Home/Blog
Summary
Comparison of rural with urban temperature monitoring sites across Canada during the summers of 1978-2022 shows the expected average nighttime warm bias in urban areas, with a weaker daytime effect. When applied to the Landsat imagery-based diagnoses of increased urbanization over time, 20% of the temperature trends in a small region encompassing Calgary and Edmonton are found to be due to increasing urbanization. Calgary leads the list of Canadian cities with increased urbanization, with an estimated 50% of the nighttime warming trends across 10 Canadian mostly-metro areas attributable to increased urbanization, and 20% of the daytime warming trends.
Introduction
This is part of my continuing investigation of the degree to which land-based temperature datasets are producing warming trends exaggerated by increasing urbanization (the urban heat island effect, UHI). Current “homogenization” techniques for thermometer data adjustment do not explicitly attempt to correct urban trends to match rural trends, although I would expect that they do perform this function if most of the stations are rural. Instead, they amount to statistical “consensus-building” exercises where the majority wins. So, if most of the stations are affected by increasing UHI effects, to varying degrees, these are not forced to match the rural stations. Instead, the reverse occurs. For example, in the U.S. the Watts et al. analysis of station data showed that the U.S. homogenized dataset (USHCN) produced temperature trends as large as those produced by the stations with the worst siting in terms of spurious heat sources. They further found that use of only well-sited thermometer locations leads to substantial reductions in temperature trends compared to the widely used homogenized dataset.
I consider homogenization to be a black-box approach that does not address the spurious warming in thermometer records resulting from widespread urbanization over time. My approach has been different: Document the absolute temperature differences between station pairs and relate that to some independent measure of urbanization difference. The Landsat-based global dataset of “built-up” areas (which I will loosely refer as measures of urbanization) offers the opportunity to correct for urbanization in thermometer data extending back to the 1970s (when the Landsat series of satellite started).
My main region of focus to start has been the southeast U.S., partly because my co-researcher, John Christy, is the Alabama state climatologist, and I am partly funded through that office. But I am also examining other regions. So far, I’ve done some preliminary analysis for the UK, France, Australia, China, and Canada. Here I will show some initial results for Canada.
The first step is to quantify, from closely-spaced stations, the difference in monthly-average temperatures between more-urban and more-rural sites. The temperature dataset I am using is the Global Hourly Integrated Surface Database (ISD), archived on a continuing basis at NOAA/NCEI. The data are dominated by operational hourly (or 3-hourly) observations made to support aviation at airports around the world. They are mostly (but not entirely) independent of the maximum and minimum (Tmax and Tmin) measurements that make up other widely-used and homogenized global temperature datasets. The advantages of the ISD dataset is the hourly time resolution, allowing more thorough investigation of day vs. night effects, and better instrumentation and maintenance for aviation safety support. A disadvantage is that there are not as many stations in the dataset compared to the Tmax/Tmin datasets.
As I discussed in my last post on the subject, a critical component to my method is the relatively recent high-resolution (1 km) global dataset of urbanization derived from the Landsat satellites since 1975 as part of the EU’s Global Human Settlement (GHS) project. This allows me to compare neighboring stations to quantify how much urban warmth is associated with differences in urbanization as diagnosed from Landsat imagery of “built-up” structures.
Urban vs. Rural Summertime Temperatures in Canada
Canada is a mostly-rural country, with widely scattered temperature monitoring stations. Most of the population (where most of the thermometers are) is clustered along the coasts and especially along the U.S. border. There are relatively few airports compared to the size of the country which limits how many rural-vs-urban match-ups I can make.
For 150 km maximum space between station pairs, as well as a few other tests for inclusion (e.g. less than 300 m elevation difference between stations), Fig. 1 shows the differences in average temperature and area-average Landsat-based urbanization values for (a) 09 UTC (late night) and (b) 21 UTC (afternoon). These times were chosen to approximate the times of minimum and maximum temperatures (Tmin and Tmax) which make up other global temperature datasets, so I can do a comparison to them.
As other studies have documented, the UHI effect on temperature is larger at night, when solar energy absorbed into the ground by pavement (which has high thermal conductivity compared to soil or vegetation) is released into the air and is trapped over the city by the stability of the nocturnal boundary layer and weaker winds compared to daytime. For this limited set of Canadian station pairs the UHI warm bias is 0.21 deg. C per 10% urbanization during the day, and 0.35 deg. C per 10 % at night.
Next, if we apply these relationships to the monthly temperature and urbanization data at ~70 individual stations scattered across Canada, we get some idea of how much increasing urbanization has affected temperature trends. (NOTE: the relationships in Fig. 1 only apply in an average sense, and so it is not known how well they apply to the individual stations in the tables below.)
Across approximately 70 Canadian stations, the 10 stations with the largest diagnosed spurious warming trends (1978-2022) are listed below. Note that the raw trends have considerable variability, some of which is likely not weather- or climate-related (changes in instrumentation, siting, etc.). Table 1 has the nighttime results, which Table 2 is for daytime.
TABLE 1: Most Urbanized Nighttime Temperature Trends (1978-2022)
| Location | Raw Temp. Trend | De-urbanized Trend | Urban Trend Component |
| Calgary Intl. Arpt. | +0.33 C/decade | +0.16 C/decade | +0.17 C/decade |
| Ottawa Intl. Arpt. | +0.07 C/decade | -0.08 C/decade | +0.14 C/decade |
| Windsor | +0.20 C/decade | +0.08 C/decade | +0.11 C/decade |
| Montreal/Trudeau Intl. | +0.47 C/decade | +0.36 C/decade | +0.10 C/decade |
| Edmonton Intl. Arpt. | +0.10 C/decade | 0.00 C/decade | +0.10 C/decade |
| Saskatoon Intl. Arpt. | +0.03 C/decade | -0.04 C/decade | +0.07 C/decade |
| Abbotsford | +0.48 C/decade | +0.41 C/decade | +0.07 C/decade |
| Regina Intl. | -0.11 C/decade | -0.17 C/decade | +0.06 C/decade |
| Grande Prairie | +0.07 C/decade | +0.02 C/decade | +0.05 C/decade |
| St. Johns Intl. Arpt. | +0.31 C/decade | +0.27 C/decade | +0.04 C/decade |
| 10-STN AVERAGE | +0.19 C/decade | +0.10 C/decade | +0.09 C/decade |
Calgary, Ottawa, Windsor, Montreal, and Edmonton are the five station locations with the greatest rate of increased urbanization since the 1970s as measured by Landsat, and therefore the greatest rate of spurious warming since 1978 (the earliest for which I have complete hourly temperature data). Averaged across the 10 highest-growth locations, 48% of the average warming trend is estimated to be due to urbanization alone.
Table 2 shows the corresponding results for summer afternoon temperatures, which from Fig. 1 we know have weaker UHI effects than nighttime temperatures.
TABLE 2: Most Urbanized Afternoon Temperature Trends (1978-2022)
| Location | Raw Temp. Trend | De-urbanized Trend | Urban Trend Component |
| Calgary Intl. Arpt. | +0.26 C/decade | +0.16 C/decade | +0.11 C/decade |
| Ottawa Intl. Arpt. | +0.27 C/decade | +0.19 C/decade | +0.09 C/decade |
| Windsor | +0.27 C/decade | +0.20 C/decade | +0.07 C/decade |
| Montreal/Trudeau Intl. | +0.35 C/decade | +0.28 C/decade | +0.06 C/decade |
| Edmonton Intl. Arpt. | +0.42 C/decade | 0.36 C/decade | +0.06 C/decade |
| Saskatoon Intl. Arpt. | +0.18 C/decade | +0.13 C/decade | +0.04 C/decade |
| Abbotsford | +0.45 C/decade | +0.40 C/decade | +0.04 C/decade |
| Regina Intl. | +0.08 C/decade | +0.04 C/decade | +0.04 C/decade |
| Grande Prairie | +0.19 C/decade | +0.16 C/decade | +0.03 C/decade |
| St. Johns Intl. Arpt. | +0.31 C/decade | +0.28 C/decade | +0.03 C/decade |
| 10-STN AVERAGE | +0.28 C/decade | +0.22 C/decade | +0.06 C/decade |
For the top 10 most increasingly urbanized stations in Table 2, the average reduction in the observed afternoon warming trends is 20%, compared to 48% for the nighttime trends.
Comparison to the CRUTem5 Data in SE Alberta
How do the results in Table 1 affect widely-reported warming trends averaged across Canada? Given that Canada is mostly rural with only sparse measurements, that would be difficult to determine from the available data. But there is no question that the public’s consciousness regarding climate change issues is heavily influenced by conditions where they live, and most people live in urbanized areas.
As a single sanity test of the use of these mostly airport-based measurements of temperature for climate monitoring, I examined the region of southeast Alberta bounded by the latitude/longitudes of 50-55N and 110-115W, which includes Calgary and Edmonton. The comparison area is determined by the IPCC-sanctioned CRUTem5 temperature dataset, which reports average data on a 5 deg. latitude/longitude grid.
There are 4 stations in my dataset in this region, and averaging the 4 stations’ raw temperature data produces a trend (Fig. 2) essentially identical to that produced by the CRUTem5 dataset, which has extensive homogenization methods and (presumably) many more stations (which are often limited in their periods of record, and so must be pieced together). This high level of agreement is at least partly fortuitous.
Applying the urbanization corrections from Fig. 1 (large for Calgary and Edmonton, tiny for Cold Lake and Red Deer) lead to an average reduction of 20% in the area-average temperature trend. This supports my claim that homogenization procedures applied to global Tmax/Tmin datasets have not adjusted urban trends to rural trends, but instead represent a “voting” adjustment where a dataset dominated by stations with increasing urbanization will mostly retain the trend characteristics of the UHI-contaminated locations.
Conclusions
Canadian cities show a substantial urban heat island effect in the summer, especially at night, and Landsat-based estimates of increased urbanization suggest that this has caused a spurious warming component of reported temperature trends, at least for locations experiencing increased urbanization. A limited comparison in Alberta suggests there remains an urban warming bias in the CRUTem5 dataset, consistent with my previous postings on the subject and work done by others.
The issue is important because rational energy policy should be based upon reality, not perception. To the extent that global warming estimates are exaggerated, so will be energy policy decisions. As it is, there is evidence (e.g. here) that the climate models used to guide policy produce more warming than observed, especially in the summer when excess heat is of concern. If that observed warming is even less than being reported, then the climate models become increasingly irrelevant to energy policy decisions.
Another wave of heavy snowfall over the Great Lakes has begun.
https://i.ibb.co/s9fSYgc/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-11-19-185235.png
The polar vortex in the lower stratosphere has split into two centers, so the attack of Arctic air in the US will not end soon.
https://i.ibb.co/9Zd862Y/gfs-z100-nh-f00.png
Excellent work Roy!
You wrote “Fig. 1 shows the differences in average temperature and area-average Landsat-based urbanization values for (a) 06 UTC (late night)…”. But Fig. 1 shows a) 09 UTC.
Ken: Thanks, I’ll fix it. -Roy
Very good work.
Several people have pointed out that the overhyped summer heat waves have actually had less effect than winter cold. It seems to me that cold temperature extremes could also be of interest. With the current data set, can a winter time UHI effect be detected? Are winter lows also affected by urbanization and industrialization? Does reduction of sunlight exposure, from shading, have an effect vs. the emission of thermal mass?
Dr Spencer
Thanks once more for the good work.
Similarly as in your head post dated November 2nd, 2022
I’m again a bit wondering about this reference to UTC time.
When we process hourly weather station data, we often have, on each data record, only the UTC time, which we have to convert into the LST (Local Standard Time) by
– using a time zone specifier in the station’s metadata, e.g. America/Chicago or Europe/Helsinki
and
– converting it into a time offset giving the correct LST anywhere.
Do I misunderstand something here?
Thanks in advance for explaining!
Bindidon:
I’m not sure what you are asking. For decades the globally-coordinated measurements of weather have been on set schedule at specific Greenwich (aka UTC, aka Zulu) times. This means the measurements are made essentially simultaneously, around the world. So, yes, for some purposes you need to convert these to local times which are coordinated (roughly) to where the sun is in the sky. -Roy
Conversely, I’m not sure to understand how your reply relates to my question.
Maybe something real helps?
Here is for example the metadata part of a hourly record of the USCRN weather station AK_KENAI_29_ENE:
26563 20100830 2000 20100830 1100 2.404 -150.45 60.72
Bold: UTC time; italic: LST time.
If you use UTC data, your software will think it’s 8 PM, though in fact the measurement time was 11 AM.
That was the reason for me to wonder.
J.-P.
J.-P.:
My software doesn’t “think” anything about the time, because I create the software. If the data gives you 2 times, one absolute and one relative, it’s up to you as a user to know the difference.
-Roy
I pretty good understand, but… in the USCRN, both times (UTC and LST) are absolute values.
I think our misunderstanding is based on the fact that you probably use a data set software layer which automatically transforms 09:00 UTC into the LST according to the latitude.
In Meteostat, you have to do that job by your own, using the international timezone database. Bah.
I don’t use a dataset software layer. I write my own Fortran code, and read the data files. Part of that is understanding what time code is used in the data files. When I said “absolute” time I meant universal time (UTC), which is the same everywhere (12 UTC is 12 UTC everywhere in the world). Local time zones are relative (roughly) to where the sun is in longitude relative to that location.
I understand what you mean.
I don’t use such layers either.
This reference to UTC very probably irritates only those who develop software processing hourly temperature data sets, because they can’t use UTC and have to convert UTC data into local time: UTC 09:00 is even not the same thing in Alaska as in Florida.
What in UTC is for me ‘universal’ is rather the other way round.
When we want to look at a rocket launch starting from Cape Canaveral or at a MPCV landing in the Pacific, we are worldwide happy to obtain the UTC times because we only need the offset between UTC and our local time.
In the old days, airports made hourly observations that typically are made at 45 minutes past the hour for the next hour’s report which is reference to “Zulu” time. I believe that much of this is now automated at the larger airports, but nonetheless reported to pilots on a dedicated frequency as “Zulu” time. I just listened to my local airport (telephone access) reporting the weather at 2153 Zulu. On another subject, they stated “5G notice in effect”.
As always, most excellent and fascinating work, Dr. Roy.
w.
This is really good work to increase the accuracy of the long term temperature trends, but it does nothing to enlighten the problem with records. There is not an asterisk to denote an UHI record.
This is an interesting line of exploring the GHS data as a way to estimate the UHI effect. Fun to watch the research evolve and hopefully get published.
3 things I am thinking about as I follow.
1. I am curious what is the difference between the UAH global satellite and CRUTem5 over the last 40 years with data overlap? As I recall it’s only a few tenths of a degree celcius per decade but I have not followed the updates to the thermometer based data sets to see if the difference is greater now (after Had Crut 4 I gave up tracking the “updates”). The difference would provide a back of the envelope what the max value for the sum of this UHI error could be. An interesting graph would be the different thermometer data set versions vs UAH through time.
2. As I recall an impactful evidence for CO2 forcing the modern warming trend is the pattern of night time warming was consistent with a GHG, and I was really interested to read the UHI also occurs at night. I didn’t realize that. If true then this counter point would be impactful. So I am getting the significance of understanding this more as I learn.
3. If the modern warming trend is not exclusively GHG then one wonders the role that the unexpectedly strong solar cycle 25 continues to play in recent warming trends and if it muddies the water for climate models.
So far, cycle 25 is unexpectedly weak.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/cycles23_24.png
Currently, solar activity is declining.
https://i.ibb.co/4j5bgvR/mgii-composite-2.png
Hi,
I have been following on weather.gov the “3 day history” (Norwood Airport MA) vs “past weather” (Boston MA Area) links.
Norwood is 23 miles from Boston and is a smaller town.
I have noticed that the high/low temperatures are similar except that the low in Norwood is often 10 degrees lower. For example on 11/19 low is 22 Norwood and 31 Boston. Highs were 45 and 44.
I checked with NOAA and they felt that Norwood being further inland would tend to be colder but it does not happen every day.
Not much of a sample but seems odd. I thought there may be an error in temperature recording.
Thanks, Brian
That much difference (9 degrees in 23 miles) seems extreme, especially if it occurs regularly.
Just more evidence of a strong urban bias?
What you are seeing is likely an urban effect *IF* the airflow is not onshore. Then all bets are off. But if the wind is calm, or from the SW through NW, then it doesn’t matter how close the Boston thermometer is to the ocean.
Brian Manning
Due to Roy Spencer’s excellent head posts concerning UHI, I’m currently busy with this stuff.
This Boston corner is interesting due to Boston’s near to the ocean.
I found your Norwood
https://www.google.com/maps/place/42%C2%B011'26.9%22N+71%C2%B010'25.0%22W/@42.1908,-71.4537514,91869m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d42.1908!4d-71.1736?hl=en
in the GHCN daily surface station data set; it has data only since 1998, but it’s enough to compare it to Boston.
*
Here is a chart comparing Norwood to Boston using absolute temperatures:
https://i.postimg.cc/528bjjsV/GHCND-UHI-Boston-vs-Norwood-absol.png
You see already that eye-balling alone tells us that Norwood warms quicker than Boston. No wonder when you look at Google Maps.
Linear estimates for absolute data in C / decade for 1998-2022:
Boston: 0.73 +- 0.75
Norwood: 1.15 +- 0.75
Trends over absolute data over short periods mostly are nonsense, and it shows here again.
*
Switching to anomalies wrt the mean of 2001-2020 gives this:
https://i.postimg.cc/yNcFxhZT/GHCND-UHI-Boston-vs-Norwood-anoms.png
Linear estimates for anomaly data in C / decade for 1998-2022:
Boston: 0.45 +- 0.14
Norwood: 0.87 +- 0.15
Sounds better, a bit more trustworthy, and confirms the eye-balling again.
Thus, this Boston/Norwood pair is not quite the right thing to perform a UHI comparison a la Spencer :- )
*
One detail caught my eye: the harsh peak in 2015 tells us that it must have been quite cold at your place (9 C below the 2001-2020 mean in February).
A look at the daily output tells how cold it was:
USW00054704 52-43 2015 2 21 -29.3 (C)
USW00054704 52-43 2015 2 14 -28.2
USW00054704 52-43 2015 2 24 -27.1
” One detail caught my eye: the harsh peak in 2015 tells us that it must have been quite cold at your place (9 C below the 2001-2020 mean in February). ”
Should read ” the harsh drop “
My area.
The Boston Logan airport is right on the ocean. It is well known that temperatures there are moderated by the ocean, as compared to inland temps.
Generally not as extreme in winter or summer.
Yes it is dependent upon wind direction. The urban effect, IMO, is primarily a result of verticality of structures and landscaping. Landscape architects are very aware of the affect of natural obstructions to wind currents and energy consumption. A lack of obstructions can drive up energy costs by 10% in winter and 15% in summer as found by a Canadian study. (notice the difference in temperatures that is consistent with Roy’s findings difference between night and day)
The affect of buildings and trees have significant effects up to 30 times the height of the barrier. Thus a suburban row of single story houses in even the least dense tracts will affect wind and temperature the length of a football field downwind. Which should give some pause to the kind of thinking that urban must mean multi-story solid pavement locations.
tinyurl.com/2u4mrxsa
tinyurl.com/46ha542y
“How do the results in Table 1 affect widely-reported warming trends averaged across Canada? Given that Canada is mostly rural with only sparse measurements, that would be difficult to determine from the available data.”
I don’t see why estimating that would be difficult, just a ratio of rural dominated grid cells to urban dominated.
Since as you noted, Canada is mostly rural, I suspect the UHI effect on Canada’s overall warming trend is going to be negligible.
And the globe is mostly rural.
“the globe is mostly rural”
True. Now the question is ‘are the stations used in calculating global temperatures also rural’ in general.
This goes for past, present and future.
Probably not, long long ago. And?
Well as UHI occurs in both time and space, time ago matters too.
I don’t see how UHI long ago would cause the increase in Global T from the past to be higher…
1. Does UHI exist?
2. Is the world more urban now than in the past?
3. Do the majority of the stations used in Global T measurements fall into the more urban/UHI category, with more now than in the past?
RLH,
I know I shouldn’t do this, but –
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes (but the question is a little unclear)
I would be surprised if anybody can produce data to show that I’m wrong, but you never know.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/canadian-summer-urban-heat-island-effects-some-results-in-alberta/#comment-1399258
“Urban areas are heavily overrepresented in the siting of temperature stations: less than 1% of the globe is urban but 27% of the Global Historical Climatology Network Monthly (GHCN-M) stations are located in cities with a population greater than 50,000”
Source?
Peabrain Nate,
You wrote –
“Source?”
Are you really so stupid that you think a silly one-word makes you look intelligent?
If a rational person disagreed with the source presented, they would produce some facts to support their disagreement.
Of course, SkyDragons like you believe that fantasy is superior to fact, and that writing pointless one-word comments will impress passing strangers with your awesome intellect.
Keep believing.
[laughs at peabrained SkyDragon]
“Source?”
The paper.
Swenson inexplicably has a melt-down over my simple queries of others.
Maybe he needs to get back on those anti-psychotic meds..
The simple query of others can be satisfied by actually reading the paper you referenced. Didn’t you do that or are you just forgetful?
Some people (even you on occasion, RLH) provide quotes that are from denialist blogs rather than the scientific literature, and would rather not reveal that fact.
If you provide a quote, you should tell us where it came from, rather than making people guess. That seems to be the norm here, and is hardly unreasonable.
You asked if I had read the paper. I said I had. You obviously hadn’t otherwise you would have recognized that quote from it. Either that or you have a very selectively bad memory.
Not-so-nimble Nate,
You wrote –
“If you provide a quote, you should tell us where it came from, rather than making people guess. That seems to be the norm here, and is hardly unreasonable.”
C’mon Nate, you demonstrated earlier that you have the ability to use the internet to find a paper from a quote, read it, and provide quotes from it – which didn’t actually help you at all, did they?
Oh well, at least you have shown that not all SkyDragons are completely lazy and incompetent.
Your incessant demands for “citations” and “sources” might lessen, now that you have shown that, even for you, a direct quote is enough.
Really? This is what you want to argue about?
“This is what you want to argue about?”
That you don’t even read/remember papers you quote? Sure.
Desperate for childish point scoring, are we?
You were the one providing the paper that you did not remember/read.
Nate
” And the globe is mostly rural. ”
The best proof for your claim would be to download the GHSL – Global Human Settlement Layer used by Roy Spencer
https://ghsl.jrc.ec.europa.eu/download.php
and to overlay it with e.g. the ~ 40,000 GHCN daily weather stations worldwide
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/
That might help in confirming the claim – or not…
Not one of my priorities.
In fact, they are over 100,000, but only 40,000 deal with temperature measurement.
My statement comes is based on the Berkeley Earth UHI study,
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/UHI-GIGS-1-104.pdf
which stated that
“The huge effects seen in prominent locations such as Tokyo have
caused concern that the Tavg estimates might be unduly affected by
the urban heat effect. It did not have a strong effect on our estimate
which is not surprising given that urban areas are only 0.5% of the
land area (according to the MOD500 map).”
Nate
I read this excellent paper a long time ago, but it was based on data that is now 20 years old.
In between, even lots of ‘very rural’ corners behave in the US and in Europe like little cities.
“urban areas are only 0.5% of the land area”
The question is ‘does the number of stations affected by changing UHI reflect that growth’?
Maybe read the paper..
Does the paper claim that 99.5% land area is ‘rural’, i.e. ‘not urban’ and that the stations used for GW reflects that ratio?
Is 100 – 0.5 = 99.5?
“Is 100 0.5 = 99.5?”
Yes.
“that is now 20 years old.”
“over the period 1950 to 2010”
Correct, I found the place back.
Aaron S
You wrote upthread (November 19, 2022 at 11:29 PM):
” An interesting graph would be the different thermometer data set versions vs UAH through time. ”
*
Though I don’t know what you expect of such a comparison (LT is NOT the surface, it’s at about 4 km about it), here it is.
Three major series – CRUTEM, NOAA and GISS – should be enough.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1O9wPyY1vrBG7fIPgQugwbCy96mfq8int/view
*
1. Best is to start with a comparison of the smoothings for CRUTEM (blue) and NOAA (yellow).
You see how near the two series are, despite being the result of the processing, in very different ways, of temperature data from partly different surface station sets.
2. GISS land is a bit above the two at begin, but ends very near to them. It shoud thus show a somewhat lower trend.
3. Now consider the red line (UAH).
It looks always the same when compared to most other series: it starts with higher anomalies, and ends with lower ones. The switch in the smoothings is during 2003.
As long as this disparity is alive, you won’t be able to appropriately compare UAH with any professional surface data processing: UAH, in its current revision 6.0, will always show trends lower than the others, other LT series like NOAA STAR or RSS included.
*
The linear estimates for the series tell it clearly (°C / decade):
– NOAA: 0.30 ± 0.01
– CRUTEM: 0.28 ± 0.01
– GISS: 0.25 ± 0.01
– UAH: 0.18 ± 0.01
UAH’s previous revision 5.6 (stopped in 2017) would have shown much higher trends, and a shape more similar to surface data.
One of the reasons UAH is more accurate is that there are no urban areas in the lower atmosphere.
There are other satellite datasets than UAH, and they have slightly different results. One can also choose all rural on the ground to see if there is much difference with and without rural stations. These comparisons have been done on the large scale, but for some reason ‘skeptics’ seem to want to do it in highly localised areas. Obviously, they wouldn’t be picking the areas where the UHI would be emphasised…
Ah! The ball-on-a-string specialist again…
Clint R has never heard of the huge amount of uncertainties existing between remote microwave sounding and the LT data presented by the UAH team.
They might bypass the uncertainties in surface temperature processing by a lot.
What about reading some papers about that?
Ah yes, they are all junk stuff.
Denying/distorting reality is “junk stuff”, Bin. That’s what you do. Especially when you deny/distort the simple ball-on-a-string.
My home weather station is 10 miles NNE of the Calgary airport in a rural environment and is fairly consistently 2 or 3 degrees C lower than the official Environment Canada airport reading. This over nearly 2 decades with 3 different home weather stations. Elevation difference about 10 meters. Also Calgary airport used to be outside the city and has since been surrounded by buildings and streets, and its weather station has 3 times as many runways and taxiways nearby as it did in the 70s and an order of magnitude more air traffic.
That’s good input. I didn’t look into the details there, I just used the urbanization dataset, and it said Calgary had the most growth around the airport in the last 40 years of any other metro airport location.
DMacKenzie
Could you upload a picture of your home weather station?
I have something like this at home as well, and it often shows 2-3 C under reports from nearby weather stations.
Reason: Our device is not sufficiently protected against … cold wind compared to weather station instruments.
Bindidon,
Being exposed to a cold wind makes no difference. Thermometers are not like people, and don’t sweat. They don’t care whether the air is wet or dry. A sling hygrometer won’t tell you anything of value, unless you saturate its little sock with water.
Aircraft use OAT – outside air temperature, SAT – static air temperature (different to OAT), TAT – total air temperature (again, different to OAT and SAT, and a few others, RAT, for example.
Humans are pretty awful thermometers – witness “feels like” temperatures. Very hot and humid? “Feels like” it’s hotter. Cold and windy? “Feels like” it’s colder?
Measuring near ground air temperatures is pretty inaccurate – and pretty useless to boot. After thermometers became widely available, scientists couldn’t help themselves, and started measuring temperatures. About as useful as widely distributed rain gauges – interesting for some, tells you what has already happened, tells you nothing about the future, but gives you something to talk about with your neighbour – whose gauge generally disagrees with yours.
Of course, you could always plot isohyets in glorious colour on a map, and use them to predict the future, if you feel you are becoming bored reading the comments on this blog.
Go on, talk about dog poop, flatulence, arrogance and ignorance, if you like. I’ve given you a cure for boredom, so don’t whine about being bored.
Bindidon, could you upload a picture of your home weather station?
As Swenson points out, just because you don’t know how to accurately measure temperature is no reason to accuse others of the same.
Oh, finally the lovely Flynnson stalker is here again.
” Being exposed to a cold wind makes no difference. ”
I can’t recall such a dumb, reckless nonsense, light years away from reality experienced by people who regularly compare their thermometer readings with data from stations in the near.
*
#3 or so:
Ha ha ha haaah
Bunny,
Reject reality all you like.
Reality doesn’t care.
Maybe you could provide some facts to support ” . . . a dumb, reckless nonsense, light years away from reality experienced by people who regularly compare their thermometer readings with data from stations in the near.”, but. I doubt it.
You seem to be saying that an object in steady motion has a different temperature to a stationary object initially at the same temperature. Well, yes it might, if frictional effects occur – but the temperature rises, not falls.
As I said, you may believe that you are measuring one thing, but actually measuring another.
Do you still believe temperature differences are due to varying wind speed? If so, have you taken wind speed at the location and time of your “temperature measurements”, which you “dissect” so assiduously, into account, and “adjusted” all your data accordingly?
Of course not. You just complain about others, without knowing what you are talking about.
Carry on – give everyone a laugh at your bizarre notions of “reality”.
dmac…”Calgary airport used to be outside the city and has since been surrounded by buildings and streets, and its weather station has 3 times as many runways and taxiways nearby as it did in the 70s and an order of magnitude more air traffic”.
***
I remember when the airport was about as far north of Calgary as you could go. Pretty soon it will be house to house all the way to Red Deer.
It will be the same for Edmonton. The international airport is south of the city and likely now surrounded by homes and buildings.
The surface temperature of the North Pacific and Atlantic is falling rapidly. La Nina unchanged.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data_current/5km/v3.1_op/daily/png/ct5km_sst-trend-7d_v3.1_global_current.png
I just checked the UHI record for seasonal patterns. What I found is, that in the NH the first half of the years warms faster than the 2nd, and in the SH it is the opposite.
In other words, on both hemispheres, the spring time warming trend dominates. Any ideas why that is?
Hello Dr. Spencer,
Nice methodology – I really like it.
I have a question, let me set it up.
You mention 50% of nighttime and 20% of daytime warming could be attributed to urbanization, of course limited to these areas. Yet certainly this is a small percentage on a global basis.
Question is – how might you estimate the influence on your global warming linear trend over the past several decades? Wound it reduce the trend by 0.01 C / decade or more, for example.
Regards and thank you,
Bart Thompson
As an aside, the type of temperature sensing device can have a noticeable effect on the supposed “air” temperature.
Even different sizes and effective albedos of Stevenson screens result in different temperature readings – especially max and min.
I do not know whether there is a difference in the current instrumentation used in urban vs rural areas, and whether this might cloud the issue.
Basic physical considerations would suggest that urban UHI (or continental UHI, which has been quantified in at least one study) would result in higher nighttime minima. This seems to be the case, even allowing for multiple confounding factors.
As in the past, rather than rejecting the GHE totally, scientists might gradually intimate that the impact of GHE is “less than we thought”, and that other factors will be found to dilute its supposed effect. Eventually, the GHE will fade from view, and previous true believers will be able to save face by indicating they were “lukewarmers” at best, and have only just become aware of new “data”.
As it has been in the past – phlogiston, caloric, the luminiferous ether, “nature abhors a vacuum”, and so on. I can’t predict the future, but. I wouldn’t be surprised if my speculation proves to be correct.
It doesn’t matter anyway – que sera, sera.
“Even different sizes and effective albedos of Stevenson screens result in different temperature readings especially max and min”.
***
Hadn’t thought of that. The Stevenson screen is made of wood, as far as I know, and if it heats up, it will conduct heat to the inner surface and radiate it. Also, it should warm up the air inside the box.
Here’s an abstract from some research into the matter.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272494986_Impact_of_two_different_sized_Stevenson_screens_on_air_temperature_measurements
Here’s a full paper. Have not read it entirely.
https://centaur.reading.ac.uk/99129/1/Harrison&Burt_2021_ScreenUncertainties%20ERC_3_061005.pdf
Roy Spencer
I just checked with a wget the file
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonamg.2022_6.0
and the data is available again.
Merci beaucoup.
Obtaining LT data with LT = 1.538*MT – 0.548*TP + 0.010*LS
is a bit tedious at grid level :- )
Hi Roy,
I operate the climate station in Okotoks, just south of Calgary, with data recorded since 1990, for Environment Canada. Currently away from my computer where I have lots of stats.
Generally, you see a big difference in the spring and fall with our first/last frost warnings. Calgary rarely sees frost like outside of the city.
Okotoks too, has seen considerably growth (3000 people in late 80s, to about 30K), and I believe I see a UHI working in my town too
lance…Calgary can be pretty wild at times. I was driving in from Regina one day and the whole sky above the city was turning. Being a west-coaster, it freaked me. I was thinking a major tornado was about to descend.
On another day, west of the Glenmore Trail (a major N-S artery for Calgary, for those not familiar with the city) and it was about -5C on one side of the trail and above zero on the other. My first experience of a chinook. You could see a ridge of cloud almost following the trail N to S.
Roy…”There are relatively few airports compared to the size of the country which limits how many rural-vs-urban match-ups I can make”.
***
Not just that Roy, the body dealing with the data, Environment Canada, has been renamed to Environment and Climate Change Canada. What does that tell you about their objectivity?
In the past, I made a post in which I claimed the temperature in Regina, Canada had been -50C on one occasion (in the 1980s) and that Winnipeg was colder at -55C. I remember that specifically because I am a west-coaster from the banana-belt of Canada where temperatures in winter seldom drop below 0C.
It was a big deal to me and I would not have made it up to impress anyone. Imagine my chagrin when I looked up the record lows for Winnipeg to see it listed at Environment Canada as -38C?
Minot, North Dakota, is on a triangle formed by Regina, Winnipeg, and Minot. It’s nearly 2 degrees latitude lower than both cities, and about 400 km SE on the Regina-Minot leg. Minot had a record low of -60F in 1936. That’s about -51C. What are the chances that Minot could have a record low of -51C and Regina and Winnipeg only dropped to -38C?
https://www.weather.gov/bis/climate_EXT
Ironically, at the link, they claim Minot recorded its lowest and highest temperature that year, the high being 121 F (49.4C).
Go figure!!!
Gordon,
Couldn’t help but notice this –
“Please note that the record temperature, precipitation, and snowfall data is preliminary
and has not undergone final quality control by the National Climatic Data Center.”
I wonder if this is to cover any “final quality control” in the future, which makes the past colder, resulting in increased “global warming”.
Sensible organisations should ensure that record temperatures are really record temperatures before publicizing them, otherwise people are going to laugh at the repeated claims of record temperature which are subsequently “quality controlled” into “non-record” temperatures.
About as silly as Gavin Schmidt claiming 2014 as “The hottest year ever!”, and then admitting there was only a 38% likelihood of this being true. In other words, he was more likely to be ignorant or knowingly fraudulent than not.
That’s a good one. It’s like the IPCC having 2500 reviewers then releasing the Summary for Policymakers before their report, written by 50 politically-appointed lead authors, then amending the main report from the 2500 to fit the Summary.
Of course, any of the 2500 can complain but their complaints fall on deaf ears.
It’s ridiculous to have thermometer readings that are not final.
Fairy tales, Gordon.
All IPCC authors are nominated by governments and then selected by the IPCC based on expertise first and then inclusivity, to ensure global representation of scientists. It not just the SPM authors, and they are not appointed by politicians, so this distinction you make is false/ignorant.
The writing of each section, including the SPM, is overseen by scientists, with government reps and NGOs inputting on the SPM. Except in very rare cases where a scientific point may be sounder in the SPM than in the longer chapters, most vetting from SPM to Chapter is about formatting and making the text coherent between both.
Bumbling Barry,
You wrote –
“All IPCC authors are nominated by governments and then selected by the IPCC based on expertise first and then inclusivity, to ensure global representation of scientists. It not just the SPM authors, and they are not appointed by politicians, so this distinction you make is false/ignorant.”
Governments do not nominate anybody – people do. Who constitutes the IPCC you mention? What gives the IPCC power to “select” anybody at all? What has “inclusivity” to do with anything?
You make it sound like this “IPCC” believes it can reject “authors”, and override governments! Sounds like a cult to me.
You really have a vivid imagination, don’t you?
Governments around the world are getting sick of funding the IPCC, which continually demands more funding, whilst whining about how terrible governments are, for not enough notice of IPCC silliness predicting the end of civilisation as we know it!
Fewer and fewer world leaders can even be bothered turning up to listen to the IPCC telling them how to spend their citizens’ money.
Accept reality. The IPCC is a meaningless and pointless organisation, which has provided no benefit to anyone except itself. How much are you willing to contribute to the IPCC SkyDragon cult? Nothing?
Colour me unsurprised.
Nothing substantive to add, Swenson?
That was rhetorical. Of course you haven’t.
binny…”(LT is NOT the surface, its at about 4 km about it), here it is”.
***
4 km is not even half way up Mt. Everest. Are you claiming halfway up Everest is not the surface?
If the sat AMSU is scanning halfway up Everest, it is scanning the air halfway up Everest. Since the relationship between air temperature halfway up the mountain and the expected air temperature at sea level is well-known, what’s the problem?
Anyway, AMSU channel 5 can scan right to the surface if required. It’s a moot point if its receiving frequency is centred at 4 km. It has the bandwidth to receive O2 emission frequencies far lower than 4 km.
If Roy is still around, maybe he could correct that assumption if its wrong.
Robertson
You don’t have half a bit of a clue of all what you talk about.
Try to find out on the blog the place where I recently gave you a hint on Roy Spencer’s explanation (dated 2015) about the fact that while global LT averages based on microwave sensing are possible, this is not the case at grid level.
Moreover, Roy Spencer explained years ago about the uselessness of microwave sensing reaching down to near surface because this creates huge bias.
This is the reason why the UAH team has decided long time ago to compensate LT’s surface contamination with a bit of LS.
And since 2015, the team has moreover decided to replace LT evaluation by microwave sensing by a function computing, for each grid cell, a combination of the three layers above:
LT = 1.538*MT 0.548*TP + 0.010*LS
I tried to demonstrate that to you with a chart comparing, for a single grid cell for 1979-2021
– a time series generated out of LT grid data
to
– a time series generated out of the combination above
and the plots were nearly identical.
But you do not understand such things.
How could you ever, when you show the inability to finally understand even simplest things like anomaly comparison?
binny the blubberer…”I recently gave you a hint on Roy Spencers explanation (dated 2015) about the fact that while global LT averages based on microwave sensing are possible, this is not the case at grid level”.
***
If you are passing out hints you might first have a clue how the electronics works in an AMSU unit. In the article by Roy he specifically mentioned that they use the satellite technology to gather data.
With the release of version 6 they began combining channels 5, 7 and 9 data to get better grid coverage. Where do you think the data comes from? Duh!!! The data is retrieved from satellite telemetry.
I replied to a post upthread by Swenson re Stevenson screens and the possibility they are skewing data. Couldn’t find much on Google so I went to Yandex search engine where links suddenly appear that are obviously being censored on Google.
This one is by Jo Nova in Australia. I have blogged briefly on Jo’s site and she is a good sort. Her beef here re Stevenson screens is their usage in Australia re BOM yet BOM refused to accept data earlier than 1908.
https://joannenova.com.au/2015/02/the-mysterious-bom-disinterest-in-hot-historic-australian-stevenson-screen-temperatures/
Is it already winter in the southern US?
https://i.ibb.co/SnF6H7G/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-11-21-102216.png
More snow in the Great Lakes region.
https://i.ibb.co/GHRbYFS/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-11-21-103932.png
SMB on Greenland ice sheet is above historical levels.
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_curves_LA_EN_20221120.png
The temperature in the Nino 4 region shows how durable La Nina is.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
Dr. Spencer, you wrote, “(pavement, ]which has high thermal conductivity compared to soil or vegetation.” Isn’t the effect you’re describing traceable to their differential _heat capacities_ instead?
brent…is heat capacity not synonymous with thermal conductivity? The ability to absorb heat is related to the ability of a substance to conduct heat.
Since good heat conductors are also good electrical conductors, it suggests heat capacity is related to the electron configuration in the atoms making up the substance.
Brent,
I disagree somewhat with Dr Spencer, but for different reasons.
Thermal conductivity may be irrelevant – silver is exceptionally conductive, but a highly polished silver teapot will keep your tea hotter than one made of pottery which will be far less conductive.
Colour may be unimportant – the study, called “Why Do Bedouins Wear Black Robes in Hot Deserts?”, was published in the journal Nature in 1980. It turns out they do it to keep cool – reproducible experiments using thermometers rather than “everybody knows”, backs up the research. Colour is not the only consideration that dictates heating or cooling.
Thermal capacity may not be relevant – or it may be – depending on the situation. For example, greenhouse commonly use water as a thermal reservoir (sometimes rocks or concrete), to elevate nighttime minima, but a city is not a greenhouse.
People often overlook the fact that a good absorber is also a good emitter – what heats fast, cools fast.
And of course, the brightly polished silver teapot, and the asphalt, concrete or rock upon which it sits, are all precisely the same temperature just before sunrise.
The UHI is, unsurprisingly, due to additional heat – if generated during the night. And of course, it is. Everything from electricity use, people keeping warm (or cool using A/C), motor vehicles (ICE or BEV), and so on.
Thermometers react to heat, and energy travels in “straight” lines. Air is quite transparent to most forms of radiation, and has low thermal mass. Hence, using thermometers in an attempt to measure “air temperature”, is pretty meaningless.
At least, Dr Spencer is emphasizing that the UHI exists, and is due to human activities.
I might get a fair amount of flack, but I believe I can defend my position with both theory and observed fact. Time will tell.
It’s even colder over Hudson Bay and the Great Lakes.
https://i.ibb.co/1Z1QMK1/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-11-21-163037.png
https://i.ibb.co/gM234vL/gfs-z70-nh-f24.png
Dr. Spencer,
Thank you for the work you do pointing these things out.
Now if only this research could get through to the higher-ups in the mainstream climate science community.
Problem is, Joe, the higher ups have no interest in science.
Concrete has a high heat capacity and, of course, radiates strongly. However, in summer it is determined by the length of the day, so summer night temperatures remain high, at least for most of the night.
In winter, with less sunlight angle, concrete cools quickly.
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/UHI-GIGS-1-104.pdf
“Time series of the Earths average land temperature are estimated using the Berkeley Earth methodology applied to the full data set and the rural subset; the difference of these is consistent with no urban heating effect over the period 1950 to 2010”
“The stations we identified as ‘very rural’ provide good spatial
coverage of the land surface of the globe and an average based solely on these stations provides a reconstruction robust to urban heating.
Our results are in line with previous results on global averages despite differences in methodology. Parker [30] concluded that the effect of urban heating on the global trends is minor, Had*CRU use a bias error of 0.05C per century, and NOAA estimate residual urban heating of 0.06C per century for the USA and GISS applies a correction to their data of 0.01C per century. All are small on the scale of global warming.”
The trouble with that Nate, is temps can be adjusted by how much urban data is included.
You have to have a source with no hidden agenda.
Nate,
“the difference of these is consistent with no urban heating effect over the period 1950 to 2010”
It’s a joke. There is a methodological problem linked to the use of short series. Indices are actually constructed on the basis of short term trends and long term information is lost. A quatification of short-range UHI effect here: https://www.zupimages.net/up/19/47/dyn5.png
UHI effect at long distances is of the same order of magnitude. The UHI effect on continental temperature indices has been around 0.8C since 1950.
1. What does the yearly difference between adjusted and unadjusted data in GHCN (hopefully V3 at least, n’est-ce pas) have to do with UHI?
Please develop your thoughts, much interested…
2. ” UHI effect at long distances is of the same order of magnitude. The UHI effect on continental temperature indices has been around 0.8C since 1950. ”
Some valuable source for this claim?
Oh and I overlooked this strange sentence:
” Indices are actually constructed on the basis of short term trends and long term information is lost. ”
Once again, some valuable source for this claim?
Bunny,
Are you disputing the claim? What support do you have for your disagreement?
None?
I thought so.
Hellooooo, you blathering stalker!
Do you have something to say?
No?
Ah yes, Flynnson, as so often, is just urging to say something…
*
I agree: sometimes you exceptionally manage to escape your aggressive, barking psychosis and write really interesting things, for example here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/canadian-summer-urban-heat-island-effects-some-results-in-alberta/#comment-1399111
Thanks for posting.
Bunny,
Are you disputing the claim? What support do you have for your disagreement?
None?
I thought so.
#2
Hellooooo, you blathering stalker!
Do you have something to say?
No?
Ah yes, Flynnson, as so often, is just urging to say something…
Bunny,
phi wrote –
“UHI effect at long distances is of the same order of magnitude. The UHI effect on continental temperature indices has been around 0.8C since 1950.”
You then wrote –
“Some valuable source for this claim?”, without indicating why you disagreed with his statement. Idiot SkyDragons love demanding an appeal to authority, so they can avoid actually providing facts.
When I wrote –
“Bunny,
Are you disputing the claim? What support do you have for your disagreement?
None?
I thought so.”, you flapped off into nonsense about stalkers, and other strange diversions.
Your silly attempt at trying to avoid either agreeing with a statement, or providing facts to support disagreement, is typical of a sour Kraut SkyDragon.
Go on, find an excuse for not being able to even describe the mythical GHE, let alone provide one iota of experimental support for your deranged cultist worship.
Off you go now, keep rejecting reality – other SkyDragons will support you, I’m sure.
“UHI effect at long distances is of the same order of magnitude.”
Nope. It is a short distance effect.
“The UHI effect on continental temperature indices has been around 0.8C since 1950.”
Evidence?
Nutty Nate,
I don’t have to spoon-feed you, I suppose, but mainly for the benefit of others who might think you don’t suffer from a mental defect, you might care to read “From Urban to National Heat Island: the effect of anthropogenic heat output on climate change in high population industrial countries: National Heat Islands”
But then again, there is no law saying you have to believe that thermometers respond to heat, is there?
That way, you can believe that vastly increased heat output due to humans around the globe (call if AGW if you want), had no measurable effect on temperatures at all over the last century.
Then try and convince others that you are not in denial of reality.
Off you go, now. How hard can it be?
“It is a short distance effect”
Which grows over time.
“I realize that caveats do not register with you”
And sure enough, they didnt. Your paper is weak.
Nutty Nate,
You wrote –
“Your paper is weak.”
It’s not mine, and why is it weak?
Surely you don’t support making unsubstantiated assertions, do you?
Are you still making the unsubstantiated assertion that you can describe a mythical GHE?
How about making the unsubstantiated assertion that man-made heat is not responsible for thermometers indicating higher temperatures? You wouldn’t do that, would you?
Only joking – an idiotic SkyDragon like you believes all sorts of impossible things. That’s because you are detached from reality.
Come on, make some more unsubstantiated assertions for us all to laugh at.
Dimwit.
See just below.
For the ‘catching the drift’ challenged:
“Both countries are rather extreme cases”
They are not representative of the world. Not relevant to either your country or mine, or most others.
Nate,
Just hang on there a second, pardner!
You say a paper is “weak” because it’s factual? Really?
I know idiots like you demand “sources” and “citations”, and then whine vociferously when they are presented, but . . .
You wrote –
“They are not representative of the world. Not relevant to either your country or mine, or most others.”
Who said they were representative? They are “heat islands”. I suppose an idiot SkyDragon can provide a thermometer somewhere, and claim it is “representative of the world”, can they? Of course not, you fool.
You idiot – you dance up and down about “unsubstantiated assertions”, but you provide an endless stream of them. I suppose others might claim you lie when the truth doesn’t suit you, but why ascribe stupidity and ignorance to malice?
Do you deny that you haven’t been able to produce a useful description of the GHE? How about denying that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, showing that the mythical GHE was completely powerless?
You could always deny that AGW was due to AGH (Anthropogenically Generated Heat), if you thought anyone was silly enough to agree!
Deny reality as much as you like – reality doesn’t care, and nor does anyone who accepts reality.
Here’s your chance to lash out in all directions with a plethora of unsubstantiated assertions.
Go for it!
[chuckles at fact-free SkyDragon hypocrite]
“You say a paper is ‘weak’ because its factual?”
“Who said they were representative? They are ‘heat islands’.”
You seem to have a very hard time with the concept of RELEVANCE.
The paper is factual, but not relevant to GLOBAL warming. IOW just another one of your red herrings.
You are, after all, our resident red herring specialist.
You don’t seem to be able to provide facts that actually matter to any of the issues discussed.
How many times has it been explained to you that insulators, like the Earth’s GHE don’t PREVENT warm things from cooling!
Yet you keep posting your centerpiece red herring:
“How about denying that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, showing that the mythical GHE was completely powerless?”
Why do you think this is any more relevant to the GHE than the current high price of milk?
Are you that clueless? Or just insane?
“in high population industrial countries: National Heat Islands”
I realize that caveats do not register with you, but:
From the paper:
“Both countries are rather extreme cases, Japan having a mean annual energy consumption per unit area
during 19652013 of 1114 toe km−2, the 8th highest in the world during 19652013, and the United Kingdom 870 toe km−2, the 13th highest”
“Britain is better suited to this study, being cold enough
to require indoor heating for about 6 months per year, and with 75% cloud cover [Kontoes & Stakenborg,
1990], meaning that less surface-generated heat is lost by radiation.”
Gee, I wonder what that last sentence means to someone like you who denies that the atmosphere modulates heat loss form the Earth’s surface!
Nate,
You wrote –
“Gee, I wonder what that last sentence means to someone like you who denies that the atmosphere modulates heat loss form the Earths surface!”
Well, seeing that I never said such a thing (which is no doubt why you couldn’t quote me), your comment is as meaningless as usual.
At least you located and read the paper. It wasn’t all that hard, was it? There is hope for you yet. Maybe you are not as lazy and incompetent as you pretend.
Without an atmosphere, we would boil in direct sunlight, and become ice-blocks at night, more or less. The airless Moon has a temperature range of between 127 C and -173 C or so.
I vote for an atmosphere – cooler during the day, less cold at night. You?
Sorry, I forgot that words like ‘modulate’ are too advanced for you.
Hint: If you don’t a word just look it up.
Modulate: “exert a modifying or controlling influence on.”
Yes, you have denied in many ways that the atmosphere modulates (reduces) the heat loss from the surface.
You STILL have not explained how the Earth’s thermal IR emission is 390 W/m^2, and the Earth is abs*orbing 240 W/m^2 of solar flux, and yet the Earth isn’t rapidly cooling from this 150 W/m^2 NET loss.
Hint: the atmosphere’s GHE can explain this.
But if you have a sensible alternative explanation, please tell us.
And don’t bother to claim these numbers are wrong unless you can offer sensible alternatives.
Nitwitted Nate,
You wrote –
“Yes, you have denied in many ways that the atmosphere modulates (reduces) the heat loss from the surface”
Gee, another unsubstantiated claim! How about one of your “citations”, or maybe a “source” to back it up? A direct quote would be even better, but you can’t produce one, can you?
Idiot.
If your calculations don’t agree with fact – they’re wrong.
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, but you refuse to accept reality. You can create any ridiculous and imaginary figures you like, but even you are claiming that the Earth is losing more energy that it absorbs – and, according to you, it is either not cooling or even getting hotter!
This would be an example of “Nate’s New Physics”, would it?
You can’t even describe the GHE, you ninny, let alone justify it being the cause of a body experiencing net energy loss (even according to your fantasy figures), getting hotter!
What a SkyDragon fantasist you are!
“But if you have a sensible alternative explanation, please tell us.”
Ok, then its clear you don’t.
We understand, you’re here to troll. Facts and reality are beside the point.
Nitwitted Nate,
You wrote
Yes, you have denied in many ways that the atmosphere modulates (reduces) the heat loss from the surface
Gee, another unsubstantiated claim! How about one of your citations, or maybe a source to back it up? A direct quote would be even better, but you cant produce one, can you?
Idiot.
If your calculations dont agree with fact theyre wrong.
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, but you refuse to accept reality. You can create any ridiculous and imaginary figures you like, but even you are claiming that the Earth is losing more energy that it absorbs and, according to you, it is either not cooling or even getting hotter!
This would be an example of Nates New Physics, would it?
You cant even describe the GHE, you ninny, let alone justify it being the cause of a body experiencing net energy loss (even according to your fantasy figures), getting hotter!
What a SkyDragon fantasist you are!
Straight from the Troll Handbook,
Chapter 12. How to toss distraction grenades when you have no answers to simple questions.
Chapter 13. Still have no answers? Just repeat Ch 12.
Nitwitted Nate,
You wrote
Yes, you have denied in many ways that the atmosphere modulates (reduces) the heat loss from the surface
Gee, another unsubstantiated claim! How about one of your citations, or maybe a source to back it up? A direct quote would be even better, but you cant produce one, can you?
Idiot.
If your calculations dont agree with fact theyre wrong.
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, but you refuse to accept reality. You can create any ridiculous and imaginary figures you like, but even you are claiming that the Earth is losing more energy that it absorbs and, according to you, it is either not cooling or even getting hotter!
This would be an example of Nates New Physics, would it?
You cant even describe the GHE, you ninny, let alone justify it being the cause of a body experiencing net energy loss (even according to your fantasy figures), getting hotter!
What a SkyDragon fantasist you are!
Don’t believe your lying eyes, your personal experience, or common sense. Just take the word of these known activists who have a clear pattern of political activity that far exceeds any scientific credibility. The UHI is a measured and documented effect. It is real. How can they say “climate change is real”, and then ignore established science?
Nate,
Pity the authors had to publish their nonsense in a predatory journal, isn’t it?
Either they knew that the journal was predatory, which means they intended to deceive, or they didn’t, which makes them stupid.
BerkeleyEarth pretends to have something to do with University of California, Berkeley, presumably. Its impartiality and objectivity is summed up in the first sentence of its “Mission and Purpose” –
“Global warming is the defining environmental challenge of our time.” How impartial is that, I ask you?
Just another cloud of delusional SkyDragons, sponging off anybody silly enough to believe their propaganda.
How much have you contributed to their non-profit (no taxes) Muller retirement fund?
” Just take the word of these known activists” You mean like Roy Spencer?
Nate,
You wrote –
“Just take the word of these known activists”.
As I didn’t say such a thing, you have either placed your comment in the wrong place, or you are sloppy and incompetent.
Maybe you could acknowledge your small error (if you accept that you made one of course).
Up to you.
I assume you are quoting me. This is a real low point for any commenter on this site. GISS under Gavin Schmidt is posting very misleading if not actually fake science. They pretend to be neutral and objective — they are not. If you think Dr. Spencer has ever posted anything he doesn’t believe to true and correct, or has ever tried to disguise his true beliefs, then cite that example. Otherwise, shame on you for posting such a comment on his site where people are allowed to freely express their opinion without moderation except for that one guy who really deserves to moderated!
What? You don’t believe Roy, in additions to doing science, is also a political activist? Then you havent read many of his posts.
See eg the one about the White House Climate Propaganda flyers he produced.
Hansen, who previously led GISS is NOW retired and is a political activist.
Are you saying that all the surface data sets, BE, GISS, Had*crut, JAXA, etc, which find similar trends, are altered by people for political purposes? What about the Reanalysis data sets that produce similar trends?
You are conflating science that produces results you don’t like with political activism.
Nate, nice try. Your strawman is dead on arrival. I stand by every word posted here. I never mentioned Hansen. You did. Schmidt is doing propaganda expressing his opinion as fact. Many others at NASA have complained about his work. My favorite GISS distortion was a graph showing lowered sun output (no longer available last time I looked). It showed a dramatic loss of sun output that seemed very severe alongside a rise in CO2 and Temperature. The implication was that CO2 is the only thing on earth that can possibly impact climate. The problem is that the sun output graph was chopped to make a very tight output range with a reduction of about 0.02% look very dramatic. Shameful!
I have a quick followup. I am a genuine skeptic which means that I am also skeptical of other skeptics. My motivation is curiosity and a desire for knowledge. Period. I do not see any effort in Dr. Spencer’s work to fake the data or deceive anyone. If I do, I will complain.
Tim S,
Here’s a sample of Gavin Schmidt’s fantasy thinking –
“Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature”.
Luckily, he is not a scientist – just a civil servant and incompetent mathematician (he once declared that a 38% likelihood meant that it was almost certain that 2014 was the “hottest year ever”).
Gavin apparently refuses to accept that thermometers react to heat, or that temperatures are measured in degrees (of hotness). He is infatuated with forcings, feedbacks, averages, and radiative intensity measured in W/m2 (completely irrelevant to temperature, without much additional information).
As 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.”
The SkyDragons have no experimental support for their CO2 fixation. They can’t even describe the non-existent GHE!
If I get new facts, I change my view. And yes, I have done so in the past. Life went on.
All I am seeing here is unsubstantiated trolling of scientists who produce results that dont agree with your beliefs.
Where is the beef?
“He is infatuated with forcings, feedbacks, averages, and radiative intensity measured in W/m2 (completely irrelevant to temperature, without much additional information).”
Yes he understands and uses science terms that are gibberish and uninteresting to Swenson.
Which is fine. Not everyone can do science. Not everyone has an interest in learning about science.
And if neither of those are the case, then one should perhaps not post at a science blog, and perhaps admit their posts on the subject are likely to be uninformed gibberish and uninteresting.
Peabrain Nate,
You wrote –
“Not everyone can do science. Not everyone has an interest in learning about science.”
Well, that’s certainly informative – not! Another one of your hated “unsubstantiated assertions”, is it? Are you referring to particular people – or just being a fact-free gutless SkyDragon?
You are probably dim enough to believe that climate is something else than the average of historical weather observations over an arbitrary period. Not much science there – averages can be calculated by an intelligent 12 year old.
Maybe you are referring to the likes of Gavin Schmidt – incompetent mathematician, civil servant, self proclaimed “climate scientist”, or Michael Mann – fraud, faker, scofflaw, deadbeat, and self proclaimed “climate scientist”.
These are dimwits who can’t even describe the GHE!
Science? You are delusional.
Richard Feynman agreed with me when he said “When someone says ‘science teaches such and such’, he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach it; experience teaches it”
Off you go now – try to convert some of your fantasies to fact. Let me experience them – only joking, your fantasies cannot be experienced by anyone who doesn’t share them, can they?
” a predatory journal” Is it? How do you know?
Nitwit Nate,
Don’t know how to use an internet search engine?
You are obviously not the sharpest tool in the shed, but that’s fairly typical of SkyDragons, I suppose.
For the benefit of others who may not realise the level of your incompetence, here’s a hint –
“Court Rules in FTCs Favor Against Predatory Academic Publisher OMICS Group; Imposes $50.1 Million Judgment against Defendants That Made False Claims and Hid Publishing Fees
In April 2019, the FTC announced that a federal district court judge ordered Srinubabu Gedela and his companies to pay more than $50.1 million to resolve FTC charges that they made deceptive claims about the nature of their conferences and publications, and hid steep publication fees. The court ruling resolved a 2016 Commission complaint alleging that Gedela and the companies falsely advertised online scientific and medical academic journals and international conferences, and deceptively claimed the journals provided authors with rigorous peer review and editorial boards comprised of prominent academics.”
You, or anybody else, can look up the list of journals published by OMICS.
Why do you bother asking stupid questions, when just a tiny effort on your part would provide the answer? Are you really lazy and incompetent, or do you just love being made to look like an idiotic SkyDragon?
You don’t need to answer – that was a rhetorical question.
OK, looks like you were correct. First time for everything!
” tiny effort on your part ”
Not my job to check your unsubstantiated claims, which most of your posts are filled with.
Nate,
Your grudging (but valid) apology is welcomed and accepted. Thank you.
You wrote “First time for everything!”. Is this an example of the sort of “unsubstantiated claim” which you complain about?
You also wrote –
“Not my job to check your unsubstantiated claims, which most of your posts are filled with.”
You are free to check the facts I present – or ignore them, as you wish. Not my job to try to convince you that you are an arrogant, ignorant, idiot, who appears to be a hypocrite as well, making unsubstantiated and contradictory claims.
For example you claim the comment that resulted in your apology was correct, and the “first time”. You then acknowledged that I was correct on previous occasions, when you wrote ” . . . unsubstantiated claims, which most of your posts . . . “.
So, “first time”, or “not really the first time, but I’m an idiot, so . . .”?
Which of your unsubstantiated claims is correct, or are they both just figments of your imagination?
