Being global warmed to death by our moon
Brad Guth
walking upon that physically dark surface, as well as it has been that
of a rather nicely IR reflective orb, that once upon a relatively short
span of geological time ago was considerably closer to Earth, of which
still being so nearby isn't exactly benefiting as to any moderation on
behalf of our ongoing global warming fiasco.
Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon
Going from our global warming 'as is' 'where is' (Earth w/moon); Taking
away our nifty moon is nearly a death march with no end-user friendly
outcome in sight, that is until after we're nearly all frozen solid.
At least that's essentially what Henry Kroll and myself happen to think,
and not that such an outcome hardly matters because, we'll each be long
gone and quite summarily dead way before this presently global warming
Earth that's going postal by way of turn's itself into multiple eroded
wastelands, much larger desert zones (hot or cold), vast intensity of
those new and improved storms as never before seen or otherwise
recorded, nearly zero if any frozen tundra, 20+ extra meters worth of
polluted oceans filled extensively with jellyfish, and of somehow
sustaining whatever else is trying to survive upon the remaining dry
land, along with their surviving WW-IV that's going on and on as though
every other soul is thought to be hiding a personal cash of WMD.
That somewhat nicely IR reflective and a serious touch more than mildly
radioactive, sufficiently naked and thus highly reactive and thereby
unavoidably anticathode of a gamma and X-ray moon of ours, is what's
most likely responsible for the gradual amounts of non-human induced
global warming since the last ice-age, and as such it's simply not
moving away from us fast enough, if at all. In fact, the elliptical
orbital aspects may be getting distorted even worse off than we've been
given notice about, thereby increasing tidal energy fluctuations and
thereby causing an even greater influx of geophysical trauma, that's in
part killing off our environment and many of us from the inside out.
However, if we keep losing our magnetosphere intensity at the rate of
0.05%/year, as such we'll not have to worry our silly bigoted and
arrogant selves, at least not about consuming our last few spendy
barrels of bloody oil and those absolute lousy dregs of our nasty coal
that's essentially releasing the likes of mercury and radium by the
tonnes/day into our badly failing environment, nor should we worry about
having those pesky wars over the remaining tonnage of yellowcake.
Whereas due to the increasing TBI dosage of cosmic and solar radiation
is also why our atmosphere is going to thin itself to the point where
our frail DNA may also be departing this Earth a bit sooner than many of
us had planned.
What we may actually need is a serious push of advanced Stem Cell
research via our best intelligent design, on behalf of creating those
new and improved species of rad-hard human DNA. If we could 100 fold
improve our survivable dosage, as such our improved rad-hardened species
might stand a good chance at sticking around for the next thousand or so
years, but then what?
We may also need to somehow artificially induce the next highly
reflective ice-age, especially as we're getting so much closer to our
orbital destiny with the extremely bright and great deal of such an
available energy resource as derived from the Sirius star/solar system,
that which our solar system should be passing us right nextdoor to those
bad guys come 64,000 and some odd thousand years from now. At least
that's been my best swag to share with what little need-to-know and
exploritory research that I have to work with.
On my insignificant grave I'll be sure to have one of those nifty 'push
to listen' personal message buttons, and perhaps even a pay-per-view 3D
video clip, whereas I'll get to smirk exactly like GW Bush before his
botox injections, as I say it over and over; "I told you so".
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Panties On Head
need to find a way to bring it closer, and keep it still for a while. Then
we can burn all the coal we want. When we run out of coal we can burn
Republicans.
"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b89c0401ba43bcee9f5...@mygate.mailgate.org...
The Ghost In The Machine
<N...@No.No>
wrote
on Tue, 12 Sep 2006 22:22:11 -0500
<HrydnVDwdZa84JrY...@comcast.com>:
> Actually, the moon cools the Earth by providing shade during an eclipse. We
> need to find a way to bring it closer, and keep it still for a while. Then
> we can burn all the coal we want. When we run out of coal we can burn
> Republicans.
Contemplation of the movement of a 7.35 * 10^22 kg mass moving
at over 1 km/s is an interesting idea, but I'm not hopeful
of achieving such.
The good news: one might be able to extract energy by moving
the Moon in.
The bad news: there's momentum to consider. A *lot* of it.
[Guth stuff snipped]
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
Roger Coppock
newsgroup this year.
Hint: what fraction is the angular area of the moon of the
angular area of the total sky?
ph...@mindspring.com
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote on Wed, 13 Sep 2006 05:00:37 GMT in
soc.history.what-if :
>In sci.environment, Panties On Head
><N...@No.No>
> wrote
>on Tue, 12 Sep 2006 22:22:11 -0500
><HrydnVDwdZa84JrY...@comcast.com>:
>> Actually, the moon cools the Earth by providing shade during an eclipse. We
>> need to find a way to bring it closer, and keep it still for a while. Then
>> we can burn all the coal we want. When we run out of coal we can burn
>> Republicans.
>
>Contemplation of the movement of a 7.35 * 10^22 kg mass moving
>at over 1 km/s is an interesting idea, but I'm not hopeful
>of achieving such.
>
>The good news: one might be able to extract energy by moving
>the Moon in.
>
>The bad news: there's momentum to consider. A *lot* of it.
>
>[Guth stuff snipped]
I always figured a very large mylar shade. Wouldn't take much to put
one in orbit, large enough to attenuate solar influx a few percent. Or go
whole hog and put a dyson sphere of a sunshade around the whole planet.
But it is going to be a mess when it falls out of orbit and burns up in
the atmosphere. Yech.
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."
Robert Kolker
> My nomination for the silliest pseudo-science on this
> newsgroup this year.
>
> Hint: what fraction is the angular area of the moon of the
> angular area of the total sky?
One half a degree in the width. I forget how to compute the stero-radians.
The moon's main effect on earth is gravitational, not electromagnetic.
Without the moon, the earths rotation would become quite chaotic.
Wibbldy-wobbldy.
Bob Kolker
Roger Coppock
ph...@mindspring.com wrote:
> Okay, so I'm late and catching up, but The Ghost In The Machine
> <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote on Wed, 13 Sep 2006 05:00:37 GMT in
> soc.history.what-if :
> >In sci.environment, Panties On Head
> ><N...@No.No>
> > wrote
> >on Tue, 12 Sep 2006 22:22:11 -0500
> ><HrydnVDwdZa84JrY...@comcast.com>:
> >> Actually, the moon cools the Earth by providing shade during an eclipse. We
> >> need to find a way to bring it closer, and keep it still for a while. Then
> >> we can burn all the coal we want. When we run out of coal we can burn
> >> Republicans.
> >
> >Contemplation of the movement of a 7.35 * 10^22 kg mass moving
> >at over 1 km/s is an interesting idea, but I'm not hopeful
> >of achieving such.
> >
> >The good news: one might be able to extract energy by moving
> >the Moon in.
> >
> >The bad news: there's momentum to consider. A *lot* of it.
