Planetary Climate spectrum

I read in a new report that was due to come out next year specifying
the usual non astronomical perception of 'climate change' when an
astronomer would normally be able to assign what planetary climate is
and that the misguided modelers are actually trying to discuss long
term weather patterns from unknown causes-

" The Earth's climate system is characterized by multiple spatial and
temporal scales. Consequently,
uncertainties are usually resolved at a variety of rates over multiple
time scales rather than at a single,
predictable rate: new observations may reduce the uncertainties
surrounding short timescale processes quite rapidly, whereas processes
that occur over longer time scales may require very long observational
baselines before much progress can be made."

http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/Ch1-..._All_Final.pdf

Far removed from the noisy nonsense of personal attacks and bickering
is planetary climate proper,the degree of inclination being the
primary indicator of planetary climate within a spectrum that goes
from equatorial (zero degree inclination) to polar (90 degree
inclination).

These less than brilliant people are trying to fudge in terms like
'solar forcings' and what have you while being unable to even account
for annual cyclical events such as latitudinal temperature
fluctuations around a balance between inclination to solar radiation
and more importantly,the length of time a location spends in solar
radiation due to the orbital behavior of the planet.

All these self-important people who have lost control of their
assertions with the opposing crowd who are no better but this is what
happens when you lose sight of the original astronomical principles
derived from interpretation rather than speculative/predictive
modeling.

The nonsense can be avoided using a simple question that has to be
answered yet ,at least in terms of the necessary equatorial/polar
spectrum which defines a planetary climate - a planet with zero
inclination or one that aligns with the ecliptic axis displays
equatorial conditions across all latitudes as opposed to the older
perspective of 'no tilt/no seasons'.Why are salaried astronomers
ignoring these basic principles which are now easily ascertained
through planetary comparisons ?.

On Dec 15, 1:23*pm, oriel36 wrote:
I read in a new report that was due to come out next year specifying
the usual non astronomical perception of 'climate change'

The Earth has an atmosphere. Places on the Earth receive sunlight by
day, and then cool off at night by radiating heat away to space. If
the atmosphere changes, so that some of the heat that would have
radiated away from the ground instead makes the air warmer, that will
affect average weather.

What is so hard to understand about that, which makes you claim that
only astronomical causes can influence climate?

John Savard

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...

On Dec 15, 1:23 pm, oriel36 wrote:
I read in a new report that was due to come out next year specifying
the usual non astronomical perception of 'climate change'

The Earth has an atmosphere. Places on the Earth receive sunlight by
day, and then cool off at night by radiating heat away to space. If
the atmosphere changes, so that some of the heat that would have
radiated away from the ground instead makes the air warmer, that will
affect average weather.

What is so hard to understand about that, which makes you claim that
only astronomical causes can influence climate?

John Savard
================================================== =====
Atmosphere has clouds. Clouds reflect heat into space during the day
and trap heat beneath them at night. The jet stream affects average weather,
Britain had the hottest summer in 2003 and the wettest summer on record in
2012.
What is so hard to understand about that, which makes you claim that
only trace CO2 can influence climate?

-- 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.

On 12/16/12 5:17 PM, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
Atmosphere has clouds. Clouds reflect heat into space during the day
and trap heat beneath them at night.


See:
http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Clim...te_Change.html

On Dec 16, 4:17*pm, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
wrote:

What is so hard to understand about that, which makes you claim that
only trace CO2 can influence climate?

I claim no such thing. However, water vapor in the atmosphere is
controlled by temperature, so it's a feedback mechanism. CO2 and CH4
are outside inputs.

John Savard

On Dec 17, 1:03*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 12/16/12 5:17 PM, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:

Atmosphere has clouds. Clouds reflect heat into space during the day
and trap heat beneath them at night.

* *See:







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

None of you can describe what happens within the next number of days
as the polar coordinates reach their maximum distance to the circle of
illumination as they are carried around in a circle by the orbital
behavior of the Earth.The polar day/night cycle transforms into the
seasons at lower latitudes where it combines with daily rotation and
it is time for readers to willingly pursue its cause in terms of the
orbital motion of the Earth where the poles act as a beacon for that
behavior

http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/...mericas250.jpg

The greater the inclination towards 90 degrees,the more polar a
planet's climate is and that is why the Earth's largely equatorial
climate should be loved so much - the latitudinal fluctuations in
temperature in response to the inclination are not severe as
biological diversity reacts to the changes in temperature .

I have not encountered anyone who can discuss planetary climate
properly as the empirical modelers dilute planetary climate
conceptions into 'global' which tries to insinuate something less than
astronomical about climate and reduce it to a human level.The problem
has always been the lack of astronomers,genuine ones,who would promote
the primacy of the connection between planetary dynamics and
terrestrial conditions rather than the other way around.

People can do much better,forget about the past and concentrate on the
imaging in front of them and do something they haven't done before -
interpret these spectacular images properly.

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

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...

On Dec 16, 4:17 pm, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
wrote:

What is so hard to understand about that, which makes you claim that
only trace CO2 can influence climate?

I claim no such thing. However, water vapor in the atmosphere is
controlled by temperature, so it's a feedback mechanism. CO2 and CH4
are outside inputs.

John Savard
=============================================
Since when are clouds (big fluffy white thing in the sky that hides the sun,
preventing suntan and definitely cooler to the skin) called"water vapour"?
Idiocy and stupidity are major outside inputs.
What is so hard to understand about that, which makes you claim that
trace CO2 and methane can influence climate?

-- 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.

"oriel36" wrote in message
...

None of you can describe what happens within the next number of days
as the polar coordinates reach their maximum distance
================================================== ===
(R, theta) never reaches a maximum distance from anywhere, you babbling
imbecile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_coordinate_system

-- 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.

On Dec 16, 10:24*pm, oriel36 wrote:

None of you can describe what happens within the next number of days
as the polar coordinates reach their maximum distance to the circle of
illumination as they are carried around in a circle by the orbital
behavior of the Earth.

You are, of course, referring to the upcoming winter solstice.

Indeed, the North Pole will, as you say, reach its maximum distance
from the terminator - the line that separates sunlight and shadow on
the globe.

What is happening?

The Earth orbits the Sun. That means that it travels around the Sun in
an elliptical path of low eccentricity, which thus resembles a circle,
although one noticeably off-center.

The plane of the ecliptic doesn't match the plane of the equator. So
the Earth's axis leans in one direction.

The North Pole leans towards the direction in the ecliptic plane
towards which the Earth's orbit is carrying the Earth to its point of
the maximum extent of displacement in that direction from the Sun.

Or, in plainer, less tortured prose:

The Earth always leans the same way, but its orbit has taken it to the
side of the Sun towards which it is leaning, so now it's leaning away
from the Sun.

John Savard

On 2012-12-17, Quadibloc wrote:
On Dec 16, 4:17*pm, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
wrote:

What is so hard to understand about that, which makes you claim that
only trace CO2 can influence climate?

I claim no such thing. However, water vapor in the atmosphere is
controlled by temperature, so it's a feedback mechanism. CO2 and CH4
are outside inputs.

John Savard

It would be a positive feedback mechanism, though. Higher temperatures
means increased water vapor, means more radiation absorbed by water vapor,
meaning higher temperatures, etc. No runaway greenhouse effect from water
vapor would show that there is a negative feedback mechanism at work.
If you increased the quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by x,
would the radiation absorbed by carbon dioxide also increase by the
same x?

Bud