ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Won't let me edit here's the link you cried about it not being there
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
Earth Gains A Record Amount Of Sea Ice In 2013
- Thread starter tryingtogrow89
- Start date
Doer
Well-Known Member
I noticed climate change today. Damn cold for Sept in NorCal.
I noticed today that the Hurricane season is still indeterminate regrading prediction, so that's a change.
And we want more sea ice. I thought I saw some this morning, but I think that was an Ice Cream truck.
These are my observations and they fit my graph, just fine...well, it is an etch-a-sketch, actually.
I noticed today that the Hurricane season is still indeterminate regrading prediction, so that's a change.
And we want more sea ice. I thought I saw some this morning, but I think that was an Ice Cream truck.
These are my observations and they fit my graph, just fine...well, it is an etch-a-sketch, actually.
Doer
Well-Known Member
It is funny. My Dad can tell these stories. Being 85 now, he has been through a full day and a half of orbital precession. Every 56 years, we move a full day, back in the weather cycle. No wonder it seems to every generation the climate is crazy.
This precession along with the polar wooble precession accounts nicely for the Ice Age periods. Can you imagine, a day per lifetime, colder sooner and hotter sooner, by a full DAY? It constantly stresses the system and indeed created the System.
If you were even in the mental ballpark for the global energy exchanges that account for the giga-joules per hour, you would laugh at the idea that Man adds any significance to this cycle.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Doer
Well-Known Member
I have already. I don't make stuff up. But, we talked this to death last year.
The Earth's axis completes one full cycle of precession approximately every 26,000 years. At the same time the elliptical orbit rotates more slowly. The combined effect of the two precessions leads to a 21,000-year period between the astronomical seasons and the orbit. In addition, the angle between Earth's rotational axis and the normal to the plane of its orbit (obliquity) oscillates between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees on a 41,000-year cycle. It is currently 23.44 degrees and decreasing.
When autumn and winter occur at closest approach, as is the case currently in the northern hemisphere, the earth is moving at its maximum velocity and therefore autumn and winter are slightly shorter than spring and summer. Thus, summer in the northern hemisphere is 4.66 days longer than winter and spring is 2.9 days longer than autumn. But as the orientation of Earth's orbit changes relative to the Vernal Equinox due to apsidal precession the way the length of the seasons are altered by the nonuniform motion changes since different sections of the orbit are involved. When the Earth's apsides are aligned with the equinoxes the length of Spring and Summer (together) equals that of Autumn and Winter. When they are aligned with the solstices either Spring and Summer or Autumn and Winter will be at its longest. Increasing the eccentricity lengthens the time spent near aphelion and shortens the time near perihelion.
You can do the math. We also precess the Solar up and down of our orbit plane.
No circles. All ellipses. They wobble and pulse, and those wobbles precess in their locations in orbit.
For you, let's say this, the bulges move in position, relative to the orbit.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Never before have I heard you say this and I have never seen a cite
So cite
No mention of a day every 56 YearsThe Earth's axis completes one full cycle of precession approximately every 26,000 years. At the same time the elliptical orbit rotates more slowly. The combined effect of the two precessions leads to a 21,000-year period between the astronomical seasons and the orbit. In addition, the angle between Earth's rotational axis and the normal to the plane of its orbit (obliquity) oscillates between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees on a 41,000-year cycle. It is currently 23.44 degrees and decreasing.
When autumn and winter occur at closest approach, as is the case currently in the northern hemisphere, the earth is moving at its maximum velocity and therefore autumn and winter are slightly shorter than spring and summer. Thus, summer in the northern hemisphere is 4.66 days longer than winter and spring is 2.9 days longer than autumn. But as the orientation of Earth's orbit changes relative to the Vernal Equinox due to apsidal precession the way the length of the seasons are altered by the nonuniform motion changes since different sections of the orbit are involved. When the Earth's apsides are aligned with the equinoxes the length of Spring and Summer (together) equals that of Autumn and Winter. When they are aligned with the solstices either Spring and Summer or Autumn and Winter will be at its longest. Increasing the eccentricity lengthens the time spent near aphelion and shortens the time near perihelion.
You can do the math. We also precess the Solar up and down of our orbit plane.
No circles. All ellipses. They wobble and pulse, and those wobbles precess in their locations in orbit.
