🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 1, 6:14 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

You seem to be unaware that L1 only exists where it does because of
the moon...

You also seem to be unaware how the orbital energy is transferred.

Shit, you are generally unaware of lots of things.

On May 1, 8:18 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 1, 6:14 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> You seem to be unaware that L1 only exists where it does because of
> the moon...
>
> You also seem to be unaware how the orbital energy is transferred.
>
> Shit, you are generally unaware of lots of things.

I'm terribly sorry, as you fail to have what it takes.  Naysayism and/
or of lacking any form of topic related information is not exactly one
of those qualities in physics or in science that I'm looking for.

If you can manage to costructively contribute something/anything to
this topic, please do just that.

Unlike your apparent all-knowing self that's unwilling to share, I'm
imposing my notions by way of asking the sorts of questions, that by
rights we shouldn't be having to ask.  I'm terribly Sorry if that
upsets your status quo mindset, as it obviously does.

You seem to be unaware that you're acting exactly like another very
unhappy camper.  Is it because of something I've said?
-
Brad Guth

On May 1, 10:25 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

Do keep posting - your notion that the moon has only been with us for
~10,000 years is hilarious.

That's true of almost anything he says, he's dreamed up his own magical 
solar system where everything gones by the rules he dreams up.
After all he should try for at lest a 4 billion year time frame he'd at lest 
be a bit closer in time.


-- 
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html
AD World
http://www.adworld.netfirms.com/


"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message 

On May 2, 2:25 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 1, 8:18 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 1, 6:14 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > You seem to be unaware that L1 only exists where it does because of
> > the moon...
>
> > You also seem to be unaware how the orbital energy is transferred.
>
> > Shit, you are generally unaware of lots of things.
>
> I'm terribly sorry, as you fail to have what it takes.  Naysayism and/
> or of lacking any form of topic related information is not exactly one
> of those qualities in physics or in science that I'm looking for.
>
> If you can manage to costructively contribute something/anything to
> this topic, please do just that.
>
> Unlike your apparent all-knowing self that's unwilling to share, I'm
> imposing my notions by way of asking the sorts of questions, that by
> rights we shouldn't be having to ask.  I'm terribly Sorry if that
> upsets your status quo mindset, as it obviously does.
>
> You seem to be unaware that you're acting exactly like another very
> unhappy camper.  Is it because of something I've said?
> -
> Brad Guth

Napolean XIV is back.  And still mad as a hatter.

On May 2, 10:57 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
> On May 2, 2:25 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 1, 8:18 pm, EricGisse<jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 1, 6:14 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > [...]
>
> > > You seem to be unaware that L1 only exists where it does because of
> > > the moon...
>
> > > You also seem to be unaware how the orbital energy is transferred.
>
> > > Shit, you are generally unaware of lots of things.
>
> > I'm terribly sorry, as you fail to have what it takes.  Naysayism and/
> > or of lacking any form of topic related information is not exactly one
> > of those qualities in physics or in science that I'm looking for.
>
> > If you can manage to costructively contribute something/anything to
> > this topic, please do just that.
>
> > Unlike your apparent all-knowing self that's unwilling to share, I'm
> > imposing my notions by way of asking the sorts of questions, that by
> > rights we shouldn't be having to ask.  I'm terribly Sorry if that
> > upsets your status quo mindset, as it obviously does.
>
> > You seem to be unaware that you're acting exactly like another very
> > unhappy camper.  Is it because of something I've said?
> > -
> > Brad Guth
>
> Napolean XIV is back.  And still mad as a hatter.

I dunno, the insanity of Brad Guth is in a tight race with the
insanity of Death-rage, who both pale in comparison to Y. Porat. At
least Porat looks the part - someone who isn't looking too closely at
the previous two might think they are normal.

In article <1178142863.107656.254490@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
 Eric Gisse <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Napolean XIV is back.  And still mad as a hatter.
> 
> I dunno, the insanity of Brad Guth is in a tight race with the
> insanity of Death-rage, who both pale in comparison to Y. Porat. At
> least Porat looks the part - someone who isn't looking too closely at
> the previous two might think they are normal.


Brad reminds me of a goldfish. He forgets what you tell him after 5 posts

-- 
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
 singularity.

COOSN-174-07-82116: alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken
of the saucerhead high command).

On May 2, 3:47 am, "Starlord" <starl...@sidewalkastronomy.info> wrote:
> That's true of almost anything he says, he's dreamed up his own magical
> solar system where everything gones by the rules he dreams up.
> After all he should try for at lest a 4 billion year time frame he'd at lest
> be a bit closer in time.
>
> --
> The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
> Telescope Buyers FAQhttp://home.inreach.com/starlord
> Sidewalk Astronomywww.sidewalkastronomy.info
> The Church of Eternityhttp://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html
> AD Worldhttp://www.adworld.netfirms.com/
>
>
>
> "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Without that moon adding thermal energy via multi-terawatts of tidal
friction (inside and out), how long for Earth to cool off?
-
Brad Guth

On May 2, 2:54 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 2, 10:57 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 2, 2:25 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 1, 8:18 pm, EricGisse<jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 1, 6:14 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > [...]
>
> > > > You seem to be unaware that L1 only exists where it does because of
> > > > the moon...
>
> > > > You also seem to be unaware how the orbital energy is transferred.
>
> > > > Shit, you are generally unaware of lots of things.
>
> > > I'm terribly sorry, as you fail to have what it takes.  Naysayism and/
> > > or of lacking any form of topic related information is not exactly one
> > > of those qualities in physics or in science that I'm looking for.
>
> > > If you can manage to costructively contribute something/anything to
> > > this topic, please do just that.
>
> > > Unlike your apparent all-knowing self that's unwilling to share, I'm
> > > imposing my notions by way of asking the sorts of questions, that by
> > > rights we shouldn't be having to ask.  I'm terribly Sorry if that
> > > upsets your status quo mindset, as it obviously does.
>
> > > You seem to be unaware that you're acting exactly like another very
> > > unhappy camper.  Is it because of something I've said?
> > > -
> > >BradGuth
>
> > Napolean XIV is back.  And still mad as a hatter.
>
> I dunno, the insanity ofBradGuthis in a tight race with the
> insanity of Death-rage, who both pale in comparison to Y. Porat. At
> least Porat looks the part - someone who isn't looking too closely at
> the previous two might think they are normal.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You folks consider the regular laws of physics "insanity"?
-
Brad Guth

On May 3, 5:08 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 2, 2:54 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 2, 10:57 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 2, 2:25 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 1, 8:18 pm, EricGisse<jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 1, 6:14 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > [...]
>
> > > > > You seem to be unaware that L1 only exists where it does because of
> > > > > the moon...
>
> > > > > You also seem to be unaware how the orbital energy is transferred.
>
> > > > > Shit, you are generally unaware of lots of things.
>
> > > > I'm terribly sorry, as you fail to have what it takes.  Naysayism and/
> > > > or of lacking any form of topic related information is not exactly one
> > > > of those qualities in physics or in science that I'm looking for.
>
> > > > If you can manage to costructively contribute something/anything to
> > > > this topic, please do just that.
>
> > > > Unlike your apparent all-knowing self that's unwilling to share, I'm
> > > > imposing my notions by way of asking the sorts of questions, that by
> > > > rights we shouldn't be having to ask.  I'm terribly Sorry if that
> > > > upsets your status quo mindset, as it obviously does.
>
> > > > You seem to be unaware that you're acting exactly like another very
> > > > unhappy camper.  Is it because of something I've said?
> > > > -
> > > >BradGuth
>
> > > Napolean XIV is back.  And still mad as a hatter.
>
> > I dunno, the insanity ofBradGuthis in a tight race with the
> > insanity of Death-rage, who both pale in comparison to Y. Porat. At
> > least Porat looks the part - someone who isn't looking too closely at
> > the previous two might think they are normal.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You folks consider the regular laws of physics "insanity"?

Given that both myself and Phineas can demonstrate an understanding of
the laws of physics and you cannot, I'd say you are unfit to say what
is and what is not physics.

