global warming hoax

On Nov 22, 12:27*am, Sam Wormley wrote:

* *The earth's orbital eccentricity is currently 0.0167 (slight ellipse).
* *But the major cause of annual seasons, as the earth falls around the
* *sun, is due to the axial tilt of 23°+ causing extra warming in one
* *hemisphere followed by extra warming the the other hemisphere six
* *months later.

* *Even little school children can understand this basic concept, Gerald,
* *of which you appear to have so much trouble.

* *http://edu-observatory.edu/mcc/homew.../H.A.Rey.orbit...

* *Gerald, the cause of season on the earth due to tilt has been known
* *for centuries. How can your brain be wired as to not comprehend this
* *basic scientific fact?

Sadly, he is unlikely to reply. But his posts are confusing as to what
he does, or does not, accept.

He claims that a *variable* tilt was originally advanced as an
explanation for the seasons. He rightly states that the Earth's
orientation is not variable.

He notes that the degree of the inclination of a planet's axis to its
orbital plane determines whether its seasons are "equatorial" or
"polar". So he _does_ acknowledge that "tilt" is connected with the
seasons as we understand it.

I have theorized - as the evidence from his posts is too sketchy to
really see what he believes - that his main issue is that the word
"tilt" implies tilting - or a variable inclination. I have gone
further out on a limb, and supposed that perhaps, given that the
orientation of the Earth's axis is fixed (Polaris is always the pole
star) but the seasons change (sometimes it is summer, another time it
is spring), clearly a thing that is always the same cannot _cause_
something that changes - which is why he emphasizes that it is the
Earth's _orbital motion_ that is the "true" cause of the seasons, in
how it interacts with the relation of the Earth's axis to the plane of
the ecliptic *and* the elliptical nature of the Earth's orbit, these
things *both* being included in his term "orbital specific".

The problem, thus, is not so much that he has a false conception of
what causes the seasons, but that he does not explain his ideas
clearly - because he refuses to reason through the logical
consequences of each statement he makes, even (or rather,
particularly) if that means he might have to correct earlier
statements.

In other areas, his ideas are in direct contradiction to the facts.

Given how the Sun and Jupiter do not have one simple rotation period,
because the gas in different bands, which is all we see, moves around
with different periods, he has concluded - using the principles of
"structural astronomy", I suppose - that the molten magma in the Earth
must also rotate in bands at different speeds. This is of a piece with
his rejection of Newton's using gravity to explain planetary orbits -
one is to understand the heavens by intuition and analogy, not by
reducing it to *physical mechanisms* like (ugh, yuck) ballistics!

So he ignores the fact that the viscosity of magma is a bit high for
Coriolis forces and the like to create differential rotation there -
and, also, that where the numbers *are* right, the Earth _does_ have
trade winds, which should be enough to slake his thirst for analogy.

And with regards to the "sidereal day", he seems to have ignored some
facts, but it's again not certain whether he has the facts wrong, or
it's just a matter of taste in how to describe nature.

The apparent rotation of the constellations around Polaris is
*uniform* when measured by a mechanical clock (as far as anyone could
measure in the days of Newton and Flamsteed - today, with atomic
clocks, we can see small changes as momentum is conserved between the
Earth and its atmosphere, and the trade winds change with the
seasons), while the apparent motion of the Sun is affected by the
Equation of Time.

So we take, to simplify our calculations, and aid our understanding,
the Earth's uniform motion compared to the stars as the Earth's
rotation, and the Sun's apparent daily motion around the Earth to be
the consequence of that rotation *plus* the Earth's orbit around the
Sun. This orbit is elliptical - and it is also foreshortened for the
purpose of affecting solar time by the fact that the Earth's
rotational axis is not perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic.

So we have a *cause* for the Equation of Time, and it all is simple
and straightforwards when we start with the Earth as a heavy sphere
which rotates uniformly because it is very difficult to speed up or
slow down the rotation of a thing so ponderous.

To him, though, all of this means nothing. We plan our meals by a 24
hour day, not a 23 hour and 56 minute day. Our time zones cut the
Earth into 24 bands. The Solar day is what people first observed;
later, when mechanical clocks became important, they averaged the
Solar day. Who needs to worry about the constellations in all this?
Surely dragging them in must be astrology!

He is not prepared to follow our explanations; he is unversed, at
least, in algebra and other mathematics, and he is unsympathetic to
the current view in science that accounting for things by physical
causes is fundamental and important.

