|
No escape for dramatic Arctic thaw?
Many scientists see no escape for dramatic Arctic thaw
October 25, 2005 By Andrew C. Revkin New York Times In 1969, Roy Koerner, a Canadian government glaciologist, was one of four men (and 36 dogs) who completed the first surface crossing of the Arctic Ocean, from Alaska through the North Pole to Norway. Today, he said, such a trek would be impossible: There is just not enough ice. In September, the area covered by sea ice reached a record low. "I recently reviewed a proposal by one guy to go across by kayak," Koerner said. Many scientists say it has taken a long time for them to accept that global warming, partly the result of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, could shrink the Arctic's summer cloak of ice. But many of those same scientists have concluded that the momentum behind human-caused warming, combined with the region's tendency to amplify change, has put the familiar Arctic past the point of no return. The rest: http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs....82/1002/NEWS01 |
No escape for dramatic Arctic thaw?
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message ps.com... Many scientists see no escape for dramatic Arctic thaw Many scientists say it has taken a long time for them to accept that global warming, partly the result of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, could shrink the Arctic's summer cloak of ice. But many of those same scientists have concluded that the momentum behind human-caused warming, combined with the region's tendency to amplify change, has put the familiar Arctic past the point of no return. Yup, now that it is being recognised that global warming is happening it is too late to stop it! NB it is too late NOW. Immediatiate action is imperitave. GWB's procrastination over the levees in NO will be nothing compared with the effects of his procrastination over global warming! Cheers, Alastair. |
No escape for dramatic Arctic thaw?
Yes! About the only way one can rap one's mind
about what is to come in the next couple of centuries of anthropogenic greenhouse gas forced global warming is to imagine New Orleans duplicated all over our entire planet. It didn't have to happen, Alastair, there was no need for it to happen. We can still cut it short, if we act. |
No escape for dramatic Arctic thaw?
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message ups.com... Yes! About the only way one can rap one's mind about what is to come in the next couple of centuries of anthropogenic greenhouse gas forced global warming is to imagine New Orleans duplicated all over our entire planet. It didn't have to happen, Alastair, there was no need for it to happen. We can still cut it short, if we act. First, it is not going to take a couple of centuries. The summer Arctic ice will not last past the next big El Nino, and even if the winter ice does reform the albedo will have been changed because that is only affected by the summer ice. It is not inconceivable that there will be several major hurricanes next year, with one of them hitting another major city such as Miami or Houston. Even if the US is spared next year, what odds to you give on Miami not being destroyed within five years? Even Landsea expects this to last 15 years. The point is that there is no point in telling me we should act. The USA is the key. Without action from America nothing will happen. Of course I am accused of US bashing, but even Americans like yourself are caught in the same trap. Like me you want change but there is nothing you can do to bring it about until George W. Bush is converted from christianity to realism! Cheers, Alastair. |
No escape for dramatic Arctic thaw?
Global warming has more evil tricks in its bag than
just ice and hurricanes, all of them will take a couple of centuries to develop. We, should act, now. No, I don't think the odds for Miami or other US gulf cities is high. |
No escape for dramatic Arctic thaw?
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message oups.com... Global warming has more evil tricks in its bag than just ice and hurricanes, all of them will take a couple of centuries to develop. We, should act, now. No, I don't think the odds for Miami or other US gulf cities is high. New York will probably be hit within 10 years. There, that's a surprise! BTW, 2006 will go down in British History as the year with no winter. Cheers, Alastair. |
No escape for dramatic Arctic thaw?
Your British year without winter in 2006 seems a bit improbable.
Here is a prediction of my own: San Diego will get hit with a major hurricane in a few decades, and get hit with higher probability after that. Currently, San Diego sees only remnants of hurricanes, but the hurricane strikes have moved northward over the last half century. |
No escape for dramatic Arctic thaw?
"Alastair McDonald" k
wrote: GWB's procrastination over the levees in NO will be nothing compared with the effects of his procrastination over global warming! GW did NOT "procrastinate" over the levees! The floodwall that gave way was almost brand new, you idiot. Cheers, Alastair. *PLONK* -- ): "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" :( (: Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net :) |
No escape for dramatic Arctic thaw?
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 -- "Predictions are hard to make, particularly about the future?." -Yogi Berra How's yer crap detector? http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/detector.html H.E. Taylor http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/ |
No escape for dramatic Arctic thaw?
"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. |
No escape for dramatic Arctic thaw?