> -
> Brad Guth

On May 3, 7:54 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 3, 5:08 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 2, 2:54 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 2, 10:57 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 2, 2:25 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 1, 8:18 pm, EricGisse<jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 1, 6:14 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > [...]
>
> > > > > > You seem to be unaware that L1 only exists where it does because of
> > > > > > the moon...
>
> > > > > > You also seem to be unaware how the orbital energy is transferred.
>
> > > > > > Shit, you are generally unaware of lots of things.
>
> > > > > I'm terribly sorry, as you fail to have what it takes.  Naysayism and/
> > > > > or of lacking any form of topic related information is not exactly one
> > > > > of those qualities in physics or in science that I'm looking for.
>
> > > > > If you can manage to costructively contribute something/anything to
> > > > > this topic, please do just that.
>
> > > > > Unlike your apparent all-knowing self that's unwilling to share, I'm
> > > > > imposing my notions by way of asking the sorts of questions, that by
> > > > > rights we shouldn't be having to ask.  I'm terribly Sorry if that
> > > > > upsets your status quo mindset, as it obviously does.
>
> > > > > You seem to be unaware that you're acting exactly like another very
> > > > > unhappy camper.  Is it because of something I've said?
> > > > > -
> > > > >BradGuth
>
> > > > Napolean XIV is back.  And still mad as a hatter.
>
> > > I dunno, the insanity ofBradGuthis in a tight race with the
> > > insanity of Death-rage, who both pale in comparison to Y. Porat. At
> > > least Porat looks the part - someone who isn't looking too closely at
> > > the previous two might think they are normal.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > You folks consider the regular laws of physics "insanity"?
>
> Given that both myself and Phineas can demonstrate an understanding of
> the laws of physics and you cannot, I'd say you are unfit to say what
> is and what is not physics.
>
>
>
> > -
> >BradGuth- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Given the fact that you folks can't manage to constructively
contribute squat on behalf of this honest topic, I'd say that you're
both something far less capable than we're being told.

Unlike yourself, I'm not trying or rather pretending to be all-
knowing.  If I were sufficently all-knowing, I'd be having the two of
you plus others of your kind on trial for crimes against humanity, and
then some.
-
Brad Guth

On May 3, 10:15 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

> Given the fact that you folks can't manage to constructively
> contribute squat on behalf of this honest topic, I'd say that you're
> both something far less capable than we're being told.
>
> Unlike yourself, I'm not trying or rather pretending to be all-
> knowing.  If I were sufficently all-knowing, I'd be having the two of
> you plus others of your kind on trial for crimes against humanity, and
> then some.

So you aren't all-knowing, but you think you know enough to override a
consensus arrived at by pretty much all climate scientists?

> -
> Brad Guth

On May 3, 10:27 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> So you aren't all-knowing, but you think you know enough to override a
> consensus arrived at by pretty much all climate scientists?

Easily, with physics to spare.
-
Brad Guth

On May 4, 12:19 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 3, 10:27 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So you aren't all-knowing, but you think you know enough to override a
> > consensus arrived at by pretty much all climate scientists?
>
> Easily, with physics to spare.

Fascinating - where did you go to for graduate school? Your
undergraduate career must have been interesting as well - where did
you get your undergraduate education?

I'm a year from graduation with a BSc in Physics and I'm looking for a
decent physics graduate school right now.

> -
> Brad Guth

On May 4, 12:46 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm a year from graduation with a BSc in Physics and I'm looking for a
> decent physics graduate school right now.

Then start looking for one that's outside of this screwed up country,
that'll at least teach the basic truths about our physically dark,
salty and reactive moon, and of Earth's planetology that's older than
Venus but less old than Mars.  Perhaps of something in India or China
that still use those regular laws of physics will suit your
requirements.

Be sure to include a little something as to the complex physics of
friction.  Such as with an absolutely horrific amount of applied
energy, we can force a small degree of tide and a few minor ocean
waves, just like terawatts of spare energy can melt ice.

I could use a few smart wizards on my LSE-CM/ISS and VL2 teams, or
should I outsource that stuff to India or China?

Otherwise, you're still looking in all the wrong places.
-
Brad Guth

On May 3, 8:08 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 2, 2:54 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 2, 10:57 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 2, 2:25 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 1, 8:18 pm, EricGisse<jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 1, 6:14 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > [...]
>
> > > > > You seem to be unaware that L1 only exists where it does because of
> > > > > the moon...
>
> > > > > You also seem to be unaware how the orbital energy is transferred.
>
> > > > > Shit, you are generally unaware of lots of things.
>
> > > > I'm terribly sorry, as you fail to have what it takes.  Naysayism and/
> > > > or of lacking any form of topic related information is not exactly one
> > > > of those qualities in physics or in science that I'm looking for.
>
> > > > If you can manage to costructively contribute something/anything to
> > > > this topic, please do just that.
>
> > > > Unlike your apparent all-knowing self that's unwilling to share, I'm
> > > > imposing my notions by way of asking the sorts of questions, that by
> > > > rights we shouldn't be having to ask.  I'm terribly Sorry if that
> > > > upsets your status quo mindset, as it obviously does.
>
> > > > You seem to be unaware that you're acting exactly like another very
> > > > unhappy camper.  Is it because of something I've said?
> > > > -
> > > >BradGuth
>
> > > Napolean XIV is back.  And still mad as a hatter.
>
> > I dunno, the insanity ofBradGuthis in a tight race with the
> > insanity of Death-rage, who both pale in comparison to Y. Porat. At
> > least Porat looks the part - someone who isn't looking too closely at
> > the previous two might think they are normal.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You folks consider the regular laws of physics "insanity"?
> -
> Brad Guth

Only if YOU were the "regular laws of physics".

On May 4, 9:24 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:

> Only if YOU were the "regular laws of physics".

You had another perfectly good opportunity, as to contribute something
topic constructive, and yet "Igor" draws and fires off yet another
blank.

Is it asking too much of wizard Igor;  How much GW is our moon worth?
-
Brad Guth

On May 4, 1:24 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

So where did you go to graduate school?

On May 4, 1:10 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 4, 9:24 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > Only if YOU were the "regular laws of physics".
>
> You had another perfectly good opportunity, as to contribute something
> topic constructive, and yet "Igor" draws and fires off yet another
> blank.
>
> Is it asking too much of wizard Igor;  How much GW is our moon worth?
> -BradGuth

I'd forgotten to mention.

Why on Earth can't you supposedly smart folks inform your incest
mutated pagan god 'Art Deco' to put up or shut up?

Opps!  I'd forgotten that you folks can't ever get enough of such good
Jewish Third Reich blow-hards.  Perhaps you silly folks should start
WWIII, just in case your 'GW Bush' puppet doesn't work out according
to plan.

I guess policing your own kind isn't an option, just as it certainly
didn't help Jesus Christ or of a few million others ever since.
-
Brad Guth

On May 4, 6:22 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 4, 1:24 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> So where did you go to graduate school?

Never did.  Sorry about that.  Better luck next life.

BTW in basic physics-101;  how much does our moon contribute to GW?

All inclusive: 1 watt, or is it actually worth a few multi-thousand-
terawatts?

Shouldn't we know to the watt, of what our pesky moon represents?

or is your wizardly planetology still taboo/nondisclosure rated?

Why do you folks care?

You obviously have no honest intentions of accepting anything positive
that's off-world.
-
Brad Guth

On May 5, 2:38 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 4, 6:22 pm, EricGisse<jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 4, 1:24 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > So where did you go to graduate school?
>
> Never did.  Sorry about that.  Better luck next life.

You didn't? That's interesting.

Where did you get your undergraduate degree?

>
> BTW in basic physics-101;  how much does our moon contribute to GW?
>
> All inclusive: 1 watt, or is it actually worth a few multi-thousand-
> terawatts?

Somewhere in between?

Why don't you explain why the Moon is relevant? I think even you can
acknowledge that the Moon was in orbit around the Earth over a
thousand years ago. The Moon forms a static part of the background
that has not changed in a very long time and is not relevant to the
debate.

>
> Shouldn't we know to the watt, of what our pesky moon represents?

Do we know the albedo for every square meter of the Moon's surface?

>
> or is your wizardly planetology still taboo/nondisclosure rated?

Physics isn't stuffed in a box under some asshole's desk. It is
available for all to use as seen fit.

>
> Why do you folks care?
>
> You obviously have no honest intentions of accepting anything positive
> that's off-world.
> -
> Brad Guth

In sci.physics, BradGuth
<bradguth@gmail.com>
 wrote
on 5 May 2007 14:38:30 -0700
<1178401109.948365.86690@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:
> On May 4, 6:22 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 4, 1:24 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> So where did you go to graduate school?
>
> Never did.  Sorry about that.  Better luck next life.
>
> BTW in basic physics-101;  how much does our moon contribute to GW?
>
> All inclusive: 1 watt, or is it actually worth a few multi-thousand-
> terawatts?
>
> Shouldn't we know to the watt, of what our pesky moon represents?
>
> or is your wizardly planetology still taboo/nondisclosure rated?
>
> Why do you folks care?
>
> You obviously have no honest intentions of accepting anything positive
> that's off-world.
> -
> Brad Guth
>

By lucky chance the Moon's apparent size is the same as
the Sun's.  A naive model of the luminosity would suggest
that the "inlunation" would therefore be about
0.12 * (1350 W/m^2) = 162 W/m^2.

