|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon
I see that Earth's failing magnetosphere is just as taboo/nondisclosure
of a topic, as is that of our moon or that of my LSE-CM/ISS and/or the other intelligent life that's existing/coexisting on Venus. Unfortunately, I may have inadvertently saved our resident warlord's sorry butt, by way of my having identified the significant and/or primary cause of global warming, that which has nothing to do with our fossil energy consumption nor that of otherwise pillaging and raping of mother Earth for all she's worth. I'm obviously going to have to rewrite this entire topic and that of our being "Global Warmed to Death" a few extra times, even though it'll essentially end up saying the same thing in fewer and better words plus improved math, conveying that our moon has been the primary and ongoing cause of global warming, and that's not saying we/humanity haven't accomplished more than our fair share of making a bad situation a whole lot worse off than it ever needed to be. 2e20 joules = moon orbital energy, and that's merely the joules/second that's unavoidably going somewhere and thereby having been accomplishing some form of energy transfer, with a slight percentage of which becoming interactive tidal/friction thermal energy. The reflected IR energy of what's mostly secondary solar IR and thus providing an extremely thermal penetrating form of FIR heat that's hard to avoid, probably isn't nearly the terrestrial impact factor as otherwise represented by the continual friction that's caused by the ongoing gravity and tidal forces, that's getting continually reapplied inside and out as a direct result of the moon's orbital gravity influence, whereas this gravity influence continually pulls upon and subsequently pushes elsewhere upon everything that's Earth, including a portion of which had contributed on behalf of sustaining the interior rotation of our magnetosphere's generating layer. However, I'd thought you folks might get an extra laugh out of this one; Luna's (Earth's Moon) Thermal Environment http://www.tak2000.com/data/planets/luna.htm The planetary infrared is of such a magnitude that the radiator surfaces are significantly affected in lunar orbit. In particular, the spacecraft attitude for "parking" or "sleep" periods should be picked to minimize the view to the lunar surface. Since most radiators surfaces have a relatively low solar absorptance, but a high infrared emittance, it can frequently be preferable to point the radiators toward the Sun to some extent in order to minimize its view to the lunar surface. In other words, our physically dark moon is so freaking double/reactive IR hot and reflective, that in order to cool off a given spacecraft that's cruising anywhere above that hot deck of our naked moon needs to have those thermal radiators pointed towards the sun rather than the lunar surface. Of course, this is exactly what I'd been saying all along, that the secondary IR/FIR energy remains as a big consideration for any of those orbital missions, and especially of those fly-by-rocket landings and subsequent EVA moon walking efforts, even a little tough on robotics that'll need to get rid of surplus heat that's arriving from most all directions, with the sun itself being one of the least of your IR considerations since it's representing little more than a point-source of thermal energy to deal with. The surface area of Earth affected by lunar gravity = 5.112e14 m2 Surface area of our moon affected by Earth's gravity = 0.38e14 m2 Earth at 2e20/5.112e14 = 0.39e6 joules/m2 (rotating/active) moon at 2e20/0.38e14 = 5.263e6 joules/m2 (non-rotating/passive) Obviously this is all about one or the other orb causing an influence upon the other orb's environment, whereas clearly it's not about how extra hot Earth's gravity is making the moon that's already a lost cause, and that's because our moon is somewhat of a passive or inactive situation, but otherwise as to the amount of energy that's due to our moon affecting our terrestrial environment that's rotating and thereby having fluids inside and out that get unavoidably affected by the forces at play. Even if merely 0.1% of the lunar gravity influence gets converted into tidal friction is upon average contributing 390 joules/m2. Cut that down to 0.05% and it's still worth 195 joules/m2, and that's not only 24/7 per each and every week but per day and night of each and every second year round, but that's also not to mention the continual flow of thermal transfers due to tidal currents and/or of the extra amount of sea-ice breakage due to tidal and storm generated waves and simply ocean elevation shifts. Therefore it is by far our moon that is still the primary culprit, of the greater importance as to our global warming trend as we've exited away from the last ice age which this terrestrial environment will ever see. Adding in the secondary IR is worth perhaps less than an a few extra joules/m2, and even though it's FIR energy represents yet another constant resource of global warming, I believe for the moment can be excluded because of the rather enormous affect of what the lunar gravity itself imposes. Of course, if Earth were a near solid there wouldn't be all that much if any friction, nor would there be an active magnetosphere, and subsequently Earth would soon