Global Warming/Climate Change 2

[hhfarang]

Equatorial zones have seasons? News to me. We are a bit far from the equator and the only two seasons I've seen here is hot and wet and hot and dry...

I call a place with seasons someplace that has a hot summer a cold (with snow) winter and a spring full of new growth and flowers, and a fall with colorful leaves. That's the thing I miss here the most... seasons!

Even one of the Thai Miss Universe contestants when asked about her home country said there are three seasons, hot, hotter, and really hot.

[Winkie]

So let me get it straight in its elliptical orbit the earth being further from the sun in winter and nearer in summer has NOTHING to do with seasons

Quite Right! Let's examine a few facts that may help to make this more clear. First of all, let's agree on one thing, the Earth, as well as being in an orbit, is also spinning on it's own (tilted) Axis. The rotation takes approx 1 day.

Now, this year, on the 24 June, it was Midsummer's Day in the United Kingdom, Planet Earth. Therefore, according to your theory (not Milankovich), the Earth is at its closest to the Sun.... But wait a moment!

22 June this year was MidWinter's Day, in Australia, Planet Earth.

Woosh, did you feel that sudden shift in orbit? One day you could almost touch it, then, all of a sudden-like, there we are, an extra 3 Million miles away! All overnight!

But a tilt of about a thousand miles or so does

Who said that? Not me. Tilt (angular Displacement) is measured in Degrees, not Miles! Its nothing to do with distance.

In 'Summer' due to Axial Tilt, those points on Earth, let's refer to the Northern Hemisphere (United Kingdom) is pointing towards the sun, whilst, the Southern Hemisphere (Australia) is now pointing away from the sun.

As a more extreme (actually as realistically extreme as you can possibly get), Polar Summer and Winter. Complete 24hr Darkness in Winter, complete 24hr sunlight in Summer - is this because in Winter the earth is so far from the North Pole that no light can possibly reach it? But at the same time it's Summer in Australia, and blisteringly hot, with 16 hours of sunlight (because the Planet is so close to the sun?). Of course note, it's because of the Axial Inclination of the poles toward and away from the Sun.

IMHO that is totally illogical

Yes, I can see that, but there is not much I can do about that!

Please tell how far is the sun from earth in summer and how far in winter

I think you must agree that it's a rather bizarre question. If you refer to the centre of the earth, I would guess that this is a trick question, and the answer is 'the distance is the same". Because whenever it is Summer on our Planet, it is also 'Winter' in the other Hemisphere, so these measurements would need to be taken on the same day.

again IMHO a PALTRY 1,ooo miles is a small boys piss in the ocean when talking of the mega distances involved and certainly does not on its own explain one degree in winter and thirty plus degrees in summer

Sure, agree completely.... In summer, some days are hot, some days are quite cold. Some mornings are quite cold in summer, yet at lunch time can be quite hot. Are you telling me this is because the elliptical orbital trajectory of the planet has changes in a fews hours? Malankovich talks about a change in trajectory within a 95,000 yr cycle, not one that randomly jumps all over the countryside at will.


Would you not agree that Temperature is not the correct way to determine season? We have hot Winters, cold summers, Wet Summers, dry winters. Surely the only correct method to measure is daylight hours, Summer consistently has long daylight hours, whilst winter has consistently short daylight hours

and this constant nit picking debate confirms my hypothesis

If you consider the complete misrepresentation of facts, or even hypotheses, as nit picking, then I couldn't agree more.

BECAUSE THERE IS BUGGERALL MAN WILL DO ABOUT IT

Let's hope, for all of our sakes, that not everyone thinks like you

[sargeant]

I do apologise for slow delay to your question in your first reply to me

How do you know the earth would take the same time in a circular orbit? Is this another FACT? Or is it also a theory just like the Malankovich Hypothesis?

