"H. E. Taylor" wrote in message
...
In article ,
k Alastair McDonald wrote:
[...]
BTW, 2006 will go down in British History as the year with no winter.


Just so we are clear, is that the winter of 2005-2006
or 2006-2007?

ahem
-het

2005-2006. Temperatures during September and October have been and remain
well above the seasonal average. Today's forecast is 20C compared with a
seasonal average of 10C. This good weather may break before March, and I may
well be proved wrong. The MetOffice are predicting a cold winter because the
Atlantic SSTs are high! Occam's Razor says I will be right :-)

Cheers, Alastair.

To Alastair

Cannot even begin tio imagine why a person would talk of seasonal
hemispherical averages and then shift to a global view as if this was
perfectly fine.

The daylight/darkness asymmetry generated by constant axial rotation
passing through changing orbital orientation (thus generating the
cyclical global variations in climate) cannot even be used by
contemporaries who insist on a subhuman axial tilt mechanism and how
sunlight strikes the Earth*.

It is not at all difficult to determine that the asymmetry between
daylight/darkness is absent from explanations because the cataloguers
combine axial and orbital motion off the Earth's axis and treat axial
and orbital motion as a single sidereal motion.

Daylight/darkness asymmetry and the length of time a location spends in
sunlight is extremely imporatant but does NOT factor into contemporary
primitive explanations for seasonal variations and more importantly,the
enormous task of providing a correct global mechanism for seasons from
a global perspective.

None of you take your jobs seriously but then again,common sense was
never a strong point of those who knew much of the empirical 'occam's
razor'.

* http://www.answers.com/topic/axial-tilt

"oriel36" wrote in message
oups.com...


Daylight/darkness asymmetry and the length of time a location spends in
sunlight is extremely imporatant but does NOT factor into contemporary
primitive explanations for seasonal variations and more importantly,the
enormous task of providing a correct global mechanism for seasons from
a global perspective.

To ???????,

From a global point of view, it is invariably true that half of the Earth is
lit by the Sun and the other half is in darkness. This fact is used in zero
dimensional energy balance models. On a local scale, it is only true on two
days of the year that daytime equals nightime. That is one reason General
Circulation Models (GCMs) are used to model climate. The
ClimatePrediction.net model http://www.climateprediction.net/ uses a time step
of 30 minutes, thus ensuring that different length of day is properly treated
throughout the globe.

I was taught at school that the Arctic was infested with mosquitos because the
length of day compensated for the low angle of incidence of the sun. The idea
that scientists would ignore such an obvious fact is so laughable that I, and
perhaps everyone else, have found it incredible that someone as literate as
yourself could be making it.

The scientists who produce the models, and who are predicting that global
warming is going to cause major probelms for the world, have considered more
"angles" than you could come up with even if you spent your whole life
thinking about it. That is what they are doing, spending their lives thinking
about the different 'angles', and there are thousands of them!

Cheers, Alastair.

Alastair McDonald wrote:
"oriel36" wrote in message
oups.com...


Daylight/darkness asymmetry and the length of time a location spends in
sunlight is extremely imporatant but does NOT factor into contemporary
primitive explanations for seasonal variations and more importantly,the
enormous task of providing a correct global mechanism for seasons from
a global perspective.

To ???????,

From a global point of view, it is invariably true that half of the Earth is
lit by the Sun and the other half is in darkness.

Assuming that you have not actually familiar enough with certain
distinctions and why they becomes important,ease up and let the
planet's axial and orbital motions and orientations dictate this the
course of this thread than any personal opinions.

From a global point of the view,the Earth's changing orbital
orientation,due to its orbital motion,passing through fixed axial
orientation causes cyclical changes.You will never hear the change in
orbital orientation used is descriptions of cyclical changes but
taking your description and placing it is graphic form,it looks like
this -

http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronom...ages/04f15.jpg

Contemporaries find it nearly impossible to isolate orbital motion and
orientation even though the explanation for cyclical seasonal
changes,the averages from those changes and imbalances (including
global warming) from those averages depend on the accurate
astronomical mechanism with close attension to the relationship
between axial and orbital motion.






This fact is used in zero
dimensional energy balance models. On a local scale, it is only true on two
days of the year that daytime equals nightime. That is one reason General
Circulation Models (GCMs) are used to model climate. The
ClimatePrediction.net model http://www.climateprediction.net/ uses a time step
of 30 minutes, thus ensuring that different length of day is properly treated
throughout the globe.


http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronom...ages/04f15.jpg

As axial rotation and orbital motions are independent of each
other,there is an asymmetry in the relationship between axial and
orbital motion between Sept/Mar and Mar/Sept.While the graphic above
contains no information on axial rotation and orientation,you can
assume that axial rotation/orientation remained constant and fixed.