become a larger version of an icy cold Mars w/o life as we know it. Obviously I'm being sufficiently right with my somewhat dyslexic encrypted analogy, that's based upon the regular laws of physics and supported by the best available science, whereas otherwise you folks could have so easily impressed the living hell out of us village idiots with all of your vast wizardly expertise, and thereby having shared those supposed much better numbers, and that of being so kind as to sharing in whatever's in support of such numbers that supposedly has our moon with us from the very beginning rather than just since the last ice age. Otherwise, our Usenet team which offers an orchestrated naysay mindset, that's also into calling a continuous application of an extra 254 gigajoules per second or merely 914 tj/hr of lunar recession energy, as supposedly being so much less impressive than a few wussy milliseconds worth of terrestrial lightning strikes, is certainly offering us yet another new and improved mainstream of their science weirdness. It only gets so much more so impressive if those lightning storms are somehow overtaking the continuous 2e20 joules/sec of what the entire lunar orbital worth of energy has to offer, as representing the sort of wag-thy-dogs to death of whatever your superior conditional laws of physics has to offer, as extracted from whatever's scripted within their NASA/Apollo koran of nifty infomercial-science, that's supposedly representing the orbital mechanics of our moon affecting Earth as somehow being of what's so gosh darn insignificant. Silly me, whereas I honestly didn't realize that 2e20 joules/sec of a continuous applied force was so gosh darn wussy by way of our NASA's "so what's the difference" policy, of their infomercial-science standards of supposedly such all-knowing expertise. I guess that I'll have to be certain to past that one along, so that other Village idiots don't mistake such big numbers as having any meaning whatsoever. - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon
BruceS wrote:
Lars Kecke wrote: Anyway, the moon's centripetal force is of course GmM/r^2 and its binding energy is about -1/2 gmM/r, with r being about 4*10^8 m and GmM being about 3*10^37 Jm, iaW the moon's binding energy is a few thousend yottajoules (had to look up that prefix, never used anything bigger then exa- ). Are we still conflating energy with force? Never did. I just don't use the concept of "force" much, at least for closed systems like the earth-moon-system, that's why I went for the binding energy; to get the force in Newtons, just divide by r/2. Btw, what happened to my exponents in your reply? Or is there another issue, that some forces are measured in different units than others? The SI unit of force is Newton, but sometimes it is more intuitive to measure force (e.g. the thrust of a jet engine) in kiloponds (or pounds of force for you anglophones). Lars |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon
"Lars Kecke" wrote in message
The SI unit of force is Newton, but sometimes it is more intuitive to measure force (e.g. the thrust of a jet engine) in kiloponds (or pounds of force for you anglophones). So what? There's still 2e20 joules worth of gravity's energy, whereas if just 0.1% of that force as energy gets applied to a given terrestrial m2 is worth 391 joules. - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon
Lars Kecke wrote:
BruceS wrote: Lars Kecke wrote: Anyway, the moon's centripetal force is of course GmM/r^2 and its binding energy is about -1/2 gmM/r, with r being about 4*10^8 m and GmM being about 3*10^37 Jm, iaW the moon's binding energy is a few thousend yottajoules (had to look up that prefix, never used anything bigger then exa- ). Are we still conflating energy with force? Never did. I just don't use the concept of "force" much, at least for closed systems like the earth-moon-system, that's why I went for the binding energy; to get the force in Newtons, just divide by r/2. Btw, what happened to my exponents in your reply? I don't know. They look the same in my reader (Mozilla) for your original message, my reply, and your reply to that. Or is there another issue, that some forces are measured in different units than others? The SI unit of force is Newton, but sometimes it is more intuitive to measure force (e.g. the thrust of a jet engine) in kiloponds (or pounds of force for you anglophones). Thanks, that's what I thought. I was originally replying to a claim that force wasn't measured in pounds. Apparently, that poster was mistaken. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon
Usenet hot potato, as offered once more for the old gipper: Earth w/o