> >
> >[Guth stuff snipped]
>
> I always figured a very large mylar shade. Wouldn't take much to put
> one in orbit, large enough to attenuate solar influx a few percent. Or go
> whole hog and put a dyson sphere of a sunshade around the whole planet.
This is a nutty idea, but it now has urban legend status.
The sunshade would have to have an impossibly large area.
I made this calculation in another post last year.
Let's run some numbers on this idea . . .
The solar constant is ~1367 Watts per Meter squared
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Constant
Global Warming is now about 3 watts per meter squared,
which is 0.2% of the solar constant.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/simodel/
(Global Warming will quadruple in a century or two.)
The cross sectional area of the Earth is 125,000,000 km^2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Constant
The area of sunshade in orbit needed to remove the current
global warming is, therefore roughly .002 * 125,000,000 km squared
or 300000 km squared.
hanson
in news:1158168635....@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
about his usual AGW obsession, possibly brought on by the pus
in his brain (Roger's assertions not mine). --- Now then, Roger,
instead of your reliance on calculations, citations and references
why don't you demonstrate Global Warming. ---- Take 2 of your
clear colorless Vodka bottles that you have guzzled & emptied
and put a few Tbsp of water into one. Into the other one do the
same but add 1/2 tsp baking soda and some citric acid. Before
hand drill insert and glue a thermometer into each cap. Now
cap/close both bottles such that one contains an atmosphere
of Air/H2O and the other CO2/H2O. Then put them side by side
into the sun and record the temp --- According to you the CO2
bottle should get much much hotter --- If so, then you'll have your
first victory --- Then run a couple of dilution encores -- and do
it or extrapolate it to an Air/H20 mix with 360 ppm, or what ever
your worry amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is. If your own XP's
give results that chive with the Global Warmer Goons'.... then a
lot of folks may say uncle... based on your own work.. ahaha...
Have at it Roger. I wish you good luck
ahahaha... ahahahanson
BTW: Kent Deatherage can prove his theory in the same fashion
simply by adding more water into the bottle. If at 360 ppm CO2
the water does NOT get warmer then in the other bottle, then
Kent may have put a severe kink into your GW theory, and may
doom your AGW altogether.... ahahahaha.... AHAHAHAHA....
>
ph...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> Okay, so I'm late and catching up, but
>> I always figured a very large mylar shade. Wouldn't take
>> much to put one in orbit, large enough to attenuate solar
>> influx a few percent. Or go whole hog and put a dyson
>> sphere of a sunshade around the whole planet.
>> But it is going to be a mess when it falls out of orbit
>> and burns up in the atmosphere. Yech. --- pyotr filipivich
>>
[Roger]
Brad Guth
>need to find a way to bring it closer, and keep it still for a while. Then
>we can burn all the coal we want. When we run out of coal we can burn
>Republicans.
What's the BTU/kg or EMPG worth of our botox injected GW Bush?
Otherwise, I think you're on to something that's perfectly doable, not
the part about altering the moon but about burning off our oil-fat
Republicans seems perfectly rational and quite logical. I bet we might
even get those nice Muslims to go along with this idea, whereas at least
eventually they wouldn't have any good reason to exterminate the rest of
us infidels.
BTW; Unlike your infitesimally slight cooling via eclipse, I'm thinking
in terms of many thousands of years if not tens of thousands of years of
Earth getting the full lunar monty, whereas such a small orb of such an
exposure of less than a degree worth from such an IR radiating moon that
is representing a nearly continuous source of such reflected and
secondary IR, and having been otherwise responsible for establishing a
portion of our tilt and for keeping loads of stuff deep within and upon
the surface of our badly polluted Earth continually on the move, is in
fact representing an ongoing transfer of energy in the form of thermal
transfers and of friction that's not exactly making us any colder.
Without the moon Earth would become much colder and perhaps even as
"wibbldy-wobbldy" chaotic interesting, as pointed out to us by Robert
Kolker. But as you say, we could simply resolve such problems by way of
burning Republicans instead of the last dregs of oil, coal and using up
our remaining deposits of all that not-so-friendly yellowcake.
BTW No.2; My LES-CM/ISS at 256e6 tonnes as orbiting within LL-1 should
manage to at least moderate that lunar recession.
Brad Guth
news:1158168635....@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com
> Let's run some numbers on this idea . . .
> The solar constant is ~1367 Watts per Meter squared
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Constant
> Global Warming is now about 3 watts per meter squared,
> which is 0.2% of the solar constant.
> http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/simodel/
> (Global Warming will quadruple in a century or two.)
> The cross sectional area of the Earth is 125,000,000 km^2
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Constant
> The area of sunshade in orbit needed to remove the current
> global warming is, therefore roughly .002 * 125,000,000 km squared
> or 300000 km squared.
Why not merely relocate Sedna into Earth L2, as then we'd have shade to
burn and lots more ice to boot.
What's the halo management worth of reaction thrust requirement per year
if appllied to station-keeping Sedna within the Earth L2 zone?
Brad Guth
> My nomination for the silliest pseudo-science on this
> newsgroup this year.
>
> Hint: what fraction is the angular area of the moon of the
> angular area of the total sky?
There's obviously not all that much to work with, as to the fractional
area of the sky, but it has been much closer in the past and it is
nearly that of a continuous resource of IR, plus having caused a great
deal of terrestrial friction, and quite possibly responsible for a
portion of having sustained our badly failing magnetosphere.
I actually liked your numbers on behalf of that artificial sun shade
> Let's run some numbers on this idea . . .
> The solar constant is ~1367 Watts per Meter squared
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Constant
> Global Warming is now about 3 watts per meter squared,
> which is 0.2% of the solar constant.
> http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/simodel/
> (Global Warming will quadruple in a century or two.)
> The cross sectional area of the Earth is 125,000,000 km^2
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Constant
> The area of sunshade in orbit needed to remove the current
> global warming is, therefore roughly .002 * 125,000,000 km squared
> or 300000 km squared.
Why not merely relocate Sedna into Earth L1 (in place of SOHO), as then
we'd have shade
to burn and lots more ice to boot.
What's the halo management worth of the reaction thrust requirement per
year if appllied to station-keeping Sedna within the Earth L2 zone?
Brad Guth
OOPS! replace my silly dyslexic Earth L2 notion with the proper use of
Earth L1
I actually liked these numbers on behalf of that artificial sun shade.
> Let's run some numbers on this idea . . .
> The solar constant is ~1367 Watts per Meter squared
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Constant
> Global Warming is now about 3 watts per meter squared,
> which is 0.2% of the solar constant.
> http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/simodel/
> (Global Warming will quadruple in a century or two.)
> The cross sectional area of the Earth is 125,000,000 km^2
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Constant
> The area of sunshade in orbit needed to remove the current
> global warming is, therefore roughly .002 * 125,000,000 km squared
> or 300000 km squared.