Taken from your cited website to illustrate why the contemporary view
is a very poor description -

"The Seasonal Cycle

The seasonal cycle in the atmosphere is driven by the fact that the
Earth's axis is not at right angles to the sun (it is actually 23°
away from perpendicular ). This means that, at different times of year,
different latitudes get the most incoming solar radiation. At the
equinoxes, the sun is overhead at the equator, at the June solstice,
the sun is over the Tropic of Cancer and at the December solstice, it
is over the Tropic of Capricorn. This means that, in June, July and
August (northern hemisphere summer), the northern hemisphere is warmer
than the southern hemisphere. Similarly in December, January and
February, the southern hemisphere is warmer. These months are not
symmetrical about the solstice (for example, we do not talk about the
November, December, January season) because the climate system tends to
lag the sun: it takes a while to heat up or cool down. "

http://www.climateprediction.net/science/cl-intro.php

Attributing a change in position of the Sun against the Earth's
Equator/axis demostrates a shocking lack of appreciation for the size
of our parent star and no attribution to the changing orbital
orientation of the Earth.It affirms that by combining axial rotation
and orbital motion working off the Earth's axis,the valuable asymmetry
that straddles the Earth's position at the perihelion (Sept/Mar) and
aphelion (Mar/Sept) is lost.








I was taught at school that the Arctic was infested with mosquitos because the
length of day compensated for the low angle of incidence of the sun. The idea
that scientists would ignore such an obvious fact is so laughable that I, and
perhaps everyone else, have found it incredible that someone as literate as
yourself could be making it.

The scientists who produce the models, and who are predicting that global
warming is going to cause major probelms for the world, have considered more
"angles" than you could come up with even if you spent your whole life
thinking about it. That is what they are doing, spending their lives thinking
about the different 'angles', and there are thousands of them!

Cheers, Alastair.

Presently they are wasting their time,to be any less blunt would be
inaccurate.

The root of the problem goes back to the 17th century celestial
cataloguers who first combined axial and orbital motion into a sidereal
average and justified it astronomically(your cited website does just
that).I assume most people with common sense would be puzzled as to why
the daylight/darkness asymmetry is absent from the explanation of
cyclical seasonal changes in favor of hemispherical axial tilt.

You can always stick with what you know and I would not blame
you,Taking the route of an accurate astronomical mechanism for seasonal
changes using a true global picture rather than splitting the
hemispheres into summer/winter can be intricate (but oh so rewarding)
just as the consequences of an El Nino event cannot be isolated to a
hemisphere.

It requires that you initially let the planet's motions and
orientations dictate matters rather than imposing 'angles' but as
scientists adopt the wrong relationship between axial and orbital
motion in terms of how they assign the value for axial rotation* and
subsequently destroy the relationship with orbital motion and changing
orientation ,you are not doing your jobs and wasting people's time.

* http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml

Look up Milankovitch cycles.

Cheers, Alastair.

"oriel36" wrote in message
ups.com...

Alastair McDonald wrote:
"oriel36" wrote in message
oups.com...


Daylight/darkness asymmetry and the length of time a location spends in
sunlight is extremely imporatant but does NOT factor into contemporary
primitive explanations for seasonal variations and more importantly,the
enormous task of providing a correct global mechanism for seasons from
a global perspective.

To ???????,

From a global point of view, it is invariably true that half of the Earth is
lit by the Sun and the other half is in darkness.

Assuming that you have not actually familiar enough with certain
distinctions and why they becomes important,ease up and let the
planet's axial and orbital motions and orientations dictate this the
course of this thread than any personal opinions.

From a global point of the view,the Earth's changing orbital
orientation,due to its orbital motion,passing through fixed axial
orientation causes cyclical changes.You will never hear the change in
orbital orientation used is descriptions of cyclical changes but
taking your description and placing it is graphic form,it looks like
this -

http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronom...ages/04f15.jpg

Contemporaries find it nearly impossible to isolate orbital motion and
orientation even though the explanation for cyclical seasonal
changes,the averages from those changes and imbalances (including
global warming) from those averages depend on the accurate
astronomical mechanism with close attension to the relationship
between axial and orbital motion.






This fact is used in zero
dimensional energy balance models. On a local scale, it is only true on
two
days of the year that daytime equals nightime. That is one reason General
Circulation Models (GCMs) are used to model climate. The
ClimatePrediction.net model http://www.climateprediction.net/ uses a time
step
of 30 minutes, thus ensuring that different length of day is properly
treated
throughout the globe.


http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronom...ages/04f15.jpg

As axial rotation and orbital motions are independent of each
other,there is an asymmetry in the relationship between axial and
orbital motion between Sept/Mar and Mar/Sept.While the graphic above
contains no information on axial rotation and orientation,you can
assume that axial rotation/orientation remained constant and fixed.