A better model would simply note that an object with
apparent magnitude -26.73 would have 1350 W/m^2 insolation,
and for every 5 units of increase of apparent magnitude the
incoming flux decreases by a factor of 100.  Therefore,
since the full Moon's apparent magnitude has been
measured at -12.6, it is almost a million times fainter.
This yields a value of about 3.01 milliWatts/m^2.  Over the
"disk viewing area" of the Earth (which is 1/4 of the
real surface area [*]), that translates into an additional
384 gigaWatts worldwide during a full moon, and about 200
gigaWatts on average during the entire lunar cycle.

(It's not 192 because of Earthshine, so I'm fudging a bit.)

What one can do about these gigaWatts, I for one do not
know.  Compared to Sol's contribution of about
1.72 * 10^17 W on the sunlit side of the Earth, a few
hundred gigawatts is negligible.

[*] if one has a sphere of a certain radius r, and a disc with the same
radius, the area of the disc is pi * r^2, and the surface area of the
sphere is 4 * pi * r^2, by elementary geometry.

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Windows.  When it absolutely, positively, has to crash.

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On May 5, 4:43 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 5, 2:38 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > BTW in basic physics-101;  how much does our moon contribute to GW?
>
> > All inclusive: 1 watt, or is it actually worth a few multi-thousand-
> > terawatts?
>
> Somewhere in between?

Wow, such wise knowledge, such absolute physics, such crapolla spewing
from between your infomercial butt-cheeks of such all-knowing
expertise.

>
> Why don't you explain why the Moon is relevant? I think even you can
> acknowledge that the Moon was in orbit around the Earth over a
> thousand years ago.

I agree, though I'd have to put that date more likely as of 10,000 ~
12,000 years ago.

> The Moon forms a static part of the background
> that has not changed in a very long time and is not relevant to the
> debate.

There you go again, being that silly butt ugly and otherwise
infomercial spewing liar, and so much worse.

"static part of the background" meas exactly what in hard science?

>
> > Shouldn't we know to the watt, of what our pesky moon represents?
>
> Do we know the albedo for every square meter of the Moon's surface?

At least for the side facing Earth, by now we should know, within +/-
10% error.

So far, there's not even the available hard science of IR energy from
our moon to work with, just like we still have no hard science on raw
ice coexisting at 1AU.  I guess those pesky sorts of raw basics are
not important enough.

We still haven't anything at our moon's L1, much less interactively
reporting science back from the physically dark surface of our moon.

> > or is your wizardly planetology still taboo/nondisclosure rated?
>
> Physics isn't stuffed in a box under some asshole's desk. It is
> available for all to use as seen fit.

And obviously you and others of your naysay kind see fit to not use
anything that rocks your good and mostly Jewish ship USS LOLLIPOP.
-
Brad Guth

In article <1178410799.602320.256700@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
 BradGuth <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > or is your wizardly planetology still taboo/nondisclosure rated?
> >
> > Physics isn't stuffed in a box under some asshole's desk. It is
> > available for all to use as seen fit.
> 
> And obviously you and others of your naysay kind see fit to not use
> anything that rocks your good and mostly Jewish ship USS LOLLIPOP.


Racist, bigoted and stupid too.

-- 
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
 singularity.

COOSN-174-07-82116: alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken
of the saucerhead high command).

On 5 May, 16:45, The Ghost In The Machine
<e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
> By lucky chance the Moon's apparent size is the same as
> the Sun's.  A naive model of the luminosity would suggest
> that the "inlunation" would therefore be about
> 0.12 * (1350 W/m^2) = 162 W/m^2.

As per damage-control usual, that's excluding the secondary/recoil
worth of IR/FIR(longwave photons), easily worth more than twice the
visual albedo spectrum that's reflecting 8~12%, whereas where else do
you suppose all of that other solar influx (88~92%) that's directly
impacting our naked moon is going?

>
> A better model would simply note that an object with
> apparent magnitude -26.73 would have 1350 W/m^2 insolation,
> and for every 5 units of increase of apparent magnitude the
> incoming flux decreases by a factor of 100.  Therefore,
> since the full Moon's apparent magnitude has been
> measured at -12.6, it is almost a million times fainter.
> This yields a value of about 3.01 milliWatts/m^2.  Over the
> "disk viewing area" of the Earth (which is 1/4 of the
> real surface area [*]), that translates into an additional
> 384 gigaWatts worldwide during a full moon, and about 200
> gigaWatts on average during the entire lunar cycle.
>
> (It's not 192 because of Earthshine, so I'm fudging a bit.)

You certainly are fudging, because, that's still excluding the
secondary/recoil worth of IR~FIR, that's worth twice and possibly as
much as three fold the 12% visual limited spectrum, which makes that
384 gigaWatts become worth 1536 gigaWatts at full moon, and otherwise
sharing perhaps worth 768 gigaWatts on average, which is still pretty
much nothing compared to the all-inclusive tidal friction that's
continually working our environment inside and out, unavoidably
causing so much other GW trauma, to the tune of having been sharing
many other teraWatts that's mostly contributed to what's within our
salty oceans and otherwise deep below our too left dumbfounded feet.

We humans at having supposedly been generating 13.5 TW in addition to
our body heat, are as such only worth having added 26.41 mw/m2,
whereas even 10 fold that amount is still only worth 264 mw/m2
(obviously that's entirely surface limited, thus excluding the whole
cubic volume worth of Earth, of which our moon's tidal force and
subsequent friction doesn't exclude).

>
> What one can do about these gigaWatts, I for one do not
> know.  Compared to Sol's contribution of about
> 1.72 * 10^17 W on the sunlit side of the Earth, a few
> hundred gigawatts is negligible.
>
> [*] if one has a sphere of a certain radius r, and a disc with the same
> radius, the area of the disc is pi * r^2, and the surface area of the
> sphere is 4 * pi * r^2, by elementary geometry.

Apparentlty, your "elementary geometry" auto-excludes those pesky IR
and FIR spectrums, just like it previously and otherwise continues to
auto-exclude whatever anti-cathode contributions of gamma and hard-
Xrays.

The full moon's IR shine is offering a fairly considerable thermal
budget (especially while orbiting that physically dark moon at 100
km), that's simply of much greater thermal energy than our atmospheric
filtered and thus moderated IR planetshine(266 w/m2), as having been
LEO measured by God/NASA, whereas our moon's IR shine is especially
extra toasty once we add in the secondary/recoil worth of such raw IR/
FIR spectrums from all of those pesky longwave photons.

Too bad we still haven't established any science platform within our
moon's L1.  Perhaps China or India will soon enough take care of that,
especially since doing such will be so fly-by-rocket efficient to
accomplish and even to interactively station-keep whatever within our
moon's L1.
-
Brad Guth

In sci.physics, BradGuth
<bradguth@gmail.com>
 wrote
on 6 May 2007 12:14:23 -0700
<1178478862.992491.72860@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>:
> On 5 May, 16:45, The Ghost In The Machine
> <e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>> By lucky chance the Moon's apparent size is the same as
>> the Sun's.  A naive model of the luminosity would suggest
>> that the "inlunation" would therefore be about
>> 0.12 * (1350 W/m^2) = 162 W/m^2.
>
> As per damage-control usual, that's excluding the secondary/recoil
> worth of IR/FIR(longwave photons), easily worth more than twice the
> visual albedo spectrum that's reflecting 8~12%, whereas where else do
> you suppose all of that other solar influx (88~92%) that's directly
> impacting our naked moon is going?

Presumably, into outer space.  The Earth does not occupy *that* large a
field in its sky, though it's larger than the Moon in ours.

As for longwave IR...I'd have to study the issue.

