Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
'upside-down' temperature profile
7 views
Skip to first unread message
Martin Rowley
Jan 20, 2012, 9:46:43 AM1/20/12
to
... a bit 'left-field' this one but someone's bound to know.
Is there a word (or short phrase) that explicitly covers the situation
we seem to have had many times this winter in this neck of the woods of
'upside-down' 24hr temperature profiles.
By that I mean the *maximum* in the standard (09-09Z) period occurs
overnight, and the minimum in the same period is often at the *start* of
the 24hr (09Z). We've had five such this month already, and no less than
nine where the minimum temperature has occurred the previous 09Z (rather
than in the few hours leading up to today's 09Z).
It would be nice to have a tally of such events but what do I call the
'event' in short?
Martin.
--
West Moors / East Dorset
Lat: 50deg 49.25'N, Long: 01deg 53.05'W
Height (amsl): 17 m (56 feet)
COL category: C1 overall
Is there a word (or short phrase) that explicitly covers the situation
we seem to have had many times this winter in this neck of the woods of
'upside-down' 24hr temperature profiles.
By that I mean the *maximum* in the standard (09-09Z) period occurs
overnight, and the minimum in the same period is often at the *start* of
the 24hr (09Z). We've had five such this month already, and no less than
nine where the minimum temperature has occurred the previous 09Z (rather
than in the few hours leading up to today's 09Z).
It would be nice to have a tally of such events but what do I call the
'event' in short?
Martin.
--
West Moors / East Dorset
Lat: 50deg 49.25'N, Long: 01deg 53.05'W
Height (amsl): 17 m (56 feet)
COL category: C1 overall
Buchan Meteo
Jan 20, 2012, 9:52:47 AM1/20/12
to
Martin Rowley scrive:
> Is there a word (or short phrase) that explicitly covers the situation
> we seem to have had many times this winter in this neck of the woods of
> 'upside-down' 24hr temperature profiles.
You might call it an inverse oriel ;-)
--
Gianna
Peterhead, Scotland
buchan-meteo.org.uk
> Is there a word (or short phrase) that explicitly covers the situation
> we seem to have had many times this winter in this neck of the woods of
> 'upside-down' 24hr temperature profiles.
--
Gianna
Peterhead, Scotland
buchan-meteo.org.uk
Freddie
Jan 20, 2012, 10:20:23 AM1/20/12
to
> It would be nice to have a tally of such events but what do I call the
> 'event' in short?
Advection-dominated diurnal profile (as opposed to radiation)? Clumsy, but
> 'event' in short?
true :)
--
Freddie
Bayston Hill
Shropshire
102m AMSL
http://www.hosiene.co.uk/weather/cumulus/
Dick
Jan 20, 2012, 12:57:49 PM1/20/12
to
On Jan 20, 2:46 pm, Martin Rowley <westmoorsweat...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
I think I would just call it an 'inverse diurnal', Martin, although,
like you, I am unaware of any generally accepted term.
Dick Lovett
Charlbury (Oxfordshire Cotswolds) 122m
wrote:
like you, I am unaware of any generally accepted term.
Dick Lovett
Charlbury (Oxfordshire Cotswolds) 122m
Martin Rowley
Jan 21, 2012, 6:16:28 AM1/21/12
to
>> On Jan 20, 2:46 pm, Martin Rowley<westmoorsweat...@googlemail.com>
>> wrote:
>> Is there a word (or short phrase) that explicitly covers the
>> situation
>> we seem to have had many times this winter in this neck of the woods
>> of 'upside-down' 24hr temperature profiles.
>> By that I mean the *maximum* in the standard (09-09Z) period occurs
>> overnight, and the minimum in the same period is often at the
>> *start* of the 24hr (09Z).
[and]
>> wrote:
>> Is there a word (or short phrase) that explicitly covers the
>> situation
>> we seem to have had many times this winter in this neck of the woods
>> of 'upside-down' 24hr temperature profiles.
>> By that I mean the *maximum* in the standard (09-09Z) period occurs
>> overnight, and the minimum in the same period is often at the
>> *start* of the 24hr (09Z).
On 20/01/2012 17:57, Dick wrote:
> I think I would just call it an 'inverse diurnal', Martin, although,
> like you, I am unaware of any generally accepted term.
>
> Dick Lovett
> Charlbury (Oxfordshire Cotswolds) 122m
... yes, thanks Dick - that was I admit my first thought; I realised
> I think I would just call it an 'inverse diurnal', Martin, although,
> like you, I am unaware of any generally accepted term.
>
> Dick Lovett
> Charlbury (Oxfordshire Cotswolds) 122m
'inverse' would probably come into it, but was trying to avoid 'diurnal'
: we meteorologists use the word as a short hand for low temps
overnight/higher temps daytime, but the strict definition of 'diurnal'
is (COD) ... " of the day, not nocturnal (Astron); occupying one day;
daily, of each day (Zool) active in daytime .... (etc), which isn't
really specific enough for *our* idea of the 'average' temperature curve.
It would then mean that we'd have to add 'average' or 'normal' before
'diurnal', so we'd then be getting something like 'inverse average
diurnal' which is getting long-winded.
Could use 'atypical' of course, but that again isn't specific enough;
many 24hr temperature curves are non-typical, yet don't always meet the
specific criteria as above.
It's more than just an academic exercise: the number of instances of 'X'
(whatever its called) is related to the departure of the 12hr average
extremes from the 24hr average extremes. For example, this month
(January) using Hurn data, the current 24hr average minimum is 2.9
against 4.0 for the 18-06 mean & the 24hr average maximum is 10.9 vs.
10.4 for the 06-18Z. We've now had 9 such events so far this month.
In a more 'typical' month, with no, or just one or two, events then the
difference is close to zero, and not usually more than 0.2degC.
Dick
Jan 22, 2012, 6:44:28 AM1/22/12
to
> It's more than just an academic exercise: the number of instances of 'X'
> (whatever its called) is related to the departure of the 12hr average
> extremes from the 24hr average extremes. For example, this month
> (January) using Hurn data, the current 24hr average minimum is 2.9
> against 4.0 for the 18-06 mean & the 24hr average maximum is 10.9 vs.
> 10.4 for the 06-18Z. We've now had 9 such events so far this month.
>
> In a more 'typical' month, with no, or just one or two, events then the
> difference is close to zero, and not usually more than 0.2degC.
>
> Martin.
>
> --
> West Moors / East Dorset
> Lat: 50deg 49.25'N, Long: 01deg 53.05'W
> Height (amsl): 17 m (56 feet)
> COL category: C1 overall
I managed to 'dig out' an old copy of a Met Office 'Climatological
Memoranda' dealing with mean and extreme temperatures over the UK. It
has a section dealing with the differences between 24 hour (09-09) max
& min temperatures and 12 hour (09-21) day max & (21-09) night min.
The results, following an investigation of 38 stations between 1957
and 1970, show that, on average, in January and December the 24 hour
Max is 0.3 to to 0.4C higher than the 12 hour day max. The differences
for minima show that 24 hour minima were typically 0.7C lower than the
12 hour (21-09) value during the same two months.
Dick
Weatherlawyer
Jan 22, 2012, 2:11:13 PM1/22/12
to
On Jan 22, 11:44 am, Dick <richard-lov...@o2.co.uk> wrote:
> > It's more than just an academic exercise: the number of instances of 'X'
> > (whatever its called) is related to the departure of the 12hr average
> > extremes from the 24hr average extremes. For example, this month
> > (January) using Hurn data, the current 24hr average minimum is 2.9
> > against 4.0 for the 18-06 mean & the 24hr average maximum is 10.9 vs.
> > 10.4 for the 06-18Z. We've now had 9 such events so far this month.
>
> > In a more 'typical' month, with no, or just one or two, events then the
> > difference is close to zero, and not usually more than 0.2degC.
>
> > It's more than just an academic exercise: the number of instances of 'X'
> > (whatever its called) is related to the departure of the 12hr average
> > extremes from the 24hr average extremes. For example, this month
> > (January) using Hurn data, the current 24hr average minimum is 2.9
> > against 4.0 for the 18-06 mean & the 24hr average maximum is 10.9 vs.
> > 10.4 for the 06-18Z. We've now had 9 such events so far this month.
>
> > In a more 'typical' month, with no, or just one or two, events then the
> > difference is close to zero, and not usually more than 0.2degC.
>
> I managed to 'dig out' an old copy of a Met Office 'Climatological
> Memoranda' dealing with mean and extreme temperatures over the UK. It
> has a section dealing with the differences between:
> 24 hour (09-09) max & min temperatures and
> 12 hour (09-21) day max & (21-09) night min.
>
> The results, following an investigation of 38 stations between 1957
> and 1970, show that, on average,
> in January and December the 24 hour Max is:
> 0.3 to to 0.4C higher than the 12 hour day max.
>
> The differences for minima show that:
> 24 hour minima were typically 0.7C lower than the 12 hour (21-09) value during the same two months.