All very complicated, isn’t it? Others can make up their own minds. Of course, you may not be an ignorant, arrogant, hypocritical idiot. Correct me if my speculation is incorrect (provide facts to support your unsubstantiated claim that you are, indeed, an ignorant, arrogant, hypocritical, idiot, in spite of my admittedly speculative view that you may not be.
Are you still denying that AGW is due to man-made heat?
“which most of your posts are filled with.”
Indeed I am accounting for the occasional spicing of the BS with the occasional fact.
Sorry if you want your posts to be taken seriously.
The boy who cried wolf also was desperate for validation, but like you, his lack of credibility was his own doing.
Nate hypocrite,
You wrote –
“Indeed I am accounting for the occasional spicing of the BS with the occasional fact.”
Another obvious unsubstantiated assertion from the dimwit who claims he is violently opposed to unsubstantiated assertions. Ah well, SkyDragons are nothing if not inconsistent!
How about providing an example of these “occasional facts”? Ones you consider relevant with regard to the “BS”, which you have also asserted – with no apparent substantiation, of course.
You can run, but you cannot hide from reality.
The reality is that you can’t even find a useful description of the GHE, can you? Something that might stand up to even cursory examination – unlike the nonsense which emanates from pretend “climate scientists” like the incompetent mathematician Gavin Schmidt, or the well-known fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat, Michael Mann.
Off you go now – make a few more unsubstantiated assertions. I need to fulfill my laughter quota. Only joking, idiot SkyDragons ensure a never-ending source of amusement for all rational readers.
Since Canada gets so little sunlight, maybe idling a car IS an UHI effect.
The Russians used run hot pipes around in their cities, to increase the temperature, I wonder if they still do that.
Russia has changed over the years- they got a lot more energy to waste.
Just reading about that. Apparently, in the hinterlands, in Siberia, they still use the heat pipes. The one mentioned was so worn it was leaking steam and hot water.
The are places in Vancouver where they use steam heating. Don’t recall the purpose.
Gbaikie,
There are about 4.5 billion motor vehicles on the Earth. There used to be none, zero, zilch.
All of the power they generate or use is eventually dissipated as heat. All of it – gasoline, diesel, gas, electricity – it doesn’t matter.
AGW writ large and wide.
Only SkyDragon thermometers are immune to reacting to this additional man-made heat.
Plus all the rest.
This could be part of UHI effect- most this heat is in Urban areas but Urban area are tiny part of total land surface and really insignificant compared to ocean surface.
It seems this effect would be largest during winter and in place which didn’t get much heating from sunlight.
As I say, ocean warms, land cools.
The ocean warms land. The oceans warm Europe a lot, but ocean also warms all land.
In terms comparison such heating is small compared to energy the ocean gets from the sun.
Or as I said, about 80% of total sunlight reaching Earth passes thru
the top of ocean surface.
In terms comparison you could with Europe compare to amount Europe is warmed by the ocean [and forget the sunlight] and focus the local areas in Europe which generating the most heat.
And in other area of land area in the world which likewise don’t get much sunlight AND are less heating by the ocean as compared Europe- such as Canada where this heat generation would more effect vs the small warming caused by the ocean.
But morons are measuring global temperature on land and urban areas.
Or as I said, what controls global warming is the ocean surface covering 70% of the world and has average temperature of about 17 C as compared to global land areas which average around 10 C.
But I also think global average temperature has increased or I think the cold 3.5 C average temperature has warmed by about .1 C [which a lot] and waste heat from human activity is not warming our cold ocean.
Do the sums.
Global warming is adding 10^22Joules/year.
The total energy budget of our civilization is 10^20Joules/year.
You can only blame 1% of the observed global heating on human heat production.
EM,
Don’t be silly.
During the night, the heat of the day disappears – totally.
That’s why the Earth has managed to cool from the molten state – four and a half billion years or so of sunlight notwithstanding.
Of course, the only additional heat at night is man-made. AGW is manmade heat – produced continuously around the globe.
As Dr Spencer (and anybody not infected with SkyDragon madness) eventually comes to accept. It’s called reality. Even you realise that there is precisely no experimental support for the mad idea that CO2 somehow “amplifies” or “adds to” the energy from the Sun. In fact, increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer, reduces the amount of energy reaching the thermometer – resulting in cooling!
Go away, do the sums. If your sums indicate that CO2 increases the amount of the Sun’s energy reaching thermometers, then your sums are wrong. Maybe you need to go back to school, and brush up your arithmetic.
“During the night, the heat of the day disappears totally. Thats why the Earth has managed to cool from the molten state four and a half billion years or so of sunlight notwithstanding.”
As usual, Flynnson’s theories are, for the 847th time, contradicted by the observed facts. Specifically that the Earth’s surface has been warming over the last 50 years, and has warmed many times in its history.
Oh well..
Numbnuts Nate,
You wrote –
“As usual, Flynnsons theories are, for the 847th time, contradicted by the observed facts. Specifically that the Earths surface has been warming over the last 50 years, and has warmed many times in its history.”
No theory, dummy. Just an observation, based on the assumption that the Earth was initially molten, which seems to be supported by present knowledge.
The surface is not molten now. Observation – the surface has cooled.
You claim that the Earth has warmed many times in its history. Indeed it does – every day after sunrise, with the coming of summer, when the Sun emerges after rain, and so on. If you are claiming that a planet with a molten interior, covered with very thin crust of congealed rock, magically heats and cools, then you will have to gather together an audience of SkyDragon cultists, if you wish to be applauded for your silliness.
Some SkyDragon cultists seem to believe that the Earth magically cooled even further, to 255 K or so, which nobody actually managed to observe or measure, and then magically heated up by 33 K – to its present temperature.
You are just confused. You don’t want to accept that manmade heat affects thermometers, but I assure you that it does. Insert a cold thermometer into your orifice of choice, and watch it respond! Your body is generating heat by burning carbohydrates, in essence. Man-made heat.
In the meantime, the noise you hear is probably derisive sniggering, rather than a standing ovation!
Carry on.
nate…”Time series of the Earths average land temperature are estimated using the Berkeley Earth methodology applied to the full data set…”
***
Is it completely lost on you that the only agreement with this claim comes from surface station data providers who are also uber-climate alarmists?
All of the surface data sets are from climate alarmists and all are fudged using climate models using interpolation and homogenization techniques. They also go back in the time series and adjust (fudge) warmer temperatures downward to show a steadily rising trends to indicate global warming.
In the Climategate email scandal, Phil Jones, then head of Had-Crut, bragged about using Mann’s cheating technique aimed at hiding declining temperatures.
Gordon get ready for freezing temperatures in Vancouver. Watch the map for updates.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_hgt_trop_NA_f000.png
ren…thanks for advice. It has been unusually cold around here at night due to the low temperatures and high amount of moisture in the air. We had fog the other night with temps around 0C.
I have worked at night on the prairies (Edmonton area and further north) and even at -25C you can dress warmly enough to be reasonably comfortable, as long as you get warmed every so often.
I worked a night shift at the international airport just south of Vancouver but right on the ocean. It was a bit above 0C but very damp. I could not get comfortably warm no matter how many layers of clothes I wore, including water-proof rain gear.
A foreman, who talked to himself like Popeye, walked around in a T-shirt with his winter coat open. I asked him if he didn’t feel the cold. He looked at me for a couple of seconds thinking, then replied it felt cold only if he thought about it.
I was watching a guy filling his fuel tanker to refuel the jet airliner. The dial seemed to be going pretty slowly, about 1 unit every 30 seconds or so, and I asked him how much fuel a jet required. He said about 30,000 litres.
I told him at the rate his tanker was being filled he’d be there all night. Then he got it. He told me the dial was reading 1000 litres per meter movement, not 1 litre per movement as I had presumed. Even so, he was only filling at about 2000 litres per minute.
A wave of Arctic air is now reaching the Great Lakes and the northeast of the US.
Solar activity has not increased in the past 30 days.
https://i.ibb.co/rvJxt8S/EISNcurrent.png
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/cycles23_24.png
My secret sources tell me it’s more like not increased past 7 month
But,
My clown source tells me it’s ramping up much faster than predictions
There is only one clown here, babbling Edog, and that’s you.
If you weren’t such a clown, you wouldn’t post your completely laughable Youtubes, and would prefer to contribute instead of discrediting.
And you would know that who makes such charts
https://i.postimg.cc/sDkyLtTh/Solar-flux-F10-SC25-and-its-7-last-months.png
only needs to look at the running mean, or at a weaker and weaker becoming polynomial, to understand that the Sunny boy is moncktoning since quite a while.
Keep the Globe cooling!
Bunny,
You wrote –
“Keep the Globe cooling!”
No need. Nature does that. You don’t want to accept that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, and nobody can stop you thinking what you like.
You can’t stop anybody thinking that you are a sour Kraut, either.
See? It makes no difference to Nature, does it? The Earth just keeps cooling, losing energy at a rate of about 44 TW. Continuously.
More graphs, please.
Carry on.
The biggest Dork under the Sun finally noticed it’s going sideways
Babbling Edog, you are as usual dishonest.
Look at all my solar comments mentioning ” still sidewaysing strong “.
We are all well aware of the trail of your zshitpostings you left on this blog, both about La Ninas and the sun activity,
Ah well ah well!
Now Flynnson not only is stalking, he moreover shows the degree of his incompetence, just like the Moulin Rouge’s night ladies show off their beautiful legs.
” The Earth just keeps cooling, losing energy at a rate of about 44 TW. ”
Energy and Watt. Superb.
Next time please write either energy and TWh, or flow of heat and W; sounds better (and 47 even more). Watt is a unit of power, and not of energy.
But agreeing to that, Flynnson, won’t change anything to your persistent, intentional distortion of the fact that these tiny 47 TWh coming from primordial formation heat and radioactive decay represent at best 0.03 % of Earth’s surface energy.
*
You daily remind me all these old German teachers retired from some elementary school. Same behavior…
Carry on, you fake Sauerkraut.
Bunny,
Here’s a definition of the Watt –
” . . .the SI unit of power, equivalent to one joule per second, . . . “.
As I said, the Earth is losing energy (joules) at a rate of about 44 TW (44 terajoules per second).
You wrote “Next time please write either energy and TWh, or flow of heat and W; sounds better (and 47 even more). Watt is a unit of power, and not of energy.”
No. Why should I comply with your stupid request to write something that I know to be incorrect? I leave that to ignorant and arrogant SkyDragons.
If a body is losing energy, it is cooling – slow cooling is not heating, no matter what ignorant and arrogant sour Krauts (sauerkrauts) want people to believe.
Maybe you should stick to your areas of expertise – denying man-made warming, and blathering about dog poop, flatulence, arrogance, and ignorance.
Carry on.
Flynnson
” Heres a definition of the Watt
. . .the SI unit of power, equivalent to one joule per second, …
As I said, the Earth is losing energy (joules) at a rate of about 44 TW (44 terajoules per second). ”
It seems that, like all these retired German teachers I met during over 40 years, you still didn’t understand what you yourself wrote!
44 TW is POWER.
44 TWh is ENERGY.
The rate of energy has to be expressed with a time unit specifying how fast the energy is gained / lost, e.g.
‘ Our country’s ENERGY demand increases at a rate of 350 GWh per year. ”
And from that you deduce how much installed POWER you need.
Is that so difficult to grasp, Flynnson?
Energy is power times time.
That, Flynnson, is the reason why an electricity generation plant having an installed power of say 900 MW will, with a load factor of 0.75, produce over the year the quantity of energy:
900 * 0.75 * 24 * 365 = ~5,900 GWh.
*
Thus I repeat:
Next time please write either energy and TWh, or flow of heat and W; sounds better (and 47 even more). Watt is a unit of power, and not of energy.
Got it, you self-important dimwit?
Bunny,
Heres a definition of the Watt
. . .the SI unit of power, equivalent to one joule per second, . . . .
As I said, the Earth is losing energy (joules) at a rate of about 44 TW (44 terajoules per second).
You wrote Next time please write either energy and TWh, or flow of heat and W; sounds better (and 47 even more). Watt is a unit of power, and not of energy.
No. Why should I comply with your stupid request to write something that I know to be incorrect? I leave that to ignorant and arrogant SkyDragons.
If a body is losing energy, it is cooling slow cooling is not heating, no matter what ignorant and arrogant sour Krauts (sauerkrauts) want people to believe.
Maybe you should stick to your areas of expertise denying man-made warming, and blathering about dog poop, flatulence, arrogance, and ignorance.
Carry on.
Current homogenization techniques for thermometer data adjustment do not explicitly attempt to correct urban trends to match rural trends, . . .
GISS includes an explicit urban adjustment. See section 4 of Hansen 2010.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Hansen_ha00510u.pdf
From the introduction –
“For the sake of users who require an absolute global mean temperature, we have estimated the 19511980 global mean surface air temperature as 14C with uncertainty several tenths of a degree Celsius. That value was obtained by using a global climate model [Hansen et al., 2007] to fill in temperatures at grid points without observations, but it is consistent with [. . .] based on observational data. ”
Not a good start. To satisfy people who want facts, we’ll create facts to shut them up.
Moving on to section 4, “This local warming must be eliminated to obtain a valid measure of global climate change.”
Measure global climate change? Really? What has it changed from?
Does nobody check this sort of nonsense before it goes to print? If the paper was peer reviewed, the peers of Hansen et. al. are demonstrably inept, ignorant, or both.
One last quote from section 4 –
“The standard GISS global temperature analysis now adjusts the long‐term trends of stations located in regions with night light brightness exceeding this limit to agree with the long‐term trend of nearby rural stations.”
Getting rid of inconvenient facts, do you think? It’s a fairly breathtaking assumption that discarding data here and elsewhere, will improve the accuracy of your results.
Hansen and his fellow SkyDragons don’t seem to want to accept anything that might contradict their belief that the Earth has decided that it cooled too far, and decided to heat up again! Or something equally absurd, involving the Sun and some nonsensical “greenhouse effect”.
“Not a good start. To satisfy people who want facts, well create facts to shut them up.”
No. More like “To satisfy people who want results in a particular format, we present the results in that format (even if we don’t think that is the best way to do things.”
“Measure global climate change? Really? What has it changed from?”
From the data collected in the past. If the climate numbers are significantly different now than at some point in the past, then the climate has changed since that point. That ought to be self-explanatory.
“Getting rid of inconvenient facts, do you think? ”
No. They are actually ‘getting rid of’ facts that would conveniently (but incorrectly) SUPPORT global warming. By excluding extra warming in urban areas and instead relying on rural areas with LESS warming.
mark….”GISS includes an explicit urban adjustment”.
***
If I remember correctly, they were observing the light given of by cities/towns on a satellite photo and creating a factor for UHI based on what they presumed it should be. That’s along the lines of their 2014 prediction that 2014 ‘should be’ the warmest year ever, based on a 38% probability.
I was looking, in the GHCN daily station set, for weather stations good enough for a comparison of the Las Vegas station used by Roy Spencer
USW00023169 36.0719 -115.1633 649.5 NV LAS VEGAS MCCARRAN AP
to stations located far away from urban/suburban corners with high population and heat source density.
I found some interesting ones, worth a comparison:
1. USC00267369 35.4661 -114.9217 1079.0 NV SEARCHLIGHT HCN
https://www.google.com/maps/place/35%C2%B027'58.0%22N+114%C2%B055'18.1%22W/@35.4661,-114.9238887,789m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x6f732c20eba957fe!8m2!3d35.4661!4d-114.9217?hl=en
2. USC00268588 36.4303 -114.5139 609.6 NV VALLEY OF FIRE SP
https://www.google.com/maps/place/36%C2%B025'49.1%22N+114%C2%B030'50.0%22W/@36.4303,-114.5160887,779m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0xe3f1df9806d65656!8m2!3d36.4303!4d-114.5139?hl=en
*
The reason for showing these two station locations in Google Maps is that when looking at the SEARCHLIGHT station, nearly every WUWT commenter would rant on it and discredit it as highly UHI contaminated because it’s so near to houses and roads!
Here are the temperature charts comparing SEARCHLIGHT to VALLEY OF FIRE SP.
1. TMIN
https://i.postimg.cc/qvG89rSW-/GHCND-UHI-Valley-of-Fire-vs-Searchlight-TMIN.png
Linear estimates in C / decade
– VALLEY OF FIRE: 0.44
– SEARCHLIGHT: 0.39
2. TMAX
https://i.postimg.cc/43PR7YMw/GHCND-UHI-Valley-of-Fire-vs-Searchlight-TMAX.png
Linear estimates in C / decade
– VALLEY OF FIRE: 0.31
– SEARCHLIGHT: 0.0
*
Frogs like to say in such situations: ” L’habit ne fait pas le moine ”
I.e. ” The suit doesn’t make the man “, or ” You can’t judge a book by its cover “.
Bunny,
Do you have a point, or are you just being a sour Kraut because you lack self control?
You do realise that 0.44 C per decade is 4.4 C per century, and 44 C per millennium, do you?
Are you really claiming that surface temperatures at that location will increase by 100 C over the next 2500 years? Would that be due to the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere, or is your imagination running away with your common sense?
You really are a gullible wee SkyDragon cultist, aren’t you? The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years or so. Good luck with convincing it to heat up to suit your wishful thinking.
#3
Hellooooo, you blathering stalker!
Do you have something to say?
No?
Ah yes, Flynnson, as so often, is just urging to say something …
Flynnson the ignorant and lazy dimwit has no idea about what others are doing, BUT he knows that it’s just worth being discredited.
Bunny,
Has the cat got your tongue? Just in case you missed it –
Do you have a point, or are you just being a sour Kraut because you lack self control?
You do realise that 0.44 C per decade is 4.4 C per century, and 44 C per millennium, do you?
Are you really claiming that surface temperatures at that location will increase by 100 C over the next 2500 years? Would that be due to the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere, or is your imagination running away with your common sense?
You really are a gullible wee SkyDragon cultist, arent you? The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years or so. Good luck with convincing it to heat up to suit your wishful thinking.
#4
Hellooooo, you blathering stalker!
Do you have something to say?
No?
Ah yes, Flynnson, as so often, is just urging to say something …
*
No problem in keeping as stubborn as you are, Flynnson!
Swen,
Blinny doesn’t believe in man-caused global warming. He just reports temperature.
Anderson
You are exactly as dumb and as much a distorting, misrepresenting and lying person as are Robertson, Flynnson and Clint R.
Here are some diagrams for you that I hope you can still grasp with enough mental strength:
NV Valley of Fire vs. La Vegas McCarran Airport
Tmin
https://i.postimg.cc/FzVTbnkW/GHCND-UHI-Valley-of-Fire-vs-Las-Vegas-TMIN.png
Tmax
https://i.postimg.cc/nr3PbPVs/GHCND-UHI-Valley-of-Fire-vs-Las-Vegas-TMAX.png
Why, do you pickup Genius think, do the names of both ‘png’ files contain ‘UHI’ ?
Blinny,
You’re really good with the keyboard. Why don’t you use it to solve instead of regurgitating stuff?
Anderson
You are manifestly unable to do anything right (except driving your 6.0L pickup).
Nothing is regurgitated here.
Not only do I love generating anomaly time series from absolute weather station data – it’s my hobby, imho a better one than constantly denying things one doesn’t even understand).
Creating such charts offers me a view of the UHI problem that complements Roy Spencer’s ‘Trend vs. Daily Cycle’ diagrams, which obviously cannot tell us when on the 1973-2022 timeline the temperatures of major cities and rural corners lying around them differ, and by how much.
When comparing centers suspected of being UHI with their supposedly non-UHI environment, it is relevant to know where they differ, what a trend over the entire period of course cannot indicate.
*
Maybe some commenter has something more relevant to say than do ignorant people like you or Swenson, Robertson and some others.
*
What you all think – or do not think – about what I post on this blog doesn’t interest me at all.
Bunny,
You wrote –
“When comparing centers suspected of being UHI with their supposedly non-UHI environment, it is relevant to know where they differ, what a trend over the entire period of course cannot indicate.”
They differ in recorded temperatures. Thar’s why the call them Urban Heat Islands. Maybe you forgot that thermometers measure “degrees of hotness” – not W/m2, or other such SkyDragon fantasies.
You also wrote –
“What you all think or do not think about what I post on this blog doesnt interest me at all.”
Good for you! I suppose that writing “Maybe some commenter has something more relevant to say than do ignorant people like you or Swenson, Robertson and some others.”, shows the depth of your disinterest in what anybody at all thinks, or does not think, about what you post.
This begs the question – if you don’t care what anybody at all thinks about your posts, why do you bother posting?
Blinny is not AGW. He is AWM…..Angry White Man. Has there ever been an angrier white man than Blinny?
stephen p. anderson,
Oh well.
How about AWF? Away With the Fairies?
stephen….”Has there ever been an angrier white man than Blinny?”
***
Can’t think of one. I picture him sitting in front of his computer, in his lederhosen and alpine hat, yelling ‘ach de leber’, and every once in while, yodeling out the windows.
Anderson
Don’t try to manipulate the discussion, it’s useless.
You just can’t admit that you’ve failed completely in judging who I am and how I think, and switch down to an even dumber level of polemic.
No wonder ignoramus Robertson with his big feet and pea brain comes around and encourages you. Feel free to be proud of it.
I can only repeat:
What people like you, Flynnson, Robertson and a few others think or do not think about what I post on this blog doesnt interest me at all.
#5
Hellooooo, you blathering stalker!
Do you have something to say?
No?
Ah yes, Flynnson, as so often, is just urging to say something
*
No problem in keeping as stubborn as you are, Flynnson!
Bunny,
You wrote
When comparing centers suspected of being UHI with their supposedly non-UHI environment, it is relevant to know where they differ, what a trend over the entire period of course cannot indicate.
They differ in recorded temperatures. Thars why the call them Urban Heat Islands. Maybe you forgot that thermometers measure degrees of hotness not W/m2, or other such SkyDragon fantasies.
You also wrote
What you all think or do not think about what I post on this blog doesnt interest me at all.
Good for you! I suppose that writing Maybe some commenter has something more relevant to say than do ignorant people like you or Swenson, Robertson and some others., shows the depth of your disinterest in what anybody at all thinks, or does not think, about what you post.
This begs the question if you dont care what anybody at all thinks about your posts, why do you bother posting?
“This begs the question if you dont care what anybody at all thinks about your posts, why do you bother posting?”
Gee this would seem to be a good question for anyone, like Swenson for instance, who posts the same red-herring factoid 647 times.
Nate, you nong,
You wrote –
“Gee this would seem to be a good question for anyone, like Swenson for instance, who posts the same red-herring factoid 647 times.”
More unsubstantiated handwaving assertions again? I thought you abhorred unsubstantiated assertions.
You can’t support your assertion (some would call it a lie born of desperation) about “the same red-herring factoid 647 times”, because it’s a figment of your imagination isn’t it?
Oh well, you could always try to explain what you really mean, but then you would just look like a lying SkyDragon cultist, wouldn’t you? Obscurity, obfuscation and avoidance are not your friends, Nate. Grow a backbone, present some facts, and let others draw their own conclusions. Demanding that people have to divine that cesspit of fantasy occupying your head, is unlikely to convince anybody to value your opinion over some other anonymous commenter.
Have you found a useful description of the GHE yet? Any experimental support? Or just more unsubstantiated assertions that the GHE exists, and has developed miraculous planet heating powers after four and a half billion years or so of cooling?
Or is reality just another red-herring factoid to a dimwitted SkyDragon cultist like you?
Flynnson’s typical manipulation
I wrote
” Maybe some commenter has something more relevant to say than do ignorant people like you or Swenson, Robertson and some others.
What you all think or do not think about what I post on this blog doesnt interest me at all. ”
And what does Flynnson make out of it?
” This begs the question if you dont care what anybody at all thinks about your posts, why do you bother posting? ”
*
I don’t care about what people like you, Anderson, Robertson and a few others think about what I post.
You are only a little few here.
I care about the others’ meaning. There are many.
I can imagine Blinny looking like Schultz on Hogan’s Heroes: Achtung! Achtung! Except Blinny would be in an SS uniform and not Luftwaffe.
Similarly, I can imagine a hooded Stephen Anderson participating in a lynching near a burning cross down South where he lives.
See how well guilt by association works?
Nate,
Unfortunately, you seem to think your imagination reflects reality.
Stephen indicates his imagination is, well, not real. Sgt Schultz is an imaginary character in a fictional TV show. Im surprised you didn’t know that.
As for you, you might imagine that Gavin Schmidt is a “climate scientist”, where fact indicates he is not.
Or Michael Mann (faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat) might imagine he won a Nobel Prize! He didn’t, and imagining people would think he did because he printed up a Nobel Prize award, was merely imagination, not fact.
I choose to imagine Bunny in his SS uniform, replete with Deaths-head insignia buffed to a high luster, riding crop and boots (similarly polished), attaching electrical leads to the genitals of anybody who disagrees with his bizarre notions. He probably has to stamp his little foot when somebody point out solar power does not produce electricity at night.
Oh well, he can implement his back up plan, and infect his opponents with Covid19, hoping they die a slow, lingering death. Luckily, imagination is only imagination – must to the chagrin of some SkyDragons who have issued threats in the past, only to realise their power to inflict pain was only – imaginary!
By the way, you do realise that lynchings actually occurred, do you? Neither opinions, imagination, or laws can prevent people from doing whatever they like. It’s called reality.
Nate,
Your analogy doesn’t make any sense. I’ve never espoused lynching anyone. Also, I’m not a leftist. However, Blinny has espoused locking people up because of their views, yes, their views, on climate change.
swenson…”he can implement his back up plan, and infect his opponents with Covid19…”
***
He’d have to find the virus first, something no one has been able to do to this point. The original paper on covid by Wuhan scientists revealed they had not physically isolated a virus but inferred it based on certain genetic sequences. Turns out those same genetic sequences are common in the human body.
The test for covid, invented by German fraudster, Christian Drosten, was based on the same inference. That’s why people will still be testing positive 50 years from now unless people come to their senses and do a proper investigation. Drosten admitted he had not physically isolated covid.
Obviously, something is causing people to get ill and even die. It may be a virus but no one to this day has physically isolated it.
It was confirmed in a paper released recently that most people dying of covid these days are fully vaccinated. The so-called vaccine, actually genetic modification, is based on the same inference. It doesn’t work!!!
https://www.sott.net/article/465146-UK-releases-report-confirming-the-fully-vaccinated-now-account-for-9-in-every-10-Covid-19-deaths-in-England?ysclid=laxln26ieo550829054
The polar vortex will remain broken up, resulting in very cold temperatures in Europe. This could be the coldest winter in many years.
Planetary waves are already visible in the upper stratosphere, causing the polar vortex to ripple.
https://i.ibb.co/Wt76Vsn/gfs-z100-nh-f312.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_WAVE1_MEAN_OND_NH_2022.png
ren
Didn’t you tell us that last year already?
Last winter was perfectly mild. Unluckily, it was followed by a cool spring and later on by a hot and unusually dry summer; none of the two were satisfying.
I would have preferred a cold winter followed by a mild spring and a warm summer, as we still had decades ago. That’s gone.
*
To your assumptions – based on what exactly, no se – I prefer NOAA’s forecast for Europe, made by the same working group responsible for ENSO forecasts:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/htmls/euT2me3Mon.html
I don’t see even a tiny bit of lightest blue in any of the six charts.
*
The same link gave on 2021, Nov 19:
https://web.archive.org/web/20211119195110/https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/htmls/euT2me3Mon.html
*
Feel free by the way to compare all that warm stuff to the cold forecast for North America:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/htmls/usT2me3Mon.html
Next Jan looks there muy fresco, doesn’t it?
Same for NA, right?
The circulation chart in the lower stratosphere indicates very strong highs in northeastern Europe and an influx of Arctic-continental air as far as the UK. This is exactly as it was during the Little Ice Age.
Bookmarked, ren!
ren…hope it doesn’t last 400+ years like the LIA. Of course, it’s pretty good skating weather.
Hey, I’d like to come to Poland and teach Lewandowski how to take penalty kicks. My Granny could save a penalty taken with the side of the foot.
Hey, Binny, I’d like to come over to Germany and teach the entire nation how to play soccer. They seem to have forgotten.
Australia’s eight-day rainfall forecast.
https://i.ibb.co/VwrGbP0/pme1to8.png
Completely off track, but seeing Dr Spencer apologise to Willis Eschenbach brought Willis’ nonsensical “Steel greenhouse” explanation of the non-existent GHE to mind.
Here’s a bit of Willis silliness, if anyone wants to find the rest –
“In order to maintain its thermal equilibrium, the whole system must still radiate 235 W/m2 out to space. To do this, the steel shell must warm until it is radiating at 235 watts per square metre. Of course, since a shell has an inside and an outside, it will also radiate 235 watts inward to the planet. The planet is now being heated by 235 W/m2 of energy from the interior, and 235 W/m2 from the shell. This will warm the planetary surface until it reaches a temperature of 470 watts per square metre. In vacuum conditions as described, this would be a perfect greenhouse, with no losses of any kind. Figure 1 shows how it works.”
Willis is not the sharpest tool in the shed, and does not realise that a sphere with a larger radius must have a greater area. An inner sphere radiating, say, 235 W/m2 to a larger sphere, means that the larger sphere will receive something less per unit area – because it has a larger area, and cannot possibly radiate say, 235 w/m2, because it physically cannot receive that much radiation per unit area.
Now, Willis compounds his confusion, by assuming his outer sphere is both a perfect insulator (reflecting all the energy it receives from an inner radiating sphere), and radiating the same impossible amount per m2 externally. No doubt due to the Eschenbach Energy Creation and Doubling Perpetual Motion Principle.
Like SkyDragons generally, Willis doesn’t mention real temperature anywhere, so he cannot be accused of providing any data to support his fantasy. He wrote – ” This will warm the planetary surface until it reaches a temperature of 470 watts per square metre.” Well, no, Willis, temperature is not measured in “watts per square metre”.
Willis presents all sorts of bizarre speculations as “explanations” either explicit or implied, regarding a GHE which can’t even be described.
Just another SkyDragon, trying to defend the indefensible. AGW is due to anthropogenic heat. No more, no less.
yet another disappearing post after being flagged as a duplicate…
willis’ heat budget is an issue too. There is no balance between heat in and heat out in real time. Our system of oceans and atmosphere is highly dynamic and dispersed. We take in the same amount of solar radiation each day but difference amounts in different locations. What we radiate away is but a portion of the overall heat dissipated at the surface.
Much of the heat dissipation is due to rising heated columns of air, where heat is directly dissipated to air at the surface. Since that air is 99% N2/O2, and neither of those elements can theoretically radiate it away, the heat must be dissipated by natural means as the air thins and loses pressure.
Surely no one believes that trace gases making up 0.31% of the entire atmosphere can be responsible for absorbing that heat from the 99% and radiating it away to space.
There is a far more complex and dynamic system at play. The fact that our atmosphere is being maintained at a theorized 33C above the alleged temperature of an Earth with no oceans or atmosphere, makes it abundantly clear that heat in does not equal heat out. Heat is being retained to maintain that 33C and we don’t know for how long it is retained.
One thing is clear, there is no greenhouse action involved. Greenhouses warm by tapping actual heated molecules of air, using glass, and the theory that it is trapped IR heating the greenhouses is based on a confusion between heat and IR. Trapping IR does absolutely nothing to warm anything.
GR,
You wrote –
“The fact that our atmosphere is being maintained at a theorized 33C above the alleged temperature of an Earth with no oceans or atmosphere, . . .”
Of course, the Earth does have an atmosphere. The atmosphereless Moon reaches 127 C, which shows that an atmosphere results in lower maxima, rather than higher. Cue SkyDragons bleating about “averages”!
Maybe the GHE true believers think that the Earth cooled to 33 K below its present temperature (due to the GHE), and then decided it was a bit chilly (frozen oceans and all), so heated up by 33 K (once again, due to the GHE)!
Tricky thing, this GHE. A genuine mystery. No wonder nobody can describe it!
swenson…I think Christos may have covered this but I don’t know. On Earth, we put thermometers in the atmosphere and call it surface temperature. On the Moon, with no atmosphere, the reference has to be the actual surface.
If the Moon faces the Sun directly for 14 days on one face, the face is bound to get darned hot. When that face faces away from the Sun for 14 days, and faces cold space, it gets colder than it gets warm when facing the Sun. So, the average is minus something.
I have no idea if the Earth’s atmosphere is 33C warmer because it is purely a hypothetical argument. It’s a calculation making use of S-B equations which were never designed for estimating terrestrial temperatures.
It doesn’t negate your argument that the Earth has been cooling for a bazzillion years. It’s simply an argument between two hypotheticals.
If someone claims there was a mile thick layer of ice over the Earth’s surface at one time, or that the Earth was 33C cooler at another time, my only response, which I got from my dear old Granny, is ‘hmmmm…if you say so’.
“Now, Willis compounds his confusion, by assuming his outer sphere is both a perfect insulator (reflecting all the energy it receives from an inner radiating sphere), and radiating the same impossible amount per m2 externally. No doubt due to the Eschenbach Energy Creation and Doubling Perpetual Motion Principle.”
Again Swenson reveals to us that he has no clue what an insulator does and does not do.
FYI his shell’s radius is neglibly larger than that of the planet, so your concerns about energy creation are moot.
It is at least certain that an insulator does not do something: send a thermal flux towards an object hotter than itself.
Why this stupid confusion between heat source and insulation is a constant in the discourse of climatologists?
It would be very interesting to know that.
phi,
Because they are delusional. They believe that a GHE (which they cannot describe in any useful way), allowed the Earth to cool for four and a half billion years or so, to something like 33 K below its present temperature (which nobody can actually measure), and then decided “Brrrr. It’s too cold – I’ll just warm it up a bit.”
Climate is the average of historical weather records. Ask a SkyDragon what the “climate” of the planet is, and watch them scurry away like cockroaches.
All good for a laugh.
“It is at least certain that an insulator does not do something: send a thermal flux towards an object hotter than itself.”
As always we need to repeatedly make clear what Clausius made clear 150 y ago, that the two-way or NET energy transfer must be from hot to cold, as the Second Law requires.
In this example, the hot body is transferring a NET of 470-235 = 235 W/m^2 to the colder outer shell.
Nate,
I specified heat flow. There is no heat flow from a cold body to a hot body.
Irradiance is not heat flux. Why do climatologists and only climatologists need to introduce virtual energy flows from cold to hot?
phi,
Because they are delusional?
Only joking. They are just in denial of reality, and confused enough that they think temperatures are measured in W/m2, and can be added and subtracted meaningfully – Willy-nilly.
Nate and his fellow nongs are convinced that if you concentrate the IR from ice to say 10,000 W/m2, this is surely enough to heat a teaspoon of water to boiling point! These SkyDragon cultists are a sore and sorry lot. They refuse to tell you what they believe, because they know they will quickly wind up looking like what they are – delusional SkyDragon cultists!
No offense meant to ordinary deranged fanatical cultists, of course. SkyDragons are in a league of their own.
Let me correct that ….
Swenson is convinced that Nate and his fellow nongs are convinced that if you concentrate the IR from ice to say 10,000 W/m2 …
In reality, no one thinks you can focus flux from ice to 10,000 W/m^2.
Tim,
You wrote –
“In reality, no one thinks you can focus flux from ice to 10,000 W/m^2.”
Why not? Don’t you believe in the physics of optics?
Take ice emitting IR at 300 W/m2. Use a lens with a magnification of 35x or so, and 10,000 W/m2 is easily obtainable. Can you get a temperature higher than the emitting object? Not at all – that’s a SkyDragon fantasy.
People tend to get confused, because they are used to concentrating the IR from the Sun – which has a temperature of 5600 K or so. Even 300 W/m2 of sunlight is easily concentrated by a relatively low powered hand lens to start a fire, for example. With a larger lens (or mirror) you can certainly boil water, melt iron, fry birds in flight, and do all sorts of interesting things.
It looks like your zinger turned into a clanger.
Better luck next time.
“Take ice emitting IR at 300 W/m2. Use a lens with a magnification of 35x or so, and 10,000 W/m2 is easily obtainable. ”
No, you simply don’t understand optics (or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics).
Here is a simple experiment for you. Take your lens and focus the light from a fluorescent light (tube, compact, or any other shape you want). No matter how you focus, no matter how many bulbs you get, not matter how near of far the bulbs, you can’t make the image any brighter than the surface of the original fluorescent bulbs.
The sun emits a flux about 64,000,000 W/m^2. By the time it reaches earth, the sun provides a flux of about 1300 W/m^2. No matter what lenses or mirrors you use, you simply cannot focus sunlight brighter than the original 64,000,000 W/m^2 flux.
Ice emits about 300 W/m^2. A distant ice surface might provide a flux of 100 W/m^2. No matter what lenses or mirrors you use, you simply cannot focus ice light brighter than the original 300 W/m^2 flux.
Tim,
You wrote –
“The sun emits a flux about 64,000,000 W/m^2. By the time it reaches earth, the sun provides a flux of about 1300 W/m^2. No matter what lenses or mirrors you use, you simply cannot focus sunlight brighter than the original 64,000,000 W/m^2 flux.”
No, it doesn’t matter how many W/m2 from the Sun reaches the Earth’s surface (not 1300 W/m2, by the way. Between 0 and 1000, give or take).
Just for laughs, people have started a fire using very much diluted rays from the Sun, focussed with a lens made from pond or lake ice. As well as intensity, you need temperature.
Use a 30x handheld magnifier, you can start a fire, or burn the legs off ants, with sunlight of less than 300 W/m2 (under clear skies). You can’t, using 300 W/m2 from ice, boiling water, or iron far too hot to hold, but not emitting visible light! Or even under a cloud, no matter the surrounding air temperature.
So no, Tim. Making unsupported vague statements about me not understanding optics or the 2nd law of thermodynamics won’t help you to dig yourself out of your hole.
Still no AGW due to a mythical GHE. The laws of optics apply to light of all frequencies. Materials differ in their optical properties – for example, germanium is used for IR lenses, but is perfectly opaque to visible light. Wave guides are specified in terms of wavelength, as are certain lenses and parabolic reflectors.
Professor John Tyndall realised that wavelengths make differences to optical calculations,
as did Herschel before him, and adjusted for them in some of his experiments, using very practical means.
But back to the Willis Steel Greenhouse nonsense, you agree that no matter how you add or concentrate sunlight, you can’t get anything hotter than the sun by using sunlight.
However, you suspend belief when Willis claims that adding fluxes from a cold body (235 W/m2), and its reflection from a mirror – doubles its temperature!
Others can of course make up their own minds. Facts are facts.
“you can start a fire … with sunlight of less than 300 W/m2 … You cant, using 300 W/m2 from ice”
Yes. That was exactly my point. The 300 W/m^2 from ice is fundamentally different from the 300 W/m^2 from the sun. You can’t seem to grasp the full implications of that.
The sunlight started as 64,000,000 W/m^2 and can in principle be focused up to 64,000,000 W/m^2, even if it has been reduced by distance to 300 W/m^2 when it arrives at a surface. Ice light started at 300 W/m^2 and can in principle be focused up to 300 W/m^2. The only way to get 300 W/m^2 of flux onto a surface from ice is for the ice to provide radiation from all directions. And if there is already radiation from all directions, there is no way for a lens or mirror to increase the radiation further.
Try the experiment I suggested. I suspect you intuitively know you can’t focus fluorescent lights to start fires — even with an entire wall that provides 300 W/m^2 of light onto the floor. The floor wil never be brighter than the surface of a lightbulb. Or draw some ray diagrams and think about how you can’t focus radiation that is already coming from all directions.
Swenson says: “They are just in denial of reality, and confused enough that they think temperatures are measured in W/m2 …”
and then he makes the same mistake when he states “a cold body (235 W/m2)”. 235 W/m^2 flowing from a surface is not equal to any particular “cold” temperature. For instance, if I put a sphere with a surface area of 1 m^2 in my living room and put a 235 W heater inside, the surface will be some amount above 293 K (20 C), not 254 K. If I put it in an oven at 200 C, it will be some amount above 473 K.
Tim,
“The 300 W/m^2 from ice is fundamentally different from the 300 W/m^2 from the sun.”
Exactly, excellent point. So why in the concept of radiative forcing, does 300 W/m2 from GHGs have exactly the same effect as 300 W/m2 from the sun???
Tim,
You wrote –
“235 W/m^2 flowing from a surface is not equal to any particular “cold” temperature. For instance, if I put a sphere with a surface area of 1 m^2 in my living room and put a 235 W heater inside, the surface will be some amount above 293 K (20 C), not 254 K. If I put it in an oven at 200 C, it will be some amount above 473 K.”
Well, it is equal to -19 C, if it is being radiated by a black body – according to Messrs. Stefan and Boltzmann. Maybe your “black bodies” are the SkyDragon variety?
Your “living room” obviously has any temperature you want it to have, and emits radiation – which you dont mention. Your 235 W heater has any temperature you like, and magically varies its emissivity to get the result you want. A 235 W/m2 black body may rise to the temperature of your living room. No higher – its colder to start with, dummy.
I’m just helping you out by specifying your heater is one of your black bodies, putting out 235 W/m2, with as much area as you like – is one million square meters enough? 235 million Watts?
As to your silly imaginary oven, your black body heater emitting 235 W/m2, is around -19C. If you imagine it will be heated to above the temperature of the oven (473 K), you are definitely off with the fairies.
All this is just a SkyDragon diversion away from the fact that you can’t even describe the GHE, which in any case allowed the Earth to cool for four and a half billion years or so, isn’t it?
Try pulling off another illusion, Tim. Hide a few high temperature electric heaters around an environment of unstated temperature, acting on bodies which change their physical characteristics at your whim, create a few new physical laws, and don’t commit yourself to anything that can be verified. Stick to fantasy – who can challenge the non-existent?
What a deceptive SkyDragon cultist you are!
“As to your silly imaginary oven, your black body heater emitting 235 W/m2, is around -19C.”
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the scenario. This is a heater — a panel with a built-in electric heating element the provides 235 W/m^2 ABOVE AND BEYOND any other heat or radiation.
What you are talking about here is a COOLER, perhaps with circulating alcohol at -19 C that REMOVES heat from some part of the oven.
Phi askes “[why] does 300 W/m2 from GHGs have exactly the same effect as 300 W/m2 from the sun???”
The two are different in the fact that one *could* be concentrated but the other can’t. The two are similar in the fact that both provide 300 J each second to a surface, which results in the same energy gain and the same final temperature (everything else being equal).
Tim,
“The two are similar in the fact that both provide 300 J each second to a surface, which results in the same energy gain and the same final temperature (everything else being equal).”
I fear that is not the case.
1. If the 300 W/m2 from the GHGs cannot be concentrated, it is because they do not represent a thermal flux.
2. The 300 W/m2 of GHG are not a heat flux but an irradiance whereas we can admit that the 300 W/m2 solar are a heat flux.
3. The 300 W/m2 GHG reflect an insulating effect while the 300 W/m2 solar are heating.
4. The 300 W/m2 irradiance is a consequence of system heating and not a cause.
5. The effect of insulation is expressed in W/m3/K and not in W/m2.
Radiative forcing is not a concept compatible with thermodynamics, it is just an invention of climatology and a consequence and illustration of pataphysics developed in Manabe and Strickler 1967.
Oops sorry, it’s Manabe and Wetherland 1967.
1. The 300 W/m2 from the GHGs cannot be concentrated because it is already a diffuse flux and 300 W/m^2 is the full flux at the source. But it is still a ‘thermal flux’.
I mean, if you went to the surface of the sun where the flux is ~ 64,000,000 W/m^2, would you claim this is not a ‘thermal flux’ because it can’t be concentrated higher than 64,000,000 W/m^2
2 The 300 W/m2 from GHGs is both heat flux AND an irradiance.
3. I am fine with your distinction between “insulating effect” and “heating effect”. But both are “warming effects” on the surface, which is all we really care about for the GHE. The surface is warmer with IR active gases in the atmosphere than without.
5. There are many ways to quantify the effect of insulation. The simplest is “watts”. An uninsulated water heater requires 100 W to keep warm. An otherwise identical insulated water heater requires only 20 W to keep warm. The ‘effect’ of the insulation is 80 W reduction of power. Or if the water heaters both have a surface area of 2 m^2, the ‘effect’ is a reduction from 50 W/m^2 to 10 W/m^2.
W/m^2 is a perfectly fine set of units to describe the effect of insulation.
Tim,
1. Again, irradiance is not a flux, you can’t get work out of it. Only a heat flow can be concentrated (or diverged) within the limits of the temperatures in play to provide work.
2. The characteristic of a heat flow is to be subject to the second principle and always goes from hot to cold. So, no, the 300 W/m2 GHG is absolutely not heat flow.
3. Yes, GHGs have the effect of increasing the surface temperature but to know by how much you have to use thermodynamics and not pataphysics.
5. No! We can deduce from a thermodynamic calculation the equivalent effect in W/m2 of an insulator at a given point, we can never express as input to the calculation the effect of an insulator in W/m2.
An insulator does not have the same effect as heating on a thermodynamic system, in particular, the temperature fields are different. It was Manabe who introduced this confusion by removing thermodynamics from the calculation of the greenhouse effect.
“Only a heat flow can be concentrated (or diverged) within”
No, phi, as Tim mentioned, that has to do only with whether a source of radiation is diffuse (spread out) or not.
For example, sunlight that is scattered in the atmosphere is diffuse radiation from the whole sky. It contributes to the warming of the surface. But it cannot be concentrated with a lens to burn paper the way direct sunlight can.
Because all a lens can do is ENLARGE a source, which works for the direct sun which is a small disk source. A lens cannot enlarge the whole sky, which is already as large is can get.
The downwelling IR is also a diffuse whole sky source, and thus it also cannot be concentrated with a lens.
And I can also point out that my IR thermometer has a lens. It can focus the IR emitted by small sources, like a cloud in the sky.
ate,
“Only a heat flow can be concentrated (or diverged)…to provide work.”
Irradiance is not a flux, so you can’t do anything with it.
If you place a plane mirror facing the sky under an object. This doubles the GHG irradiance towards the object.
The fundamental problem is therefore not to be diffuse or not, it is to be or not to be a thermal flux.
You can imagine irradiance as a virtual flow of energy, but you are no further ahead because the two opposing virtual flows represent a single thermodynamic phenomenon. These virtual flux are impossible to separate.
This confusion between heat flux and virtual energy flow is a specialty of climatology where it has been operating since Manabe and Wetherland 1967.
You can defend this greenhouse effect physics but you are defending a pataphysics.
“If you place a plane mirror facing the sky under an object. This doubles the GHG irradiance towards the object.”
Not quite, it will hit a different (back) surface, it is not concentrated on the same point on a surface.
“The fundamental problem is therefore not to be diffuse or not”
I clearly explained why a whole sky diffuse source cannot be enlarged by a lens and thus not concentrated. It is an optical fact that you have not rebutted.
“it is to be or not to be a thermal flux.”
Why? This is an unproven assertion.
Thermal IR flux from downwelling sky radiation can be detected in various ways, such as IR cameras, spectrometers, or thermopiles in T sensors. If it is detectable, it is a real EM flux.
If my mirror doesn’t suit you, you can imagine a point at the bottom of a valley that only sees half the sky (pi sr). You can place mirrors around the object to get a point-sky angle of 2 pi sr. You have thus concentrated the diffuse effect of GHG. It’s the same principle for the sun’s rays, just the solid angle without a mirror is much lower.
The fundamental difference therefore lies in the nature of what is concentrated. We can assume that it is a thermal flux for the sun. For GHGs, it is not flux but irradiance.
“Thermal IR flux from downwelling sky radiation can be detected in various ways, such as IR cameras…”
No, absolutely not!
All of these devices pointed at a cold object detect a heat flow from the hot device to the cold object. These devices also measure their own temperature which allows them to calculate the irradiance of the object.
“If my mirror doesnt suit you, you can imagine a point at the bottom of a valley that only sees half the sky (pi sr). You can place mirrors around the object to get a point-sky angle of 2 pi sr. You have thus concentrated the diffuse effect of GHG.”
Sure if you block half the sky, you get less of its radiation. That will be equally true for the scattered sunlight.
Again, scattered sunlight must be included in the energy budget of the surface to determine the surface T. Thus DW IR must be included as well.
“All of these devices pointed at a cold object detect a heat flow from the hot device to the cold object. These devices also measure their own temperature which allows them to calculate the irradiance of the object.”
Yes indeed. There is a NET flow of heat (as it is defined) from hot to cold.
But that is still a measurement! They are still detecting photons emitted by that source.
And if the detector surface was facing space @ 3 K, the detector surface will be very cold. But if it is facing the sky @ 240 K it will be much warmer. If the sky warms further, say 245 K, the detector surface will be warmer also.
Yes?
That warming of the sky from say 240 K to 245 K is called a forcing, because it results in a warmer Earth surface.
Yes, we can indeed establish a balance at the output of a thermodynamic calculation in this way.
But, the irradiance of the sky at 240 K does not reflect an increase in heating but a decrease in the radiative cooling of the surface. Decreasing cooling and increasing heating do not have the same effect on a thermodynamic system. They can therefore in no way be confused with the notion of radiative forcing.
Once again, this confusion dates back to Manabe and Wetherland 1967 who purely and simply removed thermodynamics from the calculation of the greenhouse effect and replaced it with an empirical method.
Crafty and meaningless. We have no way of calculating the greenhouse effect and that is not about to change.
Yes, a heater is not the same as insulation. But both produce warming.
“Crafty and meaningless. We have no way of calculating the greenhouse effect and that is not about to change.”
Not at all true. This is like we have no way of calculating the effect of insulation…
Nate,
The problem encountered by Manabe is the calculation of the convective flux. Nobody knows how to do it and nobody imagines how it would be possible to do it. Manabe therefore took the calculation of the greenhouse effect out of thermodynamics to make a scullery soup. Again, it’s very simple, we don’t know how to calculate the greenhouse effect and the results of models are just arbitrary.
“Manabe therefore took the calculation of the greenhouse effect out of thermodynamics to make a scullery soup.”
“Again, its very simple, we dont know how to calculate the greenhouse effect and the results of models are just arbitrary.”
In your opinion, but not demonstrated for anyone else.
Their MW paper was the first to explain the actual lapse rate of the Earth. Manabe then built on this work to develop some of the first models that could produce Earth’s general circulation pattern.
Obviously Manabe knew what he was doing.
Nate,
It’s not just my opinion. Don’t fall into denial.
All the papers on the subject are unequivocal.
No physicist has claimed to make a thermodynamic calculation of the greenhouse effect.
Manabe and Wetherland being unable to calculate the convective flux use an empirical gradient to solve the system: Free and forced convection, and mixing by the large-scale eddies, prevent the lapse rate from exceeding a critical lapse rate equal to 6.5C km-1.
Ramanathan et Coakley 1978 : Since the temperature gradient is prescribed within the troposphere, (8) [qT(z) + qS(z) + qC(z) = const = 0] need not be solved. Instead, the equation for the radiative equilibrium condition, i.e., qT + qS = 0, is solved with the provisio that the lapse rate at any level within the atmosphere should be less than or equal to the critical lapse rate.
“use an empirical gradient.”
All numerical weather models use empirically derived quantities in addition to fundamental laws of physics. It is not a flaw, as you seem to suggest, because it does not prevent them from accurately predicting the weather.
The first 1960s and 70s climate models contained lots of approximations. Otherwise they would not be solvable with then available computing power. Yet they gave valuable insights.
Nate,
Meteorological models do not study the effect of a variation in the CO2 level, they can therefore perfectly use an empirical gradient.
The convective flow is not calculable.
Manabe comes out of thermodynamics to solve the problem.
There is no thermodynamics in the calculation of the greenhouse effect. No more today than in 1967 and 1978.
It is not at all a problem of approximation but that of the fundamental mechanism of the greenhouse effect.
The CO2 folder is empty.
You can still have faith but please keep science out of your beliefs.
“There is no thermodynamics in the calculation of the greenhouse effect.:
Uhh of course there is, but there are ALSO empirical factors.
“It is not at all a problem of approximation but that of the fundamental mechanism of the greenhouse effect.”
How’s that? What do you think they are getting wrong about the fundamental mechanism?
And what is your evidence?
“Meteorological models do not study the effect of a variation in the CO2 level, they can therefore perfectly use an empirical gradient.”
Climate models are quite similar to weather models. Both must deal with huge variation in atmospheric properties, and must then evaluate their space-time evolution.
You claim, without evidence, that only CO2 variation is problematic.
That is not obvious.
Nate,
No, there is no thermodynamics in the calculation of the greenhouse effect. You are only stating your belief without supporting it. I showed you by quotes that the convective flux was not calculated and that the thermal gradient was imposed. There is no thermodynamics, just cooking and radiative physics.
Meteorological models do not run on the same time scale and do not seek to highlight the effect of variations in the CO2 level, the thermal gradient can therefore be parameterized empirically without any problem.
What thermodynamics do you think is missing?
Here is the paper. Look at the Appendix explaining their algorithm in detail.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/24/3/1520-0469_1967_024_0241_teotaw_2_0_co_2.xml
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/24/3/1520-0469_1967_024_0241_teotaw_2_0_co_2.xml?tab_body=pdf
They are calculating the T of various layers of air using energy inputs, outputs, heat capacity, pressure, water vapor pressure, etc.
This looks like Thermodynamics is being used!
They do also use the critical lapse rate to decide if convection is occurring between the layers. Seems reasonable as an approximation.
“Meteorological models do not run on the same time scale and do not seek to highlight the effect of variations in the CO2 level, the thermal gradient can therefore be parameterized empirically without any problem.”
This is your assertion. But I see no logical argument or evidence here as to why CO2 variation causes problems, while parametrization otherwise is fine.
Nate,
“What thermodynamics do you think is missing?”
The thermal gradient is an unknown of the thermodynamic calculation not an input. If you impose a thermal gradient, it is no longer a thermodynamic calculation.
“They do also use the critical lapse rate to decide if convection is occurring between the layers. Seems reasonable as an approximation.”
The critical gradient is empirical. Why would that be a good approximation? This value is a priori the first affected by an addition of CO2.
“This is your assertion. But I see no logical argument or evidence here as to why CO2 variation causes problems, while parametrization otherwise is fine.”
Because the CO2 level obviously affects the thermal gradient. This is what Manabe explained in his 1964 paper:
The observed tropospheric lapse rate of temprature is approximately 6,5C/km. The explanation for this fact is rather complicated. It is essencially the result of a balance between (a) the stabilizing effect of upward heat transport in moist and dry convection on both small and large scales and (b) the destbilizing effect of radiative transfer.
This is the basis of atmospheric physics and of course it has never been disproved. Modifying the radiative structure of the atmosphere acts primarily on the thermal gradient.
“The thermal gradient is an unknown of the thermodynamic calculation not an input. If you impose a thermal gradient”
The thermal gradient NOT imposed. It is an output of the calculation. You apparently didnt look carefully at the paper. Look at the Appendix.
By far the largest controller of the thermal gradient is moisture content. In the Earth’s atmosphere this varies considerably and the thermal gradient is a major variable found by weather models.
You still have not made the case that ‘there is no thermodynamics in the calculation of the greenhouse effect’.
The gradient is adjusted according to the humidity level. The great innovation of Manabe which earned him the Nobel Prize is to consider it as independent of radiative exchanges.
It is perfectly clear, there is no thermodynamic calculation of the greenhouse effect. That the gradient is adjusted empirically to the moisture content does not change this fact.
“It is perfectly clear, there is no thermodynamic calculation of the greenhouse effect. That the gradient is adjusted empirically to the moisture content does not change this fact.”
The gradient is clearly CALCULATED using mainly thermodynamics. Look at the equations in the Appendix.
Not sure where youve gotten this incorrect impression.
Nate,
Appendix 1, step 4 and 5.
You seek to defend something indefensible.
You will exhaust yourself.
Yes, I have already agreed that they use the a critical gradient (an approximation) to determine when convection is happening. How else would you want them to do it?
Now look at Step 3, the temperature at each layer is calculated using THERMODYNAMICS. The gradient is obtained from these layer temperatures.
It is not imposed.
It seems you only see what you want to see, and ignore all else Phi.
Nate,
The main effect of greenhouse gases is to act on the temperature gradient. Holding this gradient to be independent of radiative exchanges is not an approximation, it’s just rubbish.
Step 3 is a purely radiative calculation. For almost all of the troposphere, it is reduced to an empirical gradient in steps 4 and 5.
Really, you are wasting your time trying to defend such stupidity.
“The main effect of greenhouse gases is to act on the temperature gradient.”
Huh? How’s that?
“Holding this gradient to be independent of radiative exchanges is not an approximation, its just rubbish.”
WTF are you talking about? The radiative exchanges are explicitly included in the calculation.
“Step 3 is a purely radiative calculation. For almost all of the troposphere, it is reduced to an empirical gradient in steps 4 and 5.””
Wrong. If there is no convection then radiation is all there is! It is the resulting T gradient that determines if convection is happening, and in step 4 that is checked and included if necessary.
This is how numerical calculations work, maybe you are not familiar.
“Really, you are wasting your time trying to defend such stupidity.”
Stupid why? Show us your alternative. What would you change?
In any case this was the first paper to try to include convection, and it showed that the effect of increasing CO2 would be LESS WARMING as a result of convection.
Of course, it was crude and 1D, but highly influential. Manabe later pioneered 3D GCMs.
Nate,
GHGs cool the atmosphere, so they are the source of the thermal gradient: hot source at the surface and cold source at altitude. And since the atmosphere is only semi-opaque, GHGs continue to have a large effect on the gradient value over the full height of the column.
“The radiative exchanges are explicitly included in the calculation.”
But without effect on the thermal gradient of the troposphere Manabe 1967. The tropospheric gradient is purely empirical.
Current models are still based on the same general principle and almost all tropospheric mass has an empirical gradient.
There is no alternative. Calculating convection is impossible and will probably remain impossible forever.
You don’t understand or are you just playing at not understanding?
“There is no alternative. Calculating convection is impossible and will probably remain impossible forever.”
Ok so the paper is ‘rubbish’ and ‘stupid’, but you offer no alternative way of doing things.
Contrary to your original complaints, the paper does use Thermodynamics.
The use of empirical understanding of convection, and other factors, apparently works well in weather models, so it remains unclear why you think this is a fatal flaw in climate models.
Nate,
“Ok so the paper is rubbish and stupid, but you offer no alternative way of doing things.”
Exactly.
“Contrary to your original complaints, the paper does use Thermodynamics.”
I wrote: there is no thermodynamics in the calculation of the greenhouse effect.
A calculation that imposes an empirical thermal gradient is a calculation out of thermodynamics. Nate, you need to stop nitpicking, you’re on the way to bad faith.
“The use of empirical understanding of convection, and other factors, apparently works well in weather models, so it remains unclear why you think this is a fatal flaw in climate models.”
I have already explained to you why this argument is invalid.
I believe I have covered the subject with you. I can’t force you to understand.
Good evening.
“I have already explained to you why this argument is invalid.”
You declared it invalid, without any real logic or evidence.
Nate,
You wrote –
“FYI his shells radius is neglibly larger than that of the planet, so your concerns about energy creation are moot.”
No, close enough is not good enough. Willis stated as fact, a physical impossibility. Just as SkyDragons saying that a slowly cooling body is really getting hotter.
Face it, Nate. You are just another gullible SkyDragon, trying to defend the indefensible.
How are you going trying to find experimental support for the GHE that you can’t even describe?
“No, close enough is not good enough.”
Actually it is. Negligibly different in science is negligibly different.
Negligible- another word that you seem to not know. Look it up.
Let’s face it Flynnson, you cannot win this argument on the facts, you have no legitimate rebuttal for Tim or me. You say things that make no sense.
You have no intention to do honest debate. So you just post ad-hom filled gibberish.
Thats how we recognize trolling.
“Willis is not the sharpest tool in the shed, and does not realise that a sphere with a larger radius must have a greater area. ”
He fully realizes this. But this is a SMALL correction. If the shell were, say 1 km above the surface, the area would be less than 0.1% larger. This would result in something like 234 W/m^2 being returned. This would change the results a tiny bit, but would not change the principles involved. (And the shell could be made arbitrarily close to the surface, resulting in 234.99 W/m^2 being returned).
“Now, Willis compounds his confusion, by assuming his outer sphere is both a perfect insulator …”
No, if anything he is assuming a perfect CONDUCTOR so the inside and outside are the same temperature.
