Home/BlogThe Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for January, 2022 was +0.03 deg. C, down from the December, 2021 value of +0.21 deg. C.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 now stands at +0.13 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 13 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2021 01 0.12 0.34 -0.09 -0.08 0.36 0.50 -0.52
2021 02 0.20 0.32 0.08 -0.14 -0.65 0.07 -0.27
2021 03 -0.01 0.13 -0.14 -0.29 0.59 -0.78 -0.79
2021 04 -0.05 0.05 -0.15 -0.28 -0.02 0.02 0.29
2021 05 0.08 0.14 0.03 0.06 -0.41 -0.04 0.02
2021 06 -0.01 0.31 -0.32 -0.14 1.44 0.63 -0.76
2021 07 0.20 0.33 0.07 0.13 0.58 0.43 0.80
2021 08 0.17 0.27 0.08 0.07 0.33 0.83 -0.02
2021 09 0.25 0.18 0.33 0.09 0.67 0.02 0.37
2021 10 0.37 0.46 0.27 0.33 0.84 0.63 0.06
2021 11 0.08 0.11 0.06 0.14 0.50 -0.42 -0.29
2021 12 0.21 0.27 0.15 0.03 1.63 0.01 -0.06
2022 01 0.03 0.06 0.00 -0.24 -0.13 0.68 0.09
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for January, 2022 should be available within the next several days here.
The global and regional monthly anomalies for the various atmospheric layers we monitor should be available in the next few days at the following locations:
Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
christos…from …Bindidon…”Read that paper below (I mean ‘read’, Vournas, and not ‘scan for accepted / rejected keywords’, like do people like Robertson all the time):
***
Christos, the author of the paper, Arthur Smith, has been debunked by two experts in thermodynamics, Gerlich and Tscheuschner. Smith later appeared as part of a team with Josh Halpern, aka Eli Rabbett, to co-author a paper, and they were rebutted by G&T without supplying a scientific rebuttal in return.
Here’s how they think, and what led Eli Rabbett to produce his ridiculous green plate experiment.
G&T pointed out that their paper contradicted the 2nd law of thermodynamics. They had argued essentially that the 2nd law is satisfied if a mysterious ‘balance of energy’ is positive. In other words, they were not distinguishing between heat and EM, summing both freely.
G&T replied that the 2nd law applies only to heat and if quantities are to be summed those quantities must be quantities of heat. Halpern et al replied, in that case, that with two bodies of different temperatures radiating, one of them would not be radiating.
That’s how scientifically illiterate these people are and that’s why Rabbett’s (Halpern’s) green plate theory is a scientific hoax.
Robertson
This is a complete lie.
I repeat: neither Gerlich let alone Schramm were able to debunk Smith’s paper.
You replicate since years a dumb myth propagated by Pseudoskeptics.
And above all, as opposed to me, you never read the trials.
Bindidon, thats the same old nonsense that has already been debunked.
Look at Table 1. See the 33K for Earth? That’s compared to an imaginary sphere!
Look at the top of page 9. See the “2^0.25”? That’s from the “steel greenhouse” nonsense. — (480/240)^0.25 = 2^0.25 = 1.189, then 303.3/1.189 = 255!
You’re just finding links you don’t understand and hoping they verify your cult religion.
That ain’t science. Why do you promote such garbage?
I understand all that very well, Clint R. You deny it without understanding it.
And… what I understand even much better is that you are a 360 degree denier:
– GHE
– SARS-COV-2 & other viruses
– Moon’s spin
– ‘looking very far away is also looking in the past’
etc etc etc.
Please stay denying all that: I have lots of fun with such positions…
Actually Bindidon, you’re about 50% correct, which is high for you.
The “official” GHE is bogus. The versions that result in the atmosphere modulation, but not warming, have some validity. And we know from science that Moon orbits but does NOT rotate. We have things called “viruses”, and they can cause death to the unhealthy, but this recent nonsense has been blown WAY out of proportion. Who know’s what your last issue even refers to?
Keep trolling. That’s all you seem to have to offer.
Gordon 12:40am wins the huckster of the day award. Clint R comes in 2nd place, nice try but no cigar for Clint.
Though it IS early, there may be another even more questionable value comment posted but it will take some work to show even more thorough befuddlement than Gordon.
” And we know from science … ”
Your ‘science’ lets me immediately think of this wonderful picture:
https://tinyurl.com/2p8pu7fe
Yes Bindidon, we know you have NO knowledge of physics.
And we know from science that Moon orbits the Earth/Moon barycenter and rotates on its own axis once per orbit.
Sorry RLH, but that false belief started in centuries-old astrology. It has never been corrected because it makes no difference, in the sense that something that is not happening has no effect on anything else.
The false belief has been adopted into various institutions as a means of supporting other false beliefs about Moon’s origin. That’s why they then had to make up the false belief of “tidal locking”, which is easily debunked.
It’s an interesting story, especially when you learn how it affects people with no science background….
Clint R has not succeeded in debunking “tidal locking”.
Clint R is wrong as usual.
The ‘false belief’ is Clint R’s, not the scientific community.
Who are harming the cause of global warming.
It seems we can all agree it’s the ill informed politicians.
I don’t think anyone will claim Al Gore helped.
Al Gore got rich from it, but was more of anchor or
distraction to the cause.
No one can claim Al Gore helped.
But one also say politician don’t matter much.
Or if Al Gore mattered, he should be required to retract is lies.
But I don’t think that this is needed.
Maybe if Al was still involved in public sense in politics.
Or he is private citizen, and any non public involvement, in politics matters very little.
But people who claim they are “climate scientists” are quite
different than politicians.
Helping the cause would involve retraction of misinformation which not helping the cause.
And this also applies to the news, assuming they want to help the cause. News should retract false stories as general rule of journalism. And retracting is not erasing, retraction is
correcting, the record, just case you didn’t know, btw.
Looking some news:
–Gavin confirms that climate models are running too hot. Only 2 years in last 25 are above the CMIP6 model mean, screened for “reasonable” TCR values.–
https://judithcurry.com/2022/02/05/week-in-review-science-edition-133/#more-28284
linked to:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/02/another-dot-on-the-graphs-part-ii/
“What causes Arctic Ocean warming? A new study suggests internal atmopsheric variability accounts for ~60% of accelerated warming since 2000.”
linked to: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28047-8
“Ocean warming accounts for up to one quarter of warming over the past four decades and up to 60% of warming from 2000 to 2018. This suggests that climate models need to replicate this important internal process in order to realistically simulate Arctic Ocean temperature variability and trends.”
“A new climate model suggests that conditions associated with severe storms will arise 5%–20% more often for each 1°C of global warming.”
{I think it seems unlikely and unlikely to get 1 C anytime soon, but they making guess restrained by a number of 5 to 20%. Better no given number.}
“Overcoming the challenges of ocean data uncertainty”
Got look at this one:
“As a requirement for proposing, planning, and implementing ocean observing, modeling, and analysis systems, we advocate that resulting data should be accompanied by clearly described and easily accessible uncertainty information. To put it bluntly, an ocean data set may otherwise be of the highest scientific quality, but if quantified uncertainties do not accompany it, it will not be useful to scientists or other stakeholders [Moroni et al., 2019]”
True.
Well there is a lot more.
Very low temperature of the stratosphere above the 60th parallel. White spots indicate negligible ozone.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_JFM_NH_2022.png
Record low temperature in the lower stratosphere (50 – 100 hPa).
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/50mb9065.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/100mb9065.png
The polar vortex forecast in the lower stratosphere indicates an increase in snowfall in Europe.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2022/02/11/0000Z/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-344.74,86.48,354
Great Lakes Ice Cover
https://coastwatch.glerl.noaa.gov/glsea/cur/glsea_cur.png
SC25 montly update , tracking SC24 with Jan 54 spots average
https://i.postimg.cc/QMgNjLNk/solar-cycle.png
The sunspots in the 25th cycle are weaker than in the 24th. The solar wind is weak, as evidenced by the very high galactic radiation and the UV radiation is weaker. This indicates a weakening of the solar magnetic field.
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
I suggest you look at the pronounced flattening of the solar equatorial dipole.
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Dipall.gif
A graph of the number of sunspot-free days indicates that the solar minimum after the 24th solar cycle was even weaker than after the 23th cycle.
http://solarcyclescience.com/bin/SpotlessDays.png
Yes, we can see that by searching for spotless day sequences in
https://tinyurl.com/3fm8a65r
Result:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zHCWinO6U8ua4l8GfFgncEsXteP1vF8Q/view
But that doesn’t seem like Mister Sunny Boy cares all that much:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x9jsQs8XkGkj4wT9FtrWaiy-LzIPbT3s/view
because until now at least, SC25’s solar flux still keeps above SC24’s.
I’m surprised because there were so many voices claiming SC25 would stay below its predecessor right from the start.
Bindidog had to have his bite
https://i.postimg.cc/hPQgJGdS/ankle-biter.png
Eben, solar radio flux.
https://www.spaceweather.gc.ca/auto_generated_products/solradmon_eng.png
ren
https://www.spaceweather.gc.ca/forecast-prevision/solar-solaire/solarflux/sx-5-mavg-en.php
I consider only observed fluxes:
2014 02 170.13 166.01 149.41
*
About the solar flux data
” The observed value is the number measured by the solar radio telescope.
This is modulated by two quantities: the level of solar activity and the changing distance between the Earth and Sun.
Since it is a measure of the emissions due to solar activity hitting the Earth, this is the quantity to use when terrestrial phenomena are being studied.
Maybe it is the wrong choice; but I doubt that taking the pure activity level would bring any great change to the comparison of two cycles.
> Have you worked out how surface emission from Earth has deep notches removed at the CO2 wavelengths?
The tiny CO2 0,04% content in Earths atmosphere cannot absorb (deep notches removed at the CO2 wavelengths).
Link to the graph:
http://forecast.uchicago.edu/modtran_iris.jpg
Also, the tiny CO2 0,04% content in Earths atmosphere cannot absorb almost the 1/2 of the emitted (according to the graph) by earths surface IR EM energy.
Also, the tiny CO2 0,04% content in Earths atmosphere cannot absorb the entire amount emitted by earths surface at 15 μκ IR EM energy.
The two lines comparison in the graph is mistaken, because Earth is a planet and planets are not blackbodies.
A planet doesnt have uniform surface temperature. A planet has not uniform irradiance. The uniform surface temperature and the uniform irradiance are the basics for the blackbody surface definition.
Not to forget – PLANET ROTATES !!!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Cristos,
I think you’re on to something. GHE is a horrible explanation for the planet’s temperature. We have to believe the environment is fragile, we’re lucky to be here, the 2LOT doesn’t apply in all scenarios, quantum mechanics doesn’t apply, there is a real Earthen 255K that no one has ever measured, that conservation of mass doesn’t apply to human carbon, that human carbon and natural carbon are different, that natural carbon is in a delicate balance, etc. Do you notice the here with AGW? The planet has to be saved and only the utopianists can save it.
stephen, why is the GHE explanation “horrible”?
Because of all the reasons that I explained above.
Watch the straw men dance!
“We have to believe the environment is fragile” is a reason there is no earthen GHE?
stephen 11:58 am, that’s not going to work in science or on a climate blog, maybe works in politics though.
B4,
There is no evidence of an Earthen 255K other than your surreal “brightness” temperature. However, logic is a major part of science. Is it logical that CO2 warms the atmosphere enough to cause a “runaway” overheating due to a feedback loop? Use your logic man. We’d have been extinguished long ago.
“Is it logical that CO2 warms the atmosphere enough to cause a runaway overheating due to a feedback loop?”
I’m unaware of anyone reliably demonstrating that could logically happen Stephen. Maybe you have a reliable source?
It is as unreasonable to expect an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to eventually result in some asymptotic value for infrared atmospheric irradiance as to expect it to increase indefinitely. The temperature profile would change in each case.
Stephen
“Cristos,
I think you’re on to something. GHE is a horrible explanation for the planet’s temperature.”
Thank you Stephen. Of course I am on to something. Thank you for that. You do realize that everything is very simple, the 0,04% CO2 (400 ppm) content in earth’s thin atmosphere cannot have any significant (cannot have any measurable) warming effect on the earth’s mean surface temperature.
Stephen, please post this yours positive comment in the comment’s section of my site.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, added ppm CO2 monotonic effect on climate has been measured in accord with the added IR active gas physics. Right here on this blog: the black line through zero in the top post recently moved up.
And our planet has not increased speed of rotation per your erroneous thesis.
Just accomplish the pre-req.s, get a good, reliable text book on atm. thermodynamics and radiation – begin to discover the measured wonders of nature for yourself.
Ball4
“Christos, added ppm CO2 monotonic effect on climate has been measured in accord with the added IR active gas physics. Right here on this blog: the black line through zero in the top post recently moved up.
And our planet has not increased speed of rotation per your erroneous thesis.
Just accomplish the pre-req.s, get a good, reliable text book on atm. thermodynamics and radiation begin to discover the measured wonders of nature for yourself.”
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“We have to believe the environment is fragile, were lucky to be here, ”
Four major extinctions in 400 million years, glacial periods, shield volcanoes, asteroids, comets, Carrington events, nearby supernovae, gamma ray bursts, droughts, tornadoes, hurricanes, typhoons floods, pestilence, and, oh yes, humanity.
Damn right you have to be lucky. This is a bloody dangerous planet to live on!
And we’re lucky due to this precarious GHE that we must protect?
We changed over from hunter/gathering to agriculture 10,000 years ago.
For almost all of that time the global average temperature has been on a sweet spot between 13.8 and 14.5C with no major climate problems since the Younger Dryas event 12,000 years ago.
We have been lucky.
Now we are drifting off the sweet spot. Current temperatures are around 14.9C and rising.
If it’s increased CO2 causing the problem then we need to reduce CO2.
If the warming is caused by something else, then we need to control or adapt to that.
You tell us that the warming is not due to CO2. Tell us what you think is causing the change in temperature and how we should respond.
So we have mass dinosaur extinction 200 million years or so ago. And, some prior to that. But, life has thrived. I’d describe the planet as robust, not fragile.
No, our temperature is within the historical variation of several previous interglacial periods. I keep saying, we don’t have a global warming problem, we have a global cooling problem. We will need to adapt to the next glacial. It has nothing to do with carbon.
You nimrods are talking about frying all life forms on the planet due to carbon. It ain’t going to happen. But, Nature, it will send us another curveball. We should be in a position to adapt but there might be a lot less people.
> I’d describe the planet as robust, not fragile.
Nature may not care less how you describe Her, Troglodyte:
https://youtu.be/WmVLcj-XKnM
She survived a few major extinctions already.
Not sure I’d describe extinction survival as thriving, however.
The problem isn’t “Save the planet”. It is “save human civilization”
Most of our cities, ports, industry and infrastructure were build when the global average temperature was about 14C.
Nobody is sure how far we can go off that sweet spot without replacing everything.
With the global average passing 14.9C we are moving into unknown territory.
You are betting that our civilization can easily function at temperatures humanity have never experienced before. Hope you are right.
Again, we don’t have a global warming problem. We have a global cooling problem that we can do nothing about. We can only adapt. We can’t stay at your sweet spot.
EM
“You are betting that our civilization can easily function at temperatures humanity have never experienced before. Hope you are right.”
Please adapt…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Eman brings up four extinction events that have nothing to do with GHE. We are in an interglacial period that if history repeats, a glacial period will follow. Modern man has survived the last glacial period. Most of today’s species survived the last glacial. I hope we warm and stay in this Holocene for a while longer. How much will the human population shrink?
You tell us that the warming is not due to CO2. Tell us what you think is causing the change in temperature and how we should respond.
You should tell us what caused the little ice age. The modest warming we are observing now is just temperatures returning to the normal that has been in place for most of the Holocene. That basic concept alone shows its not CO2.
I’ve been wondering about surveying the ocean depths for archeological ruins at 140 meters depth. Apparently that is how much sea levels rose at the start of the Holocene.
Yeah, all that ice melting would have been an extinction event.
Otherwise it makes no sense to me that humans took millions of years to evolve and then in less than 200 years went from subsistence agriculture to the civilization we have now. Something not add up.
I am receiving $88 every hour to work on-net. Ive never believed like it can be achievable however YTEE one of my greatest pal got $27,000 just in three weeks just working this simple project & she influenced me to availView
visiting this web page >>> http://webwork242.blogspot.com/
We’re seeing a cult meltdown. And, interesting things are coming out.
Ball4 put his foot in his mouth, claiming that Earth has a “real 255K surface”. When asked to identify where it is, he can’t do it. Watching him squirm is amusing. The “255K” comes from an imaginary sphere. It is one of the bogus claims of the AGW nonsense. It allows them to claim Earth is 33K warmer than it should be. Comparing to an imaginary sphere is a complete perversion of reality.
Next up, we have Tim Folkerts claiming that ice cubes can boil water. No, he doesn’t exactly say that, but his perverted math says it. And, Ball4 clearly states that ice cubes can boil water. In fact, he even uses (abuses?) Dr. Spencer by trying to make it appear Spencer would go along with Ball4s nonsense. None of the cult idiots have challenged the bogus concept that ice cubes can boil water. In fact, several have attempted to support it using something like a “heating element”, which is not even part of the situation.
Enjoy the meltdown. It’s going to get even more exciting. Fewer and fewer of them have any regard for truth or reality. It’s now any perversion to save the cult. They’re desperate.
“Next up, we have Tim Folkerts claiming that ice cubes can boil water. No, he doesn’t exactly say that …”
And there, folks, we have the definition of “strawman argument”.
`What I do ‘exactly say’ is that two light bulb filaments can boil water. Or two IR panels. But never two (or 4 or 100 ice cubes). Clint’s failure to distinguish between flux ARRIVING at a surface from external sources and flux LEAVING from a surface as thermal radiation leaves him befuddled every time.
Tim, I agree it is amusing reading the thermodynamic befuddlement of Clint R & the rest of the three ring circus entertainers. Keeps me coming back to read Clint’s (or the others) next school boy mistake and knowingly grin at this blog’s laughing stock(s).
No Tim, what you do “exactly say” is that 315 W/m^2 adds to 315W/m2 resulting in a temperature of 325K.
Ice at 273K emits 315 W/m^2. So, even though you don’t understand, you are effectively saying two ice cubes can raise the temperature to 325K (52C, or 125F). So with your same bogus math, 4 ice cubes could boil water.
And that’s not the only instance of you perverting physics. Do I need to produce the list?
Clint, used appropriately 4 ice cubes CAN boil water. It’s just you don’t understand enough physics in field of thermodynamics to know how that could be. You know where to read to find out how.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“Clint, used appropriately 4 ice cubes CAN boil water. Its just you dont understand enough physics in field of thermodynamics to know how that could be. You know where to read to find out how.”
Show me an experiment. 4 ice cubes, water, environment at water temperature. Use the ice cubes to boil the water. Maybe you need to learn to read.
Moron.
Reduce the pressure above the water/ice to a vacuum and show that the volume of them does not decrease.
There’s an easier way at 1bar, RLH, doing just as Swenson describes similar to how the earthen GHE works as Dr. Spencer proved by experiment and theory.
Since Swenson admits to not understanding the GHE, one easily concludes Swenson doesn’t understand Dr. Spencer’s atm. physics either. It’s entertaining to watch Swenson and others such as Clint R and Gordon admit their limited abilities in atm. science.
Also they are saying Earth is 288K because of the uniform 255K irradiance…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Where is the ‘real surface’ of a fog bank?
“Ice at 273K emits …”
And were are back to Clint’s fundamental confusion about EMITTED flux vs ABSORBED flux. Yes, ice at 273 K EMITS 325 W/m^2. For any black body to EMIT 315 W/m^2, it must be at 273 K. But for a surface to ABSORB 315 W/m^2, it does not need to come from a surface at 273 K. The flux *could* come from a wall of ice. It *could* come from a tiny filament. It is absolutely possible to shine 4 fluxes of 315 W/m^2 ONTO a surface without having the flux come FROM a surface at 273 K. It is absulutely possible for those 4 fluxes to combine to boil water.
“Were seeing a cult meltdown.”
Clint R, DREMT, GR have all been proven wrong time and time again.
Wrong for years and years. Yet they persist in being wrong even when repeatedly corrected. Very good & free (for the user) blog entertainment package that has no end.
I’m not sure what the weird fascination is with boiling water.
All You need a pot, some water in the pot, and a heat source. Bob’s your uncle.
Ice cubes have a lot of energy. You can boil water with ice cubes given the right atmospheric conditions. If you don’t think so all you need to do is sit by a glacier and watch the wind ablate and sublimate the ice.
Yeah, you won’t be able to make a cup of coffee that way.
Ken, you remain ignorant of science and the issues being discussed here. But, you have an impetuous desire to troll anyway.
The issue is, ice cubes can NOT boil water. It is not about boiling water, or finding ways to boil water, or using a blow torch to boil water. The issue is about 4 ice cubes boiling water, with no outside energy or mechanisms.
Now, back to your immature trolling….
If by ‘boiling’ you mean ‘turn to water vapor’ then ice cubes will do that all on their own.
RLH,
No, boiling means boiling.
Climate crackpots redefine anything they find inconvenient. Slow cooling means heating, for example.
Boiling, evaporation and condensation are terms that refer to the changes in state between liquids and gases:
Boiling occurs when a liquid is heated and turns to a gas.
Evaporation occurs when a liquid changes to a gas at a temperature below its normal boiling point.
Condensation occurs when a gas is cooled and turns to a liquid.
“Water poured into space (outside of a spacecraft) would rapidly vaporize or boil away. In space, where there is no air, there is no air pressure. As air pressure drops, the temperature needed to boil water becomes lower. That’s why water boils much faster on a mountaintop than it does at sea level. In space, because there is no air pressure, water boils away at an extremely low temperature.”
“when you put liquid water in space where it can no longer remain as a liquid which one of these two things happens? Does it freeze or boil? The surprising answer is it does both: first it boils and then it freezes!”
RLH,
You wrote –
“Boiling occurs when a liquid is heated and turns to a gas.”
That seems fair, as long as you realise that if the temperature is high enough to keep water liquid, the water is continuously turning to gas. This process is called evaporation – not boiling.
The boiling temperature of water at the surface is nominally 100 C or so. I hope you are not going to resort to silliness about reduced boiling temperature at altitude, at pressures lower than anything found naturally at the surface, or any similar climate crackpot attempts to deny reality.
Now, at the Earth’s surface, using ice, heat some water until it boils.
Of course you can’t. Now, try and raise the temperature of a thermometer by increasing the amount of CO2 between the thermometer and a heat source.
Of course you can’t. Now, try and describe the GHE.
of course you can’t. Sounds like you prefer fantasy to reality. Your choice.
RLH said Boiling, evaporation and condensation are terms that refer to the changes in state between liquids and gases
Thats the whole situation.
Apparently Clint R never took a chemistry class where that change of state was discussed. Our bad luck.
“Now, at the Earths surface, using ice, heat some water until it boils”
I saw a foot of snow boil away in one day during a chinook.
Its called sublimation and ablation.
RLH,
You also wrote –
“The surprising answer is it does both: first it boils and then it freezes!, in relation to water in space.
Well, no. It doesn’t, unless the temperature is high enough.
And of course, all this is just a distraction to avoid admitting that you can’t even describe a GHE.
You really don’t understand why the GHE is physically impossible , do you?
Maybe if you start by admitting that the Earth’s surface cools at night (showing that there is a net loss of radiation to pace, and that no “wavelengths” are preventing from proceeding to space in line with physical law, then you will start accepting reality.
Or you can just reject reality, and live your fantasy.
Ken,
You wrote –
‘I saw a foot of snow boil away in one day during a chinook.”
So the chinook, being “Chinook winds, or simply ‘Chinooks’, are two types of prevailing warm, generally westerly winds in western North America: . . .” removed the snow, not ice cubes.
That is one of the most stupid attempts at misdirection I have seen.
Try even heating minutely, the smallest quantity of liquid water, using the radiation from ice. Use as many concentrators, mirrors, lenses, as you like.
Boo hoo. Bad luck. Can’t be done, can it?
Now describe the GHE!
Dimwit.
Ken,
You wrote –
“RLH said Boiling, evaporation and condensation are terms that refer to the changes in state between liquids and gases
Thats the whole situation.
Apparently Clint R never took a chemistry class where that change of state was discussed. Our bad luck.”
You climate cranks go to any lengths to avoid accepting reality, don’t you?
Try heating water using the radiation from ice. You can’t. End of story.
Not amount of misdirection is going to help you. You cannot raise the temperature of anything at all by surrounding it with something colder. Try it, and see if you can achieve the impossible. The contents of your fantasy are not an acceptable reproducible experiment.
Ken, RLH’s comment also included this [correct] statement, which you “missed”:
(Bold is my emphasis.)
Boiling occurs when a liquid is heated and turns to a gas.
Yet you couldn’t resist your false accusation: “Apparently Clint R never took a chemistry class where that change of state was discussed.”
You’ve become a braindead cult idiot. You were warned.
Evaporation occurs BELOW the boiling temperature of water. How else do you think that clouds form. Do you think that the oceans boil to make those clouds?
Swenson: Even a small wind will cause the evaporation of a pond to increase. No temperature rise needed.
RLH,
You wrote –
“Swenson: Even a small wind will cause the evaporation of a pond to increase. No temperature rise needed.”
Bob, weave, duck . . .
I suppose you know that evaporating water lowers its temperature? It is losing its more energetic molecules.
Try raising the temperature of the smallest amount of water with as much ice as you like.
Only a moron would think that surrounding liquid water with ice would raise the temperature of the water!
Only a moron would think that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer would increase the temperature of the thermometer, wouldn’t you agree?
“Try raising the temperature of the smallest amount of water with as much ice as you like.”
Dr. Spencer did so with a standard foam cooler maybe 2/3 full of tap water & as much ice in cirrus clouds as appeared over summertime Alabama that night.
Being an expert on Prof. Tyndall’s work, you should already know that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun (in Tyndall’s lab boiling water was the IR source) and a thermometer would increase the temperature of the thermometer 5F in his reported run.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“Dr. Spencer did so with a standard foam cooler maybe 2/3 full of tap water & as much ice in cirrus clouds as appeared over summertime Alabama that night.”
No he didn’t, you moron. Learn to read. No heating water with ice.
“Youve become a braindead cult idiot. You were warned.’
I’ll be sure to snap the heck out of the rubber band holding my tin foil hat in place till the feeling goes away.
“Boiling occurs when a liquid is heated and turns to a gas.”
It doesn’t need to be heated. It can boil if you change pressure.
Pressure Volume Temperature Density are but four boundary conditions.
K,
You wrote –
“It doesnt need to be heated. It can boil if you change pressure.”
Go ahead then. Use as much ice as you like to change the pressure.
Still can’t heat water using ice, can you?
Idiot.
“I suppose you know that evaporating water lowers its temperature?”
I should thank you for agreeing with me. Evaporation does indeed cause some energy transfer but it does NOT REQUIRE a raising of temperature in the water concerned to boiling point. Temperature is an AVERAGE of the energy in the molecules, not what each individual molecule contains and there is indeed some spread. This means that the highest energy molecules will leave the liquid state and turn into a gas. Thus lowering the AVERAGE energy/temperature in the liquid.
Same happens for ice/solid.
Both mean that they will turn to gas/vapor with no raising to boiling point of the liquid/solid being required. Idiot.
“Only a moron would think that surrounding liquid water with ice would raise the temperature of the water!”
Only a moron like you would think that is what I said. I didn’t and I call out strawman on your behalf.
RLH,
I said only a moron would believe . . .
Did I say you were a moron on that basis? I don’t think so, but feel free to quote me if you believe you have been maligned.
May I assume you do not believe that it is possible to utilise the heat energy in any amount of ice to raise the temperature of even a tiny amount of water? Would you like to demonstrate your knowledge of why this is so, for the edification of any lurkers?
No? OK then.
Swenson:
Q1: What is the average temperature of the Sun’s surface?
Q2: What is the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere?
Q3: What is the spectrum of the Sun’s radiation?
Q4: What is the spectrum of the Earth’s radiation/reflection?
Q5: How do the above differ from one another?
Q6: Are you an idiot?
“No heating water with ice.”
The experimental data shows otherwise so Swenson admits to not understanding the reality Dr. Spencer’s experiment(s). Or the existent earthen GHE.
This is expected based on huge volume of past Swenson erroneous thermodynamic comments.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Frigid air will remain in the southern US.
https://i.ibb.co/hHmK65Y/Screenshot-2.png
Until I looked at the check which said $5381, I be certain …that my best friend like they say really bringing in money in there spare time from their computer.. there mums best friend started doing this for under 10 months and just now cleared the morgage on their apartment and purchased a new Alfa Romeo.
visit this web-site…..…. http://webwork242.blogspot.com/
The global temperature anomaly is 0 C today (1979-2000 base). If not for the positive anomaly in Antarctica (which is kind of funny), the global temperature anomaly would be negative.
https://i.ibb.co/fNYQTt6/gfs-world-ced2-t2anom-1-day.png
The planet’s warmest region, in terms of the monthly departure from average, was over eastern Russia where one grid cell hit +4.6 °C (+8.2 °F) above normal in the Bilibinsky District. The pattern of warm and cold anomalies is related to the influence of the La Niña-induced cooling in the tropics. Other warm areas were experienced in the No. Atlantic and alternating regions in the far southern oceans.
“Tukarak Island in the Hudson Bay, Canada, came in with the coldest grid cell and was -3.5°C (-6.3 °F) below average. The cool regions in the tropical Pacific (due to La Niña) led to a pattern that produced cold areas in NE Canada and along the Antarctic coastline of the Western Hemisphere. It was also quite cool over the No. Africa, parts of SE Asia and the subtropical western Pacific.
The large-scale pattern this month favored cool temperature over the eastern half of the conterminous US where the 48-state temperature averaged just below normal at -0.13 °C (-0.23 °F). The upper Mid-West and Northeast were especially cool while the West coast was above average. However, Alaska was a bit warmer than usual overall, influencing the 49-state average to increase slightly to -0.05 °C (-0.09 °F). [We don’t include Hawaii in the US results because its land area is less than that of a satellite grid square, so it would have virtually no impact on the overall national results.]”
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2022/January2022/202201_Map.png
stephen p anderson
YOU: “Norman,
Are you ignorant or a propagandist? There is almost no 15u band for water. It is probably because it only occurs at very cool temperatures. The antarctic only gets to about 215K.”
What? When you make claims you should find supporting evidence. You make a statement about me but you have zero support to justify it. I can make up all kinds of things and call you ignorant, is that how you operate?
I gave you the bands water absorbs energy at. It absorbs well at 15 microns. What do you have that shows this graph is wrong? I would like to see it.
https://tinyurl.com/2p8nuh55
Norman, did you find ANOTHER link you can’t understand?
You must have quite a collection by now….
Clint R
No, why do you ask?
No? Are you pretending again?
You’re pretending that link proves what you believe it proves. Like you pretend Earth has a “real 255K surface”. Like you pretend you understand physics better than me, but couldn’t even attempt the simple problems.
You’re good a pretending.
Clint R
It seems as if you are attempting a new line of trolling. You are researching the word “pretend” to see if it acts as a trigger word.
I guess at least you are trying to improve your troll skills. I guess you are finding out total repetition is highly annoying so it mimics trolling skills but it is a low level style of trolling and only gets some reaction that you feed upon.
N,
Can’t you find your 255K earthen surface?
Have you tried looking for it in a textbook? I couldn’t find it. Maybe you could ask a college librarian if it is next to Trenberth’s missing heat, or hidden away with Michael Mann’s Nobel Prize?
Moron.
You never did find that bogus “real 255K surface” did you Norman?
That’s why you’re babbling incoherently. You’ve got NOTHING.
Swenson
Clint R attributes the “real 255K surface” to me. That is one Ball4 uses. It seems too confusing for people so I have over and over clearly stated a radiating surface with a brightness temperature of 255 K.
You say you can’t find it. Here it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7QttjGu628&t=105s
Norman, Ball4 duped you, and you fell for his nonsense. If you notice, he doesn’t produce anything. He’s just a dishonest troll, laughing at you as you pretend you’ve “found it”.
That link is an animation of only one channel, 6.5μ. It’s NOT a 255K surface.
You have no clue about any of this. Just keep pretending.
“(Ball4) doesn’t produce anything.”
Not so, I’ve produced measured data, experiment, AND theory backing them. Clint R and Swenson produce assertions & just haven’t accomplished enough study in thermodynamics to understand. So it’s entertaining to watch them admit such.
I’m actually a bit surprised that not understanding something as simple as the earthen 255K measured surface identifies those who so obviously admit to lack of study in climate physics & measurement despite all the commenting they do on a climate blog.
It’s not as much surprising though that these commenters cannot explain how it is possible to boil water with ice cubes because understanding the experiments and theory of Dr. Spencer several years ago showing such means having prior accomplished basic study in atm. thermodynamics & atm. radiation. These commenters admit to having accomplished neither.
See? Ball4 can’t produce anything. Still no “real 255K surface”.
Already did so & repeatedly, so apparently Clint has trouble both with reading AND simple arithmetic. And so have others provided Clint R the data and theory.
And even if I hadn’t it’s easy for Clint R to find on Clint’s own but first there is a need to know where to look.
Clint R: How far into a fog bank is the real surface?
It’s not a surface, but get far enough away and it looks like a point source.
Everything looks like a point source at 1 light year away.
Much closer than that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_a*b*s*o*r*p*t*i*o*n_by_water
Shows both Rotational and Vibrational spectrums which should prove a problem for GR.
RLH,
As Professor John Tyndall demonstrated, a brass plate blocks more IR than CO2 or H2O.
Absorbed or reflected IR which does not reach a thermometer, makes it colder, not hotter. He also illustrated how a glass firescreen reduces the temperature when absorbing and re radiating IR.
If you want to reject reality, fine. If you demand that I participate in your fantasy, I respectfully decline.
I prefer reality,
“a brass plate blocks more IR than CO2 or H2O”
A brass plate blocks ALL light and other EMF as well.
RLH,
What are you disagreeing about? Nothing?
Professor John Tyndall was just showing that taking IR blocking to the extreme resulted in the maximum reduced temperature. He examined some liquids which absorbed IR so well that even a brass plate provided no extra reduction in IR reaching the thermometer.
I assume you are trying to imply that increasing IR blocking results in increased thermometer temperatures? Nonsense.
No GHE. CO2 raises the temperature of nothing, unless you can demonstrate by reproducible experiment that this is not the case.
Of course you can’t, so you have to try to convince others that your fantasy is reality.
Good luck with that. You can’t fool all of the people all of the time..
I am certainly not disagreeing that you are an idiot.
A brass plate blocks EVRYTHING that is EMR. CO2 and H20 (vapor) only blocks some of it.
How far into a fog bank is the ‘real surface’?
rlh…”Shows both Rotational and Vibrational spectrums which should prove a problem for GR”.
***
No problem here. Rotational and vibrational spectra are related to molecules, not individual atoms. However, molecules are made up of two or more atomic nucleii bonded by electrons that are part of the atoms.
People who are unaware of what ‘molecule’ means, like the idiots who write the wiki articles, presume there is some magical apparatus in a molecule that can vibrate independently of electrons.
Once again, here is a linear CO2 molecule.
O=====C=====O
Things to not about this molecule…
1)It is made up of one carbon nucleus and two oxygen nucleii. Both nucleii are bonded by electrons which are represented by the double-dashed lines, meaning there are two electrons shared between each O2 atom and the C atom.
If the dashed lines vibrate, it mans the O nucleii move closer to and away from to the C nucleus, in a vibration, or the O atoms vibrate in a slight vertical direction about the x-axis.
2)It is still the electrons emitting and absorbing EM since no other unit in the molecule can do that.
With rotation, the linear molecule rotates about the x-axis. It is still the electrons emitting and absorbing the EM during rotation, as they do in vibration.
Therefore, no matter if the electron motion is translational, vibrational, or rotational, in a molecule it is the electrons that are emitting the spectra of each.
Furthermore, the rotation and vibration are related to bonds, and the bonds are electrons.
“Rotational and vibrational spectra are related to molecules, not individual atoms.”
Oops, the rotation of atoms is quantized Gordon.
CO2 is symmetrical. H2O is not.
Gordon,
It’s a double bond, so
” meaning there are two electrons shared between each O2 atom and the C atom.”
Is wrong, you don’t know what you are talking about.
Ask a chemist, I think there are several who post on here, but don’t take Stephan’s word for it, he learned all his chemistry from Clint R, so he’s all wrong.
Norman,
I didn’t say there wasn’t a 15u band. Do you understand relativity?
https://tinyurl.com/4t5f2u6h
stephen p anderson
I am not sure what your point is. You accused me of being ignorant or a propagandist for informing you liquid water if absorbs 15 micron EMR very well. Outside of that I currently don’t know what you are attempting to say or accuse me of. You linked to an article that shows the same thing I showed you. Water absorb the IR band well. Please try to clarify the nature of your accusations. It would be nice to know what it is about.
N,
Bananas absorb the IR band well.
Who cares?
Are you a moron, or just a dedicated climate crackpot?
Neither. & who cares? Scientists unlike Swenson. And bananas are ~75% water.
Dimwit, name one scientist who cares about what you think.
By the way, dehydrated bananas absorb the IR band well, as well.
Not as well.
It doesn’t absorb it well. Ice absorbs it well. Ice at 193K that doesn’t exist anywhere on the planet.
Don’t be shy with the qualifiers.
I have made ice at less than 193 K, on this planet.
Still confused about the relationship between things that have a temperature and things that don’t.
Not naturally.
Norman,
Ice water absorbs the 15u band. Not water in the atmosphere.
Are you sure?
Better check and get back to us.
For those frustrated with the Trolls and self-proclaimed “Moderation Team” cruft who routinely hijack these posts, here’s a browser filter to help. Install this Brave/Edge/Chrome extension:
User JavaScript and CSS 1.2.8
Enable all of the injections with priority, then paste this JavaScript into a new rule:
var trolls = [“Emergency Moderation Team”,”Spammer”]; //add more as needed
trolls.forEach((crufter,i,arr) => {
var cruft = $(“cite:contains(‘” + crufter + “‘)”).parent().parent().parent();
cruft.hide();
cruft.children().hide();
})
Add array elements as new trolls (or renamed trolls) emerge.
Yes, please do ignore me. It would be bliss to just be able to post a comment without having dozens of trolls leap in to misrepresent, falsely accuse, and insult.
You are the one who misrepresents, falsely accuses, and insults others.
A few insults, here and there (much less dished out than I receive) but no misrepresentation or false accusations, as far as I’m aware.
WizGeek must have been a believer that Moon is rotating. Something set him off.
It’s part of the Great Meltdown coming. Some people just can’t handle truth, reality, and real science.
> no misrepresentation or false accusations, as far as I’m aware.
A beautiful remark, for the less our sock puppets are aware of anything, the truer it gets.
Weary Wee Willard,
You wrote –
“A beautiful remark, for the less our sock puppets are aware of anything, the truer it gets.”
You can’t produce a copy of the non-existent Greenhouse Theory, I take it?
Reduced to moronic attempts at distraction?
Carry on, moron.
It’s easy to find a copy of the existent atm. green house theory though.
Finding Mike Flynn’s Insulator Effect Theory might be harder to find, tho.
Yes, Clint R, WizGeek was upset that I had brought up the moon issue again. He doesn’t apparently notice all the hundreds of times the “Spinners” bring the subject up.
> WizGeek was upset
That’s how we recognize trolling.
We recognize trolling as anything that follows the words “Willard says”.
Our slimiest sock puppet soldiers on.
Willard, please stop trolling.
WizGeek
Thank you for fleshing out an idea I had years ago but didn’t know how to successfully implement.
But… I only use Firefox.
Chrome is too slow for some of my applications with lots of Javascript using hidden inline frames, and does not work correctly with addons like uBlock on Linux systems.
There are a couple of JS injection add-ons for Firefox. I’ll try then and report back. 😉
For Firefox:
1. Install Add-on: “JS Injector” by Joey, ver. 0.0.2
2. Configure as above. See the following image:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/x5pz52tetukymlv/Firefox_DrRoy_Cruft_Remover.png?dl=0
Many Thanks.
When I have some free time I will experiment a little with your idea.
DrRoy Decrufter Resources:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/hclipzie2ycrpoo/AADQpHxvvrOMbtYmsRvJ4z6ua?dl=0
Images and JavaScript snippet
Earlier, Ken wrote –
“You tell us that the warming is not due to CO2. Tell us what you think is causing the change in temperature and how we should respond.”
Not much thinking required. Rising temperatures are due to heat. CO2? Try generating heat by burning hydrocarbons without producing CO2 and H2O at a minimum, and you will fail.
How to respond? Give thanks to bounteous Nature for providing vast reserves of fossil fuel for our use. Unless you prefer starving while you freeze in the dark, of course.
What’s your choice?
I should have put quotes around that. Its a remark by EM.
Ken,
So what’s your choice? Going to starve to death while you freeze in the dark, or utilise Nature’s bounty?
My choice is give me access to cheap plentiful reliable energy.
I care naught if the energy comes from fossil, hydro, nuclear, or other.
This is an “official” description of the AGW nonsense. It is from a NOAA website. Most Warmists would agree with it:
Why carbon dioxide matters
“Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas:a gas that absorbs and radiates heat. Warmed by sunlight, Earth’s land and ocean surfaces continuously radiate thermal infrared energy (heat). Unlike oxygen or nitrogen (which make up most of our atmosphere),greenhouse gases absorb that heat and release it gradually over time, like bricks in a fireplace after the fire goes out. Without this natural greenhouse effect, Earth’s average annual temperature would be below freezing instead of close to 60°F. But increases in greenhouse gases have tipped the Earth’s energy budget out of balance, trapping additional heat and raising Earth’s average temperature.”
The problem is, it is NOT science. It is agenda.
“Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas:a gas that absorbs and radiates heat. Warmed by sunlight, Earth’s land and ocean surfaces continuously radiate thermal infrared energy (heat).”
If we ignore their misuse of the word “heat”, the rest is true, but meaningless. All matter can absorb and emit energy. Strawberries can absorb and emit infrared.
“Unlike oxygen or nitrogen (which make up most of our atmosphere),greenhouse gases absorb that heat and release it gradually over time, like bricks in a fireplace after the fire goes out.”
Here the perversion of reality begins. A firewall brick can easily have a temperature of 1000°F. The brick surface with a high emissivity would then be emitting about 24,000 W/m^2! We only receive 960 W/m^2 from Sun. Even the promoters of the AGW nonsense only claim the surface receives about 240 W/m^2. So they’re using the imagery of a firewall brick, that could be hot enough to cook meat, to scare the uneducated.
Heat does not move from cold to hot. Heat is ONLY from hot to cold. A cold sky can NOT heat a warm surface. A clear sky typically has a temperature way below freezing. Earth’s average surface temperature is about 288K. Below freezing temperatures cannot warm a 288K surface.
“Without this natural greenhouse effect, Earth’s average annual temperature would be below freezing instead of close to 60°F.”
Here they are again perverting science. Their belief is based on the imaginary sphere, which they believe is proof Earth is 33K warmer than it should be! Beliefs ain’t science.
Earth’s temperature is maintained due to surface water and atmosphere mass. CO2 can NOT hold temperatures in any meaningful way, radiatively. The CO2 15μ photon has a WDL temperature of -112°F, much colder than 99.99% of Earth’s surface.
“But increases in greenhouse gases have tipped the Earth’s energy budget out of balance, trapping additional heat and raising Earth’s average temperature.”
There is no such thing as “Earth’s energy budget”. They have cobbled together a group of estimated fluxes, not realizing that fluxes are not conserved, cannot be averaged, and are NOT energy quantities. CO2 can NOT “trap heat”, nor raise surface temperatures.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
(Irresponsible troll comments will not be answered.)
Clint can’t understand a poorly worded page, attacks it, & goes ballistic. Clint could pick a page from a reliable text book on the subject and then the text book would win.
Clint R still thinks photons have temperature.
“All matter can absorb and emit energy.”
Yes. Exactly.
So in the green plate scenario, the energy emitted by both plates (green and blue) is absorbed by both plates.
But various people here have either denied that the blue plate absorbs energy emitted by the green plate, or if they agree it is absorbed, they cannot explain what happens to the blue plate in a way that doesn’t violate the first law. Or they suddenly forget that the system is powered by an external energy source, the sun.
In my view heat doesn’t pass from cold to hot in the green plate example, because both plates warm at the same time. At no time does blue gain heat at the “expense” of the green plate, as Clausius phrased the mutual exchange of energy. The green plate always receives more energy from the blue than it gives to the blue. The heat gradient is always hot to cold, and that relationship is maintained throughout the process of the green plate being introduced and heating up. The blue also heats up, as it must if it is receiving more energy than before.
Heat can only have passed from cold to hot if in doing so the cooler object loses heat in the process. That would break the second law.
The GPE has been debunked, barry.
…only by those that incorrectly use 1LOT and/or 2LOT & do shoddy experiments.
Ah, it’s Ball4…the guy who we’ve "got on record" as saying that the 244 K…290 K…244 K solution to the 3-plate scenario was a violation of 1LoT, thus contributing to the debunk of the GPE. Thanks always for that, Ball4.
DREMT attacks yet another strawman. The GPE has not been reliably debunked since it shows DREMT the correct use of 1LOT consistent with 2LOT.
No strawman, Ball4. You said what you said. Thanks for your help in debunking the GPE.
DREMT, I didn’t write “contributing to the debunk of the GPE.” DREMT did. What I wrote, debunked criticism of the GPE. DREMT has put up yet another strawman. Strawmen really are fun to attack especially reading DREMT go after them.
Thanks for your help in debunking the GPE.
“The GPE has been debunked”
No it hasn’t. Refer to my comment above. No one has ‘debunked’ the GPE without violating physics.
Incorrect, barry. The GPE has been long since debunked.
🙂
Experimentally confirmed does not equal debunked.
Debunked-y-wunked-y.
Lost another one Casey, off to the showers.
Debunked-o-geddon.
Norman wrote –
“I gave you the bands water absorbs energy at. It absorbs well at 15 microns. What do you have that shows this graph is wrong? I would like to see it.”
Show me something that doesn’t absorb 15 micron energy. Of course, exclude anything that is transparent or reflective to those photons, which should be easy. Climate crackpots don’t believe in transparency or reflectivity. They believe all matter absorbs every photon which falls upon it.
Of course, they are all morons, if they believe that.
Swenson attacks yet another strawman.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Swenson shows off his lack of understanding of what “climate crackpots” believe.
And DR EMPTY shows off how he responds when he loses and argument.
I wasn’t even involved in the argument. Silly bob.
DR EMPTY,
I didn’t specify which arguments which you were losing.
But you lost every argument you were involved in.
That takes some doing, even the 62 Mets won a few games.
Ah, you’re just trolling. Got it.
norman…”It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy”.
***
Pseudo-science!!!
It’s not energy per se that is claimed to flow [sic] from a cold object to a hot object, it is thermal energy that is transferred, not generic energy. The 2nd law as stated by Clausius is: Heat can NEVER be transferred, by its own means, from a cold object to a warmer object. The 2nd law is about heat and no other form of energy.
The notion of a ‘net transfer of energy’ in that case, refers only to a net balance of heat energy. You cannot mix heat with EM and called for a ‘net energy’.
That should be obvious. When EM is converted to heat, when EM from a hotter body is absorbed by a colder body, the EM is lost. There is no heat in EM, heat is not a property of EM, since heat is a property of atoms, and there are no atoms in EM.
Therefore, in a transfer of heat via EM there is no physical transfer of heat. Heat does not move through space between the Sun and Earth. Rather, heat is converted to EM at the Sun then converted back to heat at the Earth’s surface.
By the same token, if you have an electrical current creating a electromagnetic field around an antenna, that EM can travel through space and induce a current in an antenna at a distance. The transmitting current has nothing to do with the receiver current since both are supplied by independent power supplies.
Same with the Sun. No heat from the Sun reaches the Earth in the form of heat. As with the communications antenna, heat is converted to EM at the Sun, then the EM is converted back to heat at the Earth. Electrons in the Sun radiate the EM at the Sun and different electrons in the Earth, that have nothing to do with the electrons in the Sun, generate heat locally on Earth.
It’s absurd to talk about a net energy balance because there is no such thing. Clausius made no reference to a net energy, that was added by modern scientists who fail to understand the mutually-exclusive relationship between heat and electromagnetic energy. That is there is no relationship between EM and heat.
Gordo again fails at engineering.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1162764
Swanson, please stop trolling.
When you can’t control an infectious disease, change the definition and sweep it under the rug. The Canadian government and the provincial governments are planning to redefine covid 19 as an endemic problem and not a pandemic. Nothing has changed, the same number of people are testing positive, becoming infected, and dying, but the governments are offering a mea culpa, quitting, and planning to live with it.
These governments are admitting essentially that they have made a grave error. Sorry, not good enough. They have taken away our democratic rights, insulted many of us, coerced many people into taking an experiemtnal gene therapy solution, and they think they can make everything right by claiming there’s nothing they can do.
I await the plethora of class-action suits that will soon hopefully follow.
Here is link to Peckford v Regina on Rebel News This is Judicial Review that will likely set the standard for lots of lawsuits. https://www.rebelnews.com/ezra_levant_show_february_03_2022
Here is Action4Canada https://action4canada.com/
Action4Canada has a lawsuit that is taking Government of Canada, Government of BC, Health Officers, BC Ferries, CBC, and others to court.
Action4Canada is encouraging anyone who has been fired from their job or suffered business losses to take people to court personally for their criminal actions. ‘Just doing their job’ isn’t an excuse.
clint…this quote of yours is so good it requires repeating….
“Kirchhoffs Law of thermal radiation:
For an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorp*tivity.
emissivity ε = absorp*tivity α
As a result of this law, heat cannot spontaneously flow from cold system to hot system and the second law of thermodynamics is still satisfied.
Lets see if you can learn something, Willard Jr”.
***
It’s hilarious how the alarmists leave out the pertinent parts, like thermal equilibrium, or try to apply S-B at temperatures where it does not apply.
Thermal equilibrium is not necessary to apply Kirchhoff’s law Gordon; I and many others realize you will not understand.
pups’ reference is to a pro-nuclear power propaganda web site. There’s no information that I could find which tells us who created the site or what organization presented it. Using that for a reference is worse than using a post on WikiPedia.
But, HERE’s one of their references from the US DOE. On page 39 of the PDF, we find that:
Wrong again, Willard Jr.
You don’t even understand the issue you raised. You were challenging the idea that thermal equilibrium was required. Now you are getting confused about flux, energy, and heat!
Your DOE site puts out erroneous information, just like the NOAA site I cited above. Your tax dollars at work…
Energy is NOT the same as “flux” or “heat”. “Flux” is energy per time per area. “Heat” is energy transfer from hot to cold.
And Kirchhoff’s Laws are a direct correlation to Maxwell’s Equations, so you have no chance of perverting such estabished science. You can find Kirchhoff’s words on the subject:
“For a body of any arbitrary material emitting and absorbing thermal electromagnetic radiation at every wavelength in thermodynamic equilibrium, the ratio of its emissive power to its dimensionless coefficient of absorp*tion is equal to a universal function only of radiative wavelength and temperature.”
Stick with trolling, science is WAY over your head.
pups is WAY over it’s sock head again. It’s all excited about thermodynamic equilibrium, when the discussion over many years is about two bodies radiating at different temperatures. Learn some physics and stop trolling.
“Heat” is energy transfer from hot to cold.”
No. If thermodynamics were as Clint R writes, then “cold” is energy transfer from cold to hot.
In science, heat is a measure of the total internal KE of any object’s constituents. Temperature is the avg. KE so wherever there are temperatures there are fluctuations hence the constituent particle KE can transfer both ways leaving the atoms & molecules behind in a lower kinetic energy state.
“Heat may be defined as energy in transit from a high temperature object to a lower temperature object. An object does not possess “heat”; the appropriate term for the microscopic energy in an object is internal energy. The internal energy may be increased by transferring energy to the object from a higher temperature (hotter) object – this is properly called heating.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heat.html
Good job Clint R, you are commenting usefully for a change.
“An object does not possess “heat””
Right! So an object A that does not possess heat cannot then transfer out what it does not possess to any other object B for object B to not possess.
An object A does possess internal thermodynamic energy so then object A can transfer what it does possess to another object B for B to possess.
It’s simple but not easy to understand. A set of supposed facts have to be unlearned from childhood when starting a thermodynamic course of study when thermodynamic internal energy properly enters the scene.
pups can’t accept that his reference contradicts his claim, so decides to play semantic games again.
(I just keep hitting them with reality. They can’t stand that.)
“Heat may be defined as energy in transit from a high temperature object to a lower temperature object. An object does not possess “heat”; the appropriate term for the microscopic energy in an object is internal energy. The internal energy may be increased by transferring energy to the object from a higher temperature (hotter) object – this is properly called heating.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heat.html
pups, Stop ignoring reality:
Then what the fuck is specific heat capacity then?
You know, just asking for a friend.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_heat_capacity
(They hate reality, and they can’t learn. That’s why this is so much fun.)
“Heat may be defined as energy in transit from a high temperature object to a lower temperature object. An object does not possess “heat”; the appropriate term for the microscopic energy in an object is internal energy. The internal energy may be increased by transferring energy to the object from a higher temperature (hotter) object – this is properly called heating.”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heat.html
Tell your friend enthalpy.
As you go down your page find they slyly convert to enthalpy, symbol H which was chosen for first letter of heat. Click on the enthalpy link and find a history at the bottom of the page.
Now Ball4 has found a new word he doesn’t understand! And already, he’s trying to use it to pervert reality. He hates reality. But reality doesn’t go away:
“Heat may be defined as energy in transit from a high temperature object to a lower temperature object. An object does not possess “heat”; the appropriate term for the microscopic energy in an object is internal energy. The internal energy may be increased by transferring energy to the object from a higher temperature (hotter) object – this is properly called heating.”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heat.html
Well there’s a problem with that definition Clint R,
As any Boilermaker will tell you it is possible to transfer heat without any change in temperature.
That’s what we do with fossil fuels, we burn them to turn water to steam at a constant temperature. You know water at temperature T to steam at temperature T.
Posting to links you don’t understand again Clint R.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
stephen anderson…”Its not only 2LOT but quantum mechanics. Energy is quantized. If the surface is at a higher energy state it cant absorb energy at a lower energy state”.
***
That’s it. If you look into how Clausius developed the 2nd law, using heat engine theory, he explains it in conditions of temperature, volume and pressure. In essence, he proves it is impossible for heat to be transferred from certain states of PVT to other states of PVT. If you look at the PVT diagrams he provides, it become totally apparent why heat cannot be transferred by its own means from cold to hot.
******************
“Like convection or conduction wont flow from low to high temperature, radiant energy wont flow from low energy to high energy. That would be like saying if two stars were nearby, the hotter star stays at a higher temperature because of the nearest cooler star”.
***
The thing that is missed with hotter bodies in a colder environment, or near to a colder body, is the effect of the cooler areas on heat dissipation from the hotter body. For whatever reason, some people think heat is absorbed from the colder body when the truth is that the colder body atmosphere affects heat dissipation in the hotter body, provided it is close enough.
It is well-known that heat will dissipate much more quickly as the temperature differential between the hotter body and the colder atmosphere increases. By the same token, the more you reduce the temperature differential, the slower the hotter body will dissipate heat.
When the temperatures are equal, no dissipation is possible. If the environment becomes warmer, the body begins to absorb heat. In other words, if you placed a star in an atmosphere that was hotter than the star, the star would stop radiating and begin absorbing.
I seriously doubt that the proximity of a colder star would affect the temperature of a hotter star. What normally happens in a binary system, is that one star strips matter from the other star via gravitational forces. That will affect the temperature of the stars.
The deranged Ball4 wrote –
“It’s not as much surprising though that these commenters cannot explain how it is possible to boil water with ice cubes because understanding the experiments and theory of Dr. Spencer several years ago showing such means having prior accomplished basic study in atm. thermodynamics & atm. radiation.”
No, Dr Spencer didn’t.
Nor did anybody else.
Try appealing to the authority of someone who has managed to even heat water, let alone boil it, using the heat energy contained in ice. You idiot, your bizarre fantasies are not reality.
Accept reality, you witless fool!
[chortles]
It seems possible Martians will use H20 ice instead glass.
One thing ice on Mars one make it very cold. Or easy to make -80 C
ice on Earth. And -80 C ice could stay below -10 C for quite a while, so having more time using it in someway, could make it use more common to use it. One example is using as disposable thing, in ways can use clear plastic for temporary uses.
“No, Dr Spencer didnt.”
The data he took shows even Swenson can do so & the spreadsheet Dr. Spencer provided shows why. Swenson admits to not even understanding a simple atm. thermodynamics test so knowing readers will take note of Swenson admitting being not competent in the field.
B,
You wrote –
“The data he took shows even Swenson can do so & the spreadsheet Dr. Spencer provided shows why.”
No it doesn’t you fool. No heating by a colder body. No heating water with ice. Reducing the rate of cooling is not heating. Don’t be a moron (unless you really want to, of course)!
> Reducing the rate of cooling is not heating.
Ten years of trolling for this, Mike.
Ten freaking years.
Weak Wee Willy,
Accept reality. Cooling is cooling. Slow or fast, cooling, you moron!
No GHE. You can’t even produce a copy of the Greenhouse Theory!
Are you sure it even exists?
No use of the word “heating” so Swenson attacks yet another strawman. I’ve lost count, funny to read.
Where’s your Insulation Effect theory, Mikeroni?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Floating breakwater-trapwater:
16 meter diameter cylinder .004 meter thick titanium walls and 20 meter tall
Four 4 meter diameter .002 meter thick walls pipe cut in 1/2:
Eight 1/2 pipes with 4 meter diameter hemisphere and 6 meter tall
16 meter diameter has circumference of 50.26544
50.26544 / 8 = 6.28318 meters
6.28318 – 4 meter diameter hemisphere = 2.28318 meters so there will about 2.28 meter space between the eight 4 meter 1/2 pipe going on the outside 16 meter diameter pipe which circumference
of 50.26544 meters
20 meter tall, 16 meter diameter x .004 meters = 5.026544 cubic meter * 4500 kg = 22,619.5 kg
4 meter diameter: 12.56636 square meter. 4 times 12.5 = 50 cubic with meter of air, 50 tons of displacement
Bottom pipe: 100 meter tall, 8 meter diameter, .002 thick walls = 5.026544 cubic meter * 4500 kg = 22,619.5 kg
Eight 1/2 pipes with 4 meter diameter top part cut angle, so outer part 1.5 meter lower than where 4 meter diameter meets 16 meter diameter pipe at it’s top. And have this sloped edge
capped with .004 meter thick titanium
Bottom of 20 meter tall 16 meter diameter will 16 meter disk .004 meter titanium with 8 meter diameter hole that bottom pipe attaches to, 16 meter disk: 0.80424704 cubic meter, minus
hole: 0.20106176 cubic meters = 0.60318528 times 4500 kg = 2,714.33376 kg
So, eight 1/2 pipe will have about 1 meter of air in them, or enough air to float
top of 16 meter diameter pipe about 1 meter or less above waterline. Or low enough
that waves fall in the 16 meter pipe and added water, will push water out of bottom of 8 meter diameter bottom pipe.
[Add more sloped metal between 1/2 pipes, and some floatation
to help support weight of bottom pipe. 4500 kg titanium actually weighs 3500 kg submerged in water. Though 4500 kg mass is still there. This should be quite stable in the ocean- waves move anything else, but not it by much]
This machine take surface water and pumps water +100 meter under water and uses wave energy to do it.
One would have a lot them to change global climate.
And a lot less of them serves as a breakwater for an deep water ocean settlement.
Costs, it’s about 50 tons for about 20 meter, 2.5 tons per meter, so more expense as compared other floating breakwater I consider for coastal ocean settlements, but it’s climate altering machine, and really thought much about very deep water breakwaters- other than it seems they would be more expensive, due to anchoring, them.
But as climate altering machines not sure one needs anchoring, though maybe something that inhibts it from getting in shallower water than say, 500 meter depth.
The effect on local marine life, including large marine mammals, would be devastating.
From having an ocean settlements?
It seems quite the opposite to me.
wiki:
–Pelagic fish live in the pelagic zone of ocean or lake waters – being neither close to the bottom nor near the shore – in contrast with demersal fish that do live on or near the bottom, and reef fish that are associated with coral reefs.[1]
The marine pelagic environment is the largest aquatic habitat on Earth, occupying 1,370 million cubic kilometres (330 million cubic miles), and is the habitat for 11% of known fish species.–
Epipelagic fish
Epipelagic fish inhabit the epipelagic zone, the uppermost layer of the water column, ranging from sea level down to 200 m (660 ft). It is also referred to as the surface waters or the sunlit zone, and includes the photic zone.
A vast habitat for most pelagic fish, the epipelagic zone is well lit so visual predators can use their eyesight, is usually well mixed and oxygenated from wave action, and can be a good habitat for algae to grow. However, it is an almost featureless habitat. This lack of habitat variation results in a lack of species diversity, so the zone supports less than 2% of the world’s known fish species. Much of the zone lacks nutrients for supporting fish, so epipelagic fish tend to be found in coastal water above the continental shelves, where land runoff can provide nutrients, or in those parts of the ocean where upwelling moves nutrients into the area.–
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagic_fish
It quite possible ocean settlements would have more fish, without designing them to be good habitats for marine life. And unreasonable to assume that they would not be designed to have habitats for marine life.
Oh, just thought of something.
This machine’s characteristic is it doesn’t move much.
And could also say a whale likewise doesn’t move much from waves.
Whales are smart, but they want to hit the machine. If whales want to hit machine, they win, or they don’t lose anymore than if the wanted to hit other whales. Whale could ram it, as they could ram ships.
Also it’s made of titanium which is not corroded by sea water- titanium corrodes less than Marine Aluminum or stainless steel.
Also an option is have freshwater lakes, there could issues with that. But the perimeter seems like a plus to marine life. And one would want surfing area AND marine parks. One could have marine parks in terms of diving. And marine parks for fishing. Both would want there to be more fish. And it seems it’s “manageable” to cause there to be more fish.
But politicians can cause endless stupidity. And humans can be criminal- just do destruction for “fun”.
Arctic cyclone brings record snowfall to Iceland with winds gusting to 200 km/h.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=europe×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
The Japan’s NHK television network is reporting 42.5″ of snow is on the ground in Sapporo, Japan where this photo was taken last week by photographer Tak Takata
https://i.ibb.co/kcJmrLC/273526086-535282944623320-1333746859884906198-n.jpg
I am receiving $88 every hour to work on-net. Ive never believed like it can be achievable however YTEE one of my greatest pal got $27,000 just in three weeks just working this simple project & she influenced me to availView
visiting this web page >>> http://webwork242.blogspot.com/
Great picture. An advantage of cell phones.
Liquid Water Confirmed Beneath Martian South Polar Cap
https://scitechdaily.com/liquid-water-confirmed-beneath-martian-south-polar-cap/
–Lakes of liquid water actually exist beneath glaciers in Arctic and Antarctic regions, so we have Earth analogs for finding liquid water below ice, said Stillman, a specialist in detecting water in any format liquid, ice or absorbed on planetary bodies and co-author of a paper describing these findings. The exotic salts that we know exist on Mars have amazing antifreeze properties allowing brines to remain liquid down to -103 degrees Fahrenheit. We studied these salts in our lab to understand how they would respond to radar.–
So they go back and forth and back. But does matter if salty undrinkable water. Well I think it’s just too deep to worry about it, but seems it could warmer they then imagine it is.
Being close to polar region and able to travel to it, could place to have base/town. I like idea mining freshly fallen CO2 snow. But could need railroad to do it.
Anyways doesn’t seem like cheap water.
An IPCC study last year suggested that 30-50% of the current rise in temperatures is down to methane.
The study referred to is AR6, which estimates that increased levels of methane in the atmosphere have contributed 0.5C to global warming since 1850-1900:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
Given that even IPCC reports have accepted that some of the warming since the 19thC has been naturally caused, that does not leave much which can be due to CO2.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/02/06/methane-causes-half-of-global-warming-ipcc/
That’s what I was thinking.
The bureaucrat, James Hansen, used to think most of global warming
was due to methane, but I guess that before he hitched a ride on the gravy train.
But we mine it all before gets into the atmosphere and is wasted.
And still think government should end all coal fires.
“this surface is typically a very thin, mirror-like aluminum foil. ”
mirror, mirror on the foil,
should the world stop using oil?
…
hmm nothing, maybe it’s meant to be a talking hat
Asking “should the [modern] world stop using oil?” is like asking, should the human body stop using blood?
TM, Your question lacks context. The larger question is: “Can human civilization survive by continuing to burn fossil fuels and dump CO2 into the atmosphere?”. The human body can not survive for long when the dew point temperature exceeds roughly 35C (95F) because one’s body can not cool via sweating.
There are places on Earth that such conditions now occur and increasing GHG’s is projected to make some regions uninhabitable without AC. Combined with more weather disruptions, the likely result would be vast migrations with seriously disruptive consequences.
Of course, there are proposals to exploit fossil fuel energy which do not result in adding CO2 to the atmosphere. That’s just another engineering challenge to my mind.
Context: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1162675
TM, Your post suggests a hard stop in oil consumption, which would be disastrous for economic activity, as a hard stop in blood flow would be a disaster for a person. Nobody that I know of wants a sudden stop in oil consumption.
Our U.S. President has presented plans to achieve a 50% reduction in emissions by 2030, most of which would be accomplished by closing coal fired electric generation and replacing it with renewable sources. Natural gas would be an interim source, as combined cycle generation is more efficient than those older coal fired plants.
agreed, the hat is a better fit
plus it only cost a few trillion
practically pays for itself
Plans to achieve a 50% reduction in emissions by 2030 are entirely impractical and ridiculous. Such goals cannot be accomplished without entirely destroying our economy.
The only viable way to replace fossil is nuclear. Its impossible to build a nuclear plant in less than 20 years, if at all, because of opposition.
So 50% cut in fossil fuels means 50% cut in GDP and 50% cut to your income.
No doubt, cutting emissions by 50% (from the 2005 level) would be a difficult task. It is being made more difficult by opposition from various political and business interests. But, all those fossil fuel consuming systems have a useful lifetime and most will be replaced by 2050 or so. The “half life” of cars produced today is about 10 years.
The challenge is to replace the current mix with renewables or systems which do not emit CO2. Besides, the easy to recover (i.e., conventional) oil is already gone and future supplies will be harder to fine and produce. The boost in production from fracking appears to be subsiding in the areas first exploited, such as North Dakota as fracked wells deplete much faster than conventional.
There was as news story pointing out that gasoline in California is near $5 a gallon and that’s with current oil prices of only $85-$90/bbl. We forget that oil was near $100 back in 2011 to 2014 and that the price reached a high above $145/bbl back in 2008. At some future point, the cost of oil will exceed the ability of the average man to pay for it, so then what?
Exxon joins Chevron in Permian oil surge as peers preach caution 2/1/2022
(Bloomberg)- President Joe Biden, who has asked OPEC+ to raise oil production faster to tame runaway energy prices, just got a gift on his home turf instead: a blockbuster growth forecast for U.S. shale production from the country’s two biggest oil companies.
Exxon Mobil Corp. said Tuesday it plans to boost output by 25% this year in the Permian Basin, the biggest U.S. oil-producing region. That comes four days after Chevron Corp. announced it will ramp up its own Permian supplies by 10%, from an even larger production base. Such aggressive targets from the Western world’s largest oil majors are a surefire sign that U.S. shale is back to growth mode after cuts in 2020 and a lackluster 2021.
Notes about Kirchhoff’s law of thermal radiation:
Kirchhoff’s law relates the emitting and absorbing abilities of a body and is derived from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Kirchhoff’s law has necessary conditions imposed on it, depending on whether spectral, total, directional, or hemispherical quantities are being considered.
Kirchhoff’s law is applicable only under conditions of local thermodynamic equilibrium, which occurs when a sufficient number of collisions take place between molecules and the translational, rotational, and vibrational energy states are in equilibrium. In the atmosphere, conditions of local thermodynamic equilibrium are not met at heights above about 50 km.
Tyson, you (or your source) don’t have the latest information on Kirchhoff’s Law either. See here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1161764
My sources are current enough, thank you.
To wit:
Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer. By John R. Howell, M. Pinar Menguc, Kyle Daun, and Robert Siegel. Seventh edition published 2021. P66
And
Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans. By Judith Curry and Peter Webster. Published 1999. P79
They both have then missed updating to the progress made by 1976 to arbitrary illumination not just LTE.
Original papers are the first source of preceding work but tougher to find out about. Ask any historian of science. Better yet, read Tony Rothman’s 2003 Everything’s Relative and Other Fables from Science and Technology, John Wiley & Sons that shows even textbooks can miss stuff.
Too, Cliff Truesdell’s book on the Tragicomedy of Classical Thermodynamics is a great source.
Ball4, why try to claim papers you don’t understand can violate well-established Laws of physics? Heck, just make up what you want and be done with it. Like you did with the “real 255K surface” and ice cubes boiling water.
Norman will support you immediately….
Ball4 at 1:48 PM
There is nothing wrong with my sources.
Do you disagree with the requirement of Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium, a.k.a. LTE? Or, is it something else you object to?
Can you quote from your sources describing your objection? It would help clarify your position.
Thx.
Tyson, I agree ref.s likely not differ from the original work long ago, per your comment they just have not extended their texts to the latest information to include H. P. Baltes 1976 “On the validity of Kirchhoff’s law of heat radiation for a body in a nonequilibrium environment” extending the law to arbitrary illumination – may be in a future Ed.8. Now you have more information than they covered up to Ed.7.
Ball4 at 3:08 PM
I’ll admit that I don’t know what “arbitrary illumination” is or how it is relevant to radiative transfer in the atmosphere. However I am sure that it does not supersede Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium LTE?
What is LTE, you may ask? Here’s one sensible definition:
When collisions control the populations of the energy levels in a particular part of an atmosphere we have only local thermodynamic equilibrium, LTE, as the system is open to radiation loss. When collisions become infrequent then there is a decoupling between the radiation field and the thermodynamic state of the atmosphere and emission is determined by the radiation field itself, and we have no local thermodynamic equilibrium.
All illumination in the atm. is arbitrary since neither the sun (sunshine) nor the earth system (earthshine) are enclosed in a cavity to emit equilibrium (BB) radiation. Baltes put meteorology on a firmer footing.
I read your bolded clip a few times. It reads “When collisions become infrequent..” as if the author’s meaning is atm. air density is = M/V and something weird happens in the limit as V goes to zero. So don’t go there & eliminate LTE.
So fortunately, nature is being kind, don’t need to go there since in our STP atm. a cube of air 1micron on a side has order of 10^7 molecules. No need to probe gases, collisions on a scale smaller as those fluctuations in M/V ratio (and other thermodynamic variables) are of no observable meteorological consequence e.g. ideal gas law use is ok except above where the atm. thins out enough.
Ball4 at 4:40 PM
Now you’re just making shit up!
All I’ve been saying is that LTE, and hence Kirchhoff’s Law, hold in earth’s lower atmosphere; in the upper atmosphere spontaneous emission takes over. It’s that simple.
Once this condition of LTE is met – which is almost always in the lower atmosphere – the Planck equation holds true. In the upper atmosphere this doesn’t hold true, because the density is so low.
These results have been confirmed by over 150 years of experiments. However, these LTE explanations are far removed from most people’s perceptions of what equilibrium means and thus the meaning and requirement of LTE is often misunderstood.
You are unnecessarily trying to justify your “arbitrary illumination” even though LTE is all that’s needed to extend Kirchhoff’s Law’s range of applicability.
This is not cutting edge stuff, instead it is the staple of every textbook in the field of radiation and radiant heat transfer.
The original Kirchhoff’s law holds for equilibrium (BB) radiation which doesn’t occur naturally Tyson, one needs to build a cavity and hold it at a given temperature to produce BB radiation at that temperature for testing. The assumption that Kirchhoff holds for natural illumination was long routinely invoked & H. P. Baltes finally settled the issue published in 1976 by formally extending the law to the earthen natural illumination that does occur.
LTE holds in our atm. until it doesn’t as your clip author writes: “When collisions become infrequent..” which happens in the rarified upper atm. as you write; there are no observable meteorological consequences in troposphere and stratosphere at least because that happens.
Baltes work in 1976 apparently is not covered in the text books you noted. It should be.
Ball4 at 11:16 PM
You should read your own sources.
From Baltes 1976:
For the case of the atmosphere, LTE is all that is needed.
Our atm. is not enclosed by a cavity (neither is the sun) so does not produce blackbody (unpolarized and isotropic) illumination the original Kirchhoff assumption in addition to LTE; our atm. produces arbitrary illumination that is not the same in all directions.
Baltes 1976 abstract: “one expects Kirchhoff’s law to hold as well for freely radiating bodies, provided that the distribution of the material states of the sample is the equilibrium distribution.” i.e. LTE and removes the original assumption limiting Kirchhoff law applicability to equilibrium BB radiation that is unpolarized and isotropic.
Ball4 at 11:47 AM
I’ll keep this short so you can come back and have the last word as you’re wont to do.
First:
You should have read more than the abstract before heading down this rabbit hole and you would have known that your source addresses “spectroscopy and radiometry of solids and liquids.”
Second:
Kirchhoff’s original assumptions did not mention LTE; it only included Thermodynamic Equilibrium. It would be instructive for you to research the differences.
Third:
This exchange reminded me of the time you went down another rabbit hole chasing some nonexistent reference in Herzberg, http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-1013933
The internet never forgets!
TM. I have a copy of an earlier edition of Siegel and Howell (2002). To what section are you referring?
AIUI, atmospheric thermal IR radiation is not like that for solid bodies, since the emission spectra is not a continuous function, but a series of overlapping emission curves for the various species of molecules in the air. The curves exhibit pressure broadening at higher pressure/lower elevations but at higher elevations, there are gaps between the curves which allow emissions from below to exit the Earth, much like the spectral region known as the “atmospheric window”. The concepts of emissivity and absorp_tivity for gasses don’t mean what they do for solid (or liquid) surfaces.
I quoted from ch2: Radiative Properties at Interfaces, section 2.3.2 Kirchhoff’s Law, 7th edition.
When you say “atmospheric thermal IR radiation is not like that for solid bodies” you are preaching to the choir. You should tell that to Ball4 here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1163908
maguff…”Kirchhoffs law relates the emitting and absorbing abilities of a body and is derived from the Second Law of Thermodynamics.”
***
That’s a neat trick considering Kircheoff’s law was created before Clausius announced and developed the 2nd law. In essence, the 2nd law has limited his law to body in thermodynamics equilibrium, a condition in which hear cannot be transferred.
*************
“Kirchhoffs law is applicable only under conditions of local thermodynamic equilibrium, which occurs when a sufficient number of collisions take place between molecules and the translational, rotational, and vibrational energy states are in equilibrium”.
***
That’s a good one too. As G&T pointed out in their paper falsifying the GHE, a gas lacks the density to represent a blackbody. They were shooting down the notion that CO2 could act as a BB.
I wish people would refrain from using blackbody theory, an outdated and incorrect representation of heat transfer in the real world.
Gordon Robertson at 4:44 PM
FYI
1850 – Clausius gives the first clear joint statement of the first and second law of thermodynamics
1859 – Kirchhoff’s first observations.
1898 – Kirchhoff’s more comprehensive paper with proofs.
It’s beyond tedious, this ignorance of yours.
You’re still hanging on to G&T huh? I’m old enough to remember this from 2008: https://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/09/bill-kininmonth-requests-explanation-of-the-greenhouse-effect/#comment-61212
and this: https://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/09/bill-kininmonth-requests-explanation-of-the-greenhouse-effect/#comment-62374
“As I have said before, the paper is nonsense, anyone who believes this has a real problem with understanding the basic science behind AGW, and really shouldnt be out there telling other people that the theory of AGW is wrong, when the issue is so important.”
Tyson, please stop trolling.
TM,
You wrote –
“In the atmosphere, conditions of local thermodynamic equilibrium are not met at heights above about 50 km.”
You need to accept reality. Change the sentence to read “In the atmosphere, conditions of local thermodynamic equilibrium are not met – ever!”
Don’t agree? Then you should be able to specify when and where this amazing phenomenon was measured, how, and by whom.
Or you can just keep making stuff up.
Actually conditions for LTE are met in most of our atm. Mike…errr Swenson.
It is thermodynamic equilibrium which doesn’t occur in our atm. where there are gradients of temperature, windiness, density, pressure so forth. Easy to tell by this school boy mistake Swenson hasn’t accomplished study in the field.
“conditions for LTE are met in most of our atm”
You are correct in the sense that 90% of the mass of the atmosphere is below about 20 km. However, above about 50 km conditions of LTE do not exist.
ren had a good idea to post an original monthly graph of the F10.7cm solar flux observed with a radiotelescope, and published by the Canadian Space weather agency NRCA:
https://www.spaceweather.gc.ca/auto_generated_products/solradmon_eng.png
because their topmost value for the period differed from what I usually download.
I used all the time observed data
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1algFSf_-tYlW1PFKI9AVii6TD5HsR9Ne/view
instead of adjusted or even absolute data (what NRCA uses): this is not correct, as this value partly depends on the distance between Sun and Earth.
But the difference does not make that look like a big mistake, here is the same graph with absolute value instead:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jLsxzS6Fuz3LIJZkwHkmXH8GJJDSna20/view
The comparison between SC25 and SC24 is not differing much because, as I explained upthread, both cycles are affected in the same way by lower flux values everywhere. This is visible when looking at the quadratic factors of the two cycles’ series.
*
It was time also to compare, for the period since SC24’s begin, the solar flux data with the Sun Spot Number:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10F7gjfDzNjp0MuzonRK5qetqed8lfByB/view
Many people have claimed that the F10.7 flux overestimates solar activity with respect to the SSN data.
Data and graph above do not confirm such a claim.
@gordon robertson
>>The standard propaganda related to that claim is that back-radiation from GHGs add to incoming solar to increase the heating effect of the Sun.
Yes, just as back-conduction and back-convection do. And no, I’m not joking, I am quite serious though facetious. I mean, if back-conduction and back-convection exist and even back-evaporation exists, then the back-radiation exists for sure, because those all those processes are fundamentally quite similar, both macroscopically in their essence of facilitating/retarding heat transfer, but also MICROscopically. The only problem with “back-radiation” i have is this: it is a misnomer, there is nothing special about BACKradiation, there is no such a specific thing; there is just radiation.
>>> There are several facts that rebut that claim.
There is none.
>>> 1)The spectrum of back-radiated energy sits beside the spectrum for solar energy. Ergo, it is not possible for them to add since they are independent sources of radiation that have no frequencies in common.
—
you wot? h[….] totally irrelevant, so confusing and irrelevant that is it and not even wrong
>>> 2)The source of EM from the Sun is a very hot body while the source of back-radiated EM, GHGs, is cooler than the surface.
—
good so far, except for the back-radiation. I’d call it ‘so-called back-radiation’
>>>The frequencies in the EM spectrum of the Sun will be a8s0я8 by the surface but the frequencies in the back-radiation spectrum, being from a colder source than the surface, cannot be a8s0я8ed by the surface. 2nd law.
—
yeah no, that’s utterly wrong. The blackbody will a8s0я8 everything by definition, and most surfaces are quite close to the blackbodies. Let me note that the abstraction of the black-body was derived from the classical thermodynamics, and therefore cannot contradict it in any way. The real solid surfaces are not 100% blackbodies of course but for the most part they are quite close to them. Notable exception found around us is afaik some bare rocks, and in technosphere – metal surfaces and certain kinds of ceramics. However, what it doesn’t a8s0я8 in the thin surface layer it will either reflect or pass through which then will be a8s0я8ed by the layers behind the surface. Either way the surface cannot know where the photons come from and cannot discriminate based on that. The thin layer of the material at higher temperature will a8s0я8 lower energy photons less readily, but what it doesn’t a8s0я8 it will pass through t the lower layers where the photons will eventually be a8s0я8ed. Thus it matters not what temperatures the emitter and the a8s0я8er are – blackbodies are blackbodies.
>>>3)The energy back-radiated by GHGs was radiated from the surface at a heat loss far exceeding the losses related to the energy a8s0я8ed by GHGs. In other words, only about 5% of surface radiation is captured by GHGs and the other 95%, plus the captured 5%, represents a huge loss of heat at the surface.
Ok, that didn’t make any sense. I fail to comprehend what you are trying to convey here.
>>> That heat loss has to be made up by back-radiation, provided it can warm the surface, which it cant, before any heating takes place.
as had already been noticed by others, you and others like you seem to (pretend to) utterly confuse (perhaps on purpose) energy, heat and irradiance. Those are all physically different things, and if you equate materially different things you can end up with any nonsensical answer. Indeed it takes time to figure it out, and I blame the energy-balance ‘trenberth’ diagrams as the source of this confusion., as it is tricky to see the subtle error in them [the error in labeling, not physics represented]. However, you seem to have been into this for years and still weren’t able to understand a thing… so no hope for you.
>>>4)The entire process of recycling heat, surface-GHGs-surface, represents a heat amplifier which contradicts perpetual motion, which is not allowed.
yep, you do not understand the difference between energy heat and radiation. Or what the perpetual motion is and why it is not allowed. Or the 2nd law. Or the first law. basically, you understand nothing at all.
The kid is on his keyboard, again. He rambles like Norman, but never gets anything right. They must have gone to the same keyboard school.
says warmist stooge of a bot. You, the bots, are able to generate tonnes of text, but you will never understand anything because the strong AI is impossible with finite digital computers. Yep, that’s how dumb you are.
Yup, the kid’s just like Norman — childish, uneducated, and in full meltdown.
says warmist stoogebot
coturnix,
Maybe one of the climate crackpots could provide a copy of the non-existent Greenhouse Theory that explains the non-existent Greenhouse Effect which is necessary to explain a non-existent phenomenon which has never been observed, measured or documented?
Or are all climate cranks completely delusional, morons, or both?
Well you are a moron for sure.
RLH,
Does your comment mean that you really can produce a copy of the Greenhouse Theory?
Or are you just trying to avoid admitting that the non-existent Greenhouse Theory is, well, non-existent?
Accept reality. No GHE.
@swenson
gordon roebrtson and drems are sure different, but you and clint r I absolutely cannot tall apart. Are you sure you are two different people?
the GHE theory is simple in abstract: given a planet with a sun and an atmosphere, its mean surface temperature, EEBE would be higher if its atmosphere contains the radiatively-active gasses aka GHGs that a8s0r8 in the frequency range that the thermal radiation of the planet’s surface is emitted at. That happens because the GHGs slow down effective rate of the emission of the planet as a whole by effectively insulating the surface from the coldness of space, which is at -270*C in our universe at this time. The ‘cold atmosphere’ is indeed colder than the surface, but that dont matter, what matters is that it is significantly WARMER than the cold outer space and that is why allegedly ‘cold’ but actually warm atmosphere can keep the surface warmer than it would otherwise be, eebe.
—-
this is the simplest abstract case, and the gasses are assumed to be transparent to the incoming radiation. As this simple model is afforded with more real-life attributes the picture indeed gets less clear, with various extra properties of the system nudging the effective surface temperature up and down making analyzing the system very complicated.
—
is this a satisfactory definition?
No it just means you are a moron.
Another big snowstorm reaches Reykjavik.
https://i.ibb.co/fHdt37b/Screenshot-2.png
(Orphan planet is a planet not having a mother star to orbit).
Orphan planet is not solar energy irradiated, therefore it has a surface temperature because of its own internal heat sources.
Two orphan planets may have the same average surface temperature, but the more differentiated surface temperatures orphan planet has (in accordance with Stephan-Boltzmann emission law nonlinearity) the greater amount of IR outgoing radiative energy the orphan planet emits.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
nice work
I am receiving $88 every hour to work on-net. Ive never believed like it can be achievable however YTEE one of my greatest pal got $27,000 just in three weeks just working this simple project & she influenced me to availView
more instructions visiting this web page >>> http://webwork242.blogspot.com/
oh, is this how clint r and swenson were recruited to do what they do – generate gigabytes of noise camouflaged as speech?
coturnix…you’re feeding the trolls.
C’mon, Gordo.
That’s a bot.
The trolls are the three sock puppets and you.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Still can’t find a Greenhouse Theory, then?
You’ll just have to keep denying reality.
Have you figured out how the surface cools at night, in winter, for the last four and a half billion years, yet?
Not heating – cooling!
Too much for you to accept? Back to your fantasy, Wee Willy!
Moron.
Hello Mike Flynn,
It’s right here.
Where’s your Insulation Effect Theory?
Willard, please stop trolling.
trying to =) but i’m not very good at it. I think I hit the wall with swenson and clint , they are just boring as fukc. Pinned to the wall with arguments they can’t even troll back properly. You otoh… seem to be more sincere in your position, so I’ll try again, further dow the comment strip.
So, Venus at Earth distance would be cold.
What would the temperature of Earth be at Venus distance?
Though perhaps different and perhaps more important question is what would the weather be like.
In terms Earth temperature, given enough time, it seems Earth would have to be in a greenhouse global climate. Or ocean average temperature would be +10 C.
One might ask, what would the present Earth look like, if it’s ocean was 10 C and it was at 1 AU distance from Sun.
So, 5 C ocean would be CAGW, and 10 C ocean is a superduper CAGW.
And Earth present configuration has never had a Greenhouse Global Climate. But to make it Greenhouse Global Climate is possible if pump warm tropical ocean water deep into the ocean. Or rather having different geology which allows this, one could make things which could do it. And has question of how fast does one wants to do this.
Or the faster you do it, the colder Earth gets in the short term.
Let’s say not in hurry and/or don’t want to make Earth very cold and we get a 10 C ocean in +10,000 years.
What would Earth look like?
Well a 10 C ocean will have a lot of ocean thermal expansion, but even a CAGW world will have less deserts- or you would adding a lot water to the land and filling up any other aquifers in the world which we currently think are depleted.
So, it seems we can manage and/or nature will manage this sea level rise problem from the huge thermal ocean expansion.
Or we can imagine sea levels don’t rise much.
One more time, a little hint, this time out of
A Flexible Lunar Architecture for Exploration (FLARE) supporting NASA’s Artemis Program
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7385728/
*
” The SLS is the final launch in this 9-week period, and its launch window must include considerations for lunar polar plane rotation in LLFPO [i.e. Low Lunar Frozen Polar Orbit] to minimize ΔV for TEI [i.e. Trans-Earth Injection] return, and also lunar surface lighting during the crew lunar surface campaign.
*
Of course: this can only be understood by the so-called braindead cult idiots.
binny…”The SLS is the final launch in this 9-week period, and its launch window must include considerations for lunar polar plane rotation in LLFPO…”
***
We have explained that to you many times but you seem too obtuse to absorb it. They are referring to a re-orientation of the lunar face in its orbit due to its curvilinear motion. Nowhere in your quote does it mention rotation about an axis.
Robertson
I repeat, for the dumbest of all Moon spin deniers:
” Of course: this can only be understood by the so-called braindead cult idiots. “
Oh sorry! I actually meant the second dumbest.
Curvilinear motion (otherwise called an orbit) does NOT include a change in orientation of the object during that orbit wrt the fixed stars.
Wrong again, RLH. Orbital motion without axial rotation has one side of the orbiting object always facing the inside of its orbit, like Moon or a ball-on-a-string.
Only you and a tiny few believe that. Newton and all other real scientists disagree.
A ball-on-a-string has nothing to do with orbits (and in any case there is a ball at the center too).
Wrong again, RLH. The ball-on-a-string has the same vectors acting on it as a body in a circular orbit. So the simple analogy is perfectly relevant. One side always faces the inside of this orbit. Just like Moon.
You could actually attach a string to a ball and see for yourself.
How can something that is attached at the surface be a useful comparison to something that is attached at the centers?
P.S. Orbits are to do with ellipses, not circles.
A circle is an ellipses.
A circle is an ellipse.
Ellipses ain’t circles tho, Pup, something you’d know if you did the Poll Dance Experiment.
Dud, if you ever grow up you’ll just be another braindead cult idiot.
That’s not much of a future.
(And, it’s spelled “pole”. You can’t learn.)
You should have a word with Gordo, Pup:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1164758
Meanwhile, do the Poll Dance Experiment.
Willard, please stop trolling.
More on global warming….
“Dr. Brian Brettschneider, an Alaska-based climatologist, noted on Twitter the feels-like temperature had dipped to minus 91 degrees early Monday at Howard Pass in northern Alaska’s Brooks Range”.
Which part of the AGW or GHE theory explains the above?
Winter.
rlh…so you agree the current warming and climate is related to weather, not some mysterious greenhouse effect?
It gets cold in winter.
RLH,
Bob, duck, weave . . .
CO2 has no effect at night, in winter, or for four and a half billion years? Even the total output of the Sun cannot stop the surface cooling?
No wonder there is no Greenhouse Theory!
No wonder you are an idiot either.
RLH,
Maybe you could post a copy of the Greenhouse Theory which explains things like the surface cooling at night, in winter, and for the last four and a half billion years or so.
Only joking – of course you can’t, because there is no Greenhouse Theory!
It generally gets cold at night. Especially in winter.
RLH,
Bob, duck, weave . . .
CO2 has no effect at night, in winter, or for four and a half billion years? Even the total output of the Sun cannot stop the surface cooling?
No wonder there is no Greenhouse Theory!
Greenhouse Theory does exists. The only real question is how large is in its effects on global air and ocean temperature.
RLH,
You wrote –
“Greenhouse Theory does exists.”
In your imagination only, which makes it a bit hard to write down, doesn’t it?
Maybe if you concentrate really, really, hard, you can turn fantasy into fiction. Give it a try. You never know, maybe miracles still happen!
A miracle like you posting something that makes sense? Unlikely.
RLH,
So the Greenhouse Theory doesn’t actually exist – apart from in your imagination!
Friday, February 14, 2014
http://ak-wx.blogspot.com/2014/02/alaska-and-united-states-record-low.html
One must really be stoopid to permanently ask for the (cor)relation between absolute hot or cold station reports and CO2.
More stoopid you die.
CO2 is nothing linked to single, local weather events.
But that is again something that only braindead cult idiots can understand.
CO2 is “nothing linked” to surface warming, either.
CO2 isn’t linked to climate either.
CO2 is mainly useful for making beer fizzy.
Eeeeeewww!
Yeast farts!
Only joking.
The accelerating crisis
{Not about getting to Mars fast}
“More than 90% of the heat trapped by carbon emissions is absorbed by the oceans, making their warmth an undeniable signal of the accelerating crisis.”
https://tinyurl.com/2w7fh83p
Warming the 3.5 C ocean is the crisis.
It’s CAGW.
“More than 90 percent of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean.”
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content
{it’s the ocean, stupid}
3 C ocean is glaciation period.
4 C ocean is CAGW
4 C ocean is also thermal maximum of interglacial period in last 2 million years.
much earlier in our icehouse global climate which is called the
Late Cenozoic Ice Age, thermal maximum of interglacial period was 5 C or warmer.
An ocean with average temperature of 5 C is even wilder CAGW – far beyond the 100 year projections of IPCC.
Or last time we had a 4 C ocean was probably about 8000 years ago, and 5 C ocean probably more than 2 million years ago, before Greenland became a “permanent” ice sheet.
swannie…”Our U.S. President has presented plans to achieve a 50% reduction in emissions by 2030…”
***
You don’t seriously think Biden will be around in 2030, do you? I doubt that he’ll live out his current term.
The US population is slowly getting wise to the idiocy presented by the Democrats and I can see them being out of power for decades, unless the Republicans do something seriously dumb.
Here is Canada, we have a Prime Minster governing with a 32% popular vote, behaving as if the has a 70% majority. None of these politically-correct, eco-weenies have the support to make such drastic cuts in petroleum products.
Here is Environment Canada Net Zero Page: https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-plan/net-zero-emissions-2050.html
Its not just Trudeau; its all parties that are pushing the Net Zero Emissions narrative because they all believe the Climate Change Claptrap despite the lack of evidence that we discuss (sometimes) here.
ken…I think there is a lot of politicking going on. The Tories are going with whatever is popular, for the votes, but it obviously did not help them in the last election.
They have shown with their recent support of the truckers that they are flexible with such causes.
The Peoples Party with Maxime Bernier has stated opposition to the current idiocy on global warming as well as the covid idiocy. Of course, the media are doing whatever they can to censor Bernier.
https://www.peoplespartyofcanada.ca/platform
I think the protests have to grow to the point where the majority of Canadians are informed about the current pseudo-science. I am counting on the Canadian spirit, as represented by the truckers, to prevail.
Maybe Tories are like the US republicans, of which many like being the minority party. Or when in Majority Party one can seen as more responsible for govt action [and inactions].
Or they even imagine they are smarter, when actually they are dumber than bricks.
Maybe Tories are like the US republicans, of which many like being the minority party. Or when in Majority Party one can seen as more responsible for govt action [and inactions].
Or they can even imagine they are smarter, when actually they are dumber than bricks.
The useful idiots think cutting emissions by 40% by 2030 is a good idea because they think they are saving the planet. They don’t care that GDP will also drop by 40% because they don’t like corporations.
It will only start to hit home when they realize that 40% drop in GDP means 40% drop in their personal income.
The really wealthy will get all mad and stop gluing themselves to the road when all travel to sunny destinations for holidays is cut by 40% too.
Ken did you know that useful idiots believe ice cubes can boil water?
Here, they’re known as “braindead cult idiots”.
–The useful idiots think cutting emissions by 40% by 2030 is a good idea because they think they are saving the planet–
Well, China close to peak coal, in my opinion, but China is not going to lower CO2 emission by 2030. But China might paying $300 per ton for coal well before 2030 AD.
India doesn’t seem close to Peak Coal, and probably no where in the rest world, other than China is near peak Coal.
If useful idiots want lower CO2, they do something to put out at 1 natural burning coal site, and do as cheaply as it can be done.
Then China might learn something about how to put out all their coal which naturally burning also at low cost and well as the rest of world also might do it.
The real braindead cult idiots are Clint R, DREMT, and GR.
Coal in China has naught to do with the backward thinking climate policies in Canada.
rlh…”The real braindead cult idiots are Clint R, DREMT, and GR.”
***
Richard has appealed to his authority figures Binny and Willard since he could never have arrived at such a decision on his own.
Wrong. That is my conclusion about the whole bunch of you.
Does Earth with ocean of average temperature of 4 C, have snowfall?
Yes.
Lot’s a snowfall BUT less powdered snow for skiing.
Have ever skied in powder snow??
I mean real powder snow, the deep and beautiful powdered snow.
Obviously very different then manmade winter olympics snow- which
no actual skier would bother to ski on, unless they were very desperate and just had to go skiing.
Powder is puffy bed, as compared straw wet mattress.
I had expected more snow cover in the NH till end of January this year.
https://tinyurl.com/2p96j78c
I thought that, with a little help of the current big, bigger, biggest La Nina, it would have easily bypassed the 40+ year maximum of 1977/78, like a pole jumper at the Olympix.
That’s disappointing.
*
No, no… don’t try to kid me with that nice Canadian snow mass stat based on snow-water equivalence :- )
That namely is only a hint on snow being wetter and hence heavier than usual.
The link behind the tinyURL contains a ‘forbidden sequence’ unknown to me…
looks like a graph to me.
Oh oh oh gbaikie
I meant the link as character sequence, and not what it points to.
oh, I thought you meant the link didn’t work or something.
But you meant link didn’t work with this blog due to an unknown combination/sequence of characters, and as result had to use tiny make it work with this blog.
I had same problems often, had no idea what was the wrong character sequence, but it is quite common with links, and hard isolate, so first thing I do is get all links to tiny, and then waste my time looking for what else which could be causing the problem.
But as general rule try not to have many links, unless know link works.
Which reminds me, this doesn’t work:
https://tinyurl.com/54ec934m
For obvious reasons, but sometimes I forget, use it.
And be annoyed that I forgot.
Anyhow, maybe it’s the d when used next to the slash.
Or something crazy like that. But using tiny is better than wondering about it.
” I had same problems often, had no idea what was the wrong character sequence, but it is quite common with links, and hard isolate… ”
*
It’s often quite simple.
Your original link for example contains ‘d’ followed by ‘c’, what led the comment to be rejected:
https://nss[d-c].gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/index.html
The word absorp-tion is, without the hyphen between ‘p’ and ‘t’, also such a reject candidate.
Surprisingly, not the sequence as such is the cause, because:
– the option
– l’adoption in French
go thru.
I suspect the rule is ‘absorp’ followed by ‘t’.
Enough of climate.
What about 2020 XL5
C-type space rock.
Wiki:
“Due to their volatile-rich (icy) composition, C-type asteroids have relatively low density. A survey of 20 C-type asteroids found an average density of 1.7 g/cm3.
The largest unequivocally C-type asteroid is 10 Hygiea, although the SMASS classification places the largest asteroid, 1 Ceres, here as well, because that scheme lacks a G-type.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-type_asteroid
So what is volume of 1000 meter diameter sphere:
5.2410^8 cubic meter times 1700 kg = 8.9 x 10^11 kg
Or 8.9 x 10^8 tons. 890 million tons.
So could be 100 to 200 million tons of H20 and CO2- plus other volatiles.
Looking at 2020 XL5 with
https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/tools/sbdb_lookup.html#/?sstr=2020%20XL5
Or that doesn’t work:
https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sb/orbits.html
and put in: 2020 XL5
It does look easy to get to from Earth [it’s in high orbital inclination}. Or if at L-4 points, each 6 months it way up, then goes way down. Or by 13.84738102243333 degrees
Or Earth orbital path is 149.6 million km radius so, 939.95 million
km / 360 degrees : 2.6109 and times 13.84738102243333 = 36.15 million km up and down. Don’t see how that easy to get to from anywhere other than from say, Jupiter
That not a moon.
That plotted as object with 1 year orbit that goes between Mercury and Venus and goes out as far as to be between Earth and Mars distance, and has 13.84738102243333 degree inclination. It crosses thru Earth/Sun L-4, but L-4 {or L-5} is huge space.
Unless this Small-Body Database Lookup screwed up somehow.
And guess need more viewing of it. And look from Space, not on Earth looking at low angle thru Earth atmosphere {looking more twice as much of Earth atmosphere compared looking straight up}
God, I am dense. But thinking some other way to get to it other than using Jupiter, it seemed easier from Venus- go from Moon, and hit Venus at 13 degrees, or something. But why not from Earth with 13, etc. But hard to see from Earth because it’s close to 1 earth year orbit always low in the sky. Or same problem as looking for stuff in L-4 or L-5.
Mercury inclination is 7 degrees.
I wonder how delta-v need to get Mercury L-2 to 2020 XL5 doing
a non hohmann trajectory.
Say, using ion rocket engine powered by solar panels
(Orphan planet is a planet not having a mother star to orbit).
Orphan planet is not solar energy irradiated, therefore it has a surface temperature because of its own internal heat sources.
–
Two orphan planets may have the same average surface temperature, but the more differentiated surface temperatures orphan planet has the greater amount of IR outgoing radiative energy the orphan planet emits. (It is in accordance with Stephan-Boltzmann emission law nonlinearity.)
–
let’s consider two orphan planets emitting the same amount of IR outgoing radiative energy. The more surface temperatures differentiated orphan planet – the colder on average surface temperature planet.
–
An orphan planet with uniform surface temperature would have approached the planet effective radiative temperature Te.
Te is the highest possible average surface temperature for an orphan planet.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
When rotating the planet surface has larger surface areas exposed to solar flux in unit of time.
When rotating faster – more areas are exposed.
Thus the faster rotating planet (everything else equals) is capable to accumulate larger amounts of transformed into HEAT solar EM energy.
That is what makes a faster rotating planet on average surface a warmer planet.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yet the top post shows globally our planet is sightly & meaningfully warmer observed over a certain long period without an increase in rotation speed.
Christos research needs to be extended to include other climate relevant physics.
Yes, Moon rotates slower, therefore Moon is on average surface temperature a colder than Earth planet.
Ball4
“Yet the top post shows globally our planet is slightly & meaningfully warmer observed over a certain long period without an increase in rotation speed.”
Ball4, what you would like to know is the why Earth is getting gradually warmer…
Entropic man says:
January 31, 2022 at 6:58 AM
“Causation.
What mechanism changed the Earth from glacial 20,000 years ago to interglacial 10,000 years ago?
Why did the average temperature rise from 9C to 14C?
The modern interpretation of Milankovitch’s work is that you get an interglacial when enough energy reaches 65N latitude in Summer to melt the snow. Without the snow albedo drops and enough heat is retained to keep it warm.
A glacial period starts when too little heat reaches 65N in Summer to melt the snow. Over years the snow builds up into ice sheets and the increased ice albedo keeps it cold.”
What really happens is that you get an interglacial when enough energy reaches 65 SOUTH latitude in Southern Hemisphere Summer to accumulate the solar energy in the oceanic waters.
In our times the South Hemisphere’s summer COINCIDES with the earth’s PERIHELION.
That is why Earth is in a WARMING TREND PHASE now.
Milankovitch had calculated his cycle in high preciseness. Milankovitch Cycle should be read REVERSED.
Please visit:
The Reversed Cycle
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com/443826320
Milankovitch Reverse
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com/444467896
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Lol, neither Earth’s M cycling or rotation speed is useful to explain warming in the period noted in top post Christos. Other atm. physics are useful though & further research of past work by Christos can reveal the observed relevant causes(s). They are not kept top secret.
Thank you Ball4
“Lol, neither Earth’s M cycling or rotation speed is useful to explain warming in the period noted in top post Christos. Other atm. physics are useful though & further research of past work by Christos can reveal the observed relevant causes(s). They are not kept top secret.”
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
B4,
I asked Coturnix, now I ask you. What would Mars’ temperature be if it was in the same orbit as Earth?
The satellite temperatures seem to be subject to a lot of correction and adjustments.
What do you think of the approach of Temperature.Global website.
It collects ground based data from around the world and averages it.
The approach seems simple given the data collection methods and it removes the need for adjustment so long as there is no massive changes in stations being monitored.
Currently: 56.66F/13.7C
Deviation: -0.54F/-0.3C
http://temperature.global/#one
Data Sources:
N O A A Global METARs
N O A A One-Minute Observations (OMOs)
N B D C Global Buoy Reports
M A D I S Mesonet Data
Scott
” Deviation: -0.54°F/-0.3°C ”
With respect to what?
” The current temperature is the 12M average mean surface temperature over the last 12 months compared against the 30 year mean. ”
What does mean a ’30 year mean’, when the reference period is not explicitly mentioned, like UAH’s 1991-2020, Had-CRUT’s 1961-1990, GISS’ 1951-1980, etc etc mentioned everywhere?
I tried to find out if they mention it anywhere other than this spartan site, but found nothing.
*
Is that then a running reference period? Seriously>?
If it is, then anybody will have problems with understanding
” 2021 average: 0.20 °F (0.11 °C) below normal “.
when the reference period is adjusted from year to year, because that way, we automatically lack any real baseline common to different years.
*
I can’t show that using over 40,000 GHCN daily stations: that would take too much time, even on a 16 GB Quad-core. {grrrr}
Here is a little example explaining what I mean, based on all stations available for Berlin, Germoney.
1. Three 12 month baselines, for Jan-Dec in 1981-2010, 1982-2011 and 1983-2012 each, all temps below in Celsius:
0.46 || 0.54 || 0.69
1.38 || 1.35 || 1.28
4.82 || 4.76 || 4.83
9.38 || 9.54 || 9.60
14.21 || 14.21 || 14.27
16.88 || 16.93 || 16.89
19.36 || 19.35 || 19.30
18.86 || 18.91 || 18.89
14.70 || 14.72 || 14.64
9.89 || 9.94 || 9.89
4.70 || 4.70 || 4.66
1.26 || 1.51 || 1.44
2. Annual averages
9.66 || 9.71 || 9.70
3. Three sets of anomalies wrt the three baselines above:
2011: 0.75 || 0.71 || 0.71
2012: 0.08 || 0.03 || 0.04
2013: -0.11 || -0.16 || -0.15
The differences are here tiny, but that is not the point. I have seen enough examples with much bigger differences.
The point is that when having a running reference period, you stop knowing what
2011: 0.75 (wrt 1981-2010)
2012: 0.03 (wrt 1982-2011)
2013: -0.15 (wrt 1983-2012)
really means.
Simply because if all three periods show for example increasing / decreasing means, their respective anomalies will automatically decrease / increase: but not because it gets colder / warmer!
You know what I know. I purely followed the ref.
About
Temperature.Global calculates the current global temperature of the Earth. It uses unadjusted surface temperatures. The current temperature is the 12M average mean surface temperature over the last 12 months compared against the 30 year mean. New observations are entered each minute and the site is updated accordingly. This site was created by professional meteorologists and climatologists with over 25 years experience in surface weather observations.
Previous Years
The recorded global temperature for previous years:
2015 average: 0.98 F (0.54 C) below normal
2016 average: 0.48 F (0.27 C) below normal
2017 average: 0.47 F (0.26 C) below normal
2018 average: 1.33 F (0.74 C) below normal
2019 average: 0.65 F (0.36 C) below normal
2020 average: 0.00 F (0.00 C) below normal
2021 average: 0.20 F (0.11 C) below normal
scott…”The satellite temperatures seem to be subject to a lot of correction and adjustments”.
***
You need to be specific…which corrections, which adjustments. UAH has been upfront about anything related to your claim. It is the alarmists who keep zoning in on imaginary corrections and adjustments.
@gordon robertson
would you agree with the following statement:
1) backradiation keeps the earth warmer than it would otherwise be, and that’s how greenhouse effect works
2) backconvection keeps the earth warmer than it would otherwise be
3) backconduction keeps the earth warmer than it would otherwise be
4) backevaporation keeps the earth warmer than it would otherwise be
unfortunately, there is proper name for the three latter effects. Fundamentally, conceptually they are all the same, but also at the level of microphysics effects (3) and (4) are the same as (1), while (2) is somewhat different.
corrigendum, there are NO proper names for the effects 2 through 4
There is no backward convection, only gravity.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2021.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_NH_2021.png
@Ireneusz Palmowski
(read this with a smooth voice of tony dalton)
iRENeusz Palmowski…. ren, is that you?
I’m 99.9999 % sure.
c,
Complete nonsense. The Earth is precisely as warm as it is, having cooled to its present temperature from a much hotter state.
There is no greenhouse effect. You can’t even describe what it is.
Your fantasy is not fact.
Moron.
You are the moron. Idiot.
RLH,
Still can’t produce a description of the Greenhouse Effect, then?
That might explain why there is no Greenhouse Theory, do you think?
but I produced one, and therefore by your logic it might explain why there IS that Greenhouse Theory. It’s because you are not a person but a bot, and bots can never truly understand and think because the strong AI on top of finite digital computers is unpossible.
Cot-child, your GHE definition can NOT violate 2LoT.
Please try again.
c,
So you can’t actually produce a copy of the non-existent Greenhouse Theory, can you?
Why are you keeping such a treasure secret? Too precious to show to unbelievers?
You’re a moron if you think you can convince people that the Greenhouse Theory exists without being able to even say where it might be found, let alone spending as much time copying and pasting it, as you do giving reasons for keeping it secret!
What a crackpot idiot you are!
@ clint r
>>>your GHE definition can NOT violate 2LoT.
tha it correct, because it (the GHE theory) does NOT violate 2lot. Only the twisted strawman of a lie version that you and other like you concoted in their imaginations and then try to pass a the GHET violates 2lot. Either way, so wonderful for you to finally agree that GHET exists and is correct. Congrats =)
@swenson
>>>So you cant actually produce a copy of the non-existent Greenhouse Theory, can you?
I just did, your inability to read and comprehend is nothing I can help you with. Seek profession special needs services may be.
>>>> where it might be found
i did check every undergrad book on the atmospheric physics but i am pretty sufe you can find it in every single one of them. Im sure some of them explain it better than others, oh well.
corrigendum: should be “…did NOT check every undergrad book…”
https://www.awe.gov.au/science-research/climate-change/climate-science/understanding-climate-change
“Greenhouse gas effect
The greenhouse effect is a natural process that warms the Earths surface. When the Suns energy reaches the Earths atmosphere, some of it is reflected back to space and some is absorbed and re-radiated by greenhouse gases.
Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and some artificial chemicals such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).
The absorbed energy warms the atmosphere and the surface of the Earth. This process maintains the Earths temperature at around 33 degrees Celsius warmer than it would otherwise be, allowing life on Earth to exist”
swineson, you cant even troll properly without lying.
“The Earth is precisely as warm as it is” – no it is not, do you know that the earth surface temperature actually varies by as much as 4K over the course of a year?? Your trolling kinda reminds me of that limbless knight from monty python. And your comprehension of the principle of nature is worse than that of a kindergarteneer.
Also, ‘complete nonsense’ is not an argument. Well, except if it is applied to your nonsensical gibberish. Just explain in simple words, why do you think backconvection does not exist?
C,
You wrote –
The Earth is precisely as warm as it is no it is not, do you know that the earth surface temperature actually varies by as much as 4K over the course of a year??”
You moron. The Earth’s temperature is what it is! Measurably.
That is what thermometers are for. To measure temperature. Of course temperatures vary – measured by thermometers, as I said!
Are you really such a fool that you don’t realise that climate crackpots actually measure temperatures, and then claim that those temperatures really should be lower?
Well, they aren’t. Temperature are what they are.
You are what you are – a delusional fool. You apparently believe in some fiction that you can’t even describe!
[laughs at dimwitted climate crank]
>>>climate crackpots actually measure temperatures, and then claim that those temperatures really should be lower?
sure there are some crazzy crackpots that claim that, but the actual claim is not that they should, but that they used_to be lower 50 or 100 years ago. But you you feel compelled to lie even abiyt that, don’t you? That claim can be contested of course, and indeed many people do that by cross-examining evidence. It does seem true though that the mean earth temperatures have increased somewhat since the 60s.
I see cot-child is trolling today.
He doesn’t understand 2LoT.
coturnix…
-no such thing as back-convection or back-conduction. Hot air rises and there is no hot air at altitude that can be transferred back to the surface.
No such thing as back-evapouration. There are no oceans or lakes in the atmosphere.
-back-radiation, meaning radiation directed toward the surface by GHGs, only a fraction of it, has no effect on the surface. The 2nd law tells us that.
Even forward conduction in a gas is very low due to the relatively large spaces between molecules. Air is not a good conductor of heat.
“there is no hot air at altitude”
Not quite true.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Typical-vertical-structure-of-atmospheric-temperature-K-in-the-lowest-100km-of-the_fig9_334593331
@gordon robertson
>>>Hot air rises
yes, yes, yes! and then what happens? I mean, the hot air rises vaccum does not form at the surface, right? The void at the surface is replaced with.. something. With what? Think 😉
>>>and there is no hot air at altitude that can be transferred back to the surface.
But something does need to be transferred back to the surface? since the void as we just found out, does not form at the surface. So it must be air descending back to the surface. Hot air. Why hot? well, it is not at 0K, it has a finite temperature and tehrefore the finite internal heat energy. That is transferred back from the sky down to earth. That is back-convection =) Does break any law including 2lot. See how simple it is?
>>>No such thing as back-evapouration. There are no oceans or lakes in the atmosphere.
first of all, there ARE oceans and in the atmosphere, they are called ‘clouds’. Perhaps you should look outta window sometimes. And yes, backevaporation happens in them too, but that’s not what i was talking about. It happens at the surface as well, all the time.
>>>>Even forward conduction in a gas is very low due to the relatively large spaces between molecules. Air is not a good conductor of heat.
I never looked deeply into that so I may be wrong here, but i was told that the conductivity of nearly-deal gasses is effectively a diffusion process. Thus, the real rason that gasses conduct heat imo is mre to do with the fact the the rarified gass molecules are not correlated, while in the solid the molecules are moving somewhat
correlated with eaach other and the conduction process is better modelled by the diffusion of collecive vibrations aka phonons and other quasiparticles.
>>>-back-radiation, meaning radiation directed toward the surface by GHGs, only a fraction of it, has no effect on the surface. The 2nd law tells us that.
it tells none, as it applies to the heat transfer, not the individual separate microphysical phenomena such as radiation, underlying the macroscopic phenomena of thermodynamics.
Still cold Peruvian Current. Little chance of El Nino. Will La Nina reappear in the Pacific in November?
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data_current/5km/v3.1_op/daily/png/ct5km_ssta_v3.1_pacific_current.png
Still freezing overnight in the southern US.
https://i.ibb.co/VmztGk6/Screenshot-2.png
Another cold front is moving into the northeastern US.
https://i.ibb.co/xjKQFQ7/Screenshot-3.png
Current ENSO predictions
7th Feb 2022
https://imgur.com/a/5JgdRYu
The CFS.v2 ensemble mean (black dashed line) predicts La Niña to continue into
autumn 2022.
A 12 month (or longer) La Nina has been predicted for a while.
Somebody predicted La Nina gone by April , let me think , who was it , I marked it down somewhere
In a few months we will see who is closer.
Since solar activity will remain at similar levels, there will continue to be a weak La Nina unless the solar wind increases strongly. Then La Nina may be stronger.
This is the circulation forecast over North America.
https://i.ibb.co/VMRb26M/gfs-o3mr-200-NA-f072.png
It’s pretty good cold at night in Northern America these days (except small corners like Southwest Canada).
Absolute temps
https://i.postimg.cc/8CcHkkQw/NA-Feb-2022-absol.gif
Anomaly temps
https://i.postimg.cc/GhRx8xn4/NA-Feb-2022-anoms.gif
Not so much cold in Europe, especially in my corner in Northeast Germoney.
Absolute temps
https://i.postimg.cc/vZ3JSmtv/EU-Feb-2022-absol.gif
Anomaly temps
https://i.postimg.cc/VLFpdNpc/EU-Feb-2022-anoms.gif
*
No winter here. Over 8 PM at UTC+1, and still 9 C.
Wonderful.
Pour moi, cela peut continuer comme ça!
Scotland looks like being not so fortunate.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-snow-forecast-met-office-b2011078.html
ENSO: Recent Evolution, Current Status and Predictions
NOAA, Climate Prediction Center / NCEP
7 February 2022
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Summary
ENSO Alert System Status: La Niña Advisory
La Niña is present.
Equatorial sea surface temperatures (SSTs) are below average across the east-central and eastern Pacific Ocean.
The tropical Pacific atmosphere is consistent with La Niña.
La Niña is likely to continue into the Northern Hemisphere spring (67% chance during March-May 2022) and then transition to
ENSO-neutral (51% chance during April-June 2022).
*
Sounds a bit more differentiated to me…
Current ENSO predictions
7th Feb 2022
https://imgur.com/a/5JgdRYu
I repeat for the elementary school teacher:
” Sounds a bit more differentiated to me… ”
… because I read entire documents, and not one little graph of them.
“one little graph of them”
That one little graph say a 12 month La Nina. Or do you deny that it does?
Yet, RLH, this chart is from the very same document.
https://i.imgur.com/qdslQ1X.png
No 12-month la Nina prediction there. You didn’t think it was worth mentioning?
As Spring is a well known barrier to predictions, it looks like they are posting both options so that they are not wrong.
You are full of shit, sir.
“ENSO-neutral 51% chance” is meaningless, it is not a forecast of anything
Current ENSO predictions
7th Feb 2022
https://imgur.com/a/5JgdRYu
Current ENSO predictions:
“Latest oceanic observations, along with most model outlooks, suggest this La Niña event is at or near its peak, with a return to neutral El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) conditions forecast early in the southern hemisphere autumn. This is consistent with the typical ENSO event life cycle.”
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/outlook/
“In conclusion, the La Niña conditions are likely to continue at least until the end of boreal winter (80%) (Fig.1 and Fig.2), and transfer to ENSO-neutral by the end of spring (80%).”
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/outlook.html
So we’ll see which forecast was correct later on.
To be set against
Current ENSO predictions
7th Feb 2022
https://imgur.com/a/5JgdRYu
As you say, we will see who is nearer being correct later this year.
To be set against
Current ENSO predictions:
“Latest oceanic observations, along with most model outlooks, suggest this La Niña event is at or near its peak, with a return to neutral El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) conditions forecast early in the southern hemisphere autumn. This is consistent with the typical ENSO event life cycle.”
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/outlook/
“In conclusion, the La Niña conditions are likely to continue at least until the end of boreal winter (80%) (Fig.1 and Fig.2), and transfer to ENSO-neutral by the end of spring (80%).”
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/outlook.html
RLH,
It doesnt help your credibility when you only post one model, the one that all who have been paying attention are aware is an outlier, and the one that performed worst this year.
So Nate, are you going to bust the Spring Barrier and predict what the state of ENSO will be later this year?
Early February CPC/IRI Official Probabilistic ENSO Forecasts
So Mark B, are you going to bust the Spring Barrier and predict what the state of ENSO will be later this year?
rlh…”The real braindead cult idiots are Clint R, DREMT, and GR”.
***
Posted by rlh, an intelligent imbecile, who cannot grasp a ball on a string as a model for the Moon’s orbit and cannot grasp the relationship between gravitational force and lunar linear momentum on the curvilinear orbit of the Moon.
If Richard was forced to go without his appeals to authority, and required to think for himself, he’d begin skaking uncontrollably while stammering a mantra of some kind.
Clint, Dremt, Swenson, and I have tried to mentor him, alas, to no avail. Pity!!!
For a start a ball on a string only does circles and the Moon’s orbit is an ellipse.
Also the ball on a string is attached at the surface whereas gravity does not operate that way.
I am quite capable of supporting my logical arguments without resorting to slurs and inuendo but dealing with idiots tests my patience.
The ball-on-a-string was never meant to be an exact model of Moon. It’s only a simple analogy of orbital motion without axial rotation. RLH has NEVER been able to understand the simple analogy. Attaching the sting on the surface makes NO difference to the simple analogy, as the string tension acts through the ball’s center of mass, just as does gravity.
The ball-on-a-string has the same vectors acting on it as a body in a circular orbit. So the simple analogy is perfectly relevant. One side always faces the inside of this orbit. Just like Moon.
Even though RLH does not understand vectors, he could actually attach a string to a ball and see for himself.
If I were to attach a ball to a ball by a string which ball is the thing rotating about?
If they are equal balls then I would be rotating about the barycenter, which is the middle.
RLH, there’s a 99.999 chance percent you will never understand any of this.
There is a 0.001% chance that you are not an idiot.
RLH,
You wrote –
” . . .but dealing with idiots tests my patience.”
And this is relevant to anyone except you, because . . .?
If your “logical arguments” don’t accord with facts, they are useless. As Richard Feynman said – It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.
If you don’t believe that one face of the Moon is continuously presented to an observer at one focus of the ellipse which roughly describes the Moon’s orbit, do you think it makes any difference to the physical laws of the universe?
Maybe you don’t believe the speed of light is invariant and that doppler radar speed cameras should not work, but who cares what your “logical arguments” tell you?
Here’s a hint – the universe isn’t listening!
Moron.
It is you who are the moron.
rlh…”For a start a ball on a string only does circles and the Moons orbit is an ellipse.
Also the ball on a string is attached at the surface whereas gravity does not operate that way”.
***
RED HERRING ALERT!!!!
Richard still can’t grasp the eloquence and aptness of the ball on a string. Both the Moon and the ball keep the same face pointed inwardly. The ball cannot rotate about a local axis while doing that and neither can the Moon. Different mechanisms, same reality. Not possible for the Moon to rotate about its axis while keeping the same face pointed inwardly.
If things are attached via the surface then of course that face will ‘point inwards’ because of the center to surface lever created. Gravity operates on the center of mass, which is not at the surface, so no such lever is created.
So there is no comparison because they are different.
P.S. The real braindead cult idiots are Clint R, Swenson, DREMT, and GR
RLH,
I suppose what you really mean is that you can’t actually describe the phenomenon that you call the Greenhouse Effect, let alone produce a copy of a non-existent Greenhouse Theory?
That might make denying the reality that the Earth’s surface is no longer molten (having cooled considerably over the last four and a half billion years to its present temperature), slightly more difficult than it otherwise would be – to use climate nutter phraseology.
Believe what you like – it’s a semi-free world. I’m free to treat you as an object of derision if I choose.
I have explained my reasons. Others may choose to agree or disagree.
[chortling]
And I, likewise, treat you and your ilk as idiots.
Oh oh oh.
Flynnson is these days confused to such an extent that he enters the pseudonym of those he wants to reply to, instead of his own one.
Hmmmh.
Ce brave homme a grand besoin d’un psy, ma parole.
Binny,
Well, you were certainly clever enough to work it out, weren’t you?
My intentional typo failed to confuse your steel-trap intellect!
Well done Binny!
Maybe you can produce a copy of the Greenhouse Theory? None of the other morons seem to be able to.
Go for it. Surprise me!
> who cannot grasp a ball on a string as a model for the Moon’s orbit
C’mon, Gordo. You’re breaking ranks:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1126306
Think.
Witless Wee Willy,
C’mon Wee Willy, think – who cares about your babbling?
Idiot.
Mike Flynn,
Perhaps you should leave Richard’s nickname to him.
Just a thought.
Wobbly Wee Willy!
So Swenson is Mike Flynn Mike Flynn in your fantasy, and Gordo is Richard.
Or do you assert that Richard’s nickname is Gordo?
All very confusing. Probably because you are exceptionally confused.
Why do you think anybody cares about your moronic diversionary babbling?
Produce a copy of the Greenhouse Theory, and you might find some people expressing interest. Not going to happen though, is it?
Why do you keep talking about yourself in the third person, Mike, and where’s your Insulation Effect theory?
Witless Wee Willy,
You still can’t find the Greenhouse Theory, is that it?
You might be trying to reject reality, but at least you’re a moron!
You are the moron, Swenson.
W
Facundo wants to know why W has a problem with those who talk about themselves in the third person. Inquiring minds want to know.
Salut le fécond
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1166261
Might help you a bit.
willard…re your link…clint said…
“The ball-on-a-string is NOT a model, or analogy, to Moon. We have stated that numerous times, and the idiots STILL try to mess up the simple analogy. It is NOT about Moon”.
***
I agree with Clint, it’s not meant to model the Moon. I said it’s a model for the Moon’s orbit. I guess I should have expanded that to say it’s a model for the orbit because both keep the same face pointed to the centre. That’s why we came up with the BOS, to show both kept the same face pointed inwardly while not rotating about their COGs.
I thought maybe people like you would understand that by now but apparently you’re too thick to get such a simple analogy.
> it’s not meant to model the Moon. I said it’s a model for the Moon’s orbit.
C’mon, Gordo.
Alright. That one is funny.
Woeful Wee Willy,
C’mon, Wee Willy. You are funny (peculiar, not ha-ha). Completely pointless, irrelevant, and delusional into the bargain.
Keep it up. As an object of derision, you set a low bar.
Thanks, Mike.
Whenever you wish to share your Insulation Effect theory, go for it.
“I said its a model for the Moons orbit”
The Moon’s orbit is an ellipse around a barycenter. The ball-on-a-string models a circle around another ball. Not the same thing.
RLH,
Does it matter?
As the ball-on-a-string fails to represent this, yes.
As I have said before, a ball-on-a-string only models a ball-on-a-string.
Earlier, coturnix wrote –
“the GHE theory is simple in abstract: given a planet with a sun and an atmosphere, its mean surface temperature, EEBE would be higher if its atmosphere contains the radiatively-active gasses aka GHGs that a8s0r8 in the frequency range that the thermal radiation of the planets surface is emitted at.”
Unfortunately, the universe doesn’t seem to agree.
At the same distance, and for the same exposure time, the surface of the atmosphere-free Moon reaches 127 C, or thereabouts. So much for atmospheric “heating”.
Even the witless climate crackpots at NASA admit that of the roughly 1366 w/m2 beyond the atmosphere, a maximum of maybe 1000 w/m2 reaches the surface – rarely!
So, these same witless fools have convinced themselves that reducing insolation from 1366 w/m2 to 1000 w/m2, increases the temperature of a thermometer – presumably through Greenhouse magic, based on Cargo Cult science.
Reality? Who needs it. Not climate crackpots, that’s for sure. Maybe you need to find the GHE theory, not just the abstract.
Only joking, dummy. There is no GHE theory.
Swenson
“Unfortunately, the universe doesnt seem to agree.
At the same distance, and for the same exposure time, the surface of the atmosphere-free Moon reaches 127 C, or thereabouts. So much for atmospheric heating.”
It is so much obvious there is not any measurable greenhouse warming effect on the earth’s mean surface temperature – it is eye piercing!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
>>>At the same distance, and for the same exposure time, the surface of the atmosphere-free Moon reaches 127 C, or thereabouts. So much for atmospheric “heating”.
you be good troll, but not great. You can’t even troll properly without straight-out lying. No, not for the same exposure of time, that;s false and you are lying. In reality, the moon rotates about its axis very slowly, and exposes itself to the sun for a prolonged mount of time. Combined with low heat capacity and low thermal conductivity of the real moon surface which is very fluffy (unlike the fake one shown in the fake nasa footage), an withut the moderating effect of the air which can move heat between the colder and warmer parts of the surface, the temperature of the very dark lunar surface can reach very high temperature in equilibrium with the incoming solar radiation. But for the same reasons, it reaches very low temperatures during the lunar night when due to the moon rotating on its own axis the sun doesn’t shine on it. Oh, and btw 127C is red herring, as I was talking about and the GHE is about the mean temperatures, another lie from you. The average temperature of the lunar surface is much lower than same temperatures on earth even despite the fact that the erth has much higher albedo.
>>> Even the witless climate crackpots at NASA admit that of the roughly 1366 w/m2 beyond the atmosphere, a maximum of maybe 1000 w/m2 reaches the surface – rarely!
surprisingly, afaik you are not lying here. In deed the direct solar radiation reaching the surface on the sunny day is more like 1000w/m2, and in the dustier desert areas can be lower yet even during the apparently crystal-clear sky conditions.
>>> So, these same witless fools have convinced themselves that reducing insolation from 1366 w/m2 to 1000 w/m2, increases the temperature of a thermometer – presumably through Greenhouse magic, based on Cargo Cult science.
ur confusing cause and effect here. Both the increased temperature and lowered insolation is an observed FACT. GHT is a reasonable and well-verified explanation for that fact. No magic there? just basic 100 year old physics.
>>>> Reality? Who needs it. Not climate crackpots, that’s for sure. Maybe you need to find the GHE theory, not just the abstract.
I was just replying to your stupid question. Maybe you need to.
>>> Only joking, dummy. There is no GHE theory.
sure there is , and it is the coreect explanation for the observed reality. Easy to demostrate and verify, though tricky to understand, true, as not every person seem to be able to grasp it, like for example I was able to while you and the 3 others here are too dumb to.
c,
I point out a measurable fact – maximum temperature on the airless Moon being higher than the maximum temperature on Earth. You don’t accept reality, so you start blathering about averages – which are both irrelevant and immeasurable!
You reject the physical reality that reducing the radiation reaching a thermometer results in less heating, not more. Find a non-imaginary experiment which supports your contention, and startle the world – of course you can’t, because you live in a fantasy world.
You still say that a greenhouse theory exists – but you can’t produce it just at present, because it is tricky to understand. Nonsense. If you could produce it, you would – with the appropriate fanfare, cannon salutes and cries of “Moron, here it is!”, as you wave it around triumphantly!
Alas, you can’t, can you?
Maybe you can “argue” the Greenhouse Theory into reality. In the meantime, have you asked a world famous “climate scientist” to lend you a copy? Don’t bother asking the fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat Michael Mann. He can’t find one either.
[laughs at delusional crackpot]
>>I point out a measurable fact – maximum temperature on the airless Moon being higher than the maximum temperature on Earth.
that is a correct fact that is irrelevant to the GHET.
>>>You don’t accept reality, so you start blathering about averages – which are both irrelevant and immeasurable!
I did not “start” – i’ve been talking about them from the very beginning. It is the only relevant measurable quantity. And even though measuring the mean temperatures is tricky and sometimes ill-defined, the accuracy is good enough to determine that GHE is inevitable necessary for the earth to be as warm as it is.
as you notice
>>>You reject the physical reality that reducing the radiation reaching a thermometer results in less heating, not more.
yep, and that is why GHE is real. because the earth is much warmer than the moon. Based on how much radiation the earth receivess from the sun, its temperature cannot possibly be more than approx 255K 9still more than the moon), while it is over 30K warmer. simple as that.
>>>If you could produce it, you would
I did, the fact that your brain is to small to see that should be of interest only to the medical school students.
>>Michael Mann.
despite the tremendous role that individual scientists contribute to it and which given them respect and admiration, science is not about personalities. The knowledge in produced by people, but then it is purufed into an abstract and universla form detached from its creators or anyone else. Noone care what exactly newton thought and said abut gravitation, that’s a curiosity that only historians should care about. Same with michael mann. One or even several biased scientists with dubious intentions and despicable personalities don’t change the laws of nature.
Coturnix,
If the Moon were spinning the same number of revolutions per unit time as the Earth, what would its mean temperature be?
Here’s another question. Suppose Mars was in Eart’s orbit around the Sun, same atmosphere as it has now, what would its temperature be?
@stephen p anderson
those are all good question that require using math to answer and of course notoriously difficult to verify experimentally. The moon question is actually verifiable as a tiny scale model of the moon can be built somewhere in a cold chamber perhaps…. the mars of course cannot as making a scale model of the atmosphere is impossible.
Luciky there is some very simple junior-high level math that allows us to reason about these things, and completely and utterly disprove the skydragon slayers and other similar nonsense. Assuming that the SB law of w=sigma*t^4 is correct, we use the rather simple fact that mean of squares of two numbers a and b is always equal or larger than the square of the mean. It also applies to the fourth degree and basically all other powers larger than 1 (although obviously you want a and b to be positive). From this it can be demonstrated that for the fixed incoming energy W the mean temperature of the thing it illuminates will always be the higher the smaller are the spatial and temporal swing of the temperature of the thing in question (in out case the moon). The limiting case, the highest possible mean temperature will be achieved is the energy flux W is evenly smeared all over the surface of, in our case, the moon. Thus we can simply calculate what the maximum mean temperature the GHG-less moon can possibly have under the most favorable circumstances assuming 100% emissivity and 0% albedo:
for the entrie moon, we get:
(1367/4/5.67e-8)**.25-273.15 = 5.9*C, which is 9K colder than the earth, which mind you has much higher albedo of ~30%
for the lunar equator we get:
(1367/pi/5.67e-8)**.25-273.15 = 22.9*C, which is between 3K-5K colder than the actual earth equatorial temperatures.
Whatever the lunar temperatures would be if it spun about its axis as faaaaast as the earth does I don’t know, but I do know that they will likely be higher then they are now but with 100% certainty I can say they will be lower than the earth temperatures, bound by the values I got in the calculation presented here.
cot-kid, you do NOT divide by 4 to get the MAXIMUM.
You have a lot to learn. Maybe when you grow up?
@clint я
but I’m not getting the maximum, maximum is irrelevant here. It is true that the maximums are higher on the moon, I don’t dispute that anywhere, that is IRRELEVANT! When will you read what you reply to, and stop arguing with your own flaming buttho… err, i mean imagination
Until I looked at the check which said $5381, I be certain …that my best friend like they say really bringing in money in there spare time from their computer.. there mums best friend started doing this for under 10 months and just now cleared the morgage on their apartment and purchased a new Alfa Romeo.
visit this web-site…..…. http://webwork242.blogspot.com/
“There is no GHE theory.”
Maybe I should make one.
As I said many times, the average temperature of Earth’s ocean
is the global temperature.
Regardless of Volcanoes, variation of amount sunlight reaching earth’s surface, or any amount of greenhouse gases, the average temperature of the Earth ocean does not normally change much within time periods of less than 100 years.
The average ocean temperature is about 3.5 C.
If assume 3.5 C as baseline, what causes global average surface temperature to be about 15 C?
It was about 3.5 C in 1950 AD, was about 3.5 C in 2000 AD and will be about 3.5 C in 2050 AD.
And it was about 3.5 C within about the last 5000 years.
If talking about 1 million years, the average ocean temperature has been about 2 to 4 C.
So over 1 million year one could say that baseline was about 3 C and what caused global average air temperature to above the baseline average ocean temperature of 3 C?
The range of global surface air temperature over last 1 million years, has been about 10 to 18 C.
When global air temperature was about 10 C, it seems ocean could have been about 2 C [though possible it was about 3 C.
What make global surface air temperature 7 to 8 C warmer than the average ocean temperature?
When global surface air was about 18 C, it seems the ocean temperature was about 4 C. What made the global surface air temperature 14 C warmer than global ocean temperature.
What seems to be large amount of warming above the ocean average temperature, is how we measure global air temperature.
We measure nighttime temperature and daytime temperature and average it.
Or average ocean temperature doesn’t change in 24 hours and at noon, the air temperature is warmer than the night.
Now, there is problem here in that ocean is warmer than land.
Or our current average ocean surface air is about 17 C.
So it’s 17 C – 3.5 C = 13.5 C.
[As compared to 15 – 3.5 = 11.5]
And there isn’t wide difference of night and day air temperatures on the ocean, unlike on the land surfaces in regards surface air temperatures.
Or average global surface land is 10 C but it’s only 30% of the Earth surface, one could say that land is as warm as 10 C, largely the measuring of daytime high and averaging night.
And it’s nighttime temperature would much cooler, with higher global air temperature caused the ocean.
So, let’s view them separately, and the ocean, with the difference of 11.5 C, how of much of that might be caused by greenhouse effect?
–So, lets view them separately, and the ocean, with the difference of 11.5 C, how of much of that might be caused by greenhouse effect?–
So what causes a lot of 11.5 C is the warm ocean of the tropics.
Or tropical ocean is about 26 C and 60% of rest of ocean is about 11
giving the 17 C average. So with 60% of ocean it’s 11 – 3.5 = 7.5 C.
And got tropical water being transported outside of the tropics, and got tropical heat engine heating the rest of world.
Leaving very little heating from greenhouse gases.
Apparently.
“Leaving very little heating from greenhouse gases.”
That would be a number slightly less than zero, I suppose.
Hmmmm. Would that explain the cooling of the Earth in the long term?
Ah, accepted reason is plate tectonics-
Antarctica moving to south pole and other geological
changes to Earth.
It’s accepted as given, that the sun has increasing in energy output over hundreds of millions years.
Anyhow, Earth surface has changed, and this also accepted than that ocean cooled.
How:
As far as what I think. We have cold ocean because too much cold water falls into the ocean depth.
And I accept idea that in global greenhouse climates, they are caused by lots of warm saltly water falling.
So, rather than “too much cold water falls” could also be not enough warm water falls.
And Earth has some warm salty water falling, just, apparently not enough.
And recently [within 50 million years] there also could been geological changes could have lessen the amount of warm salty water falling into ocean depths.
Of course if have a lot oceanic volcanic activity pouring hundred cubic km per year of lava, you don’t need warm salty water falling to warm the entire ocean.
Or we need a lot more ocean exploration- in order to get evident one way or the other.
You do need to match/offset this against the number and frequency of the formation of Brinicles and cold/salt water brine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brinicle
RLH,
You wrote –
“You do need to match/offset this against the number and frequency of the formation of Brinicles and cold/salt water brine.”
Not at all. The mid-ocean trenches are adding enormous amounts of heat as the magma enters the ocean continuously. Cooling surface water is just cooling – the heat has left the water, fleeing towards space.
No nonsensical heat moving into the depths. The oceans are heated from below, as anyone who has tried to boil a pot of water by applying heat from above soon appreciates.
Climate crackpots are either frauds or fools. They either know they are talking nonsense, or they don’t.
And none of them can produce a Greenhouse Theory, or even describe the phenomenon they call the Greenhouse Effect, can they? If they could, you would be rubbing my nose in it, wouldn’t you?
Carry on.
RE: RLH says:
February 9, 2022 at 7:40 AM
In terms climate it’s more about cold water falling moving on to the rest of the ocean and having warm surface replacing it.
The formation of Brinicle {I believe is about very salty which temperature colder than the sea water, and thereby freezes the less salty ocean water.
For cold water to fall, it just needs to colder {denser}.
With freshwater, lake fill up with 4 C water because this is densest freshwater, and seawater denser at 0 or colder such as -1 C seawater. Of course Arctic complicated, it fed with rivers and one polar ice melt [less salty]. But whatever less dense rises and displacing that denser water which falls- or denser water falls.
Of course if volcanic heat warms water and it rises, it likewise is replaced with other water.
Water is poor conductor of heat, but gravity moves it if different density. Or ocean has rivers [and also has lakes] due seawater being different densities, because it’s cold and/or more salty, though warm ocean water can fall if very salty, or could have rivers of warm saltier water.
Or atmosphere is similar, ie, inversion layers in both.
What falls is replaced by stuff that rises and vice versa. Heard of density and convection?
All freezing of sea water produces brine. All melting of ice produces fresh water.
RLH,
You wrote –
“What falls is replaced by stuff that rises and vice versa. Heard of density and convection?”
and –
“All freezing of sea water produces brine. All melting of ice produces fresh water.”
Is this an attempt to convince people that you are incredibly clever?
At least you have pointed out that it is impossible for surface water heated by the Sun to descend into the depths. So much for climate crackpots who claim that “heat” is “hidden” in the depths of the oceans!
At least you are not quite that moronic.
“it is impossible for surface water heated by the Sun to descend into the depths”
Strawman. I never said that it was. Surface ice melts because of the Sun. If it descends or not depends on the density of the water surrounding it when it melts.
“Leaving very little heating from greenhouse gases.
Apparently.”
Then, I didn’t post:
–My comments on my Theory.
It does not seem to me, to predict anything.
At least not yet.
But I am probably not done with it.
It gave me, some questions which might get around
to answering.
The main thing about ocean is it give more uniformity
to global temperature. As does an atmosphere.
But it seems ocean does it better than atmosphere.
One might ask, what does ocean depth have to do with
it.
And what effect of the Arctic Ocean being somewhat isolated-
OR arctic mediterranean sea- in term of uniformity of global
temperature. What effect would it have if made a really deep
large channel connecting it to Pacific Ocean??
One could perhaps make argument that Antarctica is essential
and/or major/sole factor regarding “making” this oceanic temperature uniformity?–
Then later, spent hours wondering about it not predicting anything.
And now trying to sum it up:
It does point to how we not measuring air temperature “correctly”
in regards to global temperature. Ie, the error is greater in regards to measuring land temperature.
And “made me” wonder if not measuring Mars correctly.
Ie, if Earth temperature is as I claim the ocean temperature of about 3.5 C, then what is Mars global temperature?
But we measure air temperature because it’s useful for people.
What kind of clothes to wear, today. Type stuff.
But my more final conclusion, this theory is not about “the science” I was imagining it was.
It might be more related to anthropology.
The science, is we living in an Ice Age, an Icehouse global climate. Human have wondered what causes “ice ages” or glaciation and interglacial periods.
Well, I think people are aware that it has to do the temperature of the ocean.
But we have the pseudo science of the Greenhouse effect theory which is not a theory. It’s confusion about what causes interglacial periods, which imagines it has to do with CO2 levels- higher CO2 causes Earth to get warmer. And it doesn’t explain interglacial and glaciation period within our Icehouse global climate. It’s a religion very similar to the cargo cult religion.
If want to call “my theory”, a theory, it says, ocean warmed during the glaciation period, this warmed ocean, is all the peaks in all ice core graphs.**
If ocean was as cold as it’s imagine or claimed, “my theory” is disproven.
It seems everyone knows the the thermal Maximum is related to a warmer ocean.
And Wiki:
“The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was a warm period that occurred in the interval roughly 9,000 to 5,000 years ago BP, with a thermal maximum around 8000 years BP.”
And if I have a point, it is, that oceans take a long time to warm or cool.
I guess, an argument could be the ocean was warm, but not really warm. Say a pseudo warm ocean, that was disrupted ice sheets melting- sort of like illusion of warm ocean.
Well, I think sea level was raised from melted ice, was something like 2 meter per century or something. If we had 2 meter rise due to glacial melt, does that also change our pseudo warm ocean?
I do think if mix ocean, it’s a warming effect. Short term cooling effect, but long term warming effect.
But I would say ending the large area of polar sea ice, is ending the glacial period. And summer ice free arctic is peak interglacial.
And I believe it’s true that HCO had summertime ice free arctic.
** Why ocean warms, is because polar oceans are insulated by polar sea ice. Or polar sea lessens the amount of cold water falling. Particularly, old and thick polar sea ice.
And open arctic ocean causes “short term” “global warming”, but more falling water, cools ocean, and colder ocean results in entering into glaciation period.
And also Milankovitch cycles are related to warming surface water outside of the tropics. And one call that a pseudo ocean warming effect. Warms mostly the surface of ocean outside of tropics rather than warms entire ocean.
And nothing warm the entire ocean, quickly.
**Everyone, other than NASA.**
India to attempt its next moon landing with Chandrayaan 3 launch in August
By Meghan Bartels published about 19 hours ago
It will be India’s second attempt at a robotic moon landing.
https://www.space.com/india-chandrayaan-3-moon-mission-august-2022
Half the population of India has to take a zshit outside because they have no toilets but their government has money to send probes to the moon. If it was up to me Indians would not be allowed to fly any rockets anywhere until every Indian has a toilet to sit on.
So, is it up to the government to supply everyone with a toilet? Why not a house? Why stop at a toilet? Also, a car? Shouldn’t everyone have a car? And food? Well, I guess they don’t need food since they’re shitting it all over the place.
India spent $30 billion to fix its broken sanitation. It ended up with more problems
https://www.cnet.com/news/india-spent-30-billion-to-fix-its-broken-sanitation-it-ended-up-with-more-problems/
And India only spent about 125 million dollars to launch Chandrayaan 2 or fail that mission.
When allow that country needs to launch rockets for satellites -because satellites lower costs {or you are losing money not using satellites- though there is the option of having other countries launch your satellites.
But I would say it’s bat shit crazy for India to not launch their own satellites, because it’s country of 1.3 billion people with GDP of US$1.98 trillion [INR: 147.54 trillion].
So, assuming you are nation which does have rockets which can launch
satellites, doing lunar mission does not have to cost much money.
NASA lunar lander mission might be 1 billion dollars, but India and Russia are not spending this much money for their lunar lander missions.
gbaikie…”India to attempt its next moon landing with Chandrayaan 3 launch in August…”
***
They can’t even send a team to the top of Everest without losing half the team.
Imagine how impressed you will be within 6 months.
And wondering what Canada’s problem.
I wouldn’t worry about NASA’s problem- as it’s somewhat
complicated.
It’s one of the worse habits, I have.
— If all goes well, India would become the fourth country to successfully soft-land on the moon, after the United States, Russia and China, although none of those countries has yet landed at the ice-rich south pole. —
India could be first to explore the Moon.
{without mineable water, I am anti-moon.}
🙂
The Luna-25 is a space research lander module whose launch is scheduled for July 2022 from the Vostochny spaceport in the Russian Far East
“”The launch of the Luna-25 probe is the main Russian scientific event of 2022 and our return to the Earths natural satellite since the 1970s. The most suitable position for the flight will be in the summer of 2022. I am confident that this will take place and I am confident that we will fly to the Moon and land softly and safely in the area of the southern pole, which will be the worlds first landing on that territory,” Sergeyev said.”
https://tass.com/science/1385499
So, if goes as plan, Russia is first.
[But both Russia and India could be delayed.]
But probably not delayed like SLS maiden rocket launch, with endless delays which is now, planned for:
“Delayed from February and March. [Feb. 7]” to sometime in April
https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/
Back again to my topic of the planet surface rotational warming phenomenon explanation.
–
When rotating the planet surface has larger surface areas get exposed to solar flux in unit of time. When rotating faster – more areas get exposed.
–
Since surface’s the slower ability to accumulate HEAT than emit IR , the faster rotating planet is capable to TRANSFORM larger amounts of SW EM radiative solar energy into HEAT.
–
Thus the faster rotating planet (everything else equals) is capable to accumulate larger amounts of transformed into HEAT solar EM energy.
That is what makes a faster rotating planet on average surface a warmer planet.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Makes sense.
Dan Pagburn.
Thankyou Dan.
That’s very interesting information indeed.
Orbits and barycenter.
“If one of the two orbiting bodies is much more massive than the other and the bodies are relatively close to one another, the barycenter will typically be located within the more massive object. In this case, rather than the two bodies appearing to orbit a point between them, the less massive body will appear to orbit about the more massive body, while the more massive body might be observed to wobble slightly. This is the case for the EarthMoon system, in which the barycenter is located on average 4,671 km (2,902 mi) from Earth’s center, 75% of Earth’s radius of 6,378 km (3,963 mi). When the two bodies are of similar masses, the barycenter will generally be located between them and both bodies will orbit around it. This is the case for Pluto and Charon, one of Pluto’s natural satellites, as well as for many binary asteroids and binary stars. When the less massive object is far away, the barycenter can be located outside the more massive object. This is the case for Jupiter and the Sun; despite the Sun being a thousandfold more massive than Jupiter, their barycenter is slightly outside the Sun due to the relatively large distance between them.”
Does the simplistic ball-on-a-string model correctly represent this. No.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter
A barycenter only applies to a barycenter.
Demonstrably wrong. A barycenter applies to at least 3 objects, each of 2 or more gravitational bodies and the barycenter itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_system_barycenter.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter#/media/File:Barycentric_view_of_Pluto_and_Charon_29_May-3_June_by_Ralph_in_near-true_colours.gif
Clearly, a barycenter only applies to a barycenter.
The effects of gravity effects all of the objects orbiting the barycenter. As the barycenter itself does not have any mass it itself is unaffected.
The effects of gravity affects all of the objects orbiting the barycenter. As the barycenter itself does not have any mass it itself is unaffected.
Obviously, a barycenter only applies to a barycenter.
Obviously being an idiot refers to you.
Being an idiot refers to you.
“A barycenter is a dynamical point, not a physical object”
That’s why a barycenter only applies to a barycenter.
See the definition of a barycenter.
How can something that is based on at least 2 other things apply only to itself?
The definition of barycenter only applies to a barycenter.
So you are still an idiot.
The definition of barycenter defines a barycenter. No shit Sherlock.
Exactly. That’s why a barycenter only applies to a barycenter.
I said defines, not applies.
A barycenter requires at least 3 separate things, 2 (or more) gravitational bodies AND the barycenter.
Newton’s laws REQUIRE a barycenter between 2 or more gravitational bodes.
Without doubt, a barycenter only applies to a barycenter.
How can a barycenter apply only to itself when it requires at least 2 other gravitational body to create it in the first place?
Do you deny the way that the exact point of a barycenter is calculated?
Do you deny the existence and meaning of Newton’s 3rd Law?
rlh…”A barycenter is a dynamical point, not a physical object
***
In other words, it’s a concept that has no physical meaning. The fictitious barycentre of the Earth-Moon system is reported to be within the Earth. Some people think that means the Earth wobbles around that barycentre as it orbits the Sun but that is obviously nonsense.
The Moon does not move the Earth at all wrt to its orbital path, it lacks the gravitational force to move the Earth, even though it can move the water on the oceans and cause stress to the hard surface.
“its a concept that has no physical meaning”
But it has a place, a point, a mathematical equation. Much like a lot of science.
Oh, I forgot, you don’t do science.
So despite all the science you define barycentres as fictional.
If you look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter it shows actual, physical, examples.
Both here in our own solar system and elsewhere in the galaxy.
“In a simple two-body case, the distance from the center of the primary to the barycenter, r1, is given by:
r1 = a/(1+m1/m2)”
> In other words, it’s a concept that has no physical meaning.
By that logic numbers have no physical meaning, Gordo.
Both the Earth and the Moon revolve around the barycenter.
rlh…”Orbits and barycenter.
***
Once again, Richard refers to his authority figure at wiki without thinking the problem through for himself. Where is the proof that the Earth wobbles due to a barycentre? If it did wobble, that would affect its axis but there is no indication that the axis wobbles wrt the stars.
Earth’s axis {and Earth with it] wobbles.
The Earth also has gravitation attraction to the Moon, and always moves in the direction of Earth/Moon barycentre.
And this Barycentre is couple thousand km below Earth surface which appear across the Earth the surface of earth due to Earth’s 1000 mph rotational speed and the changing location of the Moon as it orbits Earth. And the Moon also falls toward this moving point.
gbaikie…”Earths axis {and Earth with it] wobbles”.
***
Not over the short term, like during its annual orbit. The N-S axis points in the direction of Polaris but that will change over thousands of year.
The creation of a barycenter is required by Newton’s 3rd Law or do you think it does not apply to large objects?
I tend to regard wobble as slow, unlike say the word, jitter.
That depends on what you regard as a ‘normal’ timeframe.
Actually the Earth’ axis does wobble.
https://www.geospatialworld.net/blogs/why-the-earth-wobbles.
P.S. The solar system barycenter and orbits around it does NOT affect the AXIS of those things in it. Those are 2 (or more) separate things.
When we look at binary stars and planets around other stars we detect wobbles.
In fact that is how we detect them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dopspec-inline.gif
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orbit2.gif
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orbit3.gif
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orbit4.gif
RLH,
it’s even worse than we thought!
“In general relativity, problems arise because, while it is possible, within reasonable approximations, to define the barycenter, the associated coordinate system does not fully reflect the inequality of clock rates at different locations.” – Wikipedia.
But that is only the start. Everything in the universe has an effect on everything else – even in classical mechanics – through the effect of gravity. Unpredictability reigns.
No celestial movement (orbits, whatever) is perfectly regular. All – chaotic.
If you don’t accept chaos as reality, then hopefully the uncertainty principle is more your cup of tea. Ultimately, you arrive at the same conclusion – unpredictability.
But who cares? The Moon presents the same face to the Earth at present. Good enough for me to assume it will be the same tomorrow.
Just because the Moon presents the same face to Earth because it rotates once on its axis per orbit doesn’t mean that is because of its orbit that it does so. In fact it is almost unique in doing so.
“No celestial movement (orbits, whatever) is perfectly regular. All chaotic”
Over shortish timescales (millennia or even longer) then orbits are quite predictable.
We know Moon does not rotate because it keeps one side facing the inside of its orbit. It’s the same motion as a ball-on-a-string.
RLH,
You quoted and wrote –
“”No celestial movement (orbits, whatever) is perfectly regular. All chaotic”
Over shortish timescales (millennia or even longer) then orbits are quite predictable.”
Presumably, you thought you were introducing some new fact. What was it?
Or were you just trying to appear clever by trying to disagree by agreeing?
Very strange. Unless you are a moron, of course – then being pointless and irrelevant seems eminently reasonable.
Found a copy of the Greenhouse Theory yet?
It is you (and the others) you are morons, not me.
A ball-on-a-string is not relevant to Earth/Moon orbits.
Another cold front is coming down from Canada towards the southeast.
https://i.ibb.co/tzGX49C/Screenshot-1.png
Our civilization is not designed for long term planning.
Politicians think no further than five years ahead because of elections.
Corporations think no further than 20 years ahead because of accountants.
Winston Churchill once said that: “democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.”
Its hard to argue with success.
The best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry. Robert Burns.
I’d like to meet those accountants you claim have 20 year horizons. I can’t find any that will certify anything beyond 12 months.
A corporation’s “long term plan” is codified in its Mission-Vision-Values statement.
better in the original Scottish dialect…
But Mousie, thou art no thy-lane,
In proving foresight may be vain:
The best laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men
Gang aft agley,
An’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain,
For promis’d joy!
Burns was ploughing a field when he upturned a mouse’s nest. This was part of his lament to the mouse, observing the injustices of the then modern world.
I take it to mean, in our present context, that this mindless push to reduce emissions, based on pseudo-science, will be regarded by future generations of having ‘gang agley’. The eco-weenies see some kind of promised land if we follow them but I see disaster in their stupid schemes.
I cannot speak for Roy and John at UAH, but that seems to be their message too. John has already experienced it while teaching in Africa.
The ruling class always uses the “common good” to install their tyranny.
That’s why I fully support the truckers’ Freedom Convoy in Ottawa. Civil disobedience is all we in the unvaccinated hoi polloi have left to us.
The US and Canada are built on civil disobedience.
“The US and Canada are built on civil disobedience”
The last time there was a protest large enough to be mentioned in the books was the Winnipeg Strike 1919.
So no, Canada is not built on civil disobedience.
That reticence to complain is what makes the Trucker’s Convoy all the more extraordinary.
The protest is so remarkable that I see no way ahead that does not involve Trudeau resigning.
” That reticence to complain is what makes the Trucker’s Convoy all the more extraordinary. ”
No.
What makes it ‘all the more extraordinary’ is the fact – which of course people like you intentionally hide – that over 90% (in words: ninety percent) of the Truckers working in Canada are vaccinated against COVID19.
Show us your evidence genius. However, it does go to show that it isn’t about the vaccine. It has never been about the vaccine.
https://globalnews.ca/news/8533779/truckers-convoy-canada-vaccine-mandate/
“‘Almost 90 per cent of truckers in Canada are vaccinated’ Trudeau said, speaking to reporters in French.”
https://cantruck.ca/canadian-trucking-alliance-statement-to-those-engaged-in-road-border-protests/
” The vast majority of the Canadian trucking industry is vaccinated with the overall industry vaccination rate among truck drivers closely mirroring that of the general public. ”
*
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/02/1077710168/canadian-truck-drivers-block-border-crossing-and-protest-at-capital-over-vaccine
” Canada’s vaccination rate is more than 90%, including among truckers, but many Canadians do share some concerns about the extent of vaccine mandates and lockdowns. ”
*
But of course: geniuses a la Anderson won’t believe even a bit of all that.
https://www.thestar.com/business/2022/01/12/almost-everything-we-buy-will-be-affected-about-12000-canadian-truckers-wont-be-fully-vaccinated-before-the-deadline.html
” The head of the Canadian Trucking Alliance estimated that at least 12,000 Canadian truckers 10 per cent of the total who currently go back and forth across the border wont be fully vaccinated by the deadline. Truckers entering Canada must be fully vaccinated by Saturday, while truckers entering the U.S. face a Jan. 21 deadline. “
Tyranny is about forcing vaccines that don’t work on people who know they don’t work on the pain of losing their livelihood.
I have no way to verify the claim of 90% of truckers being vaccinated. I’ve read sources claiming anywhere from 60% to 90%.
Even one person losing their job for not being vaccinated is criminal.
Unvaccinated doesn’t mean sick. Nor does vaccine guarantee against getting sick or spreading the virus.
Saskatchewan has data showing 75% of population is vaccinated and 75% of people in hospital due to COVID are vaccinated. So vaccine is no benefit.
I don’t believe the rather weak claims that vaccinated people don’t get as sick as vaccinated. I don’t know how anyone could ever make that determination given the wide spread of outcomes for people who have caught COVID. Some get sniffles and some die.
It is always enlightening to see that the very ones who have never, never experienced tyranny, even in any of its weakest forms, also have their mouths permanently full of it all the time.
Sea ice report Feb 9
Arctic
https://i.postimg.cc/bNxBLP6p/Arctic-sea-ice-anoms-daily.png
Antarctic
https://i.postimg.cc/XJ5RbCgy/Antarctic-sea-ice-anoms-daily.png
All is best.
rlh…”If things are attached via the surface then of course that face will point inwards…”
***
Ok, you have observed that the same face of the ball always points in and you know it’s because the string to which it is attached is preventing it from rotating on its local axis.
The Moon always has the same face pointing in as well. Why is that? Look at the dynamics of the ball, all parts of the ball are moving in parallel at all times. The same is true for the Moon. Why is it the ball always has the same face pointed in and is not rotating about its COG, yet it is claimed the Moon always has the same face pointed in yet it is rotating once per orbit?
It is simply not possible for the Moon to keep the same face pointed in while rotating once per orbit. Look at the ball for evidence of that.
I have proved that using a radial line and tangential vectors but it can be observed by simple inspection and with the analogy to the ball on a string.
BTW, the ball on the string cannot move in a circular orbit. To keep it moving requires a force on the string and that elongates the orbit into an almost eccentric orbit. A slight upward force must also be applied to prevent gravity from pulling the ball down.
“Ok, you have observed that the same face of the ball always points in and you know its because the string to which it is attached is preventing it from rotating on its local axis”
Only because the string is attached at a surface. If the string was attached at both ends to the surfaces of the balls at both ends, the the ‘orbit’ would not last long.
Richard, will you try to stop squirming out of the obvious? Both the ball and the Moon have all parts moving in parallel at all times. That is curvilinear translation devoid of any local angular velocity.
Concentric is not parallel.
Just as a car moving in a circle will have outside tires moving in concentric circles compared to inside tires.
“BTW, the ball on the string cannot move in a circular orbit”
If the ball is rotated vertically and the rate of spin exceeds the force of gravity then, although the tension on the string changes, a circular obit will result.
Not so. You have to move your hand to keep it orbiting and that movement shapes the orbit.
I can move my hand in a circle without rotating it at all.
Simple test is to take your ball on a string and run in a circle around a desk lamp. You will notice that the light from the lamp hits the entire surface of the ball on a string at one point or other.
From which it should be derived that ball on string does not apply to moon except in earth-moon context. But as we know there is this big yellow thingy called the sun that looms larger than a desk lamp. Its a moon-earth-sun discussion.
The moon is clearly rotating around its axis. Else the sun would only ever shine on the same side of it.
There are two schools of thought.
The rationale thinkers who are described as the ‘Braindead cult idiots’ and which includes most of us here.
The other view is that held by the ‘paragons of science’ who clearly never got past grade ten physics.
Its time to move on to another subject. Maybe we can ‘wrestle’ with the 255K problem?
Ken, you bluster about things you don’t understand.
Moon has “day” and “night” due to its orbit around Earth. During its orbit, it presents different faces to Sun, but always the same face to Earth. This is easy to understand and verify, but you STILL don’t get it.
And you’re STILL trying to apply the ball-on-a-string to Moon. The simple analogy is ONLY about “orbital motion without axial rotation”, where one side always faces the inside of the orbit.
You keep making the same mistakes, can’t learn, and try to claim it is others that don’t understand the physics. It’s clear that it is YOU that doesn’t have a clue about physics or orbital motion. You know nothing, can’t learn, and suck down what the “institutions” spew.
You’re part of the problem, not part of the solution.
No matter how many times you repeat it incorrectly, orbital motion without axial rotation means that one face points towards a fixed star, not the ‘inside’ of an orbit.
Wrong again, RLH.
That’s the advantage of the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string. The simple analogy clearly reveals “orbital motion without axial rotation”. It’s a simple concept, but unfortuneatly people that are braindead can’t understand it.
Of course a more advanced version, involving vectors, is available. But here again, it only frustrates the braindead cult idiots.
A ball-on-a-string is only an example of a ball-on-a-string. Certainly not appliable to Earth/Moon orbits.
RLH proves he’s braindead, again: And you’re STILL trying to apply the ball-on-a-string to Moon. The simple analogy is ONLY about “orbital motion without axial rotation”, where one side always faces the inside of the orbit.
There is no such thing as an ORBIT with one side facing inwards because of that orbit alone.
You’re the one claiming that a ball-on-a-string is an example of the Moon/Earth orbits.
RLH remains braindead, just like the other cult idiots == believing in nonsense: a “real 255K surface”, ice cubes can boil water, vectors aren’t valid, etc., etc., etc.
Clint R is a cult idiot as everybody else agrees.
What is the ‘real surface’ of a fog bank?
Water boils in a vacuum, ice cubes or not.
Proper application of vectors is something that CR is not capable of.
The state of global warming
Zero point zero
https://youtu.be/vRFhn3RYcRA
Any time I see a global map cluttered with dark browns and reds, suggesting extreme warming, I dismiss it as propaganda.
Here is the only realistic global map on the Net, from UAH…
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
Note the large swaths of the planet with no warming whatsoever.
Gordon, note that:
1) The base period of that map is the past 30 years, ie the warmest years. If they had use the first thirty years as the base (or the whole ~40 years), then the map would indeed look noticeably more ‘red’.
2) January happens to have been an unusually cool month compared to the past several years, and about average compared to the past 3 decades.
So, sure, compared to the warmest data they have, that particular month is not especially warm. A ‘double cherry-pick’ used to make the warming trend disappear.
Folkerts, note that satellite data collection began after the 1960-1970 cooling decades. The warming trend you see in those data is merely returning to “normal”, aided by several major El Niños.
But false beliefs die hard, especially in a cult.
I’m curious how you define “normal”.
Are the 1960’s “normal”? The 1910’s? Maybe the 1750’s? It seems exceptionally odd to claim we could be ‘returning to normal’ when there has been no decade this warm for several centuries (at least).
I’m curious why you ask, Folkerts. Do you not understand “normal”. Are you going off on another of your rabbit-trails, fretting about semantics?
When I stated “cooling decades”, did you not understand that was not “normal”? You ignore temps below a running average, but above a running average is panic-time?
You really need to learn about consistency. It’s part of reality.
(Got ant new perversions of physics for us?)
Generally, people do not pick highest out of 4 (decades in the satellite records) to call “normal”.
Generally, people do not pick highest out of ~12 (decades in the weather station records) to call “normal”.
Generally, people do not pick highest out of ~40 (recent decades in the various proxy records) to call “normal”.
Generally people do not say something is ‘returning’ when it has not happened in recent history.
rlh…”When we look at binary stars and planets around other stars we detect wobbles”.
***
No planet has ever been seen visually using an optical telescope. They are allegedly detected using radio-telescopes which detect spectral gas frequencies from the star EM emissions. Based on the spectral changes, astronomers have INFERRED planets moving around other stars. How they can claim a wobble based on a spectral shift is beyond me.
When I took a year of astrophysics as an elective I thought I would be exposed to the wonders of the universe. Was I ever deluded, all we got was math and very dry physics which was largely based on speculation. I did not fully understand the level of speculation till long after leaving university.
All planets alleged to be orbiting stars are themselves inferred based on speculation.
Black holes are based on speculation, the only evidence being an absence of light where light is expected. From that absence of light, ludicrous theories have developed about black holes having such a high density that they can absorb mass and light local to it.
When I studied the theory, the current speculation was that black holes evolved from dying stars. As a star expends its fuel and its gravity exceeds the outward thrust of its nuclear explosions, it was theorized that the star could collapse in on itself, if it did not explode in a supernova.
The theory goes that its fuel, made up of electron and protons are ejected, leaving only the neutrons from helium. Allegedly, those neutrons compact into a highly dense neutron star and if the process continues for some unknown reason, the neutron star can collapse into a black hole.
Of course, no one has ever demonstrated how that is possible and no one has seen a black hole up close.
Same thing with their other pet theory about the Big Bang theory. According to that theory, mass can simply explode out of nothing. Please don’t offer e = mc^2 since that suggests empty space is full of energy. Even at that, no one has ever proved that mass can be derived from energy.
I am not claiming there is no such thing as an exo-planet, all I am saying is that such objects are mostly speculation and not based on accurate detection or measurment. A wobble in an exo-planet is sci-fi.
You are just an idiot who thinks he knows a lot more than he does.
https://hubblesite.org/hubble-30th-anniversary/hubbles-exciting-universe/characterizing-planets-around-other-stars
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47681239
“Exoplanet tally set to pass 4,000 mark”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46196279
“Exoplanet discovered around neighbouring star”
Gordo,
What’s your pet theory about the Universe?
Also, I think the James Webb is more about disproving Big Bang than proving. They hate the Big Bang.
No evidence of other life out there. None.
“No evidence of other life out there. None.”
Does that mean you huge fan of space exploration?
I tend to think there is lot of life in our Galaxy, but I am
fan of space exploration.
And I think there is about 1000 civilizations in the Milky Way which
can or have explored beyond their solar systems.
And doing this is costly.
Though if solar system get close. Our solar system had star which got close:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_stars_and_brown_dwarfs#Distant_future_and_past_encounters
Any spacefaring civilization would then travel such a short distances.
If you got solar system, like Sol, you don’t have travel to other
stars {though some humans might}.
We got Venus, and in Venus orbit trillions of people can live at
low costs- or have low income housing.
Assuming artificial gravity works.
stephen…”Whats your pet theory about the Universe?”
***
I have no theories on it. I think we humans know nothing about the extent of the universe or it’s formation, if in fact, it was formed.
Our brains have a natural inclination to find answers to mysteries. We tend to presume there has to be an origin…a beginning and an end…but that is based on our in-built illusion of time.
Wish I knew more.
If you ask me on my pet theory of the origin of life, I am beginning to regard the source of life as an intelligent creation. I am not religious per se and I am not basing that on the theory of Creation. I just think life is far too complex to have formed by chance.
For example, our DNA has codes built into it that instruct the body how to create amino acids, the precursors to proteins. Codes cannot be formed by sheer chance, they require intelligence.
It’s important to note that the “Creation” described in the Bible is faith-based. It is not science.
But equally as important to note, “Evolution” described by modern institutions is also faith-based. It is not science.
Two religions, with an important difference: Evolution fails the tests of science. It is easily debunked.
“Evolution fails the tests of science”
Strange then that by far and away most scientists accept its conclusions.
“Accepting” is “beleving”.
Beliefs, ain’t science.
What’s your test that refutes evo, Pup?
Enquiring minds want to know.
Strange then that by far and away most scientists accept it and base their further conclusions/papers on it.
Gordon Robertson
Your post confirms you are anti-science and follow your own opinions. Facts and data do not matter at all to you. If you don’t like a theory you reject it based upon some internal feeling of yours.
Your understanding of exo-planet detection is limited. You should read more about it. One technique does use visible light measurements. It sees a slight drop in the amount of light received from a star in a periodic fashion (the planet reduces the light a bit when in front of the star). They can determine the speed and orbit by using math.
You also reject Big-Bang. First no scientist has explained the origin of matter and energy from the theory. That is the unknown. The accepted theory is based upon multiple lines of evidence. The primary is the red-shift, the theory was not an opinion like your ideas. It was not accepted because scientists did not like it. Also the amount of hydrogen and helium in the Universe. There are other observations and data. Since you are anti-science and opinion motivated the rest of the evidence won’t convince you.
No you can’t see a black hole. They do not emit light. You infer them with logic based upon what you can see. There are visible stars you can observe that are orbiting some unseen object that is very massive. The speed of the stars orbit around an object can be observed and measured.
Maybe just admit, finally, that you don’t like science at all and want a new religion that relies upon personal belief and opinion on things. You, Clint R, Swenson are similar in this desire. None of you three follow evidence but you offer endless opinions on many things. Of course no supporting evidence of such opinions is every offered.
