Major analysis confirms global warming is real

On Dec 13, 9:49*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 12/13/11 11:30 AM, Brad Guth wrote:




On Dec 10, 2:04 pm, Sam *wrote:
On 12/10/11 2:08 PM, Brad Guth wrote:

The global modulation of our mostly inner fluid Earth is perhaps worth
a tad more energy transfer or interaction induced heating due to those
interior frictions taking place, than the tidal equations that
mainstream accepts as is. *Perhaps if Earth’s crust were as thick,
metallicity tough and fused solid as that of our moon (meaning as
having none of these tectonic plates giving us grief), whereas then
much less global modulation flex or mantel and surface plate agitation
of our global surface and innards would be taking place, other than
affecting surface oceans. *I think these global flex or modulated
distortions continually caused by the moon are in fact causing our
planet to remain as more geologically active and/or unstable, and
relocating our moon to Earth L1 would improve on this by way of
greatly reducing though still not eliminating this global modulation.

* * Define "global modulation", Brad.

Whole Earth modulation from tidal binding forces (mostly from the moon
and roughly a third from our sun)

* *Do you mean internal friction due to tidal flexing?

Yes, I've always meant internal morphing and those tectonic plate
movements in addition to the motions and frictions of oceans. The
whole volume and mass of Earth measurably flexes and is moved along
because of our moon.

On 12/13/11 8:19 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
On Dec 13, 9:49 am, Sam wrote:
On 12/13/11 11:30 AM, Brad Guth wrote:




On Dec 10, 2:04 pm, Sam wrote:
On 12/10/11 2:08 PM, Brad Guth wrote:

The global modulation of our mostly inner fluid Earth is perhaps worth
a tad more energy transfer or interaction induced heating due to those
interior frictions taking place, than the tidal equations that
mainstream accepts as is. Perhaps if Earth’s crust were as thick,
metallicity tough and fused solid as that of our moon (meaning as
having none of these tectonic plates giving us grief), whereas then
much less global modulation flex or mantel and surface plate agitation
of our global surface and innards would be taking place, other than
affecting surface oceans. I think these global flex or modulated
distortions continually caused by the moon are in fact causing our
planet to remain as more geologically active and/or unstable, and
relocating our moon to Earth L1 would improve on this by way of
greatly reducing though still not eliminating this global modulation.

Define "global modulation", Brad.

Whole Earth modulation from tidal binding forces (mostly from the moon
and roughly a third from our sun)

Do you mean internal friction due to tidal flexing?

Yes, I've always meant internal morphing and those tectonic plate
movements in addition to the motions and frictions of oceans. The
whole volume and mass of Earth measurably flexes and is moved along
because of our moon.

So?

On Dec 13, 7:19*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 12/13/11 8:19 PM, Brad Guth wrote:









On Dec 13, 9:49 am, Sam *wrote:
On 12/13/11 11:30 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 10, 2:04 pm, Sam * *wrote:
On 12/10/11 2:08 PM, Brad Guth wrote:

The global modulation of our mostly inner fluid Earth is perhaps worth
a tad more energy transfer or interaction induced heating due to those
interior frictions taking place, than the tidal equations that
mainstream accepts as is. *Perhaps if Earth’s crust were as thick,
metallicity tough and fused solid as that of our moon (meaning as
having none of these tectonic plates giving us grief), whereas then
much less global modulation flex or mantel and surface plate agitation
of our global surface and innards would be taking place, other than
affecting surface oceans. *I think these global flex or modulated
distortions continually caused by the moon are in fact causing our
planet to remain as more geologically active and/or unstable, and
relocating our moon to Earth L1 would improve on this by way of
greatly reducing though still not eliminating this global modulation.

On 12/14/11 8:49 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
So, how much tidal binding energy does it take in order to continually
flex the entire globe of Earth?

The flexing of the crustal earth is an observable measured with
precision GPS. What's interesting is that just after the moon was
formed, the earth was spinning about once every six hours and the
crust heaved a couple of meters due to tidal gravitation.

On Dec 14, 7:25*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 12/14/11 8:49 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

So, how much tidal binding energy does it take in order to continually
flex the entire globe of Earth?

* *The flexing of the crustal earth is an observable measured with
* *precision GPS. What's interesting is that just after the moon was
* *formed, the earth was spinning about once every six hours and the
* *crust heaved a couple of meters due to tidal gravitation.

