Eight inches of snow,

On Dec 19, 4:40*pm, Antares 531 wrote:


We still don't know what causes these Milankovitch cycles. It is
probably related to solar output variations, but that is still not
proven.
Gordon

Aim a lot lower - try not knowing what causes the basic hemispherical
seasonal variations in daylight/darkness and that dismal fact is a
100% certainty

oriel36 wrote:
On Dec 19, 4:40 pm, Antares 531 wrote:



We still don't know what causes these Milankovitch cycles. It is
probably related to solar output variations, but that is still not
proven.
Gordon


Aim a lot lower - try not knowing what causes the basic hemispherical
seasonal variations in daylight/darkness and that dismal fact is a
100% certainty

I fear your "basics" are still too sophisticated for them.

On Dec 19, 9:34*pm, Sanforized wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Dec 19, 4:40 pm, Antares 531 wrote:

We still don't know what causes these Milankovitch cycles. It is
probably related to solar output variations, but that is still not
proven.
Gordon

Aim a lot lower - try not knowing what causes the basic hemispherical
seasonal variations in daylight/darkness and that dismal fact is a
100% certainty

I fear your "basics" are still too sophisticated for them.

Yes.

I asked them to recognize two specifics 360 degree motions with
respect to the central Sun from direct observations of another planet
and they cannot manage that -

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...999/11/video/b

A planet's daily rotation through 360 degrees generates the day and
night cycle while the separate slow turning of a location through 360
degrees with respect to the central Sun,seen by the longitudinal
motion of the Equatorial rings is responsible for seasonal variations
in daylight/darkness -

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imke/Infr..._2001_2005.jpg

Copernicus did not have the availibility of telescopes to reason it
out via planetary comparisons how to explain the seasons in a more
productive way that the 'axial tilt' explanation which is still used
today.Extracting that 360 degree orbital component is indeed tricky as
it exists over and above orbital motion around the Sun yet I doubt if
even the Mensa crowd could interpret the images above of Uranus and
apply the same principles to the Earth thereby affirming a new way to
explain the seasons.

On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 13:42:01 -0800 (PST), oriel36
wrote:

On Dec 19, 9:34*pm, Sanforized wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Dec 19, 4:40 pm, Antares 531 wrote:

We still don't know what causes these Milankovitch cycles. It is
probably related to solar output variations, but that is still not
proven.
Gordon

Aim a lot lower - try not knowing what causes the basic hemispherical
seasonal variations in daylight/darkness and that dismal fact is a
100% certainty

I fear your "basics" are still too sophisticated for them.

Yes.

I asked them to recognize two specifics 360 degree motions with
respect to the central Sun from direct observations of another planet
and they cannot manage that -

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...999/11/video/b

A planet's daily rotation through 360 degrees generates the day and
night cycle while the separate slow turning of a location through 360
degrees with respect to the central Sun,seen by the longitudinal
motion of the Equatorial rings is responsible for seasonal variations
in daylight/darkness -

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imke/Infr..._2001_2005.jpg

Copernicus did not have the availibility of telescopes to reason it
out via planetary comparisons how to explain the seasons in a more
productive way that the 'axial tilt' explanation which is still used
today.Extracting that 360 degree orbital component is indeed tricky as
it exists over and above orbital motion around the Sun yet I doubt if
even the Mensa crowd could interpret the images above of Uranus and
apply the same principles to the Earth thereby affirming a new way to
explain the seasons.

I have no disagreement with what you've said, in general, but it
remains to be proven that these cycles aren't in some way linked to,
or caused by some core activity within the sun, such as magnetic
fields, mechanical oscillations of the solar mass due to the thermal
effects (solar throbbing with 107,000 year cycles), etc. Any and all
of these could be a part of the Milankovitch cycles. Do all these
cycles in some way work together to cause the solar output to vary
such as to produce the earth's climate cycles with those ice core
recorded 107,000 year periods? Gordon

On Dec 20, 4:22*pm, Antares 531 wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 13:42:01 -0800 (PST), oriel36



wrote:
On Dec 19, 9:34*pm, Sanforized wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Dec 19, 4:40 pm, Antares 531 wrote:

We still don't know what causes these Milankovitch cycles. It is
probably related to solar output variations, but that is still not
proven.
Gordon

Aim a lot lower - try not knowing what causes the basic hemispherical
seasonal variations in daylight/darkness and that dismal fact is a
100% certainty

I fear your "basics" are still too sophisticated for them.

Yes.

I asked them to recognize two specifics *360 degree motions with
respect to the central Sun from direct observations of another planet
and they cannot manage that -

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...999/11/video/b

A planet's daily rotation through 360 degrees generates the day and
night cycle while the separate slow turning of a location through 360
degrees with respect to the central Sun,seen by the longitudinal
motion of the Equatorial rings is responsible for seasonal variations
in daylight/darkness -

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imke/Infr..._2001_2005.jpg

Copernicus did not have the availibility of telescopes to reason it
out via planetary comparisons how to explain the seasons in a more
productive way that the 'axial tilt' explanation which is still used
today.Extracting that 360 degree orbital component is indeed tricky as
it exists over and above orbital motion around the Sun yet I doubt if
even the Mensa crowd could interpret the images above of Uranus and
apply the same principles to the Earth thereby affirming a new way to
explain the seasons.

I have no disagreement with what you've said, in general, but it
remains to be proven that these cycles aren't in some way linked to,
or caused by some core activity within the sun, such as magnetic
fields, mechanical oscillations of the solar mass due to the thermal
effects (solar throbbing with 107,000 year cycles), etc. Any and all
of these could be a part of the Milankovitch cycles. Do all these
cycles in some way work together to cause the solar output to vary
such as to produce the earth's climate cycles with those ice core
recorded 107,000 year periods? *Gordon

It is all far too complicated to even begin detailing the difference
between climate and meteorology,at least in an open usenet forum,but
so far scientists have yet to make the clear distinction in order to
differentiate between natural cycles and human influences,they
actually refuse to acknowledge what modern imaging is dictating to
them where there is a separate orbital component and specifically a
360 degree motion with respect to the central Sun over and above
orbital motion.This is what people should see when they see the change
in orientation of the rings,including those people at Caltech.

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imke/Infr..._2001_2005.jpg

Tomorrow,the Earth will orbitally turn to where the polar axis and the
circle of illumination reach their maximum distance from each
other,this point of view replaces the idea of the polar axis 'tilting'
towards and away from the Sun but again,it takes a certain
intelligence to acknowledge the new 360 degree orbital component.

On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:52:57 -0800 (PST), oriel36
wrote:

It is all far too complicated to even begin detailing the difference
between climate and meteorology...

It's not complicated at all. Climate is the average weather pattern over
some area and some time. Meteorology is the study of weather and
climate. I can't imagine any confusion there.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Dec 20, 7:52*pm, oriel36 wrote:
---snip---
Tomorrow,the Earth will orbitally turn to where the polar axis and the
circle of illumination *reach their maximum distance from each
other,this point of view replaces the idea of the polar axis 'tilting'
towards and away from the Sun *but again,it takes a certain
intelligence to acknowledge the new 360 degree orbital component.-

Hi
While you see this as some magical orbital component,
I clearly see it as its axis of rotation not being effected
by its rotation around the sun. This is exactly what
one would expect from a heavy rotating object.
It is as clear to me when looking at the pictures
of another planet as it is to me when I look at the north
sky with my telescope.
It is quite clear that the seasons are the result of the
unchanging axis as the earth makes its orbit around
the sun.
Physics predicts this as well as being confirmed by
observation.
Dwight