Agreed.
Norman is out trolling early this morning. As usual, he has NOTHING, except his usual troll tactics.
He knows so little science that he gets suckered into the cult beliefs, but is unable to support the nonsense. He still can’t find the “real 255K surface”, and now he’s confused about how ice cubes can boil water!
He must be soooo frustrated….
That’s why this is so much fun.
It is you who have NOTHING. You even deny that Newton’s 3rd Law applies to gravity.
That’s just one of your troll tactics, RLH.
Where did I ever deny that?
Well if the 3rd Law applies then a barycenter is a real thing.
Where did I ever “deny that Newton’s 3rd Law applies to gravity”?
Give us a link, troll.
Do you deny that a barycenter exists?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1166478
???
So as usual, you have NOTHING.
You’re a braindead cult troll.
If you claim that a barycenter applies only to itself then you deny that the 3rd Law has any effect on gravity between 2 other bodies.
So you’re just using troll tactics — false accusations and making things up.
You got caught, again.
So you think a barycenter only applies to itself but also that it defines the paths that other objects that make it up and they do or don’t obey the 3rd Law (amongst others).
Other people will see your attempts to duck and weave and not be convinced that you got out of that one.
Troll RLH gets caught with his false accusations and making things up. So he just keeps going!
Some people were just born to troll.
Clint R tries to wriggle out of saying that barycenters only apply to themselves.
“Clint R says:
February 9, 2022 at 7:21 PM
Without doubt, a barycenter only applies to a barycenter.”
Very good RLH, you quoted me exactly!
See, that wasn’t hard, was it?
So if a barycenter applies only to a barycenter then Newton’s 3rd Law cannot apply to the 2 gravitational bodies that makeup the barycenter. Despite us observing that it does so.
So you have agreed that a barycenter is a real thing, but the consequences of it are not.
Spot the problem?
If you want to claim that a barycenter is made up of 3 or more objects then you need to argue with GR who considers them fictional.
P.S. Where is the ‘real surface’ in a fog bank?
Gordo isn’t anti-science. He’s against espousing for the common good in the name of science.
No he is just being an idiot as usual.
Well stated, Stephen.
So are barycenters fictional?
l
norman …”Your understanding of exo-planet detection is limited. You should read more about it. One technique does use visible light measurements. It sees a slight drop in the amount of light received from a star in a periodic fashion…”
***
You have to distinguish between actually seeing a body blocking light and presuming a very slight changing in light output is caused by a planet. You also have to presume the so-called body is orbiting the star on the same plane as you are viewing.
If the phantom planet is orbiting at an angle, it is reflecting a lot of the light away from us and we have to guess at how much is being reflected. Also, if the alleged planet is orbiting like our Moon, we should be able to see light reflected according to the current phase of the planet. We cannot make out such detail because we cannot see the so-called planet at all.
The bottom line is that exo-planets are nothing more than educated guesses, even though some astronomers get carried away with their egos and actually produce images of what the faux-planets look like.
“You also reject Big-Bang”.
I reject any claimed science that is not based on the scientific method. The BB theory does not meet the requirements of the scientific method. like the theory of evolution it is based on sheer speculation and sci-fi.
Your attempted justification for the theory is so ambiguous as to suggest you have no idea what the theory states.
*No you cant see a black hole…. You infer them with logic based upon what you can see”.
Inference, no matter how logical, is not part of the scientific method. Modern science is becoming more and more based on inference and subsequent consensus than on real science based on the scientific method.
Gordon Robertson
Again, please be honest and admit you are anti-science.
You are very wrong in your assertions.
Here is an article for you to read. You will reject it but is will build the larger reality that you are definitely anti-science, you do not consider evidence that goes against your opinions on what you think should be correct.
https://earthsky.org/space/how-do-astronomers-discover-exoplanets/
You are even wrong about them directly seeing exoplanets.
https://www.universetoday.com/106498/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/
Not at all sheer speculation. There are lines of evidence that is observable.
Science is based upon inference, I am not sure why you feel it is not. Maybe read this before stating that inference is NOT part of the scientific method.
https://paulspector.com/three-types-of-scientific-inference/
Sorry Norman, but science is NOT “based on inference”. Science is based on fact. Science is based on “observable, verifiable, testable, repeatable”. Science is based on “reality”.
You are confusing “beliefs” with science, again.
Clint R
The observable alone says nothing about reality.
Does the Sun move around the Earth? Observing it appears to, it is verifiable and repeatable and was considered “reality” for a long time.
Science collects facts and observations and makes inferences on what is going on. Perhaps read the link and see what is said.
Your description is part of science “observable, verifiable, testable, repeatable”. The other part is to connect these together in a meaningful and logical way.
Again, science is based upon inference (read the link on the different types). Inference finds the connection to the observable and looks for the underlying causes.
Norman, you don’t have a clue about science. You just find links you can’t understand.
The fact that centuries ago many believed Sun revolved around Earth was based on their “inferences”.
You have your cult beliefs so you insult, misrepresent, and falsely accuse those that don’t support your beliefs.
Even worse, you swallow anything your cult spews. (Where’s that bogus “real 255K surface” you believe in?)
But, like RLH, you’re a great example of a braindead cult idiot. So please continue.
Clint R
Okay troll believe what you want. Keep trolling it is the only thing you know how to do.
I attempted a rational discussion with you. You are far to into trolling for such adult activity.
You bore me. Always with the trolling. No content, no intelligent thought. Just troll, troll, troll with everyone.
Good job, Norman. Your meltdown is always amusing.
Too many questions you can’t answer, huh?
Like the other cult idiots, reality just doesn’t work for you.
Clint R is a troll and an idiot.
Entropic man at 9:05 AM
“Our civilization is not designed for long term planning.”
By the year 2050, the global population will have increased increase by two billion to around 9.8 billion.
In the year 2050, it’s estimated that more than twice as many people in the world will be living in urban (6.7 billion) than in rural settings (3.1 billion).
Most of that growth will be in the urban populations of developing countries.
Imagine what has to be built in 28 years to support that growth. Imagine what happens if it isn’t built.
That depends.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#/media/File:World_Population_Prospects_2019.png
Imagine what happens if it is built.
Sea sand is already now, with currently 400 Gt/year, the worldwide most used resource after water.
Beach and continental sand is being exploited at an incredible rate worldwide.
This is due to the fact that desert sand is not useful at all as source for mortar and concrete, the basics for building construction.
Beach and continental sand is a non-renewable resource.
Testing
The person who says ” our civilization cannot function without oil” is indirectly saying ” our civilization will collapse when the oil runs out”.
There are a considerable number of non-renewable resources we depend on. Unfortunately there are also a large number of people who refuse to look beyond the immediate future.
“our civilization will collapse when the oil runs out”
Collapse is a strong word, I prefer to think of it as “The Great Simplification.” A good starting adaptation exercise is to imagine yourself without access to any of the items in this picture https://ibb.co/sy5zdFJ.
I am 100% convinced of the need for net-zero, but am also 99% sure that we can’t get there by 2050.
With ‘continental’ I mean here of course ‘continental shelf’.
hmm:
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-desert-sand-not-used-for-construction
Apparently don’t want salt in sand, It seems easiest/cheapest is river sand. Or sand pit.
Or want clean gravel and sand and mix them for concrete.
Though one can ocean sand if you wash it with freshwater.
But I guess one get most sand [at least in US] from land.
” Often sand from seashores or deserts does not meet either or both of these conditions. ”
This is the dumbest stuff to write, given the immense amounts of beach sand collected by numerous agents around the world for construction support, especially in China.
China is dumb.
Let’s hope they washed the salt out!
https://www.diydoctor.org.uk/projects/types-of-sand.htm
Willard says:
> despite the fact that you can program Desmos to rotate an object about an external axis in an ellipse
Flop only succeeded that by stretching the string connected to the ball.
A line can only stretch by translation.
In a rational universe, thatd be the end of it.
—————————–
Sorry Willard but you are confused. Kinematics is about the motion of rigid bodies and isometry is about rigid motion.
Here is more:
Here it is described as a drawing.
”A geometry transformation is either rigid or non-rigid; another word for a rigid transformation is “isometry”. An isometry, such as a rotation, translation, or reflection, does not change the size or shape of the figure. A dilation is not an isometry since it either shrinks or enlarges a figure.”
You are judging an isometry to be a distance preserving ‘motion’
thus it shows a basic misunderstanding of both rotations and isometries. Distances are preserved only in the figure obviously the motion itself can be via any complex formulation as long as every particle/outline of the object/figure is moved in a similar manner.
Thus an isometry can be a rotation but it is not limited to a circle.
Bill, you’re being dumb.
You can rotate or translate an ellipse. You can’t rotate an object in an elliptical path without adding a translation along the way. Rotation characterize circular motion.
All this is covered by Madhavi under “general motion.”
Oh, and just so you don’t forget why I insist on putting your nose into that handout:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1157761
That you keep deflecting does not bode well for your adjudication!
willard…”Rotation characterize circular motion”.
***
About an axis, either internal or external.
You can draw an ellipse centred at X = 10, y = 0 and rotate it about x = 0, y = 0, holding the x,y plane stationary. Or you can rotate the entire x,y axis around 0.0, carrying the ellipse with it.
Or you can rotate the entire x,y plane about another axis, say x’,y’ at 0′,0′.
Whereas rotation might characterize circular motion it is defined as an angular velocity about an axis or COG.
You cannot rotate things about any axis without applying a force in order to do so.
> You can draw an ellipse centred at X = 10, y = 0 and rotate it about x = 0, y = 0, holding the x,y plane stationary.
Yes, Gordo.
That’s the “You can rotate or translate an ellipse” part.
Moon Dragon cranks need the other part: to rotate an object in an elliptical path without adding a translation along the way.
RLH, if you are in denial that momentum can represent a force, please feel free to do the hammer/hand experiment.
Sometimes idiots have to learn the hard way….
A change in momentum creates or requires a force. See Newton’s 1st Law.
RLH you seem to be offtopic.
What change in momentum are you referring to?
See Newton’s 1st Law.
Direction of momentum if that was not clear.
agreed but how does this apply to this discussion. who are you responding to?
RLH is probably referring to Newton’s 2nd Law.
But, he knows so little about physics, who knows?
> how does this apply to this discussion
Good question, Bill.
How does Nate’s resource help you with your misreading Madhavi, again?
Willard says:
How does Nates resource help you with your misreading Madhavi, again?
————————
At least I have a source Willard. What source disputes it?
Clint R just shows he is an idiot again.
Until I looked at the check which said $5381, I be certain that my best friend like they say really bringing in money in there spare time from their computer.. there mums best friend started doing this for under 10 months and just now cleared the morgage on their apartment and purchased a new Alfa Romeo.
visit this web-site… https://fulwork08.blogspot.com/
> At least I have a source
If you have Nate’s source, Bill, then I have Madhavi.
And Madhavi proves Moon Dragon cranks wrong.
In direct opposition to what you claimed earlier.
“And Madhavi proves Moon Dragon cranks wrong.”
No, not in the least. This entire argument that rotation about an external axis cannot happen in an ellipse is just pure desperation on the part of the “Spinners”. It’s not something I take seriously.
Besides, it doesn’t even matter what you call “orbital motion without axial rotation” – call it rotation about an external axis, call it revolution, call it what you want. It is just one single motion, in which the object keeps one face oriented towards the inside of the orbit. Motion like the MOTL. None of what you are arguing about will ever change that, and certainly does not prove us wrong.
> it doesn’t even matter what you call
Bill hasn’t adjudicated an issue about names, but about concepts. He claims that Madhavi proves Moon Dragons right. In her handout, there are three types of motion: translation, rotation about a fixed axis, or general motion. General motion is just a mix of the two. Moon Dragons are on record in rejecting general motion as an the best way to describe the Moon’s motion, e.g.:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-804100
That leaves us with two choices: rotation or translation. Gordo sometimes suggests that the Moon purely translates, but usually Moon Dragon cranks rather suggest that it’s rotation. And in Madhavi we can read that when rotating “the particles forming the rigid body move in parallel planes along circles centered on the same fixed axis.”
Whoops, Willard didn’t like the word “call” and has gone off on one on the basis of that one sentence again, ignoring everything else I wrote. Let’s try again:
“And Madhavi proves Moon Dragon cranks wrong.”
No, not in the least. This entire argument that rotation about an external axis cannot happen in an ellipse is just pure desperation on the part of the “Spinners”. It’s not something I take seriously. As far as I’m concerned, rotation about an external axis can happen in an ellipse. That is why “revolution”, or “orbital motion”, is defined as rotation about an external axis in the first place.
Besides, it doesn’t even matter what kinematics concept you use to describe “orbital motion without axial rotation” – and maybe Clint R is right, maybe kinematics does not even apply to orbital motion – in any case, “orbiting” is just one single motion, in which the object keeps one face oriented towards the inside of the orbit. Motion like the MOTL. None of what you are arguing about will ever change that, and certainly does not prove us wrong.
Willard says:
If you have Nate’s source, Bill, then I have Madhavi.
And Madhavi proves Moon Dragon cranks wrong.
In direct opposition to what you claimed earlier.
——————-
No wonder you don’t have a job in science. . . .you are so bad at it.
I have a source that classifies an elliptical orbit that conforms to Kepler’s law a rotation, includes the mathematics of its angular momentum – further classifying itself as a rotation as non-rotations do not have angular momentum. The source also confirms that a circular orbit is a rotation and is mathematically simpler to compute an angular momentum.
What you have is a source that says a circular orbit is a rotation on an external axis. It is silent regarding elliptical rotations.
Between the two sources there is evidence and elliptical orbit is a rotation, complete with the mathematics of it. There is no source that excludes a ellipitical orbit from being a rotation and despite about a thousand posts from you; you haven’t found one yet.
So rather than continuing to troll and make vacuous claims spend your time finding a source that backs up your claim and then come back here and post.
> I have a source
No you don’t, Bill. It’s Nate’s. Here’s “your” source:
And I already showed you that Nate’s source spoke of circular motion too. For an elliptical motion, you need more than a rotation. You also need translation, i.e. general motion, as per your own source.
These are all well established facts.
You’re supposed to move to your “so what” moment any time soon.
> maybe kinematics does not even apply to orbital motion
Kinematics belongs to classical mechanics, which has been developed to study big objects, among them celestial bodies. And yet:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
Physicists might still use the fixed-axis hypothesis where their abstraction does not hinder them.
On this page we also see what we can find in Madhavi: “Purely rotational motion occurs if every particle in the body moves in a circle about a single line.”
Willard says:
Kinematics belongs to classical mechanics, which has been developed to study big objects, among them celestial bodies. And yet:
Rotation around a fixed axis is a special case of rotational motion. The fixed-axis hypothesis excludes the possibility of an axis changing its orientation and cannot describe such phenomena as wobbling or precession.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
——————————–
Unfortunately you are still lacking a source Willard. Wikipedia isn’t a scientific source. Wikipedia can often be helpful in finding a source when they make a statement and give a proper scientific footnote reference. But your Wiki link isn’t footnoted and for all we know the Wiki paragraph you quote could have been written by a guy with inadequate science training to even land a job in the field like say a Nate or Willard whom regularly posts such unsupported sourceless claims routinely, probably at an average of several a day.
Willard is funny. It is not so long ago that he was arguing that the moon was rotating about an external axis himself. He just also believed that it was rotating about an internal axis, despite the fact that if it was doing both, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-831066
Now he is absolutely adamant that the moon cannot be described as rotating about an external axis, because the orbit is elliptical. Can Willard now acknowledge:
1) That an object that is rotating about an external axis, whilst also rotating about an internal axis, presents all of its sides to the inside of the orbit.
2) That “synchronous rotation”, implying, as it does, two rotations occurring synchronously (a rotation about an external axis plus a rotation about an internal axis) is thus a misnomer.
3) That the only way the moon can be rotating on its own axis is if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR (translational motion).
4) That the moon issue transcends reference frames.
> Unfortunately you are still lacking a source
A source for what, Bill, of the fact that “rotation around a fixed axis is a special case of rotational motion”? So far we have Madhavi, Nate’s source, and the Wiki, which relies on Fundamentals of Physics by Halliday, Resnick and Walker, and Concepts of Physics by Verma.
Here’s what Fundamentals say:
Here’s what Concepts says:
Would you like anything else in your sammich, or are you fed up to look like a fool?
Can Willard acknowledge the 1) to 4) above? It is about time he did.
The “every point moves through the same angle” bit should give you a fairly good hint as to why rotation alone can’t explain a motion along an elliptical path, Bill.
[OLD WILLARD] In astronomy, revolution and spin are two kinds of rotation. Our Moon revolves and spins. Rotation + Rotation.
[NEW WILLARD] The “every point moves through the same angle” bit should give you a fairly good hint as to why rotation alone can’t explain a motion along an elliptical path, Bill.
Willard says:
A source for what, Bill, of the fact that “rotation around a fixed axis is a special case of rotational motion”? So far we have Madhavi, Nate’s source, and the Wiki, which relies on Fundamentals of Physics by Halliday, Resnick and Walker, and Concepts of Physics by Verma.
——————–
Obviously Nate you don’t know how science works.
Semantics does not define science. A reference that doesn’t even address ellipses does nothing to support the spinner position.
Now if Madhavi told us a elliptical rotation that had constant angular momentum would not qualify as a rotation; that would be interesting. But a true scientist would want to know why she deemed that to be so and a true teacher would explain why.
So when you actually get into true science which is all about the whys and the quantities, you should be skeptical of all such declarations that you alone are making about elliptical orbits.
So lets leave that for what it is. . . .a sharp dividing between the curiosity of an intelligent and scientifically-oriented person and a stupid and sychophantic person who believes and extrapolates from everything their Daddy told them what was so.
——————–
On to what is actually evidence that an elliptical orbit is a rotation. Here is mine. A elliptical orbit is a rotation because it has angular momentum and that angular momentum does not change during the course of an orbit. As a result of that the orbit completes a full rotation and repeats itself.
The ignoramus that wrote the wiki article you reference seems to not understand that the moon isn’t wobbling but its merely an optical illusion that arises from the specific perspective of an observer observing an elliptical motion. The wobble lacks any reality is science.
My description for why the moon is in rotation is consistent with the mathematics of Kepler, Madhavi, and C.R. Nave and everybody who teaches all these concepts.
C.R. Nave specifically classifies it as a rotation.
Most likely Nave like myself have not seen any evidence that would say define it as a curvilinear translation or a general plane motion. And the spinners? They haven’t found one either.
Defining a moon as curvilinear translation is only consistent with the MOTR. . . .a moon not known to exist. So it is only described by a picture of a motion and completely lacks any scientific description. It is nothing more than a GIF and for our spinners here thats enough. I guess there science is at the level of a 1st grader first identifying the difference between a ball and a block.
Bill, Bill,
You’re still confused:
Any motion can be described using rotation and translation. That’s filed under “general motion” in your Holy Madhavi. An orbit along an elliptical path is a motion. So of course you can describe it as a rotation.
What you can’t do is describe an orbit along an elliptical path as a rotation alone. The path along an elliptic curve only preserves the same angle when that curve is actually a circle. You need a bit of “curvilinear translation” as Holy Madhavi puts it.
It’s just a flesh wound.
> Rotation + Rotation.
The first Rotation refers to the orbit. The second Rotation refers to spin.
Even if we abstract away the translations involved, a model of the Moon motion with an orbit and a spin tops a model using an orbit alone.
"The first Rotation refers to the orbit. The second Rotation refers to spin."
Yes, I know…and that’s wrong. If the moon were rotating about an external axis and rotating about an internal axis, you would see all sides of the moon from the inside of the orbit.
> Yes, I know
The issue under dispute in this sub-thread is the Moon’s orbit, not her spin. More precisely, the question is how the Moon’s orbit can be described according to Holy Madhavi’s classification of motion.
An elliptical orbit that is non-circular can’t be described using rotation alone, for it breaks isometry. Some (curvilinear) translation needs to be added:
https://faculty.mercer.edu/jenkins_he/documents/Section16-1-16-3.pdf
Assuming the Moon-Earth system is a rigid body, a simplification that does not influence in any way what is being said about rotation and translation.
I will take your deflection as tacit acceptance that if the moon were rotating about an external axis and rotating about an internal axis, you would see all sides of the moon from the inside of the orbit.
> deflection
Here is the comment that started this subthread:
More tacit acceptance.
Willard quotes:
”An example of bodies undergoing the three types of motion is shown in this mechanism.”
—————-
Well since the moon doesn’t move like a piston, connecting rod, nor wheel. . . .none of that applies to either the moon nor an object rotating on an external axis.
So moving on from there Willard needs to recognize the DREMT is correct. If the moon involve 2 rotations as Willard agrees that it does, he must recognize the rules of rotation exclude the possibility of the MOTL being 2 rotations.
OTOH, the rules of rotation would allow the possibility for the MOTR.
And since Willard has agreed to a 2 rotation concept and given his tacit approval of the fact that if the moon was independently rotating on its own axis, then all sides of the moon would be exposed to earth, the issue is settled.
> none of that applies to either the [M]oon nor an object rotating on an external axis
Were that the case, Bill, how come you declared a winner after having consulted Holy Madhavi? There’s nothing else in her handout. Not “paper,” BTW – just a handout.
Nevertheless, you’re wrong. Rotation is rotation wherever the axis might be. Whether you turn a ball or turn yourself with an ball in your hand, the motion will share the same properties.
In the latter case, you could say: “see, the ball is on an elliptical path.” But then everybody would see you pulling your hands while you spin around. That’s translation.
Willard says:
> none of that applies to either the [M]oon nor an object rotating on an external axis
Were that the case, Bill, how come you declared a winner after having consulted Holy Madhavi? There’s nothing else in her handout. Not “paper,” BTW – just a handout.
————————-
There in is your entire problem Willard. You consider Madhavi to be a God and every word she utters to be holy scripture.
Fact is Willard science doesn’t believe in Gods or Holy Scripture Thus you can’t argue that the examples used by Madhavi amount to laws. Fact is Madhavi does not address elliptical motion at all, for nor against. Yet Nate’s kindness in providing us with C.R. Naves course outline, lo and behold there is a rotating orbit that is elliptical. Game, Set, Match dude!!
============
============
============
============
Willard says:
Nevertheless, you’re wrong. Rotation is rotation wherever the axis might be. Whether you turn a ball or turn yourself with an ball in your hand, the motion will share the same properties.
———————————
That is correct. I use my hands to exact forces on a ball rotating around me to influence the shape of the orbit.
Quite simply the ball is rotating around an external axis whether you choose to call it something like ‘turns around my body’ instead of ‘rotates around an external axis’. If its translating, quite simply its not turning around my body.
But why are we arguing this? This is all a lot of unsupported nitpicking. You need to find somebody to provide some evidence that C.R. Nave got it all wrong.
And you have already implicitly agreed with DREMT that the two rotations, one external and one internal will always cause the full exposure of all sides of the object to the object the rotating object is rotating around. . . .or heck o dear ‘turning around’. . . .LMAO!
Bill and DREMT reject the standard definition of ROTATION found in multiple sources, without offering a rationale, other then childish references to our Daddies.
Neither Bill nor DREMT can provide an alternative definition that supports their beliefs.
Why?
This is how we recognize dishonest trolling.
Nate says:
Bill and DREMT reject the standard definition of ROTATION found in multiple sources, without offering a rationale, other then childish references to our Daddies.
Neither Bill nor DREMT can provide an alternative definition that supports their beliefs.
Why?
This is how we recognize dishonest trolling.
—————-
Nate the standard definition of rotation is:
noun
”the action of rotating around an axis or center”
It is a broad categorization of actions and it is you who is attempting to narrow it. I will ask you the same question as Willard. If an orbit is circular is that a rotation? If it is instead elliptical why is it not considered to be a rotation. . . .be specific and please don’t just say ‘my daddy told me’.
> If its translating, quite simply its not turning around my body.
Incorrect, Bill. The ball, like any moving object, can do both.
When you move the ball by turning around yourself, you are rotating the ball and the ball is orbiting around you. If you turn a ball, it is being turned, and so it turns. Whether it translates or not is independent from these facts, which would apply even if you lived in a world with a spherical geometry centered around your ball.
When you pull the ball nearer to you while also turning around yourself, the ball is quite simply translating toward you. You should know this. After all, haven’t you adjudicated the whole issue by reading Holy Madhavi?
And don’t forget: if you want the ball to go in a non-circular path, you have no other choice than to make the ball translate toward you half of the time. For your extended arms imposed a fixed radius, and if you extend your arms at all time the ball will follow a circular path.
Nate clings to narrow concepts because his daddy told him it was so.
For instance he wishes to distinguish between orbital motion and spin motion of an object simply rotating around a center.
I maintain this is elevating form over substance. It is an inability to distinguish between ones tools you have been taught about and reality.
His argument goes essentially like this. You release the string on a ball rotating around his hand and the ball flies off in a straight line while rotating around its COM.
LOL!
OK so indeed it does! But what have you in reality proven. You have proven that if you break connection of an orbital rotation it becomes linear momentum for the individual constituents of the rotation.
Nate (and probably Willard and a whole huge group of other morons) now smugly believe they have differentiated orbital rotation from spin rotation and start insulting endlessly those that claim a rotation is a case of an object rotating around an axis/center which is a common definition of the motion whether the center is internal or external.
In the above case they have broken or released the string that keeps the ball in rotation around the hand that rotates the ball and there is no more orbital rotation and one can see that the ball heads off in a straight line while rotating on its COM.
Nate now smugly declares this as a proof of what he believes and believes it worthy of assigning a lesser status to the orbital motion vs what he likes to refer to the only rotation of the ball namely on its internal axis. LMAO!
But in reality what is he doing? He is selectively/cherry picking an action that always results in the same outcome no matter where the center of rotation happens to be located.
But moronic brain has completely failed to comprehend fully how he has violated the essence of scientific investigation. And he has failed this despite probably years of instruction on what science entails. In other words Nate is hopelessly lost in his own imaginary world.
Proof?
Well what would the result be if the object that is rotating completely flies apart into individual particles?
They too would fly off in a straight line and since there is no longer a ‘grouping of particles’ with different velocities around a center there would be no spin at all!!!!
My gawd!! Cherry picking by Nate has been exposed!!!
Conclusion: Fundamentally there is no difference between orbital and spin motion. There is only a difference if you treat them differently.
So both are rotations, no question about it.
C.R. Nave expertly and explicitly recognizes this and no person with a shred of credibility and a brain should deny it.
If you are going to deny it you need to be sure you aren’t being selective in the criteria you use.
So if Nate or Willard cares to continue this argument they need to conclusively address how they would seek to fairly evaluate the difference of a group of particles rotating around a center/axis whether it be the moon or a spinning disk like the deck of a merry-go-round spinning on its own COM or on any arbitrarily designated center of rotation.
In my view first you have rotations which have angular momentum around a center or axis of rotation, internal or external. If you can assign this angular momentum to such a motion you have a rotation, all this bullshit about needing other criteria simply doesn’t wash.
The MOTR could be seen as a curvilinear translation. The moon comes moseying along on a linear path with zero spin (except that there probably isn’t anything anywhere that doesn’t have spin) into proximity of earth and its path changes to a curvilinear translation around the earth (except it doesn’t actually spend any time doing that before it starts a process of syncing with the orbit) eventually after X amount of time the moon comes into a complete rotational relationship with the COM of earth (or if you wish to view it over a period of time the barycenter which is the mean position of the earth’s COM over a period of time and in fact is also the moon’s COM mean position over a period of time)
So really the only poorly defined aspect of rotation is whether the MOTR is in rotation around the earth. If you wish to split up a single rotation into an orbital rotation and a spin rotation it seems that all you have done is muck it all up from a state of reality into a confusing world of concepts that obfuscates what the current reality actually is. A better approach would be from how would you create a MOTR. An engineer would instantly understand that you would need two rotations.
> If an orbit is circular is that a rotation? If it is instead elliptical why is it not considered to be a rotation
If you ask this stupid question you’re in no position to adjudicate anything by having read Holy Madhavi.
Let a line L between points B and C. You move C but not B. The result? L rotates. You move B and C. Result? L translates. You can describe any motion with these two basic movements.
Now, what is the path B followed when you rotated L? A circle. If you want B to move along an elliptical path, you have to stretch L. Which is what is meant by breaking isometry. To preserve isometry, L has to become something else. Whatever that something else, it will rotate and translate.
What I said applies to objects. Kinematics is built on geometry. It’s not called the “geometry of motion” for anything.
By appealing to Madhavi were you playing “mommy told me”? Your double bind does not go unnnoticed, btw:
[B1] Still unsupported.
[B2] Don’t play “daddy told me!”
You’re losing both binds. When will you switch to who cares?
Willard says:
> If its translating, quite simply its not turning around my body.
Incorrect, Bill. The ball, like any moving object, can do both.
————————-
Well we recognize that an ellipse is not a pure rotation. One cannot define a rotation as only a pure rotation as that would be a redundancy. A pure rotation is even a special case of circular motion. It is perhaps identical to uniform circular motion. An elliptical orbit is also a special case of rotation along with circular motion, uniform circular motion, and pure rotation. What they all have in common that uniquely separates them from translations and general plane motions is angular momentum is the only kind of momentum the motion possesses at any point in the course of a full rotation.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1171694
> Well we recognize that an ellipse is not a pure rotation. One cannot define a rotation as only a pure rotation as that would be a redundancy. A pure rotation is even a special case of circular motion.
There’s nothing correct in that series of claims, Bill.
A rotation, in geometry, isn’t a motion. It’s a transformation. That kind of transformation can be used to interpret or describe motion. Geometry is more abstract than physics: it applies to lots of conceivable worlds.
Definitions are redundant by definition. That’s how axiomatic definitions work. Also note that pure rotation is defined in terms of rotation, not the other way around. It’s more characterized than defined, but whatever. Mileage varies here.
Nobody died and made you king of the Moon Dragon cranks. I suspect that at least two of them would dispute that first claim. Not sure how come you now know what’s a pure rotation, BTW.
A more important question is the following – if an elliptical motion can’t be described by rotation alone (which is what we usually mean by pure rotation), then how come you adjudicated the win to Moon Dragon cranks? Your model wouldn’t simpler if it has rotation and (a series of) translation.
I say wouldn’t because I assume you have no real model of the motion of the Moon.
Willard, you used to argue that the moon was rotating about an external axis, whilst also rotating about an internal axis. Fact is, if that were true, you would see all sides of the moon from the center of the orbit. We all assume you are now able to admit that is true, despite your failure to actually say so, directly, publicly. Now you seem to want to argue that “orbital motion without axial rotation” includes rotation about an external axis and translation. If that were true…what would it change, exactly? You could still describe the motion of the moon as “orbital motion without axial rotation”. There would still be no need to describe the motion of the moon as including axial rotation. So where exactly are you going with this!?
“the action of rotating around an axis or center”
Using the word in the definition of the word!?
No substance there Bill. Try again.
“It is a broad categorization of actions and it is you who is attempting to narrow it.”
Not me. Physics. Mathematics.
And you reject this science with no reason other than it doesnt agree with my beliefs, which are clearly not well formulated.
“Nate clings to narrow concepts because his daddy told him it was so.”
Whereas Bill rejects science because he’s extremely ignorant of how it works.
Science and engineering obviously is built on previous centuries of knowledge. Thats why it works!
Only idiot Flat Earthers, and Bill and DREMT, think that that any of the built-up knowledge can be rejected without a reason, a la carte, to achieve their trolling goals.
"Nate the standard definition of rotation is: noun ”the action of rotating around an axis or center”"
That’s true, Bill. I looked it up earlier on Google and came up with the exact same definition. Nothing at all mentioned about the motion having to occur in a circle, as opposed to an ellipse.
The motion around an axis is key. The axis locks in to the concept of the barycenter. The motion occurs around a central point. Whereas if you try to define "orbital motion without axial rotation" as purely translational motion, like the "Spinners" do – where is the connection to the central point being orbited!? There is none. Translation is just any old motion, there is nothing connecting it to the body being orbited, whatsoever. It could happen anywhere. It is the way a machine would view "orbital motion without axial rotation". Just a random ellipse painted in the middle of nowhere. Nothing connecting it to the body being orbited, at all!
“I maintain this is elevating form over substance…yada yada yada”
Prodigious amounts of gobbldegook from Bill here.
Bill, your undefinable feelings about what should be counted as rotation causes you to repeatedly misunderstand concepts like angular momentum.
I explained several time how angular momentum is required on translating objects in order to account for collisions that leave things spinning. But you refuse to learn.
This is substance, not form, because it gives the right answers in real problems and can be tested.
So yeah…translational motion has nothing at all to connect it to the barycenter, to the central point of the orbit. Unlike rotation about an external axis, which has to involve…the axis. It is motion about the axis, about the barycenter…by definition. It just makes so much more sense to define orbital motion that way…which is I guess why they do define orbital motion as a rotation around an external axis. And that, as they say, is that. Discussion over.
“Nate the standard definition of rotation is:
noun
“the action of rotating around an axis or center”
True.
Rotation, hmmm. Root word Rotate.
What does that mean?
Lets Google it.
Rotate
“verb
move or cause to move in a circle around an axis or center.”
You guys just can’t win.
“It just makes so much more sense to define orbital motion that waywhich is I guess why they do define orbital motion”
Do they?
Like Rotation, Orbit is a word that the trolls have never found a Definition for that agrees with their erroneous beliefs.
Oh well. Theyll keep declaring it anyway.
Thats how we know theyre trolls.
Willard says:
A rotation, in geometry, isn’t a motion. It’s a transformation.
—————-
Sheesh! Seems to me that we are talking about a real object that is in rotational motion. . . .doncha think? Its certainly not a transformation in any way shape or form. LMAO!
========
========
========
Willard says:
Definitions are redundant by definition. That’s how axiomatic definitions work.
——————
Anybody who knows where Willard lives should call an ambulance. It is speaking incoherently.
========
========
========
Willard says:
Also note that pure rotation is defined in terms of rotation, not the other way around. It’s more characterized than defined, but whatever. Mileage varies here.
——————-
More incoherent gibberish. Get them there fast!
========
========
========
Willard says:
Not sure how come you now know what’s a pure rotation, BTW.
————
You haven’t answered my question is in your mind a circular orbit a rotation?
Willard says:
”A more important question is the following – if an elliptical motion can’t be described by rotation alone (which is what we usually mean by pure rotation), then how come you adjudicated the win to Moon Dragon cranks? Your model wouldn’t simpler if it has rotation and (a series of) translation.”
Quite simple Willard there is no translation in an elliptical orbit. You attempt to suggest there is one via a stretching string. But the string for an orbit only involves gravity. Gravity is not an object and therefore it can’t be in motion.
Willard says:
”I say wouldn’t because I assume you have no real model of the motion of the Moon.”
No I am not going to build a model for the moon whether its rotating in a circle or rotating in an ellipse. But it is easy to model an object with only a few particles. I already did that for a 2 particle object for Nate earlier in this thread.
“But it is easy to model an object with only a few particles. I already did that for a 2 particle object for Nate earlier in this thread.”
And you made complete hash of it, Bill.
And as usual, your math/physics-hash always ends up leading you to erroneous conclusions.
The correct result is that the MOTL has > angular momentum than the MOTR, because it has SPIN angular momentum ADDED to the ORBITAL angular momentum of the MOTR.
And yes, all of our Daddy’s experiments and observations agreed with this result. And that’s why it is reliable and is in textbooks.
Nate the Parrot says:
The correct result is that the MOTL has > angular momentum than the MOTR, because it has SPIN angular momentum ADDED to the ORBITAL angular momentum of the MOTR.
—————-
Once you understand the math then you will understand that Lorb for the moon is less than the sum of the angular momentum (mvr) of all the particles in the moon. . . .but OTOH inculcation might keep your mind block in place. . . .or more likely you will remain true to form and continue to obfuscate by not addressing that issue. . . .like Willard is doing to DREMT’s point.
> I am not going to build a model for the [motion of the M]oon
Of course you won’t, Bill.
You barely can follow your own train of thought.
> You haven’t answered my question
I did, Bill.
Many times.
Is that the same trick as when you keep asking for references after you’re being served more than five times?
Fine Willard. Since you said a rotation must be a perfect circle I will accept your answer that you agree a circular orbit is indeed a rotation and your only beef is with elliptical ones. Its good to properly frame differences.
You might consider extending the same courtesy to DREMT on his question about reference frames.
“you will understand that Lorb for the moon is less than the sum of the angular momentum (mvr) of all the particles in the moon.”
And that agrees with what I just stated,
“the MOTL has > angular momentum than the MOTR, because it has SPIN angular momentum ADDED to the ORBITAL angular momentum of the MOTR”
Now do you get it?
> Since you said a rotation must be a perfect circle
That’s not exactly what I said, Bill.
And what I said can be found in your Holy Madhavi.
Why are you still playing dumb?
It’s OK Bill, I already know that they agree the moon issue transcends reference frames. They wouldn’t spend all this time arguing about rotation around an external axis otherwise. They would instead just simply argue that the moon was rotating on its own axis wrt the inertial reference frame. They just lack the decency, honesty and integrity to admit that I’m right about any aspect of the moon issue, so they pretend that nothing was ever said.
” admit that I’m right ”
Did someone interject into this discussion of the facts and try to make it all about them?
I think so.
DREMT is right. All you guys do is obfuscate and try to rewrite dictionaries. Seems the only physical argument you make is that if the radius changes its length during an orbit it is some kind of either lesser rotation or some kind of error would result from using the physical properties of a generic concept of rotation.
that is clearly wrong and that explains why you guys lack a legitimate argument that it actually is a lesser form of rotation (e.g. its more the equivalent of a linear translation.) And when challenged you resort to semantical games.
Perhaps you could start by explaining how the moon on the right could actually exist in the presence of the physics acting upon it. I would contend that it can’t as to prevent it from immediately becoming the MOTL there needs to be some additional force applied. And since energy is never destroyed where does that energy go?
Bill,
Multiple sources, both textbooks and dictionaries disagree with you on how rotation and orbit are defined.
“ro·tate
verb
move or cause to move in a circle around an axis or center.”
It is beyond ludicrous to turn that into we ‘try to rewrite dictionaries’
“start by explaining how the moon on the right could actually exist in the presence of the physics acting upon it. I would contend that it can’t as to prevent it from immediately becoming the MOTL there needs to be some additional force applied.”
The evidence we have is that tidal locking of the Moon required millions of years.
Then this has a ridiculously FALSE PREMISE.
As long as you continue to ignore, make up, and distort the facts, you cannot win this argument or convince anyone.
As I have explained several times, what you guys are suggesting is that the rotation of all bodies must be referenced to another body.
You want the Moon’s axial rotation to be referenced to its position relative to the center of the Earth.
Regardless of what DREMT believes, that IS a reference frame issue.
Astrophysics has no use for this highly cumbersome and unphysical approach.
Astrophysics takes a universal approach to measurement of rotation and orbit:
To measure rotation of bodies independent of where they are in reference to other bodies (which may not even be visible).
It’s funny when they suddenly reveal they have followed nothing of your argument and start attacking ridiculous strawmen.
If they honestly didn’t get how the moon issue transcends reference frames, why did they waste all that time discussing rotation about an external axis? It just makes no sense.
Ultimately, if they just think the moon rotates on its own axis wrt the inertial reference frame, then that’s all they should ever need to argue. Why bother with anything else?
To anyone arguing that the moon rotates on its own axis wrt the inertial reference frame I would just automatically respond that the only way the moon can be rotating on its own axis is if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR. So it all depends on what “orbital motion” is, and that consideration clearly goes beyond reference frames (as there are only two options, which you can always differentiate between regardless of which reference frame you choose).
It is simple enough that most rational people should get it, but there you go. I begin to think that we will never get anywhere with this discussion because the “Spinners” are just not prepared to concede anything, no matter how small or trivial a point.
I expect more false accusations, misrepresentations, and insults in response.
So should the axial rotation of a body be measured in reference to another body or not?
If yes, then reference frame matters.
If I drive my car at 60 mph on the hi-way, then as I pass a car going 50 mph, should I then be going 10 mph?
No, that would be an arbitrary switch of reference frame, and makes no sense.
An asteroid is translating thru interstellar space and has an axial rotation rate of omega, which is entirely independent of its position or velocity.
Then it passes thru our solar system.
As it passes thru its path is curved by gravity, so do we now have to calculate its angular velocity in reference to its angular position relative to the sun, ie switch to a heliocentric reference frame as it passes thru?
Astrophysics says its axial rotation rate is unchanged as it passes thru, it should not be measured in reference to another body.
A moon is translating past Earth with an axial rotation rate of 1/27 days. If it is then captured by Earth’s gravity and pulled into a 27 day elliptical orbit, then you guys would now claim that it has 0 axial rotation rate.
You have switched to Earth-referenced frame, a Geocentric frame of reference.
Well, no insults, but we definitely got false accusations and misrepresentations.
Nate says:
Multiple sources, both textbooks and dictionaries disagree with you on how rotation and orbit are defined.
“ro·tate
verb
move or cause to move in a circle around an axis or center.”
————————
Nate continues to cherry pick suggesting his multiple sources outweighs multiple sources to the contrary.
Science isn’t about drawing a conclusion and arguing a point based upon non-consensus science that the only argument is the false one that it is a consensus. Science and the encouragement of science for the sake of the advancement of science is to actually point out the issues where uncertainty exists. That is like a guidebook to relevant areas of study.
Elliptical motion in my opinion is simply overwhelmed by the lack of need to study it. Engineers can’t build stuff with gravity and its hard to build stuff that rotates in an elliptical fashion and there is little need to do so in comparison to the need and ease of building stuff that rotates in a circular fashion. But that is a situation that is based in popularity rather than science. . . .except in the little minds that seem to prevail in a ‘leave no child behind’ world.
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
Nate says:
It is beyond ludicrous to turn that into we ‘try to rewrite dictionaries’
——————–
No its not! It is the sort dumbing down that goes hand in hand with the ever present expansion of elitist power systems.
===========
===========
===========
===========
Nate says:
“start by explaining how the moon on the right could actually exist in the presence of the physics acting upon it. I would contend that it can’t as to prevent it from immediately becoming the MOTL there needs to be some additional force applied.”
The evidence we have is that tidal locking of the Moon required millions of years.
Then this has a ridiculously FALSE PREMISE.
—————————————-
Absolutely wrong! You don’t know how long it took. We know it took at least millions of years to stop a spin that preexisted prior to tidal locking, but it is false to suggest that spin was going from zero to one spin per month and that took millions of years. But even arguing that point doesn’t make your case as I suggested above because all that point proves is that the MOTR doesn’t exist and thus is only an imagined starting point based on an extrapolation. Even the cannon argument is mankinds best engineering efforts in ballistics to limit the spin of a bullet coming out of an unsteady hand.
And to top all that off you simply avoided the where did the energy go argument. . . .which has interesting ramifications, but if not made in the argument really no argument from science is being made. But one can conclude that the full realization of that energy and you end up with an orbital rotation in essentially a physical rather than geometric sense. Spinners have been trying since the start of this debate to elevate geometry (a mathematical tool) to the level of physical reality. . . .especially Willard.
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
Nate says:
You want the Moon’s axial rotation to be referenced to its position relative to the center of the Earth.
———————-
Indeed. Rotations are in re the axis upon which they rotate. You haven’t argued against that what your argument consists of it that since the rotation is not circular the physics are different. To flesh that out was the intent of the question you have yet to answer. That is whether a circular orbit qualifies as a rotation on an external axis and if not why not?
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
Nate says:
Regardless of what DREMT believes, that IS a reference frame issue.
—————–
DREMT did say that was your ONLY remaining argument. All the rest is just obfuscation.
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
Nate says:
Astrophysics has no use for this highly cumbersome and unphysical approach.
——————-
Yes I already largely acknowledged that multiple times. Thats true except for the fact space object science must design for the issue to avoid excessive use of fuel for long-lived objects.
And its fair to point out that being easier isn’t science. . . .it is in this case good policy as long as you keep in mind the down side of it.
Perhaps this comment from last month will help clarify matters re reference frames:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1117327
Nate, what are the odds that the moon just happened to start orbiting in 1/27 days? Why not 2/27 or 1/40?
” but it is false to suggest that spin was going from zero to one spin per month and that took millions of years.”
Nor did I suggest that!
The scenario is that the Moon had some spin after a collision with the Earth.
It then took Millions of years for the tidal locking torque (relatively small) to slow it down to its current 1/27 day spin rate.
You suggested without any evidence, nor rationale, that this would happen almost instantly, which would be physically impossible.
” what are the odds that the moon just happened ”
Red herring.
This is clearly a thought experiment meant to illustrate a point about frames of reference.
> All you guys do is obfuscate and try to rewrite dictionaries.
Look, Bill. I’m not the one who appealed to Holy Madhavi. You are. You pretended to understand it well enough to give the point to your own side.
You’ve been caught posturing once again.
Suck it up.
Nate,
Seems to me frames of reference is the red herring. The moon either magically coincidentally rotates exactly once per trip around the earth or it is gravitationally locked. Are you a spinner or not?
Nate says:
” but it is false to suggest that spin was going from zero to one spin per month and that took millions of years.”
Nor did I suggest that!
The scenario is that the Moon had some spin after a collision with the Earth.
It then took Millions of years for the tidal locking torque (relatively small) to slow it down to its current 1/27 day spin rate.
You suggested without any evidence, nor rationale, that this would happen almost instantly, which would be physically impossible.
———————
that is a very highly unlikely scenario. It could only happen that way if the moon originally had a parallel spin axis to the rotational axis and the rotation was in the same direction.
Willard says:
Look, Bill. Im not the one who appealed to Holy Madhavi. You are. You pretended to understand it well enough to give the point to your own side.
Youve been caught posturing once again.
Suck it up.
—————————-
Sheesh! Willard Madhavi isn’t holy. Madhavi writes about kinematics – real physical motions. Not geometry, not isometry. No none of that because none of that is about real motions.
Here’s what you said, Bill:
Here’s what your own authority says about rotation:
Unless you can find a way to define an ellipse as a circle, either you throw Madhavi under the bus, or you throw your own position under the bus.
Which is it?
Willard Madhavi is teaching engineering to those looking for engineering jobs. If she were to complicate her teaching with ellipses it would merely serve to confuse her students.
It has already confused a lot of folks here, obviously.
So since you are making that point once again. Do you believe an object in circular orbit is a rotation? Your arguments seem to be ambivalent to that and thus seems all you are doing is randomly and inconsistently picking around the edges with reference frames and circles and Lspins and such.
A good start would be a declaration that if you think we are BSing about Madhavi if also think Madhavi is BSing about rotations.
Holy Madhavi has the answer you refuse to concede, Bill:
Check her examples.
You recall which ones, don’t you?
It’s right before she talks about relative motions relative to frame of references.
And Willard you are merely demonstrating you can’t answer a simple question about what you are thinking with a simple yes or no.
If you can’t commit why should anybody listen to your nonsense about what they should commit to?
One last time. If an orbit is circular is that a rotation?
> at least he answered the question.
I answered it at least ten times, Bill.
Here’s one:
This was the first comment I made on this issue.
In fairness, you don’t have anything else than playing dumb now, have you?
Nate says:
The scenario is that the Moon had some spin after a collision with the Earth.
It then took Millions of years for the tidal locking torque (relatively small) to slow it down to its current 1/27 day spin rate.
You suggested without any evidence, nor rationale, that this would happen almost instantly, which would be physically impossible.
————————
Nate posits a ridiculous remnant spin scenario.
Since its some thing wellnorth of 99.99% certain any random spin would not be on the same axis as the spinner’s spin axis and also be in the same direction as the spinners spin along with not being slower. . . .I guess what Nate is positing here is immediately after the force of earth’s gravity has managed to eliminate the random spin, the moon then instantaneously grows a new spin axis. if not then he hasn’t at all been clear about how the moon came to rotate around the earth in the first place. LMAO!!!
“There is no point in me pointing out, for example, that if a moon were translating past Earth with an axial rotation rate of 1/27 days, and was captured by Earth’s gravity and pulled into a 27 day elliptical orbit, I would not claim that it has an axial rotation rate of 0”
True. There is no point, since he would be contradicting himself since our Moon is described as having zero axial rotation whilst having exactly the same motion (1 rotation for each orbit).
“The moon would not be moving like our moon”
False.
And DREMT knows that. And thats why he initially tried to reframe the argument-that our Moon was different because of its tidal locking!
Then when challenged on that, he dropped it like a hot coal.
So he needs a new flimsy excuse, hence ‘The moon would not be moving like our moon’
He is quite confused and flailing.
My stalker gets everything wrong, as usual. Absolutely everything. This is one of the reasons why I no longer bother to respond directly to him any more. It’s just a complete waste of time.
“Nate posits a ridiculous remnant spin scenario.”
Not sure what Bill is on about here.
He must be really bothered that most of the planets orbit in the same plane and spin the same direction!
But he suggests impossible instantaneous Moon-locking-in scenario.
For anyone interested in the truth, my argument did not change one iota. I merely clarified what I meant. Saying that the captured moon would not be in a tidally-locked orbit is exactly the same thing as saying that the captured moon would not move like our moon. As I anticipated, my comments have just resulted in more confusion and misrepresentation from those willing to twist my every word.
The simple fact is, the initial comment that triggered all this was a misrepresentation of my position in the first place, as I explained, and that fact nullifies any point about reference frames that was being made in it. The moon issue transcends reference frames.
“My stalker gets everything wrong”
People can read for themselves and see DREMTs flip-flopping (and non-response to me, Tee hee).
DREMT “I would not claim that it has an axial rotation rate of 0
Nate “Then you would be inconsistent with your standard claim that our Moon, which moves identically to the one in this scenario, has zero axial rotation.”
DREMT: “..and that the moon would not be in a tidally-locked orbit, like our moon”
Nate: “Thats a new one! How an orbit without axial rotation is defined (MOTL or MOTR) never had any tidal locking requirement.”
DREMT: no more ‘tidal locking’
“the moon would not be moving like our moon”
See what I mean!?
“He is quite confused and flailing.”
That’s a self-indictment if I’ve ever heard one. Nate introduced an impossible hypothetical as a gotcha that went nowhere. He’s flailing about trying to confuse others as much as he himself is confused. Typical King of Obfuscation behavior.
It was a thought experiment that requires a commitment, on the part of readers, to thinking.
Obviously that was too much to ask for from this crowd.
Some are capable of thinking, but choose belief instead.
"The simple fact is, the initial comment that triggered all this was a misrepresentation of my position in the first place, as I explained, and that fact nullifies any point about reference frames that was being made in it. The moon issue transcends reference frames."
Two thought questions that I would like Nate to commit to answering.
What are the chances that the Moon entered its orbit spinning at the exact rate and axis orientated with respect to its orbit such that its face remained oriented toward Earth?
If the Moon is spinning and not gravitationally locked, what is your scientific explanation or belief for its motion?
Considering the number of tidally locked moons in our system alone, Chic, one might wonder if you really thought about your silly gotcha.
Yes, so many tidally-locked moons, the mechanism behind it resulting in (from the "Spinner" perspective) an axial rotation rate of once per orbit, in the same direction as the orbit, or alternatively (from the "Non-Spinner" perspective) an axial rotation rate of zero times per orbit. I think the rotation rate of these moons being slowed to zero, rather than once per orbit, just makes a whole lot more sense.
> I think the rotation rate of these moons being slowed to zero
Strong argument Moon Dragon cranks got there.
Before they entertain us with their “moon break” theory, they might at least concede that the Moon isn’t moved around by the Earth like the ball on a string is moved around by the one who holds the string.
Willard still doesn’t even understand that the physics behind the tidal-locking mechanism remains the same. It is just the result of the tidal-locking mechanism that is perceived differently by either "Spinners" or "Non-Spinners".
I’m happy with the win.
Nate says:
Nate posits a ridiculous remnant spin scenario.
Not sure what Bill is on about here.
He must be really bothered that most of the planets orbit in the same plane and spin the same direction!
But he suggests impossible instantaneous Moon-locking-in scenario.
———————
nate as usual busily constructing straw men!
i didn’t say impossible. i said well north of 99.99% improbable.
even if you argue 95% improbable and note that over 50% of the moon’s in the solar system are tidal locked and you don’t consider that solid science that it ain’t happening we would probably need to toss in the trash the vast majority of all science papers ever written.
lets see say a 1/2 degree grid over a hemisphere would have what?
~99.999% of the grid corners through which a random axis could sit would be the wrong position. not impossible but it still would be a ridiculous claim that the moon’s alleged spin originate from a remnant spin. if you disagree provide your own math.
“What are the chances that the Moon entered its orbit spinning at the exact rate and axis orientated with respect to its orbit such that its face remained oriented toward Earth?”
Irrelevant. Thats why it is a thought experiment.
“If the Moon is spinning and not gravitationally locked, what is your scientific explanation or belief for its motion?”
Orbiting objects can have almost any rotation rate, while orbiting.
This discussion has not about HOW that happens, it has been about Kinematics.
”
kinematics
/ˌkinəˈmadiks/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the branch of mechanics concerned with the motion of objects without reference to the forces which cause the motion.”
ie. is the motion a Translation, a Rotation, or a Combination.
I have never argued with the tidal locking mechanism, Bill.
Take up that argument with somebody else.
I am arguing with it being instantaneous, as you ludicrously claimed.
“I’m happy with the win.”
I’m happy you’re an idiot.
“Orbiting objects can have almost any rotation rate, while orbiting.”
OK, no more hypotheticals, no more obfuscations.
Is the moon spinning or not? What is your best guess?
P.S., it’s about the motion. Either it is spinning or not. Which is it, Nate?
No guessing needed.
The evidence is clear that the Moon is spinning on its axis.
There is an observable axial tilt to the orbital plane, and the axis passes thru the observable lunar Poles, and points to fixed stars, just like Earth’s axis points to Polaris.
The orbit is elliptical which requires the Moon to speed up and slow down in its orbit, while the axial spin remains constant.
The constant axial spin, axial tilt, and elliptical orbit easily explain the observed Libration.
Non-spinning ‘models’ have never explained these observables.
Yes, Chic, my stalker is a die-hard “Spinner”. Always has been, always will be. No question about it. Of course, he won’t argue with any of his fellow “Spinners” who disagree with him on various matters, e.g:
1) That a ball on a string (etc) is not rotating on its own axis (e.g. Bindidon, Norman, Craig T, Entropic Man, Swanson etc).
2) That the moon issue transcends reference frames (e.g. Bindidon).
3) That the moon’s motion can’t be described as a general plane motion (e.g. Swanson).
4) That “orbital motion without axial rotation” involves rotation (e.g. Willard).
5) That “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the MOTR (e.g. bobdroege).
because that would involve some integrity. Well, you know what he’s like.
Notice, DREMT doesnt even try to account for the observables mentioned above with any ‘non-spinner model’. He knows he can’t.
But he still insists the Moon doesnt spin on its axis.
That’s how we recognize a lack of integrity.
Well, you know what he’s like.
“To possess a rotational axis means a body must be rotating about that axis. So if an axis within a body is tilted 90 degrees, then there must be a rotation about that axis.”
Whoever said this must agree then, that it applies to the Moon, with an axial tilt of 6.7 degrees.
Oh wait, it was DREMT who said this, referring to Neptune!
DREMT clearly should understand that an observed axial tilt in the Moon, means ‘there must be a rotation about that axis’
So anyone with integrity would have to say that is the end of that debate.
Well, you know what he’s like…
Well indeed Nate we don’t all always agree on a definition. Perhaps you could educate me on your definition of the word becoming by comparing and contrasting when one should use the form:
‘immediately becoming the MOTL
and
‘immediately became the MOTL
Regale us with your education skills Nate, we need it!
Playing dumb never helps, Bill:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1177862
You realize that you’re in a subthread where Gordo was replying to me, right?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Nate says:
”Becoming is a word that denotes attraction.”
Bill, you have lost it. The argument. And your mind.
———————————–
Ah it is so refreshing how predictable the world is. I bring an actual dictionary definition and you respond with what ever pops into your head. Ah. . . .yes!
” but we definitely got false accusations and misrepresentations.”
As usual we get regularly accused of this, with no specifics.
Perhaps this comment from last month will help clarify matters re reference frames:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1117327
Nope, it just repeats the mantra. It doesnt address, or rebut, what I said above.
I think it’s an issue-settler on reference frames, if you read it carefully. So, that’s that, and since nobody else has accurately represented my position on the matter…there is nothing to rebut. I will not waste my time trying to defend a position which is not my own, so if my opponents cannot accurately represent my arguments, it is their loss overall. I am happy with the win. The honest know I am correct on reference frames.
You claimed ‘false accusations and misrepresentations.’
You can’t point to anything specific.
Thats how we recognize dishonest debate, ie trolling.
I am happy with the win. If nobody can specifically find fault with the comments I have written, which accurately represent my position, then nobody has an argument against my position.
There is no point in me pointing out, for example, that if a moon were translating past Earth with an axial rotation rate of 1/27 days, and was captured by Earth’s gravity and pulled into a 27 day elliptical orbit, I would not claim that it has an axial rotation rate of 0, and that the moon would not be in a tidally-locked orbit…because that will just lead to more confusion and misrepresentation.
Better for others to actually try and argue against my own words, rather than their own confused version of what they think I think.
“and was captured by Earths gravity and pulled into a 27 day elliptical orbit, I would not claim that it has an axial rotation rate of 0”
Then you would be inconsistent with your standard claim that our Moon, which moves identically to the one in this scenario, has zero axial rotation.
Oh well, that’s that.
“I am happy with the win. If nobody can specifically find fault with the comments I have written, which accurately represent my position, then nobody has an argument against my position.”
Then the same can be said about my post above. You offer no sensible specific rebuttal, so…
Or does these rules only apply to your posts?
…and that the moon would not be in a tidally-locked orbit, like our moon…
Nate: “As usual we get regularly accused of this, with no specifics.”
You are the King of Obfuscation. It’s exceptional when you don’t falsely accuse or misrepresent.
In this case, you’re just pouring gas on the fire. DREMT has been repeating his case over and over without any definitive argument that rebuts it. I have stayed out of it for a long time since I “saw the light.”
Give me one comment of yours that gives scientific evidence that DREMT’s interpretation moon rotation is incorrect.
I see no indication that you, Chic, are here for honest debate. You appear to be here to try to annoy people, ie troll.
But if you are truly interested in honest debate look up at my post above on reference frames, quote it and tell me why you disagree.
“and that the moon would not be in a tidally-locked orbit, like our moon”
Thats a new one!
How an orbit without axial rotation is defined (MOTL or MOTR) never had any tidal locking requirement.
“…because that will just lead to more confusion and misrepresentation.”
…and that’s exactly what has happened.
Nate,
It’s not the only thing, but I am here to annoy you back and also to support DREMT who is correct and getting flak from unscientific trolls. Definitions and frames of reference are the true red herrings here.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1175981
Nate, your whole diatribe about reference frames and asteroids passing through our solar system is obfuscatory. That hypothetical has nothing to do with a spinning or non-spinning moon, because the moon didn’t swoop in here and get “captured by Earth’s gravity.”
You are a smart guy (ass?) always looking for something to argue about. How about doing something useful and try proving that more CO2 will warm the Earth or improving the Bern model predictions of how long CO2 will hang around in the atmosphere?
“Nate, your whole diatribe about reference frames and asteroids passing through our solar system is obfuscatory. That hypothetical has nothing to do…”
yada yada yada ad homs but no science. As expected.
‘How an orbit without axial rotation is defined (MOTL or MOTR) never had any tidal locking requirement.’
DREMT “because that will just lead to more confusion and misrepresentation.
and thats exactly what has happened.”
Yep the confusion is all on the non-spinner side.
They seem confused about what their theory has been all this time!
I am happy with the win. If nobody can specifically find fault with the comments I have written, which accurately represent my position, then nobody has an argument against my position.
There is no point in me pointing out, for example, that if a moon were translating past Earth with an axial rotation rate of 1/27 days, and was captured by Earth’s gravity and pulled into a 27 day elliptical orbit, I would not claim that it has an axial rotation rate of 0, and that the moon would not be moving like our moon (it would either be moving like the MOTR, or like a moon that the “Spinners” would say was spinning twice on its own axis, per orbit)…because that will just lead to more confusion and misrepresentation.
Better for others to actually try and argue against my own words, rather than their own confused version of what they think I think.
Words from our Moon Dragon cranks sponsors:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/july-2019-was-not-the-warmest-on-record/
The discussion in this part of the sub-thread has moved onto reference frames, Willard…and yes, a chalk circle is a chalk circle…and this time, by “pure rotation” I just meant “rotation about an external axis”. You’ll get there.
Addressing “If nobody can specifically find fault with the comments I have written, which accurately represent my position” is relevant.
A word from Holy Madhavi:
Willard says:
Addressing If nobody can specifically find fault with the comments I have written, which accurately represent my position is relevant.
A word from Holy Madhavi:
[T]he motion of B with respect to the fixed frame oxyz is referred to as the absolute motion of B.
The absolute motion of B can be obtained by combining the motion of A and the relative motion of B with respect to the moving frame attached to A.
=========================
DREMT has repeated acknowledged that the non-spinner position is that an orbit is a rotation and here you try to challenge it as if it is not.
Once you guys screw your head on straight you will realize that indeed what you see from space is correct as to whether the moon is rotating or not.
there is nothing in your most recent comment from Madhavi that suggests frame of reference determine if there is a rotation. She is discussing translation and absolute motion vs relative motion.
DREMT has repeated said that frames are irrelevant to the discussion because you first have to decide if orbital motion is as per the MOTL or the MOTR.
Further you have been harassing me with the same irrelevant BS and refusing to answer a simple question.
If the moon is rotating it is going to appear to be rotating from the absolute perspective and all that is left is to determine if it is a rotation on an external axis or if it is rotating on its COM.
If you introduce frames of reference all that does is obfuscate the real question.
You must first make the determination if orbital motion is per the MOTL or the MOTR.
Once you learn that maybe you will stop looking at this incorrectly and stop trying to find strawmen arguments.
"…and this time, by “pure rotation” I just meant “rotation about an external axis”. You’ll get there."
More specifically, I meant "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis".
Willard, for the twentieth time, I am not arguing against the application of reference frames to physics problems. I am specifically arguing that the moon issue goes beyond the conclusion that some people come to, which is that the moon rotates on its own axis wrt the inertial reference frame, and does not rotate on its own axis wrt the accelerated frame. That is what I’m saying the moon issue goes beyond.
It goes beyond that because the only way that you can claim the moon is rotating on its own axis is if "orbital motion without axial rotation" is as per the MOTR. Whereas the "Non-Spinners" are saying that "orbital motion without axial rotation" is as per the MOTL. This consideration goes beyond reference frames, as there are only two options (MOTL or MOTR) to choose from, which you can always differentiate between regardless of which reference frame you choose.
If you have any problem with the above, please quote exactly what you disagree with.
Nate,
“yada yada yada ad homs but no science.”
I don’t need to be scientific to point out the irrelevance of your argument. But I will spell it for you, dumb ass. Again.
“A moon is translating past Earth with an axial rotation rate of 1/27 days. If it is then captured by Earth’s gravity and pulled into a 27 day elliptical orbit…”
That hypothetical adds nothing to resolving a scientific question of whether the moon is orbiting while rotating on its axis or gravitationally locked. Your only objective is to set up an opportunity to obfuscate:
“…then you guys would now claim that it has 0 axial rotation rate.”
By choosing your hypothetic rotation as 1/27 days, the end result after however long it took to become gravitationally locked, you obviate any time required for a gravitational lock to stop axial rotation from whatever it may actually have been.
There are only two possibilities. Either the moon became and remains gravitationally locked or it is spinning around its axis every 1/27 days by coincidence.
A simple “yes, Chic, you are right” and an “I agree with DREMT” are in order now.
> the [Moon Dragon Crank] position is that an orbit is a rotation
You keep failing to dodge a very simple point, Bill:
There’s nothing special about that claim unless you presume that this is a pure rotation, which might explain why we see a multitude of claims such as this one:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-613049
You yourself made similar claims, yet earlier you were playing dumb regarding the importance of “pure rotation”:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1164826
A pure rotation, alas, only works for circular orbits.
Must suck to be you.
Willard continually conflates two things:
1) What I actually mean by “pure rotation” – a rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
2) What he thinks I mean by “pure rotation” – a special, extreme case of rotation that has to occur in a circle.
He is not going to stop playing his games. He will not even answer any questions. He has no interest in honest debate. He is a troll.
> extreme case of rotation
False. As per Holy Madhavi:
The only alternative left:
This refutes the “pure rotation” line of the Master Argument, which Roy’s readers witnessed time and time again, e.g.:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-757314
Since an elliptical orbit can only be described properly in terms of general motion, our Moon Dragon cranks need to let go of Holy Madhavi, concede that their appeal to purity makes no geometrical sense, and move on.
And that’s the memo.
"Since an elliptical orbit can only be described properly in terms of general [plane] motion"
1) If you are trying to argue that "orbital motion without axial rotation" can only be described as a general plane motion, even if true (it isn’t), that would really not change anything. When "Spinners" talk of describing the moon’s motion as a general plane motion, they are talking about the orbital motion being a translation (by which they mean, motion like the MOTR) whilst the moon rotates on its own axis. That kind of combination of translation plus rotation. In other words, translation plus axial rotation.
This is a completely different argument to what you seem to be trying to say, which is that an elliptical orbit, as per the MOTL, in other words with one side of the body always facing the inside of the orbit, with no axial rotation, can only be described as a general plane motion. That would still mean the moon does not rotate on its own axis. So really your prolonged obsessive attack achieves nothing, at best.
2) An orbit/revolution is frequently defined as a rotation around an external axis. Immediately proving you wrong that an elliptical orbit cannot be a rotation around an external axis. Obviously, it can, else those definitions would not exist. The definitions exist. Sorry that seems to upset you and my stalker so much. Desmos can be programmed to rotate an object about an external axis in an ellipse. Unless you can show in the programming (the programming from the Desmos demonstration from over a year ago now) where exactly they are introducing a translation into the mix, you’ve got nothing. You’ve had nothing for months, now. Please stop trolling.
> If you are trying to argue that [orbits] can only be described as a general plane motion
Incorrect. A circular orbit can be described as a rotation. Other kinds of orbit also need some translation to take into account the non-circular behavior.
***
> that would really not change anything.
Almost correct. It still changes the Moon Dragon Master Argument.
No more appeal to Holy Madhavi.
No more appeal to pure rotations.
I repeat my previous comment, which refutes your response, and point out that there is no master argument, just your thoroughly dishonest misrepresentations of some things I have said, whilst leaving out most of the important stuff. Now, please stop trolling.
“By choosing your hypothetic rotation as 1/27 days, the end result after however long it took to become gravitationally locked, you obviate any time required for a gravitational lock to stop axial rotation from whatever it may actually have been.”
As usual Chic is clueless about what the argument is about.
Hint: its not about how the Moon got to its current state of motion. Its about the motion.
> I repeat my previous comment, which refutes your response
False on both count. To say “I repeat” does not repeat anything, and the first response did not refute anything.
Let’s shorten our argument:
1. Moon Dragon cranks reject the idea that the Moon’s orbit follows general motion.
2. They appeal to pure rotation, for instance to argue that their position is simpler than the predominant (and only serious) one.
3. In support they cite a handout by Holy Madhavi, in which she speaks of rotation, translation, and general motion, which is a mix of rotation and translation.
4. Closer inspection reveals that pure rotation is defined as a motion along concentric circles.
5. Circles are ellipses, but not all ellipses are circles.
6. The elliptical path that describes our moon’s orbit follows general motion, not pure rotation.
7. Thus Moon Dragon cranks need to throw Holy Madhavi under the bus. They also need to find another way to appeal to simplicity.
Willard says:
Incorrect. A circular orbit can be described as a rotation. Other kinds of orbit also need some translation to take into account the non-circular behavior.
—————————
at least he answered the question. so we can focus on elliptical orbits.
an elliptical orbit has zero translation. A translation cannot have angular momentum, yet elliptical orbits have an angular momentum that does not change through out the entire orbit.
> an elliptical orbit has zero translation
So you say, Bill.
Here’s a counterpoint: a non-circular orbit can’t be a pure rotation as defined by all the kinematics texts we have seen so far, including your Holy Madhavi.
Nate,
“Hint: its not about how the Moon got to its current state of motion.”
Then, dumbass, why did you bring up a hypothetical describing how the Moon gets to its current state of motion?
That’s another false accusation and another misrepresentation on you.
Willard says:
> an elliptical orbit has zero translation
So you say, Bill.
Heres a counterpoint: a non-circular orbit cant be a pure rotation as defined by all the kinematics texts we have seen so far, including your Holy Madhavi.
Willard for a translation a particle must move in a straight line.
and your counterpoint only highlights that you consider to be science whatever your daddy says. I like to look a little deeper. Here Madhavi is explaining the difference between rotations and translations. He has two diagrams Figures 2(a) and 2(b). 2(b) has all particles moving in circles and 2(a) has all particles maintaining the same orientation. Do you really expect Madhavi to say the particles moving in a circular pattern that they are moving in an elliptical pattern?
LMAO! Then you really fuk it up. So from that you claim effectively that for elliptical orbit that since they are not moving in a circular pattern they must be maintaining their orientation as they move? There are only two possible motions rotation and translation. Your argument doesn’t fit either perfectly but they are much closer to circular rather than maintaining their orientation! This was but two examples Willard! Are you really the idiot that you sound like!
> for a translation a particle must move in a straight line.
Incorrect, Bill. From Holy Madhavi:
By your logic, general motion would be impossible because it involves rotation, BTW. Tsk tsk.
> why did you bring up a hypothetical describing how the Moon gets to its current state of motion
Because humans nowadays tend to think that stuff happens for a reason, Chic.
But also because Bill is a slow learner.
Willard says:
> for a translation a particle must move in a straight line.
Incorrect, Bill. From Holy Madhavi:
A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion. [] If the paths are curved lines, the motion is a curvilinear translation.
By your logic, general motion would be impossible because it involves rotation, BTW. Tsk tsk.
————————
yes that was incorrect. a smart guy would have noticed that in the following paragraph it was stated correctly and would not make a stupid post when obviously it was an inadvertent error. but no worries nobody is going to confuse you with a smart guy. a smart ass would be much more appropriate.
and yes indeed a translation is one where any line fixed to two particle remains pointed in one direction and the paths of those points can be curved or straight. but our moon does not qualify under that scenario and never has at least as long as it has been orbiting earth or has been on a pre-orbit trajectory prior to entering orbit
impossible because there is no translation, not because it has a rotation you moron. Willard always confirming the consequent. . . .must be a translation because he believes it not to be a rotation. you just stated the rule above that proves it isn’t a translation you idiot!!
> a smart guy would have noticed that in the following paragraph it was stated correctly
The next paragraph is about rotation on a fixed axis, Bill, and Holy Madhavi clearly say that it’s possible for a curvilinear translation to move along parallel circles.
Perhaps her example would help you understand how general motion includes both rotation and translation:
By the same token, as the Moon translates on its elliptical path, it also rotates around the Earth.
General motion is called “general motion” for a reason, you know.
“1. Moon Dragon cranks reject the idea that the Moon’s orbit follows general motion.”
Incorrect. “Non-Spinners” reject the idea that the moon’s motion (so its supposed axial rotation as well as the orbital motion) follows general plane motion. “Spinners” argue that the moon’s orbital motion is purely translational (by which they mean, motion like the MOTR) whilst the moon is rotating on its own axis. So it is that kind of combination of translation and rotation that the “Non-Spinners” reject. Translation plus axial rotation. Whereas you are trying to argue that an object moving in an elliptical orbit, as per the MOTL, in other words with one side of the body always facing the inside of the orbit, with no axial rotation, can only be described as a general plane motion. That would still mean that the moon does not rotate on its own axis. So really your prolonged obsessive attack achieves nothing, at best.
“2. They appeal to pure rotation, for instance to argue that their position is simpler than the predominant (and only serious) one.”
Incorrect. By “pure rotation” I just mean rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis. And our position is simpler only because we are arguing that the moon is just orbiting, whereas the “Spinners” argue that the moon is orbiting plus rotating on its own axis. Even if that orbital motion were to be described by general plane motion, our position would still be simpler in that sense. It would still be just orbiting, not orbiting plus axial rotation.
“3. In support they cite a handout by Holy Madhavi, in which she speaks of rotation, translation, and general motion, which is a mix of rotation and translation.”
Incorrect. Madhavi was referred to in order to support the idea that rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is motion like the MOTL.
“4. Closer inspection reveals that pure rotation is defined as a motion along concentric circles.”
Motion like the MOTL.
“5. Circles are ellipses, but not all ellipses are circles.
6. The elliptical path that describes our moon’s orbit follows general motion, not pure rotation.”
Incorrect. Firstly, we are not talking about the path. We are talking about the motion, and that includes the orientation of the object throughout. Secondly, the motion of the moon can be described as rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis. It does not need to be described as a general plane motion with no rotation about an internal axis. See Point 2) from my 5:12 PM comment, yesterday.
“7. Thus Moon Dragon cranks need to throw Holy Madhavi under the bus. They also need to find another way to appeal to simplicity.”
Incorrect, as explained above.
Now, please stop trolling.
Willard says:
”By the same token, as the Moon translates on its elliptical path, it also rotates around the Earth.”
——————
Ah finally your message is coming through loud and strong! You think the orbit motion itself is a general plane motion!
You need to read Madhavi much more closely because you flunked her quiz on this. A general plane motion is the ”sum” of a translation and rotation. Here once you calculate the result/value of the rotation, by any means, the result/value of the translation has to be zero.
What you have done here Willard is you have become so indecisive about what kind of motion the orbital motion is you are trying to call it two different things at the same time and in the same motion. The only way you could make this argument though is if lines in the moon were not changing directions as in the MOTR. But the MOTR is impossible as an object in motion with a single driver via the laws of physics. The examples given of general plane motion show two motions resulting from a say single axle drive wheel or alternatively a freely spinning axle and gravity pulling the object down a ramp.
Madhavi’s math/geometry on what a general plane motion is would demand that the moon show all sides to the surface it is theoretically rolling on. Why don’t you also spend months trying to diagram that for us. ROTFLMAO!!
“‘Non-Spinners’ reject the idea that the moons motion (so its supposed axial rotation as well as the orbital motion) follows general plane motion.”
Then they need to admit that this is a rejection of their go-to source Madhavi, as well as Brown Univ., Univ of Washington, and all other similar Rigid Body Kinematics courses and textbooks, who define Translation, Rotation and General Plane Motion.
But they won’t. That’s how we recognize dishonest trolls.
Oh, I almost forgot to mention: E. Swanson also rejects the idea that the moon’s motion (its supposed axial rotation as well as the orbital motion) follows general plane motion, because (he says) the moon’s rotational axis is not perpendicular to the orbital plane, thus the moon’s motion is not happening in a plane, and so general plane motion does not apply. None of the other "Spinners" ever challenge him on this, however. They never argue amongst themselves. That’s how we recognize dishonest trolling.
> A general plane motion is the “sum” of a translation and rotation.
If you have a point, Bill, you sure are hiding it well.
Say you drive a car. You see a sock puppet on the road right in front of you. Do you try to turn the car? I bet you do. It’s an important sock puppet to you.
Now, how would you describe that motion? Here’s how I would put it: a sum of a translation and a rotation. That example should be enough to make you understand your Holy Madhavi.
Best of luck!
…and how would you describe the motion of a ball on a string, Willard, now that you have been learning some of the basics of kinematics for the first time in your life? Is the ball on a string rotating about an axis that goes through the body of the ball itself, as most (but not all) of the "Spinners" argue? Or is the ball on a string rotating about an external axis, without rotating about an internal axis?
Best of luck.
> Even if that orbital motion were to be described by general plane motion, our position would still be simpler in that sense.
General motion is general motion is general motion. What Moon Dragon cranks deduce from the rotational column they need to add to the translational one.
Besides, this concession makes the “pure” line of their Master Argument bogus, e.g.:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-552147
Furthermore, to insist on the word “plane” in “plane motion” adds nothing relevant to the issue. Motion is described on a plane. It’s its frame of reference.
If you actually read my comments carefully, Willard, you would see that I am not making any concessions. I have not changed any of my arguments at all. You have no coherent rebuttal to the multiple points raised in my 4:34 AM comment, that is clear. Or my 5:12 PM comment from yesterday, for that matter.
I also fully expect you will refuse to answer the questions in my 11:04 AM comment, as you never answer questions, whilst expecting everyone else to dance to your discordant tune.
So, please stop trolling.
> I am not making any concessions [sic]
We were referring to “Even if that orbital motion were to be described by general plane motion, our position would still be simpler in that sense.” Moon Dragon cranks ought to accept what everybody but their tiny clique does. Once they’re stuck with verbal defenses such as “extreme case of rotation” or “general plane motion,” what do they have left?
You have multiple points from two comments to attempt to rebut, and questions from a third to answer, Willard. So we are hardly left with nothing. We have all the arguments that we have made, since the very beginning, that you are unable to refute. You are the one that has nothing.
Now, please stop trolling.
Handwaving.
Yes, Willard, I’m afraid hand-waving is all you’ve been doing, since the two comments mentioned. Any answers to the questions posed in the third, hand-waver?
Otherwise, please stop trolling.
Here’s handwaving:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1178773
The whole of it. Whereas here’s what an argument looks like:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1177851
Replying to it does not imply one responds to it.
We can shorten our argument furthermore:
Holy Madhavi’s defines rotation as motion in parallel planes along circles centered on the same fixed axis.
An ellipse is not a circle.
Bill has no business adjudicating this issue.
More hand-waving from Willard. He received a point-by-point rebuttal to his argument, and has been hand-waving ever since. He’s also not going to answer the questions asked of him. What a surprise.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I’m happy with the win, even if, considering the Moon Dragon cranks’ fantastic position, was a gimme.
Willard says:
> A general plane motion is the sum of a translation and rotation.
If you have a point, Bill, you sure are hiding it well.
Say you drive a car. You see a sock puppet on the road right in front of you. Do you try to turn the car? I bet you do. Its an important sock puppet to you.
Now, how would you describe that motion? Heres how I would put it: a sum of a translation and a rotation. That example should be enough to make you understand your Holy Madhavi.
Best of luck!
——————————
you are totally miscomprehending the nature of an elliptical motion willard.
there is no change in turning forces to avoid a sock puppet or anything else.
its one velocity plus one force of gravity.
You’re just full of it, Bill.
As you drive straight in front of you, your car translates.
As you turn to wheel it also starts to rotate.
Since it does both, it’s a general motion.
Same for the Moon.
…and there we have it. As Willard reveals he thinks there is rotation involved in “orbital motion without axial rotation”, he concedes that “orbital motion without axial rotation” involves a change in orientation of the object. So, of the two options, that can only be motion like the MOTL. Welcome to the “Non-Spinners”, Willard!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-876891
Just so he can’t wriggle out of it…here is where he has argued before that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is a combination of rotation and translation, oblivious to the fact that according to the rest of the “Spinners”, it is supposedly translational motion only (by which they mean motion like the MOTR).
Willard is a “Non-Spinner”.
“follows general plane motion, because (he says) the moon’s rotational axis is not perpendicular to the orbital plane,”
I have discussed the axial tilt many times.
A general plane motion is an approximation of the Moons motion to a plane, the simplest the motion can possibly be.
The Moon’s motion has additional out-of-plane rotation.
That doesnt help you guys get out of Madhavi’s jail.
Willard is a “Non-Spinner”.
“Nate,
Hint: its not about how the Moon got to its current state of motion.
Then, dumbass, why did you bring up a hypothetical describing how the Moon gets to its current state of motion?
Thats another false accusation and another misrepresentation on you.”
Chip (as in the one on your shoulder),
A thought experiment requires thinking. You are still not doing it.
‘Its not about how it got to its current state’ TRUE.
Again The first object:
a. In interstellar space the object has axial spin and translation
b. When it enters our solar system, YOU GUYS MAY want to now try to reference its rotation to the sun, because its path now curves around the sun.
c. When it leaves it has the the same axial rotation rate.
A change of reference to the sun that you might do in b. makes no sense. This thought experiment illustrates the point.
And that is why Astronomy does not do that.
So I show you a case of a moon with the same motion as ours.
As it approaches Earth it has an axial rotation rate. When it enters orbit, it should continue to have that rate (by conservation of angular momentum). You should not arbitrarily switch to an Earth referenced rotation and claim it now has 0 rotation rate. And it seems DREMT does not.
So again, think about why it is inconsistent to claim our Moon’s rotation, with the SAME motion as this moon, should be referenced to the Earth.
Hint: It is about the motion, not about how it got to its current state of motion.
…and, more importantly, Willard is a “Non-Spinner”.
☺️
Nate uses a hypothetical to explain how an object gets to its current state of motion and then claims [the discussion about the motion] is not about how it got to its current state of motion.
He’s taking obfuscation to new level.
I go out of town for a while and pups and the rest of the no-spin cult drift back to asserting silly claims about kinematics. Looks like they continue to ignore the fact that the Moon can not “rotate” around the fixed point of orbital barycenter because the instantaneous center of rotation doesn’t fall on that point all the way around the orbit.
They also forget that Madhavi’s notes, Section 6, describe the case of “Instantaneous Centre” (of rotation). These clowns apparently think this means the above, i.e., the Moon’s rotation about some fixed external point, which is ludicrous.
So the stupidity continues. Yet they will troll on, obliterating any discussion of our future.
Here’s the shortest proof that I’m a Moon Dragon crank:
I believe the Moon spins.
> Nate uses a hypothetical to explain how an object gets to its current state of motion
Nate uses the null hypothesis to explain how we should model its current motion, Chic.
You’re not very good at this.
Swanson shows his idiocy, and Willard remains a “Non-Spinner”. Hilarious.
[VLAD] “Non-Spinners” reject the idea that the [M]oon’s motion […] follows general plane motion.
[ESTR] The Moon follows a general plane motion.
[VLAD] Estragon reveals to be a non-spinner!
[ESTR] I believe the Moon spins.
[VLAD] See? A non-spinner!!!!!1!
As I already explained:
Willard has said there is rotation involved in “orbital motion without axial rotation”, so he concedes that “orbital motion without axial rotation” involves a change in orientation of the object. So, of the two options, that can only be motion like the MOTL. Welcome to the “Non-Spinners”, Willard!
Nobody expects him to get it. Which is why it is so funny.
I never said there is rotation involved in “orbital motion without axial rotation.” That concept belongs to Moon Dragon cranks. I prefer to speak of spin and orbit, which are simpler and less loaded.
What I said is that an object traveling along an elliptical path cannot do so by translation or rotation alone. General motion is required. General motion involves both translation and rotation.
That follows from definition of Holy Madhavi and just about every book on kinematics or geometry. Persistent protestations from our puerile punks won’t change anything.
> of the two options
The day Kiddo will realize that there are more than two ways to interpret the GIF will be one where he might realize how silly he has been over so many years.
His first task is to decide if he looks at it from the point of view of a geometer or from the point of view of a physicist.
Willard tries to wriggle his way out of it with semantics. Not going to work. You said what you said. Too late to go back on it now.
“Nate uses a hypothetical to explain how an object gets to its current state of motion”
Chip-on-shoulder AGAIN missed the clear purpose of the thought experiment, to illustrate changing reference frames.
No surprise. He is here to troll, not to think.
The nice thing about the reference frame argument is that you can have it both ways.
But at least you’ve committed to the Spinner position. That’s an improvement for you, Nate.
The moon issue goes beyond reference frames; by which I mean, it goes beyond the conclusion that some people come to, that the moon rotates on its own axis wrt the inertial reference frame, but does not rotate on its own axis wrt the accelerated frame. I have conclusively shown that to be the case, time and again. Ultimately, whoever is right about the issue, whether the moon rotates on its own axis or not: the fact is, the issue transcends reference frames. Ultimately, the debate is simply about, what is “orbital motion without axial rotation”?
Looking at the kinematics involved is only really a tiny part of that, though recently it has been blown out of all proportion by the usual suspects. The “Spinner” position is that “orbital motion without axial rotation” (or simply “orbit” if you prefer, Willard, that is just semantics) is translational motion only (by which they mean, motion like the MOTR). Anyone arguing that “orbital motion without axial rotation”, or “orbit”, involves rotation – to any degree – is not a “Spinner”. That is because rotation involves a change in orientation of the object, and if the object is changing orientation whilst orbiting with no axial rotation involved, then that would agree with the “Non-Spinners” understanding.
Yes DREMT, Willard also confirmed he was a non-spinner here. It is a general pattern. Willard has defected!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1178109
”By the same token, as the Moon translates on its elliptical path, it also rotates around the Earth.”
So while Willard is clearly in the non-spinner camp. He just over complicates it by not understanding Madhavi’s detailed instructions of how general plane motion is the sum of a rotation and a translation that cant be reduced to a rotation or translation.
She can do that because all this adds up mathematically in every respect to the equivalent of a rotation (and in the case of the moon, thanks to Kepler, as acknowledged by C.R. Nave in one of the few good studies that i have seen nate produce. . . .obviously by mistake as it runs contrary to what he is peddling here.
Nate says:
As it approaches Earth it has an axial rotation rate. When it enters orbit, it should continue to have that rate (by conservation of angular momentum). You should not arbitrarily switch to an Earth referenced rotation and claim it now has 0 rotation rate. And it seems DREMT does not.
—————————
objects exerting gravitational pull on other objects in space eat axial spin for breakfast and converts the momentum to angular momentum of the orbit without axial spin by adjusting the radius of orbital rotation.
it could not do that and convert angular momentum of a spin to a translation. its sort of like you eating a country breakfast that affects the radius of your waist. . . . no matter how much you pretend it won’t unless you work it off.
> [Holy Madhavi] can do that because all this adds up mathematically in every respect to the equivalent of a rotation.
The word “add” might not mean what you make it mean, Bill.
So let me get this straight: a general motion can be reduced to a rotation?
Big if true. Show me.
Oh, and FYI – that the Moon translates on its elliptical path may not imply it does not spins.
Which is a good thing, as the Moon spins.
Yes, Bill, he’s a "Non-Spinner", and he doesn’t even seem to realize it! Oh well.
[ESTR, speaking to LUCKY] That the Moon translates on its elliptical path may not imply it does not spins. Which is a good thing, as the Moon spins.
[VLAD] Yes, Lucky, Estragon is a Non-Spinner and he doesn’t even seem to realize it! Oh well.
Mind you, he’s not the brightest, and he’s never really understood the issue.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Yes, Bill, he’s a “Non-Spinner”, and he doesn’t even seem to realize it! Oh well.
——————-
I got that. He thinks its a general plane motion. However, in the process of concluding that he is confounding rotation on an external axis with the result of the sum of a translation and rotation.
The trouble is there is no momentum in the translation he envisions, because of Kepler’s discoveries all the momentum in the MOTL is angular momentum. Of course that doesn’t disqualify his non-spinner credentials its only a violation of the KISS principle.
And of course Nate, steadfastly staying the spinner category tries to argue there is no ‘r’ in the linear momentum of his translation.
“objects exerting gravitational pull on other objects in space eat axial spin for breakfast and converts the momentum to angular momentum of the orbit without axial spin by adjusting the radius of orbital rotation.”
Pfffft!
Evidence? Logic? Physics?
Anything at all to support this weird, completely made-up factoid, Bill?
Of course not.
> he is confounding rotation on an external axis with the result of the sum of a translation and rotation.
You are making Holy Madhavi sad, Bill:
“I have conclusively shown that to be the case”
If you only read your own posts, and act as the referee, judge, and jury in this debate, then sure.
Unfortunately that’s not really how debates work, is it.
"I got that. He thinks its a general plane motion"
He thinks "orbital motion without axial rotation" (which he prefers to refer to as simply, "orbit") is a general plane motion, that’s the thing…however, a general plane motion implies there is some rotation involved in the motion, and rotation implies a change in orientation.
So Willard tacitly agrees that "orbital motion without axial rotation" involves the object changing its orientation whilst it moves. Thus he is a "Non-Spinner"…and there’s nothing he can do to change that, unless he publicly accepts that he made a mistake, of course.
But, that will never happen.
tidal braking eats spin for breakfast.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/658578/will-the-increasing-distance-between-moon-and-earth-result-in-speeding-up-or-slo
the orbital motion eats spin for breakfast is a recognition of the conservation of angular momentum.
this poses big issues for spinners cherry picking frames of reference.
the first thread on this topic i stated that the spinner position was one of convenience and not one of established fact. this issue of the exchange of momentum between orbits and spin defies efforts trying to clearly separate them into two separate motions. . . .and runs into conflict with kinematics and the concept of a rotation on an external axis. mudslingers object because Madhavi and others use circular examples. but no problem has been presented that actually establishes that an elliptical orbit isn’t a rotation. proof is the standard science is supposed to uphold. . . .not a blind allegiance to the most popular language used to describe scientific concepts.
”Thus he is a “Non-Spinner”and theres nothing he can do to change that, unless he publicly accepts that he made a mistake, of course.
But, that will never happen.”
——————
lol! it goes way beyond mistake since he has repeatedly affirmed this and has never said anything different or contrary to the physical facts. he has only been arguing about semantics.
to get on the spinner side would require a complete about face.
> Madhavi and others use circular examples. but no problem has been presented that actually establishes that an elliptical orbit isn’t a rotation.
Many problems have been presented, Bill, the most important one being that you always omit the “only” – an elliptical orbit needs to be described using rotation and translation.
Repeating the same mistake over and over again makes you look dumb. But you’re lying about your Holy Madhavi:
That makes you look like a scoundrel.
You might be right, Bill. There could be no way back for Willard, from this.
How delightful.
and he continues to merely make the semantical argument about what he thinks the name of the motion should be.
“tidal braking eats spin for breakfast.”
Apparently Bill thinks breakfast lasts a billion years.
And the spin of the Moon is still present today, so apparentlty breakfast is ongoing.
Lots happens over a Billion years, Bill. But none of relevant to the example I gave of a spinning moon being captured by Earths gravity, which is happening in a very short time.
and you Nate haven’t offered an argument nor offered a source arguing how much spin an orbit eats every day is even relevant.
but how could you? until this afternoon you were calling the fact a ”completely made-up factoid”
> what he thinks the name
What Holy Madhavi thinks, Bill.
Your own sacred authority.
The one by which you adjudicated the issue and gave the point to your own team.
Willard says:
What Holy Madhavi thinks, Bill.
Your own sacred authority.
The one by which you adjudicated the issue and gave the point to your own team.
——————————
on this topic i didn’t award any points. you likened the moons orbital motion to a translating car (i would prefer ‘a car moving forward so as not to create confusing terminology) with a driver turning the wheel to negotiate an closed circuit.
i don’t disagree with your characterization but note that you are describing an object that is rotating on an external axis. welcome to the non-spinner club willard! my only argument is over what you want to name the motion.
> i didn’t award any points
Your racehorsing is becoming epic, Bill:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1157761
It’s as if you still do not realize why I’m reminding you of what Holy Madhavi said over and over again.
Oh Willard!
I decided DREMT had the best model when he produced Madhavi considering I was already aware of Kepler’s work. Madhavi was the first time I saw a rotation on an external axis described as a rotation, though I was well aware that all an eternal rotation on an external axis in effect is, is a spinning disk where all the mass has been stripped away except for the object that is now effectively rotating on an external axis. Merely an accurate and valid conceptualization of the basic nature of the concept.
When C.R. Nave came along, thanks to Nate, that simply gave official (or at least as official as science typically is when you can’t actually build a model and test it) recognition to the idea.
On the other side of the issue is just a bunch of grunts and groans about how astronomers like to think about the situation in a different conceptual manner – apparently with only the support of the concept of Lorb, which actually doesn’t describe a real motion because the object of that motion is not real.
Beyond that there is the usual group here of science sycophants who have no real interest in wanting know how things actually work.
Bill,
I confess to not being as educated on this topic as I should be to know one side or the other is absolutely correct. But that comment is well written and sounds very understandable to me.
> Madhavi was the first time I saw a rotation on an external axis described as a rotation
You got to be kidding me, Bill:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rotation
Have you ever played baseball?
How about using a lever?
Perhaps swirling around your grand kids?
Your sudden realization is cute, but it disqualifies you as a judge for the Moon Dragon crank issues!
Willard unlike you I haven’t claimed to be a judge.
So I suppose this would be a good time for you to regale us with your credentials.
“offered a source arguing how much spin an orbit eats every day is even relevant.”
Indeed, Bill, you have never offered a source that shows how much spin an orbit ‘eats’ per day, yet you have tried a few times to claim, without a shred of evidence, that spin should be eaten almost instantly, ‘for breakfast’.
You need to get real, Bill.
> I haven’t claimed to be a judge
Here’s what you said, Bill:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1157761
nate i never claimed it would be instant. ever! near as i can tell we are talking about no spin and so that we are talking about perhaps is tidal braking of existing spin and converting that to angular momentum about the earth’s COM. but i am not going to argue that point with you or Tesla cause i have no opinion about how long tidal locking actually took for our moon to get rid of any spin it might have or for that matter the exact process of how a moon enters orbit and achieves ‘pure’ rotation in the way that DREMT has defined that for the purposes of discussion in this forum.
you need to find something relevant to go on about.
Willard says:
> I haven’t claimed to be a judge
Here’s what you said, Bill:
So I declared a winner after [Kiddo] produced [Holy Madhavi]
———————————-
LOL! What did you think I was declaring dremt the winner of? Some national championship! ROTFLMAO!!
it wasn’t even a contest! dremt was the only one presenting even a shred of science! he won by forfeit as the competition didn’t even show up! you don’t need a judge for that! its just an obvious fact.
Why do you keep racehorsing, Bill?
OK, “Non-Spinner”.
“nate i never claimed it would be instant. ever! near as i can tell we are talking about no spin and so that we are talking about perhaps is tidal braking of existing spin and converting that to angular momentum about the earths COM. but i am not going to argue that point with you or Tesla cause i have no opinion about how long tidal locking actually took for our moon”
Good, then you admit that ‘eating spin for breakfast’ was a red herring that has no relevance whatsoever to my thought experiment, where a Moon with spin is captured into an orbit, and continues to maintain that spin during its orbit for enough time to be observed.
“nate i never claimed it would be instant. ever! near as i can tell we are talking about no spin and so that we are talking about perhaps is tidal braking of existing spin and converting that to angular momentum about the earth’s COM. but i am not going to argue that point with you or Tesla cause i have no opinion about how long tidal locking actually took for our moon”
Good, then you admit that ‘eating spin for breakfast’ has no relevance whatsoever to my thought experiment, where a Moon with spin is captured into an orbit, and continues to maintain that spin during its orbit, with plenty of time to be observed.
“nate i never claimed it would be instant. ever!”
Uhhh, yes, bizarrely enough, you did:
“Perhaps you could start by explaining how the moon on the right could actually exist in the presence of the physics acting upon it. I would contend that it cant as to prevent it from immediately becoming the MOTL there needs to be some additional force applied. And since energy is never destroyed where does that energy go?”
Nate you are just a little challenged with the English language.
becoming:
”the process of coming to be something or of passing into a state.”
The next question should have been ”how fast does it become?”
Answer: I have no idea!
Nate:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1184011
To me more clear for a supposedly non-spinning moon lacking zero angular momentum that comes under the influence of earths gravity for the first time (does this date back to the creation of the earth?) it will immediately begin becoming the MOTL, even before achieving orbit, such that the MOTR can never be observed. So no your imaginary MOTR can never be observed. Can a spin put on a moon be observed, yes. But not at a steady clip as change is already occurring and spin is being eaten for breakfast and deposited by a change in orbit. Gravity rules.
Bill,
“would contend that it cant as to prevent it from immediately becoming the MOTL”
Its plain what is meant by this.
You are just looking foolish. Just stop.
Indeed Nate we don’t all always agree on a definition. Perhaps you could educate me on your definition of the word becoming by comparing and contrasting when one should use the form:
‘immediately becoming the MOTL
and
‘immediately became the MOTL
Regale us with your education skills Nate, we need it!
‘I would contend that it cant as to prevent it from immediately became the MOTL there needs to be some additional force applied.’
doesnt make grammatical sense, Bill.
That’s the difference.
This is thoroughly dumb. You were wrong about it being immediate.
That’s all there is to it.
But no, you can never have been wrong..
Hence the need to endlessly argue the obvious meaning of words.
Nate says:
‘I would contend that it cant as to prevent it from immediately became the MOTL there needs to be some additional force applied.’
doesnt make grammatical sense, Bill.
——————–
Of course it doesn’t Nate. That is because the expression means something different entirely and you can’t just willy nilly substitute a different expression in a sentence because I didn’t mean the different expression. Did you barely pass dumb bell English Nate?
So please stop trying to evade my question. What is the difference in meaning between
‘immediately becoming the MOTL
and
‘immediately became the MOTL
Nate proclaims:
This is thoroughly dumb. You were wrong about it being immediate.
That’s all there is to it.
But no, you can never have been wrong..
Hence the need to endlessly argue the obvious meaning of words.
—————
The meaning of words is important Nate.
Becoming is a word that denotes attraction. It is a process not an end. Once something is immediately becoming means it is attracted to a different state.
The becoming woman became my wife. Is identical to saying the woman I was attracted to married me.
It is obvious that saying ‘the became woman married me’ is exactly what you are trying to do and claim some kind hollow victory in your own mind.
“Becoming is a word that denotes attraction.”
Bill, you have lost it. The argument. And your mind.
Hey Nate! At least I provided you a dictionary reference that supports that the meaning of the work ‘becoming’ is a process and that thus ‘immediately becoming’ means it immediately enters into such a process.
What have you offered, Nates Own Dictionary where words mean only that which Nate wants them to mean?
Now Roy has update the full dataset for Jan this year we have the full set of graphs.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/uah.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/uah-tropics.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/uah-northern-hemi.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/uah-northern-ex.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/uah-north-pole.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/uah-southern-hemi.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/uah-southern-ex.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/uah-south-pole.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/uah-1.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/uah-month-on-month.jpeg
rlh…”Now Roy has update the full dataset for Jan this year we have the full set of graphs”.
***
Thanks for the graphs.
I think UAH should still be using 1981 as the root of the baseline global average. Perhaps they are thinking the first 18 years of the data is not representative of the overall series because that range was affected by volcanic aerosols, hence cooler.
Post 2015 is beginning to look pretty flat.
I wonder what the series would look like without the 1998 and 2016 EN spikes.
“I wonder what the series would look like without the 1998 and 2016 EN spikes. ”
Or all those La Ninas.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/02/10/la-nina-conditions-continue-across-the-equatorial-pacific/
“I think UAH should still be using 1981 as the root of the baseline global average”
You just don’t like change.
One of the rare occasions I agree with GR. Changing the baseline adds nothing of use to understanding, and makes comparisons more onerous. A clear example is people here referring to predictions made on the old baseline.
So because the satellite series started in late 1979 we should just do a 30 year from then as a baseline going forward? Why not the same for ground based data then. Always the first 30 years regardless.
Why not do it over all of the data instead?
It’s tedious enough to match baselines between different groups of GAT compilers in order to compare anomalies.
UAH is the only one of them that periodically changes the baseline.
I don’t see any point to doing it. It adds an un-needed step to comparing past and present data. We can already see from the goofs made here by regulars that changing the baseline causes confusion, in a forum where you’d think the regulars would be across this modification of the data record. And there are tons of posts and news stories on the net about UAH TLT anomalies over the last 15+ years.
Of course, I don’t think Spencer and Christie should do anything for our convenience. It’s just slightly annoying.
Barry. Do you accept that this page shows the UAH trends going forwards and if not, why?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/uah-1.jpeg
All except the last 3.5 y of blue line, as discussed many times.
What do you mean by “going forward”? Are you asking me if those trend lines are predictive?
They’re not. And neither are linear regressions.
Even if some predictive significance applied, it would be an envelope, not a line, and it would be long-term. Interannual global temps are not predictable.
Physics will determine the trajectory of future temperatures.
2 hours and 44 mins of chattering while second stage is put on First stage of Starship by the chopstick:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMBPHmIhtrg
[I did lots 2x time and skipping ahead of it- quite glad didn’t watch it live.]
And Elon Musk going give a talk this evening with this stack as his
backdrop:
https://www.space.com/elon-musk-spacex-starship-update-webcast-2022
So maybe get some clue about FAA process and details about starship.
Probably some mention of Raptor 2 progress.
So fairly soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8ZVzv9kn2k
rlh…re barycentres.
“If all the planets were in a straight line, it would raise the tide only 1/600 hundreds of an inch, so the planets have virtually no effect, he said.
A baseball held at arm’s length would have a tidal effect millions of times stronger on a person than the planet Mars at its closest, Yeomans and Edberg said”.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/05/02/planetary.alignment/index.html
It is claimed the planets cause the Sun to revolve around a barycentre. Sheer nonsense.
No, just one planet, Jupiter, makes barycenter be outside of the Sun.
“Jupiter’s mass is 2.5 times that of all the other planets in the Solar System combinedthis is so massive that its barycenter with the Sun lies beyond the Sun’s surface at 1.068 solar radii from the Sun’s center.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_mass
So, roughly all planets go around the sun, and the sun mostly goes
around Jupiter/Sun barycenter.
Though further away, of same mass pulls barycenter out further, so Saturn which is less massive, does bit more than one might expect.
Or it’s alignment does a bit more, of pulling together as a team, of “further away from the Sun’s center” or the opposite of canceling the barycenter distance from center of sun upon which sun goes towards {slowly}.
So you deny that Newton’s 3rd Law applies to gravity then?
RLH,
So if you cannot provide any useful facts, you just pose silly gotchas then?
As a barycenter is a direct result of Newton’s 3rd Law I am not sure how it is a gotcha.
RLH,
You wrote –
“So you deny that Newton’s 3rd Law applies to gravity then?”
Then you wrote –
“As a barycenter is a direct result of Newton’s 3rd Law I am not sure how it is a gotcha.”
Why bother asking a question when you believe you know the answer? Just trying to make someone look stupid?
That looks like a gotcha to me.
In any case, your statement “As a barycenter is a direct result of Newton’s 3rd Law . . . ” is wrong, or at least meaningless, without further qualification. What does anyone gain from your statement?
If you feel compelled to appear clever, at least try to impart some useful knowledge.
Tell me what is the balance, as is required by the 3rd Law, to the Moon’s attraction to Earth? About which point will it operate overall.
“In astronomy, the barycenter (or barycentre; from the Ancient Greek βαρύς heavy κέντρον center) is the center of mass of two or more bodies that orbit one another and is the point about which the bodies orbit. A barycenter is a dynamical point, not a physical object. It is an important concept in fields such as astronomy and astrophysics. The distance from a body’s center of mass to the barycenter can be calculated as a two-body problem.
If one of the two orbiting bodies is much more massive than the other and the bodies are relatively close to one another, the barycenter will typically be located within the more massive object. In this case, rather than the two bodies appearing to orbit a point between them, the less massive body will appear to orbit about the more massive body, while the more massive body might be observed to wobble slightly. This is the case for the EarthMoon system, in which the barycenter is located on average 4,671 km (2,902 mi) from Earth’s center, 75% of Earth’s radius of 6,378 km (3,963 mi). When the two bodies are of similar masses, the barycenter will generally be located between them and both bodies will orbit around it. This is the case for Pluto and Charon, one of Pluto’s natural satellites, as well as for many binary asteroids and binary stars. When the less massive object is far away, the barycenter can be located outside the more massive object. This is the case for Jupiter and the Sun; despite the Sun being a thousandfold more massive than Jupiter, their barycenter is slightly outside the Sun due to the relatively large distance between them.”
Not much on maths are you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter
RLH, a “barycenter” is only refers to a “barycenter”.
Your fascination with “barycenters” is amazing.
That’s probably because you don’t understand any of the Moon issue.
A reminder that your silly ball on string is silly is useful, Pup.
If only you could do the Pole Dance Experiment.
Clint R: Why is it that the Earth experience 2 tides a day caused by the Moon?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Experts are catching up to La Nina sticking around for foreseeable future,
I guess they didn’t the “La Nina gone by April” predictions from señor BindidoNiño
https://bit.ly/34sP9do
Beware the Spring Barrier to predictions on ENSO.
I compare
– the intelligence, the knowledge and the experience of a WUWT guest editor like Javier
with
– the insulting ignorance of a Zerodotzero like Eben
and draw my conclusions.
And the blog’s ENSO superexpert should have a look at the following comment:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/02/10/la-nina-conditions-continue-across-the-equatorial-pacific/#comment-3451499
Ha ha haaah, look!
From… Ireneusz Palmowski !!!
” La Niña is likely to continue into the Northern Hemisphere spring (67% chance during March-May 2022) and then transition to ENSO-neutral (51% chance during April-June 2022)
SST Outlook: NCEP CFS.v2 Forecast (PDF corrected)
Issued: 7 February 2022
*
ren took that directly out of the same link I presented on Feb 8:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
to which the blog’s ENSO superexpert wrote:
” ENSO-neutral 51% chance is meaningless, it is not a forecast of anything “.
*
On va mettre un gros bonnet d'âne à Eben, et l'envoyer au fond de la classe, c'est là qu'est sa place!
Current ENSO predictions
7th Feb 2022
https://imgur.com/a/5JgdRYu
Looks like they want to suggest both results.
binny…”ren took that directly out of the same link I presented on Feb 8:”
***
Ren doesn’t need your pathetic posts, he thinks for himself and understand climate/weather a damned sight better than you.
You ‘think for yourself’ but always get the wrong answer it seems. Idiot.
Save some Ha ha haaahs for April
I link to article written by, Paul Dorian, his prediction is
“La Nina conditions continue across the equatorial Pacific…likely to last into at least early summer with a potential impact on tropical activity…seeing an impact on global temperatures”
Early Summer is July, That’s 6 more month by his account, That’s all there is to it, simple.
The other sources and charts he uses as reference are just a technicality,
Seeing Bindidong getting triggered again into typing a page long psychobabble is still mildly entertaining.
Last summer in BC, Canada, we had an unusual heat wave followed a couple of months later by heavy rainfall and flooding. The alarmists blamed it on climate change when NOAA explained both as being related to La Nina.
We’ll likely get more of the same this summer and fall, giving more propaganda to the alarmists.
ken…”Simple test is to take your ball on a string and run in a circle around a desk lamp. You will notice that the light from the lamp hits the entire surface of the ball on a string at one point or other”.
***
Ken…I am presuming the desk lamp is emitting light through 360 degrees. In that case, you are describing the motion of a planet around the Sun, not about the Earth, as required.
If you had a point on top of the lamp to which you could tie a string, and attach the string to the ball, then the same face of the ball would always face the lamp, hence the same side of the ball would always be illuminated. That is not the case with the Earth orbiting the Sun because the Earth rotates 365 times per orbit, therefore all sides of the Earth are illuminated.
However, the ball/Moon is not orbiting the Sun, it is orbiting the Earth. As it orbits the Earth, the Sun is off to the side, illuminating the ball/Moon. In that case, the Sun will illuminate the entire ball/Moon as they orbit the Earth. In other words, the illumination of the Moon by the Sun is dependent entirely on the Moon’s position in its orbit.
*************
“From which it should be derived that ball on string does not apply to moon except in earth-moon context. But as we know there is this big yellow thingy called the sun that looms larger than a desk lamp. Its a moon-earth-sun discussion”.
***
Since the ball on a string, representing the motion of the Moon about the Earth, always keeps the same face pointed inward, and the Moon does the same, it can be concluded there are similarities in their motion. The ball is obviously translating without local rotation and it is reasonable to conclude the Moon is doing the same.
***************
“The moon is clearly rotating around its axis. Else the sun would only ever shine on the same side of it”.
***
Not so. When the Moon is between the Earth and the Sun, the Sun illuminates the far side of the Moon from us. When the Moon is on the other side of the Earth, the Sun illuminates the near side, leaving the far side dark. When the Moon is in-between, the Sun illuminates the rest of the Moon.
Obviously, the Sun illuminates all sides of the Moon over a period of 27+ days. If you were rotating the ball around your head, and the desk lamp was off to the side, it would illuminate all sides of the ball as well.
However, we are not presenting the ball related to illumination, we are focused only on the same side always pointed inwardly. We were trying to show initially that the ball could not point inwardly at all times and also rotate on a local axis, since the string prevented such rotation.
The argument, at the time, presented by spinners, was that the Moon, although always pointing the same side inwardly, was also rotating on a local axis. We presented the BOS to demonstrate that is not possible.
You’re welcome to your ill-founded beliefs about moon. I care naught; life is too short to fix the stupid.
Ken, if you “care naught”, then why are you trolling here? Like the other cult idiots, you clearly have no understanding of the issues, and you can’t learn. You’re a braindead cult idiot.
GR is wrong as always. The ball would orbit if using gravity around the barycenter of the ball, string and pivot.
If I was to make the pivot another ball what would you attach the string to? Its face also?
RLH, the fact that you have to go to such an effort to pervert the simple analogy indicates your fear of reality.
Reality is real.
Boo!
Reality means that you are wrong. Idiot.
“Ken, if you “care naught”, then why are you trolling here? Like the other cult idiots, you clearly have no understanding of the issues, and you can’t learn. You’re a braindead cult idiot.”
I started ‘trolling’ here in the hope of finding people interested in empirical climate change science.
I am also interested in finding people who actually think about ideas, particularly as it relates to science. Having people to bounce around ideas about COVID nonsense for example, is something hard to find.
Instead its stupid bickering about whether the moon rotates (it does). Its bickering about the theoretical 255K that earth surface should be, given black body theory. Its pig ignorant insults by people like yourself who contribute nothing else to the discussion.
So I don’t know why I still come here because the discussions I was hoping for are largely discouraged by the endless nonsense from some people, one of which is you, who have really spoiled the broth.
Ken, I don’t insult people. I just report the facts. You believe Moon rotates because your cult believes it. You have NO science background to support that. You either ignore or don’t understand all of the science presented here. That makes you a “cult idiot”.
You actually believe ice cubes can boil water! That makes you “braindead”.
Don’t blame others for your life choices.
“I just report the facts”
You make stuff up and claim it is fact. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Name one fact I have made up, troll RLH.
That you are not an idiot.
ken…”Youre welcome to your ill-founded beliefs about moon. I care naught; life is too short to fix the stupid”.
***
I support your science totally re covid and AGW. Why would my science suddenly be wrong on orbital mechanics?. I’m an engineer for cripes sake, this is my field.
In which you are completely wrong. Idiot.
Until I looked at the check which said $5381, I be certain that my best friend like they say really bringing in money in there spare time from their computer.. there mums best friend started doing this for under 10 months and just now cleared the morgage on their apartment and purchased a new Alfa Romeo.
visit this web-site… https://fulwork08.blogspot.com/
I could be wrong about COVID and AGW while right about the moon. One does not presuppose the other.
I recall once a long time ago that I was wrong about something even as I don’t recall what it was that I was wrong about. So much for godhead eh.
“If you had a point on top of the lamp to which you could tie a string, and attach the string to the ball”
If I attach the string to the center of the ball (or to an axis passing through it top and bottom) then one face will continue to point where it was as the ball orbits the center.
Only if I were to attach the string to the face of the ball and thus create a lever would it be forced to face the center.
Gravity acts overall on the center of mass and on a ball or sphere that is at the center.
The simple analogy has the braindead cult idiots so flummoxed.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Idiots like you are amused by the simplest of (wrong) things.
rlh…”Only if I were to attach the string to the face of the ball and thus create a lever would it be forced to face the center”.
***
Lever??? A lever is created when a force acts at a distance from an axis. With the BOS, there is no lever action since the string is pulling centripetally from the ball’s face along the string.
The ball, like the Moon, has only linear velocity and is performing curvilinear translation. The string serves only to contsrain/direct it’s linear velocity into an orbital path. With the Moon, the gravitational field does the same thing.
The distance between the face and the center is the lever. Idiot.
From NASA –
“The mass of the Moon is not evenly distributed; mass concentrations, called Mascons, lie beneath many of the lunar basins, and the center of mass of the Moon is displaced several kilometers towards the Earth.”
Assuming that the Moon originally rotated about an internal axis (orientation unimportant), then the force of gravity would inexorably slow the Moon’s rotation to zero, with the “heaviest” part of the Moon closest to the Earth.
Similar to a pendulum, which eventually comes to rest with its centre of mass in line with the pivot and the centre of gravity of the Earth.
Given the observation that the “heavier” side of the Moon faces the COG of the Earth at all times, it seems that the Moon no longer rotates about an internal axis (if, of course, it ever did).
Obviously, others have different opinions.
A perfect reminder, Swenson.
If their own nonsense claims Moon is not rotating, then they must agree Moon is NOT rotating.
The Moon rotates once on its axis per orbit of the Earth thus making one face always point towards Earth.
> then the force of gravity would inexorably slow the Moon’s rotation to zero
So you say, Mike Flynn.
But did it?
Weary Wee Willy,
You are delusional. If you believe Mike Flynn said something, why do you ask me?
Do you care what the answer is, or are you just being moronic for the sake of it?
Presumably you have a reason for your obsession with Mike Flynn, but of course, you can’t quite figure out what it is!
Carry on being delusional for no reason whatever.
Moron.
> If you believe Mike Flynn said something, why do you ask me?
Because you’re Mike’s sock puppet, Flynnson.
Does the ground of the Earth as well as the Oceans experience tides. The answer is yes.
The same happens on the Moon.
Where does the friction caused by such things dissipate to and how does that effect things?
RLH,
Do you really not know?
Or are you just being a silly troll?
Well is has been suggested that the Moon/Earth distance is increasing as a result. Do you agree?
RLH,
Who has suggested that dissipating friction is causing the Moon/Earth distance to increase?
Have you made any effort at all to find the answer to your question, or are you just being an idiot for no particular reason?
What mechanism do you suggest is causing it to happen then?
https://earthsky.org/tonight/wayward-moon-receding-from-earth/
“Tidal friction with the Earths oceans is responsible for this long-term increase of the moons distance from Earth. Its causing the moon to spiral into a more distant orbit”
“George Howard Darwin (1845 to 1912) is credited for figuring out mathematically how tidal friction affects the moons orbit”
Earth’s tides can NOT transfer angular momentum to Moon. Believing such nonsense is so typical of cults.
So why is the Moon receding away from the Earth?
We don’t know that Moon is receding. We only have the NASA data measured from reflectors on Moon. Even allowing for all the errors in those data, Moon’s distance APPEARS to have very slightly (centimeters, in 380,000 kilometers!) enlarged its orbit. What if its orbit oscillates due to other planets, similar to Milankovitch cycles? What if over the next 713 years Moon starts decreasing its orbit?
Making huge claims based on short term data is NOT science. Witness the effort to claim CO2 can heat the planet, based on short term temperature data.
What we know for certain is Earth tides can NOT transfer angular momentum to Moon.
George Howard Darwin (1845 to 1912) figured it out and gave some mathematical proof. Which is verified by NASAs measurements.
Your ‘what ifs’ just try and fault their logic and measurements.
There is no ‘what if’ about you being an idiot.
https://www.businessinsider.com/video-moon-drifts-away-earth-4-billion-years-2019-9
“The moon has been drifting away from Earth for 4.5 billion years”
RLH, just as Norman does, you found some links you don’t understand.
The phony Darwin’s “Fission Moon” nonsense has been long debunked. And all you have to do to debunk the “Moon receding” nonsense is go back in time and find where Moon would be “4.5 billion years ago”.
You don’t understand ANY of this. Just like Norman.
Does the ground of the Earth as well as the Oceans experience tides. The answer is yes.
The same happens on the Moon.
rlh…”If one of the two orbiting bodies is much more massive than the other and the bodies are relatively close to one another, the barycenter will typically be located within the more massive object”.
***
In his prelude to Newton II, Newton clearly states…”If a force can move a mass….”.
You fail to understand that if a force cannot move a mass, nothing happens. That’s the case with the Moon and the Earth, neither can accelerate either toward the other.
Therefore your barycentre theory is based on nothing. There is no motion whatsoever related to two bodies orbiting each other. If there was any motion, the Moon’s orbit would not be elliptical and Kepler’s Laws would be wrong.
Stick to what you’re good at… statistics, but mark the words of Mark Twain…’there are three kinds of lies, lies, damned lies, and statistics’.
In order to orbit the barycenter, each of the Moon and the Earth are constantly accelerating towards each other. Idiot.
As a further proof that a barycenter exists, why do you think we have 2 tides a day?
RLH,
Some places have no tides at all. Some have more than two tides a day.
Indeed they do, but let us just concentrate on the areas that DO have 2 tides a day. Why is that?
Possible 3rd planet spotted around Proxima Centauri, the sun’s nearest neighbor star
https://www.space.com/proxima-centauri-third-exoplanet-candidate
By Mike Wall published about 15 hours ago
“The candidate planet Proxima d is estimated to be just 25% as massive as Earth.”
Earth’s mass is 5.97 x10^24 kg. 25% is 1.49 x 10^24
Mars mass is 6.42 x 10^23 vs Proxima d is 14.9 x 10^23
Or Proxima d has more twice the mass of Mars
“Proxima d, which completes one lap around Proxima Centauri every five Earth days.”
“The new planet candidate orbits closer to the parent star (at 0.029 AU)” or about 4.3 million km
Wiki
“Proxima Centauri is a red dwarf star with a mass about 12.5% of the Sun’s mass, and average density about 33 times that of the Sun. Because of Proxima Centauri’s proximity to Earth, its angular diameter can be measured directly. Its actual diameter is about one-seventh (14%) the diameter of the Sun.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri
Proxima Centauri diameter is about 200,000 km.
Jupiter’s diameter is 142,984 km, the star is about 150% bigger than Jupiter, but Jupiter is about .1% or 1/1000th of Sun’s mass, or Proxima Centauri has 125 more mass than Jupiter.
Though the far less mass, Jupiter’s moon’s Ganymede is about 1 million km from Jupiter, and Callisto is 1.8 million km, with about 7 day and 16 day orbital time. Or Proxima d is more twice far as Jupiter’s moon Callisto. Due Proxima Centauri far greater mass than Jupiter, Proxima d at more twice Callisto distance has much higher orbital speed.
But since closer Jupiter looks bigger from Callisto than Proxima Centauri looks from Proxima d
4.3 million km is 43 radii away from Proxima d
And 43 radii from our sun is 29.9 million km from the sun.
Proxima Centauri has “an effective temperature of only 2,777 degrees Celsius”
“it might be worth travelling to Europa just for the view. Io and Ganymede would appear often in the sky and would look over 1.5 times bigger than our Moon looks in Earth’s sky. Jupiter itself would look almost 24 times bigger than our Moon looks in Earth’s sky!”
So from Proxima d, with outstretch hand one block the Proxima Centauri sun.
And it would appear to be much bigger than our Sun from Mercury distance but a much colder sun.
GR says that as we cannot ‘see’ the planet in a telescope it is fictional.
RLH,
Does he really?
Or are you just making stuff up?
Do you believe planets are fictional, or just demonstrating your desire to be a recognised as a troll?
Moron.
Yes he does. See above. Idiot.
RLH,
A quote would be better than “see above”.
You are just making stuff up. Better luck next time.
Moron.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1167878
“we cannot see the so-called planet at all”
we cannot see the so-called planet at all.
We should see a lot planets when the James Webb telescope gets working.
Consider approaching Proxima Centauri at relative velocity to the star being 1/100th the speed of light. {it would take forever to get there from Sol}.
How do you slow down and/or change our vector?
Say did gravity assist with Proxima d {and/or other the planets}
or you going add velocity to planet and lose spacecraft’s velocity.
Normally gravity assist don’t remove and add much velocity to planets, but you going fast and could have a massive starship.
Earlier, Weird Wee Willy Willard wrote –
” . . . Moon Dragon cranks . . .”.
Wee Willy Wanker strings random words together, trying to appear clever.
Unfortunately, neither Wonky Wee Willy nor anybody else knows what a “Moon Dragon crank” is!
Willard is a moron.
A Sky Dragon crank denies the Greenhouse effect.
A Moon Dragon crank denies that the Moon spins.
An Evo Dragon crank denies evo.
And so on and so forth.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I will be adding “Gordon Robertson” to the decrufter.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/hclipzie2ycrpoo/AADQpHxvvrOMbtYmsRvJ4z6ua?dl=0
Don’t forget Swenson aka Amazed aka Mike Flynn.
My list will be a lot longer when I install the stuff you proposed upthread :- )
I see the thread has devolved into hyper-aggressive troll RLH calling everyone an idiot and waffling on about barycenters, as if they change anything.
Have two balls of equal mass on either end of a piece of string. Make them both revolve around a central pivot point. Now, neither ball is rotating on its own axis, instead both are revolving (rotating) about the central pivot point (barycenter). For either ball to rotate on its own axis, they would have to wrap up in the string.
Barycenters are most definitely NOT ball-on-a-string which mean that it is useless to explain orbital motion.
My example shows that you are wrong about that. You are just looking for excuses, all the time, to try and bury the fact you agree with us that a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis.
Replace the string with links on a chain then tell me how the last 2 links are not the same as the ball and its surface.
Not sure what your point is.
That the last 2 links on a chain are the same as a ball and its surface. The reason they fall into a straight line is the same.
Likewise if the pivot is also a ball for the first 2 links.
Now we have 2 ‘faces’ or links pointed at each other which is nothing like the Moon and the Earth.
Ah…so you don’t have a point.
The point is that you are an idiot.
Why not make the 2 balls the same ratio as the Moon/Earth pair and then try to explain how the pivot point is not at the center of either of the balls and the string is not attached to either of their surfaces.
The ball on a string is not meant to be an exact model of the moon’s motion. It simply helps to get across the concept that a body which is orbiting (without rotating on its own axis) keeps the same face pointed towards the inside of the orbit.
“The ball on a string is not meant to be an exact model of the moon’s motion”
It’s so bad that it is not even close. For a start gravity does not operate like the string and it cannot do ellipses.
It simply helps to get across the concept that a body which is orbiting (without rotating on its own axis) keeps the same face pointed towards the inside of the orbit.
Only in the same way that links on a chain could replace the string and still maintain a straight line. Due to the same reason that the ‘face’ would always point ‘inwards’.
Or the last 2 links of the chain if it comes to that.
OK, RLH.
So you agree with me you are an idiot?
Just acknowledging receipt of your comments.
That just makes you an accurate idiot.
Until I looked at the check which said $5381, I be certain that my best friend like they say really bringing in money in there spare time from their computer.. there mums best friend started doing this for under 10 months and just now cleared the morgage on their apartment and purchased a new Alfa Romeo.
visit this web-site… https://fulwork08.blogspot.com/
> The ball on a string is not meant to be an exact model of the [M]oon’s motion.
Pup holds a different point of view:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1126306
We agree.
[KIDDO] The ball on a string is not meant to be an exact model of the [M]oon’s motion.
[PUP] The ball-on-a-string is NOT a model, or analogy, to Moon.
[KIDDO] We agree.
Correct. We agree.
The claim that the ball on a string is not meant to be an exact model of the Moon’s motion presupposes that the ball on a string is meant to be a model, not that it’s not meant to be a model at all.
The ball on a string is a model of "orbital motion without axial rotation", not a model of the moon’s motion. We agree.
…and just in case there is any further confusion, I hereby retract any part of my statement that makes you think I disagree with Clint R, and change it to whatever you need to read to understand that I agree with Clint R.
I am in agreement with Clint R on this issue.
Compare and contrast the following series of claims:
(C1) The motion of the Moon can be described as an orbit without spin.
(C2) The ball on a string models the motion of an orbit without spin.
(C3) The ball on a string does not model the motion of the Moon.
These claims are not compatible. One must go.
Dud, all 3 are CORRECT — “C” for correct.
The fact that you can’t understand relates to your being braindead.
Too much time dancing with your puppets, I suppose.
If the motion of the Moon can be described as an orbit without spin and the ball on a string models the motion of an orbit without spin, Pup, then we must infer that the ball on a string can indeed model the motion of the Moon.
So if you accept (C1) and (C2), (C3) falls.
It’s not really that hard to understand. The moon’s orbit is a real, complex motion. The ball on a string is a simple motion. The ball on a string helps illustrate what “orbital motion without axial rotation” is, generally, but it is not complex enough a motion to model the moon’s orbit, specifically. Even though the moon is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis.
Dud, you will need to find an adult to explain it to you:
(C1) The motion of the Moon can be described as an orbit without spin.
Yes, Moon orbits but does NOT rotate.
(C2) The ball on a string models the motion of an orbit without spin.
Yes, the ball orbits but does NOT rotate.
(C3) The ball on a string does not model the motion of the Moon.
Yes, Moon has a slightly elliptical orbit while the ball has a circular orbit.
> The [M]oon’s orbit is a real, complex motion.
Models are always simplifications. Always. They’re all wrong. Some of them are useful.
It’s not hard to find circular models of the Moon’s motion, e.g.:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_psIWtPBHzA
As long as we make sure that we don’t inject undue properties with our simplifications, all should be well. And one of them is the idea that the Moon rotates around the Earth. Strictly speaking, it does not.
> Moon has a slightly elliptical orbit while the ball has a circular orbit.
According to that logic, Pup, a globe can’t model the Earth for it’s tied to an axis made of plastic and metal.
“A rotation around a completely external axis, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called revolving or orbiting, typically when it is produced by gravity, and the ends of the rotation axis can be called the orbital poles.”
Strictly speaking, if Earth’s orbit around the Sun can be used as an example of a rotation around an external axis, then the moon’s orbit around the Earth can also be used as an example of a rotation around an external axis.
The existence of the concept of “orbital poles”, which are the ends of the “rotation axis”, strongly suggests that astronomy is OK with the idea that “orbital motion” is a rotation around an external axis.
> Strictly speaking, if Earth’s orbit around the Sun can be used as an example of a rotation around an external axis, then the [M]oon’s orbit around the Earth can also be used as an example of a rotation around an external axis.
There’s nothing strict about that concept of rotation involved in these examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_(mathematics)#Definitions_and_representations
Strictly speaking, if Earth’s orbit around the Sun can be used as an example of a rotation around an external axis, then the moon’s orbit around the Earth can also be used as an example of a rotation around an external axis.
The existence of the concept of “orbital poles”, which are the ends of the “rotation axis”, strongly suggests that astronomy is OK with the idea that “orbital motion” is a rotation around an external axis.
I figure if I keep repeating myself, eventually Willard has to actually address what I’m saying, rather than just making the same argument about isometry over and over again.
> to actually address what I’m saying
There is no need to address any deflection from the issues being raised already:
The first is that the ball on a string can indeed model the Moon’s motion. It’s not a very good one, but then Moon Dragon cranks have yet to offer anything else.
The second is that the concept of rotation, strictly speaking, implies circular motion. One could still say that the Earth rotates around the Sun or that the Moon rotates around the Earth. People speak loosely all the time.
In a way, the two issues are connected with one another.
I don’t think the existence of “orbital poles”, which are at the ends of the “rotation axis”, is the result of people “speaking loosely”.
People are free to think whatever they please, Moon Dragon cranks included.
Here’s an instance where Bill touted Madhavi as the definitive Moon Dragon crank authority:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-551014
That definition of rotation fails to apply to non-circular motion. It follows axiomatically from her definition.
There are 117 occurrences of “Madhavi” in that page alone. Moon Dragon cranks are forced to make an important concession right now.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
I notice you keep writing “Moon Dragon cranks”.
Are you hoping to introduce this phrase into popular use? If you are are, you should consider writing a book – possibly titled “Slaying the Moon Dragon” (you don’t need to thank me) or something similar. If you can get it widely noticed, people might adopt the phrase.
At the moment, It looks like people are ignoring your efforts to be regarded as wise, in vast numbers.
Maybe you need to learn about language, and how to communicate your thoughts. Obscure and cryptic expressions are maybe not the best way to achieve whatever hidden aims you think you have.
People might just think that you are an attention-seeking moron. You do realise that, do you?
> I notice you keep writing “Moon Dragon cranks”.
Indeed I do, Mike Flynn.
Thank you for your concerns.
Weird Wee Willy,
I believe Mike Flynn would reply “My pleasure. I am always glad to help those less intellectually gifted than myself.”, but of course I can’t be sure.
For myself, seeing how you have responded to a comment of mine, I would just say “Carry on, moron.”
> I believe Mike Flynn would reply
Of course he would, Flynnson. He’s the organ grinder. You’re his monkey.
Strictly speaking, if Earth’s orbit around the Sun can be used as an example of a rotation around an external axis, then the moon’s orbit around the Earth can also be used as an example of a rotation around an external axis.
The existence of the concept of “orbital poles”, which are the ends of the “rotation axis”, strongly suggests that astronomy is OK with the idea that “orbital motion” is a rotation around an external axis.
Another instance where Bill was long on Madhavi:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-551456
Note how he fails to state on what Moon Dragon cranks are correct, and more importantly how. He still fails.
Last word.
The existence of the Pole Dance Experiment strongly suggests that Pup is OK with the idea that he rotates around an external axis when he swirls, but that he also translates a bit when he pulls and extends himself to put on a good show.
Seems like Willard is coming round to the idea that the moon’s movement is purely "orbital motion without axial rotation".
> The rotation of the Moon is strongly coupled to the orbital motion of the Moon, as a result of the spin-orbit synchronism. Any deviation from uniform orbital motion that is not accompanied by a similar excursion from uniform rotational motion will result in a torque which forces physical librations of the Moon. For this reason, the orbital model used in the generation of a description of the lunar rotation is of central importance. In this chapter we give an overview of the treatment of the lunar orbit in PEP; more complete detail can b- found in Slade (1971), and Ash (1965b).
https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/16053/07402311-MIT.pdf
"Seems like Willard is coming round to the idea that the moon’s movement is purely "orbital motion without axial rotation"…"
…because in his 12:36 PM comment, the one thing he didn’t mention "Pup" doing, was rotating on his own axis!
> The rotation of the Moon is strongly coupled to the orbital motion of the Moon, as a result of the spin-orbit synchronism. Any deviation from uniform orbital motion that is not accompanied by a similar excursion from uniform rotational motion will result in a torque which forces physical librations of the Moon. For this reason, the orbital model used in the generation of a description of the lunar rotation is of central importance. In this chapter we give an overview of the treatment of the lunar orbit in PEP; more complete detail can b- found in Slade (1971), and Ash (1965b).
https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/16053/07402311-MIT.pdf
“The existence of the concept of “orbital poles”, which are the ends of the “rotation axis”, strongly suggests that astronomy is OK with the idea that “orbital motion” is a rotation around an external axis.“
…and the existence of papers such as the one Willard keeps linking to suggests that astronomy remains profoundly confused on what “orbital motion” being a rotation about an external axis really means.
> The rotation of the Moon is strongly coupled to the orbital motion of the Moon, as a result of the spin-orbit synchronism. Any deviation from uniform orbital motion that is not accompanied by a similar excursion from uniform rotational motion will result in a torque which forces physical librations of the Moon. For this reason, the orbital model used in the generation of a description of the lunar rotation is of central importance. In this chapter we give an overview of the treatment of the lunar orbit in PEP; more complete detail can b- found in Slade (1971), and Ash (1965b).
https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/16053/07402311-MIT.pdf
“astronomy is OK with the idea that ‘orbital motion’ is a rotation around an external axis.”
They use the correct terminology of orbiting a barycenter.
A barycenter is not external to the parts that make it up.
"A barycenter is not external to the parts that make it up"
The barycenter is external to the moon, which is all that matters.
Like Pluto and Charon?
No.
Pluto and Charon are both rotating once per revolution, like the Moon.
…but Entropic Man already agreed in a previous discussion that Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis, it is only rotating about the Earth’s axis. Thus he should agree that a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis, it is only rotating about the central pivot point. Thus he should agree that two balls on a string are not rotating on their own axes, they are only rotating about the central pivot point. Thus he should agree…
Distinguish between the two different types of motion.
My Everest is rigidly attached to the Earth and therefore shares its rotation. Like any point in Earth’s surface it moves in a circle centred on Earth’s axis and with a plane perpendicular to the Earth’s axis.
The Moon is not rigidly attached to the Earth. It’s orbital plane is not perpendicular to Earth’s axis. It does not move in a circle centred on Earth’s axis.
Mt Everest is rotating around Earth’s axis.
The Moon is revolving in an elliptical orbit around Earth’s barycentre and rotating once per orbit on its own axis.
Agreed.
Entropic Man just can’t mentally make the connection. He looks for any excuse he can to reject the obvious.
Let’s see if he can give a simple, straightforward, yes or no answer to this question:
Is a ball on a string rotating on its own axis?
The ball on which end? And, no, is the answer as the barycenter is not at the center of either ball.
Not a question you can answer yes or no.
A full answer would be.
The ball-on-a-string behaves as a rigid object rotating in a circle whose plane is perpendicular to an axis at the other end of the string. It simulates the rotation of Mt Everest around Earth’s axis.
If Mt Everest is not rotating on its own axis, then neither is the ball-on-a-string.
"No" is indeed the correct answer. But I didn’t ask you. I already know that you agree with reality on that one, though you frequently try to hide it under layers of sophistry. I was just wondering if Entropic Man had any interest in reality.
DREMT
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Yes or no.
Replace the string with links on a chain and you will not be able to distinguish between the last 2 links and the ball and its surface.
Seems he does begin to understand. Some follow-up questions…
Now, Entropic Man, since you answered "no" to both Mt. Everest and the ball on a string…do you acknowledge that wrt an inertial reference frame, both Mt. Everest and the ball on a string would appear to be rotating on their own axes?
Does this mean you finally understand why the moon issue goes beyond reference frames?
DREMT,
Eman is an evader and obfuscator. He never answers a direct question. He always answers a question with a question or something tangential. This is pretty much the same with most of the leftists who post, Nate, Droege, Chihuahua, etc.
Yes, Stephen, it’s notoriously difficult to get a straight answer out of any of these people. But, we seem to be getting somewhere this time…we’ll see.
No they are orbiting about their combined barycenter which is not at the center of any of the balls if the mass ratios are the same as the Moon/Earth pairing.
DREMT, Stephen P Anderson.
If you insist on yes or no answers to complex questions you will not get answers.
I’m still waiting for DREMT to tell me yes or no to the question “Have you stopped beating your wife?”
While we wait perhaps you, Stephen, could answer yes or no to the question ” Do you still b*gg*r sheep? “.
Please just answer the questions I asked you further upthread any way you see fit.
DREMT is an idiot. That answers one question for sure.
I will take silence from Entropic Man as him finally understanding that the moon issue transcends reference frames.
“do you acknowledge that wrt an inertial reference frame, both Mt. Everest and the ball on a string would appear to be rotating on their own axes? ”
Nothing apparent about it. Relative to the inertial reference frame as measured from distant astronomical objects or inertial measuring devices such as gyroscopes Mt Everest and the ball-on-a-string are rotating on their axes.
“Does this mean you finally understand why the moon issue goes beyond reference frames? ”
Not at all. All rotation must be measured relative to a reference frame.
I am willing to adopt an Earth centred, Sun centred or inertial reference frame to suit my needs. If I want to consider tidal locking of the Moon I use an Earth centred frame. If I want to calculate day and night length on the Moon I use a Sun centred frame. If I want to calculate angular momentum I use the inertial reference frame.
I default to the inertial frame.
You, on the other hand, choose to measure all rotation relative tho the Earth. You have not gone beyond reference frames, you have just refused to go beyond your personal reference frame.
DREMT
“I will take silence from Entropic Man as him finally understanding that the moon issue transcends reference frames. ”
I don’t know about you, but I stop posting for my evening meal. If you get silence from me it means that I am engaged in more important matters.
You realize then, Entropic Man, that you apparently think Mt. Everest both does and does not rotate on its own axis!?
“You, on the other hand, choose to measure all rotation relative tho the Earth. You have not gone beyond reference frames, you have just refused to go beyond your personal reference frame”
That is completely false, by the way.
“You realize then, Entropic Man, that you apparently think Mt. Everest both does and does not rotate on its own axis!? ”
I was expecting this.
The rate of rotation depends on the reference frame. Each reference frame gives a different rate of rotation.
Relative to Earth’s axis Mt Everest is not rotating.
Relative to the inertial reference frame it is rotating once every 23 hours 56 minutes.
Relative to the Sun Mt Everest rotates once every 24 hours.
All three are correct, simultaneously.
Consider time.
As I write this my clock says 9.10PM by UK time.
The Spencer website says it is 3.10PM.
Your clock may read something else entirely.
If you ask a pilot or an astronomer they would agree that the time is 2110Z.
Zulu time (aka Greenwich Mean Time or Universal Time) is used when necessary to coordinate across multiple time zones.
Think of different relative rates of rotation as equivalent to local time zones and the rate of rotation in the inertial frame as equivalent to Universal Time.
Entropic Man, you do not need to explain reference frames to me. I understand them just fine, that’s how I know the moon issue transcends them. I understand something that perhaps you never will, and I will always have that over you. Oh well.
Try to remember that the only way the moon can be rotating on its own axis is if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR. That might help you get there.
Or, just try to remember what you were thinking when you plainly and unequivocally agreed that Mt. Everest was not rotating on its own axis. You never gave any qualifiers about reference frames then. You didn’t need to. You only got yourself lost in reference frames again when I brought them up.
Just keep trying, I guess.
” I understand something that perhaps you never will, and I will always have that over you. Oh well.”
Congratulations on your unique insight.
Ent has a compulsion to pervert reality.
The correct “reference frame” to determine rotation of an orbiting body is its orbit. If the same side always faces the direction of travel, it is NOT rotating. Moon always has the same side facing its direction of travel. It is NOT rotating.
Ent will stop at nothing to pervert reality. He’s the one that claims that passenger jets fly backwards! That’s why all his long, rambling diatribes mean NOTHING.
Thanks, but it’s not unique. As far as I’m aware all the “Non-Spinners” understand that the moon issue transcends reference frames. Carry on in ignorance for the rest of your life, though. Fine with me.
Do you accept that 6 different references exist, one attached to centers and surfaces of the Sun, the Earth and the Moon? Each will ‘see’ the rotation of the Moon differently wrt to themselves.
Regardless, the moon can only be rotating on its own axis if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR.
As that is what is happening then it must be like MOTR for non-rotating motion as is well known for other objects in Earth orbits.
I’m sure that made sense in your head.
ALL scientists (apart from your tint clique who are not scientists at all) agree that the MOTR shows an orbit without rotation of the orbiting body around its axis.
Yes, you frequently rely on argumentum ad populum.
Centuries ago, astronomers (woefully discredited and denigrated on this blog as ‘astrologers’ by promoters of anti-science) have already detected the same effect when observing satellites of Jupiter and Saturn.
Bindidon, give us a vector diagram showing how “tidal locking” works. You can’t. It’s only your cult beliefs that you anxiously swallow.
You have NO science, only beliefs.
As Clint R cannot do real vectors only ones he imagines in his head, nothing useful can come of anything he suggests.
Troll RLH’s tactic — Blatant perversion of reality.
RLH is the cultist that couldn’t solve the simple vector problem. But, even funnier, he couldn’t understand the solution, when it was shown!
That’s why this is so much fun.
I do vectors for real all the time. Unlike Clint R who does thing purely in his head.
Well troll RLH, give us your vector diagram showing how “tidal locking” works.
I won’t hold my breath….
Why do you need a vector diagram for that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
“Tidal locking results in the Moon rotating about its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit Earth. Except for libration, this results in the Moon keeping the same face turned toward Earth, as seen in the left figure. (The Moon is shown in polar view, and is not drawn to scale.) If the Moon were not rotating at all, it would alternately show its near and far sides to Earth, while moving around Earth in orbit, as shown in the right figure.”
rlh…”If the Moon were not rotating at all, it would alternately show its near and far sides to Earth, while moving around Earth in orbit, as shown in the right figure.””
***
I warned you about reading the trash at wiki but I guess your appeal to authority has become an addiction. Can you not figure this out for yourself?
1)They have it backwards in the above comment. The Moon is not rotating and it shows only one side to us. If it rotated it would should all sides to us since we rotate 27+ times for every lunar orbit.
2)The picture on the left, if slowed down, reveals what I have just said. I told you how to slow it down to the point where it is stopped. Download the free image browser from Irfanview, download the left-side gif file, load it in Irfanview, and use Irfan view to separate the gif file into individual jpeg files.
Options/Extract Frames
Then you can see the exact position of the Moon on the left at each position in its orbit. It is totally obvious that all parts of the Moon are moving in parallel, completely ruling out any local rotation.
But no, you are ruled by your appeal to authority and will produce nothing more than a smart-assed ad-hom or insult.
As I asked before in general, if anyone insists on ad homs or insults, at least supply a credible scientific rebuttal to accompany them. You have yet to supply a scientific rebuttal, never mind one that is credible.
rlh…”Why do you need a vector diagram for that?”
***
The rotating vectors, representing the near side, the centre, and the far side, attached to a radial line, will demonstrate that the vectors are always moving in parallel. That is not possible if the vectors are rotating about a central axis in the Moon.
Gordo,
I thought you damn Canadians spelled center the correct way?
stephen…”I thought you damn Canadians spelled center the correct way?”
***
I am a Scotsman by DNA and I was born in Scotland, hence the centre. I don’t know how to write centre/center in the Pictish language, even though I have the occasional pang to tattoo myself blue and howl at the Moon.
In the movie Braveheart, that Aussie wannabee Scot, Mel Gibson, a serious short-ass trying to emulate William Wallace who stood 6’4″ or so (his sword was as high as Gibson) got it wrong when they painted their faces blue. It was the Picts who tattooed their bodies blue and they existed 400 years before the era Gibson tried to replicate.
The Picts ran off the Romans and the Vikings. The Romans built Hadrian’s wall right across Britain in an attempt to keep them out.
Hey, don’t blame Gibson, it’s called creative license. Now I know why you shoot fireballs from your eyes and bolts of lightning from your arse.
stephen…”Now I know why you shoot fireballs from your eyes and bolts of lightning from your arse”.
***
Is that abnormal?
“The rotating vectors, representing the near side, the centre, and the far side, attached to a radial line, will demonstrate that the vectors are always moving in parallel”
Do you understand the difference between concentric and parallel?
These ones?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter#/media/File:Barycentric_view_of_Pluto_and_Charon_29_May-3_June_by_Ralph_in_near-true_colours.gif
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter#/media/File%3ADopspec-inline.gif
Isn’t this the planet that Gordon Robertson says does not exist?
Something close. But we all know that GR is an idiot.
“Like Pluto and Charon?”
Yes.
The fact that Pluto and Charon and both tidally locked to each other in their orbits of each other are well known. The fact that they orbit a barycenter placed between them is also well known.
Indeed.
So as you agree that as they are separate by a vacuum, you also agree that their change in direction to make those orbits is caused by a force that passes through a vacuum. i.e. a change in direction of their forward momentum.
So you agree that Pluto and Charon and both tidally locked to each other but that the Moon is not tidally locked to the Earth?
I’m not the one who argues against the tidal locking mechanism. That’s Clint R.
You mean you disagree with Clint R and GR on this point?
Yes.
Heavy frost on the Great Lakes in two days.
https://i.ibb.co/dkWX44v/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f060.png
Until I looked at the check which said $5381, I be certain that my best friend like they say really bringing in money in there spare time from their computer.. there mums best friend started doing this for under 10 months and just now cleared the morgage on their apartment and purchased a new Alfa Romeo.
visit this web-site… https://fulwork08.blogspot.com/
A groundbreaking paper recently published in the journal Nature shows that since we started burning fossil fuels in earnest about 150 years ago the global average surface temperature has risen twice as fast in this short period of as it did during the previous 9,000 years.
I discuss the key results from this research in a 10-min video on my YouTube channel. Here is the link.
https://youtu.be/V-_cPIHUcMY
mark shapiro…”A groundbreaking paper recently published in the journal Nature shows that since we started burning fossil fuels in earnest about 150 years ago the global average surface temperature has risen twice as fast in this short period of as it did during the previous 9,000 years”.
***
I wish they would break some ground and bury the propaganda.
Why 1872 as a reference point? The IPCC was using 1850, the general date marking the end of the Little Ice Age. Did your ground breaking study even mention the LIA and how global temperatures had dipped 1C to 2C below the global average for 400 years?
Did your paper factor in re-warming from the LIA?
Your characterization of the little ice age is completely incorrect. It decreased global temperatures by about 0.2 deg C. Watch the video and read the Osman paper.
“It decreased global temperatures by about 0.2 deg C…”
There weren’t many thermometers during the LIA.
mark shapiro…”Your characterization of the little ice age is completely incorrect. It decreased global temperatures by about 0.2 deg C. Watch the video and read the Osman paper”.
***
Does 0.2C cooling cause glaciers to expand, like the Mer de Glace glacier near Chamonix, France, where it spread down a valley, wiping out villages and farms?
There is plenty of reported and fossil data to prove the cooling was more along the line of 1C to 2C, on average, meaning it was likely closer to -5C in places.
You alarmists have obviously perverted science to enable your lame AGW theory.
Mark,
Surely you don’t mean the paper which contains nonsense like this “Here, we leverage both types of information using paleoclimate data assimilation to produce the first proxy-constrained, full-field reanalysis of surface . . . “, do you?
I wish that I had been paid as much to read this nonsense, as the authors and publishers were paid to produce it.
It is probably best not to appeal to the authority (even indirectly) of a fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat like Michael Mann.
Carry on.
Mark, what was your purpose in making that video?
Obviously it wasn’t physics, science, or reality.
Were you intending comedy?
Did you bother to view the video and perhaps actually read the Osman et al. paper?
I tried to watch the video but as soon as papers try to use “estimates”, “assumptions”, “guesses”, and “opinions” for science, I don’t waste my time.
You do realize CO2 can NOT heat the planet, don’t you?
“as it did during the previous 9,000 years.”
8000 years ago, Sahara desert was grasslands and arctic had ice free polar sea ice.
If Sahara desert was green, it would be a warmer world.
Or whenever in the past million years, the Sahara desert was grassland, forests, human settlements, lakes and rivers, the interglacial period was the warmest.
Mark,
You wrote –
“A groundbreaking paper recently published in the journal Nature shows that since we started burning fossil fuels in earnest about 150 years ago the global average surface temperature has risen twice as fast in this short period of as it did during the previous 9,000 years.”
Well, duh!
Burn lots of stuff, and see temperatures of some thermometers rise.
That’s novel – not!
Thanks Mark for pointing out Osman et al., 2021. I hadn’t seen it.
A line in your video “it’s really awe-inspiring to realize that we have, by burning fossil fuel, raised the temperature more in little over 100 years than natural processes did in the previous 9,000 years,” reminded me of my undergrad days when, everyday for four years, I read these words that were etched in limestone above the entrance of the engineering building:
“Strive on – the control of nature is won, not given.”
You might find Nate Hagens’ latest project interesting; see it here: https://youtu.be/T19tHn_LA80
entropic…”Consider time.
As I write this my clock says 9.10PM by UK time.
The Spencer website says it is 3.10PM.
Your clock may read something else entirely.
If you ask a pilot or an astronomer they would agree that the time is 2110Z”.
***
You have not even begun to consider time. I hope by your conclusion above re astronomers and pilots that you mean they would consider 9:10 PM as 2110 hours only if they were in the UK, as you are located.
Have you ever wondered why the Earth has different times depending on location?
*****************
“Zulu time (aka Greenwich Mean Time or Universal Time) is used when necessary to coordinate across multiple time zones”.
***
GMT is used at all times. Time anywhere on Earth is stated as GMT+/- so many hours. When it is 3:10 in Roy’s zone, it is GMT – 6. Normally, we don’t include the GMT base reference.
You might also notice that Roy’s time zone can also be stated in degrees and minutes, or kilometres wrt the Greenwich meridian. That demonstrates a one to one relationship between distance and time.
Since time is based on the Earth’s rotation, and that rotation is relatively constant, it means Einstein was wrong about time dilation and Newton correct in claiming time is absolute. At least, it’s as absolute as you can get within an illusion.
*********************
“Think of different relative rates of rotation as equivalent to local time zones and the rate of rotation in the inertial frame as equivalent to Universal Time”.
***
Obfuscates matters far to much and unnecessarily. Why impose a reference frame where one is not needed? We live in an illusion of time quite well without basing the illusion on an imaginary reference frame.
Where I live, we are GMT – 8. I don’t need to know that to function, everything I do or schedule is based only on local time. As far as my life is concerned, there is no other time zone.
If I want to measure rotation locally, all I have to do is measure the angular velocity of a body about an axis. No reference frame required. I do it every time I drive. My speedometer indicates indirectly how fast my rear wheels are rotating and there is no reference frame involved. In fact, in all the time I have studied science, except for a few problems in engineering classes, I have never employed a reference frame.
If I want to mentally measure the rotation of the Earth, I need no reference frame. I can use the Sun as a point of reference but my measurement over 24 hours requires no reference frame.
entropic…”If you insist on yes or no answers to complex questions you will not get answers”.
***
Along the lines of your silly questions re beating wives and interfering with sheep, and you being an Irishman, it might interest you to know that a Belfast newspaper printed a story the other day about a skeleton being found up a tree somewhere in Ireland. Turned out to be the Irish hide-and-seek champion.
Question: Are you still vying to be the new Irish hide-and-seeks champion? Just wondering in case you don’t appear on Roy’s blog anymore.
A hint to ignoramuses…
Since 1967, the International System of Measurements bases its unit of time, the second, on the properties of caesium atoms.
The second is defined as 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation that corresponds to the transition between two electron spin energy levels of the ground state of the 133-Cs atom.
Glad to help.
binny…”Since 1967, the International System of Measurements bases its unit of time, the second, on the properties of caesium atoms”.
***
Always a step behind, eh, Binny?
The second used in the atomic clock is the same second derived from the Earth’s rotation. All they have done is multiply the very small regular intervals produced by the Cesium atom till it equaled the second produced by the Earth’s rotation.
Although the Earth’s rotation is relatively constant it has very slight variation. The atomic clock, as a time-base generator is very regular. However, if the atomic clock is not adjusted to Earth’s rotation time, it could eventually get right out of time with the Earth’s rotation, and it would be useless.
The Cesium atom does not generate time, it generates very accurate pulses which can be measured and used as a time base. As a series of pulses, however, there is no meaning till humans intervene, count them, and break them into larger intervals. like seconds. That would be just as meaningless had the second not already been defined based on the Earth’s rotation.
In digital electrons, we use that principal all the time. A quartz-based clock runs at say 3.58 Mhz, and it is stabilized by different means. The 3.58 Mhz pulse train is fed into a counter and when the counter has counted so many pulses, it outputs a single pulse.
The counter can be adjusted to output a pulse at any time-length we want, like a second. The atomic clock works in a similar manner.
Robertson
” That would be just as meaningless had the second not already been defined based on the Earths rotation. ”
Yes, Robertson: the second was once defined on the base of Earth’s rotation. On what else?
*
You are dumb, and keep dumb.
The one who is, and keeps, always lots of steps behind, that’s you, in fact.
Because you never admit being wrong with your primitive thoughts, and thus never learn.
And that is the reason why you try to deny so many things ad nauseam, beginning with things like time dilation, without the understanding and consideration of which no satellite-borne GPS system could ever work.
And that is also the reason why many people on this blog secretly enjoy what you write: they love your endless ranting on everything new.
You are their Don Qixote fighting about these days’ windmills.
Poor blog!
1 second, 1 year, etc. are just human measurements of time INTERVALS. They can be set to whatever humans decide.
La Nina explained in Spanish to seor BindidoNio
https://youtu.be/7ek2E6GYKUs
¡Muchas gracias, Señora EbeNiña, por sus siempre buenos consejos!
rlh…”The distance between the face and the center is the lever”.
***
I hope you don’t use a torque wrench. You’ll be pulling along the handle length-wise and calling the wrench an idiot because it won’t turn.
In your dementia, you think the distance between the ball centre and the attached string is a lever arm. Duh!!!
********************
“So why is the Moon receding away from the Earth?”
***
In order to recede, the Moon would need to speed up. Where does the force come from to speed it up?
Why do links in a chain form a straight line when rotating about one end?
Where does the energy that makes the tides come from?
RLH,
Do you really not know, or are you just attempting to make someone look stupid, for no good reason at all?
Your gotchas are pretty awful. Maybe you should try to learn some physics instead.
Carry on.
If you can’t answer the question then you are an a proven idiot.
Hint: Levers are the reason that a chain falls into a straight line when rotating about one end.
RLH,
What particular form of mental affliction leads you to believe that you know more about physics than I?
I assume that the same mental defect also impels you to think that I would value your opinion. I don’t. Why should I? Why should anyone, for that matter?
Others might, of course. I doubt you could name one, but feel free to surprise me, if you wish.
Moron.
Because you have been wrong about many scientific phenomena so far.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team
“Thanks, but its not unique. As far as Im aware all the Non-Spinners understand that the moon issue transcends reference frames. Carry on in ignorance for the rest of your life, though. Fine with me. ”
The non-spinners, the flat-Earthers, UFOlogists, the religious, the conspiracy theorists, the anti-vaxxers all claim special knowledge not given to mere mortals and scientists.
I’ll file you, GR and ClintR in that group and get on with my life.
Gordon Robertson
So why is the Moon receding away from the Earth?
***
In order to recede, the Moon would need to speed up. Where does the force come from to speed it up?”
Tides transfer angular momentum from Earth to Moon. As the Moon gains angular momentum and moves into a higher orbit the Earth loses angular momentum and it’s rotation slows.
Higher/further away orbits have lower rotational velocity from the center not higher. Orbits 101.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zxhr7p3/revision/4
“This means that objects in small orbits travel faster than objects in large orbits”
RLH
As usual it gets complicated.
Angular momentum transferred from Earth to Moon is a force accelerating the Moon along its orbit.
As Larry Niven wrote “East takes you out”.
The extra tangential kinetic energy raises the Moon to a higher orbit. This converts the kinetic energy into potential energy since a higher orbit has more potential energy and a lower orbital speed.
Ball-on-a-string experts will recognise this. You accelerate the ball from a standing start to full speed by pulling the string forwards as well as inwards.
Anyone who raced control line model aircraft will be familiar with this. Note how the pilots pull the aircraft forward to accelerate them after take off and pit stops.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vJk97fzG4T0
A lot of the energy transfer ends up as potential energy
Orbital mechanics is often misunderstood, as early Gemini missions proved.
“As GPO engineer Andr Meyer later remarked, “There is a good explanation for what went wrong with rendezvous.” The crew, like everyone else at MSC, ‘just didn’t understand or reason out the orbital mechanics involved. As a result, we all got a whole lot smarter and really perfected rendezvous maneuvers, which Apollo now uses.'”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_rendezvous
RLH,
Appealing to the authority of a journalist is not terribly clever, is it?
Did your authority really say “rotational velocity”? Tides transfer nothing from nothing.
Maybe you are simply confused. One of the conservation laws is the conservation of angular momentum, from which Kepler’s second law may be deduced.
You may not realise that a force is required to change the fixed orbit of a body, moving it either closer to, or further from its primary. And, of course, there is notionally only one force acting on the Moon, the force of gravity.
There is a simple reason that the Moon is receding from the Earth, and has been for a few billion years or so. Nothing to,do,with tides, of course.
“a force is required to change the fixed orbit of a body”
So where does the energy required for the tides come from and where do the energy losses from friction caused by them appear?
RLH,
You wrote –
“So where does the energy required for the tides come from and where do the energy losses from friction caused by them appear?”
Show me you have made a reasonable effort to find the answer elsewhere, but have met with no success,, and I will explain it to you.
You certainly appear to be lazy and/or incompetent, unless you are trying to appear clever, but failing.
Off you go now, and have a go at learning some basic physics.
Show me that you understand any of the basic physics I studied. Show any evidence of your cliques claims.
The questions are designed to show the extent of your knowledge which is apparently very, very little.
You should have no problem with explaining where the energy required for the tides come from and where do the energy losses from friction caused by them appear? As you can’t you are obviously a mouthy idiot like the rest of your clique.
EM,
You wrote –
“In order to recede, the Moon would need to speed up. Where does the force come from to speed it up?”
You assume that the Moon has “speeded up”. From what, and how did you work that out?
Tides transfer nothing to nothing. Dreamed up by the same sort of dimwits who claimed for years that melting sea ice would raise sea levels! The NSF took several years to correct their website – grudgingly, after fighting all the way!
Time for you to appeal to authority, do you think?
Actually it was GR who wrote that quite incorrectly
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1169855
“In order to recede, the Moon would need to speed up. Where does the force come from to speed it up?”
The true picture is that further away is a slower velocity.
https://www.masterclass.com/articles/what-is-orbital-velocity#what-is-orbital-velocity
“In orbit, firing your engines frontwards moves you forward into a higher orbit, which actually means you slow down, because objects in a higher orbit move more slowly. In order to go faster you need to decelerate and fall into a lower orbit”
You’ve got it!
Buzz Aldrin wrote a PhD thesis on orbital manoeuvres and rendezvous.
The problem is that when you accelerate your orbit changes and you move off at a different angle to your direction of thrust.
As you say, accelerating downwards brings you into a lower orbit and the extra orbital speed carries you ahead of your target.
Accelerate East and your orbital speed increases, which increases your altitude.
Accelerate outwards and the extra altitude slows you relative to your target.
Accelerate at right angles to your orbit and you move away from your target for 1/4 orbit and then return.
Aldrin described it in quite complex terminology.
Larry Niven’s book “The Inegral Trees” was set in a zero G has torus.
He summarised the effect of acceleration as :-
In takes you East.
East takes you out.
Out takes you West.
West takes you in.
North or South brings you home.
Think of it like this. The further a planet is away from the Sun, the slower it is in radial motion. It takes longer for further away planets to orbit around the Sun.
“Here is how long it takes each of the planets in our solar system to orbit around the Sun (in Earth days/24 hours):
Mercury: 88 days
Venus: 225 days
Earth: 365 days
Mars: 687 days
Jupiter: 4,333 days
Saturn: 10,759 days
Uranus: 30,687 days
Neptune: 60,190 days”
Yes. More distant planets have lower kinetic energy, larger potential energy and a higher total energy than an equivalent in a closer orbit.
RLH,
You quoted –
“In orbit, firing your engines frontwards moves you forward into a higher orbit, which actually means you slow down, because objects in a higher orbit move more slowly. In order to go faster you need to decelerate and fall into a lower orbit”
Unfortunately, there are no engines to propel the Moon into a higher orbit. It is falling towards the Earth due to the force of gravity. Nothing more. No celestial beings pushing the Moon (as far as I know).
If you believe the gravitational attraction between the Earth and the Moon is lessening, allowing the Moon to fall towards the Earth more slowly, you might need to explain why this is so, before many people will be prepared to abandon Newton’s Laws of Gravity and Motion.
The reason for the Moon’s gradual receding from the Earth is simple. I’m surprised this tidal momentum transfer nonsense is glibly accepted by people who should know better!
To whoever it is that cannot be bothered to own up to their post.
So where does the energy required for the tides come from and where do the energy losses from friction caused by them appear?
RLH,
You wrote –
“To whoever it is that cannot be bothered to own up to their post.
So where does the energy required for the tides come from and where do the energy losses from friction caused by them appear?”
I will repeat – show me you have made a reasonable effort to find the answer elsewhere, but have met with no success,, and I will explain it to you.
You certainly appear to be lazy and/or incompetent, unless you are trying to appear clever, but failing.
Off you go now, and have a go at learning some basic physics.
Swenson: You are an idiot with little to no scientific training. That is clear.
In fact there is a small second order increase in sea level as floating sea ice melts.
https://efdl.cims.nyu.edu/publications/refereed/grl_melt_floating_ice_07.pdf
Most of the concern is that melting sea ice exposes coastlines to warmer water. The melting land ice then causes sea level rise.
Sorry, dud link.
Melting sea ice produces fresh water, which has a slightly lower density than salt water and produces a small sea level increase as it melts.
Since, per kg of melting ice, this effect is 1.6% of the sea level rise due to land ice melting into the ocean it is of academic interest rather than concern.
“…all claim special knowledge not given to mere mortals and scientists.”
Not in the least, Entropic Man. It is not special knowledge, in fact it is quite simple. I tried to explain it to everyone in the very first comment under this article. Was there something there that you failed to understand which I can help you with?
Same old fallacy.
You cannot jump from separating revolution and rotation to separating motion from reference frames. One of the things Einstein showed is that all motion is relative and you cannot describe motion without a reference frame.
In your GIF you are looking at the motions relative to the Earth rather than the box; local thinking rather than universal thinking.
You acknowledging you are an idiot would be a start.
I am not talking about doing away with the concept of reference frames, Entropic Man. I am just pointing out that the moon issue goes beyond the conclusion that some people come to – that the moon is rotating on its own axis wrt the inertial reference frame, and not rotating on its own axis wrt the accelerated frame. Once again, for the moon to be rotating on its own axis, “orbital motion without axial rotation” must be like the MOTR. Whereas, if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is like the MOTL, then the moon is not rotating on its own axis. This consideration goes beyond reference frames.
“In your GIF you are looking at the motions relative to the Earth rather than the box; local thinking rather than universal thinking.”
False, I am looking at the motions relative to the box. Tired of false accusations.
Are you suggesting that the 6 reference frames at the center and at point on the surface of the Sun, the Moon and the Earth all see the same thing?
I am not sure you even understand what reference frames are, RLH.
I can place an observer at each of the frames mentioned above thus turning them into frames that reference things as seen from that point.
The center based ones (assuming that the bodies are spherical) have no gravity associated with their own bodies, the surface based ones have to include that.
Now I am sure that you do not even understand what reference frames are.
I offered you a selection of accelerated and non-accelerated frames of reference. Why do you not accept those?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference
for the ones at the center of the various bodies. They experience no gravity at that point so are inertial.
“it is a frame of reference in which Newton’s first law of motion holds” which is true for those center points.
I don’t reject any frames of reference. I’m just not seeing any evidence from your comments that you even understand what they are.
Regardless, the moon can only be rotating on its own axis if "orbital motion without axial rotation" is as per the MOTR. Which is why the moon issue transcends ’em.
There is no if about it. “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR.
“I dont reject any frames of reference”
I offered you 6 reference frames/frames of reference. 3 accelerated and 3 not-accelerated. Which did you mean? Inertial reference frames? Those have a specific meaning as I pointed out.
Yes, you very passionately believe that "orbital motion without axial rotation" is as per the MOTR. The point I was making was that for the moon to be rotating on its own axis, “orbital motion without axial rotation” must be like the MOTR. Whereas, if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is like the MOTL, then the moon is not rotating on its own axis. This consideration goes beyond reference frames.
“for the moon to be rotating on its own axis, ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ must be like the MOTR.”
It is. So that is what the rest of the scientific community agrees with and a lot of work based on that conclusion.
Only your tiny, tiny, clique thinks, quite wrongly, that everybody else is wrong.
OK, RLH. Back to argumentum ad populum again, I see.
Back to no science for you I see.
Hush now, child.
Prattle on idiot.
Silence, ape.
Why would I pull along the line of the link? If it moves out of that straight line do you think it will correct itself or not?
Gordon: “In order to recede, the Moon would need to speed up. Where does the force come from to speed it up?”
1) In order to recede, the moon needs to gain potential energy and lose kinetic energy. The moon SLOWS DOWN, it doesn’t SPEED UP.
2) The force that does work on the moon comes from gravity. The same force and torque that caused tidal locking is what makes the moon continue to spiral outward.
This is freshman physics. This is all well known and well documented. You shouldn’t be making rookie mistakes at this level, Gordon.
“In order to recede, the Moon would need to speed up. Where does the force come from to speed it up?”
Yup, that’s why Venus moves faster than Mercury, the Earth moves faster than Venus, Mars moves faster than Earth, Jupiter moves faster than Mars, etc.
Oh wait, snap!
–Clouds obstruct most of the visible light coming from Venus’ surface, but the very longest visible wavelengths, which border the near-infrared wavelengths, make it through. On the dayside, this red light gets lost amid the bright sunshine reflected off Venus’ cloud tops, but in the darkness of night, the WISPR camera was able to pick up this faint glow caused by the incredible heat emanating from the surface.
“The surface of Venus, even on the nightside, is about 860 degrees,” Wood said. “It’s so hot that the rocky surface of Venus is visibly glowing, like a piece of iron pulled from a forge.”
As it passed by Venus, WISPR picked up a range of wavelengths from 470 nanometers to 800 nanometers. Some of that light is the near-infrared – wavelengths that we cannot see, but sense as heat – but most is in the visible range, between 380 nanometers and about 750 nanometers.–
http://parkersolarprobe.jhuapl.edu/News-Center/Show-Article.php?articleID=174
From:
http://parkersolarprobe.jhuapl.edu/
I keep thinking it might interesting to see with my eyeballs
The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet….Tmean…Tsat.mean
Mercury…325,83 K…340 K
Earth…..287,74 K…288 K
Moon……223,35 Κ…220 Κ
Mars……213,21 K…210 K
The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.
Although N2 and O2 are the numerically dominant atmospheric gases, they are not radiatively dominant. The contribution to earthen emissivity (over the Planck spectrum for typical terrestrial temperatures) of Earth’s atmosphere is mostly from comparatively small amounts of certain infrared-active gases.
There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas above: “Although N2 and O2 are the numerically dominant atmospheric gases, they are not radiatively dominant. The contribution to earthen emissivity …”
Ball4 here: “Although N2 and O2 are the numerically dominant atmospheric gases, they are not radiatively dominant. The contribution to earthen emissivity…”
We call that Plagiarism in America. What do you call it in Greece?
Thank you, Ball4.
Now I know.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Guff,
Who did B4 plagiarize? He doesn’t have an original thought.
Guff,
Cristos is telling you that the radiative heat transfer is from the Sun to the surface. GHE is minimal. Heat is transferred from the surface to the atmosphere by convection. It is transferred radiatively from the surface to space (SW) and from the atmosphere to space (LW). There is no GHE.
The surface is 288K. It is not some fictional Earthen 255K bullshit.
Thank you Stephen!
Here is a Simple Theorem, but a very important Theorem.
From the above…
for every without-atmosphere planet (ι) we have:
Tmean.ι = [ Φ.ι (1 – a.ι) S.ι (β *N.ι *cp.ι)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
or
Tmean = [ Φ (1 – a) S (β*N*cp.)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
or it can be re-written as
Tmean = Te * [(β*N*cp.)¹∕ ⁴]¹∕ ⁴
The Theorem:
The planet mean surface temperature Tmean numerical value will be equal to the planet effective temperature Te numerical value
Tmean = Te
only when the term
(β*N*cp) = 1
and, since the
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal
the planet N*cp product should be then
N*cp = 1 /β
or the numerical value of the product
N*cp = 1 /150
……….
