If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact

The jet stream and the Earth's rotation

  • 22-02-2022 4:41pm
    Registered Users Posts: 408 ✭✭

    On the RTE news last night, one of the meteorologists being interviewed brought up a recent report from Maynooth-

    One of the main drivers of the jet stream is the planet's rotation and differences in rotational speeds across latitudes. All planets with a viscous composition have differential rotation across latitudes with speeds tending to decrease in bands (zonal flows) rather than a steady decrease experienced by the surface crust. I took notice of this about 15 years ago in pointing out that differential rotation beneath the surface crust not only influences the 26 mile spherical deviation between Equatorial and Polar diameters but account for the symmetrical generation of crust off the Mid Atlantic Ridge (Plate tectonics).

    I managed to get anonymous people to come to their senses and adjust the period rotation for the planet after centuries asserting that it was some other value than 24 hours as per the Latitude/Longitude system-

    What they did not do, crucial to any research of Earth sciences like climate, is adjust to the correct rotational speeds of 1669.8 km/hr or 1037.5 mph as they assign a nonsensical geography to the Earth based on the RA/Dec error.

    It is irritating watching meteorologists scramble around with climate change/ global warming modelling, not because it is extreme but because it is pathetic. A good start is to follow the historical and technical details of timekeeping and ultimately the empirical misadventure in the late 17th century which led researchers to lose the most important fact that it is to lose- that one sunrise/noon/sunset cycle equates to one 24 hour rotation of the Earth with all the latitudinal speeds attached to this fact.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,319 ✭✭✭AllForIt

    I noted on today's RTE News on the same day that it was announced Nphet is to be disbanded and masks are no longer compulsory in shops, that George Lee is back but this time warning about the 'Jet Stream climate catastrophe'. I mean, could he not just have left it till tomorrow, just to give us 24 hours to rejoice in the good news over the lifting of most covid restrictions before going back to doom and gloom again.

  • Registered Users Posts: 408 ✭✭Orion402

    I wasn't having a go at the meteorologist nor the same dull round of dire predictions based on a tenuous connection by the tv presenter, I was celebrating the first signs that things are changing, albeit too slowly, with recovering planetary facts in order to extend the discoveries on to Earth sciences like climate and geology.

    This forum is based on computer simulations and predicted outcomes and that is fine given that it is limited to a number of days and generally accurate apart from when more extreme conditions are involved. I do not find a welcome here because I have no interest in extending weather on to climate and arguing over models. Research into climate hasn't really started, however, as humanity regains its senses by using their interpretative faculties properly and by not allowing the imagination to run riot, researchers can first undo the errors of the past before moving on to really creative and productive research.

    A section of society will always be attracted to dire predictions and conclusions, but another section may wish to actually appreciate the connection between the Earth sciences of biology, climate and geology first and foremost and leave the anxiety and desperation to those who are inclined to that lamentable condition. It is a more dynamic version of what Von Humboldt wanted to do as 21st century people have the necessary imaging and data to counter those who make life sullen and desperate.

    "This assemblage of imperfect dogmas bequeathed by one age to another-- this physical philosophy, which is composed of popular prejudices,--is not only injurious because it perpetuates error with the obstinacy engendered by the evidence of ill observed facts, but also because it hinders the mind from attaining to higher views of nature. Instead of seeking to discover the mean or medium point, around which oscillate, in apparent independence of forces, all the phenomena of the external world, this system delights in multiplying exceptions to the law, and seeks, amid phenomena and in organic forms, for something beyond the marvel of a regular succession, and an internal and progressive development. Ever inclined to believe that the order of nature is disturbed, it refuses to recognise in the present any analogy with the past, and guided by its own varying hypotheses, seeks at hazard, either in the interior of the globe or in the regions of space, for the cause of these pretended perturbations. It is the special object of the present work to combat those errors which derive their source from a vicious empiricism. " Von Humboldt, Cosmos

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,495 ✭✭✭Reckless Abandonment

    Was the jet stream not only discovered (recorded properly)in the 1930s.

    Its is not a fairly short timescale to be making predictions about it changing and the causes/effect it might have from a climate point of view a 330km change isn't that much..