Why not merely relocate Sedna into Earth L1 (in place of old and badly
in need of replacement SOHO, with ACE not all that far behind), as then
we'd have a nifty outpost along with shade to burn and lots more ice to
boot. In fact, the ice of Sedna itself could become the reaction
thrusting source energy for the task of keeping Sedna within that halo
orbit. If Sedna wasn't spinning, the side towards Earth should remain
icy, and you'd also have a little better gravity while walking about the
equator of Sedna.
What's the halo management worth, of the reaction thrust requirement per
year if appllied to station-keeping Sedna within the Earth L1 zone?
Brad Guth
> My nomination for the silliest pseudo-science on this
> newsgroup this year.
>
> Hint: what fraction is the angular area of the moon of the
> angular area of the total sky?
OOPS! as per usual, you'll have to keep replacing my silly dyslexic
Earth L2 notion with the proper use of Earth L1
There's obviously not all that much of our IR moon to work with, as to
the fractional area of the sky, but it has been much closer in the past
and it is nearly that of a continuous resource of IR, plus having caused
a great deal of terrestrial friction, and quite possibly being
responsible for a good portion of having sustained our badly failing
magnetosphere.
I'd actually liked these numbers on behalf of that artificial sun shade.
> Let's run some numbers on this idea . . .
> The solar constant is ~1367 Watts per Meter squared
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Constant
> Global Warming is now about 3 watts per meter squared,
> which is 0.2% of the solar constant.
> http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/simodel/
> (Global Warming will quadruple in a century or two.)
> The cross sectional area of the Earth is 125,000,000 km^2
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Constant
> The area of sunshade in orbit needed to remove the current
> global warming is, therefore roughly .002 * 125,000,000 km squared
> or 300000 km squared.
However, why not merely relocate Sedna into Earth L1 (in place of old
and badly in need of replacement SOHO, with ACE not all that far
behind), as then we'd have a nifty outpost along with shade to burn and
lots more ice to boot. In fact, the ice of Sedna itself could rather
easily become the reaction thrusting source energy for the task of
keeping Sedna within that halo orbit. If Sedna wasn't spinning, the
side towards Earth should remain icy, and you'd also have a little
better gravity while walking about the equator of Sedna.
What's the halo management down-side worth, of the reaction thrust
requirement per year if appllied to station-keeping Sedna within the
Earth L1 zone?
Brad Guth
for sustaining our grand ruse/sting of the century, it has also been
responsible on the long haul for a share of our global warming fiasco.
But fortunately we've become such good wizards and rusemasters that I
believe we can fix that with yet another moon.
I'll admit that global warming influx via our moon is a bit of a short
term stretch, whereas there's obviously not all that much of our IR
reflective moon to work with as per the fractional area of the sky that
it represents, but otherwise on the long haul it has been much closer
and thereby a whole lot more imposing in the past, and it has been
nearly that of a continuous resource of IR, plus having always caused a
great deal of terrestrial friction (inside and out), and quite possibly
being responsible for a good portion of having initiated and sustained
our badly failing magnetosphere.
I'd actually liked these numbers of Roger Coppock's, on behalf of
establishing that artificial sun shade.
> Let's run some numbers on this idea . . .
> The solar constant is ~1367 Watts per Meter squared
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Constant
> Global Warming is now about 3 watts per meter squared,
> which is 0.2% of the solar constant.
> http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/simodel/
> (Global Warming will quadruple in a century or two.)
> The cross sectional area of the Earth is 125,000,000 km^2
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Constant
> The area of sunshade in orbit needed to remove the current
> global warming is, therefore roughly .002 * 125,000,000 km squared
> or 300000 km squared.
However, as long as the cost, time required or risk factors are hardly
if ever a consideration on behalf of going for establishing those
rad-hard and essentially meteorite proof habitats within our moon, or on
behalf of accomplishing Mars that's in certain other ways worse off, or
going for that of whatever's much further away (such as Titan or some
other godforsaken planet or moon), in that case, why not merely relocate
Sedna into Earth L1 (in place of our old and badly in need of a
replacement SOHO, with ACE not all that far behind), as then we'd have
ourselves a nifty outpost along with having accomplished shade to burn,
and not to forget lots more ice to boot.
In fact, the ice of Sedna itself could rather easily become the reaction
thrusting source (solar boosted super-boilers for creating the horrific
expansion into less than vapor and thereby accomplishing extremely good
h2o-->ion vapor of thrust exit velocity) for the task of keeping Sedna
within that halo orbit. If Sedna wasn't allowed to spin, just sitting
within that halo worth of Earth L1, at least the side of Sedna facing
towards Earth should remain icy, and you'd also have a little better
gravity while walking about the equator of Sedna.
BTW; if need be, we could use thermal nuclear plus laser boosted cannons
on behalf of blasting solid icebergs into space as being our reaction
thrusters, or perhaps tethered GSO thrusters for accommodating the halo
station-keeping demands of sequestering Sedna for our benefit.
Regulating Earth's temperature via moving that frozen 1800 km orb (a
shade that's capable of 5.0868e6 km2) that's supposedly worth nearly
half it's volume as being of some kind of ice, whereas shifting that
sucker from side to side or up/down within the efficient halo zone could
thereby allow unregulated burning of our fossil oil, coal and natural
gas, along with our pillaging and burning down the remainders of
whatever pesky rain forest, and for all of that to continue unchecked
until there's nothing left, except people to burn, and even for that we
could always start off with burning Muslims.
Even when all of Sedna's ice is gone, there should still be something
better than 1e6 km2 worth of solar shade, and even of that much could be
intentionally navigated so as to benefit only our interest. That'll
show those Islamic heathens who's the alpha-dog ultimate boss of this
Earth.
What's the halo management down-side worth, of the reaction thrust
requirement per year if applied on behalf of station-keeping Sedna
within the Earth L1 zone?
This swag of mine may need a little rework but, I don't believe it would
be much greater than a kgf/tonne/year, and I do believe there are
naysayers flatulating within this anti-think-tank of a Usenet from hell
that already outperform that much.
Come to think about it, this relocating of little old icy Sedna might
even get myself nominated by the likes of ENRON, EXON, GE and GW Bush
himself, for a Nobel Prize.
demos
the sun would play havoc with the tides, which would cause untold, but
forseeable havoc to marine life especially in the shallows and
estuaries(agreed not may of those left along with marshlands)...there
is also the problem of the semi dark which would alter a lot of
bioactivities and of course increase homo sapien energy demand for
required lighting et al over 24hour basiis...we're burning more than we
need now...in the debate over who is right/wrong is never the
issue(though it is made the issue)..
It is amongst the following, that life is a clear an unadulterated
conspiracy and has been since the concept of politics shoved its ugly
head into the virginity of life on earth..the immediate response to
conspiracy is of course an extreme one but the subject runs the
gauntlet of many varying degrees as these discussion sites show only
too clearly.
Conspiracy is like good old fashioned piracy and current trends of both
are at the highest levels which will be the introduction to the 3rd
world war...when the starving billions will have nothing to loose and
take the AK47 or the M1 and rattle them across the rich fields of the
'have all & more'...it matters not the political afilliation nor the
religious one since these are largely intertwined.
