#1
|
|||
|
|||
Climate change
How hard is it (apart from the usual nuisances who reply) to determine
what role rotational inclination (tilt) actually plays and that it does not cause the seasons ? . The idea of 'no tilt/no seasons' is derived by a hypothesis from Copernicus himself but the modified view replaces that view with practical observations based on planetary comparisons where the cause of the seasons is actually the orbital motion of the Earth and the isolation of that motion and its characteristics. A planet can have either Equatorial conditions such as the Earth or polar conditions like Uranus based on what degree of 'tilt' exists but of itself 'tilt' cannot cause the seasons,that dynamic is strictly the specific way a planet orbits the Sun.The role of 'tilt' is therefore restricted to seasonal characteristics and completely at variance with the view of 'axial tilt to the orbital plane' or some such variation of that theme - http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/astro/season.php I am not throwing good information after the 'climate change' mob whio live and operate of a hyper fuss basis while not having any sense of what causes basic temperature fluctuations of the day/night cycle due to daily rotation or the seasonal cycle via orbital dynamics. Is there any sane person,who can simply work out the reasons which distinguish Earth from Uranus in terms of 'tilt' comparisons thereby determining what role rotational inclination actually serves?. http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imke/Infr..._2001_2005.jpg For all the fuss over 'global warming' and whether temperature spikes are due to human or natural influences,until scientists explain the basic seasonal temperature fluctuations correctly via astronomy and planetary dynamics,they are being absolutely ridiculous in attempting to correlate carbon dioxide with minor variations in temperature. How intelligent do you need to be to understand what 'tilt' actually does ?. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Climate change
On Jun 23, 12:10*pm, oriel36 wrote:
A planet can have either Equatorial conditions such as the Earth or polar conditions like Uranus based on what degree of 'tilt' exists but of itself 'tilt' cannot cause the seasons,that dynamic is strictly the specific way a planet orbits the Sun. You're partly right. If the Earth didn't orbit the Sun, but always stayed at one part of its orbit, there would be no seasons; 'tilt' is a static condition, and seasons are about change over the course of a year. But if the Earth's axis coincided with the Ecliptic pole, the conditions would be so "Equatorial" that the seasons would not vary at all. Given a circular orbit, though, I have to admit. There could still be aphelion season and perhelion season giving the same temperature changes in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres. John Savard |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Climate change
The Four Seasons was a great band.!
A planet can have either Equatorial conditions such as the Earth or polar conditions like Uranus based on what degree of 'tilt' exists but of itself 'tilt' cannot cause the seasons,that dynamic is strictly the specific way a planet orbits the Sun. You're partly right. If the Earth didn't orbit the Sun, but always stayed at one part of its orbit, there would be no seasons; 'tilt' is a static condition, and seasons are about change over the course of a year. But if the Earth's axis coincided with the Ecliptic pole, the conditions would be so "Equatorial" that the seasons would not vary at all. Given a circular orbit, though, I have to admit. There could still be aphelion season and perhelion season giving the same temperature changes in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres. John Savard |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Climate change
On Jun 23, 2:10*pm, oriel36 wrote:
How hard is it (apart from the usual nuisances who reply) to determine what role rotational inclination (tilt) actually plays and that it does not cause the seasons ? . The idea of 'no tilt/no seasons' is derived by a hypothesis from Copernicus himself but the modified view replaces that view with practical observations based on planetary comparisons where the cause of the seasons is actually the orbital motion of the Earth and the isolation of that motion and its characteristics. A planet can have either Equatorial conditions such as the Earth or polar conditions like Uranus based on what degree of 'tilt' exists but of itself 'tilt' cannot cause the seasons,that dynamic is strictly the specific way a planet orbits the Sun.The role of 'tilt' is therefore restricted to seasonal characteristics and completely at variance with the view of 'axial tilt to the orbital plane' or some such variation of that theme - http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/astro/season.php I am not throwing good information after the 'climate change' mob whio live and operate of a hyper fuss basis while not having any sense of what causes basic temperature fluctuations of the day/night cycle due to daily rotation or the seasonal cycle via orbital dynamics. Is there any sane person,who can simply work out the reasons which distinguish Earth from Uranus in terms of 'tilt' comparisons thereby determining what role rotational inclination actually serves?. http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imke/Infr..._2001_2005.jpg For all the fuss over 'global warming' *and whether temperature spikes are due to human or natural influences,until scientists explain the basic seasonal temperature fluctuations correctly via astronomy and planetary dynamics,they are being absolutely ridiculous in attempting to correlate carbon dioxide with minor variations in temperature. How intelligent do you need to be to understand what 'tilt' actually does ?. That is presuming you believe the climate change and C02 theories and don't realize the people behind it are nothing but a cabal of World government socialists and envirocrackpots working on the largest plan yet to destroy the West. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Climate change
