Planetary climate spectrum

The vocabulary of 'climate change' doesn't really enter the research
of an astronomer although it may for modelers interested in scaring
the wider population into paying higher taxes for no good reasonif
they are happy to pay then so well and good but a planet's climate is
fixed by its dynamics and fits within a spectrum.

On the basis that intelligent people who stop and dwell on the topic
for a moment and can work things out themselves without being lectured
to and gain a great satisfaction that way.The old view was that if a
planet had zero inclination it would have no seasons however this is
not entirely accurate and a much more productive assessment involves
switching the 'no seasons' perspective to an equatorial climate
whereas a planet with a 90 degree inclination has a polar climate.

The political system is taking advice from empirical modelers and not
astronomers and that is the real problem. Unlike the financial quants
which modeled entire countries into speculative penury,those who
traffic in astronomical/terrestrial topics are squandering
intellectual capital and undermining genuine research.

Climate research only really goes on in sci.astro.amateur as
everything else is competing models,graphs and what have you.Whatever
short term gain a politician may gain by promoting speculative
modeling instead of supporting interpretative research,the real losers
are students and people who really wish to read the climate history of
the planet through geological and biological evolution.

Heat Transfer Basics
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/09/12/...ics-part-zero/

Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/pap...odayRT2011.pdf
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/publist.html

Anthropogenic and Natural Warming Inferred from changes in Earth's Energy Balance
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v.../ngeo1327.html

Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/...idt_etal_1.pdf

On Jan 21, 7:22*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Heat Transfer Basics
*http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/09/12/...ics-part-zero/

Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature
*http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/pap...odayRT2011.pdf
*http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/publist.html

Anthropogenic and Natural Warming Inferred from changes in Earth's Energy Balance
*http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v.../ngeo1327.html

Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect
*http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/...idt_etal_1.pdf

All American students,including my own children,do not deserve to be
enslaved by a speculative modeling cult much less a population who is
expected to fund this disgrace that takes the name of science and not
just the USA but the communities of the rest of this planet.The
problem is not climate change but the ability of empiricists to change
their story to suit a prevailing attitude which is why you remain
silent on the morphing of the 'solar vs sidereal' story to the new one
where the planet turns exactly in 24 hours back in 1820 -

"At the time of the dinosaurs, Earth completed one rotation in about
23 hours," says MacMillan, who is a member of the VLBI team at NASA
Goddard. "In the year 1820, a rotation took exactly 24 hours, or
86,400 standard seconds. Since 1820, the mean solar day has increased
by about 2.5 milliseconds."

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsyst...ra-second.html

Climate studies are not even in their infancy and without the
planetary climate spectrum they cannot begin at all,it takes only an
interpretative glance at Uranus to assign a polar climate to that
planet while the Earth is towards the equatorial end of the spectrum
with its 23 1/2 degree inclination.

http://www.daviddarling.info/images/...gs_changes.jpg

You come from an unstable empirical community that happens to own the
education system and a political system that is unable to handle the
sordid politics of a vicious strain of empiricism that has been
successful for many centuries by virtue that it can change
history,methods and insights to suit whatever bandwagon agenda is
being pursued.

There is nothing more dangerous out there at the moment than
politicians who talk of overwhelming 'scientific evidence' when they
are really supporting reckless and wayward modeling which knows no
physical considerations,no restraint on assertions and wildly adrift
of climate studies which are primarily framed in terms of planetary
dynamics and their respective traits.

When you and your colleagues can match one 24 hour AM/PM cycle with
one rotation,something you have not done yet,then you may begin to
consider planetary climate but with your insistence in bundling daily
and orbital motions into a rotating celestial sphere and right
ascension,this modeling scam which began with the aggressive Royal
Society strain of Newton will continue to decimate the intellectual
currency of all nations.

On Jan 21, 2:32*pm, oriel36 wrote:
which is why you remain
silent on the morphing of the 'solar vs sidereal' story to the new one
where the planet turns exactly in 24 hours back in 1820 -

This has already been explained to you. No one is changing any story,
it is simply that the additional complication of the Earth's true
rotation being sidereal (as made apparent by the presence of the
Equation of Time) is omitted where the issue is irrelevant.

John Savard

On Jan 21, 7:22*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Heat Transfer Basics
*http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/09/12/...ics-part-zero/

Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature
*http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/pap...odayRT2011.pdf
*http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/publist.html

Anthropogenic and Natural Warming Inferred from changes in Earth's Energy Balance
*http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v.../ngeo1327.html

Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect
*http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/...idt_etal_1.pdf

How dare you remove the term spectrum from my original post .This is a
planet with a climate close to the polar end of the spectrum and the
rest follows -

http://www.daviddarling.info/images/...gs_changes.jpg

A planet with zero inclination has an equatorial climate rather than
the older perspective inherited from Copernicus that zero inclination
denotes 'no seasons' -

"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

This is a fight against speculative modelers,not against climate
research,so while the academics follow the considerable funding for
their agendas,the real science is developing planetary climate within
a spectrum and working things out from there.

This is what astronomers do,they observe and draw conclusions with the
information they have -

http://www.daviddarling.info/images/...gs_changes.jpg

Had the Earth the same rotational inclination as Uranus ,a polar
climate would exist where there would be large swings in temperature
and daylight/darkness conditions as the Earth orbited the Sun,a lesser
degree of inclination and the climate would move towards the
equatorial end of the spectrum until at zero inclination,equatorial
conditions would prevail apart from the normal variations in the
natural noon cycle which remains unaffected regardless of what the
inclination is.This is a vibrant and enjoyable way to understand
planetary climate and then move on to hemispherical subdivisions such
as the seasons .