Conspiracy is everything from blatant GWB facism to shuffling or silent
government where everyone is trying to "get away with it"..."take the
money and run"..conspiracies are all over world and in your home
everyday with Fox & CNN...the principal motivation here is not greed
and avarice but fear. Greed and avarice are but the results of
arrogance and ignorance...which is another story.
Above all these things have and will take place because it is in the
field of "Murphys Law" or "Sods Law" or "shit happens" because there
are so many looking up each others arses to see what colour it is and
then debating on whether or not it really is...or mines better than
yours or do you have a licence for that.
Scientists too are conspirators in this subject of global warming,along
with the ozone layer, CO2 emmissions, and everything that is being
ripped and gouged out of the natural world for the
"geld"..."dosh"..."flos"..."greenbacks" and other derivations on the
name of the game - money -.
But the truth of all this is that all this is actually happening thus
it is all true...its just the interpretation or slant or downright
bollock dropping lies that create or stimulate the fears of mankind
into irrational behaviour, duff decisions and frankly legalised
genocide...Sorry this has been a bit windy but trying to concise it all
down in the mass of language and all its potential interpretations is
just another barrier to getting where we should all be going instead of
where we are inevitably going,
I sent this via panties on head on the premise that one is either
headfucked or receives the devils penis mentally through the middle eye
or panties with convenient shagging slit so that one can be a good
consumer..there are those out there that specialize in brain fucking as
in PR or cheap journalism or I'm in it for the money...it is however
not intended to be personally insulting...it amuses me also the
name..as far as burning republicans, I thought the idea was to avoid
un-necessary pollution...have a nice day ...Demos(Marine Ecologist)
demos
intelligent author who planned with his wife to commit suicide and did
so...was this however intelligent?...his holonistic view and
interpretaions are very clearing...too much of course for the current
political level of conciousness. However, there is always the Zero
Point Field, apparently there are lashings of energy available plus the
history of the whole world and whats to come. Demos
Brad Guth
L1 would impose a certain degree of tidal weirdness, but at least we'd
be a whole lot cooler with having established this 5e6 km2 worth of
solar shade at our disposal, and if it should ever get to being a pesky
problem, in which case we'd just send that sucker into the sun, or
perhaps allowing it to become a moon of Venus.
>Demos(Marine Ecologist)
>Above all these things have and will take place because it is in the
>field of "Murphys Law" or "Sods Law" or "shit happens" because there
>are so many looking up each others arses to see what colour it is and
>then debating on whether or not it really is...or mines better than
>yours or do you have a licence for that.
Now that's being entirely insightfull, and to the point, such as the one
of my God can kick your God's butt, and then some.
BTW; what do you think about those smart and not so little ETs roasting
on Venus?
>I sent this via panties on head on the premise that one is either
>headfucked or receives the devils penis mentally through the middle
>eye or panties with convenient shagging slit so that one can be a
>good consumer..there are those out there that specialize in brain
>fucking as in PR or cheap journalism or I'm in it for the money...
>it is however not intended to be personally insulting...it amuses me
>also the name...as far as burning republicans, I thought the idea was
>to avoid un-necessary pollution...have a nice day
>...Demos(Marine Ecologist)
I'm still into assuming oil rich Republicans should burn really good.
Perhaps I'll have to reassess the birth to grave worth of such
bio-energy potential, although once crude oil and nasty coal is depleted
to the point where it's simply too damn expensive to burn for much of
anything, whereas even a crapy amount of BTU/Republican kg might not be
all that undesirable.
>Scientists too are conspirators in this subject of global warming,
>along with the ozone layer, CO2 emmissions, and everything that is
>being ripped and gouged out of the natural world for the "geld"...
>"dosh"..."flos"..."greenbacks" and other derivations on the name of
>the game - money -.
Very good to know, that we're on the sme set of tracks and we're even
going in the same direction.
BTW No.2; I believe it does in fact matter a great deal as to whom is
right or wrong. You and your kind simply don't actually give a tinkers
damn as long as it's not impacting your butt in any negative way. So,
never say that it doesn't matter.
Brad Guth
otherwise 100% in favor of benefiting and thus saving all of humanity by
way of actively moderating our global warming fiasco via solar shade,
while at the same time getting ourselves one hell of a nifty and
somewhat icy orb of a platform established within Earth's L1, and all of
the sudden the anti-think-tank Usenet lights go out.
I happen to agree with the likes of Roger Coppock and many others that
the sun itself isn't the culprit, nor is it entirely via our IR
reflective moon that has only been with us since the last ice age, nor
otherwise the ongoing arrogance, bigotry and insurmountable greed of
humanity that clearly doesn't give a puck about anyone or anything other
than whatever benefits their personal quality or perversion of life.
However, putting those three factors together is a perfectly good
combination that's pretty hard to beat unless your naysay mindset is
still without a stitch of remorse.
Brad Guth
not going to affect the rich and powerful). Come to think about it,
when's the last time you saw a rich Jew on the slopes?
Clearly the rich and powerful simply don't like snow and ice, never
have. Therefore, the hotter the better. Sorry I couldn't have used a
Muslim analogy instead of a Jewish one, but there are fewer if any
Muslims that are as wealthy and powerful as many others, though
obviously Muslims haven't exactly favored any recreational use for snow
and ice either, so what's the big deal.
Even though our moon has only somewhat recently become a bit necessary
for sustaining our grand ruse/sting of the century, it seems as though
Henry Kroll and myself are coming to believe that our moon has been a
little responsible on the long haul for a measured share of our global
warming fiasco. But fortunately we've become such good wizards and
rusemasters that I do believe we can fix that with yet another moon
that's parked 1,500,000 km from Earth (3.9 fold further away than our
existing moon).
I'll have to admit that global warming influx via our local moon's IR is
a bit of a short term stretch, whereas there's obviously not all that
much of our IR reflective moon to work with as per the fractional area
of the sky that it represents, and then having to divide that in half
again, but otherwise on the long haul it had been much closer and
thereby a whole lot more physically and gravitionally imposing in the
past, and it has certainly been nearly that of a continuous resource of
IR, plus having always caused a great deal of terrestrial friction
(inside and out), and even quite possibly responsible for a good portion
of having initiated and sustained our badly failing magnetosphere.
I'd actually taken a shine to these numbers of Roger Coppock's, on
behalf of establishing that artificial sun shade, whereas I agree with
Roger that it's technically doable though also somewhat technically iffy
to implement and sustain, not to mention damn spendy.
> Roger Coppock; Let's run some numbers on this idea . . .
> The solar constant is ~1367 Watts per Meter squared
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Constant
> Global Warming is now about 3 watts per meter squared,
> which is 0.2% of the solar constant.
> http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/simodel/
> (Global Warming will quadruple in a century or two.)