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,910 ✭✭✭JanuarySnowstor

    What a load of rubbish, I see no difference in the weather now to 40 years ago. The only difference is media sensationalism and naming of storms. We've always had periods of unsettled weather especially at this time of year!!

    There's been only one event in the last 40 + years that surprised me and that was Hurricane Ophelia!!

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir

    I noted a contradiction in George Lee's commentary. Setting the hype up by mentioning the recent three storms, he correctly states that the jet stream is formed by the temperature difference between the poles and tropics, but then sets things up for contradiction by going on to mention how the warming Arctic has "affected this temperature contrast", somehow implying a link to these three storms. The Maynooth scientist then said that the Atlantic jet stream has strengthened by around 8% in the past 140 years, which would contradict the warming Arctic theory. So on the one hand they say that a warming Arctic will slow down the jet stream, but then they also say that it's increased in speed. Which is it?

    At least he gets one thing right at the end: Climate science is so complex and there's a lot of learning left to do on it.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir

    At the risk of opening up another can of worms, could you (in one simple link, without an essay) post evidence of where and whom you got to adjust the period of rotation? Was it NASA, ESA, God? Show us evidence of this claim please.

    I managed to get anonymous people to come to their senses and adjust the period rotation for the planet after centuries asserting that it was some other value than 24 hours as per the Latitude/Longitude system-

  • Registered Users Posts: 408 ✭✭Orion402

    All you have to do is look up the Wikipedia facts for the Earth back in April 2021 using the article history. The false conclusion ties the wrong value for each rotation to nonsensical Equatorial rotation velocities which still remain.

    Maybe I will spend the next 20 years convincing them what the proper velocities are coincident with a rotation rate of 15 degrees per hour.

    Almost impossible to reply to your comment as delay in keyboard response is awful.

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir

    No, where did YOU get "them" to change the period? A link to Wikipedia is not evidence. I see nothing in April 2021 about that. And again, who are "they"?

    I suppose we should be happy that your keyboard is acting up and we only got the three lines as a reply. That's a first...

  • Registered Users Posts: 408 ✭✭Orion402

    You come from the dysfunctional period in this forum and have long lost your influence once the forum's icon went on a solo run with even more dire conclusions than his opponents. That must have made you feel pretty rotten so you are better off sticking to modelling short term weather where you have some say and leave climate to people who can discuss it. It is the best I can do for you.

    Starting with the cause of the sunrise/noon/sunset cycle as the planet turns once every 24 hours. Previously, modellers insisted the Earth didn't rotate once every 24 hours because they followed an exceptionally stupid conclusion inherited from the 17th century and only up to recently have they started to change to the correct framework based on the 24 hour and Lat/Long systems. This is how 'science' is done and I have no objections as long as they remove silly conclusions made by careless people-

    People, like yourself, are so full of hysterics that you cannot come to grips with Equatorial rotational velocities consistent with a Equatorial geography where 15 degrees of separation is consistent with 1669.8 km or 1037.5 miles and also 1 hour time difference. These values can be reduced to 4 minutes clock time for every 1 degree of geographical separation or even smaller divisions.

    The jet stream is linked to rotational speeds across latitudes, so anyone who wants to believe in values other than the ones given in the previous paragraph and only those values can just stick to modelling upcoming events in the short term. It suits me as it is possible to develop planetary climate along with planetary motions and those who can't link one sunrise/noon/sunset cycle with one rotation as cause and effect disqualify themselves from this conversation and any other for that matter.

    If you want to be a nuisance then be my guest, but basically climate involves interpretation and not predictions, those short term weather predictions can be left to you and others in the forum while climate doesn't even involve meteorology unless the meteorologist is interested in planetary motions and that I have yet to see.

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir

    So you're basically bullshítting when you say a) your keyboard is acting up, and b) you have such influence now as to compel "them" to change "their" understanding of the period. A complete spoofer.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 408 ✭✭Orion402

    Planetary climate is a gorgeous topic comprising of two separate parts that combine so the Earth's planetary climate can be defined against the climate of other planets. One part is geographical climate based on continental landmasses, proximity to the oceans, latitudinal location and things like that most associated with weather. The other part is planetary climate where the Earth has a definite climate in contrast to the other planets using its daily and orbital motions and the relationship of axial inclination to the orbital plane.