For you, let's say this, the bulges move in position, relative to the orbit.
Show the math you think is there...
Doer
Well-Known Member
Damn I just did the math in a long post that would not publish....not logged in.
IAC, it is 70 years for 1 day of polar wobble equinox precession. Also about 70 years for the major/minor axis. It is .98 day per degree of orbit.
If you calculate the other precession, the solar vertical precession of that major minor axis it gets less. And considering heating mass effects and ice formation, even less.
As we move away from the Sun faster, out and down at the same time, the precession is faster at times, but I didn't calc it down to 56 days before I crashed and now I'm bored so you won.
70 years, but that is not the seasonal cooling precession, only the equinox.Maybe this will help you since I can't, alas. Too bored. http://vnatsci.ltu.edu/s_schneider/astro/seasons.shtml
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
From your linkDamn I just did the math in a long post that would not publish....not logged in.
IAC, it is 70 years for 1 day of polar wobble equinox precession. Also about 70 years for the major/minor axis. It is .98 day per degree of orbit.
If you calculate the other precession, the solar vertical precession of that major minor axis it gets less. And considering heating mass effects and ice formation, even less.
As we move away from the Sun faster, out and down at the same time, the precession is faster at times, but I didn't calc it down to 56 days before I crashed and now I'm bored so you won.
Maybe this will help you since I can't, alas. Too bored. http://vnatsci.ltu.edu/s_schneider/astro/seasons.shtml
Well, that's why we started using the new Leap day calculations to include 4/100/400 adjustment - the Gregorian Reformation. (If that hadn't happened, Spring would have drifted earlier and earlier in the year!).
As for the 56/ 70 years I'm still not seeing it
Doer
Well-Known Member
Oh, the main point, even if 70 days, that mean we precession 1 full daylight period every 35 years.
So, of course, the climate changes and lies for politics are forever.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/20/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-88/
Another 97%: The Climate Establishment seems to be fascinated with the claim that 97% 98% of the scientists agree Previously, both EOS and the Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences published surveys of highly questionable quality that stressed that 97% 98% of scientists agree [TWTW Sep 1 & Sep 8, 2012] Now, Environmental Research Letters published a survey of the abstracts by a team headed by John Cook, who blogs on the misnamed web site Skeptical Science. The survey covered the years from 1991 to 2011 and searched on the topics global climate change and global warming. The survey found 11,944 abstracts, of which 66.4% expressed no position on carbon-based AGW, 32.6% endorsed carbon-based AGW, and 1% rejected AGW or were uncertain about the cause. The 32.6% immediately became 97% of scientists agree
Over the past decade, the rate is 8 x 10[SUP]21[/SUP] Joules per year, or 2.5 x 10[SUP]14[/SUP] Joules per second. The yield of the Hiroshima atomic bomb was 6.3 x 10[SUP]13[/SUP] Joules, hence the rate of global heat accumulation is equivalent to about 4 Hiroshima bomb detonations per second.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/4-Hiroshima-bombs-worth-of-heat-per-second.html
The exajoule (EJ) is equal to one quintillion (10[SUP]18[/SUP]) joules. The 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami in Japan had 1.41 EJ of energy according to its 9.0 on the moment magnitude scale. Energy in the United States used per year is roughly 94 EJ.
The Earth may be warming right now in the intra-ice cycle. But, we are not doing it. Our input is nothing.
So, of course, the climate changes and lies for politics are forever.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/20/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-88/
Another 97%: The Climate Establishment seems to be fascinated with the claim that 97% 98% of the scientists agree Previously, both EOS and the Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences published surveys of highly questionable quality that stressed that 97% 98% of scientists agree [TWTW Sep 1 & Sep 8, 2012] Now, Environmental Research Letters published a survey of the abstracts by a team headed by John Cook, who blogs on the misnamed web site Skeptical Science. The survey covered the years from 1991 to 2011 and searched on the topics global climate change and global warming. The survey found 11,944 abstracts, of which 66.4% expressed no position on carbon-based AGW, 32.6% endorsed carbon-based AGW, and 1% rejected AGW or were uncertain about the cause. The 32.6% immediately became 97% of scientists agree
Over the past decade, the rate is 8 x 10[SUP]21[/SUP] Joules per year, or 2.5 x 10[SUP]14[/SUP] Joules per second. The yield of the Hiroshima atomic bomb was 6.3 x 10[SUP]13[/SUP] Joules, hence the rate of global heat accumulation is equivalent to about 4 Hiroshima bomb detonations per second.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/4-Hiroshima-bombs-worth-of-heat-per-second.html
The exajoule (EJ) is equal to one quintillion (10[SUP]18[/SUP]) joules. The 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami in Japan had 1.41 EJ of energy according to its 9.0 on the moment magnitude scale. Energy in the United States used per year is roughly 94 EJ.
The Earth may be warming right now in the intra-ice cycle. But, we are not doing it. Our input is nothing.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
The cook study is very clear in its wording only those with reading comprehension problems can moan
"97% Of published climate papers with a position on human caused climate change agree - global warming is happening and humans are the cause"
Now your a grown man who claims to have a technical job yet years down the line your still struggling with simple words
What did you post that link for?
I do not know why your posting the numbers from sceptical science but they do not support your conclusion
Doer
Well-Known Member
Because as I have said many times, you are an argutron and I am not.
I have no position on this. I present facts and discussion without any careful weighing of my position. I don't have to. It is vast luxury of the neutral view on the 50 yard line. I am not going to censor data about energy budgets because they don't happen to agree with what you think is my position.
What are you about?
I have no position on this. I present facts and discussion without any careful weighing of my position. I don't have to. It is vast luxury of the neutral view on the 50 yard line. I am not going to censor data about energy budgets because they don't happen to agree with what you think is my position.
What are you about?
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
you stated your position only a couple of posts back (you know where you posted energy data then said it wasn't humans)
- But, we are not doing it. Our input is nothing.
The cry of censorship when questioned of your motives is a whiney little bitch move
All I can see is you posting random things in a feeble attempt to look smart
Perhaps you could explain how the energy figures support anything?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Ginja, you are really occupying this debate. It's like your sitting naked in it's living room swinging your dick at everyone who comes to sit on the couch.
The effect is worse than if there were no living room. I'd like to sit, I just don't feel like being so close to you.
Be less of a dick.
The effect is worse than if there were no living room. I'd like to sit, I just don't feel like being so close to you.
Be less of a dick.
Doer
Well-Known Member
You are quite mean spirited. That comes in loud and clear. I don't at this time see any evidence of AGW. That is my position, if you must have one.
I don't know. And see my .sig for your place in this discussion. The small mind that must make it personal.
Discuss the people. Make personal comments. Good one. You ain't foolin' anyone here.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
1/10
Since you're such an expert on climatology, I just thought you could make your point perspicuously and cogently with out being so abrasive.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
When I'm faced with liars like doer, who in the space of two posts claims "humans have no effect" and then "I have no position" I'm not going to show respect for that
If they were to present themselves honestly I'd have nothing to scorn
Doer
Well-Known Member
You know, there is argumentativeness, and there are the sociopaths. What is the difference? Well, as you rightly point out, it is when it swerves very quickly and so viciously personal, for no reason, it is easy to see. It is the lashing out of a truly hurt individual. The out of proportion level of scorn. It is the display of sociopathy.
Behold the forum Dr. Jekyll, ace Climatologist, become a thug at first chance with no provocation.
It is just a call for help or we see a true sociopath....our very own. Only comes on to start a fight. So, not Only. I've checked. Just usually, like 90%.
In my opinion of course. He seems like he can be a nice guy but that may be just the bait. So.....define sociopath.
And I'm a whinny bitch with thumb in my sandy pussy, whatever. La la la la LA LA.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Your also a liar...You know, there are the arugmentatives, and there are the sociopaths. What is the difference. Well, as you right point out, it when it swerves very quickly and so viciously personal, for no reason, it is easy to see. Is the lashing out of a truly hurt individual. It is the display of sciocopthy.
Behold the forum Dr. Jekyll, ace Climatologist, become a thug at first chance with no provocation.
It is just a call for help or we see a true sociopath....our very own. Only comes on to start a fight. So, not Only. I've checked. Just usually, like 90%.
In my opinion of course. He seems like he can be a nice guy but that may be just the bait. So.....define sociopath.
And I'm a whinny bitch with thumb in my sandy pussy, whatever. La la la la LA LA.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
fair enough