To Roger
Climate imbalance,and it is an imbalance is just the mechanism for losing heat,it is not evil or otherwise. I have noted that climatologists still stick with observations based on non existent hemispherical axial tilt properties to the Sun or orbital plane and that fact alone highlights the dismal prospects of comprehending what is going on.Even allowing for the silly technical arguments derived from an astronomical mechanism (btw,it is changing orbital orientation movingthrough fixed axial orientation that causes cyclical seasonal changes),it is the poor intellectual standard that presents itself as the immediate obstacle to comprehending what is going on. In other words,none of you are up to the job. |
No escape for dramatic Arctic thaw?
First their products make the Hurricanes, then it costs $100,000,000 to
evacuate from the hurricane consuming their products, then they raise the price of the product because of the hurricane. Apply, lather, rinse, repeat. --------- This message is brought to you by Global Warming, ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Chevron, Cato Institute, Koch Oil, Tech Central Station, Satan Inc., George C. Marshall Inst., Ford and GM. --------- --------- Additional sponsors of this message are Karl Rove, Scoop Libby, GOP, George Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Vice President Halliburton, American Enerprise Inst., Competitive Enerprise Inst., Council on Foreign Relations, Satan Inc., and the World Bank. --------- |
No escape for dramatic Arctic thaw?
Melchizedek wrote: First their products make the Hurricanes, then it costs $100,000,000 to evacuate from the hurricane consuming their products, then they raise the price of the product because of the hurricane. Apply, lather, rinse, repeat. --------- This message is brought to you by Global Warming, ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Chevron, Cato Institute, Koch Oil, Tech Central Station, Satan Inc., George C. Marshall Inst., Ford and GM. --------- --------- Additional sponsors of this message are Karl Rove, Scoop Libby, GOP, George Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Vice President Halliburton, American Enerprise Inst., Competitive Enerprise Inst., Council on Foreign Relations, Satan Inc., and the World Bank. --------- The price of being politically saavy is the exclusion from the actual technical details of what generates climate imbalances.Put global imbalances down to whatever conditions and characters that may influence a deviation in climate from a mean cyclical average but all that tells me is that the intellectual atmosphere,along with climate imabalance ,is so far out of kilter that perhaps nothing can be done to understand either. If a person suffers high temperature,it is a sign of a response to a departure from a balanced working condition likewise the planet responds in a similar manner ,whether generated by human activity or natural causes. A doctor would know what the working condition of a person is and recognise the rise in temperature as a symptom but climatologists have no working model for a cyclical average,or at least the cartoon version they work with is absolutely useless and primitive for the material involved. People are not doing their jobs and it shows,this forum is more or a chat room than a means to sort and sift issues of substance,little more than a place for complainers worthless political agendas.The planet is not diseased,the planet is responding accordingly to conditions influenced by contemporary living but contemporaries are hopelessly lost in matters concerning what influences the cyclical balances from a global perspective. We may be the dumbest race of people ever to set foot on the planet for although our technological achievements are great,we greedily imagine that we have reached a point where we dictate natural things rather than let us be instructed by astronomical and geological nature.Nature is pitiless on those who are so silly that they mistake a cure for a disease. This is what is happening with climate imabalances and the more we inflict an unatural dumping of gases into the atmosphere,the more the planet will respond.Pity none of you care to comprehend what causes the cyclical balances on which understanding climate changes depend. |
No escape for dramatic Arctic thaw?
You seem to have confused seasonal changes
with climate change. Seasonoal changes happen fast, one cycle every year, in fact. The current warming has happened too fast to be due to astronomical forcing. Astronomical forcing, Milankovic cycles, space dust, or whatever, makes changes over the course of millennia. The only know source of astronomical forcing known to be operating is a slow cooling from Milankovic cycles, which is about two decimal orders of magnitude below the warming from anthropogenic greenhouse gases. |
No escape for dramatic Arctic thaw?