Meaning?
> Memoranda' dealing with mean and extreme temperatures over the UK. It
> has a section dealing with the differences between:
> 24 hour (09-09) max & min temperatures and
> 12 hour (09-21) day max & (21-09) night min.
>
> The results, following an investigation of 38 stations between 1957
> and 1970, show that, on average,
> in January and December the 24 hour Max is:
> 0.3 to to 0.4C higher than the 12 hour day max.
>
> The differences for minima show that:
> 24 hour minima were typically 0.7C lower than the 12 hour (21-09) value during the same two months.
Yokel
Jan 22, 2012, 2:50:09 PM1/22/12
to
On 22/01/2012 19:11, Weatherlawyer wrote:
> On Jan 22, 11:44 am, Dick<richard-lov...@o2.co.uk> wrote:
>>> It's more than just an academic exercise: the number of instances of 'X'
>>> (whatever its called) is related to the departure of the 12hr average
>>> extremes from the 24hr average extremes. For example, this month
>>> (January) using Hurn data, the current 24hr average minimum is 2.9
>>> against 4.0 for the 18-06 mean& the 24hr average maximum is 10.9 vs.
> On Jan 22, 11:44 am, Dick<richard-lov...@o2.co.uk> wrote:
>>> It's more than just an academic exercise: the number of instances of 'X'
>>> (whatever its called) is related to the departure of the 12hr average
>>> extremes from the 24hr average extremes. For example, this month
>>> (January) using Hurn data, the current 24hr average minimum is 2.9
>>> 10.4 for the 06-18Z. We've now had 9 such events so far this month.
>>> In a more 'typical' month, with no, or just one or two, events then the
>>> difference is close to zero, and not usually more than 0.2degC.
>> I managed to 'dig out' an old copy of a Met Office 'Climatological
>> Memoranda' dealing with mean and extreme temperatures over the UK. It
>> has a section dealing with the differences between:
>> 24 hour (09-09) max& min temperatures and
>>> In a more 'typical' month, with no, or just one or two, events then the
>>> difference is close to zero, and not usually more than 0.2degC.
>> I managed to 'dig out' an old copy of a Met Office 'Climatological
>> Memoranda' dealing with mean and extreme temperatures over the UK. It
>> has a section dealing with the differences between:
>> 12 hour (09-21) day max& (21-09) night min.
>>
>> The results, following an investigation of 38 stations between 1957
>> and 1970, show that, on average,
>> in January and December the 24 hour Max is:
>> 0.3 to to 0.4C higher than the 12 hour day max.
>>
>> The differences for minima show that:
>> 24 hour minima were typically 0.7C lower than the 12 hour (21-09) value during the same two months.
> Meaning?
>
Meaning that if you have a really cold night it is likely to count for 2
>> The results, following an investigation of 38 stations between 1957
>> and 1970, show that, on average,
>> in January and December the 24 hour Max is:
>> 0.3 to to 0.4C higher than the 12 hour day max.
>>
>> The differences for minima show that:
>> 24 hour minima were typically 0.7C lower than the 12 hour (21-09) value during the same two months.
> Meaning?
>
days instead of only 1 if you only read your min-max thermometer at 0900
each day. This is because for much of the winter under clear skies the
minimum temperature will be only an hour or so before that time (around
or just after sunrise after all the night's cooling).
If you read your min-max thermometer twice each day, at 0900 and 2100,
the rise in temperature during the day will most likely cancel out the
preceding cold night.
Below are a recent set of my recorded minima (non-standard exposure, but
that doesn't really matter for this illustration). These are taken by
re-setting the maximum and minimum indices at times as close to 0700 and
1900 as my social routine will allow, the maximum being 0700 to 1900 and
the minimum 1900 to 0700 *except* that if the temperature is still
falling at 0700 or still rising at 1900 then the minimum or maximum
reached in the next 12 hour period will be the one recorded. I call
this the "arithmetic" maximum and minimum as it is as far as possible
the values you would get from looking at a graph of the day's temperature.
Jan 2012
12 0.2
13 -4.7
14 -7.8
15 2.3
16 -6.6
17 -7.9
18 -3.5
19 8.6
If I had just used the 0900 values each day, this same data set could
very well have been:
Jan 2012
12 0.2
13 -4.7
14 -7.8
15 *-6.5*
16 -6.6
17 -7.9
18 *-5.7*
19 *7.0*
The three marked with * are now much lower than before because the
temperature had hardly started to rise after the previous cold night.
In the case of 19th Jan, which was a really mild night, the "0900-0900"
recorded minimum could actually have been much lower than the 7.0C I
have put in because you might have picked up the tail end of the 17 / 18
cold night and not the 18/19 mild night. As it happened, the mild air
arrived in time to send the temperature well above freezing by 0700 on
18th in spite of the frost earlier in the night.
The potential size of this effect is such that it could have to be taken
into account when comparing temperature records or looking for long-term
trends. The "true" or "arithmetic" mean will actually give you the
highest minimum temperatures - if a cold day is followed by a mild night
then there will be cases when the 12-hour periods interpreted exactly
and without the "allowance" I make will also give lower minima that my
methods, but not so low as the "24 hour" protocol.
In the summer part of the year, the minimum temperature would be
expected to be many hours before the 0900 standard, allowing the rise in
temperature by then to effectively "re-set" the minimum record and so
greatly reduce this error. As can be seen, the magnitude of this
difference between protocols will vary both by season of the year and by
weather type, so quoting an annual figure for the difference is pretty
much meaningless.
Now we have continuously recording thermometers widely available, some
thought may need to be given as how to properly define the maximum and
minimum temperatures, given that the "traditional" definition appears to
be rather wanting. Over to those who collect and analyse such records...
--
- Yokel -
Yokel posts via a spam-trap account which is not read.
oriel36
Jan 22, 2012, 3:14:08 PM1/22/12
to
it makes me shake my head,I wonder what happens when they encounter
the leap year from Mar 1st 2011 until Feb 29th 2012 which have 366
days in it ! -
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1904PA.....12..649B
So we have a Harvard/NASA explanation while the center of discussion
here is daily temperature fluctuations which would occur within a 24
period where local influences dominate the normal response of
temperature rises and falls due to the rotation of the Earth 1461
times across 4 years.
No offence,you would have to be a bunch of dummies to go along with
366 rotations in 365 days and I am not talking about the ability to
remain silent,if anger or intense irritation is not present then there
must be tumbleweeds going through your minds.
Anyone want to predict that temperatures will fall and rise within the
next 24 hours and the cause behind it ?,I wouldn't count on the NASA/
Harvard explanation which is merely an extension of the one that was
conceived in the late 17th century U.K..
Weatherlawyer
Jan 23, 2012, 3:05:57 AM1/23/12
to
Beware the trapses.
Nobody loves us. We wants it, we needs it. Must have the precious.
They stole it from us. Sneaky little weathermen.
No.
Not masters...
Yes, ...precious, ...false!
They will cheat you, hurt you.
LIE!!
that as soon as they went digital; I assume it was a fair bit ago.
Unfortunately they will have probably given that bone to the bods in
back rooms in East Anglia.
Pity that.
For those that do manage to view their data from the night time, I
hope you will pay it more attention.
You don't have any friends;
Nobody likes you!
I'm not listening...
I'm not listening...
Master looks after us now. We don't need you ...anymore.
Buchan Meteo
Jan 23, 2012, 9:07:20 AM1/23/12
to
oriel36 scrive:
> Every time I see the explanation which has 366 rotations in 365 days it
> makes me shake my head,I wonder what happens when they encounter the
> leap year from Mar 1st 2011 until Feb 29th 2012 which have 366 days in
> it ! -
OK, enough is sufficient.
1 day equals one rotation of the earth on its axis.
1 year equals one rotation of the earth around the sun.
Human devised timing systems (clocks and calendars) are a rough
approximation of these things, They are not the same and they are not
equal.
Dividing one rotation of the sun by one rotation on the earth's axis does
not result in a whole number. Consequently, in an effort to keep the
human calendar roughly aligned with the seasons we add a leap day every
four calendar years.
That is all there is to it. It does not merit a lengthy treatise every
few weeks with futile attempts to compare a real day with the human
devised clock.
The earth rotates once each day, 365 times in 365 days, and 366 times in
366 days when we add a leap day to the calendar year (not to be confused
with a real year).
> Every time I see the explanation which has 366 rotations in 365 days it
> makes me shake my head,I wonder what happens when they encounter the
> leap year from Mar 1st 2011 until Feb 29th 2012 which have 366 days in
> it ! -
1 day equals one rotation of the earth on its axis.
1 year equals one rotation of the earth around the sun.
Human devised timing systems (clocks and calendars) are a rough
approximation of these things, They are not the same and they are not
equal.
Dividing one rotation of the sun by one rotation on the earth's axis does
not result in a whole number. Consequently, in an effort to keep the
human calendar roughly aligned with the seasons we add a leap day every
four calendar years.
