Friday 5 February 2016

50  “If the Earth were truly a globe, the Arctic and Antarctic polar regions and areas of comparable latitude North and South of the equator should share similar conditions and characteristics such as comparable temperatures, seasonal changes, length of daylight, plant and animal life. In reality, however, the Arctic/Antarctic regions and areas of comparable latitude North/South of the equator differ greatly in many ways entirely inconsistent with the ball model and entirely consistent with the flat model.”

The basic reason why the Artic and Antarctic are different is because the Arctic is mainly an area of sea covered with ice, while the Antarctic is a huge area of land covered with ice.

Not surprisingly, this makes a big difference! For one thing, much more of the ice melts in the Arctic summer than in the Antarctic summer, since it floats in the relatively warm sea water. Now white ice reflects more of the sun’s light and heat back into space, , so the wider  expanses of ice in the Antarctica reduce the temperatures further.  

Land loses heat faster than water does. As a result, the Arctic which is mostly the Arctic Ocean, loses heat the least fast. Antarctica, mostly land, loses it faster.

There's another reason: Antarctic is a huge high altitude land mass, most of which is 8000 ft or more. Naturally this has the same effect as in other high land areas; it is much colder than the Arctic, which is mostly frozen sea and so, naturally, is near sea level.

See this video clip on that last point:

Here’s a few useful links

This and similar effects explain the next few points too, so I won’t labour the point. But Mr Dubay seems to think that it’s a problem for science that different regions at the same latitude have different climates.

Well, latitude and the resulting amount of sun received is only one factor. Different shapes of land and sea affect winds and sea currents for instance.

The UK where I live is on about the same latitude as Nova Scotia, but is much warmer. Presumably Mr Dubay thinks that is evidence for a Flat Earth? Yet there is a straightforward and very well known reason; the UK is in the path of the gulf stream, a huge flow of warm water starting in the Caribbean. Nova Scotia has no similar stream of warm water nearby.

In point 56 Mr Dubay makes claims about where we should be able to see the midnight sun. He says we should only sea it at the North Pole, and not in the surrounding regions. But again he gives no reasons to believe this, quotes no sources of evidence, shows no calculation, and makes nonsense claims.  He gives no evidence for his claim.

It might be worth calculating exactly where we should see the midnight sun, and checking where really we do. Maybe later, or you could check this for yourself. You will see that the facts that Mr Dubay claims are unreliable, and since he provides no sources or evidence, this one isn’t a proof of anything at all!

No comments:

Post a Comment

(Please make your comment reasoned and based on evidence . Abusive comments will be totally ignored.)