    The latter determines how fast or slow conditions change across latitudes over the course of an orbital period. The further inclination the axial inclination is from the orbital plane (like Venus and Jupiter) the more benign the conditions, the closer to the orbital plane (Uranus for example) the more volatile the conditions.

    Planetary climate is the rate of change in surface, oceanic and atmospheric conditions as the planets rotate and orbit the Sun. The Earth has a largely Equatorial climate as its inclination is above 45 degrees from the orbital plane yet it has a sizable polar climate component.

    A lot to discuss and consider if these people can be found. I respect the contributors of this forum are just interested in the weather ahead, however, geographical weather intersects with planetary motions in so many ways that discerning the motions of the Earth after an awful period of academic indulgence is part of the solution for everyone.

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir

    You try any angle to start a thread on your Earth rotation essays. This one happens to purport to deal with the jet stream but inevitably turned into more of the same garbled ramblings. I'm just annoyed that I took part.

  • Registered Users Posts: 408 ✭✭Orion402

    You making the right decision based on your annoyance.

    The Earth rotates in two separate ways to the Sun or through the light and dark hemispheres of the Earth where the North and South Poles act as a beacon for the surface rotation as a function of the orbital motion of the Earth. It is for a different type of person as the direction of travel into the topic of climate doesn't rely on what humans do or do not do and it is restricted to the interpretation of information in front of people rather than making predictions which can be left to short term weather events.

    Planetary climate is defined as a spectrum between Polar and Equatorial based on the relationship between the daily rotational inclination of the planet and the orbital plane of the Earth. For example, Venus has an Equatorial climate as the atmospheric changes is minimal across latitudes as the planet orbits the Sun is negligible with no appreciable variations in daylight/darkness lengths, whereas Uranus, with its inclination close to the orbital plane experiences rapid variation in conditions across latitudes and therefor has a Polar climate.

    The relationship of the daily rotational Equator changes to the orbital plane across the year, while the North/South poles (where daily rotation is absent) turn parallel to the orbital plane (to the Sun in the above graphic). Think of it as a small day/night cycle (daily rotation) sitting inside a large annual day/night cycle (orbital surface rotation) so the combination of these two surface rotations gives us the seasons.

    The video in the next response shows Uranus as it orbits the Sun over the course of 5 years. About 50 seconds in, it becomes possible to identify two actual surface rotations of the planet as the time lapse speeds up demonstrating the explanation for the seasons on Earth and other planets. This is where climate research starts.

  • Registered Users Posts: 408 ✭✭Orion402

  • Registered Users Posts: 408 ✭✭Orion402

    Modelling is a wonderful thing to do when interpretation and predictions go hand in hand rather than just open-ended conclusions based on guessing outcomes. If responsible modellers were operating from basic and proper principles, it would become possible to elucidate the Earth's climate using comparisons with other planets and even experiment with different axial inclinations to the orbital plane in order to appreciate why life on Earth is possible whereas on others it is not by the traits of dynamics alone-

    As an aside, it is now possible to model the structure of the solar system using both interpretation and predictions in real time and every bit as enjoyable as short term weather modelling apart from the certainty of appearances of the planets as they travel behind the Sun as Jupiter is doing presently as seen from a satellite tracking with the faster moving Earth-

    Just scrolling the dates forward will show the Earth and Jupiter's position to the central Sun while the time lapse shows the dazzling Jupiter come into view.

    This is the proper use of modelling in terms of the Earth's motion, the Sun;s central position and the motions of the other planets as they come and go within range of a camera with its focus on the central Sun. Considering that direct/retrogrades haven't been touched since Copernicus first accounted for the direct/retrograde motions of the slower moving planets using a different framework, it can be dismaying that there isn't enough discipline among observers here to make sense of the use of interpretation and predictions rather than dire predictions.

    There is quite a difference modelling conclusions with what is going on at present and modelling conclusions based on future outcomes and climate research should be based on the former in order to understand the Earth science first and foremost.

