Planetary spectrum for climate

The followers of 'climate change' operate on a level that suits modeling by making it appear that success for short term weather patterns can be extended to a conception of planetary climate however this is such a poor standard of reasoning that it is detrimental to actual climate research. It doesn't help that followers of the same modeling feel no shame by appealing to circumpolar motion around Polaris as a direct correlation with daily rotation thereby bypassing the central Sun as the sole reference.

The problem is the way Copernicus set up an assumption that is below par in appealing to zero inclination and the seasons -

"To this circle, which goes through the middle of the signs, and to
its plane, the equator and the earth's axis must be understood to have
a variable inclination. For if they stayed at a constant angle, and
were affected exclusively by the motion of the centre, no inequality
of days and nights would be observed. On the contrary,it day or the
day of equal daylight and darkness, or summer or winter, or whatever
the character of the season, it would remain identical and
unchanged." Copernicus, De Revolutionibus

Were the Earth to have a zero inclination it would have an Equatorial climate and therefore experience many of the effects Copernicus describes as 'no seasons' however with each degree of inclination added, more pronounced asymmetries between daylight and darkness occur until the opposite end of the spectrum is reach with a 90 degree inclination.

I have some sympathy for Copernicus as the geocentric framework he inherited also included the Precession of the Equinoxes and he sacrificed his original correct assertion that the polar scribes small circle (equivalent to the polar Arctic/ Antarctic circles) in order to explain the slight drift in the position of the stars beyond the annual motion of the Sun through the Zodiac each year -

"The third is the motion in declination. For, the axis of the daily rotation is not parallel to the Grand Orb's axis, but is inclined [to it at an angle that intercepts] a portion of a circumference, in our time about 23 1/2°. Therefore, while the earth's center always remains in the plane of the ecliptic, that is, in the circumference of a circle of the Grand Orb, the earth's poles rotate, both of them describing small circles about centers [lying on a line that moves] parallel to the Grand Orb's axis." Copernicus, Commentariolus

Not just the poles, but the entire planet turns once as a function of its orbital motion so rather than posit a separate rotation, Copernicus opted for variable axial orientation or a 'tilting' Earth.

I would say all readers here operate at an inadequate level which appears as fraught with accusations and assertions whereas genuine climate research has a lot of historical baggage to jettison by modifying many of the principles which link cause and effect. On the off chance that someone may adopt and adapt to dual surface rotations then work can begin on climate properly..

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 4:44:30 PM UTC+1, oriel36 wrote:
Copernicus opted for variable axial orientation or a 'tilting' Earth.

No, he didn't.

He observed fact that the axis of the Earth is tilted 23.5 degrees. Neither Copernicus nor anyone else outside your imagination thought or thinks that the tilt of the Earth's axis changes during the year.

You'd have to be blind or mad to think that that, since we can all see that it remains oriented towards a point near Polaris throughout the year.

(In fact the angle does change a small amount over an 18 year period - 10 or 20 seconds of arc - this is called nutation and has been measured extensively since the 1700s.)

On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 12:05:22 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 4:44:30 PM UTC+1, oriel36 wrote:
Copernicus opted for variable axial orientation or a 'tilting' Earth.

No, he didn't.

He observed fact that the axis of the Earth is tilted 23.5 degrees. Neither Copernicus nor anyone else outside your imagination thought or thinks that the tilt of the Earth's axis changes during the year.


Copernicus identified that the North and South poles scribe a circle to the central Sun each year so there is no point in asking you to read it again -

" Therefore, while the earth's center always remains in the plane of the ecliptic, that is, in the circumference of a circle of the Grand Orb, the earth's poles rotate, both of them describing small circles about centers [lying on a line that moves] parallel to the Grand Orb's axis." Copernicus, Commentariolus

He sacrificed this view but now I restore it once more in a more advanced way by taking an even wider perspective which encompasses a single surface rotation of the entire surface aside from and in addition to daily rotation.


You'd have to be blind or mad to think that that, since we can all see that it remains oriented towards a point near Polaris throughout the year.


You celestial sphere enthusiasts can't drag yourselves away from that stellar circumpolar framework long enough to look at how planetary motions respond to the central Sun alone with particular emphasis on the polar day/night cycle and the surface rotation behind it.

You are floundering around with an intellectual level lower than that of the geocentric astronomers as the vagaries of RA/Dec prevent you from seeing what effectively is a very straightforward correlation between a surface rotation and a day/night cycle whether the daily cycle or the hemispherical cycle.

My advice to you is concentrate on the major effects first and you won't go astray and if you can't then you don't belong in a conversation with me, at least one which raises the standards where a lot of material is being modified to suit 21st century visual data.

The language of 'science denier' represents a type of intellectual level that is not fit to discuss the wonderful science of planetary climate inclusive of all planets within the solar system. Thankfully I am spared attention insofar as the inputs into climate are founded in astronomy and planetary traits rather than a loose association with local weather and carbon dioxide as a central pillar as an excuse to focus on human lifestyles.

Climate is defined by the inclination of a planet with one pole always above the orbital plane and one below hence 90° is the maximum inclination while minimum inclination is at a right angle to the orbital plane ( 0° inclination).

The empiricists are driven by convictions that success in modelling short term weather can be transferred to climate modelling but this is unintelligent and obscures actual modelling where variations in the degree of inclination using known orbital and rotational traits of the Earth can demonstrate how temperatures respond across latitudes.

One amazing planet and that people would choose not to consider basic principles because they adopted such a narrow approach is surprising as it is dismaying. Climate science will wait for those who can catch up with the astronomical principles behind it.