Magnetosphere, w/o Moon would have been so much worse off than our merely getting excessively thawed out. Henry Kroll and myself are into our usual deductive thinking, whereas we're still proposing that intelligent/intellectual life as having evolved entirely upon this Earth may simply have been a wee bit pre-ice-age iffy, as having been situated a little too far away from our sun that simply wasn't quite as active and thereby as nicely radiating as it is today, and especially extra iffy should Earth be having to manage this task without the enormous benefits of such a nearby moon. Proto-Earth obviously once upon a time offered a nearly Venus like atmosphere, thus technically capable of having created and obviously having sustained such complex happenstance of extremely large and somewhat bulky life, but perhaps not offering all that much environmental quality nor of sufficient diversity, and especially if still limited to existing within or of the below-surface environment, and so much worse yet if the majority of mother Earth's above surface environment had otherwise been so often and so nearly entirely sub-frozen solid for so much of the time. As clearly indicated by way of those ice core samples, depicting each of the many ice-ages that were consistently worse off per each proceeding ice-age cycle, that's having represented such an extensive planetology worth of environmental energy differential, whereas in so much difference that such vast global thermal cycles simply can not be so easily attributed to local orbital mechanics without involving our moon, nor likely of sufficient solar energy fluctuation cycles without having to involve another sun. Unfortunately, this simple task of our asking others to contribute constructively on what's clearly outside their cozy mainstream status quo box, whereas obviously that's not going down without a damn good fight, as that sort of fair and balanced open mindset simply hasn't been transpiring as of long before we came along, at least not without involving a few dead bodies of those mindset upon sustaining their one and only outlook, which has been cultivated in order to suit their one and only pagan faith-based interpretation, and that simply can't be altered regardless of the physics and best available science that's replicated. Something else of a stellar like significant influence has allowed Earth to freeze so extensively, and then to have thawed on the 100,000 year cycle. The only problem with this well established history is that by now we should have been deep into our next freeze cycle. It is thought by many that human activity alone has been the culprit, as of lately having contributed so extensively to our failing environment, in that we humans alone are the primary cause of the accellerated global warming fiasco that's showing us no remorse. The best available science tends to support this analogy, although if life and of orbital mechanics were only so simple, as such I'd agree that human contributions and otherwise direct damage to our environment has been sufficiently proven as having an affect that's anything but beneficial to our long term quality of life. As further pointed by Henry Kroll's and my ongoing research, there has been no apparent indications of sufficient lunar orbital fluctuations that's in any way capable of itself being associated with all of those previous ice-age cycles, in fact if there's anything that's scientifically and being orbital physics perfectly clear, is that our moon had been unavoidably cruising so much closer and therefore would have been more so moderating to our environment, if not having entirely prevented such previous deep cycles of ice-ages. We also believe the best available evidence and science we've got demonstrates that our moon has only been involved with that of the latest thaw, which seems to have no apparent end in sight. This analogy from the best available science is what's suggesting that our currently still salty and otherwise once upon a time icy proto-moon hasn't been orbiting around Earth for quite as long as we'd been informed, much less having been created by way of any Mars like impactor. Taking a little notice as to how much orbital energy that moon of ours currently represents, and thereby affording an unavoidable inside and out influence upon Earth's environment. Moon's orbital (Fc)Centripetal Force = 2.00076525e20 N = 2.04021e19 kgf Converting those terrific gravity related Newtons worth of such orbital kgf into raw energy of joules (Newton = 0.1 kg/m/s) and (1 kg/m/s = 9.80665 joules): The associated centrifugal energy worth of 2.000765e20 N.m. = 2e20 joules The 40 mm/year recession is essentially worthy of one meter/.04 = 25:1 Therefore, if leaving us at 40 mm/yr = 2.00076e20/25 = 8.00304e18 joules/yr 8.00304e18/8.76e3 = .91359e15 joules per hour = 913.6e12 jhr 913.6e12 jhr/3.6e3 = 253.8e9 joules/sec (recession energy = 254 gigajoules) A second calculation that's based upon a bit more robust assesment of gravitation force as also converted into joules of energy gets this amount of applied energy a little more impressive; http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...14/i4/moon.asp Is the moon really old? by "Dr Don DeYoung . . . if the earth moon system is as old as evolutionists say, we should have lost our moon long ago." "There is a huge force of gravity between the earth and moon - some 70 million trillion pounds (that's 70 with another 18 zeroes after it), or 30,000 trillion tonnes (that's 30 with 15 zeroes)." If Dr. Don DeYong's 30e18 kgf were correct; 30e18 kgf * 9.807 = 2.94e20 Joules At the supposed ongoing recession of .04 m/yr = 2.942e20/25 = 11.768e18 J/yr The subsequent energy of recession per second: 11.77e18/31.54e6 = .3732e12 or 373.2e9 J (recession energy = 373 gigajoules) - In either case of 254 gj or 373 gj, and trust that I've not yet taken into account the amount of extra tidal energy that's having to compensate for the drag coefficient, nor of have I included the reflected