So his reasons for rejecting sidereal time seem good enough to him; he
is unwilling to subject his notions to any scrutiny on his own part -
and yet he is convinced that they are the shining beacon of truth
which will put astronomy back on the right path of Copernicus,
Galileo, and Kepler, and away from the shoals of error into which it
has been led by Newton and Flamsteed. He even has the temerity to
wonder why he is the object of ridicule by those to whom Newton is as
clear as day instead of obscure and confusing.

His major omission - refusing to *take responsibility for his
assertions* and consistently accept their logical consequences, or go
back and change his claims - is sufficient to explain how he can
assert anything. One can believe anything at all if one simply refuses
to think.

John Savard

"The Intelligenizer" wrote in news:hebclj$hoa$1
@news.eternal-september.org:

astronomy group which I have been monitoring

nuff said...

On Nov 22, 7:16*am, starburst wrote:
On Nov 21, 11:45*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:58:30 -0800, spud wrote:
No warming for the next 10 years:

I expect you'll be proven quite wrong. The evidence to the contrary is
pretty overwhelming.

Arguing with those who don't believe we are currently experiencing a
long term global warming trend, largely human produced, is like arguing
with Oriel. Pointless, because they selectively filter the evidence to
support their ideology.

You know, you've often seemed a sanctimonious jerk, with an
extraordinary inability to understand human nature, but you're hitting
new lows with this latest mantra.

Of all the crap that's come out of the hacked files, this is the one I
find most revealing:

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not
publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a
solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I
think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate
peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in
the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers
in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or
request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the
editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more
to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome
editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The
responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a
few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words
with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to
discuss in Nice !”

If you don't realize how ****ed up this is, and how common in academe,
then you miss the problem of groupthink. Skepticism is HEALTHY for
science. And that means occasionally saying, "I wonder if there might
be a better explanation than gravity."

You'd have us all on our knees on an altar somewhere.

See what nice about the tinfoil hat brigade is that once they hear/
read one or maybe two words that fall into their mindset then like
chicken little the sky is falling. What a bunch of clueless morons.
Why don't you read (Yes I know all the big words are hard for you to
read starburst, but give a shot maybe you will learn something) about
the event you read about in the cherry picked words you typed.

Chris de Freitas who funding comes from the Competitive Enterprise
Institute, a industry front group, was one of seven editors Climate
Research. Soon and Baliunas submitted an error ridden paper (Soon and
Baliunas’s Climate Research paper includes acknowledgements to NOAA,
NASA and the US Air Force, as well as to the American Petroleum
Institute. Yet NOAA, NASA and the Air Force flatly deny having ever
funded the authors for work on the research cited. Thirteen of the
authors of the papers Baliunas and Soon cited refuted her
interpretation of their work.) The reviewers of the paper recommended
reject of the paper due to significant and obvious errors. The paper
was published over the objection of the reviewers and the other six
editors.

Now starburst answer the question, if a company misrepresents itself
and as a result of the misrepresentation your good name is abused
would you want to continue to do business with the company? I await
your dancing around the issue so you can continue to spout your
poultry excrement

On Nov 22, 3:37*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
oriel36 wrote:

These guys here cannot explain the annual cyclical temperature
variations which requires the understanding of only two dynamics and
the specifics of each motion - the constant rotation of Earth allied
with the specific orbital way the planet orbits the Sun.The old
explanation which dumps everything on to variable 'tilt' no longer
serves the purpose in an era that needs a clear distinction between
global climate background and the hemispherical weather patterns that
occur against the background and the two major components are *overall
distance from the Sun *and the changing relationship between daily
rotational and orbital dynamics.

If astronomers existed,none of this particularly awful conclusion
which turns carbon dioxide into a global temperature dial to the
exclusion of all else would have happened

* The earth's orbital eccentricity is currently 0.0167 (slight ellipse).
* But the major cause of annual seasons, as the earth falls around the
* sun, is due to the axial tilt of 23°+ causing extra warming in one
* hemisphere followed by extra warming the the other hemisphere six
* months later.

* Even little school children can understand this basic concept, Gerald,
* of which you appear to have so much trouble.

*http://edu-observatory.org/mcc/homew.../H.A.Rey.orbit...

* Gerald, the cause of season on the earth due to tilt has been known
* for centuries. How can your brain be wired as to not comprehend this
* basic scientific fact?

* * *http://edu-observatory.org/mcc/homew.../H.A.Rey.orbit...

It takes two dynamics to cause seasonal temperature highs and
lows,daily rotation which generates the daylight/darkness cycle and
the changing orbital orientation,due to the orbital cycle,which
changes the amount of time a given latitude spends in solar
radiation.The idea of variable inclination to the Sun and the
subsequently the inclination to solar radiation is many magnitudes
below the primary cause which relies on the length of time a location
spends in solar radiation but to comprehend this,it is required to
know exactly the components of daily and orbital motions.

