Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon

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