Earth is going to get itself even hotter

On May 15, 11:04 am, BradGuth wrote:
Earth is nearing an important crossroad of sustaining life as we know
it. We either accept our fate and go with the flow as we adapt the
best we can, or die trying. Since we can't all become rich and
powerful, it's your personal choice of doing absolutely nothing or
doing something constructive, even if it's merely thinking in a
positive and thus constructive minset sort of way.

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

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

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

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

According to my PC/CAD program, a given surface location might
perceive a 7.9% reduction, however the whole of mother Earth
(excluding our atmosphere) should end up with roughly -1.685% of badly
needed shade (the actual solar isolation factor if including our badly
polluted atmosphere should thereby become a little less than that
amount, perhaps worth 1.5% or -20.55 w/m2) as derived from having our
moon parked at Earth's L1, as well as having accomplished less of
those pesky tidal issues, and of those remaining tides would otherwise
become very consistent. The best estimate that I can accomplish thus
far, is coming up with the new and improved sun + (moon at Earth L1)
as becoming worth 50.4% of our existing lunar tide.

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry for my having to repost this little extra informative update.
However, as per usual, I'm still having to make a few of those pesky
corrections and otherwise add a few basic words, on behalf of my
dyslexic encrypted wisdom for the sake of accomplishing proper syntax,
at the same time as I'm fighting off a fairly substantial gauntlet of
Usenet spermware/****ware that's trying every dirty Old Testament
thumping trick in their naysay koran, in order to terminate my poor
old PC. Seems rather odd that I'm apparently worth all that much
trouble.

For some silly robo Usenet client specific moderation reason(s), this
following topic simply didn't crosspost as I'd instructed
(soc.culture.usa, sci.physics, sci.space.policy, sci.astro,
alt.astronomy).

"Earth is going to get itself even hotter"
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.c...02c25662bb6f1b
-
Brad Guth

On May 15, 11:59 am, BradGuth wrote:

Brad wasn't it you who claimed the earth or particularily the moon is
"evaporating"? If so, elaborate.

On May 15, 1:00 pm, wrote:
On May 15, 11:59 am, BradGuth wrote:

Brad wasn't it you who claimed the earth or particularily the moon is
"evaporating"? If so, elaborate.

The moon's sodium is going away. Don't you agree?

Earth's magnetosphere is failing us. Don't you agree?

Orbs that cool tend to shrink. Don't you agree?
-
Brad Guth

On May 15, 7:27 pm, BradGuth wrote:

Brad wasn't it you who claimed the earth or particularily the moon is
"evaporating"? If so, elaborate.


Auh! So it was you then. Cooool!

The moon's sodium is going away. Don't you agree?

I don't have the data, but if you do and the source is reliable
(wishful thinking), I cannot disagree.


Earth's magnetosphere is failing us. Don't you agree?

I don't have the data, but if you do and the source is reliable
(wishful thinking), I cannot disagree.


Orbs that cool tend to shrink. Don't you agree?

Agree, but shrink =/ weight reduction necessarily.

So some/all of this qualifies as "evaporation" to you ok. No problem.
Thanks for clearing this up for me. Some were saying in the moon
cannot "evaporate" without an atmosphere and you'd see it. Obviously
he was wrong (nothing new in NGs).

So next question would be does the moon lose more than it gains by
collecting solar particals.

Thanks,
Steve

On May 15, 8:39 pm, wrote:

So next question would be does the moon lose more than it gains by
collecting solar particals.

I'm thinking it's currently down to the dull roar of a close race
against the solar and cosmic flak, but to remember that the 900,000 km
trail of sodium has been a continuous evaporation and solar wind
excavation process, ever since that moon having lost its thick
covering of salty ice.

By way of thick ice, I'm thinking of 262 km worth of such salty ice
having existed, upon its lithobraking arrival into orbiting Earth.
Now we need to put that salty old moon at Earth's L1.
-
Brad Guth