Thread: 30-Year Cold Spell Strikes Earth

Originally Posted by Ausfree

Eevo can you explain what you mean. I am to understand the Ecliptic is the apparent path the Sun traces against the background stars,as viewed from the Earth. I am trying to figure out what that has to do with the Earth warming up or cooling down?????

im trying to work out what Hall was talking about. it sounded like he was describing the ecliptic but that doesnt make sence, so im trying to clarify.

what i should of asked, is if he was referring to the inclination of orbit relative to the sun's equator

Originally Posted by Eevo

ive reread both your posts. what bit are you referring to?

The link to the bit that clearly shows Lucie Green is a woman (and other information about Lucie). This leads me to suspect you have not fully explored my post and only "cherry picked" for your response.
Hey, there is nothing wrong with that but, knowing you have achieved certain academic achievements, I would have thought you would have been interested in the academic achievements of someone whose opinion you appear to be dismissing.

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

The link to the bit that clearly shows Lucie Green is a woman (and other information about Lucie). This leads me to suspect you have not fully explored my post and only "cherry picked" for your response.
Hey, there is nothing wrong with that but, knowing you have achieved certain academic achievements, I would have thought you would have been interested in the academic achievements of someone whose opinion you appear to be dismissing.

i only read what you posted, i didnt look at the link.
and i wouldnt say im dismissing it. im keeping an open mind that it might not be the only information/theory available.
120 years ago physicists thought we knew everything about physics. newtonian mechanics was the final answer. we now know better.

Originally Posted by Eevo

im trying to work out what Hall was talking about. it sounded like he was describing the ecliptic but that doesnt make sence, so im trying to clarify.

what i should of asked, is if he was referring to the inclination of orbit relative to the sun's equator

Now, that makes more sense!!!!

Originally Posted by Eevo

i only read what you posted, i didnt look at the link.
and i wouldnt say im dismissing it. im keeping an open mind that it might not be the only information/theory available.
120 years ago physicists thought we knew everything about physics. newtonian mechanics was the final answer. we now know better.

Yes, an even SOME of Einsteins theories (brilliant they may be) are starting to get a wobble up. But science is progressing all the time.

Any chance of this cooling happening soon?, Bob

I however didn't study stellar evolution at uni, so I'm happy to be corrected.

Originally Posted by Eevo

i agree, however thats an extreme example.
if we instead say drop the suns output by 1%, what would be the result on earths global weather?

I would think only a small percentage of the sun's output reaches the earth. Say for arguments sake that was 1% (you should enlighten us as to the true amount). Then if the sun's output was reduced by 1% the reduction seen on earth would be 0.001%, would it not?

Originally Posted by Eevo

i know thats what i was taught at school and it was named the greenhouse effect but since then there has been research casting doubt on that theory.

in the distant past when earth was warming up, co2 levels only rose hundreds of years AFTER the warming, not before. this might indicate that the greenhouse effect doesnt work like we thought it did. what i understand its not conclusive though, it just points to something not being correct in the current greenhouse theory.

Not necessarily so! I think your logic is flawed.

The conclusions I would draw are, from only considering what you have posted:

1. the rise in temperature in that distant past event you cite, had some cause possibly not related to CO2 levels.

2. that particular pre-historical event doesn't make warming due to increased levels of CO2 unlikely. I don't see how you conclude that it does, or the current theory incorrect.

Originally Posted by lr110qld

I however didn't study stellar evolution at uni, so I'm happy to be corrected.


I would think only a small percentage of the sun's output reaches the earth. Say for arguments sake that was 1% (you should enlighten us as to the true amount). Then if the sun's output was reduced by 1% the reduction seen on earth would be 0.001%, would it not?



Not necessarily so! I think your logic is flawed.

The conclusions I would draw are, from only considering what you have posted:

1. the rise in temperature in that distant past event you cite, had some cause possibly not related to CO2 levels.

2. that particular pre-historical event doesn't make warming due to increased levels of CO2 unlikely. I don't see how you conclude that it does, or the current theory incorrect.

No if the Sun output reduced by 1% we would get 1% less than previously,

I think the point is there are many variables to Global Warming or Cooling, C02, Water vapor, Sun activity, axis of the earth, volcanic activity, (e.g Krakatoa) so its not cut and dried to say CO2 is the culprit, although it is probably the biggest induced human factor, although i would not discount RFC's (?) and the damage they did.