Global climate is not long term weather data

Planetary climates are defined by the degree of inclination within a
spectrum between polar (90 degree inclination) on one side and
equatorial (0 degrees inclination) on the other end of the spectrum.

http://www2.astro.psu.edu/users/niel...ranus-tilt.jpg

Jupiter has an exclusively equatorial climate with a residual polar
input whereas Uranus has a polar climate with large fluctuations
across all latitudes.

The intelligent reader is supposed to delight in extrapolating the
polar climate of Uranus from its axial inclination and then
correlating this with zero inclination as reflecting an equatorial
climate as opposed to the old 'no tilt/no seasons' perspective which
is now unsuitable for 21st century purposes.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...icture_big.jpg

As an astronomer who actually deals with climate through the
discipline of astronomy and planetary dynamics,it is fairly obvious
why the Great storm on Jupiter is so persistent insofar as the
equatorial climate of that planet does not change the hemispherical
conditions as the planet orbits the central Sun whereas the huge
fluctuations associated with a polar climate produce pronounced storms
at different periods at orbital points such as hurricanes on Earth or
the Spring storms of Uranus.

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...leases/1999/11

Looking at people who are desperate to make climate look like long
term weather patterns in order to model an outcome for social/
political purposes is far removed from what climate studies actually
are - basically an interpretative science that has yet to get up and
running properly.

"oriel36" wrote in message
...

Planetary climates are defined by the degree of inclination within a
spectrum between polar (90 degree inclination) on one side and
equatorial (0 degrees inclination) on the other end of the spectrum.

http://www2.astro.psu.edu/users/niel...ranus-tilt.jpg

Jupiter has an exclusively equatorial climate with a residual polar
input whereas Uranus has a polar climate with large fluctuations
across all latitudes.
============================
Yeah, ok...


The intelligent reader
===============================
Readers have nothing to do with astronomy.
Shut the **** up about the reader, you anonymous empirical thug.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I
cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.

On 4/4/13 2:47 AM, oriel36 wrote:
Planetary climates are defined by the degree of inclination within a
spectrum between polar (90 degree inclination) on one side and
equatorial (0 degrees inclination) on the other end of the spectrum.

Some material that can be a starting point for some self-education.
http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Clim...te_Change.html

On 4/4/2013 10:27 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 4/4/13 2:47 AM, oriel36 wrote:
Planetary climates are defined by the degree of inclination within a
spectrum between polar (90 degree inclination) on one side and
equatorial (0 degrees inclination) on the other end of the spectrum.

Some material that can be a starting point for some self-education.
http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Clim...te_Change.html



chuckle....snicker...LOL

On Apr 4, 4:27*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 4/4/13 2:47 AM, oriel36 wrote:

Planetary climates are defined by the degree of inclination within a
spectrum between polar (90 degree inclination) on one side and
equatorial (0 degrees inclination) on the other end of the spectrum.

* *Some material that can be a starting point for some self-education..







http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Clim...lobal_Climate_...

That is fine of all you wish to do is indoctrinate people into the
unfortunate belief that humans have control over global temperatures
however global climate is really understood at its widest within
context of astronomy which ,of course,depends on the availability of
astronomers to promote this proper perspective.

It is an unintentional quirk that climate as a word comes from the
Greek 'Klima' or inclination yet planetary climate is defined by
inclination or the more precise axial orientation of a planet within a
spectrum.The attractiveness of observing Uranus as having a polar
climate due to its inclination will almost force the reader into
accepting that a zero inclination represents an equatorial climate
much like that of Jupiter.The Earth has a sizable polar component but
is largely equatorial in nature hence the more gentle swings in
hemispherical conditions compared to that of Uranus as the planets
orbit the central Sun.

You cannot argue against observations Sam and certainly not against
sequential imaging which clearly shows the necessity of modifying what
is presently understood as axial precession by shifting it to an
annual orbital feature is order to organize global climate as a
function of planetary dynamics which in turn reduces to hemispherical
traits we call the seasons.It is simply not possible to build a
picture of global climate from the bottom up even though it is
possible to introduce as many inputs as is wished after global climate
is defined within a spectrum between polar and equatorial.

