Visiting the NOAA website

The maximum global temperatures variations occur between the
Solstices representing the specific orbital points of the orbital
motion of the Earth yet not one single organisation,including
NOAA,explains the seasons properly -

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/astro/season.php

Does anyone here doubt just how important it is to rein in this
reckless social tyranny which converts what would normally be a
productive effort to reduce pollution into this incredibly unfair
substitution by labelling it global 'climate change' -

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...atereport.html

This 'modelling' is a dangerous business to the exclusion of all other
inputs and especially the central one of planetary dynamics,should any
further variations in temperatures occur up or down,any changes due to
other inputs are locked out to serve carbon dioxide solely.Surely
there are a few sane people still around to determine that this
empirical railroading of temperature spikes towards human influences
displays the worst possible traits of speculative excesses.

I can't even get one here to affirm the temperature variations of the
day/night cycle through daily rotation never mind the orbital specific
for seasonal variations therefore this is not a game and never has
been.The idea is to teach astronomy and not counter pollution concerns
which will always exist yet omit astronomy and there is no way to
distinguish weather from climate.

On Jun 22, 3:27*pm, oriel36 wrote:

I can't even get one here to affirm the temperature variations of the
day/night cycle through daily rotation never mind the orbital specific
for seasonal variations therefore this is not a game and never has
been.

If our whole conception of why we have seasons was wrong, yes, I can
see this might mean we couldn't properly explain things such as how
long-term orbital variations contribute to ice ages.

The surface of the Earth is cooler than the surface of the Sun. So the
Sun emits energy in the form of visible light predominantly, while the
Earth, not even red hot, radiates heat away into space at night in the
form of long-wave infrared. Carbon dioxide blocks those rays, being
warmed by them.

However the Earth's orbit works, that orbit hasn't changed much
recently.

So it is unclear what you might have to contribute to the global
warming debate, even over and above the fact that how the seasons are
conventionally explained seems clear and well-founded to us. Perhaps
there is some problem with how we word our explanations of it, which
seem to imply a variable orientation for the Earth, which cannot be
the case, as Polaris is the pole star all year long. That what varies
instead is the relationship between the Earth and the Sun due to the
Earth's orbit around the Sun... is something we already know quite
well.

But a fixed orientation relative to the stars does translate into a
variable tilt relative to the Sun if you ignore the stars and
concentrate on the line going from the Earth to the Sun. Which may be
why Copernicus spoke of a "variable tilt", and it goes along with your
preference for viewing the period of the Earth's rotation as 24 hours
rather than the shorter "sidereal day".

John Savard

Can't we just crucify the feckwit on a large equatorial mounting and
be done with it?