Before i answer let me say your axial tilt statements are very good but you did NOT read my post accurately

When in a very long time from now and the earth is in its circular orbit

Your axial tilt statements are accurate now in an elliptical orbit but now think about a circular orbit and my ball on a stick
The geological record and weather data records very much anecdotal evidence supporting Malankovics theory and as over 100 years noone has destroyed or proved it wrong i will go with it

Thanks HHF your post quite clearly shows there are seasons on the equator and they have very very little to do with axial tilt

So winkie to answer your first question in a single word VELOCITY

Woosh, did you feel that sudden shift in orbit?

thanks for supplying that gem.
No and i did not feel the earth slow down either and until i celebrate new years eve on the 30th of dec or my birthday disapears completely of off the calender i will stick with the earth traveling at the same speed

therefore the distance the earth travels in its elliptical orbt will remain the same in a circular orbit meaning

it will be the same distance from the sun 365 days a year and my research says 15 degrees hotter 365 days a year (unless circles have corners)

Steve had you gone for geo thermal energy i would have given it more credence put your hand about a foot above a solar panel and feel the heat reflected from it, i do it every time visit my new in laws farm

What is amazing is both GW sceptics and GW enthusiasts both avoid the depopulation question like the plague

I will stick to my Hypothesis right up til someone comes up with a way to move heaven and earth

So sit back and enjoy fire flood tempest wars famine and pestilence coming to your local area very very shortly

BECAUSE THERE IS BUGGERALL MAN WILL DO ABOUT IT

[Winkie]

Hi Sarge

Certainly is fun chatting, but we are drifting into areas that I certainly know very little about.

I have no real interest in doubting (or defending) that we are in an elliptical orbit that changes over a 95,000 yr cycle. Right or wrong, its fine with me, I will look forward to the ever-changing scenery as we drift by.

The origin of my first post was to simply point out that the below statement simply is incorrect.

As the earth goes from its elliptical orbit (one rotation takes one year) @ midsummer day the earth is at its nearest point to the sun at midwinters day it is at its furthest point from the sun those distances WILL change.
When in a very long time from now and the earth is in its circular orbit the distance from the sun @ midsummer (FURTHER FROM THE SUN THAN NOW) and midwinter (NEARER TO THE SUN THAN NOW) will be the same (one rotation takes one year) and there will be no nil nana seasons the temperature will be the same all year round

How can this be possible, when both midsummer's day (Northern Hemisphere) and midwinter's day (Southern Hemisphere) occur on almost exactly the same day in a given year? The Earth cannot be both the closest and the farthest from the Sun at the same time!

I'm not an Astrophysicist, and don't really care to me one, so do not really want to debate this much longer. Certainly I believe that what you indicate has significant bearing on the intensity (or lack of intensity) in the overall global temperature (during any season), but it does not create the seasons. If you believe that Summer and Winter are directly related to the proximity of the planet to the Sun, that's fine with me.

No and i did not feel the earth slow down either and until i celebrate new years eve on the 30th of dec or my birthday disapears completely of off the calender i will stick with the earth traveling at the same speed

Just as a little 'food for thought'. The Earth's velocity is NOT constant. It does accelerate and slow down, this too is touched upon in Malankovich Hypothesis, and certainly affects the duration of the seasons.

Before I sign off, did you like the use of colours in my first 'Sargeant Quote' above? I thought it added a nice warmy/cooly touch, to give an overall seasonal feel to my final post on this subject.

It's been fun

Take care

Winkie

[STEVE G]

Steve had you gone for geo thermal energy i would have given it more credence put your hand about a foot above a solar panel and feel the heat reflected from it, i do it every time visit my new in laws farm

Solar panels reflect heat because with present technology are less than 20% efficient so they actually reflect more energy than they absorb.
Reflected heat will have the effect of cooling the earth and it would help offset the loss of the Arctic ice cap which provides a large reflecting area or alternatively you can use active cooling systems to harvest that heat to provide additional energy.
Also if you put solar panels on top of your house in a hot country, that cooling effect will reduce the need for air conditioning.

[STEVE G]

What is amazing is both GW sceptics and GW enthusiasts both avoid the depopulation question like the plague

Perhaps that is because if you were to try and solve global warming by reducing the population, the most efficient way of doing that would be to start by getting rid of the highest per capita emmitters of C02 and they are often the people having the debate!

[STEVE G]

This article highlights how subsidies to the fossil fuel sector are serving to hold back development of clean energy by hiding the true cost of current energy production:

NSW's great big coal subsidy scandal
http://www.climatespectator.com.au/comm ... dy-scandal

[pharvey]

The BBC has dropped a climate change episode from its wildlife series Frozen Planet to help the show sell better abroad.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthn ... broad.html

[STEVE G]

The BBC has dropped a climate change episode from its wildlife series Frozen Planet to help the show sell better abroad.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthn ... broad.html

Apparently Discovery Channel decided that the fact that the Arctic was melting might upset their viewers in the US.

