|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Oriel - 11th attempt to extract an answer
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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Planetary climate
On Jan 21, 12:22*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 Incidentally, while I knew we could continue having a vibrant economy with abundant energy through nuclear power, including breeder and thorium breeder reactors, I was concerned that not _all_ of our energy needs could be met this way, as electric cars or hydrogen-fuelled cars presented challenges. But then I thought of how Robert Zubrin mentioned an old chemical process to use hydrogen to make an alternative fuel with more reaction mass from the carbon dioxide on Mars. As I recalled, though, he was making carbon monoxide, which wasn't too obviously useful. But when I did a Google search, I found the Wikipedia article on the Sabatier process, and normally it made methane. And methane is widely used in motor vehicles - although it has the bulky tank problem too, just to a lesser degree than hydrogen. Well, then, I thought I'd take a look at Fischer-Tropsch again. I didn't think that would be useful - it was a way to utilize coal, a more abundant fossil fuel, and so that would hardly solve the greenhouse gas problem. But the Wikipedia article surprised me again - it turned out it worked by reacting carbon monoxide with hydrogen. So apparently there is no need to despair. We already have all the technology we need to keep on enjoying our present lifestyle - with maybe a little extra effort expended to obtain the energy we use - with a zero carbon footprint. We don't even need to replace our cars. John Savard |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Planetary climate spectrum
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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Planetary climate
On 1/22/13 1:27 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
So apparently there is no need to despair. We already have all the technology we need to keep on enjoying our present lifestyle - with maybe a little extra effort expended to obtain the energy we use - with a zero carbon footprint. We don't even need to replace our cars. Of course. Plus there are multiple fortunes to be made supplying the new equipment, storage, transport, etc. Not to mention the gains in public health from a cleaner environment. And don't forget the millions who won't die prematurely from black lung. And the incidental survival of wild nature. It's all good - just different, in good ways. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Oriel - 11th attempt to extract an answer
"oriel36" wrote in message
... Modern imaging power ======================== Is that a yes or a no? -- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway. When I get my O.B.E. I'll be an earlobe. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Planetary climate spectrum
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." |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Oriel 12th attempt to extract an answer
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? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Planetary climate spectrum
On Jan 23, 1:47*am, oriel36 wrote:
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." A Google search turned up the information that this quotation refers not to *empiricism* but to *dialectic*. Given the degree to which "dialectical materialism" corresponded to reality, I have no quarrel with Kant's sentiments there once they are referred to the correct target. John Savard |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Planetary climate
In article ,
Quadibloc wrote: On Jan 21, 12:22*pm, Sam Wormley wrote: Incidentally, while I knew we could continue having a vibrant economy with abundant energy through nuclear power, including breeder and thorium breeder reactors, I was concerned that not _all_ of our energy needs could be met this way, as electric cars or hydrogen-fuelled cars presented challenges. But then I thought of how Robert Zubrin mentioned an old chemical process to use hydrogen to make an alternative fuel with more reaction mass from the carbon dioxide on Mars. As I recalled, though, he was making carbon monoxide, which wasn't too obviously useful. But when I did a Google search, I found the Wikipedia article on the Sabatier process, and normally it made methane. And methane is widely used in motor vehicles - although it has the bulky tank problem too, just to a lesser degree than hydrogen. What is wrong with ethanol? As an energy carrier, not as an energy source. It can more or less replace the gasoline we use today, at a 1/3 reduction in energy density. We must use a process where the energy comes from some grid, not from the soil; so we just add energy to ferment some biomass that is leftover from agriculture, or from forests. NOT grown for food. Well, then, I thought I'd take a look at Fischer-Tropsch again. I didn't think that would be useful - it was a way to utilize coal, a more abundant fossil fuel, and so that would hardly solve the greenhouse gas problem. But the Wikipedia article surprised me again - it turned out it worked by reacting carbon monoxide with hydrogen. So apparently there is no need to despair. We already have all the technology we need to keep on enjoying our present lifestyle - with maybe a little extra effort expended to obtain the energy we use - with a zero carbon footprint. We don't even need to replace our cars. And the Peak Oil event is already upon us. It just increased the price of the stuff. This will go on for the next few centuries. Now even coal prices are climbing. Until we get the Nuclear generators going, that is. -- mrr |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Planetary Climate spectrum | oriel36[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 44 | December 23rd 12 10:05 PM |
Planetary climate | oriel36[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 11 | November 20th 12 08:57 AM |
Koch funded climate scientist reverses thinking - climate change IS REAL! | Uncarollo2 | Amateur Astronomy | 21 | August 8th 12 10:43 PM |
Planetary dynamics and climate | oriel36[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | February 20th 10 02:23 PM |