Your purely subjective interpretation is noted, as is just about
everything you mainstream parrots have to say.

Tell us why those highly survival intelligent and artistically
talented humans of 12000 BP and before (far superior to modern day
levels of intelligence and skills), didn't even know we had a moon?

Was our planet of that ice age era always nasty and clouded over?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Dec 14, 11:44 am, Brad Guth wrote:
On Dec 14, 7:25 am, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 12/14/11 8:49 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

So, how much tidal binding energy does it take in order to continually
flex the entire globe of Earth?

The flexing of the crustal earth is an observable measured with
precision GPS. What's interesting is that just after the moon was
formed, the earth was spinning about once every six hours and the
crust heaved a couple of meters due to tidal gravitation.

Your purely subjective interpretation is noted, as is just about
everything you mainstream parrots have to say.

Other factors 'appear' to involve the expansion of the Earth,
which can be a variable.

Tell us why those highly survival intelligent and artistically
talented humans of 12000 BP and before (far superior to modern day
levels of intelligence and skills), didn't even know we had a moon?

Ha-ha, maybe droopy eyebrows.

Was our planet of that ice age era always nasty and clouded over?

What do you think?
Ken

On Dec 14, 11:30*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Dec 14, 11:44 am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 14, 7:25 am, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 12/14/11 8:49 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

So, how much tidal binding energy does it take in order to continually
flex the entire globe of Earth?

* *The flexing of the crustal earth is an observable measured with
* *precision GPS. What's interesting is that just after the moon was
* *formed, the earth was spinning about once every six hours and the
* *crust heaved a couple of meters due to tidal gravitation.

Your purely subjective interpretation is noted, as is just about
everything you mainstream parrots have to say.

Other factors 'appear' to involve the expansion of the Earth,
which can be a variable.

Tell us why those highly survival intelligent and artistically
talented humans of 12000 BP and before (far superior to modern day
levels of intelligence and skills), didn't even know we had a moon?

Ha-ha, maybe droopy eyebrows.

Was our planet of that ice age era always nasty and clouded over?

What do you think?
Ken

You'd think that a very ice-age kind of environment would have locked
up a good deal of potential water vapor in the form of snow and ice,
plus the cooler global temperatures as a whole making the atmosphere
even crisper or dryer and thereby a whole lot less cloudy.

The somewhat closer moon as appearing through an extremely crisp, dry
and icy nighttime atmosphere, as especially stupendous looking along
with a planetshine of perhaps offering an albedo of 0.4, by rights
should have been rather blindingly vibrant by any given winter night.

So, why were those highly survival intelligent and artistically
talented folks of that era 12000 BP era not fully aware of that moon,
but also not the least bit seriously impressed by its truly luminous
appearance that would have made their nighttime hunting and gathering
near ideal?

Is it even remotely possible that 25000 BP to 12500 BP was an era of
being 100% cloud covered, so that our moon and stars simply couldn't
be noticed?

In other words, within those cave paintings and otherwise depicted,
and since we see few if any shadows applied, this might actually
suggest that even the sun was seldom visible.

Of course the only mainstream argument as to why Venus is so freaking
hot is due to its 100% cloud coverage, plus denser atmosphere that's
so thermally insulative instead of being the least bit thermal
conductive. Go figure, as to how those pesky laws of physics seem
conditional.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

Brad Guth wrote:
On Dec 14, 11:30 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Dec 14, 11:44 am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 14, 7:25 am, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 12/14/11 8:49 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

So, how much tidal binding energy does it take in order to continually
flex the entire globe of Earth?

The flexing of the crustal earth is an observable measured with
precision GPS. What's interesting is that just after the moon was
formed, the earth was spinning about once every six hours and the
crust heaved a couple of meters due to tidal gravitation.

Your purely subjective interpretation is noted, as is just about
everything you mainstream parrots have to say.

Other factors 'appear' to involve the expansion of the Earth,
which can be a variable.

Tell us why those highly survival intelligent and artistically
talented humans of 12000 BP and before (far superior to modern day
levels of intelligence and skills), didn't even know we had a moon?

Ha-ha, maybe droopy eyebrows.

Was our planet of that ice age era always nasty and clouded over?

What do you think?
Ken

You'd think that a very ice-age kind of environment would have locked
up a good deal of potential water vapor in the form of snow and ice,
plus the cooler global temperatures as a whole making the atmosphere
even crisper or dryer and thereby a whole lot less cloudy.

