Science in 1896

A Swedish scientist, Svante Arrhenius, used Langley's observations of increased infrared absorption where Moon rays pass through the atmosphere at a low angle, encountering more carbon dioxide (CO2), to estimate an atmospheric cooling effect from a future decrease of CO2. He realized that the cooler atmosphere would hold less water vapor (another greenhouse gas) and calculated the additional cooling effect. He also realized the cooling would increase snow and ice cover at high latitudes, making the planet reflect more sunlight and thus further cool down, as James Croll had hypothesized. Overall Arrhenius calculated that cutting CO2 in half would suffice to produce an ice age. He further calculated that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would give a total warming of 5-6 degrees Celsius.

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 10:09:31 PM UTC+1, SlurpieMcDoublegulp wrote:
A Swedish scientist, Svante Arrhenius, used Langley's observations of increased infrared absorption where Moon rays pass through the atmosphere at a low angle, encountering more carbon dioxide (CO2), to estimate an atmospheric cooling effect from a future decrease of CO2. He realized that the cooler atmosphere would hold less water vapor (another greenhouse gas) and calculated the additional cooling effect. He also realized the cooling would increase snow and ice cover at high latitudes, making the planet reflect more sunlight and thus further cool down, as James Croll had hypothesized. Overall Arrhenius calculated that cutting CO2 in half would suffice to produce an ice age. He further calculated that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would give a total warming of 5-6 degrees Celsius.

https://archive.org/stream/discussio.../n140/mode/2up

That gibberish boils down to a notion relating to 'axial precession' which happens to be a flawed ideology attached to observations as Croll and many others like him up to the present had this idea that there is a slow 26,000 year change in orientation of the North and South poles to the Sun and the circle of illumination thereby affecting planetary climate -

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...precession.svg

These boys from the 19th century at least they tried to understand the presence and absence of ice ages using astronomical conceptions whereas the dummies today are all about human lifestyles and politics.

We live in the 21st century where polar night, in real time, is beginning to set in at the South pole and all transitions from daylight to darkness is due to a surface rotation to the Sun -

http://www.usap.gov/videoclipsandmaps/spwebcam.cfm


If you are all concerned about planetary climate then there is a means to define it using common planetary traits for all planets, I repeat, all planets in the solar system. Then and only then can people model climate to their hearts content .

If circumstances were normal, the introduction of dual day/night cycles and their respective rotations which require the abandonment of 'axial precession' would be enough to see the wheels come off the 'climate change' bandwagon and focus turn to productive and creative research.

It is unimaginable that avoidance of the polar day/night cycle where the North/South Poles act as windows into the orbital surface rotation to the central Sun can go on for any great length of time especially when people already live on the Antarctic continent and witness the spectacle first hand-

http://www.usap.gov/videoclipsandmaps/spwebcam.cfm


There are many people here unable to match up one rotation with one day/night cycle and they usually come in the form of two sticks and a stopwatch variety allied with circumpolar motion but these can be discounted as a throwback to the late 17th century. It was a really bad thing that they unknowingly generated a stupid conclusion back then, it is far,far worse to knowingly continue with that dumb conclusion which hinders the appreciation of the planet's dual day/night cycles and their respective causes.

On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 1:45:32 PM UTC-7, oriel36 wrote:

There are many people here unable to match up one rotation with one day/night cycle and they usually come in the form of two sticks and a stopwatch variety...

You are lying again, everyone knows that one rotation with respect to the Sun defines one solar day...

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fro...ur/qRAB45cWbG0

On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 10:39:01 PM UTC+1, palsing wrote:
On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 1:45:32 PM UTC-7, oriel36 wrote:

There are many people here unable to match up one rotation with one day/night cycle and they usually come in the form of two sticks and a stopwatch variety...

You are lying again, everyone knows that one rotation with respect to the Sun defines one solar day...

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fro...ur/qRAB45cWbG0

Try the polar day/night cycle where dawn and twilight occur around the Equinoxes at either poles seeing you are so insistent about rotation to the Sun.. The Sun comes into view at the Equinox, stays in view for 6 months before the stars come into view after polar twilight is done.

