The earth has several feedback systems, some positive and some negative and they each run on different time scales. One simple example is that if it's colder it snows more. Snow covered ground reflects sunlight back to space and make the earth even colder. This is positive feedback. But if it is cold plants grow slower and suck up less carbon which heats the air. Solar flux only has to move a tiny bit then get amplified by some positive feedback. So an effect is caused by a change that on the surface loks to small to account for what we see. Feedback is hard to model and there are many interacting feedback systems.
Other systems are harder to explain like the gulf stream and the way it transports heat. This and things like it are powered by solar heat but to much of it or to little and they shut down or reverse. And then now we have man made effects which work on a very short time scale, so short it has never happened before and so we can't predict the result. The fear is that it might trigger a positive feedback. Positive feedback and unstable systems are easy to see in real life. Place a book on end. Now push it about 1/2 inch with your finger until it falls. While the cause of the motion was your finger. but you only pushed it 1/2 inch yet it move 6 or 8 inches. You only triggerd and event where the booked moved from one stable state to a second stable state. the book is a simple system but the entire earth is to big to understand and simple models have limited use. On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Graham / KE9H <time...@austin.rr.com> wrote: > > On 8/3/2011 11:15 AM, J. Forster wrote: >> >> <http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html> >> >> Suppose time has variations, instead of the decay rate?? >> >> :)) >> >> -John >> >> ==================== >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com >> To unsubscribe, go to >> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts >> and follow the instructions there. >> > > Suppose that light just looses energy as a function of distance, > and that the Red Shift is not due to Doppler, but just distance. > (or exposure to Sturrock's time bending neutrinos.) > > Then the universe is more static in size, and it is not expanding > at an accelerating exponential rate for reasons we don't understand, > and then it did not have to start with a big bang, then we don't need > a big-bang oscillator, etc. > > As with the shift from earth-centric to helio-centric thinking, the math > would sure get simpler. (Which is always a tempting indicator !) > > At least this article suggests that we are not done learning, yet. > > They are still looking for the coupling mechanism between the > sunspots and the temperature on Earth. It does not appear that the > energy output of the sun in the visible and nearby bands that we > measure actually changes enough to explain the temperature > differences observed in the Maunder minimum, the earlier > heat wave, etc. Yet, we have empirical evidence that periods > of a "Quiet Sun" does result in lower temperatures on Earth. > > So, the battle of the "Quiet Sun" versus the "Greenhouse Gas" > begins. Shame, I won't live long enough to see the definitive > conclusion. > > --- Graham > > == > > > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. > -- Chris Albertson Redondo Beach, California _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
