NASA to Earth: Global Warming Is for Real, Folks!

CLEANTECHNICA: NASA to Earth: Global Warming Is for Real, Folks!
NASA is putting its two cents into the global warming conversation with
a new Web site that details the climate change phenomenon, including
videos, articles and a huge archive of images
http://cl.exct.net/?qs=bb493ab0c4016...30056f712da911

On Feb 25, 4:47*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
CLEANTECHNICA: NASA to Earth: Global Warming Is for Real, Folks!
NASA is putting its two cents into the global warming conversation with
a new Web site that details the climate change phenomenon, including
videos, articles and a huge archive of imageshttp://cl.exct.net/?qs=bb493ab0c40160cae3dcdd3f65e9769a9e5d4b1c53f56c ...

Yes, Earth is still thawing out from the last ice-age w/moon that
we'll ever know.

Relocating our captured moon/Selene out to Earth L1 isn’t going to
happen overnight (more like taking a century) nor will this eliminate
ocean tides, although it’s going reduce those tides by at least 50%
plus cut those pesky lunar induced seismic considerations by at least
8:1, as well as giving us roughly 3% of badly needed shade to work
with.

Lunar tidal energy should be interpreted as essentially extreme long-
wave IR that doesn’t reflect but morphs or modulates throughout the
mantel, distorting the lithosphere 55 cm at 16 m/s, and via
secondary convection up-welling that obviously does eventually manage
to get rid of such geothermal energy, is exactly what contributes the
bulk of heat and pollution to our surface and atmospheric
environment. If it was just up to the much weaker tidal influence of
Earth’s rotation and our sun with its illuminating form of heat, and
especially if this were without a seasonal tilt and less global
nighttime cloudiness, we’d be extensively iced up nearly to the
tropics of Cancer and Capricorn.

Ideally, if the nighttime cloud cover doesn’t increase we’re better
off having a moon that continually modulates the entire body of this
planet. However, the nature of this evolving planet plus we humans
have extensively increased the amounts of atmospheric water
saturation, as well as our having made it sooty and acidic enough to
etch class. This kind of artificial global dimming and increased
nighttime cloud cover is not exactly helping to keep us cool or much
less weather stabilized, whereas slow glacial ice and compacted snow
stores hot and cold energy as well as the bulk of fresh water in a
very controlled method that’ll be hard to replace or do without.

Earth is surface radiating its core energy at roughly 64 TW, while
holding onto that moon has been contributing 2e20 N.m/sec 55,555 TW
(some of which [let us say at the very least 0.1%] becomes geothermal
thermal energy). In other words, without our moon (-56 TW), the core
radiated heat of Earth w/o moon might become worth as little as 8 TW.

1 btu = approximate amount of energy needed to heat .4527 kg of
water by one degree Fahrenheit, and most often that’s also given as or
interpreted as to represent that volume of h2o heated by one degree
per hour.

1 btu = 1055.06 joules
1 kw.h = 3412 BTU
1 kw.h = 3.6e6 joules
8.34 pounds = one gallon of pure h2o
8.356 btu/gal/1°F rise/hr (based on 1g/cm3 density)
8.356 btu/3.783 kg = 2.209 btu/kg (based on 1g/cm3 density)
2.209 btu = 2.3306e3 J
2.209 btu/kg/1°F rise/hr (based on 1g/cm3 density)
Earth mass = 5.974e24 kg
5.974e24 * 2.209 = 13.1966e24 btu to get Earth warned up by 1°F

However the average density of Earth is roughly 5.5 times greater than
water.

13.1966e24 * 5.5 = 7.26e25 btu in order to sustain the whole body of
Earth warmed up by an extra 1°F

7.26e25 btu = 7.66e28 J

If 100% of the 2e20 N of tidal binding force were converted into
thermal energy:
7.66e28/2e20 = 3.83e8 seconds
3.83e8/3.1536e7 = 12.145 years per 1°F rise.

It’s perfectly clear that any large and/or massive enough asteroid in
a sufficiently nearby orbit of a given planet can make that planet a
little hotter from the inside out. By any conceivable interpretation,
our moon(Selene) of 7.35e22 kg that may have started out as an icy
8.35e22 kg in a much closer orbit and even upon physically
encountering us, more than qualifies. There’s even an extensive NASA
infomercial production as televised on PBS and available on DVD of
nifty animation eyecandy as to how such an asteroid/moon activated its
magnetic field and otherwise heated up the planet Mars.

I personally could doubt that more than 10% of this GW trend via tidal
interaction is the case, making that timeline of global warming via
tidal binding forces more like 121.45 years per 1°F rise, and of
course Earth always radiates at least 90% of that energy influx which
makes it worth 1214.5 years per 1°F rise, although where the other
energy is going I haven’t the slightest idea, unless it’s sustaining
some kind of electrostatic charge differential.

Of course the moon itself isn’t a solid/fused inert rock, and
therefore some kind of geothermal considerations with considerably
less geodynamic activity than Earth has to coexist under that
unusually thick and mineral saturated lunar crust. So, as I research
and manage to learn more, I’ll have to continually rethink in order to
update/revise this interpretation, because I doubt others with better
physics and science expertise that are mostly public funded will
bother to help investigate, perhaps because supposedly Earth has
nearly always had that physically dark and crystal dry moon of ours
that we still can’t set up any camp/habitat upon or within, nor even
utilize its zero delta-V L1.

There’s also the near zero delta-V of Cruithne that’s never too far
away, at 1.3e14 kg (about right for a spent carbonado comet core) as a
somewhat second captured moon of ours (discovered long after our
Apollo missions), as also held by a fairly complex set of Newtonian
gravity constraints that’s a little odd but none the less stable.
Most likely this once icy Cruithne also bounced off something like
Earth (perhaps 65 million years ago), and thereby having lost/
transferred all of its icy payload in order to stick with us. Its
original comet payload of ice could have been worth 2.7e14 kg,
although its initial icy mass and date of encountering us is currently
unknown unless you’d care to consider that Yucatan impact site.

The physical elements or unusual attributes of Cruithne should prove
extremely interesting, but even though well enough within existing
resolution of present day astronomy, especially whenever it’s nearby
and otherwise easily viewed in detail by a probe fly-by, though
unfortunately it’s still being kept pretty much taboo/nondisclosure
rated by those in charge of mainstream damage-control of moons not
being captured.

The co-orbital Cruithne-3753 (our binary moon) eventually gets to
within 38 lunar distance, thus it would be similar to seeing a 130
meter resolution of our lunar surface is what’s needed in order to
deal with directly imaging this little target from Earth.
Image simulations of a 5 km asteroid:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/readers/2009...uithnexx_1.jpg
http://www.pagef30.com/2009/07/colon...-cruithne.html

Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

Sam Wormley wrote in
:

CLEANTECHNICA: NASA to Earth: Global Warming Is for Real, Folks!
NASA is putting its two cents into the global warming conversation
with a new Web site that details the climate change phenomenon,
including videos, articles and a huge archive of images
http://cl.exct.net/?qs=bb493ab0c4016...4b1c53f56c 4f
6b30056f712da911



Translated: "PLLLLLEEEEAAASSSSEEE let us pursue this, we're about to lose
23,000 jobs because of the Shuttle program shutdown!!!!"