” … (reflecting all the energy it receives from an inner radiating sphere)”
No he is assuming a black body surface, ABSORBING all the energy it receives, and not REFLECTING any.
“… and radiating the same impossible amount per m2 externally.”
What do you find “impossible”? The inside and outsides are the same temperature (or very close) so the inside and outside must both emit the same (or very close) amount based on the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
“Well, no, Willis, temperature is not measured in ‘watts per square metre’.”
OK, I agree that is a bit sloppy. Willis should have said “This will warm the planetary surface until it reaches a temperature WHERE IT WILL EMIT 470 watts per square metre.” But given his assumption of a blackbody surface, there is one and only one temperature that will emit 470 W/m^2, so there is really no confusion.
Tim,
Don’t be stupid.
As you point out, Willis’ “steel” sphere is both a perfect insulator (reflecting 100% of incident radiation), and a perfect conductor (emitting all incident radiation to space).
The Willis Energy Doubling Perpetual Motion Principle?
Now, you claim that the surface will magically warm, although it can’t – can it?
No amount of trying to justify Willis’ silliness will avoid the fact that the Amazing Steel Greenhouse (not steel, not a greenhouse – but definitely Amazing) cannot be at a higher temperature than an inner sphere, and, in fact, must be at a lesser temperature. In the absence of the Willis Magical Energy Creation Principle, of course!
SkyDragons claim temperatures are measured in W/m2, so they can add numbers like 235 and 235, come up with 470 which supposedly means a doubling of temperature!
About as silly as putting a sphere of ice emitting 235 W/m2 inside a hollow sphere of ice emitting 235 W/m2, and expecting the inner sphere to magically start radiating 470 W/m2, and melt – due to the Willis Spontaneous Heat Generating Principle, or “back radiation”, or some other figment of SkyDragon imagination.
There s certainly no confusion – Willis is ignorant or stupid, and you are too enmired in your SkyDragon fantasy to accept reality.
No AGW due to GHE. Not even if you use a material which is simultaneously a perfect conductor and a perfect reflector – you still can’t make something warmer using the radiation from something colder. Don’t blame me – I didn’t write the laws of the universe.
“As you point out, Willis steel sphere is both a perfect insulator (reflecting 100% of incident radiation), and a perfect conductor (emitting all incident radiation to space).”
I pointed out nothing of of the sort. I said that the surfaces ABSORB 100% of incident radiation (ie they are black bodies), not REFLECT incident radiation. Also, the ability to reflect and absorb is different from the ability to conduct or insulate thermal energy (black paper and white paper absorb quite differently, but insulate the same).
Here is the thought experiment you need to understand. There are two spherical shells (thin, good thermal conductors) around two slightly smaller spheres (all with black body surfaces). Both have electrical heaters providing equal power (235 W for every m^2 of the outer shells). This will result in a temperature 254 K for the outer surface of the shell in both cases.
But there is one difference. In one case, the heaters are attached to the outer shell. In the other case, they are attached to the inner sphere. From the outside, both look identical and both have the same temperature (254 K for the shell)
But when the heater is attached to the sphere, there must be a heat flow of 235 W/m^2 from the sphere to the shell. This can only happen if the sphere is hotter than the shell. If both are 254 K, then no heat flows from the sphere to the shell. The sphere would necessarily have to warm up until 235 W/m^2 flowed from sphere to shell. The sphere must be hotter than the shell.
Tim,
You wrote –
“I pointed out nothing of of the sort. I said that the surfaces ABSORB 100% of incident radiation (ie they are black bodies), not REFLECT incident radiation.”
No, you wrote earlier –
“If the shell were, say 1 km above the surface, the area would be less than 0.1% larger. This would result in something like 234 W/m^2 being returned.”, to try and justify Willis’ silly claim that a sphere will a larger surface area could “return” as much radiation as reached its surface.
This phenomenon is called “reflection”, where an incident ray impinging upon a surface is “returned” nominally without attenuation. The angle of incidence is shown to be equal to the angle of reflection.
If the surface absorbs 100% of incident radiation, it has to go somewhere. If it is 100% transmitted (to outer space, as Willis says), then the object is by definition 100% transparent. If it “returns” 100%, it is 100% reflective.
I see you attempt to wriggle out of your nonsensical justifications by producing another so-called “thought experiment”, involving electric heaters of unknown characteristics, and impossible objects, suspended in an environment of unspecified temperature.
Notwithstanding your fantasy scenario, I’ll play your silly game. The environment is at absolute zero. If you can have black bodies, I can have no spare hidden energy floating around.
Your electric heaters will raise the temperatures of the black bodies to around -19 C. That is the maximum temperature of the heater, of course. You can’t have heaters which are capable of higher temperatures, that would be sneaky and deceptive. SkyDragon nonsense. You are silly enough to believe that heat can flow from a colder body to a warmer. Just saying ” . . . there must be a heat flow of 235 W/m^2 from the sphere to the shell.” is just stupid. About as stupid as claiming that exposing water to to a “flow” of 300 W/m2 (from ice) will make the water hotter. It won’t, no matter what demented mental gymnastics you attempt.
Willis’ “steel greenhouse” is based on mathematical and physical ignorance. Your defence of his silliness is no doubt based on the same ignorance.
Still no AGW as a result of any GHE insulation effect. Go on, try and define the GHE, if you don’t think that CO2 is just planetary insulation, as Raymond Pierrehumbert said.
Off you go, try your hardest while I laugh at your SkyDragon fanaticism.
“This phenomenon is called “reflection”, where an incident ray impinging upon a surface is “returned” nominally without attenuation. …”
No. Every wall in my office is emitting IR and absorbing IR. Since all are at (roughly) the same temperature, all the walls are emitting and absorbing the same amounts. The same amount returns from the surface as arrives at the surface.
“Your electric heaters will raise the temperatures of the black bodies to around -19 C. That is the maximum temperature of the heater, of course.”
Again, you are falling for the fallacy that flux (235 W/m^2) equates to a temperature (-19 C). The temperature of the electric heater will depend on the surroundings. If it is in a room that is already at -19 C, the heater will be -19 C before even turning it on (ie 0 W/m^2 of electric power). Once you turn it on, it will warm up.
Tim,
You wrote –
“No. Every wall in my office is emitting IR and absorbing IR. Since all are at (roughly) the same temperature, all the walls are emitting and absorbing the same amounts. The same amount returns from the surface as arrives at the surface.”
Well, no, “roughly” doesn’t apply. Colder bodies emit radiation, but it has precisely no effect on warmer bodies. For example, trying to use ice to make water hotter, or water at 99 C to boil water which is 99.5 C.
You also wrote –
“Again, you are falling for the fallacy that flux (235 W/m^2) equates to a temperature (-19 C). The temperature of the electric heater will depend on the surroundings. If it is in a room that is already at -19 C, the heater will be -19 C before even turning it on (ie 0 W/m^2 of electric power). Once you turn it on, it will warm up.”
Not at all. You specified a black body, not me. A black body emitting 235 W/m2 is about -19 C. It doesn’t matter how much energy you have, you specified a radiative intensity, but now you think you can just change physical laws because you don’t like being caught out.
You still haven’t managed to dispute the fact that the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years or so, in spite of all your illusory nonsense trying to make inconvenient fact go away.
Nothing stopped the Earth from cooling, and it continues to do so. Your fantasies cannot overcome the fact that you can’t even describe the GHE. Try as hard as you like, it won’t do you any good.
Four and a half billion years or so of history is telling you that you are delusional.
Others can decide for themselves. Accept reality, or accept Tim’s denial of reality.
“Well, no, ‘roughly’ doesnt apply. “
Roughly was only to acknowledge that some parts of the walls might be 19 C and other parts 21 C (and that this wouldn’t affect the conclusions). So, yes, ‘roughly’ does apply.
“Colder bodies emit radiation, but it has precisely no effect on warmer bodies. “
I guarantee that whether I stand in a warm room (30 C) or a cold room (-20 C), it has a considerable effect on my warm body. I will be colder and burn more calories in the cold room. The radiation from the walls has a definite effect on my warmer body.
“You specified a black body, not me. A black body emitting 235 W/m2 is about -19 C. … “
Actually, what I specified is (in part):
“There are two spherical shells (thin, good thermal conductors) around two slightly smaller spheres (all with black body surfaces). Both have electrical heaters providing equal power (235 W for every m^2 of the outer shells). … But when the heater is attached to the sphere, there must be a heat flow of 235 W/m^2 from the sphere to the shell. ”
There is an electrical power INPUT of 235 W/m^2 and there must be a power OUTPUT of 235 W/m^2 to the surroundings when the system stabilizes. A black body at -19 C has 0 W/m^2 power output to -19 C surroundings. It must be ~ 29 C to be losing 235 W/m^2 to the surroundings.
Exactly in accordance with what I said and with what you misinterpreted.
“As you point out, Willis ‘steel’ sphere is both a perfect insulator (reflecting 100% of incident radiation)”
FYI, given that the shell is warming and emitting heat, 235 W/m^2, from its outer surface to space, why would anyone call this a perfect insulator?
Once again, Swenson demonstrates for all to see, that he has no clue about radiative heat transfer, what an insulator does, etc.
It continues to be baffling why he posts uninformed opinions on a science blog, when he lacks the most basic understanding of science and has no interest in learning it!
Peabrain Nate,
An object cannot simultaneously be perfectly transparent (transmitting all incident radiation) and perfectly reflective (returning all incident radiation) at the same time. Just because you claim an object receiving a certain amount of energy is emitting twice that amount, doesn’t make it true.
Not unless you have one of Willis’ Magical Energy Doubling Devices, of course.
Notwithstanding Willis’ other manifestly incorrect statements (spheres of different radii having equal surface areas, for example), a body totally surrounded by a body at exactly the same temperature will not magically double its temperature.
You are either simply ignorant, or possibly afflicted with a mental defect which prevents you accepting reality.
Maybe someone values your opinion, but they seem conspicuous by their absence on this forum.
Let’s be honest, Swenson, difficult as that may be for you.
If you have little interest in learning science and little knowledge of it, it is very unlikely what you post about it will be accurate.
But here you are expressing undue certainty about sciency things.
“An object cannot simultaneously be perfectly transparent (transmitting all incident radiation) and perfectly reflective (returning all incident radiation) at the same time.”
And sure enough, your comments are irrelevant to the topic being discussed.
No one has claimed the shell is transparent or reflective. It was described as a black body, which is neither!
“Just because you claim an object receiving a certain amount of energy is emitting twice that amount, doesnt make it true.”
Nope, no one has claimed that either! You are misrepresenting the problem and what’s been said about it.
Willis claims the shell is receiving 470 W/m^2 and emitting 235 W/m2 from both sides. That conserves energy.
His solution satisfies the laws of physics: 1LOT (energy conserved), 2LOT (heat is flowing always from hot to cold), the SB law, and Kirchoffs Law (abso*rtivity = emissivity = 1)
But given that you refuse to learn, there is no hope you will ever understand.
Roy Spencer
” An Apology to Willis Eschenbach ”
November 24th, 2022 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
What a nice reaction.
However, you won’t have overlooked how ignorant and disrespectful two of your blog’s posters behaved upthread with regard to Willis Eschenbach’s views about GHE.
Would they be courageous enough to post such trash at WUWT?
I think no: they sense in advance that they would very likely be smashed by Willis – as usual, politely but firmly!
J.-P.
Bunny,
Willis’ “Steel Greenhouse” nonsense just demonstrates Willis’ ignorance of both physics and geometry.
As to being “smashed” by Willis, that is about as fearsome a prospect as being “smashed” by you! Oh fear, oh horror!
You obviously haven’t seen the reality of Willis’ antics when he is presented with reality which shows how ignorant he is.
I’m not knocking Mr Eschenbach’s enthusiasm, or the effort he puts into his speculations, but they seem to be based on the assumption that some sort of planet heating process involving CO2, erroneously referred to as the “Greenhouse Effect” exists!
He might just as well propose a “Steel Faeces” explanation to explain the elevated temperature of unicorn crap! If you must appeal to authority, appeal to authority – not another ignorant SkyDragon cultist.
Feel free to have a tantrum if you wish. It won’t do you any good.
What you think about Willis Eschenbach, Flynnson: that might at best interest on this blog a few people as ignorant and arrogant as you yourself are.
What I said is, to be clear, that you and Robertson are cowards who lack the balls to discredit him at WUWT!
Binny,
You wrote –
“What I said is, to be clear, that you and Robertson are cowards who lack the balls to discredit him at WUWT!”
Your febrile imaginings, based on nothing at all (at least in my case) are not worth the paper you haven’t written them on.
Maybe you should check the facts before you come out with your specious nonsense.
You don’t have the balls (or even the backbone) to accept reality, do you? You are just another hand-waving SkyDragon, who can’t even describe your stupid GHE!
Keep on ranting about balls, cojones, dog poop, flatulence – and all the rest of your efforts to avoid facing reality. Reality will catch up with you, you know – you can’t run forever.
It’s pretty cold in Siberia!
A look at current temperatures in Verkhoyansk
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Verkhoyansk,+Sakha+Republic,+Russia,+678530/@67.5505919,133.3293019,11837m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x5b9579da63386d09:0x1dda69f74af67b40!8m2!3d67.5505925!4d133.3993398?hl=en
tells us that nicely:
https://i.postimg.cc/Wpqnq6JG/Verkhoyansk-251122.png
*
Hint to overzealous Coolistas: this is hardly an indication of global cooling, historically speaking.
A look at Verkhoyansk’s history makes it clear by looking at earlier temperatures on Nov 25:
RSM00024266 63-125 1916 11 27 -56.4
RSM00024266 63-125 1929 11 25 -54.7
RSM00024266 63-125 1932 11 26 -54.7
RSM00024266 63-125 1929 11 26 -54.4
RSM00024266 63-125 1989 11 23 -54.4
RSM00024266 63-125 1932 11 25 -54.2
RSM00024266 63-125 1929 11 23 -54.0
RSM00024266 63-125 1902 11 27 -53.9
RSM00024266 63-125 1929 11 24 -53.7
RSM00024266 63-125 2019 11 26 -53.6
As some use to say when it’s warmer somewhere: move along, it’s only weather.
Temperatures in Celsius of course.
“It’s pretty cold in Siberia!”
It’s late autumn/winter.
Bunny,
Cold in Siberia?
Who’d have thought?
Next astonishing news you might reveal is that it gets hot in Death Valley!
Carry on.
Hellooooo, you blathering stalker!
Do you have something to say?
No?
Ah yes, Flynnson, as so often, is just urging to say something
Bunny,
Cold in Siberia?
Whod have thought?
Next astonishing news you might reveal is that it gets hot in Death Valley!
Carry on.
This complaint from our resident red herring specialist?!
Please please tell us for the 648th time about the irrelevant 4.5 billion years of cooling!
Numbskull Nate,
Another unsupported assertion or two from you? 648th time? Irrelevant?
Just because you dribble nonsense, facts don’t change.
The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years or so, whether you want to accept it or not. No warming due to any GHE. Well, not from the creation of the Earth to now. I assume that the laws of the universe aren’t going to change anytime soon.
You?
[laughing at idiot trying to troll]
649 as predicted*
* Of course 648 was a rough estimate. In any case it is an uncountably large number.
“No warming due to any GHE. Well, not from the creation of the Earth to now.”
False. in the last century the Earth has warmed, and predictably Swenson continues to deny this fact.
“As some use to say when its warmer somewhere”
The probability is that is it will be even colder in Jan/Feb next year.
” The probability is that is it will be even colder in Jan/Feb next year. ”
1. And where will that happen?
A valuable source for your astute, instructive claim, Linsley Hood?
Bunny,
Your first question is about as pointless as asking an idiotic SkyDragon how long his silly “trend” will continue. Until the seas boil, perhaps?
Your second is, of course, a troll’s attempt to start a battle of appeals to authority!
Both questions from a delusional donkey who can’t even describe the GHE, and has said that dissecting the past enables experts to predict the future!
Go back to your dog poop and flatulence, sour Kraut.
Or carry on with your SkyDragon blathering – maybe some mentally afflicted dimwit values your opinions.
Hellooooo, you blathering stalker!
Do you have something to say?
No?
Ah yes, Flynnson, as so often, is just urging to say something …
Bunny,
Your first question is about as pointless as asking an idiotic SkyDragon how long his silly trend will continue. Until the seas boil, perhaps?
Your second is, of course, a trolls attempt to start a battle of appeals to authority!
Both questions from a delusional donkey who cant even describe the GHE, and has said that dissecting the past enables experts to predict the future!
Go back to your dog poop and flatulence, sour Kraut.
Or carry on with your SkyDragon blathering maybe some mentally afflicted dimwit values your opinions.
In Siberia! Obviously.
Hint: See yearly climate for RSM00024266
” In Siberia! Obviously. ”
Not obvious at all. I had to learn that no one knows what you mean at a given moment, that depends on your current feeling.
*
” Hint: See yearly climate for RSM00024266 ”
Hint? Are you serious, Linsley Hood?
From what, do you think, did I obtain the data for RSM00024266 I posted above?
https://i.postimg.cc/hGWWsBPc/GHCND-Verkhoyansk-TMIN-vs-TMAX-1961-2022.png
As you are a perfect Coolista, you probably will prefer the blue line, coz it shows very, very recent coooling, doesn’t it?
I have no preference, and will accept your choice.
*
Hint (serious): Look in the chart at the two plots between 1993 and 2004, and compare that to the situation right now.
*
Ah, you wish CTRM instead of these bad, bad running means?
So what!
Download GHCN daily, do what I did years ago in order to process it, and put your CTRMs on top.
The yearly climate data for RSM00024266 shows that, like most of the northern hemisphere, Jan/Feb are colder than late Nov. Quelle surprise.
Bindebil kept trying to mock my post about sun going sideways instead of ramping up as he was predicting
Now he finally found out it’s true and tries to deny it like a piece of scum he is.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/canadian-summer-urban-heat-island-effects-some-results-in-alberta/#comment-1400270
Yes I have your posts saved
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/enso-impact-on-the-declining-co2-sink-rate/#comment-1352569
Babbling Edog, I can only repeat that you are a totally dishonest person.
1. ” Bindebil kept trying to mock my post about sun going sideways instead of ramping up as he was predicting … ”
Completely stupid lie.
If you don’t know what a 3rd order polynomial is and how it works, that’s your problem.
Here is the SSN daily chart with the recent EISN, with running means:
https://i.postimg.cc/dQz0d1x3/SSN-Silso-daily-SC24-vs-SC25.png
And here is the same data, with the megahyperbolic, third order polynomial instead instead:
https://i.postimg.cc/RZZ2Z1LH/SSN-Silso-daily-SC24-vs-SC25-3op.png
All the time you keep discrediting instead of trying to understand.
*
2. ” Yes I have your posts saved ”
Of course you do, but you post only links to those where I was wrong, and never those where I admitted having been wrong.
Nobody knows why you engage in such miserable stalking, but all we know you’ll never stop doing.
You stalk and disturb me all the time with your dumb claims? Then I do like you do.
Here is a further output of the the megahyperbolic, third order polynomial:
https://i.postimg.cc/dVkWSJRh/Bremen-Mg-II-ci-Sc24-vs-SC25.png
Woooaah! Bindebil shows again solar ramping up ‘as he was predicting’, ha ha!
Me, debil? May be rather you.
*
Maybe genius Eben starts searching for the reason why F10.7’s and MgII’s data result in ramping polynomials, but SSN doesn’t?
That would be a little smarter than barking behind me and trying to bite my ankle all the time, right?
Stop stalking, Eben, and start working.
I told you It will bee a lot more amusing few month from now
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/enso-impact-on-the-declining-co2-sink-rate/#comment-1352625
Eben
You are a really dumb ankle biter.
Write what you want, from now on I no longer will care about your bullshit.
Feel free to name me clown, debil, what ever you want.
Binny,
You wrote –
“Write what you want, from now on I no longer will care about your bullshit.”
Is that supposed to reduce Eben to a quivering, jelly-like, blubbering mess?
Maybe he doesn’t care whether you care or not.laughs Have you any particular reason to believe anyone cares for your opinion, or do you just spout bullshit in all directions, hoping nobody will notice that you are just another fact-free, handwaving SkyDragon?
Spout away, laddie, spout away.
[laughing at self-important dimwit]
Hellooooo, you blathering stalker!
Do you have something to say?
No?
Ah yes, Flynnson, as so often, is just urging to say something….
Binny,
You wrote
Write what you want, from now on I no longer will care about your bullshit.
Is that supposed to reduce Eben to a quivering, jelly-like, blubbering mess?
Maybe he doesnt care whether you care or not.laughs Have you any particular reason to believe anyone cares for your opinion, or do you just spout bullshit in all directions, hoping nobody will notice that you are just another fact-free, handwaving SkyDragon?
Spout away, laddie, spout away.
[laughing at self-important dimwit]
Hellooooo, you blathering stalker!
Do you have something to say?
No?
Ah yes, Flynnson, as so often, is just urging to say something …
Binny,
You wrote
Write what you want, from now on I no longer will care about your bullshit.
Is that supposed to reduce Eben to a quivering, jelly-like, blubbering mess?
Maybe he doesnt care whether you care or not. Have you any particular reason to believe anyone cares for your opinion, or do you just spout bullshit in all directions, hoping nobody will notice that you are just another fact-free, handwaving SkyDragon?
By the way, you must be slipping. You could have corrected my typo for me.
Oh well, you don’t pay any attention, do you? Except to waste your time responding with meaningless gibberish.
Keep it up.
[laughing at self-important dimwit]
Hellooooo, you blathering stalker!
Do you have something to say?
No?
Ah yes, Flynnson, as so often, is just urging to say something…
Flynnson
” [laughing at self-important dimwit] ”
Oh yes.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/canadian-summer-urban-heat-island-effects-some-results-in-alberta/#comment-1401033
Binny,
You wrote
Write what you want, from now on I no longer will care about your bullshit.
Is that supposed to reduce Eben to a quivering, jelly-like, blubbering mess?
Maybe he doesnt care whether you care or not. Have you any particular reason to believe anyone cares for your opinion, or do you just spout bullshit in all directions, hoping nobody will notice that you are just another fact-free, handwaving SkyDragon?
By the way, you must be slipping. You could have corrected my typo for me.
Oh well, you dont pay any attention, do you? Except to waste your time responding with meaningless gibberish.
By the way, found a GHE description yet?
Keep it up.
[laughing at self-important dimwit]
Bunny,
By the way, before your sour Krautish stubbornness gets you into trouble, here’s a quote from wondrous Wikipedia –
“Estimates of the total heat flow from Earth’s interior to surface span a range of 43 to 49 terawatts (TW) (a terawatt is 1012 watts).[13] One recent estimate is 47 TW, . . .”
Notice the units – Watts – joules per second. On the other hand, Wikipedia also says –
“The flow of heat from Earth’s interior to the surface is estimated at 472 terawatts (TW)[1] and comes from two main sources in roughly equal amounts: the radiogenic heat produced by the radioactive decay of isotopes in the mantle and crust, and the primordial heat left over from the formation of Earth.”
A slightly different estimate (maybe different editors), but still not TWh. Without giving a time span, that would just be as silly as adding Watts per square meter, and expecting a temperature to magically appear!
In any case, you wrote –
“The rate of energy has to be expressed with a time unit specifying how fast the energy is gained / lost . . .”
I believe I said that the Earth loses energy (in joules) at a rate of 44 TW or so. A Watt is a joule per second.
You see? An amount in joules, and the rate at which it is being lost – per second.
But no matter. Play with semantics and SkyDragon redefinitions to your heart’s content. You agree that the Earth is losing more energy than it is gaining, (heat if you prefer). It is cooling by definition. Four and a half billion years or so of history shows you are right.
The influence of the sun? Irrelevant. As Fourier pointed out, during the night, the Earth loses all the heat of the day – plus a little of its internal heat (the interior being hotter than outer space).
Fourier’s insight is also borne out by four and a half billion years or so of history.
It seems you deny physics, history, and the evidence of your own eyes. Tut, tut. Are you surprised nobody appears to put a high value on your opinions?
Stick to dissecting the past, and using it to predict the future. You’ll be be the target of less derisive laughter that way.
Carry on.
Manifestly, the retired elementary school teacher still did not manage to grasp the difference between energy and power, even despite replicating Wikipedia:
” The flow of heat from Earths interior to the surface is estimated at 47[.]2 terawatts (TW) … “.
At least he updated his old ’44’ up to ’47’.
A few lines later, he definitely proved not to understand:
” I believe I said that the Earth loses energy (in joules) at a rate of 44 TW or so. A Watt is a joule per second. ”
*
As I said, Flynnson:
47 TW are power.
47 TWh are energy.
*
And a bit later you see that he also still dir not learn what a rate really is, and how it has to be expressed.
So what!
*
‘Sour Krautish stubbornness’ ?
Are you looking in a mirror, Flynsson?
Despite being probably an Ozzie, there is in you much more of an old, stubborn German Sauerkraut than I could ever offer. You never would admit being wrong, even about tiniest thing.
Das ist so typisch deutsch wie es nur sein kann.
Pauvre Flyynson, qui croit vraiment qu’il est capable d’impressionner les gens avec ses commentaires aussi condescendants et présomtueux que superficiels…
Bunny,
Maybe you need to learn to actually quote what I said, rather than what you wish I had said.
You have inadvertently quoted Wikipedia – yes, Wikipedia disagrees with another Wikipedia quote. Don’t blame me.
The Earth is continuously losing energy, at a rate of around 44 terajoules per second (otherwise expressed as 44 TW for brevity).
Regardless of whether your strange Krautish SkyDragon brain wants to call this energy loss energy, power, or bananas, it demonstrates that the Earth is cooling. Slowly. Asymptotically even, for reasons which you will do your SkyDragon best to deny, I’m sure.
Accept reality. No “heating” due to CO2, which even delusional cultists like Nate acknowledge is just planetary insulation, unable to stop the Earth from cooling, let alone heating it up!
Been following the Moscow ID coed murder case. It is incredible how people from around the world are following the case. See people posting from dozens of countries on message boards. This case affects a lot of people. And, no gun is involved.
nate….”As always we need to repeatedly make clear what Clausius made clear 150 y ago, that the two-way or NET energy transfer must be from hot to cold, as the Second Law requires”.
***
Typical alarmist bastardization of the 2nd law. Clausius said no such thing wrt the 2nd law when he wrote it. Neither did her say anything about a net transfer.
The words to which you refer were taken from comments Clausius made about heat transfer by radiation. However, he stipulated that heat transfer by radiation had to obey the 2nd law. His comment about a two-way heat transfer with radiation was based on a misunderstanding of heat flow through space, which all scientists of his era embraced.
Clausius stated the 2nd law at the time he wrote it as roughly….’heat can never be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a hotter body’. No mention of net flow.
I can appreciate the confusion in the minds of scientists like Clausius in the mid-1800s re radiation. They all thought heat flowed through space as heat rays. Even Planck talked about heat rays a lot later than Clausius. To this day, scientists mistakenly talk about the flow of infrared energy through space as thermal radiation, as if heat actually flows through space as IR.
It was not till 1913 that Bohr revealed the truth, based on the electron, that was not discovered till 1897, well after the times of Clausius. Had Clausius known about electrons, he’d have clued in immediately. Without the knowledge of electrons he created the relationship of heat to internal energy and work.
BTW, it was Clausius who coined the U in the 1st law, yet many scientists today fail to grasp the meaning wrt heat and work. They regard internal energy as some mysterious energy unrelated to heat and work.
Therefore, it is eminently unfair to twist the words of Clausius to support alarmist propaganda.
“To this day, scientists mistakenly talk about the flow of infrared energy through space as thermal radiation, as if heat actually flows through space as IR.”
Gordon again corrects science’s mistakes. Science will file that information in the appropriate place.
Roy…I see no reason why you should apologize to anyone. I regard you as a man of integrity and I regard you as someone who would not be involved in plagiarism, or condoning it.
I don’t agree with everything you say with regard to anthropogenic warming but I have no doubt about your integrity. I think if we all agreed with each other the world would be a pretty boring place.
Dr. Roy, I have a few questions about Figure 1. There are a couple things that don’t make sense.
1) Why should there be negative values along the “2-Station Urbanization difference” axis? It would seem logical to always take the larger urbanization minus the smaller smaller. Is there some further criterion for putting one first (or perhaps just something arbitrary like alphabetical order)? A data point at (-2C, -40%) could also be equally well be plotted at (+2C, +40%).
2) Why does urbanization difference change from (a) to (b). For example, during the late night, there are no urbanization differences near 10%, but during the afternoon there are! Urbanization can’t change between night and day!
3) Why is the data in vertical bands? I can’t think of any physical reason that lots of stations should have differences of ~ 18% and ~ 38%, but none near 8% or 28%.
Nutty Nate wrote earlier.
“How many times has it been explained to you that insulators, like the Earths GHE dont PREVENT warm things from cooling!”
Nate apparently believes that telling somebody something that they already know, make Nate a mental giant!
Unfortunately, Nate has now defined the GHE as an insulator (which begs the question – why call it a GHE, when there’s a perfectly good word already in existence). Oh well, idiot SkyDragons love to avoid normal terms, and invent silly jargon – GHE, forcings, feedbacks, slow cooling is really warming, and so on.
Even Nate is not stupid enough to claim that an insulated body, slowly cooling, will suddenly commence to increase its temperature. I could well be wrong – dimwitted SkyDragons studiously avoid reality if it doesn’t suit them.
Now, Numbskull Nate has a GHE which doesn’t “. . . PREVENT warm things from cooling!”, but still can’t define a GHE which makes cold things hotter, because he would have to abandon his definition of GHE just being insulation. Just look around – it is very likely that you have a refrigerator, where insulation (or as the nitwitted Nate would have you believe, GHE), is used to keep the contents cold. Must be a different form of GHE, I suppose. The SkyDragon variety, which heats or cools at will! The collective SkyDragon will, of course, which would have inert insulation cooling and warming the planet at random, through the ages. Pardon me while I laugh at Nutty Nate’s unsubstantiated claims.
Maybe you have another excellent insulating device – a vacuum flask. Maybe Nate thinks that the GHE in this flask senses the temperature of the contents, and slows heating if the contents are cold, and slows cooling if the contents are hot. Nope. Insulation is catholic in this regard. No magic, just impeding the flow of heat from hotter to colder.
Given that the Earth is nominally hotter than outer space, the Earth is continuously losing energy, and has done so for four and a half billion years or so. As theory suggests, and history supports.
At least Nate has now pinned himself down, claiming that GHE is really just a SkyDragon name for insulation. He may not have just pinned himself down, he may find he has skewered himself into the bargain.
This might be Nate’s cue to start diverting to overcoats on corpses, making water boil using the energy from ice, or anything at all to stop people realising that no matter what cunning way you apply insulation, you can’t make a cold (and still cooling) body hotter at will.
The Earth, for example.
So let’s review my post:
“You dont seem to be able to provide facts that actually matter to any of the issues discussed.
How many times has it been explained to you that insulators, like the Earths GHE dont PREVENT warm things from cooling!
Yet you keep posting your centerpiece red herring:
‘How about denying that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, showing that the mythical GHE was completely powerless?’
Why do you think this is any more relevant to the GHE than the current high price of milk?
Are you that clueless? Or just insane?”
But he has no answer.
So many troll evasion tactics on display here:
-Not posting in the correct thread, so no one can see my prior post.
-Throwing up chaff and distractors
-Changing the subject
-Moving the goal posts
-Nonsensical complaints, ie
“Nate has now defined the GHE as an insulator (which begs the question why call it a GHE, when theres a perfectly good word already in existence”
I dunno, Why call 12 inch thick fiberglass insulation, ’12 inch thick fiberglass insulation’, when there’s a perfectly good word for it: ‘insulator’?
So, again, for the dozenth time, the GHE, being an insulator between the WARM Earth’s surface and the COLD of space, cannot PREVENT the Earth from cooling. It can only SLOW its cooling.
Thus when you complain
‘the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, showing that the mythical GHE was completely powerless?”
you are saying something that is obviously true, but true of ANY insulator of the Earth.
It is as pointless and as irrelevant to a debate about the existence of the GHE as the high price of milk.
So again, WHY, specifically, do you keep posting this true but completely irrelevant fact?
DO you not understand how debate and persuasion works?
Nate, if the GHE is about the insulation properties of the atmosphere, then CO2 works against it as CO2 emits IR to space. Oxygen and nitrogen do not emit IR to space.
This is a sky-dragon slayer talking point, but a myth.
Tyndall showed that a tube filled with CO2, which abs*orbs IR reduces the amount of radiative heat transfer between one end that is hot and another end that is cold, IOW it is acting as an insulator.
And indeed, in the gas in the middle of the tube, CO2 is both abs*orbing and emitting IR. The emission from CO2 near the cold end of the tube is from COLD CO2 molecules, thus LOWER radiation is transferred to the cold end then is emitted from the hot end.
This is how it works in the atmosphere, which is cold at the TOA where CO2 emitting to space.
.
Nate,
You wrote –
“The emission from CO2 near the cold end of the tube is from COLD CO2 molecules, thus LOWER radiation is transferred to the cold end then is emitted from the hot end.”
Don’t look more stupid than you are – unless you want to, of course.
Lower radiation (whatever that is supposed to mean) is transferred to the hot end? I sincerely hope you are not trying to imply in some supremely obfuscatory way that heat travels from cold to hot, are you?
No, Tyndall demonstrated that CO2 (all matter, actually) absorbs some radiation, thus reducing the amount transmitted. The end result is, as Tyndall demonstrated, that increasing the amount of CO2 and a heat source, reduced the amount of energy reaching a thermometer, and lowered its temperature as a result. Increased insulation reduces the transmission of heat.
Heat travels from hot to cold. No heating, or heat “amplification” from GHGs or the GHE. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply fooling themself.
You aren’t one of the delusional SkyDragon cultists, are you?
You agree with me (and Raymond Pierrehumbertj that CO2 is just planetary insulation, and heats nothing. Certainly no AGW due to CO2 or the GHE, is there?
“Lower radiation (whatever that is supposed to mean) is transferred to the hot end? ”
No didnt say that. It seems you are you unable to read.
So no rebuttal of anything. No answer for why you post red herrings. Just lame attempts to misrepresent what I clearly stated.
Just trolling.
Nitwit Nate,
“No didnt say that. It seems you are you unable to read.”
Here’s what you wrote –
“. . . thus LOWER radiation is transferred to the cold end then is emitted from the hot end.
You really are confused as well as ignorant, aren’t you?
Lower radiation is transferred to the cold end and then is emitted from the hot end? Really?
How does this miracle of “lower radiation” (do you mean “colder” or something) being “transferred” to the cold end, but then “emitted” from the hot end, occur?
You do realise the difference between “hot” and “cold” do you? All matter above absolute zero radiates energy, and “cold” does not have to be “transferred” anywhere to radiate energy.
You are spouting confused nonsense.
Nate sez “Tyndall showed that a tube filled with CO2, which abs*orbs IR reduces the amount of radiative heat transfer between one end that is hot and another end that is cold, IOW it is acting as an insulator.”
Swenson says:
“No, Tyndall demonstrated that CO2 (all matter, actually) absorbs some radiation, thus reducing the amount transmitted. The end result is, as Tyndall demonstrated, that increasing the amount of CO2 and a heat source, reduced the amount of energy reaching a thermometer, and lowered its temperature as a result. Increased insulation reduces the transmission of heat.”
And he doesnt realize that these are saying (mostly) the same thing?
NB, when Tyndall did the experiment with Nitrogen, it did not reduce the transmission of heat significantly, the way CO2 did, because it is not a good abs*orber of IR radiation.
Nate,
Yes, we agree that CO2 is an insulator, which allows the Earth to cool.
If you want to call the “greenhouse effect” “insulation” which allows the Earth to cool, fine.
If you want the engineering profession to abandon the use of the word “insulation”, and replace it with “greenhouse effect”, your debating skills and power of persuasion are likely to be insufficient to achieve your aim.
What are you arguing about? You are agreeing that neither CO2 nor the GHE heat anything, but you seem reluctant to actually say so.
Has the SkyDragon cult instilled a Pavlovian reflex which prevents you from agreeing that neither CO2 nor the GHE can heat anything? Is that why you can’t help yourself from hammering out incomprehensible nonsense like “The emission from CO2 near the cold end of the tube is from COLD CO2 molecules, thus LOWER radiation is transferred to the cold end then is emitted from the hot end.”?
Just confirm what you have already agreed – the GHE is an insulator, and cannot make the Earth hotter. It can’t even stop it from cooling, can it?
Or stick to your confused fantasy – neither confirm nor deny anything!
“Yes, we agree that CO2 is an insulator, which allows the Earth to cool.”
Great. Now you are closer to understanding the GHE.
All you need now is to realize that the CO2 insulation is between the warm Earth’s surface and the Cold of space. And an insulator reduces heat flow between a warm place and a cold place.
Do you agree?
Now here’s where you will say that the CO2 insulation is also between the heat source (the sun) and the Earth’s surface, yes?
And here’s where you will call it ‘magic’ insulation because we say that it does not insulate the surface from the solar heat source.
But if you understand the basic science, there is no need for magic. The science is clear that CO2 abs*orbs in the far IR wavelengths, while sunlight is primarily in the visible and near IR.
Do you deny this?
Sorry Nate, but you don’t understand any of this.
Tyndall only proved that CO2 can absorb IR. That doesn’t mean it can heat Earth. Bananas absorb IR. Do you also believe bananas can heat the planet?
Bad analogy, Clint. Bananas would have a much better chance of heating the planet than CO2.
Yes indeed, bananas create global warming.
Bananas contain radioactive potassium, and when potassium-40 decays, a small amount of mass is converted to energy, in accordance with e=mc2.
This energy is evidenced as heat when it reacts with other matter.
Hence, global warming, but as ephemeral as the rather larger amounts of heat generated within the Earth, and slowing the overall rate of cooling.
The consumption of these heat-producing fruits occurs at all hours of the day and night, and I would not be surprised if every continent (even including Antarctica) was subjected to BGW (banana global warming). For any SkyDragon who is crass enough to think I am joking, I’m not. Wikipedia even refers to “Banana equivalent dose (BED) is an informal unit of measurement of ionizing radiation exposure, . . . “, although some experts take exception to the use of such a measure.
I suppose I shouldn’t alarm readers unduly, but CO2 also has a radioactive isotope, which of course can give you lethal dose of cancer, if it happens to decay in the right spot. No use fleeing to the hills, either. Cosmic radiation is far more intense, and the danger increases as you decrease the amount of atmosphere between you and outer space.
Oh dear, oh dear. What to do? Stop breathing? Don’t eat bananas? Dig a hole and bury yourself?
Might as well run around waving a placard saying “Stop Climate Change”. At least others can have a good laugh before they die – from radioactive bananas or fright from the thought of being roasted, toasted, boiled or fried within a few years!
Swenson,
How can you be so stupid?
“I suppose I shouldnt alarm readers unduly, but CO2 also has a radioactive isotope, which of course can give you lethal dose of cancer, if it happens to decay in the right spot.”
Molecules don’t have isotopes.
bob,
Yeah, you got me there. My laughing at my own attempt at humour affected my typing. Is it OK with you if I say CO2 is radioactive? Like bananas are?
Or are you trying to insinuate that CO2 cannot contain radioactive isotopes of either oxygen or carbon?
It doesn’t really matter – still no AGW due to GHE, is there?
Don’t eat too many bananas – the radioactivity might kill you.
Braindead bob claims: “Molecules don’t have isotopes.”
Just so braindead bob does not confuse anyone — Molecules contain atoms and atoms may be an isotope. For example, CO2 contains one carbon atom. But that carbon atom could be C-14, which is a radioactive isotope.
“Sorry Nate, but you dont understand any of this.
Tyndall only proved that CO2 can absorb IR. That doesnt mean it can heat Earth. Bananas absorb IR. Do you also believe bananas can heat the planet?”
As I explained, and you predictably ignored, Tyndall proved that CO2 can reduce heat flow between a hot object and a cold one, and thus act as an insulator. And even Swenson agrees!
You offer no rebuttal to this.
An insulator between the warm Earth’s surface and the cold of space reduces the heat flow between them. Given the solar input as a heat source for the surface, and the reduced heat flow to space, the surface must warm.
This could not be simpler.
Now rather than your usual generic ‘you don’t understand any of this’ how about you quote me and tell us what, specifically, you disagree with and why.
Try honest debate for a change.
Clint R,
So you do understand that atoms have isotopes, molecules do not.
Thanks for the clarification, idiot.
Swenson,
I recently gave you a description of the greenhouse effect, you didn’t respond, did you run off with your tail between your legs?
And there are not enough bananas on the Earth to kill one person with their radioactivity.
No problem, bob. I’m always glad to correct your braindead trolling.
Clint R,
You didn’t correct bumpkis.
“atoms may be an isotope” says Clint R, trying to sound likes he knows something.
Molecules still don’t have isotopes, molecules may contain isotopes, because all atoms are isotopes, but if you look at the chart of the nuclides, you will see no molecules.
bob, you shouldnt try to understand this stuff without an adult to help you.
All atoms are isotopes, if you want to play games with definitions. So since a molecule contains atoms, it contains isotopes.
I won’t respond to any more of your kiddie trolling.
Clint R,
Try looking up the definition of the word “may” if you do not want to look like a moron.
Great news, you are not going to respond to my posts.
Hey Bob,
What are deuterium and tritium?
The slightly dim bobdroege wrote –
“I recently gave you a description of the greenhouse effect, you didnt respond, did you run off with your tail between your legs?”
Well, you didn’t, so no.
Maybe you agree with your fellow SkyDragon Nate, saying that GHE is a euphemism for insulation? It doesn’t really matter, does it?
After four and a half billion years or so of GHE combined with continuous sunlight, the Earth cooled. I suppose idiot SkyDragons like yourself will claim that heating is really just a euphemism for cooling?
You really are an obfuscatory reality denying fool, aren’t you?
Try harder. See if you can compose a worthwhile gotcha. How hard can it be – even for a dimwit like you?
Stephen,
“Hey Bob,
What are deuterium and tritium?”
Isotopes of hydrogen if you refer to the individual atoms.
If you think Clint R was correct when he said “atoms may be an isotope”
No matter what atoms compose carbon dioxide, they are all isotopes.
There are no isotopes of carbon dioxide.
Do you get my point, or do you want to be like Clint R.
Swenson,
I did recently give you a description of the greenhouse effect.
So you are lying.
I don’t know what your problem is, maybe you don’t think there is a greenhouse in the Earth’s atmosphere.
The Earth’s atmosphere does indeed restrict the cooling of the Earth, similar to a greenhouse, but different.
And by the way, it wouldn’t take 4 1/2 billion years for the Earth to cool down to its current temperature from a molten state.
So you are a bit addled in the head, cause it stopped cooling from that not so initial molten state, a long time ago.
Well, no, because hydrogen exists as a diatomic molecule. Deuterium or D2 or Tritium T2 are molecules and isotopes of H2.
H is found in many molecules besides H2.
H2O, CH4, C2H6, etc
Stephen,
“Well, no, because hydrogen exists as a diatomic molecule. Deuterium or D2 or Tritium T2 are molecules and isotopes of H2.”
Right, hydrogen does not exist in ionic form.
Go back and review your first year chemistry texts.
Isotopes refer to atoms, not molecules.
The submarine I was on screwed up one day, the torpedo men were practicing for firing torpedos by firing water slugs in port and they forgot we had one torpedo tube full of tritiated water for at sea disposal and they fired the wrong tube.
What do you call D2O? or T2O? Hey, we never shot our torpedoes that I recall or slugs, but we did shoot those big pointy things out of the top.
Stephen,
D2O is called heavy water, T2O is called tritiated water, H2O-18 is called O-18 water.
Any more questions?
“And indeed, in the gas in the middle of the tube, CO2 is both abs*orbing and emitting IR. The emission from CO2 near the cold end of the tube is from COLD CO2 molecules, thus LOWER radiation is transferred to the cold end then is emitted from the hot end.”
The meaning here should be clear to anyone with a 6th grade reading level and isnt intentionally ignorant.
That obviously doesnt apply to you.
For the point-grasping impaired, cold molecules emit less radiation than hot molecules.
And thus we can explain what you already appear to agree with:
“increasing the amount of CO2 and a heat source, reduced the amount of energy reaching a thermometer, and lowered its temperature as a result. Increased insulation reduces the transmission of heat.”
So it appears you DO now understand that CO2 in the atmosphere does have the ability to act as an insulator between a warm Earth surface and the cold of space.
Now wriggle out of it somehow.
Nate, non-radiative gases act as insulation. CO2 emits energy to space. Atmospheric radiative gases act as open windows in the insulation.
Do open windows heat the house when outside temperatures are below freezing?
“CO2 emits energy to space. Atmospheric radiative gases act as open windows in the insulation.”
Tyndall proved you wrong 150 y ago. You dont even try to rebut anything Ive said, obviously you can’t.
Here’s Swenson grasping it. Why dont you?
“Yes, we agree that CO2 is an insulator”
Nothing Tyndall did proved the GHE, Nate. You’re just hoping.
He proved that some gases can absorb IR. That’s all he proved. The rest is your imagination. He didn’t even attempt to use earthen sources. He used heat sources close to the boiling point of water.
You don’t understand ANY of this.
You dont present any logical argument or evidence. You just use your standard ‘argument by assertion’.
Thus, there is nothing to be understood.
Tyndall proved that CO2 added to a nitrogen-filled tube REDUCES heat transfer, ie INCREASES insulation.
This proves your ridiculous unsubstantiated assertion that “Atmospheric radiative gases act as open windows in the insulation” is WRONG.
Nate, you’re unable to understand any logical argument or evidence. You just reject anything that is counter to your cult beliefs.
Tyndall proved some gases absorb IR. That’s it. Many things absorb IR.
Nate,
As you agree, the GHE heats precisely nothing.
Do you still believe that the GHE (insulation – your word) can raise the temperature of the Earth?
“Do you still believe that the GHE (insulation your word)”
And your word also, Swenson.
“Do you still believe that the GHE (insulation your word) can raise the temperature of the Earth?”
Yes, and unlike Clint, my rationale has been very clearly explained here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/canadian-summer-urban-heat-island-effects-some-results-in-alberta/#comment-1402017
So you can quote any part of it and rebut if you are able.
That is how honest debate happens.
“Nate, youre unable to understand any logical argument or evidence”
This is your usual empty rhetoric since you offer none.
“Tyndall proved some gases absorb IR. Thats it. Many things absorb IR.”
Yes he did, and he showed that absor*ption of IR leads to it REDUCING heat flow between a hot place to a cold place.
Your claim that it does the OPPOSITE, INCREASES heat flow between a hot surface and a cold place, makes absolutely no sense.
And lets be honest, that is why you offer no rationale. There is none.
Nate, you’ve completely lost it, again.
You’re not making sense. You’re accusing me of things I didn’t say.
Settle down, focus, and see if you can make at least one valid point.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/canadian-summer-urban-heat-island-effects-some-results-in-alberta/#comment-1402783
A long period of significantly reduced UV radiation was followed by an increase, after which a decrease is again evident.
https://i.ibb.co/6vhH9qt/mgii-composite-2.png
This coincides with a decrease in the number of sunspots.
https://i.ibb.co/hC4LtkL/EISNcurrent.png
Ren is also Hiding his sources from Bidetdon
Hide your sources properly
https://youtu.be/I994EXpspHQ
I’m not hiding the sources, just the links don’t go through. Check SILSO and Observations of Solar Activity (Mg II Index) by GOME, SCIAMACHY, and GOME-2
Bremen MgII index data
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/MgII_composite.dat
should form the average of these sources.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m9j4vGji97V6EUvlywFSPTSj0W82wT3o/view
See, like Einstein, said should have hide it from him , now he is already reposting it like he discovered some new “science”
To speak about a ‘sideswaysing solar activity solowly but surely becomes an euphemism: the slope of the red plot moves down all the time!
I am pretty sure that Scott McIntosh and colleagues, who recently wrote how they compute the activity maximum of a subsequent cycle on the basis of the current Hale cycle’s terminator
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.10577.pdf
now are beginning to despair and tear their hair out.
*
I prefer to eat a nice fish paёlla with a cool rioja rosado, and to await the next ramping (up).
When Scott McIntosh gets proven to be totally wrong on his big cycle prediction you can eat his left foot while he eats his right one
The same is valid for the others
When Valentina gets proven to be totally wrong on his big cycle prediction you can eat her left foot while she eats her right one
Your post in fact is as stoopid as usual.
You are so mentally limited that all you can muster as a reply is to repeat my lines back to me with “no you” in front if it
The hourly data is all very interesting but don’t get hung up on it. The only two temperatures that matter much over each day are the minimum and the maximum. Typically both are logged at 9:00am local time (even if summer time is operating). The maximum temperature , by convention, is for the previous day and the minimum temperature for the current day.
Mow maybe the term nighttime applies to the minimum, but it’s an inaccurate generalization if it does. On cloud free nights and days, the minimum temperature occurs around sunrise, when net cooling (more cooling than warming) gives way to net warming (more warming than cooling). This might be a few minutes after sunrise, so is that really a nighttime temperature?
john…two temperature measurements a day provide a very rough average of daily temperature. It would be far better to take a temperature reading each hour, or better.
With two a day readings you could be out by a degree C or more per day.
As John stated, “The only two temperatures that matter much over each day are the minimum and the maximum.” Determine the min/max for a 24-hr day and you’re done.
The problem is they’ve never been able to reliably do that….
nate…”Tyndall showed that a tube filled with CO2, which abs*orbs IR reduces the amount of radiative heat transfer between one end that is hot and another end that is cold, IOW it is acting as an insulator.”
***
Tyndall did not measure heat transfer in his experiment, only the amount of IR absorbed by CO2 in a tube. Even at that, he measured relative values since they had no means of measuring IR at the time. No one knew about IR, they thought heat flowed through space as heat rays. Apparently you and many others still believe that.
You need to get it that heat in a source cannot be transferred through a gas-filled tube containing CO2 to a target on the other end of the tube. If the source is hotter than the target, then IR can be transferred through the tube but it is not heat and cannot transfer heat. If electrons in the atoms in the target are at a lower temperature, they can absorb the IR from a hotter source and the electrons can produce heat in the target.
Under those conditions you cannot call CO2 an insulator because it blocks no heat.
Furthermore, Tyndall used detectors to detect IR, not thermometers to measure heat. I presume he could have used a thermometer at the target to measure the ambient temperature without the flame at the other end of the telescope tube. Then he could have applied the flame to see if the IR would have warmed the target with straight air in the tube.
If he got a significant heating from the IR in the target, he could then have slowly added CO2 to the tube to measure how much it reduced warming in the target. As I indicated before, in Tyndall’s day they believed heat flowed through air as heat rays.
I don’t think this has been done by experiment and if it has, I am guessing the cooling effect was so insignificant as to be unmeasurable.
Gordon, the frost will reach Vancouver along with the high from the continent.
https://i.ibb.co/GC49nzW/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f072.png
Sorry, but it will not be a short hit of Arctic air.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_hgt_trop_NA_f120.png
thanks, ren…we are ready for it but not looking forward to it.
The temperature dropped quite sharply above the 60th parallel. Another strong planetary wave appears in the polar vortex belt, breaking up the polar vortex.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_OND_NH_2022.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_WAVE1_MEAN_OND_NH_2022.png
Does Mauna Loa Volcano eruption count as Local Heat Island?
John
” Typically both are logged at 9:00am local time (even if summer time is operating).
The maximum temperature , by convention, is for the previous day and the minimum temperature for the current day. ”
I don’t understand what you exactly mean here.
Processing last year the data of the (in the US still most pristine) USCRN station set data gave the following distribution for absolute temperature versus hour of the day:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Zp4zDnMoyO3ZrQ1tXtngnV3F2t73sPkr/view
Eye-balling is enough to see the differences between 9 AM and TMIN, resp. TMAX and 9 PM, but the numbers tell it better.
9 AM minus TMIN resp. TMAX minus 9 PM (in C):
AK Kenai: 1.4 — 2.4
FL Everglades: 4.0 — 6.3
US average: 1.7 — 4.4
Whether or not this has any consequence for TMIN/TMAX based comparisons, that I don’t know.
*
I see no reason to think that stations sets far bigger than USCRN would handle TMIN/TMAX in a different way: comparing GHCN daily station data to USCRN shows it well.
*
Don’t trust people who tell you
” With two a day readings you could be out by a degree C or more per day. ”
That’s wrong; anybody processing USCRN’s hourly station data to monthly averages can see that the difference between means aka (TMIN+TMAX)/2, medians and averages of hourly data is small:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b4RCt-RkYqO8bRqHXzyswglC5M1z9pOt/view
Trend difference in C /decade between mean and average is for the period 2005-2021: 0.04, and 0.01 for 2012-2021, when all 135 continental USCRN stations deliver data (only 79 did in 2005).
Joe shows charts that point to what he says could be a spectacular outbreak of cold. Only now are the models showing what Joe had warned of weeks and months ago: northern hemisphere land masses getting gripped by sub-normal cold.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/11/28/ace-forecaster-bastardi-something-we-used-to-see-in-1970s-warns-of-spectacular-cold/
I had enough harsh winter months in my life (1956, 1963, 1979, 1986), and when I look at NOAA’s forecast for Europe
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/htmls/euT2me3Mon.html
I can only hope that NOAA will have had it right when I look back from next March.
Anyone who places his/her hopes on NOAA is delusional.
Gordon,
NOAA do have some dimwits employed – “Global mean sea level has risen about 89 inches (2124 centimeters) since 1880” – NOAA.
Well, at least NOAA haven’t claimed accuracy to the thickness of a human hair (a few thousandths of an inch), but haven’t explained their obvious assumptions that continental drift and vertical land movement did not exist before satellites started measuring it. They specifically don’t mention that isostasy and crustal movements affect relative sea levels more than all their other silly “reasons” combined.
Some idea of NOAA’s fantasy view of physics can be seen where NOAA claims “This deep water moves south, between the continents, past the equator, and down to the ends of Africa and South America. The current travels around the edge of Antarctica, where the water cools and sinks again, as it does in the North Atlantic.”
NOAA does not accept that the Earth is spherical, and water has no impetus to travel from the North Pole towards the South Pole, regardless of the no doubt fancy terrestrial globe model sitting on some NOAA administrator’s desk! Yes, water poured on that model globe will flow from north to south. Invert it, as it would physically be in the Southern Hemisphere (upside down, so to speak), and it will magically flow from the South Pole to the North Pole!
At NOAA, science seems to be subordinated to PR and SkyDragon cultism. As Richard Feynman pointed out after NASA’s Challenger disaster – “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.”
Hopefully, no one will die as a result of NOAA pseudoscience and propaganda.
“water has no impetus to travel from the North Pole towards the South Pole”
Is cold water denser than warm water and vice versa?
RLH,
Oh! A gotcha!
Only joking.
I’ll say again, water has no impetus to travel from the North Pole to the South Pole.
The force of gravity acts towards the center of the Earth. Hence convection in the oceans. Denser water falls towards the center of the Earth – not the poles.
You don’t need to thank me, I feel obliged to help the mentally afflicted.
[laughing at deplorable standard of dim-witted gotcha]
Swenson,
Again, how can you be so stupid to post such drivel as this?
“The force of gravity acts towards the center of the Earth.”
You might want to google Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation and the experiments used to determine G the gravitational constant.
“water has no impetus to travel from the North Pole towards the South Pole”
Water does have an impetus to flow up and down vertically based on density which can also be based on temperature and salinity.
Thermohaline circulation uses those facts and the bottom profiles to determine the pattern of ocean currents and movements below the surface.
Do you dispute any of those facts?
RLH,
Oh! The same stupid gotcha, with a bit of misdirection thrown in!
As you quoted (that’s a change – thanks!), I wrote –
” . . . water has no impetus to travel from the North Pole towards the South Pole, . . . ”
You ask if I “deny” something quite irrelevant. Here’s what you wrote, in case you forgot –
“Water does have an impetus to flow up and down vertically based on density which can also be based on temperature and salinity.
Thermohaline circulation uses those facts and the bottom profiles to determine the pattern of ocean currents and movements below the surface.
Do you dispute any of those facts?”
Water has no “impetus” to flow anywhere. As matter generally is, water is subject to the force of gravity, for example. It also obeys conservation laws – conservation of angular momentum, for example.
Here’s Newton’s first law (courtesy of NASA) –
“Newton’s first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force.” Water qualifies as an object – the Pacific Ocean is orbiting the Earth’s COG, whilst whizzing through space subject to the gravitational effects of everything in the up universe!
Don’t like a big object? Pick a smaller one, a volume that faithfully represents the “water” that you claim possesses some sort of innate “impetus”, if you like.
Are you still backing NOAA’s nonsense about water traveling in some magical fashion from the North Pole to the South Pole?
Don’t bother asking me what I “deny” or don’t “deny”. Facts dont care whether you deny them or not. How could I possibly deny a fact? SkyDragon cultists seem to believe that facts are created by consensus – AGW being due to some undefined GHE involving CO2, H2O, etc., and that this results in the weather changing. Really? The weather has always changed, but if you have some factual basis to show that weather only started to change due to man-made CO2 production, I may change my views.
In the meantime, maybe you could address your future gotchas to something I said.
Dimwitted SkyDragon.
” water traveling in some magical fashion”
Flynntionary-
Magic (magical, magically)-
Basic science that is too advanced for Flynnson or any caveman to comprehend. It is labelled ‘magic’.
RLH,
Oh! The same stupid gotcha, with a bit of misdirection thrown in!
As you quoted (thats a change thanks!), I wrote
. . . water has no impetus to travel from the North Pole towards the South Pole, . . .
You ask if I deny something quite irrelevant. Heres what you wrote, in case you forgot
Water does have an impetus to flow up and down vertically based on density which can also be based on temperature and salinity.
Thermohaline circulation uses those facts and the bottom profiles to determine the pattern of ocean currents and movements below the surface.
Do you dispute any of those facts?
Water has no impetus to flow anywhere. As matter generally is, water is subject to the force of gravity, for example. It also obeys conservation laws conservation of angular momentum, for example.
Heres Newtons first law (courtesy of NASA)
Newtons first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force. Water qualifies as an object the Pacific Ocean is orbiting the Earths COG, whilst whizzing through space subject to the gravitational effects of everything in the up universe!
Dont like a big object? Pick a smaller one, a volume that faithfully represents the water that you claim possesses some sort of innate impetus, if you like.
Are you still backing NOAAs nonsense about water traveling in some magical fashion from the North Pole to the South Pole?
Dont bother asking me what I deny or dont deny. Facts dont care whether you deny them or not. How could I possibly deny a fact? SkyDragon cultists seem to believe that facts are created by consensus AGW being due to some undefined GHE involving CO2, H2O, etc., and that this results in the weather changing. Really? The weather has always changed, but if you have some factual basis to show that weather only started to change due to man-made CO2 production, I may change my views.
In the meantime, maybe you could address your future gotchas to something I said.
Dimwitted SkyDragon.
“Global mean sea level has risen about 89 inches (2124 centimeters) since 1880′ NOAA.”
The claim was 8 to 9 inches, 21 to 24 cm loser troll Swenson.
https://twitter.com/noaaclimate/status/1212750857323855879
Here’s a devout SkyDragon at work. Nate believes that the GHE is just another word for insulation, and admits that it has been unable to prevent the Earth from cooling, and agrees that the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years or so. Now he writes –
“And heres where you will call it magic insulation because we say that it does not insulate the surface from the solar heat source.
But if you understand the basic science, there is no need for magic. The science is clear that CO2 abs*orbs in the far IR wavelengths, while sunlight is primarily in the visible and near IR.
Do you deny this?”
He says “we [SkyDragons] say that [insulation] does not insulate the surface from the solar heat source.” Well, insulation, by definition, impedes the flow of heat – from hot to cold. Hence, the maximum temperature on Earth is less than 100 C, compared to the airless Moon, with 127 C maxima. Additionally, NASA agrees with Tyndall’s observations over a century ago, that about 35% of the solar radiation doesn’t even get to the surface! Insulation between the Sun and the surface.