That is all there is to it. It does not merit a lengthy treatise every
few weeks with futile attempts to compare a real day with the human
devised clock.
The earth rotates once each day, 365 times in 365 days, and 366 times in
366 days when we add a leap day to the calendar year (not to be confused
with a real year).
oriel36
Jan 23, 2012, 10:28:00 AM1/23/12
to
On Jan 23, 2:07 pm, Buchan Meteo <giannastef...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> That is all there is to it. It does not merit a lengthy treatise every
> few weeks with futile attempts to compare a real day with the human
> devised clock.
> The earth rotates once each day, 365 times in 365 days, and 366 times in
> 366 days when we add a leap day to the calendar year (not to be confused
> with a real year).
>
> --
> Gianna
> Peterhead, Scotland
>
> buchan-meteo.org.uk
You are sweet and you came to the right conclusion but this is where
> That is all there is to it. It does not merit a lengthy treatise every
> few weeks with futile attempts to compare a real day with the human
> devised clock.
> The earth rotates once each day, 365 times in 365 days, and 366 times in
> 366 days when we add a leap day to the calendar year (not to be confused
> with a real year).
>
> --
> Gianna
> Peterhead, Scotland
>
> buchan-meteo.org.uk
your troubles only begin,at least in the U.K..It happens that Newton's
entire gravitational agenda is built on the equatorial coordinate
system which has at its core belief that the Earth turns 1465 times in
1461 days or the Ra/Dec system as it is known so you are really
jumping from the frying pan into the fire.But good for you anyway,if
you show up in a physics forum in demonstrating that the temperatures
go up and down once a day as this corresponds to a rotation of the
Earth through 360 degrees in step with the calendar cycle,and you will
be right,don't expect a pleasant welcome .
Dawlish
Jan 23, 2012, 10:44:36 AM1/23/12
to
being patronised by a nutcase.
Go away and have a long thing about a pebble, or something. *>))
Ian Bingham
Jan 23, 2012, 10:48:03 AM1/23/12
to
"oriel36" wrote in message
news:fc27069c-7cbc-4dbe...@h6g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
times in 365 days. Because of the fortuitous fact that the Earth rotates on
its axis in the same sense that it revolves round the Sun (i.e.
anti-clockwise when viewed from above the North Pole), it has to turn a tiny
bit more than 360 degrees to bring the Sun on to the meridian each day.
Rotating through this extra very small angle takes approximately 4 minutes.
365 times 4 minutes = approximately 1 day (approximately because the 4
minutes is approximate), hence the small daily extra rotation amounts to a
whole revolution at the end of a year. If you want to talk about 366 days,
then the Earth will have rotated 367 times (+ the tiny amount!). Or is this
what everyone has been saying? As I said, I may have missed something.
Actually it's not quite correct to say that the Earth rotates on its axis
every 24 hours - it's 23 hours and 56 minutes, and the 4 minutes makes it up
to 24 hours.
Ian Bingham,
Inchmarlo, Aberdeenshire.
oriel36
Jan 23, 2012, 11:37:34 AM1/23/12
to
On Jan 23, 3:48 pm, "Ian Bingham" <ian.connac...@btopenworld.com>
wrote:
will turn 366 times from Mar 1st 2011 until Feb 29th 2012 hence the
Earth turns once a day and daily temperatures (weather) responds to
that rotation.As temperatures fluctuate massively within each 24 hour
cycle,many magnitudes greater than the contentious long term
trends,readers here may gauge how relevant this is if the primary
input of daily rotation doesn't match the daily temperature
fluctuations or if the link is disputed by an 1465/1461 imbalance.
The primary unit of time is a proportion just as the Pi proportion
represents the correspondence between diameter and circumference
whereas in planetary terms the number of rotations is proportional to
the number of circuits of the Sun.The next reference is natural noon
where each noon to noon cycle varies in length yet there are still
1461 natural noon cycles which convert to 1461 AM/PM's enclosed in 4
years/4 orbital circuits.
If there are reasonable people here,they simply look again at what the
Egyptians are saying.They have an antecedent system of a steady
progressions of 365 days but find that they fall back through the
seasons without adding an extra day and it wouldn't change for us,If
we didn't add an extra day on Feb 29th and kept going with a constant
stream of days ending Feb 28th,within our lifetimes we would find
ourselves falling away from the solstice and equinox points of the
orbital circuit so that in 40 years we would begin to discover a
slight difference in the weather from what would be expected and after
80 years,which would amount to a 20 day separation,the absence of a
leap day correction would really be noticeable.
" on account of the precession of the rising of the Divine Sothis by
one day in the course of 4 years.. therefore it shall be, that the
year of 360 days and the 5 days added to their end, so one day as
feast of Benevolent Gods [the pharaoh and family] be from this day
after every 4 years added to the 5 epagomenae before the New Year,
whereby all men shall learn, that what was a little defective in the
order as regards the seasons and the year, as also the opinions which
are contained in the rules of the learned on the heavenly orbits, are
now corrected and improved.." Canopus Decree everything radiates out
from this including the conversion
If you establish the fundamental unit of time as the Egyptians did as
a 1461;4 proportion, everything radiates out from this including the
conversion of the variations in the 1461 natural noon cycles to the 24
hour clock noon and from there to where the steady/equable 24 hour day
substitutes for steady/equable rotation without the need of an
external reference.
It is not easy to make the conversion from days/years into rotations/
orbits yet it can be done but it ain't going to be done with a
1465/1461 imbalance.
Because of the fortuitous fact that the Earth rotates on
> its axis in the same sense that it revolves round the Sun (i.e.
> anti-clockwise when viewed from above the North Pole), it has to turn a tiny
> bit more than 360 degrees to bring the Sun on to the meridian each day.
> Rotating through this extra very small angle takes approximately 4 minutes.
> 365 times 4 minutes = approximately 1 day (approximately because the 4
> minutes is approximate), hence the small daily extra rotation amounts to a
> whole revolution at the end of a year. If you want to talk about 366 days,
> then the Earth will have rotated 367 times (+ the tiny amount!). Or is this
> what everyone has been saying? As I said, I may have missed something.
> Actually it's not quite correct to say that the Earth rotates on its axis
> every 24 hours - it's 23 hours and 56 minutes, and the 4 minutes makes it up
> to 24 hours.
>
Try John Harrison who built his watches on the principles that 1 hour
time difference equates to 15 degrees longitude and a turning
Earth.This is your heritage and if Harrison is not good enough to
give you an idea that something went drastically wrong then nothing
will and I mean that -
"The application of a Timekeeper to this discovery is founded upon the
following principles: the earth's surface is divided into 360 equal
parts (by imaginary lines drawn from North to South) which are called
Degrees of Longitude; and its daily revolution Eastward round its own
axis is performed in 24 hours; consequently in that period, each of
those imaginary lines or degrees, becomes successively opposite to the
Sun (which makes the noon or precise middle of the day at each of
those degrees;) and it must follow, that from the time any one of
those lines passes the Sun, till the next passes, must be just four
minutes, for 24 hours being divided by 360 will give that quantity; so
that for every degree of Longitude we sail Westward, it will be noon
with us four minutes the later, and for every degree Eastward four
minutes the sooner, and so on in proportion for any greater or less
quantity. Now, the exact time of the day at the place where we are,
can be ascertained by well known and easy observations of the Sun if
visible for a few minutes at any time from his being ten degrees high
until within an hour of noon, or from an hour after noon until he is
only 10 degrees high in the afternoon; if therefore, at any time when
such observation is made, a Timekeeper tells us at the same moment
what o'clock it is at the place we sailed from, our Longitude is
clearly discovered." John Harrison
I repeat,the conversion is complicated yet there is nothing difficult
in the core principles which match the rotation of the Earth with
daily temperature fluctuations,if nobody can match one with the other
then there is really nothing left to say.
> Ian Bingham,
> Inchmarlo, Aberdeenshire.
wrote:
>
> Perhaps I've missed something here. The Earth does rotate on its axis 366
> times in 365 days.
The Earth turned 365 times from Mar 1st 2010 until Feb 28th 2011 and
> Perhaps I've missed something here. The Earth does rotate on its axis 366
> times in 365 days.
will turn 366 times from Mar 1st 2011 until Feb 29th 2012 hence the
Earth turns once a day and daily temperatures (weather) responds to
that rotation.As temperatures fluctuate massively within each 24 hour
cycle,many magnitudes greater than the contentious long term
trends,readers here may gauge how relevant this is if the primary
input of daily rotation doesn't match the daily temperature
fluctuations or if the link is disputed by an 1465/1461 imbalance.
The primary unit of time is a proportion just as the Pi proportion
represents the correspondence between diameter and circumference
whereas in planetary terms the number of rotations is proportional to
the number of circuits of the Sun.The next reference is natural noon
where each noon to noon cycle varies in length yet there are still
1461 natural noon cycles which convert to 1461 AM/PM's enclosed in 4
years/4 orbital circuits.
