I understand that we vary by millions of miles in distance from the sun. What I was saying was that if the MAXIMUM distance was changed to be further than it ever has been, or the MINIMUM distance was changed to be closer than it ever has been before. That was the statement. I DO know some things about our planetary formations. I know that the tilt goes back and forth and that the tilt changes all the time. This is how we get our seasons. What I was saying is that if the tilt continued outward from the sun during winter past the point that it tilts normally, and kept going. It would get to a point that things would be too cold here to support life. Or am I still off base here?
I know that the earth tilts back and forth causing the seasons we have
Um, no. That's not why we have seasons. We have seasons because the earth is at a roughly 23 degree angle tilt. It keeps that same tilt (generally speaking).
S U................../Earth (northern hemisphere has winter) N
...................................................................S /Earth (northern hemisphere has summer) U ...................................................................N
Notice how the tilt is the same in both seasons? What's changed is what part of the earth is getting the most direct sunlight. In our winter, the southern hemisphere gets more sunlight. The opposite is true for summer.
We do not have seasons because the earth tilts back and forth. We have seasons because the tilt changes which part of the earth gets more direct sunlight at one point in the revolution than another.
You're an aerospace engineer? Hard to believe you're making this kind of basic error.
Edited by kuresu, : stupid formatting. does bDoard not like empty space?
who told you I'm an aerospace engineer? By the tilting of the earth causing the northern or southern hemispheres to get more or less direct sunlight, or vice versa, this is simply saying that the tilt is the reason we have different seasons. This is very common knowledge. What you are saying is true too. I was just simplifying it by saying the tilt is the reason the sunlight is different, hence, the seasons.
I understand that we vary by millions of miles in distance from the sun. What I was saying was that if the MAXIMUM distance was changed to be further than it ever has been, or the MINIMUM distance was changed to be closer than it ever has been before.
I am far from an expert, but what I have done to come up with an answer is to look at the other planets to see if there is some correlation. Take Venus, Earth, and Mars -
Perihelion : 108 , 149 , 206
Aphelion : 108 , 152 , 249
Mean Temp : 464 , 15 , -65
Just looking at distance compared to temp you would expect a larger change in the mean temp comparing Mars and Earth, than Venus to Earth, yet thats not what is shown. There is only about an 80 degree difference for Earth and Mars but over 400 degrees comparing Earth and Venus. Distance, though having an effect, does not seem to be the major factor in understanding the average temperatures. The atmosphere (or lack of) and axial tilt, I would suggest, are the more important factors.
Mercury, though roughly half the distance to the Sun as Venus has only 167 degree mean temp. Less than half the temp even though its closer. Distance vs. temperature simply does not show drastic changes as you would expect.
In your previous messages, you keep saying that if the Minimum or Maximum were to change then life couldn't exist. The word 'some' isn't very useful in this context. Does 'some' = 50 million km, or does 'some' = 50,000 km or 50 km? Give us something real we can prove or refute? 'Some' only gives you the opportunity to play "change the goal posts". You might be very correct in your first statement, depending on the value you assign to 'some'.
In any case this is getting off the topic of why there is no (known) life on the moon. How can we further the original topic?
No, you said the earth tilts back and forth and that this causes the seasons.
I know that the earth tilts back and forth causing the seasons we have
There's a difference between saying the earth is at a tilt and that this causes the seasons and saying that the earth tilts back and forth and that this causes the seasons.
The difference? The earth really doesn't tilt back and forth. When it does change its tilt it's due to a wobble. The end effect, though, is that the earth is tilted at 23.5 degrees during our summer and 23.5 degrees during our winter.
From you statement, it would seem like we're at 23.5 degrees during our summer and -23.5 degrees during our winter.
Gotta be careful with words and word choice. You're a mathemetician, so you should understand the need to be precise.
As to the areospace engineer bit--I'm confusing you with someone else in this thread who claimed they were. On a second (and more) lookthrough, I see you only claim to be a mathemetician. So I revise my statement. You're a mathemetician? Hard to believe you're getting this basic thing wrong.
"some" wouldn't have to be much, I'm thinking maybe like 1,000 miles? Which in the grand scheme of things isn't much. If you consider how fragile our environment is with respect to how easily the climates can change with even a few degrees in the ocean temperature, a thousand miles towards or away from the sun could make a huge difference on earth. At least that is what makes sense to me.
Ok, so I looked up some websites about the tilt. I guess I was wrong. How I managed to go my whole life thinking that the earth tilted back and forth to create seasons, I don't know (Ha!) But, I could still reformulate my statement. What if the tilt of 23.5 degrees changed to 25 degrees? How much difference would that make?
And the fact that the northern hemisphere is closer to the sun during its winter somehow escapes you?
The earth is closer to the sun by more than 1000 miles during the northern hemisphere winter than during the northern hemisphere summer.
Or did you mean that a different tilt would put the north pole 1000 miles further away from the sun? Since you're the mathemetician (and more importantly, because its your claim), go find out what that new tilt would be.
"some" wouldn't have to be much, I'm thinking maybe like 1,000 miles?
I think I see what you're getting at with respect to life on the moon. While the moon's distance from the sun averages the same as the earth's distance, its maximum difference is about 200,000 miles farther and its minimum distance is about 200,000 miles closer.
The moon's climate would have higher high temperatures and lower low temperatures than earth if it had an atmosphere. Since it doesn't, the temperature dynamics are much different.
On earth, the atmosphere and the oceans absorb energy from the sun and act as a "buffer" to moderate temperatures. Heat absorbed when we are close to the sun is released when we are farther away. Thus, the change in distance from the sun has less effect than might be expected.
When you come right down to it, though, the moon has no life because of the lack of oxygen and water, not because of the extreme climate.
Edited by Ringo, : Removed inappropriate subtitle.
Then I would have to say you were very much wrong, as per the arguments already presented and documented previously. You do realize that's about 1/8 of the earths diameter? That's .0000107% closer than we are now, on average...
I just meant that if the tilt was more than 23.5degrees, like say 25? How much difference would that make in the temperature of the earth?
This seems to be the first time you've stepped away from being defensive of a rediculous claim and really asked a legitimate question.
The answer is there will definitely be changes in the Earth's climates, but such changes would not be enough to kill all life on Earth. Life on Earth have endured drastic climate changes before. Geological evidence have shown us that the planet have gone through dozens of ice ages.
We also know that the Earth wobbles slowly, changing it's tilt angle from time to time. How do we know this? One of the most in-your-face evidence of this are the monuments ancient people built to keep track of the seasons. If we use these ancient calendars today, we'd notice that they are off. Like I said before, we can either assume that people back then were idiots who didn't notice that their devices to measure the seasons were off or we can see this as evidence that the Earth's tilt angle was different back then.
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
I understand that our distance from the sun changes drastically during it's revolution. Everybody keeps saying that. What if that maximum distance of 152.5 million km was changed to 153 million km. That's what I'm talking about. I always knew our earth's distance from the sun varied. A statement like "If the earth was further from the sun could cause catastrophic damage" implies that the MAXIMUM distance be increased obviously because we have a varied distance. Now do you understand what I'm saying?
Everybody keeps saying that. What if that maximum distance of 152.5 million km was changed to 153 million km. That's what I'm talking about.
Quick exercise: the energy from the sun that is usable is proportional to 1 over the square of the distance, so the change in energy available at any point would be changed by 152.52/1532 = 99.35% on the average. A rather minuscule change, and you can see that the climate on the earth varies by more than that from globe to the equator.