MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
The Causes of Temperature (Geophysics)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

It was on April 12th that the walls of the city of Constantinople were breached by the armies of the 4th crusade: Contantinople, which I believe -- pace Fomenko -- is nothing less than the city of Zion itself.

Unfortunately, I found no significant events of "history" to have been associated with August 30th.

However, I wonder if the days you've chosen might be off by 24 hours or so -- at least by some reconning. April 13th is even more "historically" significant; it was on April 13th that Constantinople actually fell and also upon April 13th that Henry V was crowned Holy Roman Emperor. Even more-densely packed with significance is April 11th; on this day Anastasius I became the Byzantine Emperor, William III and Mary II were crowned as joint sovereigns of Britain, and also upon this day that the last execution for witchcraft took place in Germany.

Perhaps most amazing; it is on September 1st (the day following August 30th) that King Louis X1V dies, after a reign of 72(!) years; Louis XIV was also known as the Sun King.
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

13th April is St Hermengild's Day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermenegild
He apparently crossed over to the Catholics in defiance of his Arian father.

29th August is John the Baptist's martyrdom. He's a 'Sun god' if his saint's day, three days before Midsummer, is more than a coincidence.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Hermengild... Golden Hermes.
Send private message
Wireloop


In: Detroit
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Just came across this:
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/08/why_our_analemma_looks_like_a.php
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
And please don't write in and say "'Course they done the sums, stands to reason" unless you can actually find some place where they have done the sums.


From Wikipedia:
The theory for the distribution of solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere concerns how the solar irradiance (the power of solar radiation per unit area) at the top of the atmosphere is determined by the sphericity and orbital parameters of Earth. The theory could be applied to any monodirectional beam of radiation incident onto a rotating sphere, but is most usually applied to sunlight, and in particular for application in numerical weather prediction, and theory for the seasons and the ice ages. The last application is known as Milankovitch cycles.

The derivation of distribution is based on a fundamental identity from spherical trigonometry, the spherical law of cosines:

\cos(c) = \cos(a) \cos(b) + \sin(a) \sin(b) \cos(C) \,

where a, b and c are arc lengths, in radians, of the sides of a spherical triangle. C is the angle in the vertex opposite the side which has arc length c. Applied to the calculation of solar zenith angle Θ, we equate the following for use in the spherical law of cosines:

C=h \, c=\Theta \, a=\tfrac{1}{2}\pi-\phi \, b=\tfrac{1}{2}\pi-\delta \, \cos(\Theta) = \sin(\phi) \sin(\delta) + \cos(\phi) \cos(\delta) \cos(h) \,

-- Insolation, Wikipedia
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

So he knew what was expected and juggled stuff until it produced the required answer. Surely AE principles would argue that such a simple situation demands a simpler solution than this.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Well the good news is, I have it. I know what causes temperature variation on the planet. This thesis is forming the bulk of Chapter 2 of this new book.

You will shortly have the ability to review all of this material. I hope to send the Intro and Chapter 1 to you tomorrow.

I posted this from Wikipedia in the hope of provoking some new insight from you by way of a rebuttal.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I was trying to find somewhere, results of actual experiments. I couldn't find any. My bet is that if someone actually did this, they would find the difference in temperature between equator and arctic circle to be negligible.

I found one grade school experiment using a globe and a heat lamp. That's it. That experiment was so obviously flawed as to be scientifically worthless (heat from the lamp was obviously going to impact the most proximate portions of the globe). But that's how kids get indoctrinated into a false paradigm I guess.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I found one grade school experiment using a globe and a heat lamp. That's it.

When I started this business I chose the variation of temperature, Pole versus Equator, as my first test case (of examining all paradigm theories). I couldn't even get this far! Nobody seemed to have done even the most basic measurements. Though of course this was before the Internet so I was reliant on scrabbling through library books.

Plus I could not persuade anybody with even the slightest mathematical expertise to tell me how you would work it out. They could not even agree whether it was a simple or a complex calculation.

Looking back, I suppose this is the first recorded example of 'careful ignoral', though whether it is because the paradigm itself is wrong or because geographers are even more woeful than even I might estimate, is not even now very clear.
Send private message
Boreades


In: finity and beyond
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
though whether it is because the paradigm itself is wrong or because geographers are even more woeful than even I might estimate, is not even now very clear.


You can be a grade A geographer and know bugger-all about basic physics. Like you can be a tenured Professor in Climate Change and know bugger-all about actually measuring temperature (instead of modelling it)

I count it highly significant that the most accurate climate model now emerging (judged by comparing theoretical model predictions with real physical measurements) has been produced not by geographers, or climate "scientists" but by electrical engineers.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

You can be a grade A geographer and know bugger-all about basic physics.

Not so. In fact this is the whole point. Every geographer assumes that some other geographer has checked out the temperature problem but of course no geographer has in practice the requisite physics (or maths) to actually do so. It's not basic physics, it's basic geography! It's like a historian saying, "I haven't checked out the sources because that's basic reading, and I never learned how to read."

This principle is at the heart of the academic malaise -- there is no way that an academic subject, as a whole, can keep a systematic check on its own basic assumptions.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

That experiment was so obviously flawed as to be scientifically worthless (heat from the lamp was obviously going to impact the most proximate portions of the globe).

Funnily enough, if you ask an intelligent layman to explain why the equator is hotter than the pole he/she will often say, "Oh, because it's closer." And of course it is! By a few miles in ninety odd million.
Send private message
Boreades


In: finity and beyond
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
That experiment was so obviously flawed as to be scientifically worthless (heat from the lamp was obviously going to impact the most proximate portions of the globe).

Funnily enough, if you ask an intelligent layman to explain why the equator is hotter than the pole he/she will often say, "Oh, because it's closer." And of course it is! By a few miles in ninety odd million.


The distance is irrelevant.

It's the irradiated area that matters. At the equator, the irradiated area is at 90 degrees to the equatorial plane, and the cross-section of interference coincides with the equatorial cross-section. That maximises the energy received per square meter. As you go towards the poles, the angle declines. The earth receives the same amount of energy, but because of the increasing tilt, less energy is received per square metre on the earth itself.. The rest is trivial mathematics.

Are you a geographer?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

At the equator, the irradiated area is at 90 degrees to the equatorial plane

This is the bit everybody gets wrong. Yes, it's true. For about ten seconds on 21st June and then for another ten seconds on 21st December. You have to add up every moment, every day, everywhere. Maybe the equator gets more, maybe it doesn't, but you have to do the sums. Not just assume it.

Are you a geographer?

The greatest in the world currently.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

PS That should read 23 March and 23 Sept. Sometimes I doubt my own geographical worth.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12, 13  Next

Jump to:  
Page 11 of 13

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group