>
>>
>> A better model would simply note that an object with
>> apparent magnitude -26.73 would have 1350 W/m^2 insolation,
>> and for every 5 units of increase of apparent magnitude the
>> incoming flux decreases by a factor of 100.  Therefore,
>> since the full Moon's apparent magnitude has been
>> measured at -12.6, it is almost a million times fainter.
>> This yields a value of about 3.01 milliWatts/m^2.  Over the
>> "disk viewing area" of the Earth (which is 1/4 of the
>> real surface area [*]), that translates into an additional
>> 384 gigaWatts worldwide during a full moon, and about 200
>> gigaWatts on average during the entire lunar cycle.
>>
>> (It's not 192 because of Earthshine, so I'm fudging a bit.)
>
> You certainly are fudging, because, that's still excluding the
> secondary/recoil worth of IR~FIR, that's worth twice and possibly as
> much as three fold the 12% visual limited spectrum, which makes that
> 384 gigaWatts become worth 1536 gigaWatts at full moon, and otherwise
> sharing perhaps worth 768 gigaWatts on average, which is still pretty
> much nothing compared to the all-inclusive tidal friction that's
> continually working our environment inside and out, unavoidably
> causing so much other GW trauma, to the tune of having been sharing
> many other teraWatts that's mostly contributed to what's within our
> salty oceans and otherwise deep below our too left dumbfounded feet.
>
> We humans at having supposedly been generating 13.5 TW in addition to
> our body heat, are as such only worth having added 26.41 mw/m2,
> whereas even 10 fold that amount is still only worth 264 mw/m2
> (obviously that's entirely surface limited, thus excluding the whole
> cubic volume worth of Earth, of which our moon's tidal force and
> subsequent friction doesn't exclude).

Ah, but the Moon is generating how much extra then?

>
>>
>> What one can do about these gigaWatts, I for one do not
>> know.  Compared to Sol's contribution of about
>> 1.72 * 10^17 W on the sunlit side of the Earth, a few
>> hundred gigawatts is negligible.
>>
>> [*] if one has a sphere of a certain radius r, and a disc with the same
>> radius, the area of the disc is pi * r^2, and the surface area of the
>> sphere is 4 * pi * r^2, by elementary geometry.
>
> Apparentlty, your "elementary geometry" auto-excludes those pesky IR
> and FIR spectrums, just like it previously and otherwise continues to
> auto-exclude whatever anti-cathode contributions of gamma and hard-
> Xrays.

Geometry is the study of measures and angles.  It does not include
radiation.

>
> The full moon's IR shine is offering a fairly considerable thermal
> budget (especially while orbiting that physically dark moon at 100
> km), that's simply of much greater thermal energy than our atmospheric
> filtered and thus moderated IR planetshine(266 w/m2), as having been
> LEO measured by God/NASA, whereas our moon's IR shine is especially
> extra toasty once we add in the secondary/recoil worth of such raw IR/
> FIR spectrums from all of those pesky longwave photons.
>
> Too bad we still haven't established any science platform within our
> moon's L1.

And how, precisely, are we going to do that since anything that gets
closer than Earth to the Moon is going to automatically melt, according
to you?

> Perhaps China or India will soon enough take care of that,
> especially since doing such will be so fly-by-rocket efficient to
> accomplish and even to interactively station-keep whatever within our
> moon's L1.

Doing so would be deadly, according to you.  Make up your mind.
Or does infrared radiation only burn those of the Judeo-Christian faith
to a crisp?

> -
> Brad Guth
>

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #23291:
void f(item *p) { if(p != 0) delete p; }

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article <0hhvg4-bej.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net>,
 The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:

<snip>

> [*] if one has a sphere of a certain radius r, and a disc with the same
> radius, the area of the disc is pi * r^2, and the surface area of the
> sphere is 4 * pi * r^2, by elementary geometry.

Shouldn't you be comparing the disc with a hemisphere instead of a 
sphere, for a ratio of 1/2 instead of 1/4?

-- 
Odysseus

   This just makes me wonder where all that tidal friction energy dissipates?
-------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Clarke
-------------------------------------------------------



-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In sci.physics, Odysseus
<odysseus1479-at@yahoo-dot.com>
 wrote
on Mon, 07 May 2007 07:36:45 GMT
<odysseus1479-at-84428B.01364507052007@news.telus.net>:
> In article <0hhvg4-bej.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net>,
>  The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> [*] if one has a sphere of a certain radius r, and a disc with the same
>> radius, the area of the disc is pi * r^2, and the surface area of the
>> sphere is 4 * pi * r^2, by elementary geometry.
>
> Shouldn't you be comparing the disc with a hemisphere instead of a 
> sphere, for a ratio of 1/2 instead of 1/4?
>

Not in this case; I'm computing the insolation over a
sphere, and the insolation is (mostly) uniform if one uses
a disc cross-section.

Were one to use a hemisphere, the insolation per square meter
near the terminators would be far less than on a point
where the Sun shines directly overhead.

I'm frankly not sure where Brad is getting his
7.2 * 10^24 W from; the insolation on the Moon
is at most about 1.28 * 10^16 W
= 1350 W/m^2 * 3.793 * 10^13 m^2 / 4 .

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #12398234:
void f(char *p) {char *q = strdup(p); strcpy(p,q);}

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In sci.physics, Mr Clarke
<aclarke2005@toucansurf.com>
 wrote
on Mon, 7 May 2007 21:39:23 +0100
<463f8237$0$16272$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>    This just makes me wonder where all that tidal friction energy dissipates?
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Ashley Clarke
> -------------------------------------------------------

I wish I had an answer; that's a darned good question.

Best I can do is raise and lower water over the tidal
height (about 10 m or so), and then multiply by half the
total ocean surface area.  Since the tides are actually
horizontal flows this will probably be off by a goodly
amount.

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #12398234:
void f(char *p) {char *q = strdup(p); strcpy(p,q);}

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Earth is more than rare, whereas it's unusually fluid (inside and
out), along with a mostly wet surface and otherwise frozen polar caps
and other volumes of ice that if melted would summarily drown or
otherwise terminate most of us, and as of lately it has been more than
a little salty to boot, plus going GW(global warming) postal at the
same time that we're trying our level best to survive on this orb.

The basic argument here is that Earth simply didn't always have that
pesky moon untill after the very last ice age this planet w/moon will
ever see, as for that pesky moon representing such a horrific nearby
orbiting mascon, especially if that sucker were ever once upon a time
orbiting at a forth the distance and thus having been contributing 16
fold greater gravity/tidal forces into our 98.5% fluid Earth, as that
unfortunate outcome would have kept mother Earth more than a little
extra GW hot! hot!! hot!!!

Solar tides always existed, along with eventually some oceans of
whatever less salty muck and of much less fluid volume had also
existed, as well as for our elliptical orbit and less seasonal tilt
having existed.  So what?  We can certainly have all of that w/o moon.

There may not be those local ice cubes surviving in 1AU space, but
much further out it's quite another cosmic story, especially if one of
those arriving ice cubes had a fairly terrific 7.35e22 kg worth of a
rocky core to start off with.

Although it would have been darn nice having a few direct interactive
science instruments on deck (which should have been easily
accomplished if we'd actually walked on that sucker), though otherwise
the best available remote science of our physically DARK and NASTY
moon is more than good enough to suggest upon multiple other reasons
for Earth (being 98.5% fluid) having obtained that absolutely horrific
mascon of a moon, and only as of the very last ice age this gravity/
tidal forced global warming of a mostly fluid planet will ever see.

Most folks here in Usenet naysay land, that are summarily stuck
forever with their one and only NASA/Apollo koran version of the
truth, are as such entirely unable to even consider upon any other
viable alternatives.  That's rather unfortunate that so much of
otherwise good talent and resources must be continually wasted, along
with such spendy decades upon decades blown for good.

Much of our salty old moon's surface has in fact become soft, though
obviously much of that moon's dusty surface is protruded by basalt, it
has obviously since been terribly impacted and/or having collected
everything including the cosmic kitchen sink.  In addition to it's
significant worth of gravity, it's also highly electrostatic charged
and thus far better off at having attracted and otherwise retained
most of the solar and cosmic flak that comes along, as certainly a
whole lot better off at keeping its nasty stuff than anything our
wussy magnetosphere manages to retain.

Unfortunately, icy proto-moons are still being officially topic/author
banished, as being as taboo/nondisclosure as is the truth about Iraq
and a good dozen other matters.  Even a simple topic of "What if
(Craters)" by G=EMC^2 Glazier gets the usual mainstream status quo
flak treatment, as a insurmountable gauntlet that's contributed by
those Old Testament fools trying their faith-based level best at
keeping the rest of us village idiots as snookered and/or as
dumbfounded as possible, and for the most part it has been working.

Folks here in this well orchestrated anti-think-tank Usenet of naysay
land, as such really haven't allowed us to seriously look at those
moon craters with any open mindset, whereas most of which are truly
massive yet unusually shallow craters within those larger and even
shallower craters, with much less their ever having associated any
potential of ice as having once upon a time covered that big old salty
sucker (I'm thinking to the tune of 262 km).

