Planetary climate

The signs that astronomy is in recovery would include productive research on the Earth's climate.


People who argue about ‘climate change’ using the current definition are both sides of the same mediocre coin as they are too narrow in their views . Not just the Earth but all planets in the solar system possess a climate so it simply means that climate is defined on common traits that do not involved distance from the Sun or planetary composition.

http://calgary.rasc.ca/images/planet_inclinations.gif



If the Earth had an inclination similar to the 3° of Jupiter there would be little change across all latitudes over the course of a year and much like the conditions at the Equator while if the Earth had the 82° inclination of Uranus there would be huge swings across most latitudes similar to conditions experienced within the Arctic/Antarctic circles .

In short, climate is determined by a spectrum between 0° (Equatorial) and 90° (Polar) so the Earth with its 23 1/2° inclination is within this spectrum as having a largely Equatorial climate with a sizable but minor Polar input. The Earth’s climate would change if inclination increased towards 90° in which case it would become more Polar and a decrease of inclination towards 0° would mean a climate change towards an Equatorial climate.

Trying to squeeze climate into long term weather patterns was always a silly thing to do even if the success of short term weather modelling provided the basis for that lamentable definition.

Gerald Kelleher wrote:
The signs that astronomy is in recovery would include productive research
on the Earth's climate.


People who argue about ‘climate change’ using the current definition are
both sides of the same mediocre coin as they are too narrow in their
views . Not just the Earth but all planets in the solar system possess a
climate so it simply means that climate is defined on common traits that
do not involved distance from the Sun or planetary composition.

http://calgary.rasc.ca/images/planet_inclinations.gif



If the Earth had an inclination similar to the 3° of Jupiter there would
be little change across all latitudes over the course of a year and much
like the conditions at the Equator while if the Earth had the 82°
inclination of Uranus there would be huge swings across most latitudes
similar to conditions experienced within the Arctic/Antarctic circles .

In short, climate is determined by a spectrum between 0° (Equatorial) and
90° (Polar) so the Earth with its 23 1/2° inclination is within this
spectrum as having a largely Equatorial climate with a sizable but minor
Polar input. The Earth’s climate would change if inclination increased
towards 90° in which case it would become more Polar and a decrease of
inclination towards 0° would mean a climate change towards an Equatorial climate.

Trying to squeeze climate into long term weather patterns was always a
silly thing to do even if the success of short term weather modelling
provided the basis for that lamentable definition.


Like almost everything you write about the above is a mixture of simple
facts easy for a nine year old child to understand (but you took years to
take them in) and childish mistakes which would make the nine year old
child very embarrassed when they were pointed out.
Look at Venus. The day lasts 235 Earth days. The inclination is 3 degrees.
Yet the temperature (about 465C) is the same day and night and pole and
equator. If the planet had 90 degree inclination the temperature would
still be the same all over the planet because the main drivers of the Venus
climate are the thick atmosphere and the proximity to the sun. The thick
atmosphere is why Venus is hotter than Mercury even though it only receives
25 percent of the solar irradiation of Mercury. (Craters at Mercury's north
pole contain ice).

On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 10:05:09 AM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
Gerald Kelleher wrote:
The signs that astronomy is in recovery would include productive research
on the Earth's climate.


People who argue about ‘climate change’ using the current definition are
both sides of the same mediocre coin as they are too narrow in their
views . Not just the Earth but all planets in the solar system possess a
climate so it simply means that climate is defined on common traits that
do not involved distance from the Sun or planetary composition.

http://calgary.rasc.ca/images/planet_inclinations.gif



If the Earth had an inclination similar to the 3° of Jupiter there would
be little change across all latitudes over the course of a year and much
like the conditions at the Equator while if the Earth had the 82°
inclination of Uranus there would be huge swings across most latitudes
similar to conditions experienced within the Arctic/Antarctic circles .

In short, climate is determined by a spectrum between 0° (Equatorial) and
90° (Polar) so the Earth with its 23 1/2° inclination is within this
spectrum as having a largely Equatorial climate with a sizable but minor
Polar input. The Earth’s climate would change if inclination increased
towards 90° in which case it would become more Polar and a decrease of
inclination towards 0° would mean a climate change towards an Equatorial climate.