> The cross sectional area of the Earth is 125,000,000 km^2
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Constant
> The area of sunshade in orbit needed to remove the current
> global warming is, therefore roughly .002 * 125,000,000 km squared
> or 300000 km squared.
What sort of payback upon investment is actually ever going to be worth
all the effort?
As long as the R&D plus deployment worth of somewhat negative
environmental impact, as well as to whatever's the real cost, plus time
required or risk factors are hardly if ever a consideration on behalf of
implementing what's typically proposed, such as this artificial solar
shade or for the matter of going for establishing those rad-hard and
essentially meteorite proof habitats within our moon, or on behalf of
accomplishing Mars that's in certain other ways worse off, or going for
that of whatever's much further away (such as Titan or some other
godforsaken planet or moon), in that case, why not take a shot at
relocating Sedna into Earth L1 (in place of our old and badly in need of
a replacement SOHO, along with ACE not all that far behind), as then
we'd have ourselves a truly nifty outpost along with having accomplished
shade to burn, and not to forget having gained lots more ice to boot.
In fact, the ice of Sedna itself could rather easily become the reaction
thrusting source (solar boosted via super-boilers for creating the
horrific expansion into less than vapor thrust impulses and thereby
accomplishing extremely good h2o-->ion vapor exit velocity) for the task
of keeping Sedna within that L1 halo orbit. If Sedna wasn't allowed to
spin, just made to be sitting within that halo worth of Earth's L1
(1.5e6 to 1.6e6 km from us), at least the side of Sedna facing towards
Earth should remain icy, and you'd also also have yourself a little
better gravity while walking about the equator of Sedna.
BTW; if need be, we could use thermal nuclear plus laser boosted cannons
on behalf of further expanding that ice into somewhat super expanded and
extremely fast moving atoms/cm3 of h2o, and therby if need be capable of
blasting solid icebergs into space as being one of the reaction thruster
methods, or perhaps having tethered GSO thrusters for accommodating
those halo station-keeping demands of sequestering Sedna for our benefit
of somewhat selectively moderating our global warming situation.
Covering those nasty solar spots that so happen to be directing those
death blows at Earth's badly failing magnetosphere could represent yet
another use for Sedna, plus regulating Earth's temperature via having
that frozen 1800 km orb of Sedna (a shade that's capable of representing
5.0868e6 km2) that's supposedly worth nearly half it's volume as being
of some kind of ice, whereas by merely sustaining that sucker from side
to side or up/down within the efficient halo parking zone could thereby
allow unregulated burning of our fossil oil, coal and natural gas, along
with our pillaging and burning down the remainders of whatever pesky
rain forest, and for all of that to continue unchecked until there's
nothing left, except people to burn, and even for that we could always
start off with burning either Muslims or Republicans (since either one
of those species must go, you get to pick).
Even when all of Sedna's ice is gone, there should still be something
better than 3e6 km2 worth of solar shade (that's roughly 2% the solar
constant and thus ten fold the previously suggested requirement of 0.2%
solar constant), and perhaps even of that much could be intentionally
navigated so as to somehow benefit only our best interest. That'll show
those Islamic heathens and anyone else we don't happen like, as to who's
the alpha-dog and ultimate boss of this Earth.
Serious rocket-science QUESTION of the day: What's the halo management
down-side worth, of the reaction thrust requirement per year if applied
on behalf of station-keeping Sedna within the Earth L1 zone?
This latest swag may need a little rework but, with regards to parking
Sedna within Earth's L1, I don't believe it could possibly demand much
greater than a kgf/tonne/year, and I do believe there are plenty of
naysayers flatulating within this anti-think-tank of a Usenet from hell
that already outperform by at least that much. So, there shouldn't be
any problems with accepting the challenge of doing this solar shade via
Sedna.
L1 station keeping kgf demands of Sedna as our solar shade of 5e6 km2
At 1.0 kgf/tonne/day = 16.44e15 kgf
At 0.1 kgf/tonne/day = 1.644e15 kgf
At 0.1 gmf/tonne/day = 1.644e12 kgf
Using multiple solar units (meaning mirrors) and/or that of a thermal
nuclear h2o-->vapor +laser+ion cannon as our reaction thruster, and
merely taking advantage of the available water/ice that'll convert those
highly packed atoms/cm3 to the 1e3 atoms of space, or if you'd like
0.3346e23 to 335 atoms/cm3 of the near vacuum in space is merely
offering an expansion ratio of 1e20:1. So, I really don't see any
problems in creating the necessary thrust, especially if instead of a
wussy kgf=.5MV2 as based upon a a exit velocity of one km/s, what if the
thruster exit velocity can become worthy of 10 km/s?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedna_(planetoid)
Since Sedna is already out there, and thereby we obviously don't have to
launch that horrific 6.1e21 kg mass, and it's rather nicely on the move
at something better than a km/s that could be rather easily redirected
and eventually kicked up to whatever extra km/s using my
Ra-->LRn-->Rn-->ion thrusters (this should actually become rather
effective since it'll be going towards the sun), or perhaps using a
tethered thermal nuclear steam/vapor thruster that'll take 2 kg/s up to
an exit velocity of 10 km/s, which should represent 100e6 kgf seems
about right and perfectly doable (compared to walking on our moon),
especially if by 2050 having only 100 AU to get through, whereas soon
enough thereafter we'll have that solar shade of Sedna just in the nick
of time before the last few km3 of natural ice on Earth melts.
Come to think about it, there's a good chance that this task of
relocating little old icy Sedna might even get myself nominated by the
likes of ENRON, EXON, GE and GW Bush himself for a Nobel Prize, right
along with a few other rewards for my having discovered intelligent
other life as having been existing/coexisting on Venus, and perhaps even
that of establishing my LSE-CM/ISS that'll be accomplished and operated
by China.
T Wake
> <long winded nonsense>
How is your keyboard holding out? Are the keys still readable?
Edward Green
> "Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
> news:1158133403.4...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
>
> > My nomination for the silliest pseudo-science on this
> > newsgroup this year.
> >
> > Hint: what fraction is the angular area of the moon of the
> > angular area of the total sky?
>
> OOPS! as per usual, you'll have to keep replacing my silly dyslexic
> Earth L2 notion with the proper use of Earth L1
You are recycling verbatim after only 10 or 11 posts. Work on your
recurrence time.
Brad Guth
news:1158452234.6...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> You are recycling verbatim after only 10 or 11 posts. Work on your
> recurrence time.
As per usual, you're going over my dyslexic head. What's this about
"recurrence time"?
Haven't you anything that's the least bit on-topic, or is that asking
way too much?
Brad Guth
news:cr2dnSv0XeK...@pipex.net
> How is your keyboard holding out? Are the keys still readable?
Why it's doing just perfectly fine and dandy, as are the keyboards of
"Roger Coppock", "Ed Conrad" and even "tomcat", though obviously your
keyboard is seriously stuck in all the usual naysay crapolla. BTW;
how's your brown nose doing these days?
