http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphelion
July 4, 2009, Earth Aphelion approaches
Earth Perihelion is the date on which the earth is closest to the sun. That
date changes from year to year. The last Earth Perihelion was January 4,
2009. On that date the radiant energy that the earth received from the Sun
was greater than on any other day of the year. Too bad it is past
Earth Aphelion is the date on which earth is farthest from the Sun. Next
aphelion is July 4, 2009. On that date the amount of radiant energy that the
earth receives from the Sun is less than on any other day of the year.
REPOST:
Let's do some high school math shall we. At Earth Aphelion the earth is at a
distance of 1.0167103335 astronomical units, AU from the Sun. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
At Earth Perihelion the earth is at a distance of 0.9832898912 AU from the
Sun.
Radiance follows an inverse square law. This can be extremely dramatic if
you do flash photography. Under an inverse square law radiance drops off by
a factor of four if you double the distance from the light source. Hence, in
flash photography objects in the background appear to be in the dark.
The ratio of the two distances above is 1.033988392. Taking the square and
then the inverse we get 0.9353382
That means that during the course of a whole year the radiance that the
earth receives from the Sun varies by ~6.5%. Compa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_c...Solar_constant
"Solar constant"
"It is measured by satellite to be roughly 1366 watts per square meter
(W/m^2), though this fluctuates by about 6.9% during a year (from 1412 W/m^2
in early January to 1321 W/m^2 in early July) due to the earth's varying
distance from the Sun, and typically by much less than one part per thousand
from day to day."
Those who are challenged by high school math, like Al Gore (a high school
failure), GISS NASA chief James E. Hansen (a computer programmer), Barack
Obama (JD in black liberation studies), should ask themselves how can a
"Solar constant" that varies by 90 W/m^2 over the course of a year, be
called a constant? What ****ing nonsense. Climatology is a ship of fools.
Now the real troubling thing is that people who have shown no proficiency in
high school math rule the UN, the US government and the IPCC. Some of them
even write readable articles in Wikipedia that may be of little note. Never
the less it is worthwhile to check some numbers given by people who can not
do high school math. Please read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:R...e-forcings.svg
If you are willing to believe the work of people who cannot do high school
math you can read the graph that says that the radiative forcing for all the
CO2 that is in the atmosphere right now, 380 ppm is only 1.5 W/m^2.
The so called greenhouse effect, 1.5 W/m^2 in total, is a triviality
compared to 90 W/m^2. $100 billions has been spent studying putative small
increments in a number which is trivially small, even if you do believe in
the work of monkeys.
Our leaders cannot do high school math. We are ruled by monkeys. We are
****ed. We're doomed.
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:kJrpl.588379$yE1.488044@attbi_s21...
In sci.physics kiloVolts
mantrap@r1w4u5t5s0s3a4s6e3f5g6rh4h5d4q2a3s2ax7a2d 5y6j1z4s.com
wrote:
February 25, 2009
The face of the Sun is without blemish:
http://mdisas.nascom.nasa.gov/gif_he...t_igram_fd.gif
Not so, buster--The Sun has 14 countable sun spots as we speak.
Ref: 2008 Global Surface Temperature in GISS Analysis
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailin...emperature.pdf
"Solar irradiance: the solar irradiance remains low (Figure 4), at the
lowest
level in the period since satellite measurements began in the late 1970s,
and
the time since the prior solar minimum is already 12 years, two years longer
than the prior two cycles. This has led some people to speculate that we may
be entering a “Maunder Minimum” situation, a period of reduced irradiance
that could last for decades. Most solar physicists expect the irradiance to
begin to pick up in the next several months – there are indications, from
the
polarity of the few recent sunspots, that the new cycle is beginning.
"However, let’s assume that the solar irradiance does not recover: in that
case, the negative forcing, relative to the mean solar irradiance is
equivalent to seven years of CO2 increase at current growth rates. So do not
look for a new “Little Ice Age” in any case!
"Assuming that the solar irradiance begins to recover this year, as
expected,
there is still some effect on the likelihood of a near-term global
temperature
record due to the unusually prolonged solar minimum. Because of the large
thermal inertia of the ocean, the surface temperature response to the 10-12
year solar cycle lags the irradiance variation by 1-2 years. Thus, relative
to the mean, i.e, the hypothetical case in which the sun had a constant
average irradiance, actual solar irradiance will continue to provide a
negative
anomaly for the next 2-3 years".