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,011 ✭✭✭mcburns07

    “People, like yourself, are so full of hysterics that you cannot come to grips with Equatorial rotational velocities consistent with a Equatorial geography where 15 degrees of separation is consistent with 1669.8 km or 1037.5 miles and also 1 hour time difference. These values can be reduced to 4 minutes clock time for every 1 degree of geographical separation or even smaller divisions.”

    I think this might be the greatest insult I’ve ever read on this forum.

  • Registered Users Posts: 408 ✭✭Orion402

    A forum where interpretation/modelling/predictions is pursued for short term weather events is perfectly fine and I enjoy it myself as all people should, however, the same principle can be applied to large scale observations in solar system research and specifically the relationship of the motions of the Earth to Earth sciences like climate. The timekeeping misadventure of Royal Society modellers with its core in assigning the wrong rotation rate to the planet and subsequently wrong Equatorial rotation velocities has an immediate impact on cause and effect, including the cause of the day/night or sunrise/noon/sunset cycle.

    I work with interpretation/modelling/predictions too in terms of a new way to appreciate our position and motion in a solar system structure allowed by satellite data just as weather modellers use satellite imaging for weather purposes. It is even possible to discern our planet's climate by using planetary comparisons with other planets using common traits such as axial inclination to the orbital plane which determines the rate of change in atmospheric, oceanic and surface conditions as the planets orbit the Sun.

    I doubt very much if contributors in this forum bothered to look at either the solar system model or the time lapse in real time to draw the many conclusions that exist with just a little effort as it is all new to observers. These conclusions rely less on predictions than working principles for solar system structure, the motions of the Earth (the annual change in the position of the stars from left to right of the stationary Sun) and ultimately into Earth sciences like climate, geology and biology.

    I insult nobody as they insult themselves if they assign false values for the planet's rotation at the Equatorial circumference coincident with the false rotational period-

    Equatorial rotation velocity - 1674.4 km/h; 1040.4 mph

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir

  • Registered Users Posts: 408 ✭✭Orion402

    There was a period in this forum when the situation was dysfunctional until one of the icons suddenly announced his predictions were more dire than his opponents. That period has passed along with those who were engaged in graph warfare.

    This is different, this issue is demonstrating that models/interpretation/ predictions are fine for short term weather events, whereas conclusions based on climate are partitioned into geographical climate most closely associated with weather and separately planetary climate which is a more encompassing topic with many historical and technical issues to sort out.

    A meteorologist may have some influence on geographical climate, however, on the stage of planetary climate they act against genuine research based on cause and effect between planetary motions in a Sun-centred system with effects on the surface, in the oceans and in the atmosphere across an orbit.

  • Registered Users Posts: 313 ✭✭NedsNotDead

    I find your posts utterly bonkers but strangly enjoyable.

    Please keep posting

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 408 ✭✭Orion402

    Presently, the area where the Sun remains constantly out of view with the North pole at its centre is beginning to shrink rapidly as the North pole turns towards the light hemisphere after the December Solstice when it was midway to the light hemisphere of the Earth.

    Planetary climate is based on the extent of that surface area which is represented on Earth as the Arctic and Antarctic circles. Were the Earth, with its present rotational/orbital traits have an inclination like Uranus where the poles are positioned close to the orbital plane, the Arctic/Antarctic area would be enormous thereby the variations in surface, oceanic and atmospheric conditions would result in volatile weather across a season and far in excess of anything this forum could imagine.

    Planetary climate is a gorgeous topic where modelling is exceptionally help to explain conditions on Earth and why inclination matters in making our planet habitable across large regions of the globe. If the Earth had an inclination like Uranus then life would be impossible.

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir

  • Registered Users Posts: 14,379 ✭✭✭✭M.T. Cranium

    Wow I missed this one entirely, my bad. You can rest easy that GL has lost no sleep over the fact that he and I may now have different estimates of what natural variability of climate may produce in future temperature trends. I use the qualifier may for my own estimation, as it rests on a couple of assumptions that are not provable, one being that solar activity will resume to the relatively strong and regular cycles of the mid-20th century, and the other being that the warming already observed is in fact partly natural variability driven and partly a response to AGW.

