Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon

In article , The Ghost In The Machine writes:
In sci.physics,

wrote
on Sat, 25 Nov 2006 06:50:09 GMT
:
In article , The Ghost In The Machine writes:
In sci.physics, Brad Guth

wrote
on Sat, 25 Nov 2006 03:07:23 +0000 (UTC)
1407a4225d28a022b8af765580ca2107.49644@mygate. mailgate.org:
I guess an Earth w/o magnetosphere really doen't hardly matter,

In a way, you're right. An Earth without the magnetosphere would be
deadly during the daytime to all surface-dwelling life forms.

Really? Why do you think so?

It's a snap judgement admittedly, but my understanding is
that the magnetosphere of the Earth diverts the particles
approaching us from old Sol into the Van Allen belts, or
away from Earth entirely. However, I'd have to study the
matter, and these particles will probably not be fatal to
burrowing creatures (since most of them can't penetrate
rock) -- just the ones on the surface.

Nope.

The Earth atmosphere represents a shield equivalent to a 10m layer of
water, i.e something like 3-4 m of concrete or about 1m of lead.
That's more than you'll find on nuclear reactors. Only the most
energetic stuff has even a slight chance to get through it and stuff
that energetic won't be deflected by the Earth magnetic field either.
Not to mention that neither gammas nor neutrons are influenced by the
Earth magnetic field.

Note that life on the Earth surface in the vicinity of the Earth
magnetic poles, where you've no "magnetic shielding", is not disturbed
by this fact.

You could completely eliminate the Earth magnetic field and radiation
wise, on Earth's surface, it would've made no difference.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message

In sci.physics, Brad Guth

wrote
on Sat, 25 Nov 2006 03:07:23 +0000 (UTC)
lgate.org:
I guess an Earth w/o magnetosphere really doen't hardly matter,

In a way, you're right. An Earth without the magnetosphere would be
deadly during the daytime to all surface-dwelling life forms.

Even our toasty nighttimes would become much worse off from the cosmic
and secondary/recoil bath of radiation streaming off our naked/reactive
moon, as well as from all the rotting of human and other flesh that'll
be just about everywhere.

especially since GW is going to make our one and only precious Earth
into an absolute living hell that's way too spendy before our frail DNA
gets TBI to death.

Is it GW's fault, or the fault of all US citizens? Remember,
we elected him.
Both, and it's only getting much worse, isn't it. Are you one of the
"we elected him"?

The Arctic will not contribute to ocean rising.

That's rather odd because, I've never once said it would, other than
perhaps by way of contributing a few cm, though indirectly because of
the global albedo dimming once the arctic sea ice is gone will likely
cause a new and improved thermal expansion phase of our oceans that'll
be extensively comprised of vast dead zones with only jellyfish to
spare, plus soon thereafter to summarily devour the vast bulk of
Greenland's and Antarctica's ice in no time at all. Of course, then
we'll never see a storm of much less than a category 5.

What's a category 6 storm going to be like, especially if it's packing
along a higher density or composite worth of co2 for the ride?
-
Brad Guth


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

In sci.physics, Brad Guth

wrote
on Sat, 25 Nov 2006 18:25:19 +0000 (UTC)
lgate.org:
"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message

In sci.physics, Brad Guth

wrote
on Sat, 25 Nov 2006 03:07:23 +0000 (UTC)
lgate.org:
I guess an Earth w/o magnetosphere really doen't hardly matter,

In a way, you're right. An Earth without the magnetosphere would be
deadly during the daytime to all surface-dwelling life forms.

Even our toasty nighttimes would become much worse off from the cosmic
and secondary/recoil bath of radiation streaming off our naked/reactive
moon, as well as from all the rotting of human and other flesh that'll
be just about everywhere.

especially since GW is going to make our one and only precious Earth
into an absolute living hell that's way too spendy before our frail DNA
gets TBI to death.

Is it GW's fault, or the fault of all US citizens? Remember,
we elected him.
Both, and it's only getting much worse, isn't it. Are you one of the
"we elected him"?

Maybe yes, maybe no. I voted Democrat but used an electronic voting
device.


The Arctic will not contribute to ocean rising.