Here's my poor old keyboard on steroids:
Global Warmed to Death via moon = last ice age humanity will ever see
I had to fix some of my usual pesky math and unfortunate syntax, but
otherwise the same old physics and science intent of cooling off mother
Earth with Sedna remains the same.
As I'd been saying before all the usual naysay Usenet lights that pretty
much suck and blow went out; So what if our Earth gets a little extra
hot and nasty? (it's obviously not going to affect the rich and
powerful). Come to think about it, when's the last time you saw a rich
Jew on the slopes?
Clearly the rich and powerful simply don't much like snow and ice, never
have. Therefore, the hotter it gets, the better. Sorry I couldn't have
used a Muslim analogy instead of a Jewish one, but there are fewer if
any Islamic/Muslims (outside of UAE/Dubai), that are nearly as wealthy
and powerful as are so many others that seem most often of a Jewish
persuasion, though obviously wealthy Muslims haven't exactly favored any
recreational use for snow and ice either, so either way, what's the big
deal and so what's the difference if Earth keeps getting hotter and
somewhat nastier for the rest of us?
Here's more of the lowdown scoop on what our physically dark and rather
nicely anticathode plus IR reflective moon has to offer, that which
might actually represent the most significant other factor contributing
to our ongoing demise as of the last ice age, that which seems to be
continuing this extended thaw and subsequent global warming along with
our help.
Even though our moon has only somewhat recently become a bit necessary
for sustaining our grand ruse/sting of our perpetrated cold-war century,
it seems as though research by Henry Kroll and myself are coming to
believe that our moon has been a little responsible on the long haul for
a measured share of our global warming fiasco. But fortunately we've
become such good wizards and rusemasters that I do believe we can fix
that with yet another moon that's parked 1.5+e6 km from Earth (3.9~4.2
fold further away than our existing moon).
I'll have to admit that global warming influx via our local moon's IR
albedo may seem as a tad bit of a short term stretch, whereas there's
obviously not all that much of our IR reflective moon to work with as
per the fractional area of the sky that it represents, plus then having
to divide that amount in half again, but otherwise on the long haul of a
given ice age is where our moon had been closer and thereby a whole lot
more physically and gravitionally imposing in the past, and it has
certainly been nearly that of a continuous resource of IR, plus having
always caused a great deal of terrestrial friction (inside and out), and
even quite possibly responsible for a good portion of having initiated
and sustained our badly failing magnetosphere.
I'd actually taken a shine to these numbers of Roger Coppock's, on
behalf of establishing that artificial sun shade, whereas I agree with
Roger that it's technically doable though also somewhat technically iffy
to implement and sustain, not to mention damn spendy.
> Roger Coppock; Let's run some numbers on this idea . . .
> The solar constant is ~1367 Watts per Meter squared
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Constant
> Global Warming is now about 3 watts per meter squared,
> which is 0.2% of the solar constant.
> http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/simodel/
> (Global Warming will quadruple in a century or two.)
> The cross sectional area of the Earth is 125,000,000 km^2
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Constant
> The area of sunshade in orbit needed to remove the current
> global warming is, therefore roughly .002 * 125,000,000 km squared
> or 300000 km squared.
What sort of $$$ payback upon investment is actually ever going to be
worth all the solar shade effort?
Why not instead of deploying a fairly spendy 300,000 km2, but rather go
for the gusto of 2.545e6 km2 shade potential of Sedna, whereas rather
than establishing such a wussy artificial shade of 0.3e6 km2 that
probably can't actually be accomplished within a viable budget nor
within our remaining resources, whereas instead Sedna makes for a
perfectly natural shade that's worth nearly 8.5 fold better and seems
like a fairly good bargin that's available for the taking.
I was thinking (most always a bad sign), as long as the R&D plus
deployment worth of the artificial alternative that's going to
unavoidably offer a somewhat negative environmental impact as of long
before ever getting that sucker deployed, as well as to whatever's the
real cost that's usually several fold greater than we're being informed
of, plus a great deal of elapsed time required (such as decades) and/or
various risk factors that are hardly if ever a consideration on behalf
of implementing what's typically getting proposed, such as this
artificial solar shade or for the matter of their going for establishing
those rad-hard and essentially meteorite proof habitats within our moon,
or else on behalf of accomplishing Mars that's in certain other ways
worse off, or even worse yet going for that of whatever's much further
away (such as Titan or some other godforsaken planet or moon), in that
case I was thinking, why not take an even long shot at relocating Sedna
into Earth L1 (in place of our old and badly in need of a replacement
SOHO, along with ACE not all that far behind), whereas then we'd have
ourselves a truly nifty science and exploration outpost along with
having accomplished shade to burn, and not to forget having gained lots
more accessible ice to boot.
In fact, the ice of Sedna itself could rather easily become the core
element of the reaction thrusting source (solar boosted via super-vapor
boilers for creating the horrific expansion into less than vapor thrust
impulses, thereby accomplishing extremely good h2o-->ion vapor exit
velocity) for the task of keeping Sedna within that L1 halo orbit. If
Sedna wasn't allowed to spin, just made to be sitting within that halo
worth of Earth's L1 (1.5e6 to 1.6e6 km from us), at least the side of
Sedna facing towards Earth should remain icy, and you'd also also have
yourself a little better gravity while walking about the equator of
Sedna. It should also sustain a good amount of atmosphere as long as
the sunny side gets evaporated.
BTW; if need be, we could use thermal nuclear plus laser boosted cannons
on behalf of further expanding that ice into somewhat super expanded and
extremely fast moving atoms/cm3 of h2o, and therby if need be capable of
blasting solid icebergs into space as being one of the reaction thruster
methods, or perhaps having tethered GSO thrusters for accommodating
those halo station-keeping demands of sequestering Sedna for our benefit
of somewhat selectively moderating our global warming situation.
Sedna could also perform as blocking on behalf of moderating a few of
those nasty solar/CME halo spots that so happen to be directing their
death blows at Earth's badly failing magnetosphere, whereas this could
represent yet another nifty use for Sedna, that's in addition to
regulating Earth's temperature via having that sub-frozen 1800 km orb (a
solar shade that's capable of representing 2.545e6 km2) that's
supposedly worth nearly half it's volume as being of some kind of ice,
whereas by merely sustaining that sucker within the side to side or
up/down of an efficient L-1 halo parking zone could thereby allow
unregulated burning of our fossil oil, coal and natural gas, along with
our pillaging and burning down the remainders of whatever pesky rain
forest, and for all of that to continue unchecked until there's nothing
left except people to burn, and even for that we could always start off
with burning either Muslims or Republicans (since either one of those
species must go, you get to pick).
Even when all of Sedna's ice is gone, there should still be something
better than 1.5e6 km2 worth of solar shade (that's roughly 1% the solar
constant and thus five fold the previously suggested requirement of
having to eliminate 0.2% of our solar constant), and perhaps even of
that much could be intentionally navigated so as to somehow benefit only
our best interest. I guess that'll show those Islamic/Muslim heathens
and anyone else we don't happen like, as to who's the baddest alpha-dog
and ultimate boss of this Earth (for Christ's sake on a stick, that's
just myself kidding around).