    While it's an important subject that could affect the environment in profound ways, my research is admittedly speculative, the more orthodox climate change position has self-belief in spades and considers its projections to be very likely to materialize unless there are external unknowns such as large-scale volcanic dust veil production (a variable that would affect my contention as well), or a longer term solar quiet phase (here again, that might not work in my favour). GL can tell you what his position is, I wouldn't presume to speak for him, but at one point we tended to agree that variations were being over-stated and that future variability would be more natural than man-made, which are points that I have not abandoned, the only change in my thinking was that natural variability could be about to resume a larger increase. I would wait for the next solar peak after this one to see much evidence of this, and that could be 2032-35.

    Now all this other stuff that is posted mystifies me not because I don't understand it but because I don't know anyone with a scientific education who would argue with any of it. All the diagrams about planets and their axial inclinations are standard fare and I don't dispute any of them, nor is it any mystery why planetary climates vary as we have been able to measure in this era of fly-by investigations. I wouldn't claim that everything seen and analyzed was known beforehand or predicted, but a lot of it just added detail to things that were already known. We already knew that Uranus had that sideways rotation as I can attest because I happen to own a very old astronomy text that was published in the 1930s and it has these diagrams and predictions of when the north and south poles of Uranus would be pointed in our general direction. I don't know offhand when this was first observed and worked up to full understanding but it was likely into the late 19th century when bigger telescopes became available.

    Both GL and myself have tried to engage the thread author with questions that could in theory have answers that are not just declarations or obscurities. Then we might be able to work out better what the alleged differences are in understanding, because I never get any clear sense of that, for example, retreating into "explanations" of why our axial tilt governs climate feels like an evasion since everyone here would agree on it and everyone probably has the basic knowledge required.

    There never was any "wrong" rotational period, it's better stated as Orion's refusal to accept the paradigm of sidereal rotation (which produces a rotational period of 23 hours 56 minutes and some number of seconds which doing some math in my head must be around (whirr, clank, exploding noise of vacuum tube) 4.0905 sec. ... Now he also states at every opportunity that some perceived fixation on sidereal rotation has blinded us to the wonders of meteorology. While a previous poster identified a tremendous insult, this is a tremendous joke. I have probably spent about a grand total of five minutes in this lifetime thinking about connections of sidereal rotation to meteorology and at about the two minute mark of that, I determined there was very close to zero connection. My five minutes is perhaps a world record because almost every other meteorologist or climatologist or weather enthusiast has spent zero time thinking about this connection. The existence of sidereal time is likely not that widely known among weather professionals anyway, the overlap between atmospheric sciences and astronomy is not what it used to be (considerable at the beginning of our rather young science).

    So in any case there is also no "wrong" rotational speed, there is only one rotational speed for the equator which is c/24 miles per hour where c is the circumference in miles. There is no sidereal rotation speed that can be different because as a theoretical construct it would have to be c'/23.934 where c' = c * (23.934/24) and the two terms cancel out. It is no different from defining a meaningless hourly segment rotational speed.

    What use if any is there to sidereal rotation? In atmospheric sciences, probably none whatsoever. In astronomy, all things being equal, sidereal rotation takes one to the next similar view of the night sky (or the day sky except for the Sun and Moon). Now all things are not equal, stars move around relative to each other (a concept known as proper motion), planets move in apparent prograde or retrograde motion so they either get ahead of sidereal time or fall behind it. A prograde motion means they fall behind it. Take Mars which is the fastest prograde planet. In about 2.2 years, the earth overtakes Mars, let's round that off to 800 days, so within the 800 days, Mars will rise in the east one less time than the background stars. That means it will appear a bit later each sidereal day (although earlier each synodic day). The difference on average will be about 108 seconds or almost 2 minutes. 800 x 108 sec = 86400 sec = 1 day. So the period for Mars risings, transits and settings would all be about 108 seconds longer than a sidereal day, or 23h 56m 5.8905sec. Even so, at around opposition, we are moving faster than Mars and it appears to be making a temporary retrograde loop; at that time, it rises more frequently than one sidereal day. So at various other times the lag must be more than just 108 seconds, it probably approaches three minutes at its peak. The further out planets have smaller differentials. Inner planets have more complex relations to sidereal time and average out at the same sidereal period, sometimes appearing to move faster than the background stars and sometimes slower.