Again,if astronomers existed there would be none of this mess would
have happened,nothing more or nothing less.

On Nov 22, 6:56*am, "David Staup" wrote:
"Chris L Peterson" wrote in messagenews:fe7hg5tu3ujdk21ghh06tffqv7ot0qn67g@4ax .com...



On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:05:02 -0600, "David Staup"
wrote:

I knew enough to expect this from you. *also enough education and
intelligence to have worked at Oak ridge national labs, Sandia national
labs, and Argonne national labs. had a top secret clearance and more than
enough intelligence to be a much sought after contractor. *I was the first
to describe the proceedure for creating excellant lunar, solar, and
planetary images by taking and stacking thousands of frames. wrote an
article about it for sky and telescope in '03 even after I could no longer
image myself due to a disability caused by statin drugs....just what have
you done with your vast intelligence Chris?

If that's true, I'm sorry for your loss. It's terrible when people lose
their intelligence.

(BTW, myself, and many others, were using lucky imaging techniques-
stacking thousands of frames- well before 2003. I'm guessing from your
mental decline that you perhaps meant 1903?)

Regardless of what you dud in the past, your recent posts here
demonstrate that you are not competent in the area of science. The fact
that you don't believe in AGW is proof-positive of this, as much as not
believing in evolution, or not believing the Earth is a sphere.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Chris I didn't say I started lucky imaging in '03 I said I was the first to
describe and use it for planetary imaging using hundreds then thousands of
frames for stacking. I started manually stacking up to 64 frames in '97 and
switched to astrostack and hundreds and then thousands of frames in '99
when I first started publishing my images online and describing my methods
also online. while it's true stacking was being done the use of webcams and
"many" frame stacking was not. the article was published in '03 by myself
and another who had the contacts at S&T. I taught him the method in '99.

I notice you didn't mention any of your vast occomplishments. what's up with
that?

*and yes unfortunately there are cognitave and memory adverse effects
potentially from statin use. *I suspect you are probably taking a drug to
lower cholesterol yourself from your retorts and sugest you see the
following links for some of the truth concerning another bad science
situation (the lipid hypothosis and artificial cholesterol lowering is good
for you) half are writtin by a former NASA astronaut who is also former
doctor and space medicine researcher and who is also a victim.

http://www.spacedoc.net/cause_statin_side_effects

see this concerning the bad science :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8WA5wcaHp4

and this for unadulterated data:

http://www.spacedoc.net/great_cholesterol_con

I sincerely hope I'm wrong about you taking a statin but if you or anyone
you know is taking a statin please inform yourself and them. *the
non-remitting side effects appear in as many as 5% of statin users and make
life a true horror.


Given the above about heart disease, we have documented proof from
your own posts that you are a complete loon.Although from your own
words "cognitave and memory adverse effects potentially from statin
use", it may be your idiotic postings may be due to your loss
cognative and memory skill. I'm sorry you were one of a very very few
people ( 1%) who had a bad reaction to the statins, but don't try to
convince not to take a life drug because you had an adverse effect.

By the way it isn't just coincidence that you believe looney-tunes
scientist about global warming, people like Fred SInger and the
senator from Big Oil Inhofe, and nut jobs like Uffe Ravnskov and
Kilmer McCully

On Nov 22, 5:45*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:58:30 -0800, spud wrote:
No warming for the next 10 years:

I expect you'll be proven quite wrong. The evidence to the contrary is
pretty overwhelming.

Arguing with those who don't believe we are currently experiencing a
long term global warming trend, largely human produced, is like arguing
with Oriel. Pointless, because they selectively filter the evidence to
support their ideology.


It is not just that you are wrong with basic planetary facts,it is the
way you are wrong by virtue of giving yourselves multiple choices.

The idea of a wandering 'analemma' Sun is repugnant and moreso that it
is explained by planetary dynamics thereby showing a complete
disregard for astronomical principles which differentiated between
celestial objects that basically defines what a planet is -

" Moreover, we see the other five planets also retrograde at times,
and stationary at either end [of the regression]. And whereas the sun
always advances along its own direct path, they wander in various
ways, straying sometimes to the south and sometimes to the north; that
is why they are called "planets" [wanderers]. Copernicus

Simultaneously you give yourselves another choice of a 24 hour natural
noon observation and cycle which tries to explain planetary dynamics
through 'sidereal time' -

http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academi...1/sidereal.htm

Probably the most visible feature of these awful choices is the
enactment of an individual 'leap second' based on the daily apparent
of rotation of the constellations around Polaris which in turn is
explained through the planetary dynamic of daily rotation.I can't
imagine what it is that our astronomical ancestors have done to
deserve such an thing as that under the guise of authority but it
demonstrates how little is understood of planetary dynamics and even
as far as the shape and dimensions of the planet which rely on a
rotation rate of 15 degrees per hour.