The Theorem leads to the following very important conclusions:
1). In general, the planet effective temperature numerical value Te is not numerically equal to the planet without-atmosphere mean surface temperature Tmean.
2). For the planet without-atmosphere mean surface temperature numerical value Tmean to be equal to the planet effective temperature numerical value Te the condition from the above Theorem the (N*cp = 1 /150) should be necessarily met.
3). For the Planet Earth without-atmosphere the (N*cp) product is (N*cp = 1) and it is 150 times higher than the necessary condition of (N*cp = 1/150) .
Consequently, Earth’s effective temperature numerical value Te cannot be equal to Earth’s without-atmosphere mean surface temperature… not even close.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
> The Theorem
wut
It was a simple question, what do you call plagiarism in Greece?, and you couldn’t answer it; so I looked it up and came up with:
logoklopí (λογοκλοπή) or akadimaïkí anentimótita (ακαδημαϊκή ανεντιμότητα).
And, now you know.
Ps.:I’m never going to convince the crazies, so I reject the crazies.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Until I looked at the check which said $5381, I be certain …that my best friend like they say really bringing in money in there spare time from their computer.. there mums best friend started doing this for under 10 months and just now cleared the morgage on their apartment and purchased a new Alfa Romeo.
visit this web-site…..…. https://fulwork08.blogspot.com/
Don’t miss another example of braindead cult idiots, at work. Ent and RLH get terribly confused about angular momentum, yet believe they are experts.
Their nonsense begins here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1170228
Ent claims: “Tides transfer angular momentum from Earth to Moon. As the Moon gains angular momentum and moves into a higher orbit the Earth loses angular momentum and its rotation slows.”
Of course that is wrong, but Ent goes on to use the example of tethered model airplanes (including a video!). The idiots don’t realize the difference between Kinematics and orbital motion. If object are connected, angular momentum CAN be transferred. But angular momentum can NOT be transferred through a vacuum.
As always, they won’t be able to understand. They will just keep repeating the same nonsense, unable to learn. They’re braindead.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R is just an idiot who cannot understand the science that everybody else knows.
So Clint R agrees that a-ball-on-a-string (connected objects) and orbits (separated by a vacuum) has nothing to do with each other. That’s a first.
“But angular momentum can NOT be transferred through a vacuum”
Of course it can. Gravity and electromagnetic forces operate perfectly well through vacuum. Those forces can and do cause torques. Torques can and do cause changes in angular momentum.
Agreed.
Tim “ice cubes can boil water” Folkerts reconfirms his willingness to pervert physics.
(I’ll add it to the list.)
When Clint has no answers, he tries to deflect. In this case with an ad hom attack coupled to a strawman.
The only issues here are:
1) gravity can act through a vacuum
2) gravity can apply a torque
3) torque can change angular momentum
Unless you can argue that any of these are wrong, then your initial conclusion is wrong.
Wrong Folkerts. You’re trying to distract, deceive, deflect, pervert the issue, as usual.
The ONLY issue here is Earth can NOT transfer angular momentum to Moon. You’re welcome to show why you believe it can.
I’ll be glad to correct you.
Angular momentum of the Moon would see it move in a straight line. As it orbits the Earth/Moon barycenter (an internal axis) gravity alters the angular momentum of the Moon (and the Earth).
Clint, you are now committing the “moving the goalposts” fallacy. Since you have given up on defending the general statement “angular momentum can NOT be transferred through a vacuum” I will assume you recognize this is wrong.
You are instead ‘moving the goalpost’ to argue more specifically about transfer between the earth and the moon.
Of course, this is not only possible, it has been measured.
The average length of day is increasing, showing the earth is losing angular momentum. The distance to the moon is increasing, showing the moon is gaining angular momentum.
Folkerts, you need to provide the physics to show how AM can be transferred from Earth to Moon.
You should know by now all your semantical distractions don’t work with me.
Put up, or shut up.
RLH says: “Angular momentum of the Moon would see it move in a straight line. As it orbits the Earth/Moon barycenter (an internal axis) gravity alters the angular momentum of the Moon (and the Earth).”
You seem to be laboring under some incorrect ideas here. If we skip tidal effects for now*, the angular momentum is indeed constant during the orbit. This is actually synonymous with Kepler’s 2nd Law (‘equal areas in equal times’).
Gravity alters the *linear* momentum, but not the *angular* momentum.
(* Tidal effects do change angular momentum, but that is a small, 2nd order effect.)
Orbits in an ellipse require the angular velocity and hence momentum (as the mass does not change) to be constantly changing during an orbit. (Also from Kepler).
The straight line bit was concerned with velocity in a straight line, true.
Clint, I am sure you have heard “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”. In this case:
1) every textbook and every professor concurs that gravity can and does provide tidal torques. You can find the explanation in 100’s of different sources.
2) measurements confirm that angular momentum does indeed change for bot the earth and the moon.
You are making an extraordinary claim. A claim that a random commenter on a random blog understands things that the best professors have missed for 100’s of years. And yet you can’t actually point to any error in any text. You can’t find even one line that is incorrect.
“Orbits in an ellipse require the angular velocity and hence momentum (as the mass does not change) to be constantly changing during an orbit. (Also from Kepler).”
No. Orbits in an ellipse have both changing angular velocity AND changing radius. It turns out that this combination keeps angular momentum constant.*
Or think about torque. Since r & F are 180 degrees apart (r outward and F inward) the torque is zero. So angular momentum is constant around the orbit. *
(*Again, ignoring tidal torques, which can and so slowly change the angular momentum of orbits.)
Folkerts, Ball4 uses the same troll tactic. He claims he is supported by “textbooks” and “papers”. But he could never identify his bogus “real 255K surface”.
So, using the same troll tactic doesn’t work.
The ONLY issue here is Earth can NOT transfer angular momentum to Moon. You’re welcome to show why you believe it can.
I’ll be glad to correct you.
“The ONLY issue here is Earth can NOT transfer angular momentum to Moon. You’re welcome to show why you believe it can.”
It seems to me the Sun can transfer angular momentum to Earth and the Moon.
Yes? No?
“Yes? No?”
Oh, no it can’t.
I meant momentum.
Photon momentum.
“Orbits in an ellipse have both changing angular velocity AND changing radius. It turns out that this combination keeps angular momentum constant”
You are correct.
Cint R
I know you are a troll but is lying part of your method?
You know Tim Folkerts NEVER said ice cubes can boil water (on their own). You could not understand his valid physics of how fluxes can add to a surface and YOU perverted his easy to understand example into your twisted “ice cubes can boil water”.
You are lying when you make this claim. You will keep trolling but you should avoid lies.
Norman, you must be sick. That’s nowhere near your usual meltdown. It’s much too short, too little rambling, and not even one link you don’t understand!
Hope you are feeling better soon.
Clint R just trolls as normal.
Norman must have been lurking here all day, waiting for chance to ingratiate himself to Folkerts. He’s so cute — it is close to Valentine’s Day….
Folkerts claimed that 315W/m^2 adds to 315W/m^2 to produce 630 W/m^2, which then corresponds to 325K. He’s adding fluxes!
Ice can emit 315W/m^2. So Folkerts claims two ice cube can result in 325K (52C, 125F)!
If his bogus nonsense were true, 4 ice cubes could then boil water.
Norman is ignorant of physics, but he knows how to be a loyal groupie.
Clint R: You need to state what area radiates at 315W/m^2 to make a sensible question. And what air/vapor pressure is above the water.
RLH,
You wrote –
“Clint R: You need to state what area radiates at 315W/m^2 to make a sensible question. And what air/vapor pressure is above the water.”
Why would he need to state anything? Because you have awesome superpowers, perhaps?
What question are you babbling about? If you believe that the IR radiation from ice can cause the temperature of liquid water to rise, try stating the conditions under which this miracle may occur. Of course you can’t. Bear in mind that “cunning” ploys such as reducing the temperature of the water to below that of the ice won’t work. The water freezes. What a surprise!
Show me a reproducible experiment. Otherwise, you are just pretending that your fantasy is fact.
Clint R
No he did not make your claim. You can’t understand that fluxes can add. You can have clear ice add 315 watts of energy to a one meter square surface (maybe a sphere) so it reaches a steady state temperature with the ice. Then you have visible light which passes through the ice and reaches the surface with an additional 315 watts of energy. The surface is now receiving a total of 630 watts of energy. It will reach a temperature where it will radiate away 630 watts of energy.
That is all he stated. What you claim is not what he claimed.
If you put another shell of clear ice around the first one, the radiant energy will not penetrate the ice. It will be absorbed and not reach the inner object.
That is physics. If you spent as much time on real physics and you do trolling you might find actual science is more fun than trolling posters.
Norman presents his fantasy as fact –
“You can have clear ice add 315 watts of energy to a one meter square surface (maybe a sphere) so it reaches a steady state temperature with the ice. Then you have visible light which passes through the ice and reaches the surface with an additional 315 watts of energy. The surface is now receiving a total of 630 watts of energy. It will reach a temperature where it will radiate away 630 watts of energy.”
Unfortunately, Norman forgot to mention his source of “visible light” has to come from the Sun – which has a surface temperature of over 5500 K!
So, no addition of fluxes. Just a 5500 K source heating something, after passing through a transparent medium, in this case ice. Easier to use glass.
Of course, his imaginary sphere of ice won’t last long in direct sunlight – it will just heat up and become water!
Typical moron grade fantasy from a delusional climate crackpot.
Norman, if 315 + 315 = 630, then 315 + 315 + 315 + 315 = 1260.
Your cult hero is boiling water with ice cubes.
But, your meltdown is escalating. Glad to know you’re feeling better.
We would miss your meltdowns.
Swenson says: “So, no addition of fluxes. ”
How do you define “flux”? In our context, it is simply a measure of radiation = power per square meter, in W/m^2. This is also sometimes called “irradiance” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irradiance
That ‘flux’ can come from ice. Or from a laser. Or from sunlight. or from a lightbulb. Or a radio antenna.
So yes, we are adding fluxes. One flux of 315 W/m^2 from ice and one flux of 315 W/m^2 from sunlight.
No mystery. No violation of any laws of thermodynamics. No boiling water with ice.
Folkerts, 315 W/m^2 does NOT add to 315W/m^2. Ice does NOT add to ice.
You’re perverting physics, again.
Don’t worry, I’m keeping a list:
Folkert’s Perversions of Physics
1) Moon rotates about its axis.
2) Ball-on-a-string is not a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
3) Fluxes add
4) Ice cubes can boil water
5) A jet flying overhead has angular momentum.
6) S/B Law no longer is valid.
7) Mt. Everest rotates on its axis
8) Vectors don’t add
9) Circular motion is not an oscillation
10) If a body does not have enough tangential velocity to maintain its orbit, gravity will provide it.
11) Angular momentum can be transferred from Earth to Moon.
Want to try for an even dozen?
“Folkerts, 315 W/m^2 does NOT add to 315W/m^2. Ice does NOT add to ice.”
After all the times you have heard what I have actually been claiming, it is fascinating that you continue to come back to this specific strawman. And then you add in your list that consists entirely of a) more strawmen or b) correct physics that you simply don’t understand.
Clint R
You use flawed logic and misrepresent with intent (which is lying) what Tim Folkerts explained to you.
He made a specific example of clear ice (emitting 315 Watts to an object with a one-square meter surface area) and visible light going through the ice of 315 Watt/m^2 flux which will add its energy to the surface of the object.
He clearly explained you are mixing up concepts. He is showing how a surface can have two fluxes adding to increase a temperature of an object. You are then switching to how much energy is emitted by some object (in your case ice). You have 4 ice objects each emitting at a rate of 315 W/m^2 and I guess you are suggesting they each have a surface area of a m^2 so that the total energy emitted by the ice would be 1260 watts. If you divide that by 4 m^2 surface area you get 315 W/m^2.
If you have 1000 m^2 of ice it will emit 315,000 watts of energy but it will only have a flux of 315 W/m^2. It is geometry. You have had this explained to you before. Why do you persist in your lies and false misrepresentations. Is it something you like to do?
Wrong Folkerts. The list contains some of your recent efforts to pervert physics. I don’t have time to go back to all of them.
When caught, you attempt to squirm out of it, but you don’t learn. You keep playing with semantics.
On the ice cubes issue, you get to argue with yourself:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-543564
Semantic games do not do well against reality.
TF,
You wrote –
“That ‘ flux’ can come from ice. Or from a laser. Or from sunlight. or from a lightbulb. Or a radio antenna.
So yes, we are adding fluxes. One flux of 315 W/m^2 from ice and one flux of 315 W/m^2 from sunlight.”
Not at all, Tim.
Your attempted illusion fails if any of your ‘fluxes’ is emitted by an object of higher temperature than the coldest one. Obviously, exposing water to radiation from anything hotter than the water will raise the temperature of the water.
Your imaginary “experiments” are about as silly as claiming that the non-existent GHE raises temperatures – without the assistance of a 5500 K heat source (the Sun). In the absence of this 5500 K heat source, the surface cools.
Even morons can work this out. You?
Norman, your comments are approaching meltdown, but you have no links. You need some links that you clearly don’t understand. That’s when it is fun.
Did you ever find your bogus “real 255K surface”?
Clint R
You are addicted to trolling. You could not stop your behavior, drunk on trolling.
Anyway I am not sure what your objection to links is. It is called supporting the claims made. I am really sorry you can’t understand them. Maybe if you had taken a physics class even in High School they could make sense to you.
Your blog physics may satisfy your troll needs but it certainly is not science.
Your False claims:
1) The Moon does not rotate on its axis
2) Fluxes can’t add
3) a hot object CANNOT absorb any energy from a colder one
4) The radiant heat transfer equation is bogus
5) Scientists can’t measure outgoing longwave radiant energy
More to come as you post I will log your false statements.
Pleas feel free to link to your sources. You hate links because you don’t have any sources for your false and misleading information. Since you are aware it is false you are also a liar.
Troll some more, you must be bored on a Saturday night and have the urge to troll.
“Why would he need to state anything?”
Because using Watts per meter squared doesn’t make the maths work unless you state also the square area of the source and the distance away. Idiot.
Oh, and the temperatures/pressures at which water/ice turns to vapor are very well documented.
Norman, I have no objection to links. I merely point out that you often find links that you believe support your opinions, but they don’t. You have so little understanding of science that you can’t understand the links you find.
You don’t understand when I explain physics to you, so you believe it is I who doesn’t understand physics. That makes it impossible for you to learn.
You will do anything to avoid learning, including throwing out insults, making false accusations, and misrepresenting what others say.
You’re opposed to truth, honesty, reality, and science.
That makes you a braindead cult idiot.
You don’t find links to support your tiny cliques opinions (because there aren’t any) and deliberately accuse others of not understanding the basic physics in their urls.
You are a troll and a liar.
Clint R says:
February 11, 2022 at 1:00 PM
Well troll RLH, give us your vector diagram showing how “tidal locking” works.
I won’t hold my breath….
Clint R
Here is a vector diagram of Tidal Locking. They explain the terms.
https://csegrecorder.com/columns/view/science-break-200902
The image.
https://csegrecorder.com/assets/images/features/2009-02-science-break-03.jpg
Earth’s gravity exerts different attracting force to the bulges created by a moon rotating faster than once per orbit. You get tidal bulges that act to slow down the moon based upon differences in gravitational attraction of the two tidal bulges if the Moon were to rotate at a greater rate.
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2007/ph210/kwon2/
This article explains how the Earth’s tides add energy to the Moon and cause it to move to a higher orbit.
Both things you think are false are proven to you and with vector diagrams.
Clint R: Norman found one for you.
https://csegrecorder.com/assets/images/features/2009-02-science-break-03.jpg
“Obviously, exposing water to radiation from anything hotter than the water will raise the temperature of the water.”
Congratulation! you understand.
If the water is first exposed to radiation from surroundings at 273 K (315 W/m^2 delivered to the surface of the water), the water will settle in at 273 K. If we add ADDITIONAL radiation from some hotter source (like 315 W/m^2 of sunlight), then the water will get hotter than 273 K.
That is all that anyone has ever claimed. Radiation (aka “flux” from one source can be augmented with radiation (aka “flux”) from another source to reach a higher temperature than either radiation source could achieve by itself.
Wrong Norman, all you’ve proven is you don’t understand the links you find.
To show the vectors, you need to first show how much ACTUAL “tidal” deformation is caused. Then, you need to show where it starts and where it ends. The deformation will be so minimal as to have no effect, and it will occur both before and after alignment. So your imaginary torques would cancel.
In your third link, the bulge is now as high as Earth’s radius! I guess they had to increase the bulge to convince more idiots.
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2007/ph210/kwon2/
Very funny, thanks for sharing.
(See “Tidal Locking, debunked” to understand why you’re being taught nonsense.)
Wrong Folkerts, adding fluxes won’t work. Two ice cubes won’t make something hotter than one ice cube. Solar flux, reduced to the same as an ice cube, won’t either.
Your bogus calculation would mean you could boil water with ice cubes. It even fooled some idiots here.
“Two ice cubes won’t make something hotter than one ice cube”
If the added ice cube is warmer than the outer space it replaces then how could it not?
“Wrong Folkerts, adding fluxes wont work. ”
So the flux from two light bulbs is not brighter than the flux from a single bulb in Clint-World. Got it.
For thoese who would like to compare the 2021 Nina episode with previous ones, here is the UAH LT time series generated out that grid portion located about the NINO3+4 region:
https://i.postimg.cc/tgVrFdj5/UAH-6-0-LT-nino3-4.png
Draw your own conclusions.
This is a more conventional graph of ENSO
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/?enso_tab=enso-sst_image
You pricked his bubble, he thought he invented something
You, Ebenito, are a bit dumber than the sum of Robertson, Clint R and Flynnson.
Like the three, you too aren’t even able to process any data.
All you can do is to discredit people with words that are always a little below the belt.
Poor guy…
I have shown that ‘conventional’ graph long time before, anybody can search for it on this blog.
And above all, my UAH grid evaluation has NOTHING to do with forecasting.
Nor does the conventional graph I showed.
Don’t worry , we have your ” La Nina gone by April ” forecasting archived, we just wait for April to roll over
He could well be correct but it appears that NOAA is hedging its bets both ways. On one hand predicting that it will be gone and on the other the opposite that it will not.
The well known Spring Barrier means that any accurate prediction before then is likely to be wrong.
Until I looked at the check which said $5381, I be certain that my best friend like they say really bringing in money in there spare time from their computer.. there mums best friend started doing this for under 10 months and just now cleared the morgage on their apartment and purchased a new Alfa Romeo.
visit this web-site… https://workpay1.blogspot.com/
How they warm houses in rural Siberia!
https://youtu.be/1o4EICOs3B4
How is it possible to discredit human knowledge like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration
without being able to scientifically contradict it?
Bindidon gives us another example of how they pervert reality, to protect their cult.
No one is discrediting angular momentum. It’s just that angular momentum can NOT be transfer through a vacuum. And the “tidal acceleration/locking” nonsense has been completely debunked. It’s just that you don’t understand anything about the issues.
“tidal acceleration/locking nonsense has been completely debunked”
No it hasn’t. It is correct.
“angular momentum can NOT be transfer through a vacuum”
So orbits do not exist? That is a change in direction of forward motion into an ellipse.
Bindidon found a link he can’t understand, but he believes it “proves” Earth tides can affect Moon. He doesn’t understand any of the relevant physics, so he doesn’t realize he is being tricked.
The graphic at his link shows Earth tides extending about half of Earth’s radius, or about 2000 miles (3000 km), above the surface! Then, the “bulge” is about 15 degrees off the Earth/Moon center of mass line. 15 degrees corresponds to about one hour. So the silly graphic has a 2000 mile high bulge for one hour! For added effect, Moon is shown much closer than reality. And the braindead cult idiots swallow every bit of such nonsense.
If an actual scale drawing were drawn, the “bulge” would not even be evident, and certainly has no comparison to Moon’s distance. But that wouldn’t trick anyone.
It’s all about agenda and beliefs. It ain’t science.
Clint R: Please do tell us why the majority of the Earth has 2 tides a day.
P.S. Exaggerations of scale are quite normal and not expected to be taken as an accurate representative example. The Earth is a globe/circle rather than an oblate spheroid if to scale on a normal sized piece of paper.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1169360
So Clint R has no answer to the question of why 2 tides a day.
RLH,
You wrote –
“Clint R: Please do tell us why the majority of the Earth has 2 tides a day.”
Accepting a little reality? I presume you have furiously checked what I wrote, and have discovered I was right about tidal movements. Good.
Now, you might like to find out why some places on Earth do not have 2 tides a day. You might then find out why a people who make silly broad statements claiming things about the Moon, gravity, tidal movements and so on, don’t actually understand what they are talking about, and generally just try to sound authoritative by spouting what “everybody knows”.
For example, the Earth is described as an oblate spheroid, and “everybody knows” that “centrifugal force” makes the equatorial diameter longer than the polar diameter. True.
However, I don’t know if “everybody knows” if the difference percentage-wise is just slightly more than than the 0.02 mm tolerance for the diameter of a standard 5.9 kg bowling ball. If anybody shows you a photo of the Earth with a discernible Equatorial bulge, don’t put them in charge of your financial affairs – unless you positively enjoy penury.
Come on, tell me what you believe you know about tides! Or are you really as clueless as you pretend to be?
RLH,
You wrote –
“So Clint R has no answer to the question of why 2 tides a day.”
Am I to assume you do?
Why bother with pointless gotchas, then?
I have been doing tides for a lot longer the you in all probability (for the last 50 years or so). I know and understand why some areas have little tides, others very big ones, some have more than 2, some less.
All are to do with basin mechanics merged with the basic 2 tides a day globally.
Care to explain where the 2 tides a day come from?
“Am I to assume you do?”
Yes. Do you?
P.S. The oblateness of the spheroid is well known. Measurements indicate that the Earth has an equatorial diameter of 12756 km (7926 mi), and a polar diameter of 12713.6 km (7899.86 mi).
You can work out the radiuses and percentages for yourself.
Swenson: Do you accept that the Earth (ground) has tides too and what their magnitude is?
test 001
Before you go quoting wiki on angular momentum and acceleration, it would help if you had a basic understanding of either. The description of angular momentum given by wiki is convoluted and obfuscated, missing the point entirely of what it is.
Linear momentum should be straight forward, it is defined as p = mv along a straight line and is the natural tendency of a moving body to resists a change in its velocity. The Moon has only linear momentum, no angular momentum.
Angular momentum applies only to solid bodies attached to an axle, or point of rotation. There is no known body that will automatically follow a curved path unless it is under the influence of an external force. Therefore, in order for angular momentum to apply, the mass must be held by a rigid body attached to an axle so that the momentum of the mass is along a curve.
With the Moon, if Earth’s gravitational field disappeared, the Moon would no longer follow an orbital path but would fly off in a straight line.
Your article on tidal acceleration is just plain wrong. Newton II is f = ma = mg, where g is the acceleration produced on a mass, m, by the gravitational force f.
above posted to Binny….
Two points to understand:
1)Newton prefaced his comments on Newton II by declaring ‘If a force can move a mass…”. That is a basic stipulation for the application of Newton II, the force must be able to move the mass.
His statement is vitally important to my point since the vector ‘f’ acts in a straight line with a circular orbit. Even with the slightly eccentric real ellip.tical orbit, it is mainly along a straight, vertical line.
2)With most of gravitational force acting along a straight line toward Earth’s centre, that means any motion due to acceleration must be along that straight line. That would mean the Moon would have collided with the Earth long ago.
It is not possible to have acceleration without a change in position. It is clear that the Moon does not change position toward the Earth therefore gravitational force is producing no acceleration on the Moon.
An egregious error is being committed by those who claim a change in vector direction alone is acceleration. Not so, acceleration requires a change in the scalar quantity. When vectors in 3-D are applied to a matrix (vector calculus) for summation, it is the scalar quantities operated on by the matrix, not the vector directions. After all, the vector is described as a unit vector multiplied by the scalar quantity.
As proof of that, a body rotating in a circular orbit with constant velocity cannot have a change in acceleration since acceleration is defined as a change in velocity per unit time. In order to change that constant velocity a force, or a component of a force vector is required acting in the direction of motion. A force like gravity, acting per.pendicular to the motion cannot change the velocity.
Due to the very slight eccentricity in the lunar orbit (it is very nearly a circle) there is a very slight gravitational vector component pointing slightly away from the Earth’s centre, enabling us to see around the edge of the Moon. We call that libration.
Unlike the nonsense in your article about torques on the Moon causing libration, as just described, the lunar orbit is the result of a constant linear momentum of the Moon being redirected into a slightly ellip.tical orbit by the gravitational field, without any acceleration being involved.
Obviously, the gravitational field lacks the strength to accelerate the Moon. More proof of that is an airliner flying with constant velocity at 35,000 feet. The gravitational field lacks the strength to overcome lift from the wings, produced by the constant velocity on the wings, yet the airliner will follow the curvature of the Earth without further intervention by the pilot. I have confirmed that fact with a pilot.
Once the airliner is stabilized at a constant altitude, barring sudden downdrafts, updrafts, headwinds, or tailwinds. the airliner will maintain that altitude automatically, right around the Earth if required. The only forces involved are the thrust from the airliner’s engines and gravitation force. However, the gravitational force lacks the intensity to move the aircraft vertically against its lift, only enough to re-direct the thrust into an orbit.
This is a case of static equilibrium and the normal analysis using kinematics does not apply. Kinematics would suggest that motion of the Moon is due to a resultant vector between the gravitational force and the thrust vector. However, the thrust vector is in a tangential direction at all times.
The vertical lift vector due to the wings and flying surfaces, cancels out the vertical and opposite gravitational vector, leaving a state of static equilibrium. Since the thrust vector is still acting per.pendicular to both, there is always a tangential component of momentum. Therefore, the airliner remains at a constant altitude, following the curvature of the Earth.
The Moon’s motion is similar excep.t the Moon has a natural linear momentum.
Linear and orbital velocity (and hence momentum) changes continuously during both the Moon and the Earth’s orbit of the Earth/Moon barycenter. See Newton and Kepler.
Gordon,
All this drivel proves you never took any physics or if you did, you flunked it spectacularly.
“With most of gravitational force acting along a straight line toward Earth’s centre, that means any motion due to acceleration must be along that straight line.”
Nah, you’re dreaming you understand acceleration and velocity.
An acceleration is a change in velocity, considering velocity is a vector with speed and direction components, so if you change the direction you are accelerating even if the speed remains the same.
This is basic high school physics.
Though the Moon does move closer and then farther away from the Earth.
Until I looked at the check which said $5381, I be certain that my best friend like they say really bringing in money in there spare time from their computer.. there mums best friend started doing this for under 10 months and just now cleared the morgage on their apartment and purchased a new Alfa Romeo.
visit this web-site… https://workpay1.blogspot.com/
“since the vector f acts in a straight line with a circular orbit. Even with the slightly eccentric real ellip.tical orbit, it is mainly along a straight, vertical line”
Do you know how many focii it requires to make an ellipse?
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-osalgebratrig/chapter/the-ellipse/
A tangent to the ellipse is not always at right angles to the center except at 4 positions, top, bottom, left and right.
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/courses-images/wp-content/uploads/sites/3252/2018/07/19151234/CNX_Precalc_Figure_10_01_014.jpg
>>> The gravitational field lacks the strength to overcome lift from the wings, produced by the constant velocity on the wings,
uhm… that’s the whole point of having a plane, to fly around at a constant altitude. What’s a fukken big mystery, to quote carlin?
>>> yet the airliner will follow the curvature of the Earth without further intervention by the pilot. I have confirmed that fact with a pilot.
yes, it is due to the stabilizing effect of a stabilizer, you know that sticks sticking out at the rear of the aircraft
>> Once the airliner is stabilized at a constant altitude, barring sudden downdrafts, updrafts, headwinds, or tailwinds. the airliner will maintain that altitude automatically, right around the Earth if required.
yep, the action of the stabilizer is for the plain to maintain the constant orientation. As the plane flies an the gravity vector turns due to the curvature of the earth, the action of the horizontal stabilizer automatically adjusts the plane’s orientation with respect to the horizon by turning it.
>>Linear momentum […] is the natural tendency of a moving body to resists a change in its velocity.
no, thats inertia.
>>The Moon has only linear momentum, no angular momentum.
haha, that’s a good one. =))) love it. Sometimes I just forget that you are a virtual character controlled by a bot, and it’s the moments like these that remind me who you really are.
>>Angular momentum applies only to solid bodies attached to an axle, or point of rotation.
ow, stop it, stop it! i nearly pissed myself. =DDDDD you just keep on delivering! :DDD have you evet thought on doing an absurdist stand-up routine at a local university?
Haha, well, please to continue in the same fashion, well all like a good laugh )
norman…”You can have clear ice add 315 watts of energy to a one meter square surface…”
***
So, if you hold enough ice close to 1 square metre of your skin, it should warm your skin. Try standing naked in an ice house, with your boots on so heat won’t escape quickly through your feet, and see how much you warm.
On the other hand, if you stand close to a small enough quantity of ice, IR radiated from your body will be absorbed by the ice and melt it.
2nd law, Norman.
Gordon Robertson
I am puzzled how you came to your conclusion. What logic are you using? You posted a statement I made and came up with an odd conclusion from it. Can you explain this?
If your skin is around 91 F (305.9K) with and emissivity of around 0.98 it will emit close to 486.5 watts of energy per square meter of skin.
The ice is emitting 315 watts toward your skin. You are still losing almost 171.5 watts of energy per square meter of skin. I do not see how the ice would warm you.
An average person sitting uses about 100 watts of energy so if you have a 2 meter skin surface temperature you will emit 973 watts and only receive back 630 watts from the ice so you will be losing 343 watts. You will have to do some moving to increase the watts you produce or get hyperthermia.
Correct Norman, cold can NOT heat hot.
As Gordon mentioned — 2LoT.
Clint R
If you agree with that then why do you reject GHE?
The cold can NOT heat hot but the temperature of the cold will change how much energy the hot object is able to lose.
Again you need to include that a warmer cold surrounding will increase the steady-state temperature of a HEATED object. That is what the GHE is claiming.
N,
You wrote –
“The cold can NOT heat hot but the temperature of the cold will change how much energy the hot object is able to lose.”
Exactly. Cannot heat – that is, raise the temperature. No GHE – no temperature increase. Cooling is still cooling, whether it is fast or slow.
Your “heated object” needs to be internally heated. Just leaving it in the Sun won’t do. Leave an object in the Sun as long as you like. Then pack it in ice, or just immerse it in icy water – with the Sun still shining through the ice or water.
Only a moron would believe the object would get hotter!
You aren’t a moron, are you? Rhetorical question, of course.
Norman, Swenson already covered it, but the mistake you keep making is believing “slowing the cooling” is “heating”. “Heating” means “raising the temperature”. The bogus GHE claims CO2 can raise the temperature.
It’s not that complicated. If you weren’t braindead you might be able to understand.
Clint R
The scientists involved in describing the GHE do not claim the cold atmosphere will heat the warmer surface to a higher temperature. That may be what you find on some extremist climate blogs run by fanatics and not people grounded in science.
The GHE, with the slowing of the surface cooling rate, with the same solar input, the surface will then reach a higher equilibrium temperature. It is very similar to how a coat will keep your body warmer in the cold winter then it would be without the coat. The coat reduces the rate heat leaves your body and so with an internal heat source (chemical reactions inside your body) will be able to maintain a higher steady state temperature.
The science of GHE is correct. Not sure what blogs you visit but you should look at the science to the GHE and not climate fanatics.
Clint R,
stop being a moron, if you can.
Slowing the cooling of an object that is being heated by another source results in the temperature of that object going up.
Do you call that heating?
It’s like having a pot of water on a stove, you can find a setting of the heat control that results in a steady temperature just below boiling. Put the lid on and the pot starts boiling.
Did putting the lid on heat the water?
It caused the temperature of the water to go up, so I would call that heating.
Norman claims: “The scientists involved in describing the GHE do not claim the cold atmosphere will heat the warmer surface to a higher temperature.”
Wrong again, Norman. Here’s just one statement from NOAA: “But increases in greenhouse gases have tipped the Earth’s energy budget out of balance, trapping additional heat and raising Earth’s average temperature.”
No, your cult believes cold can warm hot. They believe energy “stacks up”. They believe “stacked up” energy means higher temperatures. Like you, your cult does NOT understand science. You can’t bake a pizza with ice cubes, no matter how many ice cubes you have.
Bob, you don’t understand any of this, so you get lost in your imagery.
Fill your pot with ice cubes and put them in a freezer with temperature below that of the ice cubes. Now put the lid on your pot. Did the pot’s temperature go up?
@clinter
>>the mistake you keep making is believing slowing the cooling is heating. Heating means raising the temperature.
yeah, but “slowing the cooling” may lead to “raising the temperature”, therefore may mean “heating” and under the conditions where GHE is relevant, it DOES. Therefore, in the context of of the GHE “slowing the cooling” IS heating. I doubt you cannot understand that, no person can be that dumb and still be able to use a computer. Therefore, it is proven beyond the reasonable doubt that you are not a person but a bot-character whose runner’s job is to make the legitimite climate sceptics such as dr. spencer here look stupid by association, you stupid dumb fukc (been watching soprano clips on ytube lately, can’t help it).
>>Its not that complicated. If you werent braindead you might be able to understand.
It is complicated, but it is not THAT complicate. I’d call you braindead if you even had a brain, but bots don’t have brains. You’re just a pthon script, that’s all.
bob d…”Its like having a pot of water on a stove, you can find a setting of the heat control that results in a steady temperature just below boiling. Put the lid on and the pot starts boiling.
Did putting the lid on heat the water?
It caused the temperature of the water to go up, so I would call that heating”.
***
PV = nRT…the Ideal Gas Law.
The volume is constant in the pot, above the water, so the equation can be written…P = (nR/V)T. Therefore pressure is proportional to temperature.
When you put the lid on, the water vapour pressure increases therefore the temperature of the water vapour must rise.
If you put the lid on but leave a crack open so the pressure does not rise the pot will still boil over. Try it and see.
P.S. Higher pressure under the lid would mean that the boiling point of water is higher not lower. See steam engines.
Bobdroege,
You wrote –
“Slowing the cooling of an object that is being heated by another source results in the temperature of that object going up.
Do you call that heating?.
Complete nonsense! If you are talking about the Sun as a source of heat.
Put a rock in the Sun.
Cover it with as much insulation as you like. Watch the temperature fall.
Are you going to try to be clever by using a transparent atmosphere? You would be a genuine moron if you tried that! Even NASA, NOAA, and the rest of the fools who believe in “raised temperatures as a result of slow cooling” will tell you that the atmosphere prevents about 35% of the energy from the Sun teaching the surface!
Including infrared, which is more than 50% of sunlight. No temperature rise there!
Go back to being a moron, or come up with a description of the GHE which agrees with reality, and can be supported with reproducible experiments.
Place a satellite at say, L2, in the Sunshine but cover it with multilayered shiny insulation and watch the temperature fall.
Clint R,
I do believe I asked you to stop being a moron, yet you insist.
“Bob, you don’t understand any of this, so you get lost in your imagery.
Fill your pot with ice cubes and put them in a freezer with temperature below that of the ice cubes. Now put the lid on your pot. Did the pot’s temperature go up?”
Yes the pot’s temperature is going to go up, because it is still being heated by the stove, which went into the freezer with the pot.
You are still a moron and don’t understand any of this.
Gordon,
Once in a while you get something right.
“When you put the lid on, the water vapour pressure increases therefore the temperature of the water vapour must rise.”
Yes the temperature of the water vapor increases, but the water vapor pressure is determined by the temperature of the liquid water in the pot.
So, you proved by point, putting the lid on causes the temperature to rise.
But usually your common pot and lid do not provide a pressure seal, so what is causing the pressure to increase is the temperature increase.
Swenson,
You moron, try paying attention.
“Complete nonsense! If you are talking about the Sun as a source of heat.”
I wasn’t talking about the Sun and the Earth’s atmosphere.
I was talking about the pot of water on a stove.
@swenson aka clint r [i really cannot tell you two apart]
>> Even NASA, NOAA, and the rest of the fools who believe in “raised temperatures as a result of slow cooling” will tell you that the atmosphere prevents about 35% of the energy from the Sun teaching the surface!
Including infrared, which is more than 50% of sunlight. No temperature rise there!
<<
haha, yes, and yet the earth is, even with such a large screening of the sunlight, much warmer than the moon which is both much darker and gets the full 1367wm-2 of solar radiation at its surface, instead f the meager 1000wm-2 the earthly sea-level surface gets even on the very clear day. That fact makes GHE even more necessary and in your face obvious.
bobdroege,
You wrote –
“I wasn’t talking about the Sun and the Earth’s atmosphere.
I was talking about the pot of water on a stove.”
Nothing at all to do with the non-existent GHE, then. I am pleased you weren’t trying to claim that a pot of water on a stove bears any relationship to to the action of the Sun on the Earth!
I am also pleased that you realise the futility of trying to heat a pot of water from the top.
Maybe you could tell me about blankets?
Swenson,
Just wondering what you all going on about.
Are you claiming that the observation that putting a lid on a pot of near boiling water causes the pot to heat up to the boiling point, thus heating the water, as you say from the top?
And yes it does relate to the mythical* greenhouse effect, as you reduce one of the methods of heat transfer that a system is using to cool down, results in the temperature of that system going up.
My position is that you are too stupid to figure that out.
Maybe seek professional help.
* for various values of mythical!
If you stand in a vacuum you will boil before you freeze.
RLH,
Go and try it, if you don’t believe the research which says “Outer space is often depicted in film as a cold, inhospitable place, where exposure to the perpetual vacuum will make your blood boil and your body burst; alternatively, if neither of those things happen, youre bound to instantly freeze into a human-popsicle.”
Fiction, unfortunately.
Have you been getting your information from movies, or do you just make it up as you go?
Spend less time watching movies, and more time understanding physics and human physiology, if you want to be taken seriously.
Pressure drops instantly throughout a body. It takes a lot longer for temperature to do likewise. Experiments with releasing urine into a vacuum proves that it boils and then freezes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/12/23/water-in-space-does-it-freeze-or-boil/
“The surprising answer is it does both: first it boils and then it freezes! We know this because this is what used to happen when astronauts felt the call of nature while in space. According to the astronauts whove seen it for themselves:
When the astronauts take a leak while on a mission and expel the result into space, it boils violently. The vapor then passes immediately into the solid state (a process known as desublimation), and you end up with a cloud of very fine crystals of frozen urine”
RLH,
I remind you, you wrote –
“If you stand in a vacuum you will boil before you freeze.”
Maybe you are unaware of the difference between a complete human body and a small quantity of liquid urine.
Or do you have a very poor short term memory?
The same will apply. The pressure drop will be experienced by the whole body instantly. The temperature drop will take some time to have an effect, especially to the core of the body.
Therefore things will boil/turn to vapor a lot faster than they will freeze.
“a cloud of very fine crystals of frozen urine”
Known , I believe as the constellation Urion.
@Gordon Robertson
>>So, if you hold enough ice close to 1 square metre of your skin, it should warm your skin.
It does warm you skin. I screens the cold outer space which is at -270*C (which gives off about 5 microwatt per square metre of energy) and thus keeps your skin warmer than it would otherwise be.
>>Try standing naked in an ice house, with your boots on so heat won’t escape quickly through your feet, and see how much you warm.
my clothes warm me even more, why would I take them off?
>>On the other hand, if you stand close to a small enough quantity of ice, IR radiated from your body will be absorbed by the ice and melt it.
not necessarily. If the ice is thin enough, and it is radiatively exposed to some very cold entity with a very large heat capacity such as the outer space, The ice might never melt, no matter how log you stand next to it
c,
Back to the old “cooling is heating” nonsense, are you?
“Screens the cold outer space . . . “?
What are you babbling about?
There are no “cold rays”, moron.
You also wrote – “If the ice is thin enough, and it is radiatively exposed to some very cold entity with a very large heat capacity such as the outer space, The ice might never melt, no matter how log you stand next to it.”
Outer space has no “heat capacity”. Try as you may, you cannot heat or cool a vacuum – it isn’t there. Like the Greenhouse Theory, you can’t produce it. It doesn’t exist!
Which do you need to learn first – English expression, or physics?
@swenson
firstly id akse you to write my full nickname otherwise i cannot guarantee i will even read your reply if one can call that nonsense that your bot-script generates a reply
secondly, english is not my first of second language and i dont pay close attention to the legibility of my writing, if you don’t like it u can go fukc yoursefl. Not that you can, because bots not only lack brains but also lack dicks =)
thirdly, my knowledge of physics is not unlimited and i am quite aware of that. Yours however is at the level of a senior kindergartener at best. You’re uneducated as fukc, or perhaps more precisely, pretend to be one.
c,
I write what I wish. You may ask what you want, and I will disregard your requests if I want.
I don’t care whether you read or don’t read comments. That’s up to you – nothing to do with me, is it?
Likewise, if you choose not to pay close attention to the legibility of your writing, others might assume that you are sloppy, lazy, or merely incompetent. Once again, up to you.
As to your assessment of my knowledge of physics, others can make up their own minds. They may choose to agree with you, or they may not. Why should I care either way?
.
Swenson has a very poor knowledge of science and the scientific method. That can be clearly seen in what he writes.
@rlh
all four of them would basically and easily fail junior high science. I’m not sure if they are like that because they are incapable of learning, or because that would go against their skydragon slayer religion. I used to think the latter were the case, but I’m not sure anymore…
Does anyone know of any source discussing what would happen to climate if axial tilt was changed by two or three degrees? Perhaps little ice age?
https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/2949/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/
https://www.livescience.com/64813-milankovitch-cycles.html
“varies between 21.5 and 24.5 degrees.”
“Today, the Earth is tilted 23.5 degrees, and slowly decreasing,”
Or we heading toward glaciation period, it will take a while.
We didn’t reach the axial tilt’s half period yet.
A change as drastic as you propose is much harder than a ‘little’ ice age.
Simply take ‘little’ away.
We are in kinda optimum period for all three Milankovitch cycles.
Another good web site:
https://geol105.sitehost.iu.edu/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm
I get that its wild speculation with no evidence.
But how would anyone know if the tilt changed by a degree or so for a hundred years and then returned to its former position? There are some suggestions about magnetic excursions causing exactly that outcome.
Yeah, people have known where to find Polaris but how would the naked eye determine a position shift of a degree or so without telescopes not yet invented?
There are articles suggesting axial tilt is changing due to melting ice attributed to global warming. What if the actual sequence was tilt, then melt, then global warming? That would put paid to CO2 AGW hypothesis as a basis for climate change.
Here is interesting paper. When I first saw this it seems outlandishly impossible. But thinking about how a top spins leads me to reconsider. https://www.longdom.org/open-access/four-periodical-natural-big-disasters-of-the-planet-earth-during-each-precession-cycle-caused-by-its-motion-new-theory-2167-0587.1000102.pdf
” … wild speculation with no evidence. ”
So?
Ken, who isn’t even able to accept the absolute evidence that rounding a change of 0.005 C up to 0.01 C does not make the change from 0.14 C down to 0.13 C in any way significant, dares to speak about ‘wild speculation’.
Yeah.
Thanks for your enlightening pseudoskepticism (but your are only one of many here who doubt about everything that does not match their egocentric narrative).
Sailors have been using the Pole Star for navigation for at least 2000 years. If the Earth’s axis tilt changed by 1 degree suddenly it would show.
The Arabs sailed South from the Arabian peninsula using a kamal to measure the altitude of the Pole Star. When they reached the latitude of their destination in India they turned West and followed the line of latitude to their destination.
They would certainly have noticed if they started to arrive in India 60 miles off course.
I would be surprised that sailors had that much accuracy before sextants equipped with optics were possible.
West Coast of Vancouver Island is known as the graveyard of the Pacific. Sailors would deliberately sail to miss so that when they arrived at the west coast they knew to turn North. Unfortunate sailors would get fogbound and sail north till they crashed onto Vancouver Island when they missed the turn into Juan de Fuca Strait. This was after the availability of a sextant.
You should try using a sextant on a boat in active water.
>>Sailors have been using the Pole Star for navigation for at least 2000 years. If the Earth’s axis tilt changed by 1 degree suddenly it would show.
except that 2000 years ago the polaris was nowhere near the north pole (unless you count ~10 degrees away as “near”). Nt saying that it (or any other nearby star) could not have been used for navigation, but it most certainly was more complicated than looking straight at the polaris and knowing where the pole was. And that was all without tilt changing, just due to precession =)
Have you ever read Wally Broecker’s Glacial Cycles, starting on page 167 of the Geochemical Perspectives October 2018 issue? See it here: https://www.geochemicalperspectives.org/wp-content/uploads/v7n2.pdf
He also wrote an earlier (shorter) article for Scientific American in 1990 titled What Drives Glacial Cycles?. See it here: http://www.as.wvu.edu/biology/bio463/Broecker%20and%20Denton%201990.pdf
nobody knows that, only speculations exist
All science is speculation, but some speculations are better supported by evidence than others.
i would dispute your definition of science, but i basically agree. And there is not that much of high quality evidence to support the assertions in either direction, about the quality of earthly climate at the tilt values much different from the our current one. I mean, there are 9 bodies in our solar system with ‘meteorologically-active’ atmospheres, but they all are waay to different from the earth and not just with respect to tilt to draw some very specific conclusions from that data.
You may not get extreme tilt angles. The presence of a large moon stabilises Earth’s axis tilt within a band about 3 degrees wide.
https://www.nature.com/articles/361615a0
You can make reasonable estimates.
If the Earth’s axis tilted 90 degrees it would bring permanent darkness to each pole for several months each year. We already see that, with temperatures in the Arctic and Antarctic reaching -50C.The
In Summer you would have 24 hours of daylight with the Sun almost overhead for months at a time. Already desert sites such as Death Valley reach 50C, and land temperatures at the poles would certainly exceed that.
Intermediate latitudes would alternate between continuous daylight, a day/night cycle and continuous darkness over a year, with the Sun directly overhead twice a year at the Equator.
Expect a much larger temperature range at all latitudes. Since anything over 35C wet bulb kills us, we might have to migrate to stay in liveable temperatures.
Until I looked at the check which said $5381, I be certain that my best friend like they say really bringing in money in there spare time from their computer.. there mums best friend started doing this for under 10 months and just now cleared the morgage on their apartment and purchased a new Alfa Romeo.
visit this web-site… http://workpay1.blogspot.com/
Super Bowl LVI. Rams -4
maguff…”The National Weather Service made a historic announcement for the weekend. Meteorologists issued an excessive heat advisory ”
***
Two points…
1)La Nina causes these issues. It produces excessive rain in the Pacific Northwest and droughts in SoCal and Texas. This time, the heat dome produced is pushing north and blocking rain from the Pacific NW. This heat comes from elsewhere on the Pacific Ocean not from trace gases.
2)There is no way trace gases in the atmosphere could cause a sudden rise in temperature of 10 degrees. We’ve only had 1C warming over 170 years, yet alarmists are blaming everything from heat waves to cold weather on these trace gases.
The longest stretch of heat waves ever encountered in North America occurred during the 1930s, long before global warming was considered.
Temperatures today in Vancouver, BC are 12 C, a welcome respite from our brutal winter (for these parts of Canada). However, during the following week they will drop back to a more traditional 7C – 8C during the day then 3C – 6C at night.
No heat wave up here in Canada.
kek, good for them . Cold is bad. The relatisnship between the temperature and the goodness of the climate is IMO similar to the relationship between the aoa of the plane’s wings and the lifting force. The higher the aoa is the higher the lift which is good, but only to a point. Its a threshold relationship – the effect being benefitious and desirable up to some point where it abruptly changes to deleterious. Where is that threshold with respect to the local climate? judging by the fact how many people live in places like india, indonesia and the southern china, where the mean warm-month temperatures approaches and sometimes breaches 30*C (303K), i’d say winter warming in culophornia is irrelevant. It’s good for them.
In other news, climate reanalyzer shows that the temprature anomaly as of now is +0.3K in the NH, +0.2K in the world and 0K in tropics with respect to the 1979-2000 baseline, while the world temperatures are less than 1K above the arbitrarily chosen 1960s baseline, and more like 0.7K if judged from graph at the top of the page.
How can you then possibly in all seriousness attribute the allegedly horrible 20-25F (11-14K) of local extreme to the 0.7K of the global warming? even if one assigns all the warming to the landmasses coming from the reasonable argument that the oceans are very inertial and can’t keep up with the equilibrium temperatures, then you get the effective land warming not more than the 2-3K. While it is a significant addition, it still is not that much. E.g. with the warming, culophornia is experiencing 11-14K, while without the warming (and all the goodies that came with it, like you know the culture, civilization, and the abundance of food and lack of universal suffering) it would experience 9-12K heat wave. Oh the horror!
oh crp, that comment was directed at @TYSON MCGUFFIN
> judging by the fact how many people live in places like india, indonesia and the southern china
That, in a nutshell, is the problem.
Like trading, AGW is a probability game. It is also zero-sum at best: what Madeira gains, Cap Verde loses. The cities have been chosen by Clive Best, whom could not bring himself to accept the conclusion of celebrating that London will become like Madeira.
I suppose we could argue that it’s a negative-sum game. More people will lose from the effects of AGW than win. Perhaps there’s no need. But then AGW, like trading, is a numbers game too.
Weary Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Like trading, AGW is a probability game. It is also zero-sum at best: what Madeira gains, Cap Verde loses.”
Are you sure about that, or just babbling the contents of your delusions!
So you say, Mike.
So you say.
Whacky Wee Willy,
What was it you imagined I said?
Learn some English comprehension.
Mind you, I did confuse you by using an exclamation point. Ill pay more attention next time.
Nice gotcha, Mike.
Willard, please stop trolling.
A little chilly in the northern and eastern US.
https://i.ibb.co/TWmZZXd/gfs-T2m-us-1.png
Enso chart chart now extended into November , makes look BindidoNino’s ” La Nina gone by April ” forecast even better
https://i.postimg.cc/sDN7J1kW/Bindido-Nino.gif
Confirming that this La Nina will be 12 months or longer.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd2/nino34Mon.gif
Or using later initial data
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
stephen p anderson says:
February 9, 2022 at 7:23 PM
“Heres another question. Suppose Mars was in Earths orbit around the Sun, same atmosphere as it has now, what would its temperature be?”
Thank you, Stefen!
The answer to this question will illustrate the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon complete rightness!
The measured Mars’ mean surface temperature at the actual Mars’ distance from sun
R.mars = 1,524AU is Tmean.1,524AU =210K
R = 1AU is the Earth’s orbit distance from the sun in AU (astronomical units)
Let’s apply the inverse square law
(1/R) = (1/1,524) = 1/2,32
Mars has 2,32 times less solar irradiation intensity than Earth has
Let’s calculate using the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law 4 power. When estimating the emission temperature the 4th root of the emission intensity should be applied.
Thus, by analogue, Mars at the earth’s orbit being irradiated 2,32 times higher, should have (2,32)∕ ⁴ times higher the mean surface temperature, than on its actual orbit of R.mars=1,524AU, but with the same rotational spin…
Mars performs 1 rotation every 24,622 hours or 0,9747 rot/day.
Thus:
(2,32)∕ ⁴= 1,23416
And:
Tmean.mars.1AU = 1,23416*Tmean.mars.1,524AU =
= 1,23416*210K = 259,17K or rounded 259K
Conclusion:
Mars at earth’s orbit would have Tmean.mars =259K.
When comparing with the measured moon’s, because Moon also orbits sun at earth’s distance, and Moon having a lower than Mars Albedo (a.moon =0,11; a.mars =0,250), thus Moon at earth’s orbit being more intensively irradiated
Moon/Mars = (1-0,11)So /(1-0,250)So = 0,89/0,75 = 1,187 times Moon is more intensively irradiated, and the measured
Tmean.moon =220K
It is a solid prove of the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
The higher Mars’ average surface temperature at Earth’s orbit than Moon’s, the 258K vs 220K, and
the huge and undisputable difference of
259K -220K =Δ39C
can be explained only by the Mars’ rotational spin being
28,783 times faster than that of Moon’s.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
” … can be explained only by Mars’ rotational spin being
28.783 times faster than that of Moon. ”
*
Oh look!
Suddenly, Moon has a spin again.
But since Vournas is doing his very best to negate the Greenhouse effect, Robertson, Clint R, Flynnson, the pseudo moderator and a few others won’t take much offense at his appalling heresy.
By the way, ‘rotational spin’ clearly is a pleonasm.
What brings me to the idea that Vournas could in future write ‘translational spin’ instead, he he :- )
This tedious balancing act might well appeal to the Moon spin deniers, who knows!
I suggest the term ‘spinaceous forward motion’
“Conclusion:
Mars at earth’s orbit would have Tmean.mars =259K.”
Would it tilted to Earth or tilted to Sun?
Or long is winter?
Our Moon is about 1/81th the mass of Earth. About Nine Moons makes a Mars, and nine Mars makes an Earth.
If Earth was orbiting Mars at 400,000 km distance, how warm would Earth and Mars be?
Would both have plate tectonic activity.
This would twin planets.
I don’t we have found true twin planets, yet.
The Moon and Earth kind of, sort of twin planets, but Mars and Earth would certainly count as twin planets.
And Earth’s barycenter should about 9 times further from the center
of Earth.
And Mars orbit faster at lunar distance.
Geostationary orbits would be weird- everything would be weird.
Probably, impossible.
Until I looked at the check which said $5381, I be certain that my best friend like they say really bringing in money in there spare time from their computer.. there mums best friend started doing this for under 10 months and just now cleared the morgage on their apartment and purchased a new Alfa Romeo.
visit this web-site… https://workpay1.blogspot.com/
An SST animation for NINO 1+2, 3+4
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/sstanim.gif
Wait and see…
Thanks for the wait and see forecast , Everyone can now prepare accordingly
If you are unable to interpret what the animation indicates, then you are even less clever than I thought.
Well NOAA seems to think the 12 months or longer La Nina is possible at least.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
It means you just extend the line upwards and La Nina is gone by April
https://i.postimg.cc/sDN7J1kW/Bindido-Nino.gif
Perfect way to make forecast , it worked great for you the last time predicting no second La Nina remember ???
https://i.postimg.cc/tTdNYJxn/w2nino34-Mon.gif
It is not necessary to bore with always the same chart, I have seen enough of it.
*
From this NOAA ENSO page
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.shtml
I read:
Synopsis: La Niña is likely to continue into the Northern Hemisphere spring (77% chance during March-May 2022) and then transition to ENSO-neutral (56% chance during May-July 2022).
Frogs love to say:
” Il est toujours mauvais de vouloir apparaître plus papiste que le pape. “
Why don’t you interpret that animation for me , you are so smart I want to hear it from you.
Why should I help a person insulting me with disgusting words like ‘Binditler’ ?
Do your job, Eben, if you are able to.
Because your big zshit talk is just shooting blanks
Eben,
Better watch yourself, laddie.
Binny has been furiously polishing his jackboots and riding crop to a dazzling shine.
He wants to see you dying in agony from COVID 19, but he will no doubt organise something else for you if you are swinish enough to resist catching COVID 19.
It’s a positive blessing that morons like Binny are completely powerless and impotent when it comes to inflicting pain on others.
I must admit I prefer laughing to crying, which would no doubt be the result if Binny had any choice in the matter.
As you can see, Eben, my forecast of your aggressiveness as a result of your inability to understand simplest matters was perfect.
https://imgur.com/a/zQnw1LA
“The CFSv2 ensemble mean (black dashed line) predicts La Nina to continue into autumn 2022”
Oooh! Oooooh! A black line making a prediction!
Who let the climate scientist out?
Quick – after him before he does someone serious harm!
The CFSv2 ensemble mean
Ooooh! Oooooh! The CFSv2 ensemble mean is making a prediction!
Who let the climate scientist out?
Quick – after him before he does someone serious harm!
You are an idiot. No prediction required.
coturnix…”yeah, but slowing the cooling may lead to raising the temperature, therefore may mean heating and under the conditions where GHE is relevant, it DOES. Therefore, in the context of of the GHE slowing the cooling IS heating”.
***
We have been through this before with Swannie’s experiments based on Eli Rabbett’s stupid green plate – blue plate analogy to the Earth’s surface/atmosphere.
Heat dissipation leads to a loss of heat, and unless that heat is replaced, the radiating body losing the heat will continue to cool. The rate at which it cools is dependent on the rate of heat dissipation.
There is no way to raise temperature by slowing heat dissipation, unless there is a means of replacing the heat loss.
In the past, I gave an analogy of a power transistor running with a certain current. Transistors are rated in part on their temperature in free air with a certain current running through them. That means no heat sink attached, no external means of cooling, and operating at a certain room temperature.
Say the power transistor is operating at 5 amps with no other means of heat dissipation other than conduction to free air and subsequent natural convection. There is heat conduction to the mounting surface, normally a circuit board or a metal chassis.
Therefore, at totally ambient conditions, the transistor has a known MAXIMUM temperature. If you now add a heat sink, a device with fins on it that increases the surface area from which heat can be dissipated, the temperature of the transistor drops. If you blow significant air on it with a fan, the temperature will drop even more. If you move the transistor to a cooler room, the temperature drops even more.
The temperature drops because you are increasing the rate of heat dissipation even though you are replenishing the heat by external means.
Say the maximum temperature under the described ambient conditions is 100C with a room temperature of 20C. Adding a heat sink and a cooling fan may drop that Tmax to 60C. So, you have the transistor running at 60C. If you turn the fan off, the transistor temperature rises toward its maximum temperature of 100C. If you remove the heat sink, the temperature will rise to a maximum of 100C.
That is not classified as warming since the transistor was already cooled with a heat sink and a fan. The transistor is only returning to it normal temperature without a heat sink and a fan.
The transistor will not rise in temperature above 100C unless you increase the current through it and/or increase the room temperature.
To repeat, there is no way to increase the temperature of a body by affecting its rate of heat dissipation. The notion that trace gases in the atmosphere have caused the surface to warm by slowing its rate of heat dissipation is scientifically wrong.
“there is no way to increase the temperature of a body by affecting its rate of heat dissipation”
A blanket on my bed proves you are wrong.
rlh…”there is no way to increase the temperature of a body by affecting its rate of heat dissipation
A blanket on my bed proves you are wrong”.
***
Your body temperature is regulated to 98.6F or 37C. Using a blanket will not increase your body temperature.
Room temperature is typically 20C, which is 17C cooler than your body temperature. If you lie without a blanket, your body will cool eventually as it transfers heat to the room. However, your body has a mechanism to produce more heat to offset the loss.
Using a blanket will only slow down the dissipation of heat, it will not increase your body temperature. Of course, if you are chilled, and your body temperature drops slightly, using a blanket will slow down heat dissipation and allow your body to increase the heat content in your body.
Over time, without replenishing the fuel in your body, and with a room temperature of 20C, your body will continue to cool till you are in hypothermia.
When you arise in the morning, your body temperature is actually lower, despite using blankets. You may feel warm but that’s because the blanket prevents heat loss by convection as well as conduction. When you take off the blankets to get up, you often feel a chill, depending on room temperature.
If you have an object that cannot replenish lost heat, like a soccer ball, and you warm it to body temperature then cover it with a blanket, it will slowly drop back to room temperature despite being covered.
There is no way around this Richard, it is the 2nd law in action. A blanket cannot produce heat unless it is an electric blanket that can supply externally-produced heat.
“Your body temperature is regulated to 98.6F or 37C. Using a blanket will not increase your body temperature”
Tell that to my extremities when the heating goes off. A blanket helps to keep me warmer at night. Proven fact.
I saw the same sort of misunderstanding in the discussions on World Trade Center where the claim was that jet fuel couldn’t possibly burn hot enough to melt steel.
That view point is a failure to understand heat. If you burn energy faster than the heat can be dissipated then the overall temperature is going to rise well above the temperature at which the fuel burns in a laboratory.
Obviously the steel melted.
Just as obviously, if you put too many blankets around a body the temperature will rise higher than the body under the blanket. I think it would be a difficult experiment because the body would sweat and the evaporation would cool the system until the body is dehydrated, overheats, and thereby stops producing heat.
Perhaps you might try going to a school where they train firefighters. You will learn respect for heat sources.
RLH,
Pointless and irrelevant blanket analogies again, not to mention poor English expression!
A blanket “proves” nobody wrong. Blankets are inert. That is nearly as stupid as writing “The science says . . .”. It doesn’t. it cannot.
Blankets are insulators, and as such are used by people to reduce the rate of heat transfer both ways, for example to try to avoid feeling too hot, or to avoid feeling too cold.
Luckily for us, the Earth feels nothing, and its surface, in the absence of an external heat source like the Sun, or people burning fossil fuels, would be about 35 K (according to measurements of heat loss going back to Baron Fourier at least).
Sunlight is indubitably a good thing for humans.
Now for those morons who perform bizarre mental contortions of the style which insists that external heat from the Sun is the same as internally generated heat due to the miracle of “climate science”, I suggest that placing a thermometer in the Sun (it will be OK, if it reads to 100 C), waiting a while, and then throwing a blanket over the heated thermometer, will result in a lowering of temperature, not an increase.
The Earth’s atmosphere acts a very thin “blanket”, only blocking about 35% of incoming insolation, and retarding the rate of cooling to the point where air temperatures only vary by 60 C or so in any 24 hour period due to radiative cooling.
Blankets, pot lids, assuming the Earth has heated to its present temperature, snowball Earth, faints young Sun – all delusion.
Learn some physics.
“Blankets are insulators”
CO2 is an insulator which varies in effect with the wavelength of EMF passing through it.
Just because I think that too much reliance is placed on the measurements and statistics that are used to ‘prove’ this fact applied across the whole globe, does not mean I don’t agree with that basic principle.
RLH,
I agree about CO2, or any insulator, come to that.
Given that the insulator is between the Sun and us, it is certainly not going to increase our temperature, is it?
No insulation can prevent cooling (or heating).
Climate crackpots believe in magic insulators, apparently, which let more energy in than they let out – but only in one direction. As well, the magic insulator lets all the energy out, regardless of wavelength, in the absence of sunlight – and the surface cools.
Ordinary people call it day and night. Clear as.
“Given that the insulator is between the Sun and us, it is certainly not going to increase our temperature, is it?”
You missed the point about varies with wavelength. Higher temperatures (like the Sun) are in a different bandwidth to lower temperatures (like the Earth).
So it is the differential that matters.
“Given that the insulator is between the Sun and us”
And he always leaves out the inconvenient fact that the insulator is also between the cold of space and us.
That’s how we recognize dimwits trolling.
Nate indicts himself as a dimwit by thinking that his obvious, irrelevant, and obfuscatory fact has any bearing on the real inconvenient facts that the sun is the source of warming and that more CO2 does not cause more global warming.
CO2 does cause global warming. The real question is ‘how much’?
RLH,
Without data to prove your claim, your question is irrelevant. The null hypothesis stands.
“irrelevant, and obfuscatory fact”
Quite relevant if you neglect it, as our troll Swenson always does.
Are you just a crank, or do you have an actual scientific basis for your claim “that more CO2 does not cause more global warming.”??
Nate,
The best argument for the inability to prove a negative is to point out that the burden of proof is on you to disprove the null hypothesis. So I repeat, where is the data showing that an increase in CO2 has and will cause an increase in global temperatures?
“facts that the sun is the source of warming and that more CO2 does not cause more global warming.”
You said it was a fact. This expresses your certainty.
I asked for the science basis of this.
Obviously you have none to offer.
You used to be a skeptic. Now it looks like you’ve been seduced by the dark side of skepticism.
The denier side.
The troll side.
I refuse to believe predictions about CO2 raising global temperatures 1.5 to 4.5 degrees without some empirical evidence. That seems like a reasonable justification for skepticism. It’s a pin-the-tail-on-the-dockey guess for some and a prayer for climate modelers.
Would it help if I modified my statement to be that it is my opinion that more CO2 does not cause more global warming? Do I know of any definitive evidence falsifying that null hypothesis? No. How can I be a denier of any claims based on unverified models and wishful thinking? I think that qualifies me as being a realistic skeptic.
I had to laugh at your “troll side” insinuation.
Wikipedia: “In internet slang, a troll is a person who posts inflammatory, insincere, digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses, or manipulating others’ perception.”
I try to limit my comments on this blog to clarifying my understanding of the issues by asking people to defend their positions on them. However, nobody irritates me more than you do, so I’m not always virtuous.
Gordon,
Think of it the other way around.
Say you have a circuit board with 2 processor chips and one has a heat sink and one doesn’t.
Same current through both, which one is hotter?
haha, I think I’ll speak for all the so-called skeptics here: it is obvius that the one with heatsink will be cooler that the one without because convection cool the surface; but at the same time the one without the heatsink will not be hotter than the one with heatsink because you can’t boil water with ice-cubes. Simple!
c,
Works in a vacuum, too. No convection needed.
Unfortunately for the climate crackpots, turning off the internal heat source by removing the power supply results in a situation analogous to that of the externally heated Earth.
That is, whether with or without heat sink, both devices reach exactly the same temperature.
You can’t even heat the smallest quantity of water with the heat energy contained in all the ice on Earth!
Simple, but apparently too complicated for morons.
@swenson or clint r
and i can only re-state the obvious truth that you are arguing with strawman windmills of your own inflamed imagination. No real scientists or even warmist ever anywhere, even the most fervent believers in the catastrophe of the imminent and unavoidable runaway greenhouse ever claimed what you are attributing to them. You made up some flaming pile of sh~t in that cellpool that you call your mind, then you ‘disprove’ that steaming pile of sh~t and declare yourse’f a winner. You’re a liar and an idiot.
C,
You wrote –
“No real scientists or even warmist ever anywhere, even the most fervent believers in the catastrophe of the imminent and unavoidable runaway greenhouse ever claimed what you are attributing to them.”
That’s a bit of a problem, isn’t it? What do you think they claim?
What is it that you believe I am attributing? Maybe you could quote me, but I don’t think you will.
I’m just pointing out the obvious. Nobody has produced a description of the GHE, where it may be observed, measured, and documented. Without this basic step, babbling about a non-existent Greenhouse Theory is just delusional nonsense.
By the way, I assume you meant to write “cesspool” rather than “cellpool”, but it is possible that “cellpool” is just another climate crackpot redefinition – just like redefining “slower cooling” to mean “rising temperature”.
Off you go, now. Try and dig up the Greenhouse Theory. I bet you can’t, so it should be easy for you to show that I would lose such a bet!
Swenson,
You are just lying.
“Im just pointing out the obvious. Nobody has produced a description of the GHE, where it may be observed, measured, and documented. Without this basic step, babbling about a non-existent Greenhouse Theory is just delusional nonsense.”
Either you are nobody, actually a decent hypothesis, or a liar, as you have described where the greenhouse effect can be observed.
When you told us that tropical deserts cool faster at night.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
rlh…”P.S. Higher pressure under the lid would mean that the boiling point of water is higher not lower. See steam engines”.
***
Not talking about the boiling point of water, talking about the gas pressure of water vapour. When you put the lid on the pot, the gas pressure increases therefore the temperature increases.
The temperature of water is limited to 100C and you can stop it boiling over by limiting the heat applied or the level of the water in the pot. However, the gas pressure is insignificant since it can escape easily without the lid.
When you put the lid on, the gas pressure rises and so does the gas temperature. Since the temperature of steam is higher than the water temperature it will transfer heat into the water, causing it to boil harder.
A pressure cooker locks the lid in place and has a small vent to release excess pressure. The principle is that the steam pressure increases, raising the steam pressure, and that cooks food in a fraction of the time as a normal open pot.
The steam engine is based on a similar principle.
Higher pressures mean higher temperatures for water to boil. You can get the same effect on boiling in any case where the lid is left on with a crack open so that no higher pressure results. Try it and see.
P.S. Pressure cookers raise the overall temperature/boiling point which raises the cooking temperature. See above.
Idiot.
Correction:
Astronomers now say the rocket about to strike the Moon is not a Falcon 9
It’s probable that the impact object comes from a Chinese rocket launched in 2014.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/02/actually-a-falcon-9-rocket-is-not-going-to-hit-the-moon/
Linked from: http://www.transterrestrial.com/
Two 100 meter cubed ice cube on the Moon, would make the Moon
warmer. A million 100 meter cubed ice cubes would be global warming.
terraforming moon would be sweet! Unfortunately, that’s really pointless long term as moon is too weak to hold on to an atmosphere on a geological timescales. It’d probably lose most of it within a few thousand to tens f thousands of years. long enough for humans to enjoy the climate and do experiments though, but such a waste of precious space water. there is also a risk that it will switch straight to the runaway greenhouse due to its lower gravity.
c,
You wrote –
“. . . there is also a risk that it will switch straight to the runaway greenhouse due to its lower gravity.”
Really? Good thing it hasn’t happened on Earth in the last four and a half billion years!
At a current heating rate of even 0.1 C per decade, that’s 1 C per century. Dang! All the seas will have boiled away after 10,000 years! Is that what you mean by “runaway greenhouse”? Postponed due to higher gravity on Earth?
You need a new tinfoil hat – your present one hasn’t stopped aliens injecting strange fantasies into your skull.
Carry on.
Until I looked at the check which said $5381, I be certain that my best friend like they say really bringing in money in there spare time from their computer.. there mums best friend started doing this for under 10 months and just now cleared the morgage on their apartment and purchased a new Alfa Romeo.
visit this web-site… http://workpay1.blogspot.com/
>>Really? Good thing it hasnt happened on Earth in the last four and a half billion years!
Do you also believe in the changing gravity or the expanding earth?
>>Is that what you mean by runaway greenhouse?
no.
>>Postponed due to higher gravity on Earth?
Higher gravity means smaller scale height of the atmosphere, and hence smaller volume of the atmosphere. Because the water vapor reaches saturation based on volume and not on the mass, proportionally lower gravity has the potential capability to hold proportionally more water vapor for the same thermal structure of the atmosphere. In the lunar case, obviously that would be 6 times more wv which is alot. And water vapor in the primary greenhouse gas even here on earth, and the only one capable of inducing the runaway greenhouse within the typical earthly range of temperatures. In practice other factors are also important hence i wrote about ‘risk’ meaning ‘chance’ epistemlogically speaking. There are scientific speculations that so much lower gravity on the moon might be enough to make the RWY-GHE on the moon actually possible where on earth mamy if not most models afaik conclude is not quite possible yet, not with the current levels of insolation. Need brighter sun =)
hmmm, I wonder if I am the only real climate skeptic on this message board? i somehow started feeling that lately. I guess I am.
c,
You wrote –
“I wonder if I am the only real climate skeptic . . . “.
One minor question. What is a “climate skeptic”?
Climate is the statistics of weather. What are you “skeptical” about?
Don’t you accept that weather is ever changing?
Strange delusional laddie you are, if that’s the case!
Carry on.
“A skeptic will question claims, then embrace the evidence. A denier will question claims, then reject the evidence.”
Neil de Grasse Tyson
Anyone with a scientific education is a sceptic. It goes with the training. That would include most of the warmists here.
Other sceptics include yourself, RLH, Ken and Dr Spencer.
I would classify ClintR, Gordon Robertson and Swenson as deniers.
Ent, before you start “classifying” people, you need some credibility.
You have NONE, since claiming passenger jets fly backwards, among other bogus claims.
Clit R is just a troll. Ignore him.
uhm, on’t know, by that definition I still feel more like a denier, just not quite as insane as the ‘big four’ here. Also, dr. spencer, while is a climate skeptic, doesn’t actively participate in the discussion under his blog-posts any more, wonder why, that’s why i would not count him is as being ‘on this message board’
Earlier, coturnix wrote –
“haha, yes, and yet the earth is, even with such a large screening of the sunlight, much warmer than the moon which is both much darker and gets the full 1367wm-2 of solar radiation at its surface, instead f the meager 1000wm-2 the earthly sea-level surface gets even on the very clear day. That fact makes GHE even more necessary and in your face obvious.”
Unfortunately, for coturnix and his ilk, he has to convince himself and others that the maximum temperature on the Moon’s surface due to sunlight, (after same exposure time), of 127 C or so, is actually less than the maximum surface temperature on the Earth due to sunlight of less than 95 C.
As well, he would have to explain why 1000 wm-2 from the Sun makes a thermometer hotter than 1366 wm-2 from the Sun. Apart from invoking the magic of a non-existent Greenhouse Effect, of course. He could always resort to that other standby of climate pseudoscientists – the average – which of course is whatever he says it is!
Or he just accept reality, and admit that Gavin Schmidt is not actually a scientist of any sort (he’s an undistinguished mathematician), and that Michael Mann did not win the Nobel Prize he claimed in court documents, and is actually a fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat.
The chances of a climate crackpot like coturnix accepting reality are somewhere between zero and nothing, I estimate. Of course, I might be wrong.
Gavin says 13 Feb 2022 at 1:12 PM
The use of sockpuppets in any form is not allowed here. People using the same IP address to post under multiple names will have all their comments removed with no warning or appeal.
>>>convince himself and others that the maximum temperature on the Moons surface due to sunlight, (after same exposure time), of 127 C or so, is actually less than the maximum surface temperature on the Earth due to sunlight of less than 95 C.
<<<
in this little passage alone you lied 3 (three!) times!!! you losing it, man.. eeer, i mean, bot. Unless it is your goal, to be a lying piece of shift. In which case, ur doing well!
It will get “chilly” in California tomorrow night.
https://i.ibb.co/gFQySmZ/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f060.png
ren…”It will get “chilly” in California tomorrow night”.
***
That’s weird. They were supposed to have a record heat wave today and now they’re having chilly weather tomorrow.
CO2 has magical properties.
That damn Arctic cold reaching lower latitudes.
TM,
Any warming is of course due to human activities involving energy production and use.
There is no GHE. You cannot even describe where this mythical “effect” can be observed, measured, and documented, can you?
Or do you believe that increased heat production has no effect on thermometers?
Do the sums.
Humanity releases about 10^15 Joules/year.
The land/ocean/ice/atmosphere are gaining 3*10^21 Joules/year.
Ent, you’ve tried this nonsense before. The Greenland ice sheet emits about 18*10^21 Joules/year.
What’s your point? Are you just trying to scare yourself again?
Boo!
Silly ClintR.
Didn’t know the difference between gross and net.
Ent doesn’t know the difference between facts and fear.
Separating Clint R from being an idiot is not possible.
>>Do the sums.
did you? if you did, u made a significant mistake, somewhere somehow.
>>Humanity releases about 10^15 Joules/year.
That’s waaay to low of an estimate, by many orders of magnitude!
first, let Rearth=Rearth=6.3781*1e6m
Searth=4*pi*Rearth**2=5.11e14 m2
let’s do three different estimates;
1) the energy dissipation by humans *alone*, eg from the food we eat.
let us have npeople=7.5e9 and let the average person eat 2000kkal/day=2e3*4.2e3=8.4e6J/day=97watt. Lets round that up to a 100 watt. Then we have Whumannual=7.5e9*100*86400*365=2.37e+19 J/year.
Yep, that’s 4 orders of magnitude, eg ten thousands times, larger number ye giveth. And that’s just the food we eat. Indeed the food we eat et its energy from the sun, so it doesn’t affect the energy balance, just shifts the energy dissipation towards the cities contributing to the UHIE. To appreciate that energy flux, we can represent that number in two different ways.
First, lets relate it to the surface area of the earth. Whas=2.37e+19/5.11e14=4.64e4=46kj per square meter per yera, or going back to seconds, 4.64e4/(86400*365)=1.47e-3 watt/m2.~=1.5 milliwatts/m2. For the reference, the heat flow from the earth is estimated on from 65 to 100 milliwatts/m2. Haha, I knew that humans are numerous, but at this point even I got surprized ^*-*^, lmao. Now I do tend to believe in the conspiracy theory that the actual number of people in the world might be much lower than the governments tell us, it’s a socialist thing. But even in the most conspiratorial scenario it is higly not likely that those numbers are inflated by more than the factor 2, so the order of magnitude of the estimate hold in any case.
Secondly, lets relate that number to the gigatonns of carbon equivalent. Once again, it is not material to the balannce as all the food carbon comes from the atmosphere anyways. First, let’s notice that the typical heat of combustion of the hydrocarbons is around 40MJ/kg (which is actually 9.5kcal/g, close to the proverbial 9kcal of fatty foods). Or.. no, better start from the food calories numbers. lets assume tha all the food we eat is hydrocarbons, eg fat. very big simplification, I know. 2000kkal/day giveth 2000/9.5=210g/day, or _*12/14=180 gramm of c-equivalent per person per day. So now we do .18*7.5e9*365/1e12=0.49 GtC/Y – basically, half a gigatonne of carbon. Yes, tiss all a natural carbon, coming from the air to begin with but still, it is more than the estimated current rate of the solid earth co2 degassation at 0.1GtC/Y and 0.2 GtC/Y attributed to the aviation. make you think, donnit?
(part two to be continued)
EM,
Accept reality. Increased heat output from burning fossil fuels causes thermometers to get hotter. No nonsensical “calculations” based on wishful thinking needed.
Don’t forget that anything hotter than its surroundings emits radiation until it achieves equilibrium with its surrounding environment – if it is possible. There is no point on the Earth exposed to sunlight which maintains a constant temperature. The Earth rotates, so each point on the Earth is subjected to constantly varying radiation.
If you want to disagree with my comment, why not provide some facts to back your opinion up, rather than running away into someone’s fantasy?
Is it because you have nothing except your faith to depend on?
now, for the part two
2)
hereby, we will discuss the humans contribution to the energy balance from the industrial activity. This thing is actually easier to get from the official statistics. I googled wikipedia, but the article was way too confusin but it referred me to https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tables?country=WORLD&energy=Balances&year=2018
in there, you can see that the total humanity extracorporeal energy consumption is given as approx 605.2 millions of terajoules, or 6.052e20 J/year. Not all of that is carbon burning, so summing up all, coll and gas we get 4.925e20J/year. Of, lets thow-in the nucular because it is not a natural part of sola energy balance, and we get 5.22e20J/year. And what waas your number? 3e15? haha, that’s like 5 orders of magnitude less, that’s not even comparable, that’s like the mass of a mouse relative to the mass of a rhinoceros. Haha, haha.
Now, let’s do what I done before and put this number into perspective. First, we take yours second number to be sure if you got at least tha one right =) So we get Wex=3e21 J/y. Now, Wex/Searth/(86400*365)=0.19wm-2 .hmm, pretty large but seems legit, definitely something we’d expect from the excess GHGs by the order of magnitude. Let’s believe it. let’s do the same for the humankind extracorporeal direct energy production [=hdeep]. We get 5.22e20/Searth(86400*365)=3.2e-2=32milliwatt/m2=0.032wm-2. Now, that is actually pretty close to the geothermal heat flux, which is only between 2 and 3 times larger depending on where you measure. And, if we compare HDEEP to the co2 heating, we get 5.22e20/3e21=0.17=3.2e~-2/19e-2. In other way, the HDEEP contribution to the (estimated? measured?) earth energy imbalance is as much as 17% of the total imbalance. If that number is the total measured and as usual the HDEEP contribution was conviniently “forgotten” to boost up the numbers, it means that the actual imbalance due to the co2 is only 83% of the 0.19wm-2, or the HDEEP contribution to the imbalance in that case would be 3.2/(19-3.2)=20%. Still not not dominating BUT much larger than most people imagine it to be, innit?
3)
Parth three, it will be short. I Wanna return to the estimate from the part one, here it is:
humankindfoodenegryconsumption=1.47e-3 wm-2. What about it? oh nothing, except that it all comes from the photosynthesis and photosynthesis, after all the steps are taken into account is not very efficient, typically delivering something like 2% of the incoming solar to the point of our stomachs. Hence, to estimate how much solar is intercepted by the agriculture, we might wanna multiply that number by 50, to get Wsolarfoodintake=7.4e-2 wm-2. now, compare it to the HDEEP of 3.2e-2wm-2 and 19e-2wm-2 of the earth energy imbalance. I’ll also throw in the Wgeothermal=8.6e-2wm-2 [i weighed-in ocens and continents as 60 and 40% respectively] of the geothermal flux (I wonder if they consdered this contribution to the 190 mwatt of the earth energy imbalance? because it they didn’t, that means that the actual GHG imbalance hereby wind up actually being Wimac=(19-8.6-3.2)e-2=72 miliwatt, less than half the stated. Unless of course the stated value is a calculated value, in which case we should add and not subtract.
ok, do it again, but this time in a table form:
the great table of the energy inbalances of the out spheret (the term ‘planet’, would you agree, is a vestige from the flat earth days):
Human Kind Enegry Consumption, in 10^-2 watt*m-2
-> directly through food =| 0.147
-> through machines and fire =| 3.2
-> through co2 the extra shielding =| >7.2, estimated natural geothermal flux =| 8.6
-> trough the intercepted solar flux =| 7.4
the point of these numbers? Mayb i’ll take to it later, for now just meditate on them. And on the funny fact that they are all of an approximately the same order of magnitude.
ps. baal damn the autoformatter fo this antiquated blog engine
(i shall try html table and then see what happens)
Energy source10^-2 watts/m2 of the earth surface
directly through food 0.147
through machines and fire3.2
through co2 the extra shielding >7.2, <19
natural geothermal flux8.6
trough the intercepted solar flux 7.4
ok, the table nearly worked but it til looks ugly, oh well.
Energy source: in 10^-2 watts/m2 of the earth surface
directly through food 0.147
through machines and fire 3.2
through co2 the extra shielding >7.2, <19
natural geothermal flux 8.6
trough the intercepted solar flux 7.4
Ok, I found a significant error in my calculation uphere. Since the sign of the energy imbalance due to the extra co2 shielding is negative, which I forgot, that is Wco2es=-19 hW, I definitely should add and not subtract the geothermal and technlogical contributions. Thus 19hW of the planetary imbalance is the minimum not maximum, and should range between -19 hWatt and -30.8 hWatt.
Basically to elucidate, the normal erth, that is in the perfect steady-state balance (probably something impossible to acieve or measure) MUST have an apparent net TOA imbalance of around -8.6h Watt of the outgoing energy (or +8.6hw of ingoing energy) to allow for the emission of the geothermal heat. That same earth but also with the inclusion of the HDEEP would have a net loss of 11.8 hWatt of thermal radiatio to space. If one were to directly measure the TOA imbalance and the result were to be found to be exactly 0, that’d mean that the earth is at that time actually ACCUMULATING heat at the rate of 11.8 hWm-2. And if the actual mesured energy imbalance raw number would be 19hWm-2, that mean that the real one would need to also include the 11.8hWm-2 for a total of 30.8hWm-2. I geuss i really got confused with the signs of the fluxes. oh well.
Since you’re obviously not a reader I’ll try to keep this short. From Archer’s summary:
JEAN-BAPTISTE JOSEPH FOURIER. On the temperatures of the terrestrial sphere and interplanetary space (1827).
The temperature of the Earth is determined by a balance between the rate at which the energy is received and the rate at which the energy is lost.
Emission of infrared radiation is the only means by which a planet loses heat.
The atmosphere has an asymmetric effect on the incoming sunlight and the outgoing infrared.
JOHN TYNDALL. On the a b s o r p t i o n and radiation of heat by gases and vapours, and on the physical connexion of radiation, a b s o r p t i o n, and conduction (1861).
He measured the a b s o r p t i o n of IR by the cool gas, and the emission of IR by the gas when it is heated.
The implication of his study was that most of the greenhouse activity of the atmosphere is due to a few trace gases such as water vapor and carbon dioxide. Tyndall realized that this discovery opened the door to an easy way to change the climate of the Earth through time. Instead of waiting for the entire size or mass of the atmosphere to change, all that needs to change is the concentration of a few trace gases.
SVANTE ARRHENIUS. On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground. (1896).
The Arrhenius paper represents the birth of modern climate science.
He described the water vapor feedback, which about doubles the impact of changing CO2, and the ice albedo feedback, which is largely responsible for the intensified warming in high latitudes.
Arrhenius invented the field of climate modeling, which had never before been done quantitatively for planets with atmospheres. He wrote a model taking into account the radiative energy exchanges between the atmosphere and space, between the atmosphere and the ground, and between the ground and space (owing to transmission of infrared through the atmosphere). His calculations were done in a gridded calculation space, just like modern climate models, all by hand.
And the rest is, as they say, history.
They got things wrong then, and they haven’t been corrected yet.
Very similar to the Moon nonsense, huh?
And don’t forget Exxon’s contribution to the literature of climate science from the 20th century.
Exxon Research and Engineering Company. CO2 Greenhouse Effect (November 12, 1982)
Atmospheric monitoring programs show the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased about 8% over the last twenty-five years and now stands at about 340 ppm. This observed increase is believed to be the continuation of a trend which began in the middle of the last century with the start of the Industrial Revolution.
[…]
The carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is of concern since it can affect global climate. Carbon dioxide and other trace gases contained in the atmosphere such as water vapor, ozone, methane, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, etc. absorb part of the infrared rays reradiated by the earth. This increase in absorbed energy warms the atmosphere inducing warming at the earth’s surface. This phenomenon is referred to as the “greenhouse effect.”
“This increase in absorbed energy warms the atmosphere inducing warming at the earth’s surface.”
There it is again — the same cult refrain. More ice is hotter that less ice. If the ice isn’t baking your pizza fast enough, just add more ice.
But then, several atmospheric physicists, including Ed Berry, have blown the IPCC’s carbon cycle model out of the water. Now it is known with certainty that the CO2 increase is predominantly natural. So, the whole GHE theory is bunk.
I have demonstrated that when rotating fast enough, planet mean surface temperature exceeds the effective radiative temperature.
The current formula for calculating the planet effective radiative temperature Te doesnt take in consideration the very strong specular reflection the smooth surface planets have.
Thus, the not reflected portion of the incident solar flux should be calculated instead of (1-a)S as
Φ(1-a)S.
Earths Without-Atmosphere Corrected Effective Temperature calculation Te.correct.earth = 210 Κ
To calculate Earths Corrected Effective Temperature we should use the following data values
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Φ = 0,47 solar irradiation accepting factor (dimensionless)
a = 0,306 Earths average albedo
So = 1.361 W/m, solar flux on the top of the Earths atmosphere
Earths Without-Atmosphere Corrected Effective Temperature Equation Te.correct.earth is:
Te.correct.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So /4σ ]∕ ⁴
When substituting values:
Te.correct.earth = [ 0,47 (1-0,306) 1.361 W/m /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Te.correct.earth = [ 0,47 (0,694) 1.361 W/m /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Te.correct.earth = ( 1,957.367.636,68 )∕ ⁴ = 210,34 K
and rounded
Te.correct.earth = 210 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The theory is full of holes, and you never attempt to fill them. When challenged, you just run away.
Then return to present the exact same flawed theory.
Repeating the same errors over and over and expecting a different result?
Some would call that insanity.
Nate
“The theory is full of holes, and you never attempt to fill them. When challenged, you just run away.
Then return to present the exact same flawed theory.
Repeating the same errors over and over and expecting a different result?
Some would call that insanity.”
Prove what you say… what errors?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Been there and done that many times. Go back and look at last month, where you had no answers and ran away.
Nate,
You are a master of obfuscation and misdirection. Cristos doesn’t need to chase your red herrings.
And Stephen backs any contrarian no matter how crappy their science is.
christos…ignore Nate, he will disagree while not providing any scientific reasoning.
Does this translate?
christos…αγνοήστε τον Nate, θα διαφωνήσει χωρίς να παρέχει κανένα επιστημονικό σκεπτικό.
Ignore GR. He is an idiot.
OK,
Here are just a couple of examples of Christos having no answers last month, having no evidence to back up his erroneous declarations, and simply running away.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1121274
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1121387
210K eg -63*C (-82*F) ? haha, are you sure?
Until I looked at the check which said $5381, I be certain that my best friend like they say really bringing in money in there spare time from their computer.. there mums best friend started doing this for under 10 months and just now cleared the morgage on their apartment and purchased a new Alfa Romeo.
visit this web-site… http://workpay1.blogspot.com/
The pattern and strength of the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere indicates low February temperatures in North America.
https://i.ibb.co/JndMMZ9/Screenshot-1.png
The negative temperature anomaly in the lower stratosphere is moving into the upper troposphere, which could be a harbinger of a long winter in the northern hemisphere.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JFM_NH_2022.png
All the Coolistas who join in forecasting a long, longer, longest La Nina, should not forget that La Nina is a phase during which massive amounts of heat are transferred from the troposphere down into the Central Pacific Basin.
This process cannot continue indefinitely.
The more the current La Nina brings down, the more the next El Nino will bring back up.
And all Warmistas will one more time claim unisono that … it is due to climate change.
Bindidon, your ignorance of physics is showing. “Massive amounts of heat are” NOT “transferred from the troposphere down into the Central Pacific Basin”.
It’s the Sun, stupid.
Clint R
You are, amongst many many many other things, an absolute ignorant of La Nina / El Nino phenomena.
It’s the Sun, stupid.
Said stupid.
A cynic might note that the same coolistas who claim that climate forecast models are wrong,are convinced that ENSO forecast models are correct.
I don’t feel being cynic when noting that.
The same people who currently can’t praise enough things like ensemble members showing a persisting La Nina, fundamentally doubt about any kind of ensemble based statistics when it dares to show even tiniest warming.
As NOAA seem to be predicting both that La Nina will disappear by April and also last until the Autumn I’m not sure which camp you believe they belong in.
PDO for Jan 2022
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/pdo.jpeg
The PDO is considered the long term cousin of ENSO (El Nino/La Nina).
https://progearthplanetsci.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40645-017-0123-z
“El Nio Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and its longer lived cousin, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) (Zhang et al. 1997), are the primary sources of global interannual variability”
rlh…”The PDO is considered the long term cousin of ENSO (El Nino/La Nina)”.
***
The PDO is more than a cousin, the long-term phases of the PDO affects the ratio of El Ninos to La Ninas, hence affecting global temperature trends.
Same with the AMO, AO, and other oscillations. According to a study by Tsonis et al, when all oscillations are in phase, the globe warms and when out of phase, it cools. Tsonis cautioned that we should be investigating the ocean oscillations rather than delving into AGW theory.
See the quote I gave about the relationship between PDO and ENSO.
I rather do know about ocean oscillations. AMO, PDO, AO, etc. If you look carefully I have graphs of all of them at my blog.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/pdo.jpeg is just the up to date PDO
Here is the AMO for Jan 2022
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/amo.jpeg
And notice ENSO, PDO and AMO OSCILLATE around zero.
None have a rising trend that accelerates over the course of the last century.
So…
Actually the AMO data I use is detrended….
This shows that the figures for the AMO probably have a long period component that is longer than the data series itself.
“None have a rising trend that accelerates over the course of the last century”
No it just means that longer series periodicity is probably present in the data. Using an OLS trend with its implicit infinity in bandwidth just means you ignore that fact.
I love it people easily recognize that daily and yearly periodicity is present but refuse to accept that anything longer is possible. Even though large physical systems are well know to contain long period quasi-cyclicity.
Hockey sticks are still apparently the only way for the figures to go.
“None have a rising trend that accelerates over the course of the last century”
Actually the data only shows a rise since 1980 or so which is hardly a century.
“No it just means that longer series periodicity is probably present in the data.”
Really? Wishful thinking based on no evidence is promoted to ‘probably present’?
“data only shows a rise since 1980 or so”
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/CRUTEM5.0.pdf
Accelerating trend.
All series show both rises and falls before 1970-1980. All then show mostly rises since then. That is not enough to claim an acceleration. The next 30 years will show if that is true or not. Prediction, especially OLS, are not measurements.
Nate conflates RLH’s ocean oscillation detrended data with global temperature trends without actually making any unambiguous point. Simply excersizing his annoying obfuscationary skills as usual.
Whereas Chic cluelessly butts into discussions, making no point. other than ‘I am here to troll’.
“Actually the AMO data I use is detrended.”
No not quite. It has the Global Ocean Trend removed from it.
The AMO is a regional measure, part of the global ocean. If its temperature is a driver of global temperature, like ENSO, then its variation should be LARGER than the global response to it.
Subtract the smaller global response from the larger regional ‘driver’ should not cancel it, it might reduce it slightly.
ENSO also has a global trend removed from it. It doesnt cancel ENSO.
There are indeed indications of a prolonged winter in North America
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/usT2mMonInd1.gif
But I have some small doubts that this could apply to us in Europe this year:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/euT2mMonInd1.gif
Still zero dot zero winter here around Berlin, Germoney.
Last year and in 2018, we had some few snow; compared with 2010, our last winter season deserving the name, however that was all peanuts.
But this absence of winter we pay with – really, no joke – unprecedented westerly winds.
Since years we are increasingly overwhelmed by consecutive low pressure areas coming from the Northwest Atlantic.
30 years ago, we had real winters, snow, and at best cold easterly wind.
Is that still weather? Or are we here in a slow climate pattern transition?
No se!
“UK snow forecast: Deep FREEZE imminent as -11C Icelandic system to dump 8cm of snow”
https://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/1565843/uk-snow-forecast-weather-latest-met-office-warnings-update-maps-charts
And that…
https://i.postimg.cc/rF86xDr9/Wind-forecast-2022-02-14-at-21-50-03-for-2022-02-17.png
is the remainder for us.
Now do the temperature and snow fall to go with that wind.
OK, looking at the data, it shows Jan 22 to be 0.09 deg C cooler than Jan 21.
But the Jan 22 Global Climate Report from NOAA shows Jan 22 to be .09 deg C warmer than Jan 21.
That’s a difference of .17 deg C. Now, watching the weather fairly closely these last two Januaries, I’d have bet big money that Jan 22 was cooler than Jan 21.
Anyone want to explain to me how this is not simply dishonest ‘adjustment’ of the data by NOAA?
iflyjetzzz
1. Why do you think that a temperature measurement team automatically performs ‘dishonest adjustments’ just because you see a difference between their measurements for a month wrt two consecutive years and those of any other team?
2. Why do you think that anomaly differences in the average of surface temperatures automatically must match those in the lower troposphere?
3. Why do you think that surface anomaly differences computed by NOAA automatically must match those computed for the lower troposphere by UAH, which publishes the time series showing the lowest of all trends among nearly all others?
I read the NOAA January US climate report published a week or so before the Global Climate Report. It stated a much colder US January than what was stated in the Global Climate Report.
Again, I was monitoring fairly closely worldwide temperatures for January and the satellite data appears to be MUCH closer to reality than the NOAA report.
This was a pretty big fudge on the data; it reminded me of Australia’s Acorn II data compared to Acorn I.
Here’s a question for you. IF the world is warming so much, why is the data almost always adjusted to cool the past and warm the present? If the world was actually warming significantly, it wouldn’t be necessary to alter the data.
binny…”Why do you think that a temperature measurement team automatically performs ‘dishonest adjustments’ just because you see a difference between their measurements for a month…”
***
A month??? NOAA and GISS have been fudging data in a major way since at least 1990. Since 1990, they have dropped 90% of reporting surface stations then used computer models to fabricate temperatures by interpolating data from stations 1200 km apart then homogenizing the whole to smooth out apparent irregularities.
Tony Heller (Steve Goddard) has expertly revealed their retroactive fudging dating back 100 years. I say expertly because Heller has a degree in engineering and worked for Intel on their i7 processor doing quality control work. He applied the same techniques to NOAA/NASA temperature data as he had applied it expertly for Intel, where he earned himself a reputation as a go to guy for finding errors in their data.
At the chiefio site, the author has revealed scads of fudging and chicanery from NOAA/GISS over the years.
Robertson
You are dumb, and keep dumb. Because all what you are able to do is
– to replicate ad nauseam the same stupid info all the time;
– to discredit people who don’t produce the data you expect.
The very best is your reference to Smith’s chiefio site, which is the greatest ‘load of hooey’ (an expression you dared to use wrt the work of the genial Tobias Mayer) I ever read.
Once again, Binny goes of on an emotional rant without supplying any scientific information to back him.
Robertson
I gave since years a lot of exactly that scientific info you are unable to produce.
You were the person woefully discrediting what I did, mostly by writing that my graphs would be ‘faked representations of fudged data’, what you never were able to prove, due to your absolute lack of knowledge and experience.
All you were able to do all the time was to replicate the ‘meaning’ of contrarian blogs you daily appeal to the ‘authority’ of.
Bindidon, someone that has a different opinion than you doesn’t make them dumb. But when you try to claim a ball-on-a-string is not reality, then YOU are dumb.
(How’s that meltdown working for you?)
Clint R
I know: for you, everything is in some sense something like a ‘ball-on-a-string’, including a the very first place Moon’s complex motion scheme.
And when I say somebody is dumb, I don’t say that because s/he ‘has a different opinion than’ me.
I say that because the 360 degree denial shown by people like Robertson and yourself is dumb by definition, by far not only in my opinion.
Bindidon, Moon’s motion is simple. Your cult’s perversion of that motion is what confuses you.
And, a “360 degree” turn from your opinion would still be with your opinion.
Your lack of understanding of the basics fuels your meltdown.
Clint R is part of a tiny, tiny cliquish cult. Which thinks that basic science is wrong.
binny…”La Nina is a phase during which massive amounts of heat are transferred from the troposphere down into the Central Pacific Basin”.
***
Where does this heat come from in the Troposphere? It is well known that as altitude increases above sea level, the temperatures drop.
As Clint pointed out, the heat is already in the Tropics due to solar input. La Nina is an ocean process operating between the west coast of South America and Australia due to an ocean water temperature differential. With the ocean water temperature differential, ocean currents are created, and winds above the ocean are affected. It is the warmer air in those ocean winds that create havoc around the globe.
Robertson
Unfortunately, I forgot the place where this has been successfully discussed.
Thus exceptionally I can’t reply to your rather trivial assertion.
The sky does not heat the ocean, except in rare weather events. The “massive” heat transfer is from ocean to atmosphere to space.
All outwards heat transfer is from the surface to space. So what’s you point?
The point is — It’s the Sun, stupid.
Said stupid.
maguff…”Carbon dioxide and other trace gases contained in the atmosphere such as water vapor, ozone, methane, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, etc. absorb part of the infrared rays reradiated by the earth. This increase in absorbed energy warms the atmosphere inducing warming at the earths surface. This phenomenon is referred to as the greenhouse effect.
***
Pseudo-science from Exxon, a load of traitors trying to suck their way into the good books of eco-weenies. Alarmists think we skeptics are onside with oil companies like Exxon but I have never been able to abide the way they soak us for gasoline.
At least they admit that GHGs absorb part of the IR from the surface, failing to acknowledge it is only about 5%. Then they begin the lies, claiming that pithy amounts of absorbed IR warms the atmosphere. That’s not possible. The Ideal Gas Law tells us that GHGs can warm the atmosphere no more than their mass-percent will allow, which is a tiny fraction of 1 degree per degree C rise in temperature.
The biggest lie is the last one, that the warmed atmosphere can warm the surface. At best, the atmosphere at the surface is in thermal equilibrium with the surface. That means no heat can be transferred from atmosphere to surface. As altitude increases above the surface, the atmosphere becomes cooler and the 2nd law tells us heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a cooler region to a warmer region.
This pseudo-science becomes even more ridiculous because it is claimed heat is transferred from the surface to the atmosphere then back again to warm the source. We call that process perpetual motion and if it was available, we could heat our homes constantly by installing a tank of CO2 in the house, in a container that allowed IR to penetrate it. Once heated, the room would radiate IR to the CO2, which would warm and transfer heat back to the room.
But wait, as the cycle repeated, the room would get warmer and warmer, and we’d have to block the IR to the tank to cool things down.
Isn’t science fiction fun?
Looking at this from another angle, at terrestrial temperatures, IR radiation is a minor player in heat dissipation at the surface. It is actually the direct contact between the major components of the atmosphere, nitrogen and oxygen, making up 99% of the atmosphere, that scavenges heat from the surface into the atmosphere.
We were all taught at one time, that heated air rises. According to Lindzen, most heat generated in the world comes from the Tropics, where the ocean and land surfaces are hotter. That heated air rises and the heated ocean water is also transported into the northern and southern hemispheres.
We are certainly warmed on the west coast of Canada by ocean current emanating in the tropical Pacific and the UK and western Europe are warmed by ocean current from the Caribbean region.
Even in the Arctic Ocean in the coldest part of winter, explorers have noticed vapour rising from the frigid ocean like steam. That means the atmosphere is cooler than the ocean water. Therefore, the ocean water is warming the atmosphere, even in the coldest part of the Arctic.
As R.W.Wood observed, once warmed, nitrogen and oxygen cannot easily dissipate the heat. Therefore it is retained in the atmosphere until it rises high enough that it can be dissipated naturally, as the air thins and molecules drift far apart, reducing pressure, hence temperature.
This is the real so-called greenhouse effect and it involves both atmosphere and ocean.
GR is just an idiot. Ignore him.
Robertson
” As R.W.Wood observed, once warmed, nitrogen and oxygen cannot easily dissipate the heat. Therefore it is retained in the atmosphere until it rises high enough that it can be dissipated naturally, as the air thins and molecules drift far apart, reducing pressure, hence temperature. ”
1. R.W. Wood never observed such things. He was an eminent specialist in visible and near-visible light (UV, near-IR).
He never and never claimed to be a specialist in far IR. That is the reason why he failed to disprove S. Arrhenius, what has been perfectly explained by Prof. Vaughan Pratt (a person you woefully discredited and denigrated without having ever been able to contradict him).
2. You tell us one more time incredibly dumb stuff. The LW radiation coming from Earth’s response to solar SW radiation cannot result in ‘heat dissipating by miracle’: that would result in Earth obtaining all the time more energy from space than it would give back to it.
*
Every day you tell here more and more nonsense. And that will never stop, because your knowledge, experience and competence all are inversely proportional to the size of your tedious posts.
binny…”R.W. Wood never observed such things. He was an eminent specialist in visible and near-visible light (UV, near-IR)”.
***
Nice cherry pick. You left out the part about Wood specializing in the emission and absorp-tion of EM by gases. Wood was an authority on gases like CO2. Vaughn Pratt, on the other hand, was a computer programmer who never saw the inside of a lab in his life, other than a computer lab.
Wood was so renowned with his expertise on gases that Neils Bohr sought him out for advice on sodium vapour gas. Remember Bohr, the scientist who started quantum theory by applying Planck’s ‘h’ constant to the atom, hence defining a basic model for the atom?
Bohr was led into that research by his interest on why hydrogen only emitted and absorbed EM at discrete frequencies. That was right up Wood’s ally since he specialized in such absorp-tion/emission in gases.
It was the experience of Wood with CO2 that led him to doubt the greenhouse theory based on CO2. He could not see how CO2 could produce the warming claimed and he certainly did not think it was produced by CO2 trapping IR.
At the time, the greenhouse theory went that the glass in a greenhouse trapped IR, warming the greenhouse. He questioned that trapped IR could cause the air in the greenhouse to warm. He thought the warming was caused by heated air molecules, mainly nitrogen and oxygen, being trapped by the glass and unable to rise (convect) properly hence the build up in heat.
His experiment proved that to be correct and the subsequent experiment performed by the computer programmer Pratt made some egregious error trying to replicate the Wood experiment. Rather than use glass, Pratt used plastic wrap, which trapped water vapour, increasing humidity, and affecting the temperatures in the boxes completely.
We don’t really need the full Wood experiment to prove his point. If you leave a car sitting in the Sun on a summer’s day, with the windows closed, the car heats up. Rolling down the winds allows convection and the car cools down.
Also, a greenhouse temperature is controlled by opening and closing vents in the glass. Besides, there is no science to prove that trapped IR can warm air in a greenhouse. If we remove CO2 and WV from a greenhouse, it will still warm to the same degree.
I am sure the same is true in the atmosphere. Reducing anthropogenic emissions to zero won’t affect atmospheric warming at all.
GR is just an idiot. Ignore him.
Roberetson
” Wood was an authority on gases like CO2. ”
This is a pure lie. It is nothing else than what you yourself invented a few years ago on this blog.
Wood never has been an authority on CO2.
*
And again, you coward continue to denigrate Vaughan Pratt, though you didn’t reach during your life 0.001 % of what he did.
You are such a Zero, Robertson!
*
The rest of your ridiculous, redundant post confirms what I say all the time:
Every day you tell here more and more nonsense. And that will never stop, because your knowledge, experience and competence all are inversely proportional to the size of your tedious posts.
Bindidon, your cult hero, Pratt, is a computer guy. That doesn’t mean he understands physics.
He can probably make much better computer graphs than you, though….
Vaughan is more a logic guy, Pup.
He’d understand what the Poll Dance Experiment implies, tho.
Well if he’s one of your cult heroes Dud, invite him over here.
We’ll see how his “logic” holds up to the reality of the Laws of physics.
You only do ‘made up’ physics not ‘real’ physics that anyone else would recognize.
I seldom respond to RLH’s trolling. But sometimes he is especially incompetent, as this time. He just says whatever he wants. Truth, honesty, reality, and science mean nothing to him.
He always claims he understands physics, but he can never deliver. He’s all talk but no substance. I still remember his inability to solve the simple problems, and his confusion about polar coordinates. It’s all over his head.
That’s why this is so much fun.
I actually studied physics. You rather obviously didn’t.
RLH just says whatever he wants.
He’s all talk but no substance.
Clint R is a troll and an idiot. He cannot do science or logic.
Clint R cannot do physics or logic.
> his “logic”
See for yourself, Pup:
http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/dali.pdf
More idiotic Maguffisms…
Fourier…”Emission of infrared radiation is the only means by which a planet loses heat”.
Fourier was a mathematician who dabbled in physics. the results when mathematicians fail to mind their own business is the ludicrous statement above.
Heat transfer involves three method: conduction, convection, and radiation. Anyone with any sense would inquire as to what happened to the other two in Fourier’s analysis.
Mind you, I have seen words attributed to Fourier which he never uttered. This may be another whereby an eco-weenie has used Fourier’s good name to get across a lie.
The entire surface of the Earth is touched by the atmospheric gases. Why would the molecules of gas not pick up heat by conduction? We already know that convective heat transfer exists in the atmosphere. Anyone experiencing a warm breeze in winter experiences such convection.
Where did the heat comes from? The surface, stupid!!! Via conduction.
********************
Tyndall…”He measured the a b s o r p t i o n of IR by the cool gas, and the emission of IR by the gas when it is heated.
The implication of his study was that most of the greenhouse activity of the atmosphere is due to a few trace gases such as water vapor and carbon dioxide”.
***
More lies and hijacking of the names of famous researchers.
Tyndall set up a long, sealed tube in which he could insert various gases. At one end of the tube he had a flame burning as a source of IR. At the other end he had a detector that responded to the IR so he could measure the loss of IR through the tube.
At no time did Tyndall measure the radiation of IR. There is a simple reason for that, no one knew anything about IR radiation in Tyndall’s era. They thought heat flowed through the air as heat rays.
There is no implication from his study other than certain gases like CO2 and WV can absorb IR. Tyndall may have implied the possibility of ‘carbonic acid’ warming the atmosphere but he did not prove that nor has anyone since.
*********************
Arrhenius…”The Arrhenius paper represents the birth of modern climate science.
He described the water vapor feedback, which about doubles the impact of changing CO2, and the ice albedo feedback, which is largely responsible for the intensified warming in high latitudes.
Arrhenius invented the field of climate modeling”,
***
Here again, we have some eco-weenie idiot using a famous name to promote his pseuo-scientific views. Arrhenius said none of what is claimed, those are the words of the idiot writing this trash.
All Arrhenius offered was an opinion and at that, he felt atmospheric warming would be beneficial to the planet. Why does the writer fail to acknowledge that?
To claim Arrhenius invented the field of climate modeling is so stupid it does not warrant a reply. Laying out gridded cells is not about modeling, models are based on complex differential equations, like Navier-Stokes. The equations are based on complex weather and atmospheric systems no one knows much about.
The biggest problem with modern models is the bs programmed into them based on a sheer exaggeration of what Arrhenius and Tyndall claimed. He said nothing about how much CO2 could warm the atmosphere but modern models are programmed with CO2 having a 9% to 25% warming factor. Tyndall and Arrhenius would have scoffed at that bs because they had predicted a comfortable warming that would be beneficial.
I am sure neither Fourier, Tyndall, nor Arrhenius would have approved the other bit of pseudo-science in the models. I am referring to a positive feedback which amplifies heat without an amplifier.
Arrhenius would likely have worn a bag over his head had he been associated with such pseudo-science.
GR is just an idiot. Ignore him.
rlh…GR is far more intelligent than Richard, he can put together a scientific argument that rlh fails to comprehend. Richard is reduced to ad homs and insults, a sure sign of someone having lost an argument.
GR is still an idiot. Ignore him.
“Tyndall’s experiments also showed that molecules of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone are the best absorbers of heat radiation, and that even in small quantities, these gases absorb much more strongly than the atmosphere itself. He concluded that among the constituents of the atmosphere, water vapor is the strongest absorber of radiant heat and is therefore the most important gas controlling Earth’s surface temperature. He said, without water vapor, the Earth’s surface would be “held fast in the iron grip of frost.” He later speculated on how fluctuations in water vapor and carbon dioxide could be related to climate change”
RLH,
“The iron grip of frost” being at night, of course.
Just as on the Moon. And of course, during the day, exceeding the boiling point of water.
No greenhouse effect there – just ordinary physics suffices for explanation.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Tyndall
“Tyndall related his radiation studies to minimum nighttime temperatures and the formation of dew, correctly noting that dew and frost are caused by a loss of heat through radiative processes. He even considered London as a heat island, meaning he thought that the city was warmer than its surrounding areas”
The fact that CO2 and water impede the transfer of IR energy through them is well understood now, as in the fact that cloudy nights are warmer overall than clear ones (all other conditions being the same).
RLH,
Cooling is still cooling. Fast, slow – still cooling.
As the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so.
No GHE observed or needed. Obviously, you prefer fantasy to fact.
Carry on.
Why is it warmer at night under the trees?
Gordon questions the statement: “Emission of infrared radiation is the only means by which a planet loses heat”.
Here, the word “planet” clearly implies the entire planet. All the solids, liquids, and gases hurtling together around the sun.
In this context, the statement is quite correct. There can be no conduction or convection from the earth (as a whole) to space.
tim…”In this context, the statement is quite correct. There can be no conduction or convection from the earth (as a whole) to space”.
***
It seems that alarmists have never studied thermodynamics.
Heat can be dissipated without having to leave the Earth. The Ideal Gas Law is PV = nRT. It says nothing about IR radiation. All you need to understand the temperature of a gas is to investigate the relationship between P,V, n, and T.
If V and n are constant then as P->0, T-> 0.
Elegant and simple.
I realize the atmosphere has a gradient where air thins with altitude. So, break it into layers then sum the layers.
But what of energy in = energy out?
Just as simple. As Christos has so elegantly tried to show us, the planet rotates and that affects the temperature of the planet. The oceans and the atmosphere also retain heat. Therefore, solar input does not have to match energy out. In fact, all the Sun does as it shines on parts of the Earth as it rotates, is MAINTAIN the current global average.
Therefore, energy in = energy out has a time factor. In other words, energy in only equals energy out at a later date. There are variable delays depending on the medium storing the heat.
In that system, heat is very happy to disappear completely without having to be radiated completely.
“Heat can be dissipated without having to leave the Earth”
Energy can be converted to other forms, true. But the NET loss from a planet is to space via EMR. Just as the NET gain is from the Sun via EMR.
“In other words, energy in only equals energy out at a later date. There are variable delays depending on the medium storing the heat.
In that system, heat is very happy to disappear completely without having to be radiated completely.”
Gordon, you are making contradictory statements here.
‘energy in only equals energy out at a later date’
is not compatible with ‘disappear completely’ without exiting the system.
You need to rethink your logic here.
GR doesn’t do maths or logic.
Seeing Gordon Robertson struggle with 19th century physics is entertaining but sad.
This, “Fourier was a mathematician who dabbled in physics” can only mean that GR never studied Fourier’s “The Analytical Theory of Heat” published in 1822, even though he claims to have “studied” engineering. I suppose that in GR’s “mind” Fourier’s Law of Heat Conduction does not exist either!
GR, you are a bloviating blowhard unworthy of my time. Happy trails to you!
GR is an idiot. Ignore him.
Atmosphere – from the pilot’s point of view
https://youtu.be/87clrOQyvGI
Did I mention I’m a pilot
Did I mention I am a sailor?
Did I mention I’ve been both a sailor and a pilot?
Doesn’t seem to help. Even given our shared experience of ocean and atmosphere in action, we still disagree on the physics.
Wrong. We disagree on the statistics, not the physics.
Can’t argue with that, though Even might disagree with us both on the physics.
Even Eben?
Yes.
Eben is odd.
A couple of climate cranks have believed the nonsense promoted by people who should know better.
Quite often, they appeal to the authority of Fourier, Tyndall, and Arrhenius, as assessed by others.
In order –
Baron Fourier wrote – “Thus the earth gives out to celestial space all the heat which it receives from the sun, and adds a part of what is peculiar to itself.” – Fourier 1824 translated by Burgess 1837.
Fourier was interested in the cooling of the Earth – how much, why, and when. As he said, the night gets rid of all the heat of the day, plus a little of the cooling Earth’s primordial and radiogenic heat. No Greenhouse Effect seen or needed.
Professor John Tyndall pointed out that increasing the amount of gases which absorb IR between the heat source and the thermometer lowered the thermometer’s temperature. RLH said “He said, without water vapor, the Earth’s surface would be “held fast in the iron grip of frost.””, without mentioning that Professor Tyndall was referring, of course, to nighttime, in the absence of sunlight! Unfortunately for climate crackpots, Tyndall also pointed out elsewhere that thermometers record rising temperatures as the thickness of atmosphere decreases. Without the protection of the atmosphere during the day, temperatures would exceed the boiling point of water. No Greenhouse Effect seen or needed.
Svante Arrhenius speculated on the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere, and thought it would result in a “more amenable” climate. He was unable to back up his speculation with reproducible experiments, of course. No GHE, just speculation.
Still no Greenhouse Effect. Just a crowd of idiots who cannot even comprehend what their “authorities”actually wrote.
As a side note, neither Fourier, Tyndall, nor Arrhenius were aware of the radiogenic heat generated within the Earth, nor the non-linear reduction in heat output with time.
All of them realised that the Earth had cooled, and was continuing to do so.
Earth’s current global climate is an Icehouse climate.
It has nothing to do with air temperature or greenhouse gases.
An Ice climate has one or more ice sheets at the poles and has a cold ocean. {Nothing to do air temperatures or greenhouse gases}.
The ocean average temperature controls the global surface air temperature.
We don’t have a accurate measurement of global air temperature, but it’s been said it’s around 15 C.
15 C air temperature is cold air.
It’s not that I care what global air temperature is, the cargo cult nor anyone does either.
All the measuring of air temperature is just a proxy for the change of the ocean average temperature.
Anyone trying to make theory of Earth’s climate which explains Earth average air temperature is barking up the wrong tree.
The ocean average temperature is likewise not measured, it’s just a guess like global surface air temperature.
But it seems to me, the guess of average ocean temperature is close enough.
gbaikie…”We dont have a accurate measurement of global air temperature, but its been said its around 15 C”.
***
hat does that mean, GB?
The global average ocean surface air is about 17 C and global average land is about 10 C. And averages to about 15 C.
It seems with satellite the change global air temperature seems fairly precise. But whether average global surface temperature is actually close to 15 C, seems dubious.
I never seen any attempt which give much confidence in whether either ocean or land is better than +/- 1 C.
Or seems if air temperature was important, it would measured.
What is average surface temperature of arctic ocean for Jan and/or Feb.
Google: Average surface air temperature of arctic ocean in winter?
https://sites.uci.edu/zlabe/arctic-temperatures/
So, about -30 C, apparently in those winter months.
So do you count this as land or ocean?
What are reasons for either, choice?
It seems if count all frozen ocean as land, it’s going change the 10 C average land, but count as ocean, only minor effect upon ocean surface temperature.
Ocean has about 1000 times more heat per C as does Atmosphere.
But do we actually know how much energy the atmosphere has.
Not that I think the temperature or amount of heat the atmosphere has, is related to global temperature, but what is average heat of the atmosphere. The average global air temperature of about 15 C
is roughly related amount the heat of atmosphere, but one actually should measure/estimate the amount of energy of the entire atmosphere rather the air temperature near the surface of various land elevations.
Lowest temperature recorded, wiki:
“The lowest natural temperature ever directly recorded at ground level on Earth is −89.2 °C (−128.6 °F; 184.0 K) at the Soviet Vostok Station in Antarctica on 21 July 1983 by ground measurements.
On 10 August 2010, satellite observations showed a surface temperature of −93.2 °C (−135.8 °F; 180.0 K) at 81.8°S 59.3°E, along a ridge between Dome Argus and Dome Fuji, at 3,900 m (12,800 ft) elevation.”
{Elevation 3,489 m (11,447 ft, Vostok Station)}
Compared to -30 C at sea level.
How cold would be -30 at sea level be at 3489 or 3900 meter elevation?
-30 C air has to be very dry, so it wouldn’t be the 6.5 C global average lapse rate, rather closer to 9 C per 1000 meters. 3.9 times 9 = 35.1 C. So in comparison -65 C as compared to coldest measured [not average] of 89.2 or -93.2 C.
Generally it seems if measured heat of atmosphere, it seems there should more atmospheric heat over liquid ocean area as compared land area [or frozen ocean].
Earlier, coturnix wrote –
“Energy source: in 10^-2 watts/m2 of the earth surface
directly through food 0.147
through machines and fire 3.2
through co2 the extra shielding >7.2, <19
natural geothermal flux 8.6
trough the intercepted solar flux 7.4"
I assume coturnix is trying to avoid acknowledging that thermometers respond to anthropogenic heat production, as a result of energy production and use.
I note the usual nonsensical reference to heat produced by CO2, through the magic of the mythical Greenhouse Effect!
The fact is that surface temperatures drop at night. Solar input is absent, and the temperature is falling. All, I repeat, all, energy radiated from the surface at night, flees to outer space. That is why the temperature is falling. No heat "trapping" to be seen.
coturnix is just another delusional climate crank, furiously trying to deny reality. The Earth has cooled. It continues to cool. Enormously increased total energy production and consumption over the last 100 years is reflected in temperature records over that time.
No GHE observed or needed.
Let the March of the Morons continue, to the general merriment of the onlookers!
“No heat trapping to be seen”
Compare the ground temperature at night under a canopy in amongst the trees and out in the open. Are they the same. No.
RLH,
Cooling is cooling. Fast cooling is cooling. Slow cooling is cooling.
Accept reality. No GHE observed or needed.
It is still warmer under the trees. Explain that without saying slower cooling.
I am receiving $88 every hour to work on-net. Ive never believed like it can be achievable however JKH one of my greatest pal got $27,000 just in three weeks just working this simple project & she influenced me to avail
View more instructions visiting this web page >>> http://workpay1.blogspot.com/
RLH,
Yet another gotcha.
No heating under the trees at night. Just slower cooling than, say, arid deserts. Also less diurnal surface temperature variation, in case you hadn’t noticed!
Climate crackpots are obsessed with semantics. “Warmer than” does not imply heating – that is, additional energy being manifested as a temperature rise.
Hot soup in a vacuum flask remains warmer than the icy surface you place it on. It is not getting hotter – unless you are a climate scientist”, of course, who denies the fact that the Earth has cooled by saying “it’s warmer than it otherwise would be!”
What a pack of morons! You choose to believe nitwits such as these?
Rhetorical question, of course.
Off you go, now. Keep believing.
Idiot.
coturnix says:
February 14, 2022 at 9:11 PM
“210K eg -63*C (-82*F) ? haha, are you sure?”
Thank you, coturnix!
Yes, I am very much sure of the earth’s corrected Te.correct.earth=210K
–
Today is the Third Anniversary since February 15th, 2019 when I had applied the very much well known and measured the Drag Coefficient Cd=0,47 for smooth spheres in a parallel fluid flow (Reynolds number Re<5000).
By applying the Cd=0,47 to the smooth surface planets and moons, the SW EM incident solar irradiation – the correct SW EM energy reflected portion become able to be very much precisely estimated.
–
Thus, the coupled physics term of Φ(1-a) was born. Since that day, I calculate for planets and moons Effective Radiative Temperature in a New and a very much correct way.
……………
The Planet Corrected Effective Temperature :
Te.correct = [ Φ (1-a) S /4σ ]∕ ⁴
–
Te – planet effective temperature
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]∕ ⁴
–
Te.correct – the planet corrected effective temperature
Te.correct = [ Φ (1-a) S /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Φ – is the solar irradiation accepting factor (it is the planet surface spherical shape, and planet surface roughness coefficient)
Φ = 0,47 – for smooth surface planets without atmosphere
Φ = 1 – for heavy cratered without atmosphere planets
Φ = 1 – for gases planets
–
…………….
–
Te.correct = [ Φ (1-a) S /4σ ]∕ ⁴
–
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
–
Or Tmean = Te.correct * [ (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ ]∕ ⁴
–
Table 1.
Comparison of Predicted (Tmean) vs. Measured (Tsat) Temperature for All Rock-type Planets
…….Φ..Te.correct..[(β*N*cp)∕⁴]∕⁴..Tmean..Tsat
…………….K…………………K…..K
Mercury..0,47…364,0 ……0,8953….325,83..340
Earth….0,47….210……..1,368…..287,74..288.
Moon…..0,47….224…….0.9978…..223,35..220
Mars…..0,47….174…….1,227……213,11..210
Io…….1……95,16……1,169……111,55..110
Europa..0,47….78,83……1,2636…..99,56…102
Ganymede.0,47…88,59……1,209…..107,14…110
Calisto…1….114,66……1,1471….131,52..134 11
Enceladus..1….55,97……1,3411….75,06….75
Tethys…..1….66,55……1,3145….87,48…86 1
Titan……1….84,52……1,1015….96,03….93,7
Pluto……1….37………1,1164….41,6…..44
Charon…..1….41,90……1,2181….51,04….53
–
Conclusion:
We can calculate planet mean surface temperature obtaining very close to the satellite measured results.
–
Tmean = Te.correct * [ (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ ]∕ ⁴
where [ (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ ]∕ ⁴ – is the planet surface warming factor
Warming Factor = (β*N*cp)∕₁₆
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Why would the drag coefficient apply to planets that are in a vacuum where it will be zero?
>Why would the drag coefficient apply to planets that are in a vacuum where it will be zero?
All that it takes is a little reading. You’re good at reading, aren’t you?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/448587170
Specular reflection has nothing to do with drag coefficients.
It’s a good analogy.
No it isn’t.
It is applied to planets in an almost parallel solar flux’ beams flow. It is applied to the solar SW EM incident on planets (spheres) energy.
Thus we use Drag Coefficient as an analogue…
There were not any publications on the EM energy reflection coefficients from a spherical shape bodies.
–
So I had no other choice, but to adopt the Cd=0,47;
And it was the right decision – the Φ=0,47 happens to be the key parameter needed.
As soon, as the Φ(1-a) coupled term was implemented, the Δ33C (288K-255K) vanished!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Chance is a very poor reason in science.
RLH says:
February 15, 2022 at 4:39 AM
“Specular reflection has nothing to do with drag coefficients”.
–
Drag coefficients are not the measure of energy reflected. Drag coefficients are the measure of the energy left to be resisted.
–
By analogue, the Φ(1-a)S is the EM energy left for the planet surface to interact with. It is not the EM energy reflected.
–
πrΦ(1-a)S (W) is the not reflected portion of the incident on planet surface SW EM radiative energy in TOTAL.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/dragco.html
“The drag coefficient is a number that aerodynamicists use to model all of the complex dependencies of shape, inclination, and flow conditions on aircraft drag”
Also see:
Drag coefficient
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“In fluid dynamics, the drag coefficient is a dimensionless quantity that is used to quantify the drag or resistance of an object in a fluid environment, such as air or water. It is used in the drag equation in which a lower drag coefficient indicates the object will have less aerodynamic or hydrodynamic drag. The drag coefficient is always associated with a particular surface area.”
The drag coefficient of any object comprises the effects of the two basic contributors to fluid dynamic drag: skin friction and form drag.
“…skin friction and form drag.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:14ilf1l.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient
You make my point for me. Drag coefficients are nothing to do with planets in a vacuum.
Thank you for your respond.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you for agreeing with me that drag coefficients are nothing to do with planets in a vacuum.
RLH, let’s now watch a video for a change:
How we heat our House in Rural SIBERIA, Yakutia | -44C
https://youtu.be/1o4EICOs3B4
RHL, please, can you tell what exactly doesn’t comprise within the story of this presentation? 🙂 !
What has heating a house to do with drag coefficients?
I will explain after you watch the video 🙂 !
Watched the video. If you know log cabin construction there were no surprises.
I can sympathise with their having to use ice as a temporary replacement for oakum as a draught stopper.
I have done that. So what?
RLH
“I have done that. So what?”
Your question says you didn’t. You didn’t actually saw the video, you simply watched it without seeing…
🙂
Cristos,
RLH pretends to be a person of science. He’s nothing but a climate propagandist. Don’t waste your time.
Entropic man says:
Watched the video. If you know log cabin construction there were no surprises.–
“Insulation
The Eastern White Pine we use in our log homes is known for its exceptionally high R-value, which is a measure of insulative properties. In general, wood is considered to be an extremely energy-efficient building material due to thousands of tiny air pockets which are trapped in every cubic inch of the cellular structure.”
https://www.smokymountaincabinbuilders.com/plans-pages/Log-facts.html
Log cabins aren’t very economically efficient- or use a lot of wood.
But a pretty sturdy house.
And you could local source of the logs.
But what important in terms insulation is the roof- which didn’t show in video- but didn’t look like logs. Probably used at least 8″ of normal/typical fiberglass insulation for the roof.
“you simply watched it without seeing”
Liar. I watched it but it had nothing to do with drag coefficients.
RLH, you are off the topic. We discuss House Heating in Yakutia video in this sub thread, there is not a word about Drag Coefficients…
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1174829
RLH, you do not see what it is wrong in this video… 🙂
That it has nothing to do with drag coefficients?
“there is not a word about Drag Coefficients”
Indeed.
Something in the story of the video is not correct. What is it? 🙂
It has nothing in it to do with drag coefficients?
No, it is something the video shows and says… 🙂
And that is?
RLH
Forget it. He’s playing games.
It is the outside temperature the video says and shows that was -44C or -43C.
Actually the outside temperature in the video was about 0C, maybe -1C or -2C and not any colder. 🙂
Perhaps they meant F rather than C.
In any case, nothing to do with your claim about drag coefficients being relevant to planets in orbit/space.
Though that would not help the maths.
“Winter in Yakutsk is exceptionally severe, the average January temperature is about -40 C (-40 F), sometimes the temperature can cross the -50 C (-58 F) mark”
“Yakutsk is the coldest city in the world with mercury dropping as low as -44 F. It reported its lowest temperature in February 1987 at −83.9 F.”
“In January, the most freezing month, average “highs” are around minus 40C”
Do you want to change your estimates as what the video says?
“He’s playing games.”
He’s just wrong is all.
“Winter in Yakutsk is exceptionally severe, the average January temperature is about -40 C (-40 F), sometimes the temperature can cross the -50 C (-58 F) mark”
Yes, of course, winter in Yakutsk is exceptionally severe, but Maria said “it is now -44C”. Then Maria showed us the outside thermometer indicating -43C…
Maria was not saying the truth to us. It was not -43C outside at the time the video was taken. The “thermometer” Maria showed us was forged. Please zoom in the thermometer. The half of thermometer is missing… it is actually not a thermometer anymore…
“It was not -43C outside at the time the video was taken”
Liar. The video shows that it was. The lower half of the thermometer does not mean the rest is missing, just not in the shot.
https://imgur.com/a/9toGJ56
RLH, please, there is a view of the entire “thermometer” from the side. You will see there are no numbers on the upper half. It is an empty tube there…
Also, in the window, when the take on the “thermometer” there is a quick reflection of a person taking the video with a smartphone camera. No one would take out a smartphone in the -43C cold!
RLH, I am not liar. Look how light is Maria dressed for… freezing -43C. Maria is warm enough not to have a cover over her head… in minus 43 Celsius!
Also, if there is -43C, why we do not see Maria’s breath freezing in the air?.
maguff…”If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you. You never learn anything new. You become a crotchety old person convinced that nonsense is ruling the world”.
***
Sagan was an idiot who spoke down his nose to contemporaries and thrived on trying to make his peers look stupid in live talks.
His assumption that skepticism prevents insight and discovery is just plain stupid. Insight comes from a different part of the mind and is often triggered when a person admits he/she does not know. When you know something, you block insight.
Skepticism is a way of saying ‘I don’t know’. The skeptical mind is open to insight and discovery.
I might add that anyone who continually appeals to authorities like Sagan, blocks himself from learning anything new.
you’re not worthy of my time. Happy trails to you bloviating blowhard.
GR is just an idiot. Ignore him.
Insight?
Tell us yet again how you blow the likes of Lanka, Dusberg, or any other discredited scientist who has triggered your “they are the underdog so they must be right” reflex.
You are not a skeptic, you’re an idiot, Gordon. Enjoy the ad hom!
RIP – May the memories of your lives never fade and the lessons from that horrible day never forgotten.
40 years ago today.
Does Teas get many of these?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-60387485
“When it comes to horses, Texas has a population of nearly one million horses that’s about 300,000 higher than California, the next most populated state for horses!”
But Texas is about 1.6 times more land area than California.
Careful, Gbaikie. That sounds suspiciously like humour.
Oh, there always has be humour.
How do you separate the men from the boys in Texas?
I am receiving $88 every hour to work on-net. I’ve never believed like it can be achievable however WUSH JKH one of my greatest pal got $27,000 just in three weeks just working this simple project & she influenced me to avail…
View more instructions visiting this web page >>> http://workpay1.blogspot.com/
The Niño 3.4 index is falling again.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
You sure is falling ? , better check with Bindidong if you are interpreting that chart correctly.
Gordon Robertson says
”At no time did Tyndall measure the radiation of IR. There is a simple reason for that, no one knew anything about IR radiation in Tyndall’s era.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1173542
FYI… Tyndall’s paper was published in 1861, 61 years after William Herschel’s discovery of Infrared Radiation.
maguff…Hershel’s experiment was nothing like you describe. He did not discover, IR, he discovered ‘something’ beyond the visible light spectrum which he thought was heat.
His methodology was wrong. He used a prism to break the light into colours, then measured the temperature of each colour using a blackened thermometer. His conclusion that each colour showed different temperatures is ridiculous. The colour temperatures of visible light is measured in 1000nds of degrees C and would need to be measured near a source emitting those colours.
His second mistake was claiming the measurement off the colour scale was even hotter than any of the colours. We know IR has to be a cooler temperature than any of the colours in the visible light spectrum.
This is a classic case of reaching the wrong conclusions.
https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/posters/herschel/Herschel-ir-activity.pdf
strawman fallacy.
ps. you might try thinking these issues through rather than rushing of on an appeal to authority on the Net.
In your post…
“Herschels experiment was important because it marked the first time that someone demonstrated that there were types of light that we cannot see with our eyes”.
IR is not normally classified as light. Light is normally reserved for energy that stimulates the eyes and enables seeing.
A more accurate usage is electromagnetic energy. EM contains no colours, any colour is added by the eye as it responds to individual EM frequencies. Light is the portion of the EM spectrum that corresponds to frequencies the eye can detect.
Although IR is often called thermal radiation, that is a silly idea. Any of the frequencies in the light spectrum can produce heat when absorbed by a mass. The notion behind thermal radiation is that IR is often associated with frequencies given off from a heated body that are below the visible spectrum. IR is not heat.
That’s just dumb science. The claim that all bodies emit IR is seriously myopic. All bodies at terrestrial temperatures emit IR but how about bodies at higher temperatures, like stars, or metal heated with a torch?
The Sun emits a broad spectrum of EM, about half of it IR. Most of the visible range is crowded into the peak of the spectrum. Terrestrial radiation only covers the extreme end of the Sun’s IR spectrum and its intensity is very small in comparison. So, talking about terrestrial IR radiation is thermal radiation is just plain dumb.
Besides, IR has nothing to do with heat. It’s an either/or situation, either you have IR or you have heat, you can’t have both in the same state. When IR is absorbed by a mass, it ceases to exist. It is converted to heat in the mass. If a mass at a temperature, T, emits IR, there is a loss of heat equivalent to the amount of IR emitted.
see above
Kindly point out the strawman argument in my post.
Herschel did not discover a form of ‘light’ we cannot see. Nor did he discover IR. He was looking for heat in EM and he thought, like others in his era, that heat was able to transmit through air as heat.
Even Clausius and Planck thought the same. It was not till the electron was discovered in the 1890s and Bohr discovered the relationship between electrons and EM in 1913, that we began investigating EM seriously using quantum theory.
GR is just an idiot. Ignore him.
rlh…”The fact that CO2 and water impede the transfer of IR energy through them is well understood now, as in the fact that cloudy nights are warmer overall than clear ones (all other conditions being the same)”.
***
You are comparing WV and CO2 to a blanket. In the entire atmosphere, WV makes up 0.31% and CO2 0.04% of atmospheric gases. That’s like covering your body with a blanket reduced to a few threads. Ergo, there is no insulation action against heat loss.
If we experience a cloudy night as warmer, it’s because the molecules of air against our skin feels warmer. That air is 99% nitrogen and oxygen. Radiation from the clouds, which will be cooler cannot be absorbed by your skin…2nd law.
Actually most of the heat trapping is via clouds. Under a cloudy sky at night it is in general much warmer than if it is clear.
Try being out at night and you will see this. It is nothing to do with the skin feeling warmer. It is just that clearer nights have cooler temperatures and that is reflected in what you feel on your skin.
Don’t know what to make of the theory. Is it possible that the cloud cover simply makes us feel warmer? People from the Canadian prairies who move to Vancouver often feel trapped by the nearby mountains.
I have experienced clear night skies and cloudy skies in all sorts of temperatures from +40C to -40C. I know what you are saying but I wonder if the effect is real or imaginary.
When we get Arctic air descending on us in the Vancouver area, the skies clear and it feels colder. But the cold has arrived as cold Arctic air. Subsequently, when the warmer air moves back in with clouds it feels warmer. It is warmer.
Cold air can mean clouds overhead just as much as warm air can. Both can mean clear skies too.
High pressure in summer can lead to clear skies but warmer temperatures. High pressure in winter can lead to clear skies but colder temperatures.
Low pressure in summer can lead to cloudier skies but still have colder temperatures. High pressure in winter can lead to clear skies but also have warmer temperatures.
Horizontal movement of air and its carried temperature as well as the moisture content can be more important than the skies overhead at any one instant.
RLH,
Clouds reflect both visible and IR and UV light to a greater or lesser degree, as does water generally, dependent on wavelength, angle of incidence etc. Keep in mind that water droplets forming clouds vary in size, composition, and generally form around condensation nuclei of many types – animal, vegetable, and mineral.
Aviators, sailors, and others know about the practical effects of light interacting with water in its various forms.
During the day, clouds block some heat from the Sun, slowing warming of the surface. During the night, clouds block some heat from the ground, slowing cooling of the surface.
No GHE. Professor John Tyndall explains the process (and many others), in his various books and writings. Well worth reading, although more than 100 years old. You don’t have to accept the concept of the luminiferous ether, or a few other things that Tyndall accepted as factual. His observations are supported by experimental data, even if some of his speculations are no longer generally accepted.
I accept Newton’s Laws as factual. His religious and alchemical beliefs (about which he wrote far more), not so much.
Moronic GHE promoters I believe not at all – as far as the GHE goes.
Whoops!
Meant to write reflect” rather than “block”. Either might suffice, I suppose. Makes no difference to the physical processes involved.
Still an idiot I see.
“That air is 99% nitrogen and oxygen”
H2O, i.e. water vapor, is on there too as are others.
Nitrogen N2 78.08%
Oxygen O2 20.95%
*Water H2O 0 to 4% (obviously the above and others change depending on this number)
The rest are below 1% each
Argon Ar 0.93%
*Carbon Dioxide CO2 0.0360%
Neon Ne 0.0018%
Helium He 0.0005%
*Methane CH4 0.00017%
Hydrogen H2 0.00005%
*Nitrous Oxide N2O 0.00003%
*Ozone O3 0.000004%
* variable gases
The Moon and Mars have around the same average temperature.
And wondered what the ground temperature was 1 meter below the surface. Is it similar?
Where Apollo went on Moon, I think as I recall the temperature was about -35 C [238 K]. Of course in ever dark crater one temperature at surface of cold as about 30 K. How warm would 1 meter below at 50 K surface be. Obviously warmer. And this kind important related to idea lunar water mining- and never really considered it before.
Or the top lunar surface is very good insulation, or it seem +100 K
seems possible,
But back the question which was how warm was Mars 1 meter below surface- which no one bothered to measure, yet. But googled it, anyhow.
“This graph shows the rise and fall of air and ground temperatures on Mars obtained by NASA’s Curiosity rover. The data cover Aug. 16 to Aug. 17 and were taken by the Rover Environmental Monitoring Station. Ground temperatures vary from as high as 37 degrees Fahrenheit (3 degrees Celsius) to as low as minus 131.8 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 91 degrees Celsius), showing large temperature oscillations from day to night. Air temperatures vary from as high as 28 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 2 degrees Celsius) to as low as minus 103 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 75 degrees Celsius), indicating, as expected, variations in air temperatures are less extreme than ground temperature variations.”
https://tinyurl.com/3p8ddfw4
That seems weird, but it’s just top ground surface.
But it’s near equator. Perhaps they wanted to measure it in the shade or something. Oh, wiki:
By August 18, 2012, REMS was turned on and its data was being returned to Earth. The temperature at that time: 37 degrees Fahrenheit (2.8 degrees Celsius). On August 21, 2012, one of two anemometers returned data with errors. After testing it was concluded that it was broken, probably hit by a rock on descent”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rover_Environmental_Monitoring_Station
Hit by a rock.
>> Where Apollo went on Moon,
except it probably never did. There is no undeniable proof and no independent way to verify, while the reasons to doubt pretty reasonable. That is why reasonable people should take any ‘data’ that they reported with a very great grain of salt.
To counter any reply, the alleged apollo flight is not a fact of science, it is a fact of *history*. They don’t have the same epistemological weight, and equating palpable, often experimental science to the unverifiable ‘facts’ of history is really a great insult to the science in any sense f the latter word.
cotrunix…”>> Where Apollo went on Moon,
except it probably never did”.
***
Ah, the conspiracy theorists are active today.
No human is perfect, we all have out weaknesses =). Yours is to deny the 99.999999999999999999% established and verified thermal radiation science, as well as the 99.99999999999999999999999999999% established and verified classical mechanics, in addition to the 100% correct mathematics.
I actually, don’t really care about the apollo charade that much… and probably would care of it even less if it didn’t influence the areas of the actual science that I actually care about – like climate science and the earth sciences in general, and such.
When it comes to emotions, I actually respect the great puppetshow that ‘nasa’ and others put forth. And how can one not respect and admire professionals that are good at what they do? I mean, it did contribute to the fall of the soviet union, and that’s something I am thankful for (guess why).
We went to the Moon. Get over it.
If america goes somewhere, it stays there.
But in that case we (America) haven’t gotten around to doing the right thing, yet.
@bobdroege
indeed, 50 years has passed. We are now almost as removed from the apollo program as apollo program was removed from the Ford Model T.
The USA left some things on the Moon that will stay there for millennia.
@rlh
yep, and one day people will start going up there on a regular basis, and will see if those thing are still there (or whatever might remain of them). Until then…. i’m not convinced.
You can bounce a laser of some of the things that they left there. Some amateurs’ (as well as the professionals) even have.
@rlh
yeah, it’s a good argument though not flawless. Arguments have been put forward that it might be impossible to tell the difference between light bouncing off the reflectors and the light bouncing off the bare lunar surface. Sure reflector is neaarly 100% effective, while the lunar surface bounces back maybe 5%, but the reflector is what, 1 foot across? while the laser spot on the moon will be no less than 100 metres, 300-400 feet for a lase with an aperture of 1 meter. Not sure that amateurs can afford that… as for the professionals, I was told that they detect individual photons that may sometimes make it back. How they tell them from just the background noise? I guess there is a good explanation for that as well, but I don’t know it.
and then again, what you do with the other, very good arguments, that contradict this one?
Uhm, no, maybe for you this argument works as a nail in the coffin, but not for me. To clarify, without any undeniable evidence, I have to go by the preponderance of evidence and so far it is such that I cannot without a doubt say that americans definitely went to the moon. But good for you for defending your faith in the unfallibility of the authorities =) And once again, i’ll repeat – if it really was a scam then i don’t hate nasa for it, I applaud for their ingenuity in waging informational cold war.
So why is it that rest of the lunar surface has a lower return rate than the area with reflectors?
Coturnix,RLH
If the only thing that will convince Coturnix of the Moon landings is to go there and see for himself, why are we wasting time discussing the matter?
Because he can’t even get the basic facts correct.
@rlh
It is true, I’m not very well versed in the basic facts, such as it seems you are profoundly familiar with. For example, you spout
>>So why is it that rest of the lunar surface has a lower return rate than the area with reflectors?
which is a very specific claim. I’d like a specific source for that, beccause an ignoramus like myself just goes to vickedpeedia to find out that the supposed return from the reflectors is already at the limit of the detecting equipment. I’ll talk on it later. Unless of course the wiki article has been hijacked by the nefarious apollo heretics, who somehow managed to sneak past the strenuous censorship of the wikipedia editors.
@Entropic man
In some sense. I don’t argue specifically that moon landins were fake (although the deeper I delve into this topic the more convinced I become that such is the likely truth), but rather that there *are no scientific evidence* for man landing on the moon. there is a ‘journalistic-quality’ evidence, basically sporadic reporting, hearsay and conjectures. And yes, even the saturn-V launch does fall into that category, as nobody seen it flying ‘to the moon’ just hiding beyond the horizon. Now, that would not be that important of the evidence against it if the moon landings were repeated multiple times by many independent parties as the LEO flights have been. But they weren’t. And the only actual scientific, eg repeatable objective and independently verifiable evidence for the flights were the aforementioned reflectors allegedly put on the moon. Now, here a zealous conspiracist would argue that soviets had put those with help of just mere machines, thus even the presence of the reflectors could be faked by the lunar landers, but I’d stay away from that possibility as it is IMO too boring. Neither I’ll show, would it be necessary to strongly cast doubts onto the scientific nature of the evidence in favor of the manned lunar landings.
Polaris program to demo spacewalk and Starship in preparation for Moon and Mars
written by Thomas Burghardt February 15, 2022
“Led by Inspiration4 commander Jared Isaacman, the newly announced Polaris program aims to demonstrate multiple capabilities needed for upcoming Moon and Mars exploration. This rapid advancement of human spaceflight technology is a partnership with SpaceX for up to three crewed missions and will include both the first commercial spacewalk and the first flight of Starship with humans onboard.”
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2022/02/polaris-spacewalk-starship-moon-mars/
“The Polaris team will also continue to promote St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, building on the over $240 million raised from the Inspiration4 mission in September 2021.”
{I think if Pope was smart {not} he would get involved with space.}
“As we said at the conclusion of Inspiration4, that work was not complete,” said Isaacman. “That mission will always continue until St. Jude’s vision of no child dying in the dawn of life is delivered upon. So I think what we’re trying to do now, in addition to raising funds, is bringing a little more attention, awareness to their global initiative.”
Things interesting in terms the “the science”.
“Polaris Dawn is scheduled to launch no earlier than the fourth quarter of 2022. Isaacman will command the mission, with Poteet serving as the Crew Dragon spacecrafts pilot. Also on board will be Sarah Gillis, serving as a mission specialist, and Anna Menon, serving as both a mission specialist and the flights medical officer.
The crew of four will be lofted into orbit aboard a Falcon 9 rocket launched from LC-39A at the Kennedy Space Center. Initially, Crew Dragon will be inserted into a highly elliptical orbit, with the goal of reaching the highest Earth orbit ever flown.
In order to break the record set by the Gemini XI mission in 1966, Crew Dragon will need to reach an apogee greater than 1,369 kilometers. By flying at this altitude, the crew will pass through the Van Allen radiation belt, enabling research into the effects of space radiation.
After a few elliptical orbits, the Dragon spacecraft will maneuver into a more common low Earth orbit at an altitude of approximately 500 kilometers.”
We shouldn’t be surprised that the braindead cult idiots swallow this “tidal locking” nonsense so readily. They don’t understand physics and they can’t think for themselves. They are easily fooled by the graphic images that show tides as high as Earth’s radius, about 4000 miles (~6000 km)!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration#/media/File:Tidal_braking.svg
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2007/ph210/kwon2/
“Seeing is believing” in their immature, uneducated heads. Their cult can pervert reality, and cult idiots will never know the difference.
So, this is just for the adults here — a scale model of Earth, Moon, and the “bulge” caused by tides.
Moon Diameter: 3,475 km
Moon Distance: 384,400 km
Earth Diameter: 12,735 km
A ping-pong ball has a diameter of 4 cm (1.57
). So scaled to a ping-pong ball:
Moon Diameter: 1.57″ (a ping-pong ball)
Moon Distance: 14.5 ft (~4.7 m)
Earth Diameter: 5.75″ (a large cantaloupe)
Now the highest tide is only about 3 meters (~10 feet), except for isolated locations like the Bay of Fundy, which total area wouldn’t even show up in this scale. And the 3 meters is again only over a small area or Earth’s surface — about the size of a circle 1/4″ in diameter, on the cantaloupe. But let’s allow the 3 meters:
Max tide: 3m (~10 ft) scale: 0.0000344 mm (~0.00000136″)
This scale model would have a cantaloupe 14.5 ft from a ping-pong ball. And a 1/4″ diameter dot on the cantaloupe. The dot would be raised about 0.00000136″ above the surface of the cantaloupe.
Braindead cult idiots believe that dot can “torque” the ping-pong ball! (Not surprising, they also believe ice cubes can boil water!)
If the braindead cult idiots had the ability to think for themselves, they would realize there’s something wrong. But, it gets worse for them. Even if the “dot” were much, much, much larger, it could still not produce a torque on Moon. Gravity can NOT produce a torque on Moon, since gravity works on centers of mass. (See the “barbell” example.)
clint…”…”the highest tide is only about 3 meters…”
***
That’s around the edges of the water that is lifted but I seem to recall reading that the Moon only raises the ocean about 1 metre at the apex of the bulge.
You might want to check that out. I recall being surprised when I read it.
Your point is well-taken regarding torques, I agree. The force of the Moon’s gravitational force on the Earth is minimal and vice-versa. The notion that the Moon can pull the Earth off its orbit to rotate about a barycentre is bs.
I would venture that the height of the tidal effect along a shoreline would depend on how rapidly the surface dropped off at that shoreline.
Found a wiki article on it…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_range
“The typical tidal range in the open ocean is about 0.6 metres (2 feet) (blue and green on the map on the right). Closer to the coast, this range is much greater. Coastal tidal ranges vary globally and can differ anywhere from near zero to over 16 m (52 ft).[3] The exact range depends on the volume of water adjacent to the coast, and the geography of the basin the water sits in”.
Don’t forget the ground of the Earth and the Moon suffers tides too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide
“Earth tide (also known as solid Earth tide, crustal tide, body tide, bodily tide or land tide) is the displacement of the solid earth’s surface caused by the gravity of the Moon and Sun. Its main component has meter-level amplitude at periods of about 12 hours and longer. The largest body tide constituents are semi-diurnal, but there are also significant diurnal, semi-annual, and fortnightly contributions. Though the gravitational force causing earth tides and ocean tides is the same, the responses are quite different.”
Yeah Gordon, I was trying to give them all the help I could. They need it.
😊
“The force of the Moons gravitational force on the Earth is minimal and vice-versa. The notion that the Moon can pull the Earth off its orbit to rotate about a barycentre is bs.”
The force of Sun’s gravity at 1 AU distance is .006 m/s/s
Earth to Moon:
“The center of the Moon is about sixty Earth radii from the center of the Earth, on average. Since the gravitational field of the Earth decreases by the inverse square law, the gravitational acceleration at the site of the Moon is thus about 1/3600 that of the gravitational acceleration at the surface of the Earth (that is, one Earth radius from its center).
Since the gravitational acceleration at Earths surface is about 9.8 m/s^2, the acceleration of the Moon is about 1/3600 of that or about 0.0027 m/s^2.
[NOTE: That is essentially the reasoning Isaac Newton used to deduced the law of gravitation. That is, he knew the relative distance to the Moon compared to the distance from Earths center to its surface. He knew the rate at which things fell on Earth.”
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-acceleration-due-to-gravity-placed-on-the-Moon-by-Earth
Moon has shorter distance of it’s radius, and lunar surface gravity is 1.62 m/s/s {or it’s smaller fraction than 1/3600}.
And of course tides on Earth are related to both Moon’s and Sun’s gravitational gradient. Or Sun has large radii distance and Moon is much shorter radii distance.
Gravity works on all objects in the universe, not just on the center of mass.
When the center of mass and the center of gravity of an object in another objects gravity well are not aligned, the result is a torque on both objects.
Something some people just don’t understand.
And the barbell example is a piece of work.
b,
You wrote –
“When the center of mass and the centre of gravity of an object in another objects gravity well are not aligned, the result is a torque on both objects”
Exactly. Which explains why the Moon has stopped rotating. Its centre of mass is now aligned with its centre of gravity.
Of course, the Earth’s rotation is slowing – very slowly. Do you think its mass is distributed more evenly than the Moon’s?
Geophysicists and others seem divided on the question of mass anomalies within the Earth.
Do you accept that there are measured Earth ground tides? And therefore there must be similar effects on the Moon too?
RLH,
Your gotcha machine needs maintenance. What sort of “tides” would you expect on a Moon which always presents one face to the Earth?
Or is your gotcha based on the fact that all matter in the universe attracts all other matter in the universe?
In any case, your gotcha is completely moronic. Why are you asking me? Do you really believe I am the greatest authority in the known universe?
I don’t believe that you do, but feel free to assure me otherwise. Does this mean you will accept anything I say as infallible truth?
Thanks for the flattery. I accept flattery from anyone – even moronic gotcha composers.
Carry on. More gotchas please.
Swenson is an idiot. Ignore him.
Swenson,
Can you provide evidence for you blind assertion?
“Exactly. Which explains why the Moon has stopped rotating. Its centre of mass is now aligned with its centre of gravity.”
Or go on with whatever it is you are doing.
Tidal locking is real.
rlh…of course, there are stresses on the solid ground caused by tidal forces. An alternate theory to plate tectonics as the cause of earthquakes is the tidal stresses. That theory makes more sense to me since earthquakes have an epicentre.
If a plate several hundred miles along slipped a bit under another plate, as theorized, there would be hundreds of earthquakes simultaneously along the plate.
No one has ever seen a plate move, especially a full continent. The San Andreas fault is does not involve plates, it’s a slip fault where one piece of the ground slides past the other piece. It is claimed this is evidence of one plate sliding past another but that would mean the fault line would have to go on indefinitely.
https://geology.com/articles/san-andreas-fault.shtml
Murky science.
GR is an idiot. Ignore him.
nate…”Gordon, you are making contradictory statements here.
energy in only equals energy out at a later date
is not compatible with disappear completely without exiting the system”.
***
Different contexts. When I claim heat disappears completely I am referring to heated air rising into lower and lower air densities as the altitude increases. As the air becomes less dense (thinner), the molecules spread out, the pressure drops and the temperature drops. Eventually, the molecules will contain little or none of the original heat content.
That is a specific instance in the whole process. The message I am trying to portray is that the heating/cooling of the Earth is a complex process that involves far more than a simple IR loss situation. AGW theory is based on mainly the IR emission concept and that is myopic.
Suppose you have a home on the Canadian prairies in winter with outside temperatures at -40C. The furnace has been off for a few days or weeks. You turn the furnace on and it will take a long time to bring the house up to a normal room temperature environment. The walls and furnishing will take a long time to warm up. Then the furnace will cycle on and off minimally to keep the house warm.
That’s how I regard solar input. It likely took a long time for the Sun to heat the Earth to its present, theoretical 15C average. Today, it acts like the home furnace, supply enough heat to maintain the +15C average. Meantime, the oceans and land contain long-term heat, so heat in versus heat out is not a simple exchange in real time.
The atmosphere also contains heated air molecules, mainly nitrogen and oxygen. N2/O2 cannot radiate that heat away and it’s absurd to think they transfer their heat to trace gases in order to radiate it to space.
It doesn’t make sense that the large amount of energy input from the Sun is being re-radiated from trace gases. I am trying to rationalize the error in that claim.
It’s far more likely that the heated air in the tropics gets transferred poleward via convection and comes in contact with a cooler surface, where it can dissipate the heat naturally. Or, it simply rises and dissipates naturally due to a drop in pressure.
I am not claiming the Sun’s heat is regulated, I am saying it has done its job raising global temps to the present average and now it simply has to maintain that temperature. That’s not the same thing as claimed by AGW theory, where instantaneous heat in must equal instantaneous heat out, all due to the radiation from trace gases.
GR is just an idiot. Ignore him.
Gordon Robertson
Sometimes your conclusions lack good thought or logic. Sad to read.
I will attempt to correct your flawed thought. Not sure what good it will do. It might attract the blog troll. Hope not, but that is a huge hope.
You have this example of a heating system in a cold house. Yes it takes time to heat up. That is correct. You are so wrong in your thinking of the Sun taking a long time to heat up the Earth. The heat loss is instant and continuous. There is no magic storage that keeps things warm. As soon as you turn the heating off in the home is starts to cool down. It does not wait. Energy gain and loss is a continuous process. There is heat capacity which only delays the time to reach a steady state temperature.
The Earth is gaining energy from the Sun continuously. It never stops. It loses the same amount or the temperture will rise or fall. The rate can be slow by heat capacity but never zero. As soon as the Sun stops shining on a location it starts cooling down. It does not wait. Water also will cool down just takes longer than some other materials. Your logic is quite bad. It is sad to read such poorly thought out posts. I hope I can encourage you some in thinking before posting. Reread you post and look for you flaws. Hopefully you can see them and correct them. If not, then you are a lost anti-science deluded chump. I am not sure if you are as stupid as Clint R, I certainly hope not! If you can see how dumb your post is and correct your thinking that would be rewarding.
Norman, this is why your comments are so funny. You just ramble in circles, with no purpose other than to abuse your keyboard.
(Have you located your “real 255K surface” yet?)
N,
You wrote –
“The Earth is gaining energy from the Sun continuously. It never stops. It loses the same amount or the temperture will rise or fall. The rate can be slow by heat capacity but never zero. As soon as the Sun stops shining on a location it starts cooling down.”
This is your GHE? The temperature rises during the day, and falls at night?
The Earth’s temperature has fallen over the last four and a half billion years or so, indicating that the Earth loses more heat than it gets from the Sun, internal radiogenic sources, meteoric impacts, tidal heating and the like.
You appear to agree that no GHE can be observed or is necessary to explain what you wrote.
Why do you continue to claim the existence of something you admit is unnecessary to explain reality?
Over to you.
Swenson and Clint R are just idiots. Ignore them.
RLH,
You wrote –
“Swenson and Clint R are just idiots. Ignore them.”
And if nobody obeys you? What then?
Moron.
Swenson is an idiot. Ignore him.
maguff…”youre not worthy of my time. Happy trails to you bloviating blowhard”.
***
I don’t post for you, or to you. I post for others who may be taken in by your propaganda and rhetoric.
GR is just an idiot. Ignore him.
RLH,
You wrote –
“GR is just an idiot. Ignore him.”
And if people don’t leap to do your bidding, will you hold your breath until you turn blue?
What’s up? Are your cunning gotchas just making you into an object of derision?
Maybe you should try injecting some obscenities into your attempts at gratuitous offence.
Would that be more effective for you trying to appear wise and respected?
Carry on.
Swenson is an idiot. Ignore him.
According to Clint R, all scientists who worked on Moon’s motions, on tides and the effect of tides on Earth and Moon – especially Isaac Newton – manifestly are braindead cult idiots.
They all don’t understand the omnipotent ‘ball-on-a-string’ principle, which explains all we need to understand the World.
*
Being myself a very good braindead cult idiot, I prefer to read pages like these below, and to download documents referred to int these pages.
*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_tides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_theory#Newton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_William_Brown#Work_on_the_motion_of_the_Moon
*
Nota bene: according to the Pseudoskeptics, Wiki is always trash – except when what it shows fits their narrative.
Bindidon, you started out completely wrong, but you eventually got to the truth when you admitted: “Being myself a very good braindead cult idiot…”
Too bad you can’t understand basic concepts like:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1175101
Some people know when they are looking at a scale model and some people know when they are not, and can tell the difference.
Some other people are confused.
b,
Well, that was certainly meant to be profound.
Failed – irrelevant, nonsensical, and moronic.
The usual nonsense avoidance from a retarded GHE cultist, who can’t even produce a copy of his holy “Greenhouse Effect”!
Are you afraid people will laugh at you?
Be a man – stand tall. Flourish your copy of the Greenhouse Effect proudly! Laughter won’t do you any harm, you know.
Carry on.
Swenson is just an idiot. Ignore him.
RLH wrote –
“Swenson is just an idiot. Ignore him.”
Sounds fair to me. If you don’t, RLH might get really, really, annoyed with you, and we all know what will happen then, don’t we?
Idiot.
Swenson,
Looks like it’s time for an old grade school taunt.
I don’t chew my cabbage twice.
I have already explained the greenhouse effect to you, and you even admitted that it exists. And you told me where it can be observed.
So stop being whatever it is that you are being up there.
Anyway, I was responding to one of Clint’s moronic rants, nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.
Clint R is just an idiot. Ignore him.
RLH wrote x
RLH wrote –
“Clint R is just an idiot. Ignore him.”
Sounds fair to me. If you don’t, RLH might get really, really, annoyed with you, and we all know what will happen then, don’t we?
Sorry for the typos. Laughter is my only excuse.
Idiot.
RLH,
How can you expect other people to ignore me, when you don’t comply with your own demand?
Not setting a good example, wot?
Maybe you should practice what you preach – or is there one law for you, and quite another for those you want to boss about?
Tut, tut.
Still an idiot I see.
RLH,
Who else but a moron would not ignore those they demand others do?
Carry on not ignoring me.
You are still an idiot I see.
SpaceX Reusable Rocket Costs Versus Airplanes
February 11, 2022 by Brian Wang
“In the most recent SpaceX Starship presentation, Elon Musk stated that the SpaceX Starship can become lower cost than airplanes for long haul cargo delivery.”
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2022/02/spacex-reusable-rocket-costs-versus-airplanes.html
linked from: http://www.transterrestrial.com/
Maybe, but we have to see how it works out, but first, we need to wait another month {at least} for the FAA permission in order to have the test launch of the Starship.
g,
I understand that Elon Musk has predicted full self driving cars “next year” for the ninth year in a row.
Just to add to the cult’s meltdown:
2LoT, Chapter 2
(If you missed Chapter 1, find it here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1158951)
We learned in Chapter 1 that 2LoT can be simply stated as: “Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body by itself.“
That means ice cubes can NOT boil water. In fact, 2LoT means that ice cubes can not heat anything above the temperature of the ice.
The braindead cult idiots HATE 2LoT! So they have to pervert it. We see that here with all of their efforts to claim that ice cubes can boil water. Yes, they’re really that desperate.
A cold sky can NOT heat a warm surface. They HATE that. So they have to pervert it. One of their recent efforts was to claim that a “pyrgeometer” is “proof” that cold can warm hot, because it can measure a colder temperature than its environment.
A pyrgeometer works by ‘capturing” photons from a colder source. The pyrgeometer is an engineered device that combines “design” with “energy”. “Design and energy” means that the pyrgeometer is NOT an example of “cold” warming “hot”, BY ITSELF. A pyrgeometer that is NOT properly designed and NOT supplied with energy will NOT function.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrgeometer
So a pyrgeometer is NOT “proof” that “cold” can warm “hot”. Just as 4 wheels can NOT go up a hill by themselves, but a properly designed vehicle with energy can take the wheels up a hill, a properly designed pyrogeometer can measure a colder sky.
Clint R,
To expand a little, a temperature measuring device of any type is designed to measure temperature (degree of hotness, if you like).
Anything above 0 K has a temperature.
There is no physical requirement that a temperature measuring device must only be capable of measuring temperatures hotter than itself.
Consumer grade IR thermometers routinely claim accuracy of plus or minus 1 C, -60 to 650 C, at an operating temperature of 0 C to 50 C. Nothing miraculous there.
An interesting note is that in the 1869 or so, the Earl of Rosse measured the maximum temperature of the Moon’s surface, and arrived at a figure of about 260 C. Out by a factor of two, but pretty good, considering the difficulties involved.
Not one of the so-called “climate scientists” can hold a candle to experimenters like Earl Rosse. Bumbling amateurs by comparison.
“In fact, 2LoT means that ice cubes can not heat anything above the temperature of the ice”
But if the ice cube is warmer than the coldness of outer space, it will be possible to tell the difference if, say, 50% of that space is covered by ice.
Which is all anyone has ever claimed.
RLH,
You wrote –
“But if the ice cube is warmer than the coldness of outer space, it will be possible to tell the difference if, say, 50% of that space is covered by ice.
Which is all anyone has ever claimed.”
Your first sentence is meaningless. Who else has claimed that?
Maybe you should think about what you are trying to say, and then put it into clear English. Even better, accept that you cannot even describe the GHE, which is why you are desperately flailing about, trying to make people believe you know what you are talking about.
Carry on.
“Who else has claimed that?”
You and the rest of your idiots do so on a regular basis.
Exactly Swenson, almost everything RLH spews is meaningless. He can’t understand simple things like: “In fact, 2LoT means that ice cubes can not heat anything above the temperature of the ice.”
He reads that sentence and he’s lost in space!
Clint R is an idiot who does not understand any of the science he sees.
Nobody says the atmosphere is heating the surface by itself.
The atmosphere is reducing the heat loss of the surface, which is being warmed by the Sun, so since the surface is cooling less, and being heated the same by the Sun, the net result is warming of the surface.
Learn a little math gents.
Yes braindead bob, we’ve heard your cult chant before. It starts with “The atmosphere is reducing the heat loss of the surface…” and ends with “…the net result is warming of the surface.”
Sun is a constant, so you are violating 2LoT.
Of course you can’t understand, you’re braindead.
Maybe if you chant some more….
No Clint R,
The Sun is not a constant, it is a variable star growing in power as it depletes its hydrogen fuel.
So a violation of the second law doesn’t follow, so there are two things here that you fail to understand, one is thermodynamics and the other is math.
Here let me dumb it down for you.
A – B = C
If you reduce the value of B, you increase the value of C.
“The Sun is not a constant, it is a variable star growing in power as it depletes its hydrogen fuel.”
Well great bob. You just explained “global warming”!
(Poor braindead bob probably worked all afternoon on a way to pervert 2LoT. They hate 2LoT.)
b,
You wrote –
“Here let me dumb it down for you.
A – B = C
If you reduce the value of B, you increase the value of C.”
So if A = 0, , the value of C will always increase if you reduce the value of B, will it? [sarcasm]
You should apply for a job as a “climate scientist”. Gavin Schmidt has been sacked as “climate science” advisor. Maybe his mathematical knowledge was even inferior to yours, but that would be hard to achieve.
Are you really a dummy, or just a mathematically ignorant moron?
What’s a negative Sun, Mike Flynn?
Clint R,
“Well great bob. You just explained “global warming”!
(Poor braindead bob probably worked all afternoon on a way to pervert 2LoT. They hate 2LoT.)”
Sorry Clint R, the rate at which the Sun is increasing is way too slow to account for global warming.
Better luck next time.
Swenson,
Let me work that out for you!
A = 0 and B = 2
So
A – B = -2
now change B to 1
A – B now equals -1
and -1 is greater than -2
You got that?
You seem to be having problems with grade school math.
latest from Valentina Zharkova – Modern Grand Solar Minimum versus global warming
https://youtu.be/tNYdxujrcQE
Well, it seems like a update, rather than conclusion.
So, 25 will about same 24, and 26 and 27 will be mostly spotless.
Bad news for space exploration, apparently.
Hard to listen to, and she was cut short, for audience questions,
but at end, seemed say amount sunlight is going up.
I don’t think it’s predictive global temperature, but indicates changes in weather- which most call global warming/cooling.
But I would continue to guess we will increase artic polar sea, rather than decrease it. But really related to this talk.
-But really related to this talk.-
But not really related to this talk.
What is interesting is it could be disproven when the future comes.
But seems have wait for solar cycle 26.
And in meantime, seems going get more updates which will be well before then.
[And it seems could need 3 month or less to Mars:)]
Of course if you predict the sun for millions of years as compared being unable to predict it next week, that would be great thing, of course.
In fact it might considered one of the requirements of a spacefaring
civilization.
Or one think it’s an outlandish or impossible requirement, but this seems like could happen within couple decades.
I suddenly realize that in my (by no means exhaustive) list of some of the the most important ‘astrologer’s having contributed to the full explanation of lunar motion (orbit AND spin about the polar axis)
Cassini
Newton
Mayer
Euler
Lagrange
Laplace
Beer/ Mädler
Delaunay
Habibullin
Eckhardt
Calamé
Migus
Moons
I had forgot to mention, between Delaunay and Habibullin, an English mathematician and ‘astrologer’ (who later emigrated to the US)
Ernest William Brown
who wrote, with his ‘Theory of the Motion of the Moon’, one of the most exact descriptions of Moon’s motion, together with the most exact computation of the three body problem (Sun, Earth, Moon) needed for that description.
His work is stored in
https://archive.org/download/TheoryOfTheMotionOfTheMoon/BrownLunarTheory.pdf
*
Brown was very disappointed that he couldn’t find the origin of the ultimate difference between his computations and observations.
The origin of this difference was later on discovered by the Russian astronomer and mathematician Habibullin, who obtained a first approximation for Moon’s free physical libration (probably in 1963).
Final steps in this domain were achieved by the mathematicians Calamé (France, 1976) and Moons (Belgium, 1982) by using the data obtained by Lunar Laser Ranging.
I owe E.W. Brown a great apology.
Thanks Bindidon for another example of your desperate attempts to protect your cult’s false beliefs.
We know that Moon does NOT rotate, due to the fact that one side always faces the inside of its orbit. It’s the same basic motion as a ball-on-a-string. Lunar Laser Ranging just confirms that.