The somewhat closer moon as appearing through an extremely crisp, dry
and icy nighttime atmosphere, as especially stupendous looking along
with a planetshine of perhaps offering an albedo of 0.4, by rights
should have been rather blindingly vibrant by any given winter night.

So, why were those highly survival intelligent and artistically
talented folks of that era 12000 BP era not fully aware of that moon,
but also not the least bit seriously impressed by its truly luminous
appearance that would have made their nighttime hunting and gathering
near ideal?

Is it even remotely possible that 25000 BP to 12500 BP was an era of
being 100% cloud covered, so that our moon and stars simply couldn't
be noticed?

In other words, within those cave paintings and otherwise depicted,
and since we see few if any shadows applied, this might actually
suggest that even the sun was seldom visible.

Of course the only mainstream argument as to why Venus is so freaking
hot is due to its 100% cloud coverage, plus denser atmosphere that's
so thermally insulative instead of being the least bit thermal
conductive. Go figure, as to how those pesky laws of physics seem
conditional.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / Guth Usenet

http://library.thinkquest.org/J01103...ePainting.html

http://www.ephemeris.com/history/prehistoric.html

Finding these descriptions of cave paintings of the Moon took two minutes
in Google

On Dec 15, 12:28*pm, Mike Collins wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
On Dec 14, 11:30 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Dec 14, 11:44 am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 14, 7:25 am, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 12/14/11 8:49 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

So, how much tidal binding energy does it take in order to continually
flex the entire globe of Earth?

* *The flexing of the crustal earth is an observable measured with
* *precision GPS. What's interesting is that just after the moon was
* *formed, the earth was spinning about once every six hours and the
* *crust heaved a couple of meters due to tidal gravitation.

Your purely subjective interpretation is noted, as is just about
everything you mainstream parrots have to say.

Other factors 'appear' to involve the expansion of the Earth,
which can be a variable.

Tell us why those highly survival intelligent and artistically
talented humans of 12000 BP and before (far superior to modern day
levels of intelligence and skills), didn't even know we had a moon?

Ha-ha, maybe droopy eyebrows.

Was our planet of that ice age era always nasty and clouded over?

What do you think?
Ken

You'd think that a very ice-age kind of environment would have locked
up a good deal of potential water vapor in the form of snow and ice,
plus the cooler global temperatures as a whole making the atmosphere
even crisper or dryer and thereby a whole lot less cloudy.

The somewhat closer moon as appearing through an extremely crisp, dry
and icy nighttime atmosphere, as especially stupendous looking along
with a planetshine of perhaps offering an albedo of 0.4, by rights
should have been rather blindingly vibrant by any given winter night.

So, why were those highly survival intelligent and artistically
talented folks of that era 12000 BP era not fully aware of that moon,
but also not the least bit seriously impressed by its truly luminous
appearance that would have made their nighttime hunting and gathering
near ideal?

Is it even remotely possible that 25000 BP to 12500 BP was an era of
being 100% cloud covered, so that our moon and stars simply couldn't
be noticed?

In other words, within those cave paintings and otherwise depicted,
and since we see few if any shadows applied, this might actually
suggest that even the sun was seldom visible.

Of course the only mainstream argument as to why Venus is so freaking
hot is due to its 100% cloud coverage, plus denser atmosphere that's
so thermally insulative instead of being the least bit thermal
conductive. *Go figure, as to how those pesky laws of physics seem
conditional.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / *Guth Usenet

http://library.thinkquest.org/J01103...ePainting.html

http://www.ephemeris.com/history/prehistoric.html

Finding these descriptions of cave paintings of the Moon took two minutes
in Google

YES, as in up to 12000 BP, but apparently not before. What part of
reading comperhension-101 didn't you get a passing grade in?

Are you suggesting that humans earlier than 12500 BP were simply too
dumbfounded to notice our moon?

So, the 15,000 BCE (17,000 BP) glacial maximum was a part of an
extended era of 100% cloud cover, with only dumbfounded idiots as ape
like humans hunkered into deep caves?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Dec 15, 12:28*pm, Mike Collins wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
On Dec 14, 11:30 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Dec 14, 11:44 am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 14, 7:25 am, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 12/14/11 8:49 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

So, how much tidal binding energy does it take in order to continually
flex the entire globe of Earth?

