 w/m2.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...under-the-sun/

Current Man-made Greenhouse Forcing to be 2.4 - 4.3 W/m2, Compared with
7.5 - 10 W/m2 Needed for Change of Seasons

http://www.globalwarming.net/index.p...62&Itemi d=27

Of course the really big guns of G8 remains in total denial, other than
insisting it's all the fault of Muslims. There's lots of other data
that's nicely compiled by wikipedia.org, such as the 11 year solar cycle
that's worth +/- 0.05% or possibly at most +/- 0.1% of solar irradiance,
which pretty much eliminates that source of being the problem. Whereas
the global dimming via soot and particle factors may be the ultimate
culprit that diminishes our global albedo to a sufficient extent that
can be directly measured from space on a year by year basis, and best
yet as measured from our moon's L1 or alternately via ACE that's halo
parked in Earth's L1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Therefore, on behalf of global warming, I'm giving humanity as little as
10% responsibility, and that nasty moon of ours gets the other 90% which
seems more than likely, especially since the energy cycle of having made
warm water to ice and then ice back into warm water is so freaking
horrific, especially if we're taking the km3 volumes of said ice and
frozen tundra into account.

At the very most I'd be giving humanity 25% responsibility for the
ongoing global warming, although either way of being 25% or as little as
10% is still worth our doing something about, such as cutting that
artificial impact in half seems perfectly doable, and as such it's way
more than beneficial in so many other positive ways, other than
moderating our fair share of this never ending cycle of global warming,
that is unless you're perfectly good with your next 'Happy Meal' being a
McJellyfish sandwich.
-
Brad Guth


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

Earth is only a very rare planet because Mensa = Skull and Bones

Excluding whatever evidence rocks your good ship LOLLIPOP seems to have
worked thus far.

Mensa has also been into playing with cult like fire, and that's what
makes this Earth into such an extra special planet. Topic/author
avoidance if not banishment seems to have become their ultimate tool or
damage-control method of e-book burning. No wonder there's such few if
any good topics within this wussy Mensa NG, that's otherwise so afraid
of it's own shadow.

JFK Speech on Secret Societies and Freedom of the Press
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlEqtaWpKEU
I'm sorry to say that I've totally agreed with JFK long before I'd
realized how totally snookered I'd been, and obviously this unfortunate
phase in my life was before JFK had gotten summarily nailed for being
such an honest human that actually gave a tinkers damn. No wonder
MI/NSA~NASA had to do what they did by allowing the extermination of
this rogue JFK of a lose cannon, in much the same manor as Jews allowed
one of their own kind to get put on a stick. How can we not make that
connection?

Can we imagine a more screwed up planet of supposedly intelligent other
folks that are somewhat physically like us? (I can't) Perhaps that's
exactly why Sirius had gotten rid of us in the first place. (somewhat
like a cosmic version of tossing out the bad apples)
-
Brad Guth


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

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:5d93840c41ede6a7ea356bded39bbd52.49644@mygate .mailgate.org...
Earth is only a very rare planet because Mensa = Skull and Bones


Say what! ROTFLOL




Excluding whatever evidence rocks your good ship LOLLIPOP seems to have
worked thus far.

Mensa has also been into playing with cult like fire, and that's what
makes this Earth into such an extra special planet. Topic/author
avoidance if not banishment seems to have become their ultimate tool or
damage-control method of e-book burning. No wonder there's such few if
any good topics within this wussy Mensa NG, that's otherwise so afraid
of it's own shadow.

JFK Speech on Secret Societies and Freedom of the Press
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlEqtaWpKEU
I'm sorry to say that I've totally agreed with JFK long before I'd
realized how totally snookered I'd been, and obviously this unfortunate
phase in my life was before JFK had gotten summarily nailed for being
such an honest human that actually gave a tinkers damn. No wonder
MI/NSA~NASA had to do what they did by allowing the extermination of
this rogue JFK of a lose cannon, in much the same manor as Jews allowed
one of their own kind to get put on a stick. How can we not make that
connection?

Can we imagine a more screwed up planet of supposedly intelligent other
folks that are somewhat physically like us? (I can't) Perhaps that's
exactly why Sirius had gotten rid of us in the first place. (somewhat
like a cosmic version of tossing out the bad apples)
-
Brad Guth


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