That's rather odd because, I've never once said it would, other than
perhaps by way of contributing a few cm, though indirectly because of
the global albedo dimming once the arctic sea ice is gone will likely
cause a new and improved thermal expansion phase of our oceans that'll
be extensively comprised of vast dead zones with only jellyfish to
spare, plus soon thereafter to summarily devour the vast bulk of
Greenland's and Antarctica's ice in no time at all. Of course, then
we'll never see a storm of much less than a category 5.

What's a category 6 storm going to be like, especially if it's packing
along a higher density or composite worth of co2 for the ride?

Katrina's Mother? :-)

-
Brad Guth




--
#191,
Windows Vista. Because a BSOD is just so 20th century; why not
try our new color changing variant?

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

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message

Maybe yes, maybe no. I voted Democrat but used an electronic voting
device.

Well, even those Democrat Jews voted for our resident LLPOF warlord(GW
Bush). Go figure?

What's a category 6 storm going to be like, especially if it's packing
along a higher density or composite worth of co2 for the ride?

Katrina's Mother? :-)

With water spouts the size of NYC (of course always including
Manhattan), and a forced 6+ meter storm surge + tide, I'd say you're
being rather conservative. If we're talking about Florida, you can kiss
that entire state goodbye.
-
Brad Guth


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

Lo and behold: Venus MAY Have had a Moon

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.sc...d7b86593b27332
(beginning of topic)

From: TeaTime / Date: Wed, Nov 8 2006 6:41 pm
Groups: uk.sci.astronomy

Did Venus once have a moon? A talking point with some interesting
references:
http://skytonight.com/news/4353026.html
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...6-152C-8A66834...
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/hypothet.htm#neith
-

From: Jonathan Silverlight / Date: Sun, Nov 12 2006 3:26 pm

Isn't there some question as to whether Venus owes its rotation to one
impact, let alone two? The Wikipedia page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus links to a paper in Icarus saying
tidal slowing of the atmosphere may have produced its current state
http://www.imcce.fr/Equipes/ASD/preprints/prep.2002/venus1.2002.pdf
The moons of Mars didn't form by collision - I don't think anyone has a
sensible theory for them :-)
-

From: TeaTime / Date: Mon, Nov 13 2006 5:34 am

Yes, certainly a possibility, although popular theories for Venus do
suggest
a catastrophic collision which put its axis/rotation in the retrograde.
Tidal action of the Earth on Venus, acting steadily for billennia, then
established the 3:2 spin-orbit resonance. Every 2 earth years, the exact
same 'side' of the Venusian surface faces Earth. So maybe there is some
sub-surface mass concentration on this area of Venus that the Earth
pulls on
to create the tidal lock ... a mascon created by the collision perhaps?
Hopefully a lot more data will be forthcoming shortly.

http://www.imcce.fr/Equipes/ASD/preprints/prep.2002/venus1.2002.pdf
The moons of Mars didn't form by collision - I don't think anyone has a
sensible theory for them :-)

They are ugly little blighters, aren't they. At first glance, one sees
captured asteroids (or even comets) but apparently there is much
scientific
opinion to the contrary. Glad we don't have a chunk of rock like Phobos
orbiting the earth at just a few thousand miles up.
-
(current end of topic)
-

Oops! Mars collected asteroids? Seems that we've heard this valid
argument before, although apparently those very same pesky laws of
physics work entirely different on behalf of Mars obtaining such moons,
as opposed to Earth which apparently can't possibly muster whatever
hocus-pocus conditional physics it takes for doing the same.

Obviously our public/Caltech supercomputers and of those well funded
individuals are quite available for drafting out this sort of an effort,
and it gets rather well published to boot. I wonder what's the silly
problem in running off a few alternatives on behalf of Earth's moon,
just to honestly see what happens.
-
Brad Guth


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

Most folks are still not being allowed to fully appreciate our moon's
L1. Of course, most Americans are still pretty much mainstream
dumbfounded and/or having been snookered about a great many such
important things in this highly infomercial skewed life, even as to what
little we've been allowed to know of (such as there having been
intelligent other life existing/coexisting on Venus). Perhaps those
more intelligent members in support of the China National Space
Administration/CNSA are as such less snookered than we're giving them
credit for.