Trying to squeeze climate into long term weather patterns was always a
silly thing to do even if the success of short term weather modelling
provided the basis for that lamentable definition.


Like almost everything you write about the above is a mixture of simple
facts easy for a nine year old child to understand (but you took years to
take them in) and childish mistakes which would make the nine year old
child very embarrassed when they were pointed out.
Look at Venus. The day lasts 235 Earth days. The inclination is 3 degrees..
Yet the temperature (about 465C) is the same day and night and pole and
equator. If the planet had 90 degree inclination the temperature would
still be the same all over the planet because the main drivers of the Venus
climate are the thick atmosphere and the proximity to the sun. The thick
atmosphere is why Venus is hotter than Mercury even though it only receives
25 percent of the solar irradiation of Mercury. (Craters at Mercury's north
pole contain ice).

Coming from an unfortunate who can't manage to match one weekday rotation with temperature spikes and troughs and not feel embarrassed about it, you are hardly going to comprehend climate on an astronomical scale for all the planets -

http://prairieecosystems.pbworks.com...0variation.jpg

� It is a fact not generally known that,owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time,the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are days in the year� NASA /Harvard

You all keep talking about pre-teen understanding but you yourselves never made it to adulthood,at least in terms of reasoning and therefore these threads are left as standalone insights that are there to be built on.

Gerald Kelleher wrote:
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 10:05:09 AM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
Gerald Kelleher wrote:
The signs that astronomy is in recovery would include productive research
on the Earth's climate.


People who argue about ‘climate change’ using the current definition are
both sides of the same mediocre coin as they are too narrow in their
views . Not just the Earth but all planets in the solar system possess a
climate so it simply means that climate is defined on common traits that
do not involved distance from the Sun or planetary composition.

http://calgary.rasc.ca/images/planet_inclinations.gif



If the Earth had an inclination similar to the 3° of Jupiter there would
be little change across all latitudes over the course of a year and much
like the conditions at the Equator while if the Earth had the 82°
inclination of Uranus there would be huge swings across most latitudes
similar to conditions experienced within the Arctic/Antarctic circles .

In short, climate is determined by a spectrum between 0° (Equatorial) and
90° (Polar) so the Earth with its 23 1/2° inclination is within this
spectrum as having a largely Equatorial climate with a sizable but minor
Polar input. The Earth’s climate would change if inclination increased
towards 90° in which case it would become more Polar and a decrease of
inclination towards 0° would mean a climate change towards an Equatorial climate.

Trying to squeeze climate into long term weather patterns was always a
silly thing to do even if the success of short term weather modelling
provided the basis for that lamentable definition.


Like almost everything you write about the above is a mixture of simple
facts easy for a nine year old child to understand (but you took years to
take them in) and childish mistakes which would make the nine year old
child very embarrassed when they were pointed out.
Look at Venus. The day lasts 235 Earth days. The inclination is 3 degrees.
Yet the temperature (about 465C) is the same day and night and pole and
equator. If the planet had 90 degree inclination the temperature would
still be the same all over the planet because the main drivers of the Venus
climate are the thick atmosphere and the proximity to the sun. The thick
atmosphere is why Venus is hotter than Mercury even though it only receives
25 percent of the solar irradiation of Mercury. (Craters at Mercury's north
pole contain ice).

Coming from an unfortunate who can't manage to match one weekday rotation
with temperature spikes and troughs and not feel embarrassed about it,
you are hardly going to comprehend climate on an astronomical scale for all the planets -


Why do you lie so much. You could put Trump to shame! Nobody denies the
difference between average day or night temperature ( although I remember
some days when the high was warmer).
Apologise now for this lie which you have repeated so many times. Make sure
you speak about it at your next confession.

http://prairieecosystems.pbworks.com...0variation.jpg

� It is a fact not generally known that,owing to the difference between
solar and sidereal time,the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often
than there are days in the year� NASA /Harvard

Something the nine year olds would be embarrassed about when they were
shown the truth.

You all keep talking about pre-teen understanding but you yourselves
never made it to adulthood,at least in terms of reasoning and therefore
these threads are left as standalone insights that are there to be built on.