Of the most recent craters being 10 fold deeper by ratio to their
diameter means there was at that more recent time little if any ice on
deck.  Though I'd have to  agree that a great amount of common moon
dust by way of primary and secondary impact shards, plus local and
cosmic dust has contributed to filling in the vast majority of those
older craters, to the tune of such nasty composition being tens of
meters deep in the most fluffy of dry and uncompacted dark/sooty (aka
coal pit) looking stuff you can imagine.  I often think of our moon as
being a cosmic morgue, especially since nothing gets burned up prior
to impact.

You folks must realize that Sedna is a worthy icy proto-moon of
roughly 1500~1800 km, that's likely covered by as much as 500 km of
that dirty reddish and most likely salty ice.  In fact, most anything
Oort cloud or even Kuiper belt worthy is going to be and/or shortly
become icy.  For example, I can imagine the big rock and/or whatever's
the core of such a hard under-surface of Sedna being that of almost no
craters, as due to itself having been so nicely ice protected.

For benefit of further argument;  If such an icy proto-moon were
moving along from Sirius to Sol, say if that interstellar trek had
been taking at most a few tens of thousands of years (say incoming at
40 km/s and thereby lots of spare time for a little interactive cosmic
DNA sequencing to take place), I wonder how much extra ice and snow
build-up (in addition to whatever it originally had) one might expect
to obtain while exiting away from the read-giant pushing realm of
Sirius and obviously entering through our icy Oort cloud?

You'd think this kind of fundamental planetology and cosmology
research, as based entirely upon the regular laws of physics and best
available science, would become another one of those nifty 3D
simulation applications for a good supercomputer, don't you think.
Especially since most other moons and perhaps even a few planets of
this solar system seem as though having arrived after the initial
creation of our Sol and whatever local planets.  In fact, there's no
good reasoning to perceive that Earth was born of the very same exact
stuff as Sol.
-
Brad Guth

As per the intended topic of "How much global warming(GW) is our local
mascon good for?"

Our 98.5% fluid Earth is currently being orbited by 7.35e22 kg, and as
such it's none too far enough away from us.  Imagine what that bad boy
was doing to Earth's environment at a forth the distance and then
obviously having to orbit at a faster velocity to boot (talk about
hell on Earth).  Obviously, I don't buy into that moon as having been
created from within Earth, but instead more than likely as having been
obtained via that glancing lithobraking blow since the last ice age
this planet will ever see.

Even if it were relocated to Earth's L2, our moon's gravity and
subsequent tidal force as directly added to the 24 hour cycle of solar
tidal energy, as such is going to continue to contribute some internal
and surface friction, and thus unavoidably delivering such thermal
energy into our fluid environment.  However, the rather nifty little
spot of moon shade or solar isolation by way of having our moon
relocated out to Earth's L1 is going to give us that badly needed
shade to burn, sort of speak.

BTW  this one is ideal for running through a 2D/3D interactive
simulator.  I kid you not.
-
Brad Guth

On May 12, 1:22 pm, Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddled...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> In article <1179001123.709697.286...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>
>  BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > As per the intended topic of "How much global warming(GW) is our local
> > mascon good for?"
>
> > Our 98.5% fluid Earth is currently being orbited by 7.35e22 kg, and as
> > such it's none too far enough away from us.  Imagine what that bad boy
> > was doing to Earth's environment at a forth the distance and then
> > obviously having to orbit at a faster velocity to boot (talk about
> > hell on Earth).  Obviously, I don't buy into that moon as having been
> > created from within Earth, but instead more than likely as having been
> > obtained via that glancing lithobraking blow since the last ice age
> > this planet will ever see.
>
> You been given the links that refute this several times, idiot.

Of what you folks call "links that refute" are simply more of the same
old infomercial spewed crapolla, that's every bit as faith-based
subjective as is the used toilet paper that's continually stuck to
your shoes.

>
> > Even if it were relocated to Earth's L2, our moon's gravity and
> > subsequent tidal force as directly added to the 24 hour cycle of solar
> > tidal energy, as such is going to continue to contribute some internal
> > and surface friction, and thus unavoidably delivering such thermal
> > energy into our fluid environment.  However, the rather nifty little
> > spot of moon shade or solar isolation by way of having our moon
> > relocated out to Earth's L1 is going to give us that badly needed
> > shade to burn, sort of speak.
>
> > BTW  this one is ideal for running through a 2D/3D interactive
> > simulator.  I kid you not.
>
> Idiot.

But you're the one as continually having to hijack this topic into
your "alt.usenet.kooks" cesspool.  Is there something about those 2D/
3D interactive simulators that you silly naysay folks don't like?
-
Brad Guth

In article <1179003466.973382.26280@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
 BradGuth <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:

> > You been given the links that refute this several times, idiot.
> 
> Of what you folks call "links that refute" are simply more of the same
> old infomercial spewed crapolla, that's every bit as faith-based
> subjective as is the used toilet paper that's continually stuck to
> your shoes.


No it was REAL science, of which you wouldn't know if it bit you on the ass.

-- 
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
 poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).

Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
 singularity.

On May 12, 2:02 pm, Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddled...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> In article <1179003466.973382.26...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
>  BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > You been given the links that refute this several times, idiot.
>
> > Of what you folks call "links that refute" are simply more of the same
> > old infomercial spewed crapolla, that's every bit as faith-based
> > subjective as is the used toilet paper that's continually stuck to
> > your shoes.
>
> No it was REAL science, of which you wouldn't know if it bit you on the ass.

There you go again, getting all brown-nosed and going naysay postal
and everything.

How the heck does your objective science tell the difference between a
solar forced tide as opposed to a lunar forced tide, especially from
whatever's of 10,000 BC old or older?

When exactly (to the year) did mother Earth obtain her seasonal tilt?

When did this rather icy and otherwise fluid Earth obtain its Arctic
ocean basin?
-
Brad Guth

On May 12, 2:38 pm, Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddled...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> In article <1179005749.767099.37...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>
>  BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > There you go again, getting all brown-nosed and going naysay postal
> > and everything.
>
> > How the heck does your objective science tell the difference between a
> > solar forced tide as opposed to a lunar forced tide, especially from
> > whatever's of 10,000 BC old or older?
>
> Period.
>
> > When exactly (to the year) did mother Earth obtain her seasonal tilt?
>
> > When did this rather icy and otherwise fluid Earth obtain its Arctic
> > ocean basin?
>
> Brad, whats the point telling you anything.... the simple fact is you are
> simply not interested in anything else but your own flawed viewpoints.]
>
> Back to AUK you go
>

And why of course, you have never once had a "flawed viewpoint",
because all of those having educated the likes of yourself were equal
or better than God.

Say once again, why you're not a multi-billionaire.

Why on Earth can't you supposedly smart folks answer to those basic
questions?

Why can't you say:  How much global warming(GW) is our local mascon
good for?

Lead dating puts Earth at how old?

Why is lead dating not otherwise usable?
-
Brad Guth

In article <1179012459.560660.41830@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
 BradGuth <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:

> And why of course, you have never once had a "flawed viewpoint",
> because all of those having educated the likes of yourself were equal
> or better than God.
> 

Proof you've never been beyond simple education. Critical analysis is a skill 
taught.

> Say once again, why you're not a multi-billionaire.
> 
> Why on Earth can't you supposedly smart folks answer to those basic
> questions?

We can - you refuse to listen to the answers...

> 
> Why can't you say:  How much global warming(GW) is our local mascon
> good for?
> 
> Lead dating puts Earth at how old?
> 
> Why is lead dating not otherwise usable?

Why not learn for yourself.


-- 
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
 poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).

Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
 singularity.

On May 12, 4:34 pm, Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddled...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> In article <1179012459.560660.41...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>
>  BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > And why of course, you have never once had a "flawed viewpoint",
> > because all of those having educated the likes of yourself were equal
> > or better than God.
>
> Proof you've never been beyond simple education. Critical analysis is a skill
> taught.
>
> > Say once again, why you're not a multi-billionaire.
>
> > Why on Earth can't you supposedly smart folks answer to those basic
> > questions?
>
> We can - you refuse to listen to the answers...
>
>
>
> > Why can't you say:  How much global warming(GW) is our local mascon
> > good for?
>
> > Lead dating puts Earth at how old?
>
> > Why is lead dating not otherwise usable?
>
> Why not learn for yourself.
>

Why not knock our village idiot socks off, by impressing us with
whatever it is that you supposedly know, or think you know with any
degree of honest swag?

4.54 billion years is simply not long enough for the random
happenstance of DNA/RNA to have materialized and subsequently created
such multiple forms of such totally complex life, over and over and
over for perhaps a good thousand ice age or of much worse times and
counting, much less of ending up with such pathetic life that's only
intelligent enough to raping mother Earth for all she's worth, and for
otherwise killing off its own kind for sport, for good old revenge if
not for no damn good reasons other than insurmountable greed,
arrogance and cultivated bigotry, and that's in addition to whatever's
most recently faith-based and/or politically skewed into the nearest
toilet.