Obviously the clear distinction between the reasoning which leads to
the 24 hour value for the rotation of the Earth and the 'sidereal
time' reasoning has escaped into the wider arena and that is a good
thing even though it still is not dealt with openly as a crisis that
it is.I have no objections to using the details for dealing with the
link between planetary dynamics,global climate which can be separated
from latitudinal weather patterns which emerge from global climate but
this assumes that people have the required courage and both the
intuitive and intellectual intelligence to balance speculation with
interpretation,in other words,dealing from interpretative facts rather
than speculating on a conclusion and throwing the kitchen sink at it.

So,balancing interpretation with speculation and allowing
astronomical facts to intervene should dissolve the hyperfuss created
around climate while opening it up for productive discussion and away
from the intellectual suicide of carbon dioxide as a global
temperature dial.











_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

On Nov 22, 7:47*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
oriel36 wrote:

It takes two dynamics to cause seasonal temperature highs and
lows,daily rotation which generates the daylight/darkness cycle and
the changing orbital orientation,due to the orbital cycle,which
changes the amount of time a given latitude spends in solar
radiation.The idea of variable inclination to the Sun and the
subsequently the *inclination to solar radiation is many magnitudes
below the primary cause

* *Bzzzzt! Wrong again Gerald!

* which relies on the length of time a location


The degree of rotational inclination, or 'tilt' as you call
it,determines whether a planet has an equatorial or polar climate with
the Earth's climatology strongly towards the equatorial end of the
spectrum whereas the climate of Uranus is almost polar.The
Milankovitch conclusions are invalid given the ability to make
planetary comparisons using modern imaging and drawing conclusions as
to the actual role of 'tilt' and its parent cause of daily rotation in
tandem with orbital specifics.


The description of the Earth's climate as largely equatorial and to
get this conception up and running is in itself an enormous
undertaking and certainly would not appeal to those wrapped up in the
social driven agenda of carbon dioxide levels and this suits me
fine,people who are serious about the link between planetary dynamics
and climate will have a field day looking at the fairly clear concept
that all planets exist between equatorial and polar extremes depending
on rotational orientation hence the original ' no tilt/no seasons'
hypothesis of Copernicus is untenable -

"..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 center, no inequality of
days and nights would be observed." Copernicus Chapter 11 De
Revolutionibus

In the era of Copernicus it was not crucial to comprehend the
difference between climate and weather,something which astronomy alone
affords today however,the modification requires the restoration of the
original references for daily and orbital dynamics.The 'sidereal time'
reasoning is the closest humanity has come to negating the statement
of Lincoln that you can't fool people all of the time yet there is
always hope that people would just set aside the errors and
distortions and get on with the job through effort,talent or both.




spends in solar radiation but to comprehend this,it is required to
know exactly the components of daily and orbital motions.

Again,if astronomers existed there would be none of this mess would
have happened,nothing more or nothing less.

"The message on the science is that we know a lot more than we did in 1997
and it's all negative," said Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on
Global Climate Change. "Things are much worse than the models predicted."


what say you now?

On Nov 21, 6:53*pm, Tom McDonald wrote:
David Staup wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091120...091120issues01

as has been clear to a casual HONEST observer global warming is junk science
and fraud perpetuated by certain people for thier own profit and advocated
by others who know nothing of the truth and human nature.

what say you now?

I say Investor's Business Daily is not a peer reviewed journal.

--

Pfft. Peers whose careers and LIVES depend on the pursuit of global
warming gravy train.

Rich wrote:
On Nov 21, 6:53 pm, Tom McDonald wrote:
David Staup wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091120...091120issues01
as has been clear to a casual HONEST observer global warming is junk science
and fraud perpetuated by certain people for thier own profit and advocated
by others who know nothing of the truth and human nature.
what say you now?
I say Investor's Business Daily is not a peer reviewed journal.

--

Pfft. Peers whose careers and LIVES depend on the pursuit of global
warming gravy train.

Pfft. IBD writer, whose career and LIFE depend on the pursuit of
the business-as-usual gravy train. In a publication that may
still think that Stephen Hawking would be dead if he lived in
Britain, to boot.

In science, I'll tend to side with the scientists.

--
Tom

When Tyrants tremble, sick with fear,
And hear their death-knell ringing;
When friends rejoice, both far and near,
How can I keep from singing.