So SkyDragon Nate is dreaming. He believes in a magic insulator, which somehow allows more energy in one direction than another, resulting in heating, while simultaneously agreeing that the application of this bizarre GHE for four and a half billion years or so of continuous sunlight resulted in the Earth cooling, not heating!
Nate is an arrant fool – believing in some magical physics, where an object can simultaneously get hotter and colder, where temperatures are measured in W/m2, where insulation that allowed the Earth to cool for four and a half billion years, is now deciding to heat it up, and all the rest of the SkyDragon cult nonsense.
Next thing he’ll be claiming that Gavin Schmidt is a scientist, or that Michael Mann is not a fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat, and won a Nobel Prize!
Nate doesn’t need to deny reality – he doesnt know what it is!
As usual, Swenson tries the troll evasion of posting far away from posts he is responding to. Or is he just incompetent?
“Nate believes that the GHE is just another word for insulation, and admits that it has been unable to prevent the Earth from cooling, and agrees that the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years or so.”
A couple of points here.
-Swenson admitted earlier that CO2 does act as an insulator. So why is he now pooh poohing this?
-As he has been informed many times, insulators merely SLOW cooling of warm things. Thus his repeated statement that GHE did not prevent cooling is POINTLESS. Yet he soldiers on making this POINTLESS point again and again! Why?
And my prediction “you will call it magic insulation” was amazingly accurate.
“He believes in a magic insulator, which somehow allows more energy in one direction than another, resulting in heating”
For those of us who are not cavemen like Swenson, basic science is not actually magic.
“Additionally, NASA agrees with Tyndalls observations over a century ago, that about 35% of the solar radiation doesnt even get to the surface!”
Ok, so I’ll let Tyndall explain it as he did so eloquently when he discovered this effect 150 y ago: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Radiation_(Rede_Lecture)
“Imagine the superficial molecules of the earth trembling with the motion of heat, and imparting it to the surrounding ether; this motion would be carried rapidly away, and lost for ever to our planet, if the waves of ether had nothing but the air to contend with in their outward course. But the aqueous vapour takes up the motion of the ethereal waves, and becomes thereby heated, thus wrapping the earth like a warm garment, and protecting its surface from the deadly chill which it would otherwise sustain.”
“It might however be urged that, inasmuch as we derive all our heat from the sun, the selfsame covering which protects the earth from chill must also shut out the solar radiation. This is partially true, but only partially; the sun’s rays are different in quality from the earth’s rays, and it does not at all follow that the substance which absorbs the one must necessarily absorb the other. Through a layer of water, for example, one tenth of an inch in thickness, the sun’s rays are transmitted with comparative freedom; but through a layer half this thickness, as Melloni has proved, no single ray from the warmed earth could pass. In like manner, the sun’s rays pass with comparative freedom through the aqueous vapour of the air: the absorbing power of this substance being mainly exerted upon the heat that endeavours to escape from the earth. In consequence of this differential action upon solar and terrestrial heat, the mean temperature of our planet is higher than is due to its distance from the sun.”
Looks like Swenson has no sensible rebuttal of Tyndall here.
Regardless of this thorough debunking of his narrative, I predict that Swenson will continue to claim that the GHE requires ‘magic insulators’.
Because contradictory facts just don’t matter to trolls.
Earlier, another delusional SkyDragon, Tim Folkerts, carried on with his attempts to “prove” that four and a half billion years or so of continuous sunlight and GHE, resulted in the Earth heating rather than cooling – or something. Tim gets rather confused, and doesn’t actually know what point he is trying to make, from time to time.
Here’s a minor Timism, trying to play semantic games to avoid facing reality –
“A black body at -19 C has 0 W/m^2 power output to -19 C surroundings. It must be ~ 29 C to be losing 235 W/m^2 to the surroundings.”
I pointed out to Tim that according to normal physics – “The amount of radiation emitted at each wavelength depends only on the object’s temperature and not on any other property of the object, such as its chemical composition. This was described mathematically by German physicist Max Planck in 1900. Scientists usually refer to this as thermal radiation. ” – European Space Agency.
Tim does not accept this, and instead thinks that this law applies to the difference between an object’s temperature, and that of its environment. He also rejects the concept that the chemical composition of an object does not affect the dependence of emitted radiation on temperature alone. Hence the SkyDragon nonsense about CO2 only being capable of emitting certain wavelengths, regardless of its temperature.
All irrelevant anyway – the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years or so, and none of Tim’s wishful thinking, or that of his fellow reality-denying SkyDragons will change history one iota.
AGW is due to AGH (Anthropogenically Generated Heat). No need for complicated indefensible SkyDragon silliness of any type.
“I pointed out to Tim that according to normal physics “The amount of radiation emitted …” ”
You don’t seem to grasp that according to ‘normal physics’ objects also ABSORB radiation. My comments all referred to the NET radiation. It’s not really that tough to understand unless you intentionally want to be obstinate.
“Tim does not accept this, and instead thinks that this law applies to the difference between an objects temperature”
No. I fully accept that the -19 C blackbody surface emits 235 W/m^2 based solely on the surface’s own temperature. Do you accept that it would equally absorb 235 W/m^2 from the -19 C surroundings?
“He also rejects the concept that the chemical composition of an object does not affect the dependence of emitted radiation on temperature alone.”
An odd double negative! I accept that the chemical composition does affect the radiation (ie that different surfaces have different emissivities). So, yes, I do indeed REJECT that the chemical composition does NOT affect the radiation.
” … carried on with his attempts to “prove” that four and a half billion years or so of continuous sunlight and GHE, resulted in the Earth heating rather than cooling”
I have never made that specific claim.
************************
You really need something other than strawmen!
Tim,
You wrote –
“I have never made that specific claim.[that the Earth has heated up due to the GHE]”
Of course not, Tim. SkyDragon cultists never commit themselves to anything relevant that can be examined.
I fully understand. You would look a little silly making such a stupid claim, contradicting four and a half billion years or so of history.
You will look even sillier if you just imply that the GHE heats the Earth, so that you can deny ever specifically claiming something so ridiculous!
So what are you banging on about while you are agreeing with me? Just attempting to be disagreeable and look foolish because you are a masochist and can’t control yourself?
Oh well, to each his own, I suppose.
Carry on.
“SkyDragon cultists never commit themselves to anything relevant that can be examined.”
No. I commit myself to things that I actually say. I just don’t commit myself to your strawmen.
Tim,
As you said, “I have never made that specific claim [that the GHE made the Earth hotter].”
You haven’t really made any specific claim about the Earth getting hotter, because you know it hasn’t, don’t you?
Otherwise, I suppose you would make a specific claim that it had, so you coukd commit yourself to something that could be scrutinised.
Oh well, as long as you are not claiming that CO2 is making the Earth hotter, I’m happy.
We are agreed, so you can stop waving your silly fantasies all over the place. Not much point now, is there? The Earth has cooled for the last four and a half billion years or so, and continues to do so – as you agree. No claim, just fact.
You aren’t making a specific claim to the contrary, are you? Of course not, gutless SkyDragons never allow themselves to be caught saying something specific.
Off you go Tim, keep telling everybody that you are not guilty of making a specific claim that the GHE is responsible for AGW, and that nobody can force you to!
Just suddenly caught on to a joke.
Climate alarmists have been complaining about droughts in California yet 1/4 of California has a desert climate. The climate was a desert climate long before global warming was claimed to have begun circa 1850.
There is a swath of desert climate from Oregon to the Mexican border, that extends into Arizona and New Mexico. Anyone who has watched a western on TV or in the movies is well-aware of that fact. Yet, climate alarmists are peddling the propaganda that California is having droughts related to climate change.
https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/deserts/california_desert_conservation_area/index.html
“Climate alarmists have been complaining about droughts in California yet 1/4 of California has a desert climate. ”
“Drought” is not defined by how much precipitation falls, but by how much falls compared to typical conditions. A desert might have a drought if it gets 3″ of rain in a year instead of 10″. Some other area might have a drought if it gets 20″ of rain instead of 60″.
Desserts can have droughts!
You are being obtuse, Tim. A full 1/4 of California is desert, that’s the point. It is a desert climate because of a lack of rainfall, not because the climate has changed, as is being inferred.
“A full 1/4 of California is desert, thats the point.”
No, that is not the point. Droughts are a SEPARATE issue from deserts. It’s true that a good chunk of CA is a desert. It could ALSO be true that those deserts are even drier than usual.
Also, if you TRULY want to make a point about what “climate alarmists” are saying, then you ought to quote an example. Otherwise all you are doing is attacking an imagined strawman.
Tim,
And it might be also be true that Michael Mann is not really a fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat, I suppose.
SkyDragons love droughts. They can be absolutely anything you wish them to be. For example,
according to the wondrous Wikipedia, drought “is defined as drier than normal conditions.”
Well, that’s certainly useful, isn’t it? Not!
Go on, Tim, tell me that “normal” is anything you feel like – don’t be specific, of course. What’s “normal”? Yesterday, last week/month/year/decade/century . . .?
Or maybe you prefer some wish-washy SkyDragon explanation – “Because drought cannot be viewed solely as a physical phenomenon, it is usually defined both conceptually and operationally.” – from a paper titled “Climate change and California drought in the 21st century”, which had the above-mentioned faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat, Michael Mann as lead author.
Worth a read, if wry amusement is your goal.
I know you aren’t prepared to specifically state that CO2 causes drought, and you won’t specifically state that it doesn’t either. How about a specific claim that you are not prepared to specifically claim that CO2 either does, or does not, cause drought?
No? Didn’t think so.
Pardon my laughter at SkyDragon wriggling, jiggling, and generally trying to avoid being pinned down on anything relating to the mythical GHE at all!
Tim,
Indeed. You can’t even define a drought, much less the climate of California – or anywhere else, can you?
No wonder SkyDragons can claim droughts, floods, heat waves, cold snaps, earthquakes and pretty well every malady affecting humankind can be blamed on people like myself – who point out that climate is the average of historical weather observations, and unpredictable any more usefully than I can do. Who can prove you wrong, if you never actually define vwhat you mean?
Off you go, Tim. Investigate why four and a half billion years or so of a cooling Earth suddenly reversed course (it didn’t) and started heating said Earth.
Only joking – you are simply delusional. You might as well try and perform another magic trick in your imagination – using Tim physics, impossible objects, and an infinite supply of imaginary heaters.
I don’t need to define drought. The AMS already has. And conveniently, it agrees with me!
“A period of abnormally dry weather sufficiently long enough to cause a serious hydrological imbalance.
Drought is a relative term, therefore any discussion in terms of precipitation deficit must refer to the particular precipitation-related activity that is under discussion. For example, there may be a shortage of precipitation during the growing season resulting in crop damage (agricultural drought), or during the winter runoff and percolation season affecting water supplies (hydrological drought).”
Since Folkerts seeks to pervert reality, he always resorts to semantics and definitions to cover for his incompetence.
Tim,
You don’t agree with the fake, fraudster, scofflaw and deadbeat Michael Mann’s view then?
“Because drought cannot be viewed solely as a physical phenomenon, it is usually defined both conceptually and operationally.”
Your AMS definition is just silly. Abnormally dry weather? According to who? Sufficiently long? Serious hydrological imbalance? How serious? Maybe the nitwit who wrote that is suffering from a serious mental imbalance, and employed by a government to write vague nonsense for gullible dills like you.
You’ll notice that like you, he doesn’t specifically state anything at all! A masterpiece of CYA!
Peabrain Nate now claims that the GHE (apparently now just another word for insulation) heats and cools the Earth simultaneously.
He wrote, in response to my question “Do you still believe that the GHE (insulation your word) can raise the temperature of the Earth?” –
“Yes, and unlike Clint, my rationale has been very clearly explained here: ” [provides irrelevant link, as per SkyDragon SOP]
Nate the Nitwit may have forgotten that he has repeatedly belaboured the point that insulation does not prevent a body from cooling – in the case of the Earth, history of some four and a half billion years or so shows that he has discovered what any rational person already knows – nothing at all prevented a hot object like the Earth from cooling to its present temperature!
Oh well, denying reality, the peabrain also claims that the Earth has heated, due to the same process which cooled it! Of course, he can’t actually say when or why this miracle occurred, or, if the Earth has heated up since said miracle, by how much, and what allowed the Earth to cool below its present supposedly warmed-up temperature prior to the miracle occurring!
The idiot SkyDragon, Nate, has resorted to the “magic insulation” ploy – one which heats by allowing less energy to pass in one direction through an insulator. He can’t actually back up his fantasy with experimental support – because there is none! He is such an idiot that he cannot even explain why four and a half billion years or so of his nonsensical “rationale” for supposed CO2 heating, has actually resulted in the Earth’s surface cooling by several thousand Kelvins.
Maybe he’ll claim he’s being persecuted – like some of the other delusional SkyDragons, PhDs and all!
“Oh well, denying reality, the peabrain also claims that the Earth has heated, due to the same process which cooled it!”
You just can’t win with honest debate, so here again you invent things I never said!
I never said the GHE cooled the Earth, loser-troll.
I said the Earth has warmed in the last century, and you keep denying this actually relevant fact, while repeating irrelevant facts hundreds of times.
” nothing at all prevented a hot object like the Earth from cooling to its present temperature!”
Yes please tell us any other things not relevant to the current discussion, maybe your favorite movie, actor, actress, beer. Then repeat a few hundred times!
Peabrain Nate now claims that the GHE (apparently now just another word for insulation) heats and cools the Earth simultaneously.
He wrote, in response to my question Do you still believe that the GHE (insulation your word) can raise the temperature of the Earth?
Yes, and unlike Clint, my rationale has been very clearly explained here: [provides irrelevant link, as per SkyDragon SOP]
Nate the Nitwit may have forgotten that he has repeatedly belaboured the point that insulation does not prevent a body from cooling in the case of the Earth, history of some four and a half billion years or so shows that he has discovered what any rational person already knows nothing at all prevented a hot object like the Earth from cooling to its present temperature!
Oh well, denying reality, the peabrain also claims that the Earth has heated, due to the same process which cooled it! Of course, he cant actually say when or why this miracle occurred, or, if the Earth has heated up since said miracle, by how much, and what allowed the Earth to cool below its present supposedly warmed-up temperature prior to the miracle occurring!
The idiot SkyDragon, Nate, has resorted to the magic insulation ploy one which heats by allowing less energy to pass in one direction through an insulator. He cant actually back up his fantasy with experimental support because there is none! He is such an idiot that he cannot even explain why four and a half billion years or so of his nonsensical rationale for supposed CO2 heating, has actually resulted in the Earths surface cooling by several thousand Kelvins.
Maybe hell claim hes being persecuted like some of the other delusional SkyDragons, PhDs and all!
“nothing at all prevented a hot object like the Earth from cooling to its present temperature!”
If the GHE exists, the Earth would have have cooled slowly. Indeed it cooled over 4.5 B years. Is that not slow enough for Swenson?
Swenson has never understood that lack of RELEVANCE of this 650 time repeated factoid to the existence of GHE. Indeed he is insane.
Still waiting for his response to the rather eloquent debunking by Tyndall 150 y ago, of his claim that a GHE requires ‘magic insulators’.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/canadian-summer-urban-heat-island-effects-some-results-in-alberta/#comment-1402815
How about some science and fizzix for a change
Zharkova on celestial mechanics changing the distance from the sun and total irradiance.
The previous lecture on this was cut off due to time restraint
https://youtu.be/LYOMKLDbeYE
Thanks!
Valentina Zharkova: “in the next 30 years global warming will be the last thing we think about.”
Oh dear, the idiot bobdroege is at it again.
Full comment –
“Swenson,
I did recently give you a description of the greenhouse effect.
So you are lying.
I dont know what your problem is, maybe you dont think there is a greenhouse in the Earths atmosphere.
The Earths atmosphere does indeed restrict the cooling of the Earth, similar to a greenhouse, but different.
And by the way, it wouldnt take 4 1/2 billion years for the Earth to cool down to its current temperature from a molten state.
So you are a bit addled in the head, cause it stopped cooling from that not so initial molten state, a long time ago.”
Well.
He can’t actually produce his description, as it only exists in his foetid imagination.
bob believes I have a “problem” because I “don’t think there is a greenhouse in the Earth’s atmosphere”. Where else would one build a greenhouse? Underwater, perhaps? No problem to me.
Similar to a greenhouse but different? OK bob, that clears it up, doesn’t it? Is your mythical explanation of the greenhouse effect also similar to an explanation, but different, perhaps?
bob also claims it wouldn’t take four and a half billion years to cool down to its present temperature from the molten state – and yet it has, regardless of bob’s amazement that the Earth has cooled!
bob seems convinced that the Earth stopped cooling a long time ago, and that its initial state was a “not so [] molten”. bob rewrites physics, and has convinced himself that the 99% glowing hot interior of the Earth is not losing heat through the now solid crust – cooling, in other words.
bob is so delusional he doesn’t know the difference between fact and fantasy – just like any SkyDragon.
Oh dear, Swenson exposes his delusions to the world.
He claims I never provided a description of the greenhouse effect.
I have done so, so Swenson keeps lying. Not a good habit.
Further claims
“bob also claims it wouldnt take four and a half billion years to cool down to its present temperature from the molten state and yet it has, regardless of bobs amazement that the Earth has cooled!”
Yes, and it has warmed and cooled over various time frames since, have you ever heard of ice age cycles?
You know the Earth has warmed since the last glaciation, you know sheets of ice as far south as the plains of Illinois?
Maybe not, you are too stupid for school.
You know moron, you tell if something is cooling or not by measuring its temperature and see if it is changing.
Right now, the Earth’s surface on average is warming, see the monthly graph posted by our good Dr. Roy Spencer.
Swenson,
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/the-warming-that-happens-in-vegas-stays-in-vegas/#comment-1398482
bob, everyone agrees that CO2 absorbs IR. The mistake your cult makes is then assuming CO2 can warm the surface — “…some of which reaches the surface causing the surface to be warmer.”
That ain’t how it works.
The 15μ photon from CO2 has less energy than the photon from the peak emission from ice. You’re trying to warm Earth with something “colder” than ice. This has been explained to your cult numerous times, but none are able to learn. You’ll respond with nonsense like “a CO2 laser can melt steel”. That only further indicates your ignorance of physics. A CO2 is an engineered device requiring external power. Nothing like that exists in nature.
Now that your effort has been completely nullified, you can go into your usual juvenile profanity rant.
Should be: A CO2 laser is an engineered device requiring external power.
Clint R,
The part you don’t get is that the peak emission temperature has nothing to do with the absorbing of the 15u photon at the surface.
You want a juvenile profanity rant?
Here you go.
You fucking moron, photons don’t have a fucking temperature, photons don’t carry the information related to the fucking temperature of their fucking source.
A fucking CO2 laser emits the same photons that fucking exist in nature, and those photons don’t know they came from a powered fucking source, they just melt steel.
You are too stupid for fucking school.
Does that make your fucking skirt ride up?
Can I predict bob, or what?
Clint R,
It’s not a prediction if you get something you asked for.
Well done, bobdroege!
You were so busy writing “fucking”, that you forgot to mention that LASER is an acronym for “light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation”, which converts electrical power into coherent light.
Turn the power to the device off, and it “cuts” nothing.
About as silly as claiming that the radiation naturally emitted by a body at around 0.02 K can boil water. After all, those wavelengths are emitted in microwave ovens, and you can boil water in a microwave oven!
Maybe you should put more effort into learning physics, and less into hammering out meaningless profanities. Up to you of course. You might even learn that the Earth has not, as you claim, magically heated and cooled over the eons.
Even if it had, you would be admitting that AGW due to the GHE is nonsensical, no humans at all being involved. You would be justified in calling anybody who believes in man-made CO2 having miraculous heating powers a “fucking moron”.
Of course, SkyDragons are only tangentially connected to reality, so they might just ignore you.
You don’t seem to be achieving much, do you?
Swenson,
You are having a field day misrepresenting what I have posted.
“You might even learn that the Earth has not, as you claim, magically heated and cooled over the eons.”
10,000 dollars cash to you if you can prove I ever claimed that.
blundering bob,
You wrote –
“10,000 dollars cash to you if you can prove I ever claimed that.”
A million dollars cash to you if you can prove you never claimed that!
I win.
Swenson,
Do you know you can’t prove a negative, I’m afraid you lose.
bumbling bob,
Of course. You can’t prove you are not a blundering buffoon, can you?
I win again.
Clint R,
Go back to school and learn the difference between these two statements
1) The mistake your cult makes is then assuming CO2 can warm the surface
2)some of which reaches the surface causing the surface to be warmer.
I didn’t say the CO2 can warm the surface, I said something different.
Perhaps you could figure out the difference, but no, you are too stupid for school.
Braindead bob now backs away from his own words:
“and the subsequent emission of radiation, some of which reaches the surface causing the surface to be warmer.”
Clint R,
Nope not backing away, I fully support that statement, but it means something other than warms the surface.
A point your thimble sized brain can’t seem to fathom, because you are not too deep. r
Bumbling bobdroege –
You didn’t really write –
” . . . and the subsequent emission of radiation, some of which reaches the surface causing the surface to be warmer.” did you? And then write –
“Nope not backing away, I fully support that statement, but it means something other than warms the surface.
Gee, bumbler – “causing the surface to be warmer” doesn’t mean “warms the surface.” It means something other than that, does it?
It means you are totally confused, I guess.
What about –
“I didnt say the CO2 can warm the surface, I said something different.”?
And of course you aren’t going to say what you said, are you? I don’t blame you – you wouldn’t want others to see that you are even more stupid and ignorant than you look at times.
Time to hammer out some more foul language? Do you think that will make people appreciate how intelligent you are?
Questions, questions, bumbling bob. Have you any cogent answers?
Moron Swenson, can you fucking read?
“And of course you arent going to say what you said, are you? I dont blame you you wouldnt want others to see that you are even more stupid and ignorant than you look at times.”
I said it right there in my post.
And you actually quoted me when I said it, doesn’t that make you look stupid.
Got any comments on my post where I described the greenhouse effect for you?
Didn’t think so.
The scientific concepts are above your paygrade.
Buffoon bob,
You wrote –
“I said it right there in my post.
And you actually quoted me when I said it, doesnt that make you look stupid.
Got any comments on my post where I described the greenhouse effect for you?”
More unsubstantiated claims? Who would value the utterings of a foul-mouthed buffoon like you?
Keep the obfuscation and avoidance going – you can’t even figure out which GHE you are fantasising about. Was that the one which allowed the Earth to cool, the one that heated the Earth up, allowed it to cool, heated it up . . ., or the one that supposedly started a century or so ago?
All very confusing.
Maybe you should go back to fantasising about saving the earth with your mighty fleet of submarines. The reality wasn’t quite as kind to you, was it? I suppose that’s a bit of a low blow, but judging from your language, it’s the only sort you know.
Carry on being a fool.
Swenson,
You do understand that there are more things than the greenhouse effect that affect whether the average surface temperature of the Earth is increasing or decreasing, don’t you?
Maybe not.
A foul mouthed buffoon can describe something as well as an insulting scientifically ignorant person, you know.
I respond to insults with vulgarity, or haven’t you the brains to figure that out?
bob…”I respond to insults with vulgarity, or havent you the brains to figure that out?”
***
Bob, I swear with the best of them and I can utter a blue streak of profanities. I swear at myself, for cripes sake. I don’t on Roy’s site out of respect. Roy is a professional with religious beliefs and we are guests on his site.
Can you try counting to 10 before posting with an extreme vulgarity in it? Countless times I have edited out an insult, never mind a major vulgarity.
In real life, I have even stopped responding to insults with vulgarity unless the vulgarity is offered in lieu of a physical threat. If I detect a person is threatening me physically, then it’s another matter. The game is on and I not only like to play those games with a dolt, I am trained to do them well.
We’re not on the streets here and there is no physical threat to you. So, you are defending your image, a total non-entity.
Gordon,
I do believe you are a “but kissing” liar.
Police your self.
And it’s simple, if I get no insults, I give no profanity.
It’s up to you and your team.
Oh and this Gordon,
“So, you are defending your image, a total non-entity.”
No I am not, I am just wrestling with pigs.
blathering bob,
You wrote –
“And its simple, if I get no insults, I give no profanity.”
Who cares if you choose to feel “insulted”?
Not my problem if you cannot control your “feelings”. Feel free to keep on behaving like a bumbling SkyDragon, totally lacking in self control.
Off you go, then. You can always choose to feel “offended”, if you find that feeling “insulted” only generates sniggers at your lack of backbone.
bumbling bob,
You wrote –
“No I am not, I am just wrestling with pigs.”
That would be appropriate for a bumbling buffoon with your level of intelligence. Do you get sick of the pigs winning?
Maybe you could consider wrestling a box of hair – might level the playing field for you.
Let me know how you go.
Swenson,
Your command of the English language is commendable.
“Who cares if you choose to feel insulted?
Not my problem if you cannot control your feelings. Feel free to keep on behaving like a bumbling SkyDragon, totally lacking in self control.
Off you go, then. You can always choose to feel offended, if you find that feeling insulted only generates sniggers at your lack of backbone.”
I didn’t say anything about my feelings.
Did I say I felt offended.
You will have to do better if you want be to feel offended or insulted.
Not working so far.
The graphic shows that the low from the Atlantic reaches over Svalbard, almost to the pole. This means that the polar vortex is broken up. Real winter is approaching Poland. Europe get ready for the east wind.
https://i.ibb.co/TMKsR41/pobrane.png
Another wave of Arctic air is moving toward the Great Lakes.
https://i.ibb.co/DGMym2g/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-11-29-105403.png
Earlier, Tim Folkerts implied that light emitted by ice could not be concentrated.
He certainly wouldn’t like this, then “Two-Mirror Compact System for Ideal Concentration of Diffuse Light” – Journal of the Optical,Society of America.
Tim will probably whine that he didn’t specifically state that radiation from ice could not be concentrated, but Tim is averse to specifically stating anything at all.
Unfortunately, he has slipped up, and wrote –
“3. I am fine with your distinction between “insulating effect” and “heating effect”. But both are “warming effects” on the surface, which is all we really care about for the GHE. The surface is warmer with IR active gases in the atmosphere than without.” – which is complete nonsense.
NASA actually agrees with Professor John Tyndall’s estimate that about 30% of the Suns rays don’t reach the surface. Raymond Pierrehumbert calls CO2 “just planetary insulation”, and assigns its insulating ability to be equivalent to one seventh of an inch of polystyrene (no, I don’t know either – that’s climatologyspeak for something undefined).
Tim states that reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer increases its temperature!
Quite apart from the ridiculousness of Tim’s fantasy, four and a half billion years of the Earth’s atmospheric insulation has resulted in the surface cooling, rather than heating.
Cue Tim, rejecting reality, and claiming that the Earth really “should have warmed”, according to Tim’s bizarre “thought experiments”.
Oh dear, he really is a silly SkyDragon sausage, isn’t he?
The second sentence of that paper reads “Ideal concentration is limited to the thermodynamic limit, which arises from the
conservation of optical brightness”. If you understood that sentence, you would know that there are limits to the concentration of diffuse light. If you truly understood that sentence, you would know that the limit for a source like 300 W/m^2 from ice is also 300 W/m^2 for the concentrated light.
Folkerts, you forgot to mention your nonsense that two fluxes would simply add. As with your values here, 300 W/m^2 would simply add to another 300 W/m^2 to be 600 W/m^2.
If you understood radiative physics and thermodynamics you would know how wrong that is.
No, Clint. This is YOUR misunderstanding. [For the following, assume all the ice is close to 0 C and is emitting 300 W/m^2.]
Two IRRADIANCES simply add. So a surface that receives a diffuse flux of 100 W/m^2 from some ice and also receives a separate diffuse flux of 100 W/m^2 from other ice does indeed receive a total of 100 + 100 = 200 W/m^2 onto that surface. The paper is discussing efficient ways to arrange mirrors to do exactly this.
Two EMITTANCES do not add. 300 W/m^2 leaving one one ice surface and 300 W/m^2 leaving from a different ice surface cannot be added to produce 600 W/m^2 leaving from a single surface. (Nor can it be added to produce 600 W/m^2 arriving at another surface.)
Both of these statements should be non-controversial and pretty trivial. Yet you and Swenson find two DIFFERENT ways to get it wrong.
Folkerts, you ALWAYS try to twist the situation. EMITTANCES have NOTHING to do with your claim. You claimed that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes ARRIVING the same surface would result in 630 W/m^2, which would cause the surface to be at 325K.
Your same “thinking” would lead to ice cubes boiling water.
You can’t learn that is wrong, so you just keep twisting.
(Found a job yet?)
“You claimed that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes ARRIVING the same surface would result in 630 W/m^2, which would cause the surface to be at 325K.”
Yes, that is exactly what I claim.
“Your same ‘thinking’ would lead to ice cubes boiling water.”
It’s not me that can’t learn, but you! That is not ‘the same thinking’ at all!
Maybe this will start to clarify your understanding of the situation. Suppose we have a flat 1m x 1m sheet of ice emitting 315 W/m^2. Where could we place a flat 1m x 1m surface so that there is a 315 W/m^2 flux ARRIVING at the entire surface?
Once you figure out that, you should be able to understand why there cannot be two separate 315 W/m^2 fluxes ARRIVING at the surface from ice.
Tim,
You wrote –
“Maybe this will start to clarify your understanding of the situation. Suppose we have a flat 1m x 1m sheet of ice emitting 315 W/m^2. Where could we place a flat 1m x 1m surface so that there is a 315 W/m^2 flux ARRIVING at the entire surface?
Suppose you place another similar imaginary piece of ice very close to your first imaginary piece of ice? After all, that’s precisely the sort of silliness Willis Eschenbach does with his imaginary “steel greenhouse”, and people like you and others of the “green plate/blue plate” persuasion just add “fluxes” to magically create energy where none actually exist!
You are one of those delusional people who believes their fantasies reflect reality.
I’ll stick with Feynman –
“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.”
Experiment – not imaginary nonsense.
There is no AGW due to a GHE. You specifically stated that the insulating effect of the atmosphere makes the surface warmer. You are a delusional idiot. Reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer does not make it hotter, and no amount of imaginary scenarios will change reality one bit.
Carry on demonstrating your delusional SkyDragon beliefs.
Folkerts, as you back away from your own nonsense, remember that it was you that came up with two equal fluxes arriving at the same surface.
Your incompetence fits well with your poor memory….
“Once you figure out that, you should be able to understand why there cannot be two separate 315 W/m^2 fluxes ARRIVING at the surface from ice.”
Well put. Very logical, very straightforward.
And Clint has no answer for it.
So he must again ignore it in order to continue making his erroneous claims that he can never ever back up with sound arguments.
Nate, your level of incompetence is mind-boggling. That’s probably why you don’t have a meaningful job and have the time to troll here all day.
You and Folkerts don’t even have the ability to understand that more than one flux can be directed at a surface. You idiots continue to amaze me with your ignorance.
That’s why this is so much fun.
“You and Folkerts dont even have the ability to understand that more than one flux can be directed at a surface. ”
You keep missing the point. On purpose? Why?
He asked “Where could we place a flat 1m x 1m surface so that there is a 315 W/m^2 flux ARRIVING at the entire surface?”
You did not answer.
His point is that flux emitted from a sheet of ice falls off with distance from the surface. Only a large sheet of ice held very close to a surface will produce 315 W/m^2 at the surface.
“Once you figure out that, you should be able to understand why there cannot be two separate 315 W/m^2 fluxes ARRIVING at the surface from ice.”
Apparently not.
The first large sheet of ice held close to the surface will BLOCK the view from that surface of any OTHER sheet of ice.
That is what view factor (VF) is all about.
You will never get two 315 W/m^2 fluxes from two sheets of ice striking the same surface.
It aint possible.
Nate, Folkerts started this nonsense, you tagged along, so I have to finish it.
Folkerts used the example of two fluxes arriving the same surface, and now he uses his own example to deny his own nonsense — blatant incompetence! Yet, you’re on your knees worshipping him! That’s why this is so much fun.
Now, here’s the deal. Agree to not comment here for 90 days, and I will show you how more than one flux can arrive at a surface.
Take the offer. Prove that you want to learn, rather than being an anonymous troll.
“I will show you how more than one flux can arrive at a surface.”
No one denied any such a thing, dimwit!
What he showed is that TWO fluxes of 315 W/m^2 emitted by ice cannot arrive at the same point on a surface.
There is no point to keep discussing ice if you cannot comprehend this basic geometrical fact.
Well Nate, that leaves you just another anonymous troll, uninterested in learning.
Not a surprise….
“uninterested in learning.”
Empty rhetoric. What have you explained for anyone to learn? Nothing.
We have clearly explained our reasoning. You have not. Everyone can can see that.
What are you afraid of?
Troll Nate, when you have to make things up, and then have to deny your own inventions, that means you’ve got NOTHING.
You haven’t learned that yet because you can’t learn. You’re braindead.
What have I made up?
Is this simple geometric fact made up?
“The first large sheet of ice held close to the surface will BLOCK the view from that surface of any OTHER sheet of ice.”
Do you deny it?
.
That’s what you’ve made up, troll Nate. You’ve made up a whole new scenario to cover up for Folkerts’ bogus claim.
Clint,
The donkeys don’t like the fact that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature. A glowing blob, with a very thin solidified crust floating on the glowing insides.
According to the SkyDragon cultists, it “should have” warmed up (become even hotter), but of course it cooled instead.
So sad, too bad.
Ah well, the brilliant physicist Lord Kelvin went to his deathbed believing he had “proved” that the Earth could not possibly be more than 40 million years old.
The SkyDragons seem convinced that the fake “climate scientist” Gavin Schmidt, and the faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat, Michael Mann are far smarter than Lord Kelvin, and couldn’t possibly be wrong, and have “proved” that the Earth hasn’t really cooled – it has heated!
Denial of reality, or what?
“Thats what youve made up, troll Nate. Youve made up a whole new scenario to cover up for Folkerts bogus claim.”
You brought up ice. You keep bringing up the ice, saying things like two sheets of ice can’t boil water.
We show you what two sheets of ice cannot do, and why that is a strawman, and suddenly you dont want to talk about ice!
You keep losing on the facts, so you need to blame others as you try to do here.
You’re making up stuff again, Nate — “You keep bringing up the ice, saying things like two sheets of ice can’t boil water.”
I NEVER said anything close to that troll Nate.
“Nate ‘You keep bringing up the ice, saying things like two sheets of ice cant boil water.’
I NEVER said anything close to that troll Nate.”
You said this:
“Folkerts, you ALWAYS try to twist the situation. EMITTANCES have NOTHING to do with your claim. You claimed that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes ARRIVING the same surface would result in 630 W/m^2, which would cause the surface to be at 325K.
Your same ‘thinking’ would lead to ice cubes boiling water.”
This is YOU clearly doubting that “two fluxes of 315 W/m^2 ARRIVING the same surface would result in 630 W/m^2”. IOW you are doubting that arriving fluxes can be summed.
Your ‘evidence’ is that if arriving fluxes can be summed THEN the fluxes from ICE can be summed and used to boil water.
But our point we have been making is that this so-called evidence against fluxes summing is a STRAWMAN.
Since it is a geometrical fact that the flux from multiple pieces of ice will NEVER produce a sum of more than 315 W/m^2 arriving at a surface.
This is the point that you keep trying to evade. Your complaints about what ice cannot do, are NOT EVIDENCE that fluxes cannot be summed.
Troll Nate, you’re going in circles.
* Folkerts claimed fluxes could simply add.
* I said he was perverting physics and asked for a valid reference for his claims. He provided NOTHING.
* You now claim that the fluxes cannot be imposed simultaneously on a surface.
* I offered to teach you how fluxes could be imposed simultaneously.
* You refused my offer.
* Now, you’re back claiming fluxes simply add!
If you weren’t a braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll, you might see that you’ve got NOTHING.
Like the other trolls, I have to cut you off until you’ve got something close to reality.
Happy braindead trolling.
” You now claim that the fluxes cannot be imposed simultaneously on a surface.”
False. Quote me saying that.
Fluxes from multiple distant sources like the sun or light bulbs, do not block out other such sources, and their fluxes arriving simultaneously at the same surface will be SUMMED.
I was specifically talking about why view factors prevent the ARRIVING flux from ever summing to higher than the MAXIMUM EMITTED flux from ice, or any source.
Thus 315 W/m^2 is the maximum flux emitted by ice, and the maxiumum flux that it can shine onto another surface. If it is shining the maximum onto a surface, then it is completely COVERING that surface, and will be completely blocking that surface from view of any other ice.
Are you saying you do not understand this basic geometric limitation??
Tim Folkerts,
“If you understood that sentence, you would know that there are limits to the concentration of diffuse light. If you truly understood that sentence, you would know that the limit for a source like 300 W/m^2 from ice is also 300 W/m^2 for the concentrated light”
No, you idiot.
You will notice that the paper doesn’t mention your stupid W/m2 for good reason – it’s irrelevant and nonsensical.
The thermodynamic limit is the temperature of the source. Nothing to do with W/m2 (which you wouldnt know how to measure, anyway, because you lack knowledge of such things).
You obviously understand little to nothing about optics. Light is light – from the longest radio waves, to the shortest gamma rays. The same physical laws apply – no special exemption for your SkyDragon fantasy scenarios.
The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years or so, to its present temperature, whether you think it should have done so or not.
Nature seems to value your opinions not at all, just like some others, no doubt.
“You obviously understand little to nothing about optics. Light is light”
Tee hee hee..
Hilarious how Swenson attempts to man-splain about light to a PhD physicist.
A propos PhD…
Did you ever watch at WUWT the incredible replies to the comments of the mathy physicist Dr Nick Stokes?
It’s sometimes beyond the imaginable, especially when journalist Monckton, the Thrd Viscount of Brenchley, tried years ago to explain him what is feedback!
Numbskull Nate,
Bizarre appeal to authority. I suppose you believe that everything that the fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat Michael Mann imagines is true, because he has a PhD!
Maybe you could could confirm that you believe everything Tim Folkerts thinks is fact?
No? I didnt think so. Just another cowardly SkyDragon cultist, who can’t even define the mythical GHE.
Off you go now, nitwit. Feel free to ask anyone with a PhD to describe the GHE.
Or ask the bumbling buffoon bobdroege – he claims he’s described it, or explained it, or imagined it somewhere, at some time, but the dog ate it, and then Big Oil deleted all his hard work from the internet – stealing his intellectual property. So sad.
If you believe Tim Folkerts knows what he is talking about, you probably believe that bobdroege is a genius!
“Bizarre appeal to authority.”
Nope, not at all.
Simply pointing out that you are mansplaining.
“explaining without regard to the fact that the explainee knows more than the explainer” “often applied when a man takes a condescending tone in an explanation to anyone”
You have demonstrated often that you are very ignorant of physics, confusing reflection, transparency, opaque, abso*rbtion, conductors and insulators.
So it is quite hilarious to see you ‘explaining’ optics to Tim, who not only has a PhD in a physics, but also has demonstrated, quite often here, that when it comes to physics he knows what he is talking about.
Numbskull Nate,
Bizarre appeal to authority. I suppose you believe that everything that the fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat Michael Mann imagines is true, because he has a PhD!
Maybe you could could confirm that you believe everything Tim Folkerts thinks is fact?
No? I didnt think so. Just another cowardly SkyDragon cultist, who cant even define the mythical GHE.
Off you go now, nitwit. Feel free to ask anyone with a PhD to describe the GHE.
Or ask the bumbling buffoon bobdroege he claims hes described it, or explained it, or imagined it somewhere, at some time, but the dog ate it, and then Big Oil deleted all his hard work from the internet stealing his intellectual property. So sad.
If you believe Tim Folkerts knows what he is talking about, you probably believe that bobdroege is a genius!
“Maybe you could could confirm that you believe everything Tim Folkerts thinks is fact?”
Physics is my field. I can recognize correct physics.
His is correct.
Yours is not correct. In fact, its mostly made up nonsense.
Yet you, an ignoramus when it comes to physics, and science in general, try to mansplain physics to a physicist.
I think that is hilarious.
But it is typical for you, our chief troll.
The denser the atmospheric layer, the more it captures direct solar radiation. This can be perfectly seen on Venus. About 50% of solar radiation directly reaches the Earth’s surface , because the Earth’s troposphere is very thin. With the temperature difference, some of the surface radiation returns to the atmosphere (especially at night). The chemical composition of the troposphere is of little importance, the most important thing is the density, which corresponds to an atmospheric pressure of well over 100 hPa.
The troposphere is actually formed by a mean vertical temperature gradient that appears only in a sufficiently dense atmosphere.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2022.png
swenson…from Tim…”The surface is warmer with IR active gases in the atmosphere than without.
[Swenson] “…which is complete nonsense”.
***
It’s nonsense because no one has ever proved it. Based on reviewing hundreds of papers on the subject, the IPCC can still not offer scientific proof that trace gases in the atmosphere are causing warming.
The IPCC goes to extremes, however, claiming it is unequivocal that humans are causing the warming. Unequivocal means ‘leaving no doubt’, yet the best the IPCC can offer for proof is…
1)Scientists of the 19th century claimed its true.
2)It has warmed since 1850, and humans have been emitting extra CO2 into the air since about 1750, therefore the extra CO2 is warming the atmosphere.
Not a single mention that the Little Ice Age ended circa 1850 therefore the planet should start re-warming.
In science, you can’t get any more stupid than offering a claim that anthropogenic warming theory is unequivocal when you base it on such pithy proof.
This is what the polar vortex will look like in eight days.
https://i.ibb.co/gMbCT2K/gfs-nh-vort3d-20221129-f192-rot000.png
Another snowstorm begins over the Great Lakes.
https://i.ibb.co/hBKpDrP/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-11-29-224743.png
ren…the 14-day forecast is calling for nighttime temperatures of -14C in the Vancouver area in the first week of December. Do you see any indication of that in the vortex?
I realize it is hard to pin-point temperatures to a certain area.
Air will flow into western Canada straight from the North Pole.
https://i.ibb.co/L8Bztzt/gfs-z100-nh-f120.png
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=namer×pan=24hrs&anim=anigf
Re.: Zharkova’s youtube communication
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYOMKLDbeYE
*
1. The first thing that struck me was that she brought back the changing distance between the Sun and the Earth, which had led to massive criticism and a retraction of her 2019 article:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3#article-comments
I don’t have time to watch the entire video, so I don’t know if she repeated her 2019 claim ‘as is’ or suggested an alternative view that supports her claim.
Thus: ” In dubio pro reo. ”
Maybe some other posters took the time to verify.
*
2. What I’m definitely wondering about is what I saw on the video at 36:08.
You see a chart with plots of different cycles’ increasing number of spotless days, with a text beneath:
” Cycle 25 (green line) shows a steeper growth of the number of spotless days than any other cycles including the ones during Dalton min (cycles 15 and 24) (blue line) ”
*
What about starting with a simple comparison of SC25 versus SC24?
Processing the data contained in
https://tinyurl.com/mr2kd8nv
leads to the following result when comparing the two cycles from their respective begin (Dec 2008 resp. Dec 2019) till October 29 of the cycles’ respective 3rd year:
– SLD accumulation for SC24: 325 in 1053 days
– SLD accumulation for SC25: 256 in 1054 days (due to 2020, Feb 29)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D4dfdqgDDrNRRyeSBPKx7CONPb1cV_sJ/view
*
As we can see, not only is SC25’s SLD accumulation lower than SC24’s, but it was lower from the beginning of the cycle.
This means that in Zharkova’s chart, the blue line must contain, together with SC24’s SLDs, the SLDs of cycles showing less spotless days than SC24, by the way lowering the accumulation of the average… by a lot.
Strange days…
And I just discovered the very best in her chart:
” Months since 10th spotless day (SC25: Jun 2016) ”
?
Number of sunspot 25.
https://i.ibb.co/ftf1M9D/SDO-HMIIF-1024.jpg
Latest line in SILSO’s EISN indeed very low, sounds like ramping down:
2022 11 30 2022.914 31 3.3 8 11
Since Dec 2019, there were in SC25 271 days with less than 30 spots:
– 106 in 2020
– 149 in 2021
– 14 in 2022 (11 of 12 months).
SILSO’s daily SSN source as usual.
binny…”The first thing that struck me was that she brought back the changing distance between the Sun and the Earth, which had led to massive criticism and a retraction of her 2019 article….
***
She did not retract the article it was the idiots running the peer review process who did it. They have no business retracting anything, peer review means the article is reviewed by her PEERS, not by some jerk farming out a paper to an unknown who then decides whether the paper has validity.
It’s not science to block a paper based on the opinion of a journal editor or a reviewer. All scientists should see the paper and the only purpose served by peer review should be to ensure a flat-Earther is not submitting papers claiming the Earth is flat.
This sounds like a repeat of the Barry Marshall incident when he submitted a paper claiming duodenal ulcers are caused by h. pylori. The goofball editor did not even let his paper get to peer review, he decided by his own stupidity that the paper was no good. He went so far in his idiocy to claim it was one of the ten worst papers ever submitted.
In the case of Zharkova’s paper, scientists should have been able to argue the facts she presented.
Unlike you, I did watch the entire video and her arguments are compelling. She is not stating opinion she is stating fact based on intricate analysis. It appears we are well on our way to another solar grand minimum along the lines of the Maunder and Dalton minimums. She claims it will occur between 2020 and 2050 and we can expect cooling of about 1C globally.
I think she’s right about a varying distance between Sun and Earth although I don’t agree with her description of varying barycentres. A barycentre is a mathematical point between two masses where the COG is found. However, the claim that the Earth and Moon rotate around that COG is bs.
I think the same applies to the Sun and the pull on it from the planets and other space debris. The forces applied by the planets is far too weak to move the Sun but the force of solar gravity is enough to divert the planets from their linear velocity paths.
“However, the claim that the Earth and Moon rotate around that COG is bs.”
So you believe that Newton was wrong about gravity then.
binny…”Cycle 25 (green line) shows a steeper growth of the number of spotless days than any other cycles including the ones during Dalton min (cycles 15 and 24) (blue line) ”
***
As I recall, she had already established that the number of spotless days increased as the cycle progressed. However, there were times when they remained the same between successive cycles. So, it would not be strange if the number between cycles 25 and 26 were similar. She was comparing 26 to the Dalton minimum because those were the years when the Little Ice Age was at maximum coldness.
She seems to be claiming that the rate at which the spots decreased were greater than in the Dalton minimum. I wonder if the rate in cycle 25 is also greater.
Robertson
You are once more the arrogant and ignorant guy who lies about everything.
Zharkova very well retracted the paper because she HAD TO DO IT IN ORDER TO TRY TO PRESERVE HER SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY AND CREDIBILITY.
I only posted the retraction communicated by the web site responsible for watching such events.
If you had a bit of brain, you would look for all people having scientifically criticized Zharkova, instead of posting your usual nonsense.
You are a poor guy who spends his days in filling this science blog with contrarian, unscientific bullshit.
” I think shes right about a varying distance between Sun and Earth although I dont agree with her description of varying barycentres. ”
You, thinking? You are always guessing, Robertson.
To think is something quite different.
*
” She seems to be claiming that the rate at which the spots decreased were greater than in the Dalton minimum. ”
Manifestly, you are so interested in posting your egomaniac stuff that you did not understand what I wrote:
” https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D4dfdqgDDrNRRyeSBPKx7CONPb1cV_sJ/view
*
As we can see, not only is SC25s SLD accumulation lower than SC24s, but it was lower from the beginning of the cycle.
This means that in Zharkova’s chart, the blue line must contain, together with SC24’s SLDs [spotless days], the SLDs of cycles showing less spotless days than SC24, by the way lowering the accumulation of the average… by a lot. ”
Is that too difficult to grasp?
Binddon you are ridiculous judging Zarkova. Leave it to the nuacovians at her level.
You are ridiculous judging Zarkov. Leave it to scientists at her level.
ren
If you had read my comment a bit more carefully, you wouldn’t have had any reason to think I judge her.
*
But I don’t like scientists who tell in a Youtube video that SC25 has already over 800 sunspots: this is impossible.
And it is moreover not quite kosher: what she silently posts as ‘SC25’ in fact is the so-called ‘peak-to-peak’ spotless count, and is usually named ‘SC24/25’, which indeed has 848 spotless days.
But of these 848, 592 belong to SC24 which has 914 in the sum!
Bunny,
“But I dont like scientists who tell in a Youtube video that SC25 has already over 800 sunspots: this is impossible.”
And you think anybody is concerned about your “likes” and “dislikes” because . . .?
Bumbling bobdroege seems to have thrown his fellow SkyDragons under the bus. He wrote, after acknowledging that the Earth no longer has a molten surface, (meaning it has cooled) –
“Yes, and it has warmed and cooled over various time frames since, have you ever heard of ice age cycles?
You know the Earth has warmed since the last glaciation, you know sheets of ice as far south as the plains of Illinois?”
Which begs at least a couple of questions. What caused this alleged heating? Not any GHE involving mankind, obviously. The Earth had to cool before bumbling bob could warm it up again! The GHE didn’t seem to be working too well as the Earth cooled.
Well, bumbling bob may claim it really was the GHE (he claims to have explained it previously, but no record exists of this alleged explanation), in which case it obviously had nothing to do with mankind – a bit early, no industrial mankind about. Or he could claim warming was due to “natural causes”, of unspecified nature. Of course, SkyDragons like bumbling bob claim that these “natural causes” stopped working at about the same time that the man-made GHE which cooled the Earth, suddenly decided to heat the Earth again!
Maybe there are two GHEs? The one that cools, and the one that heats. Or three – another man-made one which has only operated over the last century or so. The others were worn out fighting, and went to have a rest!
Another question for bumbling bob would be – did the glowing hot core also heat up and cool down along with the surface, or did different physical laws apply at the time?
bobdroege is obviously ignorant, as well as being mentally defective.
The Earth continues to cool – losing energy at a rate of about 44 Terajoules per second. The sour Kraut doesn’t believe a Watt is a joule per second, so I won’t say 44 TW. This time. By the way, four and a half billion years or so of sunlight didn’t stop the Earth cooling then, and it doesn’t now.
No global warming due to CO2. Just some hotter thermometers responding to man-made heat.
I plan to write to the Canadian government asking why we are currently experiencing the coldest November since the 1970s. They have hysterically subscribed to the IPCC global warming meme and moved beyond it into declaring the climate has officially changed to a catastrophic mode.
I want to know why temperatures are a lot colder than expected, considering pundits predicted the North Pole would be free of ice by now.
I expect one of two replies…
1)a null response (aka no reply).
2)Some alarmist twinkie to reply, pointing out that anthropogenic warming theory predicted it. How that is possible, I don’t know, but it’s what I expect.
More from bumbling bob –
“Swenson,
Again, how can you be so stupid to post such drivel as this?
The force of gravity acts towards the center of the Earth.
You might want to google Newtons Law of Universal Gravitation and the experiments used to determine G the gravitational constant.”
OK, bumbling bob is playing silly semantic games. I should have realised that bob thinks that the oceans are stuck to the Earth by SkyDragon magic glue.
Here’s Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation –
“Newton’s law of universal gravitation is usually stated as that every particle attracts every other particle in the universe with a force that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers.”
If bumbling bob believes that this makes ocean water flow from the North Pole towards the South Pole, good for him! NOAA says it, bob the bumbler believes it.
So no, I am not particularly interested in doing anything that bumbling bob suggests. Why dance to the discordant jangling of an idiot like bumbling bob?
Would you?
Swenson,
Go ahead and continue your silly internet games and win silly prizes.
You might look back at what I posted and didn’t post to see what I have said about the flow of seawater.
So then you can stop looking like a moron.
bob the buffoon continues on his bumbling way.
Adopting the finest SkyDragon cult tactics, the buffoon dons his cloak of obscurity and obfuscation.
Buffoon bob has decided he doesn’t know which GHE he understands least (the one that cooled the Earth, the one that heated and then cooled the Earth, or the one that didn’t exist until a century or so ago, and which heats the Earth, except when it has paused, or is cooling.
So bumbling bob tries to get me to look at things he didn’t say, and doesn’t have, thinking that makes him look intelligent. My opinion is that bob is a bumbling buffoon, who keeps putting his foot in his mouth, and then shooting himself in the foot!
Bob seems to be following the dimwitted example of not “specifically claiming anything at all”, adopted by the imaginative fantasist, Tim Folkerts. A cunning ploy – who could possibly disprove anything that doesn’t exist?
For example, bumbling bob says he has explained the GHE to me on many occasions. Unfortunately, he thinks he can transmit information by means of mental telepathy. Sorry, bob, the fellow who took your money for teaching you mental telepathy saw you coming. Don’t blame me, now that you can’t find a copy of your explanation anywhere except in your imagination.
A sample of bob’s clever repartee –
“Go ahead and continue your silly internet games and win silly prizes.”
Oh well, at least bumbling bob acknowledges that I am a winner. Can’t really complain about that, can I?
Anyone can plainly see that I posted a description of the greenhouse effect for Swenson’s amusement.
Radiatively active gases in the atmosphere makes the surface thermometers read moar hotter moar better.
Anyone can plainly see that you’re “science” is as deficient as is your spelling.
All because you’re so braindead, bob.
…your “science”…
Clint R,
It wasn’t for your amusement.
Now, where did you study science?
I’d like to rule those out in case my daughter changes her mind and decides to study science.
bumbling bob wrote –
Anybody can plainly see that you still haven’t transferred your imaginary description of the GHE (whether it be the GHE that cools, the GHE that heats, or the GHE which does both, either, or neither at the SkyDragon cultists’ demand.
Lest I be accused of talking in riddles, I refer to the Earth cooling from the molten state, then the bizarre assertion the the GHE has subsequently warmed and cooled the Earth many times since its initial cooling, and finally warmed (or paused, or cooled) the Earth dice to man-made CO2, H2O, and all the rest of the imaginary “greenhouse gases”.
Bleating bumbling bob, the buffoon, simply repeats his claim that he has a description of the indescribable GHE, no doubt stored away with Trenberth’s missing heat, Gavin Schmidts climate science degree, or Michael Mann’s Nobel Prize!
Poor old bob. Firmly convinced reducing the amount of sunlight reaching a thermometer, makes it “moar hotter moar better.” The bumbler thinks that using infantile mutilation of the English language will show people how wonderfully intelligent he is!
It does.
Swenson,
It wasn’t to make people think I am intelligent, it was to make fun of your repeated demands for a description of the greenhouse effect, which has been provided over and over.
You are funny, and not the ha ha kind.
Not too bright are you?
bumbling bob,
Go on then – a million dollars cash if you can prove you have provided me with a description of the greenhouse effect.
Unsubstantiated claims by blundering buffoons are not proof.
[laughing at dimwitted SkyDragon]
Swenson,
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/the-warming-that-happens-in-vegas-stays-in-vegas/#comment-1398482
Pay up.
Small unmarked bills if you please.
Or bit coin.
bumbling bob,
Others might be interested to see why you didn’t post your nonsense verbatim, and took refuge in a link – hoping that nobody would see your “description of the greenhouse effect”.
Here it is –
“The mechanism of this effect being the absorbtion of radiation from the surface, increasing the time it takes to reach space, and the subsequent emission of radiation, some of which reaches the surface causing the surface to be warmer.”
No, you dummy. Slowing the rate of cooling is not heating, you idiot. Cooling is cooling.
As in “The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so.”
Just stringing words together is no “description” of some fantasy that you cannot even describe! You even called it a “mechanism”. You are as stupid as the donkeys at NASA who call what they can’t even describe a “process”! A “process” or “mechanism” which allows the Earth to cool is your mythical GHE?
My million dollars has no prospect of winding up in the pocket of a bumbling buffoon such as yourself.
The Earth has cooled, fool. Accept reality.
Swenson,
Except right now the Earth’s surface is warming due to the 170,000 TW it receives from the Sun, and you claim its shedding only 43 TW.
See Roy’s monthly graph.
Swenson,
“Others might be interested to see why you didnt post your nonsense verbatim, and took refuge in a link”
It was a link to what I posted in a response to you.
Where is my million?
swenson…”Newtons law of universal gravitation is usually stated as that every particle attracts every other particle in the universe with a force….”.
***
Just an aside, not an attempt to argue your point. No one knows to this day where that force comes from. If you take two particles, one charged +ve and one charged -ve, the force between them can be expressed as:
F = k.q1.q2/d^2
However, q1 and q2 are electrostatic charges. Most inert bodies have a neutral charge therefore it cannot be proved that electrostatic charges are involved.
So, what’s happening?
I have already dismissed from my mind that the F in
F = G m1m2/r^2
is related to space-time, as so many seem to believe these days. I think there is a real force involved, but what causes it?
Maybe if Einstein had spent more time with that question he wouldn’t have arrived at such nonsense as space-time.
And your alternative is?
To gravity?
You are joking, aren’t you?
Or is this some form of cunning SkyDragon gotcha?
Too subtle for me.
GR was saying that Eistein got it wrong. I was asking what his alternative was.
RLH,
That sounds like another stupid gotcha to me.
Einstein got a few things wrong, his belief in the impossibility of quantum entanglement being one, his creation of the “cosmological constant” being another. He later described his use of a mythical “cosmological constant” as his “biggest blunder”. Biggest, not the only one.
Alternative to Einstein’s disbelief in “spooky action at a distance”? It exists? Alternative to his belief in the “cosmological constant”? Disbelief?
I agree with Feynman, who 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.”
The alternative to belief in a GHE is obviously disbelief. I don’t believe in phlogiston, caloric theory, or unicorns, either. SkyDragon GHE cultists seem to want people to believe as they do, for no particular reason – supported by fact or experiment, that is.
GR and I disagree about things, from time to time. Who cares? He is not the boss of me, nor I the boss of him. At least he doesn’t pose stupid and pointless gotchas, presumably trying to make others look stupid for no good reason at all.
However, you are free to do as you wish, with possibly millions or billions applauding your actions. Who knows?
Carry on.
swenson…”I dont believe in phlogiston, caloric theory, or unicorns…”
***
You don’t believe in unicorns??? There’s one living in a field nearby. Of course, it could be a prank along the lines of the Monty Python skit where the villagers tied a carrot to a woman’s face as a nose and tried her as a witch.
The reasoning offered by the crusader, played, I think, by Terry Jones, far surpassed anything climate alarmists can offer.
rlh…as Swenson pointed out, Newton’s theory of gravitational force stands till someone proves it wrong. That is, there is a force acting between different masses. There was no reason offered to scrap Newton and blindly accept the theories of Einstein based purely on thought experiments.
Einstein tried to reduce it to a general mathematical relationship based on no evidence of forces acting. I am not claiming Einstein was not aware that real, physical forces are involved and that he was trying to generalize a universal relationship based purely on kinematics. I don’t know that nor does anyone else I have read.
The only evidence put forward to support Einstein’s theory of space-time is the alleged bending of light by the Sun due to space-time whatevers. It’s not at all clear in Einstein’s work how space-time acts to affect anything. I claim neither space nor time can affect anything because neither exist outside human definitions.
Think about it, space means there is nothing there. We define empty space using human defined parameters like volume. So, we take empty space and draw an imaginary volume in it and declare it as a space. If I create walls in empty space and move into it, I call it my personal living space. How does that space in combination with another non-entity, time, cause bodies to be attracted to each other.
I say alleged because I think people supporting that theory miss the obvious. The Sun is a ball of plasma surrounded by strong electric and magnetic fields. Since light is an electromagnetic field, the forces in the Sun should bend it. Therefore it is not gravity bending the light, as claimed, but electrostatic forces in a turbulent plasma gas.
I did not appreciate the Sun’s electro-magnetic and pure magnetic forces till I read a recent article posted here from Zharkova (was it Maguff who posted it???). Sun spots act like magnets in pairs and they interact with larger electromagnetic fields in the plasma.
Winter in the northern hemisphere will begin according to the calendar on the first of December.
https://i.ibb.co/h8yKrf2/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-11-30-085533.png
Have you watched the Zharkova movie in which she claims the summer equinox has been as late as July 5th and the solstice as late as December 15th?
You are such a gullible Zharkova follower…
Solstice 2021: Tuesday Dec 21 16:58 MET
Summer equinox 2022: Tuesday June 21 11:13 MET
Typical of Bindiclown , he is diverting from cycle 25 going very weak, opposite to his own predictions, by trying nitpicking on little irrelevant things.