IR and FIR worth of whatever else that physically dark moon has to offer, whereas this still represents a rather terrific amount of energy that's obviously powerful enough to have affected Earth's platetonics and perhaps towards keeping that inner laler that's up against our outer shell that's surrounding our molten iron core in a sufficient tidal motion, thereby extensively pumping up and otherwise sustaining the highly beneficial if not critically essential magnetosphere, that's unfortunately in the process of failing us at the rate of 0.05%/year, perhaps every bit as Global warming lethal with 10,000 deaths per year currently attributed to various skin cancers that are directly caused by the excess amounts of cosmic, solar and lunar derived gamma nad hard-X-ray energy that's getting through our insignificant atmosphere, that's going to leave us in great strides as the magnetosphere fails to fend off those solar winds. Remember that without such a magnetosphere, surface life as we've known it wouldn't have stood much of a chance in this otherwise sub-frozen hell of our having evolved or otherwise having coexisted upon Earth w/o moon. From other research and of perfectly reasonable conjectures that fit entirely within the regular laws of planetology physics, from which we've also been informed that early Earth and therefore most likely prior to our having a moon, is when this environment had a 50+ bar (Venus like) worth of a highly protective atmosphere, that obviously represented early life upon Earth didn't require the benefits of any moon or that of the stabilized magnetosphere. As it is (w/o drag coefficient or secondary IR/FIR), and especially if going by the hour, it seems as though a great deal of available recession energy either way. Brad Guth: 254 gj * 3.6e3 = 914.4e12 j/hr Don DeYoung: 373 gj * 3.6e3 = 1,343e12 j/hr Even going by way of my less impressive numbers of 914 terajoules/hr, excluding the fact that our moon was obviously once upon a time much closer and if created via a Mars impactor would have been initially receding at the much faster rate of 6+ km/s at it exited the physical real of Earth's surface, whereas the more likely arrival and subsequent glancing impact of our once upon a time icy proto-moon (that which currently represents such an absolutely horrific amount of ongoing applied energy), plus having ever since accommodated those extremely beneficial tidal affects (inside and out), in that if this amount of existing orbital energy were removed from our environment would cause a great deal of harm in many ways other than the loss of it's nifty moonshine and of it's reflectively good IR/FIR worthy albedo that's also representing a contributing thermal energy factor on behalf of sustaining our environment that's still thawing out from the last ice age, and we believe so much so beneficial that if this moon as is were to be removed, whereas Earth's oceans would not only become cesspools of mostly jellyfish life, but our environment would also unavoidably and rather extensively start to ice itself up to quite an extent. We believe that life upon this Earth was simply situated a bit too far away from the sun, especially if it were having to manage without the enormous benefits of our moon, and it only gets worse yet if this life were having to manage upon the surface without the extra benefit of a substantial magnetosphere. Intelligent/intellectual life on Earth as we know it simply couldn't have evolved and having matured and survived above the surface without the enormous energy influx and physical modualtion and thermal moderation benefits of the moon. Unfortunately, not only is the moon still moving itself away from us, but so has the magnetosphere been dropping off by roughly .05%/year. (we think those two factors are somewhat related to one another) Others having similar notions but sharing somewhat different conclusions as to Earth w/o moon are still somewhat skewed by the supposed science associated with our having explored our physically dark, salty and otherwise extremely reactive/anticathode of a naked moon (Earth's revolving mascon), as though it's no longer such a big deal. http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys235...n/no_moon.html Unfortunately, all forms of human recorded history or otherwise of earlier proto-human depicted history are those extensively if not entirely limited to the time since our last ice-age. It's exactly as though we hadn't obtained a moon prior to that cycle of a badly frozen time, and it's also as though whatever's intelligent/intellectual life upon this Earth hadn't actually existed/coexisted to any extent prior to the last ice-age. So, what's so entirely different as to our last ice age and of the subsequent thaw? I totally agree that proto-life as having formulated under a much thicker atmosphere, below the surface and even from within salty ice was perfectly doable without a moon, whereas the core energy of mother Earth would have been doing it's thing of radiating and of venting geothermal energy plus having contributed nifty loads of raw elements and thus unavoidably having created a great deal of complex opportunities for the random happenstance and chemistry on behalf of local and panspermia life to have eventually gotten off to a good start (although our best efforts thus far haven't