And Brown’s work related to Moons ORBIT. His equations had NOTHING to do with axial rotation. You just don’t understand any of this. Like Norman, you find a link that you believe supports your cult, and you go with it. You’re unable to learn.
You have wasted a lot of time trying to protect your cult. You must realize the importance of this Moon issue. The false beliefs have permeated and infested the cult institutions. When people finally realize Moon does NOT rotate, and CO2 does NOT heat, the ensuing meltdown will be devastating to your cult. So desperate attempts like yours, along with other cultists claiming ice cubes can boil water, are most helpful in bringing about the impending meltdown.
Did I say “thank you”?
The Moon rotates on its axis once per orbit of the Earth/Moon barycenter. The Earth rotates on its axis about 27 times faster.
Those are the indisputable facts no matter how often you want to dispute them.
Clint R, your analogy of a ball-on-a-string is flawed because a string would exert a moment arm force at both ends that counteracts inertia.
To correct the analogy, place a ball inside of a frictionless orb that is connected to a string. With this analogy, the ball’s inertia in the frictionless orb keeps it from rotating and, therefor, will show a different side as it revolves about the string holder. Now, start the ball axially rotating inside the frictionless orb, and then swing the string around; you’ll see the same face of the ball if the swing matches the axial rotation of the ball.
Nice try. Thanks you for your entertaining flight of fancy. I wish I had a suitable Trebek “Ooh, sorry” sound bite to share.
I’ll add you to the decrufting filter.
Wizgeek, your frictionless orb does NOT replicate gravity, so it won’t work.
Also, remember the ball-on-a-string is NOT an exact model of Moon. It is ONLY a simple analogy of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. Moon is NOT rotating on its axis. If it were, we would see all sides of it from Earth.
Clint R distorts the true reality of the Moon turning once on its axis per orbit of the Earth/Moon barycenter with the Earth turning approximately 27 times as fast as that.
The frictionless orb does a better job of replicating how gravity works that your string attached at the surface does (and only at the Moon end it seems).
RLH is STILL trying to put the string between Earth and Moon! No matter how many times the simple analogy has been explained to him, he STILL doesn’t get it.
He can’t learn.
I’m not the one promoting a ball-on-a-string as being relevant to anything other than a ball-on-a-string.
Why are you punting that ball again, Binny?
These kinds of editorials are not unlike Gordo’s.
Willard
A person like you
– spending incredible amounts of time in absolutely redundant exchanges with the Flynnson guy
– feels the need to compare what I write with the antiscience propagated by Robertson?
Eh bien dis donc… Pour qui vous prenez-vous, Willard?
Most of your ‘editorials’ are simply bullshit.
Binny,
If you keep punting back the ball in your endzone, don’t whine if you have to keep playing defense and I have to save your ass on every damn thread.
For how many years have you and Gordo been playing that boring Waldorf & Statler act?
The worldwide renowned ball-on-a-string specialist Clint R did not understand anything of what I wrote.
Ernest William Brown’s major contribution OF COURSE is centered around the Moon-Earth-Sun ephemeris.
No doubt!
But his work was fundamental for those who followed him and had to separate, within the differential equations of the second order, orbiting from spin.
Unlike e.g. Tobias Mayer, who made use of the equations derived from Newton’s gravity laws only to assert for Moon’s shape a sufficient sphericity, but made his computations of
– the spin axis’ inclination
– the rotation period
– the selenocentric coordinates of Moon craters
solely by using spherical trigonometry.
For Mayer’s approach, the shape of Moon’s orbit was not a primary concern.
*
Ignoramuses like Clint R do not need to say ‘Thank you’ to me.
They rather should learn, learn, and learn, instead of naming others ‘braindead cult idiot’s.
Bindidon, I’m glad to see you retreating from your attempt to claim Brown’s work related to Moon’s imaginary axial rotation.
Now, you can continue your retreat, as NOTHING Mayer did proved Moon was rotating.
Your name-calling and retreating are both indicative of your meltdown. Please continue.
” NOTHING Mayer did proved Moon was rotating… ”
There couldn’t be a better proof of your incompetence and inability to read what Mayer wrote in his excellent treatise:
https://www.e-rara.ch/download/pdf/913790?name=IV%20Abhandlung%20%C3%BCber%20die%20Umw%C3%A4lzung%20des%20Monds%20um%20seine%20Axe%20und%20die%20scheinbare%20Beweg
‘Math neurons’ identified in the brain
February 14, 2022. University of Bonn
Nature vs nurture? The reason why [good] engineers seem to run in families?
GLSEA (The Great Lakes Surface Environmental Analysis) is a digital map of the Great Lakes surface water temperature and ice cover which is produced daily at GLERL. The lake surface temperatures are derived from NOAA polar-orbiting satellite imagery.
https://i.ibb.co/ts6fpbN/glsea-cur.png
The science of the greenhouse effect is not some new discovery but has a long history compared to such “recent” science as relativity (Albert Einstein, 1905) or quantum mechanics (Max Planck, 1900).
Global warming is based on physics known for over a century, and really refined by the US Air Force after World War II when they were working on issues such as sensors for heat-seeking missiles. If you deny global warming, in some sense you’re denying that the Air Force knows what type of sensor to put on a missile.
Asking whether you “believe” in global warming from the CO2 from fossil-fuel burning, is a little like asking whether you “believe” that gravity will pull a dropped pencil downward; both are unavoidable consequences of well-understood physics. But most people accept the tendency for a dropped pencil to fall downward, without asking whether you “believe” in gravity. If they could see in the infrared, they would probably hold similar beliefs about global warming.
Knowledge, tools and energy. Science and engineering work; earth was overpopulated with a few hunter-gatherers, but we are a few billion now.
We are still hunter-gatherers of energy.
https://youtu.be/1IcPrEM2_p4
TM, did you get that at your last cult meeting?
I especially like the part about “heat-sinking missiles”. I guess they are referring to infrared, not understanding any of the science.
But, it’s funny. Thanks for sharing.
Clint RT is just an idiot. Ignore him.
I couldn’t resist coming back to this, and it’s a good thing I did. The video is with Alley, who is a geologist! That means he knows NOTHING about the relevent physics. But, I also noticed this:
“If they could see in the infrared, they would probably hold similar beliefs about global warming.”
If people could see in the infrared, it would end the CO2 nonsense immediately. Ice cubes emit a “hotter” photon than the CO2 15μ photon. That’s the problem, people can’t see, and many won’t learn.
“many won’t learn”
Such as Clint R.
Clint r
Infrared homing missiles always fascinated me.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_homing
The American military sponsored research post-war into infrared emission and absorb*tion spectra of a variety of gases and their behaviour in the atmosphere.
This led to the Sidewinder air-to-air missile which homed on the 4.5 micrometre radiation emitted by CO2 in a hot jet exhaust.
It was also used to develop satellite sensors designed to detect the hot exhaust from Russian ballistic missiles after launch.
The data was later declassified as the Hitrans dataset and used in the Modtrans model. From Modtrans has come much of the research quantifying the expected effects of greenhouse gases, which have then been confirmed by observation.
You’re confused again, Ent.
What has “been confirmed by observation” is that CO2 emits infrared. That doesn’t mean CO2 can heat Earth’s surface.
To make the connection from CO2 to heating the surface, you have a huge wall to breakdown. It’s called the “Second Law of Thermodynamics”.
You won’t be able to understand such science in your lifetime. You believe passenger jets fly backwards.
Clint R is just an idiot. Ignore him.
Logic.
Alley is a geologist! That means he knows NOTHING about the relevent physics.
ClintR is an engineer! That means he knows NOTHING about the relevent physics.
Ent, it’s not unusual for a REAL engineer to know physics much better than a physicist that has never left academia. The REAL world teaches things not taught in classrooms, and dramatically emphasizes things that were taught. In the REAL world, perverting physics can cost money and take lives.
Here, every cult idiot with a keyboard believes he’s a physics expert.
Clint R is no more a real engineer than he is a real scientist. Which is to say, not at all.
RLH,
You wrote –
“Clint R is no more a real engineer than he is a real scientist. Which is to say, not at all.”
This is based on . . . ? Nothing but your imagination, perhaps?
I suppose you prefer to accept the nonsensical uttering of Gavin Schmidt (not a scientist, nor an engineer – and has been removed from his role as Chief Science Advisor”. I wonder why?
Or maybe you prefer that fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat, Michael Mann? At least he has a PhD in geology and geophysics! You would think he would accept that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, but apparently not.
Maybe you need to find a copy of the non-existent Greenhouse Effect, and see what sort of a “scientist” wrote its description, and what experiments were performed to support or disprove the hypothesis proposed to explain this wondrous “effect”.
Maybe you could respond by ignoring the facts. I suggest that you could also demand that people ignore anybody who asks to see a copy of the mysterious “Greenhouse Effect”.
How are you going with finding a copy of the Greenhouse Theory? Not well, I guess. Have you tried borrowing a copy from a “climate scientist”?
[chortle]
Based on his observation that a ball-on-a-string is the correct example for Earth/Moon orbits around a barycenter.
Ent,
Clint R raises a good point. Can you clarify what are the expected effects of particular IR absorbing gases, which have been confirmed by what observations?
The hypothesis is that increasing CO2 increases global average temperature. We are doing the experiment to test it.
As a control we kept CO2 constant for 10,000 years and kept we kept all the other forcing constant, except for orbital changes causing 0.5C slow cooling over the last 6000 years.
We then increased CO2 gradually by 50% over 140 years while keeping sunlight and other potential forcing constant.
This is the results generated by the experiment.
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
When you fold in the radia*tive physics the CO2 AGW hypothesis predicts that the last 10,O00 years should show 4000 years of constant temperatures, 6000 years of slow cooling then 140 years of rapid warming.
This is what our results show, which supports the hypothesis.
If you want to falsify the hypothesis you need to do one or two things.
1) Show that the temperature and CO2 data for the Holocene are in error by providing better data.
2) Show that another mechanism explains the observed temperature pattern better than the CO2 AGW hypothesis.
This site discourages radia*tive physics discussions and detailed discussion of the effect of different GHGs is a considerable field. Where do you want to start and how much detail do you want to go into?
Ent, you can throw away all temperature “data” before about 400 years ago, as it means nothing. Then, you must realize the “radiative physics the CO2 AGW hypothesis predicts” is all bogus science. CO2 can NOT heat the planet.
Without conclusive science, everything going on with Earth’s temperature is “natural variability”.
You’ve got NOTHING.
The problem with the graph in your experiment is the data from Central England Temperature anomaly. It shows 2C rise from 1700 – 1735, which is a much greater and faster increase than anything observed in the hockey stick.
CET is a small triangle in England, Kennui.
Back to you.
EM,
You wrote –
“The hypothesis is that increasing CO2 increases global average temperature. We are doing the experiment to test it.”
No, EM. There is no “hypothesis”. You just pretend there is.
First, you need to observe something that is not explicable using known physics, and that you cannot do, can you?
Give it a try – if you are going to bang on about a “greenhouse effect”, you will need to specify where it may be observed, measured, and documented. Just blathering about thermometers getting hotter here and there from time to time is just stupid.
Thermometers react to heat, in case you hadn’t noticed. If you are claiming that thermometers also react to “greenhouse gases” by getting hotter, be prepared to be seriously laughed at.
Going as far back to Professor John Tyndall, every reproducible experiment ever carried out shows that reducing the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer lowers its temperature.
Off you go now – try and convert fiction into fact,
“CET is a small triangle in England”
CET is considered a good proxy for the Northern Hemisphere temperatures.
“reducing the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer lowers its temperature”
Are you saying that wrapping a thermometer in transparent plastic and left exposed in the sun does not raise its temperature?
Idiot.
I encountered the current figure yesterday. World population 7.95 billion. We’ll pass 8 billion within two years.
Wuhan Flu was a dud.
“I especially like the part about “heat-sinking missiles”. I guess they are referring to infrared, not understanding any of the science.”
Bwahaha…
TM,
I don’t deny a little global warming over the past century. But “belief” in global warming from fossil-fuel burning is not at all like belief in gravity which has been measured to around 6 significant figures. Show me any measurements of CO2 warming the globe greater than zero.
I doubt measuring AGW will warm the globe, Chic.
Perhaps you should specify what you want in your sammich.
Willard makes a good point. Increased CO2 is warming the world whether you believe it or not. Outside this site the debate has moved on from the science into policy.
Why should I bother rehashing evidence you already know. What’s in it for me?
In your cult, “CO2 is warming the world”, passenger jets fly backwards, and ice cubes can boil water!
Your cult can’t stand reality.
Sock puppets don’t get to speak for reality, Pup.
You might console yourself for her well-known liberal bias by doing the Pole Dance Experiment.
If viewed from space, passenger jets flying west do appear to be flying backwards, and passenger jets flying east appear to exceed the speed of sound.
CO2 does make the surface of the Earth warmer than it would be without CO2.
So two out of three ain’t bad, right Meatloaf?
That’s a good one, braindead bob. No one would believe you’re that braindead, so I’m glad to get even more proof.
You may see this one again….
bob,
Is it safe to say there has never been an Earth without CO2? In glacial/interglacial time periods after a 10 degree change in temperature, it took hundreds of years for a 100 ppm change in CO2 to catch up. Has there been any data recorded since to suggest that CO2 above current levels will have any effect whatsoever on global temperature?
b,
You wrote –
“CO2 does make the surface of the Earth warmer than it would be without CO2.”
That is why the surface of the Moon is so much hotter than the surface of the Earth, is it?
You are such a moron you don’t even accept the reality that the “most important Greenhouse Gas” (snigger) is actually H2O!
None of that on the Moon, either.
I suppose the rest of the Society of Morons are still trying to figure out why the surface of the Earth is still not molten. What does your fantasy tell you about that?
Carry on.
Swenson is an idiot. Ignore him.
Chic Bowdrie
Background reading.
https://bluemarbleearth.wordpress.com/2015/03/11/the-hockey-stick-in-context/
Goodnight.
The hockey stick returns in all its glory. Wasn’t true then. Isn’t true now.
“That’s a good one, braindead bob. No one would believe you’re that braindead, so I’m glad to get even more proof.
You may see this one again….”
Bring it my little physics dropout.
“Has there been any data recorded since to suggest that CO2 above current levels will have any effect whatsoever on global temperature?”
See the graph at the top of the page.
“You are such a moron you dont even accept the reality that the most important Greenhouse Gas (snigger) is actually H2O!”
Ah, I see you have found a copy of the greenhouse effect!
Condensable or non-condensable?
Which is the most important.
Condensable may provide most of the effect.
But the non-condensable provides the baseline the condensable works off of.
Ent,
I’m not surprised you went to sleep reading about paleoclimatology from an Environmental Policy grad doing masters in Geology. What did you think her blog post had to say about how much effect an increase in CO2 will have on future global temperature?
bobdroege,
Obviously, morons don’t comprehend what a snigger is. I do it quite often, when morons called bobdroege claim there is Greenhouse Effect, but someone else must have stolen it because bobdroege can’t find his copy [snigger].
All you can do is deny reality, and say really stupid things like “Ah, I see you have found a copy of the greenhouse effect!”.
No, bob, finding something that does not exist is beyond even my awesome powers!
Best you stick to dribbling moronic rubbish like “Condensable or non-condensable?
Which is the most important.
Condensable may provide most of the effect.
But the non-condensable provides the baseline the condensable works off of.”
Have you managed to work out why the Earth has cooled, or why the surface of the Moon gets so much hotter than the Earth?
Measured even in 1869, so you nitwits can’t say you haven’t had time to think about it! Maybe you should consider taunting you way out of even thinking about accepting reality! [snigger, snigger].
Go for it, moron.
bob,
“See the graph at the top of the page.”
Which data did you want to cherry pick? The last 10 years? 50 years?
There is no correlation between CO2 and temperature in any time frame that will irrefutably prove that CO2 drives temperature. Even if the correlation was good for more than a few years, correlation does not prove causation. There are too many other factors that influence both CO2 and temperature. It would be much easier to show how temperature drives CO2 as many scientists have done.
Chic,
No cherry picking, use all the data.
And there is always a correlation between two data sets, and the one between CO2 and temperature is positive.
Swenson,
Since you have claimed that Water vapor is a more important greenhouse gas than CO2, you must have found your copy that defines what greenhouse gases are.
So you have admitted there is a greenhouse gas theory.
Which works independently of whether or not the Earth is cooling or warming or staying the same due to other processes.
So keep throwing the insults while you lose your shit.
And by the way the Moon gets pretty hot when it is in sunlight for 2 weeks, with an albedo lower than all planets in the solar system save Mercury.
Does that answer your question as to why the Moon gets so hot, or are you going to ask why the Moon gets so cold next?
Gravity is different from IR. Acceleration due to gravity does not have a saturation point. There is however, a limited amount of energy in each frequency emitted by the earth and that frequency is saturated, both by CO2 and H2O a b s o r p t i o n spectrum.
Its like having a sponge to soak up a puddle of water. It doesn’t matter how big your sponge gets, there is only so much water to soak up.
Ken,
Climate crackpots try to avoid accepting reality (for example, they can’t accept that the surface of the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, in spite of their silly non-existent “Greenhouse Effect”.
Hence all their attempts to change the discussion to gravity, overcoats, dams, semantics – or anything which will avoid admitting that they can’t even describe the “Greenhouse Effect” that forms the basis for their religion!
Earth Mantle does not transfer energy very well. There is lots of evidence the earth surface has been covered several times with kilometers thick ice, all of which evidence doesn’t support you hypothesis.
Let us know when you have evidence of your hypothesis. Until then I will remain skeptical of your claim.
K,
There is precisely no evidence that that the entire Earth surface has been covered with ice simultaneously.
More than slightly impossible, in any case. For starters, water exposed to full sunlight normal to the surface cannot freeze. There is roughly 1000 w/m2 from a hot object of some 5500 K impinging on it.
Good luck with trying to freeze water (particularly sea water) under those conditions. Sagan was delusional with his “faint young sun”.
By the way, as far as I know, the Earth’s surface was originally molten, and it is definitely not molten now. Feel free to deny it if you wish. No hypothesis on my part. Just a statement of fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayas
The Himalayas have snow on them and they are at the tropics. Or did you forget?
Ken
” There is however, a limited amount of energy in each frequency emitted by the earth and that frequency is saturated, both by CO2 and H2O a b s o r p t i o n spectrum. ”
This is such an utter nonsense.
How can you imagine that Earth could ever reply to solar SW radiation with LW IR at given frequencies / wavelengths in such tiny amounts that the few H2O, CO2, CH4, NO2 and other IR sensitive molecules would ever be able to ‘saturate’ them?
*
The inverse is true: one needs indeed to prove that these little molecules really have an effect.
Maybe you will accept a few hints?
1. The mean global heat balance
Joseph W. Chamberlain (1979)
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19790010343/downloads/19790010343.pdf
*
2. Trace Gas Trends and Their Potential Role in Climate Change
Ramanathan & al. (1985)
https://escholarship.org/content/qt9jh429w9/qt9jh429w9.pdf
*
3. A resumee of the best article I have ever read concerning CO2 and its effect on H2O
Cédric Ringenbach & Christiane Drevet (2014)
L’effet de serre atmosphérique
https://www.centrale-energie.fr/spip/spip.php?article151
(in French but, as opposed to Dufresne and Treiner’s 2011 article in pdf format, easily translatable using Google Translate)
*
Don’t be surprised if some absolutely ignorant pseudoscientists ‘operating’ on this blog, try to denigrate all this.
The stratospheric polar vortex is now strong. The extent of ice in the Arctic is growing.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_ANOM_JFM_NH_2022.png
Below are time series plots comparing sea ice extent over the last four weeks for this year compared to the last four weeks of the previous four years for the MASIE regions. These images are updated daily. Click on the image for a larger view.
https://i.ibb.co/hYvM0Ht/r00-Northern-Hemisphere-ts-4km.png
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon states:
“Planet’s mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root“.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
This explains why CO2 has no significant effect on climate change.
WV increase is about twice what is possible from just feedback https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WCyMkvRWvBVGT-7Eu6SRgJjY8XKG9qpV/view?usp=sharing
You are using UAH, the temperature dataset with the lowest warming rate.
Your data could mean that the water vapour content is not increasing too fast. It could equally mean that UAH is underestimating the warming rate
Well AIRs seems to agree with UAH
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/airs7.jpeg
As does RSS since 2005
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/mean:12/from:2005/offset:-0.45/plot/uah6/mean:12/from:2005
As do a lot of other series
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/mean:12/from:2005/offset:-0.45/plot/uah6/mean:12/from:2005
You’re grasping at straws. You have no evidence that UAH is underestimating the warming rate. It could very well be the most accurate of all the datasets.
Looks like Had*Crut4 is lower since 2005
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/from:2005/trend/plot/had*crut4gl/mean:12/from:2005/offset:-0.5/trend
Remove the asterisk.
Ent,
If I understand Dan’s data correctly, he is comparing measured Total Precipitable Water with a calculated amount based on UAH temperatures. I would think other temperature sets would be at least as highly correlated.
entropic…”You are using UAH, the temperature dataset with the lowest warming rate”.
***
The UAH data set is derived from telemetry that covers 95% of the planet, including the oceans. It samples bazzillions of data points (oxygen molecules) per scan compared to only those that surround a thermometer in a surface Stevenson screen. NOAA ocean data collection points are so far apart as to be useless.
The UAH data is not fudged, using interpolation and homogenization in a model, like the NOAA data. No one has heard UAH claim 2014 as the warmest year ever based on a 48% probability.
Ent,
This is representative of the rest of reported temperatures. https://drive.google.com/file/d/14qc3dscY7YV0CeFmTkZLi2ygMNif7o4t/view?usp=sharing
You can find out how its done at Sect 7 of https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
Dan,
Nice to see this investigational type of data. You’re doing the Lord’s work here.
How do you know the increase in water vapor is not just a result of warmer temperatures and not your alleged cause of it?
The water vapor hypothesis has more weight but is not quantifiable.
Ste,
Its quantifiable enough to demonstrate that the only molecule that has a significant effect on climate is water vapor.
Dan, satellite era calibrated observations show water vapor is not the only molecule that has a significant effect on climate.
Some data to back up your claim would be good.
Sorry. Dan has the data. Now the ball is in your court, Ball4.
Chic should already be competent enough to find the recent measured data when commenting on a climnate blog. Since Chic is not competent enough to find the data, I will help bring Chic up to speed:
Observed attribution by Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System net top-of-atmosphere surface warming trends for the period 09/2002-03/2020 from added ppm trace gas changes (ozone, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, CFC-11, CFC-12, and HCFC-22) with 95% confidence interval: 0.22 +/- 0.05 W/m^2
… from period water vapor changes: 0.31 +/- 0.19 W/m^2
Computer generated projections of potential forcings do not translate into measured global temperature increases. You can’t make your case using linear and static time arguments like that. Instead of a knee-jerk reaction to defend the AGW dogma, why not consider skeptic arguments with an open mind? Radiation from the surface captured by IR absorbing gases near the surface is thermalized and transferred up by convection and winds where more of those gases can only help cool the planet.
Water vapor could be a confounding exception because it condenses at a lower altitude.
The data is instrumentally measured not computer projections Chic. No dogma.
There are also downdrafts offsetting convection. The radiometer measurements at satellite orbit take all that global convective and downdraft activity into account.
You can measure W/m2 from a defined source to a defined surface and measure temperature changes of said surface under a set of controlled circumstances. However, those W/m2 numbers you cite are calculations based on spectrographs at specific times and places and assumed to apply at all times, places, and other potentially confounding circumstances. They are not measurements without confounding circumstances from specific sources over the whole Earth after sufficiently long times, thus they don’t warrant claiming any resulting measured global temperature change.
For example, annual CO2 steadily increased over the UAH era, yet the lower troposphere temperatures have been greatly variable. There are too many confounding variables to say conclusively that CO2 has had any effect at all.
“The data [i.e., W/m2] is instrumentally measured not computer projections.”
Try again. Either link to it or explain it.
Chic, the instruments on the satellites are broad and narrow band radiometers. Not spectrographs. Those radiometer results are calibrated to thermometers.
The signature of CO2 can be picked out of the variables vs water vapor like a flute vs. an oboe in an orchestra. You have a lot to learn about climate measurement but you, at least, are trying. The authors of the satellite research reports explain the field in detail; the reports are free to read. Help yourself to the explanations.
What was the temperature change from 0.22 +/- 0.05 W/m^2 and where was it reported?
Temperature is an avg. & intensive property Chic so temperature doesn’t ever have identifiable ensemble components but radiative components of atm. temperature forcing can be, and have been, identified in the satellite era. Refer to the top post for the LTL temperature trend in the satellite era; refer to the satellite data reports to identify temperature forcing components.
Your causation by correlation argument is getting old.
Chi,
Because WV has been increasing about twice as fast as possible from just warming. WV increase can explain all of the planet warming attributable to humanity. About 7 molecules of WV are added for each molecule increase in CO2.
Dan, observed net top-of-atmosphere flux trends for the period 09/2002 to 03/2020 show meaningful attribution to water vapor only half of the combined clouds, surface albedo, and IR active gas warming trend changes.
Water vapor trend is not the only planetary surface climate warming game in town. The period’s trend in water vapor is particularly positive (warming) over land mass and is observed locally negative over large areas of the oceans.
Bal,
This graph says a lot about how energy is redirected wrt wavenumber as the energy travels up through the atmosphere and eventually gets radiated to space. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k9OpSeNkiavyKjxzgU22i33m_QHNiUt3/view?usp=sharing Specifically, as explained at section 10 in https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com “radiation emitted in the range 500-600/cm is from between the altitudes 2 – 6 km and that the outward directed radiation in this range makes it all the way to space” That radiation is from WV and includes a lot of the energy that had been absorbed by CO2 and got redirected to WV molecules via thermalization. At the tropopause and above, CO2 population dominates and CO2 molecules can radiate to space and are ‘recharged’ by reverse-thermalization.
Bal,
WV has been measured by NASA/RSS using satellite instrumentation since Jan 1988. They report it monthly as TPW anomalies at http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_202112.time_series.txt .
What they report is the average for non-cloud covered oceans between latitudes 60N and 60S. They claim accuracy of 1 W/m^2 which is about 3%.
This is graphed at https://drive.google.com/file/d/14qc3dscY7YV0CeFmTkZLi2ygMNif7o4t/view?usp=sharing along with what it would be if from just temperature increase (as reported by Had*RUT4). The WV increase that would occur from just warming does not keep up with actual measured WV increase. Sources of the extra WV are identified at Sect 6 of (click my name).
dan…”WV increase is about twice what is possible from just feedback …”
***
What feedback, Dan?
Gor,
The feedback that results from the increase in saturation vapor pressure as a result of increase in temperature of liquid water. It is explained in Sect 4 of https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
Dan,
Have you seen this:
http://thelightfootinstitute.ca/imglib/Earth_temp_paper.pdf
“The increase in temperature over the decades mid-1970s to 2011 was caused by an increase in water vapor and not by an increase in CO2.”
Chi,
Yes. Although his approach is totally different, we come to the same conclusion. I have yet to do or see a serious challenge to his work.
Russia’s grain exports are down by 1/3 on previous years.
https://www.apk-inform.com/en/news/1524576
The Ukraine used to be the USSR’s most productive grain producers.
Could the impending invasion be about Russia’s food security?
Unlike USA, Russia doesn’t have a bunch of greenies with their heads up their ass. They know the data shows imminent cooling. They also know Ukraine is a bread basket that they will need to control to secure their food supply.
Earlier, the obviously delusional Tyson McGuffin wrote –
“The science of the greenhouse effect is not some new discovery but . . .”
The man is a fool. There is no science involved. There is no Greenhouse Effect, and the concerted wishful thinking of the self described “climate scientists” is unable to turn fantasy into fact.
The climate nutters just refuse to accept that the surface of the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, and continues to do so, slowly. No GHE needed or observed. As it is with surface cooling at night, in winter, when clouds pass over . . .
The March of the Morons continues, each one’s nose firmly embedded in the backside of the one in front. No doubt led by the Chief Moron, but nobody seems to be putting their hand up to actually Identify the world’s most eminent “climate scientist”. What a pity – maybe he has the missing copy of the Greenhouse Effect! (Only joking, of course. There is no Greenhouse Effect. It’s even more mythical than mermaids, or the unicorn).
And life goes on.
Swenson is an idiot. Ignore him.
These permanent hints on ‘sea ice growing’ are imho exactly as boring as are those about ‘unprecedented global warming’.
1. Arctic sea ice extent for 2022:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iDvogUBKnCEY43iWK7_LFWBjT_f14eXL/view
2. Antarctic sea ice extent for 2022:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CA75wUnRDRd0aLlC05oom37Oc8sXzosq/view
Doesn’t look quite dramatic.
Especially at the South Pole, despite the certainly very cold continent and the probably very cold circumpolar ocean currents.
Mainstream forecasterz starting to catching up to La Nina stretching longer
https://youtu.be/c4zMe1OYpdI
Video is gone.
Bingdingdong probably alerted yootoob about wrong forecast
The highlights from Zharkova’s last video I take is the effect of the recent warming caused by the variable Sun – Earth distance which increases the solar irradiance
And the little tidbit at the end that the climate shysters in order to pin the warming on the CO2 they have to falsify the real effects of the Sun.
It seems to me the prediction was two solar cycles which are largely spotless.
So, if get 26 spotless or very weak, it’s better than a lucky guess.
But it’s not the Little Ice Age.
Or I am not sure, we ended our recovery from the Little Ice Age.
Even if get the Great Pause, I still count that as part of recovery from Little Ice Age.
Though it will discredit the cargo cult. But I would it’s already past that point. Though the crazies may continue for many decades, as that’s what crazies, do.
wizgeek…”Clint R, your analogy of a ball-on-a-string is flawed because a string would exert a moment arm force at both ends that counteracts inertia”.
***
Don’t be silly, we are talking physics, not pseudo-science.
A string acting perpendicular to the tangential velocity of an attached ball, and through its COG, does not exert a ‘moment arm force’ (do you mean a lever arm?).
If the ball was stationary, and it was mounted on a greased spike so it could turn about its COG, you would have to attach a string a certain distance from the spike to create a lever arm about the spike. Since the string is attached to the perimeter of the ball, it would be most practical to attach the string on either side of the ball to create the torque.
Pulling the string on one side would produce CW rotation while the other produced CCW rotation, but only till the string reached its normal point for a BOS, then the torque would stop.
Have you never hear of a torque wrench? If you attach it to a nut and it is pointed directly at you, would the nut turn if you pulled the lever arm toward you?
Inertia has nothing to do with this. The BOS works because the ball has linear momentum and the string is preventing it from flying off on a straight line.
BTW…there is a tendency to confuse inertia with momentum. Inertia is an internal force, as Newton called it, that resists a change in motion of a stationary body or the change in velocity of a body moving at a constant velocity. Momentum applies to bodies moving at constant velocity. Such a body resists a change in its velocity.
The Moon does work similar to a BOS. It has linear momentum which the gravitational field directs into an orbit. Therefore the gravitational field acts like the string.
Of course, the intelligent imbecile, RLH, will be along shortly to repeat his mantra, much like a parrot, that a BOS acts like a BOS.
Goes to show that any idiot, or intelligent imbecile, can get a Masters degree.
I’m glad for you that you don’t make a living as a writer. Your editor would trash you to the point you’d be happier working with an idiot stick.
ken…”Im glad for you that you dont make a living as a writer. Your editor would trash you to the point youd be happier working with an idiot stick”.
***
I write to communicate, not to impress some idiotic editor. I await your scientific observations of my tome. Meantime, I’ll presume you have no idea what I’m talking about.
I think we’d be better siding against our Nazi government in BC. They are acting as a totalitarian government to appease the masses rather than doing the right thing and trashing the vaccine passports. The numbers in BC clearly show that 70% of the hospitalized are fully vaccinated.
Idiot Trudeau shot back at a member of the opposition for siding with the truckers. He commented that no one should side with a group showing a swastika and a Confederate flag.
Besides lacking a sense of humour, Trudeau is demonstrating that he’s a complete ass of a mommy’s boy who fails to understand the problem. He surely doesn’t think the person flying the swastika is a Nazi does he? He doesn’t get it that the Nazi flag is flying for him. He’s the Nazi.
> I’ll presume you have no idea what I’m talking about.
C’mon, Gordo.
That should make you feel less alone.
“I await your scientific observations of my tome”
If the words are nonsense, as they are, there is no science in them.
Ken obviously has many personal issues, jealousy being one of them.
Clint R is an idiot. Ignore him.
The convolutions of Gordon’s mind are a wonder to behold.
Have another cookie in your basement, Gordon, you’ve earned it with all your frenetic and meaningless typing over the years.
So why does a chain, made up of separate links, fall into a straight line going outwards if rotated about one end?
What makes the last 2 links any different to the ball-on-a-string?
What makes the first 2 links any different to a ball-at-the-center?
GRis an idiot though.
RLH, chain links are only relevant to chain links.
Not true. The string in your flawed example is really a chain made up of atoms.
That’s probably one of the reasons you don’t understand it. You don’t know the difference between a chain and a string.
That’s why you are in idiot. You don’t recognize that a string is made up of chains of atoms, linked end to end.
And it’s the string that is attached to the ball and keeps the ball orbiting but not rotating.
Focus.
Attaching a string to the surface of the ball does not replicate anything other than a ball-on-a-string.
“The moon is a bit more than one-quarter (27 percent) the size of Earth”
Why don’t you have 2 balls connected by something that is connected at the centers?
Wrong again. RLH. The ball-on-a-string is a simple analogy of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. This has been explained to you numerous times. Focus.
You don’t want people to think you’ve got dementia, do you?
Why don’t you have 2 balls connected by something that is connected at the centers?
This is not a model of a system, RLH. The ball-on-a-string is a simple analogy of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. This has been explained to you numerous times.
I understand you have a hard time focusing.
A ball with a string attached at the surface is not a model of any system using gravity.
And a single ball does not replicate an orbit around a barycenter.
Vintage 2019-08:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/july-2019-was-not-the-warmest-on-record/#comment-376302
Willard, please stop trolling.
binny…”But his work [Brown] was fundamental for those who followed him and had to separate, within the differential equations of the second order, orbiting from spin”.
***
They were not using differential equations, they used numerical methods involving homogeneous equations.
Only in one page does Brown make reference to a lunar rotation and he jumps to the conclusion that the Moon can keep the same face pointed at the Earth and still rotates locally on an axis. In fact he claims the Moon always turns so it has the same face pointed at the Earth.
That is not possible as I have demonstrated using the same radial line Brown uses. In fact, had he taken the time to draw out the motion using a freebody diagram, rather than blindly crunching numbers, that would have become obvious.
It is crucial to such an analysis that the mathematician understand clearly that a motion that keeps the same face pointed to the Earth is a curvilinear translation and not a rotation. Since he missed that point, as did Euler and Lagrange, the math is wrong. Curvilinear translation and local rotation have entirely different equations describing them.
Newton did not miss that obvious fact. He pointed out quite correctly that the Moon’s motion is rectilinear translation and that ‘something’ moves it into an orbit. I don’t know if he was messing with us, but he had to know that ‘something’ had to be the gravitational field.
The vertical relationship between the Earth and Moon is static equilibrium. The Moon also has a tangential rectilinear momentum and in a circular orbit it keeps moving at the same altitude at all times. The orbit is very slightly elliptical but the same principal applies. What changes is the gravitational field, very slightly, allowing the Moon’s constant momentum to have a greater effect, elongating the orbit.
Newton also knew, since he wrote it clearly in Principia, that a force must be able to move a body in order to accelerate it. Since gravity is acting perpendicular to the the Moon’s rectilinear translation, it means any acceleration must be toward Earth, therefore it must lose altitude gradually. It does not.
The gravitational field simply holds the Moon at a certain altitude without accelerating it vertically and that perfectly explains why the same side always faces the Earth.
> That is not possible
Eppur si spinove.
Wobbly Wee Willy,
Newton’s Cannonball moves, and yet it does not turn.
C’mon, moron – wake up to reality!
Words don’t always mean what you think they do.
Carry on.
Newtons Cannonball moves in an orbit, and yet it does not turn on its axis.
Idiot.
> it does not turn
You’re backtracking from “that is not possible,” Mike.
So sad, too bad.
“he claims the Moon always turns so it has the same face pointed at the Earth”
He, like by far away the majority of scientists, would be correct. You and your tiny, tiny, clique are wrong. Simple isn’t it.
It’s easy to get confused. A more correct wording would be ‘Moon always keeps the same side facing the inside of its orbit because its velocity vector is being instantaneously changed by gravity.”
Moon is orbiting without rotating, like a ball-on-a-string.
… as each is observed from “inside of it orbit”.
“its velocity vector is being instantaneously changed by gravity”
Its velocity vector makes an orbit, not an orientation.
Exactly, RLH. There is a ‘velocity vector’ describing the motion of the COM of the moon, and an ‘orientation vector’ describing the orientation of the moon relative to the COM. Gravity affects the ‘velocity vector’ but not the ‘orientating vector’ (other than very small tidal effects).
It is easy assume the two are inextricably linked together. They are linked for a ball on a string. They are linked for a horse on a merry-go-round. They are linked for a car driving around a curve.
But not for gravity. Until people recognize this fundamental fact, they will continue to misunderstand orbits.
Try towing a loaded round barge with a rope attached at its center and you will soon see the difference.
Folkerts, that’s some more of your made-up, perverted physics.
I’ll add it to the list.
Clint R is an idiot. Ignore him.
Robertson
No idea why you reply to my comments with such a dumbass pseudo-rhetoric.
Your are uneducated to such an extent that you are not even able to detect a differential equation, even when it is described as such in the text you see, but in fact… never read.
Two years ago, my lady Rose (La Pangolina) got so sad of your daily nonsense that she decided not to write any further comment here.
Everyday she asks me why I still reply to your absolute nonsense.
Rose is right, even if you are not the only one dumbass here who daily insults and denigrates scientists the work of whom you never be able to replicate 0.0001 %, let alone could you start it from scratch.
The left’s ultimate goal is that they pick winners and losers in all facets of our economy. It is their ultimate aim in climate change. When you put them in a position of power, it is what they do. You don’t know someone’s character until they’re in a place of power. The left’s character is consistently corrupt. Here is a good example.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/department-of-education-to-cancel-415-million-in-student-loan-debt-11645055732?mod=home-page
https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html?units=metric
Fast forward 40 years:
Conclusion: Very good agreement between model predictions and observed performance.
TM, there is correlation between ALL things that go up. Number of bicycles, number of cell phones, number of Internet sites, number of cult idiots.
Earth is in a natural warming trend. That causes oceans to release more CO2. CO2 does NOT cause surface warming.
You need to find something else to do with your free time.
Knitting?
Sorry Clint, the CO2 is going up faster than can be explained by the temperature rise.
And the CO2 is going into the oceans, not coming out.
No need to be sorry, bob. I know you’re braindead.
I understand.
Clint R is an idiot. Ignore him.
Clint R,
No you don’t, see what RLH says.
It’s naive to think otherwise, bob. The consequences of population growth and fossil fuel emissions are more than enough to compensate for any missing CO2 not explained by temperature rise.
“And the CO2 is going into the oceans, not coming out.”
That’s not just naive, it’s ignorant.
It’s all a moot point anyway, because you have no idea how much effect CO2 has on global temperatures, if any at all.
We burn the coal and oil and make cement, about half of the CO2 produced that way goes into the atmosphere, and the other half in the ocean and land sinks.
Facts too stiff for you?
CO2 effect on the average global temperature is between 1.5 and 4.5 C per doubling from pre industrial levels.
I guess that’s no idea.
The facts are that twenty times more CO2 goes into the atmosphere annually than from fossil fuels, etc. All but 2.5% of the total goes back into the land and ocean sinks.
And yes a wild guess of a 3 degC range, with no data to prove it, is no idea. Just wishful thinking.
Chic, there is now data in the satellite era.
Data which you have yet to show that proves an increase in CO2 will increase average global temperature.
Already showed Chic the data:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1178539
Those are projections, not temperature changes measured after defined treatments. Try again.
Rather, don’t bother. I don’t think it’s possible to do.
The data are not projections Chic. The measured data are from an identified period in the past.
What you are probably beating around the bush about are radiation measurement differences converted to projected temperature differences and correlated with actual temperature trends over a defined period. That is only a correlation, not direct measurements proving causality.
To conclude the changes in IR gases are causing warming, one must assume that no other factors could be responsible for the temperature changes.
If you want to continue asserting otherwise, provide a link to an example that explains your position.
Chic, no need to assume that other factors could be responsible for the temperature changes since the other factors are known from calibrated measurements. Each significant factor on global warming has now been measured in the satellite era with 95% confidence nature’s actual is in the range.
I can’t always be around to spoon feed so Chic actually has to do the work to learn the facts from the published reports free on line. Google will find Chic the necessary links to learn the subject.
I’m getting the strong impression you are dodging the issue and/or throwing spaghetti on the wall to see if it sticks.
One major factor influencing global temperature is ocean circulation. How do calibrated measurements control for that? I assume you are still referring to satellite measurements.
Your second sentence in the first paragraph is unintelligible. Please explain.
Clint R says:
February 17, 2022 at 9:55 AM
“Earth is in a natural warming trend. That causes oceans to release more CO2. CO2 does NOT cause surface warming.”
100% agreed!!!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Stefan-Boltzmann emission law doesn’t work vice-versa!
–
The old convincement that the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law works vice-versa is based on assumption, that EM energy obeys the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (1LOT).
That assumption was never verified, it was never been confirmed by experiment.
The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law states:
–
J = σ*Τ⁴ (W/m²) EM energy flux (1)
–
The mathematical ability to obtain T, for a given J led to the
misfortunate believe that the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law formula can be used vise-versa:
–
T = ( J /σ ) ¹∕ ⁴ (K) (2) as the surface radiative emission temperature “definition”.
–
Well, this is theoretically right for a blackbody theoretical approach. Blackbody surface behavioral property is compared with a tiny hole in a stove.
The incident in the hole radiative energy vanishes inside the stove… The hole is infinitesimally smaller than the stove’s inside walls area.
Thus the incident in the hole EM energy cannot escape out of the stove.
–
After multiple interactions with the stove’s walls, the incident in the hole the entire EM energy is transformed into heat and is, eventually, evenly dissipated and accumulated as HEAT in the stove’s inner walls…
–
The EM energy emitted out of the stove’s hole is then only the inside stove uniform surface temperature T dependent function
J = σ*Τ⁴ (W/m²).
–
But the
T = ( J /σ ) ¹∕ ⁴ (K) (2) as the irradiated surface radiative emission temperature “definition”… is utterly unacceptable, because it has not a physical analogue in the real world.
That is why we should consider planet effective temperature
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
as a mathematical abstraction.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Nor does using a random number associated with drag coefficients.
RLH, do you know what a -43C in Yakutia feels like? It feels like a reaaal coooold!
Yakutia gets there every winter.
RLH, in Yakutia snow melts at 0C, as everywhere else. When you see snow melts in Yakutia it is not -43C! It is 0C in Yakutia then.
If our Moon was tidally locked with our sun.
It’s probably not possible.
Moons are generally tidally locked to their planets.
If our Moon was tidally locked with our sun, it would more
like fiction {and maybe poor fiction}. But if it was, the Moon
would be colder. And it seems our Moon would be a better moon.
Of course one make an artificial moon and waste some energy by making always have same side facing the Sun.
Though at L-1 one would not need to use energy, so I guess for less poor fiction one could have a natural moon at L-1 or L-2.
Once you had got it to an orbit of the Earth only a small starting rotation of 1 rotation per 365 days or so would be needed to always face the Sun.
I was thinking just hang long pipe or string to it.
In terms of not such bad fiction, a natural object, I was thing something like a asteroid Kleopatra, the Dog Bone asteroid:
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/new-photos-dog-bone-asteroid-reveal-s-truly-weird-rcna2006
Though unlike L-4 or L-5 {trojans} L-1 and L-2 are not regarded a naturally stable, and L-points in general are not suppose to be stable with very large rocks, but any space rock generally has only millions of year range, type orbital stability.
The displacement to be used in WFT for RSS vs. UAH6.0 in the LT is, since Jan 2021, -0.36.
Easy to compute through a download of the RSS data
https://data.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v04_0.txt
storing it into a spreadsheet calculator, and computing the mean for the 360 months from Jan 1991 till Dec 2020: 0.357.
*
And here we see how good they fit:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/mean:12/from:2005/offset:-0.36/plot/uah6/mean:12/from:2005
Pas du tout, dirais-je!
The offset is actually -0.43.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/mean:12/from:2005/offset:-0.43/plot/uah6/mean:12/from:2005
Which agrees quite well with BEST
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/mean:12/from:2005/offset:-0.43/plot/uah6/mean:12/from:2005/plot/best/mean:12/from:2005/offset:-0.73
With BEST lower than RSS
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/mean:12/from:2005/offset:-0.43/trend/plot/uah6/mean:12/from:2005/trend/plot/best/mean:12/from:2005/offset:-0.725/trend
Try this also
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/mean:12/from:2005/offset:-0.43/trend/plot/uah6/mean:12/from:2005/trend/plot/best/mean:12/from:2005/offset:-0.725/trend/plot/had*crut4gl/mean:12/from:2005/offset:-0.5/trend
Without the asterisk.
RSS is the outlier in that plot.
Here is Sky News interview Latham – Spencer 9 Feb 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZy8mgD05QA
My bad, its Andrew Bolt, not Mark Latham.
Swenson, ClintR, Gordon Robertson, Coturnix.Even the oil companies are realising that they can’t compete against renewables in the energy market. Their best strategy is now to conserve a valuable chemical feedstock.
The companies no longer see climate mitigation as a cost and have stopped funding the merchants of doubt or the denialists among the Republicans.
It also makes you obsolete. The debate has moved. Only a few die-hard weirdos still deny the link between CO2 and temperature, while the rest of us have moved on to discussing policy.
If YOU can show ME that I am wrong, then you might be worth listening to.
I can now choose the debates that interest me and otherwise tell you ignorant denialist gobshites to go b*gg*r each other as you have been.
“deny the link between CO2 and temperature”
There is no denying a link between CO2 and GW. The only question is if it is all down to manmade CO2 and is catastrophic with no significant natural component.
We live in Icehouse climate.
If it warms up a bit, we get a green Sahara desert, which doesn’t seem catastrophic.
We need to explore the Moon and Mars, so we can become a spacefaring civilization. Earth doesn’t have much energy available for hundreds of billions of people. It would better to move off Planet Earth in terms of most population of humans. Venus orbit would be good location for low income living, also Venus orbit is better than Earth orbit for using resources of this solar system- and exploring to outer part, and beyond our solar system.
If there is natural large underground areas on Mars, or make them, I think one have dinosaur parks on Mars. Maybe low gravity will allow even larger beasts.
Anyhow, we yet to determine the warming effect of doubling CO2, this is because we had the UN try to determine this and like all governmental agencies, they were a failure.
Can one imagine how stupid it would be to have the UN charged with the task of humans being spacefaring.
That would be extremely, dumb. But when we are spacefaring, it will do the UN job, of ending war.
But we should keep the UN, anyhow, as it would make great comedy.
And need some kind global government to discuss with stuff other spacefaring civilizations.
Ent,
Just saying you are moving on doesn’t make it right. The link between CO2 has historically been 300 ppm for temperatures averaging within 1 degC of today. At spike of 100 ppm due to human activity is having no significant effect.
I don’t know if you Brits will put up with your loss of freedom, but we are not going to stand for it here in the US.
Today’s word for Chic is: logarithm.
>> Only a few die-hard weirdos still deny the link between CO2 and temperature,
I am shocked and appalled that you’d put me in the same category as those others, as I never denied the GHE or the GHG qualities of co2. I doubt and question feebacks =) See the difference?
>> while the rest of us have moved on to discussing policy.
It has ALWAYS been about the policy. Well, mey be amongst the real scientists, it could be but since james hansen made it political 3 decades ago, the science has been tainted badly and will never be the same.
The onus is on you to show that you are right.
The model projections are profoundly wrong when compared to empirical data such as that shown at the top of this website. That means the AGW theory is scientifically falsified.
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, if it doesn’t agree with experiment, its wrong.” ~ Feynman.
You’ve been proven wrong Ent.
The only way Green tech is viable is with massive taxpayer subsidy. Energy companies know the longer the oil stays in the ground the more valuable it becomes. Meanwhile they can make a profit off the stupid green subsidies.
See BP for details on how that works. I wouldn’t invest in BP were I you.
The onus is on you to show that you are right.
The model projections are profoundly wrong when compared to empirical data such as that shown at the top of this website. That means the AGW theory is scientifically falsified.
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, if it doesn’t agree with experiment, its wrong.” ~ Feynman.
You’ve been proven wrong Ent.
The only way Green tech is viable is with massive taxpayer subsidy. Energy companies know the longer the oil stays in the ground the more valuable it becomes. Meanwhile they can make a profit off the stupid green subsidies.
See BP for details on how that works. I wouldn’t invest in BP were I you.
Ken, the model projections are profoundly wrong when compared to empirical data such as that shown at the top of this website. That means the model projections are scientifically falsified not AGW theory from experiment.
The problem is that there are not experiments other than climate models that show any effect by CO2 on climate except Greening of the Earth.
Ken, it’s not a problem to find experimental data that show the effects of added ppm CO2 gas on planetary climate.
B4,
It is a pity you cannot find a copy of the Greenhouse Theory (Ho! Ho!), let alone alone any reproducible experiments to support the mad idea that CO2 can make thermometers hotter!
Rambling about the contents of your confused imagination is not conducting an experiment.
Where may the Greenhouse Effect be reliably observed, measured, and documented?
Nowhere, that’s where!
Dream on.
OK let’s see it.
Swenson is refuted by actual observations of the GHE.
Chic & Ken can properly find the experimental data on line for free from published independent satellite and in situ observations.
Ball 4,
The only data you will find are attempts to correlate the CO2 and temperature trends. You might as well claim that CO2 drives the US national debt. A correlation does not prove causality. Especially as bad as the ones from UAH data alone.
For older data, large changes in global temperature coincide with more minor changes in CO2 compared to recent data. And those older temperature changes lead the CO2 changes by long time intervals. It is illogical and wishful thinking to claim CO2 causes any substantial temperature changes.
Now put up or shut up.
Chic, it is your illogical and wishful thinking to make a claim against the instrumentally measured CO2 warming data on line for free from published independent satellite and in situ observations.
In situ? That’s one I’d like to know about. I’ve been thinking about how an experiment like that can be done for a long time.
You’ve had several opportunities to offer instrumentally measured data showing an increase in CO2 will cause an increase in global temperature. If it were available, why do reputable climate scientists continue to publish papers showing CO2 sensitivity to be somewhere between 0 and 6 degC for a doubling of CO2?
Chic, they each make different assumptions like holding relative humidity constant or not, clear sky or cloudy. So you have to go through each document or blog post and note the specific atm. condition assumptions to understand the various ranges of sensitivity.
No, I don’t have to go through each document or blog post to realize that if the effect of CO2 on global temperature could be measured, there would be data published by now.
It is just as likely that CO2 helps cool both at the surface and at the TOA as not. It would help for you to spend time at Dan Pangburn’s blog understanding thermalization.
The effect of CO2 on global temperature can be measured, has been measured, & there is data published now for the satellite era. Chic just hasn’t caught up on reading in the field. Chic even admits not going through the documents.
Time to get caught up on reading & learning Chic unless Chic, like Clint R and Gordon, doesn’t care about being credible in comments.
I believe you think there are documents to back your claim. How hard can it be to find a link to one?
In the satellite era, the temperature data are posted at the top of the page. The trend is 0.13 K/decade, but the data is at least +/- 0.5 K in each decade. Annual CO2 rises steadily through the same period. The best one can say is that there is a rough correlation between CO2 and temperature. That is not a measurement of CO2 driving temperature. Too many other circumstances could be responsible for the correlation. It is scientific fact.
The satellite data already showed Chic the monotonic rising trend component of added ppm IR active gas in the temperature trend during the period Chic with 95% confidence nature’s actual is in the confidence interval.
It is not hard at all to find the satellite result documents on the internet for free. Google is Chic’s friend. I’ve already downloaded and read the reports so I’ll let Chic learn how to do so in order to comment accurately on climate.
There was once a banned commenter here who would regularly post links to papers “proving” the temperature effect of increasing IR gases. He couldn’t either get beyond the point that correlation is not causation.
It’s entirely possible that increasing concentrations of IR absorbing gases are causing warming. While satellite measurements of outgoing radiation may provide local temperature measurements, they are not global temperature change measurements. Hopefully the data that’s needed to bridge the gap between time series correlations and more conclusive data is in the works.
CB wrote:
I think Dr. Spencer would disagree, which is the singular reason he post their results from measurements collected over most of the globe since 1979. There are also other ways to measure “climate change” besides temperature, such as the rather obvious loss of sea-ice extent at the end of the melt season.
ES,
Hope you enjoyed your vacation from this blog. I took one as well and it’s good to be back.
Let me catch you up on the discussion Ball4 and I are having from my perspective. It begins with Ball4’s assertion, “its not a problem to find experimental data that show the effects of added ppm CO2 gas on planetary climate.”
So I asked Ball4 to share the data. He says that it is available in the satellite era from calibrated instruments that remove temperature effects from all other factors. My guess is that Ball4 is referring to the temperature/CO2 correlation which, of course, does not count as definitive evidence that CO2 warms the planet.
UAH measurements pictured above are the average global lower troposphere temperatures with respect to time. They are not the effect of global temperature with respect to [CO2] in the atmosphere.
Perhaps you can assist Ball4 in presenting the experimental data that he refuses to provide.
> The only way Green tech is viable is with massive taxpayer subsidy
Counterpoint:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02847-2
One could say a large Fossil-fuel subsidy is allowing them use of oceans, though wind farms also get such subsidies.
Would be fairer if everyone could get them?
W
Take some classes on capitalism and the necessity for capital formation. While you are at it throw in some accounting classes. Without those tax treatments, investments will instantly dry up. Without new investments new supplies stay in the ground. That means no heat in your home. That means no gas in your VW. Stay home, play parcheesi and freeze your buns off.
When alternative sources are reliable at scale, go ahead. But it’s utopian foolishness until then. But that is right up your alley.
These classes might profit Kennui more than I, Pozzo.
Afterwards you can always have a beer with him and share your stories about Venezuela.
Here in Canuckstan, more than 80% of investment in renewables (other than Hydro) are oil giants.
I am aware that BP is a huge investor in renewables.
UK is almost entirely gone renewables, to their ratepayers dismay. This winter as over half of energy bills are in arrears.
The statement that fossil fuel subsidies are one of the biggest financial barriers is patently false.
Here is some data to consider about subsidies:
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/09/23/energy-subsidies-renewables-fossil-fuels/
> some data to consider about subsidies
Direct subsidies, Kennui, and for the US only.
Have more data to consider:
https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subsidies-a-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs
The problem of discussing subsidies is one of comparing oranges and apples.
You could say for instance that fossil fuels gets 500 billion in subsidies while renewables get 100 billion and make the claim that fossil fuels gets 5 times the subsidies.
Except its not true when you consider fossil fuels provide 80% of energy while renewables provide 3%
500/0.8 = 625
100/.03 = 3333
That means renewables get 5 times the subsidies per unit of energy.
The numbers used in this are not actual data but they are close enough to serve as an example.
One problem with Climateball exchanges is how contrarians always move the goalposts.
Fossil fuel subsidies amount to 6.5% of global GDP in 2015. They did not decrease substantially since then. For more on “but renewables”:
https://climateball.net/but-renewables/
Wee Willy Wanker,
You wrote –
“One problem with Climateball exchanges is how contrarians always move the goalposts.”
The main problem is that nobody gives a toss about your fantasy, I would think.
You really are desperately hoping that someone, somewhere, thinks you are wise and respected, instead of stupid and despised.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
The problem with the point of your comment is that having written your comment defeats it.
givern that you are an overt propagandist (but then again, that’s a plus for honesty), and I do’nt want to engage with overt propagandists, still can’t help but notice tha FF are a dominant source of energy to the humankind, providing over 80% of our energy (and the large ‘renewable’ contribution is mainly due to hydro which while technically a renuwable, is the most traditional and conservative power source other second only to dung and the brushwood wood). In light of this, the alleged 7% even if they are real which they are probably not, of gdp is like claiming blood transfusion from one hand to the other keeps a person alive.
That you want to engage is a good thing, Cot, for if you would you would address your comments properly.
Having an overt argument would also help instead of smug crap.
Ken
” The only way Green tech is viable is with massive taxpayer subsidy. ”
This is incredibly laughable.
People like you totally ignore the mega-amount of massive taxpayer subsidy which was needed by the nuclear industry to become at least a bit viable in order to produce electricity anyway.
And you ignore even more the tera-amount of massive taxpayer subsidy which will have to be paid by our children and grand-children
– to dismantle [ I mean ‘dismantling’ and not ‘decommissioning’ ] all nuclear installations busy with enrichment, electricity production and reprocessing)
– to vitrify and store for centuries the nuclear waste generated during the operation and finally the dismantling of the plants.
You are such a naive and gullible person, Ken. Like are all lovers of paved roads.
I wouldn’t wonder if you were gullible enough to believe in the viability of the so-called small modular reactors, based on a molten salt technology known since 60 years but never used.
Let alone would I wonder about you believing that fusion reactors will work waste-free, because you don’t know even a bit of how they work.
So what.
My understanding is that Germany pays 30 cents per kwh and further subsidizes industry by 1 trillion euros every year because they can’t otherwise compete due to high energy costs.
Source is ‘Climate Euphoria, Climate Hysteria: Insights from the German Political-Media Complex’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euk2vgAZDTk&t=5s
Too, my understanding is France gets over 80% of its energy from nuclear power and pays about 15 cents per kwh. I can’t remember the source of that tidbit of information. It might be the same one as above.
I’ve been hearing about fusion since I can remember. Its still just one step of research away from viability. My investment strategy is to buy shares in companies that have produced a regular dividend for at least 5 years. Fusion and molten salt might have promise but until they are proven don’t even ask me to consider them as viable.
Here is California Experience with Renewable: ‘PG&E $25 Billion Settlement Calpocalypse 2019’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WAB5cflHBI&t=42s
Here is Australia Experience with Renewable: ‘Jo Nova – How to Destroy a Perfectly Good Electricity Grid in Three Easy Steps’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYHX-Ib3Q5Q
Finally here is Schellenberger admitting why renewables can’t save the planet. ‘Why renewables cant save the planet | Michael Shellenberger | TEDxDanubia’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-yALPEpV4w&t=89s
To my last, the Shellenberger video describes how France pays half of the electricity rates as Germany.
Ken, the lover of paved roads on lonesome islands, shows with this here
” To my last, the Shellenberger video describes how France pays half of the electricity rates as Germany. ”
how uneducated and naive he is.
France, Ken, pays “half of the electricity rates” because, like the US, it did, except that of the Superphénix breeder, never start really dismantling any nuclear plant, nor did it process even a bit of its waste, let alone would all that have been included in the electricity bills!
Germany is since 2004 in a long, tedious shutdown process of the nuclear area – which was accelerated by Fukushima.
And we consumers pay right now for future costs of the nuclear industry, instead of leaving the current costs as future taxes to our children and grand-children, as is done since decades by the Frenchies.
You really should watch the Shellenberger video.
He makes a really good point about the environmental footprint of ‘renewable’ compared to nuclear both in terms of the ‘pristine’ environment being ruined for a solar farm as compared to a nuclear plant and the raw materials required to build them.
He also makes a really good point about the downstream waste. Yes there is the problem of nuclear waste but its dwarfed by the toxic waste from wind turbines and solar panels at the end of their useful life.
Too, there is the prospect for recycling nuclear waste because those ‘spent’ rods only use about 10% of the energy potential.
Ken
You make good points on renewables. I think it might be a good idea to some day get off fossil fuels as there is a finite amount available and it will one day be gone if we keep using it at an increasing amount. So I am not against finding alternate energy ideas. I think rather than waste enormous amounts of money on renewables that are unreliable, it would be much wiser to invest in Fusion energy or some possible quantum ideas, even some as odd as finding ways to capture neutrino energy.
Wind is not a reliable source regardless of the number of windmills built. Also there are other effects of massive amounts of windmills.
One it is estimated that large amounts of windmills will warm the globe (by mixing air).
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181004112553.htm
Also with climate change fears from global warming. Massive numbers of windmills may not solve that problem.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07528-1
Windmills slow down wind. More and more may actually change weather patterns and make storms worse. Wind is caused by pressure gradients in the atmosphere trying to balance. If you decrease the ability to balance pressure gradients you could actually intensify pressure systems that could make storms worse (see what happens when pressure drops in storms, the greater the drop the more intense the storm or hurricane). Maybe Roy Spencer could offer opinions on that point if he would choose to do so.
Also it would be very expensive to build enough windmills to run the US hundreds of billions of dollars.
The worst thought process with renewables is that they are building massive amounts of solar and wind power systems but no viable storage to deal with the problem when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow. If you invest massive amounts of money in renewables you should be building some type of storage capability at the same time. No one is doing this currently. Will it just be a magic moment that suddenly we have hundreds of thousands of Megawatt storage systems in place? No one is building anything yet so when are they going to start?
> I think rather than waste enormous amounts of money on renewables that are unreliable, it would be much wiser to invest in Fusion
You are sporting good form today, Norma:
https://climateball.net/but-nukes/
“The model projections are profoundly wrong when compared to empirical data such as that shown at the top of this website. That means the AGW theory is scientifically falsified.”
That is an opinion.
Where’s the evidence? Where’s the detail? Where’s the numerical and statistical analysis?
Remember your target is not someone who flunked out of seventh grade and became a Republican voter. I’m a warmist who was measuring Holocene temperatures by palynology back in the 1970s and kept up with the literature since.
Here is Ross McKitrick U of Guelph providing the statistics
‘Climate Models vs Observations: 2019 Update’
https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/model_obs_comp_nov_2019.pdf
McKitrick is a quite experienced, tricky guy.
No wonder he preferred to take Had-CRUT (rev 4.x) as the source for the comparison, well knowing that Had-CRUT did at that time still not perform grid cell kriging, as does every experienced engineer all around the world when having to interpolate into the unknown.
Had he chosen GISTEMP instead, he would have had to publish this below, as did Grant Foster:
https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2019/11/nasa.jpg
*
I’m sure it won’t take much time until Erbsenhirn Robertson comes along and spews his usual insults against NASA and… Foster.
See also Ross on IPCCs attribution methodology.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/08/18/the-ipccs-attribution-methodology-is-fundamentally-flawed/
“The IPCCs attribution methodology is fundamentally flawed”
and
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-021-05913-7
“Checking for model consistency in optimal fingerprinting: a comment”
https://www.rossmckitrick.com/
You might also like:
https://quantpalaeo.wordpress.com/2014/09/03/recipe-for-a-hiatus/
Willard: You might like to explain why Had*Crut 4 is the lowest of all trends on this graph.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/mean:12/from:2005/offset:-0.43/trend/plot/uah6/mean:12/from:2005/trend/plot/best/mean:12/from:2005/offset:-0.725/trend/plot/had*crut4gl/mean:12/from:2005/offset:-0.5/trend
(You do need to remove the asterisks)
Richard,
You might wish to explain effect of selection in Ed’s plagiarized report:
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2011/06/effect-of-selection-in-wegman-report.html
Willard: So you do not dispute that Had*Crut4 and BEST are lower in trend recently that UAH as the graph showed.
Richard,
So you confirm that Ed’s a fraud?
Willard: Why is it so difficult for you to admit that both Had*Crut4 and BEST are lower in trend in recent years that UAH as the graph showed?
Richard,
Why is it difficult to you to acknowledge that Ed is a fraud and that Ross has thrown just about every single contrarian talking point backed up by shady econometric prestidigitation to the wall to see if it sticks?
Ken
“The onus is on you to show that you are right.”
There’s a whole literature doing that. It’s no longer an issue.
I’ve come here to see if you have coherent, consistent and consilient evidence that the reciprocal relationship between CO2 and temperature is wrong. I’m on your ground and listening, but there seems nothing worth listening to.
Here is William Happer showing the reciprocal relationship between CO2 and Temperature is wrong: https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/WH-Brochures/Radiation-Transfer.pdf
The article states doubling CO2 will result in about 3Wm^2 decrease in direct thermal radiation to space.
Actually the figure for a doubling of CO2 is 5.35ln(2)=3.71W/m^2, but I’ll forgive him rounding it down in a propoganda leaflet.
He carefully avoids mentioning what that means in terms of temperature.
To reach the warming effect of a CO2 doubling you need two steps.
1) Add in the effect of feedbacks such as increased water vapour. To do this you multiply by climate sensitivity. The generally accepted mean of the sensitivity estimates is 3.0, so we get 3.7*3= 11.1W/m^2.
2) Convert to temperature. The accepted figure is that a change in forcing of 1W changes temperature by 0.27C.
The warming due to a doubling becomes 11.1*0.27= 3.0C.
That leaflet was very well written, a masterpiece of its genre. It certainly fooled you.
Goodnight.
The problem is that we already have 400 ppm and there is no way to determine if that contributes to water vapor at all.
The only place where there are proofs of feedbacks to be found are in climate models which are coded on the presumption that there are feedbacks.
So you might make the claim that 3.0 Wm^2 will result in 11.1Wm^2 due to feedbacks but you have no proof. The feedback may well be negative … warming resulting in more cloud resulting in more albedo etc resulting in cooling.
Weingaarden and Happer’s Paper from which the article derives says 1.4C warming over a period of 200 years. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098.pdf
Ken, you neglected to mention any of the meaningful assumptions made in that particular paper.
Entropic Man,
If you were a palynologist who has kept up on the literature, maybe you can explain this:
“Moreover, the greenhouse hypothesisas presented herecannot explain the atmosphere on Mars, nor can it explain the geological data, where no correlation between [CO2] and temperature is observed. Nor can it explain why a different correlation is observed in contemporary data of the last 60 years compared to historical data (600 thousand years). We thus reject the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis, both on basis of empirical grounds as well as a theoretical analysis.”
https://www.scirp.org/(S(351jmbntvnsjt1aadkozje))/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=97917
Note figures 14 through 16 where three different time frames show no reasonable reciprocal relationship between CO2 and temperature, other than the latter drives the former in time dependent manners.
It looks like going to be cold all next week, here in Southern California.
The State mandate has lifted. And some people seem to want to wear masks. Rioting seems to have gone out fashion.
Snowpack:
If the last couple months have taught us anything, its that we can have those large swings thatll bring in a lot of precipitation, or we could wind up where we were for the last month and be completely dry, Schwartz explained. These extremes are going to get more extreme. So even if we had 200% of our annual snowpack at this moment, we have to remain in conservation mode because every drop saved is going to matter at a later date.
https://fox40.com/news/california-connection/la-nina-expected-through-spring-brings-uncertainty-to-sierra-snowpack/
Yes even 200% will not help this government.
My local hills have a bit snow on them
Skiing doesn’t seem, great:
https://www.onthesnow.com/california/skireport
In five days, another wave of Arctic air will sweep over the western US.
https://i.ibb.co/5vQFfwL/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f120.png
Citizens of Denver, be careful because exceptionally, ren is right!
https://i.postimg.cc/3rsPh8Jn/North-America-at-night-20220222.png
Three nights in a row near -19 C! Brrrrr.
But… 22 C (yes: at night) in Florida, eh.
Frogs would say: Ça alors! Quelle injustice! C’est tout simplement honteux, n’est-ce pas?
binny…”Three nights in a row near -19 C! Brrrrr”.
***
That’s not cold compared to -40C, which Canadians on the prairies encounter every year at certain times. When it’s -20C you can walk around in it if properly dressed. When it’s -40C you get inside as fast as you can.
-19C is -2.2F and before we converted to Celsius, I recall days in Vancouver, Canada when the mercury dipped to around 0F. We sucked it up in those days but today we whine when the mercury dips below 0C.
OK grandpa.
Indeed, that’s OK.
Better (or less worse) than his usual denialism against viruses, Einstein, astronomy and the like.
Roy Spencer’s blog is probably the very last corner on Earth allowing him to deny everything that does not fit his egomaniac narrative.
Where do I start?
There were more than 200 runs in the CMIPS ensemble. Which 108 runs did McKittrick choose and why?
Wby compare the observed data with the ensemble mean? Was the mean intended or expected to represent the actual outcome?
The original runs used observed forcing data up to 2005. Which runs best represented the observed forcing s after 2005?
Why does McKittrick, in a 2019 review, not show the seven warmest years on record which were the years after 2014?
I’m sorry, Ken, but this is propoganda weighted using selective information to give the impression that there is a mismatch between observed data and models.
Dig a level deeper and you find that the model runs which most closely modelled the observed forcing also most closely modelled the observed warming. When you compare like with like, model to reality, there is no mismatch.
A much better try than that first attempt, but no cigar.
“Why does McKitrick, in a 2019 review, not show the seven warmest years on record which were the years after 2014?”
“Which 108 runs did McKittrick choose and why?”
You clearly need to read the entire article. McKitrick is using 2018 data. McKitrick states why he used the runs that he did.
If you have other questions you should ask McKitrick.
I am aware there is diversity of opinion but the statistical analysis such as is amalgamated by McKitrick seems to corroborate other sources such as Roy Spencer’s data at the top of this website. Everything I’ve read indicates a very large margin of uncertainty that undermines those who would support rather draconian climate policies being proposed to deal with a problem that doesn’t appear to exist in any salient data.
EM,
To avoid accusations of cherry-picking, how about using the longest possible period – from the creation of the Earth, to right now?
I wouldn’t blame you for not wanting to, because the physical evidence shows that cooling has occurred. From then to now.
No heating, just cooling to whatever the temperature is now.
No GHE, apparently.
” how about using the longest possible period from the creation of the Earth, to right now? ”
4.6 billion years? Here you are.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ujkcTZZlikg&feature=youtu.be
Goodnight
Ent,
If you overlay the temperature and CO2 traces it is obvious that CO2 change followed temperature change during the last glaciation. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HRsMhsHAG_lV7r-GPX7CoFeKIajpvEj8/view?usp=sharing
EM,
Over the last four and a half billion years, the Earth has cooled to its present temperature.
Lunatic assertions that CO2 makes thermometers hotter are made by people who should know better.
Find some reproducible experiments that show that increasing the amount of CO2 between a heat source and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter, and I will smartly change my views.
Fat chance. You can’t even describe the GHE, can you?
The reproducible experiments that show that increasing the amount of CO2 between a heat source and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter are shown in the top post, so Swenson should smartly change views as promised.
entropic…”There were more than 200 runs in the CMIPS ensemble. Which 108 runs did McKittrick choose and why?”
***
I have nor read the article but McKitrick is an expert in statistics and he’d have his reasons. He and his partner, Steve McIntyre, destroyed the hockey stick by revealing egregious errors in the statistics used by Mann et al.
They pushed the IPCC hard to re-examine the hockey stick and they refused. Eventually, the US government was pressured into appointing the National Academy of Science and a statistics expert, Wegman, to examine the methodology used in the hockey stick and they agreed with M&M in principal.
The key point made by NAS was that the 20th century data in the hockey stick that helped established the blade, was inadmissible. That alone destroyed Mann’s claims.
The IPCC went so far as to redraw the hockey stick with so many error bars it became known as the spaghetti graph. They also re-instated the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm periods omitted by Mann et al to get a straight shaft on the stick.
It should be noted that the cheaters at the IPCC knew about the LIA and MWP since they had published graphs showing them in the 1990 review. They completely ignored the chicanery that omitted both on the stick as they presented the hockey stick as the poster child of global warming rhetoric.
The IPCC also limited the range of the hockey stick from 1850 onward.
All of that thanks to two Canadians, McIntyre and McKitrick.
> The key point made by NAS was that the 20th century data in the hockey stick that helped established the blade, was inadmissible.
C’mon, Gordo. We don’t need tree rings to see the 20th century blade. We have temperatures for that. MBH is about the shaft, not the blade.
You’re more confused than usual. Is it because Luc Montagnier died?
dullard…”We don’t need tree rings to see the 20th century blade”.
…
Anyone with any sense doesn’t see a blade. If there was such a model it would be curly-cued, much worse than a W. C. Fields cue stick, an would have a tiny nub on the end representing the blade.
https://www.alamy.com/original-film-title-six-of-a-kind-english-title-six-of-a-kind-film-director-leo-mccarey-year-1934-stars-w-c-fields-credit-paramount-pictures-album-image206779135.html
****************
Thanks for the heads-up re Luc Montagnier’s death. Liked the old guy even though I disagree with his claims that he discovered HIV. He later admitted he had inferred the virus even though a recent obit has it totally wrong.
The NYT declared…”From this sample Dr. Montagnier’s team spotted the culprit, a retrovirus that had never been seen before. They named it L.A.V., for lymphadenopathy
associated virus”.
Can’t post the full link because the creeps won’t show it to you unless you sign up.
Not true. Montagnier admitted in an hour long interview that he did not see HIV on an electron microscope, or isolate it physically. In 2016, Dr. Stefan Lanka proved to a high German court that the methodology used by Montagnier is wrong because it had no control experiment to prove the uninfected cells would not have died on their own.
As it turned out, the preparation of the uninfected cells does kill them naturally. Montagnier claimed something killed the uninfected cells and claimed it was a virus. Lanka has proved conclusively that the lab preparation kills the cells and not one researcher has clued into that when they claimed a viral infection killed uninfected cells.
Montagnier’s claim that DNA emits EM is not beyond merit. DNA contain atom with electron and electron emit EM. Scientist today are seriously ignorant with their pompous critiques.
> Anyone with any sense doesnt see a blade.
C’mon, Gordo:
https://www.nap.edu/read/11676/chapter/2#2
Borehole tells a tale.
Gordon,
“I have nor read the article but McKitrick is an expert in statistics and hed have his reasons.”
appeal to authority much?
clint r…”Its easy to get confused. A more correct wording would be Moon always keeps the same side facing the inside of its orbit because its velocity vector is being instantaneously changed by gravity.
Moon is orbiting without rotating, like a ball-on-a-string”.
***
Well stated.
Richard lives in an appeal to authority and grasped at the authors words that the Moon turns so the same face always points at the Earth. Those were not my words but Richard jumped all over the author’s description rather than our proof that it is not possible for the Moon to keep the same face pointed to the Earth and rotate locally at the same time.
The author actually uses the same coordinate system I offered in my proof along with the same radial line. He has the Earth at 0,0 on an x,y plane with the Sun somewhere in the distance along the +ve x-axis. However, he has both the Moon and the Sun orbiting the Earth, a dangerous illusion that must surely lead to error.
It’s mind boggling that the author, as well as Euler, Lagrange, and so on, had the same diagram and failed to see the obvious with regard to a tangent line representing the near face.
Leaving the Sun out of it, and presuming a circular orbit for arguments sake (an elliptical orbit can be explained just as easily), a radial line from the Earth’s centre at 0,0 goes through the Moon’s centre and beyond, one can draw an instantaneous, tangential velocity vector through the Moon’s COG. It is blatantly obvious that the instantaneous vector must remain perpendicular to the radial line throughout the entire orbit while constantly changing its orientation wrt to the x-axis.
That’s proof enough. However, the portion of the vertical line within the Moon is of interest. If the Moon was rotating locally, that portion within the radial line would have to rotate independently of the radial line therefore the end of the radial line within the Moon facing the Earth could always face the Earth as required.
Can we dumb this down any more than it is already?
Let’s try. We can add two more instantaneous vector perpendicular to the radial line. One represent the near face that must always point to the Earth, the the other represents the far side of the Moon that never faces the Earth. For that reason we call it the ‘dark side of the Moon, even though it is lit by the Sun for half of the orbit. The near side vector must always have its side facing the Earth.
Those three vectors must always orbit in parallel. But why stop with three? We can draw an infinite number of instantaneous vector, all perpendicular to the radial line, and all parallel to each other. The implication is blatantly obvious, every point on the Moon is moving in concentric orbits wrt the other points. There is no way the Moon can rotate about its centre when all points on it are moving in parallel.
RLH feels compelled to appeal to authority rather than consider the elegant simplicity of this proof. Problem is, all his authority figures are wrong and so is he.
We non-spinner have our own possible authority figure in Tesla, who proved using his own means that the Moon cannot rotate locally. However, we have decided to apply physics rather than suck up to authority.
type…”therefore the end of the radial line within the Moon facing the Earth could always face the Earth as required”.
Should read…”therefore the end of the radial line within the Moon facing the Earth could ***not*** always face the Earth as required.
If Gordon could understand Tesla’s work, Gordon would know Tesla proved the moon rotates on its own axis inertially using a momentum approach.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
“I write to communicate, not to impress some idiotic editor.”
The point is your rambling diatribes don’t communicate anything.
Try to be brief and concise. I might suggest waiting to post your unreadable tripe overnight and reading it in the morning to see if it still makes any sense to you.
If you expect anyone to take you seriously then you have to respect your audience. Right now you’re not doing that at all.
ken…”The point is your rambling diatribes dont communicate anything”.
***
And you have yet to respond about what is not being communicated. There is no rambling, Ken, the writing is coherent, as required by any essay writing taught in English 101 at university level.
Not the writer, Ken, it’s the inability of the viewer to comprehend.
I take time to order my thoughts and make sure the paragraphs are related and focused on one topic at a time.
What I am writing about is so stupid-simple that anyone who cannot understand it has some serious issues with comprehension. The irony is that big names in science like NASA cannot understand it. I wrote to NASA using the same style and they got my point. They still stubbornly stuck to their story that the Moon is rotating wrt the stars even though they acknowledged it was not rotating as viewed from Earth.
NASA fails to understand the difference between a body rotating about its axis and a body performing curvilinear translation and having the face closest to Earth re-orienting constantly.
You write concise replies if that suits you but what I am talking about is complex in its own right and requires detail.
I am trained in logical thinking and bounded in real science. You and Clint R are both idiots who believe only in your tiny, tiny cliquish and distorted view of the world.
You do not understand the difference between concentric and parallel for a start.
RLH,
Concentric –
of or denoting circles, arcs, or other shapes which share the same centre, the larger often completely surrounding the smaller.
Parallel –
(of lines, planes, or surfaces) side by side and having the same distance continuously between them.
So?
GR believes in parallel circles, even though your definition does not support them.
rlh…”I am trained in logical thinking and bounded in real science”.
***
Let’s see an example of the thinking and logic in which you claim to have been trained. All I have seen out of you thus far is an appeal to authority.
You have a radial line rotating about 0,0 on an x,y plane. There are three perpendicular lines affixed to the radial line, representing the near-face, the COG and the far-side of the Moon, obviously turning in parallel. Yet you claim those lines are also turning in a circle within the radial line, with the stipulation that the nearest line to 0,0 must always face 0,0.
Come on, show us your logic.
Ken…is this concise enough for you? Show us your logical argument that the two outside parallel lines can also rotate about the centre while the inside parallel line must always face 0,0?
> Come on, show us your logic.
C’mon, Gordo. Try this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radian
GFR is still an idiot with a long list of standard science he does not accept.
Anyone who does believe in the majority of that science is labeled with the phrase ‘appeal to authority’ no matter what their argument is.
He still does not know the difference between concentric and parallel.
I am trained in logical thinking and bounded in real science. You and Clint R are both idiots who believe only in your tiny, tiny cliquish and distorted view of the world.
You do not understand the difference between concentric and parallel for a start.
rlh…”You do not understand the difference between concentric and parallel for a start”.
***
If you don’t like parallelism, consider that any point on the Moon is moving in the same direction as any other point at the same instant. That has to be the case in order that the Moon can keep the same face pointed at the Earth.
Draw your radial line centred at 0,0 and study it closely.
Having said that, two curves are parallel at a common point if the tangent lines at those points are parallel.
If I have concentric circles centred at 0,0, and you regard the x-axis as common to both, at the point where the x-axis intercepts the two circles, the tangent lines to both circles are parallel.
Since the slope of a circle is defined at each point by its tangent line it means that concentric circles are parallel to each other because their tangent lines at equivalent points are parallel.
The same applies to any continuous curve since those curves can be defined by circles whose circumference coincides with the curves at a point.
I was taught to use words correctly and especially in science to use the known terms likewise. You just make stuff up to suit your narrow viewpoint.
P.S. Ellipse have two focus, not one center, but are still considered concentric.
“I was taught to use words correctly and especially in science…”
“Ellipse have two focus…”
RLH wan’t taught too well. The plural of “focus” is “foci”.
They don’t teach science and math in keyboard school.
The plural can also be focuses, Pup.
Trolling for years while butchering the concept of rotation is worse than committing typos.
It has 2 of them whatever their correct spelling.
entropic…”Actually the figure for a doubling of CO2 is 5.35ln(2)=3.71W/m^2, but Ill forgive him rounding it down in a propoganda leaflet”.
***
Pseudo-science and propaganda. This is the same trash programmed into climate models.
The Ideal Gas Law tells us that CO2 can add no more heat to the atmosphere than about 0.04C per 1C rise in global average. Any chemistry student worth his/her salt could tell you that.
Doubling CO2 to 0.08% would increase it warming power to about 0.08C per 1C warming.
Gr is an idiot. Best to ignore him.
Yeah RLH, Gordon is not competent enough to know IGL is just an ideal eqn. of state & not a thermodynamic internal energy balance to determine temperature change.
B4,
You wrote –
“Yeah RLH, Gordon is not competent enough to know IGL is just an ideal eqn. of state & not a thermodynamic internal energy balance to determine temperature change.”
So? Temperatures always change. For example, the Earth was created with a molten surface. It has cooled to its present temperature. Calculating “a thermodynamic internal energy balance to determine temperature change.” is just nonsensical jargon. Any moron can see that the surface is no longer molten, and no babbling about “thermodynamic internal energy balance” is going to convince any rational person otherwise.
How’s your hunt for the mythical Greenhouse Theory going? Not well?
That’s because it doesn’t exist, you dimwit!
Swenson is routinely refuted by the top post showing Earth climate has warmed in the satellite era and by instrumental observations of the earthen GHE.
B4,
I do not dispute facts.
Maybe if you could describe this GHE, people could ascertain for themselves whether you are just a deranged climate crank, or not.
At present, you just seem to be claiming that thermometers are responding to CO2, rather than heat from energy production and use.
Complete nonsense, but your fantasy obviously has you in its thrall.
Good for you, if it makes you happy.
Ok then Swenson does not dispute the fact Earth climate has warmed in the satellite era as shown above and Swenson does not dispute fact of the instrumental observation of the GHE. This is progress and less to laugh at now that Clint R has gone back under the bridge.
ball4…”Gordon is not competent enough to know IGL is just an ideal eqn. of state…”
***
The IGL relates P,V, T and the number of atoms/molecules of gas in any gas.
Your ‘internal thermodynamics energy balance’ is a figment of your imagination. The only internal energy in a gas is heat,unless of course, the gas is doing work or having work done on it.
There is nothing in science that can explain a logarithmic relationship between CO2 and heat.
Heat does not exist in a gas Gordon or in any object; only the pertinent thermodynamic internal energy exists in an object – in this case the total KE of the constituent particles. The 1LOT rules the thermodynamic internal energy balance in/out.
ball4…”Heat does not exist in a gas Gordon or in any object; only the pertinent thermodynamic internal energy exists in an object in this case the total KE…”
***
The nameless energies you call internal energy, and kinetic energy, is heat and any work produced by the vibrating atoms in a solid. So says Clausius, even though I am expressing my opinion independently based on physics.
Internal energy is a meaningless term unless you specify the energy involved as is kinetic energy. In the first law the equation equates heat, Q, with work, W, to an internal energy, U.
If you have studied the science behind equations you have to know that the units of internal energy must match the units of heat and work. Normally, heat is measured in calories, but there is an equivalence between heat and work where so many calories equal so many joules. Therefore heat gets expressed in joules rather than calories.
What could you possibly think internal energy is if it is not related to internal heat and work? Do you really think there is a form of energy called ‘internal’, or a form of energy called ‘kinetic’?
Clausius provided the symbol, U, to science, to represent internal energy and he defined internal energy as the internal heat of a mass plus the work done by the atoms in the mass due to their vibration. Why do you think the atoms increase their vibration when heat is added and reduce it when heat is removed?
Gordon, Joule determined the mass of an object does not change when its temperature was raised so no thing named heat was added to the object only the original total KE of the constituents increased. Thus there is no heat in an object. If there is no heat in an object, heat cannot transfer out of (or into) an object. Just like there is no work in an object.
Q is a rate of heating not an amount of heat. Heating is an increase in temperature during a thermodynamic process. Likewise cooling is a decrease in temperature during a thermodynamic process.
Dude, you are seriously bad at math.
0.08 % of 1 is 0.0008.
0.0008 times million is 800
Or 800 parts per million
.1% is 1000 ppm
4% water vapor in tropic is 40,000 part million.
Your Earth is dry with the outside of tropics it’s
about 3000 ppm of water vapor. Or .3% of atmosphere
Or our atmosphere is more than 99.5% without greenhouse gases
And 99% pure with anything is counted as pure.
It’s amazing that the plants can get the food they need.
bobd ….”Dude, you are seriously bad at math.
0.08 % of 1 is 0.0008″.
***
Sorry, Bob, I was being far too concise.
The IGL, when expressed with constant volume and number of molecules, comes down to a direct proportional relationship between P and T.
Pressure is related to mass through the number of molecules of a gas in a certain volume. Since CO2 is described as having a partial pressure of 0.04%, based on its mass-percent, that means the temperature it can produce is directly proportional to its mass-percent, which is roughly 0.04C.
Therefor, if we double its mass percent, which would be a doubling of CO2, the temperature can rise only to double the temperature equivalent of its present mass-percent, the equivalent of which would be 0.08C.
So, you seem my math is OK, there was just a slight misunderstanding due to me being too concise. That’s why I prefer going into detail, even though you skeptics and spinners still don’t understand.
Gordon,
Your math is still wrong and your use of the Ideal Gas Law is wrong, try asking a Chemist, maybe there is one or two that post on this site.
What you are forgetting is that when a gas expands the volume doesn’t stay constant.
And it usually applies to a closed system, and applying it to the atmosphere doesn’t work to explain heat transfer.
Furthermore, the CO2 is fully capable of transferring the energy it absorbs from the Earth’s surface to the Nitrogen and Oxygen and the other gases in the atmosphere, and then absorbing more energy and so on and so forth.
ball4…”Gordon is not competent enough to know IGL is just an ideal eqn. of state…”
***
The IGL relates P,V, T and the number of atoms/molecules of gas in any gas.
Your ‘internal thermodynamics energy balance’ is a figment of your imagination. The only internal energy in a gas is heat,unless of course, the gas is doing work or having work done on it.
There is nothing in science that can explain a logarithmic relationship between CO2 and heat.
…. other than proper theory and supporting experimental data.
ball4…”. other than proper theory and supporting experimental data”.
***
Like the Ideal Gas Law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
The IGL only informs on the state of the ideal gas Gordon. To find the change in temperature in the control volume during a thermodynamic process, you will need to compute the change in thermodynamic internal energy i.e. the change in total constituent KE from the 1LOT. Then from the change in temperature you can use the IGL to find the new state of the gas in any constant pressure or constant volume process.
I like your real Earthen 255K. That’s a doozy.
I wish I could be here all the time, like the trolls. But, the reality is, I’m too busy.
Fortunately, those of us locked in reality know ice cubes can NOT boil water.
Until the cult idiots prove ice cubes can boil water, they have NOTHING.
Clint R is an idiot. Best to ignore him.
RLH,
No. I won’t.
What are you going to do about it, you impotent moron?
Nothing?
Why should anybody take any notice of a nitwit like you? Have you run out of facts?
You really need to give some sort of reason, if you want people to do as you demand – particularly when you don’t follow your own instructions!
Carry on, if that’s the best you can do.
Clint R has indicated heading back under the bridge still not understanding how ice cubes can boil water as shown experimentally by Dr. Spencer so Swenson meanwhile will adequately take Clint’s place as the blog laughing stock.
B4,
You wrote –
” . . . ice cubes can boil water as shown experimentally by Dr. Spencer . . .”
You moron, your fantasy is not reality.
Are you completely deranged, or just seriously retarded? Claiming that anybody can boil water with anything colder than water just shows how disconnected from reality you are.
Still, it’s a free world, and you are free to be as silly as you wish.
Carry on.
Fact is Dr. Spencer showed experimentally how to boil water with ice cubes and Swenson admits to not dispute facts. Apparently Swenson’s comments while chortling cannot now be relied upon (this is not a change from the Mike days).
B4,
You wrote –
“Fact is Dr. Spencer showed experimentally how to boil water with ice cubes.”
Fact is you are obviously delusional.
Carry on.
Then Swenson does dispute the facts contrary to 8:58 pm assertion. No surprise.
B4,
You wrote –
“Then Swenson does dispute the facts contrary to 8:58 pm assertion. No surprise..
No, you moron. I disputed your unsupported assertion – because it was unsupported.
Try again. A few facts might help. The contents of your imagination are not facts, nor are your mad opinions.
Carry on.
Experimental facts are not opinions. Swenson just chooses to ignore experimental results and instead imagine the data. Typical for a replacement blog laughing stock.
What is the boiling temperature of water in a vacuum?
Boiling point only has meaning if you also state the pressure.
Swenson: Just because you can proceed does not make you less of an idiot.
“No. I won’t”
That statement was not for you and your tiny, tiny, clique. It was for the majority.
RLH,
Oh dear. Maybe you should create a blog for the majority.
You could ban anyone you didn’t like.
What do you think?
Idiot.
I am receiving $88 every hour to work on-net. Ive never believed like it can be achievable however WIVY one of my greatest pal got $27,000 just in three weeks just working this simple project & she influenced me to avail
View more instructions visiting this web page >>> http://workpay1.blogspot.com/
Clint R
That is terrific news! Please stay as busy as possible. Your rude, ignorant trolling comments are not something I will ever miss. Hope the busy season lasts a long time. I will not miss your comments!
I have visions of Clint R, fraught with doubt, filling all his spare moments from trolling here with trying to boil ice cubes.
Ken,
The nutty climate cranks apparently believe that water can be boiled using the energy from ice cubes!
I don’t believe it is possible. Do you?
Idiot.
Ken is nothing more than another worthless troll. He has often invalidated opinions, but no science.
Now, he’s adopted the troll tactics of “false accusations” and “misrepresenting”. They’ve all been to the same keyboard school.
Clint R is just an idiot.
Excellent post by Cliff Mass clearly demonstrating how media and some climate scientists are not the most honest presenters of information.
https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/
Maybe Willard eats the “narrative” like a delicious box of fine chocolates. I am glad their are intelligent skeptics like Cliff Mass to shine the light on the dishonest distortion perpetuated at a constant rate by alarmists.
norman…from your link….
“As discussed in earlier blogs, there has been a major ridge of high pressure over the eastern Pacific (see upper-level 500 hPa pressure/height map for about 18,000 ft ASL at 1 PM today, below).
Such ridges are quite frequent during La Nina years like this one”.
***
We were affected by this kind of ridge during the summer of 2021 that produced a mini-hat wave. Another one in November produced heavy rainfall and flooding. Obviously all La Nina related, yet the rocket-scientists at Environment Canada claimed it as evidence of climate change.
It probably is climate change just not the AGW version of climate change promoted by the people at Environmental Canada.
Anecdotal stories from the start of the little ice age were all about wildly variable weather.
Cliff is more a contrarian than a skeptic, Norma.
As for your talking point:
https://climateball.net/but-alarmism/
Oh, and do learn to copy-paste the proper links!
Willy
You are an alarmist idiot. You are about as intelligent as Clint R.
Go play your foolish Climateball and have a good time. Intelligent discussion with you is a useless as with Clint R or Gordon Robertson. You are cut from the same cloth. Idiot material.
Why don’t you go play with Svenson. The two of you are quite suited to each other. Two idiots blabbing about nothing for hundreds of posts.
WillTard
What did you find lacking in the link? It was to Cliff Mass blog. Are you too stupid to navigate the blog? It would not surprise me.
I clicked on the link I embedded and it worked for me.
Willderness
You state your opinion that Cliff Mass is a contrarian and not a skeptic. What is that based upon, your extensive knowledge of the field of meteorology? I would think you probably have no clue of what he is talking about but because he uses rational thought and not fanatic emotionalism that you use you don’t understand what points he is making.
Willard the Ignorant
Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliff_Mass#:~:text=Mass%20has%20stated%20publicly%20that,negative%20impacts%20of%20climate%20change.
Cliff Mass has a PhD in Atmospheric Science. His concern is not about global warming. It is about idiots like you that falsely attribute all bad weather events to Climate Change hysteria. It is what I am against as well. It is very unscientific and emotional based manipulation. Stick to the Science. I am not sure what your education is in but it does not seem science based. More like theatre or film.
Norma,
Here you go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrarian
And here’s my favorite bit about Cliff:
https://redgreenandblue.org/2020/08/18/seattle-meteorologist-climate-denier-darling-cliff-mass-compares-blm-protests-nazis-kristallnacht/
Play the “I’m only here for the science” all you want.
You’re fooling no one.
“The density, specific heat, viscosity, and thermal conductivity of a typical basaltic magma at 1200 C at low pressure are 2600 kg/m3, 1450 J/kg K, 100 Pa s, and 0.6 W/m K, respectively.
The heat needed to completely fuse (melt) gabbro, the plutonic (crystalline) equivalent of basaltic magma, is about 500 kJ/kg”
https://magma.geol.ucsb.edu/papers/EoV%20chapter%205%20Lesher&Spera.pdf
So got cubic meter lava/magma it’s mass is 2600 kg
One kg of it to cool from 1205 C to 5 C is 1450 times 1200 = 1,740,000 joules or 1760 KJ
And to become solid, about 500 kJ: 500 + 1760 = 2,240 KJ
Specific heat of seawater: 3850 J/(kg C) or 3.85 KJ per kg per K
2,240 / 3.85 = 581.8181818181818
Or 10 kg of water by 58.18 C
Or 1 kg of lava at 1205 C heat cubic meter of water by .5818 K
And a cubic meter of lava 2600 kg, is 2600 times .5818 = 1,512.72 K
Or 100 cubic meter of water by 15.127 C
Or 1000 cubic meter of water by 1.51 C
1 kg of lava is 1,740,000 joules and cubic meter of lava, is times 2600 = 4,524,000,000 joules or 4.524 x 10^9 joules
And cubic km of lava, times 1,000,000,000 or: 4.524 x 10^18 joules
Or warms 1000 cubic km of water by 1.51 C
And 50 megaton nuke is 2.110^17 joules
Or 1 cubic km of lava has heat/energy of 21 Tsar Bomba- the largest nuclear bomb ever exploded
But I wondering about catastrophic stuff, in regards to:
“The only question is if it is all down to manmade CO2 and is catastrophic with no significant natural component.”
And wondering about 100 cubic km of lava or as above, 2100 Tsar bombs exploding in the ocean somewhere.
But I had to first look up specific heat of lava and latent heat. Which has all kinds variables, such as discussed
here:
https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/05lostcity/background/serp/serpentinization.html
And:
“The following calculations show how much molten lava would be cooled and solidified by 100 kg of water.
The lava is assumed to be at 1000 degrees C and the water is assumed to be at 10 degrees C. The final temperature for the lava
and the water is assumed to be 100 degrees C. These numbers are only approximate. The actual specific heat and latent heat
of fusion for lava varies depending on the mineral composition. In his piece Cooling the Lava, John Mcphee gives a figure
of 1.7 kg of lava cooled per 1 kg of water. My calculations show 2.7 kg of lava cooled per 1 kg of water.”
https://tinyurl.com/yc273wem
Anyhow as a guess, it seems just 100 cubic km of Lava flowing out at the bottom the arctic ocean, would not do much.
g,
From Wikipedia –
“Plate tectonics was a suitable explanation for seafloor spreading, and the acceptance of plate tectonics by the majority of geologists resulted in a major paradigm shift in geological thinking”
Facile, seductive, and probably wrong, in my view. It’s interesting to note that the mid-ocean ridges encircle the globe, and that material from the interior continuously oozes through the fissure – somewhat like material being forced out of a zit under pressure.
Considering the difference in volume between hot rock and cold rock, the reason for the behaviour of the mid-ocean ridges seems fairly obvious, and does not require any explanation more complicated than knowledge of the physical properties of the materials involved.
You might well come to the same conclusion. Have fun.
.
swenson…”Its interesting to note that the mid-ocean ridges encircle the globe…”
***
There are studies showing that the spreading of the ocean floor due to these ridges is not corroborated by features along the shoreline. In other words, there’s no evidence the sea floor is spreading.
Had this tucked away in my archives.
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation20.html
Worth the read even though some on this blog would give up after the first few sentences, claiming it is rambling and incoherent. According to them, scientists should refrain from writing in detail but should offer only concise summaries of their thoughts.
Makes it easier for pseudo-scientists to refute real science.
Gordon,
I see no real conflict between plate movement (I suppose non-homogenous crustal movement might be mor all-encompassing), and new material being continuously injected along mid ocean ridges. The fissure does not have to widen, nor the sea floor to expand laterally. Rather, as has been observed, the new material spreads on top of the old.
Simultaneously, of course, other geologic processes occur. All a bit complicated.
My speculation seems to fit observed facts, but it’s only idle speculation.
I know it is wiki but by far and away the majority of the relevant scientists accept this view and have published papers saying the same thing.
It shows that there are features at the center of most of the worlds oceans that are matched with feature at their edges.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics#/media/File:Continental-continental_constructive_plate_boundary.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics#/media/File:Continental-continental_destructive_plate_boundary.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics#/media/File:Continental-continental_conservative_plate_boundary_opposite_directions.svg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd*Crn39Lv5I
(Remove the asterisk)
GR doesn’t accept anything later than 1910 looking at his posts.
I would tend to say that plate tectonic theory is still in the early stages- or expect lots new discoveries related to it to happen in the next hundred years.
What is slightly newer is the effect of past impactors upon Earth. I think we come around to fining more evidence of impactors being related in significant way to plate tectonic activity.
Another article challenging the current (I consider terrible news reporting since it is not supported by valid evidence) Climate hype.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/02/17/sorry-texas-tribune-texas-is-not-suffering-extreme-weather-because-of-climate-change/
The problem is you have the anti-science crowd, some who post here regularly, like Swenson, Clint R, Gordon Robertson. Not a one of these three have logical thinking ability or know any real physics. They reject all evidence that opposes their incorrect but strongly held opinions. You can show them facts over and over and it makes not a bit of difference for these anti-science types. But far worse than a handful of crackpots that post on blogs is the larger Main Stream Media that falsely and dishonestly reports bad weather events as linked to Global Warming yet they do not have solid evidence to back up any of the claims.
I am stuck in the middle of enjoying the scientific concepts and asking for evidence of any and all claims. None is given by the crackpots or the alarmists. What is the Middle science minded person to do?
norman…”Not a one of these three have logical thinking ability or know any real physics”.
***
Still awaiting real physics from you, Norman. Your misinterpretations of physics, based on erroneous entries in textbooks is not real physics.
You continue to post rubbish from textbooks that claim EM can flow both ways between bodies of different temperatures, even though that contradicts the 2nd law and quantum theory.
2LOT is satisfied Gordon as the entropy of the universe increases in such a process and you fail to understand quantum theory in your comments not the text books. Norman’s comments based on text books are reliable unlike Gordon’s made up stuff when not based on experiments cited by text books.
@GR
>>EM can flow both ways between bodies of different temperatures, even though that contradicts the 2nd law and quantum theory.
HEAT, gordie, heat can’t flow both ways, by definition, EM energy can flow in all directions simultaneously and does. It has been explained to you probably dozens of times but you just choose not to comprehend what you supposedly reaad.
c,
EM flows in any direction it chooses. Some climate crackpots believe this is meaningful. Of course, it isn’t.
Unless a photon interacts with an electron, nothing at all results.
You may not realise this, or that photons are not subject to the Pauli exclusion principle. That may be because you are ignorant, stupid, or a delusional climate crackpot.
Have you any other reasons for your odd opinions?
Idiot.
Yes, heat flows from the object at the higher temperature to the object at the lower temperature. There is no exchange. If they’re at the same temperature there is no flow. It never flows from the lower temperature to the higher temperature, at least without work.
But heat flows less from a higher temperature object if partially surrounded by objects that are lower than it but higher than the background.
No stephen, heat can’t flow as heat doesn’t exist in nature. KE is exchanged and KE exchange is both ways. You need to up your thermodynamics game.
B4,
You might start a writing campaign to all the universities, engineering firms, HVAC firms, textbook publishers, etc., that heat transfer doesn’t exist. They’ve been wrong all these centuries.
RLH,
Are you going to call B4 an idiot or is that only reserved for people you politically disagree with?
No need to do that stephen. They all write in their textbooks now that heat does not exist in an object since Joule proved that experimentally.
You do not know what my politics are.
stephen p anderson
There is no heat flow but there is a continuous energy flow and exchange. That process does not stop but heat is defined as the Net energy transferred from a hot object to a cold one.
When two objects are at the same temperature there is no NET energy transferred. There is a continuous exchange of energy the whole time. That process does not stop.
Gordon Robertson
You are anti-science and illogical that is certain. But you could do a simple test of your flawed thinking and change. I don’t think you will.
You live in colder Canada. It should be cold outside at this time. The test should be done at night so there is on outside source of energy like the Sun.
Get in your car and sit. Do not turn it on just sit. The seat will be cold and your ass will cool as it transfers heat to the seat. After a time you ass will warm the seat and your butt will not be as cold. The seat is somewhat of an insulating material and transfers heat slowly so as you sit it will warm faster than it cools. In time the seat will warm and you will transfer less heat to the seat than when you first sat down. In time both seat and butt will get warmer.
You don’t understand the real 2nd Law of Thermodynamics at all. You have this stupid blog version (maybe coming from the crackpot fanatic Joe Postma who is irrational) that a cold object has no effect on heat flow yet it does. You can cling to your stupid anti-science beliefs. You can go to you car and see this version is stupid and wrong or you can ignore testing and evidence and continue to peddle false ideas and be anti-science. Knowing your personality I am sure you will avoid the experiment and just keep throwing out blog swill and thinking it is good sceince. Why would you change?
Here is the real science for you car experiment:
https://study.com/academy/lesson/heat-transfer-through-conduction-equation-examples.html
Heat transfer from your butt to seat depends upon the temperature of your ass and the temperature of the seat. As the seat warms up you transfer less heat to it and your butt does not get as cold as when the seat is colder.
N,
Cars? You realise people freeze to death in unheated cars, don’t you?
Or they can die of heatstroke, depending on the environment. Or starve to death, or die of thirst.
Maybe you could produce a copy of the description of the GHE, or the mythical Greenhouse Theory.
[laughter all round]
Idiot.
Norman,
In your perverted “understanding” of physics, you believe you can heat your car to a comfortable temperature with ice cubes!
You know NOTHING about science.
Clint R can now read minds to determine what Norman believes AND knows. Typical for dedicated entertainer Clint.
Braindead4, Norman believes two ice cubes can bring something to 325K. That’s WAY above body temperature.
But, this is science so it’s WAY above your head.
Thanks for reconfirming your ignorance.
Clint R is just an idiot. Best to ignore him (and the rest of his 4 man clique).
Not ignoring Clint R provides much laughter around here RLH. I see Clint chooses not to go back under the bridge & instead remain here providing such lol physics entertainment along with Gordon & Swenson.
You can of course find the idiots entertaining but….
Clint R
You did not stay gone long. But you sure are stupid. Not sure how you get so dumb. Does it take unusual talent.
I would like you to provide even the slightest evidence that I made any claim ice cubes could bring a temperture to 325 K.
Like I said before, you used to be just a troll now you have taken up lying with intent. I guess being stupid is not enough so you need to add lying and dishonesty to the mix. You are a messed up human. Please seek help from a qualified therapist.
Well, we been in a icehouse global climate for very long time, and last 2 million years has been the coldest.
This coldness is often said to have caused human evolution and also caused to the Polar bear to evolve from some kind of brown bear.
Anyhow, we in interglacial period which call the Holocene. All past interglacial period start with huge spike in temperature. Or the global surface air temperature starts around 10 C and rise in relatively short period to as much 18 C.
We currently past this warmest part of our interglacial period, and that period is called the Holocene climatic optimum:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
And during thousands of years periods, Sahara desert almost entirely grassland, forests, rivers, and lakes. With a lot human settlements. And some think that this was the Garden of Eden {which people had to leave} but their many guesses of where the Garden of Eden was, or whether it ever even existed.
Also, arctic ocean was ice free at this time.
I haven’t figured out how to change anyone’s mind. Charles MacKay wrote a great book ‘Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. He speaks about how difficult it is to change the mind of someone who has taken the bait hook, line, and sinker. Changing the opinion of a crowd of fooled people is a discouraging one-at-a-time process.
I want to change my mind.
For instance, how do solar panels work if they only get 6 hours of power per a 24 hour day?
But I have huge list of things I would like to change my mind about.
Does anyone actually I believe what politicians say.
And why did anyone vote for Joe Biden.
I met someone actually like Joe Biden, but I couldn’t understand why.
>> For instance, how do solar panels work if they only get 6 hours of power per a 24 hour day?
They work 6 hours per day. but they don’t get any weekend, so would not herald it as a successful implementation of a progressive policies =)
>>I met someone actually like Joe Biden, but I couldn’t understand why.
Joe is a Tall and handsome man. or used to be in the past.. still looks good for his age. So why not, there may be people liking him for that.
The notion:
T = ( J /σ ) ∕ ⁴ (K)
is a misfortunate scientific mislead, because it is a huge mistake.
The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law doesn’t work vice-versa.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Then, the hair plugs were a very good investment.
Maybe, Hillary should shave off her hair and paint her skull blue.
So, I like new stuff.
But not eager to change habits, which I think is what you mean
by “I havent figured out how to change anyones mind.”
It seems I am overly fond of habits, and I could be eager to add
more habits.
Keeping habits is like keeping the raft that one used to go across the river {religion}.
I don’t think people should change their religion. But they should maybe add to their religion. The Zen says toss the raft after you crossed the river, don’t carry it with you
I think is might be good idea, but I am not going try to take away someone’s damn raft.
As I am fond another habit of the idea of freedom of religion.
Or good teacher, is going to add stuff.
I am not teacher, nor a good teacher.
I am cursed with being philosopher.
And I believe a philosopher is similar to some kind of disease, or like alcohol addiction. Teaching it, seems rather pointless- and maybe even dangerous.
It’s like any art, but all those other arts seem more healthy- though do tend to have rather insane people.
Anyhow a teacher shouldn’t want to change children’s minds, a teacher enables exploration, finding out stuff. And forming a habit of learning how to find out more stuff.
And we put teachers in assembly line system, which does not really do much education. And I tend to think the educational system is “really” more about teachers getting educated, and a teacher trying to get themselves educated, are probably the best which a teacher can be in our system of education.
Or the students could learn by example- if teachers are learning, it tends pull the whole class in that direction.
End of rant.
Oh, I guess, changing someone mind is something a psychologists does. And what we spend a lot time doing here, is being psychics.
And no one is very good at reading minds.
One could say, if being psychologist, it seems one should get paid for your work.
One more thing, if attempting to change someone’s mind, you might actually be trying to change your mind. Or that is what psychologists seem to be doing.
Ken
Once most people make up their minds, they tend to stick.
My father’s doctor was convinced that his anaemia was due to internal bleeding and spent months looking for excess blood loss.
Eventually he realised that Dad’s body was removing red blood cells at the normal rate, but had stopped replacing them. (Mmyeloma)
I think only a minority of folk are flexible enough to discard cherished beliefs in the face of sufficient evidence. Many of them are investigators, trained to keep a light grip on their hypotheses.
One regular complaint of politicians is that the scientists on their committees keep changing their minds as the evidence changes.
There’s nothing wrong with “sticking to your guns”, if you’re right. It’s when people fervently deny reality that they become cult idiots.
For example, note that many here support the nonsense that ice cubes can boil water.
… because they rely on proper experimental results demonstrating such unlike uninformed but dedicated entertainers like Clint R.
I am receiving $88 every hour to work on-net. Ive never believed like it can be achievable however WIVY one of my greatest pal got $27,000 just in three weeks just working this simple project & she influenced me to avail
View more instructions visiting this web page >>> http://workpay1.blogspot.com/
Swenson, Clint R, Gordon Robertson and DREMT are a tiny, tiny clique of 4. They are all idiots.
I agree about the media but people saying that the world is continuously getting hotter when demonstrably that is not the case over the last few years don’t help in grounding peoples opinions IMHO.
RLH,
What do you find mysterious about thermometers responding to heat? Isn’t that what they are designed to do?
If most people don’t accept reality, do you care?
What the hell does “grounding peoples opinions” mean, anyway? Is this some new climate crackpot jargon?
You are part of the clique of 4 idiots so why should I consider anything you post?
RLH,
Why indeed?
Idiot.
RLH
Are you battened down ready for Eunice?
I’m not in red bit.
https://imgur.com/a/25O1Zud
Nor me, though I have kin in the red zones.
We’re a bit like Texas. Our infrastructure is not really designed for extreme weather.
Perhaps we should go back to steam railways. No overhead cables and the trees kept well back from the track because of the fire risk.
Nobody is prepared for extreme weather (or expects the Spanish Inquisition).
Added “DREMT” to DrRoy-Decrufter:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/hclipzie2ycrpoo/AADQpHxvvrOMbtYmsRvJ4z6ua?dl=0
Thanks Norman, for another opinionated rant, full of your usual false accusations and insults.
Truth, honesty, reality and science obviously mean NOTHING to you.
That’s typical for trolls, huh?
Truth, honesty, reality and science obviously mean NOTHING to you you mean as you exhibit none of them.
Sorry that your senility is such a burden for you, RLH.
Sorry that being an idiot is such a burden for you.
Asking whether you “believe” in global warming from the CO2 from fossil-fuel burning, is a little like asking whether you “believe” that gravity will pull a dropped pencil downward; both are unavoidable consequences of well-understood physics. But most people accept the tendency for a dropped pencil to fall downward, without asking whether you “believe” in gravity. If they could see in the infrared, they would probably hold similar beliefs about global warming.
The effects of CO2 on energy transfer are observed in the laboratory and the field with various instruments, and calculated independently from quantum-mechanical principles. https://ibb.co/vk5NS7M
Satellites looking down see that Earth’s atmosphere is blocking energy in just those wavelengths that the laboratory measurements and the calculations show are blocked by CO2 and other greenhouse gases. https://ibb.co/TPnCT9t
Modeling matches observed data beautifully. https://youtu.be/fM34UMEr6L4
TM, you keep linking to things you don’t understand.
But, I enjoyed the “blocking energy” term. They actually believe that low energy photons can somehow “stack up”!
Maybe I will have time for another lesson on 2LoT, this weekend.
Stay tuned.
Clint R is an idiot. Best to ignore him (and the rest of his tiny clique).
Poor senile RLH is obviously obsessed with me.
That’s good. It gives him something to do.
Clint R is still an idiot.
The TPnCT9t image charts are difficult to assess given the 3-ord poly curves. Alternatively, the following component contribution charts more clearly indicate the participation of each component:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png
Of what importance is the much greater area under the curve for water vapor component chart compared to the carbon dioxide component chart?
Geek, you don’t know anything about those graphs.
For example, they are all based on modeling. They’re about as far from reality as is the cult idiots claiming ice cubes can boil water.
Everything is based on modeling.
In the scientific method a hypothesis is a model.
Stop being sofa king stupid.
Clint R is a stupid idiot?
braindead bob, in the scientific method a hypothesis, or model, that violates the Laws of physics is bogus.
Well if it was logic then you would be out to lunch then.
Clint R
“braindead bob, in the scientific method a hypothesis, or model, that violates the Laws of physics is bogus.”
Is that your second law of thermodynamics or the real life second law of thermodynamics.
Ask our host if the greenhouse effect violates the second law.
bob, are you trying to hide behind “our host”?
In the scientific method a hypothesis, or model, that violates the Laws of physics is bogus.
Clint R: You don’t do real physics or science. Just your made up versions of them.
CLint R,
I was suggesting that you consider what someone a little bit* smarter than you knows about the greenhouse effect.
Tell me again how the greenhouse effect violates any law of physics and I’ll be glad to tell you where you have it wrong.
But we have had endless discussions and you still don’t understand
WizGeek at 9:25 AM
“The TPnCT9t image charts are difficult to assess…”
For a satellite sensor viewing downward the radiative transfer equation is given in general form by:
Radiant Intensity at the sensor = Emission from the earth’s surface + The integrated [net] thermal emission contributions from each point along the line of sight between the surface and the sensor.
The CO2 band (irregular solid curve)shows that the observed spectra (usually) sees a lower brightness temperature as the emission is from the colder levels in the troposphere.
“Of what importance is the much greater area under the curve for water vapor…”
H2O has numerous strong bands throughout the IR spectrum. CO2’s strongest band happens to coincide (roughly) with the surface’s peak emission frequency.
What everyone is aware of is that warming effect from CO2 is small.
What is connected to rising CO2 levels, is idea that rising CO2 global level will increase global water vapor. And an increase in global water vapor is considered to be much larger effect.
Some think increasing CO2 level can also have some cooling effect- higher CO2 levels cause warming but also cause some cooling.
I don’t understand or agree that CO2 causes any cooling effect- but could consider this as rather insignificant and can chose to ignore it.
I used to say I thought the effects of doubling CO2 [not including water vapor possible increase] was smaller than most people thought it was. But it seem that double CO2 effect over time period of 100 years would be about .1 to .5 C.
And what seems rather obvious to me, is that what increases global water vapor, is a warmer average ocean temperature, which is currently about 3.5 C.
Or a warmer ocean causes a higher global water vapor, and it’s not about increasing in CO2 levels.
But what regard as having more agreement is that if you add lakes of water to Mars, it should increase the global average temperature of Mars.
{But I don’t think increasing Mars average temperature {which don’t think we know what it is] matters much. Or air temperature of Mars
is not important issue. But having lakes on Mars would be important.
James Webb Space Telescope’s Fine Guidance Sensor (FGS) Is Guiding!
The fine-guidance instrument is key to keeping the space telescope pointed in the right direction (With respect to the fixed reference frame).
To ensure Webb stays locked on its celestial targets, the FGS measures the exact position of a guide star in its field of view 16 times per second and sends adjustments to the telescope’s fine steering mirror about three times per second. In addition to its speed, the FGS also needs to be incredibly precise.
The degree of precision with which it can detect changes in the pointing to a celestial object is the equivalent of a person in New York City being able to see the eye motion of someone blinking at the Canadian border 500 kilometers (311 miles) away!
maguff…”The degree of precision with which it can detect changes in the pointing to a celestial object is the equivalent of a person in New York City being able to see the eye motion of someone blinking at the Canadian border 500 kilometers (311 miles) away!”
***
Sheer propaganda. Any bets that this piece of space garbage will get hit by a meteorite, causing it to face the Sun, burning out its telemetry.
GR doesn’t like anything after 1910, especially space based telescopes.
I hadn’t seen this article from 5 November 2021, and I also admit having skipped over when ATTP blogged about it, so it’s news to me.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-norfolk-59176497
A former climate change sceptic has told the BBC he wants to apologise for his role in the “Climategate” scandal.
–Last month, Prof Jones, who continues to work at CRU, said he still received hate mail each October and November, coinciding with the anniversary of the hack and subsequent “media storm”.
He believed Climategate delayed action on climate change by a decade.–
That seems disillusion
“”We were fighting against a massive tide, and people just didn’t seem to want to know about the science, they wanted to know about a few words in a few emails,” he told BBC Look East.”
Yes, since you are a public servant, we have freedom of information and it was mostly all about a “few words in a few emails” which concerning your governmental corruption.
But I thought “readme” was more amusing- or the actual comedy star of it all.
The most depressing thing was from Phil Jones.
“He believed Climategate delayed action on climate change by a decade. ”
That puts peak temperature ten years later and 0.2C higher than it might have been. I am sure that makes the sceptics proud.
I think sceptics might regard it as great comedy.
And it seems Phil Jones needs to reassess.
And I am bit disappointed in Phil’s lack of wisdom.
But you think our .13 per decade, is going to go up within a couple
years to .2 C?
I think going be .09 within a couple years.
Though range of -.04 to +.07 C is quite small.
And since we been flat for about 1/2 decade, it actually needs to
more than .2 C per decade but if it became .2 C per decade, at least it be going in that direction, and govt policy is attempting to be .3 C per decade as a short goal worthy trillions of dollar wasted
and continuing it’s ineffective policies of wind mills and solar panels, making more dangerous electrical cars.
Though purpose actually seems to be getting a bunch of politicians unelected.
entropic…”The most depressing thing was from Phil Jones.
He believed Climategate delayed action on climate change by a decade.
***
Jones still misses the implication of Climategate, that top alarmist scientists were admitting their cheating in private while presenting a face of integrity to the public.
Jones was a Coordinating Lead Author at IPCC reviews, along with his partner, Kevin Trenberth. They got to pick the lead authors who in turn got to pick the reviewers. As a CLA, Jones announced in Climategate, to his peers, that he and Kevin would see to it that certain skeptic’s papers would be kept out of the review process.
One of those papers was co-authored by John Christy of UAH and Jones did prevent that paper getting through for review.
Jones also applauded Mann’s trick, a device aimed at hiding declining temperatures. He bragged that he used it himself. He also applauded the death of skeptic John Daly.
Phil Jones is a scumbag and I don’t particularly care what he claims about Climategate, about which he is still in denial.
Among other deceit, Climategate revealed Michael Mann furiously pushing for interference in the peer review process. Kevin Trenberth lamented that global warming had stopped, circa 2007, right in the middle of the period from 1998 – 2012 that the IPCC admitted showed no warming.
How does CO2 do that? It stops warming completely for 15 years?
> scientists were admitting their cheating in private
C’mon, Gordo. You’re being silly once again.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Can you name someone who cares what you think?
Mike Flynn, my beloved sock puppet.
Weary Wee Willy,
Have you asked him, or are you consulting your fantasy – yet again?
Moron.
Have you, sock puppet?
Wistful Wee Willy,
Just asking questions again, moron?
Tsk, tsk.
[chortles]
Swenson = idiot.
The best comment in ATTP’s thread was
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/11/12/the-hack-that-changed-the-world/#comment-201488
izen made a 100% focus on the problem.
It sure was a good comment, Binny.
Still, Remember Yanmal.
I like the story of the bird:
“one bird, one ship”
Steven Mosher says:
November 21, 2021 at 4:46 pm
But I believe what more important is that China is approaching
peak coal.
But in terms climategate, the one bird, one ship is similar enough thing, to trying to kill sparrows [or holding up a freighters].
Or global warming religious problem is not skeptics.
Or Lefties eat their own.
Mosh is a right-wing libertarian, gb.
Keep in your s-f lane.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGzCQZUrs2k
Chinese Starship
–If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, SpaceX must be very pleased with the Chinese space program.
Wang Xiaojun, president of the nations Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology (CALT), gave a presentation earlier this month showing off a concept for a two-stage methane-liquid launch system that looked suspiciously familiar, as SpaceNews pointed out.
To wit, the images used in the slides bear a striking resemblance to SpaceXs Starship spacecraft. In all fairness, though, there are differences as well. CALTs launch system is designed to carry around 20 tons to low-Earth orbit, while SpaceXs mammoth spacecraft aims at carrying a whopping 100 tons. —
https://futurism.com/the-byte/china-rocket-spacex-starship
maguff…”Asked about CRU scientists, he said: “I’d apologise for unkind things I said about their work and capabilities.””
***
Still no apologies from the scumbags caught in the Climategate scandal. Among their chicanery…
1)They applauded the death of skeptic John Daly.
2)They advocated interfering with peer review.
3)Jones claimed he and his partner Kevin would prevent certain skeptic papers from reaching the IPCC review stage.
3)Mann’s cheating trick was revealed that hid declining temperatures. Jones bragged that he had used it at Had-crut.
4)Kevin Trenberth admitted global warming had stopped, circa 2007.
I am receiving $88 every hour to work on-net. Ive never believed like it can be achievable however WIVY one of my greatest pal got $27,000 just in three weeks just working this simple project & she influenced me to avail
View more instructions visiting this web page >>> http://workpay1.blogspot.com/
Added “Emily Dobson” to Decrufter:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/hclipzie2ycrpoo/AADQpHxvvrOMbtYmsRvJ4z6ua?dl=0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04SE6q5H7b0
Scott mentions an important aspect related Fusion energy.
Scotts is global warming believer, and thinks fusion is important
issue related the problem.
Only Trump can save the dem party.
I am not dem or rep, but I think important to save the dem party,
though one change the name of dem party. Or dem party has a lot baggage connected to it and the woke idea of tearing down that statue {name of dem party} might be a good or ok move, but it seems
we need dem party whether it’s name.
Or I like no parties, also, but that seems too much much of an ask.
The reps actually not fans of having any parties {very conservative idea} and also having weak President {very conservative idea}.
But not having two parties seems like it would be problem, and I rather not have that problem, now.
gbaikie
Do you really think I would spend one full hour to listen to an unknown guy?
What does Scott mean about fusion?
All I know is that due to cross-sectional problems and the Lawson criterion defining requirements for minimal temperature, confinement time and density of the plasma, the D+T fusion is the only one currently possible to use (D+D for example needs five time higher temperatures).
That means that while we have deuterium in abundance, tritium does not exist in nature (about 5 kg of it lurk around above the oceans) and hence has to be breeded out of Lithium.
Means the same amount of waste as for 4G reactors breeding U233 out of Th232, or Pu239 out of U238.
Moreover, D+T generates a neutron flux with extremely high energy, something no one seems to care about.
–Bindidon says:
February 18, 2022 at 2:23 PM
gbaikie
Do you really think I would spend one full hour to listen to an unknown guy?
What does Scott mean about fusion?–
Oh, just that apparent to Scott, AI making significant progress
with allowing the fusion process to last longer, and expects further AI learning to solve it.
Scott doesn’t claim much ability regarding science issues, but is interested [or obsessed] in future effect of AI.
Or Scott thinks he has the “talent stack”, that enables him discussing such issues.
RE:
“All I know is that due to cross-sectional problems and the Lawson criterion defining requirements for minimal temperature, confinement time and density of the plasma, the D+T fusion is the only one currently possible to use (D+D for example needs five time higher temperatures).”
That means that while we have deuterium in abundance, tritium does not exist in nature (about 5 kg of it lurk around above the oceans) and hence has to be breeded out of Lithium.
Means the same amount of waste as for 4G reactors breeding U233 out of Th232, or Pu239 out of U238.
Moreover, D+T generates a neutron flux with extremely high energy, something no one seems to care about.”
Well, Scott looking at other issues. Or he listening to scientists, and he isn’t a scientist.
I am not very hopeful about Fusion in the near term, but it seems possible that machine learning might increase the chances.
gb,
“The EAST (Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak) nuclear fusion reactor maintained a temperature of 158 million degrees Fahrenheit (70 million degrees Celsius) for 1,056 seconds, according to the Xinhua News Agency.”
Of course, the devil is in the detail when it comes to actually utilising the energy being produced.
Still, the Chinese, Russians, Americans, Europeans, and all the others probably don’t know about the claims of climate crackpots who believe that ice can be used to heat boilers for electricity generation!
Maybe real scientists don’t believe in mythical physics like the GHE.
unknown guy? OK
BTW, not to get hung up on it but
‘breeded’ is not a word.
–Do you really think I would spend one full hour to listen to an unknown guy?–
Oh, also, I never do, I listen at 2x time, so about 1/2 hour.
Scott much better at double time, and he recommends it.
Too bad, there is no triple time. And I might even like a 4x option.
coturnix …”coturnix…”EM energy can flow in all directions simultaneously and does. It has been explained to you probably dozens of times but you just choose not to comprehend what you supposedly reaad.”
***
I have no problem with EM flowing in different direction simultaneously, even between bodies of different temperatures. It’s a question of whether EM from a cooler body can be absorbed by a hotter body.
Quantum theory tells us it can’t. EM is absorbed and emitted in atoms by electrons. When an electron falls from a higher energy level E2 to a lower energy level E1, it emits a quantum of energy described by E = E2 – E1 = hf. Here, h is Planck’s constant and f is the frequency of the electron, measured as it’s angular frequency at the higher energy level.
When an electron absorbs a quantum of energy, the value of E has to be high enough to match the distance in energy levels an electron can jump when excited and the frequency, f, must match the angular frequency required at whatever energy level to which the electron jumps.
If that quantum of energy comes from a cooler object, neither E nor f will match the required parameters to excite an electron in a hotter object. Therefore, the electron will simply ignore it.
It should be noted that heat in a substance is the average kinetic energy of the atoms in the substance. The KE is mainly related to the motion of the electrons bonding the atomic nucleii. So, when electrons jump to a higher energy level en masse, the substance, as a whole, heats.
“Its a question of whether EM from a cooler body can be absorbed by a hotter body”
How then do you explain that a body in a vacuum that has 50% of its radiating surface exposed to a body at half its temperature with the rest exposed to 5K will cool slower than one exposed with 100% of its surface to 5K?
RLH,
You wrote –
“How then do you explain that a body in a vacuum that has 50% of its radiating surface exposed to a body at half its temperature with the rest exposed to 5K will cool slower than one exposed with 100% of its surface to 5K?”
The answer is quite simple. Have you made any effort at all to find out for yourself?
I assume you think you know the answer. If this is the case, post it, and I will tear it to shreds. There is no GHE, and anyone who claims there is, will soon discover that they cannot even provide a useful description of it without having to invoke magical principles at one point or another.
Feel free to try.
Objects that are surrounded by 50% lower temperature objects will cool slower that an objects that are not. Fact.
Argue with GR.
“If you block the amount of radiation in any way, it will cool slower”
rlh…”How then do you explain that a body in a vacuum that has 50% of its radiating surface exposed to a body at half its temperature with the rest exposed to 5K will cool slower than one exposed with 100% of its surface to 5K?”
***
We covered that a while back with Swannie’s attempt to emulate Eli Rabbett’s green plate experiment. Swannie built an impressive evacuated chamber in which he suspended a plate which was externally heated (I think by the Sun). He rigged a pulley system so he could raise a cooler plate in front of the static plate and noted the temperature rose in the static plate. He concluded that the cooler plate was radiating to the hotter plate and raising its temperature.
I responded that what he was doing was cutting off the static plate’s ability to radiate energy on one side of the plate. Because the static plate could no longer dissipate its heat via radiation, it warmed.
Sounds to me that you are claiming the same thing, except your radiating body is not externally heated. It cools slower because its only means of dissipating heat is via radiation. If you block the amount of radiation in any way, it will cool slower.
“If you block the amount of radiation in any way, it will cool slower”
So if you block free radiation by placing a lower temperature object in the way, you lower the rate at which it cools.
As that is all I claimed I think you have made my point.
Idiot.
Gordo again demonstrates hit ignorance, claiming that I used the Sun to illuminate the Blue plate for my Green Plate Demo. I guess he still hasn’t read it.
Of course, he repeats his denial of radiation heat transfer theory, ignoring what happens to the “back radiation” from the green plate toward the blue one, claiming that the blue plate’s emissions are somehow “blocked” without a physics explanation.
Great work there, the troll never learns.
“… and f is the frequency of the electron, measured as it’s angular frequency at the higher energy level.”
No. f is the frequency of the emitted photon. This is NOT the same as the ‘frequency’ of the electron (which is also not the same as the angular frequency, but that is a whole other matter).
As a very simple example, consider the Bohr model. An electron can fall from the fourth orbit with energy E4 to
* E3 –> IR
* E2 –> visible
* E1 –> UV
The same electron can emit various photons with different frequencies. There is not a fixed frequency based on the energy or the ‘frequency’ of the upper level alone,
tim…”No. f is the frequency of the emitted photon. This is NOT the same as the frequency of the electron (which is also not the same as the angular frequency, but that is a whole other matter)”.
***
Where do you think the emitted photon got its frequency? The orbiting electron has an electric field around it and when it moves, a magnetic field is produced. Failing that, the electron would have to be pulsing energy at that frequency, which it is not.
When electrons move up and down an antenna, the emitted EM has the same frequency as the electrons oscillating in the antenna. A photon cannot create its own frequency, it doesn’t have the means/
When the electron absorbs EM it needs to rise to a higher level of KE at a higher frequency. That’s what KE is, KE = 1/2mv^2, therefore the electron needs to be orbiting faster at the higher level in order to have more cycles per second.
“Where do you think the emitted photon got its frequency? ”
From the nature of the universe — E = hf!
Photons have an energy (and frequency and wavelength) related to the DIFFERENCE in energies between two orbits. it is NOT the frequency of the higher level — obviously since the n=4 level of hydrogen can emit 3 different frequencies of photons! If your hypothesis were correct, there would be only one possibility.
Tim,
You wrote –
“The same electron can emit various photons with different frequencies. There is not a fixed frequency based on the energy or the ‘frequency’ of the upper level alone,”
Oh dear! Are you admitting that CO2 can absorb and emit photons of any frequency?
That might prove problematic for climate cranks who might wish to claim that CO2 can only only absorb and emit photons of certain frequencies!
Have you accepted the reality that CO2 can absorb and emit precisely the same frequency photons as, say, oxygen, argon, or bananas?
Give it a try.
“Oh dear! Are you admitting that CO2 can absorb and emit photons of any frequency?”
Wow! Where did that misconception come from? I mention three distinct, specific frequencies for Hydrogen, and you extrapolate to infinite frequencies for CO2.
Different materials absorb and emit different frequencies of light to different extents. That is why different materials have different colors. That is why emission spectra can be used to identify gases half way across the galaxy. CO2 gas strongly emits and absorbs specific frequencies. it is transparent to others.
So no, CO2 does NOT absorb and emit the same frequencies as other gases.
Tim! CO2 is matter and all matter at all temperatures emits radiation of all frequencies at all times, although in varying amounts.
Not really, Ball4.
Quantum mechanics specifies what energies are possible. Sure the uncertainty principle broadens the lines. Sure there is Doppler broaden and pressure broadening. But when 99.99999999% of the photons come out in a few specific bands, that is good enough for me. When you look at glowing Hydrogen, you detect only 4 visible colors, not all colors.
Ok, I’m probably a grade A moron in trying to reason anything to you, but i’ll try ONE more time. If you are not capable to understand at least something, I will categorize you into a moron|toll|bot category that I had placed @clint r and @swenson into. Let’s hope for the best =) but I have no hope. Contra spem spero, dude. Now I am not learned enough to thoroughly explain ‘the theory’ and all the related fields, but I believe that I understand the GHET well enough to point out where you are wrong. For the one last time. That should not take long.
in this following quote
>>If that quantum of energy comes from a cooler object, neither E nor f will match the required parameters to excite an electron in a hotter object. Therefore, the electron will simply ignore it.
you are full of bullshit.
In the state of or not too far from the state of thermal equilibrium, there are atoms, molecules, and as you said ‘electrons’ occupying ALL the available energy states. Thus tehre are always electrons available to both capture and emit radiation at any allowed frequencies corresponding to the allowed available transitions. E and f will always match. What changes with temperature is the relative availability of those states, and thus how far the photon has to travel before it encounters a electron that can be excited. At the imagined ‘infinite’ temperature, all states are populated equally and photon is never captured; the matter becomes virtually translucent. That is because the rate induced emission that happens when photon encounters excited atom, equals the rate of capture. But at any real temperatures, the lower energy levels are always populated more than the higher energy levels and the incoming photons will always get eventually captures if the piece is thick enough. The ratio of those populations is something proportional to exp(-hf/kT), and it is this exponent that shows up in the planck law, while the net capture rate would be something proportional exp(-hf0/kT)-exp(hf*/kT) or something, doesn’t matter. So yes, photons of lower energy (not necessarily coming from a colder body as all bodies emit at all available frequencies, see the blackbody emission curve) will have lower rate of capture IN AN OPTICALLY THIN SLICE and will have to travel further through the body, but guess waht – it don’t matter, because in the case of the solid bodies such as the earth surface their thickness is effectively infinite. It is my understanding that it is this effect that gives that “minus one” term denominator of the plack’s law, so yes, it is taken into account in the black body radiation. either way, this effect only significantly contributes at frequencies much lower than the peak thermal emission frequency. But even then that don’t matter because the solid earth is mostly a blackbody anyways, and the differenc in temperature between the cold atomosphere and the surface is not that great.
To sum it up: yes you are somewhat correct, as I understand it, that the lower energy photons will have the lower rate of being captured byh the higher temperature substance, especially gassses as they are pretty thin in the particular terrestrial atmosphere but in the case of tick solids it don’t matter because that lower rate still adds up to the probability of 1 eventually. The backside ofthis is that blackbodies tend to have much higher emissivities at frequencies much lower than their peak emission frequency, which is embodied by the “-1” in the denominator of the plancks law.
The second law is nowhere broken here as any substance open to capture ofradiation will also be open for the emission of thermal radiation, and hotter body will always manage to emit more than it will manage to capture in radiation coming from the colder body.
I lack mental capacity to explain this at a greater depth, it is basically what I understand, take it or leave it, I may be wrond, i don’t care and I won’t be replying to your commenta any more either way.
c,
You wrote –
“I lack mental capacity to explain this at a greater depth, it is basically what I understand, take it or leave it, I may be wrond, i dont care and I wont be replying to your commenta any more either way.”
Actually, you lack the mental capacity to explain the GHE at any depth at all.
It is unlikely that your determination not to reply to comments will have any detrimental effect on anyone. Time will tell, I suppose.
Idiot.
rlh…”But heat flows less from a higher temperature object if partially surrounded by objects that are lower than it but higher than the background”.
***
The 2nd law says nothing about the amount of heat being transferred. Entropy was implemented by Clausius, as he defined it, as a means of mathematically stating the 2nd law but entropy only gives us a value of zero or a positive value.
The environment in which heat transfer takes place can affect the rate of heat transfer by affecting the rate of heat dissipation in a heated body. It’s not clear to me what that means, however, wrt cooler objects in the vicinity of a hotter body. I do know that the room temperature definitely affects the rate of heat dissipation hence the rate of heat transfer.
Then again, if you have a hotter body transferring heat, by its own means, to a cooler body, and both are in air at an ambient temperature, the room air will interfere with transfer since it absorbs some of the heat.
I suppose, if you placed blocks of ice in the vicinity of the heated body it would affect the air temperature in the room, changing the rate of heat dissipation of the body.
Still, no heat is being transferred from the ice or the cooler body to the hotter body.
But a body slows at a cooler rate from a higher temperature if partially surrounded by objects that are lower in temperature than it but higher in temperature than the background.
Idiot.
Let’s assume that the bodies are totally within a vacuum and not touching so that we are just dealing with radiation.
RLH,
Fine. Now give us your “explanation” of what you think is occurring (if you are prepared to defend your nonsense using physical laws as presently understood).
Bear in mind Richard Feynman’s statement “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Experimental support for your “explanation” will be required. Real, reproducible experiments. No imaginary experiments, no computer “models”.
Not so easy now, is it?
You dont do science. Just your very distorted view of it. Long ago debunked by everybody here (and elsewhere).
rlh…you are just being a complete ass now. Either you have early-onset dementia or you have forsaken the logic you claimed to have learned.
I gave you a fair response and you reacted like a child rather than respond scientifically.
You are still an idiot as everybody else sees. Calling me names doesn’t alter that fact.
You don’t do science. Just your very distorted view of it. Long ago debunked by everybody here (and elsewhere).
ball4…”ball4…No stephen, heat cant flow as heat doesnt exist in nature. KE is exchanged and KE exchange is both ways. You need to up your thermodynamics game”.
***
Don’t know if you are being persnickety because you see your error, as explained, or whether you are actually that technically-challenged wrt thermodynamics.
Once again, kinetic energy does not describe a particular energy. A boulder sitting at the edge of a cliff has potential energy. If you push it off, it gains kinetic energy, which is energy in motion.
What kind of energy is that KE…it’s mechanical energy? When the boulder hits the ground, heat is generated. At the instant of impact their is energy generated into the atoms making up the ground into which the bolder fell. That energy is thermal energy, or heat. Therefore with a boulder falling from a cliff, we have at least three different forms of energy, all described as KE, only because that energy is in motion.
If it was water falling off the cliff, and it hit the turbine on an electrical generator, the KE would be converted to electrical energy, again, described as KE, since the energy is in motion. There would also be heat generated as energy.
Your denial of heat as a real form of energy is bizarre. What kinds of idiots or sources taught you that nonsense?
Taught me? Joule did, Gordon, & it’s not nonsense since Joule experimentally proved there is no heat in an object. Every text book would teach that to Gordon which is proof Gordon hasn’t really learned the facts about experimental thermodynamics.
bobdroege wrote earlier –
“Ask our host if the greenhouse effect violates the second law.”
Braindead bob’s slimy attempt to avoid facing reality.
Here’s what Dr Spencer (“our host”, although slimy braindead bob cannot bring himself to name “our host”, braindead bob being a gutless slimy worm) wrote –
“”Greenhouse” components in the atmosphere (mostly water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane) exert strong controls over how fast the Earth loses IR energy to outer space.”
Dr Spencer is of course correct.Professor John Tyndall pointed this phenomenon out more than a century and a half ago, and pointed out that without an atmosphere, nighttime temperatures would drop to those of the airless Moon without sunlight.
“How fast the Earth loses [ . . .] energy to outer space.”, merely determines the rate of cooling. Faster or slower – cooling. No increase in temperature.
Tyndall also pointed out (and measured) the reduction in solar radiation reaching the ground, resulting in lowered temperatures compared to no atmosphere at all.
So braindead bob’s attempts to get a commenter to insult Dr Spencer seem to have backfired. Insulators such as the atmosphere don’t break any physical laws. Bad luck for braindead bob and his climate crackpot ilk.
> Professor John Tyndall pointed this phenomenon out more than a century and a half ago
And Mike Flynn pointed out that anecdote more than half a decade ago:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/10/new-santer-et-al-paper-on-satellites-vs-models-even-cherry-picking-ends-with-model-failure/#comment-228358
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Wonky Wee Willy,
You don’t like reality, do you?
Inconvenient facts just won’t go away, will they?
Moron. Try wishing harder.
You’re not reality, silly sock puppet.
You’re not even a real commenter.
Wee Willy Wanker,
You wrote –
“You’re not reality, silly sock puppet.
You’re not even a real commenter.”
Whatever happened to your Mike Flynn Mike Flynn obsession? Nobody paying enough attention to your silliness ?
Now you claim you are responding to someone who doesn’t even exist!
Why do you bother then moron? Don’t you know that RLH has instructed you to ignore me?
Oh dear! Nobody is taking you at all seriously, it seems. How about producing your wonderful (but strangely elusive) Greenhouse Theory? That would cause a stir, wouldn’t it?
Off you go now, Wee Willy. Try and find some relevance.
> What happened to
You’ll have to ask Mike, silly sock puppet.
Witless Wee Willy,
I’m only pointing out the obvious, of course, but I don’t actually have to do anything, you muppet!
I asked you if you had an explanation for your strange behaviour, and you told me to ask someone whom you claim does not exist!
Very perplexing, Wee Willy. Are you trying to avoid admitting that you don’t really have a copy of the Greenhouse Theory?
Why not just admit it, then? No need to carry on with this ridiculous reality avoiding charade, is there?
Carry on.
> I asked
You ask a lot of pointless questions, Mike.
Whickering Wee Willy,
I didn’t really think you had any answers, and it appears I was right.
Here’s a quote from Dr Roy Spencer –
“Climate change it happens, with or without our help.”
I happen to agree.
You?
> I didn’t really think
That’s your problem right there, silly sock puppet.
dullard…”Just as a matter of interest, the Moon shows how hot and cold the surface becomes in the absence of an atmosphere. Tyndall pointed this out over a hundred years ago.”
***
What’s your point re the Moon? I don’t recall Tyndall talking about the Moon at all.
The Moon does not rotate at all whereas the Earth rotates 365+ times per orbit. If the Earth did not rotate, as the Moon does not, it would keep the same face always pointed at the Sun which would heat up one side of the Earth wile the other became an iceball. Check the effect on the Arctic/Antarctic when they get no sunlight.
Unlike the Moon, which orbits the Earth in such a manner that all sides get exposed to the Sun, the Earth could not do that with only one face pointed at the Sun.
> What’s your point re the Moon? I dont recall Tyndall talking about the Moon at all.
C’mon, Gordo.
I was quoting Mike Flynn.
Which part of “And Mike Flynn pointed out that anecdote more than half a decade ago” do you not get?
Wistful Wee Willy,
Are your misguided appeals to authority directed to Mike Flynn, now?
That’s interesting, but why do you think Mike Flynn has special knowledge of the Moon’s motion, or even John Tyndall, for that matter. The views of both on the role the atmosphere on Earth’s surface temperature seem fair to me.
Are you just trying to confuse and divert the issue, in your usual slimy manner?
Face up to it, Wee Willy, your pointless attempts at being gratuitously insulting aren’t achieving much. Maybe you could throw in something factual from time to time? A copy of the elusive Greenhouse Theory would impress all and sundry, if you could locate one.
Off you go now.
You’re asking another silly question, silly sock puppet.
You repeated one of your master’s favorite talking points.
Enjoy your evening.
Whacko Wee Willy,
Still no Greenhouse Theory to be produced, then?
Colour me unsurprised.
Where’s your Insulation Effect theory, Mike?
“The Moon does not rotate”
The Moon rotates once on its axis per orbit of the Earth/Moon barycenter. Idiot.
Swenson,
I see you are still having problems with that A – B = C equation, where decreasing the cooling (B) causes the warming (C) to increase.
bob d…”What you are forgetting is that when a gas expands the volume doesnt stay constant”.
***
Yes, Bob, but we are talking about an atmosphere with different gases where the pressure is controlled by gravitational force. There are no walls to contain the gas other than the surface and there’s no way in a normal container to create a pressure gradient by altitude as gravity produces.
So, I am using the entire atmosphere as a relatively constant volume. Failing that, I have suggested breaking it into layers of constant volume by altitude.
**************
“And it usually applies to a closed system, and applying it to the atmosphere doesnt work to explain heat transfer”.
***
Open/closed should not matter with something the size of the atmosphere. An open system allows matter/energy to enter/leave the system whereas a closed system does not. You could refer to the atmosphere as both.
****************
“Furthermore, the CO2 is fully capable of transferring the energy it absorbs from the Earths surface to the Nitrogen and Oxygen and the other gases in the atmosphere, and then absorbing more energy and so on and so forth.”
***
So, why don’t I set up a tank of CO2 in my living room with walls on the container that freely pass IR? The furnace heats the room air, which heats the container via conduction, and that heats the CO2. Then we can sit back and allow the CO2 to radiate to the 99% N2/O2 in the room air and warm it even more.
Why do you suppose no one has patented such a free mode of amplifying the heat in the room? Maybe because it doesn’t work?
Heck, we could infuse more CO2 into a greenhouse and it would serve two purposes. It would amplify the heat in the GH while getting the plants to grow bigger and produce more product.
Conversely, we could remove all CO2 and WV from the greenhouse and see if the greenhouse fails to warm. What do you think the odds are against that?
It might be a good idea. Set up an array of LEDs that emit 15um in the house and see how it works.
That might actually work.
Ken, the peak energy photon from ice cubes is “hotter” than a 15μ photon.
You don’t understand any of this.
Nor do you.
Gordon,
“So, I am using the entire atmosphere as a relatively constant volume. Failing that, I have suggested breaking it into layers of constant volume by altitude.”
Sorry, that doesn’t work with the Ideal Gas Law because the pressure isn’t constant over that volume.
The atmosphere is an open system, so you can’t apply the Ideal Gas Law.
swenson…in my reply earlier to your point about plate tectonics, I was not arguing against your point. Your post stirred a memory of an article I had seen contradicting plate tectonics as a theory.
I don’t know if plate tectonics works as described and the article I posted in the link above claims the theory is so far flung that theorists are force to come up with alternate explanations (moving the goalposts) to explain the anomalies.
I looked up the San Andreas fault the other day out of curiosity. It is claimed to be a slip fault, which is two land masses moving horizontal to each other. It is claimed to be two plates rubbing against each other but if you follow the fault line, it comes down the California/Oregon coast then heads inland, where it ends abruptly.
It is said that the fault has various zones that can move independently of each other. Couple that with its abrupt end inland and you have a conundrum. How do two plates move horizontal past each other if part of the plate can move while other parts do not? And how do you explain the fault moving when it ends abruptly in solid ground?
Again, I am not arguing the point, nor do I particularly care. I just feel uneasy with theories that are inconsistent.
“I looked up the San Andreas fault the other day out of curiosity. It is claimed to be a slip fault, which is two land masses moving horizontal to each other. It is claimed to be two plates rubbing against each other but if you follow the fault line, it comes down the California/Oregon coast then heads inland, where it ends abruptly.”
It goes thru the Gulf of California {Mexico: between Baja and Sonora}.
And also it’s about 12 miles from me- and running thru the hills
Yup.
https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/san-andreas-fault-3
rlh…”rlh…”P.S. Ellipse have two focus, not one center, but are still considered concentric”.
***
The concept between circles and ellipses re radial lines and tangent lines is similar.
A circle is a special example of a curve. The concept of tangent lines applies to all curves, including circles.
Curves like circles, ellipses, parabolas and hyperbolas have certain basic defining elements. The circle is uniform throughout its circumference and can be defined with one radial line’s angle wrt the x-axis.
The other curves are defined based on the distance between a focus and the curve and the distance from the same point on the curve to a line called a directrix. They must be equal.
Look up directrix, it’s kind of neat.
The ellipse has a convenient way of finding the tangent line to any point on the curve. Lines drawn from each focal point to any point on the ellipse form an angle. With the special cases where those lines overlap at the ends of the major axis, the angle is 0 degrees.
If that angle is bisected, the bisector meets the ellipse at whatever point is involved. A line perpendicular to the bisector at that point on the ellipse is the tangent line to that point. If you took the derivative of the equation for an ellipse it would be the slope of that tangent line.
Therefore, the tangent line at any point on the ellipse is equivalent to the tangent line at any point on a circle. Since the bisector can also be regarded as being equivalent to the radial line in a circle, we have the same situation as on a circle.
If the Moon is moving at any point on the ellipse, the three tangent lines representing the near-face, the COG, and the far-side are still always moving in parallel on an ellipse. Ergo, the Moon cannot rotate about its centre even on an ellipse since those three tangent lines are always moving in parallel.
Now, try to be nice and not reach for ad homs and insults. I am immune to both.
> Therefore, the tangent line at any point on the ellipse is equivalent to the tangent line at any point on a circle.
C’mon, Gordo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conic_section#Eccentricity,_focus_and_directrix
Whittering Wee Willy,
You don’t appear to have a point. Do you think copying and pasting random sections of Wikipedia will make you appear wise and respected.
I suppose you do. Oh well, you might as well keep it up.
Moron.
> You don’t appear to have a point.
Have you read Gordo’s diatribe, Mike, you’d see there’s a reason why I quote what I do.
Try again, this time with more feeling.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
So you don’t have a point! If you did, you would be able to explain it, wouldn’t you?
There’s a problem with trying to be too clever by half, you muppet. Most of the time, you wind up just looking stupid – like now.
Carry on.
Swenson: Idiot.
Search for “Look up directrix, it’s kind of neat,” Mike.
Woeful Wee Willy,
No. Why should I?
It would make you understand the exchange in which you butt, silly old puppet.
willard…”A circle is a limiting case and is not defined by a focus and directrix in the Euclidean plane”.
***
I warned you about Wikipedia, take it with a pinch of salt.
https://www.cuemath.com/geometry/directrix-of-ellipse/
“Directrix is used to define the eccentricity of ellipse: the ratio of distances of any point on the ellipse from the foci of ellipse and the directrix of an ellipse is the eccentricity of ellipse and it is lesser than 1. (e < 1)".
I don't know why you bother, you rush off to wiki to look for a rebuttal but you have no idea of your own what it means.
I guess you should not feel badly since RLH, allegedly with a Masters degree, cannot even begin to understand this so he shoots his mouth of with insults like a child.
C’mon, Gordo:
https://www.cuemath.com/geometry/directrix-of-ellipse/
Do you realize why?
Tangents on a curve are instantaneous vectors at any one point. Together with the gravitational attractions between bodies they make orbits around a barycenter. You are so idiotic that you don’t acknowledge that reality. That is not an ad hom or an insult. That is a fact.
No, what’s idiotic is the belief that CO2 is going to destroy the planet. That’s idiotic.
We can add Stephen to the idiot list.
Stephen
The planet will get warmer, but the 8000 mile ball of rock will survive indefinately.
Humanity as a species should survive. We can always go back to playing peasants and warlords with iron based technology.
This is our only opportunity to build a high-tech civilization. If the ropadope of overpopulation, resource depletion and climate change destroys our first attempt, the resources are too dispersed to do it a second time.
Well, we aren’t overpopulated.
But we are poorly governed.
People who imagine we are over populated should not be
allowed to govern.
If you claim we are over populated, you must say where
we are most over populated.
China is not over populated, it has three time land
area of India with about same population.
So, let’s say India is over populated.
India’s problem, is it lacks indoor plumbing.
Lacking indoor plumbing doesn’t equal over population,
it’s a matter of governing.
The lack of indoor plumbing, could related to politician
poorly governing and imagining the problem is over population.
These politicians should hanged, so as to lower the population
problem by 1 and thereby allow real leadership to do something about lack of indoor plumbing.
What crappy politician do, is get their nation involved in a war, when it’s not needed. Such as what Joe Biden appears to trying to
do, right now.
What we have is a poverty, problem.
A poverty problem could solved by better
governing. But problem of poor governing
is difficult to solve.
An easy path, is to allow more electrical power
at a cheaper price. Like what happened with
China. The politicians of China remain crappy but
people are better off with more access to electrical
power.
Globally there is much progress in terms of global poverty,
but we should not be complacent. US government should realize
that US is too poor, even though it’s richest nation.
Or everyone is wildly rich compared to two centuries ago, but
we fail realize how rich we can be, and should be.
So, need even cheaper electrical power, and have look for
it.
The space environment is energy rich as compared to Earth,
NASA should do, what they are paid to do, explore space.
Using Space is not the only answer, but it’s an obvious answer.
Coming from you RLH, I wear that as a badge of honor.
Eman, the planet will get warmer until it doesn’t and then back again. Repeating cycles as it has done for millennia.
Stephen is still an idiot though.
Not, that’s water vapor that’s going to destroy the planet. Co2 itself causes fairly small constant gradual warming of aorund 1k per doubling. Thus, ven in the worst scenario, if we pump co2 to the and beyond the physiologiclally acceptable threshold levels of between 5000 to 8000 ppm, that would warm the planet by co2 alone by maybe 3K to 5K at most. Which is alot but not catastrophic. All the catastrophism comes from feedbacks motly related to the dynamics of water, which are not well characterized and can be tuned up and down as the modeller is pleased.
An Australian coal plant is closing early.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60411622
This is one of four Australian coal plants closing early because they cannot compete with cheaper renewables.
Ent, I think you meant “…because they cannot compete with GOV subsidized renewables.”
Oh, Pup:
https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/australian-fossil-fuel-subsidies-hit-10-3-billion-in-2020-21/
Australian fossil fuel subsidies $10.3 billion.
https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/australian-fossil-fuel-subsidies-hit-10-3-billion-in-2020-21/
Australian renewables subsidies $4 billion.
https://stopthesethings.com/2018/03/19/australias-endless-renewable-energy-nightmare-subsidies-worth-4bn-a-year-run-until-2031/
So 73% of Australian energy subsidies go to fossil fuels and they still can’t compete.
Dud and Ent verify their beliefs by searching an infinite Internet!
That’s why they also believe passenger jets fly backwards and ice cubes can boil water.
Good move, Pup – return to your Dragon crankitude.
Clint R is an idiot.
–What is the cost of electricity in Australia?
The cost of using electricity is generally referred to as a ‘usage charge’. These charges are measured in kilowatt-hours (kWh), with most electricity retailers charging between 25 and 40 cents per kWh, depending on your state and electricity tariff.Jan 4, 2022–
Well coal from nation that exports lots of coal should be very profitable at these prices, so obviously it is the government which the problem.
> it is the government which the problem
Dumping GHGs into the atmosphere is the problem, and 100 companies are responsible for of more than 70 per cent of it:
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change
Get rid of corporations:
“In the U.S., corporations are created under the laws of the individual states and are regulated by state laws. Public corporations are regulated by federal law, primarily via the Securities and Exchange Commission.”
And lower taxes.
I personally dislike all bureaucracies.
“The end result is that after 30 years of the UNFCCC/IPCC, we are fixated on the minutiae of greenhouse gas emissions levels and the abstract and impossible problem of constraining atmospheric CO2 concentration – while ignoring natural climate variability and drastically simplifying the human side. As long as the current situation prevails, the IPCC’s assessments of anthropogenic climate change and the UNFCCC recommendations for action will remain seriously inadequate.”
“Seriously inadequate” is very polite.
> I personally dislike
Exactly, gb.
Exactly.
–> I personally dislike
Exactly, gb.
Exactly.–
Well not exactly, I wish they worked better.
[As apparently, did Google.]
Or if we ever make contact with space aliens, I, maybe, would be evilly pleased if they had bureaucracies which were bad as ours are, or I would not be as embarrassed as compared their bureaucracies actually being sane and/or working.
Or it’s a lot nicer if this universe has bureaucracies which
not hopeless evil, but my answer to Fermi paradox is, there isn’t.
{Though I guess, they could be very good at hiding or something- which is a bit on terrifying AND embarrassing side of things.}
Rome, is always our fate.
And I would like this fate to change.
[Pre-determined, is boring- and mostly lacks humor.]
The only sane reason of a possibility of not wanting become spacefaring, is humans are unique in that Rome is always our fate- and that *somehow* humans will “bring it” to rest of the universe.
But I am optimist about humans and I see no evidence to be optimistic about the rest of the universe.
And I would say, the Universe, deserves humans.
In both senses, of in good way and in a bad way.
Either or both.
Or if God didn’t want us to be spacefaring, He wouldn’t have
given us, the Moon.
Let’s explore the Moon.
{Which might require a bureaucracy to function. And obviously, I am too optimistic}
A few days ago, Gordo again demonstrated his ignorance of physics, writing:
Gordo ignores the thermodynamic fact that when a parcel of air with the necessary conditions is lifted upwards, it does so without loss of internal energy, i.e., adiabaticaly. Vertical convection in the atmosphere does not result in the loss of energy via expansion, only from mixing with surrounding cooler air and via radiation to deep space. The upper air is cooler because it is continually losing energy to deep space via that same path of thermal IR radiation from it’s greenhouse gases. There’s no “dissipation” in which the internal energy mysterious vanishes.
2Lot, Lesson 3
We know from 2LoT that a cold object can NOT heat a warmer object, by itself. But, there’s a little more to 2LoT. There’s this thing called “entropy”.
The subject of “entropy” can get really complicated, really quick. But, I like to keep things simple. Here’s a simple example:
A cup is half-filled with very hot water. The cup is in a box that is perfectly insulated. The air in the box is at room temperature. An ice cube is dropped into the very hot water, and the box is closed.
Just before the ice cube hits the hot water, there is a gas, a liquid, and a solid, all with different temperatures.
After some time, the ice melts and everything is at the same temperature. We say the “entropy” has increased. With no energy allowed to leave the box, and everything in the box at the same temperature, we say there is “maximum” entropy.
At the “start”, there are three distinct temperatures — high (hot water), medium (room-temperature air), and low (ice cube). There is “organization”, or “order”. At the “end”, everything is at the same temperature. There is no longer any heat transfer. There are no longer any divisions of temperature. Everything is at the same vibrational frequency. It is said that “disorder” has increased. There is less organization.
Higher entropy is often related to less organization, more disorder, or more chaos.
Lower entropy often relates to more organization and less chaos.
Now, let’s apply entropy to climate science.
Again we use a perfectly insulted box. Inside the box is a large glass pitcher with 1 pound of water, at 100 degrees F. The air in the box is also at 100 degrees F. We quickly add a 1 pound brick previously heated to 200 degrees F, and close the box. After awhile, everything in the box is at the same temperature, let’s say 150°F. Photons are still flying through the air, but there is no heat transfer. Photons are being absorbed and emitted constantly. Since the box is perfectly insulated, the inside will remain at 150°F, indefinitely.
Next, we add a second brick that is also at 150°F. We’ve just increased the number of photons flying in the box. We’ve added energy to the box. But there is NO temperature increase. We add a third brick, also at 150°. Again, the energy in the box increases, as does the number of photons. But, still no increase in temperature.
We have added energy to the box, but we did NOT reduce entropy. The added energy and photons have NO effect on the temperature because there is no proper “organization”. The energy and photons are “stacking up”, but there is NO increase in temperature! (The added photons do not have the proper frequencies to raise temperatures.)
Adding energies with less frequencies can NOT raise the temperature of a system. That’s why ice cubes can’t boil water. And that’s why CO2 can NOT heat the surface.
Clint R offers proof temperature is an intensive property. Clint increased the mass in Clint’s box!
For Clint’s next experiment (this time do it for real like Dr. Spencer): increase the radiation (photons) in your box WITHOUT an increase in mass.
Explain how Clint’s next result shows that adding ice cubes can boil water & why Dr. Spencer’s experiment in view of added atm. ice provided Clint experimental evidence that surface water in summer time Alabama was increased in temperature by the radiation from atm. ice over control water as measured by his thermometers deep in the water tubs.
pups mental bloviation has nothing to do with the warming effects of CO2, as no energy can exit the box and the box is not being continually supplied with some external energy, unlike the Earth, which is being supplied with solar energy. Give it up troll, you lose again.
E. Swanson, yes Clint’s exposition is laughable & Clint R could also learn from the excercise that this is not true: “Higher entropy is often related to less organization..” since one cannot in reality go about equating entropy with disorder*. For one of many reasons: entropy is precisely defined in thermodynamics, disorder is not.
*For a great read: P.G. Wright 1970: “Entropy and Disorder”, Contemporary Physics, vol. 11 pp. 581-588.
The Tropics is being supplied with solar energy, the rest of world not so much.
The tropics being about 40% of world, get more 50% of sunlight reaching Earth’s surface.
40% of Earth is warm enough, 60% isn’t.
In such a situation, Earth would a lot colder if it wasn’t a world covered by a ocean.
Tropical land are stingy, Tropical ocean is moderately generous in terms sharing it’s heat to rest of world. And entire ocean is a welfare program for idiots living near the poles. Who imagine they are warm enough [so, they are in denial]. And fear the loss of ice, and believe global warming will be the end of the world. And they are burning lots of fossil fuels, made when the world was warmer tens of millions of years ago.
And world was pounded with space rocks, in which recently, they became more aware of.
And the smarter birds, migrate before winter.
“a cold object can NOT heat a warmer object”
But, as GR agreed, it can prevent the hot object from cooling faster if it replaces something that is indeed colder.
Clint R
With your brick example you fail again to understand the the reason your adding energy to the box does not increase temperature is because you are increasing mass (of bricks) as well. You make this mistake over and over (like when you add energy by adding two containers of water to make one). If you add just photons (no mass) you will increase the temperature inside the box.
Also, the GHE does not claim CO2 heats the surface. The Sun is the heater, the CO2 is the insulator that allows a warmer surface from the Sun because it reduces the heat leaving the surface at a given temperature. It does not change the emission rate of the surface but its additional energy it adds to the surface lowers the NET energy loss which is currently accepted as Heat.
If you could at least try to understand the concept. It never made claims of ice cubes boiling water.
I do not know why you refuse to engage your mind in trying to understand the correct GHE.
–Adding energies with less frequencies can NOT raise the temperature of a system. Thats why ice cubes cant boil water. And thats why CO2 can NOT heat the surface.–
The problem is you don’t realize how cold Earth is.
Let’s imagine the geothermal energy added 1 watt rather than .01 watt per square meter. The ocean would be warmer than 3.5 C
Let imagine geothermal energy of Venus was 10 watts per square meter, rather than less than this.
Then Venus would be warmer.
If added 10 watts to power of sunlight it’s would not have much effect upon how cold Earth is.
So, as said, Earth’s average temperature is about 3.5 C, yet at 1 AU distance sunlight is 1360 watts per square meter.
And if Venus was at Earth distance, it would be colder than Earth.
And even if you accept than global surface air temperature averages 15 C. 15 C, is cold.
Several cult idiots provide more examples of “braindead”.
Braindead4 starts off by hiding behind both Dr. Spencer and the fact that a brick has mass. Norman tags along with b4, as usual.
RLH can’t even respond coherently.
But E. Swanson provides the best humor. His GHE nonsense claims that energy is “trapped”, so the example traps energy but Swanson doesn’t like it. But he gets even funnier with “…the box is not being continually supplied with some external energy, unlike the Earth, which is being supplied with solar energy.”
E. Swanson stumbled onto “It’s the Sun, stupid!”
Norman doesn’t understand that adding mass does not add energy. The brick at the same temperature as the box does not decrease entropy. But the same brick at a higher temperature than the box decreases entropy.
None of them have a clue about any of this. They just throw junk at the wall hoping something will stick. They just end up with the junk on their faces.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R is just an idiot. Ignore him.
“a cold object can NOT heat a warmer object”
But, as GR agreed, it can prevent the hot object from cooling faster if it replaces something that is indeed colder.
Clint R
Maybe you should give it up. If you were logical, rational, and had knowledge of any real physics you would be most embarrassed by your posts. As it is you are not intelligent so you keep posting.
Here you are wrong. That you can’t understand it is really a sad thing. That you are proud of being an idiot is unusual. Not sure why you are in that state.
Your idiot claim among many: “Norman doesn’t understand that adding mass does not add energy.” If the mass has any temperature above absolute zero it adds energy to a isolated and closed system. If the bricks were very cold say -100 F and you put them in the box they add total energy. But the box gets colder. This is easy to grasp with logical thought. You do not possess this skill so it is not possible for you to understand you errors.
You can do the math if you do not believe me. Temperature is a measure of average kinetic energy of the whole box bricks and all. You can lower the average kinetic energy when you add energy but you add more mass.
I do not think you can logically figure this out so you will probably respond with some foolish nonsense or troll.
Sorry Norman, but you didn’t do any better this time than your previous effort.
The issue is about more photons not being able to raise the temperature. More photons are in the box, but the temperature does NOT go up. Adding more 15μ photons to the atmosphere can NOT raise 288K surface temperature.
You don’t understand any of this. You’re uneducated. You’ve NEVER even had a basic thermodynamics course. Keyboarding ain’t science. You’re no more competent than RLH. You just abuse your keyboard more. You’re a braindead cult idiot.
PS — Where’s your “real 255K surface”?
What is the ‘real surface’ of a fog bank?
Clint R
The interesting thing is I have supporting evidence for all my claims. So far you offer zero. Why is that? You call me a braindead cult idiot but you never give support for your claims.
Where is the actual science source that supports your claim that adding more photons to a sealed box will not make the temperature go up. Need some evidence.
You should come up with evidence that supports your claims. Telling me I am braindead, yet not offering a shred of proof only makes you what you attribute to everyone else. You see your own flaws only in others. You are a cult minded braindead idiot who makes things up and when asks for evidence you run off to wait another day.
Put up or shut up. Problem is you will do neither. You will not give evidence for you claims and you will not shut up. Too bad.
RLH,
You wrote –
“What is the real surface of a fog bank?”
I don’t know. Is there one, and where is it?
Do you know, or are you just posing another stupid gotcha?
Braindead cult idiot Norman says “The interesting thing is I have supporting evidence for all my claims.”
Okay braindead, where’s your “real 255K surface”?
And as for support for what I’ve said, you can easily do an experiment. See if you can boil water with ice cubes.
See what a cult idiot you are?
Clint R
You don’t like links since you do not use them (except links to previous posts).
This link will really improve your thinking on things you discuss.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensive_and_extensive_properties
Temperature is an intensive property and id does not depend upon mass. Energy is an extensive property and is dependent upon mass.
You can increase energy and not raise temperature if you are also increasing the mass. Entropy is also an extensive property and mass dependent.
Braindead cult idiot Norman says “The interesting thing is I have supporting evidence for all my claims.”
Okay braindead, where’s your “real 255K surface”?
You need to be responsible for your own words. A keyboard is NOT for you to pervert reality.
Clint R
As predicted you run away and make a stupid post.
Look, I have given you countless evidence of the 255 K radiating surface. You do not think satellites are measuring the outgoing longwave radiation given off by the Earth. Since you are clearly a science denier why do you keep asking for what is provided. You are almost as annoying as Swenson asking for proof of the GHE. He has countless posts clearly giving him the evidence and he just keeps rejecting it. You do the same. Why do you think this makes you an intelligent person?
It is like you are a blithering idiot when you are given valid information you request and you keep asking for the same thing over and over. Why do you do this nonsense? What possible motive can a person have to be as dumb as you?
Here:
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.372.4311&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Scroll to page 16 of 19 (page number 2044). They have a graph of average global outgoing longwave radiation obtained from satellite measurements The average is around 240 W/m^2 which gives a brightness temperature of 255 K.
Why do you keep asking when you have been given? Isn’t that stupid even in your book of definitions?
Norman, surely you’ve heard the definition of “insanity”. It’s doing the same thing over and over, hoping for different results.
You keep searching the Internet for satellite data hoping to find your “real 255K surface”. A “real surface” has a location. If you believe in all the satellite data you’ve found, then what is the elevation of your “real 255K surface”.
Until you can identify your “real surface”, you’ve got NOTHING.
But, keep trying the same thing, over and over and over….
Clint R
Again definition of Surface.
“Definition of surface (Entry 1 of 3)
1: the exterior or upper boundary of an object or body
on the surface of the water
the earth’s surface”
The boundary of the longwave radiant energy from Earth is the radiant surface.
Look again:
Surface of the Sun:
“Surface
The Sun doesn’t have a solid surface like Earth and the other rocky planets and moons. The part of the Sun commonly called its surface is the photosphere. The word photosphere means “light sphere” – which is apt because this is the layer that emits the most visible light. It’s what we see from Earth with our eyes. (Hopefully, it goes without saying – but never look directly at the Sun without protecting your eyes.)
Although we call it the surface, the photosphere is actually the first layer of the solar atmosphere. It’s about 250 miles thick, with temperatures reaching about 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit (5,500 degrees Celsius). That’s much cooler than the blazing core, but it’s still hot enough to make carbon – like diamonds and graphite – not just melt, but boil. Most of the Sun’s radiation escapes outward from the photosphere into space.”