He always picks the worst most wrong to follow, now Scott McIntosh , we will have fun with this.
Next sideways data point tomorrow, see how he fits it on his polyidiotic red line chart
Thanks babbling Edog for misrepresenting me once more.
The rest of my comment generated an ‘internal server error’; here is a link to the full comment:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ePVgvJt7y6pmh0GsFs4xbKWe4yw4qB3Z/view
Nobody is misrepresenting you you dumbass, you are the one typing in here your stupid nonsense over and over
” Nobody is misrepresenting you you dumbass… ”
Thans for the insult.
Of course you are misrepresenting me, babbling Edog, and you perfectly know that.
*
” … you are the one typing in here your stupid nonsense over and over ”
This is the very best! You couldn’t even provide us with a technically appropriate contradiction to anything I wrote here.
You are only able to endlessly replicate your dumb Youtube stuff, and to discredit and denigrate those who don’t think like you.
binny…”You are such a gullible Zharkova follower”
***
So, you have a woman with a degree in astrophysics who has analyzed solar cycles to the point she sees a similarity between the current cycles and what took place during the Dalton and Maunder minima and you write he off as unbelievable.
I don’t believe anything but when a scientists presents a good argument, I am open to it. I am not accepting her proofs in a gullible manner, I don’t know if they are right. However, current signs are beginning to point in that direction.
Zharkova claims the solar minimum will occur between 2020 and 2050 and from what I have experienced around my part of the world, the signs are there. This is the coldest winter season we’ve experienced in some time and winter still 3 weeks away.
What concerns me is the bs we can expect from the climate alarmist crowd if she is right. They will find a way to take credit for it or explain it as being predicted by AGW theory. And the sheeple will carry on believing the bs.
Of course, if it gets as cold as it did during the LIA, there will be a hue and cry from the masses who are freezing in the dark.
OK i’ll make one valid point, then you try.
Your claims
“Nate, non-radiative gases act as insulation.” and
“Atmospheric radiative gases act as open windows in the insulation.”
is contradicted by the direct observations by Tyndall, which was the REDUCTION by CO2 as compared to Nitrogen, of radiant heat flow between a warm emitting surface and a cold detector of radiant heat,
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Radiation_(Rede_Lecture)
and by satellite observations of the IR emitted by Earth to space.
https://www.fossilhunters.xyz/origin-of-life-3/the-infrared-spectrum-of-the-earth.html
This shows that atmospheric abs*orbing gases CLOSE WINDOWS on the radiant heat emitted to space.
Which is the opposite of what is you claimed should happen.
Oh well.
in response to Clint
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/canadian-summer-urban-heat-island-effects-some-results-in-alberta/#comment-1402149
Nate, who knows what point you’re struggling to make with all that rambling?
Which atmosphere emits more to space, an atmosphere with only non-radiative gases or an atmosphere with radiative gases?
It’s just that simple.
Ah again the ball-on-a-string-ist at work!
Who still thinks that radiative gases emit to space all IR they absorb from Earth, where in fact half of the absorbed IR goes back down and never reaches space.
An atmosphere with only non-radiative gases is a far better emitter to space than one consisting of only non-radiative gases because these don’t absorb IR in any significant order (N2: 1,000,000 times less than H2O and CO2; O2 1,000 times less – atmospheric abundance taken into account).
Yes: It’s just that simple. But not for ball-on-a-string-ists.
Bindidon, thanks for another example of your incompetence.
Non-radiative gases do not radiate.
Got a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation” yet?
Or, do you still have NOTHING?
” Non-radiative gases do not radiate. ”
Ah the ball-on-a-string-ist still is at work!
No one tells they do, Clint R.
What I tell you is that no IR is intercepted by non-radiative gases, and hence the whole IR emitted by Earth reaches outer space.
That’s all.
*
” Got a model of orbital motion without axial rotation yet? ”
I wish you much fun with your childish trials to deny the lunar spin, and also with your inability to control your excessive urges to denigrate so many astronomers just because you don’t have the least clue of what they did.
Fun to see you deny your own words, Bin.
And since you don’t have a viable replacement for the ball-on-a-string, it will stand. Which means your moon rotation nonsense is down the toilet.
Clint R,
“Got a model of orbital motion without axial rotation yet?”
Asked and answered counselor.
Again, it’s the Hubble Space Telescope when aligned to observe a specific object.
“…when aligned to observe a specific object.”
Yes braindead bob, Hubble uses its “Pointing Control System” to align itself. A non-rotating body would always have the same side facing the inside of its orbit, like Moon. That wouldn’t allow a telescope to be focused on a distant object very long. Hubble has the ability to torque itself.
You don’t understand any of this. But, it’s funny to see you bring up things that prove you wrong, continually.
One thing I do know, if Clint R says I am wrong, that’s a great indication that I am right.
Braindead bob gets caught with his mouth full of crap and he just takes off on another tangent.
That’s why he’s braindead. He can’t learn.
Clint R,
Like I said, the Moon rotates.
Now since it orbits both the Sun and the Earth, which one does it keep its face oriented to?
FYI, that’s a rhetorical question.
“A non-rotating body would always have the same side facing the inside of its orbit, like Moon.”
Got it, a non rotating body rotates.
Is the round Earth flat also?
Braindead bob gets caught with his mouth full of crap and he just takes off on another tangent.
That’s why he’s braindead. He can’t learn.
Next will be more of his juvenile profanity, I suppose.
He just can’t learn.
Look who’s using profanity.
Bindidon says:
”Who still thinks that radiative gases emit to space all IR they absorb from Earth, where in fact half of the absorbed IR goes back down and never reaches space.”
Going back down implies a cold surface warming a warmer surface. Do you think it works the same for the surface molecules as the ground warms to depth that they create hotter molecules under the surface layer by first warming them and then sending half of everything that comes back up from the lower layers back down to the lower layers? Sheesh. . . .its amazing how you guys cherry pick your extrapolations!
Hunter
” Going back down implies a cold surface warming a warmer surface. ”
You are fixated to your own discourse to such an extent that you manifestly aren’t able to read things in a correct manner.
Where the heck am I telling about that dumb stuff above in my comment?
I’m telling about photons absorbed and reemitted by IR-sensitive gases, and about NOTHING else.
I have NOTHING in mind with this boring backradiation story: I’m telling about the fact that absorbed photons are randomly reemitted in all directions, and hence half of them don’t reach outer space.
What happens with those reaching Earth’s surface doesn’t interest me in this moment.
One would think these guys know that the transfer rate from surface to surface is dependent upon temperature and it is only 50% of what is absorbed if the upper surface is at half the energy of the lower layer.
Its amazing how fast these guys bite on a physical principle spewed by those with political agendas and imagined by many as an explanation for surface temperatures that has such a ‘fleeting’ existence in the entire scheme of things. . . .magic gas!
A magic gas that when it condenses or freezes and becomes a liquid or solid it completely takes on a heating role ignored for all other phases. They lean heavily on its transparency to certain frequencies of light like it were one way glass and capable of energetic accumulation, with no other contributor, beyond the initial energy absorbed.
Its all wacko BS and yes geniuses are as capable of anybody of seeing a UFO that simply isn’t there. Going to school doesn’t fix that. Going to school and learning physics rules out stuff like this but it actually only rules out something well south of .000000000001% of what people vividly imagine.
As Richard Feynman points out you need an experiment for each thing imagined for it to be considered to be science.
And how many successful experiments do we have for the mainstream greenhouse effect? Zero! As Richard Lindzen postulates while fully recognizing that some gases absorb light: The variation we see is potentially explainable by other factors.
My opinion is it is obvious that CO2 has some variable impacts in relationship to its transparency but that once absorbed that variation is saturated and properly sequestered against further surface effects. I would love to see an experiment that refutes that then I can change my mind. Without that experiment I will not accept the accumulation of power desires to those who promote it. Don’t buy into the phony altruism, demand evidence.
Bindidon says:
”I have NOTHING in mind with this boring backradiation story: Im telling about the fact that absorbed photons are randomly reemitted in all directions, and hence half of them dont reach outer space.
What happens with those reaching Earths surface doesnt interest me in this moment.”
Then one has to wonder about your one-sided criticisms of those disputing the greenhouse theory as there is absolutely nobody in this forum that I am aware of is not aware of what you are aware of.
But hey that fits into my response above perfectly. Its about power and politics. Apparently for you too.
Hunter
It’s quite typical for people like you that you are fixated on CO2, and don’t even mention H2O, which is by far the main IR absorber/emitter in the atmosphere.
And you speak about some ‘agenda’ ? So what!
You belong to the people whose agenda is to endlessly repeat:
” No warming, hence no CO2 effect. ”
The ‘My cheap gallon’ gang.
I should be more precise. The Photon Theory is just that, the properties of which is consistent with known thermodynamic principles of cooling of an object being at the rate of the object that receives the energy.
If and only if the object receiving the energy then passes it directly to space does the photon theory suggest half go back to the surface. That is an issue with the photon theory that stimulates the imagination about what becomes of these returned photons. Myself it is just a mirror problem. The sun only shines half the time thus it doesn’t mean snit.
So even Einstein died not fully understanding photons and little has progressed since because of the dominance of mathematicians rather than experimenters in learning more about energy transference. But it does take extraordinary vision and genius to design experiments whereas mathematical extrapolation of what is already known is exceedingly easy but that doesn’t make its output correct.
“Which atmosphere emits more to space, an atmosphere with only non-radiative gases or an atmosphere with radiative gases?
Its just that simple.”
No, your ‘argument’ is simple but wrong because it is ignoring the abs*orbing capabilities of these gases.
And the observations clearly show that the atmosphere with CO2 emits LESS radiation to space. There is a ‘hole’ in the emission spectrum to space at the CO2 and H2O absorp*tion wavelengths.
https://www.fossilhunters.xyz/origin-of-life-3/the-infrared-spectrum-of-the-earth.html
So, as Feynman emphasized, your simple hypothesis doesnt agree with experiment. It is WRONG.
Oh well!
You can’t answer the simple question, huh Nate?
“Which atmosphere emits more to space, an atmosphere with only non-radiative gases or an atmosphere with radiative gases?”
Again, that simple question destroys all your endless rambling, false accusations, and perversions of reality.
“Keep it simple, stupid.”
No.
An atmosphere without GHG is not active in the IR and therefore emits nothing into space whatever its temperature.
The more GHGs are added, the greater the opacity, the less the surface emits into space and the more the atmosphere takes over.
This is nothing but the greenhouse effect compatible with thermodynamics.
It is not the a b s o r p t i o n of greenhouse gases that plays a role in the greenhouse effect but the emission. The atmosphere is very efficiently heated by convection.
phi,
You wrote –
“An atmosphere without GHG is not active in the IR and therefore emits nothing into space whatever its temperature.”
I hope you don’t mind a minor correction –
“All matter with a temperature greater than absolute zero emits thermal radiation.” – Wikipedia.
Including oxygen and nitrogen.
It doesn’t really matter, I suppose. During the night, the surface loses all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s internal heat.
Hence four and a half billion years or so of global cooling.
swenson,
Yes, you are right, I stuck to the outline of the mechanism.
Swenson,
So the Earth warms during the day?
Nate says:
No, your argument is simple but wrong because it is ignoring the abs*orbing capabilities of these gases.
And the observations clearly show that the atmosphere with CO2 emits LESS radiation to space. There is a hole in the emission spectrum to space at the CO2 and H2O absorp*tion wavelengths.
So, as Feynman emphasized, your simple hypothesis doesnt agree with experiment. It is WRONG.
===========
That isn’t an experiment for the warming of the surface Nate.
You left the connection to the surface as pure science fiction as it seems does mainstream science. Jules Verne had theories too. Some later were proven, many others not. . . .but at least he didn’t claim to say they would be, making acknowledged science fiction at least honest.
When some scientist figures out how to prove it then he can be both honest and famous. . . .few tread there.
The observations answered the question for me, dimwit.
“And the observations clearly show that the atmosphere with CO2 emits LESS radiation to space. There is a hole in the emission spectrum to space at the CO2 and H2O absorp*tion wavelengths.”
It is not SIMPLE at all to explain these observations if it is emitting MORE to space. That observed emissions to space have chunks REMOVED from them at in the GHG bands, as compared to the surface emissions,
Without GHG, the surface will emit direct to space, and that would be a lot more, 390 W/m^2 from a 288 K surface.
Nate,
Temperatures are not measured in W/m2, nor is irradiance directly related to temperature in general.
The fact is that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, whether you want to accept it or not, and continues to cool, losing energy at an estimated rate of 44 TW.
Whether your GHE fantasy insists that the Earth “should be” cooling faster or slower is irrelevant. Nature doesn’t value your opinion, and you would be hard put to name any of the more than seven billion people on the face of the planet who do.
Carry on dreaming.
Insane person Swenson keeps telling us the same red herring 649 times. Each time it has no relevance to the discussion.
Please consider telling us about a different red herring for a change! Your favorite beer? The engine hp of your car?
“Temperatures are not measured in W/m2”
No, not a good red herring, since W/m2 are actually relevant to the science being discussed. But of no interest to you.
Nate,
Temperatures are not measured in W/m2, nor is irradiance directly related to temperature in general.
The fact is that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, whether you want to accept it or not, and continues to cool, losing energy at an estimated rate of 44 TW.
Whether your GHE fantasy insists that the Earth should be cooling faster or slower is irrelevant. Nature doesnt value your opinion, and you would be hard put to name any of the more than seven billion people on the face of the planet who do.
Carry on dreaming.
Swenson just keeps on confirming that he lacks the ability to make rational choices.
Nate says:
The observations answered the question for me, dimwit.
”And the observations clearly show that the atmosphere with CO2 emits LESS radiation to space. There is a hole in the emission spectrum to space at the CO2 and H2O absorp*tion wavelengths.”
It is not SIMPLE at all to explain these observations if it is emitting MORE to space. That observed emissions to space have chunks REMOVED from them at in the GHG bands, as compared to the surface emissions.
——————-
Nate is here utilizing extrapolations via logic rather than science to establish the greenhouse effect in his own head. Namely really being a dimwit!
He thinks that because CO2 high in the atmosphere emits less, thus the surface must be warmer.
Seems a lot of people fall into that logic trap. Its not unreasonable but it certainly and completely lacks any basis in science.
So what is the alternative to this? Simple! The two major alleged greenhouse effects come from water and CO2 and atmosphere. Nate uses one of the two because it emits less than water so it must be ultimately responsible.
But water emits over a far higher range of frequencies than does CO2. CO2 emissions from space can only be seen of the last and highest layer of CO2 in the atmosphere as it absorbs the radiation of lower layers of the CO2 bands of radiation.
Of course when energy is absorbed by CO2 it disperses that energy by more means than radiation. In fact collisions have a far higher productivity in removing energy from CO2 than radiation. Also water is also about 50 times more common in the atmosphere than CO2 and thus intercepts the vast majority of energy from CO2 emissions and collisions and then reemits them on different radiation bands. So these lower bands are at a higher rate of energy transfer than the total energy absorbed by earth from the sun in the same bands.
As one wise man once said: energy in the atmosphere is energy on its way to space. Thats true because there are no net radiant emissions or transference of energy by collisions from a colder layer to a warmer layer. And of course Nate will agree to this when pressed as he isn’t totally devoid of a physics education.
But like the dimwit he proves him to be he just hand waves that self acknowledged inconvenient fact away and goes on believing that cold CO2 way up in the atmosphere is warming the surface entirely on the basis that it is colder than the surface.
Nate says:
December 1, 2022 at 8:06 AM
”Which atmosphere emits more to space, an atmosphere with only non-radiative gases or an atmosphere with radiative gases?
Its just that simple.”
So, as Feynman emphasized, your simple hypothesis doesnt agree with experiment. It is WRONG.
Oh well!
——————–
Nate answers the question incorrectly.
gases receive radiation in relationship to how cold they are and emit radiation in relationship to how warm they are. And of course absorbing radiation warms the gas.
What experiment establishes the greenhouse effect Nate? Source please.
Your previous idiotic comments have revealed that you attribute some kind of elemental difference between gases and elements in other chemical phases such that gases emit from two surfaces and other elemental surfaces only emit from one surface. Where was that science determined Nate? If gases emit 50% downward why doesn’t a surface of rock molecules also emit downward? Answer for simpletons: They do but when the surface below them becomes as warm as the emitting surface no more net emissions dude! (See first paragraph)
Frigid air, strong winds to have Midwest and Northeast shivering as December arrives.
I was out last night shoveling some of it. About 4 inches south of Vancouver and about 10 inches at higher altitudes.
It was melting pretty fast south of Vancouver near the ocean. Normally, when we get that much snow there is a ‘winter wonderland’ effect which is nice. Snow everywhere, hanging on trees and everything. Last night, the sky had blue patches and the air felt warm.
It’s the sun ztupid
https://youtu.be/sZBWEKCW2Fc
Earlier, Bindidon wrote –
“I have NOTHING in mind with this boring backradiation story: Im telling about the fact that absorbed photons are randomly reemitted in all directions, and hence half of them dont reach outer space.
What happens with those reaching Earths surface doesnt interest me in this moment.”
He has realised that “back radiation” is “boring” – Binnyspeak for “nonsense”.
He has also realised that the radiation from a colder body cannot heat a hotter one!
It doesn’t “interest” him any more. Thar’s because it’s nonsense.
Poor Binny – all that time spent “dissecting” the past, to no avail.
He might well think that the GHE is now “boring”, and doesn’t “interest” him any more. My care factor remains pegged at zero. Others may be wildly interested in Binny’s boredom and disinterest – or maybe not.
boring, and doesnt interest him any more – is a code speak for
“I’m completely clueless and don’t understand any of it”
Earlier, bumbling bobdroege admitted that the mythical GHE has no discernible effect –
“Swenson,
You do understand that there are more things than the greenhouse effect that affect whether the average surface temperature of the Earth is increasing or decreasing, dont you?
Maybe not.
A foul mouthed buffoon can describe something as well as an insulting scientifically ignorant person, you know.
I respond to insults with vulgarity, or havent you the brains to figure that out?.”
I wonder if bob the blunderer has included his newfound knowledge in the “description” or the “explanation” of the mythical GHE, which bumbling bob claims to have concocted.
Now, bob admits that the GHE does not stop the Earth from cooling, but may (or may not) have some influence on the Earth warming! All very mysterious and unclear, but I see the first inklings that reality may be piercing bob’s veil of fantasy.
bob still hasn’t managed to control his emotions, poor darling. He chooses to feel insulted – what a dimwit. This is his excuse for uncontrollable vulgarity – he feels insulted!
As if I care what bumbling bob chooses to feel.
[laughing at bumbling buffoon]
Swenson,
“Earlier, bumbling bobdroege admitted that the mythical GHE has no discernible effect ”
Did I really?
You have a poor grasp of the English language if you think I said anything like that.
And what’s the matter, can’t find the reply button, or your lady’s trigger?
bumbling bob,
Here’s what you wrote –
“You do understand that there are more things than the greenhouse effect that affect whether the average surface temperature of the Earth is increasing or decreasing, dont you”
Well, that’s about as informative as any piece of SkyDragon nonsense, isn’t it?
Your mindreading abilities are about as defective as your telepathic information transferring abilities, or your knowledge of physics.
Notwithstanding your attempt to say nothing at all, maybe you could mention the “more things than the greenhouse effect” which affect whether the Earth cools or heats, but I doubt it.
The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years or so, and the GHE didn’t stop the cooling. The Earth is still cooling, losing energy at the rate of 44 TW or so, and the GHE is unable to stop the cooling.
You are an obfuscatory dimwit, in denial of reality.
Carry on being vague – you might think you are saving face.
Swenson,
“he Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years or so, and the GHE didnt stop the cooling. The Earth is still cooling, losing energy at the rate of 44 TW or so, and the GHE is unable to stop the cooling.”
Not true, the greenhouse effect is causing the Earth’s temperature to go up.
Sorry chap, the Earth is warming, see the next update from Roy.
So, do you think all this Global Warming will prevent the next Ice Age?
Stephen,
No, because we are currently in an Ice Age.
But it will postpone the next glaciation, which hasn’t happened with CO2 over 400 ppm.
That’s a good thing, right? We can feed people during warm.
blundering bob,
“Not true, the greenhouse effect is causing the Earths temperature to go up.”
This would be the same mythical greenhouse effect that couldnt stop the Earth from cooling for four and a half billion years or so, would it? Or another greenhouse effect causing the Earth to lose energy at the rate of 44 TW or so?
Others can decide for themselves whether your unsubstantiated “not true” fantasy is to be preferred to fact.
You may not have noticed, but Dr Spencer’s current posting is about the effect of man-made heat, and its effect on thermometers. So your “Sorry chap, the Earth is warming, see the next update from Roy.”, doesn’t carry much weight, does it?
By the way, I offered you a substantial amount of cash if you could prove that you provided me with a description of the GHE. So far, all I hear is the sound of crickets.
Does that mean you are a lying fantasist, or just an ignorant bumbling buffoon?
You don’t really know, do you?
Oh well.
Yes, but the Earth receives about 173,000 TW from the Sun, Swenson, which number is moar bigger?
Bumbling bob,
Over the past four and a half billion years or so, how many TW has the Earth received from the Sun?
Only joking – don’t bother working it out.
It’s irrelevant, isn’t it? The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, whether you think it should have or not. The brilliant Baron Fourier pointed out that during the night, the surface loses all the heat of the day – plus a little bit of its internal heat.
You can’t even use decent English to present your stupid gotcha.
You wrote –
” . . .which number is moar bigger?” – were you talking about your IQ or your shoe size, bob?
Carry on with your infantile buffoonery.
Swenson,
Are you sure you want to cite Fourier?
“In the 1820s, Fourier calculated that an object the size of the Earth, and at its distance from the Sun, should be considerably colder than the planet actually is if warmed by only the effects of incoming solar radiation. He examined various possible sources of the additional observed heat in articles published in 1824[14] and 1827.[15] While he ultimately suggested that interstellar radiation might be responsible for a large portion of the additional warmth, Fourier’s consideration of the possibility that the Earth’s atmosphere might act as an insulator of some kind is widely recognized as the first proposal of what is now known as the greenhouse effect,[16] although Fourier never called it that.[17][18]
Braindead bob, you got something right — “…the Earth receives about 173,000 TW from the Sun…”
You’re learning that “It’s the Sun, stupid”.
Braindead bob,
You wrote –
“Are you sure you want to cite Fourier?” Why not? As you point out, just because some idiot is confused about insulation (implying that insulation amplifies energy transmission rather than attenuating it), that’s nothing to do with any “greenhouse effect”, is it?
Why do you ask such idiotic questions, Bob?
If I wasn’t sure I wanted to “cite” Fourier, I wouldn’t do it.
You may “cite” anyone you wish. I’m sure that some will claim the world was created at absolute zero, and has warmed up since, due to the Sun, and there may be some who claim that the Sun was created at absolute zero, and has warmed up since due to something or other.
Professor John Tyndall proposed that the Sun’s heat came about as a result of celestial bodies continually crashing into it. You may agree with Tyndall if you wish. I don’t. I don’t agree with everything Fourier said, either.
Here’s a little of what Fourier wrote, and with which I agree, for your information – “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. All the terrestrial effects of solar heat are modified by the interposition of the atmosphere and the presence of water. The great motions of these fluids render the distribution more uniform.”
Four and a half billion years or so of history show the first sentence to be correct – the Earth has cooled.
Comparison with temperatures on the airless Moon show the rest of Fourier’s thoughts to be correct. The temperature range on the Earth is far less than the Moon.
Keep trying, bumbling bob. You”ll get something right by accident if you just keep on hammering out random nonsense.
Swenson,
Looks to me that now that you are actually quoting Fourier, he said something different from what you have been spouting about the Earth losing all the heat it receives during the day at night.
Apparently he didn’t say that.
Well done!
Here we go again with the Internal Server error…posting part by part…
bill hunter…”So even Einstein died not fully understanding photons…
***
Well said. Before his death, Einstein made a statement that some people thought they knew whether EM took the form of a wave or photons, but they were wrong.
No one knows to this day whether the photon exists as defined, a particle with momentum but no mass. I prefer the word quantum, or quanta, because it is vague and could be a unit of EM that has the frequency a photon particle cannot have.
It seems obvious to me that an electron in motion has a moving charge that represents an electric field. For reasons unknown, that moving electric field automatically generates an orthogonal magnetic field. That defines an EM wave, an electric field moving with an orthogonal magnetic field.
According to Bohr, that EM quantum is only generated by an electron as it transitions to a lower orbital energy level. The electron’s frequency, which is it orbital angular frequency, modulates the emitted EM field. I don’t think anyone knows if this EM field is generated isotropically from the electron, or as a linear transmission.
There is simply no way to observe it, even with instruments. All anyone can do is observe mass electron transmissions as a field oscillating at the frequency of the electrons that transitioned between the same energy levels. How the field is formed by individual quanta is a mystery.
What I’m talking about here is still a theory. No one has ever observed an electron in action or one orbiting a nucleus. The reality could be far different than anything we have imagined.
Having said that, Bohr’s theory offers a very good explanation for the emission and absorp-tion spectra of hydrogen. And if one follows through on the basic theory, it explains why radiation from colder masses cannot be absorbed by hotter masses. In other words, it confirms the 2nd law as written by Clausius.
Unfortunately, Bohr’s simplistic explanation only applies to hydrogen. When elements with more electrons were observed, it became much more complex. That’s when the mathematicians and theorists like Heisenberg, Born, and Dirac got in on the act, creating wild scenarios to explain multiple electron elements.
Much of atomic physics was derived in the early 20th century and unfortunately we have not moved significantly beyond those theories. Same with relativity theory and the inane notion of time dilation.
We need to move on but we are hampered by traditionalists entrenched in paradigms. Anthropogenic warming theory is based on such unproved paradigms.
thats the issue. As science has progressed it has become ever more far reaching. Non-experts like Nate fail to comprehend the morass that exists on the cusp of scientific knowledge. And Nate is far from being alone. The morass itself doesn’t include non-experts but is made up of the experts. Having intelligence and getting an education doesn’t do much to limit the imagination. . . .add in a huge public pocketbook. . . .and bunch of ordinary citizens to disperse the money. . . . Well writing grants and I have done a few is a lot like Madison Avenue. Extol your virtues, make your weaknesses your strengths, and promise the moon.
Bill is my stalker apparently.
And again offers up a pointless melange of ad-homs, politics, his deep insecurity about his own lack of expertise in these topics, and NO SCIENCE.
claiming expertise is different than a CV. ask any employer. Have you ever had one?
Bill you tout your own CV and useful expertise in auditing, but refuse to acknowledge that others, such as scientists, have solid CVs and valuable yet different expertise than you, in their chosen fields.
One doesn’t ‘claim’ expertise. One simply hands over their CV with the pertinent contact information to verify. Works the same for any claim. If you want to make a claim about rotation you provide a source with verifiable support in it. Non-spinners have done that numerous times you just keep going on about ellipses and librations without any support.
Likewise on this subthread perhaps you can come up with something that explains exactly what a photon is and where it goes. But of course you won’t do that because you would rather just spew shiit out of your arse.
have no idea what caused the Internal Server error. I cleaned up part of the quote and got part 1 posted. When I tried the rest of the post I got the same error. Removed reference to part 2 and it posted.
“According to Bohr” actually Bohrs model was wrong. Even he agreed it needed to be replaced with a better model.
Nate,
Presumably you think this affects the fact that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so.
It doesn’t. Were you trying to make some sort of point about the mythical GHE, or just trolling?
I see, Swenson is doing some sort of long term Dadaist performance art piece.
Nincompoop Nate,
You wrote –
“I see, Swenson is doing some sort of long term Dadaist performance art piece.”
And this refers to the mythical GHE how, precisely?
Are you attempting idiocy through obscurity? If so, you may be succeeding.
” think this affects the fact that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so.”
And this is relevant to the existence of a GHE, how exactly?
Or the topic of this thread, quantum theory, how exactly?
Swenson will have no answers, because his posts are ultimately Dadaist but lacking a point.
For the ignorant:
“Developed in reaction to World War I, the Dada movement consisted of artists who rejected the LOGIC, REASON, and aestheticism of modern capitalist society, instead expressing NONSENSE, IRRATIONALITY, and anti-bourgeois protest in their works”
But unlike Swenson, Dadaists were trying to make a point with their art.
Bumbling bobdroege at his inadvertent best, earlier –
“Swenson,
It wasnt to make people think I am intelligent, . . .”.
bob succeeds in his endeavour to make people think that he is unintelligent.
Well done, bumbler.
Sun activity is tanking, in a few days it might stop shining all together
https://i.postimg.cc/gjcjk3yb/and-x-clas.jpg
A new Maunder Minimum is coming!
Or maybe maybe the spots just went round the backside..
Let’s look at the distribution of ozone in the stratosphere. You can see that most of the ozone has concentrated over eastern Siberia and has moved partially over Canada. Since ozone is heavier than the surrounding air and there is a temperature difference, there are waves in this region that block the usual polar vortex pattern, which should be more circular. With strong blocking, the polar vortex is broken up.
https://i.ibb.co/pzQSFkr/gfs-toz-nh-f00.png
La Nina is very stable.
For now, we have a clear trend. Wait for the end of the solar cycle.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
https://i.ibb.co/H776RR0/IDYOC007-202211.gif
https://i.ibb.co/rs3zKzp/nino3-4.png
A strong drop in temperatures over the Great Lakes. Temperature in degrees Celsius.
https://i.ibb.co/RYRJv28/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-12-01-125303.png
For Bindiclown’s amusement, another post about sideways ramp up, up to 8-9 month now
https://i.postimg.cc/YqcV0kLS/spots11.jpg
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/enso-impact-on-the-declining-co2-sink-rate/#comment-1352569
You still did not understand what I wrote at that time because you always only look at the most possible recent past.
Looking 6 months back is for you already ‘dissecting the past’.
SC25 is currently in a very low phase indeed. And?
That was the case for lots of strong cycles before, and will be so in the future.
And your endless stalking against me doesn’t change anything to the fact that SC25 has, for the same period since their respective begin, less spotless days than its predecessor SC24.
No wonder that people like you ‘eat’ Zharkova’s ‘information’, who tells us on Youtube that SC25 counts in between no less than over 800 spotless days!
Wow.
Severe winter attack in Montana and North Dakota.
https://i.ibb.co/xzQ15Jn/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-12-02-100037.png
Observing the current circulation in the north, it is already apparent that the polar vortex will be split into two vortices, around which the air will now circulate.
https://i.ibb.co/94Nfnt9/gfs-z100-nh-f120-1.png
“A computational analysis of data about the Suns structure and dynamics from two NASA spacecraft has revealed the strength of these torsional oscillations driven by the magnetic fields in the deep interior of the Sun are continuing to decline. This indicates that the current sunspot cycle may be weaker than the previous one, and the long-term trend of declining magnetic fields of the Sun is likely to continue. Such changes in the Suns interior may have impacts on space weather and the Earths atmosphere and climate.”
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Dipall.gif
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/12/01/secrets-of-sunspots-and-solar-magnetic-fields-investigated-in-nasa-supercomputing-simulations/
Let’s hope they don’t go away altogether.
Who is to say the Sun has always been stable as it has been in our time. There may have been times in the past where it flared up or diminished to the point life on Earth was extinguished.
Nate the numbskull has difficulty with arithmetic of the 6 year old variety.
Nate wrote –
“649 as predicted*
* Of course 648 was a rough estimate. In any case it is an uncountably large number.”
Nate claims he has counted 648 occurrences of something I wrote. When. I ask him to back up his unsubstantiated claim, Nate the nitwit employs the SkyDragon excuse for being caught out fabricating – “Of course 648 was a rough estimate”. Of course it was, Nate, of course it was!
No matter, for Nate the arithmetically-challenged nincompoop, either 648 or 649 is “an uncountable large number”.
Of course it is Nate, if you don’t know how to count, using hundreds, tens, and units!
With any luck, you can find a small child who can help you to count to 1000. With any luck.
Do you feel lucky, Nate?
You claim 649 is not correct. Then you know how many times it was? How many then?
Nitwit Nate –
You wrote –
“You claim 649 is not correct.” Really?
Do you really believe what you hammer out, or are you in the grip of uncontrollable SkyDragon urges, addicted to making unsubstantiated claims?
Do you prefer being the butt for jokes, or an object of derision?
[laughing at clueless idiot]
Uncountably many then?
It seems so.
Nate must suffer from OCD, to have the interest to count how many times you said something. Of course, alarmists in general seem to have obssesive-compulsive disorders as well as other more psychotic forms of delusion.
Good mental food
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/12/01/secrets-of-sunspots-and-solar-magnetic-fields-investigated-in-nasa-supercomputing-simulations/
for all these Coolistas who strangely hope that a Grand Solar Minimum is ahead (because nothing could be worse than that).
Only a few comments, all as usual rather stoopid, except of course Javier’s, who knows a lot about solar stuff – unlike most WUWT posters.
Bindidon
I went away for a week and the number of posts by the denierati dropped.I suspect that if we Warmistas went away for a while the remaining denierati would run out of steam very quickly.
This happened at Bishop Hill, where the same few right-wingers now just discuss politics.
I’m glad you have finally identified yourself as a “Warmista”, Ent. That’s reality. When you try to claim any interest in science is when Realists have to step in to deny your perversions. Like when I had to deny your claim that passenger jets fly backwards. You were perverting reality.
You pervert science, we deny your perversions. So yeah, if you all left we wouldn’t have that much to deny.
You’re not a realist. You are in denial.
Entropic Man, please stop trolling.
Bindiwrong never fails to latch himself on the worst predictor
Mucho fun for the future
From ATheoK at your WUWT link…
”
1) Simulations are not reality!
2) NASA cant simulate Earths atmosphere. Yet they pretend their tuned models work for the much more massive sun!?
4) NASA is incapable of measuring the suns interior flows, magnetic, hydraulic, atomic circulations and flows. So they invent proxies.
5) More NASA pretending they are investigating outer space, worlds and suns A very expensive fantasy factory”.
***
Nothing stupid about those remarks.
Returning to the Moon rotation debate.
https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1597915084504039424
This is a video of the Milky Way using a gyroscope stabilised camera. The camera remains in the same orientation while the Earth rotates.
Do the same on the Moon and the camera remains in the same orientation while the Moon rotates.
The “pointing control system” would keep the camera aimed at a distant object while Moon revolves. Moon revolves (orbits), it does NOT rotate (spin).
You STILL don’t understand any of this, Ent. And, you can’t learn. You’re braindead. You’re a braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll.
Clint R,
Let me dumb this down to your level Clint R
A spinning object does not maintain its orientation on a fixed object.
A non spinning object maintains its orientation on a fixed object.
This has nothing to do with revolving.
Well, that’s certainly dumb, bob.
It’s so dumb it’s like you are braindead, huh?
Clint R,
Yes it may be dumb, but it is correct.
You are wrong as usual, that’s how I know I am right.
You believe “dumb” is correct only because you’re braindead, bob.
But I have to break this off because you’ll be trolling me all day, since you have nothing to do in your dead-end job
Happy braindead trolling.
Yeah they keep me on the payroll to keep me from working for someone else.
Braindead bob,
You wrote –
“Yeah they keep me on the payroll to keep me from working for someone else.”
They obviously think it’s a small price to pay, for the general good of the rest of the population. Very charitable of them.
Do they employ others like you?
Swenson,
Yes they do, why do you need a job with a 6 figure salary?
You probably fail to qualify though.
You would need a scientific background.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Entropic man says:
”Do the same on the Moon and the camera remains in the same orientation while the Moon rotates.”
EM makes a dramatic logical errors.
1. The moon rotates. It rotates on the COM of the earth!!!
2. The gyroscope doesn’t point at the Milky Way because the moon rotates. It points to the Milky way because of the forces generated by the rotation within the gyroscope.
What his proves is that the only reason the earth isn’t seen to rotate like the moon (around the sun) is because of the forces presented by its ”independent” spin on its own axis like the gyroscope. . . .other wise the earths axis would be perpendicular to the sun with only the smallest of variation (precession) due to the gravitational pull of other objects in the universe.
Entropic Man proves he still doesn’t understand the absolute basics. He won’t learn, and will just disappear as he always does, only to come back in a few days time to repeat the same mistakes.
Once again (for the 10,000th time), the idea is that "orbital motion without axial rotation" is like the "moon on the left". "Axial rotation" is then separate from that motion.
The only way that the moon could possibly be rotating on its own axis is if "orbital motion without axial rotation" is like the "moon on the right".
That transcends all considerations of "gyroscope stabilised cameras", and reference frames generally. The "Spinners" need "orbital motion without axial rotation" to be like the "moon on the right". That’s it. That’s what they have to prove. Nothing else. Everything else that they can possibly bring up misses the mark.
They have one thing to prove. Can they do it?
This GIF shows what I mean by “moon on the left” and “moon on the right”:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
In case anyone was unsure.
If you look at the Moon on the right it’s moving like a car on a Ferris wheel. That would mean it has an axle on it somewhere so it can remain upright.
Exactly, Gordon…and if the axle was fixed so that the car was physically unable to rotate on its own axis, it would move like the “moon on the left”.
In a rational world, that would be the end of it.
Yep the ferris wheel with the car remaining upright has two separate motions going on. . . .one influenced by the machinery of the ferris wheel and another motion influenced by gravity.
Spinners want to claim zero torque from gravity for the moon’s second motion for the moon on the right.
They base this on what they learned in school about ‘perfect’ spheres. The problem is the very concept of ‘perfection’ is purely conceptual and simply is non-existent probably anywhere in the universe. The ferris wheel design shows the only way the moon on the right can exist in the real world.
Tim makes the error of buying into his conceptual education that treats ‘perfect’ objects that don’t exist in the universe and erroneously states ”The earths gravity exerts no torque”. Since that statement only applies to ‘perfect’ spheres it doesn’t apply in the real world.
The fact is that the car on the ferris wheel can only look like the moon on the right precisely because gravity is exerting torque on the car. The same conditions would be necessary for the moon on the right and the torque would have to come from perpendicular to the distant star he was observing from and not the earth around which the moon is rotating.
“They have one thing to prove. Can they do it?”
First, science never ‘proves’ anything. It simple comes up with useful, self-consistent, simple descriptions of the universes.
Putting aside the poor word choice, this challenge applies equally to both ‘sides’. Which description is more useful for explain the motions of real moons? Can you ‘prove’ that your model is better?
Since real moons have elliptical orbits, one obvious test is “what does the model predict for a ‘non-rotating’ moon in an elliptical orbit?” Can the model accurately predict observed librations?
For the ‘non-spinners’, is the prediction that …
* one point faces directly toward the earth?
* one point faces directly forward along the orbit?
* one point faces directly toward the center of the ellipse?
* other???
If the model fall apart for an elliptical orbit, then it is not a viable model.
Sorry you didn’t like the word choice, Tim, but the challenge is all on you. Demonstrate that "orbital motion without axial rotation" is motion like the "moon on the right" (instead of making the exact same point about libration that you’ve made seven hundred times before…do something interesting for a change).
tim…”Since real moons have elliptical orbits, one obvious test is what does the model predict for a non-rotating moon in an elliptical orbit? Can the model accurately predict observed librations?”
***
Not sure what model you mean. I have already demonstrated the effect in an elliptical orbit that explains longitudinal libration.
Briefly, a radial line is defined on a circle for a line extending from the centre of the circle to a point on the circumference. On an ellipse, a radial line wrt an orbiting body is defined by a circle with an arc of its circumference congruent with an arc on the ellipse. The circle radius defines a radial line to the curve at that point.
With an elliptical orbit, there are two points, at either end of the major axis, where the radial line points to the centre of a body at the principal focal point. At all other points on the ellipse, the radial line from the body on the curve points away from the centre of the same body. If that body is Earth, then it is located at the principal focal point and the Moon is located somewhere on the ellipse.
In the case of the Moon, the radial line from the Moon’s near face can point up to 5 degrees away from Earth’s centre. That allows us to see a little more around the edge of the Moon longitudinally at certain points the Moon occupies on the orbital path. That view is libration.
That is a clever idea, Gordon. And it is pretty close to correct. But it is not correct. That is not how actual moons are observed to move.
As a specific example, your model would have the moon change orientation 90 degrees as it moves from either end of the semi-major axis to either end of the semi-minor axis. (ie the same point would be pointing straight in toward the center of the ellipse at all four of these locations). But this is wrong. Only at apogee and perigee are the same points straight inward.
No matter how clever the theory, if it doesn’t match reality, it must be rejected.
Here’s how to verify it.
When the Moon is adjacent to the semi-major axis, draw lines from both focal point to the Moon and bisect the angle. The bisector is the radial line, therefore it points straight down the semi-major axis.
The angle formed between the radial line and a line centre to centre between the Moon and the Earth at the principal focal point should be around 5 degrees. That should also be how much you can see around the edge of the Moon.
The fact that the angle is so small tells us the orbit is nearly circular.
Tim,
You wrote –
“That is not how actual moons are observed to move.”
And then later –
“No matter how clever the theory, if it doesnt match reality, it must be rejected.”
Orbits of all celestial bodies appear to be chaotic. Impossible to accurately model, and unpredictable, in theory. All we really have are assumptions of the “I predict the Sun will rise tomorrow” variety – what happened in the past will hopefully happen in the future!
Your endless gotchas based on your fantasies, are pointless. For example you ask –
“Since real moons have elliptical orbits, one obvious test is what does the model predict for a non-rotating moon in an elliptical orbit? Can the model accurately predict observed librations?”
Nobody has a model which accurately represents all known observations of the Moon, so demanding that unless anyone who disagrees with you can produce such a model, you must be correct, is about as silly as GHE supporters demanding that opponents “disprove” some undefined speculation.
As far as I know, the Moon physically wobbles and nods. It also has its greatest mass facing the COG of the Earth, and speeds up and slows down in line with Kepler’s 2nd. Law.
However, it seems that to an observer on the Moon, the Earth remains more or less fixed in place – it does not rise and fall – showing that the Moon does not rotate about its axis with respect to the Earth.
From NASA – “In summary, while it generally remains in the same location, the Earth does not remain perfectly stationary in the lunar sky from every point on the Moon, but moves in a rather complicated way depending on your location on the lunar sphere!”
Does it really matter? Is it relevant to the GHE or AGW, or are you just trying to create your own GHE authority, albeit in a peculiar and roundabout way?
At least you haven’t involved any hidden heaters, or impossible objects, trying to prove the Moon makes the Sun hotter because the Moon is colder!
Folkerts, as DREMT explained (for the 10,000th time), the model is about “orbital motion without axial rotation”. One side of the orbiting body always faces the inside of its orbit. This has to be repeatedly explained to you because you’re braindead.
We’ve got a viable model, but you cult idiots don’t. We’ve got reality, you’ve got NOTHING.
“One side of the orbiting body always faces the inside of its orbit.”
But PRECISELY how does it face? I gave you three options (plus an option to invent your own, which Gordon did). The fact that you can’t even pick an option and support it says all we need to know.
Gordon at least tried.
Folkerts, your distractions bring NO value to the issue. You have no credibility, as you have a history of trying to pervert reality.
Want to start working on building some credibility for yourself? Present a viable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. Without that, you’ve got NOTHING.
Present a viable model of ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’.
That is what I just did (and what scientists have done for centuries). You are the one distracting my refusing to clearly state YOUR model.
Folkerts, you’re trying to taunt me into using the “L” word. If that is not your goal, then clearly state your model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
Otherwise, you’ve got NOTHING.
Tim,
You are at it again –
“But PRECISELY how does it face? I gave you three options (plus an option to invent your own, which Gordon did). The fact that you cant even pick an option and support it says all we need to know.”
It faces precisely where it is observed to face, at any given instant in time.
Asking stupid questions, giving “options”, and generally setting yourself up as an “authority”, is likely to demonstrate to others precisely how much your opinion should be valued.
Go on, demonstrate your vast knowledge, and provide an authoritative answer. Otherwise, you just show you are another stupid troll, trying to make someone look stupid, to satisfy your perverse SkyDragon beliefs.
How hard can it be? Or are you not quite as knowledgeable as you imply?
Dimwit.
tim…” I gave you three options (plus an option to invent your own, which Gordon did)”.
***
I was not presenting a model, Tim, I was presenting the actual dynamics of the lunar orbit. I demonstrated exactly how it faces the interior of the orbit at all times and which way it has to face.
I also demonstrated how the direction of a radial line from the Moon’s near face determines libration. You did not demonstrate how I was wrong, you simply told me I am wrong.
Clint R,
This is what Google says when I google “orbital motion without axial rotation”
“The Moon rotates once on its axis every time it completes one orbit. As you can see, the Moon seems to rock back and forth on its axis. This is because the …
So you model says the Moon rotates, thanks for playing.
Yeah, you just need to google "orbital motion" or "revolution", bob. If you find "rotation about an external axis" mentioned, that settles the issue in the "Non-Spinners" favour.
DR EMPTY,
So if I google “orbital motion” and get no mention of “rotation around an external axis” that settles it in my favor?
This is what I get
“Orbital motion occurs whenever an object is moving forward and at the same time is pulled by gravity toward another object.”
No mention of rotation around an external axis.
And if I google revolution all I get is a boogie woogie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGLGzRXY5Bw
I’m sure you can look a little further than that, bob.
DR EMPTY,
How do you know how far I went down the google rabbit hole.
Still didn’t find anything that remotely comes close to supporting your case.
But you knew that.
You knew it all along.
You know you have it all wrong.
You are just a troll.
Well, I found this:
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
“Revolution
It is not necessary for the axis of rotation to actually pass through the object in question. In some cases, the axis of rotation is outside of the object altogether. When that happens, the outer object is revolving around the axis of rotation. Examples of revolution would be a ball on the end of a string, or a planet going around a star. However, in the case of planets revolving around stars, the motion is also commonly referred to as an orbit.”
DR EMPTY
Your google fuu is amazing.
There is also this, the caption below the Moon on the left, Moon on the right.
“Comparison between the Moon on the left, rotating tidally locked (correct), and with the Moon on the right, without rotation (incorrect).
So without rotation for the Moon is incorrect.
The caption correctly identifies which Moon is rotating.
Why do you insist that your caption is wrong?
I found an issue-settler. That’s that.
And so Gaslighting Graham found the same content farm he always cites.
I suppose he could say he found it if he searched his notes.
“I found an issue-settler. Thats that.”
Sure, as long as you keep up the pretense that nobody else has posted contradictory facts, or that these facts can be ignored.
The many inconvenient definitions of Orbit posted.
The observations of a tilted lunar axis posted.
The observable constant spin rate and non-constant orbital rate.
That’s how we recognize trolling.
Haven’t cited it for a long time, but yes, it still exists…and it’s an issue-settler.
Tim Folkerts says:
Putting aside the poor word choice, this challenge applies equally to both sides. Which description is more useful for explain the motions of real moons? Can you prove that your model is better?
Since real moons have elliptical orbits, one obvious test is what does the model predict for a non-rotating moon in an elliptical orbit? Can the model accurately predict observed librations?
For the non-spinners, is the prediction that
* one point faces directly toward the earth?
* one point faces directly forward along the orbit?
* one point faces directly toward the center of the ellipse?
* other???
If the model fall apart for an elliptical orbit, then it is not a viable model.
————————
All you are doing here is denying any rotation on anything other than the central axis of an object that is absolutely rigid. Since no such absolutely rigid object exists in the universe (it would require a universe of a single object) you have effectively ruled absolutely everything out as being a true rotation as the stretching of the object would create a visual variation in your view of axis. DREMT properly characterized you as cherry picking your choice of what you want to call a rotation. The problem is that it leaves the rotation of the moon around the earth as an incomplete rotation. However if you choose the axis as the center of the earth the orbit the motion is now a complete rotation for which an angular momentum can be calculated.
So your argument simply rules out any rotation around an external axis.
So your favoritism is subjective rather objective. You find dividing up the moon’s motion into two motions more convenient. But in trying to make that the real rotation of the moon you are ignoring 99.9992% of the moon’s angular momentum around the earth in favor of .0008% of it.
bill h…”DREMT properly characterized you as cherry picking your choice of what you want to call a rotation”.
***
You are describing the human condition. We observe natural phenomena and confuse what we see with the conditioned mental image upon which we evaluate evidence.
Rotation is independent of the human observer. You cannot start or stop rotation by observing an object from different frames of reference. Of course, reference frames are a product of the human mind. One must observe rotation without reference to the content of the human mind.
If one simply observes a body, with no attempt to analyze what is seen, it is obvious whether the body is rotating about its own axis, or not.
This is where spinners fall short. They are looking at a body and seeing rotation about a local axis where none exists. In other words, they are adding mental images of what they think is happening without observing what is really happening.
Bill says: “you have effectively ruled absolutely everything out …”
Not at all. All options have limitations. And all your objects apply to both models.
“You find dividing up the moons motion into two motions more convenient. ”
Not more convenient — more accurate! Treating orbital angular momentum and rotational angular momentum separately accurately predicts libration. All of the other choices listed above (including Gordon’s addition) 1) don’t predict libration correctly and 2) don’t conserve angular momentum.
“You cannot start or stop rotation by observing an object from different frames of reference. ”
Correct. Unlike linear motion (which is relative), rotation is absolute. You can say with certainly if an object is rotating by measuring it in any inertial reference frame. You don’t have to wonder if the earth is station and the universe is rotating around the earth every day. The earth IS rotating once every 23:56 hr
And the moon IS rotating, in any inertial reference frame. Only by CHANGING to a rotating frame can you observe no rotation for the moon.
Tim Folkerts says:
”Treating orbital angular momentum and rotational angular momentum separately accurately predicts libration.”
Thats makes no sense. Cassini’s finding that an elliptical orbit has the same angular momentum throughout the orbit invalidates your argument. That means despite having a given angular momentum of an object orbiting another object one cannot predict the libration an observer will see. So your statement above is in error.
You will need to come up with a logical argument that actually means something. Finally, the 99.9992% of the total angular momentum of the moon orbiting the earth does not comprise a rotation and only rotations have angular momentum.
“And the moon IS rotating, in any inertial reference frame.”
No, Tim. The only way the moon can possibly be rotating on its own axis is if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion like the “moon on the right”. You ought to be intelligent enough to understand, why that consideration (whether “orbital motion without axial rotation” is like the MOTL or the MOTR) transcends reference frames.
The moon issue is not resolved by reference frames.
Try something more interesting, Tim. Please explain exactly why it is thought that the moon’s so-called “axis of rotation” always points towards the same distant star. Not just something vague like, “oh, it’s been observed to” or anything like that. Please explain exactly what observations and reasoning has been made that has led astronomers to that conclusion. That would be something new…
“Please explain exactly why it is thought that the moons so-called axis of rotation always points towards the same distant star. Not just something vague like, oh, its been observed to or anything like that.”
Well, it HAS been observed to do that, which is always the strongest scientific argument. Theoretically, the axis of rotation always points the same direction (and the rotation proceeds at the same rate) due to conservation of angular momentum. The earth’s gravity exerts no torque, so angular momentum must remain the same. Conservation of orbital angular momentum leads to elliptical orbits and equal-area-in-equal-time. Conservation of rotational angular momentum leads to constant rotation rate and constant rotation direction.
Of course, all this is known to any physics major.
Bill says: “Thats makes no sense. Cassinis finding that an elliptical orbit has the same angular momentum throughout the orbit invalidates your argument. ”
You misunderstood what I meant. Yes, orbital angular momentum is constant and yes that leads to kepler’s laws. Rotational angular momentum is ALSO constant, which leads to constant rotation about the axis. But the equal-area-in-equal-time result means that the moon travels in its ORBIT with varying angular velocities around the earth, but rotate about its AXIS with a constant rate. The miss-match between the two is the source of libration.
DREMT claims :”The only way the moon can possibly be rotating on its own axis is if ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ is motion like the ‘moon on the right’. ”
Put a Foucault Pendulum at the ‘north pole’ of the moon. IF the pendulum changes orientation, the moon is rotating about the axis through the axis of the pendulum. This transcends the entire moon argument.
Tim,
You wrote –
“Put a Foucault Pendulum at the north pole of the moon.”
Off you go then, Tim.
Once you have done it, report back. Or you can just keep telling people to do what you cannot do yourself.
In the meantime –
“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.” – Feynman.
“Well, it HAS been observed to do that, which is always the strongest scientific argument.”
Has it, though? As I asked, please explain exactly what observations and reasoning (not the theory you explained, which I already knew) led astronomers to the conclusion that the moon’s so-called axis of rotation points in the same direction throughout the orbit. You have not done so, and until you do, your declarations that it has been observed to do so are dismissed.
As is the Foucault pendulum argument, which was answered by Tesla some time ago. All that would prove is that the moon rotates about some axis, as he put it.
“Has it, though? :
The observations by Astronomy of what the Moon’s axial tilt is, and where the axis points on the celestial sphere, is well documented, and found in all astronomical tables.
Unless people here have found alternative observations, they have to go with what Astronomy has consistently reported for a long time.
And I would point out that people here have been accepting all other observed properties of the Moon and its orbit.
So to reject a subset of these observables that don’t agree with your pet theory is, well, cheating.
Troll Nate, observations are of Moon’s orbital motion. There is NO lunar rotation involved. Cult idiots “observe” a ball-on-a-string and claim it is rotating about its axis.
Go figure….
“As I asked, please explain exactly what observations and reasoning …”
You are claiming that generations of scientists are wrong, and yet here you admit you haven’t the foggiest idea what data exists or how the theories work. That is not a promising start to overturning well-established understanding.
It is YOUR job to show exactly what observations and reasoning contradict every scientist in the world.
Folkerts, in other words, you’ve got NOTHING.
Exactly, Clint R. Tim just farts out some rhetoric instead of providing the requested information, which he obviously doesn’t have.
Probably because it doesn’t exist.
Tim Folkerts says:
You misunderstood what I meant. Yes, orbital angular momentum is constant and yes that leads to keplers laws. Rotational angular momentum is ALSO constant, which leads to constant rotation about the axis. But the equal-area-in-equal-time result means that the moon travels in its ORBIT with varying angular velocities around the earth, but rotate about its AXIS with a constant rate. The miss-match between the two is the source of libration.
——————
When angular momentum remains constant it is a rotation by definition Tim.
Thus the moon’s motion around the earth is by definition a rotation.
Thus if it is a rotation it is as the moon on the left. One cannot physically break it apart without physically breaking it apart. If you do you remove 99.9992% of the angular momentum and what happens to the conservation of angular momentum then?
This doesn’t happen with the spinning LP that breaks apart because the angular momentum is retained in every particle.
So your argument does amount to denial that the angular momentum ascribed by science to the moon’s orbit exists.
And the logical extension of that conclusion of yours (and others while failing to address the issue), contrary to science, is that there is no rotation on an external axis.
You just admitted to that. When you conceptually break up the moons angular momentum into two concepts you can have the spin angular momentum (not rotational angular momentum as that is the angular momentum of the moon all 100% of it) but you can’t have the orbital angular momentum because there you will have a moon with zero angular momentum because you took all the moons mass away to conserve it in spin angular momentum. The mass of the moon cannot be in two different places at the same time.
Nate already wants to consider it linear momentum but remains hopelessly confused on the topic and can’t produce any sources.
Tim says:
”DREMT claims :”The only way the moon can possibly be rotating on its own axis is if ‘orbital motion without axial rotation is motion like the moon on the right’.”
Put a Foucault Pendulum at the ‘north pole’ of the moon. IF the pendulum changes orientation, the moon is rotating about the axis through the axis of the pendulum. This transcends the entire moon argument.”
Of course it will Tim because the moon is rotating on an external axis!!!!!!!! When you guys realize that the moon on the left is the correct one and is a rotation you will understand why the pendulum acts as it does. It is the ONLY case consistent with the sum of all your arguments.
“It is YOUR job to show exactly what observations and reasoning contradict every scientist in the world.”
It is really quite ridiculous, Tim.
The loonies demand others do their homework to prove WRONG any astronomical observations that don’t fit THEIR beliefs.
They are aware of no alternative observations that fit their hypothesis. And they are happy to accept all that Astronomy reports about the Moon, EXCEPT those details that disagree with their pet theory. Then they demand explanations from us which they will in any case dismiss out of hand.
IOW they are happy to cherry pick from available facts as needed to confirm their beliefs, and dismiss any that don’t.
Lets be honest, non-spinners, what you are doing here is the antithesis of science.
tim…”orbital angular momentum is constant and yes that leads to keplers laws. Rotational angular momentum is ALSO constant, which leads to constant rotation about the axis. But the equal-area-in-equal-time result means that the moon travels in its ORBIT with varying angular velocities around the earth, but rotate about its AXIS with a constant rate. The miss-match between the two is the source of libration”.
***
If angular momentum is constant it means angular velocity is constant. Therefore the Moon cannot move with varying angular velocity.
Angular momentum applies mainly to rigid bodies rotating about and attached to an axle, or axis. The mass and velocity of such a body must be confined to move along a certain path and the Moon is not. However, for whatever reason, physicists have defined a pseudo-momentum for such conditions, just as the Coriolis force is a defined quantity that has no physical existence. A body like the Moon has no angular momentum other than by definition. In other words, it acts as if it has angular momentum but it has none.
The truth is, Tim, the Moon has only a constant linear momentum. You are confusing velocity, a vector, with speed, a scalar quantity.
Kepler’s law dealing with equal distance in equal time is about speed. Kepler was not a physicist, he was a mathematician who used the observations of Tycho Brahe to work out his math. He said nothing about angular momentum. If Cassini did, it means he misunderstood angular momentum.
The reason a line from the Moon to the Earth carves out equal areas in equal times is about the relationship between the Moon’s linear momentum and a variation in Earth’s gravitational force. That’s why the orbit is elliptical and why libration exists.
If the Moon’s linear momentum was balanced with gravitational force, the orbit would be circular. Obviously, the Moon’s linear momentum has slightly more effect than the gravitational force. Therefore, at certain parts of the orbit, it drags the orbit into a ellipse. The Moon is not following an elliptical path it is creating one.
As I explained to you yesterday, libration is an orbital effect created by the near face pointing in different directions away from Earth’s centre. Since the Moon’s linear momentum creates the elliptical shape of the orbit it is also the cause of libration.
Also, as I told you, if you take the radial line from the Moon’s near face at any point on the orbital path and use it with a line drawn between the Moon’s centre and Earth’s centre, you can form a right triangle with a small angle of about 5 degrees. If the centre-centre line represents Earth’s gravitational force then the right-triangle represents the components acting on the Moon. That force varies over the orbital path allowing Moon’s linear momentum to extend the orbit into an ellipse because it has slightly more effect than gravity.
“If angular momentum is constant it means angular velocity is constant. Therefore the Moon cannot move with varying angular velocity.”
Wrong Gordon, just as the ice skater spins faster up when she brings her arms and legs into her core, a planet in an elliptical orbit speeds up when it gets closer to the center. Both velocity and angular velocity SLOW when the planet moves further out from the center.
That is the WHOLE point of Keplers Equal Area in Equal Time Law. And that arises from constant angular momentum.
“Folkerts, in other words, youve got NOTHING.”
No. Exactly the opposite. You all have nothing. You look at a picture; you talk about strings. You ignore 400 years of science as if it doesn’t exist. If you had anything you could point to actual errors in science books. You could point to data that shows how the moon actually moves.
Had a look and couldn’t find anything, huh, Tim?
No, I couldn’t either…
Bill states: “When angular momentum remains constant it is a rotation by definition Tim.”
No! Rotation — by definition — is motion in a circle about some defined axis. Rotation does not have to be at constant speed (ie does not have to be at constant angular momentum). The moon does not “rotate” around the earth because it is an elliptical path.
“Of course it will Tim because the moon is rotating on an external axis!!!!!!!! … It is the ONLY case consistent with the sum of all your arguments.”
No, this isn’t the only description consistent with my arguments.
Imagine a merry-go-round with a horse on a frictionless post. Everything is at rest — the MGR is not rotating; the horse is not rotating. Then start the MGR spinning. The horse will start to ORBIT the center (move in a circular path), but the horse will NOT start to rotate (the nose will keep pointing the same direction). Only an ADDITIONAL torque on the horse will start it rotating around the post (ie rotating about its axis). And once the torque is removed, the horse will continue spinning about its own axis. Indeed, if you then stop the rotation of the MGR, the horse will continue to rotate on its post. The two motions are distinct!