managed to simulate nor otherwise having accomplished such DNA formulation from scratch on behalf of even having created the most basic forms of such intelligent proto-life). Using the soil and/or of the available water and thereby mud certainly counts as a viable shield against the otherwise lethal solar and cosmic radiation, as well as for having 50+ bar worth of an early atmosphere would have extensively if not entirely protected early life on Earth w/o moon and w/o magnetosphere. Earth’s atmosphere before the age of dinosaurs by; Octave Levenspiel, Thomas J. Fitzgerald and Donald Pettit "Our sister planet and nearest neighbor, Venus, has an atmosphere of 90 bar pressure, consisting of 96% CO2 (5). Why should Earth be so different? Ronov measured the equivalent of at least 55 bar of CO2 tied up as carbonates around the world (6), whereas Holland estimates that at least 70 bar of CO2 is bound as carbonate materials (7). These carbonates had to come from the atmosphere, by way of the oceans, so we propose that, after the original oxidation of CH4 and CO, Earth’s early atmosphere was at very high pressure, up to 90 bar, and that it consisted primarily of CO2." http://journals.iranscience.net:800/...l/12learn.html This extra pressure and of mostly CO2 would also have represented a great deal of buoyancy, that should have made life for the larger species (as well known to roam about Earth's surface as of millions of years ago) considerably more bearable and even flyable at great bulk. Therefore, large scale life as we know evolved, as well as having gradually adjusted to such pressure and even as surviving within the concentrations of CO2 and sulphurs. CO2 alone (especially of dry CO2) is not even taboo to life as we know it, whereas even in great amounts and under such terrific pressure is just representing a different environment that takes a little getting used to, in much the same as other life upon Earth that survives at great ocean depths and near to where it's hot enough to melt certain alloys has been proven as doable. My fundamental two part question is: How would the purely terrestrial evolution of intelligence have been influenced or otherwise related to our having or not having a moon, and/or that of our not having or as per having a viable magnetosphere that's essentially of what's defending our relatively thin remainder of an atmosphere? Part two of the above question: Excluding the basic intelligence worth of a given species survival that's proven as often being a whole lot smarter than what many humans seem to have at their disposal, what if anything does human intellectual intelligence of rational/irrational thoughts (including that of our learned and thus cultivated bigotry, greed and arrogance) have to do with planetology or that of various orbital mechanics? PLANETARY SCIENCE: HISTORY OF EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE / as published in Nature and ScienceWeek http://scienceweek.com/2003/sc031017-1.htm Perhaps this one should have been entitled: Dare to think outside the box is extremely lethal, whereas perhaps this report should also have addressed the fundamental physics as to what other sorts of glancing impactor(s) could have given enough rotational energy to have initially started the outer surface rotating as different than our molten interior, thus giving us our actively mascon motivated magnetosphere to start with. Clearly our thinking has been primarily limited or rather sequestered by way of whatever our spendy mainstream infomercial-science plus faith-based science has to guide us by, whereas our NASA and thereby mostly based upon their religious faith approved Mars impactor notion has been their all-knowing and apparently the one and only viable alternative, that which continually gets published and otherwise promoted at public expense, that's also sufficiently similar to the Alan Guth accelerating expansion/BIG-BANG or "Inflationary Universe" theory that's certainly very compatible with the pro-intelligent/creation and thus within the pro-faith based realm of God's creation being the general rule, that is unless you wouldn't mind losing all credibility and most likely your job plus seeing your entire career and of everything associated going down the nearest space-toilet, at least that's how insecure and/or immoral most religious cults and of their political partnerships have managed in the past, and remains as how they would still most likely deal with such fools as outsiders that would suggest anything that wasn't pre-approved and thus certified and accepted by way of God's pagan replacement(NASA/Apollo). At least that's my honest impression as based upon how this anti-think-tank of a naysay Usenet from hell treats whatever's rocking their boat, that which clearly has no apparent intentions of their cutting the rest of us any slack. - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon
"BruceS" wrote in message