On Jun 24, 10:08*am, Rich wrote:
That is presuming you believe the climate change and C02 theories and don't realize the people behind it are nothing but a cabal of World government socialists and envirocrackpots working on the largest plan yet to destroy the West. You are much too modest, Rich. You dont need the help of anyone else. The right wing have brought the entire world to its knees. (yet again) All the the envirowotsits can do for you now is to patch the gaping holes until your lot rig the next elections. ;-) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Climate change
Quadibloc wrote:
On Jun 23, 12:10 pm, oriel36 wrote: A planet can have either Equatorial conditions such as the Earth or polar conditions like Uranus based on what degree of 'tilt' exists but of itself 'tilt' cannot cause the seasons,that dynamic is strictly the specific way a planet orbits the Sun. You're partly right. If the Earth didn't orbit the Sun, but always stayed at one part of its orbit, there would be no seasons; 'tilt' is a static condition, and seasons are about change over the course of a year. But if the Earth's axis coincided with the Ecliptic pole, the conditions would be so "Equatorial" that the seasons would not vary at all. Given a circular orbit, though, I have to admit. There could still be aphelion season and perhelion season giving the same temperature changes in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres. John Savard From what I've read of Gerald's posts on the subject of 'tilt', he has never given any indication that he understands or even wants to know why the earth's rotational axis remains fixed in space relative to the distant stars, particularly Polaris. Apparently he has never had a basic physics course which would provide the answer to that question or perhaps in his mind it's not an issue that needs explaining. He would most likely say that it's just the way it is. In any case, he thinks he's the only one who knows that the seasons are caused by the earth's fixed axis of rotation (tilt) in relation to it's orbital path around the sun which he calls the 'orbital specific'. This produces the changes in the path of the sun in the sky during the course of a year, resulting in the variable length of the days, which ultimately produce the changes in the weather that we call seasons. Apparently this all started for him when he saw the time lapse pictures of Uranus. As if the world was waiting for that evidence before we could truly understand the causes of the seasons. Sadly he doesn't realize that those pictures of Uranus only serve to confirm what has been known for centuries about the orbital mechanics of the earth and the solar system in general. I guess what makes this frustrating for some of us here is the notion that we could set him straight if we had the opportunity to sit down with him, pen and paper in hand, and walk him through the process that leads to really understanding the subject. That would be a far greater epiphany for him than when he first saw those pictures of Uranus. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Climate change
"Chris.Bee" wrote in message ... ".....The right wing have brought the entire world to its knees. (yet again)......" It's the far left responsible for this, and a whole heap of other crap such as: moral decay, religious degradation, continued economic collapse, bankruptcy, etc. Of course, you could be a dreamer and believe Obamaeze will fix everything. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Climate change
On Jun 24, 9:08*am, Rich wrote:
On Jun 23, 2:10*pm, oriel36 wrote: How hard is it (apart from the usual nuisances who reply) to determine what role rotational inclination (tilt) actually plays and that it does not cause the seasons ? . The idea of 'no tilt/no seasons' is derived by a hypothesis from Copernicus himself but the modified view replaces that view with practical observations based on planetary comparisons where the cause of the seasons is actually the orbital motion of the Earth and the isolation of that motion and its characteristics. A planet can have either Equatorial conditions such as the Earth or polar conditions like Uranus based on what degree of 'tilt' exists but of itself 'tilt' cannot cause the seasons,that dynamic is strictly the specific way a planet orbits the Sun.The role of 'tilt' is therefore restricted to seasonal characteristics and completely at variance with the view of 'axial tilt to the orbital plane' or some such variation of that theme - http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/astro/season.php I am not throwing good information after the 'climate change' mob whio live and operate of a hyper fuss basis while not having any sense of what causes basic temperature fluctuations of the day/night cycle due to daily rotation or the seasonal cycle via orbital dynamics. Is there any sane person,who can simply work out the reasons which distinguish Earth from Uranus in terms of 'tilt' comparisons thereby determining what role rotational inclination actually serves?. http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imke/Infr..._2001_2005.jpg For all the fuss over 'global warming' *and whether temperature spikes are due to human or natural influences,until scientists explain the basic seasonal temperature fluctuations correctly via astronomy and planetary dynamics,they are being absolutely ridiculous in attempting to correlate carbon dioxide with minor variations in temperature. How intelligent do you need to be to understand what 'tilt' actually does ?. That is presuming you believe the climate change and C02 theories and don't realize the people behind it are nothing but a cabal of World government socialists and envirocrackpots working on the largest plan yet to destroy the West. Don't need to consider 'climate change' as it is understood in the media , that has the same ring to it as Newton's attempt to correlate terrestrial ballistics directly to planetary motion by throwing the