30-Year Cold Spell Strikes Earth

**AndyG** · 19th November 2014, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by Ausfree

That 1% reduction in the Sun's output is the total output that is radiated into space for 360 degrees around the Sun. The Earth does not completely surround the Sun in only occupies a small quadrant. Therefore the reduced amount it would receive would be far less than a 1% reduction as suggested by an earlier poster.

I don't see that, we would receive a constant percentage of the suns output as the size of our receiving surface does not change, so if the sun cranked up by 10%, it would out put 10% more in all directions and we (the Earth) would get 10% more on our unchanged surface.

I am sure Eevo could prove it mathematically, but not this wood duck.

**bee utey** · 19th November 2014, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by Ausfree

That 1% reduction in the Sun's output is the total output that is radiated into space for 360 degrees around the Sun. The Earth does not completely surround the Sun in only occupies a small quadrant. Therefore the reduced amount it would receive would be far less than a 1% reduction as suggested by an earlier poster.

Does this mean that the Earth shrinks when it cools down? Must do according to your geometry lesson.

And I didn't know that a sphere's area is measured in degrees, I thought that was for circles or something...

**StephenF10** · 19th November 2014, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by Ausfree

That 1% reduction in the Sun's output is the total output that is radiated into space for 360 degrees around the Sun. The Earth does not completely surround the Sun in only occupies a small quadrant. Therefore the reduced amount it would receive would be far less than a 1% reduction as suggested by an earlier poster.

No. The output of all emitted radiation would reduce by 1%, including the bit that affects the earth.

**rangietragic** · 19th November 2014, 04:42 PM

Lets not forget that it is no longer called"global warming" but "climate change"due to the fact that their computer models were wrong and the earth is in fact cooling a little

**vnx205** · 19th November 2014, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by rangietragic

.... ..... ..... the earth is in fact cooling a little

Who told you that? Alan Jones?

These sites disagree with you.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
The top ten global warming 'skeptic' arguments answered | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | The Guardian
‘Some sites show cooling’–But you can’t draw global conclusions from individual*sites | Grist

**boa** · 19th November 2014, 05:46 PM

Australia moves 1 inch north from memory every year due to tectonics plate movement. As well as other things if you move something from one place to another it changes things. Do the computer models allow for this. Also can't find it now but I think it was the planet Mercury has had a change in its environment recently. From the story I read they were not sure why. If the sun has changed we would not be the only planet to experience a change in its environment?

**D110V8D** · 19th November 2014, 05:52 PM

1: Convince the population of a crisis.

2: Convince the population they can make a change

3: Population is convinced they have created the problem and they need to change.

4: Population works hard to change, spends heaps of money on change, feels good about change. Those who don't change are rejected.......so they change too.

5: Worlds elite rub hands together and sit back watching bank accounts grow further.

6: UN's Agenda 21 is implemented, without protest, because population is convinced (has convinced itself) it's a good thing.

7: NWO

For the record I listen to 2gb, 3aw podcasts and Jon Faine (ABC) each and everyday for a balanced diet.

**nugge t** · 20th November 2014, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by vnx205

Who told you that? Alan Jones?

These sites disagree with you.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
The top ten global warming 'skeptic' arguments answered | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | The Guardian
‘Some sites show cooling’–But you can’t draw global conclusions from individual*sites | Grist

Greenpeace co-founder Dr Patrick Moore..

Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore:

Of course the ABC couldn't quite manage to fit him onto their tight schedule but luckily most other media outlets did/

kenleyfred · 21st November 2014, 06:48 AM

Dr Patrick Moore had a lengthy interview with Steve Austin on the ABC about a week ago or so.
Much of his argument was pooh pooed by Dr Karl yesterday.
Not saying I agree with either, just pointing out that Dr Moore did get ABC airtime.
Kenley

**TerryO** · 21st November 2014, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

A quote from Lucie Green, a Royal Society fellow at the Mullard space facility:

It will have a small cooling effect, but from speaking to people who do climate studies, the cooling effect is not going to be able to outweigh the global warming that we have at the moment. So yes, the Sun, when it gets dimmer it will not be providing us with as much energy, so the consequence of the Earth from that will be cooling, but then you got all these other factors playing out as well; greenhouse effect, trapping of radiation. So I don't think that the cooling of the Sun will in any way counteract the global warming we have.

If someone has to ask other people in another field to be able to comment on a topic then they are not an expert in that field. They are just another punter (well educated one in this case) trying to quote someone else on a topic they have an interest in. Being an expert in solar studies doesn't mean they know anymore about climate change than the average punter who reads a lot.

I have no doubt that we are going through a time of climate change and it more than likely is because of humans, but unless all the major emitters (worlds biggest country's) all agree on introducing the same expensive measures to curb it at the same time then if we mainly go it alone not only will it make no difference to the rate of climate change but our economy will be wrecked. We have a choice do little until all the rest do and stay a wealthy country or be at the front of the que and introduce expensive changes and run the risk of undermining our economy if our major trading partners don't follow.

Until all the worlds major economies agree to change then in my opinion we have no choice but to stay doing what we are right now and protect our economy.

Thread: 30-Year Cold Spell Strikes Earth

Thread Tools

There are to many variations.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions