New tecknojoe said: ↑ I find it genuinely fascinating that the only people I know who believe the planet isn't experiencing an increase in average temperature, are die hard conservatives. Yet the study of climate patterns has nothing to do with American politics. I've always wondered why so many Liberals preach in favor of global warming when basically, from what I can tell, most of them have no clue about the facts of climate phenomena and are simply parroting what they hear from their heroes. A lot of them are just not smart enough to understand what they're advocating for.
The Sun has been circling the Earth exactly the same distance all this time. 2017 years exactly. Will continue to do so. Nothing changes. Climate included. Amen for that.
I find it genuinely fascinating that a majority of those with a liberal political bent give any credence to a theory espoused by a special interest group that has repeatedly presented them wildly inaccurate climate models based on data which has been cherry picked to validate said theory. If you accept their ideas as true on such shaky evidence, how many other impossible things can you believe before breakfast? Personally, I am quite prepared to admit that our climate is in a perpetual state of flux. I have not been privy to any definitive proof that my profligate lifestyle is to blame.
I agree with your climate assessment but I am pretty sure the earth sun relationship might be a little older than 2017 years.
The biggest variation in the distance between the Sun and the Earth is the eccentricity of the Earth's elliptical orbit as we go around the sun. All of the planets, their moons, our moon, the asteroids, all change how close we are to the sun over time. It isn't a constant at all. It does have some periodicity to it, but it is a pretty long period. I believe we are getting slightly closer right now. The smallest factor is that as the Sun loses mass as it is creates energy. This is very small at a few meters difference in our orbit over a million years.
I think we should talk more about rocks. These were around when the last glaciers were moving about up here (not the polished one...the agates...). Yay. Rocks!
Rocks make good building materials. The stuff the Incas built over 500 years ago are still going strong in regions that get fairly regular earthquakes. Of course you have to have expert stone masons to cut and put them together properly. The funny thing is homes made of "rock" or even brick now are actually just facades and the real "construction" is lumber. Rocks rock.
Rocks are great, strong, and all that but as a building product, they have no insulation factor at all. For example, my sister and her husband lived in England just North of London in an actual castle. It wasn't really huge like you see in pictures but it was made all of stone and was beautiful. She said that the two winters there were the most miserable in her life. She said that they burned half the forest surrounding the place and could not get warm.
People that live in castles generally only live in and heat a few rooms. There is no way to get the entire thing warm. I would heat my bedroom, the kitchen and the bathroom. That's it. Unless it's a huge cluster of amethyst crystals with cocoxinite inclusions, or a slab of olivine basalt, or an opalized piece of wood. Then it's MY rock. We have lots of limestone on and around our house. But yes, it's a facade and really does no good as far as structure. I wouldn't mind living in a castle - probably wouldn't spring for the Mayan temple, bad juju.
I suppose one could use one of the bedrooms as a fireplace. I'm talking BIG fire which might do a good job heating all the rest of the rocks that make up the castle. Smoke might be a problem though.
I liken that to watching a second of a movie and having to write a movie review, or reading a single line in a book and writing a book review. And how accurate was our measurements back in the 1880's? A thick painted line on glass with mercury in it that had the line encompass about 5 degrees of swing.