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

Chris L Peterson wrote:

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.

In a society that can't figure out the correct use
of the terms "bring" and "take" you think they can
readily deal with the contexts of climate and
weather? Given a women with intelligence probably
+1SD during a discussion about something I thought
extremely obvious, her reply was "obvious to you!"
Well damn, that budding relationship didn't last
even a weekend.

Part of the difficulty in assessing what humans
deal with well and things beyond most has to do
with a perception (and a misplaced trust) in the
value of quick wittedness. Not enough value is
placed in individuals who deal with analysis of
complex ideas on a slightly more plodding
timeframe. It is a hare and tortoise sort of
discussion. In the range of -1SD to +3SD or so
live a lot of hares with snappy answers that
frequently pass for good.

The idea that there are long term components with
low perceptibility, and doubtless some as yet
unrecognized components to climatology, is well
beyond the grasp of the great unwashed. And
they're well beyond the abilities of most of
the half baked hares as well.

On Dec 20, 9:00*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
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 Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

The background conditions for climate are set by the motions of the
Earth around the central Sun whereas hemispherical weather patterns
(seasonal weather patterns) are a subset but cannot dictate a global
picture.

I won't even ask you what causes seasonal variations in daylight/
darkness,the barest descriptive effects of the annual and daily
rotational motions of the Earth,for I know you will blurt out 'axial
tilt' like a good Caltechie.

There are two,I repeat, two 360 degree motions with respect to the
central Sun - daily rotation which causes the day and night cycle and
the slow 360 degree change with respect to the central Sun,intrinsic
to the planet itself over and above orbital motion.The fact that you
can actually see this orbital component in action appears to make no
difference but today on the Solstice,the slow 360 degree orbital
turning of the planet generates the greatest distance between the
daily rotational axis and the circle of illumination rather than
having the Earth 'tilt'.

On Dec 21, 5:25*am, Sanforized wrote:
Chris L Peterson wrote:
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.

In a society that can't figure out the correct use
of the terms "bring" and "take" you think they can
readily deal with the contexts of climate and
weather? Given a women with intelligence probably
+1SD during a discussion about something I thought
extremely obvious, her reply was "obvious to you!"
Well damn, that budding relationship didn't last
even a weekend.

Part of the difficulty in assessing what humans
deal with well and things beyond most has to do
with a perception (and a misplaced trust) in the
value of quick wittedness. Not enough value is
placed in individuals who deal with analysis of
complex ideas on a slightly more plodding
timeframe. It is a hare and tortoise sort of
discussion. In the range of -1SD to +3SD or so
live a lot of hares with snappy answers that
frequently pass for good.

The idea that there are long term components with
low perceptibility, and doubtless some as yet
unrecognized components to climatology, is well
beyond the grasp of the great unwashed. And
they're well beyond the abilities of most of
the half baked hares as well.

As you can see,the response ffrom the Caltech guy is simpleminded
rather than simple but I do not fault him other than to say that he
approaches a complicated topic in a way suited to his intellectual
level,the problem being that most climatologists would go along with
his description of climate as an extension of weather pattterns.As any
reasonable person knows,annual weather patterns are almost
hemispherical in nature (Summer in the Southern/winter in Northern
hmispheres) so it is not a truly global view.

Looking a climate from a truly global view,it can be clearly seen that
the oscillation of temperature bands due to the motions of the Earth
sets the background conditions for seasonal weather patterns and that
is the point of departure for a more intelligent approach to global
warming and whether it is natural or human influenced.

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

I can tell you that most scientists simply dispense with the
background conditions set by the daily rotational and annual motions
of the Earth and dive right in to CO2 levels as if nothing else
matters. Wanting to save the planet from irreponsible gas guzzlers may
be a noble agenda but as I have pointed out time and time again,not
knowing what causes the basic seasonal variations in daylight/darkness
and the more complicated issue of seasonal weather patterns is a poor
foundation for studying climate.

As a final note,I am absolutely bewildered at the ability to ignore an
observed 360 degree motion that all planets have with respect to the
central Sun,one which causes the seasons when allied with daily
rotation,you can actually see the two motions going on simultaneously
using the excellent time lapse footage provided by Hubble -

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

Maybe it is no longer possible for people to get excited even when
images dictate conclusions without the need for speculation and I feel
the world is a lot poorer for the loss of people who can interpret
rather than those who simply speculate without taking into account
physical considerations of their premises and conclusions.

On Dec 22, 1:12*am, oriel36 wrote:
On Dec 21, 5:25*am, Sanforized wrote:





Chris L Peterson wrote:
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.

In a society that can't figure out the correct use
of the terms "bring" and "take" you think they can
readily deal with the contexts of climate and
weather? Given a women with intelligence probably
+1SD during a discussion about something I thought
extremely obvious, her reply was "obvious to you!"
Well damn, that budding relationship didn't last
even a weekend.

Part of the difficulty in assessing what humans
deal with well and things beyond most has to do
with a perception (and a misplaced trust) in the
value of quick wittedness. Not enough value is
placed in individuals who deal with analysis of
complex ideas on a slightly more plodding
timeframe. It is a hare and tortoise sort of
discussion. In the range of -1SD to +3SD or so
live a lot of hares with snappy answers that
frequently pass for good.

The idea that there are long term components with
low perceptibility, and doubtless some as yet
unrecognized components to climatology, is well
beyond the grasp of the great unwashed. And
they're well beyond the abilities of most of
the half baked hares as well.

As you can see,the response ffrom the Caltech guy is simpleminded
rather than simple but I do not fault him other than to say that he
approaches a complicated topic in a way suited to his intellectual
level,the problem being that most climatologists would go along with
his description of climate as an extension of weather pattterns.As any
reasonable person knows,annual weather patterns are almost
hemispherical in nature (Summer in the Southern/winter in Northern
hmispheres) so it is not a truly global view.

Looking a climate from a truly global view,it can be clearly seen that
the oscillation of temperature bands due to the motions of the Earth
sets the background conditions for seasonal weather patterns *and that
is the point of departure for a more intelligent approach to global
warming and whether it is natural or human influenced.

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

I can tell you that most scientists simply dispense with the
background conditions set by the daily rotational and annual motions
of the Earth and dive right in to CO2 levels as if nothing else
matters. Wanting to save the planet from irreponsible gas guzzlers may
be a noble agenda but as I have pointed out time and time again,not
knowing what causes the basic seasonal variations in daylight/darkness
and the more complicated issue of seasonal weather patterns is a poor
foundation for studying climate.

As a final note,I am absolutely bewildered at the ability to ignore an
observed *360 degree motion that all planets have with respect to the
central Sun,one which causes the seasons *when allied with daily
rotation,you can actually see the two motions going on simultaneously
using the excellent time lapse footage provided by Hubble -

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

Maybe it is no longer possible for people to get excited even when
images dictate conclusions without the need for speculation and I feel
the world is a lot poorer for the loss of people who can interpret
rather than those who simply speculate without taking into account
physical considerations of their premises and conclusions.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

hi oriel
You clearly have a brilliant mind when it comes to Climatology. Do
you have a website? Do you provide
advice to Weather Bureaus?