Serious rocket-science QUESTION of yet another global warming day:
What's the halo management down-side worth, of the reaction thrust
requirement per year if applied on behalf of station-keeping Sedna
within the Earth L1 zone?
Station-Keeping energy budget per year:
This latest swag may need a little rework but, with regards to parking
Sedna within Earth's L1, I don't believe it could possibly demand much
greater than a kgf/tonne/year, and I do believe there are plenty of
naysayers flatulating within this anti-think-tank of a Usenet from hell
that already outperform by at least that much. So, there shouldn't be
any problems with accepting the challenge of doing this solar shade via
Sedna.
L1 station keeping kgf demands/year, of sustaining Sedna as our solar
shade of 2.5e6 km2
At 1.0 kgf/tonne/year = 16.44e15 kgf
At 0.1 kgf/tonne/year = 1.644e15 kgf
At 0.1 gmf/tonne/year = 1.644e12 kgf
Using multiple solar units (meaning mirrors) and/or that of a thermal
nuclear h2o-->vapor +laser+ion cannons as our reaction thruster(s), and
merely taking advantage of the available water/ice that'll convert those
highly packed atoms/cm3 to the less than 1e3 atoms of space, or if you'd
like 0.3346e23-->335 atoms/cm3 of the near vacuum in space is merely
offering an expansion ratio of 1e20:1. So, I really don't see any
insurmountable problems in creating the necessary thrust, especially if
instead of a wussy (kgf=.5MV2) amount as based upon a conservative exit
velocity of one km/s, what if the thermal nuclear and laser boosted
steam thruster exit velocity can become an impulse valus that's worthy
of 10+ km/s?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedna_(planetoid)
Since Sedna is already out there (way out there), and at least as far as
we know of it's unattached to being owned by anyone other, and thereby
we obviously don't have to as for permission nor having to launch that
horrific 6.1e21 kg mass, and it's rather nicely on the move at something
better than a km/s that could be rather easily redirected and eventually
kicked up to whatever extra km/s using my Ra-->LRn-->Rn-->ion thrusters
(this should actually become rather effective since it'll be going
towards the sun), or perhaps using a tethered thermal nuclear
steam/vapor thruster that'll take each cannon load of 2 kg/s up to an
exit velocity of 10+ km/s (perhaps we'll have to subtract the surface
escape velocity), which should represent 100e6 kgf seems about right and
perfectly doable (compared to walking moonsuit butt naked on our moon),
especially if by 2050 having only 100 AU to get through, whereas soon
enough thereafter we'll have that solar shade of Sedna at our disposal
and just in the nick of time before the last few km3 of natural ice on
Earth melts.
Come to think about it, I believe there's a good chance that this task
of relocating little old icy Sedna might even get myself nominated by
the likes of ENRON, EXON, GE and GW Bush himself for receiving a Nobel
Prize, right along with a few other past due rewards for my having
discovered intelligent other life as having been existing/coexisting on
Venus, and perhaps even for that of establishing my LSE-CM/ISS that'll
soon enough be accomplished and operated by China.
T Wake
> "T Wake" <usenet...@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
> news:cr2dnSv0XeK...@pipex.net
>
>> How is your keyboard holding out? Are the keys still readable?
>
> Why it's doing just perfectly fine and dandy, as are the keyboards of
> "Roger Coppock", "Ed Conrad" and even "tomcat",
Do kooks get special ones? That would explain an awful lot.
> though obviously your
> keyboard is seriously stuck in all the usual naysay crapolla. BTW;
> how's your brown nose doing these days?
>
Fine thanks.
demos
> right or wrong. You and your kind simply don't actually give a tinkers
> damn as long as it's not impacting your butt in any negative way. So,
> never say that it doesn't matter
By how much or how far is one right or conversely wrong, when for
example 'the end justifies the means' cliché. Where right attacks
wrong and shields are put up, hiding behind/defending with the ammo of
senseless and accusatory rhetoric, various plans are afoot such as
conspiracies...when the apparent 'rights' can always drag the 'wrongs'
out and haul them across the tiles, expose their butts so to speak then
the relevancy of the importance of who is right and who is wrong wiil
only be pervcieved by those who see the difference/s...
What is impacting my butt at the moment however is the rise and
remodelling of facism, where once it was Hitler and Co it is now Bush
and Co with the Jews as the financiers...ergo the recent arrest of an
israeli diplomat found carrying explosives through a well known south
american airport...apparently the president of said country is a Jew
and it was all somewhat hushed-up...its not enough to say it was
wrong..it was downright illegal and conspiratorial....point of view.
ph...@mindspring.com
Doesn't have to be huge, or all of one piece. Several shades, orbiting
at different levels. I don't need to put all of earth in the shade, just a
fair fraction.
Or could just snag a passing comet, and splat it off the moon to put a
vapor cloud around Earth for a similar effect. Will play holy hob with
ground based astronomy, but ...
tschus
pyotr
>
--
pyotr filipivich.
"I wish you wouldn't use the mind control device - I get
these terrible migranes until it's finished." Jonathon
Brad Guth
Apparently those pesky regular laws of physics and of whatever's of our
best available replicated science simply do not apply to that of our
extremely massive and nearby moon, and therefore do not apply to our
global warming fiasco. For that matter, Venus is simply too off-world
for those regular laws of physics to function at all.
It's exactly as though we're somehow stuck within another out-of-world
sort of weird dimension, where right is often wrong, and for otherwise
being wrong in the first place really doesn't matter (especially if
you're Jewish or of some other faith based mindset that's 100% Old
Testament certified), whereas being wrong gets you a Nobel Prize.
Most of the following contributors having pulled their faith based
and/or infomercial spewing plugs before it got real ugly, thus it often
looks as though I'm talking to myself (which sometimes I do), but then
lord all-knowing Mailgate/Usenet has otherwise taken steps to having as
much as possible banished these two topics from showing up on their
group/topic index, obviously because of all the potential status quo
boat rocking I was causing. (terribly sorry about that)
Being global warmed to death by our moon (Mailgate taboo/nondisclosure
rated)
Global Warmed to Death via moon
Brad Guth
I totally agree with the topic intent of going as much as possible
"Solar, not nuclear", in that a composite solar PV, stirling and wind
turbine per energy tower can in fact deliver a clean and perfectly safe
footprint of energy density that's worth 37.5 kw/m2 (37.5 kjhr).
However, the nuclear alternatives at perhaps 375 whr/m2 or 375 jhr/m2
are not going down without a tough and bloody as hell fight, to each of
our mutually polluted and GW deaths if need be. I also agree that
perhaps the best this global energy shortage fiasco can mange is along
with our utilizing nuclear alternatives for the relatively safely (far
better off than coal and oil) methods of accomplishing 10% of our energy
needs. So, I'm not and never have been your Mr. Anti-Nuclear (after
all, there are more than a few nations of less than heathen status that
probably can't be fully entrusted with nuclear energy, but if we keep
making coal and oil spendy or unavailable, the only viable alternative
may come down to WW-III).