It is not good that someone like you who hates astronomy should be able to operate with the intellectual depths of celestial sphere astronomy with your two sticks and your stopwatch but even worse that those who should know better ignore the polar day/night cycle and its rotational cause.

On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 2:54:01 PM UTC-7, oriel36 wrote:
On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 10:39:01 PM UTC+1, palsing wrote:
On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 1:45:32 PM UTC-7, oriel36 wrote:

There are many people here unable to match up one rotation with one day/night cycle and they usually come in the form of two sticks and a stopwatch variety...

You are lying again, everyone knows that one rotation with respect to the Sun defines one solar day...

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fro...ur/qRAB45cWbG0

Try the polar day/night cycle where dawn and twilight occur around the Equinoxes at either poles seeing you are so insistent about rotation to the Sun. The Sun comes into view at the Equinox, stays in view for 6 months before the stars come into view after polar twilight is done.

It is not good that someone like you who hates astronomy should be able to operate with the intellectual depths of celestial sphere astronomy with your two sticks and your stopwatch but even worse that those who should know better ignore the polar day/night cycle and its rotational cause.

When it comes to ignoring observations it is you who is the indisputable champion.

You do realize, don't you, that 2 sticks and a stopwatch still works just fine (assuming it is dark there) at the poles... right? Why is this? It shows that the Earth rotates with respect to the stars in 23 56 04 consistently from any point on the surface of the Earth!

Think about it before spouting off again.

Also, I certainly don't hate astronomy, it is what I do...

On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 11:17:07 PM UTC+1, palsing wrote:
On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 2:54:01 PM UTC-7, oriel36 wrote:
On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 10:39:01 PM UTC+1, palsing wrote:
On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 1:45:32 PM UTC-7, oriel36 wrote:

There are many people here unable to match up one rotation with one day/night cycle and they usually come in the form of two sticks and a stopwatch variety...

You are lying again, everyone knows that one rotation with respect to the Sun defines one solar day...

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fro...ur/qRAB45cWbG0

Try the polar day/night cycle where dawn and twilight occur around the Equinoxes at either poles seeing you are so insistent about rotation to the Sun. The Sun comes into view at the Equinox, stays in view for 6 months before the stars come into view after polar twilight is done.

It is not good that someone like you who hates astronomy should be able to operate with the intellectual depths of celestial sphere astronomy with your two sticks and your stopwatch but even worse that those who should know better ignore the polar day/night cycle and its rotational cause.

When it comes to ignoring observations it is you who is the indisputable champion.


All you have done is avoided looking at the polar day/night cycle and its unique dawn and twilight when the Sun comes into view and disappears from view in March or September depending on whether the North or South pole is being considered.

Spending years insisting that everyone knows the Earth rotates to the Sun to produce the day/night cycle nicely sets up the companion rotation responsible for the polar day/night cycle with its own dawn and twilight. Where these surface rotations combine we get the seasons.

What your celestial sphere ancestors did was create a notion of the 'solar day' in order to set it off against the celestial sphere 'sidereal day'. Despite the fact that the 24 hour system and the Lat/Long system is designed around the Earth's rotation, the celestial sphere enthusiasts project it into the celestial arena as a rotating celestial sphere which you now equate directly with rotation once in 23 hours 56 minutes and a mismatch between 24 hour days and rotations. I covered this topic where timekeeping comes into close proximity to planetary cycles so many times in almost two decades that there is no need to do it any more.

They say today is 'Earth Day' and as good a day as any to begin the road to recovery using something as spectacular as two types of dawn and twilight in order to bring to attention that aside from and in addition to daily rotation, our planet turned once to the central Sun with the North/South poles acting as windows into the traits of that rotation.

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 5:09:31 PM UTC-4, SlurpieMcDoublegulp wrote:

Blah, blah, blah...

In 1896 the systematic recording of temperatures and other meteorological data was a fairly new idea. Even today, it's hit or miss.