Are we still conflating energy with force? Or is there another issue, that some forces are measured in different units than others? Are we still playing dumbfounded about the truth? So what's the difference? Force is always equal to a given amount of energy, as is energy equal to a given amount of force. There's still 2e20 joules worth of gravity's ongoing energy that's continually existing between us and our moon, whereas if just 0.1% of that force gets reapplied as into a tidal force of causing unavoidable friction, and if that were shared with each and every given terrestrial m2 is worth 391 joules/m2. Therefore, even 0.01% of 2e20 j, as if that were applied to the entire surface area of Earth (including that of it's mantle and upper mantle) is still per total surface area worth 39 j/m2, and that's continuous throughout each and every second of each and every day from the very beginning of our moon's arrival, though I'm not even including whatever's the initial worth of the moon/Earth impact transfer of energy, which should have been damn impressive. How can there not be a direct thermal energy association with whatever's being kept in motion by way of that orbiting mascon of a moon? - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon
I see that this topic is still being avoided like the worse plague on
Earth. In that case I'll keep contributing as best I can. Now here's another honest man from naysayville that's after at least part my own global warming heart. http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/sc...ma ilgate.org http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...e2e2810678d397 Earl; Not "not global warming". It is "not manmade global warming" Earl; We have been in Global Warming ever since the Little Ice Age ended around 1850. Well over half the temperature rise that the Greens shrill about occured before WW2. Whereas the majority of the CO2 that is the blame was consumed after 1980. I obviously don't entirely agree with the "not manmade global warming", as that's been more than proven via replicated science to have been a contributing factor, although I'm thinking it could represent as little as 10% of the ongoing root cause. The rather unfortunate "sun is a variable star!!" logic is only ever so slightly correct, but not nearly sufficient nor in any way proven as even having been nearly sufficient to have fluctuated by such an extent unless you're talking about that sucker going absolutely postal on us, and otherwise having been a passive bonfire as of those multi-thousand year ice age dips. And the infomercial wars of our mainstream status quo that's wagging thy dogs to death continues, as though we've got all the necessary smarts as is, plus all time in the world, and it's also as though our physiucally dark moon that has supposedly been with us from the very beginning has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with our ongoing thaw from the last ice age. However, what if our moon had only arrived as of 10,500 BC? - "Roger Coppock" wrote in message ups.com http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/sc...ma ilgate.org http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...4eeb1ff70466f1 HUGE MELTED LAKE IN BEAUFORT SEA! Last year, scientists at NASA and the NSIDC reported the most extensive summer meltdown of Arctic sea ice on record, and an acceleration in the rate of its long-term decline. In a new study reported last week, NASA researcher Josefino Comiso found that the Arctic's winter ice is also in decline, and at an accelerating rate. The ice cap is crucial because it helps regulate the planet's temperature. Its bright surface reflects 80 percent of the solar energy that strikes it, sending it back into space. Climatologists say a smaller ice cap will reflect less solar energy and expose more open water, which is darker and absorbs 90 percent of the solar energy that falls on it. It heats up, holds more of that heat from year to year, and makes it harder for ice to form again in the fall and winter. So Arctic temperatures rise. From January through August 2005, they were 3.6 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the long-term average across most of the region. I have to concur that's all very true, in that the darker Earth becomes (especially ocean darkness as opposed to icy/snowy white), the more solar energy gets absorbed, whereas instead of taking in as little as 10%, it goes to as great as 90% absorbson. Frozen tundra that's now becoming extensively thawed is simply adding further insult to injury in more ways than being of less snow and ice covered, and those ever expanding dead zones of oceans are now limited to being populated with jellyfish, if there's anything. Of more cloud coverage by night and less by day is also creating a somewhat energy collecting/storage environment, whereas by day the solar energy obtains more unobstructed access to the darker albedo of Earth, while at night the added moisture that gets placed into our atmosphere by day becomes clouds by night which only retains the solar influx more effectively. But in spite of all else, there's also the nearby orbiting mascon worth of our physically dark moon to take into account, and at this point I'm not even talking about whatever amounts of reflected IR and of it's emitted FIR that's also unavoidably contributed into our warming environment. That nearby mascon moon of ours could be representing as great as 90% of our continuing thaw, or perhaps as little as 75% responsible, whereas either way it's inevitable that Earth will continue to thaw and subsequently continues to global warm itself, along with our help of uncontrolled pillaging, raping and polluting of mother Earth is how it'll simply accomplish this task a whole lot sooner rather than later. 