If there are reasonable people here,they simply look again at what the
Egyptians are saying.They have an antecedent system of a steady
progressions of 365 days but find that they fall back through the
seasons without adding an extra day and it wouldn't change for us,If
we didn't add an extra day on Feb 29th and kept going with a constant
stream of days ending Feb 28th,within our lifetimes we would find
ourselves falling away from the solstice and equinox points of the
orbital circuit so that in 40 years we would begin to discover a
slight difference in the weather from what would be expected and after
80 years,which would amount to a 20 day separation,the absence of a
leap day correction would really be noticeable.
" on account of the precession of the rising of the Divine Sothis by
one day in the course of 4 years.. therefore it shall be, that the
year of 360 days and the 5 days added to their end, so one day as
feast of Benevolent Gods [the pharaoh and family] be from this day
after every 4 years added to the 5 epagomenae before the New Year,
whereby all men shall learn, that what was a little defective in the
order as regards the seasons and the year, as also the opinions which
are contained in the rules of the learned on the heavenly orbits, are
now corrected and improved.." Canopus Decree everything radiates out
from this including the conversion
If you establish the fundamental unit of time as the Egyptians did as
a 1461;4 proportion, everything radiates out from this including the
conversion of the variations in the 1461 natural noon cycles to the 24
hour clock noon and from there to where the steady/equable 24 hour day
substitutes for steady/equable rotation without the need of an
external reference.
It is not easy to make the conversion from days/years into rotations/
orbits yet it can be done but it ain't going to be done with a
1465/1461 imbalance.
Because of the fortuitous fact that the Earth rotates on
> its axis in the same sense that it revolves round the Sun (i.e.
> anti-clockwise when viewed from above the North Pole), it has to turn a tiny
> bit more than 360 degrees to bring the Sun on to the meridian each day.
> Rotating through this extra very small angle takes approximately 4 minutes.
> 365 times 4 minutes = approximately 1 day (approximately because the 4
> minutes is approximate), hence the small daily extra rotation amounts to a
> whole revolution at the end of a year. If you want to talk about 366 days,
> then the Earth will have rotated 367 times (+ the tiny amount!). Or is this
> what everyone has been saying? As I said, I may have missed something.
> Actually it's not quite correct to say that the Earth rotates on its axis
> every 24 hours - it's 23 hours and 56 minutes, and the 4 minutes makes it up
> to 24 hours.
>
time difference equates to 15 degrees longitude and a turning
Earth.This is your heritage and if Harrison is not good enough to
give you an idea that something went drastically wrong then nothing
will and I mean that -
"The application of a Timekeeper to this discovery is founded upon the
following principles: the earth's surface is divided into 360 equal
parts (by imaginary lines drawn from North to South) which are called
Degrees of Longitude; and its daily revolution Eastward round its own
axis is performed in 24 hours; consequently in that period, each of
those imaginary lines or degrees, becomes successively opposite to the
Sun (which makes the noon or precise middle of the day at each of
those degrees;) and it must follow, that from the time any one of
those lines passes the Sun, till the next passes, must be just four
minutes, for 24 hours being divided by 360 will give that quantity; so
that for every degree of Longitude we sail Westward, it will be noon
with us four minutes the later, and for every degree Eastward four
minutes the sooner, and so on in proportion for any greater or less
quantity. Now, the exact time of the day at the place where we are,
can be ascertained by well known and easy observations of the Sun if
visible for a few minutes at any time from his being ten degrees high
until within an hour of noon, or from an hour after noon until he is
only 10 degrees high in the afternoon; if therefore, at any time when
such observation is made, a Timekeeper tells us at the same moment
what o'clock it is at the place we sailed from, our Longitude is
clearly discovered." John Harrison
I repeat,the conversion is complicated yet there is nothing difficult
in the core principles which match the rotation of the Earth with
daily temperature fluctuations,if nobody can match one with the other
then there is really nothing left to say.
> Ian Bingham,
> Inchmarlo, Aberdeenshire.
Gavino
Jan 23, 2012, 2:45:08 PM1/23/12
to
"Buchan Meteo" <gianna...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f1d6998$0$2496$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
(He actually has no problem understanding the leap year cycle, quoting ad
nauseam from the ancent Egyptians and other historic sources on the topic.)
The earth rotates once each day *relative to the sun* (that's how we measure
days), but because of its orbit around the sun, the number of rotations in a
year, relative to the stars (which we may regard as a fixed direction in
space) is *one more* than the number of days. See Ian Binghams' post in this
thread.
So in a four-year cycle of 1461 days, the earth rotates 1465 times about its
own axis. It is this that oriel36 refuses to accept, believing it to be an
abomination, and the sun to be the only true reference point - he even goes
as far as to dismiss Newton's 'gravitational agenda'.
I initially tried to respond to his posts in an attempt to understand what
he was trying to say behind the strange language used.
I now see he's completely deluded and it's pointless trying to convince him
of anything as he just regurgitates the same stuff again and again.
It's best just to ignore him from now on.
news:4f1d6998$0$2496$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
> The earth rotates once each day, 365 times in 365 days, and 366 times in
> 366 days when we add a leap day to the calendar year (not to be confused
> with a real year).
No, this is what oriel36 asserts himself and is incorrect.
> 366 days when we add a leap day to the calendar year (not to be confused
> with a real year).
(He actually has no problem understanding the leap year cycle, quoting ad
nauseam from the ancent Egyptians and other historic sources on the topic.)
The earth rotates once each day *relative to the sun* (that's how we measure
days), but because of its orbit around the sun, the number of rotations in a
year, relative to the stars (which we may regard as a fixed direction in
space) is *one more* than the number of days. See Ian Binghams' post in this
thread.
So in a four-year cycle of 1461 days, the earth rotates 1465 times about its
own axis. It is this that oriel36 refuses to accept, believing it to be an
abomination, and the sun to be the only true reference point - he even goes
as far as to dismiss Newton's 'gravitational agenda'.
I initially tried to respond to his posts in an attempt to understand what
he was trying to say behind the strange language used.
I now see he's completely deluded and it's pointless trying to convince him
of anything as he just regurgitates the same stuff again and again.
It's best just to ignore him from now on.
Joe Egginton
Jan 23, 2012, 3:07:09 PM1/23/12
to
Actually it's not quite correct to
> say that the Earth rotates on its axis every 24 hours - it's 23 hours
> and 56 minutes, and the 4 minutes makes it up to 24 hours.
>
> Ian Bingham,
> Inchmarlo, Aberdeenshire.
The obvious solution is to shorten the definition of a second from it's
> say that the Earth rotates on its axis every 24 hours - it's 23 hours
> and 56 minutes, and the 4 minutes makes it up to 24 hours.
>
> Ian Bingham,
> Inchmarlo, Aberdeenshire.
9,162,613,770 oscillations per second of caesium 133. So that the
measurement of the earth's rotation in a day exactly equals 24 hours.
Of course, by changing the definition of a second, it'll have major
implications for our high tech electronic world, from mobile phones to
the internet not working.
Joe Egginton
Wolverhampton
175m ASL
Gavino
Jan 23, 2012, 3:47:55 PM1/23/12
to
"Joe Egginton" <joe.eg...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:9o5svf...@mid.individual.net...
To say nothing of the fact that after six months, we would be having solar
noon at midnight!
You *are* joking, I hope?
news:9o5svf...@mid.individual.net...
noon at midnight!
You *are* joking, I hope?
oriel36
Jan 23, 2012, 3:42:29 PM1/23/12
to
On Jan 23, 7:45 pm, "Gavino" <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Buchan Meteo" <giannastef...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
When you argue for 1465 rotations in 1461 days you are arguing against
daily rotation keeping in step with daily temperature fluctuations and
that is close to impossible to do.The daily temperature fluctuations
are huge so the inability to assign a cause due to the rotation of the
Earth is an incredibly dum thing in an era convinced that they know
the cause of long terms temperature fluctuations.
The natural noon cycles,of which there are 1461 for years convert to
the 1461 AM/PM's that cross the calendar cycle so the steady
progression of 24 days in a format of 3 years of 365 days and 1 year
of 366 days represent a proportion between rotations and orbital
circuits from the parent fact of 1461 rotations in 4 circuits.
Students or any interested adult inquiring as to where the 1/4 day
goes each year to make up the leap day after every 4th year shouldn't
have to,the system is built on 1461 days and dividing the cycle by 4
circuits equates to 365 1/4 days to one orbital circuit.The 24 hours
of upcoming Feb 29th is being overlaid on the system that the
Egyptians describe and one that everyone here will use today -
The story of the current cycle began on Mar 1st 2008 when daily
rotation and orbital motion started in sync,as the orbital cycle of
the Earth around the Sun is 365 days 5 hours 49 minutes,the orbital
cycle ended at roughly 6 AM Mar 1st 2009 whereupon a new orbital cycle
of 365 1/4 days began and ended at 12 noon Mar 1st 2010,As there are
365 days and rotations between Mar 1st and Feb 28th each year,the
orbital cycle drifts ahead through Mar 1st each non-leap year in
increments of 6 hours so that by Mar 1st 2011,the orbital cycle was
ahead by a full 18 hours in ending at 6 PM Mar 1st 2011.At the end of
Mar 1st 2012 the orbital cycle is ahead by almost a full 24 hours so
that the extra 24 hours of rotation on February 29th returns the daily
and orbital cycles back into sync whereupon the orbital cycle ends the
next year at 6 AM Mar 1st 2013.