[Homer]

Another nail in the coffin.

From the Beeb:
CO2 climate sensitivity 'overestimated'

Global temperatures could be less sensitive to changing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels than previously thought, a study suggests.

The researchers said people should still expect to see "drastic changes" in climate worldwide, but that the risk was a little less imminent.

The results are published in Science.

http://1www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15858603

The NY Times had to report on this, after all they are the self styled 'Newspaper of Record'. True to their left partisan ways, they buried the story in a reporter's opinion blog.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/ ... te-to-co2/

[STEVE G]

Global warming 2°C target “no longer attainable”
http://www.insurancedaily.co.uk/2011/11 ... ttainable/

Munich Re reckons hopes of a successful conclusion to the world climate summit, which starts today in Durban, South Africa, are “extremely slim”.

Progress may be achieved in the second negotiating track, i.e. adaptation aid for the countries worst hit by climate change.

However, after the collapse of negotiations in Copenhagen two years’ ago, global warming issues would appear to be doomed to further failure in Durban, meaning the Kyoto Protocol will expire with no follow-up agreement.

Munich Re argues that the 2°C target that scientists consider the maximum for containing global warming within manageable limits is virtually no longer attainable.

The firm has been analysing climate change for nearly forty years and its database of natural catastrophes worldwide shows the number of registered loss occurrences from extreme weather increasing almost threefold since 1980.

The number of flood loss events has gone up by a factor of more than three and the number of windstorm natural catastrophes has more than doubled.

Whereas the increasing losses are primarily due to socio-economic developments (population growth, rising values, settlement patterns), the data probably cannot be fully explained without climate change, especially as the number of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and other geophysical events have only increased slightly.

Professor Peter Höppe, Head of Munich Re’s Geo Risks Research, comments: “It’s as if the weather machine had shifted up a gear.

“We believe that we can already see this in retrospect in our last 30 years’ data for some regions, although the most severe impacts of global warming are still to come.”

More positively, Munich Re does not believe a further failure at the Durban summit would spell the end of climate protection, as countries and companies increasingly see switching to renewable energy as a prime task.

They also increasingly understand the financial opportunities this presents.

The firm explains: “The changeover to renewables will be given strong backing in the next few years by the market and technical progress but this massive challenge can only be overcome if a core group of nations that have already set their climate goals now take the lead and concentrate their efforts on promoting renewable energy.”

[PeteC]

[John612]

Hi, Global warming is an important issue these days. Nowadays Crude oil usage is so much that it is going to finish in few years since it is a not a renewable energy resource, almost everyone knows that. Solar energy only seems to be next source of energy as it can be yielded at a large scale and it does not burn any fossil fuels, cleanest form of energy. There is a dire need to encourage renewable energy sources more.

[sandman67]

John

renewable optons go a lot further than just solar

wind farming is a good option that is taking off.....as long as NIMBY locals dont get in the way and whine about how the windmills spoil the view that they never before gave two hoots about. The funniest NIMBY lot are the US huntng lobbys who protest wind farm development because they kill birds....and so what do their members do when they blast away with their shotguns then?

wave / tide farming is in its early stages of development. Places where you get a high tidal thrust, such as the Bosphorus, are ideal for this.

geothermal is one of the most underexploited potentials. Although Iceland s visibly a massive success in the field uptake elsewhere...the US comes to mind.....is relatvely low

then theres the old solid hydro opton....as long as you actually then spend money maintaning dams and facilities.

The problem isnt a lack of viable options, its the lack of political willpower to get behind them and change. Our governments, stuck in the pockets of the oil companies, would rather carry on chucking money at the House of Saud for them to then fund Wahabiist hate mongers who set bombs off in our high streets.

The oil companies use corrupt media like Faux Nooz and the Torygraph to pollute any sensble debate with the misinformed public who are fed lie after lie under the "Climategate" brand...as has happened again most recently. The right winger skeptik nutballs have been shown to have lied and deliberately distorted the content of emails they hacked, yet it matters not for the damage is done and the publc misinformed yet again.

And round and round we go.

You go figure....its stumped me.

[STEVE G]

Energy balance points to man-made climate change
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/48057

"A climate model based on the "global energy balance" has provided new evidence for human-induced climate change, according to its creators. Using this simple model, researchers in Switzerland conclude that it is extremely likely (>95% probability) that at least 74% of the observed warming since 1950 has been caused by human activity."