Basically, the average free-gravity-zone of this moon L1 is supposedly
r33.5~r34 away from the moon and otherwise merely r51 from Earth
(unfortunately there's still no hard-scientific and thus independently
replicated proof of such actually being the case of those specific
numbers), that's worthy of obtaining micro if not nano and even pico
gravity, although nearly any +/- adjustment in the net gravity can be
accommodated and rather efficiently interactively sustained.

Within this interactive moon L1 pocket (+/- wherever it has to be) there
should be as little as 1% the atoms/cm3 and of the required velocity is
roughly 9 fold less than LEO (those factors alone represent a rather
huge reduction in orbital friction, and thereby greatly minimizing
station-keeping energy demands). There's also no pesky gauntlet of Van
Allen belt radiation or SAA like nasty pocket of magnetosphere stored
radiation. It's also nearly always sunny as well as having either
earthshine and/or moonshine at your disposal, and of that moonshine so
happens to include a great deal of useful secondary/recoil photons in
the IR/FIR spectrum, plus offering loads of gamma and hard-X-rays
because there's so little mass between L1 and the highly reactive naked
surface of the physically dark and cosmic morgue that's represented by
our moon.

The moon's L1 is not technically a problem for most robotics, however
our frail DNA will demand a great amount of shielding that's similar to
8 meters of water, and for any long term (multi year) human involvement
demanding 16 meters of water unless an artificial magnetosphere can be
sustained. There's also the pesky matter of having to survive various
meteors of potentially lethal flak that isn't the least bit moderated in
velocity nor being gravity diverted.

This fancy enough "Clarke Station" document that's nicely revised and
certainly rather interesting but otherwise seriously outdated,
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications...aryland01b.pdf
not to mention way under-shielded unless incorporating 8+ meters of
water plus having somehow established an artificial magnetosphere, or
perhaps incorporating 16+ meters of h2o if w/o magnetosphere (shielding
that's necessary because it's parked within 60,000 km from our
physically dark and otherwise highly reactive moon that's continually
providing such a not so DNA friendly TBI worth of gamma and
hard-X-rays), is simply a downright deficient document about sharing the
positive science and constructive habitat/depot considerations for
utilizing the moon's L1. In fact, there's hardly any mention of the
tremendous L1 benefits to humanity, much less as to space exploration or
the daunting task of salvaging our mascon warmed environment, and it's
still not having squat to do with any primary task of actually
developing, exploiting or otherwise terraforming the moon itself.

On the other hand, whereas the CM/ISS portion of the LSE which I've
proposed offers 50t/m2 of outter shell or hull shielding for
accommodating the 1e9 m3 interior, thereby multiple decades if not an
entire lifetime can be afforded, as to safely accommodating our frail
DNA. That may seem like a rather great amount of tonnage deployment,
though eventually 99.9% is derived from the moon itself. Of course,
don't mind anything that I have to suggest, whereas you can keep
thinking as small and/or as insignificant as you'd like. However, our
having remained as LEO/terrestrial sequestered isn't going to help us
explore, pillage and rape the other planets and of their moons, not to
mention the mining and/or possible terraforming potential of digging
into our very own global warming moon that's chuck full of nifty and
rare elements.

I guess what's needed for this topic is an open mindset that isn't
afraid of it's own shadow, that isn't afraid of having made or of making
a few honest or even not so honest mistakes, nor demonstrating that
perhaps we're not exactly the smartest nor the most entitled species of
DNA in this universe. (sorry about that)
-
Brad Guth


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

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:ea7904dcf9cf8a9fd7a4e4d97da058f4.49644@mygate .mailgate.org

Using salty and otherwise icy moons to transfer life as we know it. Why
not?

Lithopanspermia and you

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...d4bf86bb57cb6e

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

I have no problems with the likes of multi teratonne litho transfers of
minerals, salty ice and life as we know it, even if such opportunities
having been intentionally taken advantage of by ETs having a master
plan.

"Microbe experiment suggests we could all be Martians" sounds perfectly
doable.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...989431,00.html
"To their surprise, the scientists found the lichen and bacterial spores
survived all but the most cataclysmic impacts up to 45 billion pascals.
The cyanobacteria survived shocks of up to 10 billion pascals."