0.1% of the 2e20 joules worth of mascon force as the potential energy resource is worth an average of 390 J/m2 upon the surface of Earth. Do you folks really think that it's limiited to merely 0.1% of the moon's gravity force and of those subsequent tidal affects that are getting converted via friction into thermal energy? Do you really think that such mascon induced ocean currents and thus terrific tides and subsequent currents are not responsible for expediting the ongoing thermal moderation (warm energy going towards the cold) of our global environment? Do you really think that such a terrific gravitational applied force that has been rotating about Earth isn't inducing the gradual super-rotation of our molten mantle, that's situated a relatively short distance below our feet? Do you really think that such a terrific mascon affect isn't in any way related to the ongoing platetonics and subsequent friction/energy release plus having unavoidably contributed gaseous elements that emerge to the surface, into our oceans and simply contribute to the atmosphere from time to time? I'm not saying that humanity is outside the loop of what's cooking our goose. I'm simply giving you folks additional tools to appreciate the ongoing demise that's primarily caused by our moon. In other words, you should be 100% correct that global warming is getting rather badly accelerated because of our own doings, and unless we can moderate our ways and at the same time obtain greater amounts of clean energy for our personal use without further pillaging and raping Mother Earth, as such we're not going to get away with this fiasco forever, and unfortunately most of us can not afford to keep finding higher and safer ground, along with alternative resources of food and energy. Unfortunately, our education system is anything but. Of what we seem to know is basically infomercial-history that's supported by way of infomercial-science that's based extensively upon conditional physics, and it's otherwise media driven down our throats and up our butts at the commands of those encharge of such matters. Such honest topics are being topic/author stalked, bashed and as much as possible banished away from the GOOGLE/Usenet moderated groups is merely the extra proof-positive that we're more than sufficiently right, as otherwise why all the Usenet damage-control fuss and flak each and every time we've posted another substantiated global warming topic, or much less anything that's having to do with our moon or even Venus? There's absolutely no question that Earth's continuing thaw from the last ice age is transpiring before our mostly dumbfounded eyes, and it's the few and far between folks like Roger Coppock that have seen the light of how much of that thaw can be directly attributed to human factors, though seemingly unable to translate that into practical actions that'll make a worthy difference. Educating the public via this mostly naysay Usenet anti-think-tank that's focused upon wagging those poor dogs to death, is not going to happen unless the likes of Roger Coppock and others of his kind can manage to kick a few extra butts, and unfortunately the New York Times and of similar publications wouldn't so much as dare print anything we've had to say because of their insider clients and otherwise status quo or bust sponsors would either sue their socks off and/or merely extract any future financial support, the largest of which being our very own state and federal governments and/or of those numerous government/public sponsored institutions, that upon average is what pays for the most infomercial column inches. Too bad that so much of our supposedly educated masses are those snookered and thus dumb and dumber than merely dumbfounded. - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon
As per ususal, this topic isn't even going anywhere because, others and
myself are right. As such, here's another related sub-topic that's worth tossing into this Usenet ring of fire. Some folks think it's already too late, and perceive that we're still way too addictive to energy that's being extracted and otherwise produced via some of the dirtiest known and otherwise soot, NOx plus many other toxin producing methods. I think we're just downright greedy little perverted *******s that really don't give a damn about others or that of our failing environment, that's about to get yet another slap in the face from our badly failing magnetosphere. Too bad our DNA isn't getting rad-hard. The birth to grave cycle of global fossil energy exploitation (including yellowcake) is basically taking us into that very same grave along with our past, current and future ways that don't seem to be changing soon enough to make a difference. Instead of having been honestly investing in the future of cleaner and abundant energy, we're still investing in the dirty past that's killing us. This one even has our supposed environmental avenger Roger Coppock dumbfounded past the point of no return, much like the matter of our somewhat recently obtained moon having caused most of the last thaw via gravity/tidal forces plus having contributed a little extra IR/FIR to boot. Too bad so many folks like Roger can't think inside or much less outside the cozy little box that has been orchestrated as though constructed