Global warming fanatics keep missing this elephant in the room

Imagine, if you will, that the sun quit radiating energy, completely, for all wavelengths.  How long would it take the world to freeze to the point of being uninhabitable at the surface?

Our planet also has a molten core.  Imagine that this core cools and solidifies at the same time, so the only sources of heat are anthropogenic.  Same question.

I'm not sure how to do the calculations, but I'll defer to anyone who can.  My expectation is that the SUVs and coal-burning power plants, and whatever else climate change enthusiasts obsess over, wouldn't slow the rate at which the planet became a frozen chunk of rock and ice, careening on its habitual path as it revolves around the mass of the darkened sun.

Summers are hotter, and winters are cooler.  It is easy but inaccurate to blame that on the Earth's elliptical orbit, thinking the climate should cool when the planet is farther from the sun, as Mars is farther away and cooler, while Venus is closer and warmer.  But according to this site, that isn't the case.  They explain it better than I can, but it has to do with the Earth's axial tilt and the angle at which the hemispheres point toward the sun during the seasons.  When you think the summer temps in many places easily reach 90 in the summer, and go below zero in the winter, you see a hundred-degree variation due to geometry over which human beings have no control.  The amount of influence alleged for SUVs, etc. is only a couple of degrees.  Giving up all our modern conveniences would make not more than a few percentage points of difference.  But then, climate concerns were never about the weather anyway.  Just another excuse to take from the haves and buy votes from the have-nots.

It is also worth noting that there is no scientific basis whatsoever to presuppose that a natural environment should never change and that if it does, it must be man's fault.  Volcanoes erupt, and the airborne ash results in cooler and rainier weather downwind.  Yes, the Dust Bowl resulted from human behavior, but it was the exception rather than the rule.  I think there are some good reasons for considering how to live with less environmental impact — e.g., use of thorium reactors to provide electricity.  Saving the climate is not one of the reasons, as we don't have that much influence on the forces that influence it.

I am glad that human beings lack the technology to control the sun's output.  Some idiot would insist that government is the only entity smart enough and wise enough to determine how much the sun should shine.  There is such an entity, but it isn't government.  It's God.

Sam can be reached at syounnokis@gmail.com.

Imagine, if you will, that the sun quit radiating energy, completely, for all wavelengths.  How long would it take the world to freeze to the point of being uninhabitable at the surface?

Our planet also has a molten core.  Imagine that this core cools and solidifies at the same time, so the only sources of heat are anthropogenic.  Same question.

I'm not sure how to do the calculations, but I'll defer to anyone who can.  My expectation is that the SUVs and coal-burning power plants, and whatever else climate change enthusiasts obsess over, wouldn't slow the rate at which the planet became a frozen chunk of rock and ice, careening on its habitual path as it revolves around the mass of the darkened sun.

Summers are hotter, and winters are cooler.  It is easy but inaccurate to blame that on the Earth's elliptical orbit, thinking the climate should cool when the planet is farther from the sun, as Mars is farther away and cooler, while Venus is closer and warmer.  But according to this site, that isn't the case.  They explain it better than I can, but it has to do with the Earth's axial tilt and the angle at which the hemispheres point toward the sun during the seasons.  When you think the summer temps in many places easily reach 90 in the summer, and go below zero in the winter, you see a hundred-degree variation due to geometry over which human beings have no control.  The amount of influence alleged for SUVs, etc. is only a couple of degrees.  Giving up all our modern conveniences would make not more than a few percentage points of difference.  But then, climate concerns were never about the weather anyway.  Just another excuse to take from the haves and buy votes from the have-nots.

It is also worth noting that there is no scientific basis whatsoever to presuppose that a natural environment should never change and that if it does, it must be man's fault.  Volcanoes erupt, and the airborne ash results in cooler and rainier weather downwind.  Yes, the Dust Bowl resulted from human behavior, but it was the exception rather than the rule.  I think there are some good reasons for considering how to live with less environmental impact — e.g., use of thorium reactors to provide electricity.  Saving the climate is not one of the reasons, as we don't have that much influence on the forces that influence it.

I am glad that human beings lack the technology to control the sun's output.  Some idiot would insist that government is the only entity smart enough and wise enough to determine how much the sun should shine.  There is such an entity, but it isn't government.  It's God.

Sam can be reached at syounnokis@gmail.com.