Just to honestly think a little outside the box; If much larger life as
we know it were surrounded or otherwise covered by 100 km of salty ice,
whereas a Buick and passengers within could easily have survived the
transfer, especially if such were of a sucker-punch glancung blow from
behind, in which case you wouldn't even require the Buick.

"Rusty" wrote in message
oups.com
Interesting theory, but Earth with its oceans, undersea smokers,
lightning, volcanos, etc etc etc wouldn't seem to have had any trouble
forming life locally. You would think it would be the reverse and earth
may have seeded life to Mars by this method.

Lithopanspermia seems perfectly doable. After all, Earth's life was
almost entirely litho transfer based, if not intentionally terraformed
by way of ET-4H clubs in order to suit their motives and whatever weird
agenda.

Life going from Earth outward via some cosmic happenstance is a bit of a
stretch, though possible since we seem to get a few spores from Venus
each and very 19 month cycle.

Was our sun and of its solar wind more active in the past? (I'd thought
it was usually the other way around).

When did Earth get its salty oceans, its seasonal tilt, its Arctic ocean
basin and its moon that's more than a thousand fold by ratio bigger
and/or more massive by ratio than any other known moon?

Why are there intelligent human records from the end of, while during
and even a few from before the last ice age that simply fail to mention
or otherwise take into consideration that nifty GW(global warming) moon
of ours?

Why is there no verifiable hard science of Earth's environment having
that seasonal tilt or moon prior to 10,000 BC, if not a bit more recent?

Why was early/proto human life on Earth so monoseason (w/o
summer/winter)?

Why did early/proto Venus have a beard?

Why is our extremely unusual moon still so salty?

An even better question is; Why is my "Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o
Moon" topic excluded/banished from within the rec.org.mensa
Mailgate/Usenet index?
-
Brad Guth


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

Brad Guth wrote:
"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:ea7904dcf9cf8a9fd7a4e4d97da058f4.49644@mygate .mailgate.org

Using salty and otherwise icy moons to transfer life as we know it. Why
not?

Lithopanspermia and you

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...d4bf86bb57cb6e

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

I have no problems with the likes of multi teratonne litho transfers of
minerals, salty ice and life as we know it, even if such opportunities
having been intentionally taken advantage of by ETs having a master
plan.

"Microbe experiment suggests we could all be Martians" sounds perfectly
doable.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...989431,00.html
"To their surprise, the scientists found the lichen and bacterial spores
survived all but the most cataclysmic impacts up to 45 billion pascals.
The cyanobacteria survived shocks of up to 10 billion pascals."

Just to honestly think a little outside the box; If much larger life as
we know it were surrounded or otherwise covered by 100 km of salty ice,
whereas a Buick and passengers within could easily have survived the
transfer, especially if such were of a sucker-punch glancung blow from
behind, in which case you wouldn't even require the Buick.

"Rusty" wrote in message
oups.com
Interesting theory, but Earth with its oceans, undersea smokers,
lightning, volcanos, etc etc etc wouldn't seem to have had any trouble
forming life locally. You would think it would be the reverse and earth
may have seeded life to Mars by this method.

Lithopanspermia seems perfectly doable. After all, Earth's life was
almost entirely litho transfer based, if not intentionally terraformed
by way of ET-4H clubs in order to suit their motives and whatever weird
agenda.

Life going from Earth outward via some cosmic happenstance is a bit of a
stretch, though possible since we seem to get a few spores from Venus
each and very 19 month cycle.

Was our sun and of its solar wind more active in the past? (I'd thought
it was usually the other way around).

When did Earth get its salty oceans, its seasonal tilt, its Arctic ocean
basin and its moon that's more than a thousand fold by ratio bigger
and/or more massive by ratio than any other known moon?

Why are there intelligent human records from the end of, while during
and even a few from before the last ice age that simply fail to mention
or otherwise take into consideration that nifty GW(global warming) moon
of ours?

Why is there no verifiable hard science of Earth's environment having
that seasonal tilt or moon prior to 10,000 BC, if not a bit more recent?

Why was early/proto human life on Earth so monoseason (w/o
summer/winter)?

Why did early/proto Venus have a beard?

Why is our extremely unusual moon still so salty?

An even better question is; Why is my "Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o
Moon" topic excluded/banished from within the rec.org.mensa
Mailgate/Usenet index?
-
Brad Guth


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




It is far from impossible that planetary bodies do, from time to time,
collide. That Mars, Venus, and Earth, may have collided in the past is
very, very possible -- even probable.