You can pretend to be stupid but that is your choice. Not sure what more can be said about it. I do not keep bringing the dumb subject up, you do. I explain it, you can’t understand it. You bring it up again. I try a different explanation for you like the surface of a fire. You do not understand it and bring it up again.
The only insane one here is you. You keep bringing it up. Not sure why. Are you proving how stupid a human can get. If you can’t understand what is meant by Sun’s surface then end it and admit to yourself you are a very stupid person that is not capable of understanding anything at all.
Clint R
Also what you do is a common troll tactic. It is diversion. I asked you to support your claim that adding 15 micron photons to a sealed box will not warm it up.
I do notice that you did not support your claim but instead threw out your troll tangent of the 255 K radiant surface that you are not able to figure out.
Why do you need to play such idiot games. If you have a source for you claims link them. If not then be honest and admit you are just making up bullshit for some stupid amusement on your part.
Why the diversion constantly when confronted?
Either you have supporting evidence or you are a stupid bullshitter that gets drunk and posts and has a mediocre education. You certainly have never taken a college level science course.
Well the surface of a fog bank isn’t its full extent that is for sure. Nor is it at the center, probably. So like the 255K surface where it physically is can be difficult to determine but the fog bank is there none the less.
So you are in effect claiming that all the “Wheres your ‘real 255K surface’?” questions are pointless too.
No surprise there then.
Norman, you have to misrepresent my words, in your futile efforts to prove me wrong. But I only have to let your OWN words prove what a phony you are: “The interesting thing is I have supporting evidence for all my claims.”
So when I ask for your supporting evidence for your bogus “real 255K surface”, I get links to things you don’t understand, and definitions of “surface”! You’re unable to provied any supporting evidence for your claim. Where’s your bogus “surface”, braindead Norman? If you claim it’s in the atmosphere, what is it’s altitude? Links to things you don’t understand is NOT “supporting evidence”.
You’re only fooling yourself and the other braindead cult idiots.
Have you tried boiling water with ice cubes, yet?
Once you can define what the real surface of a fog bank is then you might also be able to define where the real 255K surface is.
Clint R
What type of troll are you? The pretend type? You pretend you want to know something but you really don’t, however you use it to try and maximize the number of replies you generate.
I can try again but it won’t matter. I do support my claims with evidence. You never provide any proof. What is your source material that adding 15 micron photons to a sealed box will not increase its temperature?
Why dodge this question? Why troll?
satellites measure a global average longwave emission from Earth at around 240 W/m^2 (given in links you ignore or do not understand).
The Earth’s surface emits at a much higher rate than that. The atmosphere is therefore acting like a radiant insulator. You can look that concept up but is lowers the amount of heat the surface will lose to space. It is a verified fact. You can’t understand it even when evidence is given to you.
Where’s your bogus “real 255K surface”, braindead Norman? If you claim it’s in the atmosphere, what is its altitude?
hmm:
“Mission and Vision should we gather enough support. PLEASE READ.
We need all our Canadian Brothers and Sisters Mothers and Fathers, Grandmas and Grandpas to rally behind us, in front of us, beside us.
We are going to make history and do something never done before.
Canada’s First Coast 2 Coast CANADA UNITY DRIVE with horse and wagon right down the TransCanada Highway all the way to Parliament Hill is what we are planning!
Can you visualize this???
Visualize a horse team pulling a small humble house on wheels down the Trans-Canada Highway stopping into small towns along the way capturing THE REAL UNEDITED RAW TRUTH and then sharing these stories Online for the entire World to see?
Our Goal is to get our team of horses hitched up ASAP and pull a Vardo (small house on wheels) across Canada (Coast to Coast) just like the pioneers did back in the day, Like our Immigrated Ancestor’s did with Horse and Wagon.
…”
https://tinyurl.com/46h4d634
hi hello
Stay at home mom Kelly Richards from New York after resigning from her full time job managed to average from $6000-$8000 a month from freelancing at home…
This is how she done it… http://workpay1.blogspot.com/
Gbaikie
I look at population from a biologists viewpoint.
In ecology the carrying capacity of an environment is the population it can feed.
For humanity the carrying capacity of the planet is an energy calculation in calories
maximum sustainable population = total food production/ annual individual food requirement
7*10^16kJ/ 8800*365 = 21.8 billion
In theory we could feed almost three times out present 7.95 billion.
In practice maintaining our current food production requires maintaining a high-tech civilization, intensive agriculture and a much fairer food distribution system; which strikes me as unlikely.
https://core.ac.uk/display/160248047
India:
India claims to be self-sufficient in food production but facts say otherwise
If the government decides to feed all its hungry people, India’s tag of a net exporting country will be easily lost
“India is riding high on the agricultural success story it has written over the past few years. Record-breaking food-grain production was registered in seven years in the past decade. From 217 million tonnes in 2006-07, the countrys production jumped to 275.11 million tonnes in 2016-17. Three years of drought, in 2009, 2014 and 2015, did not really bring production down. The government proudly concluded that the country was not only self-sufficient, but had enough to export.
It was, therefore, disturbing that the country had recorded a very high number of farmer suicides and an equally high number of farmer protests in the past two decades. Between 1991 and 2011, over 14 million financially stressed farmers quit farming.”
India may have political problems, but it seems the most populated
region could grow enough food.
Though I think Africa should focus on greening the Sahara, which could add a lot food to the world [and Africa].
Also think we should farm ocean rather continue our hunter gather approach regarding the ocean.
These things are political rather a particularly hard in terms of human capability.
“In theory we could feed almost three times out present 7.95 billion.”
It not that I am hurry to get world pop over 12 billion, though once we explore space, we could get in hurry to do so.
Or we know to know more about the Moon and Mars.
If Mars can support human settlement, and we get Mars settlement, then we could be in hurry.
While I think of it, this may be what your Youtuber was waffling about.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9
Hat tip to Stoat.
Also
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/02/19/google-deep-mind-learns-to-control-fusion-plasmas/
test 6
Gordon, I’m hearing rumors of runs on Canadian banks. What are you hearing?
pups must be watching the RT TV disinformation channel these days.
Troll E. Swanson, not having a clue about science is bad enough, but copying Willard just shows what a braindead cult idiot you really are.
Clint R is an idiot who has no knowledge of real science at all.
rlh…”Tangents on a curve are instantaneous vectors at any one point. Together with the gravitational attractions between bodies they make orbits around a barycenter. You are so idiotic that you dont acknowledge that reality. That is not an ad hom or an insult. That is a fact”.
***
You have no idea what you are talking about either about tangent lines, vectors or insults.
From a link that won’t post…
“A tangent line to the function f(x) at the point x=a is a line that just touches the graph of the function at the point in question and is parallel (in some way) to the graph at that point”.
This is simplified but it is ap.t. It fails to address the relationship between the 1st derivative of the curve and the tangent line. A tangent line can represent a vector quantity representing the instantaneous velocity of a particle or body moving on the curve but the tangent line itself is not defined as a vector quantity, just a line.
And here is the definition from MIT, in math form. Note how they begin with a secant line across the curve in the vicinity of the point in question then move the secant line to a limit as (delta x) -> 0. The tangent line is that limit.
The equations presented with delta x are the basis of calculus.
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathematics/18-01-single-variable-calculus-fall-2005/lecture-notes/lecture_2.pdf
It is mind-boggling to me that someone with an alleged Masters degree can be such an a*s*s. You are trying to weasel out of an argument you have lost.
BTW…your incessant reference to a barycentre indicates your dependence on an appeal to authority. There is no barycentre between Earth and Moon for the simple reason that neither body moves the other out of their orbits as would be required for a barycentre. If it applied to the Earth/Moon it would be obvious with perturbations in the lunar elliptical orbit. There are none.
A barycentre is related to stars in a binary system where they actually do revolve around each other. Even at that, they are so far away that no one really knows what is going on.
So you must also deny that Newton’s third Law is valid and that levers are a myth if you deny that barycentres are invalid.
P.S. So what about Pluto and Charon?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter#/media/File:Barycentric_view_of_Pluto_and_Charon_29_May-3_June_by_Ralph_in_near-true_colours.gif
Too many negations.
…that levers are a myth if you deny that barycentres are valid.
If there was not a barycenter, earth would spin like a top. Sometimes North would flip with South and there would be other fascinating changes to the orientations.
Ken doesn’t understand that a barycenter is only a mathematical construct. It doesn’t really exist.
He doesn’t understand orbital motion, but he makes up stuff really well.
Any 2 bodies (or more) will construct a barycenter. That is what Newton’s 3rd Law states and its position will be the same as can be calculated using levers.
You are the a*s*s it seems.
You correctly agree that a tangent is a straight line but fail to note that a straight line cannot be parallel to a curve unless you talk about an infinitesimally short section of of the curve.
As a tangent can only be a straight line, calling it a tangent line is redundant as are most of your waffling’s.
P.S. If you want a copy of my Masters certificate please forward a fee for copying and postage. There is no ‘alleged’ about it. Come to England and I will sue with relish.
RLH,,
Oh dear. Appealing to your own authority, are you? Complete with threats of litigation if anybody doubts you.
Produce a copy of the Greenhouse Theory, and people might take you seriously. You are not even up to PhD standard, so you can’t even claim the authority of that fake, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat, Michael Mann, PhD!
He hasn’t done too well suing people so far. You assume you would do better, I guess, but who knows? You might get a judgement, be awarded damages of a halfpenny, but have to pay not only your own costs, but those of the person you accused of defamation.
Or you could just follow the example of Michael Mann PhD, and refuse to pay, because you don’t agree with the judge! Funny people, these climate crackpots – just want to make up the civil laws as they go along, as they do with physical laws.
If it doesn’t suit you, just ignore it. That’s the stuff!
I studied and obtained a Masters (with Distinction). That is hardly an appeal to authority. That is a fact.
RLH,
Not to confuse the issue, but maybe when you wrote “straight line cannot be parallel to a curve unless you talk about an infinitesimally short section of of the curve.”, you didn’t realise that Sir Isaac Newton took exactly this view with his “science of fluent and fluxions” – what was later called ‘infinitesimal calculus”.
As regards the Moon, its orbit is calculated by taking progressively shorter straight lines, and an ellipse results.
Just the force of gravity acting at right angles to its First Law properties.
Travelling just a smidgen quicker than it needs to, and thus receding slowly from the Earth, which makes sense if the Moon was the result of a celestial body colliding with the Earth originally, I suppose.
I wonder if someone who uses an apostrophe in “waffling’s” (should it not be wafflings, plural?), is to be regarded as an authority on English usage.
Still no Greenhouse Theory to be found, is there? Just a never ending barrage of waffling. Or wafflings, given there are many climate crackpots waffling simultaneously!
A curve can be APPROXIMATED by a series of short straight lines, true. But the key word here is approximated.
P.S. Wafflings shows up as an error in my spell checker so perhaps is should just be Waffling for the plural. Who cares.
P.S. Where does the energy for the tides (ocean and land) come from and how do you account for the friction losses that then occur?
Sensible people calculate that the Moon receding helps with the later.
Earlier RLH wrote –
“But, as GR agreed, it can prevent the hot object from cooling faster if it replaces something that is indeed colder.”
Cooling, whether faster or slower, is not heating, ie., raised temperatures, which is what AGW apparently means.
I agree with RLH (although he may not want me to), that cooling cannot result in AGW. Warming or heating requires heat, and a colder object supplies no additional energy whatsoever to a hotter.
In fact, the hotter cools in the presence of a colder, until both are in equilibrium.
Climate crackpots refuse to acknowledge this basic principle.
“The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was a warm period that occurred in the interval roughly 9,000 to 5,000 years ago BP, with a thermal maximum around 8000 years BP.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
“The warm period was followed by a gradual decline, of about 0.1-0.3 °C per millennium, until about two centuries ago (when this trend was rapidly reversed due to human-produced greenhouse gas emissions). However, on a sub-millennial scale, there were regional warm periods superimposed on this decline.”
8 times .1 to .3 = .8 to 2.4 C
And in periods less than 1000 years, global temperatures go up and down.
The last down, is called the Little Ice Age and is said to have ended around 1850 AD.
Said to have ended because instead glaciers worldwide, advancing, they began to retreat, and they retreated a lot within decades of time- and continue to retreat into modern times.
About 100 years ago, average global air was about 14 C, and currently it’s about 15 C. So 1 degree or more of warming from coolest part of the Little Ice Age.
If take low of range, 8000 years of cooling which was .8 C cooler
from the Holocene’s thermal maximum and plus further cooling from less than 1000 years cooling of Little Ice Age.
Or higher range of 2.4 C of cooling over 8000 years.
{I tend towards the higher range, as we had an ice free arctic and a green Sahara desert}.
Anyhow, lots of people dismiss wiki.
Can they dispute what wiki, says?
Better data.
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
0C on the temperature anomaly scale corresponds to a true global average of 14.0C.
“At the end of the last Ice Age, the Sahara Desert was just as dry and uninviting as it is today. But sandwiched between two periods of extreme dryness were a few millennia of plentiful rainfall and lush vegetation.
During these few thousand years, prehistoric humans left the congested Nile Valley and established settlements around rain pools, green valleys, and rivers.”
https://www.livescience.com/4180-sahara-desert-lush-populated.html
I count a few thousand years as climate climate, and in terms of topic of climate change, very significant.
as climate climate
As global climate change.
And what they mean by Ice Age is end of the last glaciation period
period.
Obviously we are 34 million year Ice Age, with last couple million being the coldest of this long period of time. And this Late Cenozoic Ice Age is a icehouse global climate.
And icehouse global climate is defined as have a cold average ocean temperature.
And our cold ocean of 3.5 C would not be counted as the peak thermal maximum of a interglacial period- which occurred when the Sahara Desert was mostly grassland, large lakes, forest, and had human settlement.
Or all large peaks in all the ice core records, had ocean of about 4 C.
I need more coffee.
Anyhow, also as far we know all peaks also had a green Sahara desert.
“Cooling, whether faster or slower, is not heating, ie., raised temperatures, which is what AGW apparently means”
No it doesn’t (not that I agree that AGW has been proven as you well know).
If a substance is transparent to one set of frequencies but opaque to others then using it will result in higher temperatures underneath it.
Such as (and I am not equating this directly to the atmosphere) wrapping a thermometer in transparent plastic and leaving it out in the Sun/night for 24 hours.
CO2 could well operate in such a manner. I believe that the statistics do not show that it has had the effect that AGW proponents claim it has however but do not deny that some effects will be present.
RLH,
You wrote –
“If a substance is transparent to one set of frequencies but opaque to others then using it will result in higher temperatures underneath it.”
Complete nonsense. Give it a try. Your imagination is not acceptable as reproducible experiment. You may or may not have observed the influence of the Earth’s atmosphere on terrestrial temperatures – maximum temperatures are of course lower than those on the airless Moon, and minimum temperatures are higher than the airless Moon.
Take your thermometer and leave it in the Sun. Now wrap it in anything you like. Convince yourself that the temperature has risen. Unconcentrated sunlight, of course. There is a always some crank who will use an imaginary magnifying lens, curved mirror or some other device in an attempt to show how clever he is.
You might be confused about the damping effect of temperature swings caused by insulation. Some dimwits at NASA are, and claim that a greenhouse stays warm in winter!
Try wrapping a thermometer in transparent plastic as I said and record the temperatures it shows. It will show consistently higher temperatures than one left without a wrapping.
How dumb are people allowed to be?
How is it possible to claim that an increase of minimum temperatures (i.e. less cooling) has nothing to do with warming?
What a load of dumb ignorance…
Binny,
Minimum temperatures occur at night. Exactly when the influence of heat from energy production and use is actually noticeable, being minor in comparison to solar radiation in general.
You don’t believe that thermometers react to heat?
What an ignorant moron!
Do you agree that cloudy nights are in general warmer that clear
night?
Is there a difference if clouds are ice particles vs liquid droplets?
Foggy nights tend to be warmer than clear ones too,
High icy clouds and low liquid clouds both reflect longwave radiation, so they both reduce heat loss at night.
In daylight high clouds reflect more longwave radiation downwards than shortwave longwave radiation downwards so they have a net warming effect.
Low clouds reflect more shortwave radiation upwards than longwave radiation downwards so they have a net cooling effect.
Future trends uncertain.
For most of the 2000s the cloud feedback due to rising temperatures was thought to be neutral. In recent years it has become regarded as a positive feedback.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-clouds-are-the-key-to-new-troubling-projections-on-warming
“Low clouds reflect more shortwave radiation upwards” during the day. So during the night they are always have a positive effect.
More science fiction from Ent. His linked article is all about modeling. There’s no REAL science there. The author, Fred Pearce, is a journalist, with NO knowledge of REAL science.
Ent loves his sci-fi.
RLH
So during the night they are always have a positive effect.”
Yes. At night all clouds reduce the rate of heat loss due to longwave radiation by reflecting some of the upward longwave radiation from the surface back downwards towards the surface where it is absorbed.
RLH,
Don’t you know? Why are you asking me?
Do you agree that slow cooling does not create heat? Observe the temperature fall on a cloudy night. Convince yourself it is due to AGW.
Or spend the time trying to compose a better gotcha, you muppet!
Because you seem to know everything but in fact know very little.
“Observe the temperature fall on a cloudy night”
Not always. Sometimes at night temperatures remain very nearly the same during the whole of cloudy nights. They may even rise due to content of the air mass that moves in.
Happy to see again, Flynnson, that you behave at least as dumb as Robertson and Clint R.
Bunny,
What form of mental aberration leads you to think that I should value the opinions of a moron like yourself?
After all, someone who writes “Happy to see again, Flynnson, that you behave at least as dumb as Robertson and Clint R” is obviously delusional, and short on fact.
Maybe you are just bitter and twisted because you can’t even define the Greenhouse Effect, much less produce a Greenhouse Theory!
By the way, I assume you are trying to be gratuitously insulting. You need to do a lot more work, if you want to achieve even moderate success in that field. Maybe you could think about it, while you are stomping around in your jackboots and lashing about with your riding crop! Do you have a nice peaked cap as well?
Moron.
Is Braindeadidon playing Nazi again? I wonder if he dresses up for his fantasies….
Swenson is just an idiot. Best to ignore him.
Clint R is an idiot too.
Idiot list so far.
GR, Clint R, DREMT, Swenson and Stephen.
Anyone want to add to that list?
Very brave in your anonymity.
RLH,
The Nazis and Marxists create lists. Which one are you? Is it Nazi or is it Marxist?
RLH, the Listmaker.
Stephen the idiot.
I quit working at shoprite to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $45 to 85 per/h. Without Ret a my doubt, this is the pay easiest and most financially MICN rewarding job Ive ever had. I actually started 6 months ago and this has totally
changed my life_________ http://googlepays01.tk/
Well you are an idiot for sure.
” There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that, when a Hitler comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever made the comparison loses whatever debate is in progress. ”
One of the corollaries of Godwin’s Law.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law
You lost the debate a long time ago, yet here you are.
The much better test is when braindead cult idiots claim passenger jets fly backward or ice cubes can boil water.
We know it’s over when they desperately pervert reality.
Your latest posts just confirm you are both idiots.
The reason I use RLH is nothing to do with anonymity. I have used my full name in the past on here.
Idiot.
If you say so, Listmaker.
I do because it is correct.
Idiot.
So did the SS, Listmaker.
“SS” starts with an S, Stephen.
As I said before, Stephen is a idiot.
Stay at home mom Kelly Richards from New York after resigning from her full time job managed to average from $6000-$8000 a month from freelancing at home…
This is how she done it… http://workpay1.blogspot.com/
The Eight Habits That Lead to Happiness in Old Age
Your well-being is like a retirement account: The sooner you invest, the greater your returns will be, and the better your chances for avoiding curmudgeonly hell.
Can anyone explain more clearly what exactly it is that Cybergorf is trying to say, further upthread, about Uranus?
Uranus is DREMT’s hobby horse on mgr set spinning head over tail with zero polar axis spin per orbit of mgr center (both wrt to mgr center).
MOTL is illuminated by center object only on one hemisphere similar the lunar scenario while MOTR is illuminated on all hemispheres by center object. Test: which lunar object L or R is similar in polar axis spin to Uranus wrt sun?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
That you are wrong? Or an idiot? Or both.
Nothing helpful so far.
I think B4 is telling us he’s as confused about Uranus as he is about Moon.
But, we already knew that….
I agree that you have posted nothing of use so far.
Yes, Clint R, I never expect anything helpful from Ball4. Or RLH. Or Willard. Or bobdroege. Do you know what exactly Cybergorf was trying to say?
That you and Clint R are idiots?
“OK, because some people were extremely upset that I stopped talking about the moon halfway through last month’s thread, I will make this post nice and early this month, for their benefit.”
That just like the Moon, Uranus has an axis that it is rotating around.
It’s just tilted to the axis of revolution, just like the Moon.
bob still thinks the moon is revolving (rotating) about an orbital axis, whilst rotating about an axis going through the body of the moon itself. Oblivious to the fact that if the moon were rotating about both an external and an internal axis, we would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
bob, the "Spinner" position is that the moon is translating (by which they mean, motion like the MOTR) plus rotating on its own axis. So you still only have one axis of rotation, going through the body of the moon itself. You do not have an "axis of revolution" if you are a "Spinner".
DREMPTY,
Don’t insult me by telling me what my position is.
And yes, I am oblivious to this not a fact.
“Oblivious to the fact that if the moon were rotating about both an external and an internal axis, we would see all sides of the moon from Earth.”
and this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
and what the caption below the Moon on the left, Moon on the right gif.
You do not have an axis of revolution if you are a "Spinner".
Don’t insult me by telling me what my position is or should be.
If I don’t meet your definition of “spinner” the maybe I am not a spinner.
But put me down in the “The Moon rotates on its axis” club.
Me too.
I’ll put you down in the "permanently confused about the basics of this argument" club.
I’ll put you down in the ‘denial of basic science and logic club’ then.
> if the moon were rotating about both an external and an internal axis, we would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
Refutation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
Willard, the "Spinner" position is that the moon is translating (by which they mean, motion like the MOTR) plus rotating on its own axis.
"If the Moon were not rotating at all, it would alternately show its near and far sides to Earth, while moving around Earth in orbit, as shown in the right figure."
See? They are telling you right there, that the "Spinner" position is: "orbital motion without axial rotation" is as per the MOTR.
"Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis", on the other hand, is already motion like the MOTL.
Thus, if the moon were rotating about an external axis, whilst also rotating about an internal axis, you would see all sides of the moon from the Earth.
“if the moon were rotating about an external axis, whilst also rotating about an internal axis, you would see all sides of the moon from the Earth”
As it orbits the Earth/Moon barycenter it turns on its axis once per orbit, thus showing one face to the Earth. As everybody other than your tiny clique of 4 (or is it 5 now) accepts.
P.S. There is no such thing as an external axis, only an internal one.
Re-read my previous comments until understood.
[KIDDO] the “Spinner” position is that the moon is translating
[ALSO KIDDO] The “Spinner” position is that orbital motion without axial rotation (or simply orbit if you prefer, Willard, that is just semantics) is translational motion only
[ALSO KIDDO] The “Spinner” position is that the [M]oon is translating […] plus rotating on its own axis.
No contradiction, as usual.
One version has an “only” while the others don’t have an “only.” More importantly, the word “Spinner” indicates the relevant concept: that position is about the fact that the Moon spins.
Meanwhile, compare and contrast:
[KIDDO] The “Spinner” position is that the moon is translating
[THY WIKI] In celestial mechanics, an orbit is the curved trajectory of an object such as the trajectory of a planet around a star, or of a natural satellite around a planet, or of an artificial satellite around an object or position in space such as a planet, moon, asteroid, or Lagrange point.
Yes, Willard. One version has an "only". The version that applies to the "Spinners" position on "orbital motion without axial rotation".
My God you are stupid.
The “Spinner” position is that the Moon spins, Kiddo.
It is about the spin of the Moon, not its orbit.
Since the Moon spins, the idea of considering an orbit without spin is at best a silly counterfactual for your misrepresentation of your favorite GIF.
Please stop trolling.
You are as thick as a brick, Willard. You are an embarrassment to the "Non-Spinners".
(Oh, by the way, I forgot to mention everyone – Willard is a "Non-Spinner"!)
I believe the Moon spins, Kiddo.
If according to your definition that still makes me a non-Spinner, there’s something wrong about your definition.
Alternatively, you can pipe up.
You can opine about your beliefs all you like, Willard. Your comments, which are (delightfully) a matter of permanent record, have demonstrated that you are a "Non-Spinner".
So you say, Kiddo.
You still have to prove that anything I said contradicts the idea that the Moon spins.
You are a shame to every third-rate college debaters.
So your own comments say. If "orbital motion without axial rotation" (or simply "orbit", as you would have it) contains a mixture of both rotation and translation, and rotation involves an object changing its orientation, then an orbiting object can change its orientation without spinning. Just like the "Non-Spinners" argue. You are a "Non-Spinner". I know you don’t get it, but that’s because you’re an idiot.
God this is dumb:
First of all, Moon Dragon cranks don’t argue, they’re just trolling.
Second of all the fact that an orbit can be described using translation and rotation does not imply anything regarding the Moon’s spin or lack thereof.
Third of all, you should stop trolling.
Like I said: I know you don’t get it, but that’s because you’re an idiot.
Holy Kafka trap, Kiddo!
The fact on the table is that the Moon spins. That doesn’t mean it would be impossible for the Moon not to spin.
The conceptual point on the table is that rotation implies a change of orientation. However you wish to conceive orbits has no import whatsoever on the fact that the Moon spins.
Willard’s just going to keep waffling and squirming until he gets the last word. Doesn’t matter. He’s said what he’s said, and what he’s said confirms that he’s a "Non-Spinner".
Kiddo can’t bring himself to concede that the Spinner position is that the Moon spins.
You can’t make this up.
Willard’s a "Non-Spinner". You couldn’t make it up.
Our slimiest sock puppet soldiers on.
The Moon spins.
Our newest "Non-Spinner" soldiers on.
Glad that we non-Spinners finally agree that the Moon spins.
Your own comments suggest otherwise, as explained.
You didn’t explain anything, Kiddo.
In fact you never do.
You just pretend to do so, when in fact you’re using every single opportunity to peddle your GIF.
OK, “Non-Spinner”.
Just found a Spinner, Kiddo:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1181747
Is Gordo breaking Moon Dragon cranks ranks?
Gordon defines “translation” differently to the “Spinners”. He sees the MOTL as translating, without axial rotation. Whereas the “Spinners” see the MOTR as translating, without axial rotation. Do you want to go back to being a “Spinner”, Willard?
> Gordon defines “translation” differently to the “Spinners”.
Nope. Try to read through his comment, from the very beginning, again. Have another go.
Yup. He does. Do you want to go back to being a “Spinner”, Willard?
Kiddo is confused by the simplest tasks.
I happen to know, from previous discussions, that Gordon defines “translation” differently to the “Spinners”. I remember the arguments, with old “Spinners” such as SGW arguing passionately that Gordon had it all wrong, and Gordon sticking to his guns over the years until now, nobody bothers trying to correct him on the issue. Do you want to go back to being a “Spinner”, Willard? Shame, you have insisted in your “Non-Spinner” line of commenting for so long (and presumably without even realizing, bless you) that there’s really no way back for you now. Oh well.
And I happen to know that Holy Madhavi classifies motion into three boxes: rotation, translation, and both.
The Spinner position is simply that the Moon spins. So your silly gotcha fizzles and your inability to characterize the Spinner properly does not look good on you. Which is quite a feat considering your overall performance so far.
Whatever you say, “Non-Spinner”.
There is no such thing as an external axis, only an internal one at the barycenter.
If you think there is an axis of revolution/rotation at the barycenter you are not a "Spinner", regardless of whether you want to call it external or internal.
Are you saying that the Earth is not rotating about its axis as it orbits around the Earth/Moon barycenter?
I’m saying that the "Spinner" position is that "orbital motion without axial rotation" is translational motion (by which they mean, motion like the MOTR) not rotational motion.
Well thanks for that MR Obvious Oblivious.
“”orbital motion without axial rotation” is translational motion (by which they mean, motion like the MOTR) not rotational motion.”
Right and remove the parts in parentheses and you get
“orbital motion without axial rotation” is translational motion not rotational motion.
If you agree with the "Spinners", then why do you argue that there’s an axis of revolution!? An axis is associated with rotation, not translation.
You’re not even able to get how confused is your “orbital motion without axial rotation,” Kiddo.
Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Poor old Willard. Confused by the simplest things.
There’s one reading that will make you understand Bob’s position once and for all, Kiddo.
And then there’s yours.
bob is also confused by the simplest things.
The fact is that Bob caught you being sloppy once again, Kiddo.
You don’t have digital, you don’t have diddly squat. It’s not having what you want, it’s wanting what you’ve got.
bob couldn’t catch a cold.
So says the guy who spent years on a question and is still unable to characterize its main position properly.
The "Spinners" position is pretty simple, Willard:
"If the Moon were not rotating at all, it would alternately show its near and far sides to Earth, while moving around Earth in orbit, as shown in the right figure"
In other words: "orbital motion without axial rotation" is as per the MOTR.
Here’s where you’re wrong once again, Kiddo:
> If the Moon were not rotating at all
The Spinner position is not about your silly counterfactual.
It’s not a negative claim either.
The Spinner position is that the Moon spins.
"The Spinner position is that the Moon spins…"
…because "orbital motion without axial rotation" is as per the MOTR, they claim.
No, dummy.
The Moon spins because nothing stopped it from spinning. Tidal lock slowed it down, but it has not stopped it. And nothing nudged it to get away from that lock:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
You haven’t read the damn page you keep citing with your silly GIF trick every single day for more than three years, have you?
Willard still doesn’t even understand that the physics behind the tidal-locking mechanism remains the same. It is just the result of the tidal-locking mechanism that is perceived differently by either "Spinners" or "Non-Spinners".
I’m telling you that your “because” in
[SILLY CONFUSED REASON] The Moon spins because “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR.
makes no sense whatsoever, Kiddo. The Moon spins for physical reasons, not because of how you define “orbital motion without axial rotation.”
You’re just trying to bait once again with your silly GIF.
The entire debate is about whether "orbital motion without axial rotation" is like the MOTL, or the MOTR. I love how much you hate that, but it’s true. That’s what it boils down to.
You don’t get to decide that the entire debate resolves around your favorite bridge, little troll.
The Spinner position is that the Moon spins. Denial of that position makes you a Moon Dragon crank.
This is the bridge you need to fight for.
Uh oh, the name-calling’s started.
“If you agree with the “Spinners”, then why do you argue that theres an axis of revolution!? An axis is associated with rotation, not translation.”
Right, and if the Moon on the right is only translating and not rotating, there is no axis of rotation.
The Moon on the left is rotating and has an axis of rotation internal to the Moon.
“bob couldnt catch a cold.”
I can’t remember the last time I had a cold, probably 20th century.
“In other words: “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR.”
Did you fuck it up here, I thought the ball on a string was “orbital motion without axial rotation.”
Wow, bob…you really cannot follow a discussion. Try to read through, from the very beginning, again. Have another go.
Yeah, is this a test of how well I can follow bullshit?
You say this:
“In other words: “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR.
15 minutes later you say this
…because “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR, they claim.
Yeah, I am having trouble following your bullshit, you keep changing the story.
And finally, instead of attacking my argument, we get this:
“Wow, bob…you really cannot follow a discussion.”
You could try following my arguments and my proofs that the Moon rotates.
4:16 PM: discussing the “Spinners” position, I say:
“In other words: "orbital motion without axial rotation" is as per the MOTR.”
4:31 PM: again discussing the “Spinners” position, I say:
“…because "orbital motion without axial rotation" is as per the MOTR, they claim.”
bob is just a confused, angry old man.
Well I am dealing with some idiots who can’t keep their prose organized, and their facts straight.
And never ever can give a definitive definition of what they mean by axial rotation.
bob is just a confused, angry old man. Now he’s forgotten what “axial rotation” means.
Nope, I know what axial rotation is.
Furthermore, I know you have been asked numerous times to define it, yet you refuse.
Because you know that the gig is up if you do.
Not much in science can be proven, but the fact that the Moon is rotating on its axis is one of them.
What about that astronaut video that proves a ball on a string is rotating on its axis?
hmmmmm
bob is all over the place. Sad, when they get past a certain age…
[KIDDO] Uh oh, the name-calling’s started.
[ALSO KIDDO] Wow, bob you really cannot follow a discussion. […]
bob is just a confused, angry old man.
That is how we recognize trolling.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Just found a Spinner, Kiddo:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1181747
Go remonstrate!
Gordon defines “translation” differently to the “Spinners”. He sees the MOTL as translating, without axial rotation. Whereas the “Spinners” see the MOTR as translating, without axial rotation.
> Gordon defines “translation” differently to the “Spinners”.
Nope. Try to read through his comment, from the very beginning, again. Have another go.
Yup. He does.
Kiddo is confused by the simplest equations.
I happen to know, from previous discussions, that Gordon defines “translation” differently to the “Spinners”. I remember the arguments, with old “Spinners” such as SGW arguing passionately that Gordon had it all wrong, and Gordon sticking to his guns over the years until now, nobody bothers trying to correct him on the issue.
DREMPTY loses an argument and goes to full liar mode.
“I happen to know, from previous discussions, that Gordon defines “translation” differently to the “Spinners”.”
That’s a problem, Gordon does not get to define his terms, and he does use the correct definitions for translation. He thinks the Moons motion is curvilinear translation, though it doesn’t meet the definition of curvilinear translation according to Mahdvi and others.
“I remember the arguments, with old “Spinners” such as SGW arguing passionately that Gordon had it all wrong, and Gordon sticking to his guns over the years until now, nobody bothers trying to correct him on the issue.”
This is where you are lying, there have been countless attempts to correct Gordon’s physics, and his math, and his chemistry etc.
And we are still waiting for your definition of rotation.
Yeah, according to your version of physics and astronomy, the Moon isn’t rotating, that’s because you are using the wrong version of physics.
Sure, bob, people argue with Gordon all the time. What I was trying to say is that I have not seen somebody try to correct Gordon on the curvilinear translation issue for some time. Perhaps I am wrong on that, but I don’t recall seeing that recently. Maybe someone has, and I missed it. Anyway, as you agree, Gordon defines curvilinear translation differently to the “Spinners”, which is what I was trying to tell Willard, but he didn’t seem to believe me. Perhaps he will listen to you.
Back to our discussion, which you lost the thread of completely and got yourself all confused about. You claim the moon has an orbital axis as well as a rotational axis. I am trying to point out to you that anyone who argues the moon has an orbital axis is not a “Spinner”, because the “Spinners” claim that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is translational motion (by which they mean, motion like the MOTR). Thus they cannot believe in the existence of “orbital axes” at all, since an axis relates to rotation, and not translation. It is kind of a big problem for the “Spinners”, really.
If you want to continue to claim that the moon has an orbital axis, or indeed that there is such a concept as an orbital axis, I will happily start to call you a “Non-Spinner”.
DREMPTY,
If you want to classify me based on your mumbo-jumbo “orbital motion without axial rotation.”
Go right ahead.
However, the Moon does have an orbital axis and a rotational axis, and they are not parallel.
You can try to define things differently, but it’s not going to fly.
bob, if the moon had an orbital axis, that would mean the moon would have to be rotating about that axis. An axis is associated with rotation, not translation.
So that would mean you disagree with the “Spinners”, who argue that the moon is translating in an ellipse, whilst rotating on its own axis.
So that would make you a “Non-Spinner”.
DREMPTY,
Nope, because there is not a big difference between revolving around an object and translating around an object.
And that’s the orbital path, not the question of whether or not the Moon is rotating on its axis.
Are you confused about what the topic is?
It’s whether or not the Moon is rotating on its internal axis.
bob doesn’t understand, bless him. He’s just a confused, angry old man. I really shouldn’t expect so much of them.
It’s OK, bob. You go back to sleep.
I really bring the Troll out in him, don’t I?
Time for another DR EMPTY break.
You go back to sleep.
Uranus year is:
Sidereal orbit period (days) 30,685.4 vs earth 365.256
So, it’s day or night time is half of 30,685.4 earth days of
time. Or it’s not tidally locked with the sun.
https://postimg.cc/D8jBqy98
So who says that UHI does not effect recorded temperatures?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/02/20/peculiar-things-about-gavin-schmidts-temperature-series-and-its-corrections/#comment-3458284
https://i.postimg.cc/mgRJWPVN/UK-remote-vs-urban-3-vs-3.png
Poor choice of sites. All the sites you classify as urban are inland and all the sites you classify as rural are coastal.
Can you demonstrate to high probability that the difference in their behaviour is not due to relative cooling of the rural sites by the sea rather than relative warming of the urban sites by urbanisation?
Well if they are just influenced by ocean temperatures as you claim, then it means that 70% of the worlds surface is not showing the normally claimed rise per century but only 0.3c or less since 1874!
Urbanisation probably needs to included farming changes and better drainage too.
Since 1880 the ocean surface has warned by 0.6C and land by 1.9C.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/Temperature_Anomalies_over_Land_and_over_Ocean/graph.txt
But how much of that extra warming is down to farming changes and drainage improvements?
The combined and smoothed data gives a global increase of 1.03C.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.txt
Except that the stations as shown do not conform to that.
https://i.postimg.cc/mgRJWPVN/UK-remote-vs-urban-3-vs-3.png
“But how much of that extra warming is down to farming changes and drainage improvements? ”
The main effect of changing land use is mainly due to the decrease in albedo as forests are cleared to become agricultural land.
How big is the effect? Physically you can calculate that increasing CO2 alone is enough to explain the observed warming, so the effect of land use changes is probably small.
0.1C?
If you increase the farmed land then you increase the turnover of carbon. What I call carbon churn. All those crops/produce/animals are really carbon stores that are then consumed by humans within a year or two.
Ent,
Your estimate of the effect of land use is probably about right…if CO2 had any effect at all on global temperatures.
First things first. Prove CO2 sensitivity estimate is anywhere close 1 degC and then you can attribute 10% of that to land use change.
Chic Bowdrie
http://www.globalwarmingequation.info/
P.S. That was ‘john barrett’ (see link), not me.
“Except that the stations as shown do not conform to that.
https://i.postimg.cc/mgRJWPVN/UK-remote-vs-urban-3-vs-3.png ”
Why do you expect them to? The UK has been warming at a slower rate than the global average for decades.
But the CET has long been accepted as a good proxy for the Northern Hemisphere.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_England_temperature#/media/File%3A20190731_Central_England_Temperature_(CET)_(annual_mean%2C_beginning_in_1659).png
Are you happy with the CET? It shows much the same as GISS. 1C warming since 1880 and a hockey stick. I hadn’t realised that you accepted such things.
“Of course it’s a cartoon”:
https://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/demingaffair
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_England_temperature#/media/File%3A20190731_Central_England_Temperature_(CET)_(annual_mean%2C_beginning_in_1659).png
Shows that most of that hockey stick is after 1990. Pretty flat from 1730 ’till then. Got a reason for that because CO2 doesn’t follow that curve.
That might also help explain
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2021/12/30/distribution-of-decaled-trends-by-latitude-from-berkley-earth/
Which shows that simple global averages can be quite deceiving.
> Pretty flat from 1730
That’s the stick part, and it goes longer than that even with the Lamb cartoon:
https://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/187831869869
That reminds me when our Beloved Bishop wrote in his political hit job that the MWP was in the 15th century.
So what caused the blade after 1990? Cannot have been CO2 as that rose much earlier.
“Shows that most of that hockey stick is after 1990. Pretty flat from 1730 till then. Got a reason for that because CO2 doesnt follow that curve.”
Why should the weather of one spot on Earth be explained by CO2 alone?
Strawman extraordinaire, RLH.
> So what caused the blade after 1990?
Are we playing Questions?
The blade started well before 1990:
https://www.nap.edu/read/11676/chapter/14#112
Certainly, I didn’t =)
In a series of commets above in response to this http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1172910 comment the @entropic man I have shown using his numbers, (which are probably wrong anyways) that direct energy imbalance due to the the direct technological heat production (dthp) aare between 10% and 15% of the of the alleged uncompensated energy imbalance number that he had provided me with; it looks too small to me but not by much. Either way, since cities are only a few percen of the earth, and since significant if not most of the DTHP happens in and around the cities, well, urban areas in general (notable exceptions include marine shipping and aviation, who dissipate their energy in the empty spaces between), the contribution of th DTHP to the energy imbalance in urban areas is BOUND to be much larger than any natural imbalances due to co2, probably by at least an order of magnitude. Of coyrse, it should be noted at this point that the atmosphere is very good at moving heat around and so most of that heat is quickly lost to the surrounding but some of it cannot help but raise the yrban temperatures. By how much I don’t know, but Id be very surprized if it didn’t show up in the thermometer record.
The urban heat island effect is increasing 1% of the Earth’s surface by 2C. That would be equivalent to increasing the whole surface by 0.02C.
Since the uncertainty in the current global average temperature is about +/-0.1C The UHI effect is small enough to get lost in the noise.
So is land use. If you two are trying to blame current global warming on land use and UHI, I suggest that even their joint effect is too small to have a significant effect.
you certainly read my analysis. Which is normal, nobody here reads the comments they reply to most of the time.
here is your original comment:
>>>Do the sums.
Humanity releases about 10^15 Joules/year.
The land/ocean/ice/atmosphere are gaining 3*10^21 Joules/year.<<<
I had shown that your first number is either a typo aor something else but certainly not true as it is many orders of magnitude smaller than the real number. And the second number that youd given hile seems to be about right order of magnitude I didn't check agains the official data. Instead, having assumed that you were right on that, I then shown that the extra heat imbalance due to the burning of fossil fuels is abut 10-15% of the imbalance caused by the co2 that you have given. Yes, the co2-caused imbalance is not related to the accumulated warming, it is related to the *rate* or warming, and according to that comment of yours, 10 to 15% of current RATE OF warming is due to UHI. At least that, given that temperature sampling is so uneven, the measured one would be much, much larger.
Let’s check.
https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels
Total fossil fuel burn for 2019 was 130,000 TWhr.
That is 1.3 * 10^14Whr.
1W one Joule second.
1.3*10^14Whr = 1.3*10^14 * 3.6*10^3 = 4.7* 10^17Joules/year.
That is 100 times my 10^15 Joules, but still 10,000 times smaller than the 3 *10^21 Joules/year annual increase in ocean heat content.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content
A quick check on ocean heat content.
It increased by 18*10^22 Joules in 30 years.
That is 18/30*10^22 = 6*10^21 Joules/year.
So the corrected comment becomes
“Do the sums.
Humanity releases 4.7*10^17 Joules/year.
The land/ocean/ice/atmosphere are gaining 6*10^21 Joules/year.”
Both figures are larger than I remembered but the sense remains.
Ent, your math is total fiction.
You must like “math-fiction” as must as you like your science-fiction.
That’s why this is so much fun.
As fossil fuel burn is but one of many ways that humans interact with the climate I suspect that your human figures are a gross underestimate.
“As fossil fuel burn is but one of many ways that humans interact with the climate I suspect that your human figures are a gross underestimate. ”
The 6*10^21 Joules/year is mostly due to the energy imbalance resulting from our CO2 emissions. Even our largest direct contribution, 4*10^17Joules/year of fossil fuel burn, is puny by comparison.
You could calculate the Joules/year added by the reduced albedo of agricultural land and urban areas.
Don’t make Coturnix’s mistake. Don’t calculate our respiration, for example. It is recycled photosynthesis and does not represent a net increase in energy budget.
If you want to replace the greenhouse effect with something else you still need to find an extra 6*10^21 Joules/year from some other source to warm the oceans. That is an imbalance of about 0.5% in Earth’s total energy budget and I’ve never found a sceptic who could account for it.
Ent, there is NO “imbalance” of Earth’s total energy budget. The “energy budget” is about flux, which does NOT balance.
You’re just regurgitating your cult’s nonsense. That ain’t science.
EM,
You wrote –
“That is an imbalance of about 0.5% in Earths total energy budget and I’ve never found a sceptic who could account for it.”
Because it doesn’t exist.
The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, contradictory to the delusional imaginings of intelligent people like Carl Sagan and others. No GHE, apparently.
That might be why no climate crackpot like yourself can even describe this mythical GHE. Maybe you can calculate what the GHE would otherwise have been, if it existed? Just like what the Earth’s temperature would have otherwise been – if it was?
Go away and find some more reality to deny. I guess I’ll still be here when you get back.
“The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years”
Care to work out what that rate is in degrees per decade?
“The 6*10^21 Joules/year is mostly due to the energy imbalance resulting from our CO2 emissions”
You need to consider the effects of change in land use, fertilizer, crops, animals, drainage, etc. to add to our burning of CO2 rich sources to get the true human impact on the Earth.
All of those increase the CO2 churn and effect air moisture content which is often not taken into account.
P.S. Don’t forget to add in concrete as a source of CO2.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46455844
“If the cement industry were a country, it would be the third largest emitter in the world – behind China and the US. It contributes more CO2 than aviation fuel (2.5%) and is not far behind the global agriculture business (12%)”
“Production has increased more than thirtyfold since 1950 and almost fourfold since 1990. China used more cement between 2011 and 2013 than the US did in the entire 20th Century”
Matches the hockey stick quite well then.
You make cement using fossil fuels. The energy used to make cement is a subset of total fossil fuel energy release, not an addition to it.
RLH,
“Matches the hockey stick quite well then.”
It’s easy to curve fit hypothetical sources of CO2 to the data. What is not easy is to use realistic rate constants for the absorp.tion of CO2 by the sinks.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/02/19/humanoids-and-co2-levels/#comment-3457670
I modeled atmospheric CO2 data from 1750 to the present using only one rate constant and fit the data extremely closely using a contribution of only 15% from sources other than fossil fuels, cement, and land use changes.
This has nothing to do with CO2’s effect on temperature which could easily be zero.
” So who says that UHI does not effect recorded temperatures? ”
How is it possible to gullibly believe the usual dumb, misrepresenting stuff from Gosselin’s TricksZone?
A few days ago, that blog posted for the umpteenth time nonsense about Sweden, whose winter times ‘did not warm since 1988’.
No: it was not a lie.
They just cherry-picked 6 stations in Sweden, re-cherry-picked their Januaries, and wow: quod erat demonstrandum!
It’s easy to see, by downloading GHCN daily data, that the Januaries in Sweden did not warm since… 1882.
And here is a chart showing all months from all available Swedish stations since 1882 (over 300 in 25 2.5 degree grid cells since 1961):
https://i.postimg.cc/d016Nj0k/GHCN-daily-Sweden-anoms-1882-2022.png
But such a chart you will never see there.
A real, good engineer would download e.g. METEOSTAT data for the UK and check for the truth.
Are you suggesting that Jan is not a valid proxy for winter temperatures?
A real, good engineer would also understand why Gosselin’s Yes!TricksZone chose the Januaries in Sweden to ‘prove’ their claim about ‘No winter warming in Sweden since 1988’.
If we split, near the Januaries, also the Februaries and the Decembers, we obtain, for all available SW station within 1988-2021:
– Jan: -0.63 +- 0.53 C / decade
– Feb: -0.40 +- 0.60 C / decade
– Dec: +0.62 +- 0.52 C / decade
Hmmmh. Avez-vous dit ‘cherry-picking’ ?
*
And of course: since the Feb SE is bigger than its trend, the latter hardly could be statistically significant, and those for Jan and Dec are not much more.
No one operates with such huge standard errors.
As always: this is, according to… Roy Spencer, one of many good reasons to use departures with annual cycle removal instead of absolute values.
But TricksZones never mind about such details.
Binny,
“Hmmmh. Avez-vous dit ‘cherry-picking’ ?”
Four and a half billion years go – surface extremely hot.
Just now – surface not very hot at all.
Where was the GHE hiding for four and a half billion years?
[snigger]
Where was the idiot Swenson hiding is what most people want to know.
Metrological winter (Northern Hemisphere) is considered to consist of Dec-Jan-Feb.
The New equation,
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Why not !
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Because all I see is gibberish?
The notion:
T = ( J /σ ) ¹∕ ⁴ (K)
is a misfortunate scientific mislead, because it is a huge mistake.
The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law doesn’t work vice-versa.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Still gibberish. Try posting what you meant in https://mothereff.in/html-entities and see what comes out.
It won’t help.
He’s trying to prove Stefan Boltzmann is wrong. There can be nothing but gibberish.
Even if he is right, I seriously doubt anyone participating in this thread would be able to peer review never mind serious quality assurance checks.
Well as he previously claimed that a drag coefficient (or a number derived from that) was important, I too suspect gibberish.
Here is the discovered Rotating Planet Surface Solar irradiation Interaction-Emission New Equation:
Jemit = 4πrσΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ (W)
And compare with the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law equation:
J = σΤe⁴ (W/m)
–
When comparing with the Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody emission – it is obvious when planet emission is considered – it is a different mechanism of emission.
Thus the equation describing IR emission from irradiated rotating planet surface is different.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
When averaged over the entire planet surface, in order to compare with the Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody emission:
Jemit = σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp) ¹∕ ⁴ (W/m²)
And compare with the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law equation:
J = σΤe⁴ (W/m²)
It is obvious these two IR emission mechanisms cannot be compared, because they are different.
Thus, the planet effective temperature Te formula:
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ] ¹∕ ⁴
Which results for Earth Te =255K
cannot be compared with the planet measured average surface temperature Tmean = 288K.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Stefan-Boltzmann emission law doesn’t work vice-versa !
The old convincement that the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law works vice-versa is based on assumption, that EM energy obeys the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (1LOT). That assumption was never verified, it was never been confirmed by experiment. The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law states:
J = σ*Τ⁴ (W/m²) EM energy flux (1)
The mathematical ability to obtain T, for a given J led to the misfortunate believe that the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law formula can be used vise-versa:
T = ( J /σ ) ¹∕ ⁴ (K) (2) as the surface (vise-versa) radiative emission temperature “definition”.
Well, this is theoretically right for a blackbody theoretical approach. Blackbody surface behavioral property is compared with a tiny hole in a stove. The incident in the hole radiative energy vanishes inside the stove… The hole is infinitesimally smaller than the stove’s inside walls area. Thus the incident in the hole EM energy cannot escape out of the stove.
After multiple interactions with the stove’s walls, the incident in the hole the entire EM energy is transformed into heat and is, eventually, evenly dissipated and accumulated as HEAT in the stove’s inner walls…
The EM energy emitted out of the stove’s hole is then only the inside stove uniform surface temperature T dependent function
J = σ*Τ⁴ (W/m²).
But the
T = ( J /σ ) ¹∕ ⁴ (K) (2) as the irradiated surface (vise-versa) radiative emission temperature “definition”… is utterly unacceptable, because it has not a physical analogue in the real world.
That is why we should consider planet effective temperature Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
as a mathematical abstraction.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
“The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic processes, distinguishing three kinds of transfer of energy, as heat, as thermodynamic work, and as energy associated with matter transfer, and relating them to a function of a body’s state, called internal energy.
The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of any isolated system (for which energy and matter transfer through the system boundary are not possible) is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed”
Are you disputing the law of conservation of energy?
Thank you Richard for asking
“Are you disputing the law of conservation of energy?”
What makes you think I might be disputing the law of conservation of energy?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Listmaker, with your cut and paste and your Wikipedia Masterminds, you and Chihuahua, so, the IPCC disputes the Law of Conservation of Energy every day. Still, you don’t seem to have a problem with it. So, shove it.
Stephen as usual is an idiot with idiotic responses.
CV: You did.
“Stefan-Boltzmann emission law works vice-versa is based on assumption, that EM energy obeys the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (1LOT)”
“it is a different mechanism of emission”
Is it magic then?
”
it is a different mechanism of emission
Is it magic then?”
When solar irradiated, planet surface doesn’t behave as the inner surface of the blackbody stove…
That is why it is so much different.
And planet when IR emitting do not use a hole to let the EM energy out.
Thus, there is not any magic in solar irradiated planet surface IR EM energy emission mechanism.
It is simply a different than the Stefan-Boltzmann equation describes for the blackbody emission mechanism.
SLH, it is different, not magic. When we say different, it is something else, not the same as what we used to think – it is different…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Black bodies are practically implemented as a hole in a container. They are not actually such.
If a black body is rotating, does it alter its radiation because of that. No.
“If a black body is rotating, does it alter its radiation because of that. No.”
1). Planet is not a blackbody.
2). Blackbody is not getting warmed by irradiation. Blackbody is already a warm body.
Now. you asking “if planet rotates, does it alter its radiation because of it ?”
And you gave, all by yourself, the correct answer. You answered “No.”
–
Of course, when planet rotates faster, it is a warmer planet. The same radiation from a warmer planet – yes, that is how it happen.
It is the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon which does the job!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Near blackbody if you insist.
Nothing is warm by itself unless it has some form of internal energy.
Rotation is not a form of energy unless you use friction to slow it down. How does that happen?
“Nothing is warm by itself unless it has some form of internal energy.”
Yes, or it is warm because it has a source of external energy.
Example:
A planet is irradiated by sun. Planet has its surface energy from sun.
And a planet is not blackbody. Planet is not near blackbody either. Planet simply is not blackbody.
–
“Rotation is not a form of energy unless you use friction to slow it down. How does that happen?”
Yes, that is right.
What a faster rotation does is to rise the ratio of TRANSFORMATION of the incident not reflected portion of the solar flux’s SW EM energy which is transformed to HEAT and accumulated in the inner layers.
Notice:
Not the entire incident not reflected portion of the solar flux’s SW EM energy is TRANSFORMED to HEAT and accumulated in the inner layers…
A fraction of incident not reflected portion of the solar flux’s SW EM energy is instantly (at the impact with surface) gets transformed to IR outgoing EM radiative energy and gets lost in outer space.
When planet has higher rotational spin (N), and when planet has higher average surface specific heat (cp), planet is warmer, because less “SW EM energy is instantly (at the impact with surface) gets transformed to IR outgoing EM radiative energy and gets lost in outer space.”
Thus, there is not any additional energy, for a faster rotating planet to be warmer. It’s just the faster rotating planet has a higher EM energy to HEAT the transformation RATIO.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Less time in the Sun during the day and less time at night balancing it back out will tend to cancel overall.
“Less time in the Sun during the day and less time at night balancing it back out will tend to cancel overall.”
Yes, it was the first thing that came to my mind too…
But, it does not happen this way.
When the day is longer, the temperature of the surface gets hotter. When the surface cp is lower, the temperature of surface is hotter.
The hotter the surface, it emits IR at J = σT^4.
Thus larger amounts of IR energy are emitted in a unit of time, and less are accumulated as HEAT in inner layers.
When faster rotating, and higher surface cp, the less is emitted as IR at the time of solar irradiance and more is accumulated to be emitted at night. The total IR emitted is the same, no matter how fast planet rotates…
The important difference is that a faster rotating planet the night temperature rise is much bigger than the daytime temperature lessens.
–
–
The faster a planet rotates (n2>n1) the higher is the planets average (mean) temperature T↑mean
It is well known that when a planet rotates faster its daytime maximum temperature lessens and the night time minimum temperature rises.
But there is something else very interesting happens.
When a planet rotates faster it is a warmer planet. (it happens because Tmin↑↑ grows higher than T↓max goes down).
The understanding of this phenomenon comes from a deeper knowledge of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
It happens so because when rotating faster, the day-time planet surface emission temperatures are lower and the HEAT ACCUMULATION is higher.
So that is what happens:
The faster a planet rotates (n2>n1) the higher is the planets average (mean) temperature T↑mean.
It happens in accordance to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
Let’s explain:
Assuming a planet rotates faster and Tmax2 -Tmax1 = -1C.
Then, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law: Tmin2 -Tmin1 > 1C
Consequently Tmean2 > Tmean1.
Assuming a planet rotates faster (n2>n1).
If on the solar irradiated hemisphere we observe the difference in average temperature
Tsolar2-Tsolar1 = -1C
Then the dark hemisphere average temperature
Tdark2 -Tdark1 >1C
Consequently the total average
Tmean2 > Tmean1
So we shall have:
Tdark↑↑→ T↑mean ← T↓solar
The faster a planet rotates (n2>n1) the higher is the planets average (mean) temperature T↑mean.
A numerical example
Here it is the improved numerical example which proves, the Tmean > Te when the planet rotates fast enough:
As you will see in the numerical example, which I have shown below, when planet rotates faster, on the planet’s solar irradiated side the Te.solar temperature subsides from 200 K to 199 K.
On the other hand on the planet’s dark side, when planet rotates faster, the Te.dark temperature rises from 100 K to 107,126 K.
So when the solar irradiated side gets on Te.solar cooler by -1 degree C, the dark side gets on Te.dark warmer by +7,126 degrees C.
And as a result the planet’s total Te temperature gets higher. It happens so because when rotating faster (n2>n1) the planet’s surface has emission temperatures Te the new distribution to achieve.
It happens so, because we have assumed planet emitting as a blackbody with two separate hemispheres.
The solar hemisphere emitting some of the absorbed incident solar flux’s energy, and the dark hemisphere emitting the rest of the absorbed solar flux’s energy.
Also, when the two hemispheres blackbody planet rotating faster
the energy in = energy out
balance should be met.
The faster rotation does not change the real planet’s energy balance.
Also, the real planet never achieves uniform temperature on both sides, because it receives the solar flux only on the sunlit side.
Because we consider the faster rotating real planet at the same distance from the sun, with the same amount of reflected SW EM energy:
energy in = energy out
balance should be met.
–
The numerical example:
Assuming a planet with two hemispheres’ Te temperatures
Te.solar1 = 200 K, and Te.dark1 = 100 K
Assuming this planet rotates somehow faster (n2 > n1), so assuming the new Te.solar2 average temperature resulting
Te.solar2 = 199 K.
What would be the planet’s Te.dark2 then?
Jemit.solar1 = σ*(Te.solar1)⁴ ,
(200 K)⁴ = 1.600.000.000*σ for (n1) rot/day
Jemit.solar2 = σ*(Te.solar2)⁴ ,
(199 K)⁴ = 1.568.000.000*σ for (n2) rot/day
Jemit.solar2 – Jemit.solar1 =
= 1.568.000.000*σ – 1.600.000.000*σ =
= – 31.700.000*σ is the difference in the Te solar side emitting intensity when (n2>n1) and 199 K – 200 K = – 1C
So we have ( – 31.700.000*σ ) less emitting intensity on the solar side (2) when n2>n1.
It should be compensated by the increased emission on the dark side ( + 31.700.000*σ ) for the energy balance equation to get met:
Jemit.dark1 = σ*(Te.dark1)⁴ ,
(100 K)⁴ = 100.000.000
Jemit.dark2 = σ*(Te.dark2)⁴ ,
(Te.dark2)⁴ = (100.000.000 + 31.700.000) = 131.700.000
The dark side higher temperature (2) to compensate the solar side cooler emission (2) by ( – 31.700.000 ) would be
Te.dark2 = (131.700.000)∕ ⁴ = 107,126 K
As we see in this numerical example, when the planet rotating faster (n2>n1) the Te temperature on the solar irradiated side subsides from 200 K to 199 K.
On the other hand the Te temperature, when planet rotating faster (n2>n1) on the dark side rises from 100 K to 107,126 K.
So when rotating faster (n2>n1) the solar irradiated planet’s side gets on Te cooler by -1 degree C, the planet’s dark side gets on Te warmer by +7,126 degrees C.
And as a result the planet’s total Te temperature gets higher.
It happens so because when rotating faster (n2>n1) the planet’s surface has emission temperatures Te the new distribution to achieve.
Consequently, when rotating faster, the planet’s mean temperature rises.
Because Te.solar2-Te.solar1 = -1C Then the dark hemisphere’s Te temperature Te.dark2 -Te.dark1 = +7,126C
So we shall have: when n2>n1
Tmean.dark↑↑→ T↑mean ← T↓mean.solar
The faster a planet rotates (n2>n1) the higher is the planets average (mean) temperature T↑mean.
Because Te.dark2↑↑ grows higher (+7,126C) than the T↓e.solar2 lessens (-1C).
Thus when a planet rotates faster its mean temperature is higher.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Forgive me if I am missing the intricacies of the “Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.” Your maths are too complicated for me to be distracted from the simpler topics here, such as moon rotation. /sarc off.
Is not Earth’s rotational warming based on its heat capacity and Holder’s inequality (the average of the fourth power of all global temperatures is greater than the fourth power of the average global temperature)? Therefore, because extreme temperatures radiate more than a similar body with the same average temperature, a temperate body will be warmer than one with more extreme temperatures. In other words, the faster a body rotates, the warmer it will be.
Chic Bowdrie
“In other words, the faster a body rotates, the warmer it will be.”
Thank you Chic for asking. That is right what you say. But it is a different equation is what describes the phenomenon. It is not the planet blackbody effective temperature Te formula.
For a solar irradiated planet the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law doesn’t apply, because
J = σΤ⁴ (W/m) formula doesn’t work vise-versa.
When planet surface is irradiated it doesn’t act as a blackbody. It is a different than blackbody planet IR EM emission mechanism.
It doesn’t work as T = (J /σ) ∕ ⁴ (K)
The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law states:
J = σ*Τ⁴ (W/m) EM energy flux (1)
The mathematical ability to obtain T, for a given J led to the misfortunate believe that the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law formula can be used vise-versa:
T = ( J /σ ) ∕ ⁴ (K) (2) as the surface (vise-versa) radiative emission temperature definition.
It is not how it actually works.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Stay at home mom Kelly Richards from New York after resigning from her full time job managed to average from $6000-$8000 a month from freelancing at home…
This is how she done it… http://workpay1.blogspot.com/
Monday La Nina update – plus –
Enso forecasting tip
Watch what Bindidong predicts, and then bet on the exact opposite, you will be right every time.
https://i.postimg.cc/TYLgfsLD/20nino34-Mon.gif
Still shows a 12 month La Nina. We will see soon who is correct.
Or maybe even longer?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/TEQMon.gif
rlh…”As it orbits the Earth/Moon barycenter it turns on its axis once per orbit…”
***
Nit according to Newton, who, in Principia, claimed the Moon’s motion is rectilinear. He claimed further that ‘something’ bends the Moon off its rectilinear path into an orbit.
There is no barycentre about which either the Earth or the Moon are orbiting. The Earth orbits the Sun and the Moon orbits the Earth.
Neither the Earths gravitational field nor the Moon’s gravitational field are strong enough to move either off their orbits.
The Moon can raise the oceans less than a meter and it can affect the solid surface by less than a centimetre. This is not nearly enough to move the entire Earth, nor is Earth’s gravity nearly enough to affect the Moon’s orbital path. It has enough force to only divert the Moon’s instantaneous rectilinear direction. That explains perfectly how the Moon keeps the same face pointed at the Earth.
Earth’s gravity has only enough force to divert the Moon’s instantaneous linear velocity vector into an orbit. As Newton pointed out, the motion of the Moon is rectilinear translation and ‘something’ redirects that linear motion into curvilinear motion.
Newton had a penchant for hiding his secrets and I’m sure he knew full-well that ‘something’ is the Earth’s gravitational field. Therefore, he also knew that the curvilinear translation meant the Moon does not rotate on a local axis.
That’s why I questioned the meaning in the translation of Principia as to what he meant by the Moon ‘revolving’. He clearly did not intend that to mean rotation about an internal axis since he was clear that the Moon’s motion is rectilinear.
> Newton, who, in Principia, claimed the Moon’s motion is rectilinear
C’mon, Gordo:
http://www.17centurymaths.com/contents/newton/book3s2.pdf
“Nit {not} according to Newton”
Liar. He said that orbits are simply a path and not a rotation as well as you claim.
Your attempted distortion of what he wrote is just that, a distortion.
Only you and your tiny clique of 4/5 think that way. No one in the world other than you lot makes such inaccurate claims.
Your odd use of rectilinear when everybody else uses orbit is just one of your deceptions.
Its really easy to look up earth moon barycenter.
Even Wikipedia has a good article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter
You’re wrong. Again.
“In astronomy, the barycenter (or barycentre; from the Ancient Greek βαρύς heavy κέντρον center) is the center of mass of two or more bodies that orbit one another and is the point about which the bodies orbit. A barycenter is a dynamical point, not a physical object. It is an important concept in fields such as astronomy and astrophysics. The distance from a body’s center of mass to the barycenter can be calculated as a two-body problem”
You are almost unique in your claim that a barycenter do not exist. Do you accept that Newton’s 3rd Law requires there to be a balance and, if so, where that balance point will be?
I replied below in more detail. Basically, either force from the Earth or the Moon has no accelerating force on either mass, therefore Newton III does not apply nor does Newton II.
If you were pushing on a wall, the wall allegedly pushes back on you. That’s Newton III. Newton II does not apply because there is no acceleration of the wall.
I don’t even think the Earth’s force on the Moon, which is by far the greater, is having much of an effect at all. It’s more akin to me blowing on a wall. Would the wall blow back?
Physics is magnificent stuff, but when it comes down to the nitty gritty there are often more questions than answers.
Newton says that each force exerts an equal and opposite force in return.
“Newton’s third law: the law of action and reaction
Newton’s third law states that when two bodies interact, they apply forces to one another that are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. The third law is also known as the law of action and reaction. This law is important in analyzing problems of static equilibrium, where all forces are balanced, but it also applies to bodies in uniform or accelerated motion.”
You are wrong. If you push the wall, the wall pushes back on you. You can feel it. It applies even if the forces are balanced. What is needed is to decide where the balance point is. Ratios and levers (and some maths) help us to decide that point, not your intuition.
This has long ago been discussed as the 2 body problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-body_problem
“The most prominent case of the classical two-body problem is the gravitational case (see also Kepler problem), arising in astronomy for predicting the orbits (or escapes from orbit) of objects such as satellites, planets, and stars. A two-point-particle model of such a system nearly always describes its behavior well enough to provide useful insights and predictions.”
Unless you can refute that, you have no case to argue.
Idiot.
I think it is reasonable to call (Tmin+Tmax)/2 as Tmiddle, as Tmean already has a mathematical meaning which is known to be different and having 2 terms with the same name but different meanings is very confusing.
RLH,
Don’t get too fussed about different meanings.
Climate crackpots claim that slow cooling results in global warming (whatever you think that might mean).
They also think that calculating the statistics of weather (climate) is a science!
Oh, and by the way, apparently “mathematician” means “climate scientist”, if the mathematician is named Gavin Schmidt.
Facts indicate that CO2 has no heating properties whatever, nor any magical one way energy retaining ability, whatever that is supposed to mean.
rlh…”I think it is reasonable to call (Tmin+Tmax)/2 as Tmiddle…”
***
How about Taverage?
https://www.cuemath.com/data/difference-between-average-and-mean/
Average describes 3 things typically, mean, median and mode. What is needed is another word and I think middle describes it and its calculation quite well.
P.S. Nowhere in your quoted definition of average does it describe it as (min+max)/2.
Still no sign of the Greenhouse Theory?
Tut, tut!
Much ado about nothing, it seems.
Idiot.
somebody…give Richard a cracker. Awk!!!
Idiot.
Another cracker, Polly?
Say “idiot” for me.
You said it for me.
How is it possible to endlessly repeat the same nonsense?
” That’s why I questioned the meaning in the translation of Principia as to what he meant by the Moon revolving. He clearly did not intend that to mean rotation about an internal axis since he was clear that the Moons motion is rectilinear. ”
*
1. Newton never wrote that “the Moon’s motion is rectilinear”.
That is a simple-minded misrepresentation by Robertson.
*
2. He wrote in Book III, Proposition XVII, Theorem XV:
– Original text in Latin
” Jupiter utique respectu fixarum revolvitur horis 9. 56′, Mars horis 24. 39′. Venus horis 23. circiter, Terra horis 23. 56′, Sol diebus 25 1/2, et Luna diebus 27 7 hor 43′. ”
– Translation in English
” Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, revolves in 9h.56′; Mars in 24h.39′; Venus in about 23h; the Earth in 23h.56′; the Sun in 25 1/2 days, and the moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′. ”
*
In the footnote, he writes:
– Original text in Latin
” Quoniam enim Luna circáaxem suum uniformiter revolvit eodem tempore quo circáTellurem periodum suam absolvit ”
– Translation in English
” For the Moon uniformly revolves around its axis in the same time as it orbits around Earth ”
*
Newton used the word ‘revolves’ for Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Earth, Sun and Moon all together in one and the same sentence.
The ‘revolution’ times given for Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Earth and Sun manifestly are NOT orbiting, but are all rotation times.
But in that same sentence, Newton suddenly wanted to mean under ‘revolves’ – especially for the Moon !!! – orbiting instead of rotating?
Only the dumbest ignoramuses can believe and misrepresent that.
*
And only the dumbest ignoramuses can misinterpret ‘with respect to the fixed stars’ as a special kind of motion:
” The spots in the sun’s body return to the same situation on the sun’s disk, with respect to the earth, in 271/2 days; and therefore with respect to the fixed stars the sun revolves in about 251/2 days. ”
It is evident here as well that with ‘with respect to X’, Newton never indicated different motions, but rather different motion periods.
*
But the ignoramuses will continue ad nauseam to tell us what they want to believe.
Bindidon, how about you research Newton’s later development of calculus, where he determined gravity’s affect on Moon would be represented by a ball-on-a-string.
Or, you could study physics and realize that “tidal locking” is bogus.
Or, you could remain braindead.
” … where he determined gravitys affect on Moon would be represented by a ball-on-a-string. ”
Show us Newton’s original source, Clint R, like I did.
binny…”Show us Newtons original source, Clint R, like I did”.
***
I think it’s in an addendum. Isaac was spinning a ball on a string just before he sat down under the apple tree to contemplate the Moon. He said, “By George, the Moon is orbiting just like my ball on a string”.
By George, GW is an idiot.
Sorry.
By George, GR is an idiot.
I wrote:
Show us Newton’s original source, Clint R, like I did.
What an ignoramus believes to ‘think’ is completely irrelevant.
binny…”How is it possible to endlessly repeat the same nonsense?”
***
You call it nonsense but I am quoting directly from Newton, from Principia. He stated that the Moon is moving with rectilinear motion and that ‘something. redirects its motion. If he is understood, according to your quotes, to be claiming it is also rotating on an axis, then his statements are inconsistent.
I don’t think he meant to claim the Moon is rotating since he used the word revolving, rather than rotating. That is more consistent with his claim of rectilinear translation if by revolving he meant its near face was continuously re-orienting. Re-orientation is consistent with rectilinear translation whereas rotation about a local axis is not.
Please note that he also prefaced Newton, f = ma with a statement, ‘If a force moves a mass…’, or something to that effect. That shines an entirely different light on Newton II, especially wrt the Moon. Earth’s gravitational force is obviously not moving the Moon toward it, therefore f = ma does not apply.
I will explain this better when we non-spinners go to collect our Nobels. One for exposing that the Moon does not rotate on a local axis, and the other for exposing the scam of AGW and the GHE.
I now think the forces between the Earth and Moon are in equilibrium vertically and the Moon’s rectilinear momentum carries it into an orbit based on the equilibrium state between Moon and Earth.
If there was no equilibrium between the forces, the Moon would have to move vertically closer to Earth. Newton II tells us that.
Above, RLH claimed that my denial of a barycentre contradicts Newton III. It doesn’t because Newton III does not apply here. There are no equal and opposite forces. The existing forces have no effect on either mass other than for Earths gravity to redirect the rectilinear motion of the Moon or for lunar gravity to deflect the tides less than a metre.
” You call it nonsense but I am quoting directly from Newton, from Principia. ”
I wrote above:
I wrote:
Show us Newton’s original source, Robertson, like I did.
If you can’t manage to exactly show that, then you are a LIAR.
You get to do your own keyboard searches, Bindidon.
I get to teach physics. The ball-on-a-string analogy clearly illustrates Moon is NOT rotating. The “barbell” example explained why “tidal locking” is bogus. You rejected both.
Give me one instance where you have accepted established physics.
Rejecting reality makes you a braindead cult idiot.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1181767
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1069041
“I get to teach physics”
No-one else thinks it is real physics. Just your own made up version of it. So not a real teacher at all. Just an idiot.
” I dont think he meant to claim the Moon is rotating since he used the word revolving, rather than rotating. ”
*
Are you unable to read a post from start to end?
” Newton used the word ‘revolves’ for Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Earth, Sun and Moon all together in one and the same sentence.
The ‘revolution’ times given for Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Earth and Sun manifestly are NOT orbiting, but are all rotation times. ”
Do you REALLY think that in that same sentence, Newton suddenly would understand under ‘revolves’ solely for the Moon !!! orbiting instead of rotating, but not for Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Earth and Sun?
Are you really that dense, Robertson?
Only the dumbest ignoramuses can believe and misrepresent that.
Bindidon, you are unfamiliar with the physics developed by Newton. You just cherry-pick things from his work that fits your belief system.
Newton developed calculus to ascertain how gravity would steer an orbiting body. It’s the same as a ball-on-a-string.
I’ll teach you the applicable physics if you will agree to not comment here for 90 days.
But, like the other trolls, you don’t have any interest in learning.
Clint R is an ignorant troll, idiot and liar.
RLH.
You wrote –
“Clint R is an ignorant troll, idiot and liar.”
Do you have a point, or are you just hammering away at your keyboard for no particular reason at all?
Do you have a point?
I quit working at shoprite to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $45 to 85 per/h. Without Ret a my doubt, this is the pay easiest and most financially MICN rewarding job Ive ever had. I actually started 6 months ago and this has totally
changed my life_________ http://googlepays01.tk/
Binny,
I appreciate your feelings.
I wonder why it is that people spend so much time and effort arguing about something that they cannot influence in the slightest?
As compared to pointing out facts relating to the supposed GHE, which has generated the pointless expenditure of tens of billions of dollars in total for no discernible result. In my opinion, those dollars might be better spent on teachers, doctors, law enforcement, or even more efficient weapons of mass destruction!
At least you would see something tangible for your expenditure.
Just my opinion, and one which is obviously not shared by the wasters of the billions.
But who cares whether the Moon is “rotating” or not? It just sits there, presenting one face to the Earth.
You might be better of wasting your time looking for a copy of the Greenhouse Theory, or Michael Mann’s Nobel Prize (the one he claimed to have won, not the one he didn’t get).
Finally, relating to the interpretation of early writings. Language changes. For example, Newton used “fluxions”, “fluents” and “accessions” in ways that seem odd or unusual today, not to say completely incomprehensible at times. Newton also bent Latin to his will, where necessary. Try calculating a fluxion using Roman numerals, or working through Newton’s method for finding roots of a number in Latin!
The point is that sometimes early writers gave different meanings to the same word at different places in the same document, used words which have changed their meanings over the years, or which are ascribed different meanings by different editors!
Still much ado about not much at all, seeing how the facts of the Moon’s movement are unaffected by all the kerfuffle about them.
As usual, Flynnson didn’t manage to properly read what others wrote, and replies with absolutely irrelevant, redundant stuff.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1181833
Binny,
I’ll repeat –
Still much ado about not much at all, seeing how the facts of the Moon’s movement are unaffected by all the kerfuffle about them.
Maybe you are not happy that you can’t change the facts, but that’s how it is.
Carry on expressing your opinions. They are worth just as much as mine, I suppose.
Which is not a lot it appears.
RLH,
As I said. Glad you agree.
Everybody agrees that Swenson is an idiot. Not just me.
rlh…”A curve can be APPROXIMATED by a series of short straight lines, true. But the key word here is approximated”.
***
If you are arguing that the quote I supplied is incorrect to claim a tangent line is parallel to a circle at a point, I’d tend to agree, with reservation. I pointed out that the description is simplified and the author qualified his claim by saying it is parallel ‘in some way’. I prefer the MIT formal analysis.
It’s more appropriate to say it is perpendicular to a radial line at that point. However, this is about limits and it is based on a chord to the circle changing its angle wrt the x-axis till it aligns with the tangent IN THE LIMIT, as delta x -> 0. Whether or not that chord line exists at that point is the argument. If it does, then the tangent line is parallel to it and the cord line is a property of the circle as is the tangent line.
I’m sure that’s why the author claimed the tangent is parallel, in a way.
An understanding of this requires an understanding of limits, which you may have already encountered. If you keep making the short lines shorter, there is a limit that can be reached mathematically.
When that limit is reached for a circle in calculus, it’s called the first derivative of the circle’s (curve’s) function.
A circle’s function can be expressed in terms of x or y, but it’s normally y. We begin with x^2 + y^2 = R^2, which is the equation of a circle centred at 0,0. We want to take the derivative of that equation which is the equivalent of the limit process mentioned above.
The derivative wrt x is: 2x dx/dx + 2y dy/dx = 0
Explanation. dx/dx = 1 and since r is a constant, the derivative of a constant = 0.
2x + 2y dy/dx = 0
2y dy/dx = -2x
dy/dx = -x/y
The value dy/dx is a differential, meaning it is an instantaneous rate of change of of x wrt y, of the circle function at any point on the circle. It also defines the slope of the tangent line at any point, therefore the tangent line has nothing to do with the circle being made up of ever-decreasing line segments.
Any line is defined as y = mx + b where m is the slope of the line and b is the y-intercept. More generally, it is written (y – yo) = m (x – xo). If the circle is centred at 0,0, it can be written as y = mx + b since xo,yo = 0,0.
A simple example of finding the slope of a tangent line for a circle of any radius is to consider any point on the y-axis at x = 0. Suppose the circle has radius 5, then it crosses the y-axis at 0,5.
Since dy/dx = slope = -x/y, then the slope of the tangent line at that point is -0/5 = 0. That means the tangent line is horizontal and the circle is not changing in either the x or y direction at that instantaneous point.
If you try to apply that on the x-axis at r = 5, you see a problem,. dy/dx = 5/0 and you can’t divide by 0. However, using the properties of the limit, that can be overcome since the limit deals with value of x as it ‘approaches’ 0. If it moves toward +/- infinity as x -> 0, then the line is vertical.
At any rate, inspection reveals that the tangent line is vertical, meaning the rate of change is a maximum as the slope of the tangent line transitions from -ve to +ve. In other words, an instant before (5,0), the tangent slope was +ve and an instant after it is -ve.
Let’s look at the tangent line slope at 45 degrees. The radial line will make an angles of 45 degrees with the X-axis. Using trig, sin (45) = opposite/hypotenuse = y/R, while cos (45) = x/R.
Therefore y = R sin (45) = 5(0.707) = 3.53
x = R cos (45) = 5 (0.707) = 3.53
Check if x,y = (3.53,3.53) is on circle.
x^2 + y^2 = R^2
3.53^2 + 3.5^2 = 5^2 = 25
12.46 + 12.46 = 24.95 = close enough since I did not included the full values for cos (45) or sin (45).
So, dy/dx = -x/y = 3.53/3.53 = -1
A slope of 1 means the change in x = the change in y at that point.
That is y = mx + b with a line at 45 degrees passing through 0,0 from left to right(b = 0) means m = x/y = 1.
The -ve sign on the tangent slope above means it is rising right to left, indicating that the rate of change of the circle at 45 degrees is in that direction.
The Moon is normally drawn with a single line to represent its orbit. That’s by convention since the Moon is a uniform rigid sphere and its motion is indicated by it centre of gravity at x,y,z = (0,0,0).
There is nothing to stop us widening the orbit to the width of the Moon, encompassing an infinite number of orbital paths as concentric circles/ellipses. Representing the lunar orbital plane as an x,y plane we can consider the point described above at x = 0, y = 5.
Each one of the infinite number of orbital paths surrounding that point will have tangent lines that are all parallel to each other. That applies to any point on the infinite number of paths at any simultaneous location.
That means all points on the Moon are always moving parallel to each other. It’s obvious that the Moon is translating, like an airliner circumnavigated the Earth’s equator, and can never rotate about a local axis. If the airliner rotated it would crash yet it keeps the same underside always pointed at the Earth, just like the Moon.
That’s pretty well a QED.
Please excuse my indulgence…rambling, as Ken puts it, but I love this stuff.
“If you keep making the short lines shorter, there is a limit that can be reached mathematically”.
When the limit is reached, that point becomes part of a line, the tangent line, whose slope is defined as the first derivative of the equation of a curve. When the author claimed the tangent is parallel to the curve ‘in a way’, he was correct, ‘in a way’.
If you have a circle of radius 5, and you connect a line from 5,0 to any point on the circle on the +ve side of the x-axis, that line is a chord, or a secant line. We figured out above that the x,y coordinates at 45 degrees would be (3.51, 3.51), so make the terminus of the secant line at that point.
Now we are going to move that point in the -ve x direction, along the circle, toward 5,0. We want to know, in the limit, what will be the slope of that line when both points coincide. Naturally, the slope will be the slope of the tangent line which we have already ascertained for a circle as -x/y.
It can be argued that the secant line disappears at that point, but does it? That can be argued till the cows come home. If it exists, then it is parallel to the tangent line hence the circle.
The author did specify…’in a way’.
> Its obvious that the Moon is translating
C’mon, Gordo. Welcome to the “Spinner” club:
A club that Willard left some time ago.
So you say, Kiddo.
So you say.
I do, “Non-Spinner”, I do. Correctly.
Gordo fits your definition of non-Spinner while arguing that the Moon spins, Kiddo. Fancy that.
At least Gordo tries to argue.
You’re just trolling.
Please desist.
> non-Spinner
Erm. Of Spinner, of course:
And here’s Kiddo’s definition:
I happen to know, from previous discussions, that Gordon defines “translation” differently to the “Spinners”. I remember the arguments, with old “Spinners” such as SGW arguing passionately that Gordon had it all wrong, and Gordon sticking to his guns over the years until now, nobody bothers trying to correct him on the issue. Gordon sees translation without axial rotation as motion like the MOTL, whilst the “Spinners” see it as motion like the MOTR. Do you want to go back to being a “Spinner”, Willard? Shame, you have insisted in your “Non-Spinner” line of commenting for so long (and presumably without even realizing, bless you) that there’s really no way back for you now. Oh well.
DREMT: The fact that MOTL incorporates 2 motions, orbiting and revolving on an axis, whilst MOTR has only 1, seems to have been missed by you.
That’s what the “Spinners” think, yes. The “Non-Spinners” know it’s the other way round. It’s a pretty straightforward debate, really.
DREMT, like all of his tiny clique, is wrong. It is as simple as that.
> I happen to know, from previous discussions, that Gordon defines “translation” differently
I happen to have read what Gordo just wrote. But then he used equations, so it goes above Kiddo’s head.
Since translation is basically what’s not a rotation, there’s very little room for his hedging anyway.
Gordon defines “translation” differently to the “Spinners”.
So you say, Kiddo.
Do you or anyone else understand Gordo’s point about tangent lines?
“So you say, Kiddo.”
So bob says, too. The name’s DREMT, by the way. Nice to meet you.
DREMT is an idiot.
RLH is an idiot.
Idiots subsequently calling other people idiots just shows how idiotic they are.
RLH is just another confused, angry old man.
DREMT is still an idiot.
…and RLH is still an idiotic, confused, angry old man.
> The name’s
That’s a sock puppet, Kiddo. And I’ll soon return to an impersonal mode. Enjoy it while it lasts.
More self-important drivel from the biggest troll since David App.ell.
You’re the troll, Kiddo.
I’m just a ninja.
Incorrect.
I studied calculus a long time ago but I have not forgotten it. Limits at infinity do no really exist but can be presumed to be preset at the values calculated.
rlh…”In astronomy, the barycenter (or barycentre; from the Ancient Greek βαρύς heavy κέντρον center) is the center of mass of two or more bodies that orbit one another and is the point about which the bodies orbit”.
***
Fine, but the Earth and Moon are not orbiting each other. The Earth orbits the Sun with a specific momentum and the Moon orbits the Earth with a specific momentum. No orbit in common.
Wrong. The Earth and the Moon both orbit the Earth/Moon barycenter. It in turn orbits the solar system barycenter which can be outside the Sun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter#/media/File:Solar_system_barycenter.svg
https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/barycenter/en/
“Our solar systems barycenter constantly changes position. Its position depends on where the planets are in their orbits. The solar system’s barycenter can range from being near the center of the sun to being outside the surface of the sun. As the sun orbits this moving barycenter, it wobbles around”
https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/barycenter/en/barycenter.en.png
RLH,
No offence intended, but “As the sun orbits this moving barycenter, it wobbles around”.
That’s certainly useful – not! I suppose NASA might say “The Greenhouse Effect makes things hotter”, or “greenhouses stay warm in winter”, which would be even sillier, I suppose.
Although I must say that I am left a bit bemused. The barycentre is moving (in an undefined way), and the Sun is wobbling around [something], one might assume. What, around an internal axis, back and forth, up and down, around the chaotic strange attractor which is the barycentre, or what, exactly?
In the meantime, has anything as useful as an copy of the Greenhouse Theory popped into your view, or is it still hiding?
The problem is that RLH is trying to present some rather complicated information to people who won’t be bothered to look it up themselves.
~ As the sun orbits this moving barycenter, it wobbles around ~
RLH explanation is exactly correct. You’re simply not willing to do your own homework.
I first read up on it because I had read that the sun’s Barycenter does affect earth sun distance and therefore the amount of energy that reaches earth from the sun. It was suggested as a mechanism for driving climate change but, while I think it is a factor, its not a significant factor.
The helical model – our solar system is a vortex
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jHsq36_NTU&t=38s
Swenson: So why does most of the Earth experience 2 tides a day? Hint: It is to do with the barycenter.
“The barycentre is moving (in an undefined way)”
Wrong as usual. A barycenter moves in a very precise way. It is the orbital center of a collection of bodies and its exact position at any one time depends on the position of all of them.
For instance the recent path of the solar system barycenter is set out in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter#/media/File:Solar_system_barycenter.svg
In fact the exact position of the Earth/Moon barycenter also moves in a small mirror of that as it too depends on the position of all of the other bodies in the solar system.
RLH,
You complain that after NASA wrote “The barycentre is moving . . .”, I added “(in an undefined way)”.
Only an ignorant fool would claim they have a solution to a three body problem, let alone the problem involving “all the other bodies in the solar system”!
Or a moron, perhaps. Like you.
The point is that you haven’t the faintest idea what you are talking about, or what its supposed relevance is, to anything at all. Mindless appeals to so-called authority do you no good at all.
Carry on appearing to be a dim-witted climate crackpot. It suits you.
3 (or more) body problems require an approximation, not a solution.
Swenson either doesn’t do science or he doesn’t understand what everybody else does.
Grand Solar Minimum Updates
https://youtu.be/7YSUhyZYw4I
So, first hour and 1/2 is older {during Trump admin} and
I am in second hour which is “update” and it will go one another 1 and half.
Anyhow I haven’t changed my mind, we will get bad weather and it will bad farming, not something to dismiss. Plus imagine it will harder/more unexpected for forecasting for farming in next couple of decades. But probably mostly in regards to northern hemisphere.
The volcanic or earthquake stuff “might” be more of issue. But I don’t give much of chance, but more of an uncertainty issue. Or a low chance, is something to be concerned about.
From the link
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23328940.2020.1796243
” From 1645 to 1710, the temperatures across much of the Northern Hemisphere of the Earth plunged when the Sun entered a quiet phase now called the Maunder Minimum. ”
This is utter nonsense.
The Little Ice Age and its temperature plunging began about 100 years before the start of the Maunder Minimum.
A fact which has been deliberately dissimulated since years by Zharkova in all her publications.
“The Little Ice Age and its temperature plunging began about 100 years before the start of the Maunder Minimum.”
We are much warmer, now, as before Maunder Minimum.
The Little Ice Age had lots of large volcanic eruption, and largest volcanic eruption, some people claim was the start of Little Ice Age, but there is not much agreement about when the Little Ice Age
began, but earliest starting date usually given is around 1300 AD.
What date do you think was starting point of LIA?
gbaikie
Sorry for the late answer, I’m busy with sea levels…
” The Little Ice Age had lots of large volcanic eruption, and largest volcanic eruption … ”
Exactly!
Starting with the huge Samalas eruption in 1257 (VEI 7+), there were indeed many large volcanic eruptions long before the Maunder Minimum started.
Here is a certainly incomplete list:
– 1257 Samalas, Indonesia, VEI 7+
– 1280 Quilotoa, Andes, VEI 6
– 1452/3 Kuwae, Vanuatu, VEI 6+
– 1477 Bárðarbunga, Island, VEI 6
– 1563 Agua de Pau, Acores, VEI 5
– 1580 Billy Mitchell, Solomon Island, VEI 6
– 1586 Kelut, Island, VEI 5
– 1600 Huaynaputina, Peru, VEI 6
– 1641 Mount Melibengoy, Phillipines, VEI 6
– 1650 Kolumbo, Greece, VEI 6
– 1660 Long Island, Papua New Guinea, VEI 6
and between all these, about 35 eruptions with VEI 3-4.
*
” … some people claim was the start of Little Ice Age … ”
Correct again.
The most interesting article I have read about this claim is
Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks
Gifford H. Miller & alii (2012)
*
Here is their abstract
” Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures over the past 8000 years have been paced by the slow decrease in summer insolation resulting from the precession of the equinoxes.
However, the causes of superposed century-scale cold summer anomalies, of which the Little Ice Age (LIA) is the most extreme, remain debated, largely because the natural forcings are either weak or, in the case of volcanism, short lived.
Here we present precisely dated records of ice-cap growth from Arctic Canada and Iceland showing that LIA summer cold and ice growth began abruptly between 1275 and 1300 AD, followed by a substantial intensification 1430–1455 AD.
Intervals of sudden ice growth coincide with two of the most volcanically perturbed half centuries of the past millennium.
A transient climate model simulation shows that explosive volcanism produces abrupt summer cooling at these times, and that cold summers can be maintained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks long after volcanic aerosols are removed.
Our results suggest that the onset of the LIA can be linked to an unusual 50-year-long episode with four large sulfur-rich explosive eruptions, each with global sulfate loading >60 Tg. The persistence of cold summers is best explained by consequent sea-ice/ocean feedbacks during a hemispheric summer insolation minimum; large changes in solar irradiance are not required. ”
*
” What date do you think was starting point of LIA? ”
My layman’s guess: 1450-1500
*
Nota bene
Samalas’ eruption in 1257 on Lombok island, Indonesia, is not very well known. This is probably the reason why Tambora (1815) still is considered by many to have been the largest eruption in the last thousands of years.
Its traces in ice cores were analyzed long time ago, but without any idea of where exactly the eruption happened.
That was finally discovered some ten years ago:
Source of the great A.D. 1257 mystery eruption unveiled, Samalas volcano, Rinjani Volcanic Complex, Indonesia
Franck Lavigne et alii (2013)
https://www.pnas.org/content/110/42/16742
The comparison: Samalas vs. Tambora seems unequivocal:
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/110/42/16742/F3.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1
gbaikie
” What date do you think was starting point of LIA? ”
A second answer…
Let me quote Wiki, a source known to be good only if it matches the expectations and narratives of these people I like to name the ‘Pseudoskeptics’ (to those you don’t seem to belong).
*
” There is no consensus on when the Little Ice Age began, but a series of events before the known climatic minima has often been referenced.
In the 13th century, pack ice began advancing southwards in the North Atlantic, as did glaciers in Greenland.
Anecdotal evidence suggests expanding glaciers almost worldwide.
Based on radiocarbon dating of roughly 150 samples of dead plant material with roots intact that were collected from beneath ice caps on Baffin Island and Iceland, Miller et al. (2012) state that cold summers and ice growth began abruptly between 1275 and 1300, followed by "a substantial intensification" from 1430 to 1455.
In contrast, a climate reconstruction based on glacial length shows no great variation from 1600 to 1850 but a strong retreat thereafter.
Therefore, any of several dates ranging over 400 years may indicate the beginning of the Little Ice Age:
– 1250 for when Atlantic pack ice began to grow, a cold period that was possibly triggered or enhanced by the massive eruption of Samalas volcano in 1257 and the associated volcanic winter.
– 1275 to 1300 for when the radiocarbon dating of plants shows that they were killed by glaciation
– 1300 for when warm summers stopped being dependable in Northern Europe
– 1315 for when rains and the Great Famine of 1315-1317 occurred
– 1560 to 1630 for when the worldwide glacial expansion, known as the Grindelwald Fluctuation, began
– 1650 for when the first climatic minimum occurred ”
*
Feel free to choose a LIA start convenient for you :- )
Are you suggesting their PCR analysis is wrong? Do you have an alternative?
This is just one of the alarmist talking points. They have to dismiss the obvious effect of the Sun on the climate somehow, so they construct their shyster theories as if it was something else.
I’ve been skeptical of discussion about earth-sun electro-magnetic connection being responsible for cycles of volcano activity by way of causing recursive magnetic events. Its making more sense the more I learn about it.
Only ignorant Coolistas can imagine and claim I would ‘dismiss the obvious effect of the Sun on the climate somehow’.
Never and never did I write such nonsense.
*
Again, for those who suffer from a constant manic urge to flaunt their egomania:
I was speaking of the undeniable fact that Zharkova deliberately ignored in her article that the LIA did by no means first start with the Maunder Minimum.
It’s the Sun, stupid…
K,
No problem. He quoted NASA, which many people would consider to be a useful source of knowledge for facts related to aeronautical and space matters. Unfortunately, the “Administration” part of the name gives the game away.
As Richard Feynman pointed out in the Rogers report “It would appear that, for whatever purpose, be it for internal or external consumption, the management of NASA exaggerates the reliability of its product, to the point of fantasy.”
I’m equating administration with management in this context.
However, ask the purveyor of the barycentre wobbling nonsense to provide an actual measurement of the supposed wobble, and you may be asked to leave the building.
There is a lot of nonsense being talked about barycentres and orbits. For example, one might start thinking that a satellite would orbit the barycentre of the Earth/Moon system, because . .
.
It doesn’t. Good thing nobody banging on about barycentres here has any influence on anything practical in the real world. Or if they do, let’s hope they work for NASA.
“barycentre wobbling nonsense”
The fact that it is used to discover planets around other suns precisely because of that wobble seems to have escaped you.
RLH,
Not at all. No more than the fact that CO2 is not perfectly transparent to IR radiation, along with every other gas known.
As I said, the Sun’s “wobbling” is about as relevant to the position of a barycentre of any sort, as the alteration to geostationary satellite orbits caused by the position of the Earth/Moon barycentre.
You are obviously confused. Just copying and pasting stuff, then conflating a moving barycentre to a physical perturbation occurring as a result of gravity, is completely pointless.
You might just as well claim that a reduction in the rate of cooling due to insulation results in heating, and should be known as the Greenhouse Effect!
Spend more time on improving your gotchas, and your attempts at being gratuitously offensive. You aren’t very proficient in either area.
“conflating a moving barycentre to a physical perturbation occurring as a result of gravity”
So a barycenter is caused by multiple bodies and gravity interacting but its position is not.
Idiot.
RLH,
You wrote –
“So a barycenter is caused by multiple bodies and gravity interacting but its position is not.”
Do you even know what you are writing?
Are you quite mad?
“You arent very proficient in either area”
Says you.
“There is a lot of nonsense being talked about barycentres and orbits. For example, one might start thinking that a satellite would orbit the barycentre of the Earth/Moon system, because . .”
Let’s imagine the Moon had 1/20th of Earth’s mass rather than 1/81th
of Earth’s mass, then Earth/Moon barycentre would at orbital distance from Earth’s surface. Then could it be used in regards to satellites?
The Moon as it is, makes satellites in Geostationary somewhat instable, requiring stationkeeping delta-v use to remain in a useful orbit. So having the Moon with more mass [or Earth with less mass] would make this more of a problem.
But would be anything useful about this?
I can’t think of anything.
Hug an Engineer Today! (Engineers Week ’22)
Installing track lighting?
That’s obviously Wizard work, in accordance with every Union handbook I have ever read.
So you need a Wizard, and where better to look than Menlo Park.
Also, any time I have ever “Called the Hall” it wasn’t an engineer that answered the phone.
The Clever Engineering of NASA’s [JWST] Cryogenic Nano-Actuators
Richard Muller: I Was wrong on Climate Change
Richard Muller is a physicist and former climate skeptic. In 2011 he famously attacked Michael Mann for “Climate Gate.”
After that speech Muller and his daughter founded non-profit research foundation Berkley Earth.
He then began the most comprehensive study of global temperatures ever conducted. They were the first team to use every single temperature dataset.
Here he is explaining how his own studies have (re)confirmed the rise in global temperature, and the cause, human generated carbon dioxide, and admitting he was wrong.
https://youtu.be/Sme8WQ4Wb5w
Muller is another one that doesn’t live in the real world. He reminds me of the one that believes Sun can heat Earth to 800,000K!
We see the same nonsense here.
Says the commenter who believes in “heat-sinking missiles.”
Thanks TM. I thought that was clever also. A little humor makes your cult’s meltdown even more enjoyable.
You’re welcome. I’ve always been intrigued by the “class Clown” behavior of some children but never before seen it carried into adulthood. Keep up the good work.
TM, Who said that pups is/are an adult??
Enjoy Engineer’s Week but remember that engineering is applied science.
Willard Jr, REAL engineering is applied science, but your sanitation engineering is just mops and brooms. Did you ever pass the mop course?
I like to think of it this way:
Physics is Math constrained by reality and, Engineering is Physics constrained by money.
Science is about knowing. Engineering is about doing.
Richard Muller is an interesting character. He was and believe still is a significant investor in fossil fuels. So, tracking temperature versus CO2 doesn’t tell us anything other than temperature and CO2 correlate. It is always about the money. The leftists want to control it, and they threaten anyone they can leverage, like Muller. Leftists don’t believe the free market capitalists should handle things. They are the Masterminds.
If you look at temperature and CO2, CO2 lags the temperature in short and long time scales. It isn’t even debatable. It’s math. Short term, it is 90 degrees out of phase with temperature, which seasonally is a sine wave. CO2 evolves as the integral of temperature on short and long time scales. It has been shown by Salby and is in his writings and textbook.
Stephen
Easily tested.
If CO2 is following temperature the calculated warming due to increased CO2 should be less than the observed temperature change.
If temperature is following CO2 there should be a lag. The calculated warming should be larger than the observed warming.
For the record by the GISS record the global average temperature has increased by 1.1C since 1880 and the CO2 concentration has increased from 280ppm to 419ppm.
The forcing due to increased CO2 is 5.35ln(419/280)=2.16W/m^2
The generally accepted warming effect of forcing is 0.27C/W/W/m^2.
The direct warming effect of CO2 becomes 2.16*0.27=0.58C.
Taking account of climate sensitivity (mode 3.0) the total expected warming becomes 0.58*3=1.74C
Since the expected warming of 1.74C is greater than the observed warming of 1.1C there is a lag.
CO2 is leading temperature.
Ent, all that is just nonsense. There’s no science there. It’s all beliefs.
Adding CO2 to the atmosphere can NOT increase W/m^2! How in the hell can you believe such nonsense?
Well, I guess it makes sense, you believe passenger jets fly backwards. You’ll believe whatever you have to to support your cult. Your cult even believes ice cubes can boil water!
Eman,
There isn’t any warming due to CO2. CO2 follows temperature. It is math.
Eman,
Funny how you try to use math with your CO2 forcing abstraction when you ignore real math posed by Berry.
“If you look at temperature and CO2, CO2 lags the temperature in short and long time scales.”
No, Stephen, only on short time scales, due to ENSO. The cause is well-known.
EL Ninos cause certain parts of the tropics to warm and dry. In turn these slow their production of rain-forest, which causes less CO2 uptake with a lag.
Long term, nothing like that is going on. The T rise is not limited to the tropics. The two variables are rising together, CO2 ~ exponentially and T ~ linearly for 50 y.
To claim T drives long term CO2 is wishful thinking.
Ent,
First of all your figures simply reflect a gross abuse of warming predicted by the as yet unverified radiative forcing formulas. All you really have to go on is a statistically poor correlation with CO2 increasing steadily while temperature fluctuates wildly. This suggests other factors influence global temperatures. To show the effect of CO2, you must control for confounding factors and carry out an experiment giving a significant rejection of the null hypothesis. Or at least find any evidence that the CO2 data can explain the fluctuations in global temperatures on any recent time period.
Can the opposing null hypothesis be rejected? That hypothesis would be that temperature has no effect on CO2. You can easily test this yourself with UAH and Mauna Loa CO2 data. Plot the running average of UAH temperature against yearly increases in CO2. That’s a good indication that temperature drives CO2 in time intervals of a year or two. The ice age data indicates temperature leads CO2 by hundreds of years.
If you think there is a lag involved, show the data. Radiative forcing formulas are not data.
Nate,
It’s the fifty-year CO2/temperature correlation that is wishful thinking, since you know it doesn’t prove causation. Stop the obfuscation!
A 50% increase in CO2 has had little effect on temperature which is confounded by the effects other variables. When you add in the paleoclimatology evidence, it’s obvious that CO2 levels take much longer to adjust to the temperature. Humans now are “artificially” enhancing CO2 to levels not seen for millennia and the temperature response is business as usual.
“That hypothesis would be that temperature has no effect on CO2.”
Nope. Strawman. Nobody has suggested that.
Todays word for Chip again is logarithms.
The theory is clear that the GHG forcing is logarithmic in CO2.
Pure obfuscation which does not warrant a response.
Any science that you dont understand is labelled ‘obfuscation’.
Weak.
“Its the fifty-year CO2/temperature correlation that is wishful thinking, since you know it doesnt prove causation.”
By itself no. But another strawman is that the correlation is the ONLY evidence.
You ignore/dismiss/diminish all other evidence.
For example, the physical basis for the causative mechanism, and the direct observation of this mechanism at work.
The logaritmic GHG forcing has been observed observed.
The First Law of Thermodynamics applies, thus warming must result.
The comparison of the measured TOA energy imbalance and the growth of ocean heat confirms this.
Then there is the PRIOR accurate prediction of the amount and spatial pattern of the warming from 40 y ago.
“The logaritmic GHG forcing has been observed observed.”
That is confounded wishful thinking that goes like this:
Step 1. Propose a forcing from an increase in CO2.
Step 2. Observe an increase in CO2.
Step 3. Observe an increase in global temperature.
Step 4. Conclude that the increase in temperature was caused by the increase in CO2.
With such a wide range in PRIOR prediction, how is calling it “accurate” meaningful?
Using 1LoT = warming, energy imbalance, and ocean heat confirms nothing but the fact that you are King of Obfuscation. Please stop making unfounded assertions.
Where is your unconfounded evidence that CO2 is raising global temperature?
Unconfounded evidence that added ppm CO2 in the satellite era is raising global temperatures is in the latest satellite instrumental data reports which Chic isn’t able to easily find, read, and understand although it is free on the internet.
Strike 3
Thus confirming that
‘You ignore/dismiss/diminish all other evidence.’
Meanwhile when any contrarian paper comes along, like the paper you mentioned the other day and Dan’s unpublished, both by retired engineers, you accept the results with little to no skepticism.
“Sorry. Dan has the data. Now the ball is in your court, Ball4.”
That’s how we recognize confirmation bias.
“Step 1. Propose a forcing from an increase in CO2.”
1.5 propose a physics-based quantitative forcing from CO2 and natural forcings
“Step 2. Observe an increase in CO2.”
Step 2.5 Observe historical temperature variation and model it with natural and CO2 forcings up to that time, 1980. Estimate CO2 growth over the next 40 years. Apply the same model to the next 40 y. Predict the T rise and its spatial pattern over the next 40 y. Predict that warming will significantly exceed the variation of the previous century.
“Step 3. Observe an increase in global temperature.”
3.5 And observe that the magnitude and spatial pattern of warming over the previous 40 y agrees (within error) with predictions, accounting for the actual CO2 growth that occurred.
3.6 Directly observe GHG forcing from ground and from space and find agreement with theory.
Step 4. Conclude that the increase in temperature was caused by the increase in CO2.
“Using 1LoT = warming, energy imbalance, and ocean heat confirms nothing but the fact that you are King of Obfuscation/.”
1LOT is established physics. Anyone who dismisses it is simply ignorant.
TOA energy balance changes have been measured with CERES satellites.
Growth of energy balance measured independently with Argo ocean heat measurements.
They agree within error.
Step 6. If you’re Chic, dismiss all such evidence as obfuscation, and seek out only bias-confirming contrarian blog-science.
Correction:
TOA energy imbalance changes have been measured with CERES satellites.
Growth of energy imbalance measured independently with Argo ocean heat measurements.
“That’s how we recognize confirmation bias.”
I recognize confirmation bias by how you identify as “we.”
“1LOT is established physics. Anyone who dismisses it is simply ignorant.”
Nobody is dismissing it, obfuscator. It just is not relevant.
If you’re Nate, just regurgitate the same old unverified models and data that doesn’t add up to more than a coincidental correlation.
The forcing is strong with this one.
Chic writes no dismissing 1LOT then dismisses 1LOT as not relevant. Chic really should be finding, reading, and understanding the relevance of 1LOT to climate from free, reliable sources.
Ball4, you were out a long time ago.
“Nobody is dismissing it, obfuscator. It just is not relevant.”
No rebuttal. No rationale given. Clearly demonstrating his ignorance.
“If you’re Nate, just regurgitate the same old unverified models and data that doesn’t add up to more than a coincidental correlation.”
And no rebuttal forthcoming, just more BS.
Evidence that doesnt fit his beliefs is rejected/dismissed/ignored without any rationale whatsoever.
Just further confirmation of his confirmation bias.
You haven’t presented any coherent argument to rebut or debate. You added a few steps to my four step example of your causation by correlation logical fallacy with a bunch of assertions. It’s still lipstick on a pig.
If you disagree with whatever paper I cited or Dan’s data, then debate that.
I can’t debate data and papers you don’t cite.
“I cant debate data and papers you dont cite.”
There is no evidence that showing you papers changes the response.
It is a fait accompli that the evidence in them will be rejected/dismissed/diminished with flimsy excuses.
You assert that 1LOT it is not relevant.
Do I need to show you a paper or a link describing the 1LOT, in order to get you to offer a rationale?
“3.6 Directly observe GHG forcing from ground and from space and find agreement with theory.”
Youve been shown the papers on this, even this month. Rejection/dismissal with flimsy excuses is always the result.
“3.5 And observe that the magnitude and spatial pattern of warming over the previous 40 y agrees (within error) with predictions, accounting for the actual CO2 growth that occurred.”
You have seen the paper by Hansen 1981 several times by now. Youve seen the data. A successful prior quantitative prediction is the gold-standard in science.
Again rejection/dismissal with flimsy excuses.
“The First Law of Thermodynamics applies, thus warming must result.
The comparison of the measured TOA energy imbalance and the growth of ocean heat confirms this.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2021GL093047
“We show that independent satellite and in situ observations each yield statistically indistinguishable decadal increases in EEI from mid-2005 to mid-2019 of 0.50 0.47 W m−2 decade−1 (5%95% confidence interval).”
I await the flimsy excuses..
“3.6 Directly observe GHG forcing from ground and from space and find agreement with theory.”
What theory?
“3.5 And observe that the magnitude and spatial pattern of warming over the previous 40 y agrees (within error) with predictions, accounting for the actual CO2 growth that occurred.”
What evidence do you have that that correlation has nothing to do with CO2? There are several alternative hypotheses vying for the credit for causing the observed temperature warming.
“A successful prior quantitative prediction is the gold-standard in science.”
You know that isn’t correct. It’s just another obfuscation and evidence of your closed mind. The gold standard is evidence from controlled experiments. Global temperatures are conflated by too many other variables.
The Loeb, et al. paper confirms global warming from both satellite radiation and surface temperature measurements. OLR increased over the period studied consistent with would be expected from the observed increase in ASR. Clouds, water vapor, trace gases, solar irradiance, surface albedo, aerosols, and mostly temperature were alleged to have contributed to the observations. No mention of CO2 specifically whatsoever. More importantly, no verification of this claim, “Continued increases in concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and the long time-scales time required for the ocean, cryosphere, and land to come to thermal equilibrium with those increases result in a net gain of energy, hence warming, on Earth.”
Oculaer (Kristian) does a good job of explaining the satellite evidence and presenting a formal scientific rebuttal to Nate. He shows how increases in ASR that are warming the planet produced commensurate increases in OLR rather than the AGW prediction that Earth would have to warm to make up for CO2 trapping more OLR.
https://okulaer.com/2021/03/27/testing-and-refuting-the-central-prediction-of-the-agw-hypothesis/#more-7212
Will this end Nate’s penchant for obfuscation, red herrings, misinformation, and false accusations? Of course not. Watch and see.
The point made by the Loeb paper is the 1LOT does apply, which was what you disputed. What happens at TOA with the energy flux imbalance is indeed reflected in the heat deposited into the ocean which is > 90% of the heat in the system.
Kristian has never published his work nor submitted for peer review. Cuz it would not pass.
What other real theory made a prior or even post-hoc quantitative prediction of the warming that did occur?
The way you use the word correlation, every successful experimental test of a theory would be just a ‘correlation’.
No theory in science is proven. All theories are provisional until something better comes along. Nothing has for GW.
“OLR increased over the period studied consistent with would be expected from the observed increase in ASR. Clouds, water vapor, trace gases, solar irradiance, surface albedo”
What are trace gases? They are CO2 CH4 and othe GHG.
“The gold standard is evidence from controlled experiments.”
If so then no theory in Astronomy, Paleontology, Geology, Meteorology, etc will ever meet your standard.
How stars work. Nope
Galaxies. Nope.
Hurricanes. Nope.
Plate tectonics. Nope
Or maybe, just maybe, observations are used instead of ‘controlled experiments’ in these fields.
“…which was what you disputed.”
Strawman. I state that 1LoT has nothing to do with global warming, in other words it is irrelevant to our discussion. Never have you explained where it’s relevant. You just go off on a tangent about me not understanding the 1LoT. I let it go, because you can’t help yourself obfuscating. I predicted it and sure enough right off the bat you prove me right. No one I respect is denying global warming, ocean or otherwise.
Do you have a rebuttal to Kristian’s work other than “cuz it would not pass?” Something scientifically intelligent.
Dan Pangburn has a water vapor hypothesis which could be conflated with Dr. Spencer’s cloud hypothesis. ASR is increasing. It has to be coming from somewhere, you know, 1LoT. If you had an open and curious mind, you wouldn’t have to ask me for alternatives to AGW.
A controlled experiment is not a correlation. If you were a real scientist, you would know that. Comparing past CO2 and temperature is a retrospective experiment. You need a prospective study with pertinent factors controlled to avoid a false conclusion by simple correlation. If it was easy, it would have been done already. Only a naive scientist would argue the claims you make on the limited amount of data available.
“Contributions from trace gases are uniform everywhere” and, lacking supportive data, one might assume they were estimated from model calculations. Has a direct temperature experiment confirming those calculations ever been published? How much of the 0.22 W/m2 “other” is CO2 and how is it differentiated from the equal and greater contributions to OLR from clouds, water vapor, and albedo? Serious scientists want to know.
You need to give it up.
Those are not fields I work in. However, I suspect conclusions can be drawn based on observation and measurements without needing correlations. If you have examples to the contrary, please share.
‘I let it go’
Puleeez.
You clearly claimed 1LOT was not relevant. You were proven wrong.
Because 1LOT is relevant, that means that the direct measurements of TOA GHG forcing, or surface GHG forcing, can no longer be dismissed.
Direct observation of GHG forcing, together with 1LOT, is evidence that the GHE will result in warming.
Of course, the strengths of the feedbacks still have error bars, uncertainty.
“A controlled experiment is not a correlation. If you were a real scientist, you would know that. Comparing past CO2 and temperature is a retrospective experiment. You need a prospective study with pertinent factors controlled to avoid a false conclusion by simple correlation. ”
The clear point about observational sciences, like most of Earth science, has gone over your head. There are NO controlled experiments in these fields.
One has to gather evidence from a multitude of observations. It is the consilience of many strands of observational evidence agreeing with the theory, that is what convinces real scientists that a theory is correct.
Your requirement of an impossible standard, ‘ A controlled experiment’, is a perfect example of a flimsy excuse.
“Comparing past CO2 and temperature is a retrospective experiment’
The predictions I discussed above were from 40 y ago. That is not retrospective.
“Do you have a rebuttal to Kristians work other than ‘cuz it would not pass?’ Something scientifically intelligent.
Dan Pangburn has a water vapor hypothesis which could be conflated”
I have pointed out a number of flaws in the work of both of these guys in lengthy debates. I can find them if you want.
Most recently I pointed out a numerical error in Dan’s data analysis of trends. I found a trend much closer to predictions. He agreed there was a discrepancy, but never fixed it.
Neither one of these guys does proper error analysis. Neither one tests real theory, they test cartoon versions of the real theory. Kristian could never tell me what the theory predicted and whether his trends fell outside the error bounds of theory.
That is why their work cannot be published.
Dan tests a theory that treats the atmosphere as a uniform temperature box of gas. GCM models do it properly, but he won’t compare to these.
Forcing is an abstraction based on the scientific reality that a change in energy in versus out may result in a temperature change in a system. I never said the globe isn’t warming. The causes of the warming are in dispute despite your religious faith to the contrary. Stop with the strawman arguments and misrepresentations of my arguments. All you are doing with this 1LoT meme is proving your are King of Obfuscation.
Direct observation of GHG forcing is confounded with other factors influencing temperature. It is not indisputable evidence that the GHE will result in warming. To do that it must be shown that an increase in temperature results solely from the increase in CO2, not based on a correlation confounded with other factors that affect temperature.
I already admitted no expertise in the “observational sciences,” but I don’t consider climate physics one of them. Your 40-year-ago “experiment” was not a controlled experiment, only a prediction of an impending correlation that could be proved wrong in the next 40 years. If you had an open mind and were not a dedicated AGWer Keyboard Cultist instead of a real scientist, you would acknowledge serious problems with the consilience of evidence meme.
“I can find them if you want.”
Don’t bother. I get enough examples of your obfuscation in real time.
On second thought, to avoid being hypocritical, find your lengthy debates with Dan and Kristian. Please open a new thread for that.
“Forcing is an abstraction based on the scientific reality that a change in energy in versus out may result in a temperature change in a system.”
Nope not an abstraction. There is physics based theory and measurements to confirm it.
“I never said the globe isnt warming. The causes of the warming are in dispute despite your religious faith to the contrary. Stop with the strawman arguments and misrepresentations of my arguments. All you are doing with this 1LoT meme is proving your are King of Obfuscation.”
How is it misrepresenting when you clearly state that 1LOT is not relevant.
AGAIN, 1LOT requires that a net energy input to a system, which is what was measured with CERES, and the other papers, results in an energy gain in the system. The energy gain in the system is well understood to manifest as > 90% heating of the ocean. And it is observed with Argo. Facts, not obfuscation.
“Direct observation of GHG forcing is confounded with other factors influencing temperature. It is not indisputable evidence that the GHE will result in warming.”
Yes it is. And yes it is. As discussed above, to deny that warming will result from a net energy input, is to deny 1LOT.
If I turn on the heat in my house, it will get warmer. However, if someone also opens the window to the cold, it can also get cooler. Both can be happening.
But CERES measured when windows are opened or closed. Indeed the GHG forcing is not the only forcing.
In a short term, natural variability, like that of ENSO is present and can dominate over a short time span. The Loeb paper discussed how East Pacific clouds vary during El Nino causing more or less solar input, which is what happened over the period.
Over a long span, like 40 y, the short term variability will be averaged out. Thus AGW can dominate and the evidence confirms that it did. Other forcings can be included in models. And lots of other strands of observations concur.
That is not just a ‘correlation’, any more than the predicted snowstorm we just observed in my region was just a ‘correlation’.
Direct observation of GHG forcing is confounded with other factors influencing temperature. It is not indisputable evidence that the GHE will result in warming. To do that it must be shown that an increase in temperature results solely from the increase in CO2, not based on a correlation confounded with other factors that affect temperature.
I already admitted no expertise in the observational sciences, but I dont consider climate physics one of them. Your 40-year-ago experiment was not a controlled experiment, only a prediction of an impending correlation that could be proved wrong in the next 40 years. If you had an open mind and were not a dedicated AGWer Keyboard Cultist instead of a real scientist, you would acknowledge serious problems with the consilience of evidence meme.
“How is it misrepresenting when you clearly state that 1LOT is not relevant.”
You really are a piece of work. Let me spell it out again in greater detail. I said there’s no global warming which is the same as you saying “a net energy input to a system… results in an energy gain in the system. I did not say anything violating 1Lot. It’s just not relevant to the discussion of what is causing global warming. The fact that you don’t acknowledge that is an act of obfuscation on your part. Continuing to assert otherwise puts you in libel territory.
“to deny that warming will result from a net energy input, is to deny 1LOT” and something which I never did. Strawman. Please quote my exact words.
“Over a long span, like 40 y, the short term variability will be averaged out.”
You can continue to wish that happened and will continue to happen in the next 40 years.
“Thus AGW can dominate and the evidence confirms that it did.”
A lot of things can happen by coincidence and many people believe that it’s a real phenomenon only to find out later circumstances proved otherwise.
“Other forcings can be included in models. And lots of other strands of observations concur.”
You can do anything with models as you yourself have criticized about mine.
Stop with the obfuscation and work on some relevant science that improves your argument. Otherwise you’ll continue to prove you are just an annoying obfuscator.
“You can continue to wish that happened and will continue to happen in the next 40 years.”
If the correct prediction of the first 40 y isnt compelling to you why would the second 40 be?
It is yet another impossible to meet demand (while we’re around), it confirms that the barrier to your acceptance of any evidence in favor of AGW will always be impossibly high.
While the barrier to your acceptance of contrarian blog evidence is essentially zero. No skepticism applied.
Hence, you judge Kristian’s and Dan’s work to be highly compelling with little investigation.
They both would be susceptible to the same criticism if their conclusions are causation by correlation. I thought Kristian did a good job of showing how OLR is increasing commensurate with global temperature rise which explains the satellite data without employing any help from CO2. I’m awaiting your debate history with it.
I have yet to look closely at Dan’s work. You only wanted examples of alternative hypotheses to AGW, not an in depth skeptical analysis. I don’t work for you. If you pay me, however….
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1188494
“I thought Kristian did a good job of showing how OLR is increasing commensurate with global temperature rise which explains the satellite data without employing any help from CO2.”
Of course you did!
What he did not do was what real scientists must do, which is
a. employ error analysis. I asked him a number of times, what was the error bar on your trend? Nada. Crickets. He simply said ‘look at it’.
b. Compare observations to real theory, rather than a meme. I asked him a number of times to show this and he never did.
c. Make only claims that can be supported by the data. He claims no GHG forcing is needed to explain the data. But lacking (a) and (b) that claim cannot be supported.
These are the reasons his paper cannot get thru peer review.
When you read a real scientific paper, like Loeb21, you see that he analyzes the various components contributing to OLR, which includes GHG forcing, which must include GHG.
In addition, he made adjustments to satellite data sets from various periods to align them, in a way that appeared to be biased to produce a desired result of a match to temperature.
I will have to search for the discussions, which took place over several sessions.
“In addition, he” should be ‘In addition, Kristian’
One discussion with Dan:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1085927
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1190127
I’m keen on investigating Dan’s hypothesis here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1189652
Unfortunately, I’m done for the day and have to look at his website first anyway.
The above link is wrong. Try this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1190938
Nate,
You state that you have pointed out flaws in my work. You have that backwards. Perhaps you never noticed, I pointed out a flaw in your work here’:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1088189
I observed that you got a different answer and explained what you did wrong. My work stands correct.
Your assertion that I treat the atmosphere “as a uniform temperature box of gas” is ludicrous.
Dan,
Nope there is still a problem with your calculation.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2022-0-00-deg-c/#comment-1194222
When Richard Muller says he didn’t know if global warming is real,
he means global warming = CO2 causing global warming.
He smart enough to know we were in the Little Ice Age and there was century long periods of warming and cooling in the past.
So, it’s possible he thought the lukewarmer’s position was also wrong, which is an increase in CO2 level probably has some amount of warming effect, but not a lot.
Of course, at this point in time, everyone takes lukewarmer position and the question is how much.
A long time ago, when heard of this issue, I thought a doubling of CO2 levels might add 2 to 3 C in about hundred years. And this would mean some sea level rise, less than 1 meter. Or if living on the beach this not going have much effect within 50 years, and lifetime of our house beyond 100 years is sometime one worries about. If nothing else the beach environment is highly erosive due to salt water and build them so a large storm doesn’t destroy them or large waves are the bigger issue.
Anyhow, few are worried about 2 to 3 C increase in 100 years.
Though 2 to 3 increase from the coldest time of Little Ice Age might seem possible. But I was considering 2 to 3 C increase from the global average temperature I was living in, or not some “unknown” benchmark.
Anyhow, now I believe a doubling of CO2 levels would cause .1 to .5 C within 100 years. Or far less than I imagined long ago.
I agree with the assessment that CO2 doubling would have a really small effect on temperature and climate.
The problem is how to get the anti-science chicken little crowd to understand.
It is easy. Show everyone coherent, consistent, consilient and convincing science that supports your belief.
For example I was using the forcing equation to answer Stephen Anderson just upthread. What is your equivalent of that calculation?
–The problem is how to get the anti-science chicken little crowd to understand.–
–It is easy.–
Anti-science is fairly irrational.
But it depends what the anti-science is.
That science should dictate, your life or political direction then is not science.
So, if anti-science is opposing science “telling you how to live
your life”, then “anti-science” is quite rational.
If the anti-science chicken little crowd wants impose their religious views on others, then they should at least at minimum explain their religious views.
Anyhow, I would claim science indicates that we in an Ice Age and
they is no chance of us leaving the Ice Age in any timeframe worth
count as significant.
If you wish to dispute that we in an Ice Age or that we going to leave it, within 1000 years.
That would be something you try to explain.
If you prefer we should be in snowball or greenhouse global climate, that would be another idea.
But it seems to me, the “anti-science chicken little crowd” is more concerned with how we spend your energy.
And mostly this has to do with governmental money spent.
And in that sense, I can find a lot agreement with “anti-science chicken little crowd”.
He’s talking about you, Eman. You’re anti-science. There isn’t any “forcing.” 193K can’t warm 288K.
~ What is your equivalent of that calculation? ~
I like data. Such as is shown and explained here: https://issuu.com/johna.shanahan/docs/180319_happer-koonin-lindzen_climat
stephen p anderson
Please return to a scientific mental state rather than your deep pit thinking cobbled together by right-wing conspiracy made up information. Right and Left both lie constantly as they are agenda driven and not truth driven. Science, for the most part, is still a truth driven process. Lies can pop up but they are not sustained since evidence will not endlessly support lies.
You used to have a science mind now you seem stuck in right-wing hysteria and conspiracy based thinking. In that world anything can be made up and true just because someone said it was (like Elites are killing babies to extract adrenochrome). No evidence is ever needed. Just like the Trump stolen election. No verifiable evidence of massive fraud was ever demonstrated yet people of your mental structure keep believing it and do not request solid evidence to support the narrative.
Anyway on the CO2 issue you can see it for yourself if you come out of the dark world you are in and start looking again at evidence to support your thinking.
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
You can use this tool to see how doubling CO2 causes changes. If you are looking down and use a Standard Atmosphere setting (no clouds…so it is not realistic for Earth system but it will still show you the data).
With the same surface temperature of 288 K the outgoing longwave radiant energy drops about 3 W/m^2. It acts similar to putting on more clothing. The CO2 acts as a radiant barrier to outgoing heat of the Earth. The more added the less heat leaves at a set surface temperature. This will force the incoming solar input to reach a higher surface temperature until the amount of outgoing IR is the same as the incoming solar…then you reach a steady state conditon.
Norman,
No, it doesn’t. 193K CO2 doesn’t warm 288K surface or 298K surface. It doesn’t “trap” anything.
Norman,
I’m not arguing the Earth doesn’t emit longwave radiation. I’m arguing very little is absorbed by CO2 and that which is absorbed is not causing any warming. It would defy the Laws of Thermodynamics.
“You can use this tool to see how doubling CO2 causes changes.”
Norman, don’t disgrace yourself by arguing that a Modtran analysis is anywhere near actual data showing how much more CO2 will raise global temperature. You would be better off analyzing your Nevada desert temperatures and realize that all the energy gained each day eventually gets radiated away. No trapping required. Neither you, nor CO2 can stop it.
Is Greenland ice sheet melting?
https://postimg.cc/zVfy3G8k
Idiot.
We know that the cult believes ice cubes can boil water. If that were true, Greenland would be hotter than Sun!
We all know you are an idiot as well.
RLH, angry and incoherent are the signs of early dementia. But don’t worry, it gets better. The final stages are happy and incoherent.
Being an idiot is the only sign needed that you are an idiot.
Clint R,
“The final stages are happy and incoherent.”
I see you are exhibiting the final stages.
Hunga Tonga eruption actually hit the mesosphere.
https://scitechdaily.com/massive-tonga-volcano-plume-reached-the-mesosphere-38-miles-into-the-atmosphere/
Now lets see what happens with lower stratosphere readings coming up. I know there wasn’t nearly the amount of SO2, and fine ash as Pinatubo, but this did get really high, and it will take a lot of time for it to wash out. The majority did go well into the stratosphere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ksqc3LyW5c
” Now lets see what happens with lower stratosphere readings coming up. ”
You’ll have to be patient… because there were some months between Pinatubo’s eruption in June 1991 and the reaction’s peak to it in the UAH LS anomalies:
1991 6: 0.41
1991 7: 0.83
1991 8: 1.42
1991 9: 1.78
1991 10: 1.83
1991 11: 1.57
1991 12: 1.49
1992 1: 1.35
1992 2: 1.27
Maybe we get something to see in next May.
Tys,
I agree with much of what you have said here but not all. I just watched one of the presentations by Dr. Richard Alley where he observed that planet warming is occurring and that it is caused by humanity. I would change that slightly by saying that planet warming has been occurring and part of it is caused by humanity. Although the long-term temperature trend is still up, the trend since the el Nino peak in 1916 has been down. It is apparent that Dr. Alley is not aware that water vapor has been increasing about twice as fast as it could from just feedback. Also, for anyone who bothers to check, they will discover that water vapor has increased by about 7 molecules for each molecule of CO2 increase. See especially Sect 3 & 7 of https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
Can anyone explain more clearly what exactly it is that Gordo is trying to say, further upthread, about tangents?
I am more interested in Gordon thinks about Time.
He seems to think Einstein was some kind of fraud, yet seems
to agree with Einstein {as far as I can tell}.
gbaikie…”I am more interested in Gordon thinks about Time.
He seems to think Einstein was some kind of fraud, yet seems
to agree with Einstein {as far as I can tell}”.
***
GB…I don’t regard Einstein as a fraud, I think he was a good theoretical physicist. He was also a good human being and like the rest of us we constantly fight with what is perceived against illusion.
How often do you, or any of us, look at the Sun, knowing full well it does not orbit the Earth, actually see it as rising or setting? Pure illusion. I don’t think Einstein was immune to such illusion in his thought, in fact, being purely a theoretical physicist, he was constantly prone to it.
And how many of us have sat down and contemplated the meaning of time? Like the illusion of the Sun rising/setting, we are content to imagine time as a real space through which matter can move. Absolute nonsense. There is nothing there to move through, hence spacetime is yet another illusion.
Worse still, we are often content to accept theories like Einstein’s relativity theory without questioning the validity. Louis Essen, who discovered the atomic clock, took the time, and he regarded Einstein’s theories on relativity as not even theories, rather speculations. He went so far as to claim that Einstein did not understand measurement.
Gordon Robertson
I see another anti-science rant from you. It seems you are immune to the value of evidence and facts. You are weird person you know.
Posters have spent time explaining in detail Einstein’s theories and the actual proof of their existence yet you just ignore the truth, the facts and all the evidence and continue with endless anti-science rants.
gallopingcamel, long ago, said he worked with particle accelerators and they had to use Einstein’s time distortion equations to make the machine work. Einstein is not accepted just to accept his ideas. There a countless experiments done that verify his ideas and the equations work in the real world.
I show you Electron Micrograph of HIV and you babble on about how one person could not see it in a scan yet you ignore the reality that scientists keep trying to figure things out and get better techniques to examine viruses.
You are a true denier of facts, evidence, logic and any other aspect of science. You peddle your make believe ideas as if they were fact. You might fool some ignorants. On this blog you have only shown to be scientifically illiterate to the maximum.
Why are you so anti-science? Why do you feel it important and valuable to deny facts and evidence? What is your agenda? What is your goal with all this nonsense?
Clint R, Swenson, and Willard all seem to be just trolls who love annoying people on purpose. Not sure what motivates this behavior but it is obvious from their posting nature. You don’t seem a troll who gets delight from annoying people, you just seem to deny anything science so I can’t understand your motive or what you are attempting on this blog? What is your agenda? What is it about?
Willard,
> Can anyone explain more clearly what exactly it is that Gordo is trying to say, further upthread, about tangents?
I believe he is saying that if you plot the instantaneous velocity of all points of the Moon at some arbitrary point in its orbit, the result will be an infinite number of lines (1) tangent to an infinite number of concentric circles passing through each of those points. (Which, for a tidally locked satellite like the Moon, is correct.) Since tangents to concentric circles on the same radial are parallel by definition, the Moon cannot be rotating on its own axis.
In essence he is treating translational and rotational motion as mutually exclusive, which is silly as it is trivial to demonstrate an object doing both simultaneously … just about any pitch in baseball other than a perfect knuckler for instance.
—-
(1) he means vectors, but skip it
Thanks, BG. Just in case you did not get the subtext, I’m mirroring this comment:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1181232
Someone who can stop their knuckler from rotating completely must be a hell of a pitcher!
brandon…”In essence he is treating translational and rotational motion as mutually exclusive, which is silly as it is trivial to demonstrate an object doing both simultaneously…”
***
No, Brandon, he (I) am not treating rotational motion at all since it does not exist with the Moon’s motion. It is all purely translational as is evidenced by the near-side tangent plane of the Moon being restricted to always facing the Earth. That means the far side has the same restriction imposed (must always face outward)hence is always moving in parallel to the near-side.
The Moon is not comparable to a ball pitched by a pitcher. The very act of the ball being gripped by the pitcher’s fingers will impart a rotation to the ball. Ergo, the ball does not keep the same face pointed to the ground.
An airliner does if it circumnavigates the planet around the Equator at 35,000 feet with constant velocity. The Moon has exactly the same instantaneous rectilinear translation as the plane, which gravity converts to a curvilinear translation. As we both know, if the airliner rotated 360 degrees about any of its axes it would crash.
> the ball does not keep the same face pointed to the ground.
C’mon, Gordo.
What if I told you that the ball could become tidally locked with the diamond?
Witless Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“What if I told you that the ball could become tidally locked with the diamond?”
The world would end? Michael Mann would get a Nobel Prize?
C’mon, moron.
Another cracker, Mike?
Say “moron” for me.
Wobbly Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Say “moron” for me.”
No. Why should I take notice of a moron like you?
Say “moron” again, Mike.
Have another cracker!
Erratum: Which, for a tidally locked satellite like the Moon, is correct.
I pressed send too early. This is *incorrect* since all points on/in the moon are not on the same radial at any given time.
Don’t sweat it, BG.
Gordo simply tries to extend a property that applies to circles to ellipses in general. Which fails, if only because of the very concept he himself introduced in the discussion, i.e. directrix. But since the Wiki mentions that “the eccentricity of a circle is defined to be zero and its focus is the center of the circle, but its directrix can only be taken as the line at infinity in the projective plane,” let’s just say that Gordo went on a tangent…
Willard,
> lets just say that Gordo went on a tangent
lulz. The whole topic is quite tangential to climate, and it’s not the first time I’ve seen it where it was off topic to the forum, in this case Usenet:
https://uk.legal.narkive.com/dX61unoR/smiler-s-balls-on-a-string
How this ended up on uk.legal is probably because Kadaitcha Man was notorious for cross-posting. (Smiler’s usual hangout was, maybe still is, alt.atheism.)
It may be of more interest to the present discussion that K-Man is a professed Aussie, as is our dear Malevolent Flimflammer, a creator of numerous sockpuppets, with a somewhat similar posting style. A main difference was that on Usenet one could be as vulgar and abusive as desired without being deplatformed.
“This is *incorrect* since all points on/in the moon are not on the same radial at any given time.”
Is there any object in this solar system which is?
brandon…”This is *incorrect* since all points on/in the moon are not on the same radial at any given time”.
***
They don’t have to be. I used a radial line through the Moon’s COG because that is how the motion of a uniform spherical rigid body is defined. You could put any number of radial lines through the Moon at any point from the Earth’s centre through the Moon.
Actually, given a circular orbit, you could draw radial lines from Earth’s centre through the leading edge of the Moon and the trailing edge. That produces a rotating arc. Now fill in the arc with radial lines, as many as you want. At each point where any one of those radial lines contacts the Moon, all points along the line will be moving in parallel.
At any time, on any radial line, all points are moving in concentric circle, that is, in parallel.
> given a circular orbit
C’mon, Gordo. You were talking about ellipses with two different focii:
We could shorten your proof to two words: apply symmetry. For every tangent T you’ll find another one on the opposite side of an ellipse.
That still does not prove that the Moon can’t spin.
Willard, you have already said enough to show that you are a "Non-Spinner". You have said that "orbital motion without axial rotation", which you insist should simply be called "orbit" (despite all the confusion that can lead to), involves a mixture of rotation and translation. Since a rotation involves a change of orientation, you have thus argued that a body which is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis, changes its orientation whilst it moves. Of the two options, that can only be motion like the MOTL. So, you have effectively said that "orbital motion without axial rotation" is as per the MOTL. Making you a "Non-Spinner".
Don’t worry, I’ll keep reminding everyone of this for as long as you comment here.
Woeful Wee Willy,
The Moon just falls continuously towards the Earth. Gravity is acting at right angles to its direction of travel. The Earth is directly beneath the Moon, and an observer on the Earth’s surface sees the bottom of the Moon as it falls, plus a little bit of the sides as the rotating Earth takes the observer farther away from the line between the COGs of the Earth and Moon at any moment.
If you want to say that this motion of the Moon is “spinning”, why not?
Climate cranks say that that “slows cooling” is “heating”, and that “the statistics of weather” controls weather.
Call anything what you wish.
It makes no difference to a single fact, does it?
> You have said that “orbital motion without axial rotation”
False, as I never mention orbital motion without axial rotation.
> The Moon just falls continuously towards the Earth
Hence why:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-12311119
No, you call it "orbit", as I said. So what? That’s just semantics.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
You quoted me –
“The Moon just falls continuously towards the Earth.”
Glad you agree.
Can you really not understand the physics behind the fact that the Moon is slowly moving away from the Earth?
Maybe you should you stick to being a climate crackpot – physics is beyond you!
> So what?
Two reasons:
First, the concept of orbit is independent from the concept of spin, which means that “orbit without spin” is too restrictive.
Second, the Moon’s orbit indeed matters to model its spin, e.g.:
https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/16053/07402311-MIT.pdf
> You quoted me
Indeed I did, silly sock puppet.
Do you have a point?
“First, the concept of orbit is independent from the concept of spin, which means that “orbit without spin” is too restrictive.”
Willard, if I show you the GIF and ask, “which one is orbiting?” you could simply reply “both”. Whereas if I ask you which one is “orbiting without spinning”, we get to the point. There is nothing wrong with saying “orbital motion without axial rotation”, it just provides greater clarity. If you want to refer to that concept as simply “orbit”, and wallow in endless confusion, be my guest.
Either way, you said what you said about “orbit”, and what you said makes you a “Non-Spinner”.
Dud, a paper that starts with astrology remains in astrology.
Cassini’s “laws” ain’t science, they’re beliefs.
You know nothing about this subject.
> if I show you a GIF
Then we can bet (with heavy leverage) that Kiddo is trying to bait once again, for the question if the Moon spins or not transcends his silly counterfactual.
willard…”For every tangent T youll find another one on the opposite side of an ellipse”.
***
There are a theoretical infinite number of tangent lines on an ellipse but with the Moon’s motion we are concerned with only one tangent line at a time. That is the tangent line along which the Moon is moving at any ***instant*** with its rectilinear velocity vector.
At any instant, the Moon’s motion is defined by that rectilinear velocity vector which acts along the tangent line at that instant. The next instant there is a different tangent line along which the velocity vector points.
Newton noted that in Principia, that the Moon’s motion is rectilinear and that ***something*** redirects the motion. I am claiming it is the Earth’s gravitational field that redirects it.
Part of my proof is that a body with a much higher rectilinear velocity than the Moon, and at the same altitude, would not go into orbit. Instead, if the velocity was high enough, it would sweep past the Earth on a parabolic trajectory, much like Newton’s cannonball, which falls to Earth along a parabolic trajectory if the velocity is too low.
At the Moon’s altitude, there is no air resistance and any body at that altitude, moving at a faster velocity, would sweep past the Earth on a parabolic path. If the velocity was a lot higher, it would sweep past on a hyperbolic path, which is like a parabola but with a much wider curve.
The higher the velocity, the more the curve flattens and it is conceivable that a body moving at a sufficiently high speed would shoot past the Earth along a straight line.
At the current lunar altitude, it’s current velocity is low enough that the gravitational field can bend the velocity vector into an elliptical path.
Just like an airliner flying with constant velocity at 35,000 feet, no other forces are required to keep it in orbit. If the airliner can maintain its velocity and altitude, gravity will do the rest, forming the orbital path.
Obviously, Earth’s gravitational force is insufficient to move the Moon below its current altitude, just like the airliner. It is enough, however, to keep re-orienting the lunar velocity vector to form an orbit.
It seems to trouble you that the orbit is elliptical. If you could speed the Moon up enough, without it breaking free, it would elongate the orbit even more. Or if you slowed it down a bit, the orbit would become more circular. Of course, if you slowed it too much, it would lose orbit and might eventually crash into the Earth.
Obviously the elliptical path is a resultant of gravitational force and the Moon’s rectilinear momentum.
The two focal points are not an issue since gravity acts only from the principal focal point. At either end of the major axis, gravity acts directly on the Moon, just as with a circular orbit, In between, only a component of gravity acts on the Moon, allowing the Moon’s momentum to very slightly elongate the orbital path.
Hope you’re paying attention, there will be an exam soon.
> Newton noted that in Principia, that the Moons motion is rectilinear
C’mon, Gordo:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1181574
You and Issac are drinking buddies.
I await your quote, Troglodyte whose name isn’t unlike nazis.
Willard is a “Non-Spinner”. He just doesn’t have the intelligence to understand why. Oh well, that just makes it all the funnier.
DREMT is an idiot.
Rectilinear orbits are straight lines so not a practical orbit at all.
rlh…”Rectilinear orbits are straight lines so not a practical orbit at all”.
***
Yes, but rectilinear translation can be converted to curvilinear translation, as with the Moon’s orbit. If you walk in a straight line you are performing curvilinear translation. If you tie a rope around your waist, which is attached to a stout stake in the ground, and try to walk in a rectilinear direction, the rope will pull you into a curvilinear motion.
Quite simple actually, unless you are bent on being obtuse. You will be able to take a rectilinear step or so at a time, but ultimately the rope will force you into a curve.
The old ball on a string modeling the Moon’s orbital motion.
RLH,
You wrote –
“Rectilinear orbits are straight lines so not a practical orbit at all.”
Irrelevant. Read Newton again. You have studied calculus you say, so applying fluxions to the fluent of the Moon moving in a straight line, as Newton did, results in an elliptical orbit.
Just for fun, you might look at why Sir Isaac came to the conclusion that planetary orbits must be elliptical (remembering that a circle is an ellipse.
Or you could just keep asking silly gotchas, trying to appear clever. You would probably be better off trying to correct me where you think I have erred, by producing some verifiable facts to back you up.
So far, your faith seems to be at odds with fact. I’ll stick with the facts.
> If you tie a rope around your waist
C’mon, Gordo.
You forgot two things:
You will need to tie the rope after something.
The rope will stretch.
Think.
> (remembering that a circle is an ellipse.
You forgot to pad that thought properly, Mike:
Ellipses are not circles.
Dud, an ellipse is not a circle, but a circle is an ellipse.
This is so far over your head….
WTH, let’s correct this other misconception from Gordo:
https://prog.lmu.edu.ng/colleges_CMS/document/books/GEC%20241%20Week%207%20Note.pdf
> ellipse is not a circle, but a circle is an ellipse
Agreed, Pup.
So what can be said of ellipses can apply to circles, but not vice versa.
Woeful Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Ellipses are not circles.”, which is not necessarily true, but is completely irrelevant, as I didn’t say such a thing,
Carry on imagining.
Ellipses are not circles, Mike. This fact matters when people like Gordo and Pup try to extrapolate from circles to ellipses.
Have you noticed that your decade of trolling at Roy’s can be reduced to silly semantic games around just a few words?
Witless Wee Willy,
From your favourite Wikipedia, in relation to the definition of an ellipse –
“As such, it generalizes a circle, which is the special type of ellipse in which the two focal points are the same.”
Learn to comprehend, before pounding away on your keyboard. As I said, “You wrote
“Ellipses are not circles.” which is not necessarily true, but is completely irrelevant, as I didnt say such a thing,”
There are an infinite number of ellipses which are circles, contrary to your blanket assertion that ellipses are not circles.
Carry on ignoring reality, and playing your silly semantic games. You want to keep losing, be my guest.
Next you’re gonna argue that fruits are bananas, Mike.
The class of circles isn’t equivalent to the class of ellipses. Circles are ellipses, but ellipses are not circles.
Wee Willy Wanker,
You wrote –
“The class of circles isnt equivalent to the class of ellipses. Circles are ellipses, but ellipses are not circles.”
There are an infinite number of ellipses which are circles.
If you don’t want to believe it, don’t.
Who values the beliefs of a moron like you? Not me, that’s for sure!
How are you going trying to find a copy of the Greenhouse Theory, by the way? Not well?
Swenson: Lookup what rectilinear orbits are. They are orbits with an eccentricity of 1. That is a flat as possible, so a straight line. Near rectilinear orbits are very long thin ellipses.
c.f. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-rectilinear_halo_orbit
RLH is an idiot.
Mike,
One can’t say that ellipses are circles if there are ellipses that are not circles.
Except you. You can say whatever you please.
Cheers.
…and Willard has said that “orbit” (“orbital motion without axial rotation”) involves rotation, thus making him a “Non-Spinner”.
And everybody agrees that the clique comprises of idiots.
Willard is an idiot, that is true. But don’t tar us all with the same brush.
And your credentials moon doggie?
I quit working at shoprite to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $45 to 85 per/h. Without Ret a my doubt, this is the pay easiest and most financially MICN rewarding job I’ve ever had. I actually started 6 months ago and this has totally
changed my life………… http://googlepays01.tk/
rlh…”So a barycenter is caused by multiple bodies and gravity interacting but its position is not”.
***
My first encounters with the barycentre concept came in my astrophysics class which I mistakenly thought would be a good elective during my engineering studies. It was theorized that the effect of all the planets on the Sun would force the Sun to rotate about a barycentre, with the centre inside its orbit.
It is now known that the effect of the planets, due to their colossal distances from the Sun and the Earth, is essentially imperceptible. In other words, those gravitational forces are far too weak to move the Sun or even the Earth, when most of the planets are in line with the Earth..
That’s the key, there can only be a barycentre if there is actual motion about it. However, the only motion that can be perceived due to the Moon’s gravitational force of the Earth is a rise in the ocean level of half a metre, and on the hard surface of less than a centimetre.
How the heck is that going to move the entire planet out of its orbital path? It’s like me walking in a stiff wind with by jacket billowing in the wind.
With regard to wobble indicating distant planets, that is sci-fi. No one has ever seen such a planet and it is presumed that a slight perturbation in a star’s electromagnetic field output is a planet.
It’s a fanciful idea that I’m sure gives astronomers a warm and fuzzy feeling when they think of the funding they will receive, not to mention fleeting fame. The truth is, they have no idea what is causing the perturbations.
“It is now known that the effect of the planets, due to their colossal distances from the Sun and the Earth, is essentially imperceptible”
No it is not. That the solar system barycenter moves outside the Sun’s radius has been well know for a long time and has been well examined with several papers submitted about it.
Simple applications of Newton’s 3rd Law and maths proves this to be so.
Astronomers that use barycenter to discover other planets (now about 4000) will help to disillusion you. Some have even been able to determine what the atmospheres contain.
Mind you, nothing logical or scientific will ever convince a stupid idiot like you.
RLH,
A barycentre is just a calculated point. It cannot be observed. It has no physical existence.
You might merely be confused. Astronomers have used observed perturbations in planetary orbits to correctly predict the presence of other bodies affecting those orbits. Neptune was one such, when perturbations in the orbit of Uranus were observed, differing from the calculated orbit derived by using Newton’s Laws.
Nothing to do with observation of a barycentre, which is a calculated point.
About as confused as people who think that the statistics of weather (climate), causes changes in observed weather statistics!
swenson…”Neptune was one such, when perturbations in the orbit of Uranus were observed, differing from the calculated orbit derived by using Newtons Laws”.
***
I tend to be at odds with astronomy claims, figuring the discovery of Neptune was more a fluke than any perturbation of the orbit of Uranus. I know the scientists who discovered it claim it was due to perturbations in the orbit of Uranus but that has since been revealed as hooey. No planet has enough gravitational force to affect the orbit of another planet.
The rocket scientists have disqualified Pluto as a planet based on debris found in it orbit. They regard it as space junk despite the fact it is well-formed and spherical. Based on their theories, astronomers think all the debris should have formed into a whole planet.
That’s the basic problem with astronomy, IMHO. They tend to promote theories they cannot possibly prove like the one that claims all planets were formed from debris from a shrinking Sun. Because Pluto doesn’t fit the theory, it has been disqualified as planet even though it is obviously a planet.
I am formally re-instituting Pluto as a planet. It has 5 Moon for cripes sake. The rocket scienctists are claiming they came from space junk in its orbit but they fail to explain how the junk achieved the exacting required velocity to go into orbit.
If the theory disqualifying Pluto is correct, why are the four inner planets solid rock whereas the next four are frozen-gas giants? Why are the planets essentially in the same orbital plane?
Too many question, not enough answers, and far to many bad theories.
Gordon Robertson
Where do you get your illogical material from?
YOU: “I know the scientists who discovered it claim it was due to perturbations in the orbit of Uranus but that has since been revealed as hooey. No planet has enough gravitational force to affect the orbit of another planet.”
What is the basis of this nonsense. Do you have any math or equations to back it up or do you just have an enormous need to be anti-science? What is up with you and your illogical rants? Where do they come from?
Here:
https://education.seattlepi.com/explaining-movements-planets-newtons-laws-6904.html
Where is the “hooey”? There are well established equations for orbital mechanics. They can observe Uranus motion against background stars and based upon know bodies it should travel in a set path. It deviated from that and they found Neptune. Why do you falsely believe no planet has enough gravitational force to affect the orbit of another planet? Where does this bullshit come from? Why must you come on this blog and keep spewing your opinionated made up garbage on a daily basis? What is the purpose of your behavior? What drives you deluded madness and need to make up things?
Pluto is a dwarf planet. It is still a type of planet (orbits the Sun and has enough gravity to form its shape).
Norman, where’s your bogus “real 255K surface”?
What is the basis of this nonsense? Other than you swallowed everything B4 spewed out.
Clint R
Do you have obsessive compulsive disorder. You are one truly obsessed troll with the 255 K surface. Get over yourself I have clearly demonstrated the meaning of this issue.
Why do you keep bringing it up when you know it has been explained to you many times. Also if you want to be honest call it a radiant surface. It will help.
I am not Ball4. I clearly state radiant surface. You must like this topic as you bring it up over and over like an obsessed troll.
What is up with your personality disorder? Are you drunk again tonight? Do you ever post sober?
Braindead cult idiot Norman says “The interesting thing is I have supporting evidence for all my claims.”
Okay braindead, where’s your “real 255K surface”?
You need to be responsible for your own words.
Clint R
First I did not say ” “real 255K surface”?”
I said a 255 K radiating surface. Different concept. I correct you on that every time and you still bring it up. Ball4 is the one with that terminology not me. I have already stated this could be a confusing way to put it so I do clairify.
I have given you plenty of supporting evidence. I have linked you to IR images of Earth (they freaked you out because they colorized them so you reject the information)
I have given you the definition of surface and clearly explained how a boundary can apply to the word surface.
I have shown you images of fire to demonstrate the use of the term radiating surface. As an image of fire (or looking a one) clearly has a “surface” it is a radiating surface. A boundary layer where there is radiation from the fire vs where there is not (fire edge)
Finally I linked you to the term surface used in describing the photosphere of the Sun. They also point out the layer is over 100 miles in depth but it is still called the “Sun’s surface”.
You have more than enough supporting evidence for this issue. That you reject the available evidence indicates you should stop posting drunk and foolish and activate the few brain cells you have left and consider the evidence you have been given.
I give support for my claims. You, on the other hand, give none.
You are the cult minded idiot on this blog. Sad you believe it exists in others but you fail to see your own glaring example of a cult mind.
Where or where is your evidence that adding 15 micron photons to a box will not produce a temperature raise (your example added mass changing the system just add photons and no mass)? You make a claim but you have no support for it.
Okay Norman, if all that rambling is your admission that Earth does NOT have a “real 255K surface”, I accept your concession. Just learn not to swallow everything braindead4 spews.
Now, if you can ask a responsible question about my comment involving the bricks in a box, I will respond in kind. Do NOT misrepresent my words, as it just proves again what a braindead cult idiot you are.
Clint R (a member of a tiny clique of 4 or 5) calls everybody not in that clique braindead and in a cult. Idiotic or what?
> I tend to be at odds with astronomy claims
C’mon, Gordo.
Is there any mainstream scientific claim with which you’re not at odds?
You’re the epitome of an oddball.
“A barycentre is just a calculated point”
True. But bodies are seen to orbit around it none the less.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter#/media/File:Barycentric_view_of_Pluto_and_Charon_29_May-3_June_by_Ralph_in_near-true_colours.gif
rlh…”That the solar system barycenter moves outside the Suns radius has been well know for a long time and has been well examined with several papers submitted about it”.
***
Of course a butt-kisser to authority like you automatically accepts anything an authority figures claims even if their science is sci-fi. There are many papers on evolution, the Big Bang, and black holes, yet not one of them can prove their premise.
Of course an idiot like you refutes what all other real scientists know to be facts. It is a direct consequence of Newton’s 3rd Law.
Gordo, I suppose that one might extend pups ball-on-a-string analogy by using two weights, one 4x heavier than the other, connected by a rope. Hold the lighter one and spin the heavier one around overhead, then release the two and watch them spin around a common point as they fly off. That common point would be the barycenter.
Willard Jr, the weights would then be “orbiting” but NOT rotating about their axes.
Keep learning. You’ve got a long way to go.
> NOT rotating about their axes
Wait, Pup. Are you suggesting you agree with Bob out of a sudden?
Twisting, distorting, and perverting makes you a worthless troll, Dud.
Clint R,
I suppose that would be appropriate for a twisted, distorted, pervert – even if he happened to be a slimy grub.
Of course, his mentally retarded failure to accept reality has precisely no effect on the physical laws of the universe.
It’s a good thing that he is completely impotent and powerless.
<3
Swenson, Clint R:
If the 2 weights were connected at their centers of mass, as gravity would do, then neither of them would turn on their axis because they are orbiting the barycenter.
RLH,
You wrote –
“If the 2 weights were connected at their centers of mass, as gravity would do, then neither of them would turn on their axis because they are orbiting the barycenter.”
Well, it’s a good thing you are not fantasising about the Earth and the Moon then, isn’t it? The Earth certainly seems to be turning on its axis. What are you talking about? Do you think connected weights are relevant to climate – or something else entirely?
Maybe you are confused, or just delusional.
Swenson is as idiotic as usual. If the 2 objects were connected at their centers than neither would rotate BECAUSE of their orbit around the barycenter. That would be a sperate operation allowing the Earth to rotate about 27 times faster than the Moon per orbit.
I should have specified swinging the heavier weight, not the light weight, which would have resulted in more linear momentum when released. Of course, the two weights would be rotating about their CoM, just as if they were connected by a solid bar. This analogy says nothing about the rotation of the Moon, since the weights are connected in a fashion which precludes rotation.
Swanson acknowledges that a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis. He’s learning.
A ball-on-a-string is only relevant to a ball-on-a-string (or by extension only those things that are interconnected at a surface).
RLH has also acknowledged before that a ball on a string is not rotating about an axis going through the body of the ball itself. He too, is learning.
DREMY acknowledges that a rotation and an orbit are 2 different things.
Correct, I do. There are two separate motions involved in the discussion:
1) “Orbit” refers to “orbital motion without axial rotation”. This is the rotation (revolution) of the body about the orbital axis, located at the barycenter.
2) “Rotation” refers to “axial rotation”. This is the rotation of the body about its own (internal) axis. An axis going through the body of the object itself.
Wrong. Orbit refers to an orbit (alone). Rotation refers to a rotation (alone).
There are 2 separate axis and 2 separate motions.
wrt to the fixed stars if that is in doubt.
“Orbit refers to an orbit (alone). Rotation refers to a rotation (alone).”
Agreed…and “orbit” and “rotation” are as I defined them.
“There are 2 separate axis and 2 separate motions.”
Agreed…and thinking there’s an orbital axis makes you a “Non-Spinner”.
And you are an idiot (as usual).
An orbit about a barycenter does NOT contain a rotation about its own axis wrt the fixed stars.
“Spinners” think “orbital motion without axial rotation” is translational motion, by which they mean motion like the MOTR. Translational motion does not involve an axis. So if you think there is an axis at the barycenter, an “orbital axis”, you think “orbital motion without axial rotation” involves rotational motion. Making you a “Non-Spinner”.
An orbit about a barycenter is a movement about an ‘axis’. A rotation about an axis is also a movement about an axis.
Both movements have their own energy which is different, one with the other.
A movement around an axis is a rotation. You are just confirming over and over again that you believe “orbital motion without axial rotation” involves rotational motion, i.e. motion like the MOTL. Thus you are a “Non-Spinner”.
To go back to being a “Spinner”, you must believe “orbital motion without axial rotation” involves purely translational motion, by which they mean motion like the MOTR. In which case you will no longer have the concept of an “orbital axis” to play around with.
“A movement around an axis is a rotation”
Which creates/requires rotational inertia.
A movement around about a barycenter is an orbit which creates/requires orbital inertia.
They are 2 separate motions with 2 separate energies/inertias.
Yes, “orbit” and “rotation” are indeed separate. They are as I defined at 10:37 AM.
DREMPT,
“2) Rotation refers to axial rotation. This is the rotation of the body about its own (internal) axis. An axis going through the body of the object itself.”
Yes, this is what the Moon is doing, all particles of the Moon are rotating around the axis through the object itself.
Pick one point on the Moon, or inside the Moon, and observe the path it takes, it will be a circle around the rotational axis of the Moon.
However, you have to take into account that the Moon is also orbiting the Earth, and once you take that motion out, all that is left is rotation.
Welcome to the Spinners club, again!
Look at the GIF, bob. Look at the MOTL. All particles within the body are moving in concentric circles about an axis external to the moon, in the center of the white circle.
Thus the motion of the MOTL can be described as a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis.
To describe the motion of the MOTL as including axial rotation of the moon, “Spinners” need “orbital motion without axial rotation” to be purely translational motion, by which they mean motion like the MOTR. Only then does the motion of the MOTL include axial rotation.
So, since you (like RLH) have argued before that the moon possesses an orbital axis, you are in fact a “Non-Spinner”, since if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is rotational motion (associated with an orbital axis), that already describes the motion of the MOTL with no additional axial rotation required.
DREMPTY,
Falls into the concentric circles trap.
If all the particles of the Moon are moving in concentric circles, without axial rotation, since some of them are farther from the center of the circles, some of them move faster than others.
If two particles are moving at different speeds, they must move apart.
Since the Moon isn’t falling apart, and the difference in speeds is exactly what would be calculated if the Moon is rotating on its axis, this proves that the Moon is rotating.
bob, your response is strictly speaking too ridiculous to bother responding to, but…
I repeat:
Look at the GIF, bob. Look at the MOTL. All particles within the body are moving in concentric circles about an axis external to the moon, in the center of the white circle.
Thus the motion of the MOTL can be described as a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis.
Since the motion still involves rotation, about an external axis (and even though there is no axial rotation), the object changes orientation whilst it moves. Thus there is no need to worry about the object falling apart.
DR EMPTY,
“bob, your response is strictly speaking too ridiculous to bother responding to, but”
So you are not going to bother responding to my post.
So you lose the argument if you can’t even make any criticism of my proof that the Moon is spinning on its axis.
“Thus the motion of the MOTL can be described as a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis.”
I just proved that your position is incorrect, and results in the Moon flying apart, if your position were true.
You have to add the internal rotation about an axis to your rotation about an external axis, or the Moon flies apart.
I did respond to your post, bob.
"You have to add the internal rotation about an axis to your rotation about an external axis, or the Moon flies apart."
No you don’t bob, because the rotation about an external axis involves the moon changing its orientation without the need for rotation about an internal axis.
DR EMPTY,
Now goes to the change in orientation without rotating on its axis well.
You can’t change your orientation without turning, you can’t turn without rotating on an axis through your body. Same goes for the Moon, it can’t change its orientation without rotating.
That’s two impossible things you believe in although I have already had my breakfast.
“I did respond to your post, bob.”
And
“bob, your response is strictly speaking too ridiculous to bother responding to”
That makes three.
So which is it, did you respond to my post, or did you not bother responding to my post?
Anyone can see you have no response to my proof that the Moon spins.
Since the parts of the Moon are moving at different speeds, they have to be moving apart, unless the Moon is rotating.
Simple enough, you ought to be able to understand it.
"You can’t change your orientation without turning, you can’t turn without rotating on an axis through your body. Same goes for the Moon, it can’t change its orientation without rotating."
It’s rotating about an external axis, hence the change in orientation.
“Its rotating about an external axis”
Wrong. It’s orbiting about an internal axis at the barycenter of the 2 (or more) bodies AND rotating about the internal axis at its center.
Orbiting does NOT cause a change in orientation. Rotating about an axis does.
“Thus the motion of the MOTL can be described as a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis”
The MOTL is incorrect as it does not show an orbit around the internal point of the barycenter, but it correctly shows a rotation about the point in the center of the Moon.
RLH is still arguing for the existence of an "orbital axis" – and thus that the moon rotates (revolves) about that axis. That means he is arguing that "orbital motion without axial rotation" is rotational motion, i.e. motion like the MOTL. A "Spinner" should argue that the moon translates (by which they mean, motion like the MOTR) whilst rotating on its own axis. In which case – there’s no orbital axis.
No DR EMPTY,
You fail to understand what RLH is arguing.
He is arguing that the Moon on the left is rotating on its axis, that it is not an example of orbital motion without axial rotation
“Its rotating about an external axis, hence the change in orientation.”
But this does not mean the Moon is not rotating around an internal axis, which it is doing.
You lose again.
And are you smarter than an eighth grader?
https://www.amnh.org/learn-teach/curriculum-collections/young-naturalist-awards/winning-essays/2004/afpectus-lunae-does-the-moon-rotate-on-its-axis
“thus that the moon rotates (revolves) about that axis”
The MOTL orbits around a barycenter (not shown correctly) AND on its own axis once per orbit.
“are you smarter than an eighth grader?”
He’s a lot dumber than that.
No, I get what RLH is saying. You do not seem to understand what I am saying in response to him, however. Oh well. I shouldn’t expect too much of you. You say, quoting me:
““Its rotating about an external axis, hence the change in orientation.”
But this does not mean the Moon is not rotating around an internal axis, which it is doing.”
Actually bob, in this instance, it does mean that the moon is not rotating around an internal axis. Don’t get me wrong – an object can rotate about both an external and an internal axis. Like the Earth, for example. But, rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is already motion like the MOTL. Not the MOTR, as you erroneously believe. So, if the moon were rotating about both an external axis and an internal axis, it would no longer be motion like the MOTL.
“The MOTL orbits around a barycenter (not shown correctly) AND on its own axis once per orbit.”
Only possible if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR, which a “Spinner” should identify as purely translational motion. That means no orbital axis, as an axis is associated with rotation, not translation.
DREMPTY,
” But, rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is already motion like the MOTL.”
Not so fast, I have proven the Moon is rotating about its internal axis, so this is wrong, until you address my proof.
Which you have miserably failed to do.
You just assert you have the correct answer.
Buddy, that ain’t science.
Ticking the box: Not smarter than an eighth grader.
bob, if you would just understand (like some of your other “Spinner” friends do) that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the MOTL, and not motion like the MOTR, then you would understand why your “proof” fails. You would, in general, be far less confused about this whole issue than you currently are.
The “Spinners” argue that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is purely translational motion, by which they mean motion like the MOTR. So motion like the MOTR cannot also be “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”, because translation and rotation are defined differently!
The “Spinners” think the MOTL is translating plus rotating on its own axis. Not rotating about an external axis plus rotating on its own internal axis. Get your facts straight first. Understand your own side’s argument first. Then get back to me.
Sorry for your loss.
DREMPTY,
First, you haven’t addressed my proof that the Moon rotates.
Second,
“The “Spinners” think the MOTL is translating plus rotating on its own axis. Not rotating about an external axis plus rotating on its own internal axis.”
The point is whether the Moon is rotating on its own axis, my position has nothing to do with the orbit of the Moon, save to use that motion to prove that the Moon rotates on its axis.
Thirdly,
“that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the MOTL, and not motion like the MOTR,”
I was allowing you to argue this, but not any more, because the Moon is moving in an ellipse, which is not a rotation about an external axis.
And by the way, try reading the caption under the gif, true understanding lies there.
Then man up and admit you are wrong, stop trolling and learn some science.
Again, bob, once you are up to speed with the absolute basics of your own side’s argument, you will understand why your “proof” fails. Get back to me when you’re there.
Sorry for your loss.
DREMPTY,
That won’t do at all.
I want you to explain to me why my proof that the Moon is rotating fails.
Again!?
DR EMPTY,
No, not again.
Try again for the very first time.
That doesn’t make any sense.
DR EMPTY,
If it makes no sense to you, that’s on you.
It makes perfect sense and a reasonable person would be able to address whether it is a valid proof or not.
Your position that the Moon doesn’t rotate is the extreme position and you need to offer proof that it is valid.
You haven’t done that either.
No, I meant your sentence, "try again for the very first time" doesn’t make any sense.
Your "proof" has already gone "poof".
DR EMPTY,
How did my proof go poof?
Please provide an explanation of what you found wrong with it.
So far you have provided nothing.
OK, bob. I must remember this new technique of yours, for future reference: when you receive a rebuttal to your argument, just claim that you didn’t.
Actually no, I wouldn’t want to be that dishonest.
DR EMPTY,
Then it would be possible for you to repeat your rebuttal.
Then we can see who is being honest and who is dishonest.
DR EMPTY,
Here is your response, note that it does not address the fact that different parts of the Moon move at different velocities.
“Look at the GIF, bob. Look at the MOTL. All particles within the body are moving in concentric circles about an axis external to the moon, in the center of the white circle.
Thus the motion of the MOTL can be described as a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis.
Since the motion still involves rotation, about an external axis (and even though there is no axial rotation), the object changes orientation whilst it moves. Thus there is no need to worry about the object falling apart.”
You have to address my proof, not discuss something else.
"note that it does not address the fact that different parts of the Moon move at different velocities"
Yes it does, bob. Since I mention the fact that all particles of the MOTL are moving in concentric circles. That is part of identifying "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis", i.e. motion like the MOTL.
DR EMPTY,
You are ignoring my proof.
Objects moving in concentric circles move at different speeds, so that has to be addressed.
The far side of the Moon moves farther than the near side by exactly the circumference of the Moon.
That proves the Moon is rotating.
Sure, bob, the moon is rotating, but not on its own axis. Do you even understand the concept that things don’t have to rotate about an axis going through the center of the body? The axis of rotation can be completely external to the body. When that happens, the body is rotating about the external axis. This is also known as revolving. A body can rotate about both an external and an internal axis. The MOTL, however, is rotating about only an external axis, and not about an internal axis.
DR EMPTY,
You don’t even understand that my proof is based on the fact that the Moon rotates around an external axis.
But since the parts of the Moon move at different speeds because of that rotation around an external axis the Moon must rotate around an internal axis to make up the difference.
DR EMPTY,
Now lets apply my proof to the Moon on the right.
In this case all the particles of the Moon trace circles of the same size.
So rotation is not required because there is no discrepancy in the distance traveled with each orbit.
So the Moon on the right is not rotating.
bob, the MOTL is not rotating about an external axis and rotating about an internal axis. You simply do not understand rotation. Why do I waste my time on these people?
DR EMPTY,
You fail to address my proof, and accuse me of not understanding rotation.
Two demerits.
And you lose the argument, basically by failing to engage.
OK, bob. Whatever you say.
DREMPT,
I’ll accept your concession.
“OK, bob. Whatever you say.”
And I say the Moon rotates on its axis.
OK, bob. Agree to disagree. Just be aware that you have openly admitted that you think the moon rotates about an external axis.
DR EMPTY,
“OK, bob. Agree to disagree. Just be aware that you have openly admitted that you think the moon rotates about an external axis.”
So ******** what!
That does not preclude the Moon from rotating on an internal axis at the same time.
"Actually bob, in this instance, it does mean that the moon is not rotating around an internal axis. Don’t get me wrong – an object can rotate about both an external and an internal axis. Like the Earth, for example. But, rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is already motion like the MOTL. Not the MOTR, as you erroneously believe. So, if the moon were rotating about both an external axis and an internal axis, it would no longer be motion like the MOTL."
ken…”Ive been skeptical of discussion about earth-sun electro-magnetic connection being responsible for cycles of volcano activity by way of causing recursive magnetic events. Its making more sense the more I learn about it”.
***
You should read Syun Akasofu, a pioneer on the study of the solar wind. The solar wind is electrons and protons emitted physically by the Sun and when they reach Earth’s magnetosphere, as charged particles, they interact to produce mammoth electrical currents, which Akasofu claims can penetrate the atmosphere, the surface and the oceans.
It was Akasofu who proposed the theory that the IPCC erred by not taking into account re-warming from the Little Ice Age. He thinks the Earth should re-warm at about 0.5C/century, and if it did cool 1C to 2C during the LIA, we are still rewarming, since it ended circa 1850.
“You should read Syun Akasofu, a pioneer on the study of the solar wind. The solar wind is electrons and protons emitted physically by the Sun and when they reach Earth’s magnetosphere, as charged particles, they interact to produce mammoth electrical currents, which Akasofu claims can penetrate the atmosphere, the surface and the oceans.”
How can it penetrate the surface and the oceans?
What would happen of increased global air temperature by 10 C,
long would take to cool back down to 15 C?
It seems the easiest way to increase global air temperature by 10 C is to warm air temperature on the nightside of Earth.
And it would be a lot easier, if instead global air temperature, one just warmed global land temperature by 10 C.
So, average global land air temperature is 10 C, and increase it to average of 20 C.
My nightime temperature will drop to 4 C, tonight, and so need to warm it to 24 C, in this one location. And do same thing everywhere else- increase whatever it would be, to be by 20 C everywhere it was night and would be coolest.
Even with the power of sunlight at zenith, it take some time to warm from 4 C to 24 C. Though with something more intense, one could warm faster.
But I not going to give some way to do this, other something like sunlight and for a duration of about one hour, and it happens at say 2 am.
So heats from 2 am to 3 am all at same time of 2 am to 3am at that the location time zone.
So what happens if at 2 am tonight it the air temperature is warmed for an hour until 3 am and all land area around me is warmed 20 C warmer than it would, how long would this warming last?
It seems tomorrow during the day it would be warmer, or it’s forecast to be 11 C, so I would guess it would be warmer and 20 C.
So that means I don’t need to warm the nighttime at 2 am to be 24 C. So instead of adding 20 C, probably instead need add say 15 C.
So warm from 4 to say 19 C.
And so by the time dawn starts, it could be about 15 C, and also increase the daytime high temperature which would be 11 C to being at least 5 C warmer.
brandon…”> lets just say that Gordo went on a tangent”
***
Actually, I did not begin the Moon discussion, it began a couple of years ago as an aside to the jargon perpetuated by climate alarmists. A bit later, Dremt introduced a link to a brilliant article by Nicola Tesla that proved the Moon does not rotate on a local axis and he used a different proof featuring kinetic energy.
Perhaps Dremt could repost the link. I may have it somewhere.
The Moon discussion serves a good purpose. It reveals the inability of climate alarmists to think scientifically, since all the climate alarmists tend to support the spinner theory.
We are working on Ken, who is a good climate change skeptic, but hailing from Vancouver Island, he tends to be somewhat remote.
> The Moon discussion serves a good purpose.
C’mon, Gordo.
All the Moon Dragon clown show illustrate is how a defensive mechanism based on abuse (Pup, Mike), manipulation (Kiddo), deflection (Bill), and obliviousness (you) can help create illusory troll bridges out of an absolutely ridiculous argument.
Dud, none if that is true. You’re just making shit up again.
The fact that about a dozen of your braindead cult idiots have fought so hard to defend your cult is what is meaningful. Your tribe has tried every trick you can think of to pervert reality. And NONE of you knows anything about the subject. NONE of you could solve the easy problems.
What everyone believes isn’t a cult, Pup.
Nice try.
False, Dud. A tribe believing in nonsense is EXACTLY a cult.
You have NO science.
You have CAPS LOCK, Pup.
Do the Poll Dance Experiment.
Clint R: You are in a tiny, tiny clique of 4 or 5 who claims that everybody else is in a cult.
Willard is a “Non-Spinner”, based on his comments about “orbit” involving rotation. If he wants to go back to being a “Spinner”, he will have to admit that he has been wrong throughout this discussion, and join the rest of the “Spinners” in believing “orbital motion without axial rotation” is purely translational motion, by which they mean motion like the MOTR.
RLH, there have been well over a dozen people (including those who do not comment regularly) who have at one point or another expressed agreement that the moon does not rotate on its own axis, at this blog.
Yes Dud, you know what CAPS LOCK is. You’ve learned keyboarding pretty well. But, that’s the extent of your education.
You know NOTHING about science. You still can’t spell “pole” correctly. You’re an uneducated worthless troll.
You’re just a kid-on-a-keyboard. In fact, that’s typical of your entire cult. It should be called the “Keyboard Cult”.
Here is what I got, Pup.
It’s far from being NOTHING.
You’re also a “Non-Spinner”, Willard, so you must have got something right.
DREMT is an idiot.
…and RLH believes there is an axis of rotation (revolution) for the moon at the Earth/moon barycenter, making him a “Non-Spinner”, too.
No I believe that there is an approximate point (a barycenter) about which both the Moon and the Earth orbit which means that they both can rotate about their own axis.
P.S. DREMT is still an idiot.
The wriggling begins. You said:
“There is no such thing as an external axis, only an internal one at the barycenter.”
As you think there is an axis of rotation (revolution) at the barycenter, you are a “Non-Spinner”.
So we all agree that the Moon spins.
Success!
As usual DREMT cannot distinguish between an orbit and a rotation. Things orbit around a barycenter but rotate about an axis.
You can believe as you wish, Willard. Your comments have demonstrated you should becoming to the opposite conclusion, however.
The wriggling continues, from RLH.
“Things orbit around a barycenter but rotate about an axis.”
You said there was an axis at the barycenter. I just quoted you, idiot!
“Spinners” think “orbital motion without axial rotation” is translational motion, by which they mean motion like the MOTR. Translational motion does not involve an axis. So if you think there is an axis at the barycenter, you think “orbital motion without axial rotation” involves rotational motion. Making you a “Non-Spinner”.
So either retract what you said about there being an orbital axis, or remain a “Non-Spinner”.
There are 2 axis and 2 motions. An orbit wrt the fixed stars is one motion about 1 axis. A rotation wrt the fixed stars is the other motion about the other axis.
One axis is also called a barycenter by most people. Only the clique disagrees on that.
“There are 2 axis…”
So, you are a “Non-Spinner”.
And you are an idiot.
If you believe there is such a thing as an “orbital axis”, you are a “Non-Spinner”. An axis means rotational motion is involved. If the celestial body is rotating (revolving) about an “orbital axis”, then (without rotating about an axis going through the celestial body itself) it moves as per the MOTL.
Synchronous rotation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
The Pluto-Charon system makes the two axes even clearer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Pluto-Charon_System.gif
A non-Spinner, obviously.
If I am a scientist I disbelieve all that the clique writes (they cannot even agree within themselves).
Everybody knows that MOTL is what actually happens, The clique improperly defines this as being a single motion. They are wrong, it is 2.
I will just ignore Willard, as we all know he is a “Non-Spinner”.
RLH says:
“Everybody knows that MOTL is what actually happens, The clique improperly defines this as being a single motion. They are wrong, it is 2.”
Indeed, our moon moves as per the MOTL. The MOTL can be described as one single motion, a rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis. So, there would be an orbital axis, only. To describe the MOTL as being comprised of 2 motions would involve the “orbital motion without axial rotation” movement as being motion like the MOTR, which the “Spinners” would define as being purely translational motion. Hence there would be no orbital axis, in this case. The only axis in this case would be going through the body of the moon itself.
The barycenter is not external to the things that make it up.
“The barycenter is not external to the things that make it up.”
Obviously…but it is external to the moon, which is what I am referring to.
Another two axes believer:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-549998
A non-Spinner, no doubt.
Certainly a person who does not understand rotation. There is only one axis of rotation in all of those examples. Both “Spinners” and “Non-Spinners” should agree (“Spinners” would think the axis of rotation goes through the body of the ball, but there is no orbital axis, because they think it is translating in a circle whilst rotating on its own axis, and “Non-Spinners” would think the ball is rotating only about the orbital axis, not on its own internal axis).
Nothing other than a rotation about an axis goes through the center of mass of a single body.
The orbit about a barycenter goes through the center of mass of all of the bodies that make it up. Obviously that cannot be the center of either of the 2 objects that comprise it.
Idiot.
[RLH] There are 2 axis…
[KIDDO] So, you are a “Non-Spinner”.
[BOB] [T]he moon, the chalk circle, the my little pony, and the ball on a string are all rotating around two axes.
[KIDDO] There is only one axis of rotation in all of those examples.
“The orbit about a barycenter goes through the center of mass of all of the bodies that make it up. Obviously that cannot be the center of either of the 2 objects that comprise it.”
Indeed. However, you have already stated that you believe there is an axis of rotation at the barycenter, for the moon. Thus you believe that there is such a thing as an “orbital axis”. That makes you a “Non-Spinner”, because if it is rotating (revolving) about an orbital axis, then that alone is sufficient to describe the motion of our moon. Any additional rotation, about the moon’s internal axis, would cause the moon to present all of its sides to us here on Earth.
Context, Willard. I said that RLH must be a “Non-Spinner” because in the context of our discussion, by him saying that there were two axes, one of those must be an “orbital axis”. It is the belief in the existence of the concept of an “orbital axis” that makes RLH a “Non-Spinner”, as I explained.
Spinner:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-564308
As I explained, Willard, but you obviously failed to understand, both “Spinners” and “Non-Spinners” should agree that there is only one axis of rotation for the moon. “Spinners” think the moon is translating, plus rotating on its own internal axis (so only one axis of rotation). “Non-Spinners” think the moon is rotating about an orbital axis, and not about its own internal axis (so only one axis of rotation).
Three axes:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2018-0-22-deg-c/#comment-329059
Spinner, Non-Spinner, something else?
Also note the beautiful concept of “rotational translation”!
An interesting discussion with its own context. To understand it requires reading it in full, from the beginning to the end.
Now, back to our own discussion…
Non-Spinner:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-365777
Yes, Ball4 was arguing that the moon has an orbital axis, and thus that it rotates (revolves) about that axis. In so doing, it would already move as per our moon, without the need for any additional rotation about its own internal axis. His statement that the moon also rotates about its own internal axis is thus in error, but by arguing that the moon has an orbital axis, he commits himself to being a "Non-Spinner". Strictly speaking!
Thank you for finding that. Will come in handy.
Two axes:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-359529
Spinner or non-Spinner?
Fascinating. A great find! You certainly would not hear my stalker saying that the moon is doing anything but translating in an ellipse whilst rotating about an internal axis in more recent months. Back then, he was obviously quite slack.
I will be generous and say this is an oversight on my stalker’s part.
You are not very bright, Kiddo.
How about gb:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-359606
Spinner or Non-Spinner?
Willard proves his own stupidity as he insults my intelligence!
The Earth does have an orbital axis and a rotational axis.
Do you really not see how the existence of the concept of an orbital axis is a problem for the "Spinners"?
As far as I remember, gbaikie was always a "Non-Spinner", by the way. He doesn’t speak up much on the subject any more, though. Probably got bored of it.
The concept of an orbit is really not that hard to grasp, Kiddo, except for Moon Dragon cranks who can’t distinguish geometry from physics.
Spinner or Non-Spinner:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/evidence-that-era5-based-global-temperatures-have-spurious-warming/#comment-378430
?
Stephen was referring to the axes of a coordinate system, moron.
That does not answer the question, Kiddo. Here’s an easier one:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-554130
Spinner or Non-Spinner?
“However, you have already stated that you believe there is an axis of rotation at the barycenter, for the moon”
No I didn’t. I said there was an orbit around the barycenter for both the Earth and the Moon.
“The Earth does have an orbital axis and a rotational axis”
So does the Moon.
So you’re no longer even finding examples where people are talking about the moon or similar objects rotating about two axes, an orbital axis and an internal axis? You’re just randomly digging up old quotes and asking me whether the person is a "Spinner" or a "Non-Spinner"…
The point I’ve been making is, there is a heck of a lot of confusion amongst the "Spinner" camp. Many of the "Spinners" argue things that technically they should realize are actually supporting the "Non-Spinners". Sorry, did you think you were the only one?
An orbital axis is a concept that implies rotation (revolution) of the object about that axis. It implies that "orbital motion without axial rotation" involves rotation. That supports the "Non-Spinners".
Looks like you have problems interpreting concepts unless they’re applied exactly like you expect them, Kiddo. Nay not worry:
Spinner or Non-Spinner?
"Spinner".
Samy gentleman:
Still Spinner?
Socrates might have been onto something.
Yes, Willard. Still "Spinner". The "Spinners" think the moon is translating (by which they mean, motion like the MOTR) plus rotating on its own axis.
That gentleman was suggesting that we compare a circular orbit with a translation coupled with a rotation, Kiddo.
According to your logic, that would make him a Non-Spinner.
Do continue to tie yourself into knots. You deserve it.
"That gentleman was suggesting that we compare a circular orbit with a translation coupled with a rotation, Kiddo.
According to your logic, that would make him a Non-Spinner."
No, Willard. You are just displaying to everyone that you have not followed a word I’m saying.
You deserve that.
You really are dumb, Kiddo.
If our gentleman invokes the concept of rotation when speaking of an orbit, that gentleman should know that this implies an axis. Lo and behold, here’s our gentleman again:
Now, that’s supposed to tell you that our gentleman is a Non-Spinner.
Care to try again and pretend I’m not following what you’re saying?
DREMT is an idiot, unable to distinguish between 2 axes, one axis at the barycenter of 2 (or more) bodies and one axis at the center of each body separately.
Worse than that, Richard:
According to his logic, as soon as we interpret the orbit of a moon as having an external axis of rotation, it can’t spin!
That makes Mercury quite sad.
"If our gentleman invokes the concept of rotation when speaking of an orbit, that gentleman should know that this implies an axis."
Yes, but what sort of axis? An orbital axis, or a rotational axis? If he’s saying that an object moving like our moon is translating in a circle whilst rotating on its own, internal axis, he’s a "Spinner".
"The discussion is about whether the Moon rotates about its [internal] axis as it orbits the Earth [external axis]."
If he’s now talking about the existence of an "orbital axis", then he’s saying something that supports the "Non-Spinners". So he’s now contradicting himself. The "Spinners" do that often.
"According to his logic, as soon as we interpret the orbit of a moon as having an external axis of rotation, it can’t spin!"
No, Willard. As I said, the Earth, for example, has an orbital (external) axis, and it spins. You are misrepresenting me again.
RLH says:
"DREMT is an idiot, unable to distinguish between 2 axes, one axis at the barycenter of 2 (or more) bodies and one axis at the center of each body separately."
No, RLH. I am perfectly able to distinguish between the 2 axes. What I am trying to point out to you is, you (as a "Spinner") should not believe there’s any such thing as an "orbital axis". Because an "orbital axis" implies that "orbital motion without axial rotation" involves rotational motion, i.e. motion like the MOTL. You (as a "Spinner") are supposed to think that "orbital motion without axial rotation" is purely translational motion, i.e. motion like the MOTR. Thus there would be no orbital axis.
“Yes, but”
Yes, but, Kiddo?
Yes, but!
Get a grip. You misinterpreted Nate’s insistence to distinguish orbit from rotation. An orbit isn’t exactly a rotation, but it involves one. Even Gordo’s and Flop’s transmografied concept of “rotational translation” does!
All this transcends the question if the Moon spins.
> Because an “orbital axis” implies that “orbital motion without axial rotation” involves rotational motion
Are you sure it does not involve that it implies, Kiddo?
Srsly. Take a break.
"An orbit isn’t exactly a rotation, but it involves one"
If "orbital motion without axial rotation" involves rotation, that means the object changes orientation whilst it moves, without rotating on its own axis. That would mean the "Non-Spinners" are correct. Thank you.
> If “orbital motion without axial rotation” involves rotation, that means the object changes orientation whilst it moves
No, Kiddo.
It does not.
You’re trying to switch from geometry to physics once again.
Please stop.
Yes, it does.
Nope:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
Also, inspect the equation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#Timescale
Note the first two terms.
The only relevant implication you might make is this one:
If there’s a change of direction, there’s some rotation going on.
Yup. Note this, from your link:
“If the Moon were not rotating at all, it would alternately show its near and far sides to Earth, while moving around Earth in orbit, as shown in the right figure.”
In other words, the “Spinner” position is that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR.
Now, what is that motion, according to the “Spinners”? Let’s look at something else you linked to, earlier:
“Translation: It occurs when a line in the body remains parallel to its original orientation throughout the motion. When the paths of motion for any two points on the body are parallel lines, he motion is called rectilinear translation. If the paths of motion are along curved lines which are equidistant, the motion is called curvilinear translation.”
Thus the motion of the MOTR is purely translational motion, according to the “Spinners”.
Put both pieces of information together, what do you have:
The “Spinners” position is that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is purely translational motion, by which they mean motion like the MOTR.
As I have been saying all along. So, if “orbital motion without axial rotation” instead involved rotation, rather than just pure translation, there would have to be an orientational change to the object, now wouldn’t there? Yes, DREMT, you are obviously correct. I know, thank you.
> Thus the motion of the MOTR is purely translational motion
Nope. That’s where you switch back from physics to geometry, Kiddo.
That pea and thimble game does not work.
No valid, coherent rebuttal. Noted.
You are dismissed.
When interpreted as a physical puzzle, Kiddo, the Moon on the Right can be said to spin on its axis, which is the legend of your pet GIF reads:
With an incorrect physics module, like the one that Moon Dragon cranks seem to share, the interpretation varies. Were it a geometry puzzle, say two pennies on a table, then the interpretation would vary.
Nevertheless, all that is a sideshow. Your interpretation of the concept of translation is incorrect. Look up the concept of “parallel” to see why.
Willard appears to be having some sort of psychotic episode. He writes:
“When interpreted as a physical puzzle, Kiddo, the Moon on the Right can be said to spin on its axis, which is the legend of your pet GIF reads:
If the Moon were not rotating at all, it would alternately show its near and far sides to Earth, while moving around Earth in orbit, as shown in the right figure.”
He is now agreeing with the “Non-Spinners” that the MOTR is rotating on its own axis, using a legend that clearly states that the MOTR is not rotating on its own axis (the “Spinner” position), as evidence!
Next he tells me I am interpreting translation wrongly. He doesn’t explain further, just drops a random “hint” and expects me to work out what he is thinking. Well, I’m not a mind-reader. Elaborate or begone, troll.
> psychotic episode
How nice. Kiddo is such a decent chap.
I was referring to the Moon On The Left, of course. The only Moon that matters. The one with the motion we can witness.
As for “parallel”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_(geometry)
Perhaps Moon Dragon cranks are willing to rewrite kinematics using non-Euclidean geometry?
Ah, so you meant the MOTL. In which case none of what you said in that section of the comment in any way rebuts what I said in mine.
Now, onto the “Spinners” classifying the motion of the MOTR as a translation. Which they do, by the way. Tim Folkerts does, my stalker does, E. Swanson does, bobdroege does, they pretty much all do, as far as I’m aware.
“Translation: It occurs when a line in the body remains parallel to its original orientation throughout the motion.“
Now take a vertical line through the body of the MOTR when it is at 3 o’clock. Look at the same line when the body of the MOTR is at 9 o’clock. Did the line through the body remain parallel to its original orientation throughout the motion? Yes. This is why the “Spinners”, who think the motion of the MOTR is comprised of just one single motion, believe that motion to be translational.
> In which case none of what you said in that section of the comment in any way rebuts what I said in mine.
More gaslighting.
Here’s the bit you missing, punk:
http://courses.washington.edu/engr100/me230/week6.pdf
That’s how we preserve parallel lines.
So, again, motion like the MOTR. You are agreeing with what I’m saying, whilst acting like you are angrily disagreeing. At the same time, you accuse me of gaslighting. The motion of the MOTR, if comprised of only one single motion, as the “Spinners” believe, is translational motion.
The “Spinners” position is that “orbital motion without axial rotation’ is purely translational motion, by which they mean motion like the MOTR.
Perhaps these definitions would be clearer:
https://www.ysk-books.com/public/app/books/Parallel%20Kinematics_%20Type,%20Kinematics,%20and%20Optimal%20Design.pdf
Invoking a “stationary” frame of reference to characterize pure rotation provides a nice touch.
> You are agreeing with what I’m saying
No, punk. I’m telling you that you misunderstand definitions that made you waste years of trolling, years you could have saved by reading *your* (not mine, *your*) Holy Madhavi properly.
I’m also about to tell you how you misinterpret your GIF, but that will have to wait.
So, again, translation is motion like the MOTR, if the movement of the MOTR is comprised of only one motion.
The “Spinners” position is that “orbital motion without axial rotation’ is purely translational motion, by which they mean motion like the MOTR.
> translation is motion like the MOTR, if the movement of the MOTR is comprised of only one motion.
You almost got it, punk, except for two things:
First, the Moon on the Right need not be understood as a pure translation. It’s perfectly fine to interpret it as a general motion that comprises translation and rotation. You can interpret it as pure rotation for all I care, say by fixing your frame of reference at the center of the Moon. As long as your model is useful and clear, you’re a free to choose. All these choices should be equivalent, at least until you put some real physics to your problem.
Second, we’re trying to explain the Moon on the Left, the real phenomenon we have under our eyes. That GIF is not meant to illustrate the many ways we can misinterpret kinematics textbooks. And the Moon on the Left is also translating while rotating.
Willard hilariously tells me I have almost got it, even though I have been plainly telling him for some time now that the “Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as purely translational motion, by which they mean motion like the MOTR. No, they do not describe the motion of the MOTR as a mixture of translation and rotation, nor as just a rotation.
Your villainous monologue is just a cope, Kiddo.
The only thing that matters is the claim that the Moon spins. That’s in the name you found for those who hold that position. Just about everybody holds that position. You’re not even a minority. You belong to a fringe epistemic bubble.
You can’t determine that the Moon does not spin by analyzing the words “translation” or “rotation” ad nauseam.
***
But since you like counterfactuals, riddle me this:
Suppose the Moon is in 3:2 spin–orbit resonance with the Earth. Would we see all sides of it? I think we would.
What GIF would represent that fact?
Of course we would see all sides of it from Earth, and in answer to your other question: a GIF showing a 3:2 spin-orbit resonance. Any more stupid questions to deflect from the obvious fact that you have completely lost this argument, troll?
If you continue to argue that “orbital motion without axial rotation” involves rotation, I will continue to point out that makes you a “Non-Spinner”.
Now: begone, troll.
DREMT: You are the idiot.
I must be an idiot to waste my time arguing with people like you, who have no valid rebuttal to the things I am saying, disappear for a while and then reappear later saying the same stupid things all over again.
> a GIF showing a 3:2 spin-orbit resonance
A GIF showing a 3:2 spin-orbit resonance would indeed show a 3:2 spin-orbit resonance. Quite informative, Kiddo!
What would it *look* like?
A question that’s impossible to answer without showing you a GIF of the motion.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Idiot.
> A question that’s impossible to answer without showing you a GIF of the motion.
You can’t find any, Kiddo?
God you suck:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Orbital_resonance_of_Mercury.gif
I didn’t say I couldn’t find any. I was pointing out that your question was stupid.
Willard, please stop trolling.
” who have no valid rebuttal to the things I am saying”
Yeah, that’s a clear sign of a losing argument.
DREMT demonstrates that here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1180256
and here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1181081
I could not care less what you did not say, Kiddo. You did not really respond. You just replied something, as if it was some kind of verbal ping pong.
Now, look at this:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Orbital_resonance_of_Mercury.gif
Imagine that’s the Moon. Would you say that the GIF shows that the Moon has stopped spinning? No, you would not.
Yet read again this bit from the legend of your favorite pet GIF:
Now, for the kicker: how would you determine that the Moon has stopped and is not in a spin-orbit resonance if all you got is that description?
“how would you determine that the Moon has stopped and is not in a spin-orbit resonance if all you got is that description?”
The description is wrong, to start with.
“If the Moon were not rotating at all, it would alternately show its near and far sides to Earth, while moving around Earth in orbit”.
It should say:
“If the moon were not rotating at all, it would always show the same side to the inside of the orbit, whilst moving around Earth in orbit”.
> It should say
Once again you’re not responding, Kiddo. You’re just saying the same stupid things all over again. You have no valid rebuttal to the things I am saying.
But you only disappear for a very very short while.
Mercury is in a 3:2 spin-orbit resonance because it spins thrice while it orbits the Sun twice. You can see it on the GIF.
The Moon on the Right does not spin because we can see it not spinning while it orbits the Earth. You can see it on the GIF.
What you can’t see is why the description says what it says. For that you need to do physics. Something you have yet to do after all these years.
The concepts of pure rotation and pure translation have little import in a system that does not use a fixed reference frame. If you abstract away that reference frame, then you won’t even realize that the Earth moves.
Nobody cares how you misrepresent Holy Madhavi.
When you make a coherent point, you will get a rebuttal. I can’t rebut your nonsensical rambling, obviously.
We can see that Mercury spins thrice while it orbits the Sun twice from the GIF representing Mercury’s spin-orbit resonance.
We can see the Moon on the Right not spinning while it orbits the Earth in the GIF explaining the Moon’s spin-orbit lock.
You’re in my subthread, Kiddo.
Please stop gaslighting and begone.
Gordon wrote the original post in this sub-thread, Willard. You immediately interjected with an abusive comment, as usual.
“many astronomers have accepted as a physical fact that such rotation takes place. It does not, but only appears so; it is an illusion, a most surprising one, too.”
I know what the MOTR looks like, Willard. Sure, it looks like the moon is not rotating on its own axis, in that GIF. Sure, it looks like, of the two, that the MOTL is the one that is rotating on its own axis. This is why, over 100 years ago, and without any such GIF to consult (just using his mind’s eye) Tesla refers to the illusion of the moon’s axial rotation. That’s, like, the whole point, Willard. It is supposed to “look like” our moon rotates on its own axis.
The entire point of his first article (called “Famous Scientific Illusions”, as a clue) is that the issue goes beyond simple appearances.
I responded to Gordo, Kiddo.
You responded to me.
Begone.
It is not your sub-thread, I responded to RLH including a part of the comment about you, not to you, and (as usually happens, since you people are so obsessed with me) the subject I brought up has consumed most of the responses on this sub-thread, until now, where, after losing the argument, you have recently tried to take the sub-thread off that topic.
Check who wrote that comment, little stalker:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1183289
But since you’re here, please confirm:
When you look at the Moon outside your window, it looks like it’s spinning??????????????????
Something tells me you are entertaining a weird concept of illusion.
If you look at Tesla’s diagrams, it is clear that he visualizes the problem from the same POV as the GIF. He is not talking about looking out of his window at the moon. The “illusion” referred to is based on mentally visualizing the moon’s orbit from above. That is where it “looks like” it is rotating on its own axis.
To be clear – nobody I know of came into this problem thinking the moon does not rotate on its own axis because it “looks like” it does not, from their window. Everyone was well aware that the issue needed to be visualized from outside of the orbit, and it is from that POV that the moon “appears” to be rotating on its own axis. That is the “illusion” Tesla referred to.
That’s not even a nice dodge, Kiddo. I asked you to confirm that when you look at your window you see the Man in the Moon, and it’s as if the Moon was not spinning. You won’t, for you would have to admit that Nikola’s “illusion” is metaphorical at best.
But even if you do, you’re still stuck with a very simple fact: it’s really hard to argue that what we see is impossible. And we all know you went as far as to say that the Moon’s spin was impossible!
So you got to choose: illusion or impossibility?
I am not trying to dodge anything. I simply respond as best I can to what you write. You frequently do not express yourself very clearly.
I said it’s impossible for the moon to be rotating about an external axis, whilst also rotating about an internal axis, because if that were the case, we would be seeing all sides of the moon from Earth. That remains a correct statement. I know you will not understand, but that is not my problem.
[KIDDO] I simply respond as best I can to what you write. You frequently do not express yourself very clearly.
[ALSO KIDDO] I know you will not understand, but that is not my problem.
Correct. You do not express yourself very clearly, and you seem hell-bent on not understanding a word I say. This is why communication between us is so unproductive, unrewarding, and tedious. All you do is insult me, condescend, nit-pick at my every word, falsely accuse, misrepresent, constantly assume I am trying to trick you in some way…and you never, ever, concede even the slightest, tiniest point. So why bother?
I am thoroughly, thoroughly bored of this discussion.
On a more pedagogical note, here is a bad impossibility claim:
[BAD] I said it’s impossible for the [M]oon to spin because if that were the case, we would be seeing all sides
Here would be a good impossibility claim:
[GOOD] It is impossible for the Moon to spin because there is absolutely no conceivable way for it to spin.
One classic way to show that is a reductio: one would posit that it spins, and from that derive a contradiction.
Impossibility claims go beyond the physical realms. They rely on conceivability arguments:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/modality-epistemology/#Conc
A simple refutation of the GOOD claim above is the Moon on the Left:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Luckily, it happens to be our own Moon!
No, Willard. I did not say that its impossible for the moon to spin because if that were the case, we would be seeing all sides.
I said that it’s impossible for the moon to be rotating about an external axis, whilst also rotating about an internal axis, because if that were the case, we would be seeing all sides.
I’m so sick and tired of you twisting everything I say.
Please stop trolling.
It is possible to see the Moon spin, Kiddo. So of course it’s possible for it to spin!
So much the worse for your impossibility claim.
Begone.
It is possible to think of the moon as spinning, if you see its motion as per the "Spinners" – a mix of translation (by which they mean, motion like the MOTR) plus rotation on its own axis.
My statement, which specifically refers to rotation, and does so for a reason, remains correct.
“To be clear nobody I know of came into this problem thinking the moon does not rotate on its own axis because it ‘looks like’ it does not, from their window.”
On the contrary, almost everyone on the non-spinner side came into the problem thinking exactly that.
Every new person that comes along declares just that.
Because they are using an Earth centered reference frame.
My stalker gets everything wrong, as usual.
> It is possible to think of the [M]oon as spinning, if [whatever that might be, let’s call it P]
Then unless that damn P is impossible, you got no business in saying that it’s impossible that the Moon is spinning.
But let’s make a stronger argument than that: whatever *you* believe has no bearing on whether the Moon is spinning or not. At least if you’re not a POMO guy who believes that his own thoughts can decide what’s real or not.
Not only you suck at physics and geometry, Kiddo, but you suck at logic.
My statement, which specifically refers to rotation, and does so for a reason, remains correct.
DREMT,
Imagine that the pedals of your bicycle were not free to spin on their own axis, independently of the crank. I would advise you not actually experiment what would happen to your feet were this not the case.
OK, Brandon.
DREMT,
Well? Would your feet roll off the pedals or not. A yes or no answer will suffice.
Obviously you could not keep your feet on the pedals.
DREMT,
How could they do that if they are locked on their own axis and therefore not spinning?
So your argument is that locked pedals, which would not be able to rotate on their own axis, move as per the MOTL.
As we are in agreement that your feet would roll of the pedals were they fixed on their own axis, it’s your argument too, DREMT.
How can one thing *roll* off another object if neither of them are spinning?
Yes, we are in agreement. Locked bicycle pedals which cannot rotate on their own axes, and thus are not rotating on their own axes, move as per the MOTL. Your feet cannot stay on them because the pedals are reorienting as they rotate in a circle (but not on their own internal axes, they are rotating about a central pivot point).
DREMT,
> Locked bicycle pedals which cannot rotate on their own axes, and thus are not rotating on their own axes, move as per the MOTL.
You had it and lost it. Locked bicycle pedals cannot rotate on their own axis *independently* of the crank.
The reason your feet don’t *roll* off properly functioning pedals is that *they’re not rotating*.
The locked pedals are rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about their own, internal axes.
I did not “have” and then “lose” anything, Brandon.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
You’re also wrong about your claim being correct. The Mercury GIF is enough to show how silly it is. When there’s a 3:2 spin resonance, you see all sides. With a 1:1 orbit-spin lock, you don’t.
Willard, that might be the dumbest thing you’ve ever said! Of course you would see all sides of the moon from Earth with a "3:2 spin-orbit lock". That has nothing to do with my claim.
Back to my claim. It is:
"It’s impossible for the moon to be rotating about an external axis (A), whilst also rotating about an internal axis (B), because if that were the case, we would be seeing all sides of the moon from Earth."
You keep attacking a straw man, which is that I’m simply saying it’s impossible for the moon to be rotating about an internal axis (B), because if that were the case, we would be seeing all sides of the moon from Earth. I am not saying that. My 4:00 PM comment should have already told you that.
My claim involves both A and B. Not just B. You tell me I suck at logic, whilst you attack a straw man!
"The reason your feet don’t *roll* off properly functioning pedals is that *they’re not rotating*."
Properly functioning pedals, on the other hand, would be moving as per the MOTR. We also already know the "Spinner" and "Non-Spinner" positions on the MOTR. According to the "Spinners", motion as per the MOTR is purely translational motion. According to the "Non-Spinners", the pedals would be rotating on their own axes, in the opposite direction to the way those pedals are "orbiting", at a rate of once per orbit.
The bike pedal analogy is an interesting one, due to the "locking" and "unlocking" of the pedals. Effectively, what the "Spinners" are arguing, is that when the pedals are locked, and are thus unable to rotate on their own axes, they are rotating on their own axes; and when the pedals are unlocked, such that they are able to rotate on their own axes, they are not rotating on their own axes!
> That has nothing to do with my claim
That has everything to do with your claim, Kiddo.
Mercury has a 3:2 spin-orbit resonance. This is why its can be seen sides. The Moon has a 1:1 spin-orbit resonance. This is why we can’t.
A 1:1 spin-orbit resonance is possible. This is a known fact since before Newton:
[ISAAC] Because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb.
Your only way out of this is to redefine what words mean and to troll.
It’s about time you begone.
Back to my claim. It is:
"It’s impossible for the moon to be rotating about an external axis (A), whilst also rotating about an internal axis (B), because if that were the case, we would be seeing all sides of the moon from Earth."
You keep attacking a straw man, which is that I’m simply saying it’s impossible for the moon to be rotating about an internal axis (B), because if that were the case, we would be seeing all sides of the moon from Earth. I am not saying that. My 4:00 PM comment should have already told you that.
My claim involves both A and B. Not just B. You tell me I suck at logic, whilst you attack a straw man!
I’m not attacking a strawman, punk. I’m showing how your very specific wording misrepresents and sidesteps the issue.
A 1:1 spin-orbit resonance is indeed possible, both conceptually and in reality. Spin and orbit involve rotation and translation, each in their own way and just like the vast majority of motions in the universe. If your own wording does not cohere with the state of affairs, so much the worse for your personal language game.
I bet you don’t even know that semantics is a formal discipline.
You are attacking a straw man, Willard, as I explained. You keep doing so. It’s actually becoming quite comical.
I am not saying a 1:1 spin-orbit resonance is impossible. You can, for instance, like the "Spinners", believe that the moon is translating (by which they mean, motion like the MOTR), whilst rotating on its own axis. Two motions happening at the same time, orbit and spin, in a 1:1 resonance. You can believe it, but it’s only actually correct if "orbital motion without axial rotation" is as per the MOTR.
What you cannot do is argue that the moon is rotating about an external axis, whilst rotating about an internal axis. Those two motions simply do not add up to motion like our moon, because "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is already motion like our moon. It’s like adding 1 + 1 and expecting to come up with the answer 1, instead of 2.
> as I explained
You quite literally explained nothing, punk. You just keep repeating the same things over and over again as if it was some kind of mantra. Allow me to explain to you your own damn argument:
Spin implies a rotation. An orbit implies a rotation. If we add both a spin to an orbit, we get two rotations. This for sure means that a body that has two different rotations should be seen as rotating, right?
No, it should not. This argument forgets that two rotations can be synchronized so that they appear to be turned into just one. This is a phenomenon called a 1:1 spin-orbit resonance.
All your argument rests on that kind of sleight of hand.
Begone.
You are so delusional, it’s funny. You have not the faintest idea what you’re talking about.
Willard, you can synchronize translation (by which the "Spinners" mean, motion like the MOTR) with axial rotation, to get your 1:1 spin-orbit resonance. That’s the only way you can do it.
You cannot synchronize rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, and end up with motion like our moon! 1 + 1 does not equal 1!
This is just one of those things where you need to "be told", Willard.
> You cannot synchronize rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, and end up with motion like our moon! 1 + 1 does not equal 1!
Thank you for confirming what I just said, punk:
Don’t pretend I don’t understand your argument ever again.
And you’re wrong: one rotation on one axis and one rotation on another axis does not equal two rotations. Sometimes these rotations can give you a rotation in the other direction, a phenomenon known since Babylonian astrology. It’s called retrogradation.
DREMT,
> You cannot synchronize rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, and end up with motion like our moon!
Except that’s exactly the motion you end up with. Since you disagree, please describe what motion you think we do end up with in this case. I’d suggest drawing a diagram.
Willard, oops you weren’t there when I began my comment …
Wow! had to scroll back a long way to comment!
“Effectively, what the “Spinners” are arguing, is that when the pedals are locked, and are thus unable to rotate on their own axes, they are rotating on their own axes; and when the pedals are unlocked, such that they are able to rotate on their own axes, they are not rotating on their own axes!”
No, as others have indicated, you are missing the concept of “independently”.
We can look at the more fundamental question of “are the bike petals rotating?” — and leave off any mention of “which axis”.
Do properly operating bike petals rotate? No. Period.
They maintain a fixed orientation relative to the non-rotating ‘fixed stars’. They are not rotating with respect to the axis of the petals. They are not rotating with respect to the axis of the crank. They are not rotating with respect to the axis of the rider.
Conversely, a ‘locked, broken” petal does rotate. Period.
It rotates relative to its own axis. Relative the crank’s axis. Relative to the rider. Relative to the ground. Relative to the ‘fixed stars’.
[Here is an idea to ponder. An ‘axis’ is a line — a 1D object. There is no way to measure if an object is rotating relative to a 1D axis without specifying an axis AND some other reference point off the axis. ]
As usual, your comment is completely incoherent, Willard.
Are you now saying that you agree my claim is correct?
Three against one? No thanks.
> Are you now saying that you agree my claim is correct?
You insufferable twat. I explained your own silly position to you. Then I gave you at least three arguments as to why it was wrong: Mercury, how rotations on different axes are non-additive, and retrogradation.
The last argument was there to bring you back to your “illusion” mistake: the need to distinguish what you see and what you think properly.
Take your silly wedge between rotation and translation. The Moon moves above the horizon. Does it rotate or does it translate? The question offers a false dilemma: it rotates around you, and it translates in the sky.
But that’s just what you see. For it to spin would it need you to see it spinning? No, not if it spins in resonance with its orbit. You dispute that, in fact you claim that a 1:1 spin-orbit resonance is IMPOSSIBLE.
See? No need for silly counterfactuals based on a GIF to discuss your silly argument!
No, Willard, you have offered nothing which contradicts my claim, which remains correct.
Brandon says:
"Except that’s exactly the motion you end up with. Since you disagree, please describe what motion you think we do end up with in this case. I’d suggest drawing a diagram."
Incorrect, Brandon. It is not the motion you end up with, since "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is already motion like the MOTL. Say for example you have a body that is rotating about an external axis in one direction, whilst rotating on an internal axis, in the opposite direction, at the same rate. Then you would have motion like the MOTR.
Tim says:
"No, as others have indicated, you are missing the concept of “independently”."
No, I’m missing nothing, Tim, as you know from previous discussions. If the pedals are fixed so that they cannot rotate on their own axes when stationary, then they cannot be rotating on their own axes when in motion. It is that simple. No matter what reference frame you wish to use to delude yourself that those locked pedals are rotating on their own axes, they are not rotating on their own axes.
I have already explained how the moon issue transcends reference frames, by the way. Was there something that you failed to understand, from that explanation, that I can help you with, today?
"in fact you claim that a 1:1 spin-orbit resonance is IMPOSSIBLE"
No I do not, Willard. You are, hilariously, still bashing the same straw man.
Here’s what I said literally a couple of comments ago:
"I am not saying a 1:1 spin-orbit resonance is impossible. You can, for instance, like the "Spinners", believe that the moon is translating (by which they mean, motion like the MOTR), whilst rotating on its own axis. Two motions happening at the same time, orbit and spin, in a 1:1 resonance. You can believe it, but it’s only actually correct if "orbital motion without axial rotation" is as per the MOTR.
What you cannot do is argue that the moon is rotating about an external axis, whilst rotating about an internal axis. Those two motions simply do not add up to motion like our moon, because "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is already motion like our moon. It’s like adding 1 + 1 and expecting to come up with the answer 1, instead of 2."
> you have offered nothing which contradicts my claim, which remains correct.
Quite powerful you got there, slimiest sock puppet.
Begone.
No; I’ll stick around, since I’m correct. Sorry, Willard, but as I said, I cannot rebut rambling nonsense. If you have something coherent to offer, please do so. You can start by not bashing the same straw man over and over again.
> Say for example you have a body that is rotating about an external axis in one direction, whilst rotating on an internal axis, in the opposite direction, at the same rate. Then you would have motion like the MOTR.
You did not address my request, DREMT. I don’t want another example. I want you to explain how a bicycle pedal unable to freely rotate relative to the crank is not like the motion of the Moon around Earth.
Again I suggest making a diagram.
> since I’m correct
So you say, punk.
Begone.
"You did not address my request, DREMT. I don’t want another example. I want you to explain how a bicycle pedal unable to freely rotate relative to the crank is not like the motion of the Moon around Earth."
Oh dear, Brandon. You are already very confused. You actually asked me to "describe what motion you think we do end up with in this case", and I gave you what you asked for. There are many possible motions, but one such motion is motion like the MOTR. Do you know what is meant by MOTR? It is motion like the "Moon On The Right" from the frequently cited tidal locking GIF. I suggest you go and look that up.
"I want you to explain how a bicycle pedal unable to freely rotate relative to the crank is not like the motion of the Moon around Earth"
A locked bicycle pedal is indeed like the motion of the moon around the Earth, and I have not suggested otherwise.
“Do properly operating bike petals rotate? No. Period.”
They rotate wrt to their axle Tim. So not period. All motion is relative.
"So you say, punk."
So I have shown, time and time again.
No you haven’t, punk. Here’s the closest you came to anything substantial:
No, adding rotations are not like adding numbers. They are like adding angles. You can add them until you come full circle, so 1 + 1 can indeed equal 0. Unless in circular arithmetic, numbers lie on an infinite line.
Worse is that we’re talking about rotations around different axes. It is quite possible to model the Moon with two rotations so that it spins and orbits while preserving our observations.
You really have no idea what you’re talking about.
"It is quite possible to model the Moon with two rotations so that it spins and orbits while preserving our observations."
Absolutely not, Willard. You can only model the motion of the moon with:
1) Translation (by which the "Spinners" mean, motion like the MOTR) plus rotation about an internal axis.
2) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is already motion like the MOTL, i.e. motion like our moon. So if you add axial rotation to this motion, at any rate and in either direction, you end up with the moon displaying all of its sides to Earth.
> 1) Translation […] plus rotation about an internal axis. 2) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
Just watch me, Kiddo:
The Moon orbits around the Earth while spinning. That’s 1.
The Moon completes a full rotation on itself as it makes one turn around the Earth. That’s 2.
… unless you wish to suggest by 2 that there’s a direct contradiction between spinning and orbiting, which is obviously false, something you concede with just about every other celestial bodies except the Moon.
"The Moon completes a full rotation on itself as it makes one turn around the Earth"
False. Certainly if by "turn" you mean "rotate" around the Earth. This combination of motions would result in either motion like the MOTR, if the motions were in opposite directions, or it would result in motion that the "Spinners" would argue was 2 counter-clockwise axial rotations per counter-clockwise orbit if the motions were in the same direction.
Formatting problems. I’ll try that again:
"The Moon completes a full rotation on itself as it makes one turn around the Earth"
False. Certainly if by "turn" you mean "rotate" around the Earth. This combination of motions would result in either motion like the MOTR, if the motions were in opposite directions, or it would result in motion that the "Spinners" would argue was 2 counter-clockwise axial rotations per counter-clockwise orbit, if the motions were in the same direction.
> This combination of motions would result in either
Your silly appealing to that GIF won’t save you, punk.
“To spin” means to rotate around one’s axis. In the case of the Moon it also involves some translation. We can abstract it away for the moment as it’s not need for a construction that refutes your empty assertion.
“To orbit” implies a rotation around an external axis, and if that orbit isn’t purely circular, it also involves a translation.
So the Moon spins and orbits. Two rotations and at least one translation. And we both know how it behaves: like the Moon on the Left.
You and your silly if-by-whiskey are dismissed.
Begone, troll.
I didn’t appeal to the GIF, Willard. I simply used it as a shortcut way of describing one of the possible outcomes.
Since you have now lost the plot completely, and are saying that "spin" (i.e. axial rotation) involves translation, I will have to stop trying to reason with you…and just start chuckling at you.
Yes you did, punk:
Every single time you use “MOTR” or “MOTL” you are appealing to that silly GIF.
There’s no need for any damn GIF to prove by construction a geometrical point. You said I can’t. I showed you I can.
Word-twisting will lead you nowhere.
Begone.
You’re no longer listening, Willard. As I said:
I didnt appeal to the GIF. I simply used it as a shortcut way of describing one of the possible outcomes.
I’m starting to feel a bit sorry for you now. I’ll even let you have the last word, if you like. You cannot be reasoned with, and your ego won’t let you stop responding to me, so out of kindness, I’ll let you have your last say.
> “spin” (i.e. axial rotation) involves translation, I will have to stop trying to reason with youand just start chuckling at you.
Here’s what I said, lying punk:
Do you really think that the Moon behaves as perfectly as a blueprint of it? The Moon wobbles and wiggles. With wobbling and wiggling comes some motion that can’t be classified as rotation. So there’s translation.
Begone.
> I didnt appeal to the GIF. I simply used it as a shortcut way of describing one of the possible outcomes
So you did not appeal to the GIF.
You just used it as a shortcut.
You insufferable twat.
Begone.
“No, Im missing nothing, Tim”
Actually yes, you ARE missing quite a bit.
“they are not rotating on their own axes.”
To make a definitive statement like this you need a definition. That is one think you are missing — one thing you refuse to provide.
An “axis” is simply a line. In this case, the line along the center of the petal.
A “rotation” is a change in orientation (but not a change in distance) relative to an axis.
Relative to that axis, does a point on the ‘locked’ petal change orientation?
Relative to that axis, does a point on the ‘locked’ petal change distance?
If the answers are “yes” and “no” respectively then either
a) the petal IS rotating about that axis.
b) you have some other, secret definitions for “axis” and/or “rotation” that you are unwilling/unable to provide.
Tim:
Can the locked pedals rotate on their own axes when stationary? No.
When the locked pedals start moving, are they suddenly then rotating on their own axes? No.
The physical description which thus makes the most sense for the locked pedals is:
They are rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
It would make no sense to describe their motion as translation in a circle plus rotation about an internal axis, because they physically cannot rotate on their own axes. They are locked.
> When the locked pedals start moving, are they suddenly then rotating on their own axes? No.
Nobody is claiming that locked pedals are rotating when the crank isn’t, DREMT.
Using the whirling ball on a string model; if we cut the string it should be non-controversial that the ball continues on a linear path tangential to its previously circular motion.
It is also true that the ball once released will be observed to spin on its own axis. At what rate will it do so, and why?
“they physically cannot rotate on their own axes.”
You will have to forgive me, but the assertion of some guy on the internet does not convince me. Especially one who cannot define what he means by “rotate”.
“The physical description which thus makes the most sense …”
Again, what ‘makes sense’ to you is not a good way to decide anything. And even if this description makes the ‘most’ sense in some world view, that does not prevent other world views from simultaneously being correct.
“they physically cannot rotate on their own axes.”
Yes. They can. By any reasonable definition of “rotate” and “axis”. The petal’s ‘own axis’ is moving in a circle. The petal’s ‘own axis’ is a 1D line and hence has no intrinsic orientation — certainly no intrinsic orientation locked to the crank arm (although it does have a *position* locked to the crank arm). You seem to be picturing some 3D physical bolt and calling that the ‘axis’. But that is not an ‘axis’.
You have a nice, self-consistent, concrete view of the universe. It works for you. But there are other, richer, more expansive world views that you don’t even seem to be willing to consider!
PS feel free to give some definition of “axis” and “rotate”. Until then, your assertions carry zero weight.
Brandon, is there some reason you have ignored all my previous comments to you, and have just focussed on misunderstanding my response to Tim?
As to your question, which has been discussed 100 times before…I will quote Tesla:
“The moment the strings are broken and they are thrown off they will begin to rotate but, as pointed out before, this motion neither adds to or detracts from the energy stored. The rotation is, however, not due to an exclusive virtue of angular motion, but to the fact that the tangential velocities of the masses or parts of the body thrown off are different.”
The ball on a string would rotate on its own axis on release, but the ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis before release. It is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about an internal axis. To rotate on its own axis, it would have to wrap up in the string.
Tim, it is just a matter of basic logic. Something that is physically unable to rotate on its own axis, cannot then be rotating on its own axis. I do not need to define well-known words.
“rotation is, however, not due to an exclusive virtue of angular motion, but to the fact that the tangential velocities of the masses or parts of the body thrown off are different.”
When different parts of a body have different velocities, that IS A ROTATION.
That is how rotation is of a body is defined.
Tesla is oddly claiming that rotation is not due to rotation?!
Anyone who finds this persuasive is simply blinded by an authority figure.
I am moving this discussion down-thread, and will most likely not be taking part in it further. Sorry, I have had enough. Any further responses up here will just be responded to with the following link:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1187915
Running away when proven wrong and lacking any answers is what we’ve come to expect from these guys.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1187915
Whacky Wee Willy,
Still trying to get people to think that “Moon Dragon” is not just a desperate attempt by an irrelevant moron to appear wise and respected? How is it working out for you?
Have you considered actually introducing a fact or two to back up your imagination?
For example, If you bang on trying to convince people that a Greenhouse Theory exists, you could avoid your dependance on fantasy by just producing it!
But of course, you can’t, so you have to carry on with your slimy grub troll tactics.
Facts don’t care about opinions, science, religion or the latest consensus of the Society of Morons. You have none, by the look of it.
Carry on trying to be convincing.
Where’s your Insulation Effect theory, silly sock puppet?
Woebegone Wee Willy,
What are you dribbling about? What in blue blazes is the Insulation Effect Theory? Is that another of your silly attempts to look intelligent?
In the meantime, setting aside your bizarre try at avoidance, you claimed there was a Greenhouse Theory, and you were about to produce it – to the delight and amazement of all, no doubt.
Of course you can’t, moron. You can’t even describe the Greenhouse Effect, can you?
Best go back to being a slimy grub, laddie. That suits you.
Carry on.
The Insulation Effect theory, Mike:
Cheers.
Weepy Wee Willy,
Insulators don’t have any heating effect, nor any cooling effect. Here –
“a material that is a poor conductor (as of electricity or heat)” – Merriam-Webster.
You are a moron, babbling about some non-existent Insulation Effect Theory. Your fantasies do not reflect reality.
Carry on.
Brilliant, Mike.
Why have scientific theories when we can look in a dictionary!
Weepy Wee Willard,
You asked –
“Brilliant, Mike.
Why have scientific theories when we can look in a dictionary!”
I’m sure I don’t know.
Why don’t you tell Mike, if you know the answer?
Moron.
Silly sock puppet,
You said –
“You asked”
No, I did not.
Cheers.
Swenson/Flynn keeps ranting about the theoretical support for the Greenhouse Effect. Has he ever studied a text book on the subject, such as Pierrehumbert’s Principles of Planetary Climate? It’s a very detailed dive into the subject and one must also work thru the problems to grasp the physics involved.
Or, is Swenson/Flynn only interested in spreading disinformation for fun and profit?
If you want an atmospheric physics text then this.
https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Atmosphere-Climate-Murry-Salby/dp/0521767180/ref=sr_1_2?crid=3SQFQBD650T3U&keywords=murry+salby&qid=1645543859&sprefix=murry+salby%2Caps%2C368&sr=8-2
E. Swanson, that is the idiot that claims Sun can warm Earth to 800,000K!
If you’re trying to learn, you need to only consult sources that understand physics.
Here’s another good one that goes into the physics:
https://tinyurl.com/ym2fyx3b
Clint R only does his own form a science that no-one else recognizes.
Anderson, I can’t comment on Murry Salby’s text, having not read it. However, HERE’s a link to the one negative comment about Murry-Salby’s book by John Mashey. Not having the book, I think Mashey’s detailed objections are important.
Marcel Leroux’s text is from 2005 and it appears to be an attack the IPCC. His earlier paper
in E & E (2003) is still behind a paywall, but appears to lay out his thesis without the need to buy his book. Of course, E&E of the day was known to publish some questionable papers. I even replied in a letter to the editor about one which was grossly flawed, so much so that an immediate re-write was required.
Troglodyte has not read the books, ES.
I started participating in the pointless ‘discussion’ about the moon with the opinion that it does not rotate on its axis because it always faces earth.
Then I saw this diagram and had the eye opening eureka moment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Moon_trajectory1.svg
It gets even more marvelous with this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jHsq36_NTU&t=38s
I don’t understand how any sapient person can see these bits of information and still think the earth is the center of the universe and that the moon is in a circular orbit around the earth.
Its not in a circular orbit, and because it is in trajectory around the sun and the sun shines on all faces of the moon during its 27 day rotation, its rotates around its axis even as it remains locked facing the earth – moon barycenter.
I don’t care how many angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin lack-of-logic diatribes full of verbal diarrhea that you care to submit to the contrary. You and the rest of the ball-on-a-string brigade are rather profoundly wrong.
Ken, you don’t know anything about science. You come up with your beliefs, then you search the Internet for something you believe supports those beliefs. That ain’t science.
I’ve explained that “sinusoidal” diagram of Moon. It’s bogus, but you can’t learn.
Draw a straight line of a piece of paper. Then draw a sine curve centered on the line. Now move an object along the sine curve, always keeping the same side facing the line. When the object crosses the line, the object has to make an instantaneous 180 degree flip. We would see that from Earth. Moon is NOT rotating.
That sinusoidal representation is bogus. I predict you won’t learn.
clint…”Ive explained that sinusoidal diagram of Moon. Its bogus”
***
I agree. It’s all about the Moon’s momentum relative to the Earth. The Moon has no momentum is a direction about the Sun.
The Moon’s orbital plane in essentially the same plane as the Earth’s orbital plane. If anything it is tracing out an imaginary helical path which moves in the direction of the Earth’s motion and counter to it.
If the Sun’s gravity was turned off, the Earth would go flying of in a straight line and the Moon with it, still orbiting.
A body moving in a spiral has a different set of parameters. Haven’t had enough time to think it through, but a body moving in a spiral needs momentum in that direction and the Moon lacks that momentum around the Sun. In other words, a body moving in a spiral around the Sun would need to be independent of another body whereas the Moon is dependent on the Earth’s motion.
For example an unbalanced bullet fired from a rifle. A rifle has riflings in it which are very shallow spiral groves inside the barrel that cause a bullet to spin. If the bullet is unbalanced and emerges from the barrel, it might move in a spiral.
The Moon does not move in a spiral around the Earth’s orbital path. That is an illusion based on relative motion.
So how is viewing things wrt the Sun wrong?
> The Moon does not move in a spiral around the Earth’s orbital path. That is an illusion
C’mon, Gordo.
An illusion is something you *see*.
I’ve been hiking and kayaking for many years. Using a map and compass is easier for me than reading a book (and I read a lot).
It was an eye-opening moment for me when I found that a lot of people, nay, most, cannot read a map to save their lives.
I don’t know if the map reading is a learned skill or if my mind is simply wired to make that kind of visualization easy.
On the other hand that same person who couldn’t read a map can pick up a violin and draw from it the sweetest music ever heard. Meanwhile anytime anyone has let me near a violin I can only extract the screaming soul of the dead cat from which the catgut was forcibly yanked.
So in this discussion about moon rotating about the axis I can only conclude that you do not have the ability to visualize the interaction of three celestial spheres; moon, earth, sun.
That’s not meant as an insult. I can only express my sympathy that you do not have the ability to visualize objects moving in three dimensions. I’m sure you have your own unique talent to compensate for that lack.
Ken, you know NOTHING about orbital motion, and you can’t learn. I doubt you have any skills beyond keyboarding. Anyone that can understand maps and compasses should be able to understand the simple example I presented.
I don’t need to know anything about orbital motion even as I have taken some maths that apply. I just need to visualize how the moon is lit up by the sun so that the entire surface receives an equal amount of light over the course of 27 days. The moon rotates around its axis; there is no other explanation.
I am reminded of the fable where several blind men are let into a room with an elefant and the ensuing discussion.
Too bad you’re located under the rectum.
No, you need to understand the motions involved. You don’t even know the difference between orbiting and rotating.
As far as science goes you haven’t mastered button sorting and bottle washing.
Ken, it’s not my fault you’re such a loser.
ayuh, that is my fault and I own it.
Agreed.
swannie…”Hold the lighter one and spin the heavier one around overhead, then release the two and watch them spin around a common point as they fly off. That common point would be the barycenter”.
***
They would not spin about a common COG if the heavier weight was far greater than the lighter weight.
Consider the hammer throw where one end is like a cannon ball and the other is a chain with a handle. If the thrower releases the chain at the optimal point, so the ball’s motion is tangent to his arc, where the tangent line is aimed down the throwing lane, the ball will go in that direction.
The chain will be dragged behind the ball but since it has some momentum it will carry on past the line of the throwing lane to some extend. However, the ball will not rotate around the chain.
You would need two balls of similar weight in order to realize your plan. With a ball on a string, if the string is let go correctly (at the correct tangent line), it will following the ball immediately behind it.
However, a true barycentre would have two unattached bodies rotating about each other like in a binary star system. Here again, no one is close enough to observe what is actually going on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter#/media/File:Barycentric_view_of_Pluto_and_Charon_29_May-3_June_by_Ralph_in_near-true_colours.gif
I am sending a complaint to the Environment Minister. It’s nearly summer and the temperatures as hovering around 0C here in Vancouver, Canada. I want some of that warming they have promised us.
Good forecast, Ren…very accurate.
GR is an idiot. As usual.
Gordo is as ignorant of meteorology as he is of thermodynamics. Spring is the next season and meteorolgical Spring begins 1 March. In the Arctic, the sea-ice extent usually continues to increase into March before beginning to decline in it’s seasonal cycle.
GM is just ignorant and an idiot.
Gee nate! Do you eat all the eggs in the world for breakfast? Or just all the eggs in your refrierator?
If not the explain why eating eggs for breakfast even begins to imply all of them instantly!!!
You are like some crazed dog constantly barking up trees with no coons
Sir, this is an Arby’s.
Begone Troll!
No U, Bill:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1184011
Having problems finding the proper reply on your tablet?
Begone Troll #2
Warm Waters Are Causing The Earth To Dim
Satellite data reveals that cloud cover is disappearing over the Pacific, leading to less reflectivity.
TM, you keep finding junk that you can’t understand. Here’s a simple challenge for you: See if you can find one major flaw in the “study”. There are several. See if you can find just one.
I predict you can’t because you don’t know anything about the relevant science.
Pup,
What’s “rotational translation”?
Gobbledygook.
Dud, you’re on the wrong page, of the wrong book, in the wrong library.
And that’s because you’re an uneducated, immature, worthless troll.
Give me some CAPS LOCK, Pup.
Or do the Pole Dance Experiment.
Thats because Clint R is an uneducated, immature, worthless troll.
Copying my words shows good taste, RLH. Even better, you should memorize them.
Knowing how to apply them is where you will run into trouble. That requires intelligence.
But, at least you have good taste.
Clint R is still an idiot.
“Earth’s circumference is the distance around Earth. Measured around the Equator, it is 40,075.017 km (24,901.461 mi). Measured around the poles, the circumference is 40,007.863 km (24,859.734 mi).”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_circumference
40,075.017 – 40,007.863 = 67.154
“Approximating the figure of Earth by an Earth spheroid, the radius ranges from a maximum of nearly 6,378 km (3,963 mi) (equatorial radius, denoted a) to a minimum of nearly 6,357 km (3,950 mi) (polar radius, denoted b).”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_radius
6,378 – 6,357 = 21
Doubled: 42 And times pi, 3.14159 = 131.94678 difference
The Earth has a rather slight equatorial bulge: it is about 43 km (27 mi) wider at the equator than pole-to-pole…
The difference of the radii is thus about 21 km
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_bulge
If earth stopped spinning, would it still have a equatorial bulge?
And it seems if one were in 100 km Low Earth orbit there would not be equatorial bulge, affecting circumference of the orbital path.
At 100 km LEO, one travels at 7.844 km/sec [28,238.4 kilometers in an hour or about 17,507.8 mph]
At 200 km LEO, one travels at 7.784 km/sec [28,022.4 kph/17,373.8 mph].
400 km: 7.669 km/sec
I don’t have number handy of 50 km up, but in that orbit one travel the fastest around the world. Unless you travel in a tunnel. On Mars one probably have tunnels and could significantly increase global travel time.
A long standing rule of thumb is it takes 9 kg [or lbs} of rocket fuel to get 1 kg [or lbs] of payload to orbit.
In decades we might have improved that a bit, but roughly for Starship it require about 9 kg of rocket fuel to get a human to orbit though say a 4000 km long suborbital jump could use quite a bit less. Anyhow the rocket fuel is LOX and Liquid Methane and most mass is the liquid oxygen:
“Mixture ratio 3.6 (78% O2, 22% CH4)”
So 78% of 9 kg is 7.02 kg of LOX and 1.98 kg of Liquid Methane.
So about 2 kg of methane per 1 kg of person to orbit
Or about 70 cents of LOX and $2.80 of liquid methane per 1 kg of payload, or $3.50 of rocket fuel per 1 kg of people to Earth orbit.
There is no rule of thumb for suborbital travel.
Recently someone claimed that the starship with suborbital trip could be cheaper than airline seat ticket. Though large amount of this lower cost is the rocket costing less to make than long haul airline and rocket could fly more trips because travels faster.
But it seems people would simply paid more per seat, because it’s quicker to get somewhere and you get that view from Space. They might like the weightlessness and the excitement in general. But some people might feel ill from the weightless and excitement.
Recently, EU is talking about getting more serious about using Space environment. There is many reasons for that, and one reason is to
lower global CO2 emissions.
I, of course, don’t think lower CO2 emissions is important.
But I would all their effort to lower CO2, has been an utter failure. And say the efforts have increased global CO2 emission, rather than lower them- and more important is they wasted trillions of dollars trying to lower CO2 Emission. And ultimately this failed effort might lead to an unnecessary war.\
Recently, I wondered, since EU wants to get more serious about space exploration type stuff, as effort involving all European States,
that EU should consider putting a spaceport near the Azore islands.
And other than launch rockets into space, this function a hub in terms of suborbital travel.
So, this spaceport would be in the ocean and far enough away as not have the noise spacecraft breaking the sound barrier. And one suborbital from these islands to various European countries [though there are airports on the islands, so could be suborbial + plane trip to any European country.
And one could say go from UK to islands with plane and using suborbial lower time to get to Australia. Or whatever, South America, North America etc.
And with ocean launch one use what I call a pipelauncher.
Great idea. Let us know when you have a prospectus. I might even feel enjoined to invest if the business matures to the point of having paid a regular dividend for 5 years.
Well it depends if one or more of islands would be willing to have spaceport. And they would not even need EU, to do it. But in terms of any island having an airport, is pretty important. And indicates
they are somewhat interested having visitors to the island.
It just seems to me the sort of thing, that politicians should be doing.
But then again, it’s said of congressmen, all they are interested is their local interests. And not be surprising this generally applies to all politicians- or politics is local.
nevermind, apparently starting this direction in 2018 and:
13 January 2021
Portugal envision building a spaceport on the Azores islands
“Portugal has been a member of the European Space Agency for more than 20 years and its Santa Maria Island in the Azores archipelago is used to host one of ESAs ESTRACK (ESA’s Tracking Stations Network) antennas. However its space agency is relatively new and was only established 18 months ago.
During this short time the agency has made a big push forward with initiatives such as its national Space 2030 programme, a vision to promote economic growth by fostering the development, construction and operation of space equipment, systems, infrastructure and space data generation services.”
https://room.eu.com/news/portugal-envision-building-a-spaceport-on-the-azores-islands
And:
TheCoolBrit
3 yr. ago
The proposed spaceport on the island of Santa Maria could be useful to SpaceX as Lajes Air Base on Terceira island could be used for jet travel to and from the destinations in Europe.
Point of interest NASA used to have a team based Lajes Air Base ready for a space shuttle landing if needed, but is now just a massive empty base since the US 65th Air Base Wing left in 2015.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/acp04f/spaceport_in_azores_portugal/
[But was I thinking of ocean spaceport]
If earth stopped spinning, would it still have a equatorial bulge?
Probably for a while. The water would migrate to the poles much faster than the land masses.
Ken,
I don’t believe it would make any difference at all to the shape. Why should it? The Earth is about as round as a regulation 13 lb bowling ball, which maintains its shape whether spinning or not.
The oceans would redistribute themselves a little. The centripetal acceleration at the Equator is about 0.03 m/s^2. The acceleration due to gravity is about 9.8 m/s^2, so there’s not going to be an enormous amount of water flowing to the poles, and it would have problems at the South Pole!
We’d all be dead, so nobody on Earth would be able to tell me how silly I was, if my opinions turned out to be wrong!
Probably a good thing.
ken…”If earth stopped spinning, would it still have a equatorial bulge?”
***
According to what I have understood about the Earth’s slight oblateness, it is due to tidal forces from the Sun’s gravitational force and not due to its rotation.
Gordon,
> According to what I have understood about the Earth’s slight oblateness, it is due to tidal forces from the Sun’s gravitational force and not due to its rotation.
Nope:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2628-earth-getting-fatter-around-the-middle/#:~:text=The%20Earth%20is%20wider%20at,Earth%20is%20becoming%20more%20round.
Brandon, the Climate Consensarian. How the heck are you?
B,
More nonsense from a NASA contractor. And of course, reported by a journalist who doesn’t seem to know the difference between circumference and diameter.
Makes no difference anyway, does it?
Hi Chic I’m doing well. I’ve take up keeping chickens and ducks as a hobby, it’s far less frustrating than Climateball, and gets me outdoors more often. How have you been?
Good for you. I’m gradually retiring and spending more time exploring the many facets of frontier climate issues. I can’t shake my addiction to Dr. Spencer’s blog going on and off the wagon here so to speak despite the frustration.
Have fun in retirement, Chic. Here’s hoping I don’t get addicted to this blog and that I’m simply here as a temporary hurrah for old times’ sake. Best wishes.
“According to what I have understood about the Earths slight oblateness, it is due to tidal forces from the Suns gravitational force and not due to its rotation”
Wrong. Do the maths and you will see.
If Earth stopped spinning, it would have only one side facing the inside of its orbit, just as Moon does.
The Earth spins on its axis.
The Moon spins on its axis.
Quelle surprise.
In honor of his birthday, from George Washington’s Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior,the following quote:
Also:
NASA’s Hubble Telescope Spies an Ultrahot Jupiter Where It Rains Liquid Gems
In 2015, scientists discovered WASP-121 b, a gas giant exoplanet 880 light-years from Earth. The alien world is what is known as a “hot Jupiter,” a class of gas giants that have physical similarities to Jupiter but orbit their stars much closer (hence, their “hot” nature).
This hot Jupiter is tidally locked, meaning it has one side that is always facing its star and another side that faces away. It makes a full orbit of that star once every 1.3 days.
On WASP-121 b’s star-facing day-side, metals and minerals evaporate. The day-side’s upper atmosphere can get as hot as about 5,400 degrees Fahrenheit (about 3,000 degrees Celsius), so hot that water in the atmosphere glows and molecules break down, according to a statement.
But on the planet’s night-side, the team found that the atmospheric temperature is essentially cut in half. This difference in temperature causes strong winds to blow from west to east around the planet, pulling water through the atmosphere from the day-side to the night-side. As water molecules are pulled apart into hydrogen and oxygen atoms by the heat on the day-side, the cool temperatures on the night-side then recombine the atoms into water vapor. That water is pulled back to the day-side by the winds and pulled apart in a continuous cycle.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-021-01592-w
maguff…”The data are well explained by models assuming chemical equilibrium, with water molecules thermally dissociating at low pressures on the dayside and recombining on the nightside…”
***
This is all based on a computer model depiction of what they think is going on.
“The data are well explained by models assuming chemical equilibrium, with water molecules thermally dissociating at low pressures on the dayside and recombining on the nightside…”.
There is not a shred of physical evidence that exoplanets exist. It is likely they do but no one has ever seen one and all we have are the analyses of spectra from a star.
you are funny!
Earth’s atmosphere has only traces of carbon dioxide CO₂ gas content
CO₂ content in Earth’s atmosphere is measured to be some 400 ppm.
400 parts per million is one part per 2.500 (1.000.000 /400 = 2.500)
So we have one molecule of CO₂ for every 2.500 molecules of air.
Or to make it even more clear: 1 /2.500 = 0,0004 or 0,04 %
Now let’s compare the 0,04% CO₂ content in Earth’s atmosphere with the water vapor content of about 1% on average.
0,04% CO₂ /1% H₂O = 0,04
or one molecule of CO₂ for every 25 molecules of H₂O in Earth’s atmosphere.
One may say there are still too many CO₂ molecules.
But Earth’s atmosphere is very thin, it is an almost transparent atmosphere in both ways – in and out.
It is not only the CO₂% content in the Earth’s atmosphere general content that matters, but we have also to consider how many CO₂ molecules are in Earth’s atmosphere in total.
If Earth’s atmosphere was consisted from the actually existing CO₂ molecules only, the atmospheric pressure on the Earth’s surface would have been 0,0004 bar.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
What about trying to learn, by translating this document in Greek and carefully reading it
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jacques-Treiner/publication/275205925_L'effet_de_serre_atmospherique_plus_subtil_qu'on_ne_le_croit/links/555642e008aeaaff3bf5f055/Leffet-de-serre-atmospherique-plus-subtil-quon-ne-le-croit.pdf
instead of endlessly writing trivial evidence?
Bindidon, you found another paper you can’t understand. The first two sentences of the abstract (bold my emphasis):
State-of-the-art radiative models can be used to calculate in a rigorous and accurate manner the atmospheric greenhouse effect, as well as its variation with concentration in water vapour or carbon dioxide. A simple explanation of this effect uses an analogy with the greenhouse effect produced by a glass window.
They start with the belief in a GHE, then end up with a GHE.
That ain’t science.
clint…from your quote…”State-of-the-art radiative models can be used to calculate in a rigorous and accurate manner the atmospheric greenhouse effect…”
***
Yes…they use a bad theory to create bad models. The analogy to the glass in a greenhouse is erroneous. The glass traps molecules of heated air which are 99% nitrogen and oxygen. The ***radiative*** models are based on the pseudo-science that the glass is trapping infrared radiation, and they are calling that radiation heat.
Modelers simply don’t understand physics.
Gordon Robertson
Glass is a absorbs most IR. It does not make it through.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sth61H7FZSQ
That’s what Gordon was referencing, Norman.
What do you call something that is transparent at one set of frequencies but opaque at another?
You are such a primitive, ignorant person.
Instead of boasting your ignorance, you should try to translate the article, and… LEARN.
But… you won’t.
binny…”by translating this document in Greek…”
***
I have tried that, Greek is a hard language to translate online. Christos is doing really well in translating his Greek to English.
https://translate.google.co.uk/
christos…”Now lets compare the 0,04% CO₂ content in Earths atmosphere with the water vapor content of about 1% on average”.
***
That’s only near sea level. For the entire atmosphere, the wv content is about 0.31%.
**************
“we have also to consider how many CO₂ molecules are in Earths atmosphere in total”.
***
That’s covered in the Ideal Gas Law as ‘n’.
That is PV = nRT.
n and P are directly related and a mixed gas is covered by Dalton’s Law of Partial-Pressures which is one of the laws making up the IGL.
Dalton tells us that the total pressure of a gas is the sum of the partial pressures. The partial pressures are related to the mass-percent of each gas. That means, approximately, that nitrogen and oxygen make up nearly 99% of the partial pressures in the atmosphere while CO2 makes up only 0.04% of the partial pressure.
If you consider the total number of gas molecules in the atmosphere to be constant, and the volume to be constant, then…
P = (nR/V)T
Since the numbers in brackets are constant then P is directly proportional to T.
Dalton tells us the total pressure P is made up of the partial pressures of nitrogen, oxygen, argon, carbon dioxide, methane ,etc. That means the total pressure is based on the number of each molecule in the mix. Since the total pressure is directly proportional to the temperature, it means the heat (temperature) contributed by each gas must be proportional to it’s mass percent.
That is, N2/O2 contributes 99% of the heat and CO2 only 0.04% of the heat.
Some people might not like viewing the atmosphere’s volume as being constant. Then, we need to break it into layers where there is a constant volume in each layer. The outcome is the same.
Of course, the IGL gives only a static model since the atmosphere is dynamic with changing pressures and temperatures. However, the IGl serves to give us an approximation of what to expect from how much heat should be contributed by each gas.
If there are different regions of pressure and temperature, the ratio of molecules is still the same….99% nitrogen/oxygen and only 0.04% CO2.
Even with 1% water vapour, it’s heat contribution is highly exaggerated. In the tropics, where it can reach 4%, most of the heat is in the nitrogen/oxygen mix. It’s not transferred to N2/02 from wv, the N2/O2 scavenges the heat directly from the heated oceans and the surface by conduction. Then convection carries the heat to higher altitudes.
The 0.04% contribution by CO2 is far different than the 9% to 25% programmed into models.
GR is still an idiot it seems.
rlh…”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter#/media/File:Barycentric_view_of_Pluto_and_Charon_29_May-3_June_by_Ralph_in_near-true_colours.gif”
***
NASA shows both a still and a motion sequence here:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/pluto-and-its-moon-charon-now-in-color
The interpretation of the barycentre depiction is clearly fraudulent. I will prove that by a different means below by separating the .gif motion into still frames.
If you look closely at Pluto in the alleged barycentric view, it is moving forward and backward in its orbit, a clear impossibility.
What we are seeing here is motion in the spacecraft that is causing the camera to wobble while shooting images from 50 million kilometres distance. It’s exactly the same effect one would get when holding a pair of binoculars, or a hand held telescope while viewing a star or plant. The star or planet moves in exactly the same manner.
I would guess, from the photo that the spacecraft has a slight wobble in its motion. I say that because the spacecraft as a platform is stable, allowing a fairly steady image but some motion is causing the camera to move slightly.
Here’s absolute proof. If you download the gif file and load it in the free viewer from Irfanview (Options/Extract All Frames) it will give you 9 jpeg stills. The time clock on each image is as follows:
The 2nd time refers to the clockwise position of Charon wrt Pluto.
Frame 1…2015-05-29…11.38 UTC Charon @ 01:00
Frame 2…2015-05-30…18:34 UTC Charon @ 12:30
Frame 3…2015-05-30…05:50 UTC Charon @ 11:50
Frame 4…2015-05-31…01:21 UTC Charon @ 10:30
Frame 5…2015-05-31…18:44 UTC Charon @ 09.00
Frame 6…2015-06-01…06:03 UTC Charon @ 07:30
Frame 7…2015-06-02…01:28 UTC Charon @ 06:30
Frame 8…2015-06-02…18:12 UTC Charon @ 05:30
Frame 9…2015-06-03…04:28 UTC Charon @ 04:00
The starting mileage at frame 1 is 54.8 million km.
and the mileage at frame 9 is 49.2 km
So, the spacecraft has traveled 5.6 million km in about 5 days. Roughly speaking, 5 days is 120 hours, so the spacecraft is moving at roughly 47,000 km/hour. During that period it is trying to keep a camera focuses on a planet some 50 million kilometres away and no one expects the camera to deviate slightly from the target.
We can see from the data above it was taken over 5+ days. and Charon orbits Pluto every 6+ days. therefore the positions indicated make sense since Charon has orbited from 1 o’clock CCW to 4:00 o’clock. However, the gif is made up of only 9 images, each one taken about 1 day apart.
We are looking at a faked image that shows a planet oscillating back and forth as it orbits, an impossibility. The proper explanation, which seems beyond modern NASA scientists, and certainly the idiots posting at Wikipedia, is that the illusion of barycentric motion is an artefact of wobble in the spacecraft camera and a poorly created gif image.
Couple of more facts to dispel this myth about a Pluto/Charon barycentre.
The length of Pluto’s orbit is 22,698,700,000 miles. That’s about 22.7 billion miles. It takes 248 years for Pluto to complete one orbit. Sounds like a long time but the orbital length is immense.
248 years = 90520 days (based on 365 days/year, an approximation). Not trying for accuracy, rounding off generously.
That means Pluto moves 22,698,700,000 miles/90520 days = 250,759 miles/day.
Somebody please check my numbers…brain fog.
Anyway, if Pluto is moving 250,759 miles in a day, even when viewed from 50 million miles, there should be a significant change in its position each day. Since the data in the gif was gathered over 5 days, Pluto would have moved 1,253,795 miles.
That means the camera has to be adjusted to keep it centred. Either that, or the spacecraft has to be maneuvered. Either one would contribute to wobble and error. I think NASA has barycentre on the brain, and has manipulated the images to create a barycentre wobble that is not there.
I got to thinking about how fast the PLANET of Pluto is moving in mph. 1 year is about 365 days x 24 hours/day = 8760 hours. Therefore, with an orbital period of 248 years, that becomes 248 years x 8760 hours/year = 2,172,480 hours/orbit.
Therefore speed in mph = 22,698,700,000 miles/2,172,480 hours = about 10,448 mph.
Do you know about Newton’s 3rd Law and what levers are? Can you do maths?
You do know that pictures can be matched to make up a sequence don’t you?
> I think NASA has barycentre on the brain, and has manipulated the images to create a barycentre wobble that is not there.
Good grief. Gordo.
Gordo is a classic fantasist who sees manipulation all over the place.
“The interpretation of the barycentre depiction is clearly fraudulent”
IYHO of course which is worth nothing it seems.
Earlier, E Swanson wrote –
“Swenson/Flynn keeps ranting about the theoretical support for the Greenhouse Effect. Has he ever studied a text book on the subject, such as Pierrehumberts Principles of Planetary Climate? Its a very detailed dive into the subject and one must also work thru the problems to grasp the physics involved.”
I have read Pierrehumbert’s text. Nothing novel in it.
Here’s how Raymond Pierrehumbert sums up the role of CO2 in a paper he wrote –
“Carbon dioxide is just planetary insulation.”
E Swanson may need to “work thru the problems” to grasp the physics of insulation.
I point out that Pierrehumbert nowhere mentions in his text any Greenhouse Theory. Pierrehumbert is just a deluded as people like James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, or Michael Mann.
Possibly in Pierrehumbert’s mind, he redefines “planetary insulation” as “the Greenhouse Effect”, in order to sound more important.
Still no Greenhouse Theory to be found.
swenson…”I have read Pierrehumberts text. Nothing novel in it”.
***
Actually, it reads like a novel, pure fiction.
> Carbon dioxide is just planetary insulation
Wait, Mike –
Are you suggesting you found your Insulation Effect Theory?
Woeful Wee Willy,
What Insulation Effect Theory would that be, moron? Just another attempt to appear intelligent, is it? Did you just make it up? I’ve never heard of such a thing, and neither has anybody else.
If you don’t understand what an insulator is, just look it up. I can understand why you don’t like definitions, because then you have to face reality.
You will find that reality doesn’t care whether you accept it or not. In the meantime, keep avoiding reality – live in a fantasy, if you find it more comforting.
Carry on.
[chortle]
> If you don’t understand what an insulator is, just look it up.
“Insulation works by slowing the transfer of heat, which can move in three ways: conduction, convection, and radiation.”
https://www.drenergysaver.com/insulation/how-insulation-works.html
Your move, Mike
B,
Weird Wee Willy doesn’t like definitions. He seems to think an “Insulation Effect Theory exists (it doesn’t, of course), and that I am hiding it somewhere.
He is annoyed because he cannot produce a “Greenhouse Theory”, in spite of claiming it exists – somewhere.
By the way, you must have caught Wee Willy’s mental affliction – my name is not Mike, and I understand more about insulation than you are ever likely to.
So carry on being a fool. I don’t mind.
You’re quite right, Mike –
I don’t like definitions.
But consider the following bit from BG’s:
“conduction, convection, and radiation”
Why haven’t you ever found a definition that contained these concepts?
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Weird Wee Willy,
You wrote (presumably trying to avoid admitting that you are a moron for believing that an Insulation Effect Theory exists) –
“But consider the following bit from BG’s:
“conduction, convection, and radiation”
Why haven’t you ever found a definition that contained these concepts?”
What sort of a witless gotcha is that? Why would I go looking for a definition of insulation that contained those terms?
If you have one that does, use it as much as you like. It still wont produce an Insulation Effect Theory or a Greenhouse Theory for you, will it?
Carry on being moronic.
Swenson is a moronic idiot.
> Why would I go looking for a definition of insulation that contained those terms?
To do some physics, silly sock puppet, which you never do.
No, looking up definitions in dictionaries does not count.
Cheers.
Your silly question is answered by the bit I quoted from your comment, silly sock puppet:
“Carbon dioxide is just planetary insulation”
Hope this helps.
Whacky Wee Willy,
What question was that, dummy?
Well it wasn’t “Am I an idiot” because that has already been answered in the affirmative about you.
Mike,
Search for “Insulation Effect Theory?”
Cheers.
Swenson/Flynn, The theory is presented in the mathematical description of the thermal radiation heat transfer of gases as the energy from the Sun moves thru the atmosphere toward the surface and then back out to deep space as IR. Since you claim to have read the text, where is that description of the physics wrong?
(There are text errors in the text, as noted in the Errata).
ES,
No it’s not. Face reality, neither Pierrehumbert nor anybody else has presented a “Greenhouse Theory”.
That “mathematical description”, as you describe it, is completely meaningless. You may or may not be aware that the Earth has, in fact, cooled, since its creation.
No amount of “mathematical description” can obscure this obvious fact.
Much of Pierrehumbert’s text is useful. The nonsense claiming that an energy imbalance results in the Earth heating is just, well, nonsense!
You might like to tell me that you believe Pierrehumbert’s assertion that the Earth could reach a temperature a temperature of 800,000 K, if it received sufficient energy from the Sun. The man’s a delusional fool. The Sun cannot make anything hotter than itself, regardless of how long it shines.That’s as stupid as claiming that you could boil water if you expose it to ice for a sufficient length of time!
“Mathematical descriptions” cannot create fact from fiction.
As expected, Swenson/Flynn fails to provide any actual reason to ignore the theoretical foundation presented by Pierrehumbert. Instead, he gives another of his usual red herrings about:
The Earth’s climate system sits between the Sun and deep space. The sunlight flowing thru the system results in the temperatures at various locations and seasons. Changing one parameter, such as CO2 concentration, will change those temperatures. That’s like what I found with my simple Ice Plate Demo, where changing the IR transmission in one part of the setup changes the temperature of the plate which is being supplied from a constant power source. Of course, you continue to ignore this clear demonstration of the insulating effect of ice, since it destroys your distorted arguments.
Swanson, you remain very confused about physics. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere will NOT increase surface temperatures. Your understanding of the relevant science is all messed up. That’s why you fall for nonsense like “Sun can heat Earth to 800,000K”, or “ice cubes can boil water”.
ES,
No matter how elegant your demos are, they do not simulate atmospheric conditions.
No one should be interested in proof that the planet is “warmer than it would be” without an atmosphere or even without IR absorbing gases. Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to show that further increases in CO2 in Earth’s existing atmosphere will result in higher global temperatures. Be sure to control your experiment for confounding variables.
CB/pups, One of the favorite claims around here is that the Green Plate Effect violates the 2nd Law of Thermo. Well, both my demonstrations prove otherwise. FYI, your repeated BS about boiling water with ice cubes is just another pointless red herring which has nothing to do with the effects of CO2 on the Earth’s temperature.
CB/pups, One of the favorite claims around here is that the Green Plate Effect violates the 2nd Law of Thermo. Well, both my demonstrations prove otherwise. FYI, your repeated posts about boiling water with ice cubes is just another pointless red herring which has nothing to do with the effects of CO2 on the Earth’s temperature.
The GPE does not prove CO2 warms the globe. The atmosphere is not a green plate.
… but the green plate effect theory & experiment do show that optically thick earthen atm. does not violate 2LOT when properly applied to both objects.
“FYI, your repeated posts about boiling water with ice cubes is just another pointless red herring which has nothing to do with the effects of CO2 on the Earths temperature.”
Wrong again, Swanson. Your CO2 nonsense requires fluxes to add. One of the cult heroes even presented the math. That math would mean that ice cubes can boil water. Several of your cult have openly confirmed that false belief.
You can’t deny ice cubes can boil water without denying your CO2 nonsense.
Sorry pups, There’s no way that the GPE can provide more useful energy to the elue plate than that which is supplied by the external source. If the blue plate were some sort of boiler producing steam, adding the green plate would increase the amount of energy available as steam, but that amount would always be less than the externally supplied energy. The green plate with emissivity of 1.0 returns no more than half the energy which it receives from the blue plate, the other half is radiated toward the surrounding vacuum. In that sense, it acts like a form of insulation, though one with a different mathematical description than the usual insulating material.
Wrong Willard Jr.
Your lack of understanding mixes with your cult beliefs to make you a perfect braindead cult idiot.
You confuse the bogus blue/green plate nonsense with radiative insulation. You end up with a tangled mess, i.e., perversion of reality.
An imaginary black body can NOT violate the Laws of physics. That ain’t science. So you need to start by rejecting the blue/green plate nonsense. But, you can’t. It’s part of your cult religion. The fact that you strive to emulate Willard is evidence of your addiction to your cult.
That’s why a BB is imaginary Clint! A BB violates 2LOT. But the atm. doesn’t violate 2LOT as proven by GPE so our atm. is not imaginary.
Experimental science must really irritate Clint as Clint R avoids atm. science so well.
pups can’t understand that reflective insulation, particularly multi-layer stuff, is not the same as a radiation shield used for insulation. The radiation shield is not as effective as the reflective variety, but it still provides an insulating effect, reducing thermal IR energy loss to the surroundings.
Another way to debunk the plate nonsense is to let the blue plate represent the atmosphere and the green plate is Earth’s surface. Before the blue plate is added, the green plate has a certain equilibrium temperature. After the blue plate is added, the green plate temperature drops. That’s how our atmosphere cools Earth. It’s also how the layered “atmosphere” cools the JWST.
Clint R is wrong yet again since the blue plate and the JWST sunshield are not transparent to solar SW as is our atm. The laughs at Clint’s physics errors continue to be worth sticking around.
Yeah, stupid pups fails spectacularly again. It’s plate reversal, specifying the blue plate as the atmosphere, ignores the fact that the atmosphere is almost transparent to SW radiation but absorbs outgoing IR. The plates have identical properties. AGW is all about IR radiation.
Ball4, Swanson, please stop trolling.
A nice contrast:
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pid=p_rueckblick_colormap&ireq=true&src=rueckblick/vermarktung/wom/de/p_rueckblick_colormap/2022/02/TND/namk/TND_202202_namk.gif
versus
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pid=p_rueckblick_colormap&ireq=true&src=rueckblick/vermarktung/wom/de/p_rueckblick_colormap/2022/02/TND/euro/TND_202202_euro.gif
*
Temperature here at night right now near Berlin, Germoney:
+8 C
And in 2011:
-14 C
*
Yeah!
I tell you: the Globe is COOOOLING!
Binny,
You wrote –
“I tell you: the Globe is COOOOLING!”
You don’t need to tell everyone what they already know. Of course the Earth is cooling, just as it has done for the past four and a half billion years or so.
Otherwise, the surface would still be molten, wouldn’t it?
Thanks for showing how dumb and stubborn your comments are.
“as it has done for the past four and a half billion years or so”
Care to work out what degrees per decade that is?
RLH,
You wrote –
“Care to work out what degrees per decade that is?”
No. Why should I?
Do it yourself if you are interested, but of course you aren’t interested in the answer, because you know it’s irrelevant.
Typical climate crackpot diversion. Asking stupid gotchas just makes you look – stupid!
As it is less than the noise it is meaningless.
RLH,
So you were just trying to be clever, as I thought.
Here’s the news, nitwit.
The surface is no longer molten, whether you want to believe it or not.
Babble about noise all you want, deny reality all you like.
It won’t change anything. No CO2 heating.
Your gotchas are pathetic. Try for a bit of subtlety.
The cooling rate is still miniscule over a decade almost no matter what the starting and ending temperatures are. We are talking about billions of years compared to a decade.
Turned out to be an easy sum. AGW is warming the world 100,000 times faster than geological heat flow is cooling it.
Good. More science-fiction from Ent.
More stupidity from Clint R.
binny…”Temperature here at night right now near Berlin, Germoney:
+8 C
And in 2011:
-14 C
***
More meaningless drivel from Binny. Here in Vancouver, Canada it is currently 2C and expected to go down to -6C tonight. The highest temperature for this day was 14.4C in 1973 and the lowest was -3,9C in 1944.
Therefore we are setting a record cold day for February 22nd her in Vancouver, Canada tonight.
BTW…the average high for this time of year is 8.5C and the average low is 1.8C. We have Arctic air sitting over us right now, as Ren predicted, and the only reason you have warmer air is the lack of Arctic air. Hopefully, it will descend on you soon to straighten out your sorry butt.
” More meaningless drivel from Binny. ”
For this blog’s second dumbest ignoramus: here are the lowest February minima for some Vancouver stations:
CA001108447 55-22 1950 2 1 -16.1 (C)
CA001108447 55-22 1950 2 3 -15.0
CA00110H447 55-22 1936 2 7 -13.9
CA001108447 55-22 1956 2 15 -13.3
CA001108465 55-22 1936 2 7 -13.3
CA00110H447 55-22 1936 2 13 -12.8
CA001108487 55-22 1989 2 2 -12.5
CA001108465 55-22 1923 2 13 -12.2
CA00110H447 55-22 1932 2 1 -12.2
CA00110H447 55-22 1933 2 9 -12.2
…
CA001108395 55-22 2021 2 12 -6.8
*
Coming from
CA001108395 49.2000 -123.1833 4.0 BC VANCOUVER INTL A CA001108447 49.2000 -123.1833 4.0 BC VANCOUVER INTL A
CA001108465 49.2833 -123.1167 59.0 BC VANCOUVER PMO
CA001108487 49.2500 -123.2500 87.0 BC VANCOUVER UBC
CA00110H447 49.2667 -123.1667 7.0 BC VANCOUVER JERICHO BEACH
*
And that permanently boasting guy whines just because of a tiny -6 C last night, speaking of a ‘record cold’ …
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pcid=pc_rueckblick_data&pid=p_rueckblick_diagram&sid=StationHistory&diagram=true&iid=71892&gid=71892&month=03&year=2022&metparaid=TNLD&period=4&ireq=true
I’m so terribly impressed.
But… as shown many times, North America certainly isn’t warming these days, compared with our good ol’ Europe.
swannie…” Spring is the next season…”
***
Spring has been canceled this year in Vancouver, Canada due to cold weather from La Nina. We are deliberating whether to cancel summer as well.
GR is just an idiot.
And you’re just a Listmaker.
And you are an idiot too.
Where is your Utopia, Listmaker? Where is it or where has it ever been?
My utopia would be when you stop posting (or at least part of it anyway).
So you Masterminds can control all thought.
Gordo, It’s almost one week till Meteorological Spring, while the “Official” date is almost 3 weeks later at the Equinox. I think of Spring as a transition season which starts out looking like Winter but ends looking like Summer. You claim that it’s been “canceled” is premature.
Can Europe survive painlessly without Russian gas? Difficult and costly decisions would have to be taken to manage the situation in an orderly way.
Europeans have repeated the mistake made by the U.S. during the 1960’s. At the time, it was much cheaper to import oil from Saudi Arabia, so we did and became dependent on that flow. Then the OPEC/ARAB Oil Embargo presented the West with a political problem, as our addiction to cheap energy had dire economic consequences. We were still heavily dependent on imports for our gas guzzlers when the Iranian Revolution reminded all that it’s a bad idea to depend on resources from unfriendly nations with different motives and philosophies than our own. And that’s on top of the long term problems of resource depletion and ecological impacts.
3 words, since I like to keep things simple — “Drill, baby, drill”.
Last time for a dash to renewables.
E. Swanson at 9:09 AM
I wish it were that simple.
Geology has no regard for national boundaries or political ideology.
TM, Yeah, geology is “what it is” and there are only a few prime locations on Earth for conventional oil/gas production. Fracking shales and digging up bitumen (tar) sands deposits now provide other sources, abet, at higher cost both in dollars and energy required to recover the resources.
Ultimately, fossil fuels (including coal) are non-renewable and would eventually be exhausted if BAU were to continue. Peak oil will appear before it’s all gone and, given our lack of preparation, the mad scramble to use the remaining resource and/or switch to renewables would begin. If we had any brains, the developed would would already have started the massive transition required. The climate change problem makes the transition even more imperative as there’s lots of coal still in the ground, which could be turned into electricity or liquid fuels to satisfy our human appetite for transportation.
Idiots have been predicting “peak oil” for over 50 years. We keep peaking.
The rational solution is “Drill, baby, drill”. If there’s ever a hint of actual “peak oil”, then that provides the impetus to “nuke up”.
A 30-year program to build 50 new nuclear plants is easily doable. The funding could come from shutting down NASA, Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Education, and other wasteful GOV agencies.
Then build another 50 nukes.
pups, Back in 1974, the US DOE projected that future electrical demand would require the construction of some 1000 nukes by 2000, 25 years later. Then three Mile Island sunk that idea. Last time I heard, there’s no proven safe way to store the accumulating U.S. waste pile and the Fukushima mess will take another 30 years to clean up.
That’s why DOE needs to be defunded. They’re useless.
We’re still learning how to store nuclear waste. So far, we’ve done pretty well, but we’re still learning.
Hopefully we’ve learned NOT to build nuclear plants in tsunami zones.
That’s a bunch of shit.
TEPCO was criminally responsible for not building the required safety measures for protecting their emergency diesel generators from a tsunami.
And the fuel tanks for the diesel generators, man it took a letter from God to get in there.
I worked at a Nuclear Power Plant, and a tsunami would not have affected the ability to survive a LOOP incident, unlike TEPCO who didn’t know what the fuck they were doing.
They totally ignored the lessons learned from TMI.
Braindead bob seems to be arguing with himself, again.
But just to put things in perspective, the Fukushima disaster only resulted in 1 death and less that 20 injuries. Over 1000 people died in the panic evacuation, and over 18,000 people died to the tsunami itself.
So yeah, don’t build in tsunami zones and don’t panic the public.
Maybe if you read and quoted in complete sentences you be able to understand what it was saying. Try it you might be surprised.
> who have no valid rebuttal to the things I am saying, disappear for a while and then reappear later saying the same stupid things all over again.
https://tenor.com/view/snoopy-giggle-chuckle-lol-gif-10358212
Obsessed troll, please stop stalking.
You lost the rotation point, Kiddo.
Now you’ll lose the translation point.
One point at a time.
Rejoice. It’s a learning experience!
Obsessed troll, please stop stalking.
DREMT: Please stop being an idiot.
RLH: Please gfy.
Listmaker, gfy….LOL.
The man who shares something with the SS hath spoken!
…at 11:27 AM.
You’re in my subthread, Kiddo.
Begone.
Bill’s sub-thread, which I think was meant to be a response to my stalker, way up-thread, which you immediately hi-jacked with a quote from myself, due to your obsession.
Bill’s thread, Kiddo.
Addressed to me.
This is my subthread.
Begone, punk:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1185659
No, "sub-thread". "The thread" refers to the whole thing, the entire list of comments from the very first through to the very last. You have "up-thread" and "down-thread" which refers to directions through the entire list of comments. Bill’s comment is the first in a new sub-thread. The person who writes that, sets the topic for everything that follows in that sub-thread. Not the person who responds. The person who wrote the original post. That’s the way it makes sense to me, anyway. As far as I’m aware, Bill was not addressing you. But, you do tend to think everything revolves around you.
Willard is indeed just a troll. He jumped my thread commenting on Nate’s use of an incomplete sentence fragment which obscures the intent of the sentence, whether intentional or out of ignorance. Then he quotes a clause of DREMT’s sentence which makes it appear to be a typo but is in fact a proper usage of ‘who’ but that fact is also obscured through the use of a sentence fragment, whether intentional or out of ignorance.
Earlier he was bloviating about credentials. But rather than answer the question directed at him regarding his own credentials; he deflects the question and resumes trolling. IMO he is a worthless POS that hasn’t yet added anything of substance to any conversation he has been in. . . .to which the proper response if wrong would be a reminder of what value he has brought forth.
> Nate’s use of an incomplete sentence
I do that all the time, Bill.
Nate almost always quote complete phrases.
Now, get off that soap box, acknowledge that your comment was misplaced, and next time quote to what you’re responding.
Wait. Wasn’t it the freaking point of your comment?
Gosh. We need better Dragon cranks.
> “The thread” refers to the whole thing
By that logic a lone comment would be a subthread, Kiddo.
Have you ever wondered what the expression “threaded comments” means?
Fine, Willard.
You still jumped in on Bill’s thread, which was not addressed to you, as it turns out, writing a quote from me, because you are apparently obsessed. You even started up your own thread about one of Gordon’s comments, which you didn’t understand, by writing out a comment in the same way I had written one of mine. Can’t you just leave me alone? Wtf is your problem?
DREMT: Nothing that you or GR say/post is understandable in the context of science, only idiocy.
Willard says:
Now, get off that soap box, acknowledge that your comment was misplaced, and next time quote to what youre responding.
Wait. Wasnt it the freaking point of your comment?
Gosh. We need better Dragon cranks.
——————————-
At least I have an excuse. I tried responding from my phone and it has a bug and put it into a new first comment thread. Every comment on my phone has a reply link under it.
Whats your excuse?
> I tried responding from my phone
It’s the third time now, Bill. You have yet to clarify your first tries. It may not be a bug. Try to refresh the page to make sure you clicked on the proper “Reply.”
When I claim that you have no business in adjudicating the Moon non-issue, I’m not attacking your credentials, BTW. I’m judging your competence based on your responses. They show a very poor understanding of kinematics in general and Holy Madhavi in particular.
> because you are apparently obsessed
Incorrect, Kiddo.
Because your “who have no valid rebuttal to the things I am saying, disappear for a while and then reappear later saying the same stupid things all over again” was very funny and it’s a perfect rejoinder to Bill’s context-free comment.
You really have no self-awareness.
Willard says:
> I tried responding from my phone
It’s the third time now, Bill. You have yet to clarify your first tries. It may not be a bug. Try to refresh the page to make sure you clicked on the proper “Reply.”
———————–
Sheesh Willard. . . .it might be foreign to you be self critical, but it was only after third time I became convinced it wasn’t my mistake.
—————
—————
—————
—————
Willard says:
When I claim that you have no business in adjudicating the Moon non-issue, I’m not attacking your credentials, BTW. I’m judging your competence based on your responses. They show a very poor understanding of kinematics in general and Holy Madhavi in particular.
————————-
thats a lie! You said: ”Your sudden realization is cute, but it disqualifies you as a judge for the Moon Dragon crank issues!”
So what qualifies you?
You’re playing dumb again, Bill.
I don’t think you’re a real judge. If memory serves well, you suggested that you were some kind of accountant. Here is the claim you made:
This clearly shows you have no business in judging Moon Dragon crankitude. Not because of your credentials, but because you do not have the competence to do so.
Is that clearer this time, or will you persist in playing dumb?
Willard says:
You’re playing dumb again, Bill.
I don’t think you’re a real judge. If memory serves well, you suggested that you were some kind of accountant. Here is the claim you made:
Madhavi was the first time I saw a rotation on an external axis described as a rotation
This clearly shows you have no business in judging Moon Dragon crankitude. Not because of your credentials, but because you do not have the competence to do so.
Is that clearer this time, or will you persist in playing dumb?
———————-
And what are your credentials in assessing competence on the matters of rotation?
On my credentials, accounting, specifically auditing and policy analysis, is but one of my fields of experience.
I have mentioned in this forum some of the others.
The fact is one can be a expert in an extremely narrow field simply via experimentation. And some of us have learned that semantics has nothing to with science, so why would it be surprising to you that somebody who understood what rotation was from experience, but had never taken a class in kinematics, would be disqualified from talking about rotation after reading multiple kinematics textbooks? What are your qualifications to make that judgment. So far on record in this forum they are zero. Can you fix that?
Seems to me what is going on here is you have no argument that has any support whatsoever and so what does one do in such a situation? They they make up stuff attack their opponent as opposed to actually either making intelligent comments about the matter, asking questions, or provide some acknowledged scientific support to the discussion. Its easy to override my credentials all you need to do is submit something that was at the bottom of the list above. . . .a statement from somebody whom can speak to a true consensus of experts. But dang it dude! After all the time you have been in this forum the only consensus of expertise is operating against your position and all you can do is pick around the edges at it. . . .without any established credentials. Can you find somebody with established credentials to support your picking around the edges?
> And what are your credentials in assessing competence on the matters of rotation?
See, Bill?
That is a deflection.
I did not bring credentials. You did.
I am not the one who pretends to have adjudicated the point to your own side by reading Holy Madhavi. You are.
You claimed you did not know about rotation on an external axis. That disqualifies you. You would be a Nobel prize winner in mathematics that it would disqualify you. Don’t look – there is no Nobel prize for mathematicians.
It’s as if you never realized why Pup and Kiddo introduced the ball on a string! Would you like me to check for the last times you discussed that toy model?
Your racehorsing is offering Gordo serious competition for the title of the Absolute Nut of the site.
Keep it up!
> You claimed you did not know about rotation on an external axis.
To clarify the context, I mean before reading Holy Madhavi:
I mean, srsly. Don’t tell me it’s true. At best it’s a brain fart.
Willard says:
> And what are your credentials in assessing competence on the matters of rotation?
See, Bill?
That is a deflection.
I did not bring credentials. You did.
I am not the one who pretends to have adjudicated the point to your own side by reading Holy Madhavi. You are.
——————–
Yes you are right. I read Madhavi and let that convince me.
And you are correct Willard you did not read anybody. You just let Willard convince you.
Willard says:
”Madhavi was the first time I saw a rotation on an external axis described as a rotation’
I mean, srsly. Don’t tell me it’s true. At best it’s a brain fart.’
to clarify it was the first time I saw a rotation characterized as one of two motions in the universe by a theoretician. Personally while I worked with rotations I never thought of it in that way before as I had never read a kinematics textbook. Now that I have I understand the key points.
And yes I allowed that to form my opinion. Seems to me that the only thing you noticed in Madhavi was the words and examples she used.
There are words and examples in that handout, Bill.
Holy Madhavi is not that important, for she’s repeating the same thing we can read in a thousand places. It just reveals something about Kiddo’s background, and also his knack for finding specific wording he can exploit.
I’m glad you found a theorician to explain to you what I did earlier with a few points and a line.
Be well.
Willard the Tool says:
There are words and examples in that handout, Bill.
Holy Madhavi is not that important, for shes repeating the same thing we can read in a thousand places. It just reveals something about Kiddos background, and also his knack for finding specific wording he can exploit.
Im glad you found a theorician to explain to you what I did earlier with a few points and a line.
Be well.
=============================
The difference, and it isn’t a small one, Willard between your exploitation of words and DREMTS is DREMT acknowledges two ways of looking at it and you don’t.
Your comment thus sounds quite hypocritical to me. . . .and possesses a considerable amount of Freudian projectionism. . . .not to speak of significant strawmanship on your part in suggesting DREMT is exploiting anything.
The only thing established in this long thread is that there are a lot of science sycophants running loose and vehemently arguing against any suggestion that there could be any answer different from the ‘officially’ endorsed one. . . .it is so consistent who these people are it extends to everything.
========
========
========
========
Willard the Tool says:
Im glad you found a theorician to explain to you what I did earlier with a few points and a line.
Be well.
—————-
Hey both DREMT and I gave you credit for offering up an alternative notion of orbital motion that supports the non-spinner argument.
What explicitly are you complaining about?
Very confusing….
Day of Discovery: 7 Earth-Size Planets
Five years ago (Feb. 22, 2017) NASA’s Exoplanet Science Institute at Jet Propulsion Laboratory announced the discovery of a red dwarf star called TRAPPIST-1, home to a close-knit family of seven Earth-size planets.
Though the planets are tightly packed around TRAPPIST-1, the red dwarf star is not only far cooler than our Sun, it is less than 10% its size. In fact, if the entire system were placed in our own solar system, it would fit within the orbit of our innermost planet, Mercury.
Five years later, the planets are still enigmatic. Since the first announcement, subsequent studies have revealed that the TRAPPIST-1 planets are rocky, that they could be almost twice as old as our solar system, and that they are located 41 light-years from Earth.
But a real game-changer will be the recently launched James Webb Space Telescope. Larger and more powerful than any previous space telescope, Webb will view the heavens in infrared light to help look for signs of atmospheres on the TRAPPIST-1 planets.
A prime target for Webb is the fourth planet from the star, called TRAPPIST-1e. It’s right smack in the middle of what scientists call the habitable zone, also known as the Goldilocks zone. This is the orbital distance from a star where the amount of heating is right to allow liquid water on the surface of a planet.
Do you know how many things have to go absolutely perfect to support life? Our planet is exceptional and created. It isn’t random.
Created by whom?
Bozo.
Bozo created it. Well I think others might disagree.
I think you should be a little more specific, here.
Everyone knows that the universe was created in 4004BC by the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, with one wave of Her noodly appendage.
… and, in the beginning, lunar theory of spin on own axis in orbit of Earth was denounced by DREMT & GR who instead insist on creating the theory of lunar orientation change during orbit.
I hold with the great green arkleseizure hypothesis. God, what a mess.
Swenson
“Do you know how many things have to go absolutely perfect to support life? ”
I think not. Microfossils of Archea appear in the oldest rocks. Life appeared on Earth almost as soon as the planet was cool enough to allow it.
Now they live anywhere below 120C and above -50C, from hot rocks and hot springs to Antarctic ice sheets and the stratosphere. All they seem to need is a proton source, access to minerals and a trace of water. It is hard to find anywhere on Earth without life.
I would also be confident that when we get a proper look we’ll find simple life on Mars and the subsurface oceans of gas giant moons such as Europa.
Complex life, eukaryotes and multicellular organisms, are less probable.
Yes, what could be simpler than a few amino acids appearing out of nowhere and evolving into creatures with brains? Especially humanoid ones spouting out nonsense on climate blogs.
Something as complex as Nature
Must have had a Creator.
This argument’s odd.
Who made the One God?
Or created the Creator’s creator?
Ent, you don’t have a clue about science. You’re all about your false religion.
Science implies “Intelligent Design”. Who that Designer is, is “religion”. Science ends with the fact that there was intelligent design. Your religion starts with your denial and perversion of science.
“Science implies Intelligent Design. ”
Unfortunately not.
If you approach the origin of life from the inorganic side you can find sources for the three main ingredients, amino acids, lipids and nucleic acids.
Approaching from the living side you can find progressively simpler organisms. Somewhere in the gap is the origin of life and the gap is getting narrower.
Once you’ve got a basic self-assembler evolution kicks in and given enough time you go from the Archaea all the way to Swenson.
No need for an Intelligent Designer. Chemistry, mutation and selection do it all.
There’s another problem. The argument from design is recursive. Once you argue that life is complex enough to need a designer you have to argue the same for the designer. As I said above, you end up with an infinite series of designers.
Two logical alternatives, then. Either natural law allows life to emerge without a designer or you have an endless series of designer’s designer’s designers.
Thump Thump Thump
The science implies “Intelligent Design”, Ent.
Your ignorance of science is NOT proof of your false religion.
Remember, you’re the one that willing perverts reality….
“Who made the One God?
Or created the Creators creator?”
Well, we tend to limit it to this universe.
{or anyone, will concede that we don’t really know
what this universe, is. And the other universes for the string theories guys {which apparently are wrong}.
A similar question is where did big bang come from.
Or no one disputes the Big Bang *because* we don’t know where Big Bang came from- and btw the Catholics are big fans of the Big Bang, maybe because it’s easy way end this silly question of where did God came from- and they will support it- as long as there is not more than one big bang.
Or they tend to be really against more than one [yet they support the Trinity- go, figure}.
Chic,
The main point here is that the 2LOT and entropy are not limiting matter from becoming more organized.
It only limits spontaneous organization in the absence of an energy input.
Lots or organization of matter is happening on Earth because energy is input constantly from the sun.
Thus living things like trees can organize and nonliving things like hurricanes can organize.
The 2LOT has nothing to say about a Master Designer being required.
The main point here is that the 2LOT and entropy are not limiting matter from becoming more organized.
Wrong again, Nate.
2LoT and entropy ARE limiting factors to things getting more “organized”, by themselves.
And energy alone, such as solar energy, does NOT “organize” by itself. Organization requires energy AND “intelligence”.
“Organization requires energy AND “
‘intelligence’.
Riight so hurricane, tornado, organization requires intelligence?
Organization by living things is not addressed by 2LOT.
“Chemistry, mutation and selection do it all.”
Ent, it is massively ironic that life just happens, because it totally goes against entropy. Things just don’t organize by themselves.
Have you thought about how your thoughts were created?
Life doesn’t violate 2LOT.
You get local and temporary negative entropy in and around an organism while the entropy of the system of which it is part increases more rapidly. In fact, one good way of scouting for life is to find areas where entropy is increasing faster than normal.
Similarly no a priori rule against complexity. Life can evolve complexity if it is willing to pay the high cost in energy and entropy.
“Ent, it is massively ironic that life just happens, because it totally goes against entropy.”
Tee hee hee…
Why would we expect Chip to understand the 2LOT when he can’t even figure out 1LOT?
“Things just don’t organize by themselves.”
True, can’t turn water and oxygen and CO2 and nitrogen into a tree without energy input.
Hmmm, where could that come from?
Ent and Nate have NO understanding of 2LoT. 2LoT is where we learn about entropy. And we know from the developed science of entropy that things don’t get better by themselves. Ent claims they do, but he just doesn’t understand the science. He’s the one that perverts science.
“but he just doesnt understand the science. Hes the one that perverts science.’
Please do tell us what specifically he doesnt understand, Clint.
Of course, we know that there are no specifics that can be given without revealing your extreme ignorance.
All we can expect from Clint is standard cut and paste trolling.
Enough mindless obfuscation, Nate.
Which is more probable from an entropy perspective, abiogenesis or intelligent design?
Any further thoughts on how your thoughts were created?
Entropic man, can identify the area where entropy is increasing faster than normal enough to create an amino acid from its elements?
Troll Nate, you and Ent have no understanding of science. Rather, you both have a history of trying to pervert reality. I no longer waste time with you, but let me give you just one example of your ignorance.
Just above, you thought you were being clever, but you were only exhibiting your ignorance and immaturity:
“True, can’t turn water and oxygen and CO2 and nitrogen into a tree without energy input.
Hmmm, where could that come from?”
You believed that only the proper elements and energy were required to make a tree. You did not consider that the tree has to “know” how to use all the elements and energy. Without the correct “assembly required”, there would be no tree. You have no knowledge of the science.
(I won’t respond, as you’re a proven braindead troll, unable to learn. Grow up.)
> Which is more probable from an entropy perspective, abiogenesis or intelligent design?
Is that a Jeopardy question?
“Entropic man, can identify the area where entropy is increasing faster than normal enough to create an amino acid from its elements? ”
You don’t even need life to make amino acids. You can find them in interstellar space, in carbonaceous chondrites and comets.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11542462/
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Rosetta/Rosetta_s_comet_contains_ingredients_for_life#:
Ent, amino acids are chemical compounds. They ain’t “life”.
What will be your next perversion of science?
Chic Bowdrie
“Which is more probable from an entropy perspective, abiogenesis or intelligent design?”
Angiogenesis obeys 2LOT.
God s saying “Let there be light” do not obey 2LOT.
“You dont even need life to make amino acids.”
No, but you need amino acids to make life. No matter which way you go down the evolutionary path, the hand of the Master Designer is involved.
Think about where thoughts come from.
Which came first, abiogenesis, 2LoT, or light?
“Angiogenesis”???
Wow, that’s a pretty serious typo for someone claiming to have been a biology teacher!
Ent appears to be a complete phony, like the rest of his cult. He calls himself “Entopic man”, but he doesn’t know squat about entropy. He claims passenger jets fly backwards!
Sooooo typical.
“Which came first, abiogenesis, 2LoT, or light? ”
2LOT
“Enough mindless obfuscation, Nate.”
It is an internet myth that 2LOT is incompatible with evolution or life.
Anyone who buys this myth is clueless about the 2LOT.
Saying things like ‘Things don’t organize by themselves’ ‘it totally goes against entropy’.
A tree gets organized ‘by itself’. Being a living thing is irrelevant to the issue.
A hurricane gets organized ‘by itself’. In the face of 2LOT and entropy.
Thus ‘obfuscation’ is defined as using any science Chip is clueless about.
“the hand of the Master Designer is involved”
And clearly the Master Designer wouldn’t allow humans, created in his image, to f*k up the whole Earth.
Thus AGW MUST BE wrong.
This is the philosophical basis of the denial of evidence supporting AGW for many like Chic.
Lets face it, the science is irrelevant.
My words “things don’t organize by themselves” were poorly chosen. But so were yours. Trees don’t organize by themselves. They require sun, water, and nutrients from soil. More importantly, where does the growth process come from? What makes a seed decide to germinate?
What drives you to argue AGW on this blog? I believe it’s the work of the Master Designer. I should be thankful, because it could be worse. You could be working for the dark side f-ing up the Earth.
I don’t say AGW must be wrong, only that you haven’t proved your version of it right. Furthermore, I don’t deny your evidence that causes you to believe in the AGW paradigm. I just deny the case is closed.
Are you being sarcastic about science being irrelevant? For me, there is only science and faith. It’s important to know the difference.
Chic, http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1188638
Nate demonstrates his ignorance of science:
A tree gets organized ‘by itself’. Being a living thing is irrelevant to the issue.
A hurricane gets organized ‘by itself’. In the face of 2LOT and entropy.
A tree “knows” how to grow from the “intelligence” planted in its DNA. Nate has NEVER studied the complex process called “photosynthesis”. The process is so complex we still don’t know exactly how it works.
And a hurricane is nothing more than thermodynamics at work. A hurricane doesn’t “organize” itself. It is the result of all of the thermodynamics and physics at work.
Like all of the other braindead cult idiots, Nate just throws out crap, hoping something will stick. It always comes back to stick on his face.
“And a hurricane is nothing more than thermodynamics at work. A hurricane doesnt ‘organize’ itself. It is the result of all of the thermodynamics and physics at work.”
Good, and the organized phenomena like that is exactly what 2LOT, which is central to thermodynamics, is meant to address.
NCEI Global Ocean Heat Content Anomaly data has been updated through 2021:
ohcAnnualAnomoly.png
NCEI Global Ocean Heat Content Anomaly data has been updated through 2021:
https://tinyurl.com/4b88zkbw
Thank you Mark B, I didn’t know that source yet.
I suppose that the difference between it and the one I regularly look at
http://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/english/ohc/ohc_global_en.html
is due to a different reference period.
Could you please post the origin of the southcafe chart?
I generated that chart using the data set indicated on the chart, that is,
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/data/oceans/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/3month/ohc2000m_levitus_climdash_seasonal.csv
Given the date range, this is apparently derived from Argo measurements. It should be consistent with the black line on plot 2 here:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/global-ocean-heat-content/
U.S. 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report released:
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/sealevelrise/sealevelrise-tech-report-sections.html
Key points:
1) Sea level along the U.S. coastline is projected to rise, on average, 10 – 12 inches (0.25 – 0.30 meters) in the next 30 years (2020 – 2050), which will be as much as the rise measured over the last 100 years (1920 – 2020). Sea level rise will vary regionally along U.S. coasts because of changes in both land and ocean height.
2) Sea level rise will create a profound shift in coastal flooding over the next 30 years by causing tide and storm surge heights to increase and reach further inland. By 2050, “moderate” (typically damaging) flooding is expected to occur, on average, more than 10 times as often as it does today, and can be intensified by local factors.
3) Current and future emissions matter. About 2 feet (0.6 meters) of sea level rise along the U.S. coastline is increasingly likely between 2020 and 2100 because of emissions to date. Failing to curb future emissions could cause an additional 1.5 – 5 feet (0.5 – 1.5 meters) of rise for a total of 3.5 – 7 feet (1.1 – 2.1 meters) by the end of this century.
That’s a sea level rise of 10mm/year along the US East Coast.
That coastal plain slopes at1.8mm/metre, 1.8m/kilometre (10ft/mile for americans).
At that rate, sea level rise will move the high tide mark inland by 5m or 6yards/year.
More anti-science from NOAA — Agenda over science, always.
Chic Bowdrie says:
February 21, 2022 at 2:44 PM
“Christos,
………………
…Is not Earth’s rotational warming based on its heat capacity and Holder’s inequality (the average of the fourth power of all global temperatures is greater than the fourth power of the average global temperature)? Therefore, because extreme temperatures radiate more than a similar body with the same average temperature, a temperate body will be warmer than one with more extreme temperatures. In other words, the faster a body rotates, the warmer it will be.”
Emphasis in bold is mine.
Thank you Chic!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Earths Te =255K is lower than Moons Te =270Kbecause Earth has higher Albedo a=0,306 compared to Moon Albedo a =0,11.
Thus, Moons not reflected portion of the incident solar flux is 28% larger than Earths.
That is why there is the difference in theoretical effective temperatures (uniform surface irradiation temperatures) Earth and Moon have.
Earths Te =255K
Moons Te =270K
But the Earths average surface temperature Tmean =288K is much higher than Moons Tmean =220K.
Earths diurnal cycle is 29,5 times faster than Moons, but both, Earth and Moon are far from reaching the uniform surface temperature condition.
If Earth had not atmosphere, and had the same as Moon average surface Albedo a =0,11, what would be Earths average surface temperature?
Because of faster rotation, Earths surface temperature should have been (Holders inequality the average of the fourth power of all global temperatures is greater than the fourth power of the average global temperature) higher than Moons Tmean =220K.
How much Earths faster rotation (29,5 times faster) affects Earths average surface temperature Tmean to be higher than Moons Tmean =220K?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thus Christos (or Chic) cannot explain Earth’s TLT temperature increase in the satellite era in the top post since Earth is not rotating faster in the same period.
Besides you comment being off topic in this thread, there is no need to explain satellite era temperatures which are within range of normal variability evidenced in the last several millennia.
There is a need demand, Chic, and the evidence is now well in hand that shows the attribution of added IR active gas, changes in wv, TSI, and cloud&surface albedo to the top post long term (whole era) TLT temperature trend. You can find the evidence for free on the internet if anyone cares enough to understand.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1185617
It is a solid prove of the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
Lets analyze
Heres another question. Suppose Mars was in Earths orbit around the Sun, same atmosphere as it has now, what would its temperature be?
The answer to this question will illustrate the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon complete rightness!
The measured Mars mean surface temperature at the actual Mars distance from sun R.mars = 1,524AU is Tmean.1,524AU =210K
R = 1AU is the Earths orbit distance from the sun in AU (astronomical units)
Lets apply the inverse square law
(1/R) = (1/1,524) = 1/2,32
Mars has 2,32 times less solar irradiation intensity than Earth has Lets calculate using the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law 4 power. When estimating the emission temperature the 4th root of the emission intensity should be applied.
Thus, by analogue, Mars at the earths orbit being irradiated 2,32 times higher, should have (2,32)∕ ⁴ times higher the mean surface temperature, than on its actual orbit of R.mars=1,524AU, but with the same rotational spin
Mars performs 1 rotation every 24,622 hours or 0,9747 rot/day.
Thus:
(2,32)∕ ⁴= 1,23416
And:
Tmean.mars.1AU = 1,23416*Tmean.mars.1,524AU = =1,23416*210K = 259,17K or rounded 259K
Conclusion:
Mars at earths orbit would have Tmean.mars =259K.
When comparing with the measured moons, because Moon also orbits sun at earths distance, and Moon having a lower than Mars Albedo (a.moon =0,11; a.mars =0,250), thus Moon at earths orbit being more intensively irradiated Moon/Mars = (1-0,11)So /(1-0,250)So = 0,89/0,75 = 1,187 times Moon is more intensively irradiated, and the measured Tmean.moon =220K
It is a solid prove of the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon. The higher Mars average surface temperature at Earths orbit than Moons, the 259K vs 220K, and the huge and undisputable difference of 259K -220K =Δ39C can be explained only by the Mars rotational spin being 28,783 times faster than that of Moons.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Ball4 says:
February 23, 2022 at 11:57 AM
Thus Christos (or Chic) cannot explain Earths TLT temperature increase in the satellite era in the top post since Earth is not rotating faster in the same period.
Reply:
1. Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m) is the planet’s solar flux. For Earth S = So
Earths albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earths axial spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150*1*1)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
Conclusions:
The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet….Tmean.Tsat.mean
Mercury…..325,83 K..340 K
Earth….287,74 K..288 K
Moon…223,35 Κ..220 Κ
Mars..213,21 K..210 K
Te.correct vs Tsat.mean comparison table
Planet……..Te……..Te.correct…….Tmean.Tsat.mean
Mercury….439,6 K.364 K……….325,83 K..340 K
Earth…255 K……210 K………..287,74 K..288 K
Moon..270,4 Κ….224 K……….223,35 Κ..220 Κ
Mars..209,91 K.174 K……….213,21 K..210 K
The 288 K 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earths atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earths surface.
There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The satellite radiometers used in the top post measure 255K Christos, you are off by 33K.
Measured earthen: Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K GHE, rounded.
Sparsely measured: Mars Tse – Te = 215K – 210K = 5K martian GHE, rounded
Measured earthen Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K GHE, rounded.
Wrong again, Braindead4.
The UAH sats measure at about the 264K layer. Temperatures decrease in the troposphere as altitude increases. There are at lease 3 layers at 255K, through the entire atmosphere.
Earth does NOT have a “real 255K surface”. The only one you have fooled is poor Norman.
Correction: That should read “The only ones you have fooled are the ones like poor Norman.”
The actual satellite 255K measured data and surface water experimental results have fooled Clint R while Norman understands them. Just like Feynman pointed out: since Clint R disagrees with experiment, it is Clint R that is wrong.
Norman et. al. are right to agree with proper experiment.
The 288 K 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earths atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earths surface.
There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, the satellites measure the reality of the earthen Te=255K surface & the martian Te=210K surface – you are foolish to ignore the experimental evidence.
Repeating your flawed claim doesn’t help your credibility. Your work remains off by 33K, rounded, in part, because you are foolish enough to ignore the experimental evidence for the earthen optically thick 1bar atm.
Ball4, by Te =255K I refer to Earth’s without-atmosphere blackbody temperature (effective temperature).
Planet effective temperature is defined as surface uniform temperature in the absence of atmosphere.
Please explain what you try to say by insisting on:
“Measured earthen Tse Te = 288K 255K = 33K GHE, rounded.”
I nave explained that the planet effective temperature is a mathematical abstraction, which doesn’t exist in the real world, and, therefore, it cannot be measured.
Earth is a planet, with a thin atmosphere, thus earthen atmosphere doesn’t have any significant greenhouse effect on earth’s surface.
There is not any greenhouse effect problem in our world, on the planet Earth were we live…
I understand your concern about earth’s climate.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You’re still denying reality, B4.
The UAH satellites measure at about the 264K layer. Temperatures decrease in the troposphere as altitude increases. There are at lease 3 layers at 255K, through the entire atmosphere.
Earth does NOT have a “real 255K surface”. The “255K” is bogus, which makes the “33K” bogus.
Now, back to your denial and perversion of reality….
Christos, Earth’s without-atmosphere blackbody temperature (BB effective temperature) is unknown. Planet effective temperature Te is NOT defined as surface uniform temperature in the absence of atmosphere.
A planet’s measured effective temperature Te is defined as that global and multi-annual brightness temperature at which a planet system is measured (by radiometer) to radiate the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the planet as measured over multi-annual time periods. Te so defined is well known for Earth in the satellite era at 255K and reasonably well known for Mars by orbiting probe & sparse rovers at 210K.
Earth’s atm. is NOT optically thin; our atm. is IR band optically thick almost to the point of being relevant IR band opaque (surface to TOA) in the humid tropics while nearly transparent in the visible bands.
Your work does not agree with the experimental evidence which is foolish as Prof. Feynman correctly points out.
Braindead4, your “experimental evidence” involves an imaginary sphere. That’s where your “255K” comes from. You’re comparing Earth to an imaginary sphere.
That ain’t science.
Clint, the earthen planetary system is certainly not imaginary & has an instumentally measured thus real 255K surface so is not “bogus” as claimed by Clint.
Clint’s comment doesn’t agree with experiment so makes Clint R, like Christos, simply wrong per Dr. Feynman quote.
Your “real 255K surface” is bogus, Braindead4. That’s why you can’t identify it.
Hiding behind Feynman won’t help you any more than hiding behind Spencer. Both are known for choosing reality over cult beliefs. In fact, Feynman was the one that originated the term “Cargo Cult”. It perfectly describes your “Keyboard Cult”.
Dick might have been older than we thought, Pup:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult
Clint
The problem is: Surface temperature is 288K while theory says the surface temperature should be 255K. The theory is based on well established science known as Stefan-Boltzmann law
Telling people 255K isn’t valid and is without basis means you have to prove Stefan-Boltzmann law is wrong.
Let us know when you’ve proven your hypothesis. Please don’t come back until you have it peer reviewed; time is short and you have lots of work to do. Nose-to-the-grindstone and all that.
Ken says:
February 23, 2022 at 11:12 PM
“Clint
The problem is: Surface temperature is 288K while theory says the surface temperature should be 255K. The theory is based on well established science known as Stefan-Boltzmann law
Telling people 255K isnt valid and is without basis means you have to prove Stefan-Boltzmann law is wrong.”
Emphasis in bold is mine.
Yes, that is right. We have to prove Stefan-Boltzmann law doesn’t apply vise-versa to the planets.
–
Stefan-Boltzmann emission law doesnt work vice-versa !
The T = ( J /σ )∕ ⁴ is a mistake !
–
The old convincement that the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law works vice-versa is based on assumption, that EM energy obeys the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (1LOT). That assumption was never verified, it was never been confirmed by experiment. The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law states:
J = σ*Τ⁴ (W/m) EM energy flux (1)
The mathematical ability to obtain T, for a given J led to the misfortunate believe that the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law formula can be used vise-versa:
T = ( J /σ ) ∕ ⁴ (K) (2) as the surface (vise-versa) radiative emission temperature definition.
Well, this is theoretically right for a blackbody theoretical approach. Blackbody surface behavioral property is compared with a tiny hole in a stove. The incident in the hole radiative energy vanishes inside the stove The hole is infinitesimally smaller than the stoves inside walls area. Thus the incident in the hole EM energy cannot escape out of the stove.
–
After multiple interactions with the stoves walls, the incident in the hole the entire EM energy is transformed into heat and is, eventually, evenly dissipated and accumulated as HEAT in the stoves inner walls
–
The EM energy emitted out of the stoves hole is then only the inside stove uniform surface temperature T dependent function
J = σ*Τ⁴ (W/m).
But the
T = ( J /σ ) ∕ ⁴ (K) (2) as the irradiated surface (vise-versa) radiative emission temperature definition is utterly unacceptable, because it has not a physical analogue in the real world.
–
That is why we should consider planet effective temperature
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K)
as a mathematical abstraction.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Wrong Ken. The “255K” is for an imaginary sphere, not Earth.
You don’t understand any of this. But, you’re a great example of a kid-with-a-keyboard.
Clint R, as has been pointed out to you already the observed Earth system is NOT an imaginary sphere despite your assertions.
Earth is not imaginary, but a blackbody sphere is imaginary.
Speaking of imaginary, did you ever find where your imaginary “real 255K surface” is?
255K is the calculated(not measured)SB temperature of an imaginary surface assuming all radiation from Earth originated unimpeded from every point on that surface surrounding the globe. It has to be imaginary because that surface would be analogous to the topology of the actual Earth surface satellites observe while orbiting it. In other words, that surface would be moving up and down non-uniformly with respect to time place. It’s our Keyboard Cultist’s imaginary friend.
Chic, the earthen global multi-annual LW mean emission at ~255K is continuously monitored, measured by radiometers on specialized satellite instruments of which you are apparently unaware along with Clint R.
Chic can find the evidence for free on the internet if Chic cares enough to understand by reading the reports. Doing so will help credibility when commenting on a climate blog.
Your “real 255K surface” is bogus, Braindead4. That’s why you can’t identify it. If it were there, you would have supplied a link. Norman would have supplied a link. He has probably spent weeks searching the internet, but came up with nothing.
You’ve got NOTHING.
Clint R, continuing to admit Clint can’t find the earthen real measured 255K surface for free on the internet though it’s monitored continuously is supplying plenty of laughs for more astute blog participants and zero Clint R credibility.
No Balls,
I contend the imaginary 255K surface cannot be found on the internet or by all of the satellites in the universe. Prove me wrong.
Chic, only the earthen real 255K measured surface can be found. The imaginary one belongs to, at least, Clint R.
So you keep asserting without evidence, no Balls.
To keep requesting sammiches isn’t chic.
Neither is cluttering a discussion with boring irrelevancies consider chic.
4,100 Responses
And my coffee doesn’t taste good. Though I also haven’t
had enough [because…]
So, would 1 trillion people living in Venus orbit, be happy?
Can actually poll and determine if people are happy?
Why are Canadians slightly happy with Trudeau?
Well put on a fresh pot of coffee, because fresh coffee is
important, but too much perfect coffee might cause serious
problems.
I am going to happy when/if get some images from James Webb,
but probably happier when FAA stops delaying the Starship launch
{for no apparent reason}.
And the war, war, war with Ukraine, is dull and stupid.
And are less people being murder in Ukraine, then say, Chicago?
“The 18 countries with the lowest tax rates in the world” include
Canada. Low tax rate must be a bad thing. But maybe they are happier. And I tend to think 1 trillion people in Venus orbit would
have lower taxes. Or low income ocean settlement would also pay lower taxes. Or spending 30% of your time to pay for useless govt, might make people happier.
Though some people might happier having wars. A theory is colder countries seem to want wars. One say, they want to socialize more. Or living in frozen wasteland, could get boring.
Colder countries seem to want wars because they are more susceptible to famine years that come with a cooling cycle. Wars are always about resources.
China has had civilization for much longer. There is an interesting discussion about how half the worlds population lives within 3300 km of a point in Myanmar. That is because the climate is really mild allowing for two crops every year. Population and Civilization flourish when there is enough to eat.
An interesting graph shows Chinese dynasties collapsing during grand solar minima.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbNf13SfSB4
Long Haul TDS
And smart move by Putin.
It seems that for politician, I agree with Trump it was a smart
move.
But mostly because politicians generally do dumb things.
Or comparatively, genius.
And would say the same thing if Pooh Bear did something as smart {I am unaware of him ever doing that}.
Russia has to be one the worse countries in the world, in terms over the decades or centuries. Now, of course, Germany also belongs on the list. Hitler and Stalin and Napoleon are quite similar to other genocidal leadership/sociological behavior.
What made Hitler worse was how stupid he was**. And we have people who imagine, Hitler, Stalin, and Napoleon were geniuses. And I tend to think there never been a genius politician, but one look at it, comparatively.
In that sense Hitler was the dumbest of the three. And Stalin was the second dumbest. But Russia as nation has been the largest train wreck, though China managed to fall the furthest. Or China spent a long time being the most civilized country in the world, Russia, hasn’t.
[Though Russia was powerful factor or caused much fear to people who were not Russian. One could claim it was a threat that caused European insanity- well, before the EU was formed. But Russia was more of train wreck than merely causing fear to European political castes- and people in general.]
Now, one could have a lot bad things to say about “most civilized” any nation. I guess, I am old school, and would say cannibalism is pretty low on the pole. Or lower than slavery.
One could say the US did the most about ending slavery, but we still have it. Slavery is largely about “human trafficking” and Rome had “human trafficking” in which some slaves were “superstars” of the most popular sport of the time. So, idea of NBL being slave plantation is some somewhat right [if you are dumb] the big difference is wanting to be sport stars, and one has the choice of quitting the job [if you weren’t mentally impaired]. And the other aspect of slavery is caste type system and the eventual alienation and the abuse of a class of people.
The thing of England and their butlers servants is interesting in terms slavery or “respectable servants”. It’s more the norm, but England seemed “more famous” for it. Though probably mostly a Hollywood, factor.
But what is lower than cannibalism.
Do we have to find out?
Really?
It seems the worst has to be explored.
We seem to be eager to explore, the deepest depth of stupidity, over and over, again.
Or has much good ever come from “peacekeeper forces” or
it seems Putin, has given a low bar which it’s almost possible do better, than other past attempts.
**It’s sort like Woke. Mobs are dumbest of anything, and Hitler or just one person grew up as dumb, as vicious, as a power crazed as mob of pathic/spoiled losers.
Sort like, Long Haul TDS might become.
gbaikie…”But Russia as nation has been the largest train wreck, though China managed to fall the furthest. Or China spent a long time being the most civilized country in the world, Russia, hasnt”.
***
When was China ever the most civilized country in the world? Till the time of Mao, women had zero rights. Many had their feet bound and eventually deformed because the ruling class (men) thought tiny deformed feet were attractive.
China, till the time of Mao, had a huge peasant class who had little or no education, no health care, and they were vulnerable to warlords, thieves, and muggers. Mao changed all that. Unfortunately, the modern rulers in China are carrying on some kind of dictatorship that has no bearing on the past or on the principles of Mao.
I don’t agree with any communism I have seen in this world, basically because it was enforced and had nothing to do with the equality it claimed to espouse. However, I cannot imagine any other system that would have gotten China out of the mess it was in with its ridiculous class system.
Unfortunately, the system became abused and abusive. When Mao was asked once about the purges, he was straight forward. He asked, ‘what else could I do’?
Two points to be considered about Mao:
1)His second in command was Chou-en-lai. a man highly regarded by western countries. Why would a despot have a good guy as his second in command? In the early days, Mao was a good guy and there’s no reason to think he became a bad guy.
Mao was a university student who participated in protests against the government, who were mean SOBs. They had a secret police called the Kuomintang. At one time, he had to watch from a distance as they slowly strangled his wife to death during an execution. It’s much to his credit that he was able to recover from that and lead a revolt that overthrew the SOBs in power.
His revolutionary army also played a big part in defending China from the Japanese during WWII. The Yanks wanted to work with him but the leader of the SOBs, Chiang Kai Shek, whined so hard, the US tended to back off from that idea. Meantime Kai Shek was storing all the aid he got from the US depriving the Chinese people for whom the aid was intended. He claimed to have stored it for fear warlords would get it and use it against him.
2)As Mao said, what else could he have done? He was dealing with warlords, robbers, and murderers who worked China en masse. He was dealing with abysmal ignorance in the peasant class which was so strong they rejected the introduction of democracy by Sun Yet San circa 1915.
It was not as if Mao was suppressing neighbourly people who believed in democracy or who practiced it. Many of the peasant simply murdered a newborn girl because they wanted only boys to help out on the farm.
I am not defending Mao out of any sympathy I have toward Communists, I simply have no idea what it was like to live in his China even though many western journalists seem to think they do. There is a lot of bs written about Mao based on an entirely different way of life.
One of the reason Mao embraced communism is because the representatives of so-called democracy were busy raping China of resources and trading for it in opium. Having said that, he was kicked out of the Russian-based communist party in China.
Stalin, on the other hand, was a serious murdering SOB.
“When was China ever the most civilized country in the world?”
One point, would been before, they cancelled their project of exploring the world.
–When did China stop exploring?
1433
We do know that after 1433, discovery stopped because the incentive structure as established by government policy did not encourage investment in overseas exploration. It was not only discouraged, it was forbidden.–
brandon…”But in 1998, that trend suddenly and unexpectedly reversed. Cox and his colleague Benjamin Chao studied observations from nine satellites and found that gravity at the equator has become stronger. This implies the circumference had expanded – by something like a millimeter”.
***
Would be nice if you’d refrain from quoting pseudo-science.
“But in 1998, that trend suddenly and unexpectedly reversed. Cox and his colleague Benjamin Chao studied observations from nine satellites and found that gravity at the equator has become stronger. This implies the circumference had expanded – by something like a millimeter”.
A millimetre?????????????
What kind of idiot would claim that as an expansion? And what kind of satellite can measure a millimetre of change?
Why are they even talking about this? Oh, sorry, I forgot, it’s all about funding.
> what kind of satellite can measure a millimetre of change
A good one:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/how-measure-planet-180972957/
For an incredulous chap, you sure buy into every single conspiracy theory you can lay your eye on.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
Who but a moron would provide a link that contradicts his stupid assertion?
From the link –
“Last updated in 2014, the system is accurate to within a few centimeters relative to the center of the Earth.” With luck, of course. Even “a few centimeters” is only achievable through the miracle of averaging, or blind luck.
So no, Witless Wee Willy, even a “good” satellite can not defeat the laws of physics and optics. In particular, claims of amazing accuracy from any organisation which is involved with “climate” will usually be found to be physically impossible.
Maybe you should not appeal to the authority of journalists who manage to contradict their own headline.
Carry on.
The bore probably got his entire education from reading the headlines of every discreditable news source out there.
Dear Penthouse, the moon does not rotate on its axis …
Try this, Kennui:
https://space-geodesy.nasa.gov/
Same thing, but with a patina you might prefer.
> even a “good” satellite can not defeat the laws of physics and optics
Do you have a point, silly sock puppet?
Wonky Wee Willy,
Even a “good” satellite can not defeat the laws of physics and optics.
I know you disagree. That’s because you live in a fantasy world where reality doesn’t count.
Moron.
> Even a “good” satellite can not defeat the laws of physics and optics.
Again, silly old sock puppet – do you have a point?
Wee Willy Wanker,
Do I need one?
Are you too lazy or incompetent to figure things out for yourself?
Carry on.
Mike, Mike,
You ask –
“Do I need one?”
If you want to have a point, having a point helps.
Hope this helps!
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“If you want to have a point, having a point helps.”
So you say, moron, so you say.
Still trying to avoid looking like your usual idiotic self by linking to articles which contradict you?
It’s not working too well, is it?
Keep it up.
Mike, Mike,
I stated a truism.
Even I can be right from time to time by stating a truism.
Your question was silly, silly sock puppet.
Cheers.
Weepy Wee Willy,
I repeat – still trying to avoid looking like your usual idiotic self by linking to articles which contradict you?
Tell me again, what sort of satellite can measure a millimetre of change on the circumference of the Earth (in the context of the present discussion)?
A non-existent one?
Probably the same one that a climate crackpot claims can measure a mythical GHE, I suppose.
Carry on being a reality avoiding moron.
Silly sock puppet,
You parrot –
“I repeat”
Indeed you do.
Without having a point.
Over and over again.
For more than a decade now at Roy’s.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
christos…”I nave explained that the planet effective temperature is a mathematical abstraction, which doesnt exist in the real world, and, therefore, it cannot be measured”.
^^^
Thank you, Christos. Alarmists and spinners have problems distinguishing reality from illusion.
Josef Stefan and Ludwig Boltzmann were anything but climate alarmists, Gordon. Effective temperature is what one gets from *measuring* radiated energy and applying the S-B relationship. To obtain the real temperature requires knowing the body’s net emissivity … or a thermometer, a device that typically requires knowing the thermal expansion properties of some material and *doing math*.
Sorry to say, it’s mathematical abstractions, aka *models*, all the way down. Sleep well.
Brandon, the “effective temperature” being discussed here is from an imaginary sphere that receives the same after-albedo solar flux as Earth. So the calculations go like this:
960 W/m^2 solar incoming
240 W/m^2 emitted, at equilibrium
S/B then gives 255K (ε = 1)
Since Earth’s average temperature is 288K, the Alarmists try to claim Earth is 33K warmer than it should be!
Of course that is garbage, as is all of the CO2 nonsense.
“Models” don’t work if you don’t know how to use them.
Clint R and Swenson(previously Mike Flynn)
Are you two bots?
https://www.techrepublic.com/article/think-before-you-share-four-tips-and-three-tools-for-spotting-a-bot-on-social-media/
“Bots often use formulaic or repetitive language in posts. Also, if an account tweets the same link over and over or seems fixated on one topic, that’s another telltale sign of a bot.”
It would explain why neither of you two n
ever support any of your ideas. You are not actual humans, just computer generated bots to create turmoil and keep posting going.
The goal of both you bots seems to stir up emotion with zero content.
If you are not bots that would be sad that you act like them. Not sure about Clint R but Swenson does not seem at all human. Very robotic replies and endless repetition and no sign of intelligent thought or contemplation. Asks over and over for proof of GHE. Several posters have offered the BOT the proof. No change. Repeats the same request over and over. Also posts at random about how hot the Earth was billions of years ago and has been cooling ever since. This behavior repeats quite often and does not seem to respond to any content in posts as if it was generated by an actual human.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEn758DVF9I
The video has evidence that there are many many bots on social media. The goal is to find who is human and who is a program.
All BOTS are idiots and Swenson seem to meet that criteria.
Norman, throwing your crap against the wall again, I see. I’m glad you finally learned the “real 255K surface” was just another hoax by Ball4. Now you can get back to your usual trolling, just another Braindead Opinionated Troll.
What is the real surface of a fog bank?
Clint R
Your post is similar to Swenson. Nothing in it indicates a thinking human behind the posts. Lots of repetition. The video said bots have a major goal of extending time on the Internet so other programs can gather information on real humans. You repeat the same things over and over and never support any ideas you post. A lot as a bot would do. You can tell the human posters with scientific backgrounds. They support their claims with evidence. You, however, never do. Maybe a better program than Swenson but still on the lines of a bot program.
Norman if you keep peddling that crap long enough, maybe you can fool some, but not adults.
Your problem is, you can’t support your false beliefs. You NEVER could identify the bogus “real 255K surface”. You can’t find one time my physics has been wrong. It is not my problem that you have never studied any real physics.
Now, continue with your insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations. You’ve got NOTHING of value.
Does a fog bank have a real surface?
Clint “bot” R
Yes I have supported the 255 K surface many times in many ways. Bots can’t think so my efforts were a waste.
For your wrong and unsupported physics.
1) Fluxes don’t add…this is false and can be proven wrong by turning on more than one light in a room. The room gets brighter experimental evidence proves this bot idea wrong.
2) Tidal locking is bogus. Wrong again. Physics supports this idea but you can’t understand how it works.
https://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/celestial/Celestial/node54.html
3) The established and highly used radiative heat transfer equation is bogus.
Calling things “bogus” does not make them bogus. You have zero proof of any of these three claims you make.
You ignore the one I ask you to give supporting evidence that adding 15 micron photons to a sealed container will not cause a temperature increase.
I will let you prove the three. I know already you won’t. Bots are not programmed to think. They have different goals. You will not provide evidence for even one of the three. You never do. You are not a human how can you provide evidence?
Norman, the first 3 have already been explained. I’m not sure what you’re referring to with the 15μ photons in a box. So you need to explain that one.
But, if you pick out your favorite one, I’ll be glad to explain it to you. Provided that you agree to not comment here for 90 days.
You can’t lose — you get to learn some physics and you get a break from trolling.
Go for it!
Clint R.,
> Since Earths average temperature is 288K, the Alarmists try to claim Earth is 33K warmer than it should be!
I don’t see anything alarming about the surface temperature being warmer than Earth’s effective temperature as seen from space. It’s the *change* in temperature over nearly instantaneous geologic time rather than the absolute value of it we should be worried about.
However, if we must, plugging 240 W/m^2 into S-B equation using a more realistic value of ε = .96 gives ~258 K for a difference of 30 K as opposed to the 33 K usually cited.
Brandon, when you use 0.96 for earthen system emissivity you have to properly include the increase of 0.04 in the same system reflectivity which gets the result back to 255K.
Clint R.,
> when you use 0.96 for earthen system emissivity you have to properly include the increase of 0.04 in the same system reflectivity
Reflecting from what.
Sorry, previous comment directed toward Ball4.
1:48 pm: reflecting from “the same system” as the emissivity. With 1.0 emissivity the reflectivity of “the same system” is nil; with 0.96 system emissivity the reflectivity increases from 0.0 to 0.04.
System of interest: Emissivity + reflectivity + transmissivity = 1.0
where in the system of interest no light bands of interest get thru the other side for 0.0 transmissivity.
Yes Brandon, you need to use a more realistic emissivity. But there are many more complications in comparing Earth to an imaginary sphere. So we don’t know “Earth’s effective temperature as seen from space”.
And we don’t know that there’s a “*change* in temperature over nearly instantaneous geologic time”, unless you believe in the hockey stick.
Again, Earth is not an imaginary sphere Clint, but Clint R calling it one time and again generates much entertainment. Earthen emissivity has been measured so “Earth’s effective temperature as seen from space” is known to 95% confidence.
This idiot Ball4 is always such a hoot.
He tries to hide behind Dr. Spencer, Dr. Feynman, or the “free Internet”! When he’s not hiding, he trying to misrepresent me: “Again, Earth is not an imaginary sphere Clint, but Clint R calling it one time and again generates much entertainment.”
He has a supply of such tricks because he has NOTHING of value. But the funniest part is Norman accepts Ball4 as his cult hero!
That’s why this is so much fun.
Ball4,
> System of interest: Emissivity + reflectivity + transmissivity = 1.0
>
> where in the system of interest no light bands of interest get thru the other side for 0.0 transmissivity.
Ok yes, now I understand. Thank you for pointing it out, this is an aspect of the physics previously unknown to me.
A quick session on teh Goggle tells me that gasses are poor reflectors, it’s solids and liquids we have to worry about (things with a discernible surface).[1] Since the only thing we’re seeing directly from the surface into space is via the atmospheric windows, and since that accounts for only about 10% of total outbound LW, I think we can say that the reflectivity terms can be ignored for our purposes here.
Maybe another thing to consider is that when we’re looking down from space, there’s nothing reflecting (or emitting) back to us from above our vantage point, so again we can ignore the reflectivity term.
That all said, I’m no physicist, and since the 33 K number is canonical in presentations to laypersons (and first year undergrads) it may be best for me to not split too many hairs. 🙂
——
[1] See the table at: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo300/node/646
Clint R.,
> But there are many more complications in comparing Earth to an imaginary sphere.
More complicated calculations exist, but contrarians don’t like those either. Would that they could provide a complex enough set of factors to satisfy them and present that formulation for everyone’s illumination.
> So we dont know Earths effective temperature as seen from space.
This method is what astrophysicists use to study the surface temperatures of stars, at least as a starting point, so it’s not just “alarmists” whose knowledge of the relevant principles is inferior to contrarians’.
To put it another way, the fact that contrarians know any of these nuances at all is due to the very same people whose apparent ignorance they are critiquing.
> And we dont know that theres a *change* in temperature over nearly instantaneous geologic time, unless you believe in the hockey stick.
Yet contrarians know that climate is always changing, and that what modern *instruments* tell us about temperature is not only completely normal with respect to the past and therefore not only nothing to worry about, but also obviously not our doing. Curious that proxies and instrumentation is good enough for contrarians to speak with such high confidence, yet fraught with uncertainty when “alarmists” attempt to make claims based on the same data.
Sorry Brandon, but your comment triggered my blah-blah detector.
As to the second point, are you saying we know Earth’s effective temperature as seen from space?
Do you have a source? Do you know how the temperature was determined/measured?
Thanks.
> Sorry Brandon, but your comment triggered my blah-blah detector.
Thanks so much, in future I’ll extend you the same courtesy.
> As to the second point, are you saying we know Earths effective temperature as seen from space?
The short attention span answer is “yes”.
> Do you have a source? Do you know how the temperature was determined/measured?
I think we’re at the point you can go make your own sammich, Clint.
Yeah, I thought that was a big bluff. And you got caught!
That’s why this is so much fun, Brandon.
> Yeah, I thought that was a big bluff. And you got caught!
Not only do you not read, Clint, you apparently don’t even remember what you wrote: your first comment to me on this subthread correctly derived Earth’s effective temperature. I shouldn’t have to make you a sammich you’ve already prepared for yourself, much less feed it back to you.
Good evening.
Wrong again, Brandon.
The calculation I provided was for an IMAGINARY SPHERE.
“Brandon, the “effective temperature” being discussed here is from an imaginary sphere that receives the same after-albedo solar flux as Earth.”
You clearly are unable to learn, aka, “braindead”.
> The calculation I provided was for an IMAGINARY SPHERE.
Imaginary anythings don’t emit real EM, Clint. The real Earth approximates a spherical cow better than the proverbial one, same as remote stars do.
Now please go eat your sammich.
The calculation I provided was for an IMAGINARY SPHERE.
“Brandon, the “effective temperature” being discussed here is from an imaginary sphere that receives the same after-albedo solar flux as Earth.”
You clearly are unable to learn, aka, “braindead”.
Clint R, you’re clearly an idiot.
Clint R.,
Any 1st year physics student should know from the first day their butt hits the chair in the lecture hall that mathematical models for observable phenomena are based on imaginary constructions.
Axis of rotation? A 1-dimensional thought experiment which cannot physically exist in a 3-dimensional world.
I do hope you’re enjoying that sammich.
Brandon, you seem to be rambling about lecture halls, axis of rotation, and sammich.
Were you trying to make a coherent point, or just practicing to be a braindead cult idiot?
I’ve made many points, Clint R, but you apparently don’t have the attention span, or some other inability, to understand them.
Were I to summarize I’d say that your gotcha about the theoretical nature of blackbodies, and the effective temperature concept derived therefrom, isn’t due to “alarmists'” delusions but rather those of Stefan and Boltzmann who ginned up the concepts in the first place.
I said as much in the beginning of this subthread.
Disparaging such foundational physics which, are known to work in applications having nothing whatsoever to do with climate, is bizarre indeed. I’d expect no less from obstinate and willfully ignorant contrarians.
Try some more mustard on that sammich, this one is getting rather bland.
Well, if that’s the point you were struggling to make, it’s WRONG.
You have used “sammich” in each of your last 5 comments here. That, plus your inability to learn, tells me you have more interest in trolling than science.
> Well, if thats the point you were struggling to make, its WRONG.
Says you, Clint.
SAMMICH!!!
mark b…”) Current and future emissions matter. About 2 feet (0.6 meters) of sea level rise along the U.S. coastline is increasingly likely between 2020 and 2100 because of emissions to date. Failing to curb future emissions could cause an additional 1.5 5 feet (0.5 1.5 meters) of rise for a total of 3.5 7 feet (1.1 2.1 meters) by the end of this century.”
***
Absolute propaganda from proven fudgers and liars. NOAA has fudged global temperatures and lied to us about their methods of determining global temps. They told an egregious lie when they claimed 2014 was the hottest year ever based on a 48% probability.
When the IPCC claimed in 2013, that the 15 years between 1998 – 2012 showed no warming, NOAA data to that point agreed. Then NOAA retroactively fudged the SST to show a warming trend.
They have retroactively fudged temperature data going back decades and since 1990 they have eliminated 90% of reporting weather stations in their inventory. They have replaced the station data with fudged temperatures produced artificially by interpolating station data between stations up to 1200 km apart. Then they homogenize the data in a climate model.
NOAA have proved themselves to be out and out alarmists. They are lying when they claim future emissions will cause a rise in sea level. They have no scientific proof that shows emissions are causing warming.
When the Trump admin asked for NOAA data to confirm their claims, NOAA refused to release the data. Same with Had-crut when Steve McIntyre petitioned them for their data for an independent audit.
The catastrophic global warming (CAGW) and climate change lie is being perpetuated through chicanery produced by liars and frauds.
> their data
C’mon, Gordo. It wasn’t *their* data in the first place.
Typical lies from the blog’s second dumbest poster:
” They have retroactively fudged temperature data going back decades and since 1990 they have eliminated 90% of reporting weather stations in their inventory. They have replaced the station data with fudged temperatures produced artificially by interpolating station data between stations up to 1200 km apart. Then they homogenize the data in a climate model. ”
Robertson is only able to dissimulate, discard, distort, discredit, denigrate and… lie.
Especially the bold emphasized part is one of Robertson’s dumbest lies, which he regularly repeats, though having been corrected since years.
His lies about NOAA’s weather stations mostly come from a blog he continuously, gullibly appeals to the authority of: Musings [sic] from the Chiefio, driven by E.M. Smith, one of the most incompetent bloggers I have ever heard about.
Never and never did NOAA ‘elinḿinate 90% of reporting weather stations’.
Only an absolute idiot like Robertson can write such a nonsense.
He himself did never download any data from any NOAA corner, let alone would he be ever able to process such data.
The very best is that Robertson permanently discredits NOAA but repeatedly praises John Christy’s work, a scientist who uses NOAA data whenever he needs it!
*
As correctly noted by Willard, the sea level data Mark B was reporting about moreover is by no means NOAA data.
It is made available by the
Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL)
https://www.psmsl.org/
+who publishes data of over 1500 tide gauges worldwide
https://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.data/rlr_monthly.zip
which when being processed, must be corrected for the vertical land movement of the gauges (glacial isostatic rebound or alternatively subsidence) by using data provided by
SONEL (Système d’Observation du Niveau des Eaux Littorales)
https://www.sonel.org/-Vertical-land-movement-estimate-.html?lang=en
*
Robertson always whines about ‘ad homs’ he would be the poor victim of… but always forgets that they are only a response to his own, permanent lies and insults.
News that I was missing:
–The House of Commons passed a motion on Monday confirming the time-limited emergency powers, which included sweeping financial tools to cut the convoy’s funding. The Senate is still debating the matter.
“Today, after careful consideration, we’re ready to confirm that the situation is no longer an emergency. Therefore, the federal government will be ending the use of the Emergencies Act,” the prime minister said.–
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/immediate-emergency-situation-is-over-pm-trudeau-revokes-emergencies-act-1.5793047
I was under the impression that it was law, yesterday.
[[I do wish, we had news- this corporate news is the worst news, ever, maybe worse than Pravda ever was, at any time.]]
Let me tell you a secret, gb – it is not I who has shot down SpaceX’ satellites.
Sunspot number: 38
What is the sunspot number?
Updated 23 Feb 2022
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 11.41×10^10 W Cool
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +5.1% High
48-hr change: -1.3%
Max: +11.7% Very High (12/2009)
Min: -32.1% Very Low (06/1991)
I would say in terms Earth orbits
we almost in Solar Max conditions
in terms increased orbital drag and
lower GCR radiation
Canada Emergency Act is intended to empower a Government that has an actual emergency to deal with. It may even be an emergency that keeps Parliament and Senate from sitting. Normally in an actual emergency (this one wasn’t) time is of the essence so immediate approval isn’t needed. There are conditions that must be met by government (arguably they were not).
You can find the document online; its easy to read.
Ironically it was police action on Saturday actually prevented Parliament from deliberating for a full day.
The political posturing in both houses was a pretense that merely delayed the vote; they could have voted same day as Prime Minister invoked the act and there wouldn’t have been any difference as all MPs voted by party line.
Police moved before Parliament approved the measures. The Prime Minister determined the faux emergency was over before Senate reached the end of its deliberations.
The only ’emergency’, is Trudeau wants to dress up like Mussolini. He managed to expose NDP, likely no one will vote NDP next election. Conservative Party lost its leader (which is a good thing) Trudeau is going to get onto Canada’s history pages as Canada’s 2nd worst Prime Minister (a low bar)
There are lots of independent media that have been in the front line and interviewing the people involved in the protest. You can find them on Youtube and increasingly on Rumble as Youtube doesn’t get it about how their censorship is going to bite them in the ass.
Legacy Media has done nothing but vilify the protest and now many people will not listen to them. Rex Murphy suggests the Legacy Media train wreck started with the Media Campaign against Trump. Given that a free press is integral to a democracy, the legacy media actions are a betrayal of the people. Canadian Legacy Media has taken over 600 million in subsidies from government in the past year and CBC has a 1.2 Billion budget from government, so they are completely compromised and unreliable. Its so bad they are getting harassed any place they show up to try and cover the Convoy events.
You will get better action on the ground from Rebel Media, Viva Frei, and Laura Lynn Thompson among others. True North gives good analysis. Even foreign sources such as GB News (UK) WION (India), Sky News (Australia) are much more reliable than any legacy in Canada.
Convoy in Ottawa is over. There is no point staying in place to be a punching bag for out-of-control police jerks that should be ashamed of themselves and resign.
I watched two of the Ottawa organizers on Action4Canada tonight. They both stated their bank accounts are re-instated. They mentioned that the banks saw the beginnings of a bank run and probably told the Prime Minister to stop doing whatever the (expletive deleted) he was doing.
There are still protests going on everywhere. I expect to participate in one tomorrow.
The big news is going to be the US Convoy. Please encourage anyone participating to keep it peaceful; any violent confrontation will really undermine all the moral ground gained so far.
The mandates are still in place. We have a duty to dissent.
Try this again.
No, the big news was Canadian.
US truckers didn’t have this problem of Canadian truckers.
And big news is still Canadian truckers.
I doesn’t stop merely because arrest people and threaten them like some third world dumbass.
James Alex Fields should be proud of you, gb.
oh.
I missed typing a “t”:
It doesn’t stop merely because [you] arrest people and threaten them like some third world dumbass [leader].
[It was my third try, and typed it fast and made it, shorter, and shorter].
ken…”Convoy in Ottawa is over. There is no point staying in place to be a punching bag for out-of-control police jerks that should be ashamed of themselves and resign”.
***
I agree. The chicken-sh***ts in the Ottawa police force did not want to take the trucker on when they were there in force but now there are only a few they are acting badly. That reflects on police everywhere, most of whom are decent people. At least, I have been treated well by police even in situations where I likely did not deserve it.
I notice the Ottawa police chief did resign after claiming the Freedom Convoy was insurrection, a word used to describe the violent over-throw of a government. The reaction of Trudeau was over the top. This guy is emotionally out of control.
Norman the Nutter wrote previously (referring to myself, I guess) –
“Asks over and over for proof of GHE.” Unfortunately, nobody has ever managed to provide a description of the fabled Greenhouse Effect, so Nutty Norman’s statement is just another climate crackpot attempt to convince other cultists that the GHE exists.
The nutter is obviously confused about the scientific method. As Einstein famously said “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
Climate cranks don’t accept this, and keep insisting that “evidence” somehow “proves” the existence of something they cannot even describe.
No wonder Nutty Norman doesn’t like me pointing out that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature from the molten state. No need for a GHE at all.
Norman the Nutter is an obvious example of the fact that 50% of the population is below average intelligence. What a moron he is!
Swenson
Nothing in your post makes you sound like an actual person and not a program bot.
Even less an idiot. So an idiotic bot then.
N,
Out of more than seven billion people in the world, can you name two who care for your opinion?
Would you consider someone who wastes their time complaining to, or about, a “program bot” normal, or a moron?
Do you often talk to robots? Are you convinced aliens are stealing your brainwaves?
Possibly you need to upgrade your tinfoil hat! I suppose if you can’t even describe the Greenhouse Effect that you claim exists, you have to blame aliens, robots, or evil “big oil” deniers, don’t you?
Moron.
Swenson Bot
Sorry you still sound like a bot. Nothing intelligent in your post just taking some words I posted and using them in a programmed unintelligent way.
One more.
Some dimwit wrote –
“The problem is: Surface temperature is 288K while theory says the surface temperature should be 255K. The theory is based on well established science known as Stefan-Boltzmann law.”
There is no theory which says the temperature “should be” anything. Some climate cranks apparently claim that when the Earth’s surface was molten, it should have been 255K, according to their cultist beliefs.
Only morons are capable of such incredible denial of reality. These idiots would no doubt try to convince you that the measured temperature of a rock exposed to the Sun was wrong, whatever it happened to be!
After all, they do it for the big, mostly molten, rock called the Earth!
Idiot. “Some people claim” is the weakest of all if you cannot back that up with actual quotes. Ones that show they actually said something not something you have just made up to further your position.
Swenson, I would suggest that you get together with Clint to work on falsifying Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Until you have at least quality assurance tests and peer review your hypothesis has no merit.
May the moon shine on your efforts.
Please don’t post again till you have your papers published. No rest for the wicked, not even the extremely wicked, you have work to do.
Ken, I addressed your ignorance here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1186540
I also explained in more detail to Brandon, here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1185947
You can learn, or remain ignorant. Your choice.
Clint, you have nothing of value to offer. I can waste my time much more productively on many other things. Thanks, but no thanks.
Thanks for being honest, Ken. I’ve known several Canadians and they were all pretty sharp. I was beginning to think there weren’t any idiots north of the border.
Thanks for correcting me on that.
Clint R is an idiot. Plain and simple.
K,
Be a moron if you like.
Use the SB law, and calculate the temperature of the surface when it was molten. You should get 255 K or so, using the usual guesses about albedo etc.
Now do that same calculation when the surface temperature was just over 100 C, before the first liquid water appeared. You will still get 255 K or so.
Application of the SB law applied to an external radiative source will not give you the surface temperature of a body which is already hot – which means anything above absolute zero.
Try and calculate the temperature of a hot bowl of soup by measuring the radiation it is absorbing from its surroundings. Put it in the Sun if you like, and see what you get.
255 K?
Your use of the SB law is inappropriate. Real scientists use thermometers to measure temperatures. Morons use W/m2 and similar idiotic measurements.
swenson…”Some dimwit wrote
The problem is: Surface temperature is 288K while theory says the surface temperature should be 255K. The theory is based on well established science known as Stefan-Boltzmann law.”
***
S-B describes a relationship between EM intensity and temperature in a range between about 700C and 1400C. It also represents a one way transfer of heat from a heated body to the surrounding atmosphere.
Modern idiots think S-B can be applied anywhere at any temperature and with heat transfer both ways between bodies of different temperature.
S-B simply does not apply at terrestrial temperatures with the current S-B constant. No modern scientist of whom I am aware has bothered to test the relationship between EM and temperature at terrestrial temperatures. They certainly have not tested it on an Earth with no atmosphere and no oceans.
Gordon,
There is a theoretical derivation of the Stephan-Boltzmann law.
So it applies to all temperatures.
That’s why it’s name after two guys, one for the experimental and one for the theoretical.
Gordon Robertson
Sheesh your continuous lying and deception. What terrible traits to have and continue without trying to correct them. You have brought this up in the past and I have linked you to experiments proving the Stefan-Boltzmann relationship at all temperatures. Please stop the intentional lying!
Read this before lying again. It is better to be honest and wrong than continuously lying.
https://stuff.lanowen.com/Physics/Labs/Phys%20260L/Lab4/Lab_4_Stafan-Boltzmann-Law.pdf
I hope this ends your lies on this issue. You complain about how dishonest NASA is. If you think they are frauds then don’t intentionally and knowingly be one yourself.
Norman, Gordon’s concern is that S/B does not “apply at terrestrial temperatures”.
Your link is to a “study” that only goes down to about 295K. Earth’s average surface temperature is 288K.
So once again, you’ve found a link you don’t understand.
Clint R
As a bot would it not be important for your programmer to add a little intelligence so you could attempt to fool posters?
They found the correct relationship for cool temperatures and hot tungsten so the Law held for a large range of temperatures.
Not sure why they programmed an anti-science bot to invade a science blog. Maybe your creators will reevaluate their Clint R bot and it might say somethings that are really stupid and illogical.
I think you failed science class when logical and rational thought are part of the system. Maybe other studies exist that are not on the Internet.
Norman, Gordon’s concern is that S/B does not “apply at terrestrial temperatures”.
Your link is to a “study” that only goes down to about 295K. Earth’s average surface temperature is 288K.
So once again, you’ve found a link you don’t understand.
Your keyboard babbling ain’t science.
Clint “Bot” R
Okay whatever phrases you have stored in your response program. At least it explains why you don’t comprehend posts. You have a limited programming and too much overwhelms the program so you default to standard phrases:::
“youve found a link you dont understand”
Bot language.
It starts to explain a lot about you and Swenson. The repetition, never supporting things. Spewing cobbled ideas that are not logical. Interesting anyway. Bot one, we have to see the limit of your program interaction with humans.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1187291
Clint R = idiot.
How much has the size of the Sun changed in the last few billion years?
Because the Sun continues to ‘burn’ hydrogen into helium in its core, the core slowly collapses and heats up, causing the outer layers of the Sun to grow larger. This has been going on since soon after the Sun was formed 4.5 billion years ago. It is a very gradual process, and in the last 4 billion years, the Sun has barely grown by perhaps 20 percent at most. It will not grow by much more than another factor of a few for the next 6 billion years, but at that distant time, it will make a rapid transition to a red giant phase and its outer surface will expand by several hundred times to perhaps the orbit of Venus. Astronomers have searched for short term changes in the radius of the Sun, but have not been able to find much reliable evidence that the sun’s diameter is changing, at least over times as short as the solar cycle. Longer timescales are hard to study historically because it is very hard to measure the diameter of the sun to 100-meter resolution at the distance of the Earth, and to do so over many decades! If the radius of the Sun were to double in a time as short as 1 billion years, you would need to be able to detect a 65 meter per year change which corresponds to an angular change in its radius of 0.0002 arcseconds! This is a factor of at least 100 times smaller that what long term accuracy one could hope to acheive. Perhaps the most sensitive test is the change in the brightness of the sun itself, and since the temperature of the earth during the last few million years has not systematically changed by more than a few degrees AT MOST…ignoring ice ages…this restricts any change in the radius of the Sun from historical records to less than a few percent or 10,000 kilometers. This is not a very interesting constraint, but at least it excluses any potential ‘catastrophic’ solar radius increases!!
https://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a11467.html
The sun shrinks and grows again by 2 kilometres every 11 years
SPACE 20 July 2018
By Leah Crane
The sun is growing. And shrinking, and growing again. Every 11 years, the sun’s radius oscillates by up to two kilometres, shrinking when its magnetic activity is high and expanding again as the activity decreases.
…
https://tinyurl.com/3hfypssu
Ukraine crisis: Russia declares war on Ukraine; reports of explosions in Kyiv; Putin sends warning about interference
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/ukraine-crisis-russia-declares-war-on-ukraine-reports-of-explosions-in-kyiv-putin-sends-warning-about-interference/NMAHHIPL6GMCRQT74YCSHSNP34/
“Ukrainian air defence says it shot down a Russian jet in eastern Ukraine”
Fog of war, and:
–Russia’s defence ministry says it has attacked military infrastructure at Ukrainian air bases and degraded Ukraine’s air defences, according to reports by Russian news agencies. The ministry denied reports that one of its aircraft had been shot down over Ukraine. 1 hour ago–
The very best is… this, I read in a newspaper:
Former US President Donald Trump admires the actions of Russian President Vladimir Putin in Ukraine – and describes them as "brilliant".
Former US President Donald Trump stands a very good chance of being in jail soon.
So many attempts, so many failures. If there were any shred of misdeed, it would have landed Trump in jail long ago.
The US Supreme Court doesn’t think so.
>Former US President Donald Trump stands a very good chance of being in jail soon.
You’re as gullible as you are stupid.
So the US Supreme Court is gullible too? Idiot.
Dimwit.
Idiot.
When Trump praised/praises Putin for his genius and strategic excellence, it simply means he didn’t/won’t underestimate the former KGB, former Prime Minister, and current president Putin. Read Sun Tzu. Praising an enemy’s prowess and intelligence is not the same as agreeing with or condoning their actions.
WizGeek
You can invent all you want about your Trumping boy.
That won’t change half a bit of my (European) meaning about the guy.
Yours is a much better analysis than RLH. Just because you respect your enemy doesn’t make you a traitor.
The basic truth is that Putin is a mad man and evil, and Trump is praising him.
He’s playing right into Putin’s hands, aiding his efforts to con the hesitant Russian people, his troops, and Ukranians.
No ex-President, certainly no conservative, has ever ever behaved so atrociously in a foreign policy crisis like this.
I can’t resist asking you to confirm that you are jumping on the blame-Trump bandwagon for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine?
Don’t be daft.
Bindidong instantly jumps on the fake newz like a fly on the fresh steaming pile of zshit
Fake news? Ha.
We can’t be all gullible admirers of the Trumping boy like you are, Eben.
Live with that!
You have a TDS you moron , go see the shrink
useful idiots then and now
https://mediacloud.theweek.com/image/upload/f_auto,t_single-media-image-desktop@1/v1645802883/20220224edhoc-a.jpg
We remember the old saying:
The New equation,
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
results from the discovered Rotating Planet Surface Solar irradiation Interaction-Emission New Equation:
Jemit = 4πr²σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
And let’s compare with the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law equation:
J = σΤe⁴ (W/m²)
–
When comparing with the Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody emission – it is obvious when planet emission is considered – it is a different mechanism of emission.
Thus the equation describing IR emission from irradiated rotating planet surface is different.
–
–
When averaged over the entire planet surface, in order to compare with the Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody emission:
Jemit = σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W/m²)
And compare with the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law equation:
J = σΤe⁴ (W/m²)
It is obvious these two IR emission mechanisms cannot be compared, because they are different.
Thus, the planet effective temperature Te formula:
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Which results for Earth Te =255K
cannot be compared with the planet measured average surface temperature Tmean =288K.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos lines up theory with experiment, satellite radiometer measured Earth Te = 255K in ~balance LW emitted with solar SW absorbed and thermometer measured avg. surface Tse = 288K for an earthen GHE of 33K, rounded.
Good work Christos. Now let’s see if you can reasonably add in the IR opacity of the atm. & figure out how to attribute why the top post shows a rising trend in TLT temperature anomaly in the satellite era without an increase in Earth’s rotation speed.
Ball4
“Now let’s see if you can reasonably add in the IR opacity of the atm. & figure out how to attribute why the top post shows a rising trend in TLT temperature anomaly in the satellite era without an increase in Earth’s rotation speed.” 🙂
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Earth’s most primary surface is the ocean surface. And the Earth ocean surface is being mixed. Earth’s rotation and it’s tides are part of this surface mixing process.
But no other planet has it’s primary surface which is being mixed.
If you count the Earth atmosphere as some kind of surface, and count Venus atmosphere as surface, Earth atmosphere has more mixing than the Venus atmosphere, and includes the great fall of Venus atmosphere at it’s terminator line.
Whenever we explore Venus, I am probably most interested in the region on Venus where it’s sky falls. Next Venus polar vortex would also be interesting.
Could such phenomena be significant element in global climate of Venus?
What does Earth look like if average surface air of the ocean is
10 C?
I think the average global temperature is average ocean temperature which is about 3.5 C
And our average ocean surface air is currently about 17 C.
So an ocean average surface air temperature of 10 C is 7 C cooler
than our present ocean.
Our present average ocean temperature has tropical ocean {40%} with average temperature of 26 C and 60% of the rest of ocean is about 11 C
40 times 26 = 1,040
60 times 11 = 660
1040 + 660 = 1700 / 100 = 17 C
Let’s sub divide the 60% of ocean further,
Say 10% polar and 50% non polar
But let’s enlarge polar to be 20% and rest is 80%
20 times 0 C = 0
80 times 13.75 = 1100
100 times 11 = 1100
So I think tropical ocean stays around 26 C
If 20% was -10 C = -200
And if 80% was 3 C:
20 times -10 = -200
80 times 3 = 240
100 times .4 C = 40
1040 + 40 = 1080 / 100 = 10.8 C
Now if entire ocean average temperature was 3.5 C
Then one could say 80 should be 3.5 C or warmer
80 times 3.5 C = 280 C
1040 + 80 = 1120 = 11.2 C
And if entire ocean was 2 C.
Then one could ocean should be 2 C or warmer:
80 times 2 = 160 and minus 200 = -40
1040 – 40 = 1000 or average ocean of 10 C
And if ocean was an extremely warm, average of 4 C:
80 times 4 = 320
And 100 times 1.2 = 120
1040 + 120 = 1160 / 100 = 11.6 C average ocean surface temperature.
Now in order to have about + 10% of ocean to be -10 C or colder, it needs it’s surface to be frozen.
But if you have an average ocean temperature of 4 C, it can’t remain frozen for a long time.
One can have 4 C ocean and still be in a cold world, or average ocean surface temperature of 11.6 C is very cold compare to average of 17 C.
And if one has 4 C ocean one can have, after the polar sea has melted a global land and ocean temperature of +18 C.
Which some may regard as the “end of the world”. And I would say such ends of world has occurred in every peak temperature of every interglacial period over last couple millions of years and we have warmer peak temperature of interglacial periods if widen it to past tens of millions of years.
But we live in an Ice Age, and average global ocean surface temperature has been less than 15 C and if include land and ocean surface air temperature, less than 12 or 13 C.
Or one could say average ocean ocean temperature of 4 C is very cold ocean, unless you are in the coldest part of a icehouse global climate, and in that case, it’s very warm ocean.
And our peak Holocene temperature was about 8000 years ago.
binny…based on his early-onset dementia, Binny states…”Never and never did NOAA elinḿinate 90% of reporting weather stations”.
***
NOAA says…
“Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?”
https://web.archive.org/web/20130216112541/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
Robertson
You are such a poor lying dumbass.
You were explained since years that
– this document was written around 2009 and therefore cannot have anything to do with the present situation
– you cowardly, deliberately omit each time you post the half of what NOAA wrote in it, for example that all the stations which were given up
— lacked any automated reporting;
— were replaced by as many more new ones.
In between, whether you want or not, there are over 100,000 stations worldwide in the GHCN daily inventory, and over 40,000 of them deal with temperature measurement (others do with precipitation, wind, snow, etc).
You are too inexperienced and too stupid to look for them, let alone would you ever be able to download and to process their data.
You are a poor lying dumbass, Robertson, and you will always keep a poor lying dumbass.
binny…” this document was written around 2009 and therefore cannot have anything to do with the present situation”
***
You must have proof the situation has changed. It hasn’t.
*****************
“there are over 100,000 stations worldwide in the GHCN daily inventory, and over 40,000 of them deal with temperature measurement (others do with precipitation, wind, snow, etc)”.
***
Yes, and over 90% of them are no longer used to determine global temperatures.
It’s all documented here at chiefio…
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
And here, on the USHCN data diddle, by an expert on data and statistics…
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2019/08/16/tony-heller-on-ushcn-data-diddle/
Robertson
You become more and more a poor lying dumbass.
1. ” It’s all documented here at chiefio… ”
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
Didn’t you understand that
– Smith’s ‘Musing’ is dated 2009 (!!!)
but that
– I’m talking about GHCN daily, a dataset which is way younger (2013) and therefore did not exist yet at that time?
How is it possible to be so ignorant, Robertson?
*
2. ” And here, on the USHCN data diddle, by an expert on data and statistics… ”
What, do you think, did John Christy use as data to create this document?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Record-Temperatures-in-the-United-States.pdf
If you had balls, you would ask Mr Christy why he bases his studies, dedicated to US Senate (and to the Trump Government) on this ‘USHCN data diddle’.
Some fear about the answer you would obtain from him?
Just to be clear what this means, the land-surface area of the Earth is very close to 150 million km^2. NOAA is covering that with less than 1500 reporting station.
That means they are using 1 thermometer on average to cover 100,000 km^2. Who the heck knows how they cover the oceans.
They fudge the rest. Binny thinks all the pseudo-stations are real but they were synthesized by NOAA using interpolation between adjacent thermometer covering the 100,000 km^2.
Because most stations, by far, are located in the continental US, they can claim the stations used for interpolation are only 1200 km apart. However, that means humungous swaths of the surface are not covered at all.
I was watching a video by Carl Otto Weiss where he compiled the averages of 6 long term records from Europe. He compared them to ice core data from Greenland and Antarctic to find there was correlation. He found further correlation with proxy data from various sources.
The argument that 1500 stations is not valid for capturing general global trends is therefore specious.
ken…”The argument that 1500 stations is not valid for capturing general global trends is therefore specious”.
***
I am appealing to common sense. Here in the Vancouver, area, as one progresses up the Fraser Valley and away from the ocean, temperatures can vary up to 10C near Abbotsford. Carry on past Hope and up the Fraser Canyon to Lytton and you are in desert country with temperature much higher than Vancouver in summer and much colder in winter sometimes over 20C higher.
That’s within a distance of 150 miles. There is a drastic change in temperature and climate. What chance does NOAA have of any accuracy when they are placing 1 thermometer to cover 100,000 km^2.
BC is close to 100,000 km^2 in area. Why not just put one thermometer in Prince George and call that the average temperature of BC?
In other words, beware climate alarmists comparing 1500 reporting stations to what is required. Not you, but there are many defending using a pitifully small number of reporting stations and claiming it as a valid global average.
I wrote to Environment Canada and chastised them for having only 1 thermometer at the airport. Why not a thermometer at the top of Grouse Mountain or one in Burnaby where it rises to 600 feet above sea level? Burnaby alone can be several degres colder in winter in the higher elevations. All I got was a smart-assed reply.
On the Chiefio site, he has pointed out that NOAA is abandoning reporting stations in colder climate and focusing on stations near the warmer coast. In California, it is covered by only 3 reporting stations and they are all along the coast. Nothing inland in the Sierra Mountains.
What does one expect when EC is blaming last summer’s heat wave and the November flooding on climate change? Right on their website they admit that La Ninas cause excess rain in the Vancouver area.
We are being spoon fed bs by blatant climate alarmists posing as scientists and they are being led by Big Daddy NOAA.
Who gives a damn what the average temperature of BC is; that is simply the weather. The important bit is the trends and how changes in trends might have effects on our ability to survive so that we can anticipate and adapt.
Given the assumption that there is a global trend, it should follow logically that the trend can be observed in Lytton as easily as in Prince George. You might want to measure in 1500 locations to establish the trend is indeed global, but the spacing shouldn’t much matter; particularly once it is determined that the trend is actually observed in those locations. There almost certainly will be exceptions if the trend-bucking stations are not identified.
I would suggest that common sense based on intuition often isn’t correct; science is full of examples of such surprises. Just look at the mask mandates where there is no empirical evidence to support them, as if you need an example.
Ken, “proxy data” are subject to interpretations. Which means opinions, estimates, assumptions, guesses, and agenda can easily come into play. That ain’t science.
And your watching a video of such nonsense, and making your own personal interpretation is even worse, since you don’t want to learn and have no background in science.
Proxy data might be subject to interpretations as understanding of the conditions that underlies the proxy evolves.
Further, there aren’t any readily identified options; we don’t have actual measurements going back before the thermometer.
If we want to make outrageous claims about climate that require the expenditure of building Noah’s Arc I would suggest that we need to use the proxy data since there isn’t anything else.
Yes it is science. Its sorting buttons and washing bottles kind of science that you are unfamiliar with, but science nonetheless.
K,
You wrote –
“Further, there arent any readily identified options; we dont have actual measurements going back before the thermometer.”
What is the point of fabricating historical data? The past does not predict the future, so creating a past that suits your agenda is completely pointless.
Have you any reason at all for trying to convince people that temperatures in the past were this or that, here or there?
It seems like the sort of futile endeavour that climate crackpots would pursue, in lieu of accepting that future climate states are unpredictable – which even that pack of delusional wannabes, the IPCC, agrees.
Keep denying reality, if you wish. You will eventually discover that reality doesn’t care what you think.
Ken, “proxy data” ain’t science.
Here’s a good definition of “science” (bold my emphasis):
Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.
Scientific methodology includes the following:
Objective observation: Measurement and data (possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool)
Evidence
Experiment and/or observation as benchmarks for testing hypotheses
Induction: reasoning to establish general rules or conclusions drawn from facts or examples
Repetition
Critical analysis
Verification and testing: critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment
When you drop an apple, it falls, every time, repeatedly, anyone can do it. It’s testable, observable, repeatable, falsifiable, measurable, predictable. THAT is science.
“When you drop an apple, it falls, every time, repeatedly, anyone can do it. Its testable, observable, repeatable, falsifiable, measurable, predictable. THAT is science.”
So is proxy data testable, observable, falsifiable, measurable, predictable. That the understanding of proxies is still evolving and not as mature as our understanding of gravity doesn’t make it any less part of science.
I would further point out that we don’t know how gravity works. If we did, we could make anti-grav machines that would revolutionize exploration of space.
Ken
” The argument that 1500 stations is not valid for capturing general global trends is therefore specious. ”
*
Maybe you are honest enough to take the time to understand what this graph, comparing UAH satellite data in the LT over land, with about 35,000 surface stations worldwide, exactly means?
https://postimg.cc/47SQhzLY/13444b6b
*
And believe me: all this station data is real.
You just need to compare, as I myself did, GHCN daily station data with the original sources e.g. in Germany, in France, in Australia to see that Robertson is no more than a disgusting liar who has nothing else in mind than to discredit and denigrate work that he is too dumb to understand, let alone to replicate.
I don’t care if Robertson is a disgusting liar; it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
I would recommend you find irrefutable proof, good enough to have Robertson arrested and prosecuted in court. Please don’t post here again until you have managed to get him locked up. All of science depends on your initiative in this matter.
Here you see what a poor, lying dumbass Robertson is:
” Binny thinks all the pseudo-stations are real but they were synthesized by NOAA using interpolation between adjacent thermometer covering the 100,000 km^2. ”
He has no idea of how the data looks like, never processed it, but knows that is all pseudo-station stuff.
Can anybody imagine automatically generated US or Ausie station data containing historical FahrenheitCelsius errors you have to cope with when processing their data?
*
But Robertson’s lies perfectly work, look at Ken’s gullible words:
” The argument that 1500 stations is not valid for capturing general global trends is therefore specious. ”
Here is the automatically generated data, Ken!
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/data/global-historical-climatology-network-daily/access/
I still use until now under UNIX the old version
https://tinyurl.com/yrd92bbd
which is now no longer accessible within browsers (use FileZilla instead).
norman…”I have linked you to experiments proving the Stefan-Boltzmann relationship at all temperatures…”
***
Norman, your naivete knows no bounds. You are unable to critically review a paper because you lack the understanding of physics to do so.
The experiment at your link is seriously flawed. They are using a thermistor and a thermocouple. There is no information as to how they are used but I do know that both are heat operated devices.
Of course, any body can absorb EM and warm but that’s not the function of a thermistor, which is to change its resistance when its temperature changes.
Read my lips, Norman, heat is not electromagnetic radiation, even if the author of the paper refers to it as thermal radiation. A thermistor and a thermocouple respond to changes in heat. The author is full of dog doo doo,
He also refers to a Lewis cube, whatever that mans. I hope it’s not what I think it is, a long abandoned theory that preceded quantum theory.
In order to replicate S-B, one would require a means of measuring the radiated EM. In the case of Stephan, he got that information from Tyndall, who noted a colour change in an electrically-heated platinum filament. The colour was converted to frequency (colour temperature) by another scientist,
How does one measure that radiation intensity at terrestrial temperatures? The author of your article is using a thermistor and thermistors don’t measure EM intensity, they measure the temperature of ambient air or a surface to which they are attached.
The job of a modern scientist is to determine the relationship between related EM and the temperature and that has never been done. It certainly was not done in your author’s experiment.
Gordon Robertson
You should read the material before attempting to refute it. They clearly explain how they get their measurements. Read it again.
Also you are wrong. The word “heat” may have meant one thing in Clausius time it means something different today. When a physicist uses the word “heat” this is what is meant. Words do not have a set meaning or definition. You can object to how they use “heat” but it is what it means today.
Here:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heat.html
Electromagenetic energy can certainly quality as heat. Read the correct and modern use of the word.
If you actually read the material (which is more than obvious you did not) you would not use the term “Lewis cube” but the actual term used in the article: Leslie Cube
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_cube
Norman doesn’t understand his link, again!
The “modern” definition of heat is the same as used by Clausius. From the link: Heat may be defined as energy in transit from a high temperature object to a lower temperature object.
So E/M traveling from cold to hot is NOT “heat”. “Cold” can NOT heat “hot”.
Clint “Bot” R
What are you talking about? I did not state Heat flows from cold to hot? Your programming is wacked. It no longer makes sense but it does repeat key phrases even when not a correct use…
Bot Clint: “Norman doesn’t understand his link, again!”
Used over and over on many posters. A Bot favorite. I used to think you were a very stupid person posting lots of mush. Now I think you might just be a poorly scripted AI Bot. I would say you are much more human then Swenson/Mike Flynn Bot. Maybe you are the next generation of AI. Soon us humans will not be able to tell.
N,
Are you quite mad? How long have you been addicted to talking to computers or other machines?
I suggest that taking advice from your microwave oven or your TV remote might lead you astray.
Carry on talking to machines. It seems like you believe they talk back to you.
You certainly seem a bit strange, laddie.
Swenson Bot
You are not a clever bot. I think you are first generation.
People talk to Alexia all the time. Not much different than seeing the response of a Bot on a blog.
A blog test: Swenson what color are your shoes? (Bots don’t have an answer for this one)
Here Norman, you can argue with your own words: The word “heat” may have meant one thing in Clausius time it means something different today.”
I always enjoy your meltdowns, especially now with your paranoia about “bots”.
N,
You obviously love talking to computers. Why do you think a computer would take any notice F your opinion? Maybe you think computers have gremlins inside them, doing the talking.
I suppose that if you can’t find any humans who are prepared to pay you any attention, you might as well talk to machines, or to the wall, as far as anybody is concerned.
Don’t you like humans? Won’t they listen to you?
Why am I not surprised? Maybe you could babble to yourself in a corner.
Probably better than wasting valuable computer time!
norman…”The word heat may have meant one thing in Clausius time it means something different today. When a physicist uses the word heat this is what is meant. Words do not have a set meaning or definition. You can object to how they use heat but it is what it means today”.
***
You are saying it’s OK to do science by redefining words. So, I guess we can throw out Newton II and redefine words like time and acceleration, as Einstein did with his relativity theories.
That’s what Einstein did essentially. He took the equation,
s = vt and arbitrarily re-defined t, without a shred of evidence.
Of course, the equation tells us that distance = velocity x time, where time is defined upon the period of Earth’s rotation, which is a constant. Not to Einstein, with his fetish about the speed of light. He re-defined time based on a ratio of a velocity to the speed of light.
Same with heat, claiming it is a measure of energy transfer is one of the most idiotic inferences of all time. The energy being transferred is heat!!! Ergo, heat is now a measure of itself. Idiotic!!!
Gordon Robertson
Even though the experiment does clearly show the Stefan-Boltzmann Law works at all temperatures (hence it is a Law, no deviations found to date) I can have you do a test yourself.
https://www.eetimes.com/measure-temperature-precisely-with-an-infrared-thermometer/#
Get a hold of an IR thermometer and point it at a room temperature object. Use a contact thermometer to verify the IR reading. If they match it is because the Stefan-Boltzmann Law works well at Room Temperature. The calculations used to convert a voltage change in the instrument (based upon incident IR upon the sensor) is the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. If the Law did not apply at room temperature the thermal IR thermometer would not give you a valid reading.
I can’t help you if you cannot logically understand how that would be so.
You need a little logic thought process.
Here is the logic:
If the Stephan-Boltzmann Law was not valid at room temperature then the IR thermometer would not derive a correct temperature.
If it does give the correct reading, the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is verified at room temperature.
Before you make a silly rebuttal do a real world test. This one is not difficult. I have done it myself. Either you do science (an actual test) or you will forever be a lying, dishonest anti-science crackpot. Which do you prefer.
norman…”Get a hold of an IR thermometer and point it at a room temperature object”.
***
An IR thermometer has nothing to do with S-B. They measure the frequency of IR given of by a body at temperature, T, in a lab, Then they program the IR thermometer to reflect that temperature when it receives the same frequency in its detector.
There is no frequency parameter in S-B.
The author of your article is wrong. He said…
“Thermopile is a sensor used in IR thermometer to measure temperature through the IR radiation from body”.
He is calling the device a thermopile but it is not. Rather, it’s a semiconductor device that is sensitive to IR and outputs a voltage relative to the IR frequency received.
There is no one-to-one relationship between IR and temperature in this device. As the author claims, the relationship is calibrated in a lab.
You are suggesting that the relation of S-B in the range of about 700C – 1500C can be extended linearly down to the range of terrestrial temperatures. The author is suggesting this using blackbody theory and Planck’s Equation, but he is full of it.
Gerlich & Tscheuschner explain it well here…
https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
Starting on page 58 of 115 at chapter 3.7 The assumption of radiative balance.
At 3.9 they explain the laws of thermodyanics. Well worth the read.
“Any machine which transfers heat from a low temperature reservoir to a high temperature reservoir without external work applied cannot exist: A perpetuum mobile of the second kind is impossible”.
“A machine which transfers heat from a low temperature reservoir (e.g. stratosphere) to a high temperature reservoir (e.g. atmosphere) without external work applied, cannot exist – even if it is radiatively coupled to an environment, to which it is radiatively balanced. A modern climate model is supposed to be such a variant of a perpetuum mobile of the second kind”.
Gordon Robertson
There are different ways IR thermometers work. What you describe is only one of the ways to measure IR. The thermopile method is a sensor composed of nearly blackbody material (absorbs almost all IR). The sensing element is separated from a reference by insulating media. The sensing element will warm if the IR it receives is above reference ambient and it will cool (via emission) if the target is cooler. This creates a voltage in the temperature difference between sensor and reference. This voltage determines how much IR the instrument receives. Then uses the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to convert that reading into a temperature.
You can say what you need to it. It is wrong. The devices use the Stephan-Boltzmann Law relationship to covert the amount of IR the detector receives into a known temperature. That is the facts.
It’s important to separate devices that measure IR remotely from the GHE. They are NOT the same.
Devices require design, calibration, and energy. They can be made to function, if used correctly. But, such devices are NOT proof of the GHE, as some have claimed.
A discussion is here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1175279
“They can be made to function, if used correctly. ”
Devices don’t need to obey laws of physics?
They operate by magic, then?
If by physics, then explain it. Of course you won’t. Last time I asked, you simply ran away.
Nate, the only thing you got right was when you quoted me accurately. Then you immediately went into your usual incompetent trolling:
Devices don’t need to obey laws of physics? They operate by magic, then?”
You conjure up nonsense like that and then expect me to explain physics to you?
Get real, child.
N
You are a moron .
Your link to the Leslie cube shows that an object at 55 C shows different IR temperatures. So what do you believe?
The IR temperature or the thermometer temperature?
You idiot. Try linking to something that supports you, rather than contradicting you.
Swenson = idiot.
–Level of Brightness (Lumen)
For example, a 12 to 14-foot ceiling will need a light bulb of 1000 lumens or more. Higher ceilings of 20 feet or more will need a higher commercial grade light bulb of about 2000 lumens or more.–
If you were to use lighting at 10,000 meter, how how much lumen would your lightbulbs have to make?
I was wondering if sky was completely covered with fluorescent office lights at say 10,000 meter elevation, how bright would the light be?
gbaikie…”a 12 to 14-foot ceiling will need a light bulb of 1000 lumens ”
***
GB…you have too much time on your hands.
How many candle power for the same ceiling.
“1 candlepower equals 12.57 lumens”
“A 40-watt fluorescent tube, for example, is rated around 2300 lumens.”
How many lumens is a 65 watt fluorescent?
3600 lumens
It produces a light output of 3600 lumens and uses 65 watts of electricity. This compact fluorescent light is ideal for general purpose applications.
Office etc use:
“32W T8 Linear Fluorescent Lamp – Universal – 2925 Lumens – Cool White (4100K) – 85 CRI – 30000 Hours – G13 (Medium Bi-Pin) – Phosphor Coated”
Cover say 25% of area of sky with them, or one per 4″ spaced, they are 1″ wide.
And, how bright do they appear 10,000 meter below them?
Brighter than sunlight or quite dim
“The difference between lumen and lux is that the lux takes into account the area over which the luminous flux (lumens) is spread. A flux of 1000 lumens, concentrated into an area of one square metre, lights up that square metre with an illuminance of 1000 Lux.”
Lux:
320500 Office lighting
400 Sunrise or sunset on a clear day.
1000 Overcast day; typical TV studio lighting
10,00025,000 Full daylight (not direct sun)
32,000100,000 Direct sunlight
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lux
gbaikie…”32W T8 Linear Fluorescent Lamp”
***
Do you know the diameter of a T8 fluorescent tube and how to derive it?
It’s derived by typing “Fluorescent bulbs” in Google or some other search engine:
“GE’s 32-Watt T8 Cool White Fluorescent bulbs provide cool, neutral white light. Their cool white light is ideal for illuminating large spaces. These bulbs are rated to last 13 years based on 6 hour per day consumer use. Use these 48-inch long fluorescent bulbs with a 1-inch diameter in basements, garages and commercial applications like warehouses and industrial buildings.”
https://www.lowes.com/pd/GE-32-Watt-48-in-Medium-Bi-pin-T8-4100-K-Cool-White-Fluorescent-Light-Bulb-30-Pack/1000437253
Oh, this one says:
“Uses 32 Watts (3000 lumens)”
But we could change the question, how far away from car headlights
can use it’s light to read a map? Or a street light.
Attention Christos and anyone interested in an in-depth analysis of the greenhouse effect and why it is wrong. By two experts in thermodynamics.
https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
C’mon, Gordo:
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/04/05/on-the-miseducation-of-the-uninformed-by-gerlich-and-scheuschner-2009/
willard…please don’t bore me with propaganda from science of dumb.
The Canucks beat Calgary 7 – 1, ending Calgary’s 10 game winning streak. Don’t mess with the Canucks.
“two experts in thermodynamics”. Give me a break.
https://www.quora.com/Did-Gerlich-and-Tscheuschner-prove-there-is-no-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect
“Major Flaws
At a high level, I experience the paper as having multiple serious flaws:
The paper seems to be organized around misinterpreting and misrepresenting what other people believe, and then refuting that.
Generally, the statements being refuted are things that were said in popular science communications, or in encyclopedias, or in hundred-year old early scientific works. There seems to be little engagement with (or knowledge of) what is said in the modern academic literature of climate science.
The refutations generally come in the form of sloppy verbal reasoning and inappropriate examples, with little attention to detail or rigor.
The most important conclusions are justified by misinterpreting others arguments, applying purely verbal reasoning, and misapplying basic thermodynamics to achieve a false refutation.
The other primary strategy in the paper seems to be one of arguing that its all too complicated to be knowable, justifying dismissing others attempts to build a base of established knowledge. This argument is intellectually dishonest. Many relevant things can be known, and are known, in ways that G&T fail to acknowledge.
The conclusions of the paper are easily proven to be not consistent with reality.”
“No. The GT paper is not a scientific paper.
Their article is a propaganda exercise pretending to be a scientific paper. This is indicated by their extensive efforts to explain basic undergraduate physics. No real scientific paper explains basic undergraduate physics, because scientific papers are targeted at an audience of professional scientists. Professional scientists already know this information in far greater depth and detail than undergraduates.
The audience for their article is the slightly technical public that infests climate denier blogs.
Gerlich and Tscheuschner are simply two individuals who have no understanding of atmospheric physics or the greenhouse effect. They are attempting to gain the attention and respect of climate deniers who also do not understand the greenhouse effect.
It’s a classic case of ‘the blind leading the blind’.”
Chihuahua and Listmaker, Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb.
RLH’s two comments above contain NO science. They contain ONLY opinions.
If you go to his link, you find the same thing. But the link also has this, which RLH did not include: Earth is 33°C warmer than can be explained if one assumes no warming effect by infrared absorp.tion and re-emission.”
So they’re trying to discredit G&T by using the bogus imaginary sphere!
That ain’t science.
Clint R and Stephen continue on with being idiots.
They’re cut and paste propagandists.
You’re not very far from being a nazi, Troglodyte.
>You’re not very far from being a nazi, Troglodyte.
Projection, Goebbels 101, 1st semester, week 1?
Only a Nazi like Troglodyte would say that.
C’mon, Gordo.
I love to watch your team, and Demko might be the third best goalie in the world, but they might not even make the playoffs.
Besides:
https://doi.org/10.1142/S021797921005555X
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.0421.pdf
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/02/all-you-never-wanted-to-know-about.html
Oh dear…back to the blogs.
If you ask Binny nicely, he might help:
http://www.ing-buero-ebel.de/Treib/Hauptseite.pdf
Oh, what journal was this published in?
Cost of new UK underground nuclear waste facility jumps to as high as £53 billion
A larger volume of waste and ‘more realistic’ scope of costs has resulted in a bigger price tag for building and operating a long-term storage facility for radioactive waste.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2309444-cost-of-new-uk-underground-nuclear-waste-facility-jumps-to-53-billion/?utm_campaign=Daily%20Briefing&utm_content=20220225&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Revue%20newsletter
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1187232
OK, I am moving this discussion down here, because frankly I am bored of it. Maybe the other “Non-Spinners” have the patience to deal with multiple people chiming in with off-topic diversions every five minutes and can continue this debate for me. My last response was:
“Brandon, is there some reason you have ignored all my previous comments to you, and have just focussed on misunderstanding my response to Tim?
As to your question, which has been discussed 100 times before…I will quote Tesla:
“The moment the strings are broken and they are thrown off they will begin to rotate but, as pointed out before, this motion neither adds to or detracts from the energy stored. The rotation is, however, not due to an exclusive virtue of angular motion, but to the fact that the tangential velocities of the masses or parts of the body thrown off are different.”
The ball on a string would rotate on its own axis on release, but the ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis before release. It is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about an internal axis. To rotate on its own axis, it would have to wrap up in the string.
Tim, it is just a matter of basic logic. Something that is physically unable to rotate on its own axis, cannot then be rotating on its own axis. I do not need to define well-known words.”
DREMT, you’ve got more patience than I do.
This Moon issue was over about two years ago when you came up with the “chalk circle”. They claimed it was “rotating on its axis”! So then we came up with the ball-on-a-string, which was clearly NOT rotating because the string was not wrapping about the ball. But, they ignored that!
They don’t want reality. They want their cult religion. That’s the benefit of this simple Moon issue — to show how a cult operates. I’ve learned a lot. And it carries over to the AGW nonsense. They WANT the AGW nonsense! They WANT perversion of science. They hate reality.
Easy to have anything more than you do, Pup:
You got NOTHING.
Do the Pole Dance Experiment to see why.
“It is rotating about an external axis”
In reality the barycenter, about which things orbit, is not external to the masses that construct it.
> multiple people chiming in with off-topic diversions
No, this is *your* off-topic topic, DREMT, apparently raised to cast aspersions on “alarmists”. In vain I might add. Participate in it or not, but own the mess you created.
> “The moment the strings are broken and they are thrown off they will begin to rotate but […]”
I’ll see your Tesla and raise you a Newton. Just like a translating object tends to keep moving by virtue of its linear momentum, so does a rotating object continue the same due to its angular momentum.
Thus the ball *continues* to rotate about its own axis with the *same* angular velocity as before the string was cut, i.e. since the d@#n thing was rotating *all along*. It does not magically begin rotating when the string is cut, it *continues* rotating as it *always had been*.
> To rotate on its own axis, it would have to wrap up in the string.
This would only be the case if the ball were rotating at a different rate than its orbital period, including not rotating at all as in the case of a properly operating bicycle pedal.
The Earth is rotating at a different rate than the Moon’s orbital period. Thus a string connecting the two would begin to wrap around the Earth.
"No, this is *your* off-topic topic, DREMT, apparently raised to cast aspersions on “alarmists”. In vain I might add. Participate in it or not, but own the mess you created."
Absolutely not, Brandon. I did not start the moon discussions. Period. They began here years ago, and I was not the person that introduced the topic.
I will let others argue against the rest of your post, if they wish.
> I did not start the moon discussions.
My mistake then DREMT. However it is bad form to rail at me for being OT when I’m not the one who did either.
Enjoy your retirement from the topic.
> I did not start the moon discussions.
My mistake then DREMT. It is still bad form to rail at me for being OT when I wasn’t the one to introduce it either.
Enjoy your retirement from the topic.
The moon issue has many sub-topics. I can’t be expected to defend every single aspect of the "Non-Spinner" position every time I try to focus on one sub-topic. So I am trying, really, really hard, to get people to focus on one sub-topic at a time. They are unwilling to do so, so far. When a discussion wanders too far off the sub-topic, I just have to draw a line under it. I can’t follow people down every rabbit hole.
It would be really great if one of the "Spinners" who agrees that the ball on a string does not rotate on its own axis (and there are several) could come and argue against you here.
Of course, "Spinner" never argues against "Spinner". So, they won’t. Never mind.
> So I am trying, really, really hard, to get people to focus on one sub-topic at a time.
Playing netcop has never ended well for me, DREMT. I’ll only take issue with it when you try to do it to me. Otherwise do as you will.
I’ll do as I will in any case. Thank you.
> I did not start the [M]oon discussions.
February 2, 2022 at 9:26 AM:
First comment on the page.
I mean, srsly. If it’s not gaslighting, what is it?
I did not start the moon discussions all those years ago, Willard, is what I meant. I was not the originator of this entire debate.
Not sure why I still bother with that lying punk, but others might wish to know:
The long and the short of it is that Moon Dragon cranks have no argument against the fact that the Moon completes a full rotation on itself as it makes one turn around the Earth.
As anyone can see, I did not lie. You really do think axial rotation (of the moon, sure, but either way, axial rotation) involves translation! Very funny.
An ORBIT can be considered a translation movement which occurs as well as any rotational movement about its own axis.
They are 2 different things with 2 different energies.
“An ORBIT can be considered a translation movement”
So you have finally learned something about the “Spinner” position. Well done. No more claims of an “orbital axis” from you, then.
> No more claims of an “orbital axis” from you, then.
Richard just told you that they were 2 different things with 2 different energies, twat.
Sure, "orbit" and "spin" are two different things with two different energies. I agree. RLH just happens to (now) agree with the "Spinners", that "orbital motion without axial rotation" is translational motion, by which they mean motion like the MOTR. Since he (now) thinks that "orbital motion without axial rotation" is translational motion, he can no longer believe in an "orbital axis". An axis is associated with rotational motion, not translational motion, you see.
That’s about as dumb as dumb can be.
Translational motion need not have an axis.
But translational motion that repeats an elliptical path does have axes, as ellipses have axes.
Wrong again.
But what do we expect?
Only bob could come along and shamelessly conflate two different types of "axis".
He still believes that the moon rotates about an external axis, in any case! Making him a "Non-Spinner", without him even realizing it. Poor bob.
> “orbital motion without axial rotation” is translational motion
That’s not what Richard said, lying twat.
How many times need you be caught pants down?
He said:
"An ORBIT can be considered a translation movement which occurs as well as any rotational movement about its own axis.
They are 2 different things with 2 different energies."
So we know that he is talking about "ORBIT" as being a completely separate motion from "rotational movement about its own axis".
Thus, "orbital motion without axial rotation" is appropriate to stand in place of "ORBIT", here. He said it’s a translation movement, thus:
"RLH just happens to (now) agree with the "Spinners", that "orbital motion without axial rotation" is translational motion, by which they mean motion like the MOTR"
> two different types of “axis”
Very funny!
> we know that he is talking about “ORBIT”
So he’s not talking about “orbital motion without axial rotation,” punk.
There is an axis of rotation, and an axis of symmetry. Not very funny.
> an axis of symmetry.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA
"So he’s not talking about “orbital motion without axial rotation,” punk."
He is, if he’s talking about "ORBIT" as being a separate motion from "rotational movement about its own axis". Which he clearly was.
> He is, if
That’s your “if,” punk.
Tell us about the “axis of symmetry” of ellipses.
Not very good at reading entire comments, are you Willard?
"An ellipse has two axes of symmetry. The longer one is called the major axis, and the shorter one is called the minor axis. The two axes intersect at the center of the ellipse. When the length of the major axis is the same as the minor axis, the ellipse is a circle.”
DR EMPTY,
Dumb as dumb and dumber and dumber
“He still believes that the moon rotates about an external axis, in any case! Making him a “Non-Spinner”, without him even realizing it. Poor bob.”
If I am conflating two different things you will have to prove that the axes of an object translating in an ellipse and an object rotating around an external axis are different.
Two things
One, that’s beyond your math skillz
Two, since it’s the same ellipse, it’s the same axis.
> “An ellipse has two axes of symmetry.”
That’s not what Bob is talking about, punk.
He’s talking about the axis around which Flop could try to pretend he was making pure rotations.
But continue to knot yourself out – argue that what Flop did is impossible.
bob, I don’t need to do anything but point out that the sort of axis I’m referring to is an axis of rotation. Translational motion does not involve an axis of rotation, obviously.
And he calls me dumb…
The axis of an orbit is the barycenter. Idiot.
So now RLH appears, to contradict himself.
If there is such a thing as an orbital axis, at the barycenter, RLH, then "ORBIT" ("orbital motion without axial rotation") cannot be considered a "translation movement".
> translational motion does not involve an axis of rotation, obviously
Here’s what Bob said, punk:
So you both agree on that.
Read again how he followed that remark:
He’s talking about the axis of motion that repeats an elliptical path.
He’s also pointing out that at some point the axis of the motion will cross the axes of an ellipse.
You’re the one who’s conflating two concepts.
How funny!
> “ORBIT” (“orbital motion without axial rotation”)
No.
In fact, just think about it. An orbital motion. Without axial rotation.
An orbit. Without any rotation.
Is he an insufferable twat or what?
We were talking about an "orbital axis", Willard. If bob is trying to argue that an "orbital axis" is not an axis of rotation, then that would be strange considering that he himself argues the moon rotates about an external axis.
"He’s talking about the axis of motion that repeats an elliptical path."
Is he, Willard? What’s an "axis of motion"?
"In fact, just think about it. An orbital motion. Without axial rotation.
An orbit. Without any rotation."
No, Willard, an orbit, without any "axial rotation". "Axial rotation" just means, "spin". You can think of it as "orbit without spin", if you prefer.
> We were talking about an “orbital axis”
No, twat. You were responding to Richard’s “An ORBIT can be considered a translation movement.”
The Moon orbits around the Earth, and the Earth spins. An orbit with an axial rotation. How many orbits do you know happen around a celestial body that does not spin, may I ask?
What you could say is this: an orbit with or without any axial rotation. That way you would underline that the concept of orbit is independent from the concept of rotation.
But then you’d have to agree with Richard.
And we all know how you like to agree with everyone.
Poor Willard is confusing himself again. "Orbital motion without axial rotation", or "orbit without spin", refers to the orbiting object. Not the object being orbited.
Poor twat. Believes that orbits can happen without any object being orbited. Weirder is his suggestion that the Earth does not spin!
Punk’s discordianism is showing again this morning. Just as he was losing another argument to Bob.
Funny how it works.
"Believes that orbits can happen without any object being orbited"
No, I do not. I was just pointing out that "orbital motion without axial rotation", or "orbit without spin" refers to the status of the orbiting object, not the object that is being orbited.
"Weirder is his suggestion that the Earth does not spin!"
The Earth spins, and I have never suggested otherwise.
> “orbital motion without axial rotation”, or “orbit without spin”
No, twat. The two are not equivalent.
That’s just your way reinject your silly concept. Then should follow your silly GIF.
An orbiting object moves forward on a curvilinear path; that’s translation. An orbiting object moves around another body; that’s rotation. When the orbiting object travels along an elliptical path, by geometrical necessity its motion can’t be described with a single, pure rotation. Hence why we normally use general motion.
So the only world in which your argument holds (i.e. an orbit can’t be both a rotation and a translation) is a world where orbits are not possible.
I can assure you that by "orbital motion without axial rotation" I mean "orbit without spin", Willard. The rest of your comment is most amusing. Please, continue to explain this bizarre sentence:
"An orbiting object moves forward on a curvilinear path; that’s translation. An orbiting object moves around another body; that’s rotation."
It seems like you are suggesting again that "orbit without spin" involves rotation about an external axis. Making you a "Non-Spinner", whether you understand that or not.
Oh, what fun!
> I have never suggested otherwise.
Every single time you mention your silly concept of “orbit without axial rotation” you do, twat. There is an axial rotation involved in the orbit of the Moon. Without the Earth’s spin, the orbit of the Moon would be very different. Same for the Moon’s spin:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-4527/20/2/19
There’s a reason why astronomers speak of the Earth-Moon system.
Again, Willard, "orbital motion without axial rotation", or "orbit without spin" refers to the status of the orbiting object, not the object that is being orbited. You appear to be having some sort of meltdown.
> It seems like you are suggesting again that “orbit without spin” involves rotation about an external axis. Making you a “Non-Spinner”, whether you understand that or not.
The gaslighting continues. Bob said it best:
Seems that we’re all non-spinners now.
bob has explicitly stated, further upthread, that he believes the moon rotates about an external axis, Willard. Yes, that does make him a "Non-Spinner". No, he probably does not understand why.
And yes, that is very funny.
“”orbital motion without axial rotation” is appropriate to stand in place of “ORBIT”, here.”
As shown by MOTR.
There you go, Willard. RLH gets it. The "Spinners" think "orbital motion without axial rotation" is translational motion, by which they mean motion like the MOTR.
Unfortunately, that means they can’t have an "orbital axis". Shame.
> that means they can’t have an “orbital axis”.
You always skip the demonstration of that part, Kiddo.
And you’re misrepresenting Richard, which is also par for the course.
The demonstration is pretty simple, Willard. Translation does not involve an axis of rotation. Therefore if "orbital axis" means "axis of rotation", those that believe "orbital motion without axial rotation" involves translational motion (by which they mean, motion like the MOTR) should not believe in the existence of the "orbital axis".
I’m not misrepresenting RLH as far as I’m aware…but if I am, he would have to be the one to tell me. Not you.
Compare and contrast, punk::
(P1) Translation does not involve an axis of rotation.
(C) they can’t have an “orbital axis”.
Note the jump between “does not” and “cannot”.
Also, note how you switch from “axis of rotation” to “orbital axis.”
Here’s your implicit premise:
(P2) Unless translation involves an axis of rotation, there can’t be an orbital axis.
Is that true?
Not if translation is independent from rotation, which is what Tim, Richard, and others keep reminding you.
Not if your “axis of rotation” (by which you are referring to spin) and “orbital axis” refer to two different things, which is what Bob and me keep reminding you.
No, Willard. Try this, instead:
P1) Translation does not involve an axis of rotation.
P2) The "Spinners" think "orbital motion without axial rotation" involves translational motion, by which they mean motion as per the MOTR.
P3) An "orbital axis" means an axis of rotation for the "orbital motion without axial rotation".
C) The "Spinners" don’t get to say there’s such a thing as an "orbital axis".
Compare and contrast, Kiddo:
(GP1) they can’t have an “orbital axis”.
(GP2) they don’t get to say there’s such a thing as an “orbital axis”.
You can’t even land on your feet properly.
Your An “orbital axis” means an axis of rotation for the “orbital motion without axial rotation” is quite beautiful, BTW – can’t you add a few more “rotation” and “axis”?
Try this, then:
P1) Translation does not involve an axis of rotation.
P2) The "Spinners" think "orbit without spin" involves translational motion, by which they mean motion as per the MOTR.
P3) An "orbital axis" means an axis of rotation for the "orbit without spin".
C) The "Spinners" can’t have an "orbital axis".
Let’s see
P1) Translation does not
P2) The “Spinners” think
P3) An “orbital axis” means
C) The “Spinners” can’t
Nope. Simplify.
I’m happy with it as it is.
I’m sure you are, Kiddo.
Still, your argument is about translation, what Spinners think of “orbit without spin,” and the concept of orbital axis.”
It’s obvious you’re biting more than you can chew with it.
We’ve already established, beyond any reasonable doubt:
1) "Spinners" claim "orbit without spin" is as per the MOTR.
2) "Spinners" would describe motion as per the MOTR as translational motion.
I do not see how anybody rational can dispute 1).
One or two "Spinner" idiots who would (erroneously) describe the motion of the MOTR as "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is not enough to buck the general trend I have seen over the years.
If an "orbital axis" is not the axis that an object "orbits without spin" rotates (revolves) about, then what is it? Especially given that:
"If the rotation axis passes internally through the body’s own center of mass, then the body is said to be autorotating or spinning, and the surface intersection of the axis can be called a pole. A rotation around a completely external axis, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called revolving or orbiting, typically when it is produced by gravity, and the ends of the rotation axis can be called the orbital poles."
DR EMPTY,
I keep having to remind you that rotation and revolving are two separate and distinct motions.
“P1) Translation does not involve an axis of rotation.
P2) The “Spinners” think “orbit without spin” involves translational motion, by which they mean motion as per the MOTR.
P3) An “orbital axis” means an axis of rotation for the “orbit without spin”.
C) The “Spinners” can’t have an “orbital axis”.”
Sorry Charlie but you are striking out.
P1 is not correct, translation can include an axis of rotation, usually it does not, but it is possible to have a curvilinear translation that returns to the starting position. This is true for the Moon.
P2 I guess this makes me a spinner again. The Moon on the right is translating in a circular path. It is also an example of rotation around an external axis. These two points are not contradictory.
P3 Not at all, an orbital axis is just the axis that the body orbits, it has nothing to do with spin. Spin is rotation around an internal axis and is separate from orbiting or rotation about an external axis.
C Yes we can and do. The Earth has an orbital axis, so does the Moon.
"P1 is not correct, translation can include an axis of rotation, usually it does not, but it is possible to have a curvilinear translation that returns to the starting position. This is true for the Moon."
P1 is certainly correct. An axis of rotation is only associated with…rotation. How anyone could even suggest otherwise is beyond me.
"P2 I guess this makes me a spinner again. The Moon on the right is translating in a circular path. It is also an example of rotation around an external axis. These two points are not contradictory."
"Spinners" do indeed describe the MOTR as translating in a circular path with no spin. However, it is not an example of "rotation around an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis". We have been over and over this. You are wrong.
"P3 Not at all, an orbital axis is just the axis that the body orbits, it has nothing to do with spin. Spin is rotation around an internal axis and is separate from orbiting or rotation about an external axis."
I didn’t say an "orbital axis" had anything to do with spin. Try reading the comment again.
Here’s a pro-tip to remove unneeded clauses from your argument, Kiddo:
You can remove that. It does not matter. Your conclusion should not be about what Spinners think. Removing mentions of Spinners, that gives us:
P1) Translation does not involve an axis of rotation.
P2) “Orbital motion without axial rotation” involves translational motion
P3) An “orbital axis” means an axis of rotation for the “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
C) There’s no such a thing as an “orbital axis”.
See the difference?
Now, about that (3) – why do you need that definition? Answer: because you can’t find a way to rewrite your conclusion properly. Rework the conclusion to remove (3).
I’ll let you work on that for an hour.
Laterz.
No, I’ll leave it as is. It’s about the "Spinners" position, after all. It’s a problem for them. It is not a problem for the "Non-Spinners".
P1) Translation does not involve an axis of rotation.
P2) The "Spinners" claim "orbit without spin" involves translational motion, by which they mean motion as per the MOTR.
P3) An "orbital axis" means an axis of rotation for the "orbit without spin".
C) The "Spinners" can’t have an "orbital axis".
> It’s about the “Spinners” position
You don’t need to mention the Spinners to discuss their position, Kiddo. In fact either you discuss the Spinners, or you discuss their position. Otherwise you end up with a spaghetti argument, like the one you just produced.
You should work on your argument, for if you don’t, I will and you won’t like it.
DR EMPTY,
“I didn’t say an “orbital axis” had anything to do with spin. Try reading the comment again.”
Yeah you do, every time you say orbital motion without axial rotation.
You are always conflating orbital motion with spin.
Well, here’s how it works for the "Non-Spinners". Maybe that will clarify:
P1) Rotation about an external axis involves an axis of rotation. P2) The "Non-Spinners" claim "orbit without spin" involves rotational motion, by which they mean motion as per the MOTL.
P3) An "orbital axis" means an axis of rotation for the "orbit without spin".
C) The "Non-Spinners" can have an "orbital axis".
"Yeah you do, every time you say orbital motion without axial rotation.
You are always conflating orbital motion with spin"
The exact opposite is true, bob. The only reason I say "orbital motion without axial rotation", or "orbit without spin", is to make sure people understand that I just mean "orbital motion". To make sure that they understand I am not including any spin in the motion I am referring to.
I could also say "pure orbital motion". But, you would object to that too.
> The only reason I say “orbital motion without axial rotation”, or “orbit without spin”, is to make sure people understand that I just mean “orbital motion”.
I don’t think thae first part is true, Kiddo, because the second part is false.
You very seldom say “orbit without spin” – I do.
An orbit without spin isn’t the same thing as an orbit in general, i.e. with or without spin.
A more plausible hypothesis for insisting on “orbital motion without axial rotation” (OMWAR) is that it contains the Moon Dragon crank’s main thesis.
So every time you are speaking of OMWAR you are kinda begging the question.
Since we are discussing orbits, rotations, and other round objects it is quite appropriate to beg the question or to use circular reasoning.
Or to define your assumptions in terms of your conclusions.
Can’t logically argue against that, can we.
I need to pull out my Surrealistic Pillow.
"Orbit without spin", "orbital motion without axial rotation", or "pure orbital motion". All just mean the same thing. Not difficult to understand, really.
There are two separate and independent motions in this discussion.
1) "Pure orbital motion".
2) Spin, or axial rotation.
The discussion boils down to what is meant by 1). Those that despise the simplicity of it, try to obfuscate. They always will. Oh well.
Yet the Moon rotates on its internal axis, spins like top, regularly changes its orientation by facing in differing directions.
Nothing beats just saying you’re right, eh, bob?
To speak of orbit simpliciter does not beg any question, Kiddo.
Let’s look at your latest effort:
P1) Rotation about an external axis involves an axis of rotation.
Very informative. But wait – you changed something:
(P1) Translation does not involve an axis of rotation.
Why did you change that clause?
…because it was the equivalent argument for the "Non-Spinners" position, Willard.
DR EMPTY,
So you can do it, but I can’t.
There are thousand’s of PhD Astronomers that would agree the Moon is rotating on its axis.
You go for it, bob. Good for you.
DR EMPTY,
“1) “Pure orbital motion”.
2) Spin, or axial rotation.
The discussion boils down to what is meant by 1). Those that despise the simplicity of it, try to obfuscate. They always will. Oh well.”
By obfuscate do you mean sticking a rotation in your pure orbital motion?
No, I mean what you and all the other "Spinners" do. Endlessly obfuscate a really simple problem.
DR EMPTY,
“No, I mean what you and all the other “Spinners” do. Endlessly obfuscate a really simple problem.”
Well you could conform to the consensus.
Instead you choose to get the wrong answer to an eighth grade science question.
When did you change the definition of a change in orientation again, please?
I didn’t. If you’re going to say "a change in orientation implies rotation" then I’ll remind you again that "rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis", is already motion like the MOTL. You just can’t accept that. Other "Spinners" can. Oh well.
> I’ll remind you again that “rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis”, is already motion like the MOTL.
See, Kiddo? You’re appealing to that silly GIF again.
Sorry, you are *using* it. For expediency. Or something.
I agree with you – to determine if the Moon spins should be simple.
But then why do you keep speaking of rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis? Why do you keep appealing, sorry, using that GIF with these silly acronyms instead of trying to simplify your argument?
Check how simple it can be:
P1. The Moon makes a turn around itself.
P2. While it does 1, it makes a turn around the Earth.
P3. Both P1 and P2 preserve the phenomenon.
P4. Both P1 and P2 makes astronomical sense.
P4. Both P1 and P2 makes physical sense.
P5. Both P1 and P2 can be described using general motion.
C. The Moon spins.
Just a first draft.
The reason why I am not "appealing to the GIF" is that I really am simply using it as a shortcut way of summarizing a motion, here. I could have written out "I’ll remind you again that "rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis", is already motion where the same side of the body is always facing the inside of the orbit, throughout", but that is just more words to write out. MOTL is simpler. Everyone knows what it means.
"P2. While it does 1, it makes a turn around the Earth."
Wrong, because "a turn around the Earth" means "a rotation around the Earth". A rotation of a body around the Earth, with no rotation of the body on its own axis, is already motion where the same side of the body is always facing the inside of the orbit.
(See, I left out MOTL, just for you!)
> because “a turn around the Earth” means “a rotation around the Earth”.
No, it does not. “A turn around the Earth” simply *refers* to an orbit.
An orbit may be modeled as rotation and translation, a general motion that may vary from model to model. None of that undermines the argument or contradict the conclusion that the Moon spins. Same for Kiddo’s war stories regarding who said what when, if they really did.
Oh, what’s the point.
I see we have a tough customer. Why not continue to read:
This claim, even if true, does not contradict the fact that we can explain why the Moon orbits the Earth while spinning. At best it’s an alternative model. That often happens in science. How does it fare with some physics added to it? Does it explain more phenomena than the model we have, or is it just at best an equivalent one?
While our Moon Dragon cranks ponder on that, let’s spare a thought for the men and women who will be sacrificing themselves in Kyiv tomorrow.
"This claim, even if true, does not contradict the fact that we can explain why the Moon orbits the Earth while spinning."
The claim is true…and, for the ten millionth time, you can model the moon as orbiting whilst spinning if you instead model the moon as translating (by which the "Spinners" mean, motion where the same side of the object always faces towards a distant star) whilst also rotating on its own axis.
(However, this is only actually the correct way to model the moon’s motion if "orbit without spin" is as per the MOTR).
“It is also an example of rotation around an external axis”
No it isn’t. It is an example of an orbit around an internal axis (a barycenter).
“this is only actually the correct way to model the moons motion if ‘orbit without spin’ is as per the MOTR”
No only or if about it. That is how it really is.
Whatever you say, RLH.
> you can model the moon as orbiting whilst spinning if you instead model the moon as translating (by which the “Spinners” mean, motion where the same side of the object always faces towards a distant star) whilst also rotating on its own axis.
Two errors:
First, translation does not require the object always face anything. Mercury, for instance, is translating too.
Second, translation does not prevent the Moon from rotating around the Earth.
The two points are connected by a geometrical fact: pure rotation for ellipses don’t exist.
It’s really hard to argue against geometry. Easier is to go for points refuted thousands of times.
Oh, Willard. Nobody expects you to understand.
DR EMPTY
“I didn’t. If you’re going to say “a change in orientation implies rotation” then I’ll remind you again that “rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis”, is already motion like the MOTL.”
Then I have to remind you that there are two rotations for the Moon on the left, on rotation about an external axis and one rotation around an internal axis.
“You just can’t accept that. Other “Spinners” can. Oh well.”
Oh really, which ones?
Your arguments are fallacious.
https://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/academic/class/15671-f95/www/handouts/proof/node3.html
bob, we’ve been over it too many times. There’s just no point. Nothing I can say will ever get through to you.
That because what you are saying is not true.
Yes, I have a thick skull for lies.
The truth gets in much easier.
Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion like the MOTL. That is not a lie. It’s the truth.
… as observed from the surface of the central object.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Of course you’re lying, Kiddo. The Moon’s spin and the concept of spin are two different things. A universe of discourse separates them. Anyone who played with a spinning top knows to what kind of behavior I’m referring.
And no – I’m not saying that the Moon is like a spinning top. I’m illustrating the fact that when a real thing spins for real there’s some translation going on, for spinning in the real world isn’t perfectly ruled by one single pure motion.
Semantics is a formal discipline, you insufferable twat.
Chihuahua= One Trick Pony.
Pray tell the trick, Troglodyte.
Cut, paste, sammich, Kiddo.
A sammich is an unjustified request, Troglodyte.
Still, it’s courageous of you to play the red shirt.
You’re very funny, Willard. Thank you.
WIN!
Sure, it’s a win for me. Thank you.
“You’re very funny” ain’t a way to win an argument, punk.
I just leave you to it. That wins the argument for me.
Not really, punk.
It does when you spout the nonsense that you have been, recently.
You’re gaslighting, punk. Thanks for that.
Another free win!
No gaslighting from me, that’s for sure. Thank you.
HA!
OK, Willard.
WIN! WIN! WIN!
Thank you.
Me 10 Kiddo 0.
If you say so, Willard.
\o/
Symbol.
“I am moving this discussion down here, because frankly I am bored of it”
Indeed, I was bored of that discussion. Luckily, we’ve moved on to a different one.
Moar gaslighting.
In what way is it gaslighting?
You’ve been trolling at Roy’s with this Moon Dragon crank platitudes for years, twat. Do you really think you’ll convince anyone that today you’re bored?
Were you really bored, you’d let go. But you can’t.
I asked you a question. You have dodged it.
Thank you for your meltdown, punk.
No meltdown, Willard, I just calmly asked you in what way was my comment gaslighting? You have not explained yourself.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
I did explain myself, so you are a still gaslighting me.
And your calmness is only a façade. We both know you’re about to tilt. You always do.
Another delicious win!
Not really, Willard. Why don’t you define "gaslighting" and explain exactly how my comment fits that description.
Would "about to tilt" involve constantly calling someone "twat", "punk", or "Kiddo"?
You respond to the wrong comment, twat.
Are you tilting already?
No, I responded in the right place. Why don’t you define "gaslighting" and explain exactly how my comment fits that description.
I have better than a definition, Kiddo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1188229
See? That is gaslighting!
1) You’re now talking about a different comment than the one which led to you originally accusing me of gaslighting, which makes it seem as though you now realize that original comment was not an example of gaslighting.
2) How is this new comment an example of gaslighting? Please explain.
3) You will also need to explain how it’s any different to all the times bob has said "Spinner Spinner chicken dinner" to me, falsely suggesting that I am a "Spinner" for one reason or another.
Now that you asked, Kiddo, don’t whine if you’re getting served. Have more gaslighting:
So the original comment you accused me of gaslighting over isn’t gaslighting, you can’t explain how these new comments are examples of gaslighting, and you can’t justify bob’s "Spinner Spinner chicken dinner".
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
And here’s more gaslighting:
The hook at the end is more a sammich request.
Ah, so by "gaslighting" you mean "an accurate summary of events".
Here’s more gaslighting, Kiddo:
It’s a milder form, but it’s still one.
For no, I don’t mean that.
"The phrase “to gaslight” refers to the act of undermining another person’s reality by denying facts, the environment around them, or their feelings. Targets of gaslighting are manipulated into turning against their cognition, their emotions, and who they fundamentally are as people."
Please explain how my comments are gaslighting.
Variations on “you make no sense” constitutes gaslighting, Kiddo. So are variations on “you’re a non-Spinner” when I’m obviously not. Same for “you did not explain” when I just explained. And so on and so forth.
I don’t really blame you. You got nothing else.
Absolutely nothing.
Hmmm…but your comments are frequently incoherent, if you argue that "orbit without spin" includes rotation about an external axis then you are a "Non-Spinner", and if you don’t explain something, then you don’t explain something.
> but your comments are frequently
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
You find them incoherent.
Just like you found our latest guest’s comments incoherent. Or Nate’s. Or Bob’s. Or Ball’s. Or Tim’s. Or MikeR’s. Or…
You often find comments incoherent just as you are about to lose the point.
You also get bored, or you tilt.
Considering that you can barely discuss physics without making Tim laugh, that you can barely read geometry, that you can’t formulate your argument properly after spending years on it, chances are that your judgment on coherence is not that plausible.
Actually no, Willard. It is just your comments that I frequently find incoherent. I can usually understand everybody else just fine. You, on the other hand, waffle on about nonsense, frequently.
> I can usually understand everybody else just fine.
Kiddo, meet Kiddo:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1181232
I did struggle to understand his comment about Uranus, at first. The way he worded it was unclear. I got it after thinking about it for a few days. Nobody on that thread I started remotely helped with explaining it, by the way.
Willard, you may be able to find a few examples of me not understanding this or that comment. That doesn’t mean that what I say is untrue. Generally, I find you to be the most frequently incoherent commenter. I think that things you say might make sense in your head, but you maybe don’t always get it across in words, successfully. I am trying to be as polite as possible.
Your struggles are constant, Kiddo, but sometimes you hide them under bravado:
February 25, 2022 at 3:14 PM:
Constant. Struggles.
…and Brandon was, indeed, very confused. bob was being ridiculous. So it goes.
You are very skillful at getting others on the defensive, Willard. Considering you’re the one that is manipulative, and you’re the one that "gaslights". People in glass houses…
So it goes indeed:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-613049
…shouldn’t throw stones.
Twas the season:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2019-0-55-deg-c/#comment-418069
Ah, I think that was around the time someone on here told me to commit suicide.
Poor Kiddo, forever the victim:
Oh, sorry. Wrong comment.
I was the victim of somebody directly saying I should kill myself, yes.
I thought you abided by sticks and stones, Kiddo.
Would you like me to remind you everything you told me?
Then you could pretend I was looking for it.
Oblivious to everything you said the minutes before.
There are limits to things you should say to other human beings.
What is being done with words is worse than that, Kiddo.
And you know what’s one of the worst?
Gaslighting.
You are not a nice, decent chap, punk.
You are the one who gaslights.
No U, punk.
I can own what I do. The name under which I write my comments is my honor. How about you?
All I see is a lack of manner, a sheer whirlwind of obfuscation and abuse. Yes, punk. Abuses.
You’re an slimy, Machiavellian chap.
I award you no point, and God may have mercy on your soul.
No, I’m fine, thanks.
So you say, Kiddo.
So you say.
Enjoy your life.
Oh, OK. Thanks, you too.
Wow. The bore actually said something relevant and sensible in the never-ending bogus and irrelevant discussion.
BZ!
✊🏼
An Optical Spy Trick Can Turn Any Shiny Object Into a Bug
https://youtu.be/3vxjDKlY_lU
The New equation,
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
results from the discovered Rotating Planet Surface Solar irradiation Interaction-Emission New Equation:
Jemit = 4πrσΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ (W)
And let’s compare with the blackbody planet emission equation:
J = 4πrσΤe⁴ (W)
When comparing with the Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody emission it is obvious when planet emission is considered it is a different mechanism of emission.
Thus the equation describing IR emission from irradiated rotating planet surface is different.
–
When averaged over the entire planet surface, in order to compare with the Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody emission:
–
Jemit = σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ (W/m)
And compare with the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law equation:
J = σΤe⁴ (W/m)
–
It is obvious these two IR emission mechanisms cannot be compared, because they are different.
Thus, the planet effective temperature Te formula:
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Which results for Earth Te =255K
cannot be compared with the planet measured average surface temperature Tmean =288K.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, more correctly note one needs to use Tse to figure planetary GHE:
Earthen measured Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K, rounded
You are using Ts=288K straight from near surface thermometers.
The experts know to convert the straight thermometer temperature to surface effective temperature Tse so the two temperatures are then comparable brightness temperatures as I’ve consistently shown.
The irrelevant 255K can NOT be used in any meaningful way because the irrelevant 255K is calculated for the surface of an irrelevant imaginary sphere unlike Earth. Earth does NOT have a “real 255K surface”, so the 255K is irrelevant to the point of being bogus.
Nope Clint R, the earthen real 255K surface is instrumentally measured so is real. Calculation by 1LOT does show the same result.
Imaginary objects aren’t subject to measurement.
Nope Ball4, your imaginary “earthen real 255K surface” is imaginary. It exists only in your head. Your “calculation by 1LOT” is just as imaginary.
Imaginary objects aren’t subject to measurement.
As usual, I must be the one to break this off. You will be here all day making claims you can’t support. Someone has to be the adult in the room.
Clint R: Please do tell me what is the real surface of a fog bank.
Clint, funny but imaginary objects aren’t subject to measurement. Imaginary objects emit whatever Clint imagines.
The earthen real 255K surface emits at what the satellite radiometers measure = 255K.
What we’re seeing right now, is the beginning of the (active phase) of the downfall of Pax Americana.
… which started with the raise of Fac America Magna Iterum :- )
Marxism didn’t start with MAGA, dumbass.
haha, since we can’t tell by just looking at one another comments what countrie we’re from, I am not sure about the context… are you a member of the Engsoc or something/ Pax Americana started with ww2 and the bretton-woods system, and cemented into existence with the suez crisis wnen the USA took over the role of the world policeman from the failing british emporium.
The role of the shining city on the hill that the washington has held since the 50s sure had many benefitts, but also some responsibitilies. The thing is – those came together. If the-you-ass-aye shriek its responsibilities or abuse them, it will stop getting benefits as well eventually.
And don’t misunderstand me, the USA did anbuse ots rights as the world policeman pretty badly, but until today it didn’t really abstain from its responsibilities. What they are? To keep wthe general world peace, and the world system as set after the WW2 – that is, freedom and safety of the international trade, the unchangeable bporders. THe US haad invaded many countries over the years under the real or false pretenses, but it never conquered any of them. That was one of the dear deep revelations that the world had fathomed following the bloodbath of the ww2. In thourt, it can be formulated as suh:
“””(forcibly) moving borders WILL lead to wars.
The borders must never be moved (uless all the paerties privy to the border voluntarily agree to the change).
If you can’t help it and want to move something, then you move people, even forcibly.
It is still infinitely preferential to moving borders.
Moving borders starts wars. Moving people end wars.
“””
That was THE_TRUTH, THE_LESSON learned in the aftermath of the ww2. And it is the youassess primary task to ensure that it is held. It partly broke this rule in kosovo pole, unfortunately. Now it has the last chance to uphol this rule. If it fails, then it will lose its role and its respect (whatever remains of it) as the world peace officer. And If I was an ammurican, I’d probably say “yeah, why not? let’s give it up” But here is the thing: wil the lose of its obligations as a world peace officer, it will also lose lose the benefits that come with it: the benefir of emitting world curreny. It is not a secret that theUSA had been living way above it means over the last half a century. I don’t deny the faact that americans are industious, hard working people that deserve to be rich more than anyone else, but… not as rich as they are today. So that will come, and the american riches will drop precipitously. another consequence, following shortly after that, will be the massive disruption of the world trade, the eventual balkanizations of the previously ‘democratic’ peaceful nations [democracies don’t go to war with one another? thets like worst bullshit piece of malicious propaganda ever], and the sudden flare up of all the myriads of frozen conflicts. Add to this the proliferation fo the nuclear weapons… and that’s how you get to ww3. The ww3 isn’t going to be like 1 and 2, not a powervspower front-vs-front massive bloodbath, it is going to be morelike a religios wars of the 17th century – spreading small and middle scale conflicts and the ensuing economic devastation, leading perhaps even to the return of the dark ages. perhaps, china will try to come out as the winner in the end, I hope not.
Now, I’m not saying that any f this is necessarily good or bad, there is hope and benefits in almost anything. You decide.
coturnix…”THe US haad invaded many countries over the years under the real or false pretenses, but it never conquered any of them”.
***
As of today, we have no idea what Putin is up to. He has a complex situation where Russian exiles in the eastern Ukraine are holding out for autonomy. Meantime, the Ukrainians are armed and ready to fight. The Ukrainian government, especially under the last leader, were hostile toward the Russians living in the Ukraine and that has led to recent Russian action.
The West has had plenty of time to intercede but most of them have tried to prop up the Ukrainian government while ignoring the plight of the native Russians in the Ukraine. People like Biden and Hillary Clinton have been out and out hostile toward Putin for years.
One thing is clear, the current Russian system under Putin is nothing like the Draconian Stalin regime. Gorbachev has defended Putin on that ground.
Wow wow wow!
J'ai l'impression d'avoir tapé sur un nid de frelons!
Some Americans seem to have huge problems with even a tiny bit of irony.
*
« Marxism? What’s that? Can I eat it? »
A real remake of what a farmer’s son in the Great Plains answered some decades ago, as I asked him:
« Do you know where Europe is? »
*
Yeah. MAGA! And not Trumping boy’s bank accounts.
Grrr. Again I forgot that damnd https://mothereff.in/html-entities.
coturix…”What were seeing right now, is the beginning of the (active phase) of the downfall of Pax Americana”.
***
I would not hold my breath on that. No one is stupid enough to take on the US in a nuclear war and if it comes to traditional land-based war, the US has many allies throughout the world.
I hope you are using Pax Americana in its proper context. Americana does not refer only to the US, it included all countries in the continent of America.
You won’t find a country called America on any map of the world. The United States is officially the United States of America. ‘Of America’ does not mean America, it means in America. Canada is in America too.
The irony here is that Hawaii is in the United States but not in America.
DREMT, starting my own thread just for you.
Jumping back a bit, you wrote:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1186762
> You cannot synchronize rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, and end up with motion like our moon!
I suggested you make a diagram to show what motion we do end up with in this case. This you have not done that I am aware.
Better would be to write a computer program to do it. Define two variables representing angular velocity: one for the orbital period of the ball, another for the rotational period of the ball. Animate the ball accordingly. You should very quickly figure out that one of your variables is redundant. Why.
Brandon, for your idea to be useful you need to understand what “orbiting, without axial rotation” looks like. Have you learned that yet?
If only you did the Pole Dance Experiment, Pup.
Sadz.
Clint R,
> you need to understand what orbiting, without axial rotation looks like
A properly functioning bicycle pedal. Which is what DREMT’s computer program will produce if he’s fool enough to set the Moon’s angular velocity with respect to its own axis to zero.
A properly functioning bicycle pedal would be rotating on its axis, as it made an “orbit”. That is an example of “orbiting, WITH axial rotation”.
The ball-on-a-string is an example of “orbiting, WITHOUT axial rotation”.
“The ball-on-a-string is an example of ‘orbiting, WITHOUT axial rotation'”
Wrong as always. The ball-on-a-string represents only a ball-on-a-string. If it was representative of the Moon/Earth orbit (or even a close approximation of one) then it would have an central point at 1/81 of the distance between the 2 balls orbiting that barycenter with both balls free to rotate on their internal axes, one approximately 27 times faster than the other.
The MOTR is an example of ‘orbiting, WITHOUT axial rotation’
> A properly functioning bicycle pedal would be rotating on its axis
No Clint. If that were the case your feet would roll off the pedals and you would break your ankles.
Brandon, for the pedals to always be properly facing the rider’s feet the pedal MUST be rotating on its axis. Why do you think the pedals have bearings?
Have you ever ridden a bicycle?
(Sheesh, these children have NO experience or education. No wonder they’re braindead cult idiots.)
Clint R,
> Why do you think the pedals have bearings?
So they can spin, or not should one choose — no really, that should be your choice — *independently* of the crank. Why should become apparent presently.
> Have you ever ridden a bicycle?
Yes, and I’ve always endeavored to keep the pedals roughly parallel to the ground. And by gum if the ground is rotating then I’ve got bigger problems than you thinking I’m brain dead.
You STILL don’t get it, Brandon. I’ll try one more time, but I can’t teach physics to braindead cult idiots and I can’t teach them how bicycles work either.
The pedals ROTATE as you peddle the bicycle. They HAVE to, to remain facing the bottoms of your feet. The pedals are on axes. They ROTATE about the axes on bearings.
Can you admit you were wrong? If you can’t admit you were wrong, then you can’t face reality. If you can’t face reality, you’re an idiot.
Clint R,
> The pedals ROTATE as you peddle the bicycle.
They’d better not or your feet will roll right off them. We’ve been over this.
> They HAVE to, to remain facing the bottoms of your feet.
No, they have to NOT ROTATE to remain parallel to the ground, either when the crank is spinning or not.
Unless the ground is spinning in which case Deity Itself couldn’t keep you affixed to the entire contraption.
> The pedals are on axes.
True.
> They ROTATE about the axes on bearings.
Yes they can. They can also NOT rotate while the crank does. Which is the normal mode of operation.
One can also spin the pedals while the crank stays put.
Or both can spin at the same time at different rates, which is the mode of Earth’s orbit about the Sun.
I would not suggest using either mode to ride the thing.
Okay Brandon, you’re admitting you don’t understand how pedaling works. I accept that. I believe you really don’t understand.
At least you admit it.
> youre admitting you dont understand how pedaling works
Says you, Clint.
…and so say all of us.
All in this case is 4 or 5 idiots.
Delightful.
Brandon R. Gates
No need to write any program!
Others did that tedious job for us, e.g.
– Cosmographia: https://naif.jpl.nasa.gov/naif/cosmographia.html
– Celestia: https://www.celestia.info
– OpenSpace: https://www.openspaceproject.com
or, for those who really want to generate everything by themselves:
https://github.com/cosmoscout/cosmoscout-vr
*
The problem is that the Moon spin deniers won’t trust even one of these programs’ output.
They will say it’s all faked, like all existing Moon spin proofs, NOAA or Had-CRUT temperatures, climate models, GHE, COVID19, Einstein, Big Bang, Webb’s ability to look into the earliest times of the Universe, etc etc etc.
*
I’m day after day increasingly surprised that they at least accept that the Earth is a spheroid – and that it orbits the Sun, and not vice-versa.
Hi Bindidon. You forgot to mention you have no knowledge of orbital motion or the relevant physics. You were unable to solve any of the easy problems, along with ALL the other braindead cult idiots. You have to completely rely on “links” because your can’t think for yourself. You’re braindead.
Glad to help.
Clint R is just an idiot. Best to ignore all he says/posts.
Clint, have you solved the falsification of the SB law yet? That is your assignment. If not why are you posting here?
The incompetence and immaturity of my desperate stalkers makes my contributions that much more valuable.
I humbly thank them all.
Bindidon,
> No need to write any program!
Sometimes reinventing the wheel is the best way to figure out how they work.
Cheers.
> you’re admitting you don’t understand how pedaling works
Says you.
brandon…”Better would be to write a computer program to do it. Define two variables representing angular velocity: one for the orbital period of the ball, another for the rotational period of the ball”.
***
Don’t need that, it’s very simple to visualize.
Imagine a circular orbit centred at 0,0 on an x,y plane. Imagine the lunar orbit as a circle with radius = 5. Connect 0,0 via a radial line with the circle at x = 5, y = 0, that is where the circle intercepts the x-axis.
The near side of the Moon must always face 0,0, so draw a tangent line to the circle at (5,0) representing the tangential plane of the near-sdie. It will be vertical and perpendicular to the radial line. As the Moon orbits 0,0, the radial line will track it, and at all positions of the radial line, the tangent line representing the near face will always be perpendicular to the radial line.
If you carry the radial line through the Moon, where it exits the far-side, draw another tangent line perpendicular to the radial line. Since the near face must always face 0,0, the far side must always face in the opposite direction toward space. As the radial line turns, we now have two tangent line representing the near-face and the far-side moving in parallel.
Disregarding the orbital path, we have a radial line rotating about 0,0 with two tangent lines perpendicular to the radial line always moving in parallel. There can be no rotation of the portion of the radial line between tangent lines ruling out the possibility of a local rotation of the Moon.
What we are seeing is pure curvilinear translation without rotation. That explains perfectly why the near-face is constantly re-orienting wrt the x-axis. It re-orients through 360 degrees creating an illusion of local rotation wrt the stars.
There are 2 separate motions that have their own mechanics. An orbit about a barycenter and a rotation about an axis.
One requires 2 or more bodies. The other requires only 1.
The problem with your visualization is that the coordinate 0,0 should be the sun, not the earth. The moon does not make circles around a stationary earth, it can’t because that would imply changing direction forward and reverse while in transit around the sun.
Good point.
Another problem is that Gordo’s model only works for circular orbits.
Willard,
There is also rotation of the Sun about the galactic center, and motion of the Milky Way due to expansion of space-time itself … hence the importance of keeping one’s frames of reference, and wits, about you.
BUT THE MOON’S SPIN TRANSCENDS REFERENCE FRAMES, BG!
For more on the idea:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1155969
Willard, yeah I saw that. Lulz ensued.
The moon issue transcends reference frames, by which I mean it goes beyond the conclusion that some people come to, which is that the moon rotates on its own axis wrt the inertial reference frame, and does not rotate on its own axis wrt the accelerated frame.
It’s instead simply a matter of, what is "orbital motion without axial rotation"?
DREMT,
What you’re actually doing when you transcend reference frames is switch them on the fly to suit your pre-determined (and wrong) conclusion.
It is beyond dispute in my mind that the Moon doesn’t rotate on its axis *relative to the radial* (which *is* ROTATING for pity’s sake), the string, the crank — whichever model you choose. It does, however, rotate on its own axis relative to whatever point in the universe you choose to to make fixed — so long as you use the same frame of reference for Earth. It could be the Sun. It could be the center of the Milky Way. It could be Jupiter for crying out loud because that planet ain’t going to move much over a single lunar orbit.
Personally I like Omicron Draconis as the reference point because if you stand on the Moon’s north pole and don’t look up, you’ll miss how the rest of the universe rotates around that point.
I wonder why.
No, Brandon. It’s pretty simple. You cannot say the moon is rotating on its own axis unless "orbital motion without axial rotation" is motion like the MOTR. That is the only way you can say it is rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frames.
I read somewhere upthread:
” Another problem is that Gordo’s model only works for circular orbits. ”
Indeed.
But… best of all, even if you have an elliptical orbit in mind, you are still not saved from the illusion.
*
Simply because Moon’s orbit and rotation are well equal in time, but do not perfectly match all the time during the motions.
– When the Moon is closest to Earth, its rotation is slower than its journey through space, allowing observers to see an additional 8 degrees to the east side.
– When the Moon is furthest away, the rotation is faster, so an additional 8 degrees are visible on the west side.
*
And that is the true origin of Moon’s wobble called “optical libration in longitude”.
Something on the one hand
– none of the spin deniers could ever accept
but on the other side
– some spin believers strangely think that it must be understood as a bit of translational motion within the lunar spin.
That’s WRONG Bindidon.
The libration is seen as Moon nears the “farthest away”, and then as it returns from “farthest away”.
And the libration is NOT due to Moon rotating. It is due to the elliptical orbit, and the Moon changing direction therein.
> the libration is NOT due to Moon rotating
Which one, Pup? There are many librations.
It’s “spinning,” BTW.
I am able to produce 80 dollars hourly to do some small tasks on the computer. Ive never realized like it could even possible however one of my top VIUJ pal has earned $27,000 within six weeks simply working this best project and also she has satisfied me to avail. Discover additional updates by reaching following web-page..
Heres what I do… https://workstore01.blogspot.com/
ken…”The problem with your visualization is that the coordinate 0,0 should be the sun, not the earth. The moon does not make circles around a stationary earth, it can’t because that would imply changing direction forward and reverse while in transit around the sun”.
***
Ken…if the Sun is at 0,0, where is the Earth?
In my analyses, I have always referred to instantaneous positions of the Moon in it’s orbit. I learned that in engineering. If the stationary Earth bothers you, then lets have the x,y plane moving in an orbit around the Sun with Earth at centre.
In engineering problem solving we don’t create extraneous issues to complicate the problem. Having the Earth at 0,0 is perfectly acceptable as long as it is understood that each position of the Moon in its orbit represents an instantaneous position in its orbit around the Earth. It does not matter if the Earth is moving at the same time.
Place the Sun at 0,0 if it makes you happy and relocate the Earth to 5,0. Then repeat my previous post from there, using 5,0 as Earth’s centre as it orbits the Sun in a circular orbit. But then you have to create another x,y plane, x’,y’ to represent the Moon’s orbit.
Why can’t you focus on my point that every point on the Moon is moving in parallel in its orbit hence it is impossible for it to rotate and still keep the near-side pointed at the Earth?
Gordon Robertson,
> Don’t need that, it’s very simple to visualize.
For some …
> Imagine a circular orbit centred at 0,0 on an x,y plane.
This would be easier using polar coordinates, but I’ve got it.
> Imagine the lunar orbit as a circle with radius = 5. Connect 0,0 via a radial line with the circle at x = 5, y = 0, that is where the circle intercepts the x-axis.
Ok. In polar coordinates we have r = 5 units, theta = 0 radians for the Moon’s initial position.
> The near side of the Moon must always face 0,0, so draw a tangent line to the circle at (5,0) representing the tangential plane of the near-sdie. It will be vertical and perpendicular to the radial line.
I assume we’re orbiting counterclockwise from this perspective, so a vector going through its geometric center describing the Moon’s instantaneous velocity will be pointing “up”, at angle pi/2 radians.
> As the Moon orbits 0,0, the radial line will track it, and at all positions of the radial line, the tangent line representing the near face will always be perpendicular to the radial line.
Mmmm hmm. So when the Moon reaches, say, r = 5, theta = pi/2, or x = 0, y = 5 in Cartesian, the Moon’s instantaneous velocity will be a vector, going through its geometric center, now with angle of pi radians.
This is as far as we need go, but I’ll soldier on.
> If you carry the radial line through the Moon, where it exits the far-side, draw another tangent line perpendicular to the radial line. Since the near face must always face 0,0, the far side must always face in the opposite direction toward space. As the radial line turns, we now have two tangent line representing the near-face and the far-side moving in parallel.
Yes, agree.
> Disregarding the orbital path, we have a radial line rotating about 0,0 with two tangent lines perpendicular to the radial line always moving in parallel. There can be no rotation of the portion of the radial line between tangent lines ruling out the possibility of a local rotation of the Moon.
Um, no, our tangent lines have changed orientation, i.e. rotated, since the initial position, by exactly pi/2 radians. As has the radial by the exact same value.
> What we are seeing is pure curvilinear translation without rotation. That explains perfectly why the near-face is constantly re-orienting wrt the x-axis. It re-orients through 360 degrees creating an illusion of local rotation wrt the stars.
The reorientation of which you speak is the very definition of angular motion, and it is no illusion.
The angular velocity of any of the lines you’ve defined is given by omega = v/r, which by convention has the units of radians/second, hence you don’t need two variables to describe the orbital period and Moon’s rotational period in terms of angular velocity.
Therefore, for the nth time, the Moon rotates about its own axis at the same rate as it orbits the Earth.
Write the friggen program, as computers are particularly intolerant of logical and definitional goofs such as you’re making here.
"I suggested you make a diagram to show what motion we do end up with in this case. This you have not done that I am aware."
Well, that’s a lie, isn’t it, Brandon?
As I explained, rotation about an external axis plus rotation about an internal axis would result in either motion like the MOTR (if the motions were in opposite directions), or motion which the "Spinners" would believe is two counter-clockwise axial rotation per counter-clockwise orbit (if the motions were in the same direction).
> Well, that’s a lie, isn’t it, Brandon?
As I said: not that I’m aware.
> As I explained
An explanation is not a diagram, DREMT. That picture saying a thousand words thing.
And I repeat, better to write a computer program which animates all of the relevant motions.
As I explained, rotation about an external axis plus rotation about an internal axis would result in either motion like the MOTR (if the motions were in opposite directions), or motion which the "Spinners" would believe is two counter-clockwise axial rotations per counter-clockwise orbit (if the motions were in the same direction).
Respond to that, Brandon.
> As I explained,
Twice now, an explanation is not a diagram DREMT.
Scram.
If I leave out the words "as I explained", will you actually respond to the substance of the comment, Brandon? You asked me what the motion would be. I told you. Now respond.
> Respond to that, Brandon.
Already done at least ten times with no good result.
I want my computer program.
…and don’t forget, this is just when it comes to synchronizing "rotation about an external axis plus rotation about an internal axis".
You can synchronize translation in a circle (by which the "Spinners" mean, motion like the MOTR) with rotation about an internal axis, in the same direction, and come up with motion like the MOTL. Sure. So…
"Synchronous rotation" is a misnomer.
It should be called "synchronous translation plus rotation", because that is what the "Spinners" are actually arguing.
> It should be called “synchronous translation plus rotation”
That’s not even the term of the page from the GIF you’re trying to exploit, Kiddo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
Guess which term I prefer.
And the explanation as to why it’s called synchronous rotation is right there: “the object takes just as long to rotate around its own axis as it does to revolve around its partner.”
You have yet to argue that revolution might not involve rotation.
Go right ahead.
“the object takes just as long to rotate around its own axis as it does to revolve around its partner.”
…and thus by "revolve" they can only mean, "curvilinear translation in an ellipse".
… and since it translates on an ellipse that is not circular for most if not all celestial bodies, “they” also mean it’s rotating.
Well that is not the "Spinner" position, but…whatever you say, Willard. There is no point talking to you.
> that is not the “Spinner” position
The Spinner position is that the Moon spins, Kiddo.
Have you wondered why we were all non-Spinners all of a sudden?
Your mission, if you accept it, is to make an argument that ends with
(C) The Moon does not spin.
No mention of Spinners. No cryptic acronym. Just an ounce of geometry with a soupcon of physics.
But don’t forget the physics, otherwise you can’t say anything about what the Moon does. She’s a bit like you: she doesn’t care much about what we say. She soldiers on.
There is no point talking to you.
(C) The Moon does not spin.
We know Moon does NOT spin because we only see one side of it from Earth.
(Please don’t go on and on about we see a few percent more than just one side, as that just means you’re trying to confuse the issue rather than learn.)
Our moon does not spin wrt to Earth; our moon does spin wrt to our sun. As Clint pointed out a few posts ago.
> We know Moon does NOT spin because we only see one side of it from Earth.
Added to the Moon Dragon Crank Master Argument
(SEE) We only see one side of it from Earth.
For once you’re useful. Thanks, Pup!
That hasn’t been trotted out before, Willard? I’m a little surprised as it seems to be the crux of their confusion.
It’s necessary to keep the explanations simple — KISS — Keep it simple, stupid.
There are children here that don’t have a clue about the relevant physics. Some don’t even know how a bicycle pedal works….
RLH STILL can’t understand the ball-on-a-string is ONLY a simple analogy of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. It’s called “braindead”.
Yes, BG, it has been said before, but I need to find where.
For now I got even better:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-730610
Search for “Tesla” on this page for the (ILLUSION) line.
So the Moon does not spin because we do not see it spin, and also because we see it spin, but it’s an illusion.
BG,
Seems that a previous version of the Master Argument had the line:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-975763
I guess that I could not find a source so deleted it.
A corollary to it might be that the Earth is flat because it looks flat from Earth.
Willard,
> Your belief in Moons [spin] is due to an optical illusion.
I saw that as well and nearly sprayed my laptop with coffee.
Apparently the illusion argument is at least as old as Tesla:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-370590
I couldn’t make this up.
If you study Tesla’s diagrams, Brandon, you will note that he visualizes the problem from the same POV as the frequently cited tidal-locking GIF. The "illusion" referred to by Tesla is that the moon is rotating on its own axis, because it "looks like" (from the mind’s eye) that it’s rotating on its own axis whilst it orbits as (mentally) seen from above.
DREMT is mental. As most have long ago agreed.
Charming.
The “illusion” referred to by Tesla is that the moon is rotating on its own axis, because it “looks like” (from the mind’s eye) that it’s rotating on its own axis whilst it orbits as (mentally) seen from above which illusion Tesla then dispels writing: “ball M -presenting always the same face towards the center of motion, actually rotates upon its axis”.
Tesla came to that conclusion dispelling it is not just an illusion and proves through momentum & energy analysis: “In this Case the Motion is Resolved Into Two Separate Components – One (curvilinear) Translational About O and the Other Rotational About C. The Total Kinetic Energy of the Mass Equals the Sum of These Two Energies.”
Thus our moon was proved by Tesla to re-orient itself once per orbit presenting always the same face towards the center of motion.
Some truly legendary quote-mining, from Ball4 there.
So now DREMT reverses course and writes it is only “quote mining” that Tesla agrees with DREMT our moon re-orients itself once per orbit presenting always the same face towards the center of motion.
Pity DREMT can’t keep his own stories straight.
pups, Tesla’s analysis claims that the Moon rotates around an external axis, which must be fixed at some point in a 2D reference. But the Moon ‘s orbit is an ellipse and the center or rotation at any point is constantly changing because, at any location around the ellipse, there is a unique radius of curvature which defines a point around which there is an instantaneous rotation.
pups has claimed that the barycenter is the point around which the Moon rotates, but this is impossible, given the above facts.
So Swanson rightly disagrees with Ball4 that Tesla argued the moon rotates on its own axis. Tesla very clearly, very definitely argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis. Swanson also disagrees with bobdroege that the moon rotates around an external axis.
So, let the "Spinners" fight it out.
In the very subthread where Moon Dragon cranks get caught suggesting that the Moon does not spin because we do not see it spin, and also because we see it spin, but its an illusion, Kiddo is whining about coherence.
DREMT is bad, mmm-kay.
According to Tesla: “ball M – presenting always the same face towards the center of motion, actually rotates upon its axis….In this Case the Motion is Resolved Into Two Separate Components One (curvilinear) Translational About O and the Other Rotational About C. The Total Kinetic Energy of the Mass Equals the Sum of These Two Energies.”
Thus our moon was proved by Tesla to re-orient itself once per orbit presenting always the same face towards the center of motion.
> In this Case the Motion is Resolved Into Two Separate Components One (curvilinear) Translational About O and the Other Rotational About C.
A Spinner, obviously:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1189559
Perhaps we’re all Spinners after all.
We could be all Spinners and non-Spinners too, considering the definitions we currently have on the table.
Some spinners remain in the closet declaring they are re-orienters when they are really spinners.
Our moon does not rotate on its own axis wrt Earth but our moon does rotate on its own axis wrt to our sun as pointed out by Clint R several posts ago.
Ball4 misrepresents Tesla, and Willard laps it up (not bothering to check the source material to find out why that example is in there – hint: he was criticizing it).
There is no misrepresentation of Tesla by me since I quoted Tesla’s own words verbatim.
Quote-mining, Ball4. It is what you do, constantly.
The entire text is readily available DREMT & you have failed to prove Tesla is wrong in what I quoted even though you have that entire text.
Tesla is a spinner, DREMT is a re-orienter, both positions are compatible.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
“‘Synchronous rotation’ is a misnomer.”
No not really. It means its rotation is synchronous with its orbital motion.
Couldnt be simpler.
What’s not simple is to have this type of orbit be a single motion as you guys believe.
Synchrony, by definition, involves at least two motions. That makes no sense.
We’ll add it to the list of facts that fail to be explained by your ‘model’.
Synchronous rotation.
Libration
Definition of rotation
Definition of orbit
Lunar North Pole
Lunar South Pole
Axial tilt
Axial precession rate
Many are listed in astronomical tables, such as:
Lunar North Pole
“The lunar north pole is the point in the Northern Hemisphere of the Moon where the lunar axis of rotation meets its surface.”
But in your bizarre theory, these can’t exist!
DREMT,
> Well, thats a lie, isnt it, Brandon?
No, I honestly missed this: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1186860
> A locked bicycle pedal is indeed like the motion of the moon around the Earth
I AGREE
Where we depart is that the locked pedal rotates about its own axis, which is why your feet would roll of the pedals and potentially cause you a very nasty faceplant, not the illusion of one.
Yes, Brandon, where you start saying that a pedal, which is locked (and thus cannot rotate on its own axis), nonetheless rotates on its own axis, is where we part ways…and is where you part ways with reality.
But, that actually was nothing to do with what you asked me…which was:
"DREMT: You cannot synchronize rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, and end up with motion like our moon!
Brandon: I suggested you make a diagram to show what motion we do end up with in this case. This you have not done that I am aware."
I have now told you several times what motion we do end up with in this case. You refuse to respond.
DREMT,
> [We depart] where you start saying that a pedal, which is locked (and thus cannot rotate on its own axis)
The part you keep leaving out is “independently of the crank”. When you leave that important bit out you assassinate a strawman.
When the pedal cannot rotate independently of the crank, it is essentially just another part of the crank. Therefore if the pedal cannot rotate in this state of affairs, neither can the crank, and your bicycle may not be able to go anywhere.
Kind of like this conversation.
Computer program. Now.
Testing…
OK, Brandon. We’re not getting anywhere. So try this (you wanted a computer program):
1) Google "online transmographer"
2) Top link should be a site called "Shodor". Click on that.
3) Click on "New Triangle", until you have a nice triangle that is not passing through 0,0 (it will be easier to follow a triangle’s motion).
4) Click "rotate" around a point 0,0, and put 45 degrees in the box.
5) Keep clicking "rotate", and watch the triangle rotate around the external axis.
6) See how the triangle reorients itself as it rotates.
7) Note that this is only programmed to be one single motion, in other words, this is only rotation around an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis
8) You can play around, separately, with ticking the "around center" box and then rotating the triangle about an internal axis. Note that this is entirely separate and independent to the external axis rotation.
If you do all that correctly, you should finally understand what I mean about rotation…
DREMT,
> Were not getting anywhere.
True, but it’s allegedly fun trying.
> So try this (you wanted a computer program): 1) Google “online transmographer”
Neat toy but I want to see the code behind it and I want you to write that code. It can be pseudo-code if you wish and we can step through it together somewhat like I did with Gordon here, but in more complete fashion: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1188518
This will be a cinch if you would kindly think in polar coordinates rather than Cartesian.
Please follow the steps, and tell me what you find.
I am not going to write you a computer program, for crying out loud. Talk about a sammich! More like a seven-course meal…
DREMT,
In all the ink you’ve spilled on this topic the past several years you could’ve written a model of the entire solar system. I don’t think I’m asking too much of you to go through the rigor of plotting two vectors on a screen, defining two variables ωorbit and ωmoon, iterating one time step, and re-plotting those vectors according to the very simple formula:
ω = Δ𝚹/Δt
You owe it to yourself to try.
Now let me tell you what you will find. Since you insist the Moon isn’t rotating on its own axis, ωmoon must equal zero. ωorbit can be whatever you want so long as it is a non-zero value. Coded correctly with the variables initialized thus you will end up simulating properly operating bicycle pedals. Which is the wrong answer.
To understand why you need only define one non-zero angular velocity, ω, I refer you to all of attempted geometric proofs offered by you, Clint R., et al., which always include a radial intersecting the geometric center of the Moon, and a tangent perpendicular to that radial passing somewhere through the circle representing same.
For the purpose of sane coding, I choose the tangent line to intersect the radial at the geometric center of the Moon.
Anyone capable of adding two numbers together should be able to see that the angles of each line (call them 𝚹radial and 𝚹tangent) must change at the same rate per unit time for their orientation to remain perpendicular to each other.
Since each line has the same angular velocity, and that velocity is a non-zero value, both lines are rotating, or “spinning” if you must, at the same rate. And since the tangent line must remain anchored to the geometric center of the Moon, its rotational motion is about the Moon’s geometric center, i.e. its own (internal) axis.
That’s a QED. Don’t believe me, get out the graph paper, a compass, a protractor, some colored pencils, do the maths and draw the results yourself.
Just steps 1) to 8), Brandon. Please follow them, and tell me what you find.
Nothing that applies to the system we’re attempting to model, DREMT. Reason being that we’re attempting to model two simultaneous rotations about two different axes and this thing only allows one rotation about one axis, as you kindly noted in your point (7).
Back to the drawing board with you.
I think you have mis-read my point 7). Try again.
Also, a commenter called Ftop_t did some work with a tool called Desmos where two simultaneous rotations, about two different axes, were run. It supported my understanding. But you should be able to work it out just using the Shodor transmographer tool. Note 8) as well. You can indeed rotate the object about two different axes, external and internal, just not at the same time.
I know I am correct about rotation. Sorry to insist.
> You cannot synchronize rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, and end up with motion like our moon
Counterpoint:
https://postimg.cc/SJLTGNMS
DREMT,
> I think you have mis-read my point 7).
Here it is again: 7) Note that this is only programmed to be one single motion, in other words, this is only rotation around an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis
We are attempting to *explicitly* simulate two simultaneous rotations so your tool fails muster. It *is* capable of simulating the motion of the Moon about the Earth *implicitly* by setting the rotation point outside the bounds of the polygon, but that fails my requirements because it doesn’t force you to *explicitly* set the angular velocity of the polygon about its own (internal) axis.
The reason you need to be able to *explicitly* set both angular velocities is so you can see what happens when you set ωmoon to zero. Hint: the Moon will behave as a properly operating bicycle pedal.
Willard gives a good example of capabilities of the program I wish you to write: https://postimg.cc/SJLTGNMS
> Also, a commenter called Ftop_t did some work with a tool called Desmos where two simultaneous rotations, about two different axes, were run.
That’s nice, but observing the output of code and writing code are two different exercises. I gave you a good head start here: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1188899
Off you go now.
DREMT,
Just for you here’s an animation I created with your shodor.org Transmographer tool:
https://i.imgur.com/mTMGXBz.gifv
Not sure what you think this is supposed to prove, but it sure looks to me that the rotational velocity of the square about its own internal axis equals the orbital period about the origin of the plot.
Where’s my program.
"Note that this is only programmed to be one single motion, in other words, this is only rotation around an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis"
Yes, Brandon. By which I mean, the "rotate around a point" function" is only rotating the object around the specified point. It is only rotating the object around an external axis (because 0,0 lies outside the object itself), and not rotating the object about its own, internal axis, and it already moves as per the moon, as your animation shows.
If you alternately rotate the object 45 degrees around point 0,0, and then rotate the object "around center" by 45 degrees, and then set it back to 0,0 and rotate around a point 45 degrees again, and so on, and so forth, you can see the effect of the two rotations (external and internal) happening cumulatively. It then does not move as per the moon.
“It is only rotating the object around an external axis”
You can orbit around an internal point, such as a barycenter, but never around an external point.
Have you actually used the transmographer yet, RLH?
Have you stopped being an idiot yet?
https://dev.nylearns.org/module/content/search/item/3147/viewdetail.ashx
Allows only one object therefore is useless for anything to do with gravity.
I’ll explain this in a way that even a child could understand:
As "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is already motion like our moon, then "rotation about an external axis plus rotation about an internal axis" cannot be motion like our moon.
Use the transmographer, and prove it to yourself.
The transmographer, as noted, only allows for one object therefore is useless for anything to do with gravity.
It just proves my point about rotation. It doesn’t need to have anything to do with gravity.
> it already moves as per the [M]oon, as your animation shows.
That only shows it’s possible for the Moon not to spin, not that it’s impossible for the Moon to spin. A claim that nobody argues against.
The next step would be to provide a numerical model of the Earth-Moon system using a non-spinning Moon. We have a shit ton of them with a spinning one.
Best of luck!
"That only shows it’s possible for the Moon not to spin"
…and that’s all I needed to show, to prove my point about rotation. You seem to think every point the "Non-Spinners" make has to settle the entire debate once and for all. It’s just one battle, not the war. I never claimed that this settled the entire issue.
DREMT’s point is since triangle does re-orient itself once per orbit wrt to the center of orbit while per Tesla “presenting always the same face towards the center of motion”.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
DREMT: Please stop trolling.
> That [it’s possible for the Moon not to spin] is all I needed to show, to prove my point about rotation. I needed to show, to prove my point about rotation.
What point was that?
Ah, yes
I mean, srsly.
Yes, seriously. With that proven, it then relates through to a number of other points I’ve been making recently.
DREMT,
> If you alternately rotate the object 45 degrees around point 0,0, and then rotate the object “around center” by 45 degrees, and then set it back to 0,0 and rotate around a point 45 degrees again, and so on, and so forth, you can see the effect of the two rotations (external and internal) happening cumulatively. It then does not move as per the moon.
If you wrote the program I keep asking for, which *explicitly* defines the angular velocities of both the orbital and axial rotations, you would be able to reproduce the animation provided by Willard:
https://postimg.cc/SJLTGNMS
Case A: ω_moon 0 AND ω_moon ω_orbit : non-locked orbit such as Earth about the Sun
Case B: ω_moon 0 AND ω_moon = ω_orbit : tidally locked orbit such as Moon about Earth
Case C: ω_moon = 0 : non-rotating satellite such as a properly functioning bicycle pedal
I want my program for each of these cases. You can do it on graph paper as Newton would have. Specify your algorithm and show your work for each step. You should only have to do one step for each of the three cases.
Good luck.
> With that proven
What’s “that”? Ah, yes:
On the one hand Kiddo concedes that the Moon can spin and orbit.
On the other, he says that it cannot be a rotation about an external axis plus rotation about an internal axis.
Yet to spin is to rotate about one’s internal axis, and an elliptical orbit involves a rotation on an external axis.
You just can’t make this up.
> the animation provided by
H/T Tyson.
Brandon – the transmographer proves me correct on rotation. Not that it should require that proof. You should really have understood that, already. Oh well. Your loss.
Willard – "On the one hand Kiddo concedes that the Moon can spin and orbit."
I have pointed out throughout that the "Spinners" argue "orbit without spin" is translational motion, by which they mean motion like the MOTR. That’s the only way it can be argued that the moon spins and orbits. Motion like the MOTR (which they say is the "orbit") plus axial rotation (the "spin").
"On the other, he says that it cannot be a rotation about an external axis plus rotation about an internal axis."
I don’t just say it, Willard. The transmographer demonstrates it.
"Yet to spin is to rotate about one’s internal axis, and an elliptical orbit involves a rotation on an external axis."
…and this is where you need to question which side of the debate you are really on.
> The transmographer demonstrates it.
Nope:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1190724
Willard just can’t let anything go. Poor guy.
“4) Click “rotate” around a point 0,0, and put 45 degrees in the box.”
The odd claim of the TEAM is that following an elliptical orbit is simply a rotation.
I would like see anyone click the ‘rotate’ button, and get the object to follow an elliptical orbit.
Of course, Willard is not the only one.
“just can’t let anything go.”
Rotate by 90 degrees around 0,0, will never-never ever-ever produce an elliptical motion.
Because ROTATE means something very precise, and it is not an elliptical movement.
Yet the TEAM will never ever let go of their erroneous beliefs.
Far from the only one…
Hooray. That is that, then.
This should put an end to erroneous claims that elliptical orbits are rotations.
Very far from the only one…
A spherical blackbody at Earth distance from the sun does not absorb
340 watts per square meter on average nor emit 340 watts
The Model of the Ideal thermally conductive blackbody is suppose according to theory absorb and emit 340 per square meter uniformly,
and blackbody surface emitting 340 watts per square meter has temperature in vacuum of about 5 C.
The reason is ideal thermally conductive blackbody is 5 C in sunlight [rather than about 120 C] is it’s an ideal thermally conductive body {or it conducts heat perfect- which no known matter can do- matter has heat gradients- a brick kiln can be 1000 C inside
and on outside of kiln it can be 50 C- or not vaguely a perfect conductor of heat, or brick are regarded as a pretty good insulation. If Kiln was made of solid copper instead of solid brick, copper a good heat conductor would have it’s outside very hot, copper would still have a heat gradient- it not an ideal material}.
Now if spin something, this acts sort like the Ideal thermally conductive body. And small space rock can spin fast, and they are similar to ideal thermally conductive blackbody- they will have average surface temperature of about 5 C at 1 AU distance from the Sun.
Earth land surface does not vaguely act like ideal thermally conductive blackbody- it can heat up to 70 C.
An ocean surface can act like ideal thermally conductive blackbody. Or our ocean can only heat up to around 30 C, because it evaporate and transports the heat to the rest of the world.
The reason Earth absorbs much more energy from sunlight as compared
to other planets, is because Earth has an ocean.
What also can help absorb energy from the sunlight is an atmosphere.
What helps land area absorb more sunlight is wet land areas, and the atmosphere. And land area are wet, because we have ocean covering more than 70% of Earth surface, which allows, rivers, lakes and wet ground. Though the atmosphere brings the rain, and particularly our atmosphere bring it, globally {though one can have deserts- and cold Ice Age Earth causes more deserts].
Cold air can prevent a ground surface to heat up, due to convectional heat loss, to get a ground surface temperature to warm as much as 70 C, require warm air, and dry ground, and the Sun to be nearer to zenith. Without this and when sun near zenith the ground mostly commonly only warms to about 60 C.
In this way atmosphere likewise prevents high 70 C ground temperatures or acts similar to ideal thermally conductive blackbody.
In terms atmospheric greenhouse effect what mostly means is more uniformity in global temperature.
And issue why Earth’s average global air is 17 average with ocean and 10 C with land surface which higher than Ideal thermally conductive blackbody 5 C, can explain in simple manner, the purpose of Ideal thermally conductive blackbody is not indicate the hottest a sphere average temperature can be.
Or they knew at 1 AU, one can get 120 C, and if you want one make
the model have a higher average measured temperature, one could do this.
Nate is too busy falsely accusing and misrepresenting arguments to make good on his promise:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1188388
“Hence, you judge Kristian’s and Dan’s work to be highly compelling with little investigation.”
I thought you were going to show me your lengthy debates with them.
rlh…from your link refuting G&T…it amazes me how you rush of to get the opinions of others without trying to read, comprehend, and understand what G&T are saying. You have a Masters degree, likely in political science, yet you are unable to understand the ‘basic college physics’ you claim is represented by the G&T paper. So, you go to some other dweeb who offers little more, other than inane comments that references disproved rhetoric.
https://www.quora.com/Did-Gerlich-and-Tscheuschner-prove-there-is-no-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect
***
“The paper seems to be organized around misinterpreting and misrepresenting what other people believe, and then refuting that”.
Duh!!! G&T reference many scientists who uphold the AGW theory. They are only trying to illustrate the source of modern belief on the subject. They do take on people like Rahmstorf and explain why they think he is wrong.
Obviously your idiotic authority figure has only skimmed the paper with no intention of understanding what is said.
***************************
“One of the key contentions of G&T is that re-emission of infrared radiation by gases in the upper atmosphere can in no way heat up the ground-level air. (p. 92)
It has long been known that, if one doesnt account for such effects, simple thermodynamic calculations imply that the Earth should be at least 33C colder than it is observed to be. G&T criticized such calculations as being invalid, on various grounds.
“So, in 2008, Arthur P. Smith published a paper refuting G&Ts work (which had at that time been released as a pre-print) with calculations addressing every single complaint G&T had made about prior calculations of this sort”.
***
An utter lie. Smith only addressed the inane proof that the Earth without an atmosphere (did not mention oceans) was 33C colder than today. Smith did not go near any of the other points made by G&T which are numerous and for obvious reasons. Smith, with a Ph.D in physics, had worked largely as a librarian. He knew nothing about thermodynamics.
***********************
“The temperature of Venus is easily explained if the atmospheric greenhouse effect is taken into account. Yet, in the world of G&Ts version of physics, the temperature of Venus is inexplicable, a 505C error in the theory. G&Ts conclusions are highly inconsistent with reality”.
***
Another lie. A space probe back in the 1980s discovered that the surface temperature of Venus is 500C+, a fact that dismisses any greenhouse effect. With a surface temperature of 500C+ it would be impossible for the cooler atmosphere to heat the surface.
******************
“If the power of back-radiation from the atmosphere were, for some reason, to increase to 110 units, then:
-This would initially imbalance things, so that the Earth is receiving more power than it is losing.
-This would increase the net thermal energy, and the overall temperature, of the Earths surface”.
***
Another idiotic comment. G&T, both with degrees in thermodynamics pointed out the obvious, the 2nd law forbids such a heat transfer from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface.
The author refers to a ‘net thermal energy’, which G&T challenged as having no meaning since the 2nd law is about heat transfer only. The concept of net thermal energy is a bogus term introduced by climate alarmists in a pathetic attempt to bypass the 2nd law.
The 2nd law, as laid down by Clausius refers to heat transfer and no other form of energy is represented. G&T claimed that any net energy must be a summation of heat transfers yet climate alarmists are including the EM in the net. They fail to understand that heat cannot be transferred, by its own means, from cold to hot.
Arthur Smith and Josh Halpern (Aka Eli Rabbett) fall into that category. In their rebuttals of G&T they continue to rely on the net transfer of ‘energy’ while failing to understand that EM is not heat and must obey the 2nd law in the case of heat transfer.
*******************
“When longwave absorp-tion and back-radiation from the atmosphere increase, the temperature of the surface of the Earth increases. This is what is called the greenhouse effect.
***
Hopefully the author understands that longwave radiation in this context is short-wave solar radiation. I’ll give him benefit of the doubt as his reference being a typo. However, I cannot excuse his ignorance in claiming heat can be transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface.
************************
“Heat by definition refers to a net energy transfer”.
***
Finally, the author reveals his abject ignorance of physics and thermodynamics. Heat has never been defined as a net energy transfer. The notion is ludicrous since the energy being transferred is heat. According to the author, heat is a transfer of heat.
These modern clowns think the term ‘energy’ by itself means something. In order to work with energy in physics, one must define which energy is in use. In an electrical circuit, electrical energy and heat flow but the usage of the term energy could mean any energy is flowing.
In many cases, the type of energy is obvious and needs no mention. In the case above, however, one must specify the type of energy which is included as a net energy.
I fail to understand how someone with a Ph.D in physics could be this obtuse. Heat was defined by Clausius as the kinetic energy of atoms. In any application of physics at the atomic level, heat is always associated with atoms.
What other possible energy outside of nuclear energy could be associated with atoms internally? Electrical energy is associated only with the electrons in atoms but Clausius defined internal energy as the heat inherent in a body and the work produced by atomic vibrations.
It is no surprise that in a heated body, atoms vibrate harder and as heat is removed, the atoms vibrate less. When heat is applied to a body by a flame, what other possible energy could be raising the temperature of the body? To claim it is a generic energy is just plain stupid.
************
“Despite the presence of back-radiation, which is an energy flow from the atmosphere to the surface of the Earth, the net heat transfer is from the surface of the Earth to the atmosphere”.
***
A complete misconception of basic thermodynamcs. It’s almost embarrassing that the author has a degree in physics.
There is no heat producing energy flow from cooler GHGs in the atmosphere to a warmer surface that allegedly warmed the GHGs. This notion is a direct contravention of quantum theory based on Bohr’s model and Schrodinger’s wave equation. Certainly, there is energy flowing but none of it can be absorbed because it lacks the intensity and frequency to excite electrons on the surface.
**************
All in all, an amateurish response from a physicist who fails to understand even basic thermodynamics. And an idiotic appeal to authority from a pathetic appealer to authority who lacks the ability to think for himself.
GR,
I particularly like the complaint that “They seemingly fail to understand that the name “greenhouse effect” is a metaphor, not an assertion that the atmosphere functions in precisely the same way as a greenhouse.”, but are unable to state precisely what the “greenhouse effect” is supposedly a metaphor for.
As usual, climate cultists cannot really explain what they are defending, and are reduced to saying it’s a metaphor for something else, which must remain hidden from view.
Without a clear description, experimental support, and a disprovable hypothesis, the “greenhouse effect”must remain fantasy, or speculation at best.
My Master’s (with distinction) is in Systems Analysis.
–The most notable feature of Venus is that it has an extremely thick atmosphere which is primarily made up of carbon dioxide (CO₂).–
The most notable feature of Venus is it’s thick clouds.
What would Venus surface temperature be without the “greenhouse gas”
of sulfuric acid:
“Venus has a thick, toxic atmosphere filled with carbon dioxide and it’s perpetually shrouded in thick, yellowish clouds of sulfuric acid that trap heat, causing a runaway greenhouse effect. ”
What would Venus surface temperature be if Venus had just the transparent atmosphere of CO2 {and the 3 atm of nitrogen}?
And/or with it’s clouds and everything, what would Venus surface temperature be, at Earth distance from the Sun?
Earth is warmer because it has ocean.
Earth global icehouse climate is caused by the ocean’s average temperature of 3.5 C
And in last 70 years more than 90% of all global warming is from
warming this cold ocean.
No one is denying more than 90% of all global warming, are they?
GR: Did you read the rest of the Quora link? I used that as an example because it is about your level.
Written by Bob Wentworth, Ph.D. Applied Physics, Stanford University (1989)
C.f. also “Slowing Heat Loss from a Heat Source Raises Temperature”
RLH,
Of course, given the right circumstances. Hence, heat sinks on many electronic components.
Completely inapplicable to an externally heated body. It would require believing that reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer would result in the thermometer becoming hotter.
Pushing this concept to the extreme, cutting off radiation totally would result in the thermometer becoming infinitely hot. Conversely, of course, increasing the energy reaching the thermometer would presumably have the opposite effect. Increasing energy input would lower the temperature, all the way to absolute zero, assuming infinite energy input!
If you wish to believe that the Earth has not cooled to its present temperature from a much hotter condition, that is your right, of course.
I have a similar right to point that your belief is unsupported by any known physical laws, and snigger at your moronic i climate crackpottery. As I am doing right at the moment.
Carry on.
Swenson: Idiot. See the diagram below the quote I used. The heat source can just as easily have an internal supply of energy. Same as the Sun does.
rlh…”GR: Did you read the rest of the Quora link? I used that as an example because it is about your level”.
***
Yes. Things go rapidly downhill from Wentworth’s commentary. I don’t think Wentworth has read G&T carefully.
Nope. I rather suspect that he has read it quite carefully.
Earlier, Ball4 wrote –
“Clint, funny but imaginary objects aren’t subject to measurement. Imaginary objects emit whatever Clint imagines.
The earthen real 255K surface emits at what the satellite radiometers measure = 255K.”
That might seem to be at odds with Dr Spencer’s monthly temperature series, even though it purports to show average lower tropospheric temperatures. I am unaware of any satellite radiometers which produce average surface temperatures for the entire surface of the Earth of 255 K (-18 C).
Ball4 inhabits his own weird fantasy world, completely disconnected from reality. Either that, or he is an ignorant moron, of the climate crank variety.
Of course, I might be wrong, and the Earth really has cooled to an average 255 K, from the molten state. Experience seems to support the “Ball4 is a moron” conjecture.
More astute readers already realized Swenson was unaware of those radiometers before reading Swenson’s last ill-informed comment.
And an oops for Swenson: those radiometers show Earth has warmed in the satellite era, not cooled. Tough luck for Mike…err Swenson.
Ball4,
No satellite radiometers read a whole-Earth surface temperature of 255 K.
Well, apart from the imaginary ones in your fantasy.
As to warming caused by vastly increased energy production and use over the last century (creating vast amounts of heat 24/7), of course this can be measured!
I remind you that 255 K is -18 C. If you are nutty enough to believe this is the average temperature of the Earth, then you have a problem. More than 70% of the Earth’s surface is covered by liquid water – hotter than -18 C, dont you agree?
You moron. You might just as well retreat back into your fantasy, where you don’t have to face reality!
“No satellite radiometers read a whole-Earth surface temperature of 255 K.”
Of course not, the satellite radiometers aren’t located at the surface Swenson, they are in Earth orbit! Thanks for confirming yet again Swenson is totally unaware of the relevant 255K measurement facts.
Braindead4 is unaware where his bogus “real 255K surface” is.
He’s lost it again.
Ball4,
You moron, I didn’t say the satellites were located at the surface! You just make stuff up when you get caught out.
You said “The earthen real 255K surface emits at what the satellite radiometers measure = 255K.”
I have just pointed out your imaginary 255 K “earthern real surface” is a figment of your imagination. You can’t name one satellite, nor one radiometer fitted thereto, which fits your fantasy, can you?
What a fantasising moron you are!
Nope Clint R, I do know where the earthen real 255K surface is measured. It is Clint and Swenson that do not. Clint just imagines it and Swenson writes it’s on the “whole-earth surface”!
Never ending really funny reading you two try to correctly understand the science of the earthen real 255K measurement.
You forgot where you put it, huh?
Maybe it’s with your mittens….
Uh, no Clint. My mittens are near the real Earth surface global ~288K & not near the global measured real 255K surface.
Swenson, your imaginary 255K surface cannot be real. Only the real 255K emission has been measured.
Ball4,
As I said, you can’t name a satellite, nor a radiometer upon it.
That’s because they don’t exist! You have been caught out.
You wrote –
“Swenson, your imaginary 255K surface cannot be real. Only the real 255K emission has been measured.”
You are such a moron, you can’t even see how ridiculous you look – of course an imaginary surface can’t be real! Nor can the contents of your fantasy. Maybe you need to invent an imaginary satellite equipped with an imaginary radiometer, to measure your imaginary -18 C “earthen surface”, dummy!
Good luck with that.
B4 thinks if spectrometers detect a long wave band then it proves GHE and his imaginary Earthen brightness temperature. You have a long way to go B4.
stephen now claims to be a mind reader.
Spectrometers measure light wavelengths, radiometers measure intensity of light.
Relevant satellites use radiometers to measure a real object emitting real radiation to report the earthen real 255K surface data continuously, well, except for Swenson’s imaginary ones and Clint R’s imaginary object.
Braindead4, where is that “earthen real 255K surface”?
You keep mentioning it, but it’s like you don’t know what you’re talking about….
Clint R, I already know you do not know what I am writing about.
Clint can do the work to find out as others have given Clint decent clues. Clint doesn’t do the work to understand preferring to remain the blog entertainer. It’s a choice for Clint, not me.
Facts support the idea that Swenson is an idiot too.
I am able to produce 80 dollars hourly to do some small tasks on the computer. Ive never realized like it could even possible however one of my top VIUJ pal has earned $27,000 within six weeks simply working this best project and also she has satisfied me to avail. Discover additional updates by reaching following web-page..
Heres what I do… https://workstore01.blogspot.com/
got out of whack with all the posts hence the post here.
brandon…”There is also rotation of the Sun about the galactic center, and motion of the Milky Way due to expansion of space-time itself…”
***
Space-time is nonsense. Time was misinterpreted by Einstein as the ‘hands on a clock’. He actually said that in his theory on relativity. He did not seem to understand that time is defined on the rotation of the Earth, a relative constant.
Louis Essen, who invented the atomic clock, is on record as claiming Einstein’s relativity theories are not even a theory, rather a collection of unproved thought experiments. He also claimed Einstein did not understand measurement.
Time has no existence and neither does the 3-D coordinate system imposed on the universe by humans. Space time suggests that imaginary 3-D space with a 4th dimension featuring an imaginary entity called time, which humans invented to keep tract of physical change.
Such egregious errors are expected when one works in the human mind with thought experiments rather than observing an actual physical reality. I am seeing it here right now as spinners try to apply reference frame theory in a mental argument where it does not apply.
Reference frames are not necessary to become aware that the rotation of the Moon is an illusion produced when a body in curvilinear translations re-orients itself regularly. In the zeal to see rotation that has no existence spinners, are mistaking the properties of curvilinear translation for an illusion of local rotation.
All one has to do is mark the Moon appropriately on a drawing and watch its motion as it orbits. At no time does the near face rotate around the Moon’s COG.
“.. time is defined on the rotation of the Earth, a relative constant.”
Not anymore Gordon, you are way behind the “times”.
“a body in curvilinear translations re-orients itself regularly.”
Our moon re-orients itself one 360 per Earth orbit wrt our sun. Even DREMT claims to be a lunar (and triangle) re-orienter.
ball4…I await your proof that time is not defined based on the Earth’s rotation. You can’t be behind the times if there is no time to get behind.
The re-rientation of the Moon in its orbit is curvilinear translation, which explains the Moon’s ability to keep the same side pointed at the Earth. Local rotation once per orbit cannot explain that.
The Moon (and the Earth) ORBIT the Moon/Earth barycenter. Fact. Newton’s 3rd Law and all that.
Gordon, you will learn more coming up to speed on the timely official standard definition measuring a second on your own now that you are tipped off that your understanding is out of date.
Earth’s rotation is not consistent enough to provide a standard unit of time. The sun should be overhead on the 21st of March or the 20th of March [the spring equinox] at noon at Greenwich. Not a second more or a second less.
rlh claimed the Moon has two motions and I think it was Brandon who claimed a body moving along a curve has angular momentum.
The Moon has only linear momentum. It is always instantaneously trying to move in a straight line. It has no angular momentum for the simply reason there is no force to initiate a motion in the direction of its orbit.
Angular momentum is described as an analog of linear momentum, meaning it is comparable to linear momentum. However, comparable does not suggest it is the same. There is an important difference.
Linear momentum, p = mv is proportional to mass and linear velocity. Angular momentum L = Iw (w = omega)is proportional to the moment of inertia and the radial speed. A moment of inertia is an internal resistance a rigid body represents to a force applied at a distance from an axis.
Therefore, in order to have angular momentum, which represents a torque about an axis, a force is required perpendicular to a lever arm to which the rigid body is attached. There is no such force in the Earth-Moon system.
Radial speed refers to the rate at which a radial line or lever rotates about an axis. It is measured in radians/second. Radial speed cannot be applied to the Moon as a rigid body, only to a radial line tracking the Moon.
Newton claimed in Principia that the Moon has rectilinear motion and that ‘something’ moves it into a curved path. That something has to be gravity.
The only force acting on the Moon is gravity, acting in a perpendicular direction to the Moon’s velocity vector. There can be no motion in the direction of the gravitational vector or the Moon would move toward the Earth, losing orbital altitude.
The vertically acting gravitational field can apply no torque to the Moon therefore there is no angular velocity momentum acting. The Moon would not turn in a curved line without the gravitational field, however. So, what is going on?
I have hypothesized that the Moon is in static equilibrium with Earth’s gravitational field. That is, gravity is not moving it vertically. However, gravity has a grip, so to speak, on the Moon and holds it at the same relative altitude. Combined with the lunar linear velocity/momentum, the Moon is held in a very slightly elliptical orbit.
The Moon has linear momentum and no angular momentum despite what various sources claim to that effect. Barycentres have nothing to do with anything. The Earth and Moon are not orbiting each other, neither able to move the other physically out of their respective orbits.
If you take two relatively strong magnets, holding one steady and moving the other slowly across the face of the other without them touching, you will feel an attraction between them. However, the force exerted by your fingers prevents them moving toward each other.
If the stationary magnet is spherical, so it has the same magnetic field density throughout, and you hold the movable magnet just right, it will following the magnetic field of the stationary magnet. In other words, the uniformity of the spherical field will keep the moving magnet at the same height as you move the magnet around the sphere.
No claim about it. That is reality. The Moon has 2 motions. An orbit and a rotation.
If you claim that an orbit does not have angular momentum then you are an idiot indeed.
The orbit itself does not have angular momentum, RLH. But the object in orbit can have orbital momentum.
For example, Earth has angular momentum, because it rotates about its axis. Moon does not have angular momentum because it does not rotate about its axis.
… wrt to the Earth as Clint pointed out several posts ago.
So why do things that orbit closer to each other have higher rotational velocities?
So why do things that orbit closer to each other have higher orbital velocities?
“Moon does not have angular momentum”
So if I was on the Moon at its equator and wanted to hit the poles, do I lead things or not?
rlh…”C.f. also Slowing Heat Loss from a Heat Source Raises Temperature”
***
Far too broad a statement to make. But first, since you’re a systems analyst you should be able to follow the reasoning of Tony Heller (Steve Goddard) since that’s what he did at Intel as part of his work on the i7 processor.
Slowing heat loss from a source will only raise the temperature of the source if the source is heated by external means. If it’s not heated by external means, the temperature will not rise.
In other words, if a source is at 20C and has no means of replacing lost heat, it can never rise above 20C.
It rises in a source that if heated by external means because the body has already been cooled from its optimal temperature by dissipation. When you interfere with its natural means of dissipation the source temperature will rise to the temperature it would be had all means of dissipation been blocked from the beginning.
Nothing magical there, the rise in heat comes from the external heat source.
I can follow logic quite well thank you and also see the errors that people use to create false reasoning’s.
The Sun has no external heat sources. It has nuclear reactions to create the required heat. Idiot.
P.S. GIGO is well understood in computer land. The fact that you spout it all the time is well understood also.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “When you interfere with its natural means of dissipation the source temperature will rise to the temperature it would be had all means of dissipation been blocked from the beginning.”
That is basically the GHE. You add GHG to the atmosphere and it lowers the amount of heat the surface loses compared to a world without these gases. You have your continuous solar heater and the surface will be at a warmer state with the GHG in it than it would be without it.
You can make your claim then in the next post deny the existence of something you basically described. Why is that?
No, most heat loss from the surface to the atmosphere is conduction and convective. Water is 3 percent of the atmosphere and CO2 0.4% of the atmosphere. Their effects are negligible.
Your effects on real science are negligible too.
stephen 6:30am, there’s evapotranspiration also. Rain and downdrafts return an equal amount of evapotranspiration & upwards convection back to the surface as measured with 95% confidence over many muti-annual periods.
Norman, don’t forget to take advantage of this special offer. It might soon expire.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1187151
stephen p anderson
The effects of GHG are far from negligible. Not sure where the evidence exists to support that conclusion.
Conduction is not a big player in heat transfer. Air is a really good insulator. Convection is a higher amount but it is still less than radiant heat loss.
As a scientifically trained person please support your ideas with evidence. Clint R and Gordon Robertson are the ones who like to make claims with no support at all (never with Clint R, sometimes with Gordon).
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg/776px-The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
Radiant energy removes around 58 W/m^2 (would be a lot higher without GHG present). Convection is around 18 W/m^2.
Norman, you can’t learn if you don’t try.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1187151
Norman, you used net for radiation (+58) and gross for convection (+18). Net for convection up (+18) net of downdrafts (-18) is 0.
Norman,
You said, “You add GHG to the atmosphere and it lowers the amount of heat the surface loses compared to a world without these gases.”
1) This is an assertion without any possibility of testing its validity. There will never be an Earth without IR absorbing gases.
2) Are aware that CERES data shows OLR increasing for possibly 35+ years? That would indicate the addition of GHGs are increasing the heat loss.
Gordo keeps repeating his lunatic physics, writing:
Apparently, Gordo is using the word “source” to mean some material body. That body would be in equilibrium with it’s surroundings at 20C, given the usual heat transfer paths. If the body is provided energy supply from an external source, it’s temperature would increase to some point at which the loss of energy is equal to that supplied. There is no “optimal” temperature, except in an engineered system, such as a computer CPU, where there is a sub-system attached which is designed to remove the energy supplied to prevent the CPU temperature from “over heating” beyond it’s design point.
For the Sun-Earth-Space energy flows, the “natural means of dissipation” includes the atmosphere and the greenhouse effects of pre-industrial levels of CO2. Indeed, the whole point of discussion rests on the fact that humanity has interfered with the “natural dissipation” by increasing CO2 and other greenhouse gasses.
“Indeed, the whole point of discussion rests on the fact that humanity has interfered with the “natural dissipation” by increasing CO2 and other greenhouse gasses.
Adding more CO2 results in more energy emitted to space. Returning 15μ photons to the surface can NOT raise the temperature of a 288K surface. To believe 15μ photons can raise surface temperatures, one must believe that ice cubes can boil water — which the cult believes.
… from experimental evidence.
pups wrote:
Based on what? You clowns want to ignore the physics unless you can cherry some interpretation which supports your idiotic claims. What if the effect is to increase the effective height of emissions, thus a lower emission temperature, with the result that the same rate of emission results?
Junior, if CO2 is emitting less to space, it’s emitting less to the surface. You debunk your own nonsense.
Reality always wins.
E. Swanson, realize that added ppm CO2 to the object of interest results in more energy emitted to space & thus the object has warmed since it is radiating a higher amount. Clint R is writing correctly that added ppm CO2 does warm the surface.
pups (and Ball4), Hey guys, there’s a temperature lapse rate in the atmosphere from the local emission height down to the ground. If the emission height increases with the same rate of outgoing IR radiation and the lapse rate remains the same, the surface will warm.
Measurements have shown the the tropical tropopause height is increasing, so one might ask whether the tropopause is cooling or exhibits the same temperature. Of course, one must also include what is happening to the albedo, as more water vapor enters the atmosphere. It’s not as simple as pups wants us to believe.
Sorry Willard Jr, but reality always wins.
It’s just that simple.
ES,
“Based on what?”, you asked Clint R about the assertion that “Adding more CO2 results in more energy emitted to space.”
Based on OLR increasing for about the last 35 years.
“…one might ask whether the tropopause is cooling or [not].”
Regardless of whether or not the troposphere is cooling, the OLR is increasing and there is evidence that CO2 is not stopping it.
CB, pups claimed that more CO2 results in more energy emitted to space. Your claim suggests that OLR is increasing, but you’ve not provided any breakdown of the emissions wavelengths or whether the albedo is also going down, which would imply more energy remaining in the climate system. Besides, the MSU/AMSU data indicates that the stratosphere is cooling, so where does that OLR originate?
“…so where does that OLR originate?”
From the increasing CO2?
Clint R
Not sure what the purpose of your post was. Who is telling you that CO2 is warming the surface. I think you have been told the correct logic path many times but you revert to some unknown path not taken by any rational scientist.
The backradiation (downwelling IR) does not warm the surface. Even with the downwelling IR the surface NET loss is around 58 W/m^2 averaged over the Earth surface. Of course it does not “warm” the surface.
The correct path of logic to follow is that downwelling IR reduces the radiant NET heat loss from the surface. With the same solar input (the heat source) the surface will reach a higher steady-state average temperature.
Norman, you seem to be moving in the right direction. CO2 can NOT heat the surface.
But, you’re still confused about reducing the “NET heat loss from the surface” means surface warming. ANY heat loss increases entropy. To increase temperatures, you MUST reduce entropy.
You’re still trying to boil water with ice cubes.
… which can be easily done experimentally while increasing universe entropy.
Clint R
No I am not confused in the least. If you have a heated surface (which the Earth has) and reduce the heat loss you will have a higher temperature. You have to understand that you are not just losing energy, you also continuously gain energy. By changing the rate of energy loss with no change in rate of energy input you end up warming the surface.
Norman, if you add ice to a perfectly insulated box filled with ice, you will NOT increase the temperature of the box.
You have no understanding of the relevant physics, and you can’t understand simple examples.
Just be a troll, calling others “bots”. That’s what you’re good at.
pups continues to ignore reality. The Earth is not a perfectly insulated box, but continually receives SW radiation from the Sun. Of course, pups has no argument, so it resorts to posting random blasts from it’s box of moldering red herrings.
Willard Jr, Norman doesn’t need any help from his other braindead cult idiots. He’s quite capable of misrepresenting my words, all by himself.
But, I’m sure he appreciates your cult loyalty.
Maybe you will get an extra cookie at your next cult meeting.
Clint R
I really do not know what your post about ice in an insulated box has to do with the Earth’s surface.
You post things but they do no flow with any rational logic. You make accusations that I can’t understand physics with absurd posts that are not relevant to the ideas being discussed.
If you had a heater inside your insulated box the ice would warm, melt and continue heating until some new steady state was reached.
If you accuse someone of ignorance at least use some rational logic.
What I stated is quite correct, logical, rational and based upon all accepted physics. Yet you think I am wrong about something? Sometimes you make no sense. (which is most the time).
Norman, your first sentence: “I really do not know what your post about ice in an insulated box has to do with the Earth’s surface.”
Yes, you really don’t know. Thanks for admitting your ignorance.
But, that’s not your only problem. You try to misrepresent my words. I did NOT link my example to Earth’s surface. My example was attempting to teach you about entropy. You can’t raise the temperature of a system by adding the same temperature.
I predict you STILL won’t understand. That’s an easy prediction, since you’re braindead.
Clint R
The point is that your comment “You can’t raise the temperature of a system by adding the same temperature.”
Is not related to the topic of hand. It is like you are randomly generating points about things not being discussed.
Your examples have nothing at all to do with the GHE or how it works.
What color are your shoes?
Thanks for proving me right, Norman.
Clint R, you are right in your strawman of dropping ice into an ice chest but that is not the way the earthen GHE works.
Clint should explain adding the radiation from ice without adding mass to Clint’s surface nighttime water chest and understand what will happen to thermometer temperature several inches deep. My guess this is beyond Clint’s ability to explain.
However, Clint R does have great ability as an entertainment specialist.
Norman,
“The correct path of logic to follow is that downwelling IR reduces the radiant NET heat loss from the surface.”
You can use logic and do thought experiments all day long and prove nothing. Of late, there has been no net heat loss from the surface. I haven’t seen any increase in DWIR either, have you? Without some supporting data, you have no argument.
Ooops, “Of late, there has been no REDUCTION in net heat loss from the surface.”
“I havent seen any increase in DWIR either, have you?”
In the satellite era, measurements show a trend in net downward radiation of 0.41 +/- 0.22 W/m^2 with 95% confidence nature’s actual trend is within those CIs.
Statistically, trends are determined from a least squares regression fit to deseasonalized monthly anomalies with uncertainties given as 5%-95% confidence intervals. Fluxes are defined positive downwards so that a positive anomaly/trend corresponds to a heat gain and a negative anomaly corresponds to a heat loss.
The 0.41 you cite from Loeb 2021 refers to all downward radiation from the TOA (ASR), not downward IR (DWIR) measured at the surface. And don’t be confused by the “defined positive downwards” convention. Upwelling IR at the TOA is OLR and it is increasing.
Try again for data showing increasing DWIR.
Upwelling IR at the TOA is OLR and it is increasing as the system warms in lower atm. layers (top post) due several observed changes in the satellite era including WMGG. This increases the trend in downward radiation (DWIR) as shown in the data (Fig. 2 a-c). The net trend is positive (heating) in the period as I noted.
The warming cannot be explained by changes in incoming solar radiation as those changes are measured negligible in the period.
You are confused. Fig 2a measures ASR trending positive. Fig 2b measures the OLR trending positive by convention. Fig 2c is the net positive trend which explains a warming planet. But there is no DWIR data in Loeb 2021.
ASR plotted in Fig 2a is not simply total incoming radiation from the sun. It is the Absorbed Solar Radiation calculated from the difference between incoming solar and solar reflected.
Chic: “there is no DWIR data in Loeb 2021.”
The paper authors: “the observations show a trend in net downward radiation of 0.41 ± 0.22 W/m^2” as I already pointed out for Chic.
I apologize. I got confused by the DWIR anacronism and assumed you meant downward LWIR. My statement should have said no DWLWIR data in Loeb 2021. You are argueing, correct me if I’m wrong, WMGGs contribute to the “net downward radiation of 0.41.” But, that downward radiation is SW and LW combined with no differentiation between the two. The net of 0.41 comes from 0.65 in downward ASR minus 0.24 in upward OLR as I already pointed out to you.
Loeb 2021 does not mention how DWLWIR contributions from “others” is measured. My guess is that it is estimated, not measured, from computer projections of the changes in MMGG concentrations, as I’ve previously explained to you.
Well, it seems that the Pseudomoderator still does not (want to?) understand that his request to restrict the discussion with
7) Note that this is only programmed to be one single motion, in other words, this is only rotation around an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis
is the origin of the blind-alley, as point (7) inherently excludes what should be de facto included.
He will continue to claim ad nauseam
” You don’t understand the Non-spinners’ position. ”
*
OK. No problem for me.
Having read the 130 pages of Mayer’s treatise (in German, désolé, je n’y peux rien)
https://www.e-rara.ch/download/pdf/913790?name=IV%20Abhandlung%20%C3%BCber%20die%20Umw%C3%A4lzung%20des%20Monds%20um%20seine%20Axe%20und%20die%20scheinbare%20Beweg
I therefore don’t need any computer program to understand that
– the Moon spins about its polar axis
– this axis is not perpendicular to the Ecliptic
– Mayer computed in 1750, with 5 digits after the decimal point, the same lunar rotation period as that computed these days out of lunar laser ranging.
*
As we all know, Mayer was a clever guy, he invented a device allowing to travel in time, stopped in 1982, read, among others, Odile Calamé'’s, Roger James Capallo’s and Michèle Moon’s LLR data evaluation articles, copied their results and ran with them back to 1750.
Ugh.
A perfectly predictable answer might be that of this blog’s dumbest poster, who uses to say things like:
” No wonder that Mayer, Calamé, Capallo, Moons and all other ‘Spinner’s come to the same results: their are all based on the same, wrong, century-old astrology. ”
Ugh, ugh.
"Well, it seems that the Pseudomoderator still does not (want to?) understand that his request to restrict the discussion with
7) Note that this is only programmed to be one single motion, in other words, this is only rotation around an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis
is the origin of the blind-alley, as point (7) inherently excludes what should be de facto included."
No, Bindidon. The transmographer can rotate an object around a point (which you can set to be outside the object, so this is the "rotate around an external axis" command). It can also rotate an object around an internal axis (this is the "around center" command). When only using the "rotate around an external axis" command, the object already moves like our moon. So, that is "rotating about an external axis, without rotating about an internal axis", and it moves as per our moon.
If you alternately rotate the object around a point, and then around center, you will see that the object then does not move as per our moon.
The Moon orbits around the Earth/Moon barycenter and rotates on its axis once per orbit. As everybody except for the tiny clique knows quite well.
Use the transmographer and see for yourself.
Idiot.
No, the transmographer is not an idiot. It’s just a tool, which you can easily use to prove to yourself that "rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis", is already motion like the moon. Thus "rotation about an external axis, plus rotation about an internal axis" cannot be motion like our moon.
You are the idiot. The transmographer is only to do with single objects. Gravity requires at least 2 to explain orbits.
In gravity there is no such things as an external axis.
It just proves my point about rotation. It doesnt need to have anything to do with gravity.
To explain orbits, but not rotation, you do need gravity as you acknowledged.
You’re not listening. You never do.
> Use the transmographer and see for yourself.
The transmographer does not refute the fact that the Moon orbits and spins.
It only shows that it could not spin.
A ball on a string does that already.
Arrf, arrf, arrf!
“You’re not listening”
Why would I listen to an idiot?
Willard, I never claimed that it settles the entire issue.
The relentless pushback I receive on every single sub-topic raised is bizarre. It’s like you guys think if you concede anything, then suddenly the moon is not rotating on its own axis. You know, you are allowed to occasionally concede points. It helps push the discussion forward.
1) The moon issue transcends reference frames, by which I mean it goes beyond the conclusion that some people come to, which is that the moon rotates on its own axis wrt the inertial reference frame, and does not rotate on its own axis wrt the accelerated frame.
2) Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is already motion where one side of the body faces the inside of the orbit throughout.
Both of these points can be conceded without having to come to the conclusion that the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
… since our moon re-orients itself once per orbit like DREMT’s triangle.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
DREMT: Please stop trolling.
> Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is already motion where one side of the body faces the inside of the orbit throughout.
“Already” does too much work here.
That it’s possible for the Moon not to spin does not imply that it’s impossible that it spins.
We have numerical models of the Earth-Moon system in which the Moon spins.
We have no model of Earth-Moon system in which the Moon does not spin.
Moon Dragon cranks who can’t stand heat (*) should get out of kitchens.
(*) Or is it “insulation”?
[R] The Moon orbits around the Earth/Moon barycenter and rotates on its axis once per orbit. As everybody except for the tiny clique knows quite well.
[K] Use the transmographer and see for yourself.
[W] The transmographer does not refute the fact that the Moon orbits and spins.
[K] I never claimed that it settles the entire issue.
"That it’s possible for the Moon not to spin does not imply that it’s impossible that it spins."
Agreed. You’ll stop bashing this straw man that I think otherwise one day, I’m sure.
OK, Willard. I can see how that sounded, re my discussion with RLH. I will try to be more careful about my every word, in future.
Some heavy duty straw we got there:
Sure it can. A system in a spin-orbit lock is one.
The transmographer demonstration completely went over Willard’s head, then.
When caught mismanaging his modalities, Kiddo goes for gaslighting.
What else is new?
You have not caught me doing anything, Willard, and I am not gaslighting. I genuinely don’t know how else to explain that you still don’t understand at this point, other than something has clearly gone over your head.
Rotation about an external axis plus rotation about an internal axis can be motion like our Moon. If it can’t, then we could use that fact to derive a contradiction in our actual models. We would then be justified to say that the Moon cannot spin, which means that the model of a spinless Moon would be the necessary conclusion.
So either we say that the two kinds of models are possible, or that only one of them is. I contend that the two are possible. Which is it?
"Rotation about an external axis plus rotation about an internal axis can be motion like our Moon."
No, it cannot, as the transmographer demonstrates.
"If it can’t, then we could use that fact to derive a contradiction in our actual models. We would then be justified to say that the Moon cannot spin"
The moon can be said to spin if you combine motion like the MOTR (which the "Spinners" would say is translational motion) plus axial rotation. This is only correct, on the other hand, if "orbit without spin" is as per the MOTR.
[R] The Moon orbits around the Earth/Moon barycenter and rotates on its axis once per orbit. As everybody except for the tiny clique knows quite well.
[K] Use the transmographer and see for yourself.
[W] The transmographer does not refute the fact that the Moon orbits and spins.
[K] I never claimed that it settles the entire issue.
[W] You said that the “rotation about an external axis plus rotation about an internal axis” cannot be motion like our moon.
[K] That’s right.
[W] I say it can: a system in a spin-orbit lock is one. If it can’t, then you it’s impossible for a Moon to orbit and spin.
[K] No, it cannot, as the transmographer demonstrates.
This is getting beyond ridiculous.
I already told you, Willard, I should not have responded to RLH’s comment the way I did. That was a mistake. The rest is just your usual confusion. The resolution to your apparent conundrum is called "the Spinner position".
The "Spinner" position is:
1) That "orbital motion without axial rotation" is as per the MOTR.
2) That this motion is curvilinear translation.
> The resolution to your apparent conundrum is called “the Spinner position”
The conundrum has nothing to do with that strawman. The real Spinner Position is that the Moon spins while it orbits in a synchronized rotation. That motion *can* be analyzed with more than one rotation.
The resolution to the apparent rests on the decision if the Moon Dragon Crank position refutes the established viewpoint (that has dozens if not hundreds of numerical models under its belt) or if it provides an alternative model.
To hesitate between the two stances amounts to a silly Motte-and-Bailey.
The actual physical position is:
1) That “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR.
2) That this motion is curvilinear translation (normally described by everybody else as an orbit).
3) Newton’s 3 Laws apply to gravity (in fact that is how orbits and orbital motions are calculated).
4) Orbits are actually around a barycenter.
“That motion *can* be analyzed with more than one rotation.”
False, as the transmographer demonstrates.
The transmographer doesn’t include the effects of gravity or mass, it can be easily programmed with non-physical motions that have obviously misled DREMT.
Ball4’s denial continues.
> the transmographer demonstrates.
False. The transmographer only shows that we *can* analyze the motion using one rotation.
It does not show we can *cannot analyze the motion using more than one rotation.
One day Kiddo will get there.
You are wrong, and I am right, Willard, as the transmographer demonstrates.
The transmographer demonstrates that you are an idiot as there is no such thing as an external axis where gravity is involved.
So you keep saying, RLH.
Bindidon, maybe this will help. I always try to keep things simple.
— Moon does NOT rotate on its axis. It ONLY orbits. Only one side of it faces the inside of its orbit.
— Its orbit is tilted from Earth’s orbit.
__ Lunar Laser Ranging does NOT measure any lunar rotating. The system is only for “ranging”, or distance measurement.
The Moon both rotates on its axis and orbits the Earth/Moon barycenter.
” Lunar Laser Ranging does NOT measure any lunar rotating. The system is only for ‘ranging’, or distance measurement. ”
Says the most ignorant person I have ever heard about.
You don’t have even a bit of an idea of what people are doing with LLR data.
Like Robertson, you prefer to distort, discredit, denigrate and misrepresent anything what you don’t WANT to understand.
Bindidon, you can’t measure something that isn’t happening. All your false beliefs are evaporating right in front of your face, and you’re reacting irrationally as a result.
It’s called a “meltdown”.
And, it’s going to get worse for you. Reality always wins.
Reality proves you are an idiot.
> you can’t measure something that isn’t happening
That’s called begging the question, Pup.
” … and it moves as per our moon. ”
Sorry, wrong.
This is your opinion (and that of a few other contrarian Moon spin deniers), based on a tiny minority of sources.
According to the immense majority of sources, the Moon does definitely not move as you claim.
Thus, it would be correct to write
” … and it moves as per our opinion about Moon’s motion. “
It keeps one side always facing towards the inside of the orbit. Of course it is not an exact replica of the moon’s motion.
Our moon (per Gordon) and DREMT’s triangle do re-orient themselves once per orbit always facing towards the inside of the orbit. Like the ball-on-string, toy train moving in a circle, mgr chalk circle & hobby horse all wrt to the center of their orbit.
“It keeps one side always facing towards the inside of the orbit”
by rotating once on its axis as it makes that orbit.
No, by rotating about an external axis, only. We are talking about the transmographer triangle.
Careful RLH you are dealing with DREMTese here: “It keeps one side always facing towards the inside of the orbit”
by re-orienting once on its axis as it makes that orbit like DREMT’s triangle does.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Both the Moon and the Earth ORBIT around an internal point, a barycenter.
So by "ORBIT", or "orbit without spin", you must mean translational motion, by which the "Spinners" mean motion as per the MOTR.
No, because Mercury has the same “translational motion,” whatever that means.
RLH, in DREMTese over the years DREMT’s “please stop trolling” really means ok the commenter is correct and DREMT is wrong. Just smile with DREMT’s admission.
The "Spinners" believe "orbit without spin" is translational motion, by which they mean motion like the MOTR, for every single celestial body in the Universe. That means Mercury, too, Willard. I swear I will get you to understand your own side’s argument one day, even if it kills me.
An orbit does not have a spin associated with it. As other Moons and Planets show quite clearly.
An orbit does not have a spin. As other Moons and Planets show quite clearly.
Yes, orbit and spin are separate.
Life and spin may be connected:
https://www.space.com/13950-habitable-alien-planets-tidal-lock-life.html
“orbit and spin are separate”
So you agree that they are separate motions wrt the fixed stars.
> The “Spinners” believe “orbit without spin” is translational motion
Then heres a Spinner:
I, for myself, believe the move spins and orbits, that this involves both rotation and translation, and prefer to leave “orbit without spin” to Moon Dragon cranks.
> The “Spinners” believe “orbit without spin” is translational motion
Then here’s a Spinner:
Yes Tesla was a spinner. DREMT and Gordon are each re-orienter. Not a lot wrong with any of those three in those bins. I’ve lost track of who remains totally in non-spinner bin – perhaps Mike… err Swenson is the last non-spinner.
No, that is out of context, Willard. Tesla brought up a number of ways of calculating the kinetic energy of an object, and was explaining how these have led people to erroneous conclusions about the moon’s rotation. He was criticizing that way of thinking, not agreeing with it…but that part has been left out by Ball4.
Nikola posits in his model the translation of a body along an orbit and the rotation of that body around an external axis. So he indeed believes that orbit without spin is translational motion. The only difference with the models we currently have is that he refuses to accept that any spin adds any “mechanical effort.”
Time for Moon Dragon cranks to revise their Spinner category.
"Nikola posits in his model the translation of a body along an orbit and the rotation of that body around an external axis. So he indeed believes that orbit without spin is translational motion."
We’ll file this one in the "incoherent" bin.
The gaslighting continues:
Rotation on an axis? Check.
Translational motion? Check.
We have a Spinner!
"The axial rotations of the ball in either direction are but apparent; they have no reality whatever and call for no mechanical effort."
We have a "Non-Spinner". Yes, Tesla frequently talks about translational motion in that paper in a way which contradicts the usual definition of translational motion. No, I cannot explain why he does so. No, he is not a "Spinner", however.
> Yes, Tesla frequently talks about translational motion in that paper in a way which contradicts the usual definition of translational motion.
LOL.
Good God.
Let me catch my breath.
Just a sec.
No, I can’t.
Wait.
ROFL.
God.
I can’t.
Stop.
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL.
“We’ll file this one in the ‘incoherent’ bin”
Along with all the other rubbish the clique produces.
Do whatever you want, Willard. The third Tesla paper is confusingly written, to say the least. For instance, he says:
"A motion of this character, as I have shown, precludes the possibility of axial rotation. The easiest way to free ourselves of this illusion is to conceive the satellite subdivided into minute and entirely independent parts, as dust particles, which have different orbital, but rigorously the same angular, velocities. One must at once recognize that the kinetic energy of such an agglomeration is solely translational, there being absolutely no tendency to axial rotation"
Here he is, like Gordon, suggesting that the motion of the moon is purely translational, with no axial rotation. In the first paper, on the other hand, you will find him clearly stating:
"The moon does rotate, not on its own, but about an axis passing thru the center of the earth, the true and only one."
In other words, the standard "Non-Spinner" statement that the moon is rotating about the Earth, and not on its own axis.
All very confusing, I’m afraid.
Just remember those definitions of translation that you linked to earlier. That should help you through.
[B] Yes Tesla was a spinner.
[K] No, that is out of context.
[W] Nikola posits in his model the translation of a body along an orbit and the rotation of that body around an external axis. So he indeed believes that orbit without spin is translational motion. That makes him a Spinner according to your criteria.
[K] We’ll file this one in the “incoherent” bin.
[N] Let the system be rotated as first assumed and illustrated […] the translatory velocity of the particles nearer to the axis O […] translation […] The energy E of each of these is solely that of translatory movement with an effective velocity
[W] Rotation of that body around an external axis? Check. Orbit without spin is translational motion? Check. That makes him a Spinner according to your criteria.
[K] Yes, Tesla frequently talks about translational motion in that paper in a way which contradicts the usual definition of translational motion. No, I cannot explain why he does so.
[W] LOL. Wait. Sec. I can’t.
*W rolls off the floor, laughing*
[K] We’ll file this one in the “incoherent” bin.
It’s really not that difficult to understand.
1) The quote in your 2:53 PM comment is out of context. If you would read the paper, you would understand that he criticizes this method of calculating the kinetic energy.
2) Your 5:24 PM comment is nonsensical as written.
3) Tesla does "do a Gordon" on translation at some points in his third paper, greatly confusing the issue.
4) Stick with your definitions of translation that you linked to earlier, and you should still stand a chance of understanding your own side’s argument.
It is simpler than that:
We saw a quote where Nikola speaks of “translatory velocity,” of “kinetic energy of translation,” and of “translatory movement.”
Why would Nikola not be a Spinner?
Because reasons.
Instead of correcting his criterion so that he can classify Spinners and Non-Spinners properly, e.g. by saying that Spinners believe that the Moon spins, Kiddo soldiers on, gaslighting along the way.
That’s just the way he rolls.
Lol, that "Spinners" think the moon spins and "Non-Spinners" think the moon does not spin is kind of a given, really, isn’t it? Just look at the names! That’s why I never bother mentioning that.
> Here he is, like [Gordo], suggesting that the motion of the moon is purely translational
Gordo too! Just like we told him:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1181953
Looks like everyone but Kiddo believes that there’s some translation going on. So many people are confused by these Very Simple Definitions. Kiddo alone holds the Key to all the Semantic Powers.
Something must be lost in translation between him and the world.
I’ll grab my coat.
You clearly seem to revel in confusion. I like to try to look for clarity. Making things as simple as they can be, but no simpler. Trying to bring kinematics into "orbital motion" gets complicated…maybe Clint R had a point on that.
Regardless, according to the definitions of translation that you supplied earlier, we can establish that motion like the MOTR, if considered to be comprised of only one motion, like the "Spinners" believe, would be curvilinear translation.
The transmographer (and Madhavi, etc) shows us that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is motion like the MOTL.
So, the motion of the MOTL can be described as:
1) Rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis (by the "Non-Spinners").
2) Translating, plus rotating about an internal axis (by the "Spinners").
That’s as clear as I can make it. Who is right, overall, ultimately depends on whether "orbit without spin" is like the MOTL, or the MOTR.
> You clearly seem to revel in confusion. I like to try to look for clarity. Making things as simple as they can be, but no simpler.
So now Kiddo’s playing Einstein.
The issue is quite simple:
Kiddo has no knack for geometry. He does not grok physics. He can’t do arguments. He barely can follow the few texts from the Moon Dragon cranks corpus. The only definitions he musters is by pointing at a GIF.
Everything else is a bunch of inchoate defensive mechanisms.
Look at his armwaving in this subthread. He keeps referring to translation. Has he returned to it? No, for he can’t.
So as promised:
For the learning experience part, let’s keep hope.
Uh oh, I used the GIF terminology of MOTL/MOTR to save a bit of space in writing out the descriptions of the motions, and Willard has gone on the offensive again with another long personal attack.
I’m quite patient with you, most of the time, Willard. You have no idea about any of the subject, so I’ve had to teach you quite a lot. You could even be grateful! You’ve still got a long way to go until you understand your own side’s argument, let alone mine, but I’ll persevere.
The main point for you to take away, for the moment, is that rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is already motion in which the same side of the object faces towards the inside of the orbit, throughout. Thus, rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis will not be motion as per our moon.
"Synchronous rotation" is a misnomer. It should really be called "synchronous translation plus axial rotation", since that is actually the "Spinners" position.
> The main point for you to take away, for the moment, is that rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is already motion
This point has become a Point Refuted a Thousand Times in this thread –
The possibility for the Moon not to spin is not strong enough to refute the Spinner Position.
We already have shit tons of numerical models of the Earth-Moon system in which the Moon spins.
We could have a model of the Earth-Moon system in which the Moon does not spin, but for now we do not have one.
When we manage the Moon Dragon Cranks’ modalities properly, their smokescreen disappears and they are rather light on clothing.
Dud, there are no “numerical models of the Earth-Moon system in which the Moon spins”. You’re making stuff up, again.
Newton developed calculus to prove how gravity affected an orbiting body. The result was the “ball-on-a-string” model. The ball is NOT rotating about its axis. One side faces the inside of its orbit. That is the basic motion of Moon.
You can actually do the calculus yourself, when you grow up.
The ball is NOT rotating about its axis. One side faces the inside of its orbit. That is the basic motion of Moon and ball when viewed from “inside of it orbit” on the surface of the central object as Clint R explained a few posts ago.
“Newton developed calculus to prove how gravity affected an orbiting body. The result was the ball-on-a-string model”
Liar. Newton did not come up with or support the ball-on-a-string.
“This point has become a Point Refuted a Thousand Times in this thread”
It has not been refuted, because it is correct. The transmographer demonstrates it. You are just incapable of learning, that’s all.
You are the idiot as the transmographer does not apply to orbits and cannot be used to describe them either.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1190028
> The transmographer demonstrates it.
Only if that “it” refers to the possibility of describing the Moon’s motion using one rotation, which is not what I was talking about.
If that “it” refers to the impossibility of describing the Moon’s motion using more than one rotation, that claim is false.
For more on the inconsistency of that Motte-and-Bailey:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1190724
> there are no “numerical models of the Earth-Moon system in which the Moon spins”
Wanna bet, Pup?
For everyone I cite, you disappear for three months.
Deal?
Willard, the transmographer demonstrates that rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is already motion in which the same side of the object faces towards the inside of the orbit, throughout. It also demonstrates that rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis will not be motion as per our moon.
There is no such thing as an external axis where gravity is involved.
So you keep saying, RLH.
1966/02/26: AS-201 – Apollo Test Flight – First Saturn IB Launch
“We choose to go to the Moon. We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.” JFK at Rice University, Houston, September 12, 1962.
Haha, greatest fairytale ever told 🙂 well, I mean of the fairytales known to be fairytales of course, there could be even bigger conspiracies that we don’t know about.
15 Reactors in Ukraine War Zone
Ukraine is Europe’s second-largest generator of nuclear power after France.
Ukraine operates four nuclear power plants with 15 reactors located in Volhynia and South Ukraine.
Energoatom, the utility which runs its reactors, said in a statement that plant operations were stable and operating near full capacity (2/24/2022).
Monitors at the International Atomic Energy Agency said late Thursday in an email that they’re gravely concerned by the situation and remain in contact with Ukrainian nuclear-safety regulators. Reactors require steady supplies of electricity and water, both of which could be put at risk by military action.
“The Chernobyl disaster was a nuclear accident that occurred on 26 April 1986 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine. An explosion and fire released large quantities of radioactive contamination into the atmosphere, which spread over much of Western USSR and Europe.”
A reactor has to have cooling, much like the Earth’s surface.
apart from chernobyl reactors which were decomissioned 20 years ago, all others in ukraine use afaik not too modern but still relatively safe soviet PWR-style design (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VVER#Design) with the negative void coefficint, which makes them relatively safe, even if they are not shut down properly.
I took time to find the old list of false/irrelevant claims the “Spinners” have made to try to protect their cult beliefs. If anyone knows of any I missed, please add. The list shows how desperate the cult is to protect its nonsense. They have NOTHING.
I added the latest example: “Bicycle pedals do not rotate”.
Elliptical orbit
Sidereal/Synodic
“I built satellites”
Misquoting Newton
Inertial (Idiot) space
Inner ear
Moon day/night mystery
Libration
Confusing “orbiting” with “rotating on an axis”
Hotel bills and feeding pigeons
Where are physics courses taught?
Occupants would surely complain
Facts are “neglect and revisionism”
“Smart” phone says bolted horse has axial rotation
Toilet paper tube
Smaller radius
Foucault’s Pendulum
Passenger jets fly backwards
Ball-on-a-string does not count
Bicycle pedals do not rotate
I took the time to point out that you are an idiot.
Thanks for the reminder, RLH.
I’ll add “barycenter” to the list. It’s certainly irrelevant….
So you dispute Newton’s 3rd Law as it requires a barycenter for orbits.
I know it’s hard for you to focus, RLH, but barycenter has NOTHING to do with the issue here. It’s just another distraction because you have NOTHING.
(I won’t be responding to your usual nonsense.)
So you don’t accept Newton’s 3rd Law then.
RLH,
Are you talking about this 3rd Law?
“Newton’s third law states that when two bodies interact, they apply forces to one another that are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. The third law is also known as the law of action and reaction.”
I can’t see any reference to orbits or a barycentre. Are you just making stuff up to disguise your ignorance?
You need lessons in gotcha construction. You are leaving yourself open to accusations of being a moron.
So are you suggesting that the force of gravity does not respect the 3rd Law? That an equal force in the opposite direction is not applied to each body, such as the Moon and the Earth?
Swenson
What is the color of your house?
Good trolling, Norman.
You’re so good at it.
N,
You wrote –
“Swenson
What is the color of your house?”
White. Why do you ask?
Are you a moron obsessed with trying to get people to answer pointless questions?
At least I get a laugh at your efforts!
Carry on.
[chortle]
Clint R,
“Where are physics courses taught?”
This is a little misleading, I was asking where you were taught physics, not where physics course are taught.
I was thinking of you, maybe you could get your money back.
And you forgot gravity can cause a torque.
At least if you are listing true things that support the argument that the Moon rotates on its axis.
Braindead bob, you weren’t able to answer ANY of the easy problems involving basic physics. You couldn’t even understand the solutions, when provided. So any time you mention “physics” in a comment, the comment is automatically irrelevant.
And when you must resort to misrepresenting me, that just makes you another worthless troll.
Just stick with trolling and leave the science to adults.
Clint R is the idiotic troll.
Your solutions were wrong, and based on your incorrect ideas.
Your last vector one was a hoot.
You are not the adult I would leave the science too.
You are the liar and troll.
See braindead bob, trolling suits you much better.
No science, no reality, just false accusations.
Where are your usual juvenile profanities?
OK Clint R,
Try me with one of your fucking physics problems.
Sorry bob, you were tested and failed.
You couldn’t even understand the solution to the simple problem.
You were meant to be an immature troll. That’s why you’re so good at it.
Clint R is the idiotic troll.
Earth is not flat, nor is it center of the universe.
Its not made out of cheese either.
These are all ~science~ before someone figured out they were wrong.
So when will you get out of 10th grade physics where the moon orbiting the earth was incorrectly used as a focus for learning about the mathematics of rotation and torque?
Its pretty clear you never got to orbital mechanics.
Yes Ken, Earth is not made of cheese.
Try to remember that when you sober up.
The Earth looks flat, Pup.
And as you say – the Moon does not spin because it looks like it does not.
Keep It Simple Stupid for me.
We always try to keep it simple for you, Stupid.
Weakling Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“The Earth looks flat, Pup.”
Got a citation for that, dummy?
Looks more or less spherical to me. Maybe you need to look further than the end of your nose.
Gazing out my window at the center of the universe the earth looks flat to me too. Not as flat as when I lived on bald assed prairie but flat nonetheless. Therefore it must be flat.
Moon looks like a flat disc. Therefore it is.
King Solomon must have had some ugly girlfriends. He compared her buttocks to the cratered surface of the moon.
You can look at Earth as being kept warm or kept cold by it’s oceans.
Either is true or Earth is controlled by it’s cold ocean.
But let’s look how our cold ocean is keeping Earth warm.
Granted that if you in an Icehouse global climate and in coldest
period in Earth history, it interferes the concept of keeping
Earth warm.
But let’s look at it with the cargo cult view of Earth, that Earth would be -18 C without the greenhouse effect.
It seems to me, the Earth could be colder than -18 C without an ocean.
It seems to me, Earth would not absorb as much as 240 watts per square average, if Earth didn’t have ocean. And of course if Earth absorbed less energy, it emits less energy, and could be colder than -18 C. But Earth could absorb less and emit less and also have hot day time hours. And it seems atmosphere can also create uniformity of day and night air temperature. As with Messinian salinity crisis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messinian_salinity_crisis
When Mediterranean sea was dry, global average temperature was cold [it was in glaciation period “5.96 to 5.33 million years ago” but in this deep basin, air temperature could be been 80 C, or far warmer, than highest recorded air temperature of “56.7 C (134.1 F) in Furnace Creek Ranch,…”
And not only hot air, but the air remained warm, in day and night, or winter or summer. But average global temperature was quite cold.
So if our oceans were to magically disappear, Earth would have all these vast deep basin of “land area”, far more land area than humans have now, which could have a uniform air temperature and a warm air temperature. As compared to our situation, of having vast area of land which are frozen wastelands. So could have small part of land which deepest, if dried, as hot or hotter than dried out Mediterranean sea. Or one could have being deep lakes, warm lake water with land area surrounding it with very warm air and uniform air temperature at current ocean depth of +5000 meter depth. And could mountain peaks in Mars like vacuum and day ground temperature over 100 C. And hot air, but in air you need pressure suit to live, the air temperature roughly meaningless- or ground temperature is more significant in terms people walking around in spacesuits.
As far as a wild guess, Earth could absorb and emit less than 200 watts per square meter in terms global average. But if talking about areas where there is 1 atm of air pressure, it could or should average less than 10 C {or less than Earth’s current average land air temperature}.
gbaikie…”It seems to me, the Earth could be colder than -18 C without an ocean”.
***
The -18C figure came from an incorrect application of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. Whoever worked it out obviously thought S-B could be extrapolated directly, using the same constant of proportionality, as the original equation which was based on a temperature range from about 700C to 1400C.
As one moves outside that temperature range, not only the proportionality constant must be changed, the T^4 parameter no longer applies.
Britannica states that the law applies only to blackbodies and and an electrically-heated platinum filament glowing in a temperature range of 700C – 1400C might be included as BB. The surface of the Earth cannot be claimed as a blackbody, nor anywhere close to one.
“Gordon Robertson says:
February 26, 2022 at 7:51 PM
gbaikieIt seems to me, the Earth could be colder than -18 C without an ocean.
***
The -18C figure came from an incorrect application of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.”
Yes. But a planet at 1 AU from the Sun, such as Venus could have surface air temperature of less than -18 C.
Because many factors. Adding an ocean of water, wouldn’t help as very little sunlight would reach the ocean surface. But once a lot CO2 liquified because pressure and being colder {and ocean could absorb some of it}. But also planet of Venus has slow rotation, so on nightside the ocean would freeze, and half planet colder than Antarctica, would lower global air temperature.
Anyhow once CO2 was only about 5 Atm or less, then one get more sunlight reaching the ocean
–As one moves outside that temperature range, not only the proportionality constant must be changed, the T^4 parameter no longer applies.
Britannica states that the law applies only to blackbodies and and an electrically-heated platinum filament glowing in a temperature range of 700C 1400C might be included as BB. The surface of the Earth cannot be claimed as a blackbody, nor anywhere close to one.–
I would say it simpler, Earth surface is not a vacuum.
And might say something more complicated, the global average temperature is based upon the average velocity gas molecules and density of gas make the temperature. So 15 C air has same temperature as solids and liquids at 15 C, and at higher elevation it has less density {but same velocity} and because less mass, the gas has less “heat” or temperature. And if have low enough air density, the gas has “no temperature”- it will not cool something warmer and will not warm something [liquid/solid] colder.
But Moon is very cold and has extreme temperature variation of 120 C to -175 C because it’s have atmosphere which make the temperature more uniform.
So, Earth atmosphere combined it’s 24 hour rotation makes a more uniform global temperature.
But our cold ocean with average of 3.5 C, make Earth absorb more energy from the Sun and makes Earth have much uniform temperature than our atmosphere, absorbs more energy and therefore can emit more energy. But slightly warmer ocean allows an even more uniform temperature.
Or more uniform global temperature is warmer world, and more temperature extremes is a colder world.
Or in warmest time of interglacial period has ocean which 4 C rather than 3.5 C. And 4 C ocean would much warmer average air temperature than 15 C [mainly warmer nights and warmer winters].
You got to hand it to Troglodytes – they sure know what to do when the going gets tough:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56117800
Psaki on Cruz ‘Peanuts’ character comparison: ‘Don’t tell him I like Peppermint Patty’
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/595784-psaki-on-cruz-peanuts-character-comparison-i-like-peppermint-patty
I am able to produce 80 dollars hourly to do some small tasks on the computer. Ive never realized like it could even possible however one of my top VIUJ pal has earned $27,000 within six weeks simply working this best project and also she has satisfied me to avail. Discover additional updates by reaching following web-page..
Heres what I do… https://workstore01.blogspot.com/
@elonmusk
Delivery times for Starlink terminals Late 2022, Early 2023 in the USA.
dremt…”The transmographer, as noted, only allows for one object therefore is useless for anything to do with gravity”.
***
Finally got it to work using a right-angled triangle. If you keep clicking the triangle button till a right triangle is in the 1st quadrant (x = +ve, y = +ve), on mine the rt. triangle is located with it’s longer side parallel to the x-axis and the shorter side parallel to the y-axis.
I used the translate function to move the vertex of the rt-triangle to 0,0 then with the rotate function, set it to x = 0, y = 0, degrees =10. Every time I click ‘Rotate’, the entire triangle rotates around 0,0 at 10 degrees per click.
My triangle is configured with the long side of the right triangle along the +ve x-axis with the short side pointing along a +ve y-axis ordinate. I am ignoring the hypotenuse and using the vertical shorter side as the tangent line of the Moon’s nearest face. If you watch them move 10 degrees at a time the shorter side always acts as a tangent to a circle.
If you could impose a second triangle on top of the first but with a longer segment along the x-axis, you could see a second tangent line representing the far side of the Moon. As you rotate both simultaneously, both tangent lines would always be moving in parallel.