You might not agree that this is the BEST description, but you should at least be able to see this is CONSISTENT with everything I (and scientists for 400 years) have claimed.
DREMT admits: “No, I couldnt either”
You have no idea where to find data. And yet you are 110% sure that all the scientists for the past 400 years are wrong. All with zero data to support any claims. (And with no theory, either!)
Tim, that’s just more empty rhetoric. Provide the information, or admit that you can’t. Pretty straightforward.
Folkerts, you’re just another braindead cult idiot posing as an out-of-work college gadfly. You have NOTHING to contribute, except your made-up physics and false accusations.
If you’re serious about wanting to see the science that refutes the lunar rotation nonsense, and verifies that Moon does NOT rotate, are you willing to stop commenting here for 90 days?
You’re not really serious, are you?
“Had a look and couldnt find anything, huh, Tim?”
Loser trolls demand others validate their nutty ideas.
Heres a hint. Look at the movies of lunar libration. You can see that the N. pole tilts in different directions as the Moon moves through its orbit. See lower left diagram depicting the axis.
https://moon.nasa.gov/system/video_items/120_phases_2022_fancy_1080p30.mp4
This is the view from Earth, astronomers work out the view from the stars by accounting for the motion of the Earth. They find that an axial tilt of 6.7 degrees.
Go read about how they do that. If you doubt that they have done it correctly show us your evidence!
Otherwise accept that they likely know what they are doing.
Nothing from anybody that I haven’t already seen before, so far.
Link https://moon.nasa.gov/resources/477/moon-phase-and-libration-2022/
Evidence seen, is evidence denied.
Making it clear that its not really about the facts at all, is it.
Still nothing.
People are going to have to try much, much harder if they want to settle this argument.
What I need to see are the exact observations and reasoning that have led astronomers to believe that the moon’s so-called "axis of rotation" remains tilted always in the same direction throughout the orbit…because at the moment it looks like it’s just an assumption based on the theory Tim explained:
"Theoretically, the axis of rotation always points the same direction (and the rotation proceeds at the same rate) due to conservation of angular momentum."
We have the observations from the Earth of the libration in latitude. So, here, we see a little bit more of parts of the moon throughout the orbit primarily because of the fact that the moon’s orbital plane is tilted relative to the ecliptic. OK, so what? How do we get from that to thinking that the moon’s so-called axis of rotation points in the same direction throughout the orbit? Seems like a non-sequitur…
Tim Folkerts says:
”No! Rotation by definition is motion in a circle about some defined axis. Rotation does not have to be at constant speed (ie does not have to be at constant angular momentum). The moon does not rotate around the earth because it is an elliptical path.”
Your argument blows before it even gets the door open. Angular momentum is dependent upon only two things: Rotational velocity and rotational inertia. To have either you must have a rotation.
Tim Folkerts says:
”No, this isnt the only description consistent with my arguments.
Imagine a merry-go-round with a horse on a frictionless post.”
——————
There you go again being a slave of the concepts of your education. There is no such thing as a horse on a frictionless post and your argument only works if there is such a thing.
Tim Folkerts says:
”You might not agree that this is the BEST description, but you should at least be able to see this is CONSISTENT with everything I (and scientists for 400 years) have claimed.”
————————
Actually no scientist ever made a claim of the existence of a frictionless post. All you did was confound concepts taught to you by scientists for ways to ‘approach’ problems as physical reality and you and others not fully comprehending your education made extrapolations beyond science.
Bill claims: “Angular momentum is dependent upon only two things: Rotational velocity and rotational inertia.”
Yet again — no. The more general statement for angular momentum is the cross product L = r x p. Objects moving in straight lines have angular momentum.
This definition can be used to derive the specific equation L = I(omega). Integrate r x dp for all the parts of a sphere and you get the angular momentum of a sphere.
Nate says:
”It is YOUR job to show exactly what observations and reasoning contradict every scientist in the world.”
It is really quite ridiculous, Tim.
The loonies demand others do their homework to prove WRONG any astronomical observations that dont fit THEIR beliefs.
———————-
What is ridiculous is Tim claims a contradiction of every scientist in the world that is false and since they have no other argument Nate jumps in and effectively claims it it is ridiculous to contradict a falsehood.
Thats why the biggest argument for the moon’s rotation, CO2 global mean warming, and all the other fad falsehoods you guys ascribe to has as its central argument is that science is a popularity contest.
“What I need to see are the exact observations and reasoning that have led astronomers to believe that the moons so-called ‘axis of rotation’ remains tilted always in the same direction throughout the orbit”
Not enough of a need, apparently, to bother investigating yourself. Oh well!
You demand others to do the work you supposedly want, but when others provide evidence, you always dismiss it out of hand. Thats how your game is played.
You’ve made it clear that finding out the facts and the truth are not the priority for you.
The point here is score imaginary points. And you get these imaginary points by irritating and humiliating others, as you try to do here to the infinitely tolerant Tim,
“Tim just farts out some rhetoric instead of providing the requested information, which he obviously doesnt have.”
“Provide the information, or admit that you cant.”
That’s otherwise known as trolling. That is the goal here.
"Thats why the biggest argument for the moon’s rotation, CO2 global mean warming, and all the other fad falsehoods you guys ascribe to has as its central argument is that science is a popularity contest."
Yes, it’s the old argumentum ad populum fallacy. As Clint R would say, they’ve got nothing.
Speaking of Clint R, Tim should really take him up on his offer.
“There is no such thing as a horse on a frictionless post and your argument only works if there is such a thing.”
And once again, no.
The ‘frictionless post’ is simply an idealization to make one point clearer. Like ignoring air friction when calculating the path of a projective. The existence of air resistance doesn’t invalidate Newton;s Laws, and neither does friction from the bearings.
Any real post would have some frictional torque of course, but that in no way invalids anything i said. (And we could always add a small motor that provides a balancing counter-torque). the base gets to its full rotational rate quickly. The horse gets to its full rotational rate over a much longer time frame. Two motions.
PS. the ‘frictionless’ ideal is probably much better than you imagine. Gravity provides a strong inward pull, but basically no ‘frictional torque’ on the moon.
Tim you make the same physics error with the frictionless post as you do with the claim that the earth’s gravity doesn’t exert any torque on the moon (because it is a sphere).
Indeed if the post had no friction there would be no rotation of the horse. Like wise if there was no torque on the moon from the earth there would be no rotation. At least none if no other force and momentum were present. But neither condition is physically possible without the presence of another force or momentum (such as an existing spin).
then since about half the moon’s the solar system are tidally locked you are arguing effectively that its just a coincidence they happen to rotate at exactly the same rate as the orbit. . . .which of course would be an absurd possibility.
Your argument was there was no torque exerted on the moon by the earth and that is clearly wrong. So you flipped to frictionless posts (posts that do not exert any torque on the horse). If either of those conditions were possible you could have horses on merry-go-rounds and moons that didn’t rotate without extraordinary engineering and providing a completely different force/momentum to eliminate the resulting rotation from such torque.
“As Clint R would say, theyve got nothing.”
Indeed that is the go to answer when the TEAM has no answers.
When your TEAM has agreed that its not about the facts anymore, and any facts and logic can be dismissed without a valid reason, then indeed that leaves your opponents with nothing, except to stop feeding the trolls..
Troll Nate, you’ve got plenty of nonsense. It’s “reality” and “science” where you’ve got NOTHING.
DR EMPTY,
“The only way the moon can possibly be rotating on its own axis is if orbital motion without axial rotation is motion like the moon on the right. ”
That’s what the caption says idn’t gvnor?
Yes, bob…wrongly.
[TIM] I got the observations of generations of astronomers, from Babylonians to today.
[PUP] So you got nothing.
We all have those same observations. Just different ways of interpreting them.
For instance, we all observe the libration in latitude…but only some of us jump to the conclusion that this proves the moon has an "axis of rotation" which remains oriented in a fixed direction throughout the orbit. Others wait until the reasoning behind this apparent non-sequitur is explained in full.
After all, the reason for the libration in latitude is primarily that the moon’s orbital plane is tilted from the ecliptic. How the "Spinners" get from a) to b) is left as an exercise for the reader, instead of being explained…
Indeed we have seen how this evolved. It started with a diagram like the moon on the left and just a moon with an apparent axis conveniently drawn at the axis of ‘apparent’ motion of the moon while excluding the moon’s motion around the earth. Indeed if you don blinders you can fool yourself in a whole variety of ways. Like fooling horses whose natural instincts and basic survival depend upon being nimble and to weave when being pursued.
Actually, Bill, it did not start with Gaslighting Graham’s favorite GIF he keeps misrepresenting for a 76th month:
https://phys.org/news/2022-03-ancient-civilizations-cosmos.html
Imagine all the ingenuity you would add to improving your life he you were not so keen on expressing online your fear of death and taxes.
Hopefully Gaslighting Little Willy was paying attention to bob’s 10:40 AM comment. It might help him out next time he gets all "confused" about what the "Spinners" think the GIF shows.
“Indeed if the post had no friction there would be no rotation of the horse. ”
Excellent! If the nose started out facing north and had no rotation about its own axis, the nose would indeed keep pointing north. Even after the platform starts to rotate, the horse remains non-rotating about its axis, always facing north.
“Like wise if there was no torque on the moon from the earth there would be no rotation. ”
Well actually the formation of the moon imparted it with a relatively fast rotation about its own axis. No torque from the earth needed. (and it has slowed considerably since then).
“then since about half the moons the solar system are tidally locked you are arguing effectively that its just a coincidence …”
Yes, tidal locking is a thing. I was ignoring at this level of discussion because it doesn’t really matter. Tidal locking is a very small torque that can be effectively ignored over the course of 1 or 10 or 1000 orbits.
“Your argument was there was no torque exerted on the moon by the earth and that is clearly wrong.”
No. The ultimate argument is that ‘non-rotating’ means with respect to some ‘fixed’ frame. If a moon (or rock or satellite) starts with no rotation about its own axis relative to the stars (analogous to the non-rotating MGR horse), then the moon (or rock or satellite) will continue with no rotation about its own axis relative to the stars.
‘Non-rotating on its own axis’ does NOT mean “with respect to the ground when the platform is stationary, but with respect to the platform when the platform is spinning.
Tim Folkerts says:
Indeed if the post had no friction there would be no rotation of the horse.
Excellent! If the nose started out facing north and had no rotation about its own axis, the nose would indeed keep pointing north. Even after the platform starts to rotate, the horse remains non-rotating about its axis, always facing north.
————————-
We agree some physics is necessary to create a rotation.
Tim Folkerts says:
Like wise if there was no torque on the moon from the earth there would be no rotation.
Well actually the formation of the moon imparted it with a relatively fast rotation about its own axis. No torque from the earth needed. (and it has slowed considerably since then).
———————-
Well here you are just guessing Tim. Do you teach your students to guess also? Forget the physics and research and just guess?
Fact is the physics of the rotation on an external axis is capable of ending an independent spin, it is also capable of starting it up and it is even capable of first ending an independent spin in the wrong direction and they get it rotating in the right direction.
Tim says:
Yes, tidal locking is a thing. I was ignoring at this level of discussion because it doesnt really matter. Tidal locking is a very small torque that can be effectively ignored over the course of 1 or 10 or 1000 orbits.
—————–
So you actually agree with the non-spinner position and have just been ignoring to be a good member of your pack?
Tim says:
Your argument was there was no torque exerted on the moon by the earth and that is clearly wrong.
No. The ultimate argument is that non-rotating means with respect to some fixed frame. If a moon (or rock or satellite) starts with no rotation about its own axis relative to the stars (analogous to the non-rotating MGR horse), then the moon (or rock or satellite) will continue with no rotation about its own axis relative to the stars.
————
No? you mean you were lying when you said: ”The earths gravity exerts no torque, so angular momentum must remain the same.” Obviously if no torque was being exerted the original independent spin on the moon prior to orbital capture would not have ended and there would be no rotation on an external axis. the moon on the right is not rotating but its an impossible situation for a moon because torque will be present.
Tim says:
”Non-rotating on its own axis does NOT mean with respect to the ground when the platform is stationary, but with respect to the platform when the platform is spinning.”
——————
Sounds like gobbledygook.
“We all have those same observations. Just different ways of interpreting them.”
For instance, we all observe the libration in latitudebut only some of us jump to the conclusion that this proves the moon has an ‘axis of rotation’ which remains oriented in a fixed direction throughout the orbit. ”
Gee, wouldnt it be great if people did OFFER a different, logical way of explaining libration, instead of just declaring that Astronomers must have gotten it wrong all this time!
But non one has.
That’s how we recognize bullshit.
Clint R,
“If youre serious about wanting to see the science that refutes the lunar rotation nonsense, and verifies that Moon does NOT rotate, are you willing to stop commenting here for 90 days?”
I’ll take that bet Clint R.
If you fail, you should stop commenting for 90 days, but I’ll not require the quid pro quo.
You are going to fail.
Because you can not verify that something that is rotating, does not rotate.
There’s another reason, I am smarter than you.
How exciting! bob agrees to take Clint R up on his offer. Of course, you’re replying a bit late, bob, so Clint might not notice your comment.
DR EMPTY,
I didn’t realize Clint R offer has an expiration date.
He still can not prove the Moon isn’t rotating and neither can you.
You can inform him of my agreement to his challenge.
I’ll expect his usual lousy science that is easily refuted.
Is he going to do his ball on a string trick?
We all remember that astronaut’s demonstration that the ball on a string is rotating on its axis.
You will need something better.
"I didn’t realize Clint R offer has an expiration date."
I never said, nor implied, that it did, bob. You will need to go and find him, maybe a bit further down-thread, though.
> Sounds like gobbledygook.
To you, Bill, almost everything does.
How about: “Only by CHANGING to a rotating frame can you observe no rotation for the moon.”
Does that sound like gobbledygook to you?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
DR EMPTY,
“They have one thing to prove. Can they do it?”
Too easy, it’s oriented on one particular point, so its not rotating, which means it has no axial rotation, which means it is an example of orbital motion without axial rotation.
Are we done yet?
I guess not, because you have not provided an acceptable definition of axial rotation.
No, we’re not done, bob, because over on the other article you admitted that to move like the "moon on the right", the camera we were discussing had to be rotated on its own axis. Whoops!
DR EMPTY,
As I have already explained to you, the camera is not orbiting, because it is being held by a person who is rotating, so the camera is rotating, to take a still picture it must counter rotate.
Nothing at all to do with the Moon on the right, which doesn’t exist, whoops yourself.
I have already explained it correctly to you, now all you have to do is figure out that you are WRONG!
And the reason we are not done yet, is that you REFUSE to PROVIDE a DEFINITION of AXIAL ROTATION.
Silly bob. All terms have been defined about five thousand times before. "Axial rotation" just means "rotation about an axis that is internal to the object in question", and it must be kept separate from "orbital motion" alone (which means "orbital motion without axial rotation", just in case there was any doubt).
Of course the camera is orbiting the person. It’s held out from them at arm’s length whilst they are spinning on the spot. So, they are rotating, the camera is rotating about them, i.e. rotating about an external axis (the center of their body is the axis about which the camera is rotating). So that is rotation about an external axis (the axis is external to the camera), or "revolution". You then have to rotate the camera on its own internal axis in order to get motion like the "moon on the right".
DR EMPTY,
“”Axial rotation” just means “rotation about an axis that is internal to the object in question”,”
Finally
Yes that is what the Moon is doing, we know that because it is observed that any point on the surface of the Moon traces a circle about the axis of rotation.
It’s an observation, go to your closest Observatory and ask an Astronomer to explain it to you.
Are you near Oxford?
bob d…”Yes that is what the Moon is doing, we know that because it is observed that any point on the surface of the Moon traces a circle about the axis of rotation”.
***
That would mean that at some point the far side would need to be facing the Earth. Lunar rotation implies a 360 degree rotation, like the Earth. Each day, the Earth shows all sides to the Sun. Even if you slowed Earth’s rotation down to one rotation per year, it would need to show all sides to the Sun.
“Finally”
Like I haven’t defined “axial rotation” a dozen times for you before, already!
I repeat what I said about the camera…
…and no, obviously the moon is not observed to rotate on its own axis.
DR EMPTY,
When the Moon is full, the near face points to the Sun, two weeks later, when the Moon is new, the near face points away from the Sun, in order for that to happen the Moon must rotate 180 degrees every two weeks.
And I’ll remind Gordon that pointing to the Earth from the Moon is not a constant direction, it is always changing.
Obvious.
"When the Moon is full, the near face points to the Sun, two weeks later, when the Moon is new, the near face points away from the Sun…"
…because the moon exhibits "orbital motion without axial rotation" about the Earth.
Gaslighting Graham is not exactly near Oxford, Bob.
Though to be fair by American standards any place on Great Britain is next to the other.
Gaslighting Little Willy claims to know where I live…should I be concerned?
There’s nothing like incompetent flak from Gaslighting Graham to make my day.
Some might say that Gaslighting Little Willy’s constant references to where I live, occasional postings of personal information about me, and always using what he believes to be my real name might constitute abuse of the sort that normally gets people banned…
bobdroege says:
When the Moon is full, the near face points to the Sun, two weeks later, when the Moon is new, the near face points away from the Sun, in order for that to happen the Moon must rotate 180 degrees every two weeks.
——————————
bob still lacks sufficient grey matter to comprehend that is exactly what every object does when ‘rotating’ around an external axis.
Moon Dragon cranks still fail to get that the Moon spin is about physics, not geometry.
Little Willy has no understanding of either physics or geometry, and always ignores the hundreds upon thousands of times the "Spinners" have tried (and failed) to settle the issue through geometry.
“Meet me in the middle,” says the Moon Dragon Crank.
Team Science takes a step towards him.
The Moon Dragon Crank takes a step back.
“Meet me in the middle,” repeats the Moon Dragon Crank.
Gaslighting Little Willy does his "false accusations" thing…
Bill,
One counter example should do.
“bob still lacks sufficient grey matter to comprehend that is exactly what every object does when rotating around an external axis.”
But before I do that, I’ll remind you that the Moon is not rotating around an external axis because its orbit is an ellipse.
Now for the counter example:
The Earth.
That’s because the Earth is rotating about an external axis as well as rotating on its own internal axis, bob.
DR EMPTY,
So is the Moon,
The caption is correct, you are not.
You can not redefine a positive amount of axial rotation to be zero axial rotation.
No, bob, the moon moves like "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis".
You just need to learn about rotation. You can do it, I know you can.
“You just need to learn about rotation” from the teeny tiny cult of Lunatics.
…bob, the moon moves like "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis".
You just need to learn about rotation. You can do it, I know you can.
bob’s unemployed so he is in here fishing for a job. Hopefully he finds somebody willing to hire him so he can lay his argument out for scrutiny.
Bob’s employed.
Bob has a sweet gig, bob sits at home drawing a salary until he gets called to go some where and count some anti-matter.
Plenty of time for you to learn about rotation, then.
Moon Dragon cranks still fail to get that the Moon spin is about physics, not geometry.
…of time for you to learn about rotation, then.
ent…different motions.
Your Twitter example of the camera on a gyroscope mounted on a rotating planet, reveals the rotation of the planet as it should be seen. Our eyes as human observers would see the sky moving while we remained still. That’s due to the illusions created by our minds. The gyro sees it as it is.
Place the gyroscope with camera on the driver’s side of a car moving CCW around a track. Starting halfway down the straightaway with the cam pointed at centre-track and start to move CCW. If the cam initially points west, it will try to keep pointing west right around the track.
As I see it, for one straightaway it will point away from the car and for the other straightaway it will point toward the car. On the ends of the track, where the car turns around the curve, the cam should show the view field to the west as standing still.
That’s what you see with the gyro-cam set up on the Moon. It would be pointed at the Moon for half its orbit.
Entropic man
It’s hard to imagine people denying such evidence as shown e.g. in the paper:
A STUDY OF MOON LANDING SITES AND RELATED TIMES OF RESIDENCE
by Laurence W. Enderson, Jr. (1965)
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/nasa_tn_d_2795.pdf
but they clearly exist!
And best of all, none of them would ever be able to scientifically contradict what the author has written.
Some even don’t read the paper, so they don’t understand its content and so they can’t do anything but distort, misrepresent, discredit and denigrate.
It was merely an ‘academic exercise’.
Pseudoskepticism at its best.
Bin, did you find another source you can’t understand?
Yup.
No wonder you can’t produce a viable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. You spend all your time finding things you can’t understand. That’s why you remain braindead.
Bindidon found a link he can’t understand so he assumed no one could understand it. It doesn’t apply IN ANY WAY to the fact that Moon does not spin on its axis. But, the link contained this interesting tidbit:
“It is assumed that the lunar equator and the earth-moon plane are coincident (they actually differ by approximately 6.70) and the moon is in a circular orbit about the earth at its mean distance (384,560 km).”
The cult always tries to denigrate the ball-on-a-string model because the motion is circular, rather then elliptical. But Bindidon’s source, that he can’t understand, allows for Moon’s orbit to be a circle.
That’s why this is so much fun.
1. ” It doesnt apply IN ANY WAY to the fact that Moon does not spin on its axis. ”
Clint R still eliminates when reading documents everything what doesn’t fit his opinionated narrative.
We read on page 17:
” If a delay or wait period in orbit is allowed, the effect on the landing sites is a westward precession of the sites relative to the lunar orbit .
This precession takes place at a rate of 13.2O° for each day delay in orbit and is due to the rotation of the moon on its polar axis. ”
I don’t think the author would have assumed that the Moon doesn’t spin.
*
2. ” But Bindidons source, that he cant understand, allows for Moons orbit to be a circle. ”
Here again, the genial Clint R carefully omits the relevant part.
” Other variations in the possible landing sites on the lunar surface exist as a result of the assumptions made in this paper that the lunar equator is always in the earth-moon plane and the moon is in a circular orbit about the earth.
However, throughout a lunar month the inclination of the lunar equator to the earth-moon plane varies from 0.0 to ± 6.7° in latitude.
Also the elliptic orbit (eccentricity of 0.0549) of the moon about the earth causes a variation in the mean longitude of the moon of approximately ± 8.0°. ”
*
Unlike you, I very well understood the paper and have seen that the author unfortunately worked with a geocentric model, instead of using a selenocentric one, what led him to partly erroneous conclusions which were corrected by other people later on.
Do you see what I mean?
binny…”This precession takes place at a rate of 13.2O for each day delay in orbit and is due to the rotation of the moon on its polar axis”.
***
They are dead wrong. There is no rotation about the polar axis. In fact, there is no pole.
This is not opinion, we have exhaustively proved the Moon cannot possibly rotate on its local axis. You, on the other hand, have failed to prove our calculations and proofs are wrong. All you have offered is an appeal to authority without any proof you understand the claims of your authority figure.
If you are happy combing the Net for quotations to support your case, that is one thing. You should at least try to counter the arguments we present based on an understanding of physics. Thus far, all you spinners have offered is an obfuscated definition of rotation that fails to meet the physical reality.
For example, a car driving around a track could not progress along the track in a normal fashion if it began rotating about its COG. An airliner flying in the sky around the Equator would crash if it rotated 360 degrees per orbit.
Robertson Ignoramus is here again
” They are dead wrong. There is no rotation about the polar axis. In fact, there is no pole.
This is not opinion, we have exhaustively proved the Moon cannot possibly rotate on its local axis. ”
*
What you have to deliver is the scientific proof that the work performed by e.g. Mayer, Lagrange and Laplace (there are about hundred others) was wrong.
Your problem: you are not even able to do the simplest task imaginable: to correctly compare anomalies published by NOAA and UAH.
Bin, there’s no need for you to keep confirming your ignorance of orbital motion. We know you don’t know anything about this.
1) 13.2 * 27.3 = 360.36°. That a full orbit, Bin. Moon is orbiting, but NOT rotating.
2) Yes, Moon has an elliptical orbit offset from Earth’s orbit. That has NOTHING to do with axial rotation.
You get to try again.
(Make it even funnier next time. You don’t want to bore us like bob and Nate do, do you?)
Bunny,
You wrote –
“What you have to deliver is the scientific proof that the work performed by e.g. Mayer, Lagrange and Laplace (there are about hundred others) was wrong.”
Well, he doesnt have to “deliver” anything. Why should he? Facts are facts – and not dependent on whether people accept them or not.
You “deliver” a constant stream of irrelevant appeals to authority about subjects which have nothing to with AGW or the mythical GHE. You have previously implied that you no further interest in the GHE. Fine, but in that case why are you hammering out stuff about opinions on something which you can’t actually define, again?
Define rotation, define revolution, define orbit – precisely, allowing precise and reproducible measurement, without overlap of meaning under any circumstances – no SkyDragon “exception proves the rule”, or “I really meant something else” if somebody points out that you are talking about something which you can’t substantiate.
What you have to deliver is some proof that you know what you are banging on about, and why anyone should care.
Carry on.
binny…”What you have to deliver is the scientific proof that the work performed by e.g. Mayer, Lagrange and Laplace (there are about hundred others) was wrong”.
***
None of them are physicists, they have arbitrarily applied math to a physical problem none of them understood.
Helloooo, you blathering stalker!
Do you have something to say?
No?
Ah yes, Flynnson, as so often, is just urging to say something.
Bunny,
Maybe you can’t read English too well.
You wrote
What you have to deliver is the scientific proof that the work performed by e.g. Mayer, Lagrange and Laplace (there are about hundred others) was wrong.
Well, he doesnt have to deliver anything. Why should he? Facts are facts and not dependent on whether people accept them or not.
You deliver a constant stream of irrelevant appeals to authority about subjects which have nothing to with AGW or the mythical GHE. You have previously implied that you no further interest in the GHE. Fine, but in that case why are you hammering out stuff about opinions on something which you cant actually define, again?
Define rotation, define revolution, define orbit precisely, allowing precise and reproducible measurement, without overlap of meaning under any circumstances no SkyDragon exception proves the rule, or I really meant something else if somebody points out that you are talking about something which you cant substantiate.
What you have to deliver is some proof that you know what you are banging on about, and why anyone should care.
Carry on.
You are confusing certain matters in the article related to orbital motion and rotation.
At the top of page 6 it states this:
“Since the lunar orbit is fixed in space and the moon rotates at an angular rate of approximately 13.9 degrees per day, there exists a relative motion between a given point on the lunar surface and points on the established lunar orbit”.
They do not mention a rotation about the local axis, what they call rotation is a re-orientation of the near face at 13.2 degrees per day (actually 13.176 degrees/day). That would give a full 360 degree re-orientation over the 27.322 day sidereal orbital period.
Note: ‘the lunar orbit is fixed in space’. That means it is oriented using a gyro, making its motion independent of lunar motion. Therefore, as the Moon’s near face is re-orienting in space at 13.2 degrees per day, adjustments have to be made to keep the orbiter telemetry synchronized to the changing direction of the near face as the Moon orbits.
When they refer to the Moon rotating, they mean the near face is rotating wrt to the Earth’s surface and wrt the orbiter itself.
If Moon were rotating about its “axis” there would be day-night cycle of 365 days on the Moon.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
Butt-kissing Robertson again?
Why do you then write nearly everywhere on this blog that Earth rotates ~29 times faster than the Moon?
It seems that you have kinda double personality, doesn’t it?
If everyone would use the words “revolve” and “rotate” correctly, there would be less confusion.
“Revolve” is what Earth does as it orbits around Sun. “Rotate” is what Earth does a it spins on its axis.
Moon revolves, but does NOT rotate.
‘
Genius Clint R
You should try to convince Vournas.
Your chance to succeed is equal to zero.
Read carefully
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2022-0-32-deg-c/#comment-1392285
” Earth is warmer than Moon because Earth rotates faster than Moon and because Earths surface is covered with water. ”
and try to tell Vournas he means with ‘rotates’ the same as ‘orbits’.
If car moves faster than camel, it doesn’t mean car walks faster than camel… Bindidon!
Because you perfectly know cars do not walk, Bindidon.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Bindidon is quick to find a splinter in someone else, but he ignores the log through his own head.
Clint R
Will you finally ask Vournas
” Christos, does the Moon rotate ~29 times slower around its polar axis than does the Earth? ”
or do you prefer not to ask?
Vournas
” If car moves faster than camel, it doesnt mean car walks faster than camel… Bindidon!
Because you perfectly know cars do not walk, Bindidon. ”
You are very good in dodging too! Your ambiguous sentence can be interpreted in any way you like.
Why don’t you speak the same unequivocal language as your equations?
Bindidon, CV is comparing Moon’s synodic period (29.53 days) to Earth’s day. You can’t understand any of this.
Earth and Moon are orbiting the common barycenter. So, if Earth were not rotating around Earth’s axis, Earth’s diurnal cycle would also have been 29,53 actual Earth days – just like Moon’s diurnal cycle is.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
” Earth and Moon are orbiting the common barycenter. ”
Now, Vournas, you become simply ridiculous.
Earth’s and Moon’s barycenter is inside Earth, distant from Earth’s center by ~ 4,600 km, i.e. roughly 1.2 % of the Earth-Moon distance.
This is, for the discussion here, absolutely insignificant. The barycenter plays a relevant role for a better understanding of Moon’s and Earth’s exact orbiting trajectories.
*
And when I look at:
” Bindidon, CV is comparing Moons synodic period (29.53 days) to Earths day. You cant understand any of this. ”
I ask me how you can be willing to support such nonsense.
You discredit yourself.
But keep speaking two different languages, Vournas, and support the ball-on-a-string!
Bindidon:
“But keep speaking two different languages, Vournas, and support the ball-on-a-string!”
Thank you, Bindidon.
Shall we now discuss the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Sorry, I lack any interest to this stuff.
And anyway, you know my position about your ‘little extra’ since quite a while.
Expect no change unless you post it in an open corner so people who know a lot more about it than me can show you what they’re missing in your “theory”.
Bindidon:
“Expect no change unless you post it in an open corner so people who know a lot more about it than me can show you what theyre missing in your theory.”
–
Thank you, Bindidon.
I am working on it (post it in an open corner).
–
But till it is posted in an open corner (you know how long it takes, so many procedures…), till it is posted, please, what it is you are missing in my theory?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Meanwhile, let’s appreciate the Moon photobombing the Earth:
https://youtu.be/_7pZAuHwz0E
"He won’t learn, and will just disappear as he always does, only to come back in a few days time to repeat the same mistakes."
…and he did exactly as I predicted.
Here’s the latest in environmental lunacy. It began in 1991 so this is likely the recycling of a bad idea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement
The idea suggests we humans should stop reproducing and die out to save the planet. I fully support eco-alarmists and climate alarmists on this noble endeavor, although I won’t be joining them.
This is more evidence of the cult-mentality driving climate alarm. For some quaint reason, the alarmists think that we humans dying off will be applauded by Mother Nature and that inorganic matter will celebrate the event.
You have to be a bit twisted to embrace such thinking.
Soylent Green is People
Soylent Green??? Was he an environmentalist???
wafer-like food product
Courtesy of Minute-MAID and the Liberal Government.
Gordon,
There was a sect in Russia which believed castration brought them closer to God.
I believe the Skoptsy died out. Strange, that.
Those crrrraaazzzzy Ruskis!!!
Severe winter attack in the Midwest. After snowstorms passed over the Dakotas, nighttime temperatures in North Dakota will drop below -20 C.
ren…to put things in perspective, when I lived on the Canadian prairies for a year, in Regina, many years ago, late November was the time temperatures were expected to hit -35C. So, -20C in the North Dakota, which is right below Regina, is normal for this time of year.
It’s difficult to describe the difference between -20C and -35C, it has to be experienced. My friend told me of a time when oil cans for engine oil had to be punctured to get them open. There was a spout that would puncture the can and allow the oil to pour out through the spout.
At -20C, the oil would flow out, even though it was thick from the cold. However, at -35C, the oil was so thick that you could turn the can upside down and no oil would pour out of the can.
With the wind blowing from the northwest, the temperature will feel below -35 C in North Dakota.
ren
To put things in perspective:
USW00094084 55-31 2014 12 1 -32.9
USC00323196 55-30 2006 12 3 -31.1
USW00094014 55-30 2006 12 3 -31.1
USW00014919 54-32 2014 12 1 -31.0
USC00320626 55-32 2014 12 1 -30.6
USC00320941 55-31 2006 12 3 -30.6
USC00326025 55-31 2014 12 2 -30.6
USC00328276 55-31 2006 12 3 -30.6
USC00328737 55-30 2006 12 3 -30.6
USC00328792 55-31 2014 12 1 -30.6
All weather stations in… North Dakota, like
USW00094084 48.9675 -102.1703 561.4 ND NORTHGATE 5 ESE
USC00323196 48.9081 -103.8056 716.3 ND FORTUNA 1 W
etc etc
Not so much UHI, as it seems.
Predictions shmedictions, which prediction line will the sun follow ?
The answer – none of them
https://i.postimg.cc/g2pgG5kB/cycle25.png
Eben,
I was getting all hot and bothered wondering which prediction was right.
I sought assistance from weather.gov, and was reassured as follows –
“So how much does the solar output affect Earth’s climate? There is debate within the scientific community how much solar activity can, or does affect Earth’s climate.”
That’s a relief. Even scientists aren’t sure if solar activity can, or does, affect climate.
It looks like I can sleep soundly again – no imminent climate crisis due to the actions of Sol.
Or maybe . . .
This time, winter in the northern US will not let up.
https://i.ibb.co/Prds0Wv/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-12-03-131237.png
https://i.ibb.co/BsqprZd/gfs-z100-nh-f00.png
https://i.ibb.co/sPqy92k/gfs-t100-nh-f00.png
Thompson Pass is officially closed for the season!
https://i.ibb.co/0hPN0Db/316833870-510342067795569-6864797141767484451-n.jpg
UAH temperature anomaly. 0.18 down from 0.32.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
November Temperatures (preliminary)
Global composite temp.: +0.17 C (+0.31F) above the seasonal average
Northern Hemisphere: +0.21 C (+0.36 F) above seasonal average
Southern Hemisphere: +0.12 C (+0.22 F) above seasonal average
Tropics: -0.16 C (-0.29F) below seasonal average
Thanks, Ken. Sure has been colder than normal in our neck of the woods.
Only the brave made the prediction
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2022-0-32-deg-c/#comment-1397795
Global sea surface temperature anomalies.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
Grand Solar Minimum Maximum
https://youtu.be/kGDwKKFIrV0?t=34
It looks like the SkyDragon cult have become “bored” and “disinterested” with their mythical CO2 powered GHE.
Now they can play pointless silly semantic games about the Moon, and its various apparent and physical motions. Regardless of the Lunatic SkyDragon games, not a single fact will change.
The Man in the Moon sits serenely looking down at the Earth, laughing.
On a serious note, it seems that Ukraine might be worth looking at, in terms of anthropogenic heat production. Researchers in the past have used visible light, as viewed from space, to estimate UHI influence.
I see little visible light emitted for most of Ukraine at night, so infrared photographs might show whether visible light is a good proxy for anthropogenic heat production. If so, it may be interesting to see if nighttime minimum temperatures drop (all else being equal) drop, showing that heat, rather than CO2 concentration, is the dominant factor affecting thermometers.
Maybe Bindidon might like to dissect the past (in the future of course) Ukrainian temperature records.
Problem there is the hot air emanating from Zelensky and his propagandists.
Swenson, please stop trolling.
DREMT impersonator, please stop trolling.
Swenson, please carry on.
bob…”And the reason we are not done yet, is that you REFUSE to PROVIDE a DEFINITION of AXIAL ROTATION”.
***
I provided one a while back. It’s simple, a rotating body has an angular velocity or momentum about an internal axis. In addition, the body could be rotating a full 360 degrees around the axis or simply oscillating back and forth, like an oscillating fan.
You spinners think a car moving around an oval is also rotating about its COG. If it did, the force on the tires related to angular velocity and momentum would cause them to have a circular motion about the COG. The car would spin out.
Dremt often uses rotation to describe a rotation about an external axis, the Earth, which is fair enough. Rotation and revolving are often used interchangeably. For example, a handgun called a revolver actually has the barrel rotating about an internal axis. The barrel can be said to revolve but it could also be said to rotate.
If you consider the Moon, it always has one face pointed at the Earth. That means the far side is always pointed away from the Earth, hence both faces are moving in parallel circles at all times. It can be added that the COG and all points between the near and far sides are moving parallel to the near and far face, at all time.
That describes curvilinear translation without rotation.
Your counter to the above is that concentric circles are not parallel, which is incorrect. Curves are defined by tangent lines and if congruent tangent lines on each circle are parallel, the circles are parallel.
You have still not explained how the Moon can keep the same face pointed at Earth and is able to rotate through 360 degrees once per orbit about a defined internal axis. Please explain that using math and/or physics. It should be dead simple if it is possible.
Hi Gordon. That’s more than 90% correct, but there is one nitpick — “…hence both faces are moving in parallel circles at all times.” Moon has a slightly elliptical orbit, so “circles” should be “ellipses”. Even a minor error like that will allow the cult idiots to reject your entire comment.
Gordon,
“I provided one a while back. Its simple, a rotating body has an angular velocity or momentum about an internal axis. ”
Yes, the Moon has angular velocity, one full revolution per month.
The near face points to the Sun when the Moon is full, and two weeks later it points away from the Sun, that’s a 180 degree rotation every two weeks.
It’s that simple.
Wrong again, braindead bob.
That would be a “180 degree revolution” in Moon’s orbit around Earth.
Revolutions are counted in time, Pup. Not degrees.
🤦
There’s nothing like incompetent flak from a worthless troll to make my day.
So much fun:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2020/03/07/the-nub-of-the-argument/#comment-63901
Finding another cult idiot that agrees with you is just more incompetent flak, troll Pup.
That’s why this is so much fun.
That “cult idiot” has a name, Pup.
It’s “Joe.”
You know, the guy who’s a Sky Dragon crank like you?
Yeah, that Joe.
Who cares?
🤦
Who cares about your emojis?
🤦🤦
Who double-cares about your double-emojis?
🤦🤦🤦🤦
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
No Clint R,
it’s both, a 180 revolution has no change in orientation.
I heard the Nobel committee was considering your gang for a prize for discovering “orbital motion without axial rotation.”
See bob, if you could understand the simple ball-on-a-string you would know about “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
But, you can’t understand simple motions. You’re braindead.
Clint R,
I know the half of it, without axial rotation means the object’s orientation remains fixed on a distant star.
The Moon’s does not do that.
That’s how I know you don’t know anything about axial rotation.
Why don’t you find an Astronomer and he/she will straighten you out.
Or lithium.
Yes, bob, as you’ve said before, you think an object that is orbiting, but not rotating, keeps one face oriented towards some distant star. Hence the term "orbital motion without axial rotation" should make obvious sense to you. Why do you pretend otherwise? Is it just to troll?
DR EMPTY,
Wait, whut?
I am not pretending, nor am I trolling.
Have you asked an Astronomer to explain it to you yet?
Without axial rotation means without axial rotation, it means the object is not rotating, which means the points on the object do not move in circles around a point or line within the object.
Since the far side of the Moon moves farther during each orbit than the near side, if the Moon were not rotation on its axis it would have to fly apart.
And an object must turn or rotate in order to change its orientation.
What part of that do you fail to comprehend?
Trolling indeed.
bob, sadly this is over your head. If you could understand the simple ball-on-a-string you would know about “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
But, you can’t understand simple motions. You’re braindead.
bob’s just trolling, I think.
Clint R,
Lets try this
Poke a long pencil through your ball on a string and make a mark on the pencil.
Holding the pencil so it doesn’t rotate, move the pencil and ball around your hand, and see if the ball rotates around the pencil.
Time to be an experimentalist.
By the way
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/canadian-summer-urban-heat-island-effects-some-results-in-alberta/#comment-1404970
You got game?
You’re still confused, bob.
Stick the pencil through the ball so that it is perpendicular to the string. Then draw a face on the ball facing you, and a corresponding mark on the pencil. Then, swing the ball around you.
Note the face on the ball faces you, as does the mark on the pencil. The ball is NOT rotating about its axis.
Yes, I accept your acceptance of my offer. Begone for 90 days and I will then do my part.
Clint R,
You forgot the part about holding the pencil so it doesn’t rotate.
Hold it so it points to a fixed point in the room.
You fail to understand the conditions of the experiment.
“Hence the term “orbital motion without axial rotation” ”
which is two terms clearly stating TWO properties of a motion.
That is because an Orbit is simply a PATH through space. Orbital Motion means nothing more than following that path.
The fact that the rotational state of the body is not defined by the words ‘Orbital Motion’ is made self evident by the need for the second term ‘without axial rotation’.
Oddly this fact seems lost on the non-spinners.
No, bob, begone for 90 days…off you pop.
Pup failed.
Pup won’t honor his side of the deal.
I am SHOCKED.
“Begone for 90 days and I will then do my part.”
Similar idea as the coffee mug experiment.
Ask anyone to hold a coffee mug by its handle and move it on a circular path around their other fist. IOW make it ORBIT their fist.
How will people move the coffee mug to make it follow the path? Will they move it so that the handle rotates around the cup?
I tried it with a neutral wife. She kept the handle oriented toward her body as she orbited the cup. I asked her, did the handle rotate around the cup? She said ‘No’.
I asked her to make the handle always point toward her fist as it orbited. That was much more difficult and required extra unnatural rotation. I asked her, did the handle rotate around the cup? ‘Obviously’, she said.
She concluded that for the Moon to keep the same face to the Earth requires it to rotate around its own axis.
QED
Well, bob has left for his 90-day vacation, but he was talking about simple experiments to demonstrate the issue…I still think these experiments take some beating:
https://youtu.be/ey1dSUfmjBw
Troll Nate, if you want to simulate gravity, use the ball-on-a-string. Trying to simulate gravity incorrectly means you are incorrect.
Troll Pup promised not to try to play Moonball for 90 days.
Here he is, still explaining.
"Troll Pup promised not to try to play Moonball for 90 days"
No such event occurred.
[PUP] If you’re serious about wanting to see the science that refutes the lunar rotation nonsense, and verifies that Moon does NOT rotate, are you willing to stop commenting here for 90 days?
[BOB] I’ll take that bet Clint R. If you fail, you should stop commenting for 90 days, but I’ll not require the quid pro quo.
[PUP] Yes, I accept your acceptance of my offer. Begone for 90 days and I will then do my part.
Out Moon/Sky Dragon trolls are that subtle…
As I said – no such event occurred.
Troll Clint,
“if you want to simulate gravity”
The demo is not about gravity, it is about understanding MOTION.
Wrong again, troll Nate.
Your trying to PERVERT orbital motion. Gravity doesn’t rotate an object, it steers it. You STILL don’t understand any of this.
That’s because you’re braindead.
The video makes many false statements. It first shows the rotating and orbiting Moon, both obviously counterclockwise.
But the narrator falsely claims at 0:40 that the rotation and orbiting are diametrically opposite.
Then he manually rotates the Moon as it orbits. The Moon’s arrow is initially pointing DOWN. When it completes half an orbit, the Moons arrow is again pointing DOWN. It has clearly completed one full rotation, 360 degrees.
But the narrator falsely claims at ~ 1:00 that the Moon has rotated only 180 degrees!
So two false statements in the first minute!
No point in watching the rest.
Oh, I forgot to mention, the narrator of the video does make one error early on, when he says that the revolution and axial rotation are diametrically opposite, when they are actually in the same direction. Other than that, the video is a good demonstration of the motions for those with the capacity to understand. You definitely have to watch the entire thing to get it.
Of course Gaslighting Graham can’t grok that if Pup does not wait for 90 days before offering all by himself the explanation, Bob is in his right to counter him and win the bet without having to wait!
Oh, and of course teh CSA truther guy forgot the main ingredient to create a spin orbit lock!
Gaslighting Little Willy said:
"Troll Pup promised not to try to play Moonball for 90 days"
He was wrong. No such event occurred.
Gaslighting Graham would not be able to grasp an implication even if it was handed to him very slowly:
[PUP’S PROMISE] If you’re serious about wanting to see the science that refutes the lunar rotation nonsense, and verifies that Moon does NOT rotate, are you willing to stop commenting here for 90 days?
Unless Pup stops from trying to refute the idea that the Moon spins for 60 months, his offer is null and void.
> 60 months
One can wish. Soon enough.
90 days ought to be enough.
“Other than that” the fact that 360 degrees aint 180 degrees..
Some people just cannot debate honestly.
OK, for anyone reading that is confused by the video…
…to understand the first part of the video, he initially demonstrates how the "Non-Spinners" would interpret "orbiting whilst rotating on its own axis, once per orbit, in the same direction as the orbit".
What he later describes as "normal orbital motion" (the "Non-Spinners" here usually use the term "orbital motion without axial rotation") already involves the arrow on the moon moving through 360 degrees whilst it moves. It is motion like the "moon on the left", you see.
So, he manually rotates the moon as it orbits. The moon’s arrow is initially pointing down. When it completes half an orbit, the moon’s arrow is again pointing down. This is because the arrow has been reoriented due to the "normal orbital motion" to the extent that it would otherwise be pointing "up" by this point…but because it’s "normal orbital motion" as well as rotating on its own axis, the additional axial rotation has moved the arrow an additional 180 degrees.
So, at the halfway mark, the moon has "orbited" by 180 degrees, reorienting the arrow to that extent…but it has also "rotated on its own axis" by 180 degrees, reorienting the arrow an additional 180 degrees.
Gaslighting Graham might never be honest enough to reveal the CSA Truther trick:
A 1:1 spin-orbit lock means that the satellite orbits at the same rate it spins.
Gaslighting Little Willy might have to be put on "ignore/automatic PST" for the rest of the thread…
Gaslighting Graham admits defeat.
Great success!
I admit victory.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“So, at the halfway mark, the moon has “orbited” by 180 degrees, reorienting the arrow to that extentbut it has also “rotated on its own axis” by 180 degrees, reorienting the arrow an additional 180 degrees.”
Some people have consistently stated that our Moon is rotating one per orbit wrt the stars. But here in the video it is rotating TWICE per orbit wrt the stars and the narrator with the reassuring voice insists that it has only rotated ONCE.
But this is, of course, obfuscation. Without the motor on or any manual rotation of the Moon, it has friction with the arm holding it, thus by default it rotates once per orbit wrt the stars! IOW, he is using a rotating reference frame to measure the Moon’s rotation rate.
People who say that reference frames dont matter, but here they support a video deceptively using a rotating reference frame without informing anyone.
Just for anyone reading still confused about the video…the issue is not settled by reference frames…and once again (I’ve explained this so many times it’s getting ridiculous), here’s why:
There are two motions involved, as demonstrated in the video:
1) "Normal orbital motion" (otherwise known as "orbital motion without axial rotation"). This is motion like the "moon on the left".
2) "Rotating on its own axis".
What is happening in the first part of the video is, the two motions are happening simultaneously, and in the same direction. So, as the object is reoriented due to its "normal orbital motion" by x degrees, it is also being reoriented by an additional amount of x degrees due to its "rotating on its own axis". It’s nothing to do with "using a rotating reference frame", it’s simply a question of keeping motion 1) separate from motion 2). The motions are separated due to the physical mechanisms involved in the apparatus used. If, by some convoluted mechanism, motion 1) was actually like the "moon on the right", rather than the "moon on the left", then the results of "one axial rotation per orbit, in the same direction as the orbital motion" would in fact look like the "moon on the left".
However, the apparatus used keeps motion 1) like the "moon on the left", in the first place. This is why the results of "one axial rotation per orbit, in the same direction as the orbital motion" looks different to what the "Spinners" expect. It is not anything to do with "reference frames", it’s to do with the physical mechanism behind motion 1).
I expect this will be misunderstood, so I may need to repeat myself.
Another point, with all at rest the Moon is not rotating. Once the arm starts rotating, the Moon, attached, starts rotating.
For any body to start rotating from rest, it must experience a torque around its COM, by Newtons Laws for rotation.
Thus the arm must be applying a TORQUE on the Moon around its COM, and its resulting rotation is thus around its COM.
He declares that this is ‘normal orbital motion’ and not rotation.
When not attached and independent from the arm, he admits that when manually moving the moon like our Moon, rotating it once per orbit, it ‘appears to be’ rotating.
But when attached to the arm that is itself rotating he claims the moon is not rotating. Confirming that he is using the rotating arm as a reference frame in that case.
Of course in the real universe there is NO ARM applying a torque on orbiting bodies nor providing a rotating reference frame. There is only gravity applying an INWARD force thru a bodies COM.
By using the arm to supply an unnatural torque, by switching to the arm’s rotating reference frame, and claiming that this is ‘normal orbital motion’, he has made a video full of obfuscation.
I’ll just remind any readers still confused about the video that the video is not about gravity, it is about understanding MOTION.
Ill remind people that the video is clearly claiming to be discussing THE MOON in its Orbit, which is clearly subject to gravity.
But it is indeed also discussing ORBITS in general and MOTION in general and show that using a rotating reference frame is how to be misled into thinking that the Moon is not rotating as it orbits.
I’ll just remind any readers still confused about the video that the video is not about gravity, it is about understanding motion. I’ll also just remind them that I’ve already explained, at 6:41 AM (and for about the 70th time overall) that the issue is not resolved by reference frames.
It is not a question of "rotating reference frames" vs. "inertial reference frames", it’s a question of "orbital motion without axial rotation" being motion like the "moon on the left", vs. the "moon on the right". I appreciate the distinction is hard to grasp for some, but the intelligent and open-minded should get it.
“the 70th time overall) that the issue is not resolved by reference frames”
People who claim such should not promoting videos where the main issue is obviously about reference frames.
I’ll simply note that throughout the video he describes the Moon as ‘not rotating’ when it is in fact not rotating wrt the rotating arm, but is rotating wrt space.
And he makes no distinction about axes.
I appreciate the distinction is hard to grasp for some, but the intelligent and open-minded should get it.
It would be great if people calling themselves intelligent and open minded, would be open to all of the observational evidence gathered by Astronomers, but sadly that appears not to be the case.
…appreciate the distinction is hard to grasp for some, but the intelligent and open-minded should get it.
It is interesting that the very same people who always must have the last word, no matter if that word is pointless repetition or not, are the very same people who always declare themselves the ‘winners’, no matter how poorly they’ve debated.
Coincidence?
…the distinction is hard to grasp for some, but the intelligent and open-minded should get it.
https://tinyurl.com/graham-s-head-will-explode
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Yep, Willard, intelligent open minded people would be willing to consider those facts…
…distinction is hard to grasp for some, but the intelligent and open-minded should get it.
Clint R,
I forgot to remind you that I was referring to the Moon’s orientation not its position in its orbit.
You again fail to understand that something can be doing two things at once, both rotating and revolving.
Wrong again, braindead bob.
I’ve used the example of Earth many times. Earth has both motions — orbiting and rotating. Moon only has one motion — orbiting.
You won’t be able to understand this because you’re braindead.
Sure bob, like the MOTR – orbiting counter-clockwise whilst rotating on its own axis, clockwise, once per orbit. Nobody fails to understand that an object can be doing both motions at once.
Clint R,
Where is your proof the Moon is not rotating?
DR EMPTY,
If the Moon on the right is rotating clockwise and counterclockwise at the same time at the same rate, we can just say its not rotating.
-1 + 1 = 0
No, bob. It’s rotating about an external axis in one direction, whilst rotating about an internal axis in the opposite direction.
Exactly, Bob:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
As if Gaslighting Graham never read the page where he found his pet GIF.
As usual, we’re left having to try to guess at whatever point Little Willy is trying to make.
Either Gaslighting Graham plays dumb, or he really has no idea what a net change in rotation rate over the course of a complete orbi means.
We can live with both!
I know what it means, but have no idea why you are bringing it up at this particular point in the discussion. So I will just ignore it.
And so Graham is playing dumb!
Think whatever you like.
tim…”The more general statement for angular momentum is the cross product L = r x p”.
The cross product is based on observations of the physical reality. When solving the cross product it is reduced to scalar quantities, so why complicate matters? Simply take any particle on a spherical rigid body and determine if it has a velocity about an axis. If it does, the entire body is rotating about the axis.
It doesn’t matter which reference frames are involved. If the particle has a velocity about the axis the body is rotating. If there is no velocity about the axis, the body is not rotating.
This is another major perversion of physics by our fraud Folkerts.
Moon has NO angular momentum. It is NOT rotating on its axis, so no rotational angular momentum. And orbiting produces NO angular momentum. Moon has linear momentum. The linear momentum is constantly redirected by gravity. If gravity were instantly turned off, Moon would go off into space in a straight line.
Folkerts is the one touting the nonsense that would lead to ice cubes boiling water.
“Moon has NO angular momentum.”
Of course it does. This is 1st year undergrad physics.
The moon has orbital angular momentum = rxp where r is the vector from the moon-earth barycenter to the center of the moon and p is the vector momentum of the center-of-mass of the moon.
The moon has additional angular momentum given by I(omega), where I is the moment of inertial of the moon about its CoM, and (omega) is the rate at which a point on the surface of the moon changes orientation with respect to the ‘distant stars’.
Wrong twice, Folkerts.
Moon only as linear momentum. It would be moving in a straight line if not for gravity.
And Moon’s angular velocity (ω) is zero. So it has no rotational angular momentum either.
Obviously you didn’t learn much in undergrad physics, if you even took undergrad physics….
Clint either
a) you have a different definition of “angular momentum” than everyone else in physics
or
b) you are wrong.
You could google “angular momentum of moon” and get many versions of the same answer. You could read any undergrad textbook. The moon DOES have angular momentum, as the term is defined in every physics textbook.
Folkerts, “google” knows NOTHING about orbital motion. You have learned from the Internet, like your cult. You have NO understanding of the valid physics.
You make up crap that would mean ice cubes can boil water.
Get a job.
Clint has figured out that his credibility in physics is unrecoverable…so full-throttle on trolling it is!
Rotation and revolution are independant. You can have any combination.
That includes the Earth Moon system in which the Moon’s periods of rotation and revolution relative to the Earth are similar, giving the illusion that the Moon is not rotating relative to the Earth.
Ent, it’s only braindead cult idiots that believe Moon has axial rotation. That same group also believes a ball-on-a-string is rotating on its axis!
It just shows you the power a cult can have over people….
Almost everyone believes that the Moon spins, Pup.
Even Joe does.
Do the Pole dance experiment.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Almost everyone believes that the Moon spins, Pup”
Oh yes? And who cares? You?
That would make a gullible fool, wouldn’t it?
Given up on trying to convince almost everyone that four and a half billion years or so of the Earth’s cooling is really due to an imaginary GHE?
Go on, play some silly semantic games. The Moon’s motions don’t care what you call them. A nitwit like you could call himself Willard, but you would be just as ignorant and delusional as ever.
Is your head spinning, revolving or rotating in your attempts to ignore reality? Which do you prefer?
Donkey.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
"That same group also believes a ball-on-a-string is rotating on its axis!"
Mostly, yes, although some "Spinners" do at least understand that a ball on a string can be described as not rotating on its own axis. I call them the "Soft Spinners".
Whenever one of the cult claims that the ball is rotating on its axis, we know he’s braindead.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Exactly, EM.
Whenever Mood Dragon cranks claim that the Moon has no angular momentum they reveal the fantasy world in which they live.
Hence why Gaslighting Graham tries to stay as close to geometry as possible.
It’s about me again, is it? Quelle surprise.
“The latest values of various El Nio/La Nia indices indicate the La Nia (cold phase of the cycle) continues and is predicted to continue through the NH winter, though its demise is
forecast to occur late next NH spring. The impact of the colder-than-average tropical Pacific Ocean surface temperatures induces a complex response in the atmospheric temperatures
we report here, but in a very simple sense, cooler water will warm the atmosphere less than usual, causing it to be cooler than average (note the tropical atmospheric temperature in
Nov was -0.16 C).”
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2022/november2022/GTR_202211Nov_1.pdf
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
ENSO 3.4 is back below -1.0C this morning. This long in La Niña conditions kinda pours cold water on the increasing Ocean Heat Content (OHC) nonsense, huh?
Currently seeing subsurface cooling in the Pacific.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC006/IDYOC006.202212.gif
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/heat-last-year.gif
Acktuely, the global surface temperature has been persistently above normal during the La Ninas, probably accounts for the lack of global cooling.
https://media.tenor.com/RvfSxrX7fvYAAAAd/actually-bored.gif
“This long in La Nina conditions kinda pours cold water on the increasing Ocean Heat Content (OHC) nonsense, huh?”
That comments sounds like nonsense. Can you explain what you’re conceiving there?
barry, OHC is often used by your cult to promote its lurid agenda. With the oceans so large and unknown, it is possible to pervert what little data we have. But, ENSO is tracked by many different entities, making it harder to pervert. Even the Peruvian fishermen knew about the oscillations, many decades ago.
A three year La Niña does not portend scary ocean warming. Your cult beliefs get cooled again.
You’re still not making any sense. You describe neither a physical effect nor a mechanism.
During a la Nina heat is transferred from the atmosphere to the ocean (which is why global air temperatures go down). So what’s your actual point?
I can’t make it any simpler for you barry. Maybe you’re too braindead to understand.
A three year La Niña does not portend scary ocean warming. Your cult beliefs get cooled again.
Still no substance to what you’re saying. Your comment is a non-sequitur. I guess you didn’t think it through before you commented.
A 3-year la Nina has zero to do with long-term global ocean heat content. Opposite to your point, la Ninas ADD heat to the ocean (but it’s temporary). I’d love to see what contortions you get into to justify your claim, but everyone knows your MO. You won’t attempt to explain it, just keep claiming that you have.
barry, you braindead goofball! You asked me to explain my comment. When I did, you started trying to pervert reality. A 3-year La Niña means the oceans ain’t very hot. Your increasing OHC alarmism is a sham, as are the rest of your cult beliefs. And, as you learned the hard way, ice cubes can’t boil water.
Go troll someone else.
"La Niña means the oceans ain’t very hot."
There it is again. Your non-seqiutur. X because Y. No explanation or logic, just assertion.
You really don't know what you're talking about. La Nina ADDS heat to sub-surface ocean. So how could 3 years of la Niña prove the oceans aren’t warming?
Using the name Clint R means you are ignorant.
See what I did there?
Sorry barry, but cooling is NOT warming.
La Nina will not end. Temperatures in the tropical northeast Pacific are already dropping.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_epac_1.png
” Monthly climate statement for November 2022.
The Department of Environment and Science (DES) monitors sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies in key regions of the Pacific Ocean during the autumn, winter and spring and, based on this, provides objective forecasts of summer (November to March) precipitation. Based on the changing pattern of SST in the Pacific Ocean, the DES science department believes that the probability of exceeding the average summer (November to March) rainfall is higher than normal for most of Queensland.
The most closely monitored factor affecting rainfall in Queensland is the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon. Climatologists monitor several ENSO indicators, including the atmospheric Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) and SST anomalies in the central equatorial Pacific. Following last summer’s La Nina phenomenon, key ENSO indicators remain within the La Nina threshold. In particular, the latest three-month average SOI* was quite positive (+15.6 for the August-October period), and the corresponding three-month average SST anomaly in the Nino 3.4** region was cooler than average (-0.9C).
It can be seen that the Nino 3.4 index was not very low, which means the average La Nina.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/seasonal-climate-outlook/monthly-climate-statements/
The graphic shows the dependence of SOI on the phase of the solar cycle. It can be seen that SOI increases as the solar cycle progresses and decreases after the solar maximum.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/soi.gif
SOI has been trending upward since 2020, the start of the 25th solar cycle.
https://i.ibb.co/rwR25k2/soi-monthly.png
Now the SOI is rising again as the strength of the solar wind has increased. This solar cycle may be low and have several similar spikes in activity.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
https://i.ibb.co/7NzcghG/wolfjmms.png
[DREMT December 3 at 11:04 AM] Mistaking a change in orientation, for axial rotation, is the “Spinners” most fundamental mistake.
[DREMT December 4 at 12:17 PM] No, a change in orientation does indicate a rotation
Correct, and no contradiction; because "axial rotation" means "rotation about an internal axis", whereas the "rotation" I was referring to in my second comment was "rotation about an external axis".
You’ll get there.
Well spotted, Tyson!