Much less has the last 0.1% of that 4.5 billion years been sufficient
without a little outside intelligent design as a perfectly godly form
of help.

Sirius-B (as having already gone through the red-giant phase) is
likely older than our Sol, and otherwise of many other recently IR
detected suns with perfectly viable planets are actually more common
place than not.  We're talking of at least in terms of multiple
billions if not a good trillion+ worth of those other much older red-
dwarf stars w/planet(s), each of those being of a good billion plus
years older than us (actually it's more likely 5+ billion years
older), whereas the odds of none of those having accommodated our
equal or better isn't even a fair game.

There's simply no possible way of our honestly suggesting that we are
but all there is to behold within our pocket universe, and that all
else is simply at risk of being eaten alive, by us if need be.
-
Brad Guth

There's no question that VL2 POOF City is 100% doable as is.  However,
Venus itself is looking better and better all the time.  It seems that
our wet and otherwise 98.5% fluid Earth is not just a very rare
planet, whereas it's also rather dumbfounded about getting summarily
global warmed to death by our local mascon/moon, plus receiving all
the warm and fuzzy GW benefits of humanity running itself amuck.

For a little friendly terrestrial reminder:
Total ice melt = 80.32 meters + given a little extra on behalf of a
thermal expansion factor and continued erosion filling in for perhaps
another 20% boost.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/

Here's an even better global warming test:
(can you folks swim and survive upon jellyfish?)

Of local planetology and a salty old mascon of a moon that's not going
away soon enough, is all about utilizing the best available science
and of those educated minds to the maximum extent possible.  Or we
could keep telling ourselves those same old lies upon lies, and
otherwise believing in the tooth fairy after we elect Sponge Bob
Square Pants as our next LLPOF president.  With such an educational
and science obtainable goal for relocating our moon out to Earth's L1,
as such this daunting task would actually provide many direct
environmental benefits, that is if it were not for the ongoing Old
Testament faith-based gauntlet of insurmountable naysayism and
otherwise mainstream damage-control fornication that's in denial of
their being in denial, such as our NASA/Apollo wizardly need of their
covering thy infomercial spewing moonsuit butts.

In addition to all of our human contributed atmospheric deployed soot,
pushing the h2o content of our sooty and CO2 enhanced atmosphere from
100 teratonnes to more than 200 teratonnes, the artificial shifting of
Earth's surface albedo in the wrong damn direction is simply going to
further expedite the ongoing demise of humanity, that's obviously
still far too snookered and thus easily dumbfounded past the point of
no return.  Unfortunately, most folks within Usenet have been working
their infomercial butts off, in serious overtime at keeping this bad
situation going in the worse possible direction.

The humanly forced and clearly negative going shift of Earth's albedo,
by way of diving off the deep end of subtracting merely one percentage
point, is yet another real environment killer to the thermal balance
of our Earth that's keeping itself more and more clouded throughout a
wetter and stormier nighttime that's only getting rid of perhaps
little more than 90% of that extra absorbed insolation worth of
energy.  Of course, more than a few others and certainly I've only
been sharing that interpretation for several years, along with sharing
many other honest thoughts about my global warming moon that's not
exactly helping us to survive upon our 98.5% fluid Earth, as in not
helping one damn bit because of the unavoidable gravity/tidal friction
taking place within and all about our fluid Earth.

You see, true geology and thus honest planetology or perhaps even
local interstellar cosmology is not about what you or I can see, such
as noticing such bad weather extremes that's only getting worse, and
of ocean risings plus tidal flows that are accomplishing more
collateral damage than good, whereas 98.5% or more of our global
environment is essentially fluid to those forces contributed by our
pesky mascon/moon and even from a solar tidal influence, of having
been contributing to what goes all the way to the very molten core of
this planet that's also in the process of losing it's magnetosphere at
the impressive rate of -.05%/year (if that factor alone isn't bad
enough news, then perhaps nothing is).

It seems our very own brown-nosed clowns of conditional physics and
skewed science are in fact running us amuck (on behalf of the rich
getting a whole lot richer), whereas this time our supposed best
available science (aka junk science of mostly infomercial hyped
disinformation) and of their faith-based puppeteers has in fact
managed to shoot off both of our two left feet, and then some.

Of course, the likes of our Death Valley at -86 meters, the Great
Basin at -105 meters (aka most of Nevada), and even that of our Grand
Canyon would soon enough become massive salt water holding basins,
along with incorporating most all of Salt Lake City and multiple other
old and dried up salt basins becoming wet and thus albedo dark instead
of a salty near white.

The good within GW news being, Venus is looking a whole lot better all
the time.  At least on Venus there's unlimited renewable energy to
burn, sort of speak, and you certainly don't have to buy off those
pesky wetland or CO2 credits.  Since relocating our moon out to
Earth's L1 is not likely to ever happen (because we're simply not
smart enough for making such happen), perhaps my VL2 POOF City should
be accomplished before we have even fewer options.
-
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html
LLPOF Question 3:
Global Warming is believed to be caused primarily by:

b) orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the Sun's output

 That is correct! (that is actually a well proven lie)

Our GW toasty environment that's going somewhat postal is primarily
caused by our moon that has only been with us since the last ice age
this badly polluted planet will ever see.  It is NOT caused primarily
by any 11 year solar cycle and/or that of our elliptical orbit.

Of extra water vapor being sustained within our humanly sooty
atmosphere is in fact a secondary result of the primary GW that's
caused by our moon.  Going from 100 teratonnes to that of 200+
teratonnes of atmospheric h2o that's extra loaded and/or fortified
along with our soot and artificial CO2 is not exactly a good sign.
-
Brad Guth

Get over yourself.  You're not helping one damn bit.
-
Brad Guth

You ask a specific and direct question, such as "How much global
warming(GW) is our local mascon good for?", and lo and behold all we
ever get is more of the same Old Testament crapolla as topic/author
stalking along with plently of their mainstream status quo flak.
Apparently it's against Usenet law to even have an honest swag to
share, much less specific hard numbers that we can take to our local
bank.  Otherwise, it seems evidence exclusion is the norm of keeping
your ship from rocking.

>Timberwoof:
>Why do you think screwing with the tides is a good idea? All coastal
>sea life evolved with the tides; I think it would be a bad idea to go
>changing them.

Unlike Timberwoof's somewhat narrow and otherwise skewed out of
context and thus negative going mindset of obvious topic naysayism,
whereas instead I'd only intended to moderate our existing lunar
tides, though mostly on behalf of what we can't see, perhaps down to
the dull roar of imposing as little as 1/16th as much as we're
currently having to deal with, thus making the combined solar+moon
(two body aligned) tide worth perhaps 1.125 ~ 1.25 again as much as
our solar forced tide currently represents.  Therefore, with our moon
nicely situated at Earth's L1, our mostly wet surface environment
still has a nifty 24 hour tide, and we'll also get that terrific
little spot of solar isolation as a badly needed bonus of shade.
Obviously you and many others of your kind have complex issues that
are opposed to salvaging our environment, whereas I have shared upon
all sorts of well proven and established forms of renewable energy
that's worth 100 fold greater footprint energy density than most
anything nuclear, and otherwise of better internal combustion that
offers zero NOx, plus I have more than a few off-world alternatives
that are only made naysay taboo/nondisclosure rated because of folks
like yourself that can't think outside or hardly even inside the box.

BTW  this is yet another ideal 3D planetology/geophysics sort of
simulation thing, suited for a good enough supercomputer.  Too bad all
of those public funded supercomputers are tied up downloading and/or
sharing live smut.

I've slightly revised the following, so that a fresh topic reader
might better grasp onto the core of what this sub-topic consideration
of using our moon to shade Earth has to deliver, besides accomplishing
less solar influx/insolation and otherwise elliminating the moon's IR
shine.

If it's supposedly impossible to accomplish anything at our moon's L1,
then instead there's no question that VL2 POOF City at less than 660 w/
m2 is technically 100% doable as is.  However, Venus itself is looking
better and better all the time.  It seems that our wet and otherwise
98.5% fluid Earth is not just a very rare planet, whereas it's also
rather dumbfounded about getting summarily global warmed to death by
our local mascon/moon, plus having been receiving all the warm and
fuzzy GW benefits of humanity running itself amuck.

