Practical look at climate

All planets possess a climate so it is crucial to look at the common features which distinguish one planet's climate from another planet regardless of composition or distance from the Sun.

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

Inclination, from 0 degrees to a maximum 90 degrees, determines how weather is experienced across the hemispheres as the planet orbits the Sun. Were the Earth to have the 3 degree inclination of Jupiter ,most inhabitants would experience benign conditions across almost all latitudes whereas an 82 degree inclination like Uranus and the Earth would be uninhabitable as the enormous swings in conditions across latitudes every 6 months make for hostile conditions.

With everyone getting in on the 'climate change' act based on trying to model planetary climate as long term weather, the real technical issues behind a planet's climate are ignored and specifically the climate spectrum into which all planets fall.

In terms of the orbital cycle and the surface rotation that carries the entire Earth around itself as it moves through space and just as there is dawn, twilight, noon and midnight in terms of daily rotation then so there is a similar designation for the orbital surface rotation.

Like the hands of a dial, the North and South poles designate the present time as orbital dawn for the Southern latitudes below the Equator and orbital twilight at the Northern latitudes. It gets people used to the simultaneous rotations which all inhabitants are subject to rather than the common language of Spring,Summer,Fall and Winter which are commonly explained in the vague notion of 'tilt' which destroys appreciation of the more productive perspective.

The only way climate can change would be the inclination within a climate spectrum between Polar and Equatorial hence climate doesn't change at all as the astronomical principles prohibit such a use of planetary climate.

The 'I-spy-with-my-little-eye' stargazers are having a ball in the other thread and forums so good luck to them, this topic only invites astronomers who operate in the area of cause and effect between planets and their surface conditions,including our home planet.

It is one of the great planetary events as the circumference around the Northern polar latitude grows and ice begins to form in response to the orbital surface rotation as the Earth moves through space and turns to the central Sun as it does so -

https://nsidc.org/sites/nsidc.org/fi...Minimum_bm.png


The Arctic circle and its Southern equivalent are merely the maximum circumference where the Sun and its radiation are no longer seen and felt at the Solstices but this circumference is dynamic and shrinks and expands across an orbital circuit.

The evolution of sea ice is one of the magnificent events as large areas of the sea turn white and solid for the next 6 months. It is only fitting that the surface rotation responsible for this evolution be appreciated and the old 'tilting' Earth consigned to a historical artifact that served its purpose in a different era.

From a center at the North pole and on the Equinox, the diameter of surface area lost to solar radiation each day is roughly 16 miles where it reaches a maximum surface area at the December Solstice.The maximum diameter for this expanding circle from Equinox to Solstice is the Arctic circle and with it comes the appearance of sea ice.

On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 8:36:30 PM UTC+1, oriel36 wrote:
From a center at the North pole and on the Equinox, the diameter of surface area lost to solar radiation each day is roughly 16 miles where it reaches a maximum surface area at the December Solstice.The maximum diameter for this expanding circle from Equinox to Solstice is the Arctic circle and with it comes the appearance of sea ice.

That should be 16 miles radius each day is lost to solar radiation in an expanding circle as the Earth's turns to the central Sun as a function of its orbital motion.

Genuine astronomers should take account that the North pole is below the fully illuminated face of the Earth and the expanding circle is a product of the annual motion -

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

These things will eventually make it into wider circulation despite people here being the first to see this new perspective while being oblivious to the exciting implications .

On Wednesday, 30 September 2015 02:43:01 UTC-4, oriel36 wrote:
All planets possess a climate so it is crucial to look at the common features which distinguish one planet's climate from another planet regardless of composition or distance from the Sun.

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

Inclination, from 0 degrees to a maximum 90 degrees, determines how weather is experienced across the hemispheres as the planet orbits the Sun. Were the Earth to have the 3 degree inclination of Jupiter ,most inhabitants would experience benign conditions across almost all latitudes whereas an 82 degree inclination like Uranus and the Earth would be uninhabitable as the enormous swings in conditions across latitudes every 6 months make for hostile conditions.

With everyone getting in on the 'climate change' act based on trying to model planetary climate as long term weather, the real technical issues behind a planet's climate are ignored and specifically the climate spectrum into which all planets fall.

The theory of man-made climate change is World Socialism's attempt to perpetuate their dead political theory. World socialism flopped horribly. But rather than face the fact they were MORONS, the socialists latched onto another theory that would allow them pretty much the same result; world government, re-distribution of wealth and control by the socialist cabal. If you listen carefully to the climate kooks, you'll hear phrases like, "social and economic justice" when referring to climate and the like. It's pretty easy to see where it comes from.

On 10/2/15 7:48 PM, RichA wrote:
The theory of man-made climate change is World Socialism's attempt to perpetuate their dead political theory.



Energy Imbalance
The earth is absorbing more energy from the sun than it's giving
up due to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. The excess
energy that the planet is absorbing is enormous. The total energy
imbalance now is 0.58 ± 0.15 W/m^2.


The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the
atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's
temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the
possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might
explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the
century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human
industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists
dismissed his idea as faulty.

In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide
was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists
found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a
few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly
was possible.

In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphe it was rising fast. Researchers began
to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of
carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was
influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the
gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising
level could gravely affect our future. (This essay covers only
developments relating directly to carbon dioxide, with a separate
essay for Other Greenhouse Gases.

The History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Earth
http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html


Two Scientific Blogs of Exceptional Quality
http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/
http://www.skepticalscience.com




--

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 4:29:31 AM UTC+1, Sam Wormley wrote:


Energy Imbalance

The new perspective does include the Sun's radiation or energy if you wish

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

That image was taken from the Mars Orbiter about a month before the June Solstice and the expanded circle with the South pole at the center has reached 80 degrees Lat as the circle is defined by the loss of solar radiation from the visible Sun and coincident with the circle of illumination.

http://www.wpclipart.com/education/s...s/latitude.jpg

A month later at the June Solstice as the planet turns as a function of its orbital motion through space and the surface area/circle will have expanded out to its maximum circumference known as the Arctic circle. Instead of a fixed feature there is now an expanding and shrinking surface area to consider and especially at the North polar latitudes where the development of Arctic sea ice follows the development of the expanded circle after the September Equinox until its disappearance at the March Equinox.

This approach is a long way from the old Earth 'tilts' towards away from the Sun for the continuity afforded by introducing a second surface rotation allows researchers,at least intelligent ones, to actually look at the cause of the seasons through the appearance of sea ice among many other topics.

It is quite a sight within the same week to go to Church and listen to a priest on behalf of the Pope adopt the chatter of climate change, go to a movie and see a plug for climate change action before a movie starts or turn on the tv at breakfast to see a central banker announce the need for action on climate change.

What defines climate for all planets is inclination within a spectrum between 0° and 90° or an Equatorial climate for 0° and a polar climate for 90°. The Earth has a largely Equatorial climate and a smaller polar input so changing climate has no real meaning outside a change in inclination.

The populist concern is therefore bred from fear rather than appreciation so getting the civil and religious authorities to buy into the scheme is awful and particularly today when imaging from large telescopes make the common traits of planetary climate so obvious.