Taken from your cited website to illustrate why the contemporary view
is a very poor description -

"The Seasonal Cycle

The seasonal cycle in the atmosphere is driven by the fact that the
Earth's axis is not at right angles to the sun (it is actually 23°
away from perpendicular ). This means that, at different times of year,
different latitudes get the most incoming solar radiation. At the
equinoxes, the sun is overhead at the equator, at the June solstice,
the sun is over the Tropic of Cancer and at the December solstice, it
is over the Tropic of Capricorn. This means that, in June, July and
August (northern hemisphere summer), the northern hemisphere is warmer
than the southern hemisphere. Similarly in December, January and
February, the southern hemisphere is warmer. These months are not
symmetrical about the solstice (for example, we do not talk about the
November, December, January season) because the climate system tends to
lag the sun: it takes a while to heat up or cool down. "

http://www.climateprediction.net/science/cl-intro.php

Attributing a change in position of the Sun against the Earth's
Equator/axis demostrates a shocking lack of appreciation for the size
of our parent star and no attribution to the changing orbital
orientation of the Earth.It affirms that by combining axial rotation
and orbital motion working off the Earth's axis,the valuable asymmetry
that straddles the Earth's position at the perihelion (Sept/Mar) and
aphelion (Mar/Sept) is lost.








I was taught at school that the Arctic was infested with mosquitos because
the
length of day compensated for the low angle of incidence of the sun. The
idea
that scientists would ignore such an obvious fact is so laughable that I,
and
perhaps everyone else, have found it incredible that someone as literate as
yourself could be making it.

The scientists who produce the models, and who are predicting that global
warming is going to cause major probelms for the world, have considered more
"angles" than you could come up with even if you spent your whole life
thinking about it. That is what they are doing, spending their lives
thinking
about the different 'angles', and there are thousands of them!

Cheers, Alastair.

Presently they are wasting their time,to be any less blunt would be
inaccurate.

The root of the problem goes back to the 17th century celestial
cataloguers who first combined axial and orbital motion into a sidereal
average and justified it astronomically(your cited website does just
that).I assume most people with common sense would be puzzled as to why
the daylight/darkness asymmetry is absent from the explanation of
cyclical seasonal changes in favor of hemispherical axial tilt.

You can always stick with what you know and I would not blame
you,Taking the route of an accurate astronomical mechanism for seasonal
changes using a true global picture rather than splitting the
hemispheres into summer/winter can be intricate (but oh so rewarding)
just as the consequences of an El Nino event cannot be isolated to a
hemisphere.

It requires that you initially let the planet's motions and
orientations dictate matters rather than imposing 'angles' but as
scientists adopt the wrong relationship between axial and orbital
motion in terms of how they assign the value for axial rotation* and
subsequently destroy the relationship with orbital motion and changing
orientation ,you are not doing your jobs and wasting people's time.

* http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml

Alastair McDonald wrote:

"oriel36" wrote in message
oups.com...

Daylight/darkness asymmetry and the length of time a location spends in
sunlight is extremely imporatant but does NOT factor into contemporary
primitive explanations for seasonal variations and more importantly,the
enormous task of providing a correct global mechanism for seasons from
a global perspective.

To ???????,

From a global point of view, it is invariably true that half of the Earth is
lit by the Sun and the other half is in darkness. This fact is used in zero
dimensional energy balance models. On a local scale, it is only true on two
days of the year that daytime equals nightime. That is one reason General
Circulation Models (GCMs) are used to model climate.

Don't waste your time Alastair. Oriel36 AKA Gerald Kelleher is a well
known NetKook that does not know which way is up and never will!

You can feed his output to the Shannonizer and the sense or lack of it
is fundamentally unaltered.

http://www.nightgarden.com/shannon.htm

It is a pretty good definitive test of Kookiness.

Regards,
Martin Brown

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
Alastair McDonald wrote:

"oriel36" wrote in message
oups.com...

Daylight/darkness asymmetry and the length of time a location spends in
sunlight is extremely imporatant but does NOT factor into contemporary
primitive explanations for seasonal variations and more importantly,the
enormous task of providing a correct global mechanism for seasons from
a global perspective.

To ???????,

From a global point of view, it is invariably true that half of the Earth
is
lit by the Sun and the other half is in darkness. This fact is used in
zero
dimensional energy balance models. On a local scale, it is only true on
two
days of the year that daytime equals nightime. That is one reason General
Circulation Models (GCMs) are used to model climate.

Don't waste your time Alastair. Oriel36 AKA Gerald Kelleher is a well
known NetKook that does not know which way is up and never will!

You can feed his output to the Shannonizer and the sense or lack of it
is fundamentally unaltered.

http://www.nightgarden.com/shannon.htm

It is a pretty good definitive test of Kookiness.