I am sure the Great storm on Jupiter and its longevity sparks some
interest in the wider view of an equatorial climate whereas planet's
with more pronounced polar inputs,like the Earth,see only brief
periods of hurricane activity at orbital junctures,as the background
conditions change in response to the orbital behavior of the
Earth.Again,it is not possible to construct a hurricane from the
bottom up,the background conditions favor hurricane growth and these
conditions are founded in astronomical causes.

Care to extrapolate the climate spectrum from the images Sam or even
recognize there is a spectrum ?.This is what astronomers are supposed
to do.

http://www2.astro.psu.edu/users/niel...ranus-tilt.jpg

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:27:04 -0500, Sam Wormley
wrote:

Some material that can be a starting point for some self-education.
http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Clim...te_Change.html

The very last thing science deniers have any interest in is
self-education.

On Apr 5, 12:13*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:27:04 -0500, Sam Wormley
wrote:

* Some material that can be a starting point for some self-education.
http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Clim...lobal_Climate_....

The very last thing science deniers have any interest in is
self-education.

Climate science,when properly understood within the discipline of
astronomy,provides such a depth of satisfaction that the idea of an
education is secondary.Astronomical advancement is more about breaking
boundaries than disproving any idea or theory,for instance,the old
idea of 'no tilt/no seasons' has to give way to a 21st century idea of
equatorial conditions when a planet has zero inclination or
descriptively - when the daily rotational axis aligns with the
ecliptic axis.A polar climate results when the daily axis is at a
maximum 90 degrees from the ecliptic axis and that is why those images
of Uranus are so important in that they draw the reader's attention to
this new perspective -

http://www.newscientist.com/data/ima...2529-1_800.jpg

The hemispherical terms of the 'seasons' temporarily yield to the
larger climate picture bearing down on researchers as correlating an
equatorial climate with a polar climate within a spectrum through
axial inclination takes precedence over the old view that a planet
with no tilt would have no seasons.People will always retain the
seasons just as we retain sunrise and sunset however the working
principles for weather and climate require the global picture arising
from the daily and orbital dynamics of a planet with their individual
traits.In this respect,the shift is not a matter of denial but of
competence - you actually have to enjoy how an equatorial climate is
extrapolated from the images above which clearly demonstrate what a
polar climate is.

No point in waking up to a world where everyone is trying to squeeze
climate science into a minor atmospheric gas while making an awful
racket about human control over global temperatures for all that
demonstrates is that a minor problem that always existed in natural
science investigation has got completely out of control and is now
highly unstable.Humboldt's comments would be sufficient to alert
readers to this problem which is easier to deal with today than it was
in Humboldt's era insofar as modern imaging power and sequential
imaging carries with it immediate affirmation and rejection of an
ideology -

"."This assemblage of imperfect dogmas bequeathed by one age to another
— this physical philosophy, which is composed of popular prejudices,—
is not only injurious because it perpetuates error with the obstinacy
engendered by the evidence of ill observed facts, but also because it
hinders the mind from attaining to higher views of nature.Instead of
seeking to discover the mean or medium point, around which oscillate,
in apparent independence of forces, all the phenomena of the external
world, this system delights in multiplying exceptions to the law, and
seeks, amid phenomena and in organic forms, for something beyond the
marvel of a regular succession, and an internal and progressive
development. Ever inclined to believe that the order of nature is
disturbed, it refuses to recognize in the present any analogy with the
past, and guided by its own varying hypotheses, seeks at hazard,either
in the interior of the globe or in the regions of space, for the cause
of these pretended perturbations. It is the special object of the
present work to combat those errors which derive their source from a
vicious empiricism and from imperfect inductions." Homboldt ,Cosmos

The problem Peterson is not your language of 'denier' but of general
indifference or the inability to break through the obstacles which the
vicious strain of empiricism put in place so it could model natural
phenomena into intellectual oblivion.