For a little Usenet friendly terrestrial reminder:
Total ice melt = 80.32 meters + given a little extra rise on behalf of
a thermal expansion factor and continued but greatly accelerated
erosion filling in for perhaps a combined 20% boost.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/

Here's an even better global warming test:
 - can you folks swim and otherwise survive upon jellyfish? -

Of local planetology and a salty old mascon of a moon that's not going
away soon enough, is all about utilizing the best available science
and of those better than average educated minds to the maximum extent
possible.  Or we could keep telling ourselves those same old lies upon
lies, and otherwise believing in the tooth fairy after we elect Sponge
Bob Square Pants as our next LLPOF president (aka Jewish puppet).
With such an educational and science obtainable goal for relocating
our moon out to Earth's L1, as such this daunting but otherwise doable
task would actually provide many direct environmental benefits, that
is if it were not for the ongoing Old Testament faith-based gauntlet
of insurmountable naysayism and otherwise mainstream damage-control
fornication that's continually in denial of their being in denial,
such as our NASA/Apollo wizardly need of their covering thy
infomercial spewing moonsuit butts until hell freezes over, which as
you know is never going to happen.

In addition to all of our human contributed worth of atmospheric
deployed soot and a few too many toxic elements, pushing the h2o
content of our sooty and CO2 enhanced atmosphere from 100 teratonnes
to more than 250 teratonnes, the artificial shifting of Earth's
surface albedo in the wrong damn direction is simply going to further
expedite the ongoing demise of the lower 99.9% of humanity (that's
mostly of us poor folk and/or servitude minions to the rich and
powerful), that's obviously still far too snookered and thus easily
dumbfounded past the point of no return.  Unfortunately, most folks
within Usenet have been working their infomercial spewing butts off,
in serious overtime at keeping this already bad situation going in the
worse possible direction.

The humanly forced and clearly negative going shift of Earth's albedo,
by way of diving ourselves off the deep end of our subtracting merely
one albedo percentage point, is yet another real environment killer to
the thermal balance of our Earth that's keeping itself more and more
clouded throughout a wetter and stormier nighttime that's only getting
rid of perhaps little more than 90% of that extra absorbed insolation
worth of energy.  Of course, more than a few others and certainly I've
only been sharing that deductive interpretation for several years,
along with sharing many other honest thoughts about my global warming
moon that's not exactly helping us to survive upon our 98.5% fluid
Earth, as in not helping one damn bit because of the unavoidable
gravity/tidal friction that's continually taking place within and all
about our fluid Earth.

You see, true geology and thus honest planetology or perhaps even
local interstellar cosmology is not about what you or I can see, such
as noticing bad weather extremes that's only getting worse, and of
ocean risings plus tidal flows that are only accomplishing more
collateral damage than good, whereas 98.5% or more of our global
environment is essentially fluid to those horrific forces contributed
by our pesky mascon/moon and even from those of solar tidal influence,
of having been contributing to what goes all the way to the very
molten core of this planet that's also in the unfortunate process of
losing it's magnetosphere at the impressive rate of -.05%/year (if
that factor alone isn't bad enough news, then perhaps nothing is).

It seems our very own brown-nosed clowns of spewed conditional physics
and skewed science are in fact running us amuck (on behalf of the rich
getting a whole lot richer at the demise of most others), whereas this
time our supposed best available science (aka junk science of mostly
infomercial hyped disinformation) and of their faith-based puppeteers
has in fact managed to shoot off both of our two left feet, and then
some because, GW is here to stay as long as that terrific mascon of a
moon isn't relocated out to Earth's L1.

Of course, the likes of our Death Valley at -86 meters, the Great
Basin at -105 meters (aka including most of Nevada), and even that of
our Grand Canyon would soon enough become massive salt water holding
basins, along with incorporating most all of Salt Lake City and
multiple other old and dried up salt basins becoming wet and thus
albedo dark instead of offering a salty near white and thus solar
energy reflective surface.

However, the good of what's within GW news being, Venus is looking a
whole lot better all the time.  At least on Venus there's unlimited
renewable energy to burn, sort of speak, and you certainly don't have
to buy off those pesky wetland or CO2 credits.  Since relocating our
moon out to Earth's L1 is not likely to ever happen (because we're
simply not smart enough for making it happen, especially if such is
going to benefit other than the rich), whereas perhaps my VL2 POOF
City should be accomplished before we have even fewer options.
-
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html
LLPOF Question 3:
Global Warming is believed to be caused primarily by:

b) orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the Sun's output

 That is correct! (unfortunately, that is actually a well proven lie)

Our GW toasty environment that's going somewhat postal is primarily
caused by our moon that has only been with us since the last ice age
this badly polluted planet will ever see.  GW is NOT caused primarily
by any 11 year solar cycle and/or that of our elliptical orbit.  At
best the human factors and solar issues amount to 25% of the total
picture, although the way we're going that amount could certainly
become forced even higher.

Of extra water vapor being sustained within our humanly soot infused
atmosphere is in fact a secondary result of the primary GW that's
caused by our nearby and fairly massive moon.  Going from 100
teratonnes to that of 250+ teratonnes of sustained atmospheric h2o
that's extra loaded and/or fortified along with our soot and
artificial CO2 is not exactly a good sign, especially when we've also
terminated nearly half of the global diatom populations at the same
time we're extracting 100 million tonnes of food from our polluted and
increasingly dead-zone populated oceans that can't possibly sustain
half that amount of trauma unless we extensively clean up our act.

Once again, here's that better two-part global warming test question:
 - can you folks swim and survive upon jellyfish? -
-
Brad Guth

You present a very specific and direct question or argument, such as
"How much global warming(GW) is our local mascon good for?", and lo
and behold all that we ever get is more of the same Old Testament
fortified crapolla as per the usual of topic/author stalking, plus
frequent topic hijackings along with plenty of their mainstream status
quo flak that's intended to kill.  Apparently it's against some weird
Usenet law to even have an honest SWAG to share, much less for sharing
those actual specific hard numbers that we can take to our local
bank.  Otherwise, it seems topic/author banishment along with all the
usual evidence exclusion is still the norm of keeping your status quo
ship from rocking, along with every possible effort applied to your PC
or MAC in order to at least kill off that portion of your research.

In other words, it's totally pathetic and otherwise the utmost extreme
of whatever the very worse of what humanity has ever had to offer, and
then some, along with those Usenet insiders in the know being 100% in
charge and/or of their knowing exactly where each and every bit of
such flak is coming from, and of its intended target.  I'll gladly
share lots more on just this topic alone.

Unlike most of the lethal intended replies, this is an example of what
one of many but somewhat nicer replies of the usual naysayism had to
share.

>Timberwoof:
>Why do you think screwing with the tides is a good idea? All coastal
>sea life evolved with the tides; I think it would be a bad idea to go
>changing them.

Unlike Timberwoof's somewhat narrow and otherwise skewed out of
context and thus always negative going mindset of obvious topic
naysayism, whereas instead I'd only intended to moderate our existing
lunar forced tides (though mostly on behalf of what we can't see),
perhaps down to the dull roar of imposing as little as 1/16th as much
as we're currently having to deal with, thus making the combined solar
+moon (two body aligned) tide worth perhaps 1.125 ~ 1.25 again as much
as our solar forced tide currently represents.  Therefore, with our
moon nicely parked at Earth's L1, our mostly wet surface environment
still has a nifty 24 hour tide, and we'll also get that terrific
little spot of solar isolation as a badly needed bonus of shade.
Obviously our "Timberwoof" and many others of their kind have complex
issues that are opposed to salvaging or in any way moderating our
badly failing environment, whereas I have shared upon all sorts of
well proven and established forms of renewable energy that's worth 100
fold greater footprint energy density than most anything nuclear, and
otherwise of better internal combustion that offers zero NOx, plus I
have more than a few off-world alternatives that are only made naysay
taboo/nondisclosure rated because of folks like "Timberwoof" that
either can't or refuse to think outside or hardly even inside the box.

BTW  this analogy or alternative interpretation about our moon keeping
Earth a little extra toasty is yet another ideal 3D planetology/
geophysics sort of simulation thing, and perfectly suited for a good
enough supercomputer.  Too bad all of those public funded
supercomputers are tied up downloading and/or sharing live smut, or
into making all of those 3D amimated productions of eye candy that has
nothing to do with physics or science.

I've slightly revised the following, so that a fresh topic reader
might better grasp onto the core of what this sub-topic consideration
of our using that pesky moon in order to shade Earth has to deliver,
besides accomplishing less solar influx/insolation and otherwise
elliminating the moon's IR shine.