Thanks Martin.

What happened was that I had confused his name with OrionCA, who posts in
alt.global-warming, and although a foolish climate sceptic, is not a kook.

Cheers, Alastair.

To Alastair

Be my guest and remain a geocentrist insofar as the mechanism for
seasonal climate averages is described in glowing geocentric terms -

"The seasonal cycle in the atmosphere is driven by the fact that the
Earth's axis is not at right angles to the sun (it is actually 23°
away from perpendicular ). This means that, at different times of year,
different latitudes get the most incoming solar radiation. At the
equinoxes, the sun is overhead at the equator, at the June solstice,
the sun is over the Tropic of Cancer and at the December solstice, it
is over the Tropic of Capricorn"

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6h.html

Can't imagine why anyone would wish our enormous parent star to alter
its position off the Equator so you and Martin here can have your
seasonal changes but it does highlight the utterly poor standard that
exists presently.

The simple answer is the relationship betwen axial and orbital
orientation changes over the course of an annual orbit and I assure you
that the Sun has no motion or effect on seasonal cyclical changes
outside of that it provides stable heat and light.Everything else is
local and attributed to the way the Earth's motions and orientations
behave .Without the correct relationship,you can forget climatology
,not just for the material itself but the way that material is handled.

Who has courage enough to stand up to material that is pitiless on the
foolish and the pretensious.

oriel36 wrote:

Be my guest and remain a geocentrist insofar as the mechanism for
seasonal climate averages is described in glowing geocentric terms -

"The seasonal cycle in the atmosphere is driven by the fact that the
Earth's axis is not at right angles to the sun (it is actually 23°
away from perpendicular ). This means that, at different times of year,
different latitudes get the most incoming solar radiation. At the
equinoxes, the sun is overhead at the equator, at the June solstice,
the sun is over the Tropic of Cancer and at the December solstice, it
is over the Tropic of Capricorn"

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6h.html

Can't imagine why anyone would wish our enormous parent star to alter
its position off the Equator so you and Martin here can have your
seasonal changes but it does highlight the utterly poor standard that
exists presently.

The simple answer is the relationship betwen axial and orbital
orientation changes over the course of an annual orbit and I assure you
that the Sun has no motion or effect on seasonal cyclical changes
outside of that it provides stable heat and light.Everything else is
local and attributed to the way the Earth's motions and orientations
behave .Without the correct relationship,you can forget climatology
,not just for the material itself but the way that material is handled.

Who has courage enough to stand up to material that is pitiless on the
foolish and the pretensious.

Gosh, that's amazing! I can't believe nobody thought of this earlier.
Those astronomers and climatologists need to get on this right away.

Martin Brown wrote:
Alastair McDonald wrote:

"oriel36" wrote in message
oups.com...

Daylight/darkness asymmetry and the length of time a location spends in
sunlight is extremely imporatant but does NOT factor into contemporary
primitive explanations for seasonal variations and more importantly,the
enormous task of providing a correct global mechanism for seasons from
a global perspective.

To ???????,

From a global point of view, it is invariably true that half of the Earth is
lit by the Sun and the other half is in darkness. This fact is used in zero
dimensional energy balance models. On a local scale, it is only true on two
days of the year that daytime equals nightime. That is one reason General
Circulation Models (GCMs) are used to model climate.

Don't waste your time Alastair. Oriel36 AKA Gerald Kelleher is a well
known NetKook that does not know which way is up and never will!

You can feed his output to the Shannonizer and the sense or lack of it
is fundamentally unaltered.

http://www.nightgarden.com/shannon.htm

It is a pretty good definitive test of Kookiness.

Regards,
Martin Brown

No offense but when you resort to using hemispherical axial tilt to the
Sun to explain seasonal cyclical changes and subsequently the mechanism
for global averages in climate,I assure you that every single one of
you are just slightly above flat-Earthers*.

Given that the Earth's axial and orbital motions and orientations
generate cyclical changes,it is utterly stupid to rely on people who
attribute a variation in position of the Sun off the Equator when it
is the change in orbital orientation against fixed axial orientation
that generates the effect.

Marking the natural asymmetry in the relationship between axial and
orbital motion from Mar/Sept and Sept/Mar demonstrates that on the
topic of climate change and how those averages are generated through an
astronomical mechanism,you are not doing your jobs and wasting people's
time.

While people can get away with hemispherical explanations of
summer/winter out of convenience or indoctrination,climatology does not
have the luxury of anything other than treating climate froma global
perspective,if none of you are sincere enough to recognise the
limitations of a geocentric variations in axial tilt and moving on to
the exquisite change on orbital orientation (due to orbital motion)
against fixed axial orientation then the whole exercise goes from being
exciting to being a waste of time.

* http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6h.html

It takes courage to deal with matters which are not for the
feebleminded.