* *The flexing of the crustal earth is an observable measured with
* *precision GPS. What's interesting is that just after the moon was
* *formed, the earth was spinning about once every six hours and the
* *crust heaved a couple of meters due to tidal gravitation.

Your purely subjective interpretation is noted, as is just about
everything you mainstream parrots have to say.

Other factors 'appear' to involve the expansion of the Earth,
which can be a variable.

Tell us why those highly survival intelligent and artistically
talented humans of 12000 BP and before (far superior to modern day
levels of intelligence and skills), didn't even know we had a moon?

Ha-ha, maybe droopy eyebrows.

Was our planet of that ice age era always nasty and clouded over?

What do you think?
Ken

You'd think that a very ice-age kind of environment would have locked
up a good deal of potential water vapor in the form of snow and ice,
plus the cooler global temperatures as a whole making the atmosphere
even crisper or dryer and thereby a whole lot less cloudy.

The somewhat closer moon as appearing through an extremely crisp, dry
and icy nighttime atmosphere, as especially stupendous looking along
with a planetshine of perhaps offering an albedo of 0.4, by rights
should have been rather blindingly vibrant by any given winter night.

So, why were those highly survival intelligent and artistically
talented folks of that era 12000 BP era not fully aware of that moon,
but also not the least bit seriously impressed by its truly luminous
appearance that would have made their nighttime hunting and gathering
near ideal?

Is it even remotely possible that 25000 BP to 12500 BP was an era of
being 100% cloud covered, so that our moon and stars simply couldn't
be noticed?

In other words, within those cave paintings and otherwise depicted,
and since we see few if any shadows applied, this might actually
suggest that even the sun was seldom visible.

Of course the only mainstream argument as to why Venus is so freaking
hot is due to its 100% cloud coverage, plus denser atmosphere that's
so thermally insulative instead of being the least bit thermal
conductive. *Go figure, as to how those pesky laws of physics seem
conditional.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / *Guth Usenet

http://library.thinkquest.org/J01103...ePainting.html

http://www.ephemeris.com/history/prehistoric.html

Finding these descriptions of cave paintings of the Moon took two minutes
in Google

What part of reading comprehension-101 did you fail to pass?

Perhaps Earth always had a vibrant moon, about the same as our Arctic
always had it ocean basin and Earth had its seasonal tilt, whereas
those ape-like humans as merely primitive heathens were always too
dumbfounded, hiding in deep caves and otherwise too busy fornicating
to notice any moon or tides as of prior to 12500 BP.

The carvings are about 4800 years old
http://glenavalon.com/knowth01.html
http://www.mythicalireland.com/astro...tronomers.html
http://www.sacred-destinations.com/i...grange-photos/
“But it doesn't stop there. Many astronomers will know that the
moon's path through the sky, although inclined slightly to the sun's
path, will take it into positions which are shared by the sun at
certain times of the year. The points where the imaginary line of the
moon's path crosses the line of the sun's path are called nodes. It is
when the moon is at a node that it sits on the ecliptic, and when the
nodes are located in Gemini and in the gap between Sagittarius and
Scorpio, then the Moon shares the sun's Summer Solstice and Winter
Solstice positions.”

“This only occurs twice during a single rotation of the nodes, which
takes 18.6 years. So every nine years, on just a few occasions, a full
moon or waning gibbous Moon which rises in the Sun's Winter Solstice
position can, technically speaking, shine into Newgrange, or at the
very least line up with the passage and chamber.”

Obviously these terrific carvings or depictions of our moon and ocean
tidal actions wasn’t rocket science, nor requiring of any special
tools or artistic expertise, and yet the only good objective
depictions pertaining to our moon are those of 12500 BP or less old.

So, what were those early humans as of prior to 12500 BP doing that
kept them from ever realizing there was a moon, ocean tides and
perhaps even seasonal changes to deal with?

There are interpretations of much older lunar calendars going back
34,000 BP, but there’s still no objective proof those depictions
pertained to our moon as we know it, and not of something entirely
different.

An artificial 30 km bridge that could be 1.7 million years old, kind
of suggest that early humans were not only extremely survival
intelligent but also inventive and resourceful. So, even to consider
a much more recent era that’s certainly older than 12500 BP, why
couldn’t they manage to depict our moon or notice any of those
considerable tides?
http://www.hinduism.co.za/oldest.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam%27s_Bridge

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”