    Orion seems to think that Copernicus had everything figured out "correctly" and that later astronomers screwed up his work. I have to wonder what Copernicus himself would make of that, if he had the opportunity to study the later advances of positional astronomy.

    It would seem that our disagreement (if one really exists at all) is not with the concept of sidereal rotation, but our decision to declare it valid. Orion seems to lean towards declaring it erroneous but I see no error in it, the question is where (if anywhere) is it useful? That would not be in the realm of weather and climate. I did a number crunch on temperatures over a very long period of time and found that sidereal day had no signal whatsoever. So from another perspective, I also moved on from sidereal rotation, but only in the limited sense that it has no valuable applications in this field. That is not to say that synodic or sidereal periods of planets might not be useful time frames for climate research, if the Sun and those planets (in particular Jupiter) interact by exchanges of energy or heat, then we are more or less in the way of that and would see a signal, and my research established years ago that this is in fact the case, and that these flows of energy seem to be radial rather than linear (I call them field sectors and they rotate around the solar system in phase with Jupiter and with weaker results some other planets too). As earth moves swiftly through these slowly advancing field sectors, we get periodic temperature responses on the order of 0.5 to 1.0 C deg. As I've said a few times I also think the Moon modulates these field structures when aligned with them, with predictable weather responses. I view all of this as electro-magnetic more than transfers of heat or gravitational/tidal effects.

    There is also a relationship between solar activity and the relative positions of Jupiter and Saturn. During "regular" solar activity, both recently and in the more distant past, solar activity peaks fairly close to alignments of these two planets. During weak activity, the period slows down and only the position of Jupiter in the solar system seems to be a strong factor. This suggests that some interaction between Jupiter and Saturn within the solar system's magnetic field is modulating solar activity, but it can weaken (the period of weaker activity has 100 and 200 year sub-periods) and then we are left with a weaker Sun-Jupiter interaction. Here again, earth can be aligned either "in the way" or off to one side of these alignments during the year, and our planet seems to throw in its own minor contribution to the variability. These are not exclusively my findings either, some others have published papers on this general line of research although they did so after I had first circulated my findings. I have not established if that was just a coincidence (which is probably the case) or somehow these other researchers followed up.

    This has rambled away from the thread's subject matter but is related to it in a way. I don't fault anyone for taking contrarian views of science, this is how we make progress although it also creates a lot of fruitless unrecognized work that many in the sciences would lampoon as crank efforts or pseudo-science. But then as I've said here before, a scientist is a person who lives in a scientist's house and drives a scientist's car (or rides a scientist's bicycle).

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,303 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure

    Didn't think I'd learn anything from this thread, but there you go...

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir

    I see Orion has now set up a new thread with the excuse that keyboard issues prevent him from replying in this thread. Have you ever heard such nonsense? He's just not able to come back with a reply to MT"s post, that's all. He must take us for a right pack of fools.

  • Registered Users Posts: 408 ✭✭Orion402

    The delay in keyboard to visible response is awful whereas I can type normally in a new thread. This line alone has taken about 2 min to type.

    I really don't have the patience for self-pitying misery guts or those who suddenly announce that their predictions are more dire than their opponents.

    Using analogies and experiments (models) for interpretative purposes is altogether different than using analogies for predictive purposes. It has always been this way-

    "I know; such men do not deduce their conclusion from its premises or establish it by reason, but they accommodate (I should have said discommode and distort) the premises and reasons to a conclusion which for them is already established and nailed down. No good can come of dealing with such people, especially to the extent that their company may be not only unpleasant but dangerous." Galileo

    This is why short term weather modelling is sufficient for predictive purposes, however, modelling climate for interpretative purposes is an altogether different venture. There should be no opposition unless short term weather modellers fancy their chances at dire predictions without sufficiently appreciating the real distinctions between planetary climate and geographical climate.

    [Seriously, who has time for people who put words in another's mouth]

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir

    The delay in keyboard to visible response is awful whereas I can type normally in a new thread. This line alone has taken about 2 min to type.

