49. Dubay misrepresents the science of why the poles are colder on a spherical Earth before trashing his own misrepresentation

“If Earth were a spinning ball heated by a Sun 93 million miles away, it would be impossible to have simultaneously sweltering summers in Africa while just a few thousand miles away bone-chilling frozen Arctic/Antarctic winters experiencing little to no heat from the Sun whatsoever. If the heat from the Sun traveled 93,000,000 miles to the Sahara desert, it is absurd to assert that another 4,000 miles (0.00004%) further to Antarctica would completely negate such sweltering heat resulting in such drastic differences.”

No expert in the subject claims that Arctic and Antarctica colder because they are further away from the Sun than the equator.

However to be fair I have to admit that it is not only flat earthers who get this wrong.  Some people who should know better get it wrong, and quite a few have posted YouTube videos.  I even spotted a kids science BBC presenter getting it wrong!


Near the Poles the ground is at an extreme angle sloped away from the sun, whilst near the equator it is facing the sun nearly flat on.  This means that the sunlight is more spread out as you move further away from the equator which is why the equator is warmer.

Source: http://www.hko.gov.hk/education/edu06nature/ele_srad_e.htm











The effect is winter increased because the axis of the Earth is tilted.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/0/22956681
The diagram above shows the southern hemisphere in winter you can see that near at the South Pole the sun will shine for no or a small part of the day compared to the equator.

When the Earth is on the opposite side of the Sun the situation in the northern and southern hemisphere reverses.  I.e. It is winter in the northern hemisphere and summer in the southern, and again the further north that you go from the equator the more extreme the winter will be.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/0/22956681

Near the Equator, the angle of the Earth remains near flat on to the Sun all year round, so summer/ winter variations do not occur.

See:  http://www.hko.gov.hk/education/edu06nature/ele_srad_e.htm


< Prev  41-50 Next >

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

127. Straight reflections of sunlight and moonlight are impossible on a spherical Earth

Image
"The fact that the Sun and Moon’s reflections on water always form a straight line path from the horizon to the observer proves the Earth is not a ball. If Earth’s surface was curved it would be impossible for the reflected light to curve over the ball from horizon to observer." This is a flawed argument because Dubay does not understand how reflections operate Although he doesn't describe it very well, I presume that Dubay is referring to the angle of reflection from a curved surface.  I.e. the curve of the Earth would mean that the angle of reflection off the surface would result in nearly all the light  not reaching the observer's eyes. The fact that, if this was how reflections worked, that the same would be true on a flat Earth seems to have escaped Dubay's notice. This type of reflection is called specular reflection, and takes place with mirror like surfaces.  Generally the surface of the water is not perfectly flat so the reflection of the light
Read more

Debunking Eric Dubay's 200 proofs the earth is not a spinning ball

Image
Conspiracy Baloney aims to provide resources to counter to the influence of the crazy anti-science conspiracy theories that are out there. This blog is specifically to debunk Eric Dubay's " 200 proofs the earth is not a spinning ball", that I have found flat earthers often cite. There are quite a few resources out there that comprehensively debunk this book, but I think that one more voice can only help.  I have tried to keep the rebuttals as non technical as possible. Eric Dubay’s proofs are laughably simplistic and demonstrate an almost complete lack of understanding of maths and anything scientific or technical. A list of "proofs" that show Dubay is an idiot He also likes to give historical quotes as proofs.  Typical are quotes from the 1800’s but he even has one from before 1600!.  Not only are these opinions not proof of anything, but the fact that he can’t provide quotes from more up to date sources destroys their credibility. Worse,
Read more

9. Engineer W Winckler was published in the Earth Review in 1893 arguing that no engineer took the curvature of the earth into account

Image
“Engineer, W. Winckler was published in the Earth  Review regarding the Earth’s supposed curvature, stating,   “As an engineer of many years standing , I saw that this  absurd allowance is only permitted in school books.  No  engineer would dream of allowing anything of the kind.  I  have projected many miles of railways and many more of  canals and the allowance has not even been thought of  much less allowed for. This allowance for curvature means  this - that it is 8 ” for the first mile of a canal, and increasing  at the ratio by the square of the distance in miles; thus a  small navigable canal for boats, say 30 miles long, will  have, by the above rule an allowance for curvature of 600  feet. Think of that and then please credit engineers as not  being quite such fools. Nothing of the sort is allowed. We  no more think of allowing 600 feet for a line of 30 miles of  railway or canal, than of wasting our time trying to square  the circle ”" This is a historical opinion,
Read more