I told you this years ago:

[Weatherlawyer]

Shackleton crater by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has provided
data indicating as much as 22% of the crater's surface may be covered
in ice.

"The team of NASA and university scientists using laser light from
LRO's laser altimeter found the crater's floor is brighter than those
of other nearby craters, which is consistent with the presence of
small amounts of ice.

The spacecraft mapped Shackleton crater to a depth of about a micron.
The team also used the instrument to map the relief of the crater's
terrain based on the time it took for laser light to bounce back from
the moon's surface. The longer it took, the lower the terrain's
elevation.

The crater is two miles deep and more than 12 miles wide. Like several
craters at the moon's south pole, the small tilt of the lunar spin
axis means Shackleton crater's interior is permanently dark and
therefore extremely cold."

> http://slashdot.org/

[Paul Hyett]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 at 03:15:22, Weatherlawyer <weathe...@gmail.com>
wrote in uk.sci.weather :

>
>The crater is two miles deep and more than 12 miles wide. Like several
>craters at the moon's south pole, the small tilt of the lunar spin
>axis means Shackleton crater's interior is permanently dark and
>therefore extremely cold."

How can it have a spin axis, when it doesn't spin?
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

[Col]

"Paul Hyett" <vidc...@invalid83261.co.uk> wrote in message
news:$sLavOyl...@blueyonder.co.uk...

> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 at 03:15:22, Weatherlawyer <weathe...@gmail.com>
> wrote in uk.sci.weather :
>
>>
>>The crater is two miles deep and more than 12 miles wide. Like several
>>craters at the moon's south pole, the small tilt of the lunar spin
>>axis means Shackleton crater's interior is permanently dark and
>>therefore extremely cold."
>
> How can it have a spin axis, when it doesn't spin?

It does spin, but it spins on it's axis in exactly the same time as it
takes to orbit the earth, hence we only ever see one side.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

[John Hall]

In article <3ql6u75ik98u1vcph...@4ax.com>,
Zombie Hampster <Z...@mouse-potato.com> writes:
>On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 17:37:57 +0100, Paul Hyett <vidc...@invalid83261.co.uk>
>wrote:

>
>>On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 at 03:15:22, Weatherlawyer <weathe...@gmail.com>
>>wrote in uk.sci.weather :
>

>>How can it have a spin axis, when it doesn't spin?
>

>PLEASE don't feed the troll!
>
We in uk.sci.weather know Paul well, and know that he's not a troll. You
didn't snip Weatherlawyer's attribution line, which makes me think that
you may erroneously have thought that it was he who said the bit that
you've quoted.
--
John Hall
Johnson: "Well, we had a good talk."
Boswell: "Yes, Sir, you tossed and gored several persons."
Dr Samuel Johnson (1709-84); James Boswell (1740-95)

[Weatherlawyer]

On Jun 21, 6:55 pm, John Hall <nospam_no...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>
Idiot troll food removed.

Next time you respond to a troll look up his credentials first.
Otherwise you will make yourself look more of a cock than you...

Ah never mind, cock.

[Graham P Davis]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:55:59 +0100
John Hall <nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <3ql6u75ik98u1vcph...@4ax.com>,
> Zombie Hampster <Z...@mouse-potato.com> writes:
> >On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 17:37:57 +0100, Paul Hyett
> ><vidc...@invalid83261.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 at 03:15:22, Weatherlawyer
> >><weathe...@gmail.com> wrote in uk.sci.weather :
> >
> >>How can it have a spin axis, when it doesn't spin?
> >
> >PLEASE don't feed the troll!
> >
> We in uk.sci.weather know Paul well, and know that he's not a troll.
> You didn't snip Weatherlawyer's attribution line, which makes me
> think that you may erroneously have thought that it was he who said
> the bit that you've quoted.

I think he knows that. He's asking Paul not to feed the troll aka
Michael.