Notice how Gaslighting Graham tries to equivocate with “axial rotation” instead of using “spin” like everybody else.
No, I’m not "trying to equivocate". Actually, many here on both sides of the debate use "axial rotation". "Spin" is fine, too.
Well spotted Willard. You might also like:
Gaslighting, refers to situations in which someone attempts to drive someone else crazy. It involves the attempts of one person, the victimizer, trying to impose his or her judgment on the second person, the victim. Usually the victimizer uses gaslighting to disavow his or her own mental disturbance by making the victim feel that he or she is going crazy. And, importantly, this is a process with which the victim complies.
Yes, you’re both trolls. Got it.
Exactly, Tyson.
When Gaslighting Graham tells you that the Moon
changes orientation due to its own orbital motion, he wants you to believe that this change orientation is implied by its orbit, which is false. Everybody knows that an orbit is independent from that orientation change. Hence why he has to redefine everything all the time.
It’s as if he never experienced a Ferris wheel.
False, Gaslighting Little Willy. Both "Spinners" and "Non-Spinners" have orientation central to their idea of what is "orbital motion without axial rotation".
"Spinners" – "orbital motion without axial rotation" is motion like the "moon on the right", i.e. one side always faces towards a distant star.
"Non-Spinners" – "orbital motion without axial rotation" is motion like the "moon on the left", i.e. one side always faces towards the inside of the orbit.
Pimple simple.
As you can see, Tyson, Gaslighting Graham has nothing else but to return to his pet GIF without really showing any understanding of it.
Mistaking physics for geometry may very well be Moon Dragon cranks’ most fundamental mistake!
It’s not really about the GIF, Gaslighting Little Willy. Yes, I used the MOTL/MOTR terms but they’re just really a shorter way of expressing "one side always faces towards a distant star" or "one side always faces the inside of the orbit". The GIF is just a visual representation of two different motions, that’s all. It gets everyone on the same page, so it’s fairly useful in that respect.
As you can see, Tyson, mistaking physics for geometry may very well be Moon Dragon cranks’ most fundamental mistake!
I’m not “mistaking physics for geometry”. You brought up a point about orientation, I countered it.
Notice how Gaslighting Graham cannot even grasp that “orientation due to its own orbital motion” isn’t a claim of geometry, Tyson!
No wonder he keeps trolling this website.
Nobody knows what you’re trying to say, Gaslighting Little Willy. I don’t even think you do.
…and Tyson is not responding to you, so you look a bit strange continually addressing your comments to him and not me, the person you are clearly interacting with.
Notice how Gaslighting Graham goes pure gaslighting once again, Tyson. As I’m sure you already noticed, “orientation due to its own orbital motion” is not a claim that rests on geometry alone!
One day Gaslighting Graham will get it.
Great, Gaslighting Little Willy. So then I am not “mistaking physics for geometry”.
You can see how Gaslighting Graham still confuses physics with geometry, Tyson.
Little Willy continues with his gaslighting.
When do you think Gaslighting Graham will discuss angular momentum with Pup, Tyson?
When you finally correct bob about rotation, Gaslighting Little Willy.
Do you recall the last time Gaslighting Graham tried to discuss torque with Tim, Tyson?
Fun times.
Yes, fun times. Tim agreed that there was a torque about the external axis, but disagreed this torque would lead to rotation about the external axis. Strange fellow.
So much fun:
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] What you are forgetting is that we do not need a torque about the balls internal axis for the cannonball to move as per the moon on the left. All we need is a torque about the external axis. Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion like the moon on the left. So your point about the attachment point of the string on the tetherball falls flat on its face.
[TIM] What you are forgetting is that your explanation is wrong. You can’t see it because you lack any deep understanding of physics. But you simply are wrong. [Y]our appeal to your own authority for answers does not carry any weight.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-897033
Yes, so much fun. Thanks for bringing it up.
Even more fun:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-879785
Why are you still responding? Odd.
As if we need any more proof that the cult idiots are braindead, several are still confused about the simple concepts like “axial rotation”.
Moon has no “axial rotation”. It is NOT rotating about its center-of-mass. The ball-on-a-string is NOT rotating about its center-of-mass. These are such simple concepts that one has to be braindead not to understand them.
Here’s another simple demonstration of “axial rotation”:
Take an orange and push a long pencil through its center. The pencil is now an “axis”. Hold the pencil so that it is vertical and draw a face on the side of the orange. Now, make a dot on the pencil right above the face on the orange.
Twist the orange around its “axis”. You will note the face moves, but the dot does not move. The orange is moving relative to its axis. THAT is “axial rotation”.
None of the cult idiots will be able to understand this. That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint claims :“The pencil is now an axis. … Now, make a dot on the pencil right above the face on the orange.”
An “axis”, by definition, is a line. A line, by definition, is 1 dimensional and has no faces and no substance on which to draw a dot. An axis has no definable orientation other than along the axis. A line through the center of the pencil is an ‘axis’; the physical pencil is NOT an axis.
The ‘dot’ would need to be drawn on some actual object — not on ‘the axis’. Like a wall in your room. Or the center of the earth. Or a distant star. Heck, it could even be a dot on your pencil — but the pencil is NOT ‘the axis’. The rotation can only be defined as relative to that ‘dot’ on that object.
And no, this is not ‘semantics’. When the core of the issue is precisely ‘rotation about an axis’, it is imperative to know precisely what we mean by ‘axis’ and ‘rotation’.
“The orange is moving relative to its axis. ”
So more precisely, the orange is moving on its axis relative to a dot on some physical object. The orange is rotating relative to the room. Relative to the pencil. Relative to the center of the earth.
“None of the cult idiots will be able to understand this.”
Can I call it, or what?
That’s why this is so much fun.
Tim,
You wrote –
“Relative to the pencil.”
Not as far as I can see, but you obviously think differently. Using some of your imaginary materials, glue the pencil to the orange. It seems that the “dot” and the “face” are still aligned, and the imaginary axis which passes through the assembly of imaginary orange and imaginary pencil (now one imaginary object), passes through the imaginary pencil.
The imaginary orange is glued with imaginary glue to the imaginary pencil, forming one imaginary object, which means that one part of the object is definitely not rotating with respect to another part of that same object, when all share an identical axis of rotation – in respect to some imaginary viewpoint.
However, back to the imaginary GHE – have you found a definition of the GHE which takes into account the obvious cooling of the Earth since its creation?
Even one that depends on imaginary objects, made of impossible materials, mythical electric heaters, and make-believe physics?
No? No wonder you want to to divert the conversation.
ME: “the orange is moving on its axis relative to a dot on … the pencil.
Swenson “Not as far as I can see, but you obviously think differently. ”
You apparently did not read Clint’s original hypothetical scenario.
“Twist the orange around its ‘axis’. You will note the face moves, but the dot does not move. ” The orange was described as moving around the pencil while the pencil was held steady. Clint’s choice, not mine.
And the ‘imaginary orange’ is Clint’s doing, not mine. If you don’t like the ‘imaginary items’ in the ‘imaginary scenario’, take it up with Clint.
Folkerts, can’t you get ANYTHING right?
I never said anything about “imaginary”.
Tim,
No, as Clint says, if you rotate the orange around an internal axis passing through the longitudinal axis of the the pencil, it is rotating about an internal axis.
You initially wrote –
“The orange is rotating relative to the room. Relative to the pencil. Relative to the center of the earth.”
If you now claim that rotating the orange around its axis or rotation, means it must also simultaneously rotate around a separate external axis relative to the room and the centre of the Earth, that is just being delusional. Rotation about an external axis, when applied to a celestial body, is called orbiting.
In any case, you are just trying to avoid the reality of the Moon. From a point on a line joining the COGs of the Earth and the Moon, and on the surface of the Moon facing the Earth, the Earth remains more or less fixed in the sky. It does not set, nor does it rise, when viewed from the specified position.
The Moon, therefore, does not continuously rotate about a fixed internal axis normal to the line joining the COGs of the Earth and the Moon. If you want to dismiss the fact that the Sun rises and sets when viewed from the Earth as having relevance to the fact that the Earth rotates on its axis with respect to the Sun, go ahead.
If you want to suggest that different physical laws apply to the relationship regarding the Moon orbiting the Earth, go ahead.
Or you could just argue about analogies, and attempt semantic illusions, demonstrating that you can’t understand physics well enough to talk about the relationship between the motions of the Earth and the Moon.
What happened to your support for GHE induced AGW? Did you find that you couldn’t actually find any decent description of the GHE, let alone one which explained why the Earth cooled for four and a half billion years or so, to its present temperature.
Gee, Tim, how hard can it be?
Mike Flynn,
You wrote:
“Rotation about an external axis, when applied to a celestial body, is called orbiting.”
Not really, if only because no celestial body orbits in a circular manner.
Cheers.
Willard,
I could be pedantic and say that a celestial body, moving in a circle around another body in a circle is indeed orbiting that body, but what would be the point?
This is another bit of semantic silliness, and even though you say that no celestial body orbits in a circular manner, you cannot show this to be the case (although I agree that celestial orbits are likely to be more or less elliptical in general).
I’m sure that Tim Folkerts (or another SkyDragon) can come up with a pointless analogy involving circular orbits, spherical bodies of homogeneous composition, and so on, to “prove” something which exists only in the imagination.
Oh well, cut me a little slack if you like – surely if SkyDragons can define heating a# slow cooling, I can have the occasional circular orbit, don’t you think?
In the meantime, have you found a GHE explanation which explains why and how the Earth managed to cool for four and a half billion years or so, with an atmosphere containing CO2? Or have you given up on the GHE as a bad job?
Mike Flynn,
The pedantic scenario you imagine would be the only time you’d be right about an orbit being a pure rotation. Some might believe that there is a point in being right, but I suppose mileage varies in your case.
Otherwise you’re just wrong:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit
See? No need to mention rotation at all.
Of course we could say that an orbit involves rotation. But then all complex motion does.
Cheers.
Wonky Wee Willy,
Very astute of you to tell me I’m right except when I’m wrong – not.
At least you agree that my statement was “right” – even though you imply that facts are not terribly important in the general scheme of things. Maybe you believe “consensus” is to be preferred to fact, but I don’t.
Good attempt at diversion – you haven’t managed to reconcile the Moon’s supposed rotation about an internal axis with the fact that the Earth seen high in the Moon’s sky neither rises nor sets.
And even that is just another diversion to avoid acknowledging that you can’t even describe the GHE!
C’mon Willard – up your game.
“if you rotate the orange around an internal axis passing through the longitudinal axis of the the pencil, it is rotating about an internal axis.”
Correct. But the only way to measure the rotation is to measure the orientation of some point on the orange to some point that is NOT part of the orange (and not on the axis). If that angle changes, then the orange is rotating (relative to that other point). You cannot measure ‘relative to the axis’ because the axis is 1 dimensional.
“If you now claim that rotating the orange around its axis or rotation, means it must also simultaneously rotate around a separate external axis …”
No. I was only talking about the orange rotating around its own axis. But that rotation can be measured relative to various reference frames. For example, if the orange is fixed to the pencil, then the orange is rotating at 0 rev/s relative to the pencil. If I spin the orange the orange could be rotating 1 rev/s relative to me (and 1 revs relative to my chair and relative to my glasses), but still rotate 0 rev/s relative to the pencil . If I was sitting on a platform that rotates once every 10 seconds, I could also measure the rotation as 1.1 rev/sec relative to the ground (and still 1 rev/s relative to me and 0 rev/s relative to the pencil).
The interesting question is not “is the orange rotating?” but “is there one best/simplest/most useful choice for the rate? Should we say the orange is rotating at 0 rev/s or 1 rev/sec or 1.1 rev/s … or even some other answer?”
“the Earth remains more or less fixed in the sky. ”
.. which means it does NOT remain fixed, which means it rotates slightly forward and slightly back (relative to the center of the earth) each time it orbits the earth. Is there a ‘best choice’ whether to say it is rotating back and forth at varying rates relative to the center of the earth, or to say it is rotating at a constant rate relative to the stars? Every scientist since the Newton has made the same choice. Perhaps you should learn WHY they chose ‘the fixed stars’ instead of ‘the center of the earth’.
Folkerts continues his effort to confuse the simple example: “But the only way to measure the rotation is to measure the orientation of some point on the orange to some point that is NOT part of the orange (and not on the axis).”
That’s WRONG, fraud Folkerts!
You measure axial rotation by direct comparison to the axis. You don’t want a “standard” to measure by. You want to choose some arbitrary “standard” so you can pervert reality to fit your false beliefs. That’s why you’re a fraud.
Got a job yet? When does your unemployment run out?
Tim, the “axial rotation” just needs to be kept separate from the “orbital motion without axial rotation”. For “Spinners”, the “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion in which one face of the object remains oriented towards some distant star. For “Non-Spinners”, the “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion in which one face of the object remains oriented towards the inside of the orbit. You just need to keep axial rotation separate, in either case.
So, for example, for the “Spinners”, motion like the “moon on the left” would be “orbital motion without axial rotation” plus axial rotation, once per orbit, in the same direction as the orbit.
For “Non-Spinners”, motion like the “moon on the right” would be “orbital motion without axial rotation” plus axial rotation, once per orbit, in the opposite direction to the orbit.
For the “Spinners”, the Earth would exhibit “orbital motion without axial rotation” plus axial rotation, 366.25 times per orbit, in the same direction as the orbit.
For the “Non-Spinners”, the Earth would exhibit “orbital motion without axial rotation” plus axial rotation, 365.25 times per orbit, in the same direction as the orbit.
That’s why the issue transcends reference frames.
Mike Flynn,
If you are right, you are right is not the same thing as saying you are right.
You know that, right?
“You measure axial rotation by direct comparison to the axis. ”
You could measure rotation by comparison to an *axle* which is a 3D physical object. For instance, I can easily identify the top of the axle that supports a tire on my car. I could ‘paint a dot’ or make a scratch on the axle, and measure the tire’s rotation relative to that mark.
You cannot measure rotation relative to an axis, which is a 1-D line exactly down the center rotation. You can’t ‘paint a dot’ on a line. You can’t ‘scratch’ the axis. You NEED a point OFF the axis to define an orientation.
Tim,
Another way to say to see Pup’s trick is to ask – a “direct comparison” of what.
That should get you the second point you’re asking for.
No response to my comment, Tim? Oh well, guess you’ve worked out that the moon issue transcends reference frames, then. Good for you.
Fraudkerts understands that it is possible to determine if a wheel is rotating on an axle, but he can’t understand an orange can rotate on a pencil.
Things just don’t come together for the braindead….
Gaslighting Graham could ask Pup to drop the idea that the Moon has no angular momentum, but then he’d have to fight Tim over how to interpret its torque.
Tough choice.
The moon has no spin angular momentum, because it’s not rotating on its own internal axis.
As to the question of orbital angular momentum, I remain completely open-minded. I’ve just been looking at the different arguments presented over the years, and seeing what adds up. Still haven’t decided.
One thing I would note is, angular momentum is "the rotational analog of linear momentum". That would imply that "orbit without spin" would have to be a "rotation about an external axis" for there to be such a concept as "orbital angular momentum" in the first place.
Which of course would settle the issue in the "Non-Spinners" favour.
Correct DREMT, Moon has no spin angular momentum.
What confuses people about orbital angular momentum is Moon has NO mechanical attachment to Earth. Gravity is not a mechanical attachment, so there is no linkage. If gravity were turned off, Moon would go off in a straight line. The confusion is further magnified by the math. Angular momentum (L) is the product of linear momentum and the radius. So you can actually calculate a false AM for Moon by multiplying the distance to Moon by its linear momentum (mass/velocity product). Often equations confuse people with no knowledge of the physics involved.
This is another thing the Fraudkerts can’t understand. He believes everything that has linear momentum also has angular momentum, because the equation can be solved!
Those were the days:
[GG] If the cannonball does indeed rotate about an external axis
[T] But it does not rotate about that axis
[GG] 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!
[GG] 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.
[GG] 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.
[GG] 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.
[GG] 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?
[GG] Think what you want. Orbital motion without axial rotation is as per the MOTL.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-879002
Those were the days.
Yes, it would have been clearer if I’d just said gravity does not need to be a rigid connection, "period", as they say. Tim got himself all confused about what I meant. Oh well.
“… understands that it is possible to determine if a wheel is rotating on an axle, but he cant understand an orange can rotate on a pencil.”
Could you miss the point any more badly? Your original claim was “The pencil is now an “axis”.” This is as wrong now as it was at the beginning. An axis is a 1D line, The pencil is not 1D. Therefore the pencil is not an axis.
——————————
But let’s reframe this is a way you can understand. Take that pencil and mount it vertically on an x-y plotter. (like this, that has a similar vertical post. https://content.instructables.com/F6T/C6SS/HLSH97EV/F6TC6SSHLSH97EV.jpg). Put a dot on the post/pencil on the side facing us in the picture. Put the orange on it.
The pencil, fastened to the plotter, is not rotating. The orange is attached to the pencil, so it is also not rotating.
Program that plotter to move side to side; both the pencil and the orange are moving, but neither the pencil nor the orange is rotating.
Program that plotter to move along a square; both the pencil and the orange are moving, but neither the pencil nor the orange is rotating.
Program that plotter to move along a circle; both the pencil and the orange are moving, but neither the pencil nor the orange is rotating.
And that last case is ‘the moon on the right’.
Tim, hold a camera at arm’s length, and turn around on the spot. The camera is "orbiting" you, but not "rotating on its own axis". Now, as you are turning around, rotate the camera on its own axis so that you can take a steady picture of something fixed on the wall. The camera will be "rotating on its own axis", in the opposite direction to the "orbital motion", in order to move like the "moon on the right".
Tim,
Instead of falling for the CSA truther trick, hold the same camera, but with a hand stand that has a small rotating plate on it, like a Lazy Susan.
That way, when you rotate, the camera does not rotate with you.
Think of what the camera would need to keep turning with you.
Some call it spin.
No tricks, just an explanation of the "Non-Spinner" interpretation. We all get the "Spinner" interpretation, no need to keep pushing that.
[GRAHAM] We all get the Spinner position.
[ALSO GRAHAM] Gravity does not need to be rigid *period*.
No contradiction there, then.
🤦
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Clint R,
Now revolve the orange around another object holding the pencil such that it does not rotate and the face you drew on the orange continuously faces that other object.
If you do it correctly you will notice the orange rotating around the pencil.
All will be revealed.
Wrong again, bob.
If you’re trying to represent orbiting, you would hold the pencil in front of you as you walked in an orbit around some object. The same side of the orange would be facing the object.
But, at least you now seem to understand “axial rotation”, which was the purpose of the orange/pencil example. Maybe you can explain it to fraudkerts. He’s STILL confused….
Clint R,
The point is to hold the pencil so it keeps its orientation fixed on a point somewhere.
We are not representing orbiting by holding the pencil in any fashion, we are holding the pencil to keep it from rotating.
You don’t understand the experimental conditions, so you get the wrong answer.
Try holding a baseball in your hand firmly and do not allow it to move relative to your hand, and revolve it around a basketball three times keeping one face of the baseball towards the basketball at all times.
If you don’t break your arm you win and are correct, however I hope you have good insurance.
https://youtu.be/ey1dSUfmjBw
I found that video for you DR EMPTY.
He makes a bunch of mistakes, he is not to be trusted.
It is a simple and correct demonstration of the motions involved.
Have you noticed how the CSA truther hide the pea right from the start, Bob?
Sigh.
Please, maybe someone, who really thinks our Moon rotates, maybe he can tell us which direction our Moon rotates?
Does the Moon rotate clockwise, or it rotates counterclockwise?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Why not to ask in Google?
https://tinyurl.com/4v6xs7ne
Looking at the Earth/Moon system from above Earth’s North Pole, the Moon revolves 13 degrees per day anticlockwise around its orbit and rotates 13 degrees anticlockwise on its axis.
The astronomical convention is that if you look down along the axis of rotation of a moon, planet of star and you see anticlockwise rotation, you are above the North Pole. If you see clockwise rotation you are above the South Pole.
This defines the coordinate system of latitude and longitude, so at the Equator East is the direction of rotation.
If you look down on the Solar System from a position well above the North Pole of the Sun most of the planets revolve and rotate anticlockwise. IIRC this is because the original revolution of the cloud which formed the Solar system was retained in the orbits of the objects which formed and in their rotation. The details are above my pay grade, to do with conservation of angular momentum.
There are two large exceptions. Uranus’ axis is parallel to its orbital plane. Venus orbits anticlockwise and rotates clockwise.
EM,
The details are probably not above your pay grade, and anyone who uses that excuse is either ignorant, or averse to the truth, which is that they don’t know.
Some researchers, at least, admit what they don’t know. A tidbit from a paper about the Moon –
“These unknown resonance periods determine which mantle orientation and rotation terms are more strongly perturbed by the inner core and hence which terms are potentially observable by LLR. Inner core effects are likely subtle and depend on a number of currently unknown parameters including inner and outer core moments, inner core gravity coefficients, and mantle inward gravity coefficients.”
Enough unknowns and maybes there to keep any truly curious person looking for answers.
And so knowledge accumulates, by acknowledging that “the science” is not “settled”. There are many competing hypotheses for the formation of the solar system, none of them entirely satisfactory, so the matter is obviously above everyones’ “pay grade”.
Your speculations are as valid as anyone else’s.
Does a spacecraft orbiting Moon poleward “see” Moon’s rotation? Does that spacecraft alternate (because of Moon’s rotation) the Moon’s meridians?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Does a spacecraft orbiting Moon poleward see Moons rotation?
Yes it does. The plane of the spacecraft orbit remains stationary relative to the inertial reference frame while the Moon rotates beneath it. As a result of the Moon’s rotation the spacecraft cameras photograph a strip of the Moon’s surface offset to the West relative to the previous orbit.
The plane of the spacecraft orbit remains stationary relative to the inertial reference frame while the moon changes its orientation due to its “orbital motion without axial rotation” beneath it. As a result of the moon’s “orbital motion without axial rotation” the spacecraft cameras photograph a strip of the moon’s surface offset to the West relative to the previous orbit.
Ie. it rotates.
…but not on its own axis.
Yes, Christos.
From a satellite within its orbit you can see the Moon spin as fast as Gaslighting Graham tries to redefine this spin as non-spin, reducing physics to geometry along the way.
I’m redefining nothing, Little Willy. Just pointing out that observations from such satellites do not resolve the issue.
[GRAHAM] I’m redefining nothing.
[ALSO GRAHAM] *Repeats “Orbital motion without axial rotation” more than 30 times in a thread about Calgary weather stations.
Just pointing out that observations from such satellites do not resolve the issue.
Let me correct that for you
observations resolve the issue.
And not in your favor.
Wrong…and you’re supposed to be gone for 90 days. Why are you still here?
Only after Clint R proves the Moon does not rotate.
He hasn’t done that yet, and neither have you.
No, bob, the deal is, you go away for 90 days, then Clint R does his thing.
No DR EMPTY,
That wasn’t the deal.
The deal is I would leave for 90 days, after Clint R proves the Moon doesn’t rotate on its axis.
I’ll offer you the same deal.
…bob, the deal is, you go away for 90 days, then Clint R does his thing.
Of course it wasn’t the deal, Bob.
Gaslighting Graham is earning his nick once again.
…the deal is, you go away for 90 days, then Clint R does his thing.
Then Clint R gets his cake but doesn’t have to pay for it.
Not at all, we all get to benefit from a bad person being absent from this blog for 90 days, then when that bad person finally returns, the bad person gets to learn something for a change. Everyone’s a winner!
Of course Pup cannot carry his weight in Moonball, Bob.
He cannot on the Climateball either!
Just pointing out that observations from such satellites do not resolve the issue.
Here is the actual deal
“If youre serious about wanting to see the science that refutes the lunar rotation nonsense, and verifies that Moon does NOT rotate, are you willing to stop commenting here for 90 days?”
Yes I am willing to stop commenting for 90 days if Clint R verifies that the Moon does not rotate.
I am not from Missouri, but that’s where I am, the show me state.
Since you can tell its rotating by looking at it, I don’t think Clint R has a chance.
…and then he clarified that your 90 days comes first.
So he changed the deal after I agreed to it.
So he knows he’s lost.
Let’s see his proof anyway.
Should be good for a laugh.
No, he clarified that your 90 days came first, after you agreed. Off you go, for 90 days, now.
That wasn’t in the deal.
Clint R doesn’t have the goods anyway.
Astrologers tarot cards say so.
Well, the deal is just the exchange – you leave the blog for 90 days, Clint R does his thing. Who goes first is always going to be a point of contention, I suppose.
Meet me in the middle, says the gaslighting man.
Bob takes a step forward, the gaslighting man steps back.
Meet me in the middle, says the gaslighting man.
Lol, I don’t think bob ever intends to meet anyone in the middle.
DR EMPTY,
There’s no pig in your poke.
OK, bob.
Bob wins again.
I’ll up my price, I’ll give you 100 US dollars, or pounds, or Euros if you can prove the Moon does not rotate on its axis.
No, bob. When I say, "OK, bob", you don’t win anything. It just means I acknowledge receipt of your comment, and that there’s no point in talking to you any further.
Alright then,
I’ll make it a thousand pounds, dollars, or Euros to anyone who can prove the Moon doesn’t rotate.
Get bob’s money, it should be easy peasy.
#2
OK, bob.
OK, my final offer,
!000 dollars, Euros, or pounds, and my electric guitar.
Costs nothing if you lose.
Should be easy, you don’t even have to put your money where your mouth is.
Just win bobs money!
No point, there’s nothing I could say that will ever convince you, as your mind is completely closed on the matter. I can’t even convince you that rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion like the "moon on the left"…even though I’m obviously right about that, and even many of your fellow "Spinners" agree. If you finally agree I’m correct on that, then maybe I would take you up on your offer.
I just think it’s a shame you’re not going to take Clint R up on his offer. I would have liked to have known what he was going to say.
DR EMPTY,
” I cant even convince you that rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion like the “moon on the left”even though Im obviously right about that, and even many of your fellow “Spinners” agree.”
If you were obviously right, you would be able to prove it, and you would be richer and have another nice guitar.
It’s not about convincing me, it’s about proving your case.
You are not even trying to prove your case.
bob, the separate, but related, issue of "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" being motion like the "moon on the left" does not even resolve the moon issue. It’s just one tiny piece of the puzzle, that you should be able to accept, but can’t. It’s really quite unbelievable that you still don’t accept it.
DR EMPTY,
The reason I don’t accept it is that the Moon is rotating on an internal axis.
I will say most if not all Astronomers agree with me.
Now you could try to prove your case, instead of wondering why I don’t agree with you.
As I literally just said, the separate, but related, issue of "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" being motion like the "moon on the left" does not even resolve the moon issue.
DR EMPTY,
The Moon rotation issue is already resolved, since the times of Newton and Cassini.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassini%27s_laws
Sorry you are so late to the party.
I’m not talking about the moon rotation issue. What’s wrong with you?
That’s the only issue under discussion.
What did you think we were discussing?
Stop trolling
“Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”.
DR EMPTY,
Right, that’s Cassini’s law #1.
“The Moon has a 1:1 spinorbit resonance. This means that the rotationorbit ratio of the Moon is such that the same side of it always faces the Earth.”
That’s what you call orbital motion without axial rotation.
That issue has been settled for over 300 years, are you always so late to parties?
No, bob, try to get it through your thick head. I’m not talking about the moon. I was talking about "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis".
DR EMPTY,
You just said
“As I literally just said, the separate, but related, issue of “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” being motion like the “moon on the left” does not even resolve the moon issue.”
You lost the argument and are resorting to lying.
Stop trolling and stop lying.
I’m not lying, bob. It’s a separate issue, but it’s related, sure. I’m not talking about the moon issue, I’m talking about "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 motion like the "moon on the left". This remains true, regardless of whether or not the moon rotates on its own axis. So, I don’t need to discuss the moon to discuss "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis".
OK?
So who is right?
Cassini and Newton?
or DR EMPTY?
Those are not the options, bob.
It’s nothing to do with Cassini or Newton. Though both would no doubt have accepted that "rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis" is motion like the "moon on the left", since that’s just a fact about rotation that anyone can test for themselves, using an online transmographer.
DR EMPTY,
Except both would agree that the Moon on the left is rotating on its axis, that’s actually what Cassini’s first law says.
You can program an online transmogrifier to model either the Moon on the left or the Moon on the right, so that doesn’t resolve the issue, but knowing how the thing is programmed does.
…but we’re not talking about the moon, bob. We’re talking about "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis".
Using the online transmographer, you can rotate an object about point 0,0, forty-five degrees at a time (for example). In one single motion, the object moves like the "moon on the left". You can rotate the object about its own internal axis using a separate function.
Nope DR EMPTY,
That’s an external rotation plus a rotation about an internal axis.
Check under the hood for the actual calculations.
"That’s an external rotation plus a rotation about an internal axis"
Incorrect, as the transmographer proves beyond any doubt.
I doubt it.
See what I did there.
Your transmogrifier can model both the Moon on the right and the Moon on the left, so it adds nothing.
I mean you got nothin.
The transmographer proves me correct, and that settles this issue in my favour. This message will be repeated until it’s the last word on this sub-thread.
The transmogrifier proves me correct, and that settles this issue in my favor. This message will be repeated until its the last word on this sub-thread.
Now you’re just lying, bob.
The transmogrifier proves me correct, and that settles this issue in my favor. This message will be repeated until its the lastest word on this sub-thread.
OK, bob, carry on lying. I can say the following, and I know it’s true:
The transmographer proves me correct, and that settles this issue in my favour. This message will be repeated until it’s the last word on this sub-thread.
The transmogrifier proves me correct, and that settles this issue in my favor. This message will be repeated until its the lastest word on this suck-thread.
Keep on lying, bob…anyone reading can just go and use an online transmographer and see that you are lying.
The transmographer proves me correct, and that settles this issue in my favour. This message will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread.
DR EMPTY,
Have some Cake. A song about a guy who doesn’t know he has lost.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yxthhkub89c
The transmogrifier can show both the Moon on the left and the Moon on the right, so no it doesn’t resolve the issue.
The Moon rotates on its axis, this has been known for some 300 years, how come you are so late to the party.
Anyone can just go and see for themselves that I am correct, bob…and we are not talking about the moon, remember?
The transmographer proves me correct, and that settles this issue in my favour. This message will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread.
DR EMPTY,
It’s always and only about the Moon, which is rotating on its axis.
Your transmogrifier is just a red herring and doesn’t resolve the issue either way.
Why do you have such a hard time telling if something is rotating or not.
It’s not about the moon, it’s about "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis".
The transmographer proves me correct, and that settles this issue in my favour. This message will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread.
The transmogrifier can model both an external rotation with no internal rotation, and an eternal rotation with an internal rotation.
You just have to be smart enough to tell which one is rotating on an internal axis.
DR EMPTY is not that smart.
Anyone can check for themselves, bob, that I am correct. You’ve lost this one, and have done for quite some time now.
The transmographer proves me correct, and that settles this issue in my favour. This message will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread.
Too bad you are not smart enough to tell if something is rotating or not, and think you have won, when you have lost.
You’ve lost, bob.
The transmographer proves me correct, and that settles this issue in my favour. This message will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread.
Maybe the discussion about the lunar spin ends if Orion manages to make a longer series of pictures proving that the motion of a crater on the Moon is not due to Moon’s orbiting.
But I’m not sure it will really end.
Some take denial to such an extreme that nothing deters them from their opinionated attitude.
You’re not suggesting NASA fake some videos, are you Bin?
Quite right, Binny:
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003400/a003453/lro_track_month.mp4
Absolutely NOTHING will ever convince Moon Dragon cranks.
Willard
LRO isn’t the right guy.
You need distance allowing you to observe the spin, the orbit and a fixed point in space all together.
LRO comes from a full-fledged frame of reference, Binny:
https://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/library/LunCoordWhitePaper-10-08.pdf
One does not simply “observe” a fixed point in space, btw.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“One does not simply observe a fixed point in space, btw.”
But One obviously tries to imply intelligence through obscurity.
Oh dear Willy, what happens if nobody values your opinions?
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote
One does not simply “observe” a fixed point in space, btw.
But One obviously tries to imply intelligence through obscurity.
Oh dear Willy, what happens if nobody values your opinions?
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“One does not simply observe a fixed point in space, btw.”
But One obviously tries to imply intelligence through obscurity.
Oh dear Willy, what happens if nobody values your opinions?
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“One does not simply observe a fixed point in space, btw.”
But One obviously tries to imply intelligence through obscurity.
Oh dear Willy, what happens if nobody values your opinions?
Keep on avoiding and trolling.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote
One does not simply observe a fixed point in space, btw.
Another unsubstantiated claim?
But One obviously tries to imply intelligence through obscurity.
Oh dear Willy, what happens if nobody values your opinions?
Keep on avoiding and trolling.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
willard…”LRO comes from a full-fledged frame of reference….”
***
In the pdf at your link, they define the Prime Meridian as a line of longitude always facing Earth. In other words, if you draw a radial line from Earth’s centre to the lunar centre, the PM is the line of longitude intercepting that radial line at the near face.
Here’s your mission Willard. Given a setup where that radial line intercepts the near face at the PM, and the Moon is supposed to rotate through 360 degrees, explain how that is possible while keeping that reference frame intact.
NASA, in their stupidity, shuffles that issue off as tidal-locking. That means to them that the Moon rotates exactly once per orbit. However, true tidal locking, if it exists, would mean the Moon was locked to Earth’s rotation. It would have to orbit in the same time as the Earth rotates. Otherwise, there is no locking.
The truth is, tidal forces are far too weak to lock anything. The tidal force presented by the Moon on Earth can raise the oceans about 1 metre at maximum and the solid surface about 1 cm. There is no way such a relatively weak tidal force on the Moon by Earth could affect its rotational momentum to the extent it would cause it to rotate once per orbit.
NASA reveals the answer but for some reason are far too obtuse to see it. The fact that the PM is always aligned with a radial line from Earth to Moon tells us that all points along that radial line within the Moon are moving in parallel. That is, they are moving along concentric circles. Such motion cannot allow for rotation about an axis at the same time.
C’mon, Gordo.
There are two different reference systems in play.
If you want to entertain some conspiracies, you’ll have to do that all by yourself, like everything else.
Wandering Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Cmon, Gordo.
There are two different reference systems in play.
If you want to entertain some conspiracies, youll have to do that all by yourself, like everything else.”
What are you babbling about, fool? Conspiracies? Really?
willard…”There are two different reference systems in play”.
***
Pewww!!! Do I smell a stinky red-herring?
C’mon, Gordo.
You can smell whatever you please.
Please stop using concepts you do not master very well.
Willard
You misunderstood me.
I was talking about a proof convincing deniers.
For me, LRO is just one little brick more in the proof wall.
Bindidon,
Willard is seeking to be appointed as “Misunderstander in Chief” on this blog.
He appreciates your assistance.
Please supply something else for him to misunderstand , at your earliest convenience.
binny…”For me, LRO is just one little brick more in the proof wall”.
***
For you, Binny, it’s just one more scientific concept you fail to understand. Count your ally Willard in on that.
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) spent the first three years of its mission in a low circular polar orbit. During this phase it completed one polar orbit in a little less than two hours.
The orientation of this orbit remained fixed in space, relative to the stars, while the Moon slowly spins on its axis beneath it as they travel together around the Earth, allowing LRO to scan the entire surface of the Moon every two weeks.
LRO’s ground track showing the path of this orbit on the surface of the Moon: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio.
:…while the Moon slowly spins on its axis beneath it…”
TM, is that reality? Is Moon actually spinning on its axis, like Earth does? Or is the illusion due to Moon’s orbit?
The answer comes from understanding what “orbital motion without axial rotation” is.
The only REALITY is you doing the Pole Dance Experiment, Pup.
Meanwhile, please stop trolling.
The reality is that because LRO’s orbit around the Moon is fixed wrt the stars, we can see all its “sides” as the pair orbits Earth.
Twice a month LRO’s complete orbit is face-on to the Earth; NASA performs stationkeeping maneuvers then because the space craft is in ground station contact throughout the operation.
That’s correct TM. Because the LRO is orbiting Moon, it sees all sides of it. Then the photos/videos are morphed into one video that makes it appear Moon is rotating.
There’s nothing wrong with that, if NASA clearly stated what they were doing. But, NASA’s agenda does not include science and reality.
> Because the LRO is orbiting Moon, it sees all sides of it.
🤦
I think Willard only thinks he gets it.
On the contrary, Bill.
I think only Graham really believes in Moon Dragon crap.
The other ones, like you, are pure lulzing trolls.
Yep I was right again!
I’ve actually gone out of my way to give "Spinners" a possible route to victory recently, but they’ve refused to take it.
Oh well.
Yeah Right,
In football, it’s 16 nil.
In American football it’s 73 – 0.
In match play golf, you are dormie on the 10th tee.
I tried to help you guys, but you blew it. Oh well.
We don’t need your stinking help.
We got the right answer, you didn’t.
You flunk science, I have a science degree.
I tried to assist, but you all insisted to resist.
The never ending flat moon circular debate
https://i.postimg.cc/brsTScRP/think-tank.png
That’s not circular, Eboy.
Here’s circular:
Forgot the link:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/canadian-summer-urban-heat-island-effects-some-results-in-alberta/#comment-1404786
Willard,
You wrote –
“Forgot the link:”
At least you forgot something irrelevant, pointless, and of supreme indifference to eight billion people.
Try to forget something of value next time.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Willard,
You wrote
Forgot the link:
At least you forgot something irrelevant, pointless, and of supreme indifference to eight billion people.
Try to forget something of value next time.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about ?
Wandering Wee Willy,
Having trouble with comprehension today? Don’t blame me.
You wrote –
Forgot the link:
At least you forgot something irrelevant, pointless, and of supreme indifference to eight billion people.
Try to forget something of value next time.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about ?
Wandering Wee Willy,
Having trouble with comprehension today? Dont blame me.
You wrote
Forgot the link:
At least you forgot something irrelevant, pointless, and of supreme indifference to eight billion people.
Try to forget something of value next time.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I should label those three pictured ass debaters with name tags
ClintaRd Willtard and DREMTard
Also kind of like you and Bindidon.
Eben,
Don’t just think it, do it!
Sing out if anybody’s care meter gets off the zero peg.
The SkyDragons have given up on the GHE, CO2 causing heating, and all the rest of the nonsense about mankind’s imminent demise due to fossil fuel use.
In typical fashion, they have lurched off into a diversion about something completely irrelevant – well, almost so.
Here’s something interesting from NASA –
“The early-forming molten Moon would mainly cool by radiation into space, while the Earth-facing side would be heated by Earth (Ransford & Sjogren 1972). The Suns heat would also heat the outer layers but would be lost during the lunar night.”
In relation to the Earth, the same physics applies. The outer layer of the Earth happens to be gaseous atmosphere, rather than lunar regolith, but the laws of thermodynamics don’t care.
NASA acknowledges that all of the Sun’s heat of the day is lost during the night, and the Moon, like the Earth, has cooled since its formation.
I don’t blame SkyDragon cultists for abandoning their mad GHE beliefs, and finding a new “popular delusion” to promote. Good luck to them.
willard…I am wondering if you are as stupid as you appear to be? The first thing you should have asked re your post showing the Moon rotating is where is the picture being taken from?
The site is about the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) and that should give you a hint. The other hint is that the site features SIMULATIONS’.
Here’s another hint. Suppose the LRO was suspended over the Moon, photographing the near face. That would put it between the Moon and Earth through the entire orbit. If you spinners are right, the Moon is rotating under the LRO camera. It has to be since the LRO and its camera is permanently located between the Moon’s near face and the Earth.
The LRO’s camera is independent of lunar motion since it is oriented wrt the stars using a gyro. Of course, you spinners will claim the LRO is rotating about its COG at the same time. None of you can think clearly.
Of course, it is orbiting the Moon. How then, could it photograph a rotating Moon? No way. What you are seeing is relative motion. In other words, the Moon is not spinning and we are seeing the relative motion of the LRO.
The reply above was meant to appear in an earlier thread but appeared down here for some reason. It’s a reference to a link by Willard…
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003400/a003453/lro_track_month.mp4
C’mon, Gordo.
What “picture”?
Try to read first:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Reconnaissance_Orbiter
Think, then try to pull my leg using less useless words.
C’mon Willard,
You do realise that the LRO is orbiting the Moon, don’t you?
NASA “movies” showing the Moon apparently rotating from an apparent fixed point are just a wee bit deceptive. It is just as easy (possibly easier, given a polar orbit) to show the Moon tumbling end over end.
C’mon Willard, use what remains of your brain. Not easy for you, I know. You must be worn out from your efforts trying to find a description of the GHE. I understand why you have moved on to being delusional the motions of celestial bodies.
Do you think they are important to the general population? I don’t, but maybe I’m wrong – maybe you can write a list of people who care what you think about the Moon.
Off you go, then. Give it a try and report back.
As I said, Willard, you have problems with logic. The site from which your mp4 video is linked is a site featuring simulations. You seem to be under the delusion that the simulation of the Moon rotating was taken by the LRO in real time.
I asked you to explain how that is possible but obviously you can’t. You seem satisfied with presenting a simulation from an authority figure while being unable to explain how it works.
C’mon, Gordo.
A movie is a series of pictures.
Here is my own source for the same movie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVriF4-z3cE
What you’re looking at is the full spin of the Moon as seen by NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.
You’re a crank.
Willard,
You might have noticed that the movie has been created to appear as though the Moon has been observed from a position between the Moon and the Sun, keeping full sunlight on the Moon at all times.
Impossible, as the Sun sets and rises on the Moon (even though the Moon is falling towards the Earth, rather than the Sun).
The LRO also orbits in a roughly polar orbit, and is periodically in darkness. No pictures of a sunlit surface in the absence of sunlight.
Your movie is a selective composite of data, put together in such a way as to make an imaginary depiction appear as though it was reality – which it obviously is not.
Feel free to believe whatever you like.
swenson…good summary.
In fact there are satellites at L1 which could have made such a continuous record. record, but making it as a composite of LRO data gives better resolution.
Mike Flynn,
Until we are able to tap in the continuum, we will continue to compose movies using images.
Thank you for you concerns.
” … put together in such a way as to make an imaginary depiction appear as though it was reality which it obviously is not. ”
*
Oh what a condescending, subtle mix of arrogance and ignorance!
Flynnson, why can’t you just think for a while before you start your usual babble?
*
Although possibly (!) not all parts of the Moon may be photographed in a single, continuous observation period: how is it possible to think that in ~327 LRO orbits during Moon’s orbiting time around Earth, you couldn’t obtain a continuous sequence of what LRO can see during sunlit phases, showing a Moon rotating about its polar axis during half its orbiting time?
It’s quite simple. To doubt about that, you have to deny Moon’s rotation anyway.
*
I agree upon a point: in their will to show us the entire rotating lunar surface by using a synthesis of timely discontinuous segments – an incredible lot of work, by the way:
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/posts/707
NASA has naively underestimated the amount of visceral doubt and willful denial that people like you, Robertson, Clint R, the Pseudomod, Hunter and a few others can inhabit.
Anyone thinking the LRO could possibly settle the issue either way proves that they do not understand the issue in the first place. Always funny to see. Thanks.
Imagine the number of pixels to consider, Binny!
Almost as much as the number of comments from our Moon Dragon cranks!
Always funny to see. Thanks.
Here’s a high resolution, Binny:
http://www.lroc.asu.edu/data/support/videos/lroc_wac643nm_Moon_rotation.mov
Perhaps not as high as the resolution from our Moon Dragon cranks, and perhaps less amusing to Gaslighting Graham, but still impressive.
Bindidon admits: “…an incredible lot of work, by the way”
Yes Bin, it takes a lot of effort to pervert reality. If Moon really rotated, we would see that from Earth — no LRO and special video editing needed.
It would be so easy for you to do the Pole Dance Experiment, Pup.
Please let go of the post hoc fallacy, and stop trolling.
…funny to see. Thanks.
” If Moon really rotated, we would see that from Earth ”
We do. From the Earth’s surface we see the Moon revolving 13 degrees per day along its orbit and rotating 13 degrees per day to keep the same face towards us.
Only if "orbital motion without axial rotation" is motion like the "moon on the right", Ent.
DREMT
You use the phrase “orbital motion without axial rotation” but it has no physical meaning.
You are like Liam Gallagher. To change a light bulb he stood on a chair, held up the bulb and the universe revolved around him.
Yes, I use the phrase, and the meaning is spectacularly obvious. I already asked you the question, once, how does an object that is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis, remain oriented? Is it like the "moon on the left", or the "moon on the right"? You eventually replied (once you’d worked out what I was asking you) that you believe it would move like the "moon on the right" (always keeping one face oriented towards a distant star).
So, you believe "orbital motion without axial rotation" is motion like the "moon on the right". You have to, in order for your belief that the moon is rotating on its own axis to make any sense.
” Anyone thinking the LRO could possibly settle the issue either way proves that they do not understand the issue in the first place. Always funny to see. Thanks. ”
I would say it’s much more funny to see deniers lacking any science but trying to compete with the work of scientists, and proudly speaking about others who allegedly ‘do not understand the issue in the first place’.
Ball-on-a-string, MGR, coins, curvilinear translation,MOTL/MOTR…
How poor is all that.
I’m sorry for your failure, but happy with my success.
Swenson,
This is a good one:
“Sun sets and rises on the Moon”
So the Moon rotates on its axis with respect to the Sun.
That’s what I thought, and was taught in eighth grade.
No, bob, the moon "orbits".
bob the bumbler wrote –
“Swenson,
This is a good one:
“Sun sets and rises on the Moon
So the Moon rotates on its axis with respect to the Sun.
Thats what I thought, and was taught in eighth grade.”
Well, I suppose if the Moon is viewed from beyond its orbit, and you define apparent rotation about its axis as being able to see all sides of the Moon over a period, then yes.
However, with respect to the view from within the Moon’s orbit, from the Earth, your eighth grade teacher was as clueless as you. Either that, or you were too stupid to comprehend what he said.
Which was it?
Bindidon says:
”Its quite simple. To doubt about that, you have to deny Moons rotation anyway.”
——————————–
Bindidon take a chill pill! Nobody is saying the moon doesn’t rotate! It rotates around the earth! It even has a lot angular momentum! Over 1,200 times as much angular momentum made up of rotational inertia and rotational velocity that if the moon rotated on its own axis.
Swenson,
My eighth grade teacher at least was able to take it when I told her she was wrong when I corrected her when she claimed the Moon doesn’t rotate, because it keeps the same face towards the earth.
I told her that’s what the textbook said and that was good enough for her.
Looks like you are neither smarter than an eighth grader nor an eighth grade science teacher.
You got that working for you.
DR EMPTY,
“No, bob, the moon “orbits”.”
I thought you said the Moon rotates about an external axis.
This has been settled since some astrologers put down their tarot cards and peered through some telescopes more than 300 years ago.
And not in the non-spinners favor.
[DREMT] No, bob, the moon “orbits”.
[BOB] I thought you said the Moon rotates about an external axis.
[DREMT] Yes, same thing.
[WIKI] To a close approximation, planets and satellites follow elliptic orbits, with the center of mass being orbited at a focal point of the ellipse, as described by Kepler’s laws of planetary motion.
[ALSO WIKI] A non-circular gear (NCG) is a special gear design with special characteristics and purpose. While a regular gear is optimized to transmit torque to another engaged member with minimum noise and wear and with maximum efficiency, a non-circular gear’s main objective might be ratio variations, axle displacement oscillations and more.
[ALSO WIKI] 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.
[WIKI, SAME PAGE, FIRST SENTENCE] Rotation, or spin, is the circular movement of an object around a central axis.
[ALSO WIKI, IN A RELATED PAGE] In mathematics, an ellipse is a plane curve surrounding two focal points, such that for all points on the curve, the sum of the two distances to the focal points is a constant. It generalizes a circle, which is the special type of ellipse in which the two focal points are the same.
[NEVERTHELESS, ALSO WIKI] 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.
[VERY SAME WIKI PAGE] In astronomy, rotation is a commonly observed phenomenon. Stars, planets and similar bodies all spin around on their axes.
[ONCE AGAIN, ALSO WIKI] 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.
[MOAR OF THE SAME WIKI PAGE] The laws of physics are currently believed to be invariant under any fixed rotation. (Although they do appear to change when viewed from a rotating viewpoint: see rotating frame of reference.)
Willard stands erect on the deck of the operating merry-go-round and once again proclaims that the horse isn’t rotating.
Bill is oblivious to the fact that a pure rotation only obtains in a circle.
I am not talking about ”pure” rotations Willard.
I am talking about ordinary run of the mill generic rotations with specifically assigned values for angular momentum to them. Angular momentum of the moon is approximately 2.9×10^34 kg.m^2/s.
If you have to resort to hairsplitting don’t you think life would be more interesting it you did something different?
What you call an ordinary rotation is actually complex. I think your Holy Madhavi had a name for it. General motion she calls it, right? That motion involves both rotation and translation. Which means that there is no reason in principle to prefer a model that would posit a non-spinning Moon. It would ne be simpler. Far from it in fact for it would require we revise physics.
Oh, and Graham and Pup claim (argue would be incorrect) that the Moon has no angular momentum. Where does your quantity come from?
The moon has no "spin" angular momentum. Bill was talking about "orbital" angular momentum.
As to the question of "orbital" angular momentum, I remain completely open-minded. I’ve just been looking at the different arguments presented over the years, and seeing what adds up. Still haven’t decided.
One thing I would note is, angular momentum is "the rotational analog of linear momentum". That would imply that "orbit without spin" would have to be a "rotation about an external axis" for there to be such a concept as "orbital angular momentum" in the first place.
Which of course would settle the issue in the "Non-Spinners" favour.
Gaslighting Graham and his hairsplitting to the rescue!
Too bad he missed what Bill just said about it.
That he forgot to check what Bill said of the Moon momenta first is only par for the course.
Little Willy pleasures himself into a frenzy over his imaginings of what I’ve said vs. what Bill has said.
[BILL] But in trying to make that the real rotation of the
[M]oon you are ignoring 99.9992% of the [M]oon’s angular momentum around the [E]arth in favor of .0008% of it.
[ALSO BILL] the 99.9992% of the total angular momentum of the [M]oon orbiting the [E]arth does not comprise a rotation and only rotations have angular momentum.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] The [M]oon has no spin angular momentum
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] pleasures himself into a frenzy over his imaginings of what I’ve said vs. what Bill has said.
If Bill thinks the moon has actual "spin" angular momentum then Bill thinks the moon rotates on its own axis. Since I know Bill doesn’t think the moon rotates on its own axis, I assume he doesn’t think the moon has actual "spin" angular momentum.
"Orbital" angular momentum is a different case altogether.
To be continued:
https://tinyurl.com/dragon-cranks-honey-trap#comment-1406566
Why not just wait for Bill to clarify what he means?
orbital angular momentum isn’t a real angular momentum.
it is just a conceptual element of any angular momentum around an external axis. spin angular momentum can be both real and unreal. what it is is dependent upon whether the axis of rotation is internal or external.
“orbital angular momentum isn’t a real angular momentum.
it is just a conceptual element…”
Spoken like a true accountant. Stay in your lane auditor boy.
http://eagle.phys.utk.edu/guidry/astro217/lecturePDF/3_CelestialMechanics.pdf
the job of an auditor is to FIND and call out BS where it exists. This one a third grader should be able to find since it is based upon an orbiting POINT MASS. there is nothing known in the universe with a mass without any dimensions. so how can it be an orbiting moon with a zero diameter? answer that smart physics boy!
An accountant “auditing” physics. Laughable!
The moon’s angular momentum with respect to its own axis is 2.3610^29 (0.0008%).
The moon’s angular momentum with respect to the Earth is 2.8710^34 (99.9992%).
Like I said, stay in your lane!
I’m no accountant, but it seems to me that an auditor opining on angular momentum violates the Code of Professional Conduct:
AICPA Code of Professional Conduct and Bylaws.
you might have a point if you can establish a point mass as a real object.
but a typical 8 year old has more physics sense than you do and would understand there is no such thing.
auditors don’t need a degree or be an expert in a field. they just need enough common sense and enough math to determine what comprises evidence. so if you have some evidence that i am wrong this would be the time to produce it rather than just sitting there jacking off.
“…if you have some evidence that i am wrong this would be the time to produce it…”
Anybody who has sat through introductory physics has had to derive equations for angular momentum. The brute force approach consists of the basic form of the moment of inertia:
I = Σ mxr^2
where r is the distance to any particle in the object from the axis of symmetry. And of course angular momentum is the product of the moment of inertia and angular velocity.
Why would a point mass not be a real object? Are molecules real? Atoms? Elementary particles?
You may be right that “auditors don’t need a degree or be an expert in a field.” But not in physics or any of the sciences for that matter.
“Each member is responsible for assessing his or her own competence-of evaluating whether education, experience, and judgment are adequate for the responsibility to be assumed.”
Well, that explains Bill!
Maybe the Auditing Code needs a rethink.
“The Dunning-Kruger effect occurs when a person’s lack of knowledge and skills in a certain area cause them to overestimate their own competence.”
Bill does not always find imaginary things, but when he does he can find 0.0008% of it.
“One thing I would note is, angular momentum is ‘the rotational analog of linear momentum’.
One thing to note is that in real physics, quantities like angular momentum are defined mathematically, not with a conceptual catch-phrases.
“That would imply that “orbit without spin” would have to be a “rotation about an external axis” for there to be such a concept as “orbital angular momentum” in the first place.”
So again, people are using conceptual catch-phrases, and telling us what those IMPLY, in their uniformed OPINION, which again is contradicted by the actual mathematical definitions use in actual physics.
TYSON MCGUFFIN says:
Anybody who has sat through introductory physics has had to derive equations for angular momentum. The brute force approach consists of the basic form of the moment of inertia:
I = Σ mxr^2
where r is the distance to any particle in the object from the axis of symmetry. And of course angular momentum is the product of the moment of inertia and angular velocity.
Why would a point mass not be a real object? Are molecules real? Atoms? Elementary particles?
———————————-
A point mass is a real concept its not a real object.
I did say an auditor needs to know some math. You are correct in stating the equation of the angular momentum of the moon in orbit is I = Σ mxr^2.
However, Σ mxr^2 does not equal Lorb. It equals Lorb+Lspin. The Σ of mxr^2 for each particle (with each particle having a variable radius) does not equal the Σm times xr^2 (where r is the mean distance)
So yes auditors do need to know some math. Apparently some physicists don’t.
You’re referring to the moment of inertia equation as angular momentum! No offense, but if your don’t know the difference you’re not worth another moment of my time.
I realize that this is embarrassing for you Tyson (and Nate). But don’t run away there is something to learn here for you.
We are talking about your formula for the angular momentum of the moon which you stated was the case and I agreed with.
You said it was Σ mxr^2.
Then you proceeded to use the Lorb equation that omits the Σ (sum) character and calculated a so-called angular momentum of the moon’s mass as a point mass without summing anything at all.
But thats wrong. Σ means something. Σmxr^2 is the sum of the angular momentum of every particle in the moon using its own particular radius (r). The r’s of the particles are distributed evenly around the center of the moon with variable distances representing r’s.
If you know anything about mathematics you should know that the the sum of mean of exponents of a set of data is greater than the square of the mean of the base numbers.
Thus the sum of the particles of the moon represented by Σmxr^2 is always greater than Lorb which is mxr^2 using the sum of the mass of the particles and multiplying it by square of the mean distance of the particles.
The difference between the two numbers for a uniform sphere is equal Lspin.
Thus mxr^2 only applies to particles. Lorb + Lspin is merely a shortcut that applies only to uniform spheres. And as I said Lspin can be either conceptual or real. Lorb is only conceptual.
So go ahead runaway and hide it doesn’t matter to me if you want to learn or not. the auditor here has a solid finding. And it explains why there is no scientific literature defending your point as any real scientist actually understands math.
Bill is determined to stay out of his lane. He crashed his clown car into the median, and now he’s trying to hop over it into the oncoming traffic!
“We are talking about your formula for the angular momentum of the moon which you stated was the case and I agreed with.
You said it was Σ mxr^2.”
What Tyson correctly stated was not that:
“the basic form of the MOMENT OF INERTIA:
I = Σ mxr^2
where r is the distance to any particle in the object from the axis of symmetry. And of course angular momentum is the PRODUCT of the moment of inertia and angular velocity.”
So what you thought he said was wrong, but you agree with the wrong thing anyway!
Let’s summarize:
Auditors who don’t have a degree and are not expert in a field should have enough common sense to refrain from man-splaining the technical stuff to people who actually understand it.
[Bill Hunter at 12:57 PM] “We are talking about your formula for the angular momentum of the moon which you stated was the case and I agreed with.
You said it was Σ mxr^2.”
[Me December 12 at 6:12 AM] the basic form of the moment of inertia:
I = Σ mxr^2</b?
where r is the distance to any particle in the object from the axis of symmetry. And of course angular momentum is the product of the moment of inertia and angular velocity
Let's summarize: You’re just trolling.
p.s.: do you even know the difference between inertia and momentum?
The cyber-bullies continue to do their thing…
TYSON MCGUFFIN says:
”And of course angular momentum is the product of the moment of inertia and angular velocity”
The above statement collapses your argument as your square of r and your ignorance of the importance of the importance of Σ sum sign is baked in regarding the path of particles of an object around an external axis.
As Nate tried to argue the orbit is just linear momentum. FYI: linear momentum is NOT angular momentum. All Nate is doing is assigning values in accordance with the formula rather than recognizing that a rotation on an external axis does have true angular momentum and that it isn’t linear momentum.
So meanwhile you refuse to recognize your argument in defense of Lorb as a true angular momentum is circular.
By defining your terms via the formula you learned by rote in school you believe it to be completely true rather than recognizing that treating the angular momentum of the orbit as linear momentum does not make that the angular momentum of the orbit.
Total angular momentum of a uniform sphere in orbit can be arrived at by adding the angular momentum of the moon spinning on its own axis to linear momentum of the orbit. but thats a totally ignorant and circular argument that both ignores that linear momentum is not angular momentum and that the formula correctly expresses any object rotating on an external axis to be spinning on its own axis instead. Mind boggling as to your actual understanding of the situation.
The correct way to visualize the problem is actually using the Σ sign correctly as the sum of all the angular momentums of each particle in orbit.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp
In reality the angular momentum of the moon is simply Σmvr of all the individual particles of the moon. It will be greater than Lorb.
But I suppose you will deny that. And if you do it will be because you fail to realize that ‘v’ contains another r value that results in the r squared. v = 2*pi*R/Torb and thus Lorb = M*(2*pi*R/Torb)*R= MR2 * 2*pi/Torb.
Notice the absence of the Σ sign. Lorb is calculating too small of an L value for the angular momentum of the moon in orbit for the reasons I previously gave.
So the correct, direct, and most complicated way of calculating the angular momentum of the moon in orbit is Lmooninorb = ΣM*(2*pi*R/Torb)*R for each particle of the moon. . . .leaving Lorb from paragraphs above being linear momentum and not angular momentum and being a smaller value than Lmooninorb.
It is clear to me that that conceptual shortcut of calculating the angular momentum of the moon in orbit gives rise to an unreal angular momentum in Lorb as you cannot avoid the improper treatment of the squaring of r.
It is clear to me that you suffer from Dunning-Kruger.
Bill continues to deny that he has been getting angular momentum wrong.
Dunning Kruger combined with a lack of integrity.
“As Nate tried to argue the orbit is just linear momentum. FYI: linear momentum is NOT angular momentum.”
Sorry Bill, never did that. You continue to be thoroughly confused and trolling. But do quote me saying that if you can.
If you cannot argue with the facts and with what your opponents are actually arguing then its time to quit.
TYSON MCGUFFIN says:
”It is clear to me that you suffer from Dunning-Kruger.”
LOL! Now would be a good time to declare victory for me since you have now gone 100% ad hominem.
But allow me to show you why amateurs should never fuk with professional auditors without hiring a professional to deal with the matter.
So far I have neatly inserted a very sharp knife into the ribs of your argument and you claim not have felt it. That if true would be because of the sharpness of the knife. So let me twist it some and see if that results in any feeling on your part.
First for clarity I will use lower case letters for the physical attributes of particles of the moon and upper case letters for the gross physical attributes of the moon to make the argument easy to follow.
