Freeforester
Well-Known Member
The devil being in the details.
1 We agree that the Sun varies in distance from Earth, as both bodies have non concentric but rather variable orbits; so far, hopefully so good.; the ‘relatively static’ nature of the energy received is hotly’
disputed, however. The Sun’s own little dance varies up to two diameters width of the star - and volume wise, our Earth would fit into the Sun some 1,3 million times, so it is large. The amount of energy emitted by the Sun varies, as can be observed and measured, this has been observed for centuries, and explains the various warmer and cooler periods of Earth’s climate. All previous warming periods (there have of course been many) have not been significantly affected by the carbon dioxide levels of the Earths atmosphere.
This warming and cooling intervals are also exacerbated (or mitigated somewhat) according to the position/distance of the Sun according to its proximity to Earth
A difference of two diameters of the Sun is significant, but between 1600-2600 we are actually going through a phase of getting gradually less distant to the Sun, due to its closer proximity to tje Earth due to its varying orbit and gravitational pull of the planets ) its a celestial mechanics thing, but stick with it - every other star observed with planets wobbles in exactly the same way, see again Tom Nelson podcast nr 42 and 278 (- around 1 hour in on No 42). This eccentric orbit of the Sun is confirmed by the Paris Madone and Royal Belgian astronomers, as well as NASA, but perhaps not by the Tring Observatory. Be this as it may, it is the energy output of the Sun which is predicted to lessen beyond this the second ‘Gnevyshev’ peak within the current solar cycle. This is explained in detail by Professor Zharlova in both videos , though is again ignored by our Stringfellow. This his contention that tje energy output of the Sun is relatively static - but were this the case, all previous short term fluctuations in climate would not have occurred, which is contrary to the observed and recorded evidence.
Even Bill Gates acknowledges the con has run its course, but news of this development appears to have passed by the tropic of Tring.
Here again for the intelligent is the information. Beyond 2050 it will be the case that tje Sun will continue to draw closer to Earth but this has Zero to do with carbon dioxide levels, as previously explained. Try around 54:30
and onward for the nature and extent of the influence of the Sun’s proximity relative to Earth, for the ‘how the energy of the Sun varies relative to the interaction of its two slightly different wave oscillations’, best start at the beginning. See also podcast 278 which also explains the mechanics in some detail.
Not long to find out either way…
What you believe about carbon dioxide, man made or otherwise, won’t change matters one jot, apart from on your energy bills. Imagine a situation where people are somehow convinced that by giving their money to the Government, it will then go and change the climate
‘Think of sitting in a conservatory on a sunny day and turning a heater on. It gets hotter!!’ - thing is, you’re conflating carbon dioxide with heat - they ain’t the same, otherwise the garden centres which raise carbon dioxide levels in order to green up plants they’re selling would
become intolerably warm, and submarines would cook their occupants, which is clearly nonsense. Like your argument really.
1 We agree that the Sun varies in distance from Earth, as both bodies have non concentric but rather variable orbits; so far, hopefully so good.; the ‘relatively static’ nature of the energy received is hotly’
disputed, however. The Sun’s own little dance varies up to two diameters width of the star - and volume wise, our Earth would fit into the Sun some 1,3 million times, so it is large. The amount of energy emitted by the Sun varies, as can be observed and measured, this has been observed for centuries, and explains the various warmer and cooler periods of Earth’s climate. All previous warming periods (there have of course been many) have not been significantly affected by the carbon dioxide levels of the Earths atmosphere.This warming and cooling intervals are also exacerbated (or mitigated somewhat) according to the position/distance of the Sun according to its proximity to Earth
A difference of two diameters of the Sun is significant, but between 1600-2600 we are actually going through a phase of getting gradually less distant to the Sun, due to its closer proximity to tje Earth due to its varying orbit and gravitational pull of the planets ) its a celestial mechanics thing, but stick with it - every other star observed with planets wobbles in exactly the same way, see again Tom Nelson podcast nr 42 and 278 (- around 1 hour in on No 42). This eccentric orbit of the Sun is confirmed by the Paris Madone and Royal Belgian astronomers, as well as NASA, but perhaps not by the Tring Observatory. Be this as it may, it is the energy output of the Sun which is predicted to lessen beyond this the second ‘Gnevyshev’ peak within the current solar cycle. This is explained in detail by Professor Zharlova in both videos , though is again ignored by our Stringfellow. This his contention that tje energy output of the Sun is relatively static - but were this the case, all previous short term fluctuations in climate would not have occurred, which is contrary to the observed and recorded evidence.
Even Bill Gates acknowledges the con has run its course, but news of this development appears to have passed by the tropic of Tring.
Here again for the intelligent is the information. Beyond 2050 it will be the case that tje Sun will continue to draw closer to Earth but this has Zero to do with carbon dioxide levels, as previously explained. Try around 54:30
and onward for the nature and extent of the influence of the Sun’s proximity relative to Earth, for the ‘how the energy of the Sun varies relative to the interaction of its two slightly different wave oscillations’, best start at the beginning. See also podcast 278 which also explains the mechanics in some detail.
Not long to find out either way…
What you believe about carbon dioxide, man made or otherwise, won’t change matters one jot, apart from on your energy bills. Imagine a situation where people are somehow convinced that by giving their money to the Government, it will then go and change the climate
‘Think of sitting in a conservatory on a sunny day and turning a heater on. It gets hotter!!’ - thing is, you’re conflating carbon dioxide with heat - they ain’t the same, otherwise the garden centres which raise carbon dioxide levels in order to green up plants they’re selling would
become intolerably warm, and submarines would cook their occupants, which is clearly nonsense. Like your argument really.
Last edited:
