Note how the sun stays at the same elevation above the horizon. About two dozen people told me today that they are Arctic experts and this is not possible.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZpRDtz0Szs]
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- What’s At Stake?
- “The world began to end on 12th May 2024”
- “Climate change is a myth”
- Racist Gas
- RFK Jr. Discusses The Green New Deal And Climate
- “world is on edge of climate abyss, UN warns”
- Ivy Echo Chamber
- Climate Homicide
- Much Ado About Nothing
- Homophobic Gas
- World Bank Expectations
- Trained Not To Learn
- Protecting Endangered Species
- Record Climate Cynicism
- Record Cynicism
- The Latest In Climate Science Rhetoric
- Climate Desperation
- Artificial Stupidity
- Climate Obsession
- The Climate Empire Strikes Back
- Climate Scam Parrots
- “I’ve dealt with him before ”
- “I’ve dealt with him before.”
- “BE HONEST”
- Turn Out The Lights – The Party’s Over
Recent Comments
- Gordon Vigurs on “Climate change is a myth”
- Gamecock on What’s At Stake?
- arn on What’s At Stake?
- Petit_Barde on “Climate change is a myth”
- dm on “Climate change is a myth”
- Gordon Vigurs on “Climate change is a myth”
- dm on “Climate change is a myth”
- dm on What’s At Stake?
- Gordon Vigurs on “Climate change is a myth”
- Paul Marks on “The world began to end on 12th May 2024”
Stars visible in the daytime. Northern lights visible in the daytime. Weird.
At high summer it should be a very uniform transit around the horizon. But not many days before it varies, eventually dipping below the horizon.
Thanks, Steven, for these intriguing images.
Will Dec 21 be the turning point for weird observations at the pole?
Continual darkness in NH winter at the North Pole.
Continual darkness in NH autumn at the North Pole as well. 6 months total.
Sun moving right to left = South Pole. Nice video!
The Earth’s North Magnetic Pole is actually a magnetic south pole and the Earth’s South Magnetic Pole is a magnetic north pole. The direction of magnetic field lines are defined to emerge from the magnet’s north pole and enter the magnet’s south pole.
Running from the Tropics to the Arctic (and back) in on day.
http://youtu.be/_6pHfcw47EE
in one day.
I’m sorry, but I don’t see the relevance of that.
The geographic north pole and the magnetic north pole are two completely different things. The magnetic poles move about and will eventually flip.
The position of the magnetic poles has no influence on the movement of the sun.
Steve, your video is of the South pole, not the North pole. At the North pole the sun would move left to right, not the other way as shown in the video.
That’s what I thought too. Or the video has been inversed. Nevertheless a great clip!
The Earth’s North Magnetic Pole is actually a magnetic south pole and the Earth’s South Magnetic Pole is a magnetic north pole. The direction of magnetic field lines are defined to emerge from the magnet’s north pole and enter the magnet’s south pole.
I believe that when magnetism was first being seriously studied, the poles of a magnet were named the “north seeking pole” and the “south seeking pole” for rather obvious reasons. When we say (in speaking of magnets) that they have a “north pole” and a “south pole” we are using a sort of linguistic short-hand for “north seeking pole” and “south seeking pole.” Speaking of the Earth’s field, the geographic area we call the “north magnetic pole” is, in fact a “south seeking pole”. That is why the magnetic fields of the north and south connect to each other.
Doesn’t make any difference. It shows the same principle
Since the sun and moon are each about a half degree wide, the beginning of the video — which appears to be the moon because there is minimal blooming in the camera compared to the disk at the end — shows the field of view to be a little less than ten degrees of the sun/moon path across the sky. Great video.
I don’t think the moon is at all visible in this sequence. The shadows (or lack thereof) I think indicate that despite the blooming or lack thereof that it is indeed the sun at the beginning of the sequence. My guess would be atmospherics were different by the end of the video and account for different sun appearance then as opposed to the beginning.
At the poles, the axis of rotation is perpendicular to the surface. As a result, the angle of rotation does not change the inclination of the surface with respect to the sun. Therefore, the sun’s height will only be determined by the day of the year and not the hour of the day.
Or to turn it around … the way they found the North pole, was to take a series of sextant readings and find the location at which the height of the sun did not vary at all (taking account of yearly changes). This is the pole.
It’s therefore almost the definition of the pole, that it’s the only place where the sun does not change in height through the day.
Any person that knows a thing about dead reckoning navigation understands the difference between the geographic north pole and the magnetic one. The geographic pole is more or less static while the magnetic one migrates over time. That is the reason for declination on maps. The grid system on maps are based on the geographic pole. To dead reckon navigate from one point to another using a compass one needs to know what the magnetic azimuth from the starting point to the destination thus we have LARS (Left Add Right Subtract).
For real? Who are these ‘experts’ that said this? lol
OMG! Get the suntan lotion! UV will kill you there!!
Wouldn’t that only be the case on the 2 equinox days (and from an observation of the naked eye point a few days before & after)? Otherwise wouldn’t there be some change in elevation when the axis of rotation is not perpendicular to the orbital plane?
Also, it would be more difficult to film the sun from the north pole than the south pole as the ice pack could move the camera – at least more than at the south pole – but the point is still the same.
It moves in a very slow spiral, with a period of 365 days.
The video makes that point very well, it doesn’t matter whether at the North or South pole the effect is the same.
It’s a pity there isn’t a 3 minute recording of a whole year speeded up, it would make interesting viewing.
Doubt the weather would allow that at either pole. Wouldn’t there by significant periods of overcast and precipitation?
You can view it using most astronomy programs. Redshift is one of my favorites and one of the best. there are some great free ones available like Celestia, I think climateballsologists should take some astronomy classes or at least study the solar system.
Interesting note, while in Eureka NWT (nunuvut now), 1979, Dec 21, we went out onto the fjord and shut off the vehicle lights and adjusted to the darkness, and you could still see a faint glow to the south at mid day….warmed the heart though, as it was a long dark winter.
But, the average Arctic land is halfway between the N Pole and the Arctic Circle. Only at the N Pole does it stay in one place. That’s not typical of the average Arctic and thus not typical of the Arctic climate. But do note the low angle, the long path through the atmosphere, and the energy per sq meter will be greatly diminished as well. The albedo is enormous, vastly decreasing energy delivery. On open water, reflectivity is also high at this angle and any realized heating is compensated almost immediately by evaporative cooling from the surface. Solar input is not a major factor in the Arctic. Warm air and water from the lower latitudes cause the majority of any melting.
Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
With animation everything is possible … lol