Re: Democratic candidates address the issue of global warming while Republicans snooze...

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 18:24:22 -0800, Islander <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

<snip>


OK, I think that the two of you are talking about different things. My response to Jean had to do only with the change in the tilt of the earth's axis, not the difference in the distance of the earth from the sun.

The change in the tilt is a maximum of only 3 degrees and that occurs over a period of about 41K years. The specific cycles that Jean referred to happen over shorter cycles, but are still pretty long.

The change of distance between the earth and the sun is only about 4 million miles (95M at aphelion and 91M at perihelion. But, don't forget that the intensity of the sun's rays varies as a cube law (space is 3D). So, the difference in intensity between perihelion and aphelion as a percentage is (95M**3 - 91M**3)/95M**3 = 13%


Hmm. That's actually only as the square, isn't it? not the cube. It's true that the volume of a sphere increases by the cube of the
diameter, but when we receive light rays, we're not receiving them from the volume, but only from what portion of the spherical shell
containing the light emitted from the sun at a given instant in the
past falls on us or our measuring device. The surface area of such a shell increases by the square of the diameter, not the cube. (Disregarding any absorption by interstellar gas, of course.)

http://tinyurl.com/25dc9q

That correlates (and has to correlate) with the fact that the
apparent size of the sun in the sky diminishes by the square of the distance we are from it. The brightness per apparent unit area doesn't change (disregarding absorption), but the net luminosity received diminishes in proportion to the diminishing apparent size, which is the square of the distance.

The brightness of a distant star identical to the sun is the same (disregarding absorption) as the brightness we receive
from an "average" piece of the sun exactly the same area as the apparent size of the distant star (if we could make out the diameter of the star, which we usually can't).

<snip>



You are right! But, you are also younger. That was a dumb mistake, but at least I'm still young enough to admit it!

That reduces the difference to 8.2%
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Democratic candidates address the issue of global warming while Republicans snooze...
    ... The change of distance between the earth and the sun is only about 4 ... such a shell increases by the square of the diameter, ... The brightness per apparent ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Democratic candidates address the issue of global warming while Republicans snooze...
    ... The change of distance between the earth and the sun is only about 4 ... such a shell increases by the square of the diameter, ... apparent size of the sun in the sky diminishes by the square ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Feynmans fallacy
    ... Voyager effect would imply entraining a particular view with the sun so we ... > invariant, but local invariance can be centered at any ... > WRT cosmological distance. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Feynmans fallacy
    ... Voyager effect would imply entraining a particular view with the sun so we ... > invariant, but local invariance can be centered at any ... > WRT cosmological distance. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Feynmans fallacy
    ... Voyager effect would imply entraining a particular view with the sun so we ... > invariant, but local invariance can be centered at any ... > WRT cosmological distance. ...
    (sci.astro)