CO2, Global Warming and the Royal Society
in [Physics]
|
Prev: SCI.MATH POLL - uncountable infinity
Next: Scissors Experiment to prove whether lightwaves can be Doppler shifted Chapt 8 #126; ATOM TOTALITY
From: Sam Wormley on 3 Jun 2010 11:05 On 6/3/10 8:48 AM, oriel36 wrote: > I have never seen so many people who are completely hostile to the > idea that the orbital motion of the Earth is responsible for single > polar daylight/darkness cycle and subsequently the seasons with the > role of 'tilt' serving the description of a planet's climate as > either equatorial or polar with the Earth's inclination determining > largely equatorial conditions. > Now Gerald--nobody disputes the cause of the seasons on the earth orchestrated by the tilt of the earth's spin axis with respect to the normal to the ecliptic as the earth elliptically orbits the sun. Climate, however is subtle and complex. To predict, say 50-500 years into the future is not without its uncertainties for this young science. Climatologists have done a remarkable job in the last decades that may help us better cope with climactic change. I would think that you, personally, would embrace the idea of educating yourself to the changes in a changing world.
From: oriel36 on 3 Jun 2010 11:48 On Jun 3, 4:05 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/3/10 8:48 AM, oriel36 wrote: > > > I have never seen so many people who are completely hostile to the > > idea that the orbital motion of the Earth is responsible for single > > polar daylight/darkness cycle and subsequently the seasons with the > > role of 'tilt' serving the description of a planet's climate as > > either equatorial or polar with the Earth's inclination determining > > largely equatorial conditions. > > Now Gerald--nobody disputes the cause of the seasons on the earth > orchestrated by the tilt of the earth's spin axis with respect to > the normal to the ecliptic as the earth elliptically orbits the > sun. > There is not a single article anywhere describing what the Earth's orbit is doing as it moves along its annual circumference so this is as much about a new astronomical insight as it is tied to explaining the seasons in a more comfortable way.It just takes an ever so slight shift in perspective to see how the window on the Earth's orbital motion is behaving by keeping an eye on the polar coordinates as they move through the circle of illumination at the equinoxes as an explanation for the polar cycle. There are any amount of 'tilt to the orbital plane/Sun' explanations which are ungainly as they try to do with one motion which actually takes two to describe - http://daphne.palomar.edu/jthorngren/tutorial.ht I have dealt with you often enough in those matters which prohibit the emergence of a more productive explanation based on splitting daylight/ darkness cycles into two distinct effects with separate dynamical causes but in the sci.met forums it would look like grandstanding.Who ,for goodness sake,wants to know about the 17th century formatting of planetary dynamics around the equatorial coordinate system which tries to reference daily and orbital motions directly to circumpolar motion when they can simply spend the time putting that simple visual experiment I mentioned many times into proper context. The original hypothesis which Copernicus used and it was variable axial/equatorial inclination was very weak to begin with - ".. the equator and the earth's axis must be understood to have a variable inclination. For if they stayed at a constant angle, and were affected exclusively by the motion of the center, no inequality of days and nights would be observed. On the contrary, it would always be either the longest or shortest day or the day of equal daylight and darkness, or summer or winter, or whatever the character of the season, it would remain identical and unchanged." Copernicus De Revolutionibus. The role of 'tilt' determines whether a planet has equatorial or polar conditions so that if the Earth had 0 degree inclination,it would experience equinoxes conditions similar to that which is experienced at the equator all year round,with a 23 1/2 inclination the Earth has largely equatorial conditions with a minor polar element as opposed to the 90 degree inclination of Uranus which experiences polar climate. All these things can be worked out as an expansion of the more productive perspective of explaining the dual daylight/darkness cycles separately.It is not a taunt but it is a challenge and one every curious and interested individual should take.Already some has got it immediately while others just will not get it but that the orbital motion has been brought into focus by the polar daylight/darkness cycle,there can be no dispute and you can trawl the internet for any article or text on the subject and you will not find any,the good news is that it takes an interested individual to search out and discover the conclusions for themselves,the approach is so new that they may things they never thought of before and here is where I agree with Pascal - "When we wish to correct with advantage and to show another that he errs, we must notice from what side he views the matter, for on that side it is usually true, and admit that truth to him, but reveal to him the side on which it is false. He is satisfied with that, for he sees that he was not mistaken and that he only failed to see all sides. Now, no one is offended at not seeing everything; but one does not like to be mistaken, and that perhaps arises from the fact that man naturally cannot see everything, and that naturally he cannot err in the side he looks at, since the perceptions of our senses are always true. People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others." Pascal It is therefore not pointing out how people are wrong but when taking a wider view,the explanation becomes easier whether it is using planetary dynamics to explain the seasonal temperature fluctuations or visa versa. Think of this as a type of Commentariolis where the outlines of a new approach are suggested without any formal description,the whole thing is too intriguing to ignore and maybe it is best to leave it like that until the conceptual atmosphere improves. > Climate, however is subtle and complex. To predict, say 50-500 > years into the future is not without its uncertainties for this > young science. Climatologists have done a remarkable job in the > last decades that may help us better cope with climactic change. > > I would think that you, personally, would embrace the idea of > educating yourself to the changes in a changing world.
From: Desertphile on 3 Jun 2010 15:04 On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 09:07:27 -0400, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: > On 6/3/2010 8:52 AM, Desertphile wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 22:41:06 -0700 (PDT), Big fella > > <bestbefore(a)hushmail.com> wrote: > > > >> CO2, Global Warming and the Royal Society > >> Letter from Norm Kalmanovitch to the Global Warming Policy Foundation: > >> > >> The concept of human caused global warming is entirely predicated on > >> the assumption that the rapid increase in fossil fuel consumption will > >> raise the atmospheric CO2 concentration to levels that will cause > >> catastrophic warming of the Earth. > > It has already happened, as well as is happening, as well as will > > continue to happen. There is nothing we can do about it. > You mean global thermonuclear war wouldn't end it? I suppose that would. I think we should try it. -- http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
From: Benj on 3 Jun 2010 16:46 On Jun 3, 11:05 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I would think that you, personally, would embrace the idea of > educating yourself to the changes in a changing world. Um, Just in case you didn't get that little "personal" note from "Wormley", what he's saying is that if you intend to prosper and stay alive, you had better start learning which side to be on under the New World Order. Got it? It's advice AND a threat.
From: spudnik on 3 Jun 2010 17:34
always the "doubling" of CO2 is used as an outcome in the GCMs, when it is clear that there would be change of the whole phase of the weather, before that was reached (if you are familiar with studies of the Quaternary Period, Shackleton et al e.g.). --Stop BP's and Waxman's capNtrade arbitrageur rip-off! http://wlym.com |