Temperature signatures of axial and orbital motion

The oscillation of temperature bands against the fixed axial
orientation of the Earth provides the only accurate view of the
astronomical causes of climate norms.

http://www.climateprediction.net/ima...ges/annual.gif

The oscillation of the bands supersedes hemispherical considerations of
cyclical weather patterns (seasons) and even if seasonal factors can
be acknowledged as a convenience,the purpose of considering climate
norms from astronomical causes is to differentiate it from variations
in temperature band signatures which are due to human social and
industrial activity.

The sheer ugliness of permitting a variable axial tilt to the
Sun/orbital plane * is an incredibly destructive way to approach
climatological influences through the axial and orbital motions of the
Earth notwithstanding that not one single person has made an effort to
correct the situation,astronomically and bottom line.

Radiation is only half the story for climate norms and the behavior of
the temperature bands as they move in accordance with the unique
position of the Earth's position over an annual orbit.The conditioning
of the bands is partly due to the length of time a given latitude
spends in the Earth's orbital shadow and in direct sunlight.As the
Earth's orbital speed varies,the relationship is asymmetrical either
side of the Equinoxes ( Mar/Sept and Sept/Mar) yet nobody has the
slightest concern for this,choosing to split global climate into
ineffective cyclical weather pattern divisions of
spring,summer,fall,winter.

Far more serious than climate imbalances affecting existence for all
life due caused by human activity is the utter disregard for genuine
astronomical insights.The great heliocentric insights based on keeping
the Earth's axial and orbital motions seperate for different purposes
are now lock into a celestial sphere clockwork system that makes it
impossible for genuine investigations into climate norms and
imbalances.

I would have imagined that somebody with a genuine concern for these
devastating short term meteorological events indicating climate
imbalances would have picked up on the difference between explaining
global climate norms through the Earth's axial and orbital motions and
then reducing the data to cyclical meteorological patterns but I am
wrecking my brains trying to figure out why anyone would opt for
explaining hemispherical weather patterns astronomically without any
consideration other than a variable tilting Earth to the Sun/orbital
plane.

In all aspects, and especially the lack of intuitive intelligence,this
is a serious,serious matter and it cannot wait .








*
http://www.scienceu.com/observatory/...s/earthyrb.gif

oriel36 wrote:


The sheer ugliness of permitting a variable axial tilt to the
Sun/orbital plane * is an incredibly destructive way to approach
climatological influences through the axial and orbital motions of the
Earth notwithstanding that not one single person has made an effort to
correct the situation,astronomically and bottom line.


To which John responded:


The obliquity of the ecliptic is such a pervasive element in positional
astronomy that it must be used in the calculations and observations of
all planetary positions, including Sun and Moon.

However to quickly grasp an idea of its value one can look at the
seasons. It suffices to consider that the extreme northern and southern
declination of the Sun are per definition equal to the obliquity.


Good one, John! I'm generally in favor of ignoring this boob, but your
imitation of his prose style is terrific! Maybe we should have a contest
in SAA to see who can most amusingly ape Gerald's tortured magniloquence.

Chris

"starburst" wrote in message
...

Good one, John! I'm generally in favor of ignoring this boob, but your
imitation of his prose style is terrific! Maybe we should have a contest
in SAA to see who can most amusingly ape Gerald's tortured magniloquence.

Chris

Yeah, but John John crossed the line when he posted that http://www.orals.ex
link, don't you think?

Ed T

John Steinberg wrote:
In article .com,
oriel36 wrote:

The sheer ugliness of permitting a variable axial tilt to the
Sun/orbital plane * is an incredibly destructive way to approach
climatological influences through the axial and orbital motions of the
Earth notwithstanding that not one single person has made an effort to
correct the situation,astronomically and bottom line.

Largely because one does not correct what is already correct.

http://www.edumedia.fr/a64_l2-4-seasons-3.html
http://earth.usc.edu/geol150/variabi...t/obl_anim.gif

Although you may view some empirical matters as ugly, they are
nevertheless confirmed time and time again by observation and
calculation.

http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritt...es/lecture_ear
th_sun_relations.html


-John Steinberg
email: lid

I will make all this very easy for those who may actually be concerned
about climate imbalances such as global warming due to human
activity.Should they learn this small snippet of information,they can
consider it a very good day's work.

Our planet does not keep the same face to the Sun but changes its
orientation through a full 360 degrees over an annual orbit,the rate of
change of that orientation is in accordance with Keplerian geometry and
motion.As it is difficult to extract the change in orientation due to
axial rotation being close to parallel on Earth,the option is to turn
to the characteristics displayed by Uranus where axial rotation due to
its pronounced orientation adequately demonstrates what happens to the
Earth due to its orbital motion -

http://www.nordita.dk/~steen/fysik51...s/AACHCVO0.JPG

The negation of the Earth's axial rotation in order to facilitate the
slight daily change in the behavior of the Earth's orbital shadow as it
creeps around fixed axial orientation can be initially difficult to
discern,it is hope that genuine investigators recognise,at least by
using Uranus as a guide,that global climate norms and subsequently
hemispherical weather patterns rely on the changes due to orbital
motion .

oriel36 wrote:

Our planet does not keep the same face to the Sun but changes its
orientation through a full 360 degrees over an annual orbit...

That explains why the days seem to be getting longer.

--
St. John
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely
rearranging their prejudices.
-William James

St. John Smythe wrote:
oriel36 wrote:

Our planet does not keep the same face to the Sun but changes its
orientation through a full 360 degrees over an annual orbit...

That explains why the days seem to be getting longer.

--
St. John
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely
rearranging their prejudices.
-William James

The entire scientific organisation lives with a conception based on the
return of axial rotation to noon in 24 hours in order to justify the
return of a star to a meridian in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time

All that sounds harmless until it emerges that it is based on no change
of orbital orientation and that the Earth keeps the same face to the
Sun were axial rotation negated and orbital motion isolated.Even with
axial rotation more or less negated allowing the orbital change in
Uranus to be discerned,nobody seems competent enough to determine what
it means for the Earth's climate.

I know all too well about the pseudo-authority which is driving a
variable axial tilt agenda but my concern is for those who are
intimidated by those damaging empirical cultists who are undermining
attempts to get people focused on the planet.

That novelty is so cheap and courage is so expensive.