No local rotation, but the near-side always faces Earth.
dremt…sorry…forgot to mention that the quote I included came from rlh.
Yes, Gordon, basically with the transmographer you can rotate the object about an external axis at 0,0, and with no rotation about an internal axis (since that is a separate function which you can choose to use or not use), it moves as per the moon, i.e. always keeping the same side facing the inside of the orbit.
It’s worth repeating that again, I suppose…with no rotation about an internal axis, it moves as per the moon.
There is no such thing as an ORBIT about an external axis.
Au contraire:
“A rotation around a completely external axis, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called revolving or orbiting, typically when it is produced by gravity, and the ends of the rotation axis can be called the orbital poles.”
A barycenter, which can be considered a rotational axis or orbital pole, is not external to the combination of objects that make it up.
You, as a “Spinner”, do not get to argue that a barycenter can be considered a rotational axis. You do not get to believe in the existence of “orbital poles”.
You as an idiot do not get to decide anything for others.
Your own words decide it for you, RLH:
"The actual physical position is:
1) That “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR.
2) That this motion is curvilinear translation (normally described by everybody else as an orbit)."
That’s what you said, further upthread. Translation involves no axis of rotation, obviously.
… which is why our moon motion is properly curvilinear translation with an external axis re-orienting itself once per orbit.
> Translation involves no axis of rotation, obviously.
Translation on an elliptical path does, however.
No, Willard. Lol. Translation does not involve an axis of rotation. The clue is in the name: "axis of rotation".
Is an orbit a rotation? I think that you have claimed before that it is.
The Wikipedia quote claims an "orbit" is a rotation around a completely external axis, and you agreed that a barycenter can be considered a rotational axis.
Contradicting your own words further upthread, where you argued that an "orbit" was curvilinear translation.
There is no contradiction once we accept that an orbit is more often than not best described as a general motion, that is some translation along some rotation. And when the orbital path under consideration is elliptical, that becomes a necessity. Because, affine geometry.
Kiddo does not seem to realize that he’s already at an impasse.
And since Kiddo is at an impasse, all he got left is gaslighting, e.g.:
[K] Translation involves no axis of rotation, obviously.
[W] Translation on an elliptical path does, however.
[K] Lol. Translation does not involve an axis of rotation.
Complete cluelessness.
Willard, you are the only one here who defines "orbit without spin" as a general plane motion. Regardless, if you include rotation about an external axis in "orbit without spin", then the object is changing orientation whilst it moves. Meaning you should be a "Non-Spinner".
> you are the only one here who defines “orbit without spin”
The gaslighting continues –
I never speak of orbit without spin.
That’s right, because you like to keep things as vague and confusing as possible. "Orbit without spin", or "orbital motion without axial rotation", or "pure orbital motion" are terms which bring clarity to the debate, that’s all.
There is no such thing as an external axis where gravity is involved.
So you keep saying, RLH.
[K] Translation involves no axis of rotation, obviously.
[W] Translation on an elliptical path does, however.
[K] Lol. Translation does not involve an axis of rotation.
*W shows the replay*
[K] You are the only one here who defines “orbit without spin.
[W] I never speak of orbit without spin.
[K] That’s right, because you like to keep things as vague and confusing as possible.
A work of art and a thing of beauty.
Willard, translation on any path is just translation. An axis of rotation is associated with rotation, not translation. It couldn’t get any simpler.
> translation on any path is just translation.
Sometimes it involves rotation. In the case of the Moon’s motion it does.
***
> An axis of rotation is associated with rotation, not translation.
Sometimes a rotation comes with some translation. In the case of the Moon’s motion it does.
***
> It couldn’t get simpler than that.
Indeed it could: produce an ellipse using a rotation without any translation. If you can’t, Moon Dragon cranks lose.
"Sometimes it involves rotation. In the case of the Moon’s motion it does."
If you don’t specify whether you mean rotation about an external axis or rotation about an internal axis, this is meaningless.
"Sometimes a rotation comes with some translation. In the case of the Moon’s motion it does."
If you don’t specify whether you mean rotation about an external axis or rotation about an internal axis, this is meaningless.
"Indeed it could: produce an ellipse using a rotation without any translation. If you can’t, Moon Dragon cranks lose."
If you don’t specify whether you mean rotation about an external axis or rotation about an internal axis, this is meaningless.
WAITING FOR KIDDO
[K] Translation involves no axis of rotation, obviously.
[W] Translation on an elliptical path does, however.
[K] Lol. Translation does not involve an axis of rotation.
*W shows the replay*
[K] You are the only one here who defines “orbit without spin.”
[W] I never speak of orbit without spin.
[K] That’s right, because you like to keep things as vague and confusing as possible.
[W, reconsidering what has just been said] A work of art and a thing of beauty.
[K] translation on any path is just translation
[W] Sometimes it involves rotation. In the case of the Moon’s motion it does.
[K] If you don’t specify whether you mean rotation about an external axis or rotation about an internal axis, this is meaningless.
A work of art and a thing of beauty.
Your creative "misunderstandings" always are a thing of beauty, Willard.
WAITING FOR KIDDO – THE ABRIDGED EDITION
[K] Translation involves no axis of rotation, obviously.
[W] Translation on an elliptical path does, however.
[…]
[K] translation on any path is just translation
[W] Sometimes it involves rotation. In the case of the Moons motion it does.
[K] If you don’t specify whether you mean rotation about an external axis or rotation about an internal axis, this is meaningless.
All I was trying to get you to do was be more specific in what you are trying to explain, Willard. Then I can get to the root of your confusion.
The transmographer is not a tool for examining orbits.
…and it does not need to be.
So why use it to describe orbits?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1190028
DREMT = idiot.
RLH = a troll of few words.
DREMT = double idiot
RLH = a childish troll of few words.
DREMT = triple idiot
See what I mean?
There is no such thing as an external axis where gravity is involved.
So you are going to stick with the "Spinner" position, then:
1) “Orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR.
2) This motion is curvilinear translation.
…and never again say that the barycenter can be described as an axis of rotation. OK, then.
rlh…”So are you suggesting that the force of gravity does not respect the 3rd Law? That an equal force in the opposite direction is not applied to each body, such as the Moon and the Earth?”
***
The Earth-Moon interaction is not an example of the 3rd law, nor the 2nd law. The third law required a push or a pull that is resisted by another force, Britannica explains it as follows:
“Newtons third law states that when two bodies interact, they apply forces to one another that are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. This is commonly referred to as the law of action and reaction (commonly stated as every action has an equal and opposite reaction)”.
This describes a situation where one might be pushing against a wall. I don’t think a wall does push back, it simply resists. However, the resistance should be proportional to the force applied, hence equal and opposite.
There are no such conditions between the Earth and the Moon. The force of gravity on the Moon is about six times greater than the force of the Moon on the Earth. Under such conditions, the Moon should accelerate vertically toward the Earth. It does not.
In their definition of the 2nd law, Britannica has erred. They did not include Newton’s qualification that a force must be able to move a mass before Newton II applies. It is mandatory that the force be strong enough to move the mass, otherwise Newton II does not apply.
Obviously, although the Earth has a far greater strength in its gravitational field, it is not strong enough to accelerate the Moon toward the Earth. Some argue that a change in the Moon’s velocity vector’s DIRECTION is sufficient to declare an acceleration, but I think they are mistaken.
Acceleration is a change in the magnitude of velocity, not its direction. A velocity vector has both a direction component and a magnitude component represented by a scalar quantity. Unless the Moon’s velocity magnitude changes, a change in direction alone is insufficient to declare an acceleration.
Furthermore, a change in velocity requires a change in force, applied in the direction of the velocity vector. No such force exists.
Therefore, the Earth-Moon interaction is one of vertical equilibrium, where neither gravitational force can move the other, even though the Moon’s gravitational force is strong enough to raise the ocean level and in a much smaller degree, the solid surface, it cannot move the main body.
Earth’s gravity, on the other hand, is strong enough to hold the Moon at a constant altitude. Combined with the Moon’s constant momentum, that leads to a slight elliptical orbit.
The reason the orbit is elliptical is that Earth’s gravity varies very slightly throughout the lunar orbital period. On either end of the ellipse’s major axis, gravity acts directly as with a circular orbit. In between, Earth’s gravity acts only with a component, albeit a component that is very nearly the full force. Nevertheless, that slight change allows the lunar linear momentum more effect, allowing the Moon to go farther, elongating the orbit.
This explains libration perfectly. On either end of the major axis there can be no libration. In between, a radial line extending from the lunar centre through the near face points slightly away from Earth’s centre, allowing us to see a few degrees around the lunar edge.
On Earth surface something weighing 6000 tons has a lot of force, and on lunar surface it weighs 1000 ton- which would crush anyone like bug- in similar fashion as 6000 tons would on Earth.
The Moon mass is 0.073 x 10^24 kg. Or 7.3 x 10^22 kg
Or 7.3 x 10^19 tonnes and 1/billionth of that mass if on the Moon has lot of force of gravity.
In terms third law:
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
With 6000 tons on Earth, which on moon which weighs 1000 tons, both 1000 tons and the moon itself are attracting towards each other. But the 1000 tons appears to move and crush anyone on the moon who is between it, as it move towards the much bigger rock, we call the Moon.
And if drop the 6000 tons rock from 100 km above the Moon, it make a big crater on the lunar surface, a bigger crater than if dropped from 10,000 meter above Earth surface.
Related:
“A concrete bomb is an aerial bomb which contains dense, inert material (typically concrete) instead of explosive. The target is destroyed using the kinetic energy of the falling bomb. Such weapons can only practically be deployed when configured as a laser-guided bomb or other form of smart bomb, as a direct hit on a small target is required to cause significant damage. They are typically used to destroy military vehicles and artillery pieces in urban areas, in order to minimise collateral damage and civilian casualties.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_bomb
“The Earth-Moon interaction is not an example of the 3rd law, nor the 2nd law”
So you are saying that the Moon, Earth and gravity are not the subject of the 3 Laws.
You are an idiot indeed.
Moon to Earth distances.
Perigee (i.e., min. distance from Earth) 356400370400 km.
Apogee (i.e., max. distance from Earth) 404000406700 km.
Notice these vary quite a bit on each orbit.
Gordo continues to post delusional physics:
Acceleration is defined as dV/dT, where V is a vector quantity. For a circular orbit, the velocity vector continuously changes direction, caused by the acceleration from gravity. The magnitude of the velocity would remain the same.
Gordo, of course, the Moon is orbiting in an elliptical path and the magnitude of it’s velocity changes as it orbits, which RLH pointed out. That change in velocity is the result of the fact that the radial line between the barycenter and the Moon is only perpendicular to the orbit’s tangent when at apogee and perigee, thus there is a component of gravity which accelerates the Moon from apogee to perigee and slows the velocity from perigee to apogee.
But, the Moon rotates at a constant rate, there being almost no torques applied by gravity, thus the apparent librations seen as the Moon transits around it’s orbit. The fact that those librations appear proves that the Moon rotates.
In case you missed it
https://youtu.be/CZy8mgD05QA
Thanks, good interview with Roy. Impressed with the straight-forward manner, without emotion, in which he explained his science and his position on it.
Makes the alarmists who lie about him look mighty stupid.
A discussion with Nate on AGW continues from here: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1189397
My responses to Nate’s criticism of Kristian’s “Testing and Refuting the Central Prediction of the AGW Hypothesis, https://okulaer.com/2021/03/27/testing-and-refuting-the-central-prediction-of-the-agw-hypothesis/#more-7212
a. “the error bar on your trend?”
“Look at it” was probably a reasonable answer to your non-gotcha. Do nearly perfectly superimposed trends seem likely to be significantly different?
b. “Compare observations to real theory, rather than a meme.”
What is your alternative “real theory” to Kristian’s “meme?”
c. “But lacking (a) and (b) that claim cannot be supported.”
Lacking your evidence of a real theory contradicting Kristian’s meme, you have no evidence to dispute Kristian’s claim that no GHG forcing is needed to explain the data.
“[Loeb, et al.] analyzes the various components contributing to OLR, which includes GHG forcing, which must include GHG.”
As I previously explained to you Nate, the contributions from others (all trace gases including CO2), are swamped by several other factors. Nothing in the paper indicates a statistically significant contribution from “others” to the total. At least, if a statistical analysis was reported, I didn’t see it.
“[Kristian] made adjustments to satellite data sets from various periods to align them, in a way that appeared to be biased to produce a desired result of a match to temperature.”
That’s a valid criticism, but he explained the justification of why he did what he did. I’ll be willing to review your critic, but I won’t repeat his analysis. I will leave that for you to do, if you are so inclined.
“‘Look at it’ was probably a reasonable answer to your non-gotcha. Do nearly perfectly superimposed trends seem likely to be significantly different?”
“Lacking your evidence of a real theory contradicting Kristians meme, you have no evidence to dispute Kristians claim that no GHG forcing is needed to explain the data.”
These are the words of someone lacking the skepticism that scientists bring, of blog science supportive of your beliefs.
Blog science of any sort, a-priori, merits skepticism, because it doesnt need to meet the standards of published science: to tell the whole truth, to accurately represent known science, to accurately represent the theory and the data. To ensure this, experts in a field need to peer-review it.
It is not real science, which must compare real theory to observations with error. See Loeb21.
Kristian doesnt know what theory actually predicts.
He presents a cartoon version of the theory Fig 1, then adds his own strawman assumptions when puts it into inaccurate words:
“The surface/troposphere temperature (Ts/Ttropo) should be observed to rise consistently over time, while Earths effective emission temperature (Te) stays at substantially the same level”
This falsely assumes equilibrium is always maintained, and the rise would be consistent. We know neither of these is true.
Yet this is the only ‘theory’ he tests.
Then he wrongly uses surface T in models when he needs to use troposphere temps to compare to emission temp. Fig 6.
He claims this is ok because “The two are, however, supposed to rise at equal rates (Fig.1).)”
Sure, in the cartoon theory.
Then he comes up with a factor 0.266 to relate OLR to temp.
We are supposed to accept, on faith, that this factor is correct?
Another issue is his ‘nearly perfectly superimposed trends’ that works for UAH, but utterly fails with RSS, or any of the other surface data sets.
Loeb et al 21, completely refutes Kristian’s claims that trends are ‘nearly perfectly superimposed’ for the period of time covered in Loeb.
See Loeb figure 2b, where they find trends due to Temperature DOES NOT match Total OLR as implied by Kristian fig 7.
And yes, his version of the adjustments to line up the various periods of OLR data are suspect and do not agree with the literature.
“This falsely assumes equilibrium is always maintained, and the rise would be consistent. We know neither of these is true.”
Kristian’s “cartoon” comes directly from Held and Sonen (2000) with the caption reading “Note that the effective emission temperature (Te) remains unchanged.” Kristian also quotes Pierrehumbert who explains his version of the extended GHE (more CO2 increases global temperature) which no one on this post seems to want to do. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Kristian wrote, “Adding more greenhouse gas [like CO2] to the atmosphere makes higher, more tenuous, formerly transparent portions of the atmosphere opaque to IR and thus increases the difference between the ground temperature [Ts] and the radiating temperature [Te]. The result, once the system comes into equilibrium, is surface warming.”
Nate writes, “[Kristian’s interpretation of Held/Soden and Pierrehumbert] falsely assumes equilibrium is always maintained…”
There was no mention of equilibrium. The GHE hypothesis is that, as the planet warms, its “effective emission temperature (Te) stays at substantially the same level” meaning fluctuating around a constant value but not a perfect equilibrium.
“…and the rise would be consistent. We know neither of these is true.”
Both Ts and Ttropo are rising, the latter at 0.13K/decade now, and you and others have chastised me for not claiming the trend is consistent. You can’t have it both ways. Therefore, both of Kristian’s prerequisites for a test of the GHE are valid.
“Yet this is the only theory he tests.”
What else did you have in mind? The world doesn’t revolve around you, thankfully.
“Then he wrongly uses surface T in models when he needs to use troposphere temps to compare to emission temp. Fig 6.”
I don’t see how using either actual Ts or UAH instead of model output to compare with Te would change the illustrations Kristian is using to explain the hypothesis he is testing. Please present a better explanation of what you are objecting to.
“…Sure, in the cartoon theory.”
How is your “real,” and as yet undisclosed, GHE hypothesis any better than the cartoon theory?
0.266 converts to 3.76 W/m2/K. It comes from the SB equation. You can find the rationale in your “real” GHE hypothesis probably somewhere. Believe it or not. Your choice.
“…works for UAH, but utterly fails with RSS, or any of the other surface data sets.”
Are you saying those data sets don’t track and that if you substituted them for UAH, the trends would diverge to significantly significant levels? Let’s see that and, while you are at it, justify that surface temperature averages are better than UAH for estimating the true average Earth temperature.
“See Loeb figure 2b, where they find trends due to Temperature DOES NOT match Total OLR as implied by Kristian fig 7.”
Looking closely you will see that reversing figure 2b, because of the positive downward convention, will give the same result as fig 7. After all, both authors supposedly used the same data during that 2002 to 2020 period.
“These are the words of someone lacking the skepticism that scientists bring, of blog science supportive of your beliefs.”
Seriously, Nate, you need to be a lot more skeptical of your “real” hypothesis and the hoops Loeb and others are jumping through.
More from Newton in Principia, the section in Book 1, Definition V,
“A centripetal force is that by which bodies are drawn or impelled, or any way tend, towards a point as to a centre.
Of this sort is gravity, by which bodies tend to the centre of the earth magnetism, by which iron tends to the loadstone ; and that force, what ever it is, by which the planets are perpetually drawn aside from the rectilinear motions, which otherwise they would pursue, and made to revolve in curvilinear orbits”.
***
In this quote he suggests the Moon’s motion is rectinlinear but a centripetal force makes it change its rectilinear motion to revolve in curvilinear orbits. There’s the word revolve against used to depict orbital motion.
*******************
“A stone, whirled about in a sling, endeavours to recede from the hand that turns it; and by that endeavour, distends the sling, and that with so much the greater force, as it is revolved with the greater velocity, and as soon as ever it is let go, flies away. That force which opposes itself to this endeavour, and by which the sling perpetually draws back the stone towards the hand, and retains it in its orbit, because it is directed to the hand as the centre of the orbit, I call the centripetal force.
And the same thing is to be understood of all bodies, revolved in any orbits. They all endeavour to recede from the centres of their orbits; and were it not for the opposition of a contrary force which restrains them to, and detains them in their orbits, which I therefore call centripetal, would fly off in right lines, with an uniform motion”.
***
Newton uses the word recede in a peculiar manner. Above he calls the Moon’s motion rectilinear, which is known to be tangential to the orbit, and here he uses the word recede, which suggests the opposite of centripetal. That’s why I claim something has been lost in the translation from Old English/Latin to modern English/Latin.
******************
“A projectile, if it was not for the force of gravity, would not deviate towards the earth, but would go off from it in a right line, and that with an uniform motion,, if the resistance of the air was taken away. It is by its gravity that it is drawn aside perpetually from its rectilinear course, and made to deviate towards the earth, more or less, according to the force of its gravity, and the velocity of its motion. The less its gravity is, for the quantity of its matter, or the greater the velocity with which it is projected, the less will it deviate from a rectilinear course, and the farther it will go.
If a leaden ball, projected from the top of a mountain by the force of gunpowder with a given velocity, and in a direction parallel to the horizon, is carried in a curve line to the distance of two miles before it falls to the ground ; the same, if the resistance of the air were taken away, with a double or decuple velocity, would fly twice or ten times as far.
And by increasing the velocity, we may at pleasure increase the distance to which it might be projected, and diminish the curvature of the line, which it might describe, till at last it should fall at the distance of 10, 30, or 90 degrees, or even might go quite round the whole earth before it falls ; or lastly, so that it might never fall to the earth, but go forward into the celestial spaces, and proceed in its motion ‘in infinitum'”.
***
This describes the motion of the Moon, especially the last part about the ball going right around the Earth due to a lack of air resistance and having the required momentum.
**********************
“And after the same manner that a projectile, by the force of gravity, may be made to revolve in an orbit, and go round the whole earth, the moon also, either by the force of gravity, if it is endued with gravity, or by any other force, that impels it towards the earth, may be perpetually drawn aside towards the earth, out of the rectilinear way, which by its innate force it would pursue; and would be made to revolve in the orbit which it now describes ; nor could the moon with out some such force, be retained in its orbit.
If this force was too small, it would not sufficiently turn the moon out of a rectilinear course : if it was too great, it would turn it too much, and draw down the moon from its orbit towards the earth.
It is necessary, that the force be of a just quantity, and it belongs to the mathematicians to find the force, that may serve exactly to retain a body in a given orbit, with a given velocity; and vice versa, to determine the curvilinear way, into which a body projected from a given place, with a given velocity, may be made to deviate from its natural rectilinear way, by means of a given force.
The quantity of any centripetal force may be considered as of three kinds; absolute, accelerative, and motive.
***
He goes on to explain the last sentence.
I take from Newton’s description of rectilinear motion being converted to curvilinear motion that he understood the premise about the near side of the Moon always facing toward Earth. Rectilinear motion implies all parts of a body moving parallel to each other at the same velocity. So does curvilinear motion, on a curve.
Newton had to understand that the Moon cannot rotate about a local axis while keeping the same face always pointed to the Earth. It is simply not possible.
.. as viewed from the surface of the central object.
Newton, in his 3 Laws, understood of the Moon quite well. He understood that the Moon orbits the Moon/Earth barycenter and that the Moon turns on its axis once per orbit.
GR (and the rest of the merry band of idiots) distort, lie, and construct a range of stupid arguments to try and claim this is not so. They are WRONG as all sensible people know.
RLH suffers from a mental condition known as “braindead”.
Newton’s Laws did not mention Moon. Poor RLH is likely thinking about Kepler, but Kepler’s Laws didn’t mention Moon either.
RLH is actually talking about Cassini “laws”, which are NOT laws. They come from astrology. Cassini believed erroneously believed Moon rotated about its axis.
RLH has no understanding of the relevant science.
Clint R is an idiot who doesn’t do science as everybody else recognizes it.
“Newtons Laws did not mention Moon”
True. They mention forces, of which gravity is one.
P.S. Apples in a tree fall because of the force of gravity as Newton worked out.
Clint R,
There is some science in Astrology as its all based on the positions of the planets.
This is what Cassini was doing with respect to Astrology.
“Most of their time was spent calculating newer, better, and more accurate ephemerides for astrological purposes using the rapidly advancing astronomical methods and tools of the day.”
Cassini was correct about the rotation of the Moon, which means you know not of what you speak.
Anyone who can use the equation for the circumference of a circle can prove the Moon rotates on its axis.
Seems your knowledge of physics and math is not up to that.
It’s worse than that, Bob –
Pup does not even realize that the concept of astronomy to which he refers is more recent than he presumes:
https://www.etymonline.com/word/astronomer
Astrology is a system of beliefs. It ain’t science. It’s very similar to the cult that believes ice cubes can boil water.
Clint R,
It means literally star science.
Before Cassini’s time there was little difference between astrology and astronomy.
You are correct that it is a system of beliefs, but those beliefs are based on the positions of the planets, the determination of those positions is a scientific endeavor.
You continue to talk smack, revealing how little you really know.
Astrology tells us not to talk smack when Mercury is retrograde.
Is Mercury in retrograde right now?
Is that a scientific or astrological question?
Being in a tiny cult distorts all your views on life. As Clint R demonstrates.
Religions are systems of belief. Creationist Christians (would that be you, pups?) have the unscientific world view that the Earth was created as in Bible’s Book of Genesis, perhaps less than 10,000 years ago. As far as I’m aware, there is no scientific evidence which supports this world view.
The Bible is not a science text book, but rather a cryptic love story of the Master Designer wooing due respect and allegiance from his creation. Some Christians take the Genesis account literally, probably assuming a being omnipotent enough to create the universe could have created it to look 10,000 years old. How hard could it be if you can be born of a virgin and resurrect yourself from the dead?
A more realistic view accounts for the difficulties in recording an accurate history without the use of carbon dating, blogs, and cell phones. How did they ever manage back then?
Belief systems, aka religions, are individual choices. But, when the belief system violates the Laws of Physics, it’s a cult, or false religion.
Real physics says that there is no such thing as an external axis where gravity is involved.
A note on Motte-and-Bailey –
Here’s a fine example of one:
(Motte) The transmographer demonstrates that the Moon can’t orbit and spin.
(Bailey) I never claimed that the transmographer settles the entire issue.
If we accept the Motte, then the transmographer indeeds settles the entire issue. So why switch to the Bailey? Simple: the transmographer does not demonstrate that the Moon can’t orbit and spin! So every time Kiddo gets caught going a bridge too far in the loop of his talking point, he returns back to his Bailey.
This variation is interesting because usually Motte-and-Bailey are somewhat consistent. This one is not.
Such is the power of Moon Dragon cranks!
"The transmographer demonstrates that the Moon can’t orbit and spin."
Willard keeps on bashing his strawmen. The transmographer demonstrates that the moon can’t rotate around an external axis, and spin. So whether the transmographer demonstrates that the moon can’t orbit and spin depends on what sort of motion you think "orbit" is. Which is, of course, what the entire argument is about.
The transmographer doesn’t do orbits.
> The transmographer demonstrates that the [M]oon can’t rotate around an external axis
All the transmographer’s construction (not the transmographer, Kiddo is confused once again) does is to show that it’s possible to rotate an object around an axis of rotation. The construction does not demonstrate that other constructions are impossible.
More generally, constructions only demonstrate possibilities. They’re existential proofs. Here’s an existential proof that it’s possible to construct an object spinning while orbiting around an external axis of rotation:
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4709
Willard links to something which shows either one of two possibilities:
1) The moon rotating around an external axis, with no rotation around an internal axis (this is the "Non-Spinner" position).
2) The moon translating (by which the "Spinners" mean, motion as per the MOTR) plus rotating on its own axis (this is the "Spinner" position).
The rest is pure waffle.
DREMT waffles all the time.
The constructions shows an orbit with a spin that involves more than one rotation.
There are others:
https://www.edumedia-sciences.com/en/media/216-sun-earth-moon
Willard, I’m not sure how much more of my time I can waste on you.
All you need to prove that 1) is wrong is to apply the equation for the circumference of a circle.
C = 2 * pi * R
Which proves the Moon is rotating on its axis.
Back to eighth grade for those who disagree.
BG might have a point – unless and until Kiddo produces a program, he won’t get it. Where BG might be overoptimistic is that it won’t prevent him to misinterpret his own constructions.
He will have too, for once his silly Motte gets blown out, he’d have to face the fact that all this was preliminary talk for the real battle – physics.
But since he sucks at physics, he’ll soon try to hide in his geometrical Bailey. Then he’ll still claim he wins because he can rotate an object without having to spin it. Without realizing that this does not prove anything else than he can rotate an object without having to spin it.
Willard fights against his own, specially constructed, imaginary strawman version of me.
DREMT waffles on in support of his tiny clique knowing he is wrong all the time.
If I am called out in a new thread, I feel obliged to respond. I would rather people didn’t call me out in threads, tbh. But, people are obsessed with me. So, what can I do?
There is no such thing as an external axis where gravity is involved.
There is no such thing as remaining on-topic, where RLH is concerned.
DREMT is an idiot who wishes to ignore inconvenient facts such as there is no such things as an external axis where gravity is involved.
As you are on record as claiming that there is an axis of rotation at the barycenter, and you are surely aware that the barycenter is external to the moon, then as far as the moon is concerned, there is such a thing as an external axis where gravity is involved.
As a barycenter requires 2 or more objects to construct it, its exact position will be internal to the combination of the positions of their centers.
A truism is a truism.
> strawman
The gaslighting continues.
"The gaslighting continues"
Willard constantly falsely describing everything I say as gaslighting, is actually a form of gaslighting itself.
> Where BG might be overoptimistic is that it wont prevent him to misinterpret his own constructions.
Yup. And as otter usual supects have pointed out, simulations do only what you make them. They are not proofs, only demonstrations at best.
I’ve used the Transmographer tool http://www.shodor.org/interactivate/activities/Transmographer/ to produce two additional animations based on the original (1):
1) Ball on a sling, not released: https://i.imgur.com/mTMGXBz.gifv
2) Ball on a sling, no rotation after release: https://i.imgur.com/msVXvUD.gifv
3) Ball on a sling, with rotation after release: https://i.imgur.com/5J9sLAM.gifv
By either (2) or (3) I can “prove” by invoking Newton’s laws of motion:
Animation (2) proves the ball does not continue to rotate on its own (internal) axis after release because it never was to begin with.
OR
Animation (3) proves the ball does continue to rotate on its own (internal) axis after release because it was rotating all along.
If DREMT is consistent with himself, he will judge (3) to be the correct animation, but incorrect in explanation.
Such are the mental gymnastics with with we are faced.
I only need to discuss number 1), Brandon. You will have created that animation by rotating the square about an external axis, only. Not using the "around center", internal axis rotation, command. Thus your 1) is rotating about an external axis and not rotating about an internal axis.
Alternatively, you could have achieved the same results by using the translate command to move the square, and using the "around center", internal axis rotation, command. So we have two possible descriptions:
a) The square is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about an internal axis.
b) The square is translating in a circle, whilst rotating about an internal axis.
There is no possibility that the square is rotating about an external axis and rotating about an internal axis.
> There is no possibility that the square is rotating about an external axis and rotating about an internal axis.
https://postimg.cc/dLqkKP24
That is not a counter-point, Willard. I know you will not understand why. Never mind.
DREMT,
> I only need to discuss number 1)
No, because the Transmographer is a graphing tool not a physics simulator. It only *incidentally* gets the motions of the Moon correct because it *implicitly* rotates the square around its own internal axis at the same time it rotates that axis about the origin of the plot. The tool’s creators did not need to make it exhibit that behavior, therefore you have no “proof” of the following:
> There is no possibility that the square is rotating about an external axis and rotating about an internal axis.
Were that actually the case the Moon’s orbit would look like properly operating bicycle pedals: https://i.imgur.com/zmQ4aEB.gifv
Indeed every body’s orbit about another would necessarily adhere to your wholly contrived constraint and, e.g., days on this planet would be 8,760 hours long.
I want my program.
Brandon, you are delusional if you believe you can use the transmographer to rotate an object around an external axis and use the "around center" command to rotate an object around an internal axis, and end up with motion like your 1). You get motion like your 1) by only rotating the object about the external axis. It’s so simple even a child could understand.
Again, there are only two possibilities:
a) The square is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about an internal axis.
b) The square is translating in a circle, whilst rotating about an internal axis.
There is no possibility that the square is rotating about an external axis and rotating about an internal axis.
> Brandon, you are delusional if
The gaslighting continues, every single time providing a tell.
Tilting is near.
DREMT,
> you are delusional if you believe you can use the transmographer to rotate an object around an external axis and use the “around center” command to rotate an object around an internal axis, and end up with motion like your 1).
There’s an IF in the above statement at a place that often signals what follows is a strawman. I know exactly what I did to produce all four animations. I also know exactly what I would do to simulate the physics of the actual system, and the Transmographer ain’t it.
That said, anyone with an inkling of how to correctly represent the physics will see that my animation (3) is correct since the same rotation about the ball’s internal axis must persist after the cutting the cord: https://i.imgur.com/5J9sLAM.gifv
Graphing tools don’t “prove” what you want them to in this case. When you write my program perhaps you will understand why.
"I know exactly what I did to produce all four animations."
…and what you did to produce 1) was either:
Rotate the square about an external axis, only. Not using the "around center", internal axis rotation, command. Thus your 1) is rotating about an external axis and not rotating about an internal axis.
OR:
You could have achieved the same results by using the translate command to move the square, and using the "around center", internal axis rotation, command. So we have two possible descriptions:
a) The square is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about an internal axis.
b) The square is translating in a circle, whilst rotating about an internal axis.
There is no possibility that the square is rotating about an external axis and rotating about an internal axis.
> Does the transmographer come with two axes of rotation?
It allows to specify n axes of rotation or linear translations, but only 1 in any given time step. It’s requiring those multiple steps that DREMT exploits to say one and only one can be done at a time:
Brandon, if you are going to accuse me of deception, then we’re really going to get off on the wrong foot. I "exploit" nothing.
The transmographer demonstrates that rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is already motion like our moon. It also demonstrates that rotation about an external axis, with rotation about an internal axis, is not motion like our moon.
Really simple.
> It’s requiring those multiple steps that [Kiddo] exploits to say one and only one can be done at a time
I wonder if there’s a mathematical tool somewhere that could help him. Perhaps Pup could help him:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1191027
Kiddo should take on Pup’s offer.
Neither of you can stand that the transmographer proves you wrong, can you?
I added this line to the Moon Dragon Crank Master Argument:
(TRANSMOGRAPHER) The transmographer demonstrates that the Moon cannot orbit and spin.
Already version 5. Times fly like an arrow.
Two notes:
The claim reinforces the Motte part of Kiddo’s Motte-and-Bailey, as it contests the Spinner position in a direct manner.
The claim is false, as all the transmographer does is to demonstrate that the Moon *can* be modelled as not spinning while rotating *in a circle*.
So you have added another strawman to your list. Well done.
Why should Kiddo stick to gaslighting when he can lie?
Here’s the source:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1190734
And no – the wedge he’s trying to insert between orbit and “rotate around an external axis” is utterly bogus, since the Moon’s orbit indeed involves a rotation around an external axis.
Try telling that to E. Swanson, for example. See whether or not he thinks the orbit of the moon involves a rotation around an external axis, Willard.
Why tell anything to anyone when we can formulate a general argument:
(1) The issue is about whether the Moon spins or not.
(2) The Moon follows an orbital path centered around the Earth.
(3) That orbit involves a rotation but cannot be reduced to one, because geometry.
Everyone should agree with these premises, including reasonable Moon Dragon cranks.
Everyone could agree on a proper description of the Moon’s orbit and still disagree about (1). In other words, to describe the geometry of the Moon’s orbit transcends (1).
I see two reasons why Kiddo insists on the Moon’s orbit. First, he sucks at geometry. Second, he’s trying to divide-and-conquer.
Hence why he pretends that Bob, Me, Richard, and just about everyone are non-Spinners by defining the Spinner position not by (1) but by (3).
At some point Kiddo should realize that he has no powder dry left.
See whether or not he thinks the orbit of the moon involves a rotation around an external axis, Willard.
Kiddo should work for his own You-and-Him-Fight games.
Willard should ask whether or not E. Swanson thinks the orbit of the moon involves a rotation around an external axis.
The transmographer can do ellipses or external rotations and move objects around those with varying rates of rotation.
It will do what it is programmed to do.
It’s the interpretations of those motions that we are arguing about and there the transmographer is of no use.
Basically, with the transmographer, you can rotate the object about an external axis at 0,0, and with no rotation about an internal axis (since that is a separate function which you can choose to use or not use), it moves as per the moon, i.e. always keeping the same side facing the inside of the orbit.
Its worth repeating that again, I suppose…with no rotation about an internal axis, it moves as per the moon.
> with the transmographer, you can rotate the object about an external axis at 0,0, and with no rotation about an internal axis
That does not imply one can’t rotate a spinning object.
Where’s the demonstration that one can rotate an object with a single external rotation along an elliptical path?
Kiddo will soon reach a geometrical impasse.
"That does not imply one can’t rotate a spinning object."
You can use the transmographer to rotate the object around an external axis, and then rotate the object on its own internal axis. When you alternate between these motions, you’ll soon realize that two rotations (one external and one internal) happening synchronously does not result in movement as per our moon.
There is no such thing as an external axis where gravity is involved.
RLH needs to work out whether he believes "orbit without spin" is:
1) Translational motion (like what the "Spinners" would argue the MOTR is doing).
2) Rotational motion (thus supporting the "Non-Spinners")
3) General plane motion (also supporting the "Non-Spinners" – thanks, Willard).
DREMT: I don’t need you deliberately misinterpreting my positions.
There is no such thing as an external axis where gravity is involved.
I didn’t misinterpret anything. I gave you three choices. You need to work out which one you agree with, and stick to it, instead of chopping and changing.
I chop and change nothing. You just continuously misrepresent or ignore things. For instance you will not respond to the claim that there is no such thing as an external axis where gravity is concerned.
The barycenter is external to the moon. So, if you think that there’s an axis of rotation at the barycenter, it is an external axis as far as the moon is concerned.
If you think there’s an axis of rotation at the barycenter, then you are going with either option 2) or 3). In which case, thank you for your support.
A barycenter may or may not be external to the bodies that make it up. It all depends on the mass ratios between the various bodies.
In the case of the Moon/Earth barycenter with a mass ratio of approximately 1:81 then it is currently below the Earth’s surface. So what?
You wrote the comment, RLH. So what, indeed?
Both the Moon and the Earth are in elliptical orbits around their common barycenter. In fact it is slightly more complicated than that as all the planets and the Sun alter slightly the exact position of that barycenter all the time.
So what, indeed?
N.B. The common barycenter is not external to the Moon/Earth paring.
…but the barycenter is external to the moon itself. So from the point of view of analyzing the moon’s motion, if you think that theres an axis of rotation at the barycenter, it is an external axis as far as the moon is concerned.
If you think theres an axis of rotation at the barycenter, then you are going with either option 2) or 3). In which case, thank you for your support.
Without 2 objects there is no barycenter, so observing that it is not at the center of one of them just proves that you are an idiot.
When are you going to admit that you don’t have a point with this, RLH?
> When you alternate between these motions
That’s exactly where Kiddo’s wrong.
Let’s let him work on that puzzle for a while.
Notice how he evades the question:
Where’s the demonstration that one can rotate an object with a single external rotation along an elliptical path?
You can only alternate between the motions using the transmographer. But:
1) Rotate the object about an internal axis by 45 degrees.
2) Rotate the object about an external axis by 45 degrees.
The result of these two actions looks exactly the same as if you:
1) Rotate the object about an external axis by 45 degrees.
2) Rotate the object about an internal axis by 45 degrees.
If you were able to do both motions at exactly the same time, you would of course still get the same result. Motion that is no longer like our moon’s. The fact that you can only alternate, and not do both motions at the same time, changes nothing.
Yes, I am ignoring your diversion, Willard. Deliberately.
> You can only alternate
Nope. You cna do better than that. Try again.
I’m starting to believe that the pitchdrop experiment is faster than Kiddo’s progress on a question that he could have found by reading the page from his favorite GIF while his trolling has reached high-frequency trading proportions.
So he’s caught between two opposite timeframes.
Wink wink.
Oh, and in case Kiddo forgets:
Where’s the demonstration that one can rotate an object with a single external rotation along an elliptical path, again?
Either make a point or begone, troll.
Kiddo’s trying to boss me around in my thread. That’s just great. I suppose it is better than victim bullying or gaslighting.
Let’s be sport and remind him why he can’t answer the question:
https://sites.millersville.edu/rumble/Math.355/Book/Chapter%201.pdf
The reason why he won’t produce an elliptical orbit along a single rotation is simple: he can’t.
Well, Ftop_t did, using Desmos…but you reject that he did, because he produced motion in an ellipse. He did what you asked, but you reject what he did, because the result is what you asked for. Something not quite right with your logic there…
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that you are correct, and (unlike what anybody else in this argument, on either side, believes) "orbit without spin" is general plane motion:
P1) General plane motion involves rotation.
P2) The rotation can only be about the external axis.
P3) Rotation implies a change in orientation.
C) The object in "orbit without spin" must change orientation whilst it moves.
That supports the "Non-Spinners". Thank you.
> [Flop] did
Flop did what – refute a theorem?
I doubt it.
Kiddo should link to what Flop did.
BG might enjoy toying with it.
> The object in “orbit without spin” must change orientation whilst it moves.
The “orbit without spin” does not appear in the premises.
Funny that.
Willard misses that even if he were correct about rotation about an external axis and elliptical orbits, he still ends up supporting the "Non-Spinners".
He just can’t win, bless him! Even after asking one of his friends to come here and help him out, he still can’t win.
The gaslighting continues, this time reconnecting to an earlier trick:
Wait. Does the transmographer come with two axes of rotation?
> Kiddo should link to what Flop did. BG might enjoy toying with it.
Yes and while he’s at it, give me the link to the MOTL/MOTR .gif. I’m running out of corners to explore in this puzzle but maybe those will give me further ideas.
So Brandon…you claim to have been following the discussion here…but you don’t know what is meant by MOTL/MOTR!?
There you have it:
Kiddo keeps using an acronym he invented without describing what it says first and then plays smug when he realizes that newcomers have not idea what he’s talking about.
And he still does not give any information!
***
Here, BG:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_synchrone#/media/Fichier:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
MOTL stands for “Moon on the Left” and MOTR stands for “Moon on the Right.”
Beware that your interest will get him all excited, for talking about the GIF showing spin-orbit synchronization is meant to refute tidal lock turns him on.
I kid you not.
There is no point in observing that DREMT is an idiot. Because it is true.
Actually you do kid, Willard, because as I have explained to you at least a dozen times now, I personally don’t dispute the tidal locking mechanism.
Brandon should have seen the GIF already, because I linked to it in my comment about how the moon issue transcends reference frames, which Brandon claimed earlier to have read and "lulzed" at.
There you have it:
Kiddo fails to understand that one can know a thing without knowing its name and vice versa, the classic of which is also astronomical and features Hesperus, Phosphorus, and Venus.
Also note how he returns to his Bailey:
(B2) I personally don’t dispute the tidal locking mechanism.
Let’s recall the Motte:
(Motte) The transmographer demonstrates that the Moon can’t orbit and spin.
If we accept (Motte), how can we infer (B2)?
Scroll back up to the top of your "Motte and Bailey" thread and read my 10:40 AM comment again. Sorry, I can’t be bothered to repeat myself.
> MOTL stands for “Moon on the Left” and MOTR stands for “Moon on the Right.”
Added to my collection: https://i.imgur.com/l0otJpd.gifv
> I can’t be bothered to repeat myself.
If only.
You basically just want me to shut up, don’t you, Willard? If you want that, try not specifically calling me out in a thread.
Poor Kiddo. Always the victim.
Here’s what Kiddo won’t show you, BG:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/3ejwl4e4tl
Press play on line 30 to see the object rotate about both an external and an internal axis, simultaneously. Leave it paused to see an object rotating about just an external axis.
Kiddo’s white lie is that his “the object rotate” fails to be a pure rotation, BG, which means there’s something more than a rotation hidden under the hood.
Look at how the imaginary stick stretches and shows a translation.
The string stretches because the motion is in an ellipse! As I said earlier:
Willard: The reason why he wont produce an elliptical orbit along a single rotation is simple: he can’t.
DREMT: Well, Ftop_t did, using Desmos…but you reject that he did, because he produced motion in an ellipse. He did what you asked, but you reject what he did, because the result is what you asked for. Something not quite right with your logic there…
> https://www.desmos.com/calculator/3ejwl4e4tl
What a circular orbit looks like from and angle, DREMT.
Not what an elliptical orbit looks like.
Write my program and see why libration is a thing.
> He did what you asked
False on two counts. First he did it before I asked. Second he did not do what I asked. That’s a high ratio of lies per word right there!
Oh, and BG –
1. Open “Circle for the Moon”
2. Click on line 28
3. Click on the Black circle.
A black triangle should appear.
That should help you see that the Moon isn’t exactly following the orbit path without wobbling a bit. The effect is clearer when it reaches the major axis. In fact you then see that the “stick” isn’t attached to the Moon at all.
Ftop_t also more recently simulated a true elliptical orbit featuring libration of longitude.
Got a linky?
Too bad Kiddo can’t help you find Flop’s highest feat in black hat geometry, BG.
> That should help you see that the Moon isnt exactly following the orbit path without wobbling a bit.
Got it. The string not being attached to the ball is a bad thing.
Find it yourself.
[KIDDO, AFTER BEING SPOONFED] IT wasn’t hard, was it?
[ALSO KIDDO] Find it yourself.
A very nice chap we got there.
Is there anything I say that does not upset you in some way, Willard?
Poor Kiddo. Always the victim.
Let’s cut him some slack.
This will be my last comment for the month.
See you soon.
I see I somehow said the wrong thing yet again.
DREMT: Are you going to accept ‘one way forces’ or not?
Gordon can fight his own battles.
Φ – is the dimensionless Solar Irradiation accepting factor – very important.
It is a realizing that a sphere’s surface “absorbs” the incident solar irradiation not as a disk of the same diameter, but accordingly to its spherical shape.
For a smooth spherical surface
Φ = 0,47
Notice:
The term “Absorbed” is an outdated term. We have replaced the term “Absorbed” with the term “Not Reflected Portion“.
–
The term “Absorbed” was a WRONG concept about the entire Not Reflected Portion as SW EM energy accumulated in the inner layers.
–
What actually happens is the Not Reflected Portion INTERACTS with planet surface, and only a part of the Not Reflected Portion is, finally, accumulated in the inner layers.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Nate,
From https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1189652
I think your debate with Dan boiled down to a disagreement on how to mathematically express WV vs time. What were the implications for validating your “real” GHE hypothesis or refuting Dan’s WV one?
BTW, I can explain why you’s maths give different results.
“boiled down to a disagreement on how to mathematically express WV vs time”
If you are paying attention, the implications are profound. Either the WV has increased primarily due to T-rise, or as Dan claims, it has not.
Dan claims:
“WV has been increasing about twice as fast as possible from just feedback (temperature increase from all forcings and feedbacks).”
A simple analysis of the data shows that WV is increasing at close to that expected from the simple model that Dan proposes.
But he has done something wrong and is off by a factor of 2.
The analysis that I did could not be simpler:
a. Find the Temp trend.
b. Multiply it by the expected WV rise 6.7%/deg C.
c. multiply by the average WV amount.
If I follow his procedure, point by point, I get exactly the same result, because they are ultimately the same equation.
He has done something wrong.
“He has done something wrong.”
There are 2 other possibilities, Dan is right or you are both wrong. I’m going with the latter. Dan’s method is correct, but his algorithm is wrong despite the fact he gets the right answer that .
I’ll start with what I think the common error in both your approaches is. I will wait for your agreement on this before moving on. If you don’t agree, there is no use proceeding.
You both use R = 6.7%/degC increase in WV for any time interval. This was based on Dan’s saturated water vapor rationale which is a discussion for another day. I interpret a 6.7 % increase in anything as 1.067 times what it was in the previous time interval or, in this case, 1.067 Kg/m2 added for every incremental change in temperature or 1.067 times (Tn T(n-1). So Dan’s algorythm should have had the form of WVn = WV(n-1) + 1.067 * (Tn T(n-1)), which rearranges to dWV/dT = 1.067 Kg/m2/degC.
Your equation, dWV/dt = (dWV%/dT)*(dT/dt)*WV(mean), rearranges to (dWV/dt)/(dT/dt) = (dWV%/dT)*WV(mean) which is the same as dWV/dT = (dWV%/dT)*WV(mean). The right hand side can’t be right, because the units don’t make sense and its result shoupd be constant irrespective of the value of the mean. I think it is just a coincidence that 29 Kg/m2 * 0.067 = 1.94 or about twice the true dW/dT value of 1.067.
…he gets the answer right that “WV has been increasing about twice as fast as possible from just feedback.”
I accidentally hit enter before finishing that edit and proof reading.
(Tn T(n-1)) should be (Tn – T(n-1)).
“He gets the right answer”
No he doesnt.
“dWV/dT = (dWV%/dT)*WV(mean). The right hand side cant be right, because the units dont make sense.”
WTF are you talking about? The units are the same.
WV concentration/degrees K
Describe dWV%/dT in words with units.
Then explain what multiplying it by the mean of a time series accomplishes.
Also, you didn’t comment on my interpretation of what 6.7% increase per K means. Am I correct or not?
This should not be controversial.
% has no units until you multiply it by something with units.
6.7%/K has units of 1/K.
Multiply it by WV concentration kg/m2 it will have units of kg/m2/K.
Multply that by dT/dt which has units of K/y you will get
Kg/m2/y
“Then explain what multiplying it by the mean of a time series accomplishes.”
We want to know the mean trend in water vapor. Thus we multiply by the mean WV value.
As I noted, doing it point by point gives the same result.
Try it yourself.
Further explanation
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2022-0-00-deg-c/#comment-1194222
RLH is hung up on “barycenter” because he doesn’t understand it has NOTHING to do with axial rotation. He doesn’t understand ANY of this. He still can’t understand the simple analogy of the ball-on-a-string.
He’s braindead.
But now, we have a new member of the cult, Brandon. And Brandon brings us another example of how braindead the cult idiots are. Brandon believes a bicycle pedal is NOT rotating!
A bicycle pedal is actually another good way to prove Moon is NOT rotating. For the pedal to always be in contact with the rider’s foot, it must rotate once for every “orbit” around the hub. The same side of the pedal always faces the rider, but all sides of the pedal face the hub during an orbit.
Alternatively, if the pedal were secured so that it could NOT rotate, the same side would always face the hub. It would be the same motion as a ball-on-a-string, or Moon.
Brandon unknowingly presents another clear example that Moon is NOT rotating.
Compare and contrast:
[PUP] For the pedal to always be in contact with the riders foot, it must rotate once for every orbit around the hub
[ISAAC] Because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb.
You should sit that one out, Pup. It’s the second time in a few hours that you’re hindering Kiddo’s trolling.
Dud, YOU are the second place worthless troll here, behind RLH. So your claiming someone is a troll is WAY beyond ridiculous.
You’ve never had any calculus or physics so you have NO chance of understanding Newton’s work. But if you will agree to not comment here for 90 days, I can make it so simple any adult can understand it. All you will then need is to find some adult to explain it to you.
Do you agree?
Let’s see, Pup:
You don’t know the etymology of the word “astronomy,” and when I corrected you you ran way.
You hold that the Moon does not spin because you don’t see it spinning from where you are, and argument that would compel you to accept that the Earth is flat.
You just told that there was no model of the Earth-Moon system where the Moon was spinning, and when challenged you fled.
Perhaps you should stick to the Poll Dance Experiment.
You’ve never had any calculus or physics so you have NO chance of understanding Newton’s work. But if you will agree to not comment here for 90 days, I can make it so simple any adult can understand it. All you will then need is to find some adult to explain it to you.
Do you agree?
You said there were no numerical models of the Earth-Moon system with a Moon that spins, Pup.
For every model I show you, you stop commenting for three months.
Deal?
Don’t miss out on this offer, Dud. Here’s your chance to actually learn some science. You can really impress the other 12-year-olds in your keyboard class.
Act fast!
Clint R being an idiot as usual.
Yes RLH, we see that you’re the leading troll here. You have nothing else going in your life, so you attempt to attract attention by insulting because you don’t understand any of this.
Clint R: Are you going to support GR with his ‘one way’ forces or are you going to abandon him?
willard…”[ISAAC] Because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb”.
***
I just posted a lengthy blurb quoting Isaac on lunar motion. He confirms the Moon’s motion is rectilinear and forced into a curvilinear path. He said nothing about local rotation.
In his explanation, he confirms that he means orbital path when he uses the word revolution. Therefore, your quote has to be interpreted as meaning there is a uniform revolution around the Earth as the axis. Curvilinear translation is the only means by which the Moon could possibly keep the same face pointed toward the upper focus of the elliptical orbit where the Earth is located.
As further proof, the lunar day is dependent on the Moon’s location in its orbit as it TRANSLATES around the Earth. There is no way, after his brilliant analysis of the lunar motion that he would conclude the Moon was rotating about a local axis.
“He said nothing about local rotation”
Liar. He didn’t need to. He understood that there are 2 different motions with 2 different energies. An orbit AND a rotation about its own axis. Quite independent of each other.
He also understood that barycenter’s are required as part of his laws and Kepler’s too.
No RLH, barycenters are NOT “required”. They are only a mathematical construct. They exist only when one object is orbiting around another. Barycenter has NOTHING to do with axial rotation.
You just learned about barycenter when you were searching the Internet trying to prove Moon was rotating. You’d never heard of the word before.
You’ve got NOTHING.
rlh…”He understood that there are 2 different motions with 2 different energies. An orbit AND a rotation about its own axis. Quite independent of each other”.
***
There is nothing about two different energies and two different motions wrt the Moon in all of Principia. Then again, you’re a mere systems analyst with no understand of physics, especially orbital mechanics.
C’mon, Gordo – you don’t need to be a gynecologist to understand what “menstrual” means.
“No RLH, barycenters are NOT ‘required'”.
Do you believe in the same ‘one way’ forces the same as GR does?
Someone who can invent ‘one way’ forces definitely has no concept of orbital mechanics.
> I just posted a lengthy blurb
C’mon, Gordo. No regular at Roy’s should care for your blurbs by now. You just need to vent. That’s fine with me.
Pay me and I will read them.
Weary Wee Willy,
Try reading Newton using Newton’s English.
Your misinterpretation is about as bad as climate crackpots who believed Tyndall meant the opposite of what he wrote!
The Moon falls towards the Earth continuously. The Earth stays more or less fixed in the lunar sky (the side facing the Earth).
The Moon is not rotating about an interior lunar axis with respect to the Earth.
Forget about bicycle pedals, Ferris wheels, bathtubs, overcoats and all the other diversions.
The Earth sits in space, cooling.No GHE, just lots of heat generated by energy production and use. Anthropogenic Heat Generation, if you like.
Got a better explanation which doesn’t require magic?
Thanks for the tip, Mike.
Perhaps you can point me where Isaac talks about your pet topic, the Insulator Effect Theory?
Whacky Wee Willy,
Avoidance again? There is no “Insulator Effect Theory”, as far as I am aware.
What specific form of insanity leads to the conclusion that either an “Insulation Effect Theory” or a “Greenhouse Theory” exist?
You can’t produce either, can you?
Moron.
What am I avoiding, Mike?
If you repeat “moron,” I’ll give you a cracker.
> Brandon unknowingly presents another clear example that Moon is NOT rotating.
Rather the exact opposite, Clint. I brought up bicycles knowing they represented MOTR. Proof that it is not rotating about its own axis: the 8-bit era.
C’mon.
Yes Brandon, you’re so uneducated and naive you actually believe a properly functioning bicycle pedal is NOT rotating about its axis.
Let’s go Brandon!
Clearly you never tried to rotate a sprite in the 80s.
Clearly you avoid reality, Brandon. Here’s some more for you to deny: A bicycle pedal rotates on its axis.
Reality is that there are no such things as ‘one way forces’.
… as observed from Earth.
Roy: Love your book “Climate Confusion” .Reading again for a second time. Darn, climatology is confusin’…but keep up the not-so-gentle prodding.Awaiting your latest book. Hope it’s as enlightening and humorous.
Have you or any of your group encountered James Kamis and his “plate climatology ” theory. I could follow him in his interview on “inconvenient facts”, but could not make heads or tails of his book. How might his theory complicate the whole realm of climate confusion
and those who insist on the ‘great global warming?’
I’ve tried to follow his theory on climate hysteria blogs, but I think his ideas are being suppressed…go figure?
Climatologicly, Karl
A 30 second internet search came up with this.
http://www.plateclimatology.com/
Enjoy.
entropic…have you been on the Guiness…again!!!
It’s Kamis’ idea, not mine.
It doesn’t work,anyway. The total geological heat flow is 400 times too small to account for the observed warming.
entropic…”The total geological heat flow is 400 times too small to account for the observed warming”.
***
After a billion years of that heat flowing into the oceans, could it raise the mean ocean temperature?
We now that as we dig into the Earth, within a hundred metres, temperatures can rise 2 – 3C. Surely the heat transfer from the Earth’s core, over a 5000C gradient, can warm the surface.
“After a billion years of that heat flowing into the oceans, could it raise the mean ocean temperature? ”
The heat doesn’t accumulate. It flows from the rocks into the ocean and atmosphere and then radiates into space. It raises the equilibrium temperature of the ocean and atmosphere by about 0.02C.
Since geological heat flow has been the same for millions of years it has had no effect on recent warming.
EM,
I see you agree that heat doesnt accumulate in the oceans.
It doesnt accumulate in the ground or in the atmosphere either, does it?
As you say, “It flows from the rocks into the ocean and atmosphere and then radiates into space.”
I guess you might try to say that the GHE creates heat that heats nothing – not the rocks, ocean or atmosphere (that heat would just radiate to space, as you said), and doesn’t radiate away!
Magical, climate crank invisible, hidden, undetectable heat, is it?
I am wondering if Earth ocean has ever had an average temperature of 2 C.
And I mean is this world of last 30 million years. Though if can find “useful” evidence of it older +30 million years ago, then I guess it applies.
The think the focus related to whether one has ever had ocean with average temperature of 2 C [or lower] is the extent summer polar sea has extended beyond the polar region.
How could tell summer polar sea ice extent vs winter.
One thing about it, if talking in last 2 million years, is human migration. And if longer than 2 million, any kind of animal migration. Or where has polar bears been found.
Google it.
https://polarbearscience.com/2012/11/26/ancient-polar-bear-remains-of-the-world/
Hmm:
“What we can say from this evidence, however, is that polar bears, who could not have lived in the Arctic during the LGM because of the extreme thickness of the sea ice”
“This means only four (possibly five) polar bear fossils exist that are definitively older than 19,000 years.”
That’s surprising, and 4 or 5 too few to use polar bears remains as any kind of yardstick.
And generally the idea of how long polar bears, have been around seems questionable. Or human remains would seem would more probably to provide a longer and larger sample.
Is any other animal? How about penquins?
“The first fossils of emperor penguins that were found dated back to 60 million years ago. They were suspected to be from South America because of the fact that South America used to be closer to the edge of the globe meaning that South America could have possibly been where Antarctica is today. It is thought that todays penguins did not always live in a cold climate. Scientists believe that penguins evolved to be able to survive there.”
I guess only question is when did they get to Antarctica
“A penguin species that lived millions of years ago would have dwarfed today’s biggest living penguins and stood as tall as most humans, according to analysis of fossils by a team of researchers from the La Plata Museum in Argentina.”
This doesn’t seem to getting anywhere.
“According to their findings, the story of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean began 47 million years ago, when the climate was cooling following the bursts of rapid greenhouse warming that marked the late Palaeocene and early Eocene epochs. However, it probably wasn’t until 13 or 14 million years ago that sea ice first acquired its perennial nature, although a return to slightly milder conditions one or two million years later brought sea-ice-free conditions, at least seasonally, back to the Arctic. This lasted until a substantial cooling occurred three million years ago.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo861
So, talking about just Arctic.
And 47 million years ago got polar sea ice {I assume during coldest time in 100,000 year long period, and just the winter}. Because 47 million years wasn’t in our icehouse global climate. And 13 to 14 million years ago, again during coldest of 100K cycles got polar sea lasting all year long.
Or something like we got now. Then long period ice free {I assume including winter]. And finally last 3 million years- with long periods always frozen and very thick polar sea ice, except during the brief interglacial periods.
And so, my question was did ocean ever, or in last 3 million year become as cold as 2 C. And now wonder if ever become colder than 3 C. Or are we bouncing between 3 and 4 C in last 3 million years.
Or was it ever cold as 2 or 2.5 C in last 3 million years.
“Sea ice cover became the norm from 2 to 1.5 million years ago, with all indicators pointing to a stable, permanent ice pack throughout most of the following glacial periods. And this ice was probably quite impressive, ranging up to several hundred metres thick throughout parts, or even all, of the Arctic Ocean.”
I seems one could only get polar sea ice hundreds of meters thick near land- and near land it can thousands of meter thick [ice shelves]. Though one glacial flows, thousand meters flowing on polar sea ice and/or just snow build up becoming glacial ice.
hmm, “Freshwater fossils reveal that 40 million years ago what is now the Arctic Ocean was a freshwater lake,”
https://www.iflscience.com/environment/how-an-arctic-lake-became-the-arctic-ocean/
Freezing lake is not same as making/having polar sea ice:
“sea ice in the Arctic Ocean began 47 million years ago”
Arctic presently has least salty water, I wonder over the recent few million years whether there has been cycles of it getting more lake like, and more ocean like?
There is no such things as being able to orbit things about an external axis, because there is no such thing.
All axis are internal for both rotations and orbits (which are just 2 different types of revolving as has previously been agreed).
Orbits require 2 (or more) bodies. Rotations only 1.
rlh…”There is no such things as being able to orbit things about an external axis, because there is no such thing”.
***
The Moon is held in an orbit by Earth’s gravitational field and the gravitational field is centred at the Earth’s centre. Ergo, the Moon is rotating about the Earth’s centre. In other words, at any instant during the Moon’s rotation about the Earth, a gravitation vector from Moon to Earth, would have its arrow pointed at Earth’s centre.
If the Moon was attached by a rigid arm, you’d have not problem seeing that. Since it’s not, we call it revolution.
However, a revolver, a gun, has a barrel that rotates on a mechanical axis and we claim it is revolving. So, why can’t we claim a body revolving about the Earth’s centre as its axis, be rotating about that axis?
Only an idiot such as you would say that Newton’s 3rd Law does not apply to gravity and the Moon/Earth pairing.
All axis are internal for both rotations and orbits (which are just 2 different types of revolving as has previously been agreed).
“In other words, at any instant during the Moons rotation about the Earth, a gravitation vector from Moon to Earth, would have its arrow pointed at Earths centre”
Newton’s 3rd Law states that every force has an equal and opposite force so that vector has 2 arrows, one on each end.
rlh…”Both the Moon and the Earth are in elliptical orbits around their common barycenter”.
***
One of the more stupid statements uttered by a poster on Roy’s blog.
1)The Moon has a linear momentum in its orbit around the Earth, the Earth has zero linear momentum about the Moon.
2)The Earth has linear momentum about the Sun that establishes its orbit. The Moon, in no way, perturbs the Earth in its solar orbit. All it can do is raise the ocean about a foot and the surface less than a centimeter.
3)Richard is seriously confused about barycentres.
GR,
You are the stupid one. RLH as stated here https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1190907 is correct.
GR says that barycenter’s do not exist or at the very least are not present in the Moon/Earth pairing.
The rest of the real science community know that this is not the truth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hMfCCqSdFc
https://www.education.com/science-fair/article/barycenter-balancing-point/
and numerous others
Try googling ‘barycenter’ and see.
https://cdn.education.com/files/static/science-fair/barycenter-balancing-point/barycenter-earth-and-moon.png
The last one is pretty cool.
Only GR could invert one way forces.
BG,
Since you are now au parfum of the Moon Dragon Crank esoterica, you might like this little exchange between Kiddo and Tim. You will see how Tim responds like a real physicist, whereas Kiddo, well, judge for yourself:
## Tim and Kiddo Talk Torques
[K] If the cannonball does indeed rotate about an external axis.
[T] But it does not rotate about that axis.
[K] Why does the torque about the external axis not cause the cannonball to rotate about the external axis?
[T] Because that is not how torques work!
[K] So torques do not lead to rotation?
[T] You are getting there. A torque (as calculated about a specific axis) applied to an object leads to a change in angular momentum (as measured about that same axis). This may or may not lead to rotation about that axis.
[K] And gravity is not rigid enough a connection for you?
[T] Absolutely NOT rigid enough! Were gravity “rigid”, it would be impossible for a moon to get further from or closer to its planet, it would be impossible for a moon to do anything besides face its planet.
[K] It only needs to be rigid enough that the torque about the external axis results in rotation about the external axis.
[T] But it is NOT EVEN THAT RIGID! There are just not enough ways to tell you this. Can you jump? Gravity does not hold you rigidly at a specific distance from the center of the earth. Can you do a somersault? Gravity does not hold you rigidly in a specific orientation relative to the center of the earth.
[K] Gravity just connects the cannonball to the center of the Earth. Not rigidly, but rigidly enough.
[T] it would be fascinating to hear your mathematical definition of “rigid enough”. How you you calculate “rigidness” and what value constitutes “rigid enough”?
[K] Think what you want. “Orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTL.
You could always provide a link to the actual exchange, so that the full context can be understood, and the things you have left out can be read. Is there a reason you have created yet another thread where you are specifically calling me out?
> You could always
Kiddo always needs to be spoonfed like that:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-877149
Since Tim took pennies and not a transmographer, his argument is invalid.
There you go. That wasn’t so hard, was it? Now Brandon can see you leaping cluelessly all over the discussion, and he can read all the things you left out…and if he searches further up in the comments he might even find out what the discussion is actually about (Newton’s Cannonball, being fired without spin, and orbiting the Earth whilst moving like the MOTL).
More gaslighting.
If Kiddo paid any attention to the dialog, he might have noticed that it mentions a cannonball.
In fairness it might be hard to miss –
It’s the first line of the dialog.
Yeah, a cannonball is mentioned, Willard, but that’s pretty vague, isn’t it? You really need to read the preceding discussion as well, which is higher up in the list of comments, to actually understand what the discussion is about.
Kiddo could have provided the link himself, but he might be too busy trolling. BG sure knows how to use a search engine. Heck, even a direct search for the first line of the dialog seems to work:
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=%22If+the+cannonball+does+indeed+rotate+about+an+external+axis.%22
It is your thread, Willard. You should provide the links to the necessary context for it to make any sense.
True, but for the wrong reason.
Whinnying Wee Willy wrote –
“True, but for the wrong reason.”
How cryptic! How obscure!
How stupid. The mark of a climate crank attempting to appear clever.
What are you doing here, Mike –
Is it to tell me you found your Insulator Effect Theory?
Woeful Wee Willy,
Tables? Frictionless axles? Pennies?
I rather like this –
“Since Tim took pennies and not a transmographer, his argument is invalid.”
A masterpiece of obscure crypticism!
It seems you are still taking your Moron pills. No need to up the dosage.
Carry on.
Do you have a point, silly sock puppet?
Weepy Wee Willy,
That’s the best you can come up with, is it?
Sad.
Carry on.
Why would I give my best to a silly sock puppet like you, Mike?
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Why would I give my best to a silly sock puppet like you, Mike?”
Is that your best, then? Or maybe just the best you can do?
Try harder.
No, Mike.
It’s not.
You’re not worth any effort, in fact.
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Whiney Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Youre not worth any effort, in fact.”
Why do you waste your effort on something you say is worth nothing?
Are you a moron?
Swenson: Do you believe in ‘one way’ forces as GR does?
You’re not “something,” Mike.
You a real human bean, hidden under a silly sock puppet.
Witless Wee Willy is in his fantasyland again.
Gibbering in his usual obscurantist fashion, trying to appear intellectual.
He has figments of his imagination apparently posing gotchas, and leaving the reader totally in the dark as to what is occurring.
Typical of the climate crackpot seeking to avoid facing reality, by creating diversions at every turn. Maybe he could magic up a copy of the Greenhouse Theory, and astonish people like me!
So far, he’s all mouth and no trousers.
Enjoy your afternoon nap, Mike.
Wistful Wee Willy,
No Greenhouse Theory, then?
Colour me unsurprised.
The Greenhouse Effect Theory is right next your Insulator Effect Theory, Mike.
Alternatively, look here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvFZjo5PgG0
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“The Greenhouse Effect Theory is right next your Insulator Effect Theory, . . . “.
The contents of your fantasy don’t count as fact, moron.
Do you think Mike is hiding a copy of the non-existent Insulator Effect Theory just to annoy you?
Next thing you will be claiming that you can also produce Michael Mann’s non-existent Nobel Prize!
You need a new fantasy, dummy. Your present one is looking pretty tatty around the edges.
Carry on.
So you say, Mike.
So you say.
Willard,
If I’m reading this correctly, DREMT is taking the ball on string metaphor a bit to literally.
Here is Mercury defying gravitational rigidness with its 3:2 spin:orbit resonance:
https://i.imgur.com/tlSUf01.gifv
This should not be possible since we only have MOTL/MOTR.
Then no, you’re not reading it correctly, Brandon. I am not saying that gravity holds an object rigidly in place so that it cannot rotate on its own axis as well as orbit. Ridiculous strawman number one, noted.
“I am not saying that gravity holds an object rigidly in place so that it cannot rotate on its own axis as well as orbit”
So the Moon orbits the Moon/Earth barycenter and rotates on its axis once per orbit.
Thank you for clearing that up.
No…so (for example) the Earth orbits the Earth/moon barycenter and rotates on its own axis. The moon just orbits the Earth/moon barycenter and does not rotate on its own axis.
… as observed from Earth.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
If I wasn’t so terribly lazy, I would learn MATLAB, and manage to describe the Earth-Moon orbit and spin motions by using their differential equation cruncher ode45.
But even if the lunar spin deniers would see what happens when the Moon’s spin speed is set to 0, they would say, like do the Flatearthers when looking at a picture of Earth taken from the ISS:
” That’s faked! ”
Ugh.
Binny,
In case you hadn’t noticed, Newton apparently didn’t need MATLAB, or an “equation cruncher”.
You could always learn how to properly comprehend the English (or Latin) forms oF expression used in Newton’s time. Even the alphabet has changed, and knowing the rules applying to the short s and the long s can help.
Word meanings have changed in many instances. For example, fluents and fluxions are unlikely to appear in MATLAB, but were used by Newton in his mathematical explanations.
Have fun. (That’s obviously an f, not a long s).
Completely irrelevant rubbish from Flynnson, comme toujours.
I have read many parts of Newton’s work in excellent English translations.
I did probably read much more of that than you ignorant boaster will ever do.
Bindidon, you don’t need MATLAB or differential equations to understand basic physics. Or to understand simple analogies.
Your effort is to pervert reality to protect your cult. You cult has deceived you, but you can’t give it up. Without your cult, you’re NOTHING.
Did you notice one of your new cult members doesn’t even know how a bicycle pedal functions? Have you ever ridden a bicycle? Do you ever go outside?
Clint R: Do you believe in ‘one way forces’ as GR does?
RLH, you haven’t figured it out yet, because you’re braindead, but I have no obligation to respond to trolling cult idiots.
If you want to be a responsible commenter here, stop being a troll and start building some credibility. You have NONE.
Said the man with less sense that a magot.
Yeah we know how a pedal functions.
It has a bearing between the pedal and the crank so the pedal can stay connected to your flat feet while the crank rotates.
Wiping your shoes is a proper way to pedal.
bob, amazingly you got it almost right!
The pedal rotates on an axle, with bearings or course. The pedal rotates about that axis as it “orbits” the hub. It MUST rotate about its axis to stay attached to the riders foot.
In terms of the discussion here, the pedal faces the same direction in inertial space. Its ability to rotate on its axis allows that capability. It’s the same basic motion as the MOTR.
If the bearings locked up so it could NOT rotate, it would be the MOTL, with one side always facing the hub.
Moon is like a bicycle pedal with the bearings locked. It’s NOT rotating.
(This simple analogy courtesy of Brandon R. Gates.)
It’s NOT rotating … as observed from Earth as Clint R pointed out a few posts ago.
Clint R,
The pedal bone is connected to the axel bone which is connected to the crank bone.
The feet bones push on the pedal bone, moving it in a circle without rotating the pedal, which rotates with respect to the axel bone, which is fixed to the crank bone, which rotates. If the bearing between the pedal and the axed locked up, then the pedal bone would rotate with the crank bone.
Like the Moon bone is rotating, the Moon bone on the left is the rotating bone.
I can’t figure out if you are a crank head or a bone head, or would you prefer a fucking crank bone head?
And you can’t figure out how to use pie are squared to prove the Moon rotates on its axis.
Go fucking back to school.
Braindead bob goes into meltdown, exhibiting his lack of knowledge and immaturity,
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R can’t respond to the science and goes all ad hom.
What did I expect?
“In terms of the discussion here, the pedal faces the same direction in inertial space. Its ability to rotate on its axis allows that capability. Its the same basic motion as the MOTR.
If the bearings locked up so it could NOT rotate, it would be the MOTL, with one side always facing the hub.”
So he gets the first part right, and the pedal is not rotating.
Then when the pedal is locked to the rotating crank, its still not rotating?
Something locked to something rotating is rotating.
Norman, I just found this from about a week ago. It’s another of your slurs, where you apparently thought I would not be back to see it.
“I would like you to provide even the slightest evidence that I made any claim ice cubes could bring a temperture [sic] to 325 K.”
Norman, your wording is slanted. I used the word “believes”. I didn’t say you made that claim. My statement was based on your agreement with Folkerts. You clearly were believing in his claims.
Now, if you will admit that you no longer believe ice cubes can produce 325K, then please do so. I have nothing against you learning.
Can you admit that?
Clint R,
Maybe Norman could deny that any amount of radiation from ice can raise the temperature of the smallest amount of liquid water.
That would prevent the usual crop of idiots arguing about the quantum of temperature increase.
Or Tim Folkerts with his imaginary “thought experiments, involving hidden heat sources that just happen to be above 273 K. Like the surrounding environment, for example, which Tim tries to pretend has no temperature!
These fools cannot even describe the fabled Greenhouse Effect in any consistent fashion, let alone say where it might be reliably observed, measured and documented.
Climate crackpots all!
“hidden heat sources that just happen to be above 273 K”
I have no trouble spotting the sun. Or light bulbs. Nothing is hidden.
“Like the surrounding environment, for example, which Tim tries to pretend has no temperature!”
No. When talking about planets in space, I use 2.7K for the temperature of the surroundings. The surroundings DO matter and DO have a temperature.
Clint still seems to have a mental block that the ONLY way a surface can receive 315 W/m^2 is if it comes from ice at 273 K. Until Clint figures out that this is false, he will never make any further progress in understanding radiation.
Tim,
No, I’m not talking about a planet in space, radiating heat. Just like the Earth, it would cool.
I’m talking about silliness where you have fantasy scenarios showing that radiation from a colder object can be absorbed by a hotter, in the absence of any heat source hotter than the colder object.
If you agree that this is physically impossible, why not just say so?
For example, some people apparently claim that the Earth’s temperature can be raised by some miraculous means which involves “heating through slower cooling” or some other stupid proposition.
I may have lumped you in with some of the other morons, mistakenly. Easy to clear up any confusion – just let me know that you agree that cooling does not result in increased temperatures, and that even the heat energy contained in all the ice in the universe cannot be utilised to raise the temperature of even a teaspoon of water!
Or you can go off on a tangent, with another imaginary piece of nonsense trying to demonstrate that a GHE exists.
Be my guest.
“I’m talking about silliness where you have fantasy scenarios showing that radiation from a colder object can be absorbed by a hotter, in the absence of any heat source hotter than the colder object.”
Radiation in the form of a 10 um photon arrives at a surface. Which of the following temperature surfaces can absorb that photon? (Choose all correct answers)
a) 100 K
b) 280 K
c) 300 K
d) 5000 K
The simple fact is that any of these surfaces could absorb such a photon. The 10 um photon could have come from a 50 K source. Or a 300 K source. Or a 10,000 K source. An individual photon has no ‘memory’ of its source and the absorbing surface has no way to know whether to absorb a photon based on the temperature of its source.
Folkerts, here you are perverting physics again.
A photon does not have a “memory”, but it has a “frequency”. The frequency/wavelength is either compatible or incompatible with the impacted surface. “Knowing” whether the photon will be absorbed or not is determined instantaneously on impact. Photons that are too cold (wavelength too long or frequency too low) will NOT be absorbed. That’s why ice cubes can NOT boil water.
According to the Clint/Swenson brand of physics:
* What is the ‘temperature’ of a 10 um photon?
* What is the maximum temperature for a surface to absorb a 10 um photon?
What equations do you use to determine these values? I am pretty sure you won’t answer directly.
Folkerts, here you are perverting physics again.
A photon does not have a “temperature”, but it has a “frequency”. The frequency/wavelength is either compatible or incompatible with the impacted surface. “Knowing” whether the photon will be absorbed or not is determined instantaneously on impact. Photons that are too cold (wavelength too long or frequency too low) will NOT be absorbed. That’s why ice cubes can NOT boil water.
Clint: “Photons that are too cold …”
Also Clint: “A photon does not have a “temperature” … ”
How can a photon be “cold” (your word) but not have a “temperature”?
In any case, you are still avoiding the issue. We can easily rephrase the question to avoid your problematic wording. What wavelengths or frequencies are “compatible” with a surface at temperature T. If a surface is 300 K, what specific wavelengths of photons are ‘compatible’ and which are ‘incompatible’?
Folkerts, you’re STILL trying to pervert my words. You’re taking my words out of context. Here’s the COMPLETE quote: “Photons that are too cold (wavelength too long or frequency too low) will NOT be absorbed.” I clearly indicated what I meant. You look for any way to pervert reality.
Now, if you sincerely want to learn about photon absorp.tion, do you agree to not comment here for 90 days if I explain it to you?
(I predict Folkerts will not agree because he has NO interest in learning. He’s only here to pervert reality to protect his cult.)
“He’s only here to pervert reality to protect his cult”
Sounds like a perfect description of Clint R.
“Now, if you sincerely want to learn about photon absorp.tion, do you agree to not comment here for 90 days if I explain it to you?”
If you can explain (correctly) then I will be happy to pause.
But you need to explain your statement: “Photons that are too cold (wavelength too long or frequency too low) will NOT be absorbed.”
Specifically:
1) Why did you bring up temperature? What is the relationship you are thinking of?
2) What wavelengths of photons are ‘too cold’ to be absorbed by a surface at temperature = T. (You could pick a specific temperature if you like, like T = 300 K.
Just for kicks, you could include in your explanation the solutions for the temperature of a sphere with blackbody surface area with 1 m^2 and an internal heater of 400 W that is a) in the vacuum deep space b) in a vacuum chamber with walls at 280 K c) b) in a vacuum chamber with walls at 300 K.
As I predicted, Folkerts rejects learning.
No surprise there.
Recap:
CLINT> Would you like me to explain?
ME> Yes, please explain what you said.
CLINT> He doesn’t want me to explain.
You didn’t agree Folkerts. You’re trying to weasel out.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1191986
You’re like Norman. You need a deadline. Either agree by midnight today (3/3) CST, or the deal is off.
Clint, Swenson, GR and DREMT are all bots, mindless machines that CAN”T have any progress or thought or understanding, just spout what the programmers prescribed for them to
c,
That would be the Great Bot Conspiracy, would it? No doubt funded by BIg Oil, to foil the valiant band of heroic climate warriors led by that noted faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat, Michael Mann!
It’s a pity that climate cranks are too stupid and ineffective to outthink mindless machines.
They must be morons.
@swinefucker
I don’t believe that people who program ‘you’ are funded by big oil, I believe ‘you’ are quite in the opposite funded by the byg green energy in order to paint the legitimate ‘skeptics’ as insane by association and derail the fruitful discussions.
c,
It’s a pity that what you believe has no effect on anything at all, I suppose.
Would you take any notice of anyone who talks to what they believe is a computer program, or who believes that a computer program would be affected by gratuitous insults or foul language?
Such a person would have to be a moron, wouldn’t they? The sort of person who would believe in a GHE that they can’t even describe, which somehow heats a planet which has demonstrably cooled over four and a half billion years, CO2 notwithstanding.
Carry on raging against the machine if you wish. It won’t do you any good.
GR just invented ‘one way forces’ to explain his ‘thoughts’. Not delusional at all of course.
Incorrect, Folkerts. You’re as incompetent at building straw men as you are at physics.
A surface could receive 315 W/m^2 from ice, if the ice were very close. Or, a hotter source, at a greater distance, could also provide 315 W/m^2 to the surface. In fact many different combinations of temperatures and distances could provide 315 W/m^2 to the surface. I’ve NEVER stated differently. So that’s your strawman, built on misrepresecting/falsely-accusing me.
Your mistake with physics is in claiming that two different sources, arranged so that each provided 315 W/m^2 to the surface, would add to 630 W/m^2. That’s blatent perversion of physics, as fluxes don’t add in that manner. Such nonsense leads to ice cubes being able to boil water, which your cult actually believes.
Perverting physics, misrepresenting others, and being unable to learn, prove you’re a braindead cult idiot….again.
So you are saying that the fluxes from 2 separate 1m square areas don’t add? What happens if there is a 2 square meter area instead?
The area makes no difference. Big or small, the flux is the same, and you’re still braindead either way.
pups, Take 2 incandescent “heat lamp” bulbs and mount them such that they point toward an area on some insulating material with an IR absorbing surface, such as plywood painted flat black. Turn one on and measure the temperature of the surface after a period of time to allow the temperature to stabilize. Then, turn the other on and again measure the surface temperature after another period of time.
Would you expect the surface temperature to increase with 2 lamps turned on? If so, isn’t this the effect of “fluxes” adding?
Willard Jr, you don’t understand any of this.
The second source is just making up for the loss due to the inverse square law. A incandescent light bulb filament can easily reach a temperature of 2000 °F. So assume you were able to get the filament close enough to heat a surface to 2000 °F. Now turn on the second filament. You could not heat the surface above 2000 °F.
It’s the same principle as using a magnifying glass and Sun. All the magnifying glass is doing is “reorganizing” the solar flux. But even if you were able to focus all of solar flux, you could NOT heat a surface above 5800K (Sun’s emitting temperature).
Try boiling water with ice cubes. You can use all the ice cubes you want. You can use all the magnifying glasses you want. You will NEVER be able to boil water with ice cubes.
Your next attempt to pervert reality, please….
“The area makes no difference”
As flux is per area I rather think that it does.
As usual RLH, your “thinking” is WRONG.
One square meter of ice emits about 300 W/m^2.
Two square meters of ice emits about 300 W/m^2.
A million square meters of ice emits about 300 W/m^2.
You don’t understand any of this.
W/m^2 is ‘Watts per meter squared’.
So in your examples.
One square meter of ice emits about 300 W.
Two square meters of ice emits about 600 W.
A million square meters of ice emits about 1,000,000*300 W.
Braindead cult idiot RLH explains why the polar ice caps are heating the planet….
Clint R is so idiotic that he doesn’t realize that more area means more watts even if the watts per area does not change.
Now the trolling braindead cult idiot RLH effectively admits he doesn’t understand the difference between “power” and “energy”.
What else is new?
https://www.kqed.org/quest/72724/what-is-the-difference-between-power-and-energy
As time intervals were not mentioned, it can be assumed that in all cases we are talking about 1 unit of time.
“A surface could receive 315 W/m^2 from ice, if the ice were very close. “
No. The ice does not need to be close at all. What it needs to do is cover the entire “dome” over the surface in question. The entire “solid angle” to be more precise. The ice could be 1 mm away or 1 m away or 1 km away.
Furthermore, if the ice covered only 99.9%, it would still provide 315 W/m^2 (rounded to 3 sig figs). And then that remaining 0.1% could be at something around 1500 K and provide 315 W/m^2. There are two of your “many different combinations of temperatures and
distancessolid angles” that provide a flux of 315 W/m^2 to the surface in question. And they can both provide 315 W/^2 simultaneously and those fluxes can add and the total can be 2 x 315 = 630 W/m^2.pups forgets that the illuminated surface radiates energy to the surroundings. As the energy from the source increase to a temperature near that of the filament, the emissions from the receiving surface grow with T^4 and, given that the surface area of the receiving area is likely much larger than the filament, it would be impossible for the temperature of the irradiated surface to achieve that of the filament. Not to forget, there are also losses from conduction and convection to consider. Adding another heat lamp would still present the same problem, which is, the net heat losses would preclude the temperature of the heated surface reaching that of the sources.
Then too, there are other systems, such as those using multiple lasers to “ignite” small amounts of tritium to produce electricity via fusion. The target temperatures achieved are very high, which refutes your basic premise.
“Now the trolling braindead cult idiot RLH effectively admits he doesn’t understand the difference between “power” and “energy”.
What else is new?”
Since the discussion is about “W” vs “W/m^2”, The two quantities are actually “power” and “flux”.
So much for *that* correction!
I just happened to find these two idiots, commenting days after I left. They obviously believed I wouldn’t see their nonsense.
Folkerts is building an impossible device trying to defend his illusion that ice cubes can boil water. What he doesn’t understand is that constructing a device is NOT the same as no device. And who knows what poor Swanson is babbling about….
Tim,
I asked – “Easy to clear up any confusion just let me know that you agree that cooling does not result in increased temperatures, and that even the heat energy contained in all the ice in the universe cannot be utilised to raise the temperature of even a teaspoon of water!”
You responded (in part) –
“Radiation in the form of a 10 um photon arrives at a surface. Which of the following temperature surfaces can absorb that photon? (Choose all correct answers)
a) 100 K
b) 280 K
c) 300 K
d) 5000 K”
Dodge, duck and weave all you like.
How about answering the question? As I said, when it comes to your stupid gotchas, you immediately start talking about heat sources above 273 K, like 280 K, 300 K, and 5000 K.
Stick to heat sources below freezing, and tell me again about making water hotter with ice.
Moron.
Swenson, You have said MANY things in many discussion. I am not required to respond to the one thing you want at this moment.
I was specifically replying to this statement (Which I indeed quoted for you). “I’m talking about silliness where you have fantasy scenarios showing that radiation from a colder object can be absorbed by a hotter, in the absence of any heat source hotter than the colder object.”
The basic question is about photons being absorbed,. “Can a photon with wavelength lambda from a source at temperature T1 be absorbed by an object at temperature T2”.
The short answer is that T1 doesn’t matter in the least. The ‘silliness’ here is your qualifier “from a colder object”. A 10 um photon is equally likely to be absorbed whether it comes from a 100 K object or a 1000 K object or a 10,000 K object.
Earth is suppose to radiate about 240 watts per square meter on average, but this is not exact number, it could be 5 to 10 watts per square meter more or less than this.
But if it was 240 watts per square meter, then roughly one could assume Earth has absorbed about 240 watts per square meter on average.
And if Earth absorbs and emits 240 watts per square meter what this indicates is Earth is absorbing and emitting a lot of energy.
Or per day: 24 times 240 watts is 5,760 watts per square meter or
5.75 kw/hours of sunlight energy per square meter area of Earth surface.
And if Earth emitted 240 watts on average does tell you what temperature Earth surface is?
Ie: blackbody surface in vacuum emitting about 240 watts = about -18 C.
So, Earth surface “should be” -18 C?
Let’s imagine that measured how much Europe emitted into space and it was about average 240 watts per square meter.
So Europe surface should be -18 C
And since we have measured Europe average surface air temperature and it’s about 9 C.
So, 27 C warmer than it should be.
Is the reason it’s 27 K warmer, because of it’s greenhouse effect?
Let’s do the same with continental 48 state US.
We measure it and get about 240 watt per square meter, so US should be -18 C and it’s average about 12 C.
And likewise so the reason is the greenhouse effect is adding 30 K.
Now, I don’t know how many watts per square Europe or US averages, nor does anyone know precisely if the average global is 240 watts per square meter, but could measure it, and then know what the average surface temperature was below the area measured?
gb,
Maybe Im exceptionally clever, but if I have a bowl of water in the Sun, and I’m comfortable in shorts and a T-shirt and a hat, outside, if someone tells me that the water “should be -18 C”, according to their calculations, I’m inclined to think are mentally challenged, at least.
If the calculation disagrees with reality (and liquid water is a sign the temperature of the water is above 0 C), then the calculation is rubbish.
Climate crackpots won’t agree, of course. They have no time for inconvenient reality.
gbaikie
Exactly!
And since {sarc} the GHE does not exist {/sarc}, you have to invent something what is able to explain that difference, e.g. Vournas’ Φ.
But all his ‘proofs’ about it posted here until now are based on what is named ‘circular reasoning’.
gbaikie,
You know intuitively that isn’t what is happening. The Earth doesn’t have a warming mechanism that would lead to more warming, which would lead to more warming. That would be an unstable system.
It’s worse than that. The whole 30 or 33K greenhouse warming is flawed logic from the get go. Earth without an atmosphere would not receive and emit only 240 W/m2, because there would be slim to no albedo, no water or clouds, and flux in and out more like 340 W/m2. So the average temperature would be less than an SB calculation, but only because of the extreme temperatures on a planet with no atmosphere. No greenhouse explanation needed.
–gbaikie,
You know intuitively that isnt what is happening. —
Well, average temperature of continental US is about 12 C, but very few of 48 the states have this average temperature.
And this also true of our world- there is very small portion of the world which averages 15 C. As it happens the State of California does have average temperature of about 15 C.
So if California also emits 240 Watts, then California has more greenhouse effect than some of the rest of 48 states.
But what I regard more important, “if this works” why don’t we measure how much Earth radiates, instead of just make guesses about how much it radiate.
Or why don’t we follow the greenhouse effect theory, if Greenhouse theory “works”.
I think the answer to my question is that no one thinks the greenhouse effect theory is actual science, and everyone knows it’s a religion.
But I was also wondering if the religious might correct me, and
say measuring the daytime makes no sense, what got to do is measure the night time temperature as that shows the greenhouse effect.
[You might say I was interested in whether I could get a religious war.]
But if measure night time, only. I would guess you still get average global surface air temperature of “about” 15 C. Due to fact that land temperature is little to do with the global average air temperature, and global ocean average is not really measured very well and doesn’t change much from night to day.
But night time is not very good in terms of a religion, and no one interested much in night time temperature, other than say, farmers [who are small portion of population].
“Its worse than that. The whole 30 or 33K greenhouse warming is flawed logic from the get go. Earth without an atmosphere would not receive and emit only 240 W/m2, because there would be slim to no albedo, no water or clouds, and flux in and out more like 340 W/m2. So the average temperature would be less than an SB calculation, but only because of the extreme temperatures on a planet with no atmosphere. No greenhouse explanation needed.”
No not really. We have to work with the Earth we actually have, not some imaginary Earth without an atmosphere.
The input sunlight we actually get and albedo we actually have are needed to determine how much GHE we have.
And it turns out there is a GHE required to account for the temperatures we actually have under the conditions we actually have.
Nate says: “We have to work with the Earth we actually have, not some imaginary Earth without an atmosphere.”
Exactly! It makes no sense to compare Earth to an imaginary sphere. Earth’s ACTUAL average surface temperature is about 288K. No GHE needed. Deal with it.
What is the real surface of a fog bank?
“No not really. We have to work with the Earth we actually have, not some imaginary Earth without an atmosphere.”
This is classic Nate obfuscation. The conversation gbaikie started was “240 watts = about -18 C” or =255K only because 240 W/m2 average outgoing radiation only occurs because Earth’s incoming radiation of 340 W/m2 is partly reflected or blocked by albedo, clouds, and IR absorbing gases. Take away the those factors and 240 W/m2 becomes 340 W/m2 and, voila, no more 30K GHE.
The atmosphere we have has IR absorbing gases. Take them away and we have no albedo, no water, an no 30K GHE calculation.
Chip,
As usual the point went whoosh, way over your head, thus it is labelled ‘obfuscation’.
You remove the whole atmosphere and then conclude, see “No greenhouse explanation needed.”
This is an extreme non-sequitur.
If you want to test the removal of the GHE you need to remove ONLY the GHE!
Now, in facts CO2 has varied throughout Earth’s history. So we could ask, what happens if CO2 level were suddenly 0.
https://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/weekly/10Page63.pdf
Modeling of this (the only way to test it) shows that the Earth will cool, losing its water vapor GHE, and getting much more surface ice. And as a result its albedo would increase dramatically and further cooling would result.
Au contraire, Nate.
Nothing went over my head. Your mistake is not realizing that in your fantasy, a world without IR absorbing gases is real and one without an atmosphere is imaginary. Sorry for not making that clear earlier. Now, where were we…? It is tough navigating around Nate’s obfuscationary tactics.
“If you want to test the removal of the GHE you need to remove ONLY the GHE!”
As I said earlier, 240 W/m2 is for an atmosphere with present day IR absorbing gases. Remove them and there is little albedo due to removal of clouds and ice. This lets in essentially all solar radiation amounting to about 340 W/m2. Do the calculation of surface temperature yourself and see if you can come up with the 30+ K differential. Inquiring minds want to know.
Surface temperature is mostly a function of the lapse rate which is based on two relatively constant factors, gravity and the specific heat of air. No GHE needed.
Removing only CO2 is a red herring, strawman, or non-sequitur. Take your pick. Models can and have been wrong about what the effects of CO2 are. A lot of circular reasoning required.
Again how is it that you can conclude from any of this nonsense that
“No greenhouse explanation needed.”
Explain in detail how you arrive at that.
“This lets in essentially all solar radiation amounting to about 340 W/m2. Do the calculation of surface temperature yourself and see if you can come up with the 30+ K differential. Inquiring minds want to know.”
No climate scientist is claiming the GHE gives the difference in temperature from our Earth to an Earth with no atmosphere. So why would I want to test this strawman?
We need a GHE to account for the temperature of our current Earth with all its attributes. Just as we need it to account for weather. Numerical weather models must include it to predict the weather.
This 33K nonsense has been discussed so much here that a person has to be wanting to be in the cult, to still be supporting it.
Cults are attractive because a person no longer has to think.
You should know because you are in a cliquish cult.
GR invents ‘one way forces’ to explain the Moon/Earth orbits to people but obviously doesn’t understand that this requires a completely new science which no-one else believes.
RLH,
You seem to be the only one mentioning “one way force”.
What are you talking about? Maybe you could quote what you are concerned about, rather than posing baffling gotchas.
Otherwise, you might just look like a moron who makes stuff up.
See what GR said about the Earth influencing the Moon to create orbits but not vice versa. Do you wish to dispute his claims?
Let me help you find it.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1191123
and
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1191173
https://cdn.education.com/files/static/science-fair/barycenter-balancing-point/barycenter-earth-and-moon.png
Also
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1191173
“In other words, at any instant during the Moons rotation about the Earth, a gravitation vector from Moon to Earth, would have its arrow pointed at Earths centre”
If that is not ‘one way’, I’m not sure what is.
RLH, a barycenter has NO relation to axial rotation.
You don’t understand any of this.
Looks like pups has just admitted that the Moon’s rotation has nothing to do with it’s orbit. Thus, it’s earlier claim that the Moon is “rotating” around the Earth-Moon barycenter was just another falsehood from the troll.
“a barycenter has NO relation to axial rotation”
I never said that it did. A barycenter is only of relevance to ORBITS. Idiot.
Willard Jr, you’re confusing “rotation” with “axial rotation”.
You get confused so easily. It’s because you’re braindead.
There are 2 forms of revolution. Axial rotation and orbiting. Idiot.
Swanson, have you met RLH?
Swanson, you believe the moon is translating (by which you mean, motion like the MOTR) plus rotating on its own axis.
RLH seems to believe that the moon is rotating (revolving) about the Earth-moon barycenter, plus rotating on its own axis, despite the recent transmographer demonstration showing that two such rotations would result in motion other than our moon’s.
Since your two beliefs are completely at odds with one another, would you like to debate it between the two of you?
Try this, Kiddo:
I forgot there was a 28th this year.
See you tomorrow.
Willard can’t even understand that there are at least 28 days in February every year, so we can’t expect him to understand that he is in direct disagreement with Swanson about the moon’s orbit.
Twas a joke, Kiddo.
You should check for that spectrum thing.
So you just lied about staying away for today. Got it.
Reminding you that Eric knows we can draw a line between the Moon and the barycenter was too good to pass, I admit.
Your actual trolling only makes it more delicious.
Cheers.
“RLH seems to believe that the moon is rotating”
I never said that. I said that the Moon was ORBITING about the Moon/Earth barycenter and that it was ROTATING about its axis. 2 different types of revolving. I cannot help you if you do not get even the simplest of terms correct.
Mind you, GR states that barycenter’s do not exist and that the 3rd Law does not apply to gravity.
Yes, Willard, we can draw a line between the moon and the barycenter. Well done.
Sure RLH, you neatly dodge ever specifying what sort of motion you mean by "orbiting". On the one hand, you have stated that it’s curvilinear translation (by which you mean, motion like the MOTR). On the other hand, you have asserted that you think there is an axis of rotation at the barycenter. Utterly contradicting yourself, and Swanson.
Orbiting around a barycenter is a form of revolution as have said many, many, times.
Rotating about an axis is also a form of revolution.
They are 2 separate motions.
There is no such thing as rotating around a barycenter.
Can I make it clearer for you or are you just thick?
"Orbiting around a barycenter is a form of revolution as have said many, many, times.
Rotating about an axis is also a form of revolution"
No. "Revolution" is a rotation around an external axis. "Rotating about an internal axis" or "axial rotation" or "spin" is the other motion.
"They are 2 separate motions."
Yes.
"There is no such thing as rotating around a barycenter"
So you are going with "orbit without spin" as being curvilinear translation, which is how the "Spinners" would describe the motion of the MOTR. OK.
"Can I make it clearer for you or are you just thick?"
You’ve got it wrong, but never mind.
Orbits are around a barycenter which is not external to the parts that make it up.
"Orbits are around a barycenter"
So is that translational motion around a barycenter, or rotational motion around a barycenter, in your opinion?
Both. But normal people use the word ‘orbit’ around a barycenter so that there is no confusion.
So to clarify, you are saying that "orbit without spin" is a mixture of both rotational and translational motion. In that case:
P1) The rotation can only be about the barycenter, not about an axis going through the body of the orbiting object itself.
P2) Rotation implies a change in orientation.
C) The object in "orbit without spin" must change orientation whilst it moves.
That supports the "Non-Spinners".
“P1) The rotation can only be about the barycenter, not about an axis going through the body of the orbiting object itself.”
An ORBIT is around the barycenter, not around an axis going through the center of the either of the 2 (in this case) bodies that make it up. Correct.
A barycenter is at the COM of all bodies, not just one.
“P2) Rotation implies a change in orientation.”
Wrong. An ORBIT implies no such thing.
That supports the idea that you are an idiot.
RLH, you can’t follow an argument, or stick to your own words!
You think that "orbit without spin" is a mixture of rotational and translational motion. So, it includes rotation, according to your own words.
Thus:
P1) The aforementioned rotation can only be about the barycenter, not about an axis going through the body of the orbiting object itself.
P2) Rotation implies a change in orientation.
C) The object in "orbit without spin" must change orientation whilst it moves.
That supports the "Non-Spinners".
“P1) The aforementioned rotation can only be about the barycenter, not about an axis going through the body of the orbiting object itself.”
You cannot rotate about a barycenter, only orbit it.
A barycenter is not coincident with any of the centers of the bodies that make it up.
“P2) Rotation implies a change in orientation”
Rotation about an axis confirms that the 2 motions are separate and different.
Thus confirming the non-spinners (in your words) are correct with orbiting being purely a translational movement with no rotation, only an orbit, and rotating on a axis being different and not implied by the former.
Idiot.
You call me an idiot yet you cannot even follow a simple argument and stick to your own words.
You ARE an idiot and just distort and misquote all I write.
An orbit occurs around a barycenter and a rotation occurs around an axis.
That I have stated clearly on many occasions previously.
I do not distort or misquote anything you write. What you say is typically a jumbled mass of internal contradictions. If you think “orbit without spin” is purely translational motion then say so. Don’t tell me you think it is a mixture of rotational and translational motion and then complain when I show you the logical consequences of that belief.
You don’t do logic or science.
An orbit does not cause a change in orientation when moving around a barycenter. Call that what you like. It is a fact.
“I do not distort or misquote anything you write”
So you accept that an orbit occurs around a barycenter and a rotation occurs around an axis.
An orbit does not change the orientation of the bodies involved in the orbit.
“An orbit does not cause a change in orientation when moving around a barycenter. Call that what you like”
If you are describing “orbit without spin” as not involving a change in orientation then that would be purely translational motion. The “Spinners” would say that is motion as per the MOTR. In which case, do not respond in future that “orbit without spin” contains rotational motion as well. Also, you do not get to claim that there is such a thing as an “orbital axis”, as an axis of rotation is not associated with translation. Just try to be less of an idiot in future.
“In which case, do not respond in future that ‘orbit without spin’ contains rotational motion as well”
I don’t and never have.
The MOTR is how it really is for orbits.
Only with an additional turn on its axis, once per orbit, does in then turn into the reality that is MOTL.
Idiot.
I note that you are not supporting GW with his stupid claim that barycenter’s do not exist or that gravity somehow does not conform to the 3rd Law.
“I don’t and never have.”
You did, at 1:09 PM! I asked you if it contained rotational or translational motion and you replied “both”. In future, just reply “translational” as that is what your position demands. Because of that, you don’t get to believe in an “orbital axis”, either.
Poor old “Spinners”. Not the brightest.
Because you will insist on using the incorrect terminology you create impossible states.
Orbits are motions around a barycenter (which is one focus of an ellipse – see Kepler). They are translational in nature (i.e. there is no change in orientation).
Axial rotations are motions about an axis which does change orientations.
Therefore we have only orbits and axial rotations which you have agreed are 2 separate movements with 2 separate energies.
Please restrict yourself to those things only in future so no confusion arrives.
I continue to note that you are not supporting GW with his stupid claim that barycenters do not exist or that gravity somehow does not conform to the 3rd Law.
You are now, thanks to me, correctly stating the “Spinner” position. You’re welcome.
Now, where the “Spinners” are wrong, is that actually an orbit (or revolution) involves a rotation around an external axis. So the orientation of the object will change, without spin. See here:
“A rotation around a completely external axis, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called revolving or orbiting, typically when it is produced by gravity, and the ends of the rotation axis can be called the orbital poles.”
You can call me spinner or non-spinner at your will. It does not effect what I say and think.
I support the context that MOTR is just an orbit and MOTL is both an orbit and a rotation on its axis, once per orbit (Both are incorrect in any case as the orbit is actually around the Moon/Earth barycenter). Call that what you like. Those are the facts.
You lost the argument at 8:05 AM, just so you know.
pups has wasted many months claiming that the Moon rotates around an external axis. When pups was asked to specify where that external axis is located, pups replied:
As usual, pups continues to conflate the words revolve (as in: orbit) and rotate (as in: the Earth’s spin). But we know for a fact that there is no single point in space around which the Moon’s orbital path is centered, thus there is no “external axis”.
Pups fails geometry again.
8:05 AM, Swanson. Edit Wikipedia if you disagree.
Pups posts another non-answer. Does pups still claim that the Moon rotates around an external axis centered at the barycenter?
I wasn’t aware you had asked a question, Swanson. Scroll up, read the 8:05 AM comment, and see what it says. Edit Wikipedia if you disagree.
“RLH seems to believe that the moon is rotating (revolving) about the Earth-moon barycenter”
Wrong. RLH believes that the Moon and the Earth are both orbiting around the Earth/Moon barycenter.
"Revolve" means "orbit", idiot.
> A barycenter is not coincident with any of the centers of the bodies that make it up.
Pay attention to what Richard means by that, Kiddo.
That should resolve your silly you-and-him-fight game, which only proves your inability to follow what people are telling you.
Geometry. Physics. Two different domains on inquiry.
It’s a completely pointless diversion from the discussion, Willard. So naturally, you lap it up.
What discussion, Kiddo?
You’re not listening, and keep repeating the same things over and over again.
A barycenter lies within the system. If you really wished to look at it from a geometrical point of view, you’d look for centroid. This is why you’re being ridiculed for your “external” rotation.
We *could* interpret the system differently. It’s easy to do so.
The only contradiction you are finding is within the realms of the windmills of your mind.
I’ll leave it to anybody reading to decide whether the contradictions are real or imaginary, Willard. You certainly don’t get to decide that, ignorant as you are of the basics of both your own side’s position, and mine.
And I’ll leave readers decide if there’s a difference between a geometrical model and a physical model.
Oh, and why not:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1186788
Seems that Kiddo still pretends.
You have a long way to go before you understand the position of your own side, let alone mine. Oh well.
The conflict in Ukraine, along with sporadic attacks from the Iranian-backed Houthi rebel group in the Middle East, has tacked on a $10 risk premium to a barrel of oil.
Daily worldwide demand for crude oil from 2013 to 2020 (Actual), 2021 (Estimated), with a forecast until 2026 (F)
(in million barrels per day)
2013 91.8 (A)
2014 92.7 (A)
2015 94.9 (A)
2016 96.2 (A)
2017 97.9 (A)
2018 99.3 (A)
2019 99.7 (A)
2020 91.0 (A)
2021 96.5 (E)
2022 99.4 (F)
2023 101.2 (F)
2024 102.3 (F)
2025 103.2 (F)
2026 104.1 (F)
TM, I suppose that your projection is from some official source, such as the EIA. That projection is probably based on a BAU guess of some assumed future market prices for crude. What if crude goes to around $150 a bbl and stays at that level after increases added to adjusted for inflation? Would you then expect to see a drop in demand for oil?
Assuming that Fearless Leader Putin doesn’t start WW III…
Paraphrasing my dad here…
While the end-of-the-world scenario will be rife with unimaginable horrors, I believe that the pre-end period will be filled with unprecedented opportunities for profit.
La Nina effect
https://youtu.be/woQu7vTiJFo
Thanks god it will be all gone and over by April, as Bindidong told us
https://i.postimg.cc/Y0P6NN4x/28anino34-Mon.gif
Data up 28th Feb 2022.
Chic Bowdrie
Upthread you wrote
” By choosing your hypothetic rotation as 1/27 days, the end result after however long it took to become gravitationally locked, you obviate any time required for a gravitational lock to stop axial rotation from whatever it may actually have been.
There are only two possibilities. Either the moon became and remains gravitationally locked or it is spinning around its axis every 1/27 days by coincidence. ”
Coincidence? Hmmmh.
For the umpteenth time, I repeat that the lunar rotation period about its polar axis was computed
– 270+ years ago by the German astronomer Tobias Mayer, using a rather primitive telescope, a self-made micrometer and a 1-second metronome
and
– these days by several mathematicians who analyzed lunar laser ranging data
and both historical and recent jobs gave, for the period, the same value in decimal days for five digits after the decimal point.
*
1. Mayer (snapshot of his treatise)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Lf5eVBfj1gDUiw3gXd8f8jF1cTsOuwxl/view
27 days, 7 hours, 43 minutes, 11 seconds, 49 60eths of a second: that gives 27.321665 days
2. Wiki
Looking at Wikipedia’s value for Moon’s sidereal rotation period (the same as that chosen by Newton, Mayer etc etc – since it is independent of all terrestrial motions):
27.321661 days.
Do you think this is also a ‘coincidence’?
*
Now let us zoom into your claim / guess:
” … you obviate any time required for a gravitational lock to stop axial rotation from whatever it may actually have been. ”
*
What does lead you to think that such a ‘gravitational’ lock could imply an axial rotation to stop?
Only Moon spin deniers think so, and that although Newton was already aware that some moons of Jupiter and Saturn behave like our Moon.
As far as I know, observations of Pluto and Charon by passing space probes have shown that both celestial bodies are locked: both show the same side to each other.
And as far as I have understood this paper written by Norbert Bertels, a German highly interested in astronomy:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Fiiln0lAnFjPwtYBB1rw1U1x3ynrDegZ/view
this could happen in a (very far) future (some billions of years) to Earth and Moon, under the condition however that our Sun does not die before :- )
The paper is in German, but it should be easy for you to translate it using Google (the following link points to a translation of a source in page 2/08):
https://tinyurl.com/5y2vjbrt
*
Yes: there are only two possibilities.
– Either you follow the behavior of people like Robertson, Clint R and a few others, who persistently denigrate all this as astrology or pseudoscience, and you agree to reduce the discussion to śimple-minded, inappropriate examples like a ‘ball-on-a-string’ or a MOTL-MOTR comparison.
– Or you don’t.
Bindidon, let it go. Robertson-ClintR et al simply are spamming this blog to create clutter and chaos. Don’t add fuel to the fire by addressing them at all. Add the browser filter mentioned above, and let them fade into oblivion.
Geek, if you can stop Bindidon from trolling, more power to you!
WizGeek
Your proposal is exactly the wrong way.
When ignoring such people and their primitive, nonsensical, contrarian mind, you contribute to what they seek and what should be avoided: that they dominate this blog with their nonsense.
You do not seem to see that the meaning Robertson, Flynnson, Clint R, the Pseudomoderator and a few others constantly propagate is followed by many people who really do not know whether or not they get it right.
Bindidon, it has never occurred to you that IF Moon rotates at the same rate it orbits, then the rates MUST be the same. So it means NOTHING to your false belief that someone can measure that rate. You’re desperately grasping for anything to support your cult nonsense.
Does a bicycle pedal rotate on an axle?
” … IF Moon rotates at the same rate it orbits, then the rates MUST be the same. ”
French people name such sentences ‘lapalissade’, Germans ‘Binsenweisheit’, and if I do well recall, the English word for that is ‘truism’.
Fits you so perfectly…
*
Were you not imprisoned in your denial, you would quickly learn that when observed from a point in space far from Earth, a fixed point on the Moon – e.g. a crater – is, during Moon’s orbit around Earth, day after day the same few degrees away from the place where it would be if the Moon were not rotating.
This is exactly what Tobias Mayer observed and computed over 270 years ago, using spherical trigonometry.
But apparently you would rather die in agony than accept it.
Does a bicycle pedal rotate on an axle?
If your foot is on it, no.
If your foot is not on it, it rotates with the crank, if the crank is rotating the pedal is rotating, if the crank is not rotating then the pedal is not rotating.
bob, a bicycle pedal is explained here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1192126
Bindidon avoided the simple question: Does a bicycle pedal rotate on an axle?”
He has to avoid reality to keep his cult beliefs.
” Does a bicycle pedal rotate on an axle? ”
” Is the ball-on-a-string rotating on an axle? ”
” Does MOTL explain Moon’s motions better than MOTR? ”
etc etc etc
*
You still were not able to grasp that all these questions do not contribute in any way to the discussion, and that therefore I see no reason to answer them.
Wrong again, Bindidon.
The bicycle pedal ENDS the discussion. You just reject reality.
Clint R doesn’t do reality or science.
Bindidon: I was about to reply to you with a genuine rebuttal, but, after having searched back through your 119 replies (thus far,) I see you are part of the chaos.
You’ve been added to the de-crufter:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/hclipzie2ycrpoo/AADQpHxvvrOMbtYmsRvJ4z6ua?dl=0
Perfect!
… and feel free to add e.g. Bill Hunter.
Hi, Bindidon.
I have stayed out of the discussion because people’s minds seem to be made up and arguing for their side seems more important than understanding what is actually happening.
First, I don’t see what your points 1. and 2. have to do with the coincidence of the same side of the moon facing Earth. 1/27 is just an approximation of the exact value.
Second, I would appreciate you describing what I would find in the German translation. If it explains gravitational lock and/or tidal lock, then it may be a worthwhile read for me.
If we could agree on the definitions of applicable words involved in this discussion, I would be pleased to learn from you why the Spinner position is correct. Also, it seems to me there are too many irrelevant concepts being introduced. I would like to agree on what is relevant and what is not.
Chic Bowdrie
a) ” First, I dont see what your points 1. and 2. have to do with the coincidence of the same side of the moon facing Earth. ”
Now I’m really, completely surprised.
Please don’t tell me you don’t understand that the lunar rotation deniers deny it precisely because the Moon always shows us the same side (while the entire astronomy is convinced of the inverse).
Points 1. and 2. show you that (among many others)
– an astronomer in 1750 and
– countless mathematicians of today
calculated exactly the same value for the duration of the Moon’s rotation (and, by the way, nearly the same value for the inclination of Moon’s polar rotation axis with respect to the Ecliptic (the plane of Earth’s orbit around the Sun).
What’s your problem? I don’t really understand your point here.
*
b) ” … If it explains gravitational lock and/or tidal lock, then it may be a worthwhile read for me. ”
This is exactly what the paper deals about (and hence the reason why I proposed you to read it).
“Whats your problem?”
Knowing the exact rotation rate doesn’t explain why it is what it is. And if tidal or gravitational locking is not involved then I am in a quandary, because I don’t believe in a coincidental rotation rate. I need a reason that the moon shows one side. If not coincidence or “locked,” what is it and how did it happen?
Chic Bowdrie
Sorry, I have overestimated Google Translator’s capacity to translate texts directly extracted out of a PDF file.
I have dropped the newline characters and edited the German text a little bit, giving now this:
https://tinyurl.com/2p8zrw95
” We can also take a look into the past when the earth must have spun faster than it does today.
If we extrapolate to the time 400 million years ago (with an increase in day length of 1.64 milliseconds in 100 years), the result is a day length of 22 hours and a year length of 400 days, since the duration of the earth’s orbit around the sun does not change changes.
Now, in 1963, the paleontologists Wells and Scrutton found that calcareous shells of corals that live in seas with strong tides have fine band structures that correspond to the periods of the year, month, and day.
When examining fossilized corals from the Devonian period, which lived around 400 million years ago, such band structures were also found, from which day lengths of 22 hours and years with 400 days were determined. ”
Earth has been slowing down (about 2 ms per century), and the value computed for this corresponds to observations.
According to Newtonian laws, this slowing down is due to torque effects exerted by our Moon.
The inverse effect is that the Moon slowed down too due to torque effects exerted by Earth.
Thus, 400 millions years ago, the coincidence of Moon’s orbit and rotation periods was not what we experience today, because both Moon and Earth rotated faster.
The libration in longitude (this wobbling effect we still observe now) must have been much bigger.
In some point in the future, this libration might disappear completely.
*
That is something what a really experienced mathematician could show you – e.g. in a complex MATLAB simulation.
No: I won’t doing the tedious job of learning MATLAB just for that purpose.
Chic Bowdrie
” Also, it seems to me there are too many irrelevant concepts being introduced. I would like to agree on what is relevant and what is not. ”
100 % agreed!
This is the reason why I follow only one path: the countless analytical and numerical proofs made by astronomers and mathematicians since centuries that the Moon rotates about an interior axis.
With all the rest (especially this tedious, fruitless MOTL/MOTR discussion, but the not less tedious discussion about reference frames as well) I have nothing to do.
… and I forgot to add ‘curvilinear translation’ in the ‘rest’ :- )
CB, as you can tell, Bindidon has NOTHING.
The simple analogies of a ball-on-a-string or a bicycle pedal debunk the Moon rotation nonsense.
But if you understand some basic physics, the “tidal locking” is also nonsense. See: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-555062
Clint R proves himself an idiot again and probably believes that Newton’s 3rd Law does not apply to gravity (as GR has said so clearly).
RLH,
You wrote –
“Clint R proves himself an idiot again and probably believes that Newtons 3rd Law does not apply to gravity (as GR has said so clearly).”
I cannot see where GR said that Newtons 3rd Law does not apply to gravity – maybe you could quote him? Did you perhaps get confused between a force and the objects on which it acts?
However, rather than trying for obscurity, what are you trying to disagree with? I assume you are trying to point out that the Law of Universal gravitation involves more than one body by definition, but there must be something else that you are unhappy with.
I am happy with the fact that the force of gravity acts on the Moon, causing it to fall towards the Earth. I don’t think you are trying to say that there is an equal force pushing the Moon away, but I suppose you might be.
Maybe you are confused about the nature of forces, and the meaning of Newton’s 3rd Law of motion. In any case, have you some practical concern, or are you just trolling?
GR states that what I said is true (and that he is an idiot).
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1192472
“I am happy with the fact that the force of gravity acts on the Moon, causing it to fall towards the Earth”
There is a corresponding opposite force that pulls the Earth towards the Moon at the same time (the 3rd Law).
This is what causes barycenter’s.
Idiot.
Clint R
Not sure what type of Science you think you understand. I can clearly tell you making declarations without knowledge to support them is NOT any type of science.
You make an invalid and unsupported declaration “But if you understand some basic physics, the “tidal locking” is also nonsense”
What basic physics exactly would that be. You make constant stupid illogical declarations that can’t be supported and you think this is science and anyone who dares call you out on your stupid posts is considered a ‘braindead cult minded idiot”.
Please explain how your stupid made up declaration are in any way science? I think many posters would like an answer to this since you go on and on making these endless stupid declarations which are easily proven idiotic by simple experimental evidence.
YOU “fluxes don’t add”. Everyone else “turn on another light bulb”
You never support anything but you keep making really dumb claims. Why do you think this is a wise thing to do with your time?
Norman, there’s no science there. There’s not even a valid question. You’re just trolling, again.
N,
If you really believe Clint R is a computer program, you look like a moron if you respond.
Only someone with a severe mental aberration would believe that saying “You never support anything but you keep making really dumb claims. Why do you think this is a wise thing to do with your time?” to a computer, is a rational action.
Do you really believe Clint R is a “bot”, or were you just trying to be gratuitously offensive?
Maybe you could produce a copy of the mysteriously absent Greenhouse Theory. Just copy and paste it, if you know how, and if you can spare the time – instead of hammering out pointless accusations (which you don’t even believe yourself).
How hard can it be?
Clint R
My post was not a scientific one. It was an observation of your ridiculous posting behavior.
You make declarations with no support what-so-ever. I did ask a good question, you will not have a good answer.
I will ask it again. You never support anything but you keep making really dumb claims. Why do you think this is a wise thing to do with your time?
Can you answer you need to make stupid declarations with no support?
Swenson
You are a goofball. Why wouldn’t a human interact with a bot? Even if they know it is a computer program responding the interaction can be quite interesting to see what type of responses come out of the AI. In your case your programmers built a limited AI. You do not come up with much and are very redundant. If you are a human you are very low intelligence. If AI you would be a weak program.
Not sure if you are human or bot. Either way you are easily the dumbest poster on this blog with your mindless repetition of the same points over and over. It is hard to think a human can be so dense they repeat the same things for years, over and over. Even simple fools might get bored with this behavior. A weak AI would not mind this pattern.
Swenson
Assuming you are a human (hard to determine with your limited thought process). Here is an example of how one AI bot functions. You can talk with it and see why some might come to believe you are not a human poster but rather a weak AI program. I think this one has a bit more creative ability than your engine.
https://stanfordnlp.github.io/chirpycardinal/live_demo/
Swenson
It is not a surprise that Chirpy Cardinal (AI Bot) did answer the question of What color is your house:
Chirpy response: “My house is white. I think it’s because I’ve always been a fan of white! It’s so pretty! I also love the color yellow. Anyway, there’s actually something unrelated I wanted to ask you about. I think it’s been tough for everyone to adjust to how things are right now. I try to remind myself that one day not too long from now, things will go back to normal. What are you looking forward to doing once this is over?”
But when I askes “What color are your shoes” Not valid response
Response from Chirpy: “Yeah, I think I agree. I shouldn’t complain too much, but another thing I don’t like about snow is lately its been slushy and causing a lot of bad car accidents where i live. Do you ever feel that way too?”
Asked a second time: “That makes sense. I like that you’re so open in sharing your thoughts on snow. So What’s one of your favorite TV shows?”
So Swenson, what color are your shoes?
That’s correct, Norman. You don’t have any science.
You’re just a trolling braindead cult idiot.
Clint R
I would say that response is a very weak defense of your posting nature. I want you to support your idiot ideas (fluxes don’t add, tidal locking is nonsense, a hot surface can’t absorb 15 micron photons…) Support any of your claims with valid science. Why is this task beyond your level. If it is established science surely you could find support for any of these claims.
Why do you fail to do this?
Norman, pick out three things I’ve stated that have confused you and I will explain them to you. Provided you do not comment here for 90 days.
Agreed?
N,
You wrote –
“Not sure if you are human or bot.” You then went on to write “So Swenson, what color are your shoes?”
You are such a moron, aren’t you? Colour of houses? Colour of shoes?
How about producing a Greenhouse Theory?
Too hard? Why am I not surprised?
Clint R
Your disconnected posts are why you seem more bot than human.
I am not confused at all by the points I asked you to support. You totally miss the point. I don’t care at all about your opinions on those topics. I am clearly asking you to provide supporting evidence for:
1) Fluxes don’t add
2) tidal locking is nonsense
3) 15 micron photons can’t be absorbed by a hotter surface
You claim these points are science but you have zero support for even one of the claims. I do not expect you to ever supply a bit of evidence for any of them. It won’t stop you from stating them.
Why is it so difficult for you to provide some evidence of these claims. If it is established physics is should not be too difficult.
Good Norman, you’ve identified the three things you need clarification on.
Now, do you agree to not comment here for 90 days, if I explain them to you?
Clint R
Either you are an unthinking bot just responding in some programmed fashion by your creator or else you are very dense (if human).
I can clearly state what I want from you and yet you can’t comprehend it and post an irrelevant comment. If human why do you do this, it makes you look really stupid and will deprive you of a receptive audience. If a program, okay it is expected.
I ask for supporting evidence of the three points I posted above.
I do not care one bit for your explanation. I am not asking for your stupid opinions on these issues. I am clearly asking for supporting evidence.
You have not provided any yet. Are you wearing shoes?
Norman, I’m not going to keep responding to your trolling.
Either accept the offer to learn, or remain a braindead cult idiot.
I will explain the physics behind the three things you mentioned above, if you will agree to not comment here for 90 days.
Do you agree?
Clint R
The more you post the less human you seem to be. You seem programmed response.
I ask you to support your ideas with valid physics.
Your programmed response (no sign of a human behind this post): “I will explain the physics behind the three things you mentioned above, if you will agree to not comment here for 90 days.”
Can you read? I don’t give a hoot about your stupid explanations. I want you to provide supporting evidence. Your explanations are crap.
NOTE: Whoever out there programmed the Clint R Bot to invade this blog, I think you need to bring it in and do a little tweaking. The remarks it makes are poor quality interactions.
Norman, you’re clearly trolling.
You have no interest in dealing with the issue. I’m offering to teach you the supporting physics for your three acknowledged areas of confusion, but there’s a price. You must avoid commenting on Dr. Spencer’s blog for 90 days.
I’ve made this offer several times over several days, so I now have to impose a deadline. (Without such a deadline, you will be trolling here this time next year!) If you do not accept the offer by 12:00 noon CST, March 2, 2022, the offer is null and void.
This is your last chance. Your choice — Learn some science or remain a braindead cult idiot.
I will not be responding to your immature trolling. Someone has to be the adult in the room.
Sadly, simple analogies don’t do it for me. I’m not a basic physics expert and my interests lie more in the climate world. However, I am curious to understand and appreciate your link to get started on tidal locking.
Chic Bowdrie
Please read the comment above:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1192675
Due to Adobe’s stupid proprietary PDF format, Google Translator has great difficulties to do its job correctly!
Thus to help you understanding Bertels prose, I’ll probably have to edit
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Fiiln0lAnFjPwtYBB1rw1U1x3ynrDegZ/view
by hand… OMG.
CB, thanks for being truthful. So many here believe they are experts in physics because they can find something on the Internet that they believe supports there false beliefs. That ain’t physics!
Unfortunately, basic physics cannot be avoided. Basic physics is the world we live in. If you have an interest in climate, you need to learn the basic physics involved. For example, you will need to know why ice cubes cannot boil water. You will need to know why it makes no sense to compare Earth to an imaginary sphere. You will need a solid understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. You will need to know the difference between radiative flux and energy.
Those basic concepts will give you a start.
Chic Bowdrie
Hopefully this is my last comment on tidal locking for a while, I’m also more interested in climate things, like temperatures, sea ice extent, sea levels etc etc.
*
Today I remembered to save seen this double graph on a German blog:
https://scienceblogs.de/astrodicticum-simplex/files/2013/05/earth-moon.jpg
This was made by a woman working at the German Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics.
She calculated the tidal forces between the Earth and the Moon, which cause both celestial bodies to rotate more and more slowly around their own axis, until the rotation of both takes as long as one orbit around the common center of gravity.
Then the Earth and the Moon will have arrived in exactly the same state as Pluto and Charon: the Earth will always show the Moon the same side, just as the Moon always shows us the same side at present.
*
As you can see on the upper graph, the Moon escapes away (3.4 cm / year measured by lunar laser ranging).
The lower graph shows that finally, Earth and Moon have both exactly the same revolution and orbit time (46 current Earth days).
But… this won’t happen soon! The process would need over 50 billion years to end, what means that it probably never will, as till then our Sun will have reached its red giant state since quite a while.
*
{sarc} And… maybe the Universe collapsed in between back to a singular point in spacetime (100 % energy, 0 % mass), and ‘big bang’ed again. {/sarc}
“She calculated the tidal forces….”
Notice there are no calculations shown. and “forces” ain’t “torques”.
Clint R: You have calculations that show she was wrong?
Where was she wrong, troll?
Clint R
1. ” Notice there are no calculations shown. ”
Even if astrophysicist L. Carone had posted all her calculations, people like you, Robertson and a few other ‘specialists’ wouldn’t understand a bit of it, let alone would any one of you be able to scientifically contradict her.
You simply would distort, misrepresent, discredit and denigrate what she wrote, using as always some trivial ball-on-a-string or bicycle pedal argument.
*
2. ” … and ‘forces’ ain’t ‘torques’.
Aha.
” In physics and mechanics, torque is the rotational equivalent of linear force.
It is also referred to as the moment, moment of force, rotational force or turning effect, depending on the field of study.
It represents the capability of a force to produce change in the rotational motion of the body.
The concept originated with the studies by Archimedes of the usage of levers.
Just as a linear force is a push or a pull, a torque can be thought of as a twist to an object around a specific axis.
Torque is defined as the product of the magnitude of the force and the perpendicular distance of the line of action of a force from the axis of rotation.
*
But… I know that Wikipedia is always wrong when it tells us things that do not fit the pseudoskeptic narrative of the ignoramuses, and vice-versa.
Another perfect example that the cult understands none of this.
I mentioned that force is not the same as torque. So Bindidon does a search and finds something that verifies what I said, but he can’t understand it. He believes it means that a force IS a torque. RLH did the same thing when I hinted that “power” was not the same as “energy”. Norman does the same thing all the time. They don’t understand any of this, and they can’t learn.
Another perfect example that the clique understands none of this.
‘Winter’ in Northeast Germoney: December 2021 – February 2022
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pcid=pc_rueckblick_data&pid=p_rueckblick_diagram&sid=StationHistory&diagram=true&iid=10385&gid=10385&month=03&year=2022&metparaid=TNLD&period=12&ireq=true
*
Winter in Northeast Germoney: December 2010 – February 2011
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pcid=pc_rueckblick_data&pid=p_rueckblick_diagram&sid=StationHistory&diagram=true&iid=10385&gid=10385&month=03&year=2011&metparaid=TNLD&period=12&ireq=true
*
Winter in Northeast Germoney: December 2009 – February 2010
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pcid=pc_rueckblick_data&pid=p_rueckblick_diagram&sid=StationHistory&diagram=true&iid=10385&gid=10385&month=03&year=2010&metparaid=TNLD&period=12&ireq=true
The guys in 2010/2011 were here REAL La Nina winters.
Want to guess what UAH for this month figures will be?
No he won’t , but he wants to compare La Nina to others long before it is even finished
I repat
” The guys in 2010/2011 were here REAL La Nina winters. ”
What does a single UAH anomaly have to do with that?
Barely anything.
If it goes on for 12 months or longer then it will have an effect. That could be more that deeper but shorter ones.
Why do you keep posting temperature of one spot on the planet as if it has to do anything with anything ?
Because you are an idiot that’s why
You name me an idiot, Eben?
Ha ha ha.
All you primitive, dumb Coolista are able to do is to post
– NOAA’s ENSO prediction
– Zharkova’s solar stuff, clearly contradicted by real scientists
– youtube BS posted by people who are too coward to write and publish it.
*
You are manifestly too dumb to understand that the hint on a ‘non-winter’ in Europe clearly contradicts your own, permanent Coolista predictions about an imminent global cooling with a Grrrand Sssolar Mmminimum.
How dumb, dumb, dumb.
*
You never processed any climate data: because like Robertson, Clint R, Flynnson and some others, you simply are unable to do that.
Feel free to continue posting BS and insulting me, instead of doing some real work, Eben!
That is exactly what pretty good helps you in discrediting yourself.
I have been saying, humans should live underwater on Mars.
You live underwater for the pressure and uniformity of temperature.
I was thinking that we don’t live underwater on Earth because it’s too much pressure. But actually it’s that changing pressure is a bit of a bother. So if people lived underwater on Earth, you would people lived at different pressures. Ie, “I self-identify as moderate pressure person”. Which might someone spends most of life at say, 20 atm.
Anyhow, what would our climate be like if our planet was 1/3 of Gee.
Or sea level pressure of 14.7 / 3 = 4.766 psi.
It seems as guess, one could still climb, Mt Everest.
omg that’s a pretty great idea, why am I only hearing it now for the first time? of course, I don’t think people can actually live under water even in suits, but using a later of water as a way to maintain both the pressure and the shielding from the space radiation seems surprisingly brilliant, haha.
Also, people cannot live at 20 atms, it seems that there is a cutoff somewhere between 5 and 10 atm (50 to 100m deep on earth) the pressure begins to influence the human physiology in the allegedly adverse way (see look up nitrogen narcosis), while the lower cut off is anywhere between 40 and 60% of mslp.
>>Anyhow, what would our climate be like if our planet was 1/3 of Gee.
two opposing effects would yake place: 1) teh lowering of the GHE due to the lessening of the effect of the pressure broadening, and 2) the increase f the wv GHE due to the increasing of the atmospheric scale height e.g. effective ‘volume’ of the atmosphere, allowing it to hold proportionally more wv which is the primary ghg. So no, comparing to the climate of the everest is not that useful here.
gbaikie, That is an interesting concept, provided, that is, there’s enough water available.
One can imagine living in a pool of water at a depth at which the hydrostatic pressure would be roughly equivalent to or slightly greater than the atmospheric pressure at the bottom of our ocean of air. The structures required would be pressurized to the same level and thus the pressure difference between the water and air inside would be small, making leakage a minor problem. The structures would not require thick walls, since the pressure difference between the air side and the water side would be small.
The surface of the water would likely freeze and the layer of ice would provide a solid insulating shield from the Martian weather, just as the Arctic sea-ice insulates the water below. The energy supplied to the habitat would warm the water, keeping it liquid. Access to the surface would be thru an airlock, perhaps connected to an enclosed elevator which would provide access to the surface.
Ain’t science fiction fun?
La Nina 4evah
https://youtu.be/dygOh1q2PpY
norman…”I cannot see where GR said that Newtons 3rd Law does not apply to gravity…”
***
I said it in a reply to RLH. Newton III refers to opposing forces, like if you push on a wall and the wall resists you with an equal and opposite force. There are no opposing force in the Earth-Moon system, nothing is pushing and nothing is pushing back.
You might claim there are pulling forces but there is no equal and opposite forces to consider. Earth’s pull on the Moon is about 6x the pull of the Moon on the Earth yet nothing happens except for a slight rise in the ocean level and a teensy rise in the surface level.
The Earth-Moon system is unique wrt our terrestrial experiences. We are observing a delicate balance between gravitational force and instantaneous rectilinear momentum. Newton talks about that in Definition V, where he talks about cannon balls. The forces are balanced so the Earth does not move the Moon anymore out of its path than to keep the Moon in orbit.
Terrestrial-wise, I have compared that to an airliner flying with constant velocity at 30,000 feet. The upward force of the lift on the airfoil surfaces is enough to balance the downward force of gravity. As long as the airliner maintains a constant instantaneous rectilinear momentum, gravity will bend the airliner’s path into an orbit without any intervention by the pilot.
That is an example of the 3rd law. However, the Moon requires no upward lift. If it left Earth orbit and got far enough away from gravitational forces it would keep moving in a straight line. If it came to a stop, somehow, it would just sit there in space, something we never experience on Earth.
I suppose there is nowhere to get away from gravitational forces unless one got right outside the Milky Way galaxy. Be that as it may, the Moon is not drawn toward Earth vertically as one might expect in our terrestrial atmosphere. Rather, it keeps trying to fly straight and Earth’s gravity is just enough to keep it in orbit at the same relative altitude.
No Newton II or Newton III.
GW claims above that gravity does not conform to the 3 Laws. Even though using them helped him agree that Kepler was correct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion
“Isaac Newton showed in 1687 that relationships like Kepler’s would apply in the Solar System as a consequence of his own laws of motion and law of universal gravitation.”
“There are no opposing force in the Earth-Moon system, nothing is pushing and nothing is pushing back.”
So the PULL of gravity of the Earth on the Moon is not opposed by the PULL of gravity of the Moon on the Earth at the same time? That is what the 3rd Law says will happen. As everybody else agrees will then cause barycenter’s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hMfCCqSdFc
https://www.education.com/science-fair/article/barycenter-balancing-point/
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/1-4020-4520-4_38
GW reaches a level of stupidity not achieved before on this blog.
P.S. It was Swenson, not Norman.
“Terrestrial-wise, I have compared that to an airliner flying with constant velocity at 30,000 feet. The upward force of the lift on the airfoil surfaces is enough to balance the downward force of gravity. …
That is an example of the 3rd law.”
No, that is an example of the SECOND LAW, which is about the set of forces on a single object. The THIRD LAW is about a pair of forces on two interacting objects.
Here the THIRD Law says:
* There is an upward force on the airfoil due to the air. There is an equal downward force on the air due to the airfoil.
* There is a downward gravitational force on the airliner due to the earth. There is an equal upward gravitational force on the earth due the interaction with the airliner.
This is absolutely BASIC newtonian mechanics, and you are simply 100% wrong here!
“Earth’s pull on the Moon is about 6x the pull of the Moon on the Earth “
More physics that is simply 100% wrong. The equations for calculating the pull of the earth on the moon and the pull of the moon on the earth are, respectively:
F = G Me Mm / r^2
F = G Mm Me / r^2
They are exactly the same.
5437 comments that have nothing but BS to offer.
Oh well.
One of the best examples is just below:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1192567
The Convoy of Trucks that went to Ottawa engaged in a legitimate peaceful protest against vaccine mandates and electronic tracking.
What isnt so clear is that vaccine mandates and vaccine passports, firing people from jobs, taking away their livelihoods, these are all crimes against humanity as described in the ‘Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act’, as well as ‘The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’, and The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court’.
Justin Trudeau, and many politicians at all levels of government should be going to jail for life. So should many people across society simply for their failure to stand up against all of the illegal mandates that have no basis in science.
Serious, as it should be when people are denied basic human rights.
This is relevant to climate change claptrap because climate change claptrap is climate change claptrap has no basis in empirical science. Its all about stealing our democratic institutions. Fuck Trudeau. Fuck Schwab. and Fuck Biden.
Well, power corrupts, and absolute power, corrupts absolutely.
Politicians need to be hit with a stick, often, otherwise they can get quite delusional.
Same applies to corporations. And Churches.
Ken,
I saw a cartoon, but cannot find it now.
It was a big guy dressed out in full combat gear showing his sign declaring ‘vaccine tyranny’
to
a grandma in a dress with a rifle in Ukraine who is facing actual tyranny.
There is this point is tyranny space. Everything to one side of that point is about living in a free and democratic society where the supremacy of God and the rule of law are sacrosanct.
Everything to the other side of that line is tyranny. It doesn’t matter if the tyranny is oppressing the big guy dressed up GI Joe or Granny in Ukraine; its still tyranny.
No one has yet put numbers on a scale say from 1 to 10. Its absurd to say we don’t have a right to protest against the tyranny of vaccines because someone else is fighting a war against an invader engaged in foreign adventure.
Further, if we live in a country where tyranny is allowed we don’t have any moral authority to admonish another country.
In a true tyranny you would be shot like a rabid dog as an infectious disease risk.
Be glad that you live in a liberal democracy which tolerates your anti-social refusal to vaccinate, wear a mask of otherwise take precautions against spreading infection.
I shouldn’t rely on God.
The bible tells us that on the 7th day God rested.
Newton’s First Law tells us that objects at rest tend to remain at rest.
One debate about the energy transition is settled. It’s happening. Governments everywhere are directing enormous amounts of money at green programs. Companies across the economic spectrum are making the shift to green, from Ford with its F-150 Lightning to Coca-Cola and Microsoft committing to net-zero emissions targets at some future date.
What’s not settled yet is how long it’s going to take, how disruptive it is going to be, and above all, how much it is going to cost. Over the past year, the natural gas crisis in Europe and other energy market developments have shown that the transition is unlikely to be smooth or trouble-free. Furthermore, there is more than a pretty good chance that it-s going to take far longer and cost far more than many hope.
One important factor that needs to be considered – and that surprisingly hasn’t attracted that much public attention to date – is that a lot of stuff will need to be produced, fabricated, and constructed to replace the hydrocarbon-based energy network that runs the world today.
For example, it is just an engineering fact that building a modern gas-fired power plant requires far fewer tons of stuff to produce a megawatt-hour (MWh) than does building the quantity of wind turbines and/or solar panels needed to provide an equal amount of energy.
Yes, that’s right!
TM wrote:
TM ignores the fact that the gas-fired plant also consumes “stuff” over it’s lifetime, i.e., methane. The same is true for coal fired power plants, i.e., there’s the coal ripped out of the ground and the mountains leveled in the process. Besides, the metals and other materials in those wind mills, solar panels and batteries can be recycled into more wind mills, etc., as they wear out.
Besides, vehicles with IC engines wear out and are wrecked and must be continually replaced with new ones, to maintain the fleet of cars and trucks. The “half life” of cars and light trucks is around 8 to 10 years, thus simply beginning to sell only hybrid or battery powered vehicles will result in replacement of the IC fleet thru normal attrition.
“For example, it is just an engineering fact that building a modern gas-fired power plant requires far fewer tons of stuff to produce a megawatt-hour (MWh) than does building the quantity of wind turbines and/or solar panels needed to provide an equal amount of energy. ”
But once built the wind turbine requires no further “stuff” to generate power, while the gas power station burns great quantities of “stuff” in the form of fuel.
Over their design lives, which requires more “stuff”?
There is going to be an environmental disaster when the time comes to take wind turbines out of service at the end of their useful life. Even the radioactive material from a nuclear plant takes up much less space and the toxic material has a half-life.
Recall that much of the ‘stuff’ used to make a wind turbine requires intense heat provided only by coal furnaces. Some say the carbon footprint per kwh produced is greater than a coal plant.
Huge swathes of pristine land are required and lots of ‘stuff’ is required to connect all of the generators to the grid.
Wind Turbine requires more ‘stuff’. Hands down.
Wind turbines at sea don’t require any land.
Capital cost per installed kW is $1391 for wind and $1078 for gas.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/generatorcosts/
Once installed the only on going cost for wind is maintainance.
For gas the cost is maintainance and fuel and you are paying for fuel throughout the lifetime of the plant.
At present gas prices I would much rather own a wind farm than a gas plant.
There are other considerations.
Leaving aside CO2 emissions, a German wind farm will continue as normal while a German gas plant will be wondering where next week’s gas will come from.
That’s the problem with fossil fuels. They are like narcotics. Once you are addicted you are at the mercy of your supplier.
Why is it that GR, DREMT, Clint R, Swenson, et al are not able to find others in the wider scientific community to support their positions? Could it be that they are quite simply wrong scientifically?
Why are there no Wiki pages filled with their thinking and calculations?
Indoctrination works, RLH. It’s been called the “dumbing down of society”. People are getting dumber, but they believe they are getting smarter.
Just look at you, for example….
So Clint R is not able to point to anyone who supports his ridiculous positions. Quelle surprise.
When you’re uneducated and braindead, physics can seem ridiculous, I suppose.
(I will not respond to immature nonsense. I try to avoid feeding trolls as much as possible.)
Still not able to point to any scientist who supports your positions.
You’d have to go to physics books. You’ll find all the names you want.
Its called Quality Assurance. Testing, Checking, and Replicating.
Clint R, etal’s idea of Quality Assurance is posting his deluded ideas here and calling anyone who disagrees ‘brain-dead’. Its not science; there has been no testing, checking, or replicating of any of Clint R, etal’s warped hypotheses of how the universe works.
Ken, I know you’re a braindead cult idiot, with nothing going in your life except trolling.
That means you can’t identify even one instance where I have gotten the physics wrong.
I’m used to such immature nonsense.
Telling people they are brain-dead isn’t physics and I haven’t seen you post anything else.
If you haven’t seen my comments, why do you keep trolling me?
There isn’t any signal in the nause.
The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet….Tmean…Tsat.mean
Mercury…325,83 K…340 K
Earth…..287,74 K…288 K
Moon……223,35 Κ…220 Κ
Mars……213,21 K…210 K
–
The 288 K 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earths atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earths surface.
–
There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Stefan-Boltzmann equation shows earth should be 255K.
You still haven’t demonstrated why SB is wrong or provided any explanation of why earth surface is 288K.
The difference between actual and theoretical is 33K.
Until you can prove otherwise the best hypothesis is GHE.
Ken, the “255K” is the S/B calculation for an imaginary sphere. It has NOTHING to do with real Earth. S/B is not wrong, it’s comparing to an imaginary object that’s wrong.
You don’t understand any of this.
” S/B is not wrong”
But Clint R is. He has not been able to find any scientists who wish to support his positions.
Real earth is observed 288K.
Theoretical earth is 255K You can call it imaginary sphere if it makes you feel better but its still theoretical earth based on SB.
The point is to explain why there is a difference of 33K between observed and imaginary.
Ken, your ignorance of science is showing, again.
It’s not science to ignore the fact that the calculation comes from an imaginary sphere. Science is NOT about what you want to believe. Science is about REALITY.
There’s no need to explain any “difference of 33K”, because there is no such thing, in reality.
Quit trolling, learn some science, and grow up. Not necessary in that order.
Describe the conditions on Earth that could produce a 255K average surface temperature.
I want a pony.
Remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.
Absence of atmosphere would produce the conditions for theoretical 255K surface temperature.
Thinking on it a bit further I’m not sure that absence of atmosphere would give 255K because the albedo factor would definitely change.
Ken,
Yes albedo would change. The first 50 years after removing all non-condensing and aerosols GHGs, making the planet even colder than the 33 K usually cited in the effective temperature comparison:
https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1190653
Chic Bowdrie
I’m no specialist at all in that domain (but all other contributors posting here do not seem to be much more a specialist of that).
*
These conditions are NOT centered around a rocky, waterless planet like Mars or Moon.
Their context is a water-dominated Earth in extremely cold periods (mostly due to reaching corresponding points in the Milankovitch cycles), during which
– Earth more and more looks like an ice ball due to ocean freezing;
– all water vapor in the troposphere precipitates down to snow.
Under such circumstances, Earth has
– (1) on average the albedo of ice, which surprisingly is with 0.3 the same as now;
– (2) an atmosphere nearly free of gases able to absorb and reemit the long wave radiation Earth generates in response to Sun’s short wave radiation
– (3) if I correctly recall, even a lower CO2 presence in the atmosphere, what increases the effect of (2).
Ken says:
March 1, 2022 at 10:10 AM
“Stefan-Boltzmann equation shows earth should be 255K.
You still haven’t demonstrated why SB is wrong or provided any explanation of why earth surface is 288K.
The difference between actual and theoretical is 33K.
Until you can prove otherwise the best hypothesis is GHE.”
–
Thank you Ken.
When I discovered the
Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon
and the
Planet without-atmosphere mean surface temperature equation
it became obvious there is a physics relation which is what lead to the very much precise for all the planets’ mean surface temperatures calculation.
–
It is very natural to conclude then, that the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law cannot be applied to planets.
–
–
We cannot use Stefan-Boltzmann emission law equation for planet average surface temperature estimation. Thus, the Te =255K for Earth is not a kind of a comparison temperature.
–
There are theoretical reasons for that.
A planet is not blackbody.
Here it is why:
1). Planet is not having uniform surface temperature.
(Planet is solar irradiated from one side only.)
–
2). Planet surface is not in radiative equilibrium with solar flux.
(We consider planet as a whole in a radiative equilibrium with solar flux.
That means “energy in = energy out” concept is necessarily met.
–
Planet is in radiative equilibrium. Solar flux interacts with surface. When interacting with solar flux, planet surface itself is not in radiative equilibrium with solar flux.)
The fact planetary “energy in = energy out” doesn’t make planet surface to be in radiative equilibrium.
–
The New Equation, when applied to Earth (without-atmosphere) obtains Tmean =288K.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
How goes peer review and quality assurance process for your Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon hypothesis?
My take on your discussion is that you’ve aimed to prove Tmean is 288K and voila you’ve ‘proven’ that it is so by manipulating the factors without valid replicable experiments. Its a GIGO hypothesis.
“How goes peer review and quality assurance process for your Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon hypothesis?”
–
Good question.
–
The 4th root powers twice
The 4th root powers twice is an observed the Rotational Warming (N*cp) in sixteenth root power phenomenon when planet mean surface temperatures comparison ratios with the coefficients is compared.
–
Please visit the page “Earth/Mars 288K/210K”
–
The entire thread there is devoted to the planets’ mean surface temperatures comparison. And every time for the compared planets’ the (N*cp) in sixteenth root is necessarily present.
Earth/Mars 288K/210K
Earth/Europa 288K/102K
Mars/Moon 210K/220K
Mercury/Moon 340K/220K
Mercury/Mars 340K/210K
Calisto/Io 134K/110K
Io/Enceladus 110K/75K
Jupiter/Saturn 165/134K
Jupiter/Neptune 165/72K
–
I would like your opinion on that.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com/445868922
–
“My take on your discussion is that you’ve aimed to prove Tmean is 288K and voila you’ve ‘proven’ that it is so by manipulating the factors without valid replicable experiments. Its a GIGO hypothesis.”
–
Reply:
In my site the rightness of the Rotational Warming Phenomenon is many times demonstrated and, also, it has been theoretically explained by the physics first principles.
–
And, thank you Ken. I am looking forward to have you as my best peer reviewer!
Please, Ken, visit my site and find the flaws, if there are… it is very important! The issue is very important to play games with.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Further to the example in my comment above (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1192884), consider the requirements for generating enough electricity for 75,000 homes:
If you plan to use natural gas:
If you plan to use wind power exclusively:
As I said, it takes a lot more stuff to produce the turbines: nearly 100 times the iron ore, 30 times the concrete, as well as 20 times the quantity of all those specialty materials – that’s a lot of stuff.
If it takes so much extra “stuff to build a wind farm than to build a gas plant, why are their capital costs so similar?
Earlier a source I linked gave $1391 per installed kW for wind and $1078 for gas.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/generatorcosts/
.ykcirt eb yam yticirtcele otni ti gnitrevnoc-kcab hguoht ,ti rof muidem egarots devil-trohs dna evisnepxe eht deen t’nod uoy tub seirettab gnigrahc sa ssecorp emas eht yllaitnesse si retaw morf negordyh gnicudorp sa ,laciteroeht rehtar tiebla noit.po elbaiv a osla si egarots negordyh spahreP .seirettab ton ,noitalumuccaordyh ylekil tsom si won fo sa ygrene erots yllacol ot yaw tseb eht ,ygrene erots ot deen llits uoy fi dnA
.gnht suoigiler a s’tI .elbissop sa hcum sa ti elppirc ot tnaw dna noitazilivic etah yeht :oitanalpxe eno ykno si erehT .melborp wg ro/dna ygrene eht evlos ot tnaw yllaer t’nod yeht sselnU ?CDVH dna noissimsnart ygrene eriw sa hcus seigolonhcet nevorp dna gnitsixe ydaerla eht gnisu fo daetsni ,seirettab fo seirettab tifsim eht gnidliub no tsisni seineerg dluow yhw ,tey dnA
.elbaod naht erom si ti ,tliub neeb sah tenrteni eht tsaf woh neviG .dirg CDVH yratenalp a od dna pu pets ot deen tsuj uoy ,hcum ytterp enod ydaerla si stI .elbaliava ydaerla hcet eht htiw enod eb yam dna ysae repus si yticirtcele gnitropsnart ,eb reven yam dna essam ne ydaer ton era taht seigolonhcet seriuqer dna tluciffid si yticirtcele gnirotS .tneluriv si ti sa lariv sa si yticirtcele gnirots evislupmoc fo aedi sihT .ytisned ygrene dna rewop wol yrev evah t dnet dna gnol tsal t’nod seirettab taht nevig ,htiw nigeb ot diputs si hcihw
.ereh deredisnoc ton era egarots rof dedeen seirettab fo snotolik eht dliub ot dedeen slairetam fo ytitnauq suomrone ylralimis eht taht etoN>>
reverse it with the https://www.textreverse.com
TW, Engineering is a complicated business. Take your example of a gas fired turbine to produce electricity. You wrote:
Where did you get your data?
100MW x24 hours/d = 2.40e6 kWhr/d
= 2.4e6 x 3,412 BTU/kWhr = 8.189e9 BTU/d
Using the higher heating value for natural gas:
17 MMcf/d = 17e6 * 1,090 BTU/cf*d = 1.853e10 BTU/d
Conversion efficiency = 8.189e9 BTU/d / 1.853e10 BTU/d = 44.1%
That value seems high to me. Where did you get your data? Consider the fact that a combined cycle system from GE only provides an efficiency of 62.22% and that requires almost twice the capital cost as a basic turbine generating system.
Also note that burning the natural gas in a newer heating system for a building can produce a conversion efficiency of around 97-98% because the water in the exhaust is condensed. Your low cost gas fired turbine wastes about 56% of the energy in the gas, which only makes sense when natural gas is cheap. Natural gas is an excellent fuel for space heating, especially so when burned in a high efficiency furnace, so perhaps it should best be allocated for that purpose.
Not to forget the fact that fracked wells tend to deplete rather rapidly over a few years, so tell us how many wells would be required to operate the plant over it’s lifetime?
rlh…”Why is it that GR, DREMT, Clint R, Swenson, et al are not able to find others in the wider scientific community to support their positions? Could it be that they are quite simply wrong scientifically?”
***
Why can’t Richard, with a Masters degree in systems analysis, understand basic logic?
For example, the Stefan-Boltzmann equation was developed initially by Stefan. He based it on work done by Tyndall, who had heated a platinum filament wire electrically, noting the change in colours emitted as the wire got progressively hotter.
The change in colour of the heated wire indicates EM at various frequencies/wavelengths, in the visible spectrum. The temperature range of the heated wire was about 700C to 1400C. Temperatures lower than that cannot be seen, so how does one go about finding the relationship between EM and temperature for frequencies/wavelengths below the visible spectrum?
Why does anyone presume a linear relationship between EM and T outside the prescribed temperature range used? Why does anyone presume the T^4 relationship exists outside the stated temperature range. Why does anyone presume the constant of proportionality stands outside that range?
Long after the fact, someone derived S-B using Planck’s work. However, Planck’s equation has an exponential function built into it to take into account the ultraviolet catastrophe. In other words, Planck is not linear. So, why should S-B be linear?
You see, Richard, academia is full of people like you who have no interest in thinking for themselves. The are taught alleged facts by authority figures at university and they lack the spine to challenge what they are taught.
Very British upper-crust…don’t question, don’t rock the boat, do what you are told, old chap.
Why does anyone presume … that no progress has been made in the past 150 years since Tyndall made his first measurements?
rlh…”So the PULL of gravity of the Earth on the Moon is not opposed by the PULL of gravity of the Moon on the Earth at the same time? That is what the 3rd Law says will happen. As everybody else agrees will then cause barycenters”.
***
I am saying the entire process does not meet the requirements of Newton III. If you push on a wall there is an equal and opposite reaction. That’s not to say the wall is pushing back, it is just resisting with enough force to resist your pushing force. Static equilibrium.
Tim was wrong when he claimed there is an equal and opposite reaction between the Moon and the Earth. If the Moon was sitting still in space, that would be true, but the Moon has a tremendous amount of momentum moving perpendicular to the force from Earth’s gravity.
He was wrong about the airliner too, claiming the interaction was Newton II and not Newton III. It cannot be II because there is no motion vertically. It can be III because there is a balance between the upward lift of the airfoil surfaces and the downward action of gravity. They are in momentary static equilibrium and that’s where III applies.
The difference is air resistance. The Moon experiences none.
There is no relationship between the moving Moon and the Earth in a vertical direction other than a static relationship. There is no balance between vertical forces, although they do exist. A mass on the Moon would way 1/6th what it does on Earth, meaning Earth’s gravity is 6 times stronger.
With a force differential like that, one would think the Moon would move toward Earth. It doesn’t. Even though Ge is 6 times stronger than Gm, there is not enough force to move either body vertically.
This is cutting edge stuff, Richard, you won’t see it in most textbooks or from most authority figures.
“This is cutting edge stuff.”
No, this is the crudest sort of mistakes about 400 year old stuff.
* N3 applies whether or not objects are moving.
* N2 applies even when there is ‘no vertical motion’.
* The value of “g” does indeed differ by a factor of 6 at the surfaces of the earth and moon, but the force the earth and moon exert on each other are the same.
“As I said earlier, 240 W/m2 is for an atmosphere with present day IR absorbing gases. Remove them and there is little albedo due to removal of clouds and ice. This lets in essentially all solar radiation amounting to about 340 W/m2. Do the calculation of surface temperature yourself and see if you can come up with the 30+ K differential. Inquiring minds want to know.”
And this is a pure strawman!
No climate scientist has suggested that the 33 K is the difference from an Earth with NO ATMOSPHERE.
The GHE is need to explain the temperature that we actually have on the surface of the actual Earth with an actual atmosphere and the albedo that it actually has.
The GHE is a key factor in meteorology, in numerical weather prediction. Leave it out and weather prediction would fail miserably.
Nate believes: “No climate scientist has suggested that the 33 K is the difference from an Earth with NO ATMOSPHERE.”
The “33K” comes from comparing real Earth average surface temperature (288K) with the surface temperature of an imaginary sphere (255K). The imaginary sphere has NO ATMOSPHERE.
That’s why the comparison is bogus.
“an imaginary sphere (255K).”
The radiation from Earth detected from space is not imaginary. It has an SB temperature of 255 K.
The average temperature at the surface of the Earth (288K) is not imaginary.
That some fraction of the SB radiation emitted by the 288 K surface has been blocked by the atmosphere is not imaginary.
Nate, you BELIEVE all that. It ain’t science. For example, where is the data for that 255K? A “one-time” measurement means NOTHING. An infrared image means NOTHING. A computer model programmed with beliefs means NOTHING.
Just parroting a bunch of false beliefs means you got NOTHING.
Here is a link to a review article which references multiple satellites that measure the outgoing LWIR, with an average of 240 W/m^2. Not “images”. Not “one time”. Not “models”. But actual measurements of outgoing IR.
It is easy to convert 240 W/m^2 to a “SB temperature” ie “effective blackbody temperature” of 255 K.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17538947.2019.1597189
Nice try Folkerts, but there are no “actual measurements” there. They are STILL trying to add/subtract flux. They don’t have a clue.
But, numerous items were interesting, bold my emphasis:
The multispectral sensors aboard both polar-orbiting and geostationary satellites have also been used to estimate EEB radiative fluxes…”
The CERES OLR product (Loeb, Doelling, et al. 2018) is based on radiative transfer calculation…”
We can calculate upwelling longwave radiation…”
You just found another link you can’t understand.
Interestingly, Roy’s latest post ALSO confirms the measurements from the satellites. But sure, tells us that Roy is wrong, too.
Folkerts, UAH reports LT Global at about 264K.
You don’t know anything about this issue.
Your next desperate distraction, please.
“Nate, you BELIEVE all that.”
I believe the data. It is widely available. Google it.
What have you got to show, other than trolling?
Nah, this is the ruse used by the other braindead cult idiots. They claim the “proof” of a “real 255K surface” is “out there”, just google it.
If it were real, you idiots would be flaunting it.
Post count for all posters with 20 or more posts on thread to 2 March 2022, 18:00 EST
RLH : 949
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team : 740
Willard : 600
Clint R : 425
Swenson : 281
Gordon Robertson : 220
Ball4 : 202
gbaikie : 187
Bindidon : 179
Nate : 170
Entropic man : 142
Ken : 123
bobdroege : 123
Chic Bowdrie : 120
stephen p anderson : 114
Bill Hunter : 104
Norman : 101
coturnix : 95
Christos Vournas : 77
E. Swanson : 72
Brandon R. Gates : 70
TYSON MCGUFFIN : 66
Ireneusz Palmowski : 59
barry : 51
Tim Folkerts : 47
Eben : 41
Cybergorf : 23
A 2.91 to 1 ratio when facing five odious trolls isn’t bad, but I’ll try to do better.
My comments here,
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1192884
and here,
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1193394
elicited a typical response, which is to build a strawman holding a big red herring, and then proceed to attack said strawman.
This is the typical response I see to any mention of the inconvenient truth that, the looming transformation of the global energy sector will not only result in a surge in demand for minerals, metals, etc., beyond today’s supply and investment plans, but also risks of supply lagging behind projected demand.
It proves my point that this critical fact hasn’t attracted that much public attention to date.
Further to my original comment, I also note that in many cases, the supply of critical minerals is concentrated in a smaller number of countries than is the case for oil and natural gas.
TM, Your previous comment presented a projection of oil demand without a reference, after which you ignored the basic fact that such a projection is based on another projection of the cost of oil to the consumer. As anyone who has studied the history of the oil market knows, the consumption is strongly influenced by the price. We won’t see the same rate with oil at $120 or $150/bbl as we saw recently at $40/bbl.
Of course, the market tends to move toward the lowest price producer, thus we in the U.S. and the other industrial nations are being supplied from other nations with access to cheap labor and materials. That’s called capitalism, last I heard. The negative consequences of these decisions have been obvious for many decades, especially after the Arab/OPEC Oil Embargo in 1973. Again in 1980, the world was reminded of the problem posed by dependence on fossil fuels, not just oil, as world prices spiked and stayed high until the Saudi’s flooded the market and the oil price crashed in 1986, which then contributed to the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union.
We as consumers tend to forget that fossil fuels are a finite resource, which would eventually become so scarce that the modern world won’t be able to function as it does now. Add in the parallel problem of climate change and it would appear obvious that humanity must switch to renewable sources, a change which will impact both individuals and the aggregate economy in all nations. That the energy transition is inevitable suggests that the sooner humanity commits to the necessary changes, the easier it will be to achieve the necessary results.
Some sectors of the economy will suffer, others will boom. That’s an unfortunate consequence of our market based world with it’s volatility and long lags in between demand and supply. Your posts appear to be in denial of these basic facts, suggesting that there’s no choice but to continue BAU, burning ever more oil and nat gas far into the future. I think this is wrong headed and thus my replies to your posts.
Two things:
First:
Again, my point is: the looming transformation of the global energy sector will result in a surge in demand for specialty minerals, metals, etc., with supplies likely to lag behind projected demand, and this critical fact hasn’t attracted much public attention to date.
Second:
I don’t need to study “the history of the oil market”. I have firsthand knowledge of it, from prospecting down to the gasoline pump. Spare me the sanctimony. What were you doing during the “Oil Embargo”, and “Again in 1980”?
I was drilling wells all over the world; I remember that’s when we started driving unmarked company cars because all you liberals hated the oil companies so much.
TM, I don’t doubt that the required transition will be difficult, especially given the anti-science pervading the U.S. political scene. HERE’s something that I ran across today, which is free, but you need to register to download the PDF.
FYI, as it happened, I installed what I believe to have been the first “modern” wind energy system in California over Labor Day weekend, 1973, a 3 bladed, horizontal axis system. That was BEFORE the Arab/OPEC Oil Embargo. We were working for a startup that was beginning to import small wind systems used in the outback of Australia.
BTW, just because I lean toward the environmentalist side doesn’t also mean that I’m a Liberal, what ever you think that means. If the oil companies hadn’t spread disinformation and outright lies for decades about climate science, they might not have received so much antipathy. Remember the so-called “Climate Coalition”, the industry backed lobbying outfit or the spending by EXXON and others to finance folks like that?
TM, You are, of course, correct that the various alternatives to fossil fuels require the use of lots of “minerals” which are in short supply. Exploiting those resources will have large impacts on the environment and the local population. I don’t dispute that either.
The problem is that the fossil fuels also have impacts, not least the long term problem of climate change. Given that those fossil fuels, especially oil, are eventually going to become rare, what would you suggest humanity do about it, other than switching to renewables, and how soon must any transition begin to avoid the worst disruptions?
These are huge problems which have been batted around for almost 50 years. We are finally witnessing governments deciding to do something, even though the path forward looks much more difficult than what we became accustomed to in decades past. So be it.
TW, As I wrote above, the required transition will be difficult. But, continuing to rely on petroleum for future energy requirements is also scary. The Europeans have just found out that their dependence on Russian oil and gas was a bad idea.
As one who claims to have drilled “wells all over the world”, tell us what fraction of those wells are still producing and what’s the fraction of the original production rate from all of them which is still being pumped from the remainder?
E. Swanson you continue to divert and deflect from my original post where I wrote: One debate about the energy transition is settled. It’s happening. Governments everywhere are directing enormous amounts of money at green programs.
Now you ask:“tell us what fraction of those wells are still producing and what’s the fraction of the original production rate from all of them which is still being pumped from the remainder?” What does that have to do with my post?
Further to my original post:
Minerals Used in Selected Clean Energy Technologies: https://ibb.co/rQp8vGf
and,
Annual Average Total Demand Growth for Selected Minerals by Scenario: https://ibb.co/wd9zPt4
TM wrote:
Last I heard, fossil fuels are also “minerals” in a general geological sense. We are finding it more difficult to recover these “minerals”, as the resources are being depleted and they are only available in a few prime locations. The problem is that humanity wants to use ever more “mineral” resources than may be available at low cost. You seem to think that all we need to do is keep drilling and ignore what surely comes next.
You seem to be incapable of (certainly unwilling) rebutting the thesis of my original post, therefore I’m not going to learn anything new by continuing this exchange. I’ll sum up here and move on.
TM, See reply above.
“UAH reports LT Global at about 264K.”
The troposphere is not the surface, dimwit!
Why do you continually post BS?
Tim’s like you Nate. He doesn’t understand any of this.
I understand that the Lower Troposphere is cooler than the surface and warmer then the upper atmosphere. So the measured temperature for the Lower Troposphere (~ 264K) should be cooler than the temperature measured at the surface (~ 288 L) and warmer than the temperature measured from above the atmosphere ( ~ 255 K).
So everything is basically as it should be.
There’s no evidence you understand any of this, Folkerts. The evidence points to you either DON’T understand, or you attempt to pervert reality.
You tried to foist an irrelevant link, here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1195918
The link had NO measurements. It had NOTHING.
Did you not understand that link, or were you trying to pervert reality?
tim f…”Why does anyone presume that no progress has been made in the past 150 years since Tyndall made his first measurements?”
***
There has been great progress in certain fields and almost none in other fields. Newton I, II. and III still hold in general when dealing at a macro level. Joule’s observation from 1840 that heat is proportional to mechanical energy (calories versus joules) still holds.
When it comes to Stefan-Boltzmann, the equation is based on an experiment by Tyndall which is separate from his experiment that discovered certain gases can absorb IR. Tyndall was electrically heating a platinum filament till it glowed different colours, which gives a relationship between temperature as a measurement of heat in the filament and EM as the colour frequency given off as represented by each colour (from red to white hot).
This article explains it decently…
https://arunn.in/stefan-and-the-t-to-the-fourth-power-law/
and here’s a critique from within the article…
“When, however, one considers the basis for Stefans deduction, it hardly seems fair to link his name with the law. The Irish physicist, John Tyndall (1820-1893) had reported the ratio of the radiation output of a platinum wire at 1200C to that at 525C as 11.7. Stefan noticed that the ratio of 1473 K to 798 K raised to the fourth power is 11.6, and stated the law empirically. There were at least two errors, however. Later work has shown that the ratio of the two radiances of platinum at these temperatures is more nearly 18.6 than 11.6, and that the radiation from platinum is far from black-body radiation and should not be assumed to follow the laws of blackbody radiation. Actually, Stefan applied his empirical law with some success to other data, but the same errors were always present”.
It shows the fragility of the S-B law and how much it is based on guessing than good measurement.
Earlier, Tim Folkerts wrote –
“Why does anyone presume … that no progress has been made in the past 150 years since Tyndall made his first measurements?”
Tim employs the usual climate crackpot tactic of trying to divert and confuse, not to mention building a giant and irrelevant straw-man.
Tyndall made many measurements.
Why does a moron like Tim presume that anyone except himself has the faintest idea which measurements he is referring to? Tyndall’s inside leg measurement? The weight of a chunk of rock salt he borrowed? What progress has been made in the past 150 years in relation to these, and many other measurements relating to Tyndall?
Folkerts is a slippery obfuscating fool. For example, he insinuates that adding ice to water will somehow raise the temperature of the water, just as he insinuates that reducing the amount of radiation reaching the surface somehow raises the temperature of the surface.
You may agree with him. Many climate cranks seem to.
swenson…I had a good belly laugh from reading your reply. Always good to laugh.
“Tyndall’s inside leg measurement? The weight of a chunk of rock salt he borrowed?”
nate…”UAH reports LT Global at about 264K.
The troposphere is not the surface”
***
Thermometers don’t measure at the surface either, being located in the troposphere anywhere from 5 to 25 feet. You need to understand the theory of how an AMSU unit measures microwave frequencies using a bell-shaped weighting function to understand why UAH measures at a higher altitude.
They state the surface temperature at temperatures expected at the surface. That’s due, I’m sure, to a linear relationship between temperature and altitude being linear wrt altitude right to the stratosphere.
I am making 70 to 60 dollar par hour at home on laptop ,, This is make happy But now i’m Working four hour Dailly and make forty dollar Easily .. This is enough for me to glad my circle of relatives..How ?? I’m making this so u can do it Easily
HERE…… http://webwork242.blogspot.com/
slotxoth แตกง่าย ไม่ต้องใช้ pornhup เกมสล็อตออนไลน์ เเตกง่ายที่สุด แบบไม่ต้องเพิ่งpornhupก็แตกได้ ต้อง slotxoth สมัครสมาชิก เติมเงินเเล้วเล่นได้เลย ไม่ขาดทุนเเน่นอน pgslot https://pg-slot.game/
Greetings! This article’s suggestion is quite helpful!
Red Giant Magic Bullet Suite Crack
Lava90
สำหรับใครที่กำลังมองหาเว็บพนันออนไลน์ที่สามารถเล่นได้ครบจบในเว็บเดียวและเป็น สล็อตเว็บตรงแตกง่าย สล็อตเว็บตรงแตกง่าย ใหม่ล่าสุด 2022 เว็บไซต์ Lavagame Lava90 นั้นเป็นเว็บไซต์ที่กำลังได้รับความนิยมและชื่นชอบกันเป็นอย่างมากสำหรับนักพนันบาคาร่าออนไลน์ มืออาชีพทั้งหลายhttps://www.lava90.com/ ทั้งความสนุกแถมยังสามารถได้รับเงินรางวัลจากการชนะเกมการแข่งขันต่างๆ ได้อย่างง่ายดายอีกด้วยเพราะเราคือ สล็อตเว็บตรงแตกง่าย Lavagame บาคาร่าออนไลน์
สล็อตเว็บตรงแตกง่าย LAVA90- Lavaslot Lavagame อันดับ 1
LAVA90 Lavaslot Lavagame Lavacomplex สล็อตเว็บตรงแตกง่าย
lava90 lavagame สล็อตเว็บตรงแตกง่าย มีสล็อตครบทุกค่ายในเว็บเดียว เครดิตฟรี โบนัส100% lava90 สมัคร ฝากถอนอัตโนมัติ ทางเข้า joker xo pg game slot