A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Planetary climate spectrum



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 22nd 13, 09:51 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default Oriel - 11th attempt to extract an answer

Modern imaging power and other innovations make it possible to modify
the works of Western astronomy as that is the nature of the game -
more information arrives and gets handled appropriately but it seems
that readers here never heard of any of the works of Copernicus,Kepler
or others and certainly haven't read them much less studied their
methodology.The issue of a single turning of the Earth to the central
Sun as it carries the polar coordinates in a circle that is completed
after an orbital period contrasts sharply with the moon which orbits
the Earth but doesn't turn at all,common sense astronomers like Kepler
understood that much notwithstanding that we can put a man on a non
rotating moon looking out at a rotating Earth -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=OdCJ...kepler&f=false

The disorder is not the constant attacks on me but the incredible
inability to let go of nonsense even when common sense intervenes and
it this politically charged era when modelers are intent in shoving
through their ideas of climate,the fact is that it is not possible to
begin without recognizing a climate spectrum and how inclination
defines it.

So we are all going to act like adults for a change and promote and
protect astronomy rather than turn it into a politicized dumping
ground for social agendas for presently ,with the vicious strain of
empiricism dominant,nobody has a mandate to research terrestrial
science and astronomy and where they meet.
  #12  
Old January 22nd 13, 10:27 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default Planetary climate

On Jan 21, 12:22*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Heat Transfer Basics
*http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/09/12/...ics-part-zero/


Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature
*http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/pap...odayRT2011.pdf
*http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/publist.html


Anthropogenic and Natural Warming Inferred from changes in Earth's Energy Balance
*http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v.../ngeo1327.html


Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect
*http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/...idt_etal_1.pdf


Incidentally, while I knew we could continue having a vibrant economy
with abundant energy through nuclear power, including breeder and
thorium breeder reactors, I was concerned that not _all_ of our energy
needs could be met this way, as electric cars or hydrogen-fuelled cars
presented challenges.

But then I thought of how Robert Zubrin mentioned an old chemical
process to use hydrogen to make an alternative fuel with more reaction
mass from the carbon dioxide on Mars. As I recalled, though, he was
making carbon monoxide, which wasn't too obviously useful. But when I
did a Google search, I found the Wikipedia article on the Sabatier
process, and normally it made methane. And methane is widely used in
motor vehicles - although it has the bulky tank problem too, just to a
lesser degree than hydrogen.

Well, then, I thought I'd take a look at Fischer-Tropsch again. I
didn't think that would be useful - it was a way to utilize coal, a
more abundant fossil fuel, and so that would hardly solve the
greenhouse gas problem. But the Wikipedia article surprised me again -
it turned out it worked by reacting carbon monoxide with hydrogen.

So apparently there is no need to despair. We already have all the
technology we need to keep on enjoying our present lifestyle - with
maybe a little extra effort expended to obtain the energy we use -
with a zero carbon footprint. We don't even need to replace our cars.

John Savard
  #13  
Old January 22nd 13, 11:23 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default Planetary climate spectrum

A planetary climate system is based on a core spectrum which is
bookended between polar conditions on one side and equatorial
conditions on the other with inclination determining where in the
spectrum a planet's climate exists and what fluctuations are expected
to occur across latitudes as a planet orbits the central Sun.

The transition to a new and better approach to climate involves
shifting emphasis away from the 'no tilt/no seasons' perspective to
the more productive equatorial conditions for zero inclination and
considering that the root word of climate is the Greek 'Klima' meaning
inclination,it is fortuitous that it is the relationship between
rotational inclination and the ecliptic axis that defines a climate
system.

I have no intention of speaking over nuisances and dullards this is
planetary climate as expressed by astronomy and its insights and not a
bunch of modelers trying to scare people into paying taxes.

  #14  
Old January 22nd 13, 11:24 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
lal_truckee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 409
Default Planetary climate

On 1/22/13 1:27 PM, Quadibloc wrote:

So apparently there is no need to despair. We already have all the
technology we need to keep on enjoying our present lifestyle - with
maybe a little extra effort expended to obtain the energy we use -
with a zero carbon footprint. We don't even need to replace our cars.


Of course.
Plus there are multiple fortunes to be made supplying the new equipment,
storage, transport, etc. Not to mention the gains in public health from
a cleaner environment. And don't forget the millions who won't die
prematurely from black lung.

And the incidental survival of wild nature.

It's all good - just different, in good ways.
  #15  
Old January 23rd 13, 12:22 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 58
Default Oriel - 11th attempt to extract an answer

"oriel36" wrote in message
...

Modern imaging power
========================
Is that a yes or a no?

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When I get my O.B.E. I'll be an earlobe.

  #16  
Old January 23rd 13, 09:47 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default Planetary climate spectrum

A polar climate within the planetary spectrum between polar and
equatorial does not automatically mean a planet is colder with the
increasing gap between rotational inclination and the ecliptic
axis,after all,polar conditions refer to a latitudinal response to
rotational inclination and the greater inclination above zero,the
wider the swings.This is why it is crucial to shift emphasis away from
the older 'no tilt/no seasons' as ice sheet weather spread over
greater latitudes may be a feature of increasing inclination as a
response to a shift in inclination.

It is impossible to consider the fluctuations between the presence and
absence of ice sheet weather and its effects on the evolutionary
sciences of biology and geology without the spectrum so this is as
real as it gets.If there are a bunch of speculative modelers willing
to suffocate observations for their spurious conclusion that the Earth
is a greenhouse and humans have control over the temperature dial then
let them continue in their misguided way,a person with integrity can
look at the images of Uranus and can construct a picture where
inclination acts like a dial in determining planetary climate between
equatorial and polar.

The difference between genuine empiricism,albeit it only existed for a
very short period, which acts to draw analogies from the behavior of
objects at a human level and apply them to large scale behavior and
motions as opposed to the vicious strain of empiricism which
aggressively pursues modeling based on a homocentric framework and
announces that there are no differences between small and large scale
behavior is the total lack of restraint or physical considerations
when handling observations.Even though I know little of Kant,his
commentary on empiricism turned towards the present disgraceful
treatment of planetary climate is fairly accurate or indeed the root
cause of the problem that is a particular strain of late 17th century
Royal Society empiricism and especially Newton's agenda -

"it was nothing but the logic of illusion. It was a sophistic art of
giving to one’s ignorance, indeed even to one’s intentional tricks,
the outward appearance of truth, by imitating the thorough, accurate
method which logic always requires, and by using its topic as a cloak
for every empty assertion."
  #17  
Old January 23rd 13, 03:59 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Martin Nicholson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 235
Default Oriel 12th attempt to extract an answer

It doesn't seem long since Oriel36 said he was leaving the group. As I
have said before his mental health issues prevent him from doing so -
he quite literally cannot help himself from posting minor variations
of same old rubbish again and again.

Notice how carefully Oriel, over a period of some years, has avoided
explaining exactly where his views and the views of other members of
this group differ. He writes whole paragraphs - sometimes nultiple
paragraphs - hundreds of times a year but refuses to explain something
as basic as this.


He also refuses to answer any questions designed to identify what the
difference might be.


As an example - Oriel, if you look due south at midnight on July 1st
and again at midnight on January 1st of the next year will you see the
same stars in the same places.


Yes or no?


  #18  
Old January 23rd 13, 05:15 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default Planetary climate spectrum

On Jan 23, 1:47*am, oriel36 wrote:
Even though I know little of Kant,his
commentary on empiricism turned towards the present disgraceful
treatment of planetary climate is fairly accurate or indeed the root
cause of the problem that is a particular strain of late 17th century
Royal Society empiricism *and especially Newton's agenda -

*"it was nothing but the logic of illusion. It was a sophistic art of
giving to one’s ignorance, indeed even to one’s intentional tricks,
the outward appearance of truth, by imitating the thorough, accurate
method which logic always requires, and by using its topic as a cloak
for every empty assertion."


A Google search turned up the information that this quotation refers
not to *empiricism* but to *dialectic*. Given the degree to which
"dialectical materialism" corresponded to reality, I have no quarrel
with Kant's sentiments there once they are referred to the correct
target.

John Savard
  #19  
Old January 29th 13, 06:18 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Morten Reistad
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 114
Default Planetary climate

In article ,
Quadibloc wrote:
On Jan 21, 12:22*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:


Incidentally, while I knew we could continue having a vibrant economy
with abundant energy through nuclear power, including breeder and
thorium breeder reactors, I was concerned that not _all_ of our energy
needs could be met this way, as electric cars or hydrogen-fuelled cars
presented challenges.

But then I thought of how Robert Zubrin mentioned an old chemical
process to use hydrogen to make an alternative fuel with more reaction
mass from the carbon dioxide on Mars. As I recalled, though, he was
making carbon monoxide, which wasn't too obviously useful. But when I
did a Google search, I found the Wikipedia article on the Sabatier
process, and normally it made methane. And methane is widely used in
motor vehicles - although it has the bulky tank problem too, just to a
lesser degree than hydrogen.


What is wrong with ethanol?

As an energy carrier, not as an energy source.

It can more or less replace the gasoline we use today, at a 1/3 reduction
in energy density. We must use a process where the energy comes from some
grid, not from the soil; so we just add energy to ferment some biomass
that is leftover from agriculture, or from forests. NOT grown for food.

Well, then, I thought I'd take a look at Fischer-Tropsch again. I
didn't think that would be useful - it was a way to utilize coal, a
more abundant fossil fuel, and so that would hardly solve the
greenhouse gas problem. But the Wikipedia article surprised me again -
it turned out it worked by reacting carbon monoxide with hydrogen.

So apparently there is no need to despair. We already have all the
technology we need to keep on enjoying our present lifestyle - with
maybe a little extra effort expended to obtain the energy we use -
with a zero carbon footprint. We don't even need to replace our cars.


And the Peak Oil event is already upon us. It just increased the price
of the stuff. This will go on for the next few centuries.

Now even coal prices are climbing.

Until we get the Nuclear generators going, that is.

-- mrr
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Planetary Climate spectrum oriel36[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 44 December 23rd 12 11:05 PM
Planetary climate oriel36[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 11 November 20th 12 09:57 AM
Koch funded climate scientist reverses thinking - climate change IS REAL! Uncarollo2 Amateur Astronomy 21 August 8th 12 10:43 PM
Planetary dynamics and climate oriel36[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 1 February 20th 10 03:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.