It's the angle the sunlight strikes your region that controls the seasons; the changed distance of a few thousand km is insignificant.
This is grade-school stuff.
O.K. Columbo, now stick to the point and answer to this:
Bravo Columbo, now how come that despite a deadly synergy Southerners are still alive?
If you didn't understand, deadly synergy is about this:
1. In January (southern summer) the Earth is allegedly :
A) closer to the Sun 5 000 000 km than in June
B) Southern "hemisphere" is tilted towards the Sun
2. In June (southern winter) the Earth is allegedly:
A) farther from the Sun 5 000 000 than in January
B) Southern "hemisphere" is tilted away from the Sun
Get it?
If you still don't get it, try to compare above "deadly synergy" theoretical (since it doesn't exist in reality) case with another theoretical case which concerns northern "hemisphere". Let's call it "moderate situation" case...
1. In January the Earth is allegedly:
A) closer to the Sun
B) BUT Northern "hemisphere" is tilted away from the Sun
So B ("tilted away") cancels out A (closer to the Sun) and there is no deadly synergy
2. In June the Earth is allegedly:
A) farther from the Sun
B) BUT Northern "hemisphere" is tilted towards the Sun
So B ("tilted towards") cancels out A (farther away from the Sun) and there is no deadly synergy AGAIN!!!
HOWEVER, IN REALITY THERE IS NO SUCH DISCREPANCY (WHATSOEVER), BETWEEN NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN SEASONS!!!
No one can refute this striking argument against HC and RET!!!
Do you really think that this modern HC version adds up more than old one : The Earth is Hottest When It Is Furthest From the Sun On Its Orbit, Not When It Is Closest CAN YOU BELIEVE WHAT YOU READ??? http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2011/12/the-earth-is-hottest-when-it-is-furthest-from-the-sun-on-its-orbit-not-when-it-is-closest/
And if so, why?
This sounds suspiciously like what I referred to in the previous reply. Remember this?
water can absorb vastly more heat for a given rise in temperature than soil and rock - by a factor of 4 or 5 per unit mass. So, no, more seawater absorbing radiation will moderate the temperature rise, not amplify it.
So, it sounds like I was right. Since most of the land is concentrated in the northern hemisphere and land becomes warmer than the oceans even with slightly less energy available, the northern summers get hotter than southern summers.
That's a great link! Thanks for posting it. This is why I stick around - to learn things.
The real truth is perfectly explained in FET:
When the Sun moves slower (in June) in inner circuit above the Earth there is more heating, because there is more time which Sun spends above the Earth, when the Sun moves faster (in January) in outer circuit above the Earth there is less heating because there is less time which Sun spends above the Earth.
Wait... where is the Sun if it's not above the flat Earth? Does it go behind the disc, leaving the whole world in darkness at the same time? There must be a problem with your idea because there's pretty good evidence that this doesn't happen.
I presume you mean the Sun spends more time above a given area in the northern hemisphere? Let's take a look at that.
The unipolar flat-earth "maps" typically discussed here have the north pole at the center of a disc-shaped earth, with the equator midway between pole and rim; this seems to be what you're describing here. If so, the "outside" part of your world (between equator and rim) has three times the area as the "inner" part (inside the equator).
If the Sun spends equal time on each side of the equator (actually it's little less south [outside], but let's ignore that for this part of the discussion), then, unless the intensity changes, it will have to
spread the same amount of energy over three times the area outside the equator. So why isn't the southern hemisphere completely frozen?
Your "perfect" explanation seems to have a significantly major problem.
Why three times the area, you may ask? Great question!
Let's call the radius of our flat world (distance from pole to rim) R.
The area, A, of a circle with radius R is the well-known (if you didn't sleep through math for the last half of your education)
A = pi R2
where pi is, of course, the well-known (if you didn't sleep...) ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, approximately 3.14159265.
The radius of the equator is R/2 (one-half of R) because, remember, the equator is halfway out from the pole to the rim and the distance from pole to rim is R (since that's the radius of our flat world).
Still with me? Good!
Now, the area, call it a, of the smaller circle (with radius R/2) is
a = pi (R/2)2
From algebra, remember (if you didn't sleep...) that (R/2)2 = R2 / 4, so
a = pi R2/4
Now, since pi R2 is our old friend A, we can just substitute him
a = A/4
Which is exactly 1/4 of our value for A. Since the area inside the equator is 1/4 of the area of the entire flat world, the the part outside the equator is what's left.