around our dumb and dumber mindsets, in that we have to believe in anything that's GOOGLE/NOVA or MI/NSA~NASA. "Exxon Stockholders Liable for Global Warming Damages" wrote in message HUGE MELTED LAKE IN BEAUFORT SEA! http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/sc...ma ilgate.org http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...4eeb1ff70466f1 : This freshwater lake of melted ice is a thermal battery. That is, it : has absorbed 96,126,250,000 Megajoules of HEAT in the act of meting. : In order to refreeze it must emit that heat to the atmosphere. The : battery has been charged. The freshwater has a depth of 3 meters, which is too shallow not to have mixed with the brine beneath. Therefore the freezing temperature has been lowered and additional energy must be extracted from the battery before refreezing could occur. The differential is 17.7 degrees C times the volume 2.88e14 grams for an additional discharge of 5.0976e15 calories of heat energy must be emitted to the air before the lost ice is fully refrozen. The net total is 5.0976e15 plus 2.295936e16 calories = 2.805696e16 calories of heat energy released to the air. 2.805696e16 calories = 1.175066e11 MegaJoules = 117,606,600,000 MJ. 2.805696e16 calories = 1.175066e17 Joules In terms of Nukes the Fat Man and Little Boy atomic bombs (15.08e13 Joules)... ... 779 pairs of atomic bombs like Hiroshima and Nagasaki going of this winter in the Arctic. One should reasonably prepare for some energetic kinetics as a result. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaton A megaton of TNT is 4.184e15 joules = 4.184 petajoules (PJ). " This is 28 million tons of TNT set to blast. " Absolutely impressive, and I totally agree that it's all about to explode big-time in our highly bigoted, arrogant and greedy little fossil fuel burning and soot producing faces, not to mention the discarded Radium from yellowcake, coal and other deep geophysical energy resources that's now into our surface environment along with all of the megatonnes/year worth of NOx from hell. Too bad we're all too dumb and dumber, along with having been so easily snookered and subsequently dumbfounded as to even so much as realize how totally snookered and summarily dumfounded we all are, and how soon some of us are going to become prematurely dead and/or seriously broke as a direct result. The likes of ExxonMobile should be damn proud of themselves, just like all of those lethal tobacco drug pushers of internal soot and of numerous carsonagenics that are currently licensed to kill, and there's absolutely no doubt that as such they're each doing just that while turning a hefty profit. There's next to nothing going into R&D of He3/fusion energy, or much less the worth of what the nearby moon L1 of unlimited clean energy has to offer. Even the superior terrestrial worth of wind derived energy isn't but hardly a prototype of what a serious wind turbine application has to offer, and of solar PV plus the thermal dynamic Stirling alternatives that could easily share the base/foundation of those very same wind turbine towers is apparently taboo/nondisclosure because, apparently it's all too squeaky clean and too much 100% renewable without hardly a stitch of repercussions. Basalt insulation of R-1024/m that's potentially as structural as you'd care to make it and essentially fire-proof is apparently yet another taboo/nondisclosure little tidbit of what humanity and that of our failing environment is never going to see, much less of extremely compact hybrid batteries operating on hydrogen peroxide and aluminum, or better internal combustion via h2o2/c12h26 or damn near any viable combination (including biofuels) you'd care to mix that'll represent a near zero soot factor as well as zilch worth if any of NOx because, the mostly nitrogen atmosphere itself isn't getting consumed. God forbid that we should ever have a surplus of such environmentally clean energy to put into the makings, storage and distributions of such nifty products as LH2 or h2o2, and of subsequently making the consumption of damn near everything else so much more efficient and so much cleaner, not to mention biologically and environmentally so much end-user friendly. - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon
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. 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) Therefore, giving humanity 10% responsibility and that nasty moon of ours the other 90% seems more than likely, especially since the energy cycle of making 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 into account. At most I'd be giving humanity 25% responsibility, 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 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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Space Calendar - May 24, 2006 | [email protected] | History | 0 | May 24th 06 04:12 PM |
Space Calendar - March 23, 2006 | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | March 23rd 06 05:18 PM |
Space Calendar - January 26, 2006 | [email protected] | History | 0 | January 28th 06 01:42 AM |
Space Calendar - October 27, 2005 | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 27th 05 05:02 PM |
Space Calendar - February 25, 2005 | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | February 25th 05 05:25 PM |