kitchen sink at it in order to make observations fit the conclusions.As he used the predictive Ra/Dec conventions, amounting to inverted references for daily and orbital motions,it now amounts to showing what a waste of time and effort that turned out to be.If people want to be fleeced individually or nationally to the tune of billions by believing carbon dioxide has some magic property to control global temperature then that is none of my concern,it looks like the attempt to extract cash the same way denominational Christianity once used indulgences once to expunge guilt except this 21st century version is more destructive. I can point out that by far the greatest temperature fluctuations are the seasonal variations between a week in January/February and a week in July/August representing the specifics of planetary dynamics.These temperature variations are cyclical meaning that they are supposed to be completely understood along with the variations which occur during the day/night cycle before moving on to long term variations or adding inputs which distinguish astronomical,terrestrial and human influences.Ask the 'climate change' scientists what causes a rise in temperature from January to July and they don't know or attribute 'axial tilt' as the cause whereas the major modification and a nuanced approach is surely understood by any reasonable person here - that rotational inclination dictates whether a planet has Equatorial or polar characteristics in its seasonal cycle with orbital motion and the specifics of that motion causing the temperature fluctuation when allied with daily rotation. I don't think it is possible for anyone to return to 'axial tilt' as the dynamic for seasonal changes once they see the advantages of its actual role.In the interest of stability and to prevent the atrocious correlation between global temperature and carbon dioxide/pollution from dominating all terrestrial and astronomical investigations,the modification based on planetary dynamics and characteristics puts the brakes on if only to demonstrate that the exclusion of astronomy has terrible consequences.The problem is,as anyone familiar with the 'Pluto' disaster knows,is that there is no astronomical authority worth speaking of. Tell me,before everyone jumps over the carbon dioxide/global warming precipice,would you go along with the following explanation for the seasons ?,if you do then you belong with the opponents and proponents of that reckless conclusion - http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/astro/season.php |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Climate change
On 24 June, 15:36, oriel36 wrote:
Usual rubbish deleted The depth of your problem is demonstated by your inability to resist the temptation to post minor variations of the same old material for more than a few hours. Please, please, seek professional help! |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Climate change
On Jun 23, 7:24*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
* *Climate change is something else and I refer you to links at this * *URL I put together. * * *http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Glob...Resources.html Climate change indeed ! - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset I actually didn't read that until after my last response in this thread and good to see the 21st century version of 'indulgences' mentioned and so they should be. Astronomers should be the first to weigh in with the arguments which put the brakes on what is turning into a scam,not because they ruined the normal concerns for pollution that have always existed, but that they managed to exclude the astronomical inputs which dictate global climate conditions.Is there any person here with a few brain cells who realises that any attempt to consider global temperature variations in future by any other means bar carbon dioxide will be looked on as 'bad for business' . Push through these social policies under the umbrella of 'climate change' (rather than pollution control that it is) and you can forget astronomy,planetary dynamics or anything else.With no astronomical authority in existence,the monster that is 'climate change' by treating carbon dioxide as the global temperature dial ,nothing is going to happen to turn this situation around even though it is,quite surprisingly,not all that difficult.If scientists can't explain the seasons properly then they put global climate on hold until they get things straight - call it a triumph of science if you wish but it is pretty much the most effective tool available . Many here should take the words of Copernicus to heart when dealing with the reckless conclusion based on global climate.We barely understand most processes and the astronomical- terrestrial connection and it is time for people to act accordingly - ". although they have extracted from them the apparent motions, with numerical agreement, nevertheless . . . . They are just like someone including in a picture hands, feet, head, and other limbs from different places, well painted indeed, but not modeled from the same body, and not in the least matching each other, so that a monster would be produced from them rather than a man. Thus in the process of their demonstrations, which they call their system, they are found either to have missed out something essential, or to have brought in something inappropriate and wholly irrelevant, which would not have happened to them if they had followed proper principles. For if the hypotheses which they assumed had not been fallacies, everything which follows from them could be independently verified." De revolutionibus, 1543 Copernicus |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Climate Change Forum | Robert Karl Stonjek | Astronomy Misc | 5 | October 15th 07 03:43 AM |
Forum: The Climate Change Debate | Robert Karl Stonjek | Astronomy Misc | 3 | June 7th 07 09:29 AM |
A Different Way to 'Picture' Climate Change | Jonathan | Policy | 24 | June 3rd 07 04:45 PM |
Contributing to climate change | oriel36 | UK Astronomy | 0 | May 12th 06 12:13 PM |