Such collisions could come about in our very early history and have
helped determine the size of the orbs, or they may have come about more
recently and have 'glanced' off each other because of the lubricant
effect of their atmospheres.

Such 'glancing' blows could easily have taken place with the last eon
or so. While a 'glancing' blow might not result in planetary
destruction it could rip an atmosphere from a smaller orb or cause
cataclysmic spin and tilt. Come to think of it, the Earth is a little
tilted. And, Earth also has a lot of water, almost too much water if
you know what I mean. And, Mars has almost no atmosphere or water
either one.

Mars is, of course, the smaller of the two bodies and gravity would
take from the smaller and give to the larger. God is playing billiards
again, I guess.


tomcat

"tomcat" wrote in message
ups.com

Mars is, of course, the smaller of the two bodies and gravity would
take from the smaller and give to the larger. God is playing billiards
again, I guess.

It's very true and open minded that God, God's ETs as his/her minion
helpers, or possibly via the purely random happenstance of cosmic
fluctuations, such as within our local 225 million year galactic clock,
and otherwise as due to that pesky little gravity thing of essentially
everything being in orbit about something other that's of equal or
better mass, is what could bring the likes of our solar system into
close contact of the Sirius Oort cloud (such as every 100,000 some odd
years).

With somewhat better words;
Utilizing salty and otherwise icy (Sedna or Ceres like) orbs as proto
moons providing a viable means on behalf of transferring life as we know
it; Seems rather old hat, so why the hell not?

Lithopanspermia and you

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...d4bf86bb57cb6e

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

I have no faith based or other purely scientific or physics problems
with the likes of multi teratonne lithobraking transfers of minerals,
salty ice and of the sorts of DNA/RNA life within that cosmic ice as we
know it, abd that's even if such opportunities having been intentionally
taken advantage of by way of sufficiently intelligent ETs having a
master plan.

"Microbe experiment suggests we could all be Martians" sounds perfectly
doable.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...989431,00.html
"To their surprise, the scientists found the lichen and bacterial spores
survived all but the most cataclysmic impacts up to 45 billion pascals.
The cyanobacteria survived shocks of up to 10 billion pascals."

To honestly think a little outside the 'Earth only' box of evolution
that somehow favored none other than the human species; If much larger
than microbe/spore life as we know it were surrounded or otherwise
covered by 100 km of salty ice, whereas a Buick and passengers within
could easily have survived the transfer, especially if such mergers were
of a sucker-punch glancing blow from behind, in which case you wouldn't
even require the Buick.

"Rusty" wrote in message
oups.com
Interesting theory, but Earth with its oceans, undersea smokers,
lightning, volcanos, etc etc etc wouldn't seem to have had any trouble
forming life locally. You would think it would be the reverse and earth
may have seeded life to Mars by this method.

Lithopanspermia seems perfectly doable. After all, Earth's life was
almost entirely litho transfer based, if not intentionally terraformed
by way of ET-4H clubs in order to suit their motives and whatever weird
agenda.

Life going from Earth outward via some cosmic happenstance is a bit of a
stretch, though possible since we seem to get a few spores from Venus
each and very 19 month cycle.

Was our sun and of its solar wind more active in the past? (I'd thought
it was usually the other way around).

When did Earth get its salty oceans, its seasonal tilt, its Arctic ocean
basin and its moon that's more than a thousand fold by ratio bigger
and/or more massive by ratio than any other known moon?

Why are there intelligent human records from the end of, while during
and even a few from before the last ice age that simply fail to mention
or otherwise take into consideration that nifty GW(global warming) moon
of ours?

Why is there no verifiable hard science of Earth's environment having
that seasonal tilt or moon prior to 10,000 BC, if not a bit more recent?

Why was early/proto human life on Earth so monoseason (w/o
summer/winter)?

Why did early/proto Venus have a beard?

Why is our extremely unusual moon still so salty?