With many billions upon billions spent annually on people who want to
extract money from the wider population under false pretenses,here is
the proper approach to climate by raising the standards and I take a
great deal of satisfactions that nuisances simply can't enjoy the
feeling of genuine discovery and especially the modification of the
original reasoning of Copernicus using modern tools.

Grumble on guys,while academics can influence politicians,they can't
handle astronomers with a genuine love of this great astronomical
discipline which rewards those who make an effort to interpret the
arena whether the terrestrial arena which depends on the great
planetary cycles or the wider structural arena as the Earth
participates in all the other motions going on.No need to wait on
anyone,just looking at the images of Uranus above opens up so many
lines of investigation that there is really no time to dwell on
nuisances and their narrow-minded views.

It doesn't seem long since Oriel36 said he was leaving the group. As I
have said before his mental health issues prevent him from doing so -
he quite literally cannot help himself from posting minor variations
of same old rubbish again and again.

Notice how carefully Oriel, over a period of some years, has avoided
explaining exactly where his views and the views of other members of
this group differ. He writes whole paragraphs - sometimes nultiple
paragraphs - hundreds of times a year but refuses to explain something
as basic as this.


He also refuses to answer any questions designed to identify what the
difference might be.


As an example - Oriel, if you look due south at midnight on July 1st
and again at midnight on January 1st of the next year will you see the
same stars in the same places.


Yes or no?

Modern imaging power and other innovations make it possible to modify
the works of Western astronomy as that is the nature of the game -
more information arrives and gets handled appropriately but it seems
that readers here never heard of any of the works of Copernicus,Kepler
or others and certainly haven't read them much less studied their
methodology.The issue of a single turning of the Earth to the central
Sun as it carries the polar coordinates in a circle that is completed
after an orbital period contrasts sharply with the moon which orbits
the Earth but doesn't turn at all,common sense astronomers like Kepler
understood that much notwithstanding that we can put a man on a non
rotating moon looking out at a rotating Earth -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=OdCJ...kepler&f=false

The disorder is not the constant attacks on me but the incredible
inability to let go of nonsense even when common sense intervenes and
it this politically charged era when modelers are intent in shoving
through their ideas of climate,the fact is that it is not possible to
begin without recognizing a climate spectrum and how inclination
defines it.

So we are all going to act like adults for a change and promote and
protect astronomy rather than turn it into a politicized dumping
ground for social agendas for presently ,with the vicious strain of
empiricism dominant,nobody has a mandate to research terrestrial
science and astronomy and where they meet.

A planetary climate system is based on a core spectrum which is
bookended between polar conditions on one side and equatorial
conditions on the other with inclination determining where in the
spectrum a planet's climate exists and what fluctuations are expected
to occur across latitudes as a planet orbits the central Sun.

The transition to a new and better approach to climate involves
shifting emphasis away from the 'no tilt/no seasons' perspective to
the more productive equatorial conditions for zero inclination and
considering that the root word of climate is the Greek 'Klima' meaning
inclination,it is fortuitous that it is the relationship between
rotational inclination and the ecliptic axis that defines a climate
system.

I have no intention of speaking over nuisances and dullards this is
planetary climate as expressed by astronomy and its insights and not a
bunch of modelers trying to scare people into paying taxes.

A polar climate within the planetary spectrum between polar and
equatorial does not automatically mean a planet is colder with the
increasing gap between rotational inclination and the ecliptic
axis,after all,polar conditions refer to a latitudinal response to
rotational inclination and the greater inclination above zero,the
wider the swings.This is why it is crucial to shift emphasis away from
the older 'no tilt/no seasons' as ice sheet weather spread over
greater latitudes may be a feature of increasing inclination as a
response to a shift in inclination.

It is impossible to consider the fluctuations between the presence and
absence of ice sheet weather and its effects on the evolutionary
sciences of biology and geology without the spectrum so this is as
real as it gets.If there are a bunch of speculative modelers willing
to suffocate observations for their spurious conclusion that the Earth
is a greenhouse and humans have control over the temperature dial then
let them continue in their misguided way,a person with integrity can
look at the images of Uranus and can construct a picture where
inclination acts like a dial in determining planetary climate between
equatorial and polar.

The difference between genuine empiricism,albeit it only existed for a
very short period, which acts to draw analogies from the behavior of
objects at a human level and apply them to large scale behavior and
motions as opposed to the vicious strain of empiricism which
aggressively pursues modeling based on a homocentric framework and
announces that there are no differences between small and large scale
behavior is the total lack of restraint or physical considerations
when handling observations.Even though I know little of Kant,his
commentary on empiricism turned towards the present disgraceful
treatment of planetary climate is fairly accurate or indeed the root
cause of the problem that is a particular strain of late 17th century
Royal Society empiricism and especially Newton's agenda -

"it was nothing but the logic of illusion. It was a sophistic art of
giving to one’s ignorance, indeed even to one’s intentional tricks,
the outward appearance of truth, by imitating the thorough, accurate
method which logic always requires, and by using its topic as a cloak
for every empty assertion."