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

Climate change



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 23rd 09, 07:10 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default 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  
Old June 24th 09, 01:47 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default 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  
Old June 24th 09, 07:00 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Meme Mr. Mustard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24
Default 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  
Old June 24th 09, 09:08 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Rich[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 751
Default 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  
Old June 24th 09, 10:10 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris.Bee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 367
Default 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  
Old June 24th 09, 01:26 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
skyguy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default 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  
Old June 24th 09, 02:58 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
John Walsh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default 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  
Old June 24th 09, 03:36 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default 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  
Old June 24th 09, 04:35 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Martin Nicholson (NMR)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default 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  
Old June 24th 09, 07:55 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default 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

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
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:30 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.