Best known for depriving Pluto of planethood by showing that there are many similar bodies in orbit beyond Neptune, Eris's great distance from
the sun means the effects of general relativity become negligible.
Not exact matches
By which I
mean, there is little we can actually do to affect the rising of the
sun, therefore shouting about it or railing against it has little
effect.
@Dunk, Morality doesn't have
meaning beyond how if
effects people, the rules we agree on and accept as a society will
mean nothing when catastrophic even or the
sun expanding wipes us off the star map; but why isn't it's
effect on mankind enough?
Although hundreds of exoplanets had already been found orbiting
sun - like stars throughout the Milky Way, they had been discovered by indirect
means — astronomers had inferred the presence of a planet by observing the dimming
effects or gravitational wobble an orbiting companion induces on its parent star.
Another positive feedback of global warming is the albedo
effect: less white summer ice
means more dark open water, which absorbs more heat from the
sun.
Some have noted an even more fundamental problem: Soon's claim that any evidence of a
sun effect means carbon dioxide is not driving climate change.
Living in Los Angeles
means that my skin is exposed to the elements, from the
sun, to the pollution, to the dry desert environment that is Southern California, and I use it in my line to combat the
effects of Mother Nature.
To get caught up on earlier GI Game Clubs, click on by
means of the hyperlinks to listen to us talk about the next video games in exhaustive element: Final Fantasy VII, Uncharted four: A Thief's End, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, BioShock, Pokémon
Sun and Moon, Mass
Effect Andromeda (sorry), and Portal 1.
It also
means that, at best, if there is any heating of the atmosphere by GHGs the
effect would disappear within minutes of the
sun setting.
To me, it is more likely the fluctuation in E-UV coming from the
sun that causes the warming and cooling
effects by changing the reactions that are happening on TOA, i.e. O3, HxOx and NOx are rising now, causing more back radiation of F - UV,
meaning less energy going in the oceans.
This
means CO2 from human activities overrode the
effects of the
sun, the oceans, and the atmosphere, which is scientific nonsense.
If the energy budget of the air is maintained in balance by
means of the weather systems neutralising changes in the power of the resistor
effect in the air alone (more CO2) and changes in energy received from the oceans (ocean cycles) then the only remaining factor requiring consideration at any particular time is total throughput of energy from the
sun (the electric current in the resistor analogy).
Further, when they detailed different climate forcings, the forcing from changing solar irradiance was a trivial rounding error (though they had the good grace to mark their understanding of this as «low»)
meaning the
sun has very little
effect vs. what the
sun had in 1850 (in the Little Ice Age!)
In a media release from Science@NASA, Tony Phillips explains they predict that the
sun will remain generally calm for at least another year and this
means low solar activity which can have «a profound
effect on Earth's atmosphere, allowing it to -LSB-...]
Using extant results is an important part of the statistical design of experiments Look to the histories of how people learned the size of the earth, the (
mean) distance from the earth to the
sun, the speed of light, the rates of continental drift, the
effects of aspirin in reducing the risk of recurrent heart attack.
The 11 ‐ year
mean minimizes the
effect of solar variability — the brightness of the
sun varies by a measurable amount over the sunspot cycle, which is typically of 10 ‐ 12 year duration.
You suggest that the actual
mean temperature of the Earth's surface is achieved by
means of the greenhouse
effect, i.e. that the atmosphere is more efficient than the
Sun to warm up the Earth: