Why does Earth's tilt produce summers and winters?

Dear Peter Webb:

"Peter Webb" <[Only registered users see links. ].au> wrote in
message news:45528b6b$0$23531$[Only registered users see links. ].a u...
....

He has quite a long history, under the names Androcles, Sorcerer,
and Hexenmeister:
[Only registered users see links. ]

David A. Smith

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:SCk4h.169348$[Only registered users see links. ]...

Thanks. I knew that, its just that as I said the question of why the earth
is blue is off-topic, and refraction had already been mentioned, so I left
it at that.


Agreed. The interesting question is the amount of radiation that the earth
receives from the Sun at wavelengths where the atmosphere is opaque, and
hence 100% is absorbed by the atmosphere. I assume this is only a small
percentage of the Sun's energy output, which is mostly black body radiation
peaking in the visible spectrum (and hence the amount outside of thi visible
band should be comparatively small).



I know. He is already just calling me an "idiot"nd a "blithering imbecile",
rather than addressing the arguments I post.

Dear Peter Webb:

"Peter Webb" <[Only registered users see links. ].au> wrote in
message news:45528d10$0$23136$[Only registered users see links. ].a u...
....

If the atmosphere is active for some range of frequencies, then
it simply takes the specular light from this range(s) and
diffuses it. Like light through a cloud. So we'd still get some
percentage (half or less, likely).

David A. Smith

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 20:11:20 -0700, N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:



Thanks for these links. In nearly all of them, it also adds that
there are problems with this hypothesis, and that more evidence is needed.
But I will agree that the evidence is "suggestive".


Could nothing else cause this?

Nate

Dear natex:

"natex" <natex@localhost.com> wrote in message
newsan.2006.11.10.00.13.18.513592@localhost.com. ..

Until we develop "God vision" (or interstellar space travel), we
may have all the evidence we will ever get. Just a matter of
some *serious* modelling, to figure out where else to look for
clues.


All this says is the that the Earth had 16 hour days, about the
same length year (in today's seconds), and the Moon was *much*
closer then. The steady recession is in good agreement with
transfer of angular momentum from the Earth, to the Earth / Moon
system, via tides. Doesn't directly address how the Moon was
created / formed / extruded, only that it was much closer "way
back when".

David A. Smith

On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 04:42:51 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:


Thanks for the google link (heh). There isn't any hard evidence for this
hypothesis. As you probably know, physical lunar specimens (evidence)
are actually contradictory to this belief.

Granted, the collison hypothesis is nice. It is the best we have. But
let's not yet take it for fact. There are some big problems
with it, and not much evidence for.

"These questions remain challenging and require further
investigations."
Cameron A.G.W., The Origin of the Moon and the Single Impact Hypothesis V:
Icarus, Volume 126, Number 1, March 1997, pp. 126-137(12)


"However, identifying impacts capable of yielding the Earth-Moon system
has proved difficult."
[Only registered users see links. ]

"It is concluded that the sound arguments and evidence supporting the CH
[collision hypothesis] are not (yet) sufficient to rule out other
hypotheses."
Stevenson, D. J., Origin of the moon - The collision hypothesis: Annual
review of earth and planetary sciences. Volume 15 (A88-18742 06-91). Palo
Alto, CA, Annual Reviews, Inc., 1987, p. 271-315.

And just for fun,
[Only registered users see links. ]

Nate

[einfopedia]

It isn't the movement of the Earth, but the Earth's axis, when you are pointed away from the sun, the days are shorter and because the sunlight isn't so direct, it is also colder.

[KristyR]

I also watched an answer to this question from Nat Geo

[Robinwood]

Originally Posted by AlexZ

One explanation I have never understood is that we have Summers and
Winters because Earth is tilted.

On a hot Summer day, I cannot cool myself by "tilting" my body in any
direction. My body still gets the heat that falls on it, no matter the
tilt. Otherwise people would have discovered this trick long ago and we
wouldn't need fans or air-conditioning.

So...if you understand why tilt at an angle works for Earth, please do
explain in simple English.

So far, we have discovered that our earth is not round its oval in shape, the longitude and latitude has different types of weather seasons. If tilting is a part of summer and heat absorption then i would say its depend on humidity of that particular location.