    Maybe if you didn't write an essay each time when one line will do...

  • Registered Users Posts: 408 ✭✭Orion402

    Normal service is restored and I can type normally making it a pleasure once again. I have nothing to say to those who were made to look like complete idiots when climate was discussed in terms of predictions so maybe others will tell them when the icon decided to opt for even more dire predictions, not even his opponents decided to stay.

    Interpreting planetary motions, including our planet's motion, leads to conclusions of cause and effect rather than predictions even though Royal Society modellers have forced through the idea that observations serve experimental predictions since Sir Isaac proposed his own idiosyncratic and distorted version of the works of the first Sun-centred astronomers.

    That represents the faster moving Earth overtaking the slower moving Jupiter and Saturn thereby causing them to fall behind in view. The experiment/analogy is a faster moving car on a roundabout overtaking slower moving cars in an outer lane so they fall behind in view, hence the use of observational interpretation to form conclusions rather than make predictions. Once the Earth is moving then cause and effect between the motions of the planet and Earth sciences of climate, geology and biology kick in.

    Extracting the motions of the Earth using the faster moving Venus and Mercury requires an altogether different framework as we actually see Venus and Mercury run faster and smaller circuits seen further out from a slower moving Earth. It is fully appreciated using satellite imaging and observers can easily discern the back and forth motion of the planets closer to the Sun, in the following case, Mercury is travelling behind the Sun and Venus is travelling between the slower moving Earth and central Sun-

    Unlike the slower moving planets which use a stationary field of background stars, the necessary interpretation of the Earth's motion using the faster moving Venus and Mercury relies on the annual change of the background stars from left to right of the stationary Sun. The analogy here is that when travelling around a roundabout, background objects which appear on one side of the roundabout change to the other side as the car continues to travel in a circuit around the centre of the roundabout.

    This is all making use of analogies/experiments for interpretation where predictions are a distant second and only then to make it possible to appreciate our position and place in the solar system by using other planets and their motion as a gauge.

  • Registered Users Posts: 408 ✭✭Orion402

    When the theorists in the 17th century decided to shift the reference for daily and orbital motion away from the central Sun at the centre of all planetary motions and appealed to the daily change in position of the stars, they lost not only the cause and effect between one rotation and daily temperature fluctuations (day/night cycle), they locked out the annual change in position of the stars as a consequence of the planet's orbital motion which sets the Sun up as a stationary reference for interpretation and conclusions-

    That observation falls under an interpretation and a conclusion as the only analogy/experiment that can be applied is that background objects appear to change position from one side of a roundabout to the other as a car runs a circuit of the roundabout imitating the components of the background stars, the central Sun (centre of roundabout) and a moving Earth (car). Everything else expands from that principle including the motion of Jupiter from right to left of the Sun even though it appears to move in the opposite direction with the stars.

    What is called RA/Dec in an attempt to project the Earth's daily rotational characteristics into the Universe as both a fixed celestial sphere and a rotating one. This clockwork framework is useful for predictions only and this is where modellers jump the tracks by assigning too much significance to a clock and the 24 hour day (clockwork solar system). They tried to organise the motion of the Earth to the daily return of a star to the same place and treated orbital motion as incidental-

    Researchers have been dragging this setup around for centuries like a chain even though they believe it is a treasure but it loses cause and effect at the most basic level there is- the ability to determine that one rotation is Not one day/night cycle-

    " It is a fact not generally known that, owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time, the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are [24 hour] days in the year" NASA /Harvard

    Modelling with clockwork in the 17th century led to such vandalism of solar system research and our planet's motions with its relationship to Earth sciences while computer modelling of climate is totally deranged based on the same indulgences where the primary principles are ignored and forgotten. The statement above from NASA falls below what it means to be civilised, intelligent, reasonable and all the other positive attributes of humanity and a great loss to a creative and productive society.

    The major issue is modelling to interpretative/conclusion purposes as a stable venture and modelling for predictive purposes which is severely limited to short term weather and, in a solar system context, the relative positions of celestial objects to each other within a fixed celestial sphere.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 313 ✭✭NedsNotDead