So first the conclusion of the argument will find that your method of estimating the angular momentum understates the actual angular momentum of the moon.
We already know that the sum of squares of the base numbers of a data set is greater than the square of the mean of the base numbers of that data set.
It is for this reason that Σ mvr of the orbiting particles of the moon is greater than MVR or Lorb.
I stated that the difference between Σmvr and MRV included your calculation of Lspin such that Σ mvr= ~Lorb+Lspin. But it includes more than that because your formula for the angular momentum of the alleged spin of the moon on its own axis is also understated for the same reason that Lorb understates the actual angular momentum of the moon in tidal locked orbit.
Namely your formula for Lspin is for a perfectly uniform sphere and we know that the moon is not a perfectly uniform sphere. It is elongated by earth’s gravity and thus it suffers from having particles that have greater variability than does a perfect sphere.
The Σ mvr approach to the overall problem effectively dissects the moon into single particle thick slightly convex disks. This precision actually correctly states the angular momentum of the moon.
Yes your calculation is far simpler but it is also less accurate in all respects because it does not correctly characterize the true angular momentum of the moon such that Σ mvr > Lorb+Lspin.
But don’t feel bad. Typically its only professionals with high levels of experience that end up butting their heads over these issues. The tools and concepts you learn in school are often sufficient to deal with most problems. Its actually the job of auditors to determine when they are not.
As you dive deeper into the substance of the issue you can encounter material discrepancies. The job of an auditor is to do just that and opine on whether the discrepancy is material or not within the context of specific applications.
So I would suggest you surrender because the tools you are adhering to have no chance of improving your argument.
Yes you could start dissecting Lspin down into a more accurate depiction of the moon with single particle thick convex disks and come up with a more precise estimate of the moon’s spin angular momentum but you would still be left with no angular momentum for Lorb beyond a claim that linear momentum is in fact angular momentum. . . .which any physicist should know it isn’t.
All you are doing is hiding the bulk of imprecisions of your methods in Lspin and you so much believe in the conceptual tools you use to simplify problems that you mistake them as reality. I wouldn’t be embarrassed by that as experts also frequently make these kinds of mistakes. Auditors are actually provide valuable services to experts without themselves being experts in the field they are auditing such that the actual practice of auditing becomes a sharing of knowledge between the auditor and the expert.
Sometimes, though very seldom, does it come to loggerheads because of other agendas virtually always held by the expert. Auditors by their independence don’t share in the profits of positive outcomes of the assumptions of experts. They only share in the negative outcomes. So firing the auditor seldom brings relief as it always the obligation of the fired auditor and the new auditor to get together and discuss where and why the conflict existed. What you choose to do of course is your choice as you aren’t required to be audited on this. So you can continue to delude yourself that the conceptual tools you learned in school better depicts reality if you choose to. . . .but you will be wrong.
FYI you now say:
“In reality the angular momentum of the moon is simply Σmvr”
sort of.
It is Σ m rXv, with v and r as vectors and X is cross product.
Do you really not understand that what you were previously saying
“the angular momentum of the moon in orbit is I = Σ mxr^2.”
was not correct?
“The cyber-bullies continue to do their thing”
I see.
We should just accept Bill’s very wrong physics wrapped in his steady stream of ad-homs, and his repeated attempts to man-splain this wrong physics to physicists.
Otherwise we are bullies, according to the chief of the corrupt troll police!
Nate says:
”Do you really not understand that what you were previously saying
”the angular momentum of the moon in orbit is I = Σ mxr^2.”
was not correct?”
—————————-
I misinterpreted what Tyson was saying and took the x to be 2pi/T
Of course I already corrected that above, but you are only ignoring it because you don’t have anything else to complain about and are resisting recognizing what the true and correct angular momentum of the moon is despite being completely lacking in any argument supporting your inculcated views on the matter.
Bill Hunter at 9:54 AM
I don’t know what your problem is.
To summarize:You asked me a question.
And I answered it.
Q.E.D.
glad you brought that up.
First you butted into this thread by telling me to stay in my lane. Only latter did you answer a question about angular momentum by highlighting a formula for moment of inertia. So I read it too quickly, but I already described to Nate above and already detailed to you in a longer post above so why are you hanging on to this irrelevant point?
Unless you actually come up with an argument such as you disagree that the sum of the squares of the base number in a dataset is always greater than the square of the mean base number of that dataset. . . .I will assume you agree that treating the angular momentum of an orbiting body is more accurately described by a formula that sums the angular momentum of every particle in the moon than it is by lorb + lspin so there is no need for further argument.
Bill if you understood that we were correct in pointing out your error then why the arrogant BS:
“So far I have neatly inserted a very sharp knife into the ribs of your argument and you claim not have felt it. ”
Then later came the acknowledgement of your error (finally).
The point is your first instinct is to try to paint your opponents as fools, and that their genuine expertise has no value.
“treating the angular momentum of an orbiting body is more accurately described by a formula that sums the angular momentum of every particle in the moon than it is by lorb + lspin”
They are equally accurate.
“Finally, the 99.9992% of the total angular momentum of the moon orbiting the earth does not comprise a rotation and only rotations have angular momentum.”
Your appraisal that part of the angular momentum is ‘real’ and another part is ‘conceptual’ makes no sense to me. And Im sure most physicists would have the same problem.
Angular momentum is a mathematical construct of mass, velocity and position. No part of it is more real than any other.
For example the part of the angular momentum that can be calculated for a mass, m, travelling at some velocity, v, at a perpendicular distance, r, from a point in space, P, is mvr relative to P.
If the mass is NOT rotating, it still has this angular momentum, mvr, which is EQUALLY AS ‘REAL’ as any that it might have due to rotation, because ANGULAR MOMENTUM is CONSERVED.
Thus if that mass were to collide with another non-rotating mass, off-center, and stick to it, it would transfer all of its angular momentum to the combined mass, and the combo would END UP ROTATING.
This is regularly seen in ice skating competitions.
So your feeling that only rotations have ‘real’ angular momentum is not correct and has no place in physics or engineering.
Bill Hunter at 8:35 PM
“First you butted into this thread…”
DREMT volunteered you in another thread.
Bill Hunter at 8:35 PM
I reject your false exculpatory. You do not know the difference between inertia and momentum. Just admit it!
What the heck does the sum of the squares bit have to do with anything? Everyone knows that (a + b)^2 > a^2 + b^2 by an amount equal to 2ab.
Whatever the meaning of that last sentence is(???), unless it means that the universal law of conservation of angular momentum applies to the Earth-Moon system, it is wrong.
I’ve worked with auditors all my professional life, almost fifty years. Everyone stays in their lane. Accountants audit the books, scientists and engineers audit the operations. So, stay in your lane.
Nate says:
””treating the angular momentum of an orbiting body is more accurately described by a formula that sums the angular momentum of every particle in the moon than it is by lorb + lspin”
They are equally accurate.”
Wrong!! The moon is slightly egg shaped and is not a uniform sphere. Thus for such an object spinning on its central axis the ovoid shape of the same mass of a uniform sphere has more angular momentum than the sphere. Whereas Σmvr of each particle does accurately account for the angular momentum of an object of any shape orbiting the earth and lacking other rotations.
Nate says:
”Angular momentum is a mathematical construct of mass, velocity and position. No part of it is more real than any other.”
—————————–
Thats true but what we are talking about here is whether ”orbital motion without axial rotation” is a motion like the “moon on the right” or the ”moon on the left’. It can’t be both at the same time.
Your point of view and the spinner point of view is in accordance with the ”form” of a formula for a uniform sphere in orbit. The non-spinner point of view is in substantively in accordance with the physics of the moon’s particles in orbital motion without any other distractions.
There are rotations on external axes. thats settled. So far you have not given a set of rules that clearly distinguishes such motions from one another as to which are comprised of two motions vs those of one motion.
I agree that relying on Lorb +Lspin=Lmoon gives a pretty good approximation of the angular momentum but not so much of a good approximation to deign it to be 2 separate motions. That holds especially when the motion can be more accurately described via Σmvr of each particle of the moon rotating around the earth’s COM.
When you provide a physically and evidence supported means of defining the difference between a single motion and two motions that supports something worthwhile I can’t see any difference in basis of how you distinguish between chalked circle on a rotating disk and the moon.
TYSON MCGUFFIN says:
I reject your false exculpatory. You do not know the difference between inertia and momentum. Just admit it!
What the heck does the sum of the squares bit have to do with anything? Everyone knows that (a + b)^2 > a^2 + b^2 by an amount equal to 2ab.
Whatever the meaning of that last sentence is(???), unless it means that the universal law of conservation of angular momentum applies to the Earth-Moon system, it is wrong.
Ive worked with auditors all my professional life, almost fifty years. Everyone stays in their lane. Accountants audit the books, scientists and engineers audit the operations. So, stay in your lane.
———————————————
First off I have been using the moment of inertia as designer/builder for over 50 years. I have qualifications in several careers and pop around depending upon what I consider to be interesting and fun projects. Throw in knowledge and experience in passive solar technology projects as well a professional certification as a CPA. All careers that comprised of education and documented experience. the nice thing about experience is it teaches you the limitations of education. And the nice thing about education is it gives you lots of opportunities to gain experience.
Secondly, the equation I was referring to was more precisely though related: (a^2 + b^2)/2 > ((a+b)/2)^2
Thirdly, you might have a place in telling people what lane to stay in if you are the one or the delegate of the one writing the checks. If you want to do that to me we can arrange an annuity for you to pay for. Otherwise your comment sounds like the comment of somebody that doesn’t want any auditors around and certainly doesn’t add anything to your argument.
Bindidon says:
” put together in such a way as to make an imaginary depiction appear as though it was reality which it obviously is not.”
Oh what a condescending, subtle mix of arrogance and ignorance!
—————————————
Pointing out that an artificial construction is artificial in your view is condescending. Ignorance? Can you tell us what a woman is?
Bindidon says:
Although possibly (!) not all parts of the Moon may be photographed in a single, continuous observation period: how is it possible to think that in ~327 LRO orbits during Moons orbiting time around Earth, you couldnt obtain a continuous sequence of what LRO can see during sunlit phases, showing a Moon rotating about its polar axis during half its orbiting time?
——————————————–
And you think they did it to convince folks the moon spins on its own axis? Seems to me they probably did it to show how the LRO orbits around the moon to reconoiter the entire surface of the moon as indicated by the orange line orbiting around the moon 327 times in one orbit around earth. After all if you really knew something about this topic you would know that a rotation on an external axis is another kind of rotation that would look exactly the same. . . .so I would think the scientists over at NASA would be smart enough to know that and would figure out it wouldn’t fool very many people. After all Bindidon the goal of an experiment is to get a DIFFERENT result from the control, not the same result.
Bindidon says:
NASA has naively underestimated the amount of visceral doubt and willful denial that people like you, Robertson, Clint R, the Pseudomod, Hunter and a few others can inhabit.
——————————
some of us just aren’t as gullible as you. No reason to get mad about it. After all it was God’s gift to you. Appreciate what you have. Some are even more gullible.
Nate says:
Angular momentum is a mathematical construct of mass, velocity and position. No part of it is more real than any other.
Thats true”
Good. Then you admit that previous statement was wrong. This adds to Santas naughty list
“but what we are talking about here is whether ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ is a motion like the ‘moon on the right’ or the ‘moon on the left’. It cant be both at the same time.”
No one has said it is both!
“I agree that relying on Lorb +Lspin=Lmoon gives a pretty good approximation of the angular momentum.”
Great!
“But not so much of a good approximation to deign it to be 2 separate motions. That holds especially when the motion can be more accurately described via Σmvr of each particle of the moon rotating around the earths COM.”
Representing L in two parts, one spin and one orbital is physically motivated. It is useful in lots of areas of physics, planetary orbits and atomic physics. In atomic physics the electron has a definite fundamental spin, separate from the orbital angular momentum.
In the case of of planetary orbits, it is very USEFUL because, the two are generally weakly coupled. Thus during a single orbit both terms are independently CONSTANT.
The Lorb = constant is used to derive Keplers Laws, and can be used with Kinetic Energy (K) to determine the elliptical parameters of the orbit. The Lspin = constant tells us the rotational period of the planet, and that the axis points to a fixed place in among the stars, and is used to determine axial precession (which BTW is important for accounting for the ice ages)
For the Moon, over a much longer time the coupling between the two angular momenta, and to the tidal torque, can be used to determine their joint precession rate, etc
Again, the point is these things are physically motivated. It is mistake to not recognize the 400 years of physics developments in mechanics and planetary motion that has made it clear the usefulness of separating Lorb and Lspin. The ideas are mathematically sophisticated and very well tested.
It is very unlikely that your casual intuition is going to get physics to drop these well proven tools and ideas.
Nate says:
Angular momentum is a mathematical construct of mass, velocity and position. No part of it is more real than any other.
Thats true
Good. Then you admit that previous statement was wrong. This adds to Santas naughty list
————————-
Its not wrong to look solely at the moon’s rotation without considering which axis it is rotating on. Its just wrong to claim the wrong axis.
Lspin like most physical laws and concepts are really just good approximations of things so in that sense it is indeed just a mathematical construct. But there is a real motion that isn’t a mathematical construct.
Its just difficult to convince a trained seal physicist of that fact because he really does believe the world revolves around his mathematical constructs.
—————-
—————-
Nate says:
”but what we are talking about here is whether ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ is a motion like the ‘moon on the right’ or the ‘moon on the left’. It cant be both at the same time.”
No one has said it is both!”
———————-
Obviously you haven’t been paying much attention to Willard’s posts.
—————-
—————-
Nate says:
Again, the point is these things are physically motivated. It is mistake to not recognize the 400 years of physics developments in mechanics and planetary motion that has made it clear the usefulness of separating Lorb and Lspin. The ideas are mathematically sophisticated and very well tested.
It is very unlikely that your casual intuition is going to get physics to drop these well proven tools and ideas.
————————
I recall saying essentially that within the first week of my participation in this topic well over a year ago. And where do you get the idea that I am trying to get anybody to stop using those ideas. When I acknowledged this I said it was a very convenient shortcut.
Fact is there are a lot on conceptual divisions in many many fields of study that are very useful. It is good to keep at least one eye on reality. Doing such aids rather than limits the ability to think outside of the box.
For an auditor, he knows that one can not test the materiality of the error introduced in doing what is convenient unless one actually measures reality and compares it to the shortcut. . . .which is an exercise on which an auditor spends a huge portion of his time and efforts especially with the most material of accounts.
Myself I am aware of a large number of technologies that have been all but forgotten. For a number of them cheap fossil fuels hastened their obscurity. I listen to Bjorn Lombord who one might catagorize as a luke warmer go on about the wonders of air conditioning while wanting to do something to reduce CO2 emissions.
Air conditioning is great for cars, jets, trains etc. But it is almost unnecessary in architecture done right and is probably already a better cost choice. However, people tend to think shortterm.
If your objective is to reduce CO2 emissions it is clearly a better choice than renewables.
It is just something that can’t be done overnight or in 2 or 3 decades because most housing lasts well over a 100 years and won’t get rebuilt often for even longer periods.
One could put a huge dent in CO2 emissions simply by getting lenders to recognize the right values and use that recognition to enable building better housing. For this to happen in a free marketplace its essential to not overlook such solutions in the belief they would not be fast enough. Longer termed loans to better match the life of a better constructed structure that requires far less energy to be comfortable would recognize facts known by cavemen in the middle of the last glacial period. And while these structures would be a good deal more expensive. . . .affordability is really a function of the length of the loan and is limited by expected return on investment, but that is in turn driven by inflation and greater demand for limited resources. Tax systems based on profits vs wealth also help screw stuff up as obviously the government wants to elevate profits over wealth.
Again its all about understanding the reality of materiality. Personally when it comes to CO2 I have a hard time not seeing it as beneficial. But still there are other reasons to move away from it if not just from the idea that it is a limited resource and ultimately the cost of which isn’t the best use of our resources and resourcefulness.
Of course I don’t see any of this riding on which axis the moon rotates on.
“Lspin like most physical laws and concepts are really just good approximations of things so in that sense it is indeed just a mathematical construct. But there is a real motion that isnt a mathematical construct.”
As I said, the total L, and its parts, are all mathematical constructs, but a useful ones.
“Its just difficult to convince a trained seal physicist of that fact because he really does believe the world revolves around his mathematical constructs.”
These so-called mathematical constructs are central to understanding this physics, which is, again, very well tested, and very useful.
It is the height of hubris to keep expecting physicists to be convinced, by the intuition of non-experts, that they have been getting physics wrong for four centuries.
Why would you expect that?
Same goes for other scientists.
Nate says:
These so-called mathematical constructs are central to understanding this physics, which is, again, very well tested, and very useful.
——————-
Thats total BS. That is your problem. Understanding is understanding how these constructs evolved from the visions of men and women of genius. The constructs mostly serve to train seals to crank out numbers. True understanding is far deeper than the math. Thats our biggest problem. Conceit! We are in a world where people are thinking the numbers are immutable and always right and useful for extrapolation. But that is like asking morons to lead us.
Nate says:
It is the height of hubris to keep expecting physicists to be convinced, by the intuition of non-experts, that they have been getting physics wrong for four centuries.
Why would you expect that?
Same goes for other scientists.
————————-
You have that all wrong. The people who discover this stuff tend to rise from below. Only the truly great men effectively resist thinking they have created perfection and continue to innovate via their innate intuition of how the mathematical constructs are imperfect.
Certainly educating oneself on what has been discovered before is extremely useful but only if you aren’t being convinced that its a perfect representation of reality. One must be capable of seeing the flaws in science to move science forward. If you can’t you have absolutely no idea of what direction to take.
It is total belief in the form of the equations that cause people to elevate form over substance. And as I described if you can’t envision the correct reality you have no hope of every reaching it or advancing science to the next level.
“That is your problem. Understanding is understanding how these constructs evolved from the visions of men and women of genius. The constructs mostly serve to train seals to crank out numbers.”
You do your best to belittle people who have an expertise that you dont have.
None of it makes any sense. Its obviously just you being a crank.
“The people who discover this stuff tend to rise from below. Only the truly great men effectively resist thinking they have created perfection and continue to innovate via their innate intuition of how the mathematical constructs are imperfect.”
The great men, like Galileo or Einstein had deep knowledge of the previous science they were destined to overturn.
They could only effectively resist thinking that they understood.
That disqualifies you.
Nate says:
”You do your best to belittle people who have an expertise that you dont have.”
Stating a fact isn’t belittling anyone Nate.
One either perceives their work as a trained seal or they don’t. If one doesn’t then there is no reason for them to think I am talking about them.
Nate says:
”The great men, like Galileo or Einstein had deep knowledge of the previous science they were destined to overturn.”
Indeed and for a fact they didn’t get there by working as a trained seal.
Willard says:
”What youre looking at is the full spin of the Moon as seen by NASAs Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.
Youre a crank.”
LMAO! No Willard you aren’t looking at the moon spin. . . .ROTFLMAO!
NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is. . . .guess what?. . . .orbiting the moon while taking pictures! LOL!
🤦
Once again, Weepy Wee Willy is stuck for words.
At least, saying nothing at all indicates his IQ is not getting smaller – well, not much, anyway.
What are you braying about, Mike?
Willard got photoshopped!
” If Moon really rotated, we would see that from Earth ”
We do. From the Earth’s surface we see the Moon revolving 13 degrees per day along its orbit and rotating 13 degrees per day to keep the same face towards us.
Only if "orbital motion without axial rotation" is motion like the "moon on the right", Ent.
If “orbital motion without axial rotation” we’re to have any meaning it would be relative to the inertial reference frame. This would describe the Hubble telescope orbiting the Earth while pointing at a star. The “Moon on the left”
This is the objective approach to the universe.
Your approach is subjective, regarding yourself as the centre of the universe and all motion as relative to yourself. This parochial Earth-centred way of thinking became obsolete with Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo.
Both the "moon on the left" and the "moon on the right" are shown relative to the inertial reference frame, Ent. Take a look at the GIF again.
The MOTL shows that from an inertial reference point of view, the moon rotates on its axis, the MOTR does not.
That is the illusion you are unable to see through. Yes, it certainly looks, superficially, like the MOTL is the one that is rotating on its own axis; but it only revolves. The MOTR is doing motion like the MOTL as well as rotating on its own axis, once per orbit, in the opposite direction to the orbit.
Ahh it must be an illusion, is always the answer when they have no logical argument.
As the video promoted by the TEAM made the abundantly clear, the Moon is said to be ‘not rotating’ because that is what they observe in a rotating reference frame.
In the frame rotating with the radial line between the Moon and the Earth.
They continuously claim that the issue has never been about ‘reference frames’ but their actions, using rotating reference frames to judge if a body is rotating, are the opposite.
Such as here:
“That is the illusion you are unable to see through. Yes, it certainly looks, superficially, like the MOTL is the one that is rotating on its own axis”
But these guys seem blissfully unaware of this obvious contradiction.
Just a quick note to readers…
…when it has been accepted by all regular "Spinner" commenters that:
1) Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion like the "moon on the left".
2) The moon issue is not resolved by reference frames.
…then I will never talk about the moon issue ever again. Until then, expect to see me talk about the moon issue whenever someone else raises it, for as long as I comment here.
Readers will note that Gaslighting Graham had his request met years ago.
But as with any contractual matter to date, he found a way to convince himself that he was authorized to escape from it.
He is not Gaslighting Graham for nothing.
All regular "Spinner" commenters do not accept 1) and 2). Some accept 1). Most don’t accept 2).
Therefore I will continue to comment.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
ent…”Your approach is subjective, regarding yourself as the centre of the universe and all motion as relative to yourself. This parochial Earth-centred way of thinking became obsolete with Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo”.
***
You are providing a philosophical argument to explain phenomena that we experience directly on Earth. Certainly, our minds can suffer delusions related to relative motion, like see the Sun moving across the sky, or the stars at night.
In essence, based on daily life, we humans on Earth are the centre of the universe. That’s how our minds tend to operate, right or wrong. When we look up anywhere on Earth and see the same side of the Moon pointing at us, we don’t care how it appears from different perspectives. We don’t need other input to reason that the Moon cannot possibly rotate about its axis and show us the same face all the time.
It is your approach that is subjective. You refuse to look at the facts related to the Moon’s motion and insist on making false claims based on philosophical nonsense.
You and your fellow alarmists do the same with catastrophic climate change insinuations. You won’t provide scientific evidence that the greenhouse effect exists in the atmosphere or how a trace gas can possibly provide a significant warming mechanism for the atmosphere.
Gordo does not always diss an argument as being philosophical, but when he does he replies with a NO U that appeals to naive realism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nave_realism
He might soon need to reject scientific realism and to realize that abstract concepts are harder to account. Who knows?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
ent…” If Moon really rotated, we would see that from Earth
We do. From the Earths surface we see the Moon revolving 13 degrees per day along its orbit and rotating 13 degrees per day to keep the same face towards us”.
***
I feel sorry that your mind has become so conditioned that it adds information to what you observe. Of course, you cannot observe the entire motion of the Moon from the limited vantage point where you observe. If you could follow it around the entire orbit, viewing it from Earth, you would see the same thing as a balloonist’s basket moving around the Earth.
So let’s set up a balloon with its basket moving along the trans Canada highway, which moves fairly straight for 2500 miles from Montreal to the Rocky Mountains.
During that trip, the balloon will move over the Earth’s curvature which drops off 5 metres for every 8000 metres (8 km) of distance. Presuming the ‘average’ altitude of the road is at sea level, which is not that far off, plus or minus a couple of hundred metres, the balloon covers a horizontal distance of 4000 km and change.
We divide 4000 km by 8 km to get a factor of 500 km and multiply that by 5 metres to get 2500 metres. So, the Earth’s curvature drops of 2500 metres between Montreal and the Rockies.
Following that balloon in a car, from under the balloon, the best we can, all we can see is the bottom of the basket in which the ballonist rides. At no time does the balloon rotate about its COG, otherwise the balloonist would fall out of the basket, or clinging to the balloon for dear life.
I realize it’s a stretch to have a balloon maintain the same altitude while moving along the trans Canada but we could have used a helicopter or other hovering device or a drone. The balloon emphasizes the ridiculousness of it rotating around its COG vertically much better.
We could follow that balloon right around the Earth and all we would see is the bottom of the rider’s basket. Yet, at no time, could the balloon rotate vertically about its axis. It could rotate horizontally about its COG but we know the Moon does not do that from a perspective of Earth. Yet, when the Moon does the same, you spinners claim it is rotating vertically.
From any perspective on Earth we are always looking vertically. Therefore, from our perspective, the Moon would have to rotate vertically about an axis which is horizontal to us.
I am fully aware that what we define as vertical on a particular position on Earth is arbitrary to our position. On the opposite side of the Earth, vertical would be in the opposite direction. Yet you spinners fail to understand that point. You think, for some reason, that an airliner moving from the North Pole to the South Pole has somehow turned upside down.
What you spinners miss is that the Moon does not have to rotate to keep the same face pointed at Earth. If a car could circumnavigate the planet it would move exactly like the Moon. Both are affected by gravity in the same manner, the car being held on Earth by gravity and the Moon being held in an orbit by gravity. There is no difference in their motion overall.
2500 miles is about 1/10 of the Earth’s circumference. Relative to the Earth’s coordinate system the balloon/s vertical axis will have rotated by 360/10=36 degrees.
Since the observers vertical axis has also rotated by 36 degrees you get the illusion that the balloon has not rotated.
As with the Moon, you have chosen a local subjective frame of reference which gives the illusion of non-rotation over the objective reference frames used by physicists. You are free to use your own personal reference frame, but should not try to impose it on the rest of us.
OK, so use "the objective reference frames used by physicists". That takes us back to the "moon on the left"/"moon on the right" GIF I linked to further up-thread, which you have completely ignored, as usual.
The "Non-Spinners" are saying "orbital motion without axial rotation" is motion like the MOTL. That’s with "the objective reference frames used by physicists". OK?
The "Spinners" are saying "orbital motion without axial rotation" is motion like the MOTR. That’s also with "the objective reference frames used by physicists". Get it?
Another pointless effort at trolling by the idiotic Willard (after I call him out over his gullibility – believing a NASA composite reflects reality) –
“Mike Flynn,
Until we are able to tap in the continuum, we will continue to compose movies using images.
Thank you for you concerns.”
Mike Flynn,
What are braying about?
What are you braying about, Mike?
Wondering Wee Willy,
Here you are –
Another pointless effort at trolling by the idiotic Willard (after I call him out over his gullibility believing a NASA composite reflects reality)
“Mike Flynn,
Until we are able to tap in the continuum, we will continue to compose movies using images.
Thank you for you concerns.”
What are you braying about, Mike?
Whacky Wee Willy,
Again – I typed really slowly for you, this time –
Another pointless effort at trolling by the idiotic Willard (after I call him out over his gullibility believing a NASA composite reflects reality)
“Mike Flynn,
Until we are able to tap in the continuum, we will continue to compose movies using images.
Thank you for you concerns.”
I’m slightly (only slightly) surprised that you seem to be annoyed about something you wrote. Why is that, oh idiotic one?
What are you braying about, Mike?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
willard, from swenson…”Until we are able to tap in the continuum, we will continue to compose movies using images”.
***
Willard still refuses to accept the facts, the site in question is devoted to simulations, and the sequence of images it presented as the Moon rotating on its axis is a simulation.
Must be weird seeing reality through Willard’s eyes. Cartoons become reality.
Gordon,
Ar least he got one thing right.
A couple of times Weird Wee Willy has used a small cartoon graphic, showing him poking his finger in his eye for some reason.
Maybe he needs another animation showing Willard putting his foot in his mouth, and then shooting himself in the foot!
www probably got the cartoon from his buddy who runs skepticalscience. He passed himself off for a bit as a solar scientist till it was discovered he is a cartoonist in real life.
Come on, Gordo.
The continuum:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_(set_theory)
Simulation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation
Is there anything you learned about science while trolling contrarian websites for decades?
Think.
Come on Willard.
Irrelevant links to your diversionary trolling nonsense just make you look like a stupid diversionary troll.
I won’t even suggest that you “think”.
That suggestion would be wasted on you – you lack the necessary ability.
How’s your search for the explanation of four and a half billion years or so of GHE cooling going?
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Bunny,
You wrote –
“NASA has naively underestimated the amount of visceral doubt and willful denial that people like you, Robertson, Clint R, the Pseudomod, Hunter and a few others can inhabit.”
Interestingly, you grudgingly admit – in a distinctly SkyDragon fashion when faced with irrefutable fact – “Although possibly (!) not all parts of the Moon may be photographed in a single, continuous observation period:”
No “Although possibly(!) . . .” about it.
I was right (as usual), and you are just too churlish to admit it.
What a sauerkraut you are!
Flynnson
Your are really a far better suaerkraut than I could ever become, though living over 40 years in Germany.
Simply because like do all these sauerkrauts (retired German elementary school teachers being of them the best example), you intentionally focused on the least interesting sentence in my comment.
“… how is it possible to think that in ~327 LRO orbits during Moons orbiting time around Earth, you couldnt obtain a continuous sequence of what LRO can see during sunlit phases, showing a Moon rotating about its polar axis during half its orbiting time?
Its quite simple. To doubt about that, you have to deny Moons rotation anyway. ”
Your are such an ignorant, all the time contrarian person, boasting and blathering all the time.
Bunny,
No, sauerkraut is just a play on the words “sour Kraut”. If you dont see the humour, don’t blame me.
You wrote “. . . you intentionally focused on the least interesting sentence in my comment.” I focus as I wish. Why do you bother writing sentences that you consider uninteresting by comparison with others? Why do you believe that others might share your view of what is interesting, and the degree to which it shows this property?
You write what you want, as do I.
If you choose to write misleading nonsense, you may do so. If I wish to give my reasons for classifying what you write as “misleading nonsense”, what is it to do with you?
For example, as you point out, an assemblage of pictures taken by a satellite in a more or less polar orbit, can be spliced to show an apparently rotating Moon, in the plane of the ecliptic. An alternative view (more based on the satellite’s actual orbit) would show the Moon tumbling end over end, from a fixed viewpoint relative to the Moon’s COG.
Or any other motion you like – tumbling and rotating, twirling back and forth, moving in spurts in random directions at random times.
It makes no difference, does it? The motion of the Moon is chaotic, but at least it shows no signs of falling to Earth, due to losing momentum. If anything, the Moon is travelling fast enough to be receding at a slight but measurable rate.
You conclude your comment with – “Your are such an ignorant, all the time contrarian person, boasting and blathering all the time.”. Presumably, you consider this an “interesting sentence”, but what do you intend to achieve? I don’t value your opinion, so it’s no use directing your sauerkraut utterings at me. I really don’t care.
Carry on.
Did you defect from west into communist East Germany ???
binny…via Swenson…”NASA has naively underestimated the amount of visceral doubt and willful denial that people like you, Robertson, Clint R, the Pseudomod, Hunter and a few others can inhabit.”
***
I am wondering if Binny is aware of the old fairy tale about the naked emperor? He gets conned into believing clothes he has had made are invisible and he wear them outdoors. Of course, no one will tell him he is naked because he is the ultimate authority figure and no one dares to contradict him.
That tale has become a comparison in modern society for people so enamoured by an authorty figure they become blinded to the truth.
The good people at bookbrowse offer this meaning…
“This expression is used to describe a situation in which people are afraid to criticize something or someone because the perceived wisdom of the masses is that the thing or person is good or important”.
https://www.bookbrowse.com/expressions/detail/index.cfm/expression_number/605/the-emperor-has-no-clothes
Some of us here are not afraid to tell NASA they are naked at times. NASA GISS is naked all the time.
Gordo does not always deny footage from a satellite orbiting the Moon, but when he does he appeals to an old fairy tale to support his denial.
willard actually STILL believes the footage shows the moon spinning on its own axis!! ROTFLMAO!!
Strong argument you got there, Bill.
Let me raise you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNUNB6CMnE8
You got it backwards as usual. More like the moon from the rotating LRO.
You got me interested, Bill.
Tell me how that conspiracy would work.
Just hold a mirror up in front of you.
The center of the polar vortex at 500 hPa is now over Hudson Bay. This means that there will be front after front flowing into the Midwest from northern Canada.
https://i.ibb.co/zHcPh4G/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-12-06-001746.png
The center of the polar vortex at 500 hPa is now over Hudson Bay.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2022/12/06/1500Z/wind/isobaric/500hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-83.56,60.80,562
Polar vortex in the lower stratosphere.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2022/12/06/1500Z/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-83.56,60.80,562
ren…it has warmed up here in the Vancouver, Canada region. Only a couple of degrees and we are expecting rain. In a region likes ours where people have developed webbed-feet (Ducks) from the amount of rain, we’ve had a surprising drought this autumn.
tim…”You cannot measure rotation relative to an axis, which is a 1-D line exactly down the center rotation”.
***
Tim, you are grasping at straws in your denial. You don’t have to measure anything, you can see clearly whether a body is rotating about an axis.
Change the word axis to axle, the latter being a real, physical object required for a body to rotate. Like the axle on a bicycle wheel. Are you trying to claim there is no way to measure the rotation of a bicycle wheel about an axle?
There are devices you can attach to the fork of a bicycle wheel which detects the rotation of a smaller device attached to a spoke. On a car, the speed of rotation of the rear wheels is measure via a gear on the drive train. It’s not even on the wheel yet it can measure its rotation.
I think if Moon were rotating about its own axis, Moon’s sidereal rotational period had to be less than its orbital period.
–
Since Moon’s sidereal rotational period in reference to the stars is the same as Moon’s orbital period – Moon does not rotate on its own axis.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Dear Mr. Spencer or anyone who could answer my question,
I can’t claim any relevant knowledge about the physics of climate, global heat storage etc., so my question might sound a bit uneducated.
I’m always confused by the term of urban heat island effect.
Does the topology of urban areas itself especially of densily populated ones with a lot of high rising buildings etc contributes to the increase in global temperature because the global urbanisation continues and with that the “urban heat storage capacity”? Or is the over-interpreted global temperature just an artefact of the large number of temperature measurement devices that are located in or around urban areas, while the affect on global temperature is neglible from the perspective of added “urban heat storage capcity”?
Thank you,
Torsten
Torsten, your question is a good one. And, you seem to already have the answer.
The UHI distorts the temperature record. High density urban areas get warmer with growth. This includes airports, where a lot of temperatures are recorded. All this urban heat does not affect global temperatures because Earth’s cooling mechanisms quickly move it to space. But, the temperature record is affected, supporting the AGW nonsense.
That’s why the UAH satellite temps are so important. Satellites are unaffected by urban areas.
“Does the topology of urban areas itself especially of densily populated ones with a lot of high rising buildings etc contributes to the increase in global temperature because the global urbanisation continues and with that the urban heat storage capacity?”
–
Yes, it does.
–
Thank you, Torsten for your question.
–
The dense high rising buildings areas change the way Planet surface reflects solar light. In those areas more solar energy gets captured and absorbed and, consequently, increasing the temperature.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
November Temperatures (preliminary)
Global composite temp.: +0.17 C (+0.31F) above the seasonal average
Northern Hemisphere: +0.21 C (+0.36 F) above seasonal average
Southern Hemisphere: +0.12 C (+0.22 F) above seasonal average
Tropics: -0.16 C (-0.29F) below seasonal average
Different people here have different answers to questions such as “Does the Moon rotates?” or “What is causing global warming?”.
Each of us thinks we our answer is correct.
The real problem is that each of us brings different information and different prejudices to the question.
Wrong again, Ent. Your cult is ignorant of the relevant physics. Your cult is willing to pervert reality to match their false beliefs. In your case, you have claimed that passenger jets fly backwards! We’ve seen some claim that ice cubes can boil water! The list goes on and on.
There’s no limit to how far a cult will go to protect their false religion.
ent…”The real problem is that each of us brings different information and different prejudices to the question”.
***
Science is not based on information, opinion or prejudice. If you bring information as proof, I think it only fair that you understand it and can explain it. Simply producing information from an authority figure like NASA doesn’t cut it unless the information makes scientific sense.
I approached NASA on the Moon orbit and presented the facts I have presented here. They did not deny my information or try to correct it, they simply moved the goalposts. They claimed their perspective was a view from the stars, not from Earth.
Fair enough. I wrote back, pointing out the obvious, if the Moon was not rotating about a local axis as viewed from Earth it was not rotating about its axis in any reference frame.
I heard nothing back and I think I know why. I proved to them that the Moon could not rotate about a local axis, as viewed from Earth, due to the parallel movement of the near side, the far side, and points in between. They did not argue against that or even comment on the obvious. They hid behind the view from the stars perspective.
When I wrote back and pointed out the obvious, that a non-rotating Moon won’t begin rotating when viewed from the stars, something likely turned on in the NASA person’s mind. I also pointed out what they were seeing, a constant re-orientation of the near face due to curvilinear motion. That revelation was too much for the mighty NASA to deal with.
I am sure there are engineers in NASA who would have enjoyed the revelation. However, we great unwashed don’t have access to engineers, all we get are PR people who are hired for their demonstrated ability as team players, aka butt kissers.
Nothing wrong with team players but any team I have played on that enjoyed success was comprised of individuals with their own skill sets and eccentricities. That’s not allowed at NASA.
> I heard nothing back and I think I know why
C’mon, Gordo.
You heard nothing back because you’re not listening, and since you’re not listening you will seal yourself into another of your conspiracies and think you know why.
It’s really not that hard to prove you wrong.
https://youtu.be/MrzWzMUhQfw
When will you ever get the concept of simultaneity?
You are getting more stupid each post, something I thought impossible. Look at the video at the link. Is the near side always pointed to the Earth. No!!!! It shows a different side at each point of the orbit.
It is not possible to keep the same side pointed at the Earth and rotate the Moon model through 360 degrees.
Never mind your simultaneity crap, just look!!!
C’mon, Gordo.
Just look:
https://imgflip.com/i/4g70a2
Now, shake your head.
See?
Reality isn’t always what you think you see.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
bill hunter…” It [the Moon] even has a lot angular momentum! Over 1,200 times as much angular momentum made up of rotational inertia and rotational velocity…”
***
Not looking for an argument, I regard us as being on the same side. Just looking for discussion, if applicable.
I have been thinking a fair amount about angular momentum and its implications. Just read the other day that angular momentum as related to an orbiting body is fictitious, like the Coriolis force.
The latter is called a fictitious force because there is no force being applied. It is a visual illusion that something is driving a mass that seems to be turning and it’s not.
For example, if you observe a ball thrown from a turning carousel, from within the turning carousel, the ball will appear to be moving along a curve. When the ball was thrown straight out horizontally there was no curve put on the ball, it was thrown straight out in a straight line. Once the ball leaves the thrower’s hand, there are no forces acting to move the ball along a curved path, so why does it appear to be moving along a curved line?
Apparently it’s because the carousel represents a rotating reference frame whereas the ball is thrown into an inertial frame. No forces act on the ball to curve it. Because it has an apparent curved motion, it is presumed that a fictitious forces is acting on it.
Just occurred to me that if you filmed the ball as it left the thrower’s hand the ball would likely appear to curve. Maybe you can think of it this way. The ball is thrown at t = 0. At t =1, it has moved so many feet but it is located to the left of the thrower if the carousel is moving CW. At t = 2, it is even farther out and even farther behind the point on the carousel where it was thrown. If you break t into finer increments, it will appear to the eye as if the ball is curving to the left.
Same with angular momentum with an orbiting body. If you had a ball rotating like the Moon and the ball was attached to an axle by a rod (or string), then the ball is constrained to move along a curved path. The moon is not and there’s a subtle difference. The Moon has its own initial momentum, and if it was captured, it was moving in a straight line when captured then bent into a curved line.
A ball attached to an axle is constrained to move along a curved path by design. Therefore, it has an initial rotational angular momentum and velocity, therefore you can claim it has an angular momentum.
At no time, does the Moon have a real, physical momentum along its orbital path, it would just as soon fly off on a straight line. Therefore, the Moon has only linear momentum. It is the interaction (resultant) between its linear momentum and Earth’s gravitational field that produces the orbit, instant by instant.
Since gravity is slightly variable, the Moon’s momentum has more effect over the orbit, in places, and extends the orbit into an ellipse. That also produces the effect of libration.
IMHO, angular momentum is only conserved if the system/object stays together.
Say that if God suddenly switched off gravity. Then the moon would fly off in a straight line and angular momentum isn’t conserved.
but take this same concept to a lower level and God shut off all the energy that holds particles together. Would not the same thing happen?
After all angular momentum seems to arise from a slightly different energies of travel among individual particles.
In the case of the moon that speed is in relationship to the orbit. For any non-tidal locked object that speed is both in relationship to the orbit plus some additional momentum that arose out of say a collision.
Mathematically this is an interesting site:
This source here talks about the angular momentum of a particle.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp
I pointed out a few months ago that a ‘cloud’ of particles orbiting in close proximity to each other using this formula while being a similar equation to Lorb of the angular momentum of an orbiting body equal to Lorb (of the COM)+Lspin= Lmoon.
But Lorb is a smaller number than the sum of the angular momentum of the individual particles. That is because Lorb uses a center of mass/a mean value of the distance and speed of the moon.
But Lorb is an erroneous calculation because some particles have more angular momentum in both speed and distance. Mathematicians understand the error in that angular momentum cannot be represented by a mean distance and mean speed of a cloud of particles. The sum of the angular momentum of the individual particles is a larger number that encapsulates both Lspin as well as Lorb.
There is a different formula for spinning spheres that correctly calculates the angular momentum. So Lspin does equal the angular momentum of an object rotating on its own axis. Lorb does not represent angular momentum of the orbit.
But its incredibly easier to calculate the angular momentum of the moon using the two simple equations. . . .and out of that arises the idea that the moon spins on its own axis.
Lorb actually represents the difference between the angular momentum of an orbiting moon versus one not orbiting but spinning at the same rate on its own axis as the orbit.
We known that some particles of the moon have more angular momentum than others in both the spinner frames of reference and in the non-spinner frames of reference. The answer of who is right lies in which particles have the greater angular momentum.
So to go mentally beyond the known into Tesla’s claim as to whether the moon would fly off non-spinning in a straight line is likely dependent on unknown physics. If God shuts off gravity does that also turn off the forces that that hold solid objects together? We don’t know because we have never shut off gravity.
To increase the strength of the above argument I would point to the demonstration of an LP record that was spun too fast on a spinning axle and blew apart. Individual chunks flew off in straight lines spinning on their own axis. So angular momentum energy was split into linear momentum and angular momentum. If it were all still angular momentum the record would have blown apart but the chunks would still be spinning like the LP did originally around the spinning axis.
Bill,
“Individual chunks flew off in straight lines spinning on their own axis.”
That’s impossible, and for 50 bucks I’ll you why.
There you go. Run off and come back after somebody gives you $50.
Then save your 50 bucks, maybe take it to your local community college and invest in your education.
You are still wrong.
bill…”There you go. Run off and come back after somebody gives you $50.”.
Bob’s easy. He’ll agree with you for a lot less than that. On a good day, if you offer him a beer, he’ll roll over and play dead.
Wrong Gordon,
For an IPA I will play the Dead.
bobdroege,
You wrote –
“Wrong Gordon,
For an IPA I will play the Dead.”
Not a bad play on words, Bob. I give credit where I think it’s due.
bill…problem with the particle analogy is that the momentum at the site is clearly shown along a tangential line in the direction the particle would fly off with the attractive force. There is no momentum shown along the curve itself.
If the particle had momentum along the curve, it should fly off on a curved path, shouldn’t it? Personally, I don’t see how a separate body like a particle or the Moon could have an angular momentum.
If the particle was a ball of steel attached to a spoke, connected to an axle, the momentum of the ball would then be along the curve.
I agree that the record has angular momentum because it is a solid with all parts constrained to move along a curve.
Here’s the article from Wiki (as far as it can be trusted)…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum
“Angular momentum has both a direction and a magnitude, and both are conserved. Bicycles and motorcycles, frisbees,[1] rifled bullets, and gyroscopes owe their useful properties to conservation of angular momentum”.
“…angular momentum… is the rotational analog of linear momentum”.
“The three-dimensional angular momentum for a point particle is classically represented as a pseudovector r p, the cross product of the particle’s position vector r (relative to some origin) and its momentum vector; the latter is p = mv in Newtonian mechanics”.
What I’m thinking is the particle at your link may also have an angular momentum due to spin. However, they don’t indicate that, just that it has linear momentum. The pseudo-vector r x p points in a direction perpendicular to the particles motion.
To find r x p you need to take |r| times |p| times sin theta. If theta = 90 degrees, then sin 90 = 1. What that gives you is a rectangle with area |r| times |p|.
What that has to do with angular momentum is not clear to me.
Also, at your article, they don’t explain how the particle is orbiting the centre. Planets are a special situation in the universe. They are held in an orbit in an essential vacuum by a gravity field.
I don’t think it’s possible, for s particle or the Moon to have an angular momentum in orbit. Even Newton claimed in Principia that the Moon has a linear velocity. It can’t have a linear velocity and a velocity along a curve.
C’mon, Gordo.
You claim that the Moon has no angular momentum because it does not rotate. That’s why you say that an orbit is a translation. Your fellow Moon Dragon cranks claim that an orbit is a rotation.
At least you realize that if there was a rotation involved in the motion of the Moon, there would be angular momentum. But if you decide that the orbit of the Moon is pure translation, you got to account for the geometry which results. For in your crank universe, the curvilinear path of the orbit of the Moon *is* a line.
Your mission, were you willing to accept it, would be to make that geometry work with all the other celestial bodies *at the same time*.
Good luck.
You missed my point. I am claiming the Moon has no angular momentum because the only momentum it possesses is a linear velocity along a straight line. Angular momentum has to have a motion along a curve.
If the Moon was a steel ball attached to a spoke attached to an axle, then it would be constrained to move along a curve and would have angular momentum. Since momentum = p = mv, if v is linear then the momentum is linear. If v is forced to move along a curved path then mv would be along a curved path.
Usually, when we talk about angular momentum, we are talking about a rotating rigid body, like a frisbee or a gyro. Or even Bill’s old phonograph records. All a particles must be turning along a curved path about an axis or axle.
A flywheel has angular momentum.
If the Moon was rotating about a local axis, it would have angular momentum about that axis and we’d have a measurement for it.
C’mon, Gordo.
You simply restated what I said.
Besides, here’s you:
[GORDO] Angular momentum has to have a motion along a curve.
[ALSO GORDO] At all other points on the ellipse, the radial line from the body on the curve points away from the centre of the same body.
You’re not helping Pup and Gaslighting Graham now.
Angular Momentum is the product of Moment of Inertia and Angular Velocity. The Moon has both.
Moon Fact Sheet
TM, orbital motion is confusing for those that haven’t studied it. Moon has NO angular momentum because it has NO angular velocity. You perceive an angular velocity, but what you see is the resultant of gravity acting on linear velocity. If gravity were to be turned off, Moon would go off in space in a straight line, due to it’s linear velocity.
But orbital angular momentum of Moon has NOTHING to do with the fact that Moon is NOT rotating on its axis.
Keep arguing by assertion, Pup:
https://youtu.be/xQb-N486mA4
Scientists float on, and spinning bodies become more and more stable.
Weird Wee Willy,
Presumably another irrelevant link.
What is it? An animation, simulation, or just something factual but meaningless?
Carry on. Someone might value your irrelevancies.
What are you braying about, Mike?
Weird Wee Willy,
Your power of comprehension has left you, has it? I’ll repeat, and I’ll type very slowly – just for you –
Presumably another irrelevant link.
What is it? An animation, simulation, or just something factual but meaningless?
Carry on. Someone might value your irrelevancies.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
LRO did not make the Moon spin:
https://youtu.be/sNUNB6CMnE8
The Moon did that all by itself.
So no, not a simulation.
Cheers.
Weird Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“LRO did not make the Moon spin:
https://youtu.be/sNUNB6CMnE8
The Moon did that all by itself.
So no, not a simulation.”
The LRO orbits the Moon, in a more or less polar orbit – that is completely opposed to any simulation that shows the Moon rotating in the plane of the ecliptic. You probably linked to a simulation, probably patched together from still pictures from the LRO, showing a physically impossible brightly sunlit surface facing the viewer, appearing to be seen from a fixed point in space.
I can’t be bothered wasting my time following your stupid links. Keep trying if you wish,
And no, claiming it is possible to get this view of the Moon from say, LaGrange point 1, won’t help. Just another physical impossibilty.
Go and try your illusions on some gullible SkyDragon somewhere. You are wasting your time on me – I accept reality.
Mike,
What are you braying about?
Check the video again:
https://youtu.be/sNUNB6CMnE8
This is a very high resolution stop motion movie:
Thank you for your conspiracy ideation.
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Gordon,
“If the Moon was rotating about a local axis, it would have angular momentum about that axis and wed have a measurement for it.”
And we do
Ask Quora
L=2.4×10^29kgm^2/s
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-angular-momentum-of-the-moon-in-its-rotation-around-its-axis
bumbling bob,
That’s not a measurement, you idiot.
From your link –
“Plugging all these values into the angular momentum equation gives, . . .”
And it would, in theory, if the Moon was rotating about its axis.
But it doesn’t, because it’s not.
And you can’t provide a measurement to show otherwise, can you?
That’s because you’ve given up on the GHE, and you are trying to push another fantasy.
Keep pushing.
Swenson,
I don’t think that’s the way to show off your science chops.
bumbling bob,
You wrote –
“Swenson,
I dont think thats the way to show off your science chops.”.
Who cares what you claim you “think”? Can you name one person who does?
You might get some respect somewhere, sometime, from someone, if you actually knew what science is. It involves measurements, amongst other things.
Accept reality, blundering bob. No GHE.
Swenson,
I think I’ll go back to ignoring you.
If you think anyone cares about what you post, I’d be surprised.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
bob^6…L=2.410^29kgm^2/s is based on the initial equation…
L = Iw
If w = 0 then L = 0.
Duh!!!
Big if, Gordo.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Question:
The moon rotates about its axis every 27.3 days and orbits the earth every 27.3 days.
A) What is the moment of inertia with respect to its axis?
B) What is the moment of inertia with respect to the earth?
C) What is the moon’s angular momentum with respect to its axis?
D) What is its kinetic energy with respect to its axis?
Answers here!
TM, you found another source willingly supporting your cult. How many does that make?
Moon is NOT rotating about its axis. It has NO axial rotation. Your cult can’t even understand a simple ball-on-a-string.
That’s what “braindead” looks like.
TM,
You wrote –
“The moon rotates about its axis every 27.3 days . . . ”
Well, its sidereal period is around 27.3 days. Its synodic period is around 29.5 days. Pick one if you like, but both are valid. Just as a matter of interest, on Earth the “lunar month” is not the sidereal period, but the synodic, as used in Lunar calendars.
The Islamic calendar, for example, is based on synodic, rather than sidereal periods. As are many others. Just for fun, the Hindu calendar uses both Earth sidereal time, and lunar synodic time, and bungs in extra months from time to time to adjust things.
Maybe you could check, and let me know if I got my sidereals and synodics mixed up. I wouldn’t want anybody to think that I was making unsubstantiated claims, would I?
“Maybe you could check, and let me know…”
Maybe you could [carefully] read the questions asked and tell me which measure is appropriate in context.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
maguff…A = B = C = D = 0
So you do drive a locomotive. I thought so.
P.s.: not that there’s anything wrong with that of course.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
ECREE: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Exactly. So for those claiming Moon has axial rotation, where’s your model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”?
Time to step up to the plate, TM.
We don’t need to give no stinkin models for phrases you make up.
Anyway, our model is in orbit around the Earth.
https://phys.org/news/2015-04-hubble-space-telescope-sky.html#:~:text=Hubble%20is%20best%20seen%20from,the%20equator%20at%2028.5%20degrees.
It appears TM has “left the building”.
That’s always the best action when one has NOTHING.
[PUP] It appears TM has “left the building”. That’s always the best action when one has NOTHING.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] You can accuse [Pup] of whatever you wish, though it seems a bit unfair when he’s not here to defend himself.
Why am I getting dragged into this!?
DREMPT,
Presumably, because Wavering Wee Willy doesnt realise he is talking to one of the imaginary inhabitants of WillyWorld.
The Witless One is trying to avoid the fact that everything he has ever opined upon, plus five dollars, will buy a five dollar cup of coffee.
Ask him to explain how the GHE cooled the Earth for four and a half billion years or so – watch him retreat even deeper into his fantasy world.
Let’s add it up.
Braindead bob plus troll willard plus TM’s no-show = 0 + 0 + 0 = 0
They got NOTHING.
Pup still has not done the Poll Dance Experiment.
Gaslighting Graham is in PST mode.
Bill lulzes.
Gordo is courting Christos.
Mike is braying.
The tears of the world are in equal quantity.
Wee Willy Wanker is still in WillyWorld.
Off with the fairies – still trying to avoid admitting that he can’t even explain why the GHE apparently cooled the Earth for four and a half billion years or so, nor figure out why the Moon falls toward earth heavy side down.
The Moon has simply ceased to rotate. Just like a suspended bicycle wheel, the heaviest part is closest to the Earth when it finally stops.
Too much for Witless Willard. He is too busy posting irrelevant links, and believing simulations and cartoon graphics represent reality. Just another gullible SkyDragon, trying to divert the conversation away from science in relation to the Earth and its atmosphere, and into the morass of opinion, assertion, and fantasy turning into fact – by consensus of the ignorant!
Braying again, Mike?
Wistful Wee Willy,
Is that really the best you can do?
Tee hee.
Of course not, Mike.
But you keep braying, and it stands on its own.
He just seems to be obsessed with me, Swenson. I’m not sure what to do. Perhaps just laugh at him…
DREMPT,
Witless Wee Willy can’t help himself. He lives in some fantasy where climate is not the average of weather, CO2 has magical heating powers, Gavin Schmidt is a world famous climate scientist (rather than an incompetent mathematician), and the faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat Michael Mann was awarded a Nobel Prize!
Hence Wee Willy’s bizarre attempts to induce people to waste their time following his irrelevant and pointless links.
If the dummy refuses to give some good reason to dance to his mad tune, I can’t be bothered. He reminds me of some embittered academics who discovered too late that nobody else agreed with their own assessment of their mental prowess.
I notice he has given up on trying to defend the indefensible GHE, so he can only continue trolling, trying to save face. He’s not even an effective troll, as far as I can see.
You could classify him as a bit of a pest, or a minor irritation, but not even in the same class as a blowfly – you can’t hear him, he can’t touch you, and he is powerless to have the slightest effect on anything you may say or do.
What are you braying about, Mike?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I think Gordon is absolutely right – Moon does not rotate on its axis.
Thanks Christos, we engineers have to stay together.
Athens is far from Vancouver, Gordo.
Of course, Gordon. Athens is one click away!
Please beware that Gordo’s Tinder profile is not exactly faithful, Christos.
Gordo is no engineer.
You see, Christos?
Please be aware that Willard suffers from a mental condition which prevents him from distinguishing fact from fantasy, Christos.
Take anything that Willard dribbles with enough salt to make you throw up (you might only need a grain of salt, given Wee Willy Wankers current output). Or not. The result might be the same.
You keep braying, Mike.
But about what?
You see, Christos? Willy can’t even read – well, not anything that shows him up.
Please be aware that Willard suffers from a mental condition which prevents him from distinguishing fact from fantasy, Christos.
Take anything that Willard dribbles with enough salt to make you throw up (you might only need a grain of salt, given Wee Willy Wankers current output). Or not. The result might be the same.
Still braying, Mike?
willard thinks an engineer drives a locomotive.
Come on, Gordo.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Please be aware that Willard suffers from a mental condition which prevents him from distinguishing fact from fantasy, Christos.
Take anything that Willard dribbles with enough salt to make you throw up (you might only need a grain of salt, given Wee Willy Wanker’s current output). Or not. The result might be the same.
What are you braying about, Mike?
You see, Christos?
Please be aware that Willard suffers from a mental condition which prevents him from distinguishing fact from fantasy, Christos.
Take anything that Willard dribbles with enough salt to make you throw up (you might only need a grain of salt, given Wee Willy Wankers current output). Or not. The result might be the same.
Srsly, Mike.
What are you braying about?
You see, Christos?
Please be aware that Willard suffers from a mental condition which prevents him from distinguishing fact from fantasy, Christos.
Take anything that Willard dribbles with enough salt to make you throw up (you might only need a grain of salt, given Wee Willy Wankers current output). Or not. The result might be the same.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
You see, Christos?
Please be aware that Willard suffers from a mental condition which prevents him from distinguishing fact from fantasy, Christos.
Take anything that Willard dribbles with enough salt to make you throw up (you might only need a grain of salt, given Wee Willy Wankers current output). Or not. The result might be the same.
At least peabrain Wee Willy has moved his silly word count to four, as a result of me laughing at him reverting to three word SkyDragon comments.
Still denying reality, is Woebegone Wee Willy.
No GHE.
Mike, Mike,
What are you braying about?
Previously I wrote –
“You see, Christos?
Please be aware that Willard suffers from a mental condition which prevents him from distinguishing fact from fantasy, Christos.
Take anything that Willard dribbles with enough salt to make you throw up (you might only need a grain of salt, given Wee Willy Wankers current output). Or not. The result might be the same.
At least peabrain Wee Willy has moved his silly word count to four, as a result of me laughing at him reverting to three word SkyDragon comments.
Still denying reality, is Woebegone Wee Willy.
No GHE.”
I was wrong, and I admit it.
Wee Willy’s stupid comment was five words, not four. Not including “Mike, Mike”, his delusional double reference to his mythical opponent.
I suppose it’s a bit sad when Wee Willy Wanker has to attack a mythical opponent, who can’t defend himself.
Mike Flynn,
As I said earlier –
what are you braying about?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I think Swenson is right, Earth is cooling for 4,5 billion years.
All planets do, even Mercury is cooling.
–
The changes in surface temperatures cannot stop, or reverse, the continuous cooling of the molten spheres.
–
And yes, there is not GHE on Earth’s surface. Earth’s atmosphere is very thin even to assume something like that. And the greenhouse gases are trace gases in an atmosphere which is already very thin.
–
Trace gases in a very thin atmosphere –
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
entropic…”As with the Moon, you have chosen a local subjective frame of reference which gives the illusion of non-rotation over the objective reference frames used by physicists. You are free to use your own personal reference frame, but should not try to impose it on the rest”
***
No illusion. Curvilinear motion causes a body to complete an orbit without local rotation. A car running on a track, a locomotive on an oval track, a ball on a string, an airliner circumnavigating the Earth, a wooden horse on a carousel bolted to the floor, the Moon around the Earth…all are examples of bodies orbiting a central COG/axis without rotating about their own central axis/COG.
Th reason you cannot ‘see’ this truth is your mind being locked on the notion that the bodies just mentioned are somehow rotating about a local axis. You don’t need to define rotation around a local axis, just ***look***.
Professor Roy,
I am SO glad that you have begun homing in on urban heat island effects. I have long had the suspicion that UHI’s could be a major driver of so-called “Climate Change”. Focusing on UHI’s has long been ignored by climate alarmists and skeptics alike. Why? This might be beginning to change.
If you look at what’s going on in the San Joaquin Valley, urbanization is spreading down the valley like a cancer. If UHI’s cause the Valley to heat up, especially at night, wouldn’t it follow that it would also heat up in the mountains above the Valley?
If on a given night 70 years ago Fresno hits a low of around 45F, then assuming an adiabatic lapse rate of 5.5F, that would make it roughly around 12F at 7,000 feet.
If now there are more nights where it only falls to 60F, then perhaps at 7000 feet the temp would only fall to 27F. I realize that those are entirely arbitrary figures, but you get the idea.
This could lead to earlier snowmelt in the late spring which could produce a longer dry season and accompanying fire season. Well, duh.
I don’t think someone has to be a genius with an extremely high I.Q. to figure this out. It is not rocket science or even quantum physics. I have very little education beyond one semester of freshman meteorology and yet I someone managed to figure this out.
Don’t get me wrong. If the earth is indeed warming, UHIs are not the only cause. But they are definitely a factor possibly even a major factor.
Once again, professor, thanks ever so much for focusing on this!
Very interesting topic and lovely blog you have shared very good information. thank you very much for the nice job and nice site