Roger Coppock wrote: You seem to have confused seasonal changes with climate change. Seasonoal changes happen fast, one cycle every year, in fact. Yeah,yeah,yeah,cyclical seasonal changes occur in a hemisphere over the annual cycle thereby affirming my point that the people dealing with climate change variations off a cyclical average still stick to primitive models that are just slightly above a flat Earth. The current warming has happened too fast to be due to astronomical forcing. But assigning a variable axial tilt properties to the Earth against the Sun or orbital plane is a symptom of a diseased mind for no such variation occurs.Get the mechanism for seasonal changes incorrect and you are a poor commentator on everything else. Astronomical forcing, Milankovic cycles, space dust, or whatever, makes changes over the course of millennia. The only know source of astronomical forcing known to be operating is a slow cooling from Milankovic cycles, which is about two decimal orders of magnitude below the warming from anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Stop !. The relationship between axial and orbital motion changes as the Earth's orbit becomes more elliptical or more circular.Insofar as cyclical seasonal changes are rendered in hemispherical terms of the Sun's orientation and motion to the Equator (high/summer,low/Winter) there is no facility availible to treat the Earth's climate in terms of the actual astronomical mechanism which generates the cyclical averages. The most relevent point is that in accounting for cyclical seasonal variations,the astronomical forcings ,as you call it,do not split at the Equator but straddle in in bands towards the poles nor can variations in an annual cycle be assigned as variations in axial tilt to the Sun. The mechanism for cyclical changes and the correct intepretation of what causes those changes ( changing orbital orientation against fixed axial orientation) is the basic requirement to investigate any imbalance from the cyclical averages up to an including more severe meteorological events such as hurricanes. Every single one of you here fail the basic requirement so before you bother to express your phony concern make sure you understand the basics of how the planet responds to human activity in terms of pollution as a means to maintain a balance due to in present astronomical motions and the relationship between axial and orbital motion. |
No escape for dramatic Arctic thaw?
First their products make the Hurricanes, then it costs $100,000,000 to
evacuate from the hurricane consuming their products, then they raise the price of the product because of the hurricane. Apply, lather, rinse, repeat. --------- This message is brought to you by Global Warming, ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Chevron, Cato Institute, Koch Oil, Tech Central Station, Satan Inc., George C. Marshall Inst., Ford and GM. --------- --------- Additional sponsors of this message are Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, GOP, George Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Vice President Halliburton, American Enerprise Inst., Competitive Enterprise Inst., Council on Foreign Relations, Satan Inc., and the World Bank. --------- |
No escape for dramatic Arctic thaw?
"Well Done" wrote in message ... "Alastair McDonald" k wrote: GWB's procrastination over the levees in NO will be nothing compared with the effects of his procrastination over global warming! GW did NOT "procrastinate" over the levees! The floodwall that gave way was almost brand new, you idiot. Procrastination is far too generous a term for what he really did, which was to actively cut the flood control budget. And indeed some work continued, as with the new flood wall, but it was wholly inadequate. We should bear in mind that he was only the latest in a string of national leaders to have ignored or minimized the problem, though. Cheers, Alastair. *PLONK* -- ): "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" :( (: Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net :) |
No escape for dramatic Arctic thaw?
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 |
No escape for dramatic Arctic thaw?
"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. |
No escape for dramatic Arctic thaw?
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 |
No escape for dramatic Arctic thaw?
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 |
No escape for dramatic Arctic thaw?
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 escape for dramatic Arctic thaw?
"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. |
No escape for dramatic Arctic thaw?
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. |
No escape for dramatic Arctic thaw?
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. |
No escape for dramatic Arctic thaw?
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. |
No escape for dramatic Arctic thaw?
To Lifefo
The cataloguers who set about fixing the Earth's terrestial longitudes to the celestial sphere (and in direct opposition to John Harrison's clock method) took unethical shortcuts with the exquisite Equation of Time principles which set the day by noon,either natiral or the equable 24 hour day. You and the rest are inheriting 300 years of garbage which tried to determine that the Earth's rotation is constant to the celestial sphere in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec. By combining axial and orbital motion into a sidereal average they had to introduce an astronomical fudge called the analemma in order to get rid of Kepler's second law in generating the natural unequal day and replaced it with a variation in axial tilt to the Sun. By gosh indeed,you and the rest of this ungrateful bunch will use the exquisite astronomically based principles behind the equable 24 hour day,today and the rest of your lives but at the same time will deny it for an inferior and ultimately destructive fudge.Everyone from Copernicus,Kepler,Roemer to the ancients who sorted and sifted the principles stretching back to remote antiquity had their efforts destroyed for the short term solution to terrestial longitudes. |
No escape for dramatic Arctic thaw?
oriel36 wrote: To Lifefo By gosh indeed,you and the rest of this ungrateful bunch will use the plonk |
No escape for dramatic Arctic thaw?
To Lifefo
It must be great to run around expressing concern on climate while knowing little of the material involved. Plonk to your heart's content,the Earth's motions and orientations moving through each other are the prime movers in determining climate ..It does not beg your understanding and you can tilt the Earth all you want.I have an expression for you that is appropriate in respect to how the Earth's orbital orientation ( hence its global perspective ) changes and subsequently generates the cyclical averages - EPPURE SI MUOVE |
No escape for dramatic Arctic thaw?
a écrit dans le message de news:
plonk You're upset because he/she understands sarcasm. You thought he/she was so far out of his/her tree that it would be beyond him/her ;-) |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:25 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 WeatherBanter.co.uk