Climate spectrum limits axial orientation to 90 degrees

No planet has an axial inclination beyond 90 degrees hence many websites are in error when they describe Uranus as having an inclination of 98 degrees as opposed to the correct value of 82 degrees -

http://www.space.com/45-uranus-seven...ed-planet.html

It is imperative to assign the correct 82 degree value as planetary climate is defined within a spectrum between Equatorial (0 Degree inclination) and Polar (90 Degrees inclination).

On Wednesday, September 18, 2013 9:48:22 AM UTC-6, oriel36 wrote:
No planet has an axial inclination beyond 90 degrees hence many websites are in
error when they describe Uranus as having an inclination of 98 degrees as
opposed to the correct value of 82 degrees -

That's fair enough, however the figure of 98 degrees is to deal with the fact that if we take the inclination as being 82 degrees, then Uranus would be considered as rotating clockwise, unlike all the other planets.

John Savard

On Wednesday, September 18, 2013 5:08:44 PM UTC+1, Lord Androcles wrote:
"oriel36" wrote in message

...



No planet has an axial inclination beyond 90 degrees hence many websites are

in error when they describe Uranus as having an inclination of 98 degrees as

opposed to the correct value of 82 degrees



==========================================

No angle is greater than 90 degrees hence many Kellehers are in error when

they mutter 360/24 , it is 0 degrees relative to the Sun in 24 hours.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

Stop being a nuisance Parker,this require people who can reason properly for a change and it is crucial in defining climate.Thanks for replying anyway as it allows me to add a graphic -

http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net...anusorbit..png

Planetary climate is defined by axial inclination using the 0 Degree to 90 Degree spectrum.

The shorter angle is the only valid one insofar as from the North ecliptic pole,the angle is 82 degrees.If the same poor judgement was applied to the Earth,the angle of inclination would be given as an unsightly 156.5 Degrees as opposed to the correct value of 23.5 Degrees.

On Wednesday, September 18, 2013 9:47:19 AM UTC-7, oriel36 wrote:

No planet has an axial inclination beyond 90 degrees hence many websites are



in error when they describe Uranus as having an inclination of 98 degrees as



opposed to the correct value of 82 degrees







==========================================

http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net...ranusorbit.png



Planetary climate is defined by axial inclination using the 0 Degree to 90 Degree spectrum.



The shorter angle is the only valid one insofar as from the North ecliptic pole,the angle is 82 degrees.If the same poor judgement was applied to the Earth,the angle of inclination would be given as an unsightly 156.5 Degrees as opposed to the correct value of 23.5 Degrees.

******************

Your very own graphic clearly shows why the extra 8 degrees are required...

The complete silence on defining climate astronomically is hugely problematic as the old 'no tilt/no seasons' has to give way to the productive approach which designates a planet with 0 Degree inclination as having an Equatorial climate,much like Jupiter whereas a planet with a 90 Degree inclination like Uranus has a polar climate.The Earth falls towards the Equatorial end of the spectrum hence the latitudinal swings in surface conditions are not especially severe whereas increasing its inclination would introduce more polar inputs over a greater surface area.

Anything above 90 degrees for inclination makes no sense whatsoever and especially climate research.

On Wednesday, September 18, 2013 2:15:14 PM UTC-7, oriel36 wrote:

Anything above 90 degrees for inclination makes no sense whatsoever and especially climate research.

Your very own graphic clearly shows why the extra 8 degrees are required... don't you read your own links?

"oriel36" wrote in message
...

No planet has an axial inclination beyond 90 degrees hence many websites are
in error when they describe Uranus as having an inclination of 98 degrees as
opposed to the correct value of 82 degrees

==========================================
No angle is greater than 90 degrees hence many Kellehers are in error when
they mutter 360/24 , it is 0 degrees relative to the Sun in 24 hours.
-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

"oriel36" wrote in message
...

On Wednesday, September 18, 2013 5:08:44 PM UTC+1, Lord Androcles wrote:
"oriel36" wrote in message

...



No planet has an axial inclination beyond 90 degrees hence many websites
are

in error when they describe Uranus as having an inclination of 98 degrees
as

opposed to the correct value of 82 degrees



==========================================

No angle is greater than 90 degrees hence many Kellehers are in error when

they mutter 360/24 , it is 0 degrees relative to the Sun in 24 hours.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

Stop being a nuisance Parker,
=========================================
Stop being a total moron, Kelleher. Oh wait, you can't help it, can you?
The Earth rotates 90 degrees from midnight to dawn, -90 degrees from dawn to
noon,
90 degrees from noon to sunset and -90 degrees from sunset to midnight. then
it
instantaneously jumps a degree relative to the stars because it moved a
degree
along its orbit to make up the 4 minutes. Don't you feel the jolt every
midnight?

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

"oriel36" wrote in message
...

The complete silence on defining climate astronomically
================================================== =
Is just like the complete silence on defining bicycles biologically.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

The change in perspective from 'no tilt/no seasons' to a spectrum bookended by Polar on one side and Equatorial on the other is a consequence of introducing the orbital day/night cycle and its cause.

A person standing at latitude 90 Degrees is being carried around in a circle to the central Sun by virtue of the Earth's orbital behavior hence the only possible way to describe the coming days as both polar latitudes swing through the circle of illumination into their respective experience of orbital dawn or orbital twilight.

Only when a person looks at the wider perspective of orbital motion can the following apparent precession of Uranus make sense -

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

In this case,making comparisons with the moon's orbital behavior around the Earth with a planet's orbital behavior around the Sun eases any difficulty by adapting the animated graphic to represent the orbital motion of Uranus,in this case the graphic on the right -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._the_Earth.gif

So,the only difficulty in expanding on the issues is that astronomy is dominated by physicists who are only interested in entities conjured up in their imagination and they simply can't handle geometry or judgments where motion is required and especially cyclical motion.