BTW; for topic argument sake, the laws of energy still represents that
3600 joules = 3600 whr = 1 kwhr.
These big-energy folks that are the best and usually industry paid-for
naysayers against all that's renewable and clean, are into playing their
silly word or syntax games, thereby avoiding the honest intent or jest
of the original topic, and thus focused upon stalking and trashing
whomever and of whatever the following constructive contributions have
to share, as though we're their big-energy approved toilet-paper.
BTW No.2; Global Warming is for real, and in more ways than one, it's
at least partially caused by humanity, and there are consequences of our
past, present and future actions.
Rather oddly, but not hardly a surprise if going by these extra special
infomercial days of all that's pro big-energy and of having to protect
their puppet government(s) mainstream status quo butt, plus seeing those
usual cover thy butt-loads of faith based damage control on steroids,
whereas this following topic of perfectly honest science seems as though
rather Mailgate/Usenet taboo/nondisclosure rated, therefore it must be
offering us too much of the truth and nothing but the truth.
Mailgate/Usenet indext listed as; Message not available:
"Temperature on global warming turned up" by William Elliot
The regular laws of physics and I'm strongly suggesting that as much as
90% of our inside and out GW fiasco is derived from our moon, which
isn't discounting the 10% impact as caused by humanity (at best I'd buy
into a 75%/25% ratio). In other words, if we all departed Earth and let
nature take its planetology course, this Earth would continue to thaw
from the last ice age this planet will ever see. As long as we have
that pesky moon of ours, ice age trapped methanes and CO2 will in fact
keep "Bubbling Through Seafloor Creates Undersea Hills", though at a
reduced rate if the human factor were entirely eliminated.
http://www.mbari.org/news/news_releases/2007/paull-plfs.html
You folks do realize that Earth isn't getting itself any bigger, whereas
if anything it's ever so gradually shrinking, exactly as it should.
Imagine that, another truth being told that we're not supposed to know
about, just like we're not supposed to realize that our magnetosphere
has been losing its worth at 0.05%/year.
Clearly our nifty orbiting mascon/moon is in fact so 'one of a kind'
unusually massive and nearby, so much so extra special that as such it
can't but help to transfer and thereby induce an amount of thermal
energy into our environment by way of tidal forces (inside and out),
plus whatever's unavoidably contributed from all of those reflected and
secondary worth of IR/FIR photons.
This following topic link is still a tough mainstream nut to crack, much
less sell, as it's representing a serious load of perfectly weird
notions based entirely upon the regular laws of physics, that's having
to do with our creating a surplus of shade for Earth, by way of
relocating our moon to Earth's L1. (easier said than done)
Next Space Station: 7.35e22 kg at Earth's L1
Earth's L1 for accommodating something of the robust mass of our moon,
that also has the LSE-CM/ISS of 256e6 tonnes of our interplanetary
gateway to deal with, is essentially a planetoid parallel parking zone
that's roughly 4 fold further away than its current 384,400 km orbital
status, thus 1.5376e6 km representing 1/16th the mutual attracting or
holding force of gravity, as well as having cut the amount of tidal
energy that's getting applied back into Earth's environment should be of
a similar reduction. However, once fully aligned with the sun while
parked within this halo orbit of Earth's L1 should actually not allow
that combined sol+moon tidal energy to at most drop to half of
whatever's currently taking place. I haven't fully polished off the
physics math in order to prove all of this, but I do believe it'll end
up being somewhere between this third amount less and perhaps half of
what tides we're currently dealing with, which is actually quite a
significant reduction in tidal energy transfer, that by rights should
also tend to cool off our terrestrial environment (inside and out).
Of course the 24 hour rotation of Earth in relationship to Earth's L1 is
no longer the same as our moon's existing 1.023 km/s. In one weird
sense we'd have to speed that moon of our's up to 112 km/s, which is
actually worth 6e23 joules, and that's seemingly going to be a tough
notion to accomplish because, it's existing 1.023 km/s of 2e20
centripetal joules worth of orbital energy is clearly insufficient for
that of L1, of which can't exactly be derived out of thin air unless
having been continually pulled along and subsequently established by a
sufficient other centripetal force, for getting our moon out to Earth's
L1 in the first place.
Here's some more of this weird math, suggesting what it'll take.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf
r = 1.5376e9 meters
M = 7.35e22 kg
V = 112e3 m/s
Centripetal force: Fc = 5.996254e23 N = 6.11448e22 kgf
6.11448e22 kgf * 9.80665 = 5.996e23 joules Earth-->L1
However Sol-->Earth L1 is what takes that centripetal energy back
-5.996e23 joules Sol-->L1 = 0.0 joules (near zero G)
However, since our moon is already keeping up with Earth is why there's
no real delta-v increase in its orbital velocity. In fact, it's having
to slightly reduce its average orbital velocity that'll become primarily
in relationship to Sol, as having become our binary associated L1
planetoid, as our solar shade instead of being a pesky moon.
In spite of all the usual status quo flak of Usenet's anti-think-tank
and naysayism that's typically of a faith based mindset, of borg like
individuals going postal in order to keep each and every one of their
infomercial lids on tight, whereas giving Earth some badly needed shade
while improving upon the usage of our moon's L1, at the very same time
as having moderated those global warming tidal forces by at least a
third, is what's actually quite doable in spite of whatever their
all-knowing god has to say.
BTW; my LSE-CM/ISS or at the very least a scientific (Earth facing)
tethered science platform or space depot may likely become another
requirement, that is unless having a slightly rotating L1 planetoid
isn't a problem. However, any possible rotation may remain as nullified
since the moon's original L2 tethered mass of 1e12 kg will likely still
exist at some reduced amount of mass, now modified as per acting on
behalf of representing the planetoids's (Sol facing) L1 tethered science
platform(s). In spite of my best dyslexic encrypted efforts, this
moon-->planetoid thing is certainly damn confusing, isn't it.
If you have similar or obviously better math, I'd like to hear about
that. However, if you only wish to topic/author stalk and bash upon
whatever in order to continually whine about the matter of your having
to keep everything exactly as it was, such as when your Earth was flat
and everything else was still in orbit around your faith-based solitary
existence, then don't bother. The same goes if your conditional laws of
physics only applies to terrestrial matters, or on behalf of supporting
those matters orchestrated by and thus approved by the status quo which
you must worship at all cost.
On the other honest topic constructive hand, even if your subjective
interpretations and subsequent ideas or whatever best swag is way off in
another dimension, it's not going to be all that upsetting to my kind of
open mindset way of thinking that's more often outside the box than not
to start with. If you simply can not manage to safely think for
yourself without blowing yet another mainstream status quo gasket, then
perhaps not all is lost when our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) has a
perfectly good paying, non-thinking as well as non-caring job without
ever involving a speck of remorse, for you and others of your kind.