Now explain the lack of diurnal temperature changes on Venus. Of course a
backward nine year old child would just pretend they didn't hear.

On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 10:24:12 AM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:


Why do you lie so much. You could put Trump to shame! Nobody denies the
difference between average day or night temperature ( although I remember
some days when the high was warmer).

It doesn't matter if you are 90 years old, 9 years old or 9 months, your body responds to the rotation of the Earth each weekday and the rise and fall in temperatures as the Sun appears after dawn and the stars appear after twilight

http://prairieecosystems.pbworks.com...0variation.jpg

You can wax lyrical about inserting an extra rotation into that graph because people got careless with a clock back in the late 17th century but the fact is that it is impossible.

All those poetic and beautiful transitions such as morning follows evening as the Earth turns once is never lost to the babble of 'solar vs sidereal' fiction apart from those who have had their minds turned to mush and that means you.

Gerald Kelleher wrote:
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 10:24:12 AM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:


Why do you lie so much. You could put Trump to shame! Nobody denies the
difference between average day or night temperature ( although I remember
some days when the high was warmer).

It doesn't matter if you are 90 years old, 9 years old or 9 months, your
body responds to the rotation of the Earth each weekday and the rise and
fall in temperatures as the Sun appears after dawn and the stars appear after twilight

http://prairieecosystems.pbworks.com...0variation.jpg

You can wax lyrical about inserting an extra rotation into that graph
because people got careless with a clock back in the late 17th century
but the fact is that it is impossible.

All those poetic and beautiful transitions such as morning follows
evening as the Earth turns once is never lost to the babble of 'solar vs
sidereal' fiction apart from those who have had their minds turned to
mush and that means you.





So you can't answer to the point.
Venus is hotter than Mercury even though it's farther from the sun.
There is little temperature difference between day and night and Pole and
equator.
That difference is due to the thick atmosphere which controls the climate.
So atmosphere affects the climate.

On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 5:19:02 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:

So you can't answer to the point.

What business have I with a dope who can't manage to assign a rotational cause to a sunrise and sunset each 24 hour weekday ?.

http://prairieecosystems.pbworks.com...0variation.jpg

Where are you going to insert the extra rotation into the temperature spikes and troughs that your stupid 'solar vs sidereal' fiction forces you into ?.

You don't get to talk planetary climate with me if you can't manage to handle the most basic experience and fact known to humanity.

I spent enough time dealing with those who come from the academic slums of England or the colonials who think they are doing themselves some favor by attaching themselves to these mindless crooks.

There has to be a modification in how inclination is expressed for each planet. All planets have a North and South latitudinal position above and below the planet's orbital plane and although the entire surface of a planet turns to the Sun in response to its orbital motion, the polar points are of particular interest as they trace a circle parallel with the orbital plane.

http://calgary.rasc.ca/images/planet_inclinations.gif

In this system Uranus has an 8° inclination, Jupiter has an 87° inclination while the Earth has a 66 1/2° inclination.It makes it easier to determine the spectrum into which the Earth's climate fits so that an increase is towards polar and a decrease in inclination is towards equatorial. It is also highly productive.

On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 11:17:23 AM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

...the entire surface of a planet turns to the Sun in response to its orbital motion...

.... and there is your extra sidereal day each year! Congratulations!

Gerald Kelleher wrote:
I spent enough time dealing with those who come from the academic slums
of England or the colonials who think they are doing themselves some
favor by attaching themselves to these mindless crooks.

There has to be a modification in how inclination is expressed for each
planet. All planets have a North and South latitudinal position above and
below the planet's orbital plane and although the entire surface of a
planet turns to the Sun in response to its orbital motion, the polar
points are of particular interest as they trace a circle parallel with the orbital plane.

http://calgary.rasc.ca/images/planet_inclinations.gif

In this system Uranus has an 8° inclination, Jupiter has an 87°
inclination while the Earth has a 66 1/2° inclination.It makes it easier
to determine the spectrum into which the Earth's climate fits so that an
increase is towards polar and a decrease in inclination is towards
equatorial. It is also highly productive.








You haven't explained why Venus is hotter than Mercury despite being
farther from the sun. What causes this?