If it's supposedly impossible to accomplish anything of robotics or of
a manned science platform at our moon's L1, then instead there's no
question that VL2 POOF City at less than 660 w/m2 is technically 100%
doable as is.  However, Venus itself is looking better and better all
the time.  It seems that our wet and otherwise 98.5% fluid Earth is
not just a very rare planet, whereas it's also rather dumbfounded
about getting summarily global warmed to death by our local mascon/
moon, plus having been receiving all the warm and fuzzy GW benefits of
humanity running itself amuck.

For a little Usenet friendly terrestrial reminder:
Total ice melt = 80.32 meters + given a little extra rise on behalf of
a thermal expansion factor and continued but greatly accelerated
erosion filling in for perhaps a combined 20% boost = 96 meters.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/

Here's an even better global warming test:
 - can you folks swim and otherwise survive upon jellyfish? -

Of local planetology and a salty old mascon of a moon that's not going
away soon enough, is all about utilizing the regular laws of physics
with the best available science and of those better than average
educated minds to the maximum extent possible.  Or we could keep
telling ourselves those same old lies upon lies, and otherwise
believing in the tooth fairy after we elect Sponge Bob Square Pants as
our next LLPOF president (aka Jewish puppet).  With such an
educational and science obtainable goal for relocating our moon out to
Earth's L1, as such this daunting but otherwise doable task would
actually provide many direct environmental benefits, that is if it
were not for the ongoing Old Testament faith-based gauntlet of
insurmountable naysayism and otherwise mainstream damage-control
fornication that's continually in denial of their being in denial,
such as our NASA/Apollo wizardly need of their covering thy
infomercial spewing moonsuit butts until hell freezes over, which as
you know is never going to happen unless we get rid of our moon.

In addition to all of our human contributed worth of atmospheric
deployed soot and a few too many toxic elements, pushing the h2o
content of our sooty and CO2 enhanced atmosphere of such acidic water
from 100 teratonnes to more than 250 teratonnes, the artificial
shifting of Earth's surface albedo in the wrong damn direction is
simply going to further expedite the ongoing demise of the lower 99.9%
of humanity (that's mostly of us poor folk and/or servitude minions to
the rich and powerful), that's obviously still far too snookered and
thus easily dumbfounded past the point of no return.  Unfortunately,
most folks within Usenet have been working their infomercial spewing
butts off, in seriously applied overtime at keeping this already bad
situation going in the worse possible direction.

The humanly forced and clearly negative going shift of Earth's albedo,
by way of diving ourselves off the deep end of our having subtracted
merely one albedo percentage point, is yet another real environment
killer to the thermal balance of our Earth that's keeping itself more
and more clouded throughout a wetter and stormier nighttime that's
only getting rid of perhaps little more than 90% of that extra
absorbed insolation worth of energy.  Of course, more than a few
others and certainly I've only been sharing that deductive
interpretation for several years, along with sharing many other honest
thoughts about our global warming moon that's not exactly helping us
to survive upon our 98.5% fluid Earth, as in not helping one damn bit
because of the unavoidable gravity/tidal friction that's continually
taking place within and all about our fluid Earth.

You see, true geology and thus honest planetology or perhaps even
local interstellar cosmology is not just about what you or I can see,
such as noticing bad weather extremes that's only getting worse, and
of ocean risings plus surface tidal flows that are only accomplishing
more collateral damage than good, whereas 98.5% or more of our global
environment that's below our two left dumbfounded feet is essentially
fluid to those horrific gravity/tidal forces contributed by our pesky
mascon/moon, as well as those of solar tidal influence, of having been
contributing to what goes all the way to the very molten core of this
planet that's also in the unfortunate process of losing it's
magnetosphere at the impressive rate of -.05%/year (if that factor
alone isn't bad enough news, then perhaps nothing is).

It seems our very own brown-nosed clowns of spewed conditional
physics, skewed science and evidence exclusion are in fact running us
amuck (on behalf of the rich getting a whole lot richer at the demise
of most others), whereas this time our supposed best available science
(aka junk science of mostly infomercial hyped disinformation) and of
their faith-based puppeteers has in fact managed to shoot off both of
our two left dumbfounded feet, and then some because, GW with or w/o
humanity is here to stay as long as that terrific mascon of a nearby
moon isn't relocated out to Earth's L1.

Of course, the likes of our Death Valley at -86 meters, the Great
Basin at -105 meters (aka including much of Nevada), and even that of
our Grand Canyon would soon enough become massive salt water holding
basins, along with incorporating most all of Salt Lake City and
multiple other old and dried up salt global basins becoming wet and
thus albedo dark instead of offering that salty near white of a better
solar energy reflective surface.  All of that combined along with our
usual soot and acidic loaded atmosphere of becoming worth 250
teratonnes of h2o that's unavoidably giving our nighttime sky more
cloud coverage for keeping a greater portion of whatever's getting
contributed by day.  Therefore, there's no question of what's humanly
contributed on top of the gravity/tidal forces of energy transferred
into the mostly internal friction that's derived from our moon.

However, the good of what's within GW news being, Venus is looking a
whole lot better all the time.  At least on Venus there's unlimited
renewable energy to burn, sort of speak, and you certainly don't have
to buy off those pesky wetland or CO2 credits.  Since relocating our
moon out to Earth's L1 is not likely to ever happen (because we're
simply not smart enough for making such happen, especially if this
were going to benefit other than the rich), whereas in the mean time,
perhaps my VL2 POOF City should be accomplished before we have even
fewer options.
-
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html
LLPOF Question 3:
Global Warming is believed to be caused primarily by:

b) orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the Sun's output

 That is correct! (unfortunately, that is actually a well proven lie)

Our GW toasty environment that has been going somewhat postal since
the last ice age is primarily caused by our moon that has only been
with us since that last ice age this badly polluted planet will ever
see.  GW is simply NOT caused * primarily * by any 11 year solar cycle
and/or that of our elliptical orbit.  At best the human factors and of
our orbital and solar fluctuation issues amount to 25% of the total
picture, although the way we're going that portion could certainly
become forced even higher.

Of extra water vapor being sustained within our humanly soot infused
atmosphere is in fact a secondary result of the primary GW that's
directly caused by our nearby and fairly massive moon.  However, going
from 100 teratonnes to that of 250+ teratonnes of sustained
atmospheric h2o that's extra loaded and/or fortified along with our
soot and artificial CO2 is not exactly a good sign, especially when
we've also terminated nearly half of the global diatom populations at
the same time we're extracting 100 million tonnes/year of food from
our polluted and increasingly dead-zone populated oceans, that which
can't possibly sustain half that amount of trauma unless we
extensively clean up our act.

Once again, here's that better two-part global warming test question:
 - can you folks swim and survive upon jellyfish? -
-
Brad Guth

It's all about sustaining and/or improving the quality of life.  If
that motive on behalf of salvaging our environment takes on the form
of accomplishing my LSE-CM/ISS, or that of my VL2 POOF City as part of
the ultimate game plan, while our moon is gradually getting relocated
to Earth's L1, then so be it.

As to the perfectly valid argument(s) or honest topic jest of
artificially blocking out a little more than a sufficient portion of
our sun, as such is all about sustaining and/or improving the quality
of all life.

The best I can accomplish thus far, is coming up with the new and
improved sun + (moon at Earth L1) as becoming worth 50.4% of our
existing lunar tide.

A 50% reduction in tidal action is perhaps a little less important to
ocean and other terrestrial life than we've been giving it credit.
Most tidal life can adapt, some of which getting by with a little of
our best intelligent design as help wherever necessary.

This moon relocation process of getting that mascon situated out to
Earth's L1 (roughly 4X further away than it's current orbital trek) is
going to take a good century or more, and therefore I'm not imposing
an overnight change to whatever terrestrial life that we know of
that's attached its life endurance to that existing lunar cycle and
ocean tidal issues.

There will be some unfortunate extinctions of life which simply can
not adapt, though hopefully humanity will not become one of those.
However, at the very same time, other existing species that are
currently finding it downright difficult or nearly impossible to
survive as is, as such will likely bloom or otherwise better populate
under the conditions of having less terrestrial trauma to deal with.

A measured reduction in global warming (in good part due to the solar
isolation afforded by the moon itself), along with having accomplished
much less gravity/tidal trauma taking place (inside and out), is what
should by rights benefit most all known species of life on Earth
(hopefully just short of bringing on another ice age).

What we honestly need for this daunting task is having that spendy
supercomputer running all of its parallel CPUs off the charts, doing
exactly whatever's necessary for figuring out what's doable, and
otherwise telling us whatever else needs to be avoided at all cost.
If you should happen to have such supercomputer access, and wouldn't
terribly mind running off a few of these weird ideas, as such I'd like
to see a few of those what-if results in 3D animation.
-
Brad Guth