1 - 1/4 = 3/4.
3/4 is three times 1/4. So that's where that came from.
If the Sun shined with the same intensity when circling in outer circuit as it shines while circling in inner circuit then Southerners would have great problems with heating, that is why the Sun heats the Earth with more intensity when moves faster in January!
If the Sun shined with the same intensity when circling in outer circuit as it shines while circling in inner circuit and the areas were the same, why would soutnerners have problems with heating? Wouldn't it have to be the same since the intensity and areas are the same? Instead, according to your link, it should be 7%, greater. OK, but that 7% increase is vastly offset by a 67% reduction, so instead they have the opposite problem, since almost the same sun has to warm three times as much area. Brrr...
In addition:
A letter from a correspondent in New Zealand, dated, "Nelson, September 15th, 1857," contains the following passages:
"Even in summer, people here have no notion of going without fires in the evening; but then, though the days are very warm and sunny, the nights are always cold. For seven months last summer, we had not one day that the sun did not shine as brilliantly as it does in England in the finest day in June; and though it has more power here, the heat is not nearly so oppressive. . . But then there is not the twilight which you get in England. Here it is light till about eight o'clock, then, in a few minutes, it becomes too dark to see anything, and the change comes over in almost no time."
The motion of the sun over the vast southern region, wherein lies Australia and New Zealand, would also give shorter days in the south than in the north, and this is fully corroborated by experience. In the pamphlet above referred to, by Mr. Swainson, the following words occur:
"The range of temperature is limited, there being no excess of either heat or cold; compared with the climate of England, the summer of New Zealand is but very little warmer though considerably longer. . . . The seasons are the reverse of those in England. Spring commences in September, summer in December, autum in April, and winter in June. . . .
It gets darker more quickly in summer at lower latitudes once the Sun sets because the sun's elevation angle drops more quickly. This is an effect of the spherical earth. NZ is about 15° closer to the equator than England.
The climate at a given location depends on more than just its latitude. Ocean and air currents are caused by uneven heating of the surface and act to distribute heat around the globe. The climate of islands like Britain and New Zealand are heavily influenced by the temperature of the ocean, which depends in large part on ocean currents. The Gulf Stream keeps the British Isles warmer than they otherwise would be; New Zealand is affected, at least in part, by the large and cold Antarctic Ocean, so the climates can be expected to be different.
The days are an hour shorter at each end of the day in summer, and an hour longer in the winter than in England."
This is what you'd expect since Britain is at about 15° higher latitude than New Zealand - the higher latitude makes for a bigger change in length of day and night. Spherical earth.
From a work on New Zealand, by Arthur S. Thompson, Esq., M.D., the following sentences are quoted:---
"The summer mornings, even in the warmest parts of the colony, are sufficiently fresh to exhilarate without chilling; and the seasons glide imperceptibly into each other.
Oceans moderate the temperature. Ocean temperature depends to a great extent on the local currents.
The days are an hour shorter at each end of the day in summer, and an hour longer in winter than in England."
Yes, you already said that.
It's the angle the sunlight strikes your region that controls the seasons; the changed distance of a few thousand km is insignificant.
Does this mean that the changed distance of a few millions km is insignificant also, bearing in mind that the angles are the same??? http://www.energeticforum.com/258318-post199.html
This is easy enough to check.
Over the course of a year the average solar radiation arriving at the top of the Earth's atmosphere at any point in time is roughly 1366 W/m
2 [
Wikipedia]
So, ignoring the atmosphere, when the Sun is directly overhead, 1 m
2 of horizontal ground will receive 1366 Watts of power from the sun.
Your linked article says this varies about 7% over the year due to the changing distance to the Sun, so let's use that.
Meanwhile, at a latitude of 45° the amount of power would vary from a high of
1366 W/m
2 cos(45°-23.5°) = 1366 W/m
2 cos(21.5°)
= (1366 W/m
2) (0.930)
= 1270 W/m
2To a low of
1366 W/m
2 cos(45°+23.5°) = 1366 W/m
2 cos(68.5°)
= (1366 W/m
2) (0.367)
= 501 W/m
2This is a change of 153% going from lowest to highest. Which do you think will be more significant: 7% change due to a change of distance of about 5,000,000 km (OMG!!!! That's five million km!!!), or a change of 153% due to the changing angle due to the seasonal angle of the sun? Me? I think the 7% change due to the changing distance is far less significant than the 153% change due to the seasons.