> So in a four-year cycle of 1461 days, the earth rotates 1465 times about its
> own axis. It is this that oriel36 refuses to accept, believing it to be an
> abomination, and the sun to be the only true reference point - he even goes
> as far as to dismiss Newton's 'gravitational agenda'.
>
The primary reference is between the two main motions of the Earth and
not to any external object,how many times does the Earth turn for the
same period it takes the Earth to make a complete orbital
circuit ?.The Egyptians used the number of days it took Sirius to
return to the same position in order to maintain a lock between the
number of days and festivals attached to the orbital points of the
equinoxes and solstices and found an extra day was needed hence the
beginning of the 365/366 day format that we still use.
The next reference is natural noon where the natural inequality is
reduced to the equable 24 hour day -
"Draw a Meridian line upon a floor and then hang two plummets, each
by a small thread or wire, directly over the said Meridian, at the
distance of some 2. feet or more one from the other, as the smallness
of the thread will admit. When the middle of the Sun (the Eye being
placed so, as to bring both the threads into one line) appears to be
in the same line exactly.. you are then immediately to set the Watch,
not precisely to the hour of 12. but by so much less, as is the
Aequation of the day by the Table." Huygens
http://adcs.home.xs4all.nl/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
There is a complicated adjustment needed to clear up a few things
however Huygens,as with Harrison,clearly states the primary facts
which all students have a basic right to learn
1 - The Earth has a rotation rate of 15 degrees per hour and turns a
full equatorial circumference of 24901 miles in 24 hours.
2 .The Earth turns 1461 times in 1461 days to the nearest rotation
3 - The pure proportion is 365 1/4 rotations for each time the
planet completes an orbital circuit.
> I initially tried to respond to his posts in an attempt to understand what
> he was trying to say behind the strange language used.
> I now see he's completely deluded and it's pointless trying to convince him
> of anything as he just regurgitates the same stuff again and again.
> It's best just to ignore him from now on.
It took 40 years to correct the Piltdown Man episode and long after
the perpetrator had alerted researchers to the hoax,this is quite
different as the overall structure is within the reasoning
capabilities of all reasoning people and those who can snap out of the
late 17th century attempt to explain daily and orbital motions using a
24 hour clock.They basically took the 24 hour average which is
generated from natural noon and turned it against the very system from
which it emerged and while I concede the error is not immediately
discernible and there are a tsunami of time abbreviations surrounding
the core error,people who understand even the basics of the leap day
correction on Feb 29th as the 1461st day and rotation that closes out
4 years and 4 orbital circuits of the Earth will begin to undo the
damage,if not here then somewhere else.
So when the temperatures goes down and up within a 24 hour
period,readers can safely interpret it as the rotation of our planet,I
didn't think I would have to explain this to a forum built around
weather and the daily heat and cold but with an idea of 1465 rotations
in 1461 days the loss of cause should anger people who value their
intelligence and accept the only common sense correspondence in 1461
rotations in 1461 days.
> "Buchan Meteo" <giannastef...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4f1d6998$0$2496$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> > The earth rotates once each day, 365 times in 365 days, and 366 times in
> > 366 days when we add a leap day to the calendar year (not to be confused
> > with a real year).
>
> No, this is what oriel36 asserts himself and is incorrect.
> (He actually has no problem understanding the leap year cycle, quoting ad
> nauseam from the ancent Egyptians and other historic sources on the topic.)
>
> The earth rotates once each day *relative to the sun* (that's how we measure
> days), but because of its orbit around the sun, the number of rotations in a
> year, relative to the stars (which we may regard as a fixed direction in
> space) is *one more* than the number of days. See Ian Binghams' post in this
> thread.
>
I will make easy for you all.
> news:4f1d6998$0$2496$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> > The earth rotates once each day, 365 times in 365 days, and 366 times in
> > 366 days when we add a leap day to the calendar year (not to be confused
> > with a real year).
>
> No, this is what oriel36 asserts himself and is incorrect.
> (He actually has no problem understanding the leap year cycle, quoting ad
> nauseam from the ancent Egyptians and other historic sources on the topic.)
>
> The earth rotates once each day *relative to the sun* (that's how we measure
> days), but because of its orbit around the sun, the number of rotations in a
> year, relative to the stars (which we may regard as a fixed direction in
> space) is *one more* than the number of days. See Ian Binghams' post in this
> thread.
>
When you argue for 1465 rotations in 1461 days you are arguing against
daily rotation keeping in step with daily temperature fluctuations and
that is close to impossible to do.The daily temperature fluctuations
are huge so the inability to assign a cause due to the rotation of the
Earth is an incredibly dum thing in an era convinced that they know
the cause of long terms temperature fluctuations.
The natural noon cycles,of which there are 1461 for years convert to
the 1461 AM/PM's that cross the calendar cycle so the steady
progression of 24 days in a format of 3 years of 365 days and 1 year
of 366 days represent a proportion between rotations and orbital
circuits from the parent fact of 1461 rotations in 4 circuits.
Students or any interested adult inquiring as to where the 1/4 day
goes each year to make up the leap day after every 4th year shouldn't
have to,the system is built on 1461 days and dividing the cycle by 4
circuits equates to 365 1/4 days to one orbital circuit.The 24 hours
of upcoming Feb 29th is being overlaid on the system that the
Egyptians describe and one that everyone here will use today -
The story of the current cycle began on Mar 1st 2008 when daily
rotation and orbital motion started in sync,as the orbital cycle of
the Earth around the Sun is 365 days 5 hours 49 minutes,the orbital
cycle ended at roughly 6 AM Mar 1st 2009 whereupon a new orbital cycle
of 365 1/4 days began and ended at 12 noon Mar 1st 2010,As there are
365 days and rotations between Mar 1st and Feb 28th each year,the
orbital cycle drifts ahead through Mar 1st each non-leap year in
increments of 6 hours so that by Mar 1st 2011,the orbital cycle was
ahead by a full 18 hours in ending at 6 PM Mar 1st 2011.At the end of
Mar 1st 2012 the orbital cycle is ahead by almost a full 24 hours so
that the extra 24 hours of rotation on February 29th returns the daily
and orbital cycles back into sync whereupon the orbital cycle ends the
next year at 6 AM Mar 1st 2013.
> So in a four-year cycle of 1461 days, the earth rotates 1465 times about its
> own axis. It is this that oriel36 refuses to accept, believing it to be an
> abomination, and the sun to be the only true reference point - he even goes
> as far as to dismiss Newton's 'gravitational agenda'.
>
not to any external object,how many times does the Earth turn for the
same period it takes the Earth to make a complete orbital
circuit ?.The Egyptians used the number of days it took Sirius to
return to the same position in order to maintain a lock between the
number of days and festivals attached to the orbital points of the
equinoxes and solstices and found an extra day was needed hence the
beginning of the 365/366 day format that we still use.
The next reference is natural noon where the natural inequality is
reduced to the equable 24 hour day -
"Draw a Meridian line upon a floor and then hang two plummets, each
by a small thread or wire, directly over the said Meridian, at the
distance of some 2. feet or more one from the other, as the smallness
of the thread will admit. When the middle of the Sun (the Eye being
placed so, as to bring both the threads into one line) appears to be
in the same line exactly.. you are then immediately to set the Watch,
not precisely to the hour of 12. but by so much less, as is the
Aequation of the day by the Table." Huygens
http://adcs.home.xs4all.nl/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
There is a complicated adjustment needed to clear up a few things
however Huygens,as with Harrison,clearly states the primary facts
which all students have a basic right to learn
1 - The Earth has a rotation rate of 15 degrees per hour and turns a
full equatorial circumference of 24901 miles in 24 hours.
2 .The Earth turns 1461 times in 1461 days to the nearest rotation
3 - The pure proportion is 365 1/4 rotations for each time the
planet completes an orbital circuit.
> I initially tried to respond to his posts in an attempt to understand what
> he was trying to say behind the strange language used.
> I now see he's completely deluded and it's pointless trying to convince him
> of anything as he just regurgitates the same stuff again and again.
> It's best just to ignore him from now on.
the perpetrator had alerted researchers to the hoax,this is quite
different as the overall structure is within the reasoning
capabilities of all reasoning people and those who can snap out of the
late 17th century attempt to explain daily and orbital motions using a
24 hour clock.They basically took the 24 hour average which is
generated from natural noon and turned it against the very system from
which it emerged and while I concede the error is not immediately
discernible and there are a tsunami of time abbreviations surrounding
the core error,people who understand even the basics of the leap day
correction on Feb 29th as the 1461st day and rotation that closes out
4 years and 4 orbital circuits of the Earth will begin to undo the
damage,if not here then somewhere else.
So when the temperatures goes down and up within a 24 hour
period,readers can safely interpret it as the rotation of our planet,I
didn't think I would have to explain this to a forum built around
weather and the daily heat and cold but with an idea of 1465 rotations
in 1461 days the loss of cause should anger people who value their
intelligence and accept the only common sense correspondence in 1461
rotations in 1461 days.
oriel36
Jan 23, 2012, 3:59:38 PM1/23/12
to
belief in 1465 rotations in 1461 days so you must find a way to undo
the connection between daily temperature rises and falls and daily
rotation as a cause before you comment on anything else.
"... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
isochronical (equable/constant)" John Flamsteed ,1677
Flamsteed was making his determination using the average 24 hour day
in the human devised calendar format which has a steady progression of
24 hour days in format of 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366
days.This is why trying to bridge the 3 minute 56 second gap to
natural noon never works as there is no equable natural noon cycle of
24 hours.
This issue is discussing the primary weather fact before any other
input - Why does it get cold at night and warm during the day and you
can't answer it with 1465 rotations in 1461 days.The guys with their
heads stuck in gadgets might not care but some people who actually
wake up in the morning to a sunrise and know it the Earth's rotation
causing that spectacle may care.
oriel36
Jan 23, 2012, 4:14:28 PM1/23/12
to
On Jan 23, 8:47 pm, "Gavino" <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Joe Egginton" <joe.eggin...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
To be fair,only contemporary imaging and technology allows a clearer
view of the components parts.
The term AM/PM refer to a single daily astronomical event as a
location turns to and then turns past natural noon,these cycles vary
as it combines the daily rotation of the Earth with the known orbital
variations.Each of these noon cycles comprising of dual motions and
their variation represent discrete events yet comprise of a overall
cycle where rotations and orbital cycles come back into close
alignment after 1461 days or its orbital equivalent of 4 years.They
created an average 24 hour day out of the total number of natural noon
cycles by continuously adding or subtracting minutes and seconds
needed to keep the 1461 clocks noon cycles in step with the 1461
natural noon cycles.
People who are unaccustomed to the entire sprawling structure would
find the details almost painful,at least at the beginning,but it so
happens that days/years do convert to rotations/orbits and why Feb
29th will be the final 1461st rotation that began Mar 1st 2008.
I am prepared to leave it like that,it is a shame that the English who
have a great astronomical and timekeeping heritage would find the idea
contentious that the daily temperature fluctuations keep in step with
one rotation of the Earth within a system of proportions between
rotations and orbital cycles.
> "Joe Egginton" <joe.eggin...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
view of the components parts.
The term AM/PM refer to a single daily astronomical event as a
location turns to and then turns past natural noon,these cycles vary
as it combines the daily rotation of the Earth with the known orbital
variations.Each of these noon cycles comprising of dual motions and
their variation represent discrete events yet comprise of a overall
cycle where rotations and orbital cycles come back into close
alignment after 1461 days or its orbital equivalent of 4 years.They
created an average 24 hour day out of the total number of natural noon
cycles by continuously adding or subtracting minutes and seconds
needed to keep the 1461 clocks noon cycles in step with the 1461
natural noon cycles.
People who are unaccustomed to the entire sprawling structure would
find the details almost painful,at least at the beginning,but it so
happens that days/years do convert to rotations/orbits and why Feb
29th will be the final 1461st rotation that began Mar 1st 2008.
I am prepared to leave it like that,it is a shame that the English who
have a great astronomical and timekeeping heritage would find the idea
contentious that the daily temperature fluctuations keep in step with
one rotation of the Earth within a system of proportions between
rotations and orbital cycles.
Eskimo Will
Jan 23, 2012, 4:17:19 PM1/23/12
to
"oriel36" <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b4072174-5181-42e6...@b23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Why does it get cold at night and warm during the day and you
can't answer it with 1465 rotations in 1461 days.
==========================
can't answer it with 1465 rotations in 1461 days.
Well I'm a qualified meteorologist and as far as I understand it. It gets
warmer during the day (airmass changes excepted) because of shortwave
radiation from the sun and it gets cold at night (airmass changes excepted)
primarily due to a net loss of longwave radiation.
It has nothing to do with rotation apart from the obvious fact that the sun
appears and disappears over the horizon due to the earth rotating.
http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk/Haytor/automatic/Current_Vantage_Pro.htm
Will Hand (Haytor, Devon, 1017 feet asl)
---------------------------------------------
oriel36
Jan 23, 2012, 4:48:25 PM1/23/12
to
On Jan 23, 9:17 pm, "Eskimo Will" <w...@lyneside.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "oriel36" <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Day turns to night in tandem with temperature fluctuations because the
Earth is turning and far from being surprised that you even hint that
these normal human experiences are not due to rotation,I well
comprehend where you are coming from regardless of how dishonorable it
may be.There are 1461 day/night cycles in 4 circuits of the Earth and
these cycles are due to the only possible cause.
Even I would not descend to a level where normal experiences such as
daily temperature fluctuations lose their cause,and you are doing it
for a silly late 17th century mistake that is not immediately
discernible but ultimately generates a hideous imbalance of 1465
rotations in 1461 days so the point is that even before you made that
hideous statement above,you were already removed from the normal
experience of 1461 rotations in 1461 days.
Far from being an exception,and there is nothing honorable in this for
anyone,it exposes a problem that always existed in science but was
never so obvious as today.
" I have heard such things put forth as I should blush to repeat--not
so much to avoid discrediting their authors (whose names could always
be withheld) as to refrain from detracting so greatly from the honor
of the human race. In the long run my observations have convinced me
that some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some
conclusion In their minds which, either because of its being their own
or because of their having received it from some person who has their
entire confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it
impossible ever to get it out of their heads. Such arguments in
support of their fixed idea as they hit upon themselves or hear set
forth by others, no matter how simple and stupid these may be, gain
their instant acceptance and applause. On the other hand whatever is
brought forward against it, however ingenious and conclusive, they
receive with disdain or with hot rage--if indeed it does not make them
ill " Galileo
> http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk/Haytor/automatic/Current_Vantage_Pro.htm
> Will Hand (Haytor, Devon, 1017 feet asl)
> ---------------------------------------------
Are you absolutely sure you want to argue against daily rotation as
the cause behind the daily temperature fluctuation from a daytime high
to a nighttime low ?.If you decide that you went too far then accept
that 1461 rotations will cause 1461 daily temperature fluctuations or
what amounts to the same thing 4 years/4 circuits of the Earth.
If this isn't troubling,I don't know what is.
> "oriel36" <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b4072174-5181-42e6...@b23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> Why does it get cold at night and warm during the day and you
> can't answer it with 1465 rotations in 1461 days.
> ==========================
>
> Well I'm a qualified meteorologist and as far as I understand it. It gets
> warmer during the day (airmass changes excepted) because of shortwave
> radiation from the sun and it gets cold at night (airmass changes excepted)
> primarily due to a net loss of longwave radiation.
> It has nothing to do with rotation....
> news:b4072174-5181-42e6...@b23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> Why does it get cold at night and warm during the day and you
> can't answer it with 1465 rotations in 1461 days.
> ==========================
>
> Well I'm a qualified meteorologist and as far as I understand it. It gets
> warmer during the day (airmass changes excepted) because of shortwave
> radiation from the sun and it gets cold at night (airmass changes excepted)
> primarily due to a net loss of longwave radiation.
Day turns to night in tandem with temperature fluctuations because the
Earth is turning and far from being surprised that you even hint that
these normal human experiences are not due to rotation,I well
comprehend where you are coming from regardless of how dishonorable it
may be.There are 1461 day/night cycles in 4 circuits of the Earth and
these cycles are due to the only possible cause.
Even I would not descend to a level where normal experiences such as
daily temperature fluctuations lose their cause,and you are doing it
for a silly late 17th century mistake that is not immediately
discernible but ultimately generates a hideous imbalance of 1465
rotations in 1461 days so the point is that even before you made that
hideous statement above,you were already removed from the normal
experience of 1461 rotations in 1461 days.
Far from being an exception,and there is nothing honorable in this for
anyone,it exposes a problem that always existed in science but was
never so obvious as today.
" I have heard such things put forth as I should blush to repeat--not
so much to avoid discrediting their authors (whose names could always
be withheld) as to refrain from detracting so greatly from the honor
of the human race. In the long run my observations have convinced me
that some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some
conclusion In their minds which, either because of its being their own
or because of their having received it from some person who has their
entire confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it
impossible ever to get it out of their heads. Such arguments in
support of their fixed idea as they hit upon themselves or hear set
forth by others, no matter how simple and stupid these may be, gain
their instant acceptance and applause. On the other hand whatever is
brought forward against it, however ingenious and conclusive, they
receive with disdain or with hot rage--if indeed it does not make them
ill " Galileo
> http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk/Haytor/automatic/Current_Vantage_Pro.htm
> Will Hand (Haytor, Devon, 1017 feet asl)
> ---------------------------------------------
the cause behind the daily temperature fluctuation from a daytime high
to a nighttime low ?.If you decide that you went too far then accept
that 1461 rotations will cause 1461 daily temperature fluctuations or
what amounts to the same thing 4 years/4 circuits of the Earth.
If this isn't troubling,I don't know what is.
Yokel
Jan 23, 2012, 5:39:55 PM1/23/12
to
On 23/01/2012 08:05, Weatherlawyer wrote:
>
> Arrrrgh!!!
>
> Beware the trapses.
>
> Nobody loves us. We wants it, we needs it. Must have the precious.
> They stole it from us. Sneaky little weathermen.
> No.
> Not masters...
> Yes, ...precious, ...false!
> They will cheat you, hurt you.
>
> LIE!!
>
> ...
>
> Arrrrgh!!!
>
> Beware the trapses.
>
> Nobody loves us. We wants it, we needs it. Must have the precious.
> They stole it from us. Sneaky little weathermen.
> No.
> Not masters...
> Yes, ...precious, ...false!
> They will cheat you, hurt you.
>
> LIE!!
>
> You don't have any friends; Nobody likes you! I'm not listening... I'm
> not listening... Master looks after us now. We don't need you ...anymore.
Lost it. He's finally lost it. If these were Victorian times at least
> not listening... Master looks after us now. We don't need you ...anymore.
we could have got him some earthquake pills.
Still, anyone who appreciates Tolkien has something to be said for
them. See you down the cinema for "The Hobbit"!
Weatherlawyer
Jan 23, 2012, 8:32:55 PM1/23/12
to
> Yokel posts via a spam-trap account which is not read.
As with the spikes some observers get in their electronic equipment,
the days (night rather) where the temperature gradient is reversed
should be noted.
One day in the not too dim and distant it will be a part of the
geophysics requirement that such oddities are reported to earthquake
warning agencies.
Sadly, again, the only bodies likely to see to it at the moment are
the Japanese and Chinese meteorological-seismic warning agencies.
Japan won't learn because they have cranial arthritis just like the
MetOffice.
China will learn if they ever succeed in removing the gangsters
thwarting every decent thing there.
I strongly suspect everyone here will do their utmost to remove such
messages from god until he gets so thoroughly sick and tired of it he
will wipe out the lot of you.
(Let's hope I'm spared to report the details.
http://bible.cc/job/1-16.htm)
Weatherlawyer
Jan 23, 2012, 9:03:03 PM1/23/12
to
would suggest that you at least put more paragraph spaces between your
posts.
Every four years, 23 hours and 59 minutes should suffice.
Weatherlawyer
Jan 23, 2012, 9:20:54 PM1/23/12
to
DO NOT TOP-POST and DO trim your replies!!! Top-posting is the
annoying practice of replying to a message by typing your response
above that to which you are responding. This is a Bad Thing™ because
your readers will have to scroll down and extract the essential of the
existing thread in order to grasp the context of your reply, and then
scroll back up again to read your reply.
Posting a "me too" comment at the bottom of a 100+ line message is no
better because people have to scroll all the way down through 100+
lines they've already read in order to see your one-liner. One word
comes to mind for that: frustrating.
The generally accepted "right way" of doing things is called "inline
posting", whereby you insert your comments straight after that on
which you are commenting, having stripped unnecessary text from the
original quoted text. The end result is something which makes much
more sense because it reads like a conversation.
Please read this page, which goes into some detail: http://howto-pages.org/posting_style
More information on why top-posting is a Bad Thing™ here:
Top posting according to The Ursine Wiki
The Absolute Beginner's guide to Usenet - FAQ - Top Posting
Top posting vs. bottom posting
Dan's Mail Format Site | Quoting | Bottom Posting
Email quotes and inclusion conventions
http://linux.sgms-centre.com/misc/netiquette.php
You are not the only one who does it but the recently aborted top post
was a classic.
You know who you you are. So do I.
Let's hope it ends there.
annoying practice of replying to a message by typing your response
above that to which you are responding. This is a Bad Thing™ because
your readers will have to scroll down and extract the essential of the
existing thread in order to grasp the context of your reply, and then
scroll back up again to read your reply.
Posting a "me too" comment at the bottom of a 100+ line message is no
better because people have to scroll all the way down through 100+
lines they've already read in order to see your one-liner. One word
comes to mind for that: frustrating.
The generally accepted "right way" of doing things is called "inline
posting", whereby you insert your comments straight after that on
which you are commenting, having stripped unnecessary text from the
original quoted text. The end result is something which makes much
more sense because it reads like a conversation.
Please read this page, which goes into some detail: http://howto-pages.org/posting_style
More information on why top-posting is a Bad Thing™ here:
Top posting according to The Ursine Wiki
The Absolute Beginner's guide to Usenet - FAQ - Top Posting
Top posting vs. bottom posting
Dan's Mail Format Site | Quoting | Bottom Posting
Email quotes and inclusion conventions
http://linux.sgms-centre.com/misc/netiquette.php
You are not the only one who does it but the recently aborted top post
was a classic.
You know who you you are. So do I.
Let's hope it ends there.
Weatherlawyer
Jan 23, 2012, 10:27:08 PM1/23/12
to
On Jan 23, 9:48 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Are you absolutely sure you want to argue against daily rotation as
> the cause behind the daily temperature fluctuation from a daytime high
> to a night time low ?
>.If you decide that you went too far then accept
> that 1461 rotations will cause 1461 daily temperature fluctuations or
> what amounts to the same thing 4 years/4 circuits of the Earth.
>
> If this isn't troubling, I don't know what is.
>
> Are you absolutely sure you want to argue against daily rotation as
> the cause behind the daily temperature fluctuation from a daytime high
> to a night time low ?
>.If you decide that you went too far then accept
> that 1461 rotations will cause 1461 daily temperature fluctuations or
> what amounts to the same thing 4 years/4 circuits of the Earth.
>
I just realised why I was given the awful ability to stick with
imponderable riddles until they do me in. It's so I can keep reading
posts like yours until I understand the frame of mind behind them.
You are Dawlish.
I can tell because:
1. He hasn't nursed this thread.
2. You have.
3. You don't read the OP or subsequent reasoning.
4. You failed to realise the thread is about the the fact that
occasionally, the temperatures go up at night.
Let me rephrase that last one:
The Most Learned Mr Martin Rowley ExFAQ Officer Extraordinairre
couldn't think of a term for the phenomenon whereby the temperatures
increase at night.
The paradigm being that motile air masses can bring with them
increases in temperature but that at ground level and as far as the
eye can see at night, this is in the case discussed, not the case.
Occasionally, when there is a suitable earthquake in the offing and
electronic equipment is spiking, old salts like the OP notice things
like that.
It's called observation. You aught to try it some time.
oriel36
Jan 24, 2012, 1:37:40 AM1/24/12
to
On Jan 23, 9:17 pm, "Eskimo Will" <w...@lyneside.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "oriel36" <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote in message
knowing there would be no objections.
I assure everyone here that day turning to night keeps in step with
the rotation of the Earth so when people opt for an imbalance between
days and rotations,an imbalance that has a definite beginning as a
mistake in the late 17th century,they are actually arguing against
cause and effect at a level no person should find fault with.The
warmth of the daytime and the cold of night are due to the rotating
Earth and this forum based on weather can't express it is a sight to
behold.
One person snapped out and came to the right conclusion even though he
did not have a feel for the transfer of days/years to rotations/orbits
but common sense generally intervenes and people will eventually do
the right thing.So,at least you know the correct set of values is out
there and every student has a right to learn them
1 - The Earth has a rotation rate of 15 degrees per hour and turns a
full equatorial circumference of 24901 miles in 24 hours.
2 .The Earth turns 1461 times in 1461 days to the nearest rotation
3 - The pure proportion is 365 1/4 rotations for each time the
planet completes an orbital circuit.
Buchan Meteo
Jan 24, 2012, 6:13:48 AM1/24/12
to
Gavino scrive:
> "Buchan Meteo" <gianna...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4f1d6998$0$2496$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>> The earth rotates once each day, 365 times in 365 days, and 366 times
>> in 366 days when we add a leap day to the calendar year (not to be
>> confused with a real year).
>
> No, this is what oriel36 asserts himself and is incorrect. (He actually
> has no problem understanding the leap year cycle, quoting ad nauseam
> from the ancent Egyptians and other historic sources on the topic.)
OED
day n. ...corresponding to a rotation of the earth on its axis.
> The earth rotates once each day *relative to the sun*
The earth rotates once each day on its axis. That is the definition of a
day. Thus it rotates once per day, or a million times in a million days
because one rotation *is* one day.
> "Buchan Meteo" <gianna...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4f1d6998$0$2496$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>> The earth rotates once each day, 365 times in 365 days, and 366 times
>> in 366 days when we add a leap day to the calendar year (not to be
>> confused with a real year).
>
> No, this is what oriel36 asserts himself and is incorrect. (He actually
> has no problem understanding the leap year cycle, quoting ad nauseam
> from the ancent Egyptians and other historic sources on the topic.)
day n. ...corresponding to a rotation of the earth on its axis.
> The earth rotates once each day *relative to the sun*
day. Thus it rotates once per day, or a million times in a million days
because one rotation *is* one day.
oriel36
Jan 24, 2012, 7:13:14 AM1/24/12
to
On Jan 24, 11:13 am, Buchan Meteo <giannastef...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Gavino scrive:
>
> > "Buchan Meteo" <giannastef...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
A few tips if you choose to continue sorting this out,daily rotation
exists as an independent motion from orbital motion so that the
primary reference is between these two motions rather than to any star
whether the external stars or the central Sun.The next reference is
natural noon as the combined effect of both daily rotation and orbital
motion combine to create a natural inequality in the length of time
from one noon to noon cycle.
How the variations in natural noon convert into the 1461 days of the
calendar system and the steady progression of 24 hour days and from
there how these equable/steady 24 hour days substitute for steady
rotation at a rate of 15 degrees per hour is a very,very complicated
issue yet the longitude problem and the creation of accurate watches
keeps the focus attached to the noon cycles and how days/years get
converted into rotations/orbital circuits.
Yesterday was a low point in the forum where some qualified
meteorologist could ear to match one rotation of the Earth with day
turning to night and daily temperature fluctuations as the 1465/1461
imbalance is a contrary perspective but some people must sense the
horror of losing that correspondence as it is the primary fact in any
weather related topic as the daily input has a rotational cause and
any influence after that such as irradiation of heat is a secondary
effect of rotation.
If there is a dispute over what causes the daily temperatures to rise
and fall,you can be certain that something is terribly wrong and good
luck to you in your endeavor.
> Gavino scrive:
>
> > "Buchan Meteo" <giannastef...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
exists as an independent motion from orbital motion so that the
primary reference is between these two motions rather than to any star
whether the external stars or the central Sun.The next reference is
natural noon as the combined effect of both daily rotation and orbital
motion combine to create a natural inequality in the length of time
from one noon to noon cycle.
How the variations in natural noon convert into the 1461 days of the
calendar system and the steady progression of 24 hour days and from
there how these equable/steady 24 hour days substitute for steady
rotation at a rate of 15 degrees per hour is a very,very complicated
issue yet the longitude problem and the creation of accurate watches
keeps the focus attached to the noon cycles and how days/years get
converted into rotations/orbital circuits.
Yesterday was a low point in the forum where some qualified
meteorologist could ear to match one rotation of the Earth with day
turning to night and daily temperature fluctuations as the 1465/1461
imbalance is a contrary perspective but some people must sense the
horror of losing that correspondence as it is the primary fact in any
weather related topic as the daily input has a rotational cause and
any influence after that such as irradiation of heat is a secondary
effect of rotation.
If there is a dispute over what causes the daily temperatures to rise
and fall,you can be certain that something is terribly wrong and good
luck to you in your endeavor.
Buchan Meteo
Jan 24, 2012, 7:37:48 AM1/24/12
to
oriel36 scrive:
> A few tips if you choose to continue sorting this out,
Not me. I am entirely detached from this discussion.
> A few tips if you choose to continue sorting this out,
oriel36
Jan 24, 2012, 8:06:21 AM1/24/12
to
On Jan 24, 12:37 pm, Buchan Meteo <giannastef...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> oriel36 scrive:
>
> > A few tips if you choose to continue sorting this out,
>
> Not me. I am entirely detached from this discussion.
>
Don't think so,when you have a meteorologist unable to affirm that
> oriel36 scrive:
>
> > A few tips if you choose to continue sorting this out,
>
> Not me. I am entirely detached from this discussion.
>
daily temperatures fluctuate in response to the daily rotation of the
Earth,that is quite something else.I doesn't matter to me whether
readers in this forum choose an imbalance of 1465 rotations in 1461
days which is tantamount to arguing cause and effect of daily
temperature fluctuations,the correct principles go somewhere else
where it will be dealt with properly.
Students do have a right to learn that the Earth turns once in 24
hours and 1461 times in 1461 days,it all depends on adults accepting
the true reference for rotation,in this case a proportion between
rotations and the number of times our planets makes a circuit of the
Sun,the ancients framed this as the 1461 days in 4 years and we still
inherit their system but ultimately there is a conversion between
days/years with rotations/orbital circuits that presently people
positively refuse to accept.
You are right,365 rotations in 365 days and 366 rotations in 366 days
with Feb 29th as both another day and another 24 hour rotation of the
Earth enclosed in a system of 1461 days as the Earth makes 4 circuits
around the Sun.
Gavino
Jan 24, 2012, 1:15:01 PM1/24/12
to
"Buchan Meteo" <gianna...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f1e926c$0$2955$fa0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
> Gavino scrive:
> > "Buchan Meteo" <gianna...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:4f1d6998$0$2496$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
> >> The earth rotates once each day, 365 times in 365 days, and 366 times
> >> in 366 days when we add a leap day to the calendar year (not to be
> >> confused with a real year).
> >
> > No, this is what oriel36 asserts himself and is incorrect.
>
> > "Buchan Meteo" <gianna...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:4f1d6998$0$2496$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
> >> The earth rotates once each day, 365 times in 365 days, and 366 times
> >> in 366 days when we add a leap day to the calendar year (not to be
> >> confused with a real year).
> >
> > No, this is what oriel36 asserts himself and is incorrect.
>
> OED
> day n. ...corresponding to a rotation of the earth on its axis.
>
> > The earth rotates once each day *relative to the sun*
>
> The earth rotates once each day on its axis. That is the definition of a
> day. Thus it rotates once per day, or a million times in a million days
> because one rotation *is* one day.
Gianna, maybe you're being deliberately obtuse for a laugh (or just to be
> day n. ...corresponding to a rotation of the earth on its axis.
>
> > The earth rotates once each day *relative to the sun*
>
> The earth rotates once each day on its axis. That is the definition of a
> day. Thus it rotates once per day, or a million times in a million days
> because one rotation *is* one day.
awkward!), but please don't fall into oriel36's confusion.
Rotation can only be defined relative so some reference direction, so the
phrase "rotation of the earth on its axis" is imprecise.
The day of 24 hours that we are all familiar with is, as I said, the period
of rotation relative to the sun (actually the mean period, as it varies
throughout the year).
However, since the earth is also moving in orbit around the sun, it is more
logical (on physics grounds) to take the 'true' period of rotation to be
relative to the 'fixed stars'. This is about four minutes short of 24 hours,
as Ian Bingham explained - read his post again if this is not clear.
So in the course of its orbit around the sun in 365.25 days, the earth
actually rotates 366.25 times.
The Foucault pendulum is a good demonstration of this, but simple
observation of the stars (a given star or constellation rises 4 minutes
earlier each day) bears it out.
oriel36
Jan 24, 2012, 3:22:58 PM1/24/12
to
On Jan 24, 6:15 pm, "Gavino" <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> So in the course of its orbit around the sun in 365.25 days, the earth
> actually rotates 366.25 times. (1465 rotations in 1461 days)
> So in the course of its orbit around the sun in 365.25 days, the earth
The calendar cycle which ends in a number of weeks with the 24 hours
of rotation that is February 29th,it is another day on this gorgeous
planet of ours and it ends the 4 circuits of the Earth that began on
March 1st 2008 with the first rotation.Here is one 24 hour day and one
rotation of the Earth within the greater cycle of the orbital motion
of the planet ,in this case May 29th 2008 -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxrIMHKobk0
You were going about your business that day as the temperature rose
as your location turned to the Sun and it got cooler as it turned into
the shadow/night.On that day people were born and died,while people
woke up to prepare for the upcoming summer,others went to sleep
getting ready for winter.Great things happened that day as with every
other day and 24 hours of rotation where one keeps in step with the
other and it is time we used all the benefits of technology such as
this time lapse footage to have a look at our own planet once more.
If you want 1465 rotations in 1461 days then turn your gaze away from
that planet and all the amazing history that occurred on its surface
from biological and geological evolution to the great battles nations
once fought,from the achievements of men who looked out from its
surface to the individual concerns for family and community.
When it happens that day turns to night within a 24 hour period,and
remaining that way through the 1461 days of the calendar cycle,you can
then look into the celestial arena from a rotating Earth as a
reasonable person and one who would not knowingly create an imbalance
between 24 hours of rotation and a day/night cycle.
0 new messages