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.

"Eric Swanson" wrote in message
...
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.

So what's the answer? It's not just the baby kissing politicians, it's the
university
professors that throw the **** into the fan. What will the ISS be used for?
For dorks to go looking for dork matter.

"The station is also anticipating a particle physics experiment, called the
Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS). This device will be launched on STS-134
in 2010, and will be mounted externally on the Integrated Truss Structure.
The AMS will search for various types of unusual matter by measuring cosmic
rays. The experiments conducted will help researchers study the formation of
the universe, and search for evidence of dark matter and antimatter."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna..._Space_Station

On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 07:03:39 -0700, "Eric Swanson"
wrote:

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.
You should get your facts straight. The Solar Constant is calculated
at the earth's average distance from the sun. It is a constant.
(Unless one takes into account the small variation in solar output).
I learned this when pursuing a degree in Meteorology at Texas A&M in
the late 60's and 70's. I also learned it is approximately 2.0
Langley's/minute.
It is also measured at the top of the earth's atmosphere where the
atmosphere and earths's tilt have no effect.
It also seems to me that your remarks are more politically motivated
than a scientific critique of the presidents statement.
Harold A Climer
Dept. Of Physics Geology, and Astronomy
U.T, Chattanooga
Rm. 406A Engineering, Math & Computer Science Building
615 McCallie Ave. Chattanooga TN 37403