Re: The Secret Campaign To Deny Global Warming
- From: BradGuth <bradguth@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 14:37:26 -0000
On Aug 4, 7:24 am, "Paul E. Lehmann" <some...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
Apparently "The Secret Campaign To Deny Global
Warming" has to do with ignoring all the laws of
physics and of having to exclude the best
available science pertaing to our moon.
It's not that humans haven't been affecting
Earth's environment, as we have, but simply not
to the vast extent of other factors at play.
Such as tidal friction (inside and out) of our
98.5% fluid Earth causes heat.
A portion of what's keeping our moon via gravity
from leaving Earth is
what unavoidably becomes added thermal energy.
If Earth were instead as inert and thereby as
planetologydead as our somewhat salty old moon,
as such there'd be little if any significant
friction caused by way of those moon and solar
tidal actions.
The moon itself has little if anything fluid at
its disposal, thus little if any tidal induced
friction ever takes place within that physically
dark and nasty sucker.
Oops! I'd previously made another pesky math
mistake for the past few months, of my having
multiplied by 3.6e3 instead of having dividing
by 3.6e3 for having converted into watts or W.h
of the available energy
that's within our moon's tidal force. Even
though the jest of my argument remains exactly
the same, this error only shifts the amount
of friction induced heating that's continually
available. sorry about all that.
In spite of all that's CO2, NOx and otherwise
via human toxic soot worthy, there's far more of
what's more than sufficiently nearby that's
naturally cooking our goose, at least a whole
lot more so than any of those pesky human
contributed factors, and gosh darn if this other
consideration sort of looks exactly like a very
large and fast moving moon of 7.35e22 kg.
Estimate of our core energy leaving Earth at .08
w/m2 = 41e12 watts. human contributed at 1e3 w =
6.7e12 watts (16.34% of core energy loss).
human contributed at 1e4 w = 67e12 watts
(163.4% of core energy loss).
Gravity/tidal energy existing between Earth and
moon = 5.555e16 watts.
Gravity/tidal energy that's clearly existing
between Earth and moon = 5.555e16 watts(w.h), as
for otherwise that moon of ours would have been
leaving us in its sodium infused trail of local
and cosmic morgue worth of its reactive moon
dust.
Even if merely 1% of that gravity/tidal energy
becomes internal heat to our 98.5% fluid Earth,
as such that's an extra 5.555e14 watts, of which
our all-inclusive global environment (inside and
out) has to deal with in addition to whatever's
solar, or else.
However, why on Earth should we limit that nifty
energy influx (via friction becoming heat) at
merely 1% ?
Why not imply 10% as becoming part of our
ongoing thaw, as of ever since the last ice age
this planet will ever see?
-
Since we're talking about the existing Fc that's
existing between Earth and moon, as a
centripetal force per second, therefore the
conversion over to joules is also of one that's
based upon the same second by second basis.
1 joule = 1 W.s (watt second)
3600 j = 1 W.h (watt hour)
1 watt hour of applied energy is therefore
worth: 3600 joules 1 joule/sec as applied for an
hour becomes worth 3600 joules
Each kgf (kg of applied force/m/s) = 9.80665
joules at the surface of Earth
Upon average, there's roughly 2.0394e19 kgf of
Fc(centripetal force), whereas that's
continually applied second by second as ongoing
and obviously opposed via the gravitational
force that's between Earth and our unusually
massive and as fast(1023 km/s) moving as our
nearby orbiting mascon (aka moon).
That second by second amount of centripetal
force becomes: 2.0215e19 * 9.80665 = 19.824e19
joules
On the per hour basis, that amount of second by
second applied energy becomes worth:
2.0215e20 j / 3.6e3 = .5615e17 W.h (watts per
hour), or 5.615e16 watts
If that energy were only dealing with
contributing to the surface friction of warming
Earth: At 1% is 5.615e14 / 5.112e14 m2 = 1.0984
w/m2 At 10% is 5.615e15 / 5.112e14 m2 = 10.984
w/m2 At 50% is 28.075e15 / 5.112e14 m2 = 54.92
w/m2
Obviously the all inclusive whole 1.1e21 m3
volume of our fluid Earth (including its
atmosphere) has been getting the warm and fuzzy
benefit of our moon (ideally as much as half of
our mutual gravity/tidal action being available
for global warming): At 1% is 5.615e14/1.1e21 =
5.105e-7 w/m3 At 10% is 5.615e15/1.1e21 =
5.105e-6 w/m3 At 50% is 28.075e15/1.1e21 =
25.52e-6 w/m3
The actual amount of gravity/tidal force that's
applied inside and out, as having caused
friction, which in turn having become heat is
somewhere between the 1% and the 50% mark. I've
long sinse asked of others claiming to know all
there is to know to suggest upon a number, but
instead they merely did all they could in order
to topic/author stalk, bash and having otherwise
applied as much naysay and/or
banishment as possible. Obviously they have the
superior computers, the superior software and
all the necessary expertise to have been
sharing the truth as of decades ago. I wonder
what they're waiting for?
- Brad Guth
Brad, not only have the factors you mentioned not
been taken into consideration but as far as I
know, no one seems to have studied the
possibility of plate tectonics playing a role in
world climate.
Although the plates are moving slowly, by human
standards, there seems a possibility that ocean
currents could be changing as a result which in
turn would influence weather patterns, not to
mention oceanic temperature changes at or near
the convergent, divergent and transform plate
margins.
Of course, there is the constantly changing
volcanic activity which is spewing all sorts of
stuff into our atmosphere.
The earth is not static. It is VERY dynamic and I
wonder if the "Climatologists" and modelers are
aware of how geologically dynamic it really is.
I agree, Earth is essentially 98.5% fluid, and it has an absolutly
impressive mascon in orbit, that's neaby and moving rather fast. 2e20
joules worth of applied gravity/tidal force is going somewhere, and
unavoidably doing at least a little something within our fluid earth.
There is no human record or any other geology/planetology proof Earth
had that moon as of prior to 12,000 BP.
Most of the ongoing GW fiasco is not human caused, whereas at least
75% has been contributed by our moon, although it could be as much as
90% caused by our moon.
- Brad Guth
.
- Prev by Date: OT: Ron Paul Iowa Straw Poll today.
- Next by Date: Re: The Secret Campaign To Deny Global Warming
- Previous by thread: Re: The Secret Campaign To Deny Global Warming
- Next by thread: NRO medal for DoJ lawyer
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