An even better question is; Why is my "Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o
Moon" and a few other topics excluded/banished (as "Mailgate: Message
not available" or simply dropped out of sight), from within the
rec.org.mensa Mailgate/Usenet index?
-
Brad Guth


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

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:ea7904dcf9cf8a9fd7a4e4d97da058f4.49644@mygate .mailgate.org

Earth w/o moon and otherwise w/o Sirius would have remained as the
ultimate Winter Olympic destination world of our solar system. Every
100,000 some odd years the added warmth and life giving spectrums of
illuminations via Sirius would have made for a much less icy and
otherwise a terrific expedited zone of a life thriving environment
(especially for the likes of diatoms), but w/o moon it would not stay
that way for long as our solar system treks itself away from the Sirius
star/solar system and of its massive Oort cloud of icy (Sedna/Pluto
like) proto-moons.

This is still an ongoing work in progress, though badly mainstream
status quo flak damaged, I believe it's our best game in town for
appreciating what our physically dark and nasty moon, that's so
absolutely massive in ratio to its binary partner, has to offer such an
environment that would otherwise have been nearly that of a frosty
monoseason with an extremely modus solar tide and at times icy into the
tropics of Cancer/Capricorn. In other words, Earth w/o moon and w/o
Sirius would have been the ultimate Winter Olympics globe of mostly snow
and ice, that which only the winter sporting humans like us could
appreciate.

Unless you folks don't happen to believe in the regular laws of physics,
in that case I'll share my dyslexic encrypted research which essentially
stipulates that our somewhat recently obtained moon has been the primary
GW culprit, and then of course it's also caused by a little damage to
our somewhat sooty albedo, of what we've accomplished on behalf of
dimming our global environment so that we manage to get more solar
energy into our badly failing environment, and thirdly it's the sun
doing it's usual thing of gradually going postal as it expands unless
something feeds the right sort of fuel into that sucker.

With each orbital applied kgf = 9.80665 joules, the influence upon all
that's Earth by way of our extremely large, massive and nearby orbital
mascon we call our moon is worth 2e20 Joules.

At the very least, some of that orbital/tidal energy gets unavoidably
converted into heat via tidal friction that's directly associated with
our atmosphere, oceans and the internal movements of the Earth itself
that's below our dumbfounded two left feet. That's not to mention the
direct influence upon having transferred thermal energy about our globe
due to the atmospheric and ocean tidal currents.

0.001% of 2e20 j/m2 = 3.91 j/m2, or per surface m3 if you'd care to
think in terms of surface volume, that's in some way or another
distributed upon/within the average surface area of Earth. Obviously
the equator receives the vast majority of that lunar/tidal energy, and
the north/south poles receive the least in direct benefit. I'm
excluding upon the secondary/recoil worth of lunar IR/FIR because it's
still so taboo/nonmdisclosure to even talk about, and otherwise even
though our moon's IR/FIR albedo is fairly high (roughly 0.33~0.5), our
moon's IR/FIR most likely isn't worth 1% of what the gravity/tidal
influence has to offer.

Moon's tidal energy, upon average at 0.001% = 3.91 j/m2

Us humans at one kj/soul = 6.7e12 joules = 13.1 mj/m2

Mother Earth that's getting rid of 40 TJ = 78.25 mj/m2

The 2e20 J as per acting upon the total volume of Earth (excluding our
52e17 kg of atmosphere), with Earth's physical volume being 1.083e21 m3
= 185 mj/m3

At .01% of 2e20 J, isn't the moon actually worthy of 39.1 j/m2 ?
I happen to believe in the regular laws of physics, and in those thermal
dynamics that's derived from good old friction and the unavoidable
transferring of such energy about and within our globe, whereas my best
swag as to our moon's tidal affects upon Earth is leaning closer to if
not a tough greater than 0.01%, therefore we're talking about receiving
a continuous surface environment worth of 39.1 j/m2, and at best our
combined (all inclusive) human influence or environmental impact simply
isn't worth much greater than 10% of that amount (as even that's 298
kj/soul), therefore perhaps humanity isn't at best worth but 1% of the
total GW package.

So, you folks can cry all you want about whatever humanity did or didn't
do to mother Earth, and lo and behold global warming will unavoidably
continue w/o our help, though merely at a slightly reduced rate, and
that's even if each and every fossil consuming or even yellowcake energy
sucking and unavoidably soot and toxic chemical polluting soul upon this
planet were removed. Sorry about that.
-
Brad Guth


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