--
Graham Davis, Bracknell, Berks. E-mail: change 'boy' to 'man'
"A neighbour put his budgerigar in the mincing machine and invented
shredded tweet." - Chic Murray
openSUSE Linux: http://www.opensuse.org/en/

[John Hall]

In article <20120621231558.7a1cb870@home-1>,

Graham P Davis <new...@scarlet-jade.com> writes:
>On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:55:59 +0100
>John Hall <nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <3ql6u75ik98u1vcph...@4ax.com>,
>> Zombie Hampster <Z...@mouse-potato.com> writes:
>> >On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 17:37:57 +0100, Paul Hyett
>> ><vidc...@invalid83261.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 at 03:15:22, Weatherlawyer
>> >><weathe...@gmail.com> wrote in uk.sci.weather :
>> >
>> >>How can it have a spin axis, when it doesn't spin?
>> >
>> >PLEASE don't feed the troll!
>> >
>> We in uk.sci.weather know Paul well, and know that he's not a troll.
>> You didn't snip Weatherlawyer's attribution line, which makes me
>> think that you may erroneously have thought that it was he who said
>> the bit that you've quoted.
>
>I think he knows that. He's asking Paul not to feed the troll aka
>Michael.
>

Yes, I realised that after I'd posted. It must have been one of my
increasingly frequent "senior moments".

[Buchan Meteo]

Col scrive:

> It does spin, but it spins on it's axis in exactly the same time as it
> takes to orbit the earth, hence we only ever see one side.

Which of course means that Michael, who is not a troll, was correct all
along. Good man.


--
Gianna
Peterhead, Scotland

buchan-meteo.org.uk

[Weatherlawyer]

On Jun 22, 10:35 am, Buchan Meteo <giannastef...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Col scrive:
>
> > It does spin, but it spins on it's axis in exactly the same time as it
> > takes to orbit the earth, hence we only ever see one side.
>
> Which of course means that Michael, who is not a troll, was correct all
> along. Good man.

Thank you Giana:
Ti avrei avvertito da sola, tuttavia vi prego di accettare questo con
i miei ringraziamenti:

> http://my.opera.com/Weatherlawyer/blog/2012/06/22/lunar-craters-2?cid=91512762#comment91512762

[Weatherlawyer]

Here's something else that I said some time back, admittedly it was
published about an year back but I never saw it until yesterday:

New research from satellite man Dr Roy Spencer, principal research
scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and maintainer of
the UAH temperature record, sheds some light on climate science's
"missing heat" mystery.

Climate models have predicted more warming than the instruments have
measured – leading to various explanations.

One paper claims the heat is real, but it's deep in the oceans, and
there's no mystery.

NASA's James Hansen – in a private paper released earlier this year –
disagrees. Hansen says the heat isn't in the oceans at all, but simply
hasn't manifested itself in the form of global warming, because of man-
made and natural aerosols.

The models "mix heat too efficiently into the deep ocean and as a
result underestimate the negative forcing by human-made aerosols,"
says the Yoda of Catastrophic Man-made Global Warming.

Earlier this month, a team led by an economist pronounced that aerosol
emissions from Chinese coal stations were "consistent with" Yoda's
theory.

Spencer's work, published in the journal Remote Sensing, concludes
that more energy is radiated back to space than previously thought,
and it is released earlier, too.

Spencer looked at warming events (he used Hadley's temperature record
and the CERES energy sensor data from NASA's Terra satellites) and
compared the empirical evidence against six climate models.

The paper, On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from
Variations in Earth's Radiant Energy Balance, by Spencer and William
Braswell, essentially says the climate is too chaotic to say with
certainty what is going on. According to the paper:

"[A]tmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an
unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish
between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite
radiative budget observations.

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to
space during and after warming than the climate models show," says the
sceptical scientist (he calls himself a "climate optimist").

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/29/spencer_missing_heat/

This should help save the lives of a few people in New Zealand.
Apparently the suicide rate in the land of tree huggers is the highest
in the world.

Con someone please tell me why methane and moisture should have EVER
been considered uncontrolled greenhouse gases?

I'll admit that with a solubility of about 1 litre of gas to 1
imperial quart of water, carbon dioxide could possibly have made it
into the sea.

(Once it had cooled down enough to be heavier than nitrogen and oxygen
and got out of the way of serious uplift. But even then it would have
never been a part of an heat island -with all the strings attached to
that little inconsistency.)

But not even British climatologists have supposed that to be the
reason seas warm up under cloudy skies just before super cyclones
occur.

Although it must be said they know so little about Rossby waves they
allude to some super-cells in the northern hemisphere being "caused by
el ninos".

(Can you believe that?)

Yes of course you can, I was forgetting.

Sorry.
You poor, poor dears.
Ah, pity.