Climate - an astronomical perspective

A brief detour to Wikipedia demonstrates that even the foundations of
climate studies are exceptionally weak,even childish -

"Climatology (from Greek κλίμα, klima, "place, zone"; and -λογία, -
logia) is the study of climate, scientifically defined as weather
conditions averaged over a period of time, and is a branch of the
atmospheric sciences."

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

For a start,atmospheric science is a secondary input into climate as
the core working principles for climate itself are determined by
planetary dynamics - specifically the relationship between the two
axes of a planet,one axial and the other orbital.

This nonsense of statistical weather as defining climate is merely
accentuating a problem where science shades off into a vicious strain
of empiricism that is blinkered to anything but modeling and the
apparent power its proponents are addicted to,needless to say it is
mindnumbingly poor in its agenda and its methods.

A planet has a climate bookended between equatorial (0 degree
inclination) and polar (90 degree inclination) - this alone is the
basis for planetary climate regardless of atmospheric composition and
all the other ingredients that follow.

The Earth has a largely equatorial climate and when this is
discussed,then and only then are men involving themselves in climate
studies.

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

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

Introduction to Infrared Radiative Transfer
http://www.jcsda.noaa.gov/documents/...fraRadTran.pdf

Scientific Evidence - Increasing Temperatures & Greenhouse Gases
http://www.whrc.org/resources/primer_fundamentals.html

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm


--
-Sam Wormley

On Aug 10, 4:32*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature
*http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/pap...odayRT2011.pdf
*http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/publist.html

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

Introduction to Infrared Radiative Transfer
*http://www.jcsda.noaa.gov/documents/...coll/Barnet2_I...

Scientific Evidence - Increasing Temperatures & Greenhouse Gases
*http://www.whrc.org/resources/primer_fundamentals.html

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
*http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

--
-Sam Wormley

In a predominantly equatorial climate,such as that of the Earth,we
experience fairly mild fluctuations in temperatures as the Earth moves
along its orbital circumference compared to a planet with a highly
polar rotational inclination.Those not in tune with what global
climate actually represents will weigh in with equatorial/temperate/
polar zones however this is way adrift of the working principles
which define planetary climate as either equatorial,polar or a mixture
of both.

It doesn't take a huge stretch of the imagination to consider the
rotational traits of Uranus applied to the Earth and how those
latitudinal fluctuations would pan out as more surface area of the
Earth would experience extreme swings in daylight/darkness asymmetry
and,as locations spend longer times in either orbital darkness or
solar radiation,the temperature swings would be rapid between summer
and winter whereas the transition on Earth,due to its equatorial
climate,is a far more gentle affair over large areas of its surface.

You never heard that the Earth has a largely equatorial climate
Sam,have you ?. It may be possible to get people interested in the
fact that zero inclination does not mean a planet does not experience
the seasons but rather mimics an equatorial climate where temperature
fluctuations are at a minimum so that a planet with zero inclination
would experience equatorial conditions yet would still retain day/
night temperature fluctuations whereas a planet with a 90 degree
inclination would see temperatures see-saw rapidly over the year.

The fact is Sam that axial precession as it is is presently understood
is gone,the Earth's polar coordinates turn in a circle to the central
Sun representing all locations on Earth and highlighting an ecliptic
axis around which those polar coordinates turn or roughly what the
Earth looks like over a period of its annual orbit -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Earth_precession.svg

All you need is a simple broom and walk/orbit a central object while
maintaining the alignment of the broom (representing constant axial
orientation) and you will discover that the line of your body
represents an ecliptic axis and all points of your body face the
central object/Sun at different times.It is a new way to look at the
whole picture of the seasons and global climate,it is interesting,it
is new and it is here to stay.It just needs interesting people to
flesh it out.

On Friday, August 10, 2012 10:21:14 AM UTC-7, oriel36 wrote:

The fact is Sam that axial precession as it is is presently understood

is gone,the Earth's polar coordinates turn in a circle to the central

Sun representing all locations on Earth and highlighting an ecliptic

axis around which those polar coordinates turn or roughly what the

Earth looks like over a period of its annual orbit -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Earth_precession.svg

Perhaps I'm losing something in the translation. You do understand, one would hope, that the picture in your link shows what the wobble of the Earth's axis looks like over a period of about 26,000 years, don't you? You do understand that since precession is so slow, during our lifetimes the Earth's axis essentially points at Polaris continuously, which was not the case thousands of years ago and will not be the case thousands of years in the future?

Precession is VERY well understood, nothing is new, and nothing needs re-interpreting, either by you or by anyone else.

\Paul A

On Aug 11, 1:52*am, palsing wrote:
On Friday, August 10, 2012 10:21:14 AM UTC-7, oriel36 wrote:
The fact is Sam that axial precession as it is is presently understood

is gone,the Earth's polar coordinates turn in a circle to the central

Sun representing all locations on Earth and highlighting an ecliptic

axis around which those polar coordinates turn *or roughly what the

Earth looks like over a period of its annual orbit -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Earth_precession.svg

Perhaps I'm losing something in the translation. You do understand, one would hope, that the picture in your link shows what the wobble of the Earth's axis looks like over a period of about 26,000 years, don't you?

Understand indeed !,it must be thousand times now that I posted the
sequence of images of Uranus demonstrating that a planet turns once to
the central Sun aside from daily rotation using the polar coordinates
as a beacon for that orbital behavior -

http://www.daviddarling.info/images/...gs_changes.jpg

The Earth's polar coordinates act in the same manner for the
underlying orbital behavior,a quasi-rotation that is easily understood
by walking/orbiting an object using a broom handle to substitute for
constant axial alignment and the line of a person's body to represent
an ecliptic axis around which the broom handle will turn 360 degrees
to the central object.



You do understand that since precession is so slow, during our lifetimes the Earth's axis essentially points at Polaris continuously, which was not the case thousands of years ago and will not be the case thousands of years in the future?

Precession is VERY well understood, nothing is new, and nothing needs re-interpreting, either by you or by anyone else.

\Paul A

The material is not for people who can't comprehend the major
modification but rather people who can determine that the old 'no tilt/
no seasons' ideology is go0ne in favor of zero degree inclination
representing an equatorial climate.Many like you should content
themselves with the magnification exercise and certainly you can be an
astronomer of sorts at that level alone however those images of Uranus
are crucially important in designating what global climate actually is
using planetary comparisons and that requires a person who has
interpretative talent and not the nuisances who make assertions
without rhyme or reason.

You are fortunate that I am responding to you at all,you gloried in an
obscene post making you